The JBHE Foundation
John Rawls and Affirmative Action Author(s): Thomas Nagel Source: The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 39 (Spring, 2003), pp. 82-84 Published by: The JBHE Foundation Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3134387 . Accessed: 04/05/2011 06:47 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chii. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
The JBHE Foundation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education.
John Rawls and AffirmativeAction by Thomas Nagel Editor's Note: One of the nation's most influentialcontemporary hilosophers recalls that althoughJohn Rawls never stated in writinghis views on-theproprietyof the considerationof race in college admissions,Rawls expressed in conversation he importanceof defendingthe constitutionality f affirmativeaction.
OHNRAWLS,who died astNovember t the age of 81, was thegreatest oliticalphilosopher thetwentiethcentury, ndhe was responsibleortherevival serious hilosophicalhought bout oncreteocialquestions over hepast40 years.Among he ssues hathaveattracted moral ttentionndarguments affirmativection, sustained and some ense he ntellectuallimatehatRawls has influencedhis debate.But
This obliquereference ccurs Justiceas Fairness: Restatement,bookpublished 2001onthebasisof notes he distributedor manyyearsto his students Harvard. Theory f Justicehe there ays,"The eCommenting rious problemsarising rom existing discriminationnd distinctions asedon genderandraceare not on its agenda.... This s indeedanomission Theory; utanomission is not as such a fault....
RawlshimselfneverwroteaboutWhile John Rawls never wrote on affirmativeaction as
Whether ault therebe depends
the subject,and it is not easy to
on how well that conception
such, Professor Nagel explains why Rawls' ideas have
articulateshe politicalvalues tell fromhis writingswhathis bearingon the issue. necessaryto deal with these theoryof justice would imply aboutt. want try explainwhythis s so, and o explain questions. ustice s fairness, ndother iberal onceptions like it, wouldcertainly seriouslydefective hould hey how,nevertheless,is deashave bearing the ssue. lack heresourceso articulatehepolitical aluesessential The irst hing say s thatRawls oncentratedormostof to justify he legal andsocial nstitutions eeded o secure hislife almost xclusively whathe called"ideal heory." the equality f womenandminorities." By thishe meant hetheory whatwouldconstitute truly What does Rawls' ideal theoryof justice tell us, that justsociety, ndwhy. deal heory nables outo saywhen mighthelp decidingwhatwe shoulddo about he njussociety unjust, ecause falls shortof the ideal. Butit ticesof our nonideal ituation? o beginwith, doesnottellyou what o do if, asis almostalways he it enablesus to identify he ways in whichan actual ociyou find yourself n an unjust ociety,andwant o correct that njustice.That s the province f whathe called"nonety canbe unjust.Rawls' principles or just societyreideal heory." ffirmativection s clearly policy ntended quire hree hings: Thateveryonebe guaranteedqualbasic personaliberto deal with the unjust onsequences an unjusthistory. ties andequalpolitical tatus; Whether ffirmativections itself ustorunjust therefore That herebe fairequality opportunity the competicentral uestion nonidealheory or society ikeours. tionforthosesocialandeconomicadvantageshatwill inIn his magnum pus, Theory Justice,published evitablybe unequally istributed a freesociety; 1971,Rawlsdiscussesonly two examples nonidealheThat hose nequalities advantage, the economy, or ory: civil disobedience nd conscientious bjection an example,be partof a system hatmakes he leastadvanunjustwar.Both were important ublic ssues during he tagedsocioeconomic lass as well off as possible,consis1960s,becauseof the civi rightsmovement ndthe Viettentwiththe first wo principles. namWar.Butaffirmativectiononlybegan o be a major It thefirst wo principleshatbearon race.Slavery, egin the early1970s,after he finalelimination f legal regation,and racialdiscriminationbviouslyviolate the segregation,nd heBakke asewasnotdecided ntil1978. firstprinciple.Butthe situationhatmakesaffirmativecrecall hatatthat imeRawlsexpressed conversationis tionan ssueemerges fter egalsegregation asbeenabolview of the mportance defendingheconstitutionality ishedandexplicitracialdiscriminationas been muchreaffirmativection,buthe never eferred it in his writings, duced.Of course,affirmative ctioncan serveto counter so faras know,exceptobliquely. SPRING2003
-^'
John Rawls 1921-2002
IL~I
;j.C
'''~'"'"':S't":.,r
In conversationhe spoke of the importanceof defendingthe constitutionality f affirmativeaction.
