Answer Writing Assignment:

Affirmative Action

Submitted by :
Arju – 23/122
A Shreya Lakshmi – 23/911
Bahulika – 23/202
Pranjal – 23/ 993
Srishti - 23/1066
Introduction

In our daily interactions and discussions about building a just society, we often encounter
complex questions about equality, liberty, and justice. One particularly contentious issue that
has sparked debate worldwide, especially in countries like India and the United States, is the
concept of affirmative action. This policy, designed to provide increased opportunities for
historically disadvantaged groups, has both fervent supporters and vocal critics. As this topic
is explored, we'll discover that the answers are seldom straightforward, but instead complex
and layered with nuance.

Understanding Affirmative Action

Affirmative action can be defined as a formal effort to provide increased employment and
educational opportunities for underrepresented and disadvantaged groups. The goal is to
overcome past patterns of discrimination and present structural inequalities, ultimately
promoting a more inclusive and just society.
Former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson eloquently captured the essence of affirmative
action when he said, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains,
liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'You are free to compete with all
the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." This perspective
emphasizes that true equality often requires more than just removing legal barriers; it
necessitates active measures to level the playing field.

Philosophical Perspectives on Equality and Justice

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

The renowned philosopher John Rawls provides a compelling framework for understanding
the rationale behind affirmative action. In his "Theory of Justice," Rawls argues that a fair
society is one where:
1. Inequalities are arranged to benefit the least advantaged.
2. All individuals have equal access to opportunities.

Rawls' principle of "fair equality of opportunity" aligns closely with the goals of affirmative
action. By providing additional support and opportunities to marginalized groups, affirmative
action seeks to create a more level playing field, much as Rawls envisioned.

Amartya Sen's Capability Approach

Another influential perspective comes from economist and philosopher Amartya Sen. Sen's
capability approach emphasizes that equality should not be measured solely by material
resources, but also by an individual's capabilities and opportunities to live a life they have
reason to value. This view supports the idea that affirmative action should focus not just on
outcomes, but on expanding the range of real opportunities available to disadvantaged
groups.

Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action

1. Addressing Historical Injustices

Supporters argue that affirmative action is necessary to rectify centuries of discrimination and
systemic inequalities. In India, for example, the caste system has created deep-rooted
disparities that persist to this day. Affirmative action policies, such as reservations for
Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), aim
to provide these communities with access to opportunities that were historically denied to
them.

2. Promoting Substantive Equality

While formal legal equality (as enshrined in laws like Articles 14-18 of the Indian
Constitution) is crucial, it's often not sufficient to create true equality of opportunity.
Affirmative action complements these formal rights with substantive measures to ensure that
disadvantaged groups can actually benefit from them.

3. Breaking Cycles of Disadvantage

Affirmative action can help break intergenerational cycles of poverty and low achievement.
By providing increased access to education and employment, these policies can empower
socially disadvantaged communities to overcome structural barriers and participate more
fully in society.

4. Fostering Diversity and Inclusion

Proponents argue that affirmative action enhances diversity in educational institutions and
workplaces, which benefits society as a whole. Diverse environments expose individuals to
different perspectives, foster creativity and innovation, and prepare people to function in an
increasingly globalized world.

Criticisms and Challenges of Affirmative Action

1. Reverse Discrimination
Critics argue that affirmative action policies themselves constitute a form of discrimination
against groups not designated for preferential treatment. They contend that this violates
principles of equal treatment and meritocracy.

2. Stigmatization
There are concerns that affirmative action can stigmatize its beneficiaries, leading to doubts
about whether they truly earned their positions. This can undermine the self-confidence of
individuals from targeted groups and potentially reinforce negative stereotypes.

3. Mismatch Theory
Some critics argue that affirmative action can harm its intended beneficiaries by placing them
in educational or professional environments for which they are underprepared, potentially
setting them up for failure.

4. The "Creamy Layer" Problem

In the Indian context, critics point out that the benefits of reservation policies are often
cornered by the relatively well-off members of disadvantaged groups (the "creamy layer"),
rather than reaching those who need them most. This highlights the need for more nuanced
approaches that consider intersectionality and intra-group disparities.

The way forward: Striking a Balance Between Ideals and Realities

As we reflect on the complex debate surrounding affirmative action, it becomes clear that
there are no simple solutions. However, several key points emerge:
1.Continuous Evaluation and Reform: Affirmative action policies should not be static.
Regular assessment of their effectiveness and willingness to reform them based on changing
societal needs is crucial.

2.Addressing Root Causes: While affirmative action can be a powerful tool, it should be
complemented by efforts to address the root causes of inequality, such as improving access to
quality education and healthcare for all.

3.Nuanced Implementation: Recognizing the diversity within disadvantaged groups and

designing policies that can reach the most marginalized is essential.

