Rawls acknowledges after we establish a fair situation, it immediately is lost as factors such as birth, education, talent, skill, and situation come into play. The question becomes whether we simply accept this or seek some compensation for the weak. For example, are affirmative action programs a form of justice? Is promoting equality by giving preferential treatment to the disadvantaged fair?
The problem is evident when we describe these as reverse discrimination. Can discrimination ever be fair? Opponents obviously do not think so. In fact, they believe such programs simply make matters worse by perpetuating more inequality. They treat some people as means to society’s ends.
They also deny that people who did not commit a crime should have to pay for it. It is not fair for people living now to pay for what Colonist did to Native Americans or for what slave owners did to African Americans. The best we can do is change attitudes and provide opportunities by teaching proper values.
Proponents believe there is more corporate responsibility involved. Members of a society have a right to expect fair treatment, and a society is liable when it does not meet these legitimate expectations. Affirmative action programs might not be perfect, but they do try to correct injustices. Some advocates, however, acknowledge the temporary nature of these programs, as situations and values constantly change. Victims change, sometimes becoming oppressors. For instance, in the past some colleges used quotas, a form of affirmative action, to keep Jewish applicants out.
Sandel claims it boils down to our definition of the good society. These programs are valiant historical attempts to advance diversity, an aim our society deems worthy. They try to make sure no one suffers from prejudice or contempt.
Some opponents of affirmation action are accused of fearing it will end their way of life, their concept of the common good. They seem to think others “want to take away my stuff?” Advocates need to address this worry by coming up with appropriate criteria for deciding whom should be included. How do we decide who to help? Should we include ethnic groups, women, the handicapped, gays and lesbians? How about bisexuals and transgendered? How about economic classes? It gets harder to want fairness for those further away from you. Although we all practice some form of affirmative action in our families as we give special attention to our weakest children, we have trouble extending this to groups for which we feel no affection.
I believe the bottom line in justice is always an attempt to control power. The radical separation of rich and poor in American society is a symptom of injustice that needs to be corrected. However, I am not sure what kind of affirmative action might help. Do you have any suggestions?




