Introduction
Louis Pojman, in his article The Case Against Affirmative Action, argues that there is a major difference between 'weak' affirmative action and 'strong' affirmative action, and such difference deserves a thorough analysis. Pojman asserts that weak affirmative action is primarily intended to eliminate unjust impediments to equality of opportunity. On the other hand, strong affirmative action requires more vigorous, involved measures to eradicate the consequences of forgotten injustice, and may involve preferential treatment of minority groups (Pojman 97). Pojman has nothing against weak affirmative action, but he is highly critical of strong affirmative action. Hence the main thesis of the author is that affirmative action victimizes the White people because of their race, a process referred to as 'reverse discrimination'. Pojman defends his thesis by discussing some of the key arguments for affirmative action, and criticizing them afterward. However, this paper argues that even though he does not reason from false premises, he does mislead the readers by disproportionately presenting the unfavorable aspects of affirmative action.
Critically Analyzing The Case Against Affirmative Action
Pojman justifies and strengthens his thesis by beginning with the premise that affirmative action actually worsens racial discrimination by promoting unequal conditions, such as unequal employment opportunities. He justifies this argument by claiming that not all White majority-- the alleged loser in this process-- and minority groups-- the beneficiaries-- were victimized by the historical forces that produced the inequalities experienced today. Pojman also starts off with the premise that affirmative action stigmatizes minority individuals in the workplace. This premise essentially suggests that the achievements of minority individuals are practically impossible due to the ambiguity produced by affirmative action.
Pojman's argument against affirmative action, referring to it as reverse discrimination, is satisfactorily defended because he uses both subjective and empirical evidence. For instance, he shows an actual percentage of people qualified for affirmative action programs, and claims that there are in fact very few who are entitled to these programs (Pojman 112). However, Pojman fails to show that affirmative action programs are wrong or misguided under all situations. What he actually did is to demonstrate the most unfavorable types of affirmative action under the worst situations.
In order to reach his conclusion, Pojman discusses several premises that demonstrate how obsolete affirmative action is and how it simply promotes reverse discrimination by basing preferential treatment on racial background instead of academic performance. In short, affirmative action creates mediocrity and less accountability. In other words, the process disregards merit or qualifications and simply anchors equal opportunity on the concept of race. Pojman has satisfactorily supported his conclusion by including arguments against affirmative action that bolster, rather than weaken, the arguments against it. For instance, he successfully demonstrated that affirmative action's positive approach to the issue of race can in fact exacerbate the stigma that minority individuals experience in school and in the workplace.
However, despite such strong arguments against affirmative action, Pojman has failed to give justice to affirmative action by explaining that not all its stated disadvantages are primarily caused by or directly brought about by it. In essence, he misleads the readers by excessively focusing on the disadvantages of affirmative without taking into consideration its key benefits. Indeed, Pojman has committed what is referred to as the 'red herring fallacy'. Red herring is an intentional deviation from the actual issue with the purpose of overwhelming or discrediting a particular program or policy.
For instance, Pojman argues that affirmative action is innately objectionable because it certainly abuses or injures innocent individuals. To begin with, it must be mentioned that affirmative action does not harm other people in all situations. For instance, race is exercised to raise the number of representatives from minority groups during elections. This does not in any way harm minority groups; in fact, it gives them an opportunity to actively take part in the political domain. In addition, Pojman argues that affirmative action aggravates racial conflicts. But what he fails to mention is that similar policies, like desegregation, have indeed brought about more serious racial tensions.
Pojman should have considered the fact that there are numerous circumstances where the alleged harms are not caused by affirmative action and it is incorrect to presume that they are innate and an indispensable aspect of every affirmative action program. He unduly bases his 'reverse discrimination' argument on the idea that minority groups perform poorly in examinations. Giving too much emphasis on test scores as an absolute indicator of merit would certainly rule out or bar students who were not able to acquire a satisfactory public education. Hence, the 'reverse discrimination' argument espoused by Pojman simply excludes or ostracizes those who, if granted access to the necessary resources, would contribute a great deal to the betterment of society.
In essence, Pojman failed to give proper credit to some of the key advantages of affirmative action. Above all, affirmative action is a means of guaranteeing that diversity is acquired and sustained in the workplace and in schools. Thus it also contributes to the creation of open-minded and unbiased communities because it introduces and allows individuals to experience a diversity of cultural values and practices that are totally different from their own. Furthermore, affirmative action would definitely help 'level the playing field' for historically marginalized and oppressed racial groups.
Conclusions
The strength of Pojman's article rests in the precise use of premises to bolster his arguments against affirmative action. The reverse discrimination and stigmatization arguments of Pojman are clearly justified by the premises that not all minority groups were historically oppressed or victimized by the system and that merit will be supplanted by excessive consideration of race. In contrast, the weaknesses of his arguments lie in his disproportionate focus on the disadvantages of affirmative action without giving credit to its positive side and the fact that not all those stated disadvantages were originally rooted in affirmative action.
Work Cited
Pojman, Louis. “The Case Against Affirmative Action,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 12.1 (1998): 97-115. Print.