4.Changing Attitudes: Ultimately, the success of affirmative action depends on changing

societal attitudes. As Aristotle wisely noted, justice sometimes requires "treating equals
equally and unequals unequally."

5.Temporary Nature: It's important to remember that affirmative action policies are intended
to be temporary measures. The goal should be to create a society where such measures are no
longer necessary.

Conclusion
Affirmative action remains a contentious but vital tool in the pursuit of a more equitable
society. While it's not without its flaws and challenges, when thoughtfully implemented and
regularly evaluated, it can play a crucial role in addressing historical injustices and creating
meaningful opportunities for disadvantaged groups.
As we continue to grapple with issues of equality and justice, it's essential to approach the
topic with nuance and openness to diverse perspectives. By engaging in thoughtful dialogue
and being willing to adapt our approaches, we can work towards creating a society that truly
offers fair opportunities for all its members.
Arju 23/122

Introduction
Human beings live in society and constantly interact with each other. In our quotidian
interactions and discussions, questions on ideas such as equality, liberty and justice which
form the core of a just human society, arise. Different individuals articulate different positions
based on their notion of justice and fairness which leads to disagreements and a further need
to reconcile the views.
One such issue taken up across the world and particularly in India is the idea of Affirmative
action. This deeply contested issue involves debates about distribution of resources –
educational opportunities, social services and social upliftment. Some argue that affirmative
action particularly reservation can and does provide equal opportunities whereas others
believe that it does not. On the other hand, they say it promotes social stratification and a
different kind of injustice. As we reflect upon such discussions and debates, we realize that
these questions do no have binary answers instead, they are complex in nature and require
greater deliberations.

Affirmative action – promotes equality

Affirmative action may be defined as a formal effort to provide increased employment and
educational opportunities for underrepresented and disadvantaged groups at a level sufficient
to overcome past patterns of discrimination and present structural inequalities. The
philosophy behind affirmative action is to promote a more inclusive and just society.
Supporters of Affirmative action justify it for several valid reasons.
Firstly, they argue that affirmative action complement formal/procedural equality with
substantive equality. This takes us to Lyndon B Johnson, the former president of USA who
argues that merely providing the policy of formal legal equality for blacks is not enough.
Similarly, in India providing SCs and STs with right to equality under article 14 to 18 is not
enough. Thus, our constitution makers devised a complex array of affirmative action policies
for the Dalits to remove their disadvantages. Article 15(4), 16(4), 330 and 332 form the crux
of the affirmative action policies in India.

Secondly, it is argued that social justice involves the social context and disadvantages to be
taken into account in any meaningful distributive strategy. Affirmative action seeks to rectify
historical wrongs and structural disadvantages faced by marginalized groups, ensuring that
disadvantaged groups have access to the resources and opportunities necessary for their
equitable participation in society. This social justice approach captures a certain notion of
compensation and collective social responsibility. Supporters cite evidences for the
effectiveness of affirmative action. For instance, according to the All India Survey on Higher
Education (AISHE) 2019-20 report, the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) for SCs rose to
23.4%, and for STs to 18%, compared to the national average of 27.1%. This marks a
substantial improvement.
Thirdly, it is argued that affirmative action empowers socially disadvantaged communities by
allowing them to overcome structural barriers, this ensures their greater inclusivity and
participation in society. For minority groups, affirmative action breaks the cycle of low
self-esteem and low achievement.

Thus, affirmative action strives to create a more equitable society and change the attitude of
mainstream society by removing the gaps and uplifting the marginalized.

Affirmative action – violates equality

Contrary to the argument mentioned above, there are people who advocate that affirmative
action violates the spirit of equality.

Those who believe that affirmative action violates the principle of equality highlight certain
limits of affirmative action to defend that it does not lead to social inclusivity instead has its
own unfavorable consequences.

Firstly, critics argue that affirmative action substitutes one form of discrimination with
another i.e. it is a form of reverse discrimination. Individuals of majority groups may feel
they are unfairly disadvantaged in admissions or hiring processes.

Secondly, critics argue on the line of meritocracy and efficiency, where they believe that the
idea of giving preference to one group under affirmative action policies, sacrifices merit and
eventually as less skilled people enter into the system, it becomes less efficient. These
arguments are countered by supporters who advocate that these criticisms originate from a
narrow and individualistic conception of justice devoid of social context.

