Sources & Extracts

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to go back to the page you were on.

Alan Goldman, who does not accept the diversity argument as a basis for strong affirmative action, attempts to list some of the benefits that are sometimes said to follow from increased diversity:

Narrower utilitarian arguments refer to advantages of having minorities proportionately represented within specific institutions or job categories, or of having professionals in specific communities or geographical areas. For example, students are said to learn better in an atmosphere of diversity. Such diversity in the student body can result in radically different points of view brought to bear on different subjects matters, which is supposed to be conducive to the discovery new truths about them. Second, part of what should be learned in school is the ability to live in one's society, to understand its problems, and to contribute toward their solution; in a pluralistic society like ours, this can be best imparted and absorbed in a pluralistic classroom. Thus these claims point to utilitarian advantages to all, and not just to minority-group members, from achieving racial mix and a proportionate number of females in the school system. Related arguments point to the advantages of having minority-group members in certain professions. For example, claims are made that as teachers, they are more sensitive to certain subject matters, that students of their race and sex are more open and learn more readily from them, that minority doctors or lawyers are more likely to serve in poorer ghetto areas where they are badly needed, and that minority lawyers are better able to serve clients of their race or national origin, given their knowledge of the communities or of other languages, where that is relevant.

Reference: From Alan Goldman, Justice and Reverse Discrimination, p. 146-147.