Principles of Compensation
(Malik Speaking)
 
 

MAIN PATH: Fred
 
 
Fred
 
Malik
Dee

The way you limit compensation, almost nothing can ever be done. You won't broaden the principle to include children indirectly harmed by the discrimination against their parents. And you insist on matching up the people discriminated against with the specific parties that discriminated against them. Let's talk about indirect harm using an analogy.

Consider the case of theft. If Bob stole X from Tom, then Bob should give it back or provide compensation to Tom. What if Tom dies and there is no way to give X back? We would all agree that Bob should compensate Tom's children or grandchildren. They have lost X because of what Bob did. They were indirectly harmed by what Bob did and therefore deserve to be put in the condition they would have been in if the theft had never occurred. At the very least this means giving them X or its equivalent. It might mean a lot more if X is the sort of thing that tends to increase in value or if, like education, it is strategically important for people's lives.

If this is true for theft, why not say the same for racial discrimination?

Think of all the things that young black people have less of today because of discrimination against their parents and grandparents. Less money, less property, and less education are only the most obvious problems that are influenced enormously by what your parents and grandparents pass on to you. And these things are strategically important. They can make the difference, say, between working as a laborer and working as a white collar employee. How can you ignore this? If you believe that children should be compensated for a theft from their parents, how can you deny them compensation for other kinds of injustice that affect them just as much?
Ariadne Home Affirmative Action
Bibliography		 Affirmative Action
Home