This dissertation is a critical examination and rejection of the two principal types of moral justification, the compensatory and noncompensatory, of affirmative action involving preferential treatment for blacks, Hispanics,American Indians, and women in hiring, promotions, andadmissions. Neither of these approaches to the justification of AA, I have argued, is able to defend AA successfully. AA not morally justified. Thus, succeeding compensatory arguments for AA, individualand group oriented, are unable to evade, undermine,or disarm the objections that AA violates the principles of (...) compensatory justice governing who is owed compensation, what compensation is owed, and who owes compensation, and that AA violates the principles of justice and fundamental individual moral rights governing the distribution of such social goods or benefits as desirable and valuable positions. The principles of justice and moral rights violated by AA govern the distribution of social benefits, including desirable positions, and burdens and systematize, unify, and explain correct moral judgments about the injustice of actions, policies, and practices in a variety of contexts of distribution. Moreover, backward-looking or compensatory arguments for AA have the implication that unjust and morally unacceptable compensatory policies that are morally similar to AA would be justified in contexts other than hiring, promotions, and admissions. Furthermore, the noncompensatory justifications of AA, including meritocratic and utilitarian forward-looking arguments, are unable to evade or to undermine the objection that AA violates principles of justice and fundamental individual moral rights and the objection that these attempted justifications of AA have the implication that unjust and morally unacceptable noncompensatory, forward-looking policies that are morally similar to AA would also be justified in contexts other than the standard ones. (shrink)

Prominent ethical and policy issues such as affirmative action and female enrollment in science and engineering revolve around the idea that diversity is good. However, a precise definition is seldom provided. I show that diversity may be construed as a factual description, a craving for symmetry, an intrinsic good, an instrumental good, a symptom, or a side effect. These acceptions differ vastly in their nature and properties. Some are deeply mistaken and some others cannot lead to concrete policies. It is (...) thus necessary to clarify what one means by ‘diversity.’ It may be a neutral description of a given state; but this is insufficient to act. The idea that there should be the same representation in a specific context as in the overall population is both puzzling and arbitrary. Diversity as intrinsic good is a mere opinion, which cannot be concretely applied; moreover, the most commonly invoked forms of diversity are not intrinsically good. On the other hand, diversity as instrumental good can be evaluated empirically and can give rise to policies, but these may be very weak. Finally, symptoms and side effects are not actually about diversity. I consider the example of female enrollment in science and engineering, interpreting the various arguments found in the literature in light of this polysemy. (shrink)

Many people hold this truth to be self-evident that universities should enroll more female students in science and engineering; the main question then being how. Typical arguments include possible benefits to women, possible benefits to the economy, and the unfairness of the current female under-representation. However, when clearly stated and scrutinized these arguments in fact lead to the conclusion that there should be more women in scientific disciplines in higher education in the sense that we should expect more women (which (...) various kinds of discrimination may prevent), not that we should actively enroll more women. Outreach programs towards high school students may therefore be logically incompatible with the arguments supposed to justify them. They should purport to allow women to graduate in a field congruent with her abilities and desires, rather than try to draw as many of them to scientific disciplines as possible: one cannot try to ‘recruit’ as many female students as possible while claiming to help them choose more freely. (shrink)

A standard formulation of luck-egalitarianism says that ‘it is [in itself] bad – unjust and unfair – for some to be worse off than others [through no fault or choice of their own]’, where ‘fault or choice’ means substantive responsibility-generating fault or choice. This formulation is ambiguous: one ambiguity concerns the possible existence of a gap between what is true of each worse-off individual and what is true of the group of worse-off individuals, fault or choice-wise, the other concerns the (...) notion of fault. I show that certain ways of resolving these ambiguities lead to counterintuitive results; and that the most plausible way of resolving them leads to a theory of distributive justice in which responsibility plays a role significantly different from that in standard luck-egalitarian thinking. My main conclusion here is that luck-egalitarianism is best formulated as the view that it is [in itself] bad – unjust and unfair – for an individual to be worse off than others if, and only if, her being worse off does not fit the degree to which she is at fault in a not purely prudential sense. (shrink)

The most blatant forms of discrimination are morally outrageous and very obviously so; but the nature and boundaries of discrimination are more controversial, and it is not clear whether all forms of discrimination are morally bad; nor is it clear why objectionable cases of discrimination are bad. In this paper I address these issues. First, I offer a taxonomy of discrimination. I then argue that discrimination is bad, when it is, because it harms people. Finally, I criticize a rival, disrespect-based (...) account according to which discrimination is bad regardless of whether it causes harm. (shrink)

This article attempts to look at the quest for diversity by posing a question about how effective the concept has been in securing meaningful diversity in the public sphere of liberal polities. It distinguishes between diversity and difference to suggest that difference poses a greater challenge to liberal polities as compared to diversity. It then goes onto look at diversity in relation to democracy, especially in the context of a worsening climate of democracy across the world. The article suggests that (...) the prospects for diversity are unlikely to be bright either in the contemporary conjuncture or the immediate future. The article ends by suggesting that diversity is caught between the forces of globalization and the insular nationalism that has welled up from the hinterlands of nation-states. (shrink)

Diversity is an important ethical concept, but it is almost exclusively studied within two domains: biodiversity and diversity of sociological attributes such as race and gender. We provide a general study of the intrinsic value of diversity. We survey prior literature on the intrinsic value of biodiversity and sociological diversity in search of insights relevant to the intrinsic value of all types of diversity. We then present three thought experiments designed to clarify intuitions about the intrinsic value of small amounts (...) of diversity, large amounts of diversity, and diversity as compared to other intrinsic values. We find that many types of diversity are intrinsically valuable at both small and large amounts, but that diversity may be a weak intrinsic value in comparison to others. Noting that diversity can be defined in many ways, we propose that, for purposes of moral evaluation, diversity should be defined to include both a diversity of individual elements within a group and a diversity of the overall patterns or structures of the group. Some of our findings about the intrinsic value of diversity are tentative, indicating that moral intuitions about diversity are sometimes ambiguous and would benefit from further study. (shrink)

Diversity has been an articulated priority in library and information services for some time, with underrepresentation and recruitment having been central to diversity goals in the profession. However, among librarians, the level of representation of members of minority groups continues to be well below that of the population overall. The extent to which diversity efforts have been undertaken in libraries is not well-documented, as a part of the overall limited amount of original research in this area, thus providing little basis (...) for indicating success in achieving diversity-related goals in recruitment, diversifying collections, or enhancing organizational climates. Of the limited empirical research on diversity in the profession, little has addressed the bases for the limited progress. The explanations for the limited progress have included the pervasiveness of racism and discrimination, lack of commitment in the profession, as well as the suggestion of a lack of a pipeline of individuals from minority groups to be recruited into the profession .Building on prior discussions that have attempted to further explain the limited progress, the article focuses on the fact that many aspects of the competing rationales in favor of and against diversity and preceding concepts, from slavery, the women's suffrage movement, and the mid-20th century case of Brown v. Board of Education, through later 20th and 21st century civil rights cases, have framed the issues in ethical terms. The potential implications of the emphases on the ethical dimensions of the diversity rationales include the limited progress on diversity goals and the inability to identify common ground among those on competing sides of the debates. (shrink)