• 0%
    0 votes
  • Rate this episode
    What did you think?
  • 3
    watchers
  • 4
    plays
  • 9
    collected
PosterPoster

Justice: Season 1

1x09 Arguing Affirmative Action

Advertisement
D 01
Hide ads with
VIP
  • 2009-09-05T01:30:00+01:00 on PBS
  • 30 mins
  • United States
  • English
  • Documentary
Advertisement
M 05
Hide ads with
VIP

PART ONE: ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the school’s affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a student’s efforts and achievements should carry more weight than factors that are out of his or her control and therefore arbitrary? When a university’s stated mission is to increase diversity, is it a violation of rights to deny a white person admission?

PART TWO: WHAT’S THE PURPOSE?
Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest civic virtue. For Aristotle, justice is a matter of fitting a person’s virtues with an appropriate role.

Advertisement
D 01
Hide ads with
VIP
Advertisement
M 02
Hide ads with
VIP
Loading...