THEJOURNALF BLACKS HIGHER DUCATION continuing iscriminationgainstminorities, overtor unconscious.But its most importantunctionnow in higher education to increase he representation traditionally oppressedminorities institutionswhere hey wouldbe present far smallernumbers race werenot used as factor admissions. "Irecallthatat the timeof theBakkedecision,Rawls expressed n conversationhe importance f defending the constitutionalityf affirmative ction." Nowadays, acialpreferencesreusuallydefended n the ground diversity. his is bothbecause hat whatthe Bakkedecisiondeclared cceptable, ndbecause t allows universitiesoassimilateffirmativection o preferencesor suchgroups athletes,musicians, ndpeoplewithunusual interests. utthat, believe, to downplayhemainreason forracial references, hich s to try overcomehecontinuedsocial tratificationf our ociety racialinesbyusing education bringmoreblacks ntothemainstreamf economic,professional,ndpolitical owerand nfluence. Inthetermsof Rawls'conception,he njustice hataffirmative ction hould eek o combats a special ormof the failureof fairequality opportunity.n his work,Rawls concentrated ainlyon economic nequality a threat equalityof opportunity. hosebor poorcannotcompete as effectivelyas the well-off for desirablepositions,because heir amilies an't give them hesame evelof education, he samenetwork f support,he samecultural dvantages, ealth are,andso forth.They arealso likelyto have ess motivation succeed.Thismeans hat heydon't have fair equalopportunityven if they are not formally discriminatedgainst. Butrace s an ndependentndevenmore ntractableause of the failure f fairequality opportunity our society. Becauseof slavery, ollowedby centuryof legally enforced egregationnd conomic ppression,ndbecause theirphysicaldentifiabilitynd hecontinuingrejudices othermembers f the society hatsinglethemout, blacks form hereditaryroup generic socialdisadvantage.he disadvantage economic,political,and,very mportantly,sychological dueto the psychologyof theminority s well as of the majority. longas the separatenessnddeprivationf blacksas group ontinue, hosebor blackwill suffer rom systematic isad-
vantage the competitionor places our highlycompetitive ociety.This s initselfan njustice, nd t is thehistoricalproduct muchworse njustice.Racialpreferences in education rovide ne way to attempto break he selfreinforcingnertia f the greatAmerican astesystem. just societywouldhaveno needforracialpreferences, and f theywere ntroducednto a just society, heywould make unjust,by Rawls' standards. ut Rawls, a white southernerwhose historicalhero was AbrahamLincoln, regardedlaveryandracial egregation paradigms injustice. believe, speaking or myself, that t is a natural consequence f his ideal of justicethatexceptionalmeasures uchas affirmative ctionarewarranted theyserve in the long run o rectify he distinctlynon-ideal ituation in which hose njustices ave eft us. IJBHE Thomas Nagel is Fiorello La Guardia Professor of Law, professor of philosophy, and University Professor at New York University.
AffirmativeAction: The Issue is Equality,Not Diversity "We hould topusing'diversity' theprimaryineof justificationorselectiveadmissions.t is a weakargument that has little practical alidity.Minoritieswho make t to a 'white'collegealready nowhow to tion n a whiteworld.Further,hemainvalueof 'diversity' is for whitestudentso leamfromminorities. his uses blacks and Hispanics or white ends. It should hardlybe surprisinghatblackson ourcampuses ften with blacksand hat, practiprefer cal terms,physicalproximity ails to fostersocial and educational iversity. "Theopponents affirmativectionhave it correct. The ssue s equality, otdiversity.nequality theconstitutionalssue,and hegoal s numerical arity. ometimes,however, onstitutionalqualityunder he Equal ProtectionClause of the FourteenthAmendment s basedon recognizing ndaccepting ifferences,uchas genderdifferences height,weight,andstrengthn the selectioncriteria or police officers.Applyinga standard f 'nodifference'o meansof selection ftenproduces nequality.Achieving no difference' the outcomeof processoftenrequires ccepting ifference themeansof selection." K.
Renner, Academe, January/February 2003
SPRING 2003