In his text “What is Wrong with Reverse Discrimination?” Edwin C. Hettinger lays his case concerning affirmative action programs and reverse discrimination. Hettinger contends that these programs are immoral, undercut meritocracy, and have the potential to exacerbate alienation and prejudice rather than promote equality and understanding. Instead of relying on affirmative action programs, he believes that more effective measures to redress the impacts of past prejudice should focus on boosting access to education and job prospects.
In contrast to Hettinger’s viewpoint, I contend that affirmative action programs are required to address past prejudice’s long-term and systemic repercussions and foster greater justice and inclusiveness in school and work. While Edwin C. Hettinger’s argument against reverse discrimination is legitimate, affirmative action programs are vital to address the long-term and systemic impacts of previous prejudice and to promote diversity and equality in school and the workplace.
Hettinger’s primary argument against reverse discrimination is that it is unjust because it violates the principle of meritocracy. He maintains that meritocracy requires that individuals be judged based on their abilities and qualifications rather than their race, gender, or other personal characteristics (Hettinger 40). Hettinger claims that affirmative action programs undermine meritocracy by giving preference to specific individuals based on their race or gender rather than their qualifications and abilities. He claims this is unfair to individuals who are not members of historically disadvantaged groups and are passed over for opportunities simply because of their race or gender.
Hettinger also reasons that reverse discrimination creates new forms of injustice. He claims that it can lead to resentment and anger among historically privileged members, who feel they are being treated unfairly (Hettinger 43). Hettinger also discusses that reverse discrimination can lead to a loss of self-esteem and dignity among members of historically disadvantaged groups. Those who feel they are not being judged based on their own merits are instead being given special treatment because of their race or gender.
Hettinger further contends that affirmative action schemes can harm intended beneficiaries by delivering the message that they are unqualified to succeed independently. He says this might lead to a loss of drive and self-esteem, as well as others believing that the individual was not qualified for their work or educational opportunity. This can create a vicious cycle of lower productivity and lack of opportunity, sustaining the inequalities that preferential action initiatives were designed to alleviate.
Hettinger concludes his argument by stating that the only way to ensure equality and fairness is to abolish reverse discrimination and focus on addressing the root causes of discrimination. This is seen in poverty, inadequate education, and lack of access to opportunities (Hettinger 45). He argues that people can do this through programs that aim to improve access to education, job training, and other resources rather than through affirmative action programs.
While Hettinger’s argument against reverse discrimination is compelling, it is flawed in several important ways. First, Hettinger’s narrow definition of meritocracy does not consider how systemic discrimination and bias can undermine merit-based decision-making. In reality, prejudice and bigotry can limit the opportunities and experiences of individuals from historically disadvantaged groups, leading to a lack of diversity and representation in key areas such as employment, education, and politics (Peacock and Biernat 158). For example, to address systemic discrimination and the underrepresentation of women and minorities in specific industries, affirmative action policies may be implemented that give preference to individuals from these groups. These policies can level the playing field and provide equal opportunities for underrepresented groups.
Second, Hettinger fails to acknowledge the ongoing effects of past discrimination, which can perpetuate unequal opportunities and outcomes for individuals from historically disadvantaged groups. For example, the legacy of redlining, and discrimination in housing and lending practices, can limit access to quality education, job training, and other resources, leading to ongoing disparities in income and wealth (Flood et al.). Affirmative action programs aim to address these persistent effects of discrimination by promoting diversity and inclusion in areas where historically disadvantaged groups have been underrepresented.
Third, Hettinger’s argument that reverse discrimination creates new forms of injustice is overstated. While some individuals may feel resentment or anger, the benefits of affirmative action programs in promoting diversity and inclusion and addressing ongoing discrimination far outweigh these adverse effects (Allhoff et al.). Furthermore, research has shown that affirmative action programs can increase understanding and reduce prejudice, leading to more inclusive and equitable communities.
In conclusion, while Hettinger’s argument against reverse discrimination raises significant concerns about the principles of meritocracy and equality, it is ultimately flawed in its narrow definition of merit and failure to fully consider the ongoing effects of past discrimination. Nonetheless, while I agree that discrimination of any kind is unjust, reverse discrimination can be a necessary and justifiable means of correcting historical injustices and promoting diversity and equality in certain circumstances. In reality, affirmative action programs are essential to address historical and ongoing bias and to promote diversity and inclusion in areas where historically disadvantaged groups have been underrepresented. Rather than creating new forms of injustice, affirmative action programs have the potential to increase understanding, reduce prejudice, and lead to more inclusive and equitable communities. Ultimately, promoting diversity and inclusion and addressing the effects of discrimination requires a multi-faceted approach that includes affirmative action programs and efforts to address the root causes of discrimination. This may consist of poverty, inadequate education, and lack of access to opportunities.
Works Cited
Allhoff, Fritz, et al. Business in Ethical Focus: An Anthology. 2nd ed., Broadview Press, 2016.
Hettinger, Edwin C. “What Is Wrong with Reverse Discrimination?” Business and Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, 1987, pp. 39–55., Web.
Flood, Michael, et al. “Resistance and Backlash to Gender Equality.” Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, 2020, pp. 393–408., Web.
Peacock, Navanté, and Monica Biernat. “Race, Politics, and Perceptions of Anti-Black and Anti-White Discrimination over Time.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 26, no. 1, 2021, pp. 157–179., Web.