Kenneth Himma Affirmative Action Summary

The Defense of Affirmative Action: A Response to Kenneth Himma

In Kenneth Himma’s paper “Discrimination and Disidentifcication”, the author argues for the necessity of a false start to offset the centuries of oppression and the lingering institutional barriers still present as a result of this era. Himma’s argument which argues that for publically funded institutions it is morally permissible to give advantages based on both sex and gender. The authors’ argument answers a series of questions ranging from if affirmative action violates a right to how the concept of affirmative action can serve to fix many underlying societal issues. Himma bases his argument on the False Start Principle. “FSP is based on the rationale that presuppose individual

fault or guilt on the part of white males (Himma, 280).” This principle used by Himma effectively refutes many arguments that the opposition for affirmative action have such as discrimination, the reality of the disadvantages caused by institutional oppression based on sex and race, as well as stipulating that it is morally obligatory but rather permissible which is important when discussing an individual’s rights. Although Himma covers many topics in his essay such as the concept of self-esteem, discrimination, and the violation of individual rights when giving only a certain group an advantage he fails to refute valid arguments. Thomas Rawls’ Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle and Kant’s categorical imperative are both valid ethical ideas that Himma fails to address. I will argue that both of these ideas can be refuted by Himma’s consequentialist approach to affirmative action and the False Start defense which will both serve to prove that policies regarding affirmative action are not discriminatory and are in fact morally permissible.
Thomas Rawls’ Equality of Opportunity Principle is a point of view that Himma touches on very minimally in his paper. Rawls idea is that i¬¬¬n order for opportunities to be equal within a group, each member of that group must face the same relevant obstacles, none insurmountable, with respect to achieving the same desirable goal. This aspect of equality of opportunity is important for a social ideal because it expresses part of the moral value of equality (Rawls).”This valid objection by Rawls argues that all persons should have the same obstacles regardless of background. The argument is based on the fact that everyone faces obstacles that are similar and as such everyone should be judged on the same basis.

In this case, the quotas or additional points given to a minority applicant to a college would be impermissible. The False Start Defense can be used in this case to argue for the permissibility and proving that Rawls argument does not apply in this case. EOP argues that everyone should be on an equal playing field when it comes and the obstacles should be equal as well. This defense is valid for many cases where there are actual quantifiable obstacles be it physical or legally such as laws preventing a person from doing an action such as entering colleges at all. Legal discrimination is the most applicable case for the equal opportunity defense but in the case of affirmative action this would not apply. For example, consider the example of the false start defense once again. A car backfires, the runner starts a fraction of a second early and subsequently wins. It is morally permissible to compensate the rest of the false start or disqualify the runner. Disqualifying the runner is the equivalent action for the Equal Opportunity defense there are rules set in place to ensure each runner has an equal chance to win. Rawls argument is based on the idea that rules that are only in place for one specific group of

people are impermissible which is not happening in the case of affirmative action. If in this hypothetical race one specific group were allowed to start early while others were disqualified for the same action then it could be stated that the action is impermissible. The idea of affirmative action does not hold any one group to a different standard but compensates the individuals who are disadvantaged. The Equality of Opportunity principle also uses the idea that all people have different and unique obstacles to overcome and as such no one should be given an advantage. In this case though the EOP refutes itself because of the tangible additional barriers caused by the institutional oppression of minority groups based on race and gender. It amplifies the necessity of the false start principle by highlighting the additional obstacles that are in place for minorities. Imagine an obstacle course, one side of the obstacle course has 20 obstacles and on the other side there are only 10 obstacles. Both groups start in the same place but there is a valid argument to be made that for the race to be fair the side with more obstacles be given some sort of advantage to reach the same outcome as the group with less obstacles. This example relates to Rawls idea that everyone must have equal opportunity at the same outcome. The quantifiable disadvantage upon minority groups is tangible proof that the Equal Opportunity principle does not apply in this case. Although Himma touches on something similar in his argument, discrimination, his argument fails to acknowledge the necessity of a morally even playing field but by identifying Rawls objection it validates his claim for a false start. In addition to this, the author fails to acknowledge the two wrongs make a right fallacy that is present in many arguments.
Himma’s argument for the Affirmative Action is based on the idea of the False Start principle of morality which intends to negate any unfair competitive advantage but fails to acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right.

Himma argues on the basis of the FSD being morally permissible but does not acknowledge if the argument is wrong in itself. Although there has been quantifiable damage cause by institutional sexism and racism, Himma neglects to defend the False Start Defense on the idea of inflicting the same harm on white males that race and gender based minority group’s face. The False Start defense bases its argument on the idea that because there have been barriers put in place for disadvantage groups the same should be done for white males. The two wrongs fallacy is when a person attempts to justify an action against another person because the other person did take or would take the same action against him or her. If this were the case Himma’s argument would be undeniable morally reprehensible but that is not the case. The two wrongs fallacy is based on the equality of all the individuals involved but as Himma states it is undeniable that the barriers in place put minority groups at a disadvantage. The main objection is that although minority groups have been put at a disadvantage it is still morally impermissible to apply the same treatment on white males. I argue that the necessity of the two wrongs fallacy is based on the idea of true equality. This equality is

not present in the minority community in comparison to white males because of the arbitrary and relevant barriers that have been put in place by minority groups in order to stay in power. Himma uses the False Start Defense of preferences in a similar sense which can be used to refute the use of the fallacy in the case of affirmative action. It is the False Start defenses basic premade of inequality that allows Himma’s argument to remain morally permissible by highlighting the validity of the two wrongs fallacy only in cases where all else is equal. This idea would be similarly argued by Immanuel Kant as it supposedly violates the categorical imperative. Kant’s idea are based on the morality of actions so much like the two wrongs fallacy it would be morally impermissible to discriminate today based on the consequences of past decisions. Kant’s argument can be refuted similarly too many of the past arguments. Much like Rawls initial principle the idea that it is morally impermissible to even the playing field is incorrect. It is because of the centuries of oppression and the residual effects of those actions that makes it a necessity to put all people on even footing. The categorical imperative is based on action, good will, and moral duty. It is because of the moral duty on the part of the people oppressing the minority groups that makes it borderline morally obligatory for affirmative action to be in place. Kant bases the moral status of an action on whether it is good or bad and it can be seen that affirmative action is the former for two reasons. It is morally permissible to compensate someone you have done harm to them and the good will of this action both satisfy Kant’s idea. Although there are many arguments Himma does not cover in his paper the False Start Defense and Himma’s paper in its entirety touch on many of the problems brought up by the utilitarian point of view.
Kenneth Himma’s argument for affirmative action is based on the idea of preferences and the necessity to even the playing field for those with a competitive disadvantage. Many arguments against this such as the Equality of Opportunity Principle, two wrongs fallacy, and Kant’s categorical imperative can all be used as arguments against affirmative action but ultimately fall flat because of the basic tenets expressed in Himma’s original argument which is equality. All of the critiques above are based on all else being equal from a utilitarian point of view but the fact of our society is that the generations of institutional sexism and racism have created residual barriers that can only be refuted by actively putting policy in place to counter those barriers. The idea of an eye for an eye will never be relevant in a society where one group is quantifiably superior to another. Himma’s argument and use of the False Start principle effectively encapsulates affectively argues against many of the premises surrounding affirmative action most importantly in colleges but also in the workplace. Until there is quantifiable proof against the idea that every person in our society is equal Himma’s argument is a successful argument against the idea that affirmative action is racism in reverse discriminatory, and morally impermissible at its core because the valid arguments made by Himma prove that affirmative action is in fact morally permissible.