Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"
1,238,338
Published 2009-09-04
PART ONE: ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
PART TWO: WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?
Part 1
Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the schools affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a students efforts and achievements should carry more weight than factors that are out of his or her control and therefore arbitrary? When a universitys stated mission is to increase diversity, is it a violation of rights to deny a white person admission?
PART TWO: WHATS THE PURPOSE?
Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest civic virtue. For Aristotle, justice is a matter of fitting a persons virtues with an appropriate role.
All Comments (21)
-
Side note: How does Sandel memorize names on the fly and still put them with their statements much later in the lecture? Simply stunning.
-
This is what News debate should look like. Not the bs they put out, these kids are well spoken , they're energy is good and respectful towards each other.
-
I love how he understands and clarifies everyone's argument.
-
I'm very impressed that he remembers the students names.
-
Although more than 13 years later, the course is still inspiring and nourishing!
-
The fact this man can be humorous with such topics and even draw together an allegory of Winnie the Poo speaks to how incredible of an educator this man truly is.
-
I was just going to say; this lecture is so great! Also, its fantastic that this sort of material is so easily accessible (for those that can access computers/the Internet freely)! Education should be available like this for everyone.
-
Holy moly that discussion between Daniel and Hannah is great.
-
I love this professor's passion, wisdom, humor and knowledge of these lessons
-
THANK YOU HANNAH !!β€οΈβ€οΈππΌππΌππΌππΌππΌ WELL SAID! LEGACY ADMISSIONS ARE DISCRIMINATING !!! LEGACY AND NEPOTISM IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!
-
These discussions are just brilliant, they should be at all lectures since school
-
Michael Sandel is just excellent. He listens, comprehends and replies rationally, and is never prejudiced or discourteous. He's a true gentleman and a scholar. L
-
I like how he addresses afffirmative action philosophically. There needs to also be a discussion on how affirmative action is employed structurally across universities. Many faculty, admissions officers, and other people responsible for upholding this standard often look for loopholes in a way where the original purpose to alleviate inequity is not upheld. What this means is that affirmative action is effectively scapegoating minorities for the problems that legacy students create.
-
I'm on episode 9 and I just realised that I'm watching Justice with Tywin Lannister. I can't unsee it!
-
Legacy admission is pretty unreasonable.
-
10:35 perfect said. We should provide equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Big difference.
-
This man is one of the realest people alive. Being able to sit in this online is next level man. For all those who could never get into Harvard I'm just blessed to witness this legend.
-
It's amazing the ruling that happened today. I think we can take some lessons from this very lecture
-
The legend. Thank you, Michael Sandel, for sharing this knowledge and how you do it! You are the best teacher I've ever had.
-
There is an obvious fallacy committed in affirmative action that demonstrates that the person who misses out has their rights infringed upon - Irronically, the very same logic that is used to suggest affirmative action as a solution in the first place. The issue: The issue we want to address is discrimination; particularly in the form of, say, a black person missing out on a placement/scholarship, despite achieving the same or better results as a white counterpart. The response: In order to avoid discrimination altogether, let's admit black applicants, even if they have lower scores, and eliminate the very meritocracy that society is founded upon: even if that is a hypocrisy which inflicts the very same injustice on another. Skin colour does not matter. To argue that it does is racism. Society functions on a foundation of competence. If people aren't admitted on merit alone, that foundation is corrupted. To suggest that non-whites can't excel without state interference is the soft bigotry of low expectations. If you believe that affirmative action is justified, then you believe that two wrongs make a right. Which is a hideous and foolish ideal. Affirmative action solves none of the problems that lead to inequality. It's no more than a knee-jerk, unwise, and thoughtless reaction to a symptom of the cause.
