Beneficiaries (Malik Speaking)
		Comment				MAIN PATH: John
		Ann	John

My point isn't that the white job applicant has to 'give back' his advantages because they result partly from a history of discrimination. But I do think it is fair to place limits on how he uses and benefits from those advantages. Suppose the town where Fullinwider's innocent beneficiary lives gave an annual prize for the nicest driveway. Would it be unfair to say that the man whose driveway was repaired because of an injustice was ineligible for the prize? And, to take it one step further, suppose that the runner up in the contest was the man who hired the company to fix his driveway? Would we give the prize to the innocent beneficiary in spite of this fact? Probably not, because the history of how the driveway came to be so nice matters.

It's the same with jobs. We have to decide how the white job applicant can fairly use his educational advantages (and others) once we realize that he has them IN PART because of a history of discrimination.

Suppose people got jobs partly because of basic qualifications and partly because of special green tokens. For a long time whites were given two tokens each year and blacks were given only one. In addition, parents can pass half of their tokens on to their children.

Suppose the same number of tokens are now given to everyone. We still have to decide how the whites can use their extra tokens. Would it be unfair to limit their use because of the initial injustice? I don't think so.

Ariadne Home	Affirmative Action Bibliography	Affirmative Action Home