Q&A: Philosophy and Society
Philosophy and Society
Question
Hello.
I am writing a seminar paper on affirmative action in academia and on the right of the Haredi community to receive these rights as well, in accordance with its worldview. I would be glad to hear your view.
My argument is somewhat complex, and in it I claim:
A. A group that is not actually harmed today by discrimination is not entitled to affirmative action—for example, women in Israel. I have not seen or heard of a woman whose path to the university, or within the university, was blocked because she was a woman, and the proof is that numerically they are the majority among students in Israel.
B. Regarding the question of whether it is justified to allow members of disadvantaged groups into prestigious tracks (a reality that began in the law faculty at Tel Aviv University), in my humble opinion there is no moral justification for doing so at the expense of a student whose grades are higher than those of the disadvantaged group, since belonging to that group does not justify harming an individual who is not part of that group (and seemingly there is no difference based on the size of the gap between them).
C. The legitimacy of granting minorities affirmative action is not grounded in justice and correcting a historical wrong, but rather in the desire to advance these groups; and if so, this can be done only by increasing the number of students, not at the expense of students who would be pushed out if the number admitted to the track remained as it was.
D. The right to benefit from the public resource of academic studies (salary, status, etc.) is an equal right for everyone, and therefore the Haredi public is also entitled to it (and the Arab public as well—unless we define it as an enemy of the state, in which case for that reason it would not be entitled to it, but not because it is a minority; for that matter, a member of the Druze community is certainly entitled to this right). But the Haredi public has at least two substantial problems with academia. One is the content, which in its view contradicts its religious belief—in the life sciences, evolution, etc., and in the humanities, on almost every issue it will see the material as heresy against fundamental principles. The second problem is the shared mode of study between men and women.
My claim is that academia cannot change its content because a certain group believes in values or beliefs different from the conclusions science has reached. But regarding the second difficulty—studying in mixed groups of men and women—there is no reason academia should deny the Haredi public access to this resource. Is one of academia’s laws mixed-gender study? This is assuming, of course, that both sexes in the Haredi public would receive the opportunity to benefit from this resource, so that there would be no claim here of exclusion, etc., which as is well known is one of the cardinal principles of the Western worldview today.
Just as this is true regarding the Haredi public—that we should not expect academia to change its content because of its beliefs—so too the demand to allow Arab society to study in academia in its own language in the name of equality is not a legitimate demand. If academia has spare resources, fine—but in the absence of resources, academia is not obligated to teach Arab society in its own language in the name of equality, since Hebrew is the official language of the State of Israel.
I would be glad to hear your response.
Answer
Hello.
There are quite a few claims here, and each one requires clarification on its own. I will respond briefly, because this is not the place to review an entire paper. If you want to expand more on a particular point, write only about that point and explain exactly what you want to discuss.
A. I do not agree with your initial premise. A society can decide to grant preference to a population that needs strengthening even if it is not currently being harmed. I am not among those who think that weaker populations are necessarily being weakened. Usually that is not the case. But that has nothing to do with the question of affirmative action. There is room for it, though of course not always. The criteria for it require clarification, and this is not the place. The fact that you have not heard of a woman whose path was blocked is a problematic argument. First, you do not know all women or all of academia. Second, it is hard to determine exactly when someone’s path is blocked by irrelevant considerations. Specifically, regarding religious women, there certainly are social barriers. They are steered toward non-scientific fields, prevented from studying Torah, and so on. But as I said, these claims are not necessarily important to the discussion, since preference can be given to women even if their path is not currently being blocked.
B. I disagree, for the same reason. Grades do not confer rights except by virtue of society’s decision. And if society decides otherwise, that is its right. Your claim is absurd. Who determined that the required grade is 80? Society or the institution drew some line. How does that line generate rights? Does it have some sanctity that makes it impossible to change? A private institution can of course do otherwise.
C. Not true, and not true. It is certainly possible that there were barriers and that an injustice should be corrected. And even if not, there is still room for affirmative action. If there is a budget to increase the number of places, that is of course desirable, including for those whose grades are lower (why should they be deprived of studying the profession they desire?). But if there is not—there is room for preferential considerations.
D. Clearly the right belongs to everyone. But the claim about changing the content is disingenuous. There are fields in academia whose content really is not scientific findings but agendas. And there I see no reason not to adapt things to the student population. Of course, all views and approaches should be given a hearing. Regarding separate study tracks for Haredim, I completely agree. In my view it is a scandal that this is being denied to Haredim. Secular-liberal terror.
Arabic has official status in the State of Israel, so you are not correct. But at the same time, an institution has the right to determine that the language of instruction in it will be only Hebrew, provided that Arabic speakers are given an equal opportunity (or an institution that teaches in Arabic)..