Critics further argue that affirmative action inflict harm upon the beneficiaries by a process of
stigmatizing. They argue that the apparently benign policies that draw upon the benevolent
consent of higher caste can promote notions of caste inferiority. Critics also bring to light that
the category of “beneficiaries” is itself problematic. There is intersectionality among the
beneficiaries in terms of economic and social conditions which is not well recognized. As a
result of which, the benefits are usually cornered by better-off people from the so-called
lower castes. This is a view which is also agreed upon by defenders to some extent. Both
critics and defenders highlight the politics surrounding affirmative action. Critics argue that
the power politics will always render affirmative action ineffective whereas defenders adhere
to the original philosophy behind affirmative action and advocate for a reform in politics.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that the debate surrounding affirmative action is not merely about
‘for’ or ‘against’. Instead it brings into account the diversity of views and complexities
involved in reconciliation to carve out a plan of justice and progress for a society that strives
to be just.
In Indian context, as we see jettisoning affirmative action is equivalent to turning blind eye to
social justice. But then the question arises that since 78 years of independence and
reservation, has it brought out the required reformation in society. The answer seems less
satisfactory which makes it evident that merely introducing affirmative action is not enough.
It is important to analyze policies implementation and reform them timely according to the
needs of society. Moreover, the aim of creating a just society can be accomplished only when
the attitude and presumption of mainstream towards the so-called lower caste changes and the
caste identities become subservient to individual identity.
A Shreya Lakshmi

India is a multi-cultural, multi-social, multi-linguistic, multi-religious, and multiethnic federal

state. It is a vast country that exhibits diversity in terms of geography, language, religion,
culture, caste, creed, race, and even gender. The Indian society thus presented a picture of
divergent and often conflicting trends. Spatial diversity and advocacy of religious principles
contributed to a high level of social inequality.
Affirmative or positive action is one of the important policies adopted in India to include all
the members of excluded communities.
Aristotle said, “Treat equals equally and unequals unequally”.
Affirmative Action, as an idea of social justice and as a policy practised, has its equal share
of supporters and detractors both within India and elsewhere. Suppose a vast amount of
normative
and first principle-based philosophical arguments have been put forward to justify affirmative
action as a matter of right for the politically marginalised, socioeconomically exploited and
backward sections of society. In that case, there has also been an equally voluminous
empirical study
done to show how effective such policies are in bringing the marginalised, the minority at par
with the rest.
affirmative action can be seen as a way to address the inherent inequalities and power
imbalances in society. Political theorists such as John Rawls argue that a just society is one
in which individuals have equal access to social and economic opportunities, regardless of
their social position. Affirmative action can be seen as a means of achieving this goal by
promoting equal representation and opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their race,
gender, or other characteristics.
Equality is an essential concept in political theory, serving as a foundation for guiding
debates and discussions on what a just society should look like. Throughout history,
philosophers have grappled with questions of equality and its implications for governance
and social organisation.
In the realm of political theory, equality refers to the idea that all individuals should have
equal access to opportunities, resources, and rights. This notion has sparked numerous
discussions and debates, particularly when it comes to affirmative action policies. Affirmative
action is a set of policies that promote the inclusion and advancement of individuals from
historically marginalized groups. These policies are intended to address systemic
inequalities and promote a more equitable society. However, the debate over affirmative
action has been contentious, with critics arguing that it can lead to reverse discrimination
and undermine the principle of meritocracy.
One of the key figures in the discussion of equality in political theory is John Rawls. Rawls'
work, "A Theory of Justice," explores the concept of justice and fairness in society. Rawls
argues for a principle of equality that prioritises the well-being of the least advantaged
members of society. According to Rawls, inequalities can only be justified if they benefit the
most vulnerable individuals. This principle has had a significant impact on the debate over
equality and social justice, shaping discussions around affirmative action and other policies
aimed at reducing inequality.
Another influential philosopher in the realm of political theory is Amartya Sen, who has
made
significant contributions to the concept of equality. Sen argues that equality should not be
solely based on material resources, but also on capabilities and opportunities. Sen's
capability approach emphasizes the importance of enabling individuals to live a life they
have reason to value. This perspective has influenced discussions on social policy and the
importance of addressing not just inequality in outcomes, but also in opportunities and
capabilities.
When it comes to affirmative action, there are both supporters and critics of these policies.
Supporters argue that affirmative action is necessary to address historical injustices and
systemic discrimination. By providing opportunities to individuals from underrepresented
groups, affirmative action can help create a more diverse and inclusive society. Critics,
however, raise concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of these policies. Some argue
that affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination, where individuals who are not part
of historically marginalized groups are disadvantaged in the admissions process or job
market.
In the United States, affirmative action has been a contentious issue, with ongoing debates
about its legality and effectiveness. The Supreme Court has ruled on several cases related
to affirmative action, with decisions that have both upheld and limited the use of these
policies. For example, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that
diversity could be a compelling interest in admissions decisions, allowing universities to
consider race as one of many factors in the admissions process. However, the ruling also
emphasized the importance of a holistic review of applicants and the need to constantly
reevaluate the use of affirmative action.
Looking ahead, the debate over equality in political theory and affirmative action is likely to
continue to evolve. As society grapples with ongoing challenges related to inequality and
discrimination, there will be a need for thoughtful and nuanced discussions about how to
promote a more equitable and just society. By engaging with the ideas of philosophers like
Rawls and Sen, as well as considering the practical implications of policies like affirmative
action, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and fair society for all.
Bahulika

