The granting of preferential treatment, in hiring and admission to schools, afforded to people who are members of a group, which was previously discriminated against, has been a major topic of debate for some time. Do these people really deserve the advantages they are receiving? Are the opportunities they are receiving actually discriminating against others who may be overlooked for that opportunity? These are just some of the many questions surrounding this debate. James Nickel, in response to the question, of whether or not preferential treatment policies are actually a form of reverse discrimination, writes in his article Discrimination and Morally relevant Characteristics, which these policies can't be argued against by the reverse discrimination argument. He feels that the basis for the claim of reverse discrimination is a characteristic, already deemed irrelevant, and thus can't now be deemed relevant in an argument for reverse discrimination. He writes:
"This version of the reverse-discrimination argument (namely that the justification for preferential policies is based on the same morally irrelevant fact that the original discrimination was based on and thus compensation based on this fact can't be justified
1. If systematic injustice was directed toward a class of persons based on a characteristic, then that establishes that characteristic as being morally relevant as far as making restitution is concerned.
All papers and essays are for research and reference purposes only!
Copyright 2002-2009
Direct Essays , LLC. All Rights Reserved. DMCA Webmasters make $$$$