Ethics

            
             In the beginning of his argument Sterba defines what affirmative action is in respect to women and minorities. His definition was a policy of preferring qualified women and minority candidates who have been disadvantaged by past injustices over equally or more qualified white male candidates who have not been similarly disadvantaged. Sterba goes on to cite a court case from the state of Texas. The case was Hopwood v. Texas, in this case the Hopwood plaintiffs filed suit but the U.S. office of Civil Rights had not determined if the state sufficiently desegregated and complied with federal civil rights laws. Sterba goes on to discuss how the Hopwood court was right in arguing that we shouldn't think that a person's race, or sex, controls his or her points of view.
             When Sterba begins to defend his definition of Affirmative Action he gives five reasons that critics say lead to injustices and they are: 1. It is not required to compensate for unjust institutions of the distant past, 2. It harms those who receive it. 3. It is directed at the wrong people. 4. It is not directed at all of those who deserve it, 5. It is unfair to the white males whom it discriminates against. In support of the first injustice Christopher Morris argues that affirmative action is not required by the existence of unjust institutions in the distant past, such as slavery, because compensation is dude only to those who suffered the injustice. Sterba believes that today's African-Americans have no right to claim slavery as a reason they have not prospered. They should argue that it was poor housing, unequal education, job discrimination, inadequate health and welfare programs, and an unfair criminal justice system, all of these things African Americans would have been better off without. Charles Murray gives support to thee second objection which states affirmative action harms those who receive it by placing women and minorities into positions for which they are not qualified.