Affirmative action is a formal effort to provide increased employment and educational

opportunities for underrepresented and disadvantaged groups at a level sufficient to overcome
past patterns of discrimination and present structural inequalities. It is slightly different from
the idea of preferential policy. As the former US President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “You do
not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the
starting line of a race, saying, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly
believe that you have been completely fair." Affirmative action needs both forward and
backward looking. A just society is a one that ensures equal access to social and economic
opportunities to individuals, irrespective of their social standing and affirmative action can be
a means to achieve this goal.
John Rawls, in his theory of justice, argues that a fair society is one in which inequalities are
arranged to benefit the least advantaged and that all individuals should have equal access to
opportunities. This aligns with the principle of fair equality of opportunity, a key aspect of his
philosophy. Affirmative action can be seen as a practical application of Rawls’ ideas, as it
aims to correct structural inequalities and provide marginalized groups with access to
resources and opportunities they have historically been denied. In doing so, it supports the
goal of levelling the playing field in society.
however, affirmative actions have not always been favoured, it attracts criticism as much as it
attracts support. Criticism of Affirmative action often state that these policies are one form of
discrimination substituting another. They believe that in such an arrangement the principal of
merit is often undermined and efficiency is hindered. A counter argument to this can be put
forward stating that these are “temporary measures” for the time being. But this has also been
criticised stating that, these measures not only persist over time but also expand in scope.
Critics also put forth the notion of “stigmatization” as the negative stereotypes and biases
associated with individuals benefiting from affirmative action policies. These stereotypes can
range from perceptions of incompetence to notions of undeserved advantage, which can harm
the very groups these policies aim to support.
In India, affirmative action primarily takes the form of reservations or quotas in education,
government jobs, and political representation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes
(STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). These policies are intended to help rectify the
centuries-old injustices of the caste system and ensure that these communities have access to
opportunities that were historically denied to them. Providing safeguards under Article 14-18
was the first step towards eradicating the age-old practices of injustice, however, these
weren’t sufficient and a holistic, solution-oriented approach is what is required for the same.
Article 14(4), 16(4), 330 and 332 form the crux of the affirmative action policies in India.
To conclude, one can look upon the arguments put forward by philosophers like Joh Rawls
and act in the direction of societal justice and equality. Affirmative actions are a crucial step
and applying it practically to the policies is what has to a matter of attention. It may not be
the perfect solution; however, it is a vital tool for addressing the deep-rooted inequalities that
continue to exist in society.
Pranjal

Introduction
Affirmative action refers to policies and practices aimed at increasing the representation of
historically disadvantaged groups in areas such as education, employment, and government
contracting. These policies have been a subject of intense debate in political philosophy and
public policy for decades, particularly in countries grappling with histories of discrimination
and persistent social inequalities.

The concept emerged in the United States in the 1960s as part of the civil rights movement,
but similar policies have been implemented globally, including India's reservation system,
Malaysia's New Economic Policy, and South Africa's post-apartheid policies. While specific
implementations vary, the core idea remains consistent: to actively promote opportunities for
groups that have faced historical discrimination or current underrepresentation.

This essay will examine affirmative action in depth, exploring its theoretical underpinnings,
justifications, criticisms, and its place within broader discussions of equality and fairness.

Understanding Equality
To comprehend the rationale behind affirmative action, it's crucial to first explore the concept
of equality. Swift (2001) outlines several forms of equality relevant to this discussion:

1. Legal Equality: Equal treatment before the law, regardless of personal characteristics.
2. Political Equality: Equal rights in political participation, including voting and running for
office.
3. Social Equality: Absence of hierarchies based on personal characteristics like race, gender,
or class.
4. Economic Equality: Distribution of economic resources and opportunities in society.
5. Equality of Opportunity: Equal chances to succeed based on merit and effort, rather than
factors beyond individual control.

Affirmative action policies primarily aim to address inequalities in the social, economic, and
opportunity domains. They recognize that formal legal and political equality may not be
sufficient to overcome deeply entrenched historical disadvantages faced by certain groups.

The distinction between formal and substantive equality is crucial. Formal equality refers to
equal treatment under the law and in policies, while substantive equality focuses on equality
of outcomes or real opportunities. Affirmative action is based on the premise that achieving
substantive equality may require unequal treatment to compensate for past or ongoing
disadvantages.
For example, consider two students applying to a competitive university program: one from a
well-funded suburban school and another from an underfunded inner-city school. While they
may have formal equality in the application process, their substantive equality of opportunity
might differ significantly due to their different educational backgrounds. Affirmative action
policies aim to address such disparities.

