In
a Word… Yes
Recalling
LaFollette’s (2007) charge, the goal of ethics is to better the way by which
folks live through an assimilation of knowledge from “history, psychology,
sociology, and biology”; then, in a word, “Yes”, it is ethical (p. 1). Its history begins with Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” and is furthered with
the promise of equal opportunity delivered on a bloody battlefield in
Gettysburg. Like a carousel at the center of an amusement park, painted ponies
saddled with actions from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of
government carry enumerated dos and don’ts that rise and fall with each passing
generation while the attempts to find balance between who and what a person is
alludes us all (Connerly, 2000).
Lincoln’s
Executive actions gave it life. The proposed and ratified actions of the
Legislative branch, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution gave it room to grow; and, as offered by Abbott, Argersinger,
Argersinger, Barney, Anderson, Goldfield and Weir (2011), led to many branches
such as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. A few ten years,
after the Executive and Legislative arms of the government attempted to right a
wrong perpetuated for centuries, the Judicial Branch, as explained by Marlow
and Rowland (1989) added its painted pony to the circling carousel and pruned
its growth with this pronouncement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bradley:
when
a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficial legislation has
shaken
off
the inseparable concomitants of the state, there must be some stage in the
progress of
his
elevation when he takes the rank of mere citizen, and ceases to be the special
favorite
of
the law (p. 542).
This acclamation combined with withdrawal
of armies from the South and further judicial ponies i.e., Plessy v. Ferguson (Plessy), took the founding principle, “all men
are created equal”, and the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provided by
McAdams, Neslund, and Neslund (2007), “equal protection of the laws” and twisted
its branches as “separate but equal”, which led to decades of sanctioned
actions that further harmed a group who had already suffered centuries of
systemic abuse at the hands of another group (Marlow & Rowland, 1989, p.
542).
Its
re-birth began with a dream. Sixty years after the Plessy pony was added to the circular motion of the carousel; and,
as noted by Loevy (1997), Brown v. Board
of Education (Brown) caused the rising action of Plessy to fall and the carousel reversed with a new direction, “separate
facilities were, by definition, unequal and, therefore, unconstitutional (as
cited in Moreno, 2003, p. 16). Moreno (2003) states Kennedy’s Executive Order
called for government services to volunteer to enact it. President Johnson
attempted, through executive action, to speed up the carousel by mandating it
(Moreno, 2003). Marlow and Rowland (1989) and Moreno (2003) observe it quickly
turned from an attempt to once again address equal opportunity to a way to
realize equal outcomes and pay for discrimination of the past. Perhaps this is the point from which further arguments against it gained traction. Rather than
seeking to address “ancient wrongs” in a manner commensurate with the length of
time that had elapsed from the time the wrong began to its end, society sought
immediate actions to assuage its own guilt (LaFollette, 2007, p. 89). From
Reconstruction to the present, it has invoked battles that have entangled every
branch of government; and, with each rise and fall of painted ponies, firmly
affixed to a carousel spinning in a circle, the ethics of it have been viewed
from each side.
LaFollette
(2007) provides “we should treat all people the same unless there is some
general and relevant difference between them that justifies a difference in treatment”
(p. 75). With the exception of indentured servants, who had the ability to
choose to come to America and work for a pre-determined number of years to pay
off the debt and secure freedom, the mistreatment of black slaves was
inescapable and resulted in unbearable work hours and circumstances, unhealthy
and insufficient living quarters, verbal abuse, physical abuse, mental anguish
from family separations, and a host of other consequences for which we may
never fully appreciated the implications (LaFollette, 2007). Those who argue it
seeks to correct the sins of the past by now wronging the group responsible for
such sins either overlook or simply do not acknowledge the centuries of abuse
suffered by and that harmed an entire group of people (LaFollette, 2007).
Further, the simplistic notion of “two wrongs, do not make a right” ignores the
very tenets that must be considered when practicing ethics (LaFollette, 2007,
p. 88). Opponents further contend “those who suffered and those who perpetrated
the most egregious harms (slavery) are long since dead” and since “blacks have
had sufficient opportunity to overcome any lingering effects of slavery and Jim
Crow”, their children should not have to continue to pay for the wrongs of the
past (LaFollette, 2007, p. 90). Voices raised against it believe it keeps those
who deserve jobs or college placement out while rewarding those less qualified
(LaFollette, 2007). None of these positions advise if it is justified, merely,
voices against it are not convincing.
Those
who support it, admit it favors black; however, not because of the color of
their skin, rather because of the systematic victimization of an entire race.
They also recognize that while today’s descendants did not personally inflict
the harm, they, nonetheless continue to benefit from the power and wealth
amassed by their ancestors’ efforts to suppress an entire race. Finally, the
qualification factor acknowledges the “most “deserving” students” are the ones
who will be recognized by the college’s admission process as those who can best
serve society’s or the community’s needs (LaFollette, 2007, p. 93). It is clear
to see, from both sides of the argument, those painted ponies placed on that
circling carousel so many decades ago are still rising and falling with each
passing generation. “Many Americans now reject” it, although the Judicial
Branch still recognizes instances where it is “legally permissible”
(LaFollette, 2007, p. 87).
If
we recognize and accept the premise, “People’s history shapes their
opportunities. Since the history of the blacks in America is one in which they
have been systematically harmed, then their opportunities have been, and
continue to be, limited”; then we must accept the notion there must be a remedy
that will help to improve their lives and the lives of their future generation
(LaFollette, 2007, p. 91). If its practice is to simply look at what a person
is i.e., a person is white or a person is black, in an effort to realize equal
results rather than equal opportunity, then it is ethically wrong as it does
nothing more, in this author’s opinion, than lead to what Connerly (2000)
described as “an annoying intrusion of racial bean-counting” that runs the risk
of placing people in a position of possible failure and immediately being
stereotyped as one who landed a job or got into a university simply because of
the color of their skin, rather than the content of character. If; however, it
seeks to do that which this writer’s grandmother explained some forty years
ago, to give opportunity to a group of people who suffered greatly and often
ran the risk of being killed for learning to read and write, and to provide for
their children to one day return to that impoverished neighborhood that sparked
their dream of becoming a doctor and delivering quality care to those less
fortunate; then, it, affirmative action, in a word, “Yes”, is ethical.
References
Abbott, C., Argersinger, J.A.,
Argersinger, P.H., Barney, W.L., DeJohn Anderson, V., Goldfield,
D.,
& Weir, R.M. (2011). The American
Journey: A History of the United States.
(6th
ed.). (Vol. 2). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Connerly, W. (2000, March). My fight against race preferences: a quest
toward 'creating equal'.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(27), B6+. Retrieved from:
=lincclin_dbcc&it=r&p=AONE&sw=wn
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Marlow, E.K., & Rowland,
K.M. (1989). Affirmative Action: Federal Support, Supreme Court
Decisions,
and Human Resource Management. Human
Resource Management, 28(4),
541-556.
McAdams, T., Neslund, K., &
Neslund, N. (2007). Law, Business, and
Society. (8th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Moreno, P. (2003). The History
of Affirmative Action Law and Its Relation to College
Admission. Journal of College Admission, (179),
14-21.
No comments:
Post a Comment