According to philosopher Albert Mosley, affirmative action is morally justified because a diverse environmental benefit everyone and policies should be adopted if they are beneficial to all. I will defend Mosely's position in response to the objection that one's qualifications are superior to ensuring diversity in the work force. A diverse environment aids in counteracting our accustomed thoughts of other races and cultures. Therefor, Mosley believes affirmative action is justified. Affirmative actions are governmental policies developed in light of racial and sexual discrimination in society (Mosley, 125). The goal of these regulations are to provide minorities with access to positions they otherwise would be unlikely to attain because of the impact of historical injustices. By removing the stigma surrounding minorities it ensures everyone is given equal opportunities.
To reinforce his claim on the benefits of diversity Mosely uses the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case. This case highlights a significant decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States that allows race to be one of the many factors used in university and college admission policies (Mosley, 135). The fundamental premise behind this new legal principle is that diversity within the student body allows different perspectives to be expressed, leading to a higher quality of education. Additionally, exposure to different ideas from people of an assortment of backgrounds is beneficial to future leaders. On page 134 it states "We would expect a black student from a middle-class family in Clinton, Maryland to offer different perspectives from that of a white student from a middle-class family in Chevy Chase, Maryland"(Mosely, 134). This further highlights the various ideas that would be found in a classroom where affirmative action is used, reinforcing Mosley's stance. .
A potential objection to Mosely's stance argues that diversity does not benefit everyone, as qualifications are more important.