Theoretical Justifications for Affirmative Action

Proponents of affirmative action offer several key arguments to justify these policies:

1. Compensatory Justice: Acharya (2008) argues that affirmative action can be seen as a form
of reparation for past wrongs, such as slavery, segregation, or systematic discrimination. It
aims to compensate disadvantaged groups for historical injustices that have led to their
current disadvantaged position.

2. Diversity and Representation: Increasing the inclusion of underrepresented groups in

various institutions can enhance diversity, which is seen as beneficial for society as a whole.
It can lead to a broader range of perspectives and experiences in decision-making processes.

3. Role Models and Breaking Stereotypes: Increasing the visibility of members of

disadvantaged groups in positions of power or prestige can provide role models for younger
generations and help break down harmful stereotypes.

4. Addressing Structural Inequalities: Affirmative action recognizes that formal equality of

opportunity may not be sufficient when structural barriers and implicit biases continue to
disadvantage certain groups. These policies aim to level the playing field by accounting for
these less visible but pervasive forms of discrimination.

5. Social Stability: By promoting the inclusion and advancement of disadvantaged groups,

affirmative action can help reduce social tensions and promote a more cohesive society.

6. Utilitarian Arguments: Some proponents argue that affirmative action can lead to better
outcomes for society as a whole by ensuring that talent from all segments of society is
utilized, potentially leading to greater economic productivity.

Casal and Williams (2008) further argue that equality of opportunity should be understood
not just as the absence of formal barriers, but as equality of effective freedom or capability to
achieve valuable functionings. This perspective, influenced by Amartya Sen's capability
approach, suggests that affirmative action can be justified as a means of equalizing real
opportunities for disadvantaged groups.
Criticisms and Challenges
Despite its noble intentions, affirmative action has faced significant criticism. Smits (2009)
outlines several key objections:

1. Reverse Discrimination: Critics argue that affirmative action simply replaces one form of
discrimination with another, unfairly disadvantaging members of non-preferred groups.

2. Meritocracy: There is concern that affirmative action undermines the principle of

meritocracy by prioritizing group membership over individual qualifications and
achievements.

3. Stigmatization: Some argue that affirmative action can stigmatize its beneficiaries, creating
doubt about whether they truly earned their positions on merit. This "stigma of
incompetence" can potentially harm the very individuals the policy is meant to help.

4. Mismatch Theory: This criticism suggests that affirmative action can harm its intended
beneficiaries by placing them in competitive environments for which they are underprepared,
potentially leading to lower performance and higher dropout rates.

5. Ineffectiveness: Critics question whether affirmative action actually achieves its goals of
reducing inequality and promoting social mobility. They argue that these policies often
benefit already privileged members of minority groups rather than the most disadvantaged.

6. Difficulty in Implementation: Determining which groups should benefit from affirmative

action and to what extent can be challenging and contentious, particularly in societies with
multiple axes of disadvantage or where group boundaries are fluid.

7. Perpetuation of Race-Consciousness: Some critics argue that affirmative action, by

focusing on racial categories, perpetuates racial thinking and division rather than moving
towards a "color-blind" society.

Philosophical Perspectives

The debate over affirmative action touches on fundamental questions in political philosophy
about the nature of equality, justice, and the proper role of the state. Swift (2001) discusses
several key philosophical perspectives:

1. Libertarianism: From a libertarian perspective, affirmative action is problematic because it

involves state intervention in what should be free market processes. Libertarians argue that
the government should not engage in social engineering or attempt to correct for past
injustices through preferential treatment.
2. Egalitarianism: Egalitarian philosophers generally support some form of affirmative action
as a means of achieving greater substantive equality. However, there are debates within
egalitarian thought about the extent and form such policies should take.

3. Utilitarianism: A utilitarian approach would evaluate affirmative action based on its overall
consequences for social welfare. Some utilitarians might support affirmative action if they
believe it leads to greater overall societal benefits, while others might oppose it if they think
it creates more harm than good.

4. Communitarianism: Communitarian thinkers might support affirmative action as a means

of promoting social cohesion and addressing group-based inequalities. They often emphasize
the importance of recognizing and valuing group identities in addition to individual rights.

5. Feminism: Many feminist philosophers have supported affirmative action as a means of

addressing gender inequalities. However, there are debates within feminist thought about
intersectionality and how to address multiple, overlapping forms of disadvantage.

6. Critical Race Theory: This school of thought, which emphasizes the centrality of race and
racism in American law and institutions, generally supports affirmative action as a necessary
tool for addressing deep-seated racial inequalities.

