Lisa Newton’s Affirmative Action Is Unjustified Research Paper

The law dictates that everyone has the right to be treated equally regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, social class, or any other status. But there are frequent stories of individuals who suffer cruelty because they identify with a different group from that in positions of privilege. In essence, discrimination bars individuals from enjoying their human rights and other legal rights equal to the dominant group, often due to unjustified distinctions made in policy and law. In light of this, the government sought to address these inequalities through policies and practices designed to improve employment and educational opportunities for minority racial groups and women. These policies and practices are referred to as affirmative action, and it has raised many concerns, with critics like Lisa Newton arguing that it promotes reverse discrimination, equally undermining justice which forms the basic focus for this paper.

Lisa Newton argues against affirmative action, asserting that it violates equality and justice by discriminating against members of the dominant group in favor of the historically disadvantaged group. Lisa draws from Aristotle’s rule of law to illustrate how affirmative action undermines equal treatment under the law. She poses two questions to illustrate the problem with reverse discrimination; first, what is a ‘minority, and second, what amount of reverse discrimination wipes out the initial discrimination. Therefore, she contends that once we allow reverse discrimination to violate strict justice, we no longer have any way to resolve justice issues. This paper evaluates Lisa Newton’s view of affirmative action, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of her claims as illustrated in her article “Affirmative action as unjustified.”

Lisa Newton begins by providing a clear and well-established perspective to view and interpret affirmative action. She discusses two different senses of justice and equality that might be used to map reverse discrimination. The first sense she applies is Aristotle’s sense of justice which revolves around the equality of citizenship. She asserts that the establishment of law “is the condition with which free men establish among themselves when they share a common life in order that their association may bring them self-sufficiency” (Newton, 1973, p. 308).

She moves on to the second sense of justice, the moral ideal, which embodies the idea that everyone in the world is morally equal. However, she says that this moral ideal is parasitic upon the political virtue for equality “means nothing until we are told in what respect that equality is to be realized.” (Newton, 1973, p. 308). This argument, so far, is clear, reasonable, and relevant since Aristotle’s Rule of Law has played a significant role in influencing how societies are governed. Even the United States applies this rule in its governance, whereby the rules of laws govern all citizens and not even the president is above the law. She does a good job providing a lens through which readers can interpret the idea of reverse discrimination.

However, her proceeding arguments seem abstract despite her clear flow of ideas. She moves on to raise her concern about affirmative action, basing her claims on the two senses of justice discussed above. At this point, she provides a clear flow of her work because the reader is able to follow through with her line of thought. She points out that reverse discrimination violates equality in the sense of Aristotle’s Rule of Law because it implies that not everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law. Since justice is equal treatment under law for all citizens, discriminating against a group of citizens or favoring them with special immunities and privileges is a violation of the same law.

Simultaneously, she contends that it is impossible to justify reverse discrimination using the second sense of justice because it is logically dependent upon the first sense of justice, the Rule of Law. So far, her argument is abstract since there is no clear way to prove that reverse discrimination does exist. The National Center for Education Statistics (2021) indicates that in fall 2019, the number of undergraduates students enrolled was 16.6 million. Of this number, 8.5 million were White, 2.1 million were Black, 1.1 million were Asian, 670, 100 were of two or more races, 116,400 were Alaska natives and 45, 000 were Pacific Islander (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). There is still a vast race gap in schools despite the years of the affirmative action policy. Contrary to her argument, the dominant group, white, is still enjoying more significant educational opportunities even at prestigious Ivies while increasing the chances for the previously marginalized groups.

However, Newton proceeds to discuss the problems that arise from reverse discrimination to explain her abstract argument. She raises two main questions that she thinks will support her argument. First, she asks what a minority is. The criticism here is that if blacks are a minority by discrimination, then American Indians, Chicanos, Cajuns, Appalachian Mountain whites, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Orientals, and the WASPs should be considered a minority. Second, she wonders what would follow if the initial discrimination were to be wiped out by reversed discrimination. er criticism here is that the minority groups will never agree that they have received adequate compensation through reverse discrimination. It may lead to a disagreement whereby whites will feel that the process has gone too far and want the bias to be reversed again.

Her argument does appear sophisticated, but it does not provide enough evidence to show that reverse discrimination is, in fact, aimed at discriminating against whites. Arguably, her argument is one-sided as it approaches the problem from the perpetrator’s viewpoint, failing to consider the victim’s perspective. From the victim’s perspective, affirmative action focuses on the objective condition of life and its consequences. It is worth noting that the majority of the legislature who adopted affirmative actions were majorly whites. This came after the realization that blacks lived as a perpetual underclass; something whites never experienced (Lopez, 2019). Nonetheless, it unlikely that the white majority disadvantaged itself for reasons of racial prejudice. It does not even make sense that a white majority would choose to discriminate against itself.

Lisa Newton raises a complex question regarding the idea of reverse discrimination. While she provides a clear line of thought, she fails to provide factual evidence to support her claims. On the contrary, statistics indicate that while affirmative action broadens the opportunities for the minority, it does not deny whites any privileges. Moreover, her argument is more one-sided as she fails to factor in the minority’s approach to affirmative action. Therefore, her ideas remain abstract and insufficient to convince the readers that affirmative action denies whites opportunities, hence a violation of the rule of law.

References

Lopez, S. 2019). Affirmative action: foundations and key concepts.JSTOR Daily.

National Center for Education Statistics (2021). Undergraduate enrollment.

Newton, L. H. (1973). Reverse discrimination as unjustified. Ethics, 83(4), 308-312.