Review
						MAIN PATH: End

John asked the group to discuss a particular utilitarian argument for strong affirmative action; namely, the diversity argument. Those who make this argument claim that we should pursue diversity of race in higher education, college faculties, and corporate management because of its overall advantages. Ann made a case for diversity by pointing out demographic changes in the American population. Our labor force is no longer mainly white and male. It is increasingly black, brown, and female. She claims that if we are to make that labor force as productive as possible, we need to understand and learn to manage diversity.

Ann also argued that it is beneficial for all students in colleges and professional schools to go to school with people from different backgrounds and perspectives in order to live and work effectively in our society. Malik believes that there are advantages to having more black students and faculty at our universities. He believes that the history of blacks in America can give them insights, especially in the social sciences. Even so, he rejects the diversity argument because he believes that it could be used against blacks in the future. He relies instead on his argument for compensation or reparations because of historic injustices.

Dee agreed with Malik that utilitarian arguments can easily be turned against any group. She wants a solid theory of individual rights. The government should follow color-blind policies while private schools and employers should be free to pursue whatever diversity or homogeneity they desire. If it is in their interest, they will pursue diversity without government pressure. Fred strongly disagreed with Ann on the benefits of diversity, especially when she (and Malik) claimed that more black students and faculty should be sought in order to bring in new ideas. He argued that race is not a good proxy for ideas. If schools want to encourage diverse ideas, they should hire on the basis of ideas, not race.

John also raised two difficult questions about the diversity argument. First, why should we concentrate on the kinds of diversity that are usually made part of the argument? Why race and sex but not, say, religion? Why use the diversity argument to help blacks and women but not Slavs or Evangelicals?

Second, does the diversity argument conflict with the notion that we should not discriminate on the basis of race and sex? If so, is there something about greater diversity of certain kinds that can justify departing from a non-discrimination policy?

Ariadne Home	Affirmative Action Bibliography	Affirmative Action Home