Alternatives and Modifications

Given the controversies surrounding affirmative action, various alternatives and

modifications have been proposed:

1. Class-Based Affirmative Action: This approach focuses on socioeconomic status rather

than race or gender, aiming to help disadvantaged individuals regardless of their group
membership.

2. "Soft" vs. "Hard" Affirmative Action: Soft approaches involve outreach and support
programs to increase diversity without using explicit quotas or preferences. Hard approaches
involve more direct interventions, such as setting specific targets or giving additional points
in selection processes.

3. Temporary Measures: Some argue that affirmative action should be seen as a temporary
measure to address specific inequalities, with clear goals and timeframes for phasing out.

4. Focus on Earlier Interventions: Rather than focusing on preferential treatment at the point
of selection for jobs or university admissions, some propose directing more resources towards
early education and development in disadvantaged communities.
5. Inclusive Excellence: This approach focuses on creating institutional cultures and practices
that value diversity and inclusion, rather than relying solely on preferential selection
processes.

6. Targeted Recruitment: This involves actively seeking out candidates from

underrepresented groups, but making final selections based on merit. The idea is to expand
the pool of applicants rather than altering the selection criteria.

7. Randomized Selection: Some have proposed using random selection among qualified
candidates as a way to ensure diversity without explicit preferences.

Case Studies and Real-World Applications

To better understand the complexities of affirmative action, it's useful to examine how these
policies have been implemented and their effects in various contexts:

1. United States: Affirmative action in the U.S. has primarily focused on education and
employment. In higher education, it has been the subject of numerous legal challenges. The
Supreme Court has generally upheld the use of race as one factor in holistic admissions
processes (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003) but has struck down more rigid quota systems (Regents
of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978).

2. India: India's reservation system, enshrined in the constitution, sets quotas for
representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in
government jobs, political positions, and educational institutions.

3. South Africa: Post-apartheid South Africa implemented broad affirmative action policies,
including the Employment Equity Act, to address the legacy of racial discrimination.

In each of these cases, affirmative action policies have increased representation of target
groups in various institutions. However, they have also faced criticism for potentially
reinforcing group identities, benefiting primarily the better-off members of disadvantaged
groups, and not adequately addressing broader socioeconomic inequalities.

Conclusion
Affirmative action remains a contentious issue in political philosophy and public policy.
While proponents argue that it is necessary to achieve substantive equality and overcome
historical injustices, critics contend that it violates principles of individual merit and
non-discrimination.

The debate reflects broader tensions between competing conceptions of equality, justice, and
the proper role of the state in addressing social inequalities. It also raises complex questions
about how to balance group-based remedies with individual rights, and how to address
deep-seated structural inequalities without creating new forms of unfairness.

As societies continue to grapple with persistent inequalities and the legacies of historical
injustices, the debate over affirmative action is likely to remain relevant. Future discussions
may focus on refining and improving affirmative action policies to address criticisms while
still working towards the goal of creating more equitable societies.

Ultimately, the question of affirmative action touches on fundamental issues of how we

understand fairness, opportunity, and the balance between individual and group rights in
diverse societies. As such, it will likely continue to be a subject of philosophical inquiry and
political debate for years to come.
Srishti kashiwal

Introduction
Affirmative action refers to policies and practices designed to increase the representation of
certain groups in areas of employment, education and business from which they have ban
historically excluded . These groups typically include racial minorities, women and other
marginalised populations.

The concept of affirmative action emerged in the united states in the 1960s as part of the civil
rights movement. President John F. Kennedy first used the term in a 1961 executive order
requiring government contractors to take affirmative action to ensure equal employment
opportunities. This policy was further developed under President Lyndon B. Johnson and has
since been adopted in various forms in many countries around the world.

Justifications for Affirmative Actions:

1) Righting the wrongs of history :
One of the primary Justifications for affirmative action is that it serves as a means of
addressing and rectifying the past discrimination and oppression . Centuries of Slavery,
segregation and systemic racism have created deep rooted inequalities that continue to impact
people. Affirmative action is seen as a way to “level the playing field” and provide
opportunities to groups that have been historically disadvantaged.
2) Promoting diversity
Proponents argue that affirmative action enhances diversity in educational institutions and
workplaces which benefits society as a whole. Diverse environment expose individuals to
different perspectives, foster creativity and innovation and prepare people to function in an
increasingly globalized world
3) Countering ongoing discrimination
Despite legal protections, discrimination persists in many forms, often subtle or
unconscious . Affirmative action serves as a counterbalance to these ongoing biases, helping
to ensure that qualified individual. From underrepresented groups are not overlooked.

4) Breaking cycles of poverty and disadvantage:

By providing increased access to education and employment opportunities, affirmative
actions can help break intergenerational cycles of poverty and disadvantage that
disproportionately affect certain communities.

