Richard Wasserstrom Lectures on the Morality of Affirmative Action

Wasserstrom was introduced by Richard Werner, the John Stewart Kennedy Professor of Philosophy at Hamilton. Werner, who studied with Wasserstrom in the 1970s, called him "one of my heroes," and said that he is not only a great philosopher but an activist and advocate for his beliefs.

Wasserstrom began by explaining what he meant by "programs of preferential treatment based on race." In his discussion, he said, he would be referring to programs that take explicit account of the race of individuals applying for admission or employment, and which treat race as a relevant, though not decisive, criteria for acceptance. He distinguished these programs from other programs that are sometimes referred to as "affirmative action" that only ensure equal information and treatment for all applicants, and which can be considered "color blind." Wasserstrom also explained that in his lecture he would be focusing specifically on programs which give preference to black people over white people, but that his argument is also applicable to programs that give preference based on other characteristics.

The first premise put forth by Wasserstrom was that race is still a significant factor in our society and that black Americans are at a significant disadvantage in opportunities and treatment. He proposed that the audience join him in a thought experiment: Knowing what you know now about American society, if you could choose to come into the world as a black person or as a white person, which would be the more rational choice in order to give yourself the best opportunities and the best chance to achieve your life goals? Wasserstrom said he believed that most people would know that being white rather than black would tend to give you many more advantages in life, and this brings into focus what he called "our system of pervasive and regular racial disadvantage." He acknowledged that opponents of affirmative action programs generally concede this fact as well, though they argue that the situation is much improved today and that affirmative action has not played a role in this improvement.

Wasserstrom's second premise was that the system of racial disadvantage will perpetuate itself unless black Americans gain greater representation and positions of authority in our important social institutions. "Significant, pervasive inequality is comfortably preserved by systems where the dominant group is in power," he said. Having more black people in positions of power and influence would bring a different perspective into public affairs that would likely benefit all black Americans. Programs of preferential treatment based on race, therefore, are presumptively justifiable if it can be shown that there is some causal relationship between these programs and increased equality for black people. Wasserstrom offered two examples of evidence that shows affirmative action's effectiveness. After the 1996 Proposition 209 in California outlawed the use of race-based criteria in public university admissions, minority enrollment in the University of California system has declined substantially, he said. Another piece of evidence is the study described by William Bowen and Derek Bok in their book, The Shape of the River: Long-term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. In this book, Bowen and Bok find that race-conscious programs at selective colleges increased the number of black students admitted, led to success by black students, and played a positive role in helping students of all races relate to and learn from one another.

Wasserstrom went on to address three main moral objections put forth by opponents of programs of preferential treatment based on race who believe that the programs are unjust. The first objection is that if it was wrong to historically take race into account in a way that disadvantaged blacks, it is also wrong to take race into account in a way that advantages blacks – that is to say, racial distinction in and of itself is inherently immoral and unjust. Wasserstrom asked the audience if making distinctions based on individual's racial differences was the real reason that historical discrimination against blacks in America was immoral. He said that he believes the answer is no. It is certainly true, he said, that the arbitrariness of making a distinction based on race is part of the injustice of a system that disadvantages one race over another. The true immorality of historical distinctions between black and white people, however, was its part in a pervasive system of disadvantage based on a hateful ideology. The belief that that black people were lesser human beings and therefore should not be allowed to participate equally in society with white people was the true reason that race relations in America have been historically unjust, Wasserstrom asserted. Programs of preferential treatment today do not buy into racist ideology, but rather seek to dismantle these systems of disadvantage, and are therefore just so long as remnants of historical discrimination persist.

Another potential objection to programs of preferential treatment based on race is that "blackness" is a category of distinction that does not adequately describe disadvantaged individuals, and that the distinction should instead be made on socio-economic status. Wasserstrom said that he agrees with the idea that there is a system of disadvantage based on socio-economic status that should be addressed by public institutions. He said that this criticism is off the mark, however, unless one can establish that there is not also a parallel system of disadvantaged based primarily on race. It is incorrect to assume that there is only one real system of disadvantage at work in our society at a time, Wasserstrom said. The disadvantages faced by black Americans regardless of their class means that using socio-economic status as the only distinction in preferential treatment programs would also not properly address a large system of disadvantage.

Finally, Wasserstrom addressed the objection that programs of preferential treatment are wrong because they do not rely solely on merit and qualifications in selecting applications for admission or employment. The implicit assumption in this argument is that those who have positions of privilege currently are always those who are the most qualified for or "deserving" of those positions. Our society generally accepts, however, that the absolute most qualified person for a position does not always get it. Instead, we tend to believe that there is a minimum level of qualification that is required for a position, and that there are many acceptable choices above that level. The idea of a preexisting meritocracy is erroneous, he said. This argument also assumes that the criteria and rules for who is the most "qualified" are objective and unchanging, he continued. If the idea of the "most qualified" is the individual who will be best at achieving a certain result desired by the institution that is selecting them, there are many legitimate goals of a university or company that could be served by giving preference to people of color. Universities often give preference to certain students based on non-"merit" attributes that they think will help to achieve a goal, such as students chosen for their athletic ability, musical talent, personal traits, or even geographic location. Wasserstrom asked, "Why shouldn't race be included in the broad array of characteristics a university looks for in its applicants?"

Wasserstrom concluded that programs of preferential treatment based on race are morally permissible on the grounds of justice as well as their many positive effects on society. He said that he hopes that Americans will be able to see through the faulty criticisms of affirmative action and see that programs of preferential treatment are one important way to attack our system of racial disadvantage.

By Caroline Russell O'Shea '07