Affirmative Action and School Boards' Balancing of Ethical Principles

An excellent op-ed column by Stanley Fish in the July 14 New York Times focuses on a very difficult ethical problem in municipal government: affirmative action. The recently decided Supreme Court decision, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al (No. 05-908), concluded that the 14th amendment's equal protection guarantee of treating each citizen as an individual, rather than as a member of a group, overrides the principle behind the 14th amendment: seeking racial equality.

Everyone knows that it is wrong to treat individuals solely or even primarily as a member of a group. This shows disrespect and, often, prejudice. However, it is equally wrong to ignore the history of a group to which an individual belongs, especially when that history has been one of oppression that goes far beyond disrespect, or even prejudice.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

It is disingenuous to discuss the 14th amendment as if it stands separate from the history that led to its passing. It is beyond disingenuous for justices who profess to care a great deal about the original intent of our nation's Founders, who wrote the Constitution, to ignore the intent of the people who wrote the 14th amendment after the Civil War. When justices can reach a decision only by ignoring their own legal philosophy, you know that something is wrong.

Ethical reasoning, like legal reasoning, involves the consideration and balancing of principles in light of the circumstances. And as with legal reasoning, but even more so, ethical reasoning requires that this process be done honestly.

Most urban boards of education are constantly faced with decisions that involve affirmative action. Not only does the United States have a history of discrimination and segregation, but each city has its own history, and each city is faced with the consequences of that history. Yes, each individual should be treated as an individual, rather than as a means to an end. This is not only constitutional law, but one of the most central ethical principles.

But how often can an urban Board of Education truly treat any student as an individual? In making decisions for an educational system, students are treated as members of classes, as members of neighborhoods, etc. And this only for a goal as noble as administration and order. When balanced against goals as noble as racial equality and providing everyone with a more diverse milieu, the value of treating each student as an individual is still important, but should it be overriding?

These important principles and values must be balanced in the light of the circumstances. By placing the principle of individuality above all others, and by arguing that harm to whites in the name of racial equality is the same as harm to blacks in the name of racial prejudice, the Supreme Court has badly skewed the ethical decision-making of urban boards of education.