5) Role models and representation:

Increasing the visibility of minorities and women. In positions of influence can provide
important role models for younger generations and help challenge stereotypes about what
certain group can achieve. It also breaks cycle of low self esteem and achievement among
individuals.
Critiques of Affirmative Action.
1) Reverse discrimination
Critics argue that affirmative action policies themselves constitute a form of discrimination
against groups not designated for preferential treatment. They contend that this violates
principles of equal treatment and meritocracy.

2) Stigmatization
There are concerns that affirmative action can stigmatize its beneficiaries, leading to doubts
about whether they truly earned their positions. This can undermine the self confidence of
individuals from targeted group and reinforce negative stereotypes.

3) Mismatch theory
Some critics argue that affirmative action can harm its intended beneficiaries by placing them
in educational or professional environments for which they are underprepared, potentially
setting them up for failure.

4)Focus on Diversity over merit

Critics contend that affirmative action policies prioritize demographic diversity over
individual merit, potentially leading to less qualified candidates being selected over more
qualified ones.

5) Perpetuation of Racial thinking

There are concerns that race-based affirmative action policies reinforce racial categorizations
and division rather than moving towards a truely colour-blind society .

6) Limited effectiveness
Some critics argue that affirmative action has had limited success in achieving its goals as
they do not cause any structural change in the system of education or employment which
undermines it’s success.

Philosophical perspectives.
A) Compensatory Justice:
Philosophers like Robert Nozick have discussed the idea of compensatory Justice which
holds that past wrongs should be rectified . This view supports affirmative action as a means
of compensating for historical injustices and their effect
B) Distributive Justice:
John Rawl’s theory of Justice as fairness provides a framework for thinking about fair
distribution of social goods . His “difference principle” suggests that inequalities can be
justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This could be used to
support affirmative action.
C) Equality of Opportunity:
Philosophers like Richard Arneson distinguish between formal equality of opportunity
(removing legal barriers) and substantive equality of opportunity (ensuring that people have
genuinely equal chances to succeed) . Affirmation action can be seen as promoting the latter.
D)Utilitarianism:
From this perspective one might argue that affirmative action is justified if it leads to greater
overall societal benefit or happiness .This could involve weighing the benefits of increased
diversity and social mobility against potential costs or resentments.
E)Libertarianism:
philosophers generally oppose affirmative action policies, viewing them as unjustified
government intervention in individual and institutional freedom.

Conclusion
Affirmative action while have a lot of benefits like correcting the wrongs of history ,
promoting diversity, countering ongoing discrimination, breaking cycles of poverty and
disadvantage and role modelling etc also foster reverse discrimination, stigmatize the
beneficiaries, decrease self esteem, promotes diversity at the cost of merit .
• A right amount of balance between affirmative action and structural reforms in the
system of education or employment can only make the affirmative action more effective.
People in power through affirmative actions are often seen involving in vote bank politics
where the only purpose of the affirmative action is to gain a vote, it not only makes
affirmative action ineffective but also dehumanises people and convert them into mere votes .
Though laws are needed for improving the conditions of disadvantageous sections but they
are not enough , the very problem lies in assuming that the state alone can stop discrimination
in society the change have to come from the society itself . People together collectively and
not individually have to take the stake of freeing the society from perpetual discriminations of
centuries . The very essence lies in accepting the fact that discrimination is the problem not
affirmative action .
REFLECTION ON INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS’

Arju – 23/122

Bahulika: 22 marks
● It is a good introduction ,but I feel an introduction gives a hint of what all is to be
mentioned in the answer.
● Sub heads could be included .
● The answer misses an important aspect of change of attitude and mentality in society.
● The flow in the answer goes well, with one point linked well to another.

Srishti: 21 marks
● Intro that defines what is to be written in the answer. Rather than starting with what is
affirmative action , an overview could be provided.
● The idea of Nozick's relation to Affirmative action is unclear.
● Onus put on society (in conclusion)
● There could have been better connectivity if the Negatives and Positives would have
been linked.

Shreya: 22 marks
● A good flow is maintained in the answer.
● However I feel like introduction should not be started with elaborating about Indian
background completely, as the answer that follows considers discussion on affirmative
action all around the world.
● As an essay, it goes with the flow but if included as an answer we should include
sub-heads, to make it more clear and precise.
● Criticisms of affirmative action are less elaborate than its justifications.
● Good conclusion- where the future debate is highlighted.

Pranjal: 22 marks
● The word limit is not followed.
● Examples could be provided in philosophical perspectives to make them more clear.
● The conclusion could end with a solution oriented approach.
● Covers various points including justifications, criticisms, philosophical perspectives
and case studies.
Srishti - 23/1066

Pranjal:(23 marks )
● the answer is too lengthy and dense
● The answer is a great mix of real life examples, philosophy, problems and solutions

Arju:(22 marks )
● The structure of the answer can be improved
● Some arguments are presented without sufficient elaboration or evidence. For
instance, the claim that affirmative action promotes social stratification is mentioned
but not fully explored. More specific examples or data could strengthen these points.

