Marion Young Responsibility For Justice

In Responsibility for Justice, Young describes a story about “Sandy” to illustrate her theory of a specific kind of moral wrong, structural injustice. Iris Marion Young, Responsibility for Justice, Oxford University Press, 43, 43 (2011). Young defines structural injustice as a kind of moral wrong distinct from the wrongful action of an individual agent or the repressive policies of a state. Id. at 52. Structural injustice occurs as a consequence of many individual and institutional actions to pursue their particular goals and interests, for the most part within the limits of accepted rules and norms. Id. Further, structural injustice exists when social processes put large groups of persons under systematic threat of domination or deprivation

The problem of structural injustice constrains Sandy because she can’t find reasonably affordable apartments that are close to her job due to her financial situation. (Class discussion on 10/3/2016). Sandy’s unfortunate circumstances include Sandy’s landlord needing to sell the building in which she lives in because he no longer can maintain it. Id. at 43. Further, Sandy’s real estate agent informs her that an apartment Sandy can move into requires three months rent, which Sandy does not have. Id. at 43, 44. Nor, is Sandy a victim of “bad luck” such as a hurricane. Id. Sandy’s story is not individual injustice, such as a wrongful eviction. (Class discussion on 10/3/2016, which civil law address this). Nor does Sandy’s story involve injustice caused by special policies, such as a zoning code saying you can’t have 4 people, non-related living in the same house or schools being funded by tax policy. (Class discussion on

American Airlines case, I had some difficulty deciphering not how the judge ruled but why he ruled the way he did. When analyzing the Roger’s case, I found a definition from class readings that I found useful to helping me understand his ruling: naturalization. From the class where we read, Racism Without “Racists”, the term naturalization was used to allows whites to explain away racial phenomena by suggesting they are natural occurrences. (Class 3 discussion). The Rogers judge implicitly used the term naturalization to suggest cornrows, an all-braided hairstyle, is not the product of natural hair growth but of artifice. Rogers v. American Airlines, 527 F.Supp. 229, 232 (1981). Further he stated, “An all-braided hair style is an “easily changed characteristic,” and, even if socioculturally associated with a particular race or nationality, is not an impermissible basis for distinctions in the application of employment practices by an employer.”