A Universal Perspective

This week’s MSLD 634 blog is on a very controversial topic, Affirmative Action. My position may upset you, or you may agree with me. If your tendency to frame ethical dilemmas comes from a universalism perspective, then you will probably agree with me. People who are able to develop consequential moral principles from universal point of view take everyone’s interest into account and see the ethical dilemma from a very broad perspective (Andre & Velasquez, 2010, p. 2). Universalism. If your positon has strong roots in consequential relativism, then you are likely to disagree with me because you have a tendency to stick with a conventional level of ethics where right and wrong is based on loyalties within your family, friends, community or even at a broad national level (p. 2). Additionally, if you take a strictly deontological (rule based independent of consequences) viewpoint that discrimination in any form is wrong, you will also disagree with me (LaFollette, 2007, p. 24).

Jesse Helms Video Appeals to the Relative Argument

Some of you reading my blog are old enough to remember the attacks on Affirmative Action that began with the 1980 political campaigns of the Republican party “Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and landslide reelection in 1984 had already confirmed the electoral efficacy of decrying affirmative action as unfair.” (Williams, 2015). This commercial produced by the Jesse Helms’ 1990 re-election campaign provided the push he needed to regain the momentum he needed to win re-election Jesse Helms "Hands" Ad. The advertisement takes a very narrow view, suggesting that the most qualified person is not getting the job due to Affirmative Action.

The video uses emotion to influence the direction of our thinking by providing an image of frustration that could easily be us “You needed that job, and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority, because of a racial quota. Is that really fair?” (Williams, 2015).

The pair of hands shown in the video are not the hands of a black man.

Hard to say for certain the video played a determining role in Helm’s re-election bid, but it is not hard to imagine the predominately white population of the State of North Carolina feeling compelled to protect their ability to find employment. In light of this ad having positive influence in Helms winning re-election, it would seem that this assertion from LaFollette (2007) “Everyone except diehard racists now admits that systematic discrimination against blacks is wrong.” (p. 87) seems a bit pretentious. Unless you believe that the State of North Carolina election of 1990 was strongly influenced by racists. This is actually a plausible outcome given the history of racism in our country. The mantra recently heard from the Tea Party that giving handouts to lazy people, that are paid for by hard-working people is eerily similar to President Andrew Johnson (Lincoln’s successor) statement about social programs that would “simply give a handout to lazy blacks, paid for by hard-working whites.” (Lotto, 2016).

One should look beyond the motive of racism though to try and obtain an objective view of the view that Affirmative Action is not just or ethical. So consider Affirmative Action from strict relativist point of view; is Affirmative Action ethical if your white? LaFollete (2007) states “two wrongs don’t make a right.” (racism and Affirmative Action) which supports a relativist view, but LaFollette then proceeds to dismantle this argument. The dismantling occurs by using the principle that one is justified over the other (Affirmative Action over racism) by demonstrating a general and relevant difference between racism and Affirmative action.

The Universal Argument

The purpose of Affirmative Action is to correct the harmful effects of racism has produced, past and present. There can be little to no argument that the effects of racism have been harmful to those directly affected and to the society to which they belong. The universal argument for supporting Affirmative Action is that by correcting the effects of racism that somehow the lives of all people would become better, universally.

After all, the purpose of ethics is to ultimately improve the lives of all people (LaFollette, p. 1). This assumes that Affirmative Action is effective in its purpose, to not only right the wrongs of the past, but more importantly to bring balance and acceptance of all peoples as equals in society. At the current pace of populations increases in our country, by the year 2030 Caucasians in this country will become a minority to Hispanic people. The sooner our society become tolerant of all races, the better it will be for all, not just for the dominant and powerful race. Here is a glimpse of what could become the norm if racism is not quelled.

As an African American psychologist, I'm used to hearing about race matters from my clients of color; however, my Caucasian clients now seem to be facing race-based challenges of their own. These newer racial issues haven't replaced the historical ones faced by people of color, but have taken their place beside them. Far from entering a postracial era in this country, ultraracial may be a more accurate term, reflecting the realities of interracial unions and multiracial offspring, international adoptions, and increasing immigration to the U.S. (Kirkland, 2011).

Thoughts?

References:

Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (2010). Can ethics be taught? Marcula Center for Applied Ethics: Santa Clara University. Retrieved from https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/taught.html.

Kirkland, S. (2011, Sep). In consultation, the new face of racism. Psychotherapy Networker, 35 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/992866643?accountid=27203

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Lotto, D. (2016). The south has risen again: Thoughts on the tea party and the recent rise of right-wing racism. The Journal of Psychohistory, 43(3), 156.

Williams, B. (2015). "You were the best qualified": Business beyond the backlash against affirmative

            action. Journal of Policy History : JPH, 27(1), 61-92. 

             doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1017/S0898030614000360