Shreya:(22 marks )
● There is no conclusion to synthesize the main points or provide a final perspective on
the topic.
● The essay seems to shift focus between India-specific issues and broader theoretical
discussions without a clear connection between these elements.

Bahulika:(23 marks )
● Some important concepts, such as the "forward and backward looking" nature of
affirmative action, are mentioned but not fully explained or explored.
● While the essay focuses on India, it could benefit from a brief comparison with
affirmative action policies in other countries to provide a broader context.
Pranjal – 23/ 993

Srishti:
23/25
● The section on critiques is well-balanced, presenting common arguments against
affirmative action policies. This demonstrates a fair approach to the topic, which is
essential for an objective overview.
● Expanding on the current state of affirmative action policies and debates, perhaps by
mentioning recent legal challenges or policy changes in various countries, would
enhance the depth of the discussion.
● Considering the intersection of affirmative action with other social issues, such as
economic inequality or changing demographics, could provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the topic.

Arju:
22/25
● Including a comparison with affirmative action policies in other countries would
enrich the discussion and illustrate how different nations address similar challenges.
● Incorporating specific examples or case studies, such as successful programs, would
strengthen and make arguments more relatable to the modern context.
● A brief discussion on potential future developments or reforms in affirmative action
policies would offer an interesting perspective and demonstrate forward-thinking.

Shreya:
22/25
● The answer effectively integrates philosophical perspectives from thinkers like John
Rawls and Amartya Sen, showcasing a strong theoretical foundation in the discussion
of affirmative action.
● Expanding the arguments against affirmative action would enhance the balance of the
answer, and including specific examples or case studies related to reverse
discrimination would be beneficial.
● Clarifying key terms such as "systemic inequalities" and "meritocracy" with
definitions and context would improve comprehension and engagement.

Bahulika:
23/25
● The answer provides a solid overview of affirmative action, clearly defining its
purpose and the philosophical foundations, particularly through references to John
Rawls, which establishes a strong theoretical framework for the discussion.
● Expanding on the criticisms of affirmative action by providing specific examples or
data that illustrate claims of reverse discrimination and stigmatisation would enhance
the depth of the argument.
● The section discussing the legal framework in India could benefit from a more
detailed analysis of how these policies have evolved over time, including recent
developments or debates surrounding them.
Shreya – 23/ 911

Arju:- 22 marks
● A well-rounded view by presenting both the supportive and critical perspectives on
affirmative action.
● The inclusion of historical injustices helps contextualise the need for affirmative action and
acknowledge the multifaceted nature of the debate, especially the intersectionality within
beneficiary groups.
● While emphasising the need for policy reform, providing concrete suggestions for
improving affirmative action would strengthen your conclusion.

Pranjal: 21 marks
● Successfully present both the justifications for affirmative action and the criticisms.
●By incorporating case studies from the U.S., India, and South Africa,it effectively illustrates
how affirmative action policies function in practice.
● The essay could benefit from a more explicit discussion of intersectionality.
● Lengthy

Bahulika: 21 marks
● The discussion of affirmative action in India, particularly regarding reservations for
marginalized groups, provides a concrete case study. This illustrates how these policies are
implemented and the historical context behind them.
●In conclusion, suggesting specific ways to refine affirmative action policies moving forward
could have been added.

Srishti: 22 marks
● The points made under justifications, such as breaking cycles of poverty and the
importance of role models, are concrete and relatable. They help illustrate the real-world
impact of affirmative action.
● Expanding on how affirmative action can "break cycles of poverty" with specific examples
or data would strengthen that argument.
● Specific instances where "mismatch theory" has been observed could provide a more
concrete understanding of the argument
Bahulika – 23/202

Shreya: 21 marks
● Flow of answer is great, however, the answer could have had an overall introduction for
Affirmative actions rather than specifically talking about India.
● Conclusion is well structured and does actually conclude the whole argument
● Sub-headings could have been included.

Arju: 22 marks
● The Answer is introduced nicely and factual, legal and philosophical contexts are
considered
which is great.
● Other aspects of affirmative actions could have also been looked upon.
● Conclusion could have been more specific

Pranjal: 21 marks
● Sub-headings are clear and widely incorporate all the necessary points
● Use of philosophical arguments and real-world examples worked well; however, we could
have incorporated more recent examples.
● Sub-headings can be connected better.

Srishti: 21 marks
● The Answer is structured well and subheadings are used wisely.
● We could incorporate some real-world examples so that the answer is better conveyed.
● Philosophical perspectives do introduce the reader to think about the topic in depth.