Myth: We should compensate specific individuals for specific wrongs,
not entire groups.
Fact: Entire groups bear the stigma and harm, and groups are easier to compensate.
Summary
Group compensation can be justified on the following grounds:
it may be the most economically efficient way to compensate mass
injustice; the entire group suffers the stigma; and, in certain
circumstances, the entire group suffers the discrimination. Compensating
modern ancestors for past injustices is justified on the grounds
that they are still suffering from the crimes of history. That
is because poverty is intergenerational, and so is personal development
and improvement. Furthermore, prejudice and discrimination did
not disappear with the abolishment of its more legal forms; they
continue today.
Argument
Critics of affirmative action claim that if society must pay
damages for past wrongs, it should pay them to the specific individuals
who were harmed, not their entire group. If we awarded damages
to groups, then those who might not have suffered from the injustice
will be getting something for nothing. This is unfair to those
citizens who would pay the costs of these damages. And it works
the other way around, too; not all members of the dominant society
have been guilty of discrimination, and making them pay is unfair.
Only the specific individuals who have been found guilty should
pay.
Some take this philosophy a step further, claiming that present-day
individuals are not entitled to compensation for injustices committed
against their ancestors. Compensation for slavery should be awarded
to those who lived under slavery -- but, of course, such persons
are no longer alive, so the damages can no longer be awarded.
If we did award these sort of damages, then virtually anyone could
produce a claim for damages based on historical injustice. Protestants
and Jews could sue Catholics, for example, for the Spanish Inquisition.
A statute of limitations is needed to prevent overloading the
courts with these potentially endless claims.
Reasons for group compensation
Liberals respond with the following reasons for group compensation:
1. Economic efficiency. Group compensation may be the most
efficient way to correct mass injustice. For example, suppose
the government intentionally detonated a nuclear bomb in Dallas,
Texas. Over 90 percent of the surviving population in the outlying
areas develops radiation sickness, and half of them will die premature
deaths. In the ensuing scandal, the government agrees to pay the
surviving victims. However, 10 percent of the survivors (probably
in the outermost regions) neither fall sick, nor have to move,
nor see their businesses fail, despite being exposed to potentially
dangerous radiation fallout. In this case, it would be far simpler
and cheaper just to compensate the entire group, because it would
cost even more money, time and effort to investigate, medically
examine and determine conclusive proof of harm for each surviving
victim.
Furthermore, the 10 percent may not have suffered obvious
harm, but they will most likely suffer later harm (for example,
reduced life spans) that might be difficult to distinguish from
other causes. However, it is doubtful that this 10 percent could
be exposed to a nuclear bomb blast and suffer no damage,
even later down the road. Compensation to the entire group, whatever
their level of obvious damage, is therefore reasonable.
2. The group suffers the stigma. Blacks suffer discrimination,
stigma and prejudice simply because they belong to that group;
the same is true of women. Members of these groups have to overcome
these disadvantages just to get an equal start. Thus, if members suffer
disadvantages simply by belonging to a group, then the group itself
should be compensated.
An example best highlights this principle. Suppose a sexist employer denies
an executive position to a qualified woman just because she is a woman. This
action affects far more women than just the one who was denied a job. Other women
were denied a role model that would have helped break the stereotype,
encouraged them to pursue jobs in that field, and reduced more barriers to
obtaining those jobs. So discrimination
against even one person contributes harm to the group; hence,
the group should be compensated.
Notice that the flip-side of this argument is also true: white
men benefit from positive stereotypes, even if they are not prejudiced
against other groups and have not personally discriminated against
them. Hence all members of the dominant culture should contribute
to the compensation.
3. The group suffers discrimination. For over a hundred
years after slavery, blacks suffered legal segregation and discrimination
under Jim Crow laws. These laws were explicitly aimed at an entire
group. Because everyone in the group was harmed, the entire group
should be compensated.
Again, the converse is also true: whites received explicit positive
discrimination as a group. Hence the entire group should compensate.
Compensating for historical injustice
Many critics of affirmative action concede that America committed
injustices to entire groups in the past, but do not see why we
should award compensation for them today, so long after these
injustices have been eradicated.
First we should note that blatant, official discrimination was
not eradicated all that long ago. The Civil Rights movement and
the women's movement both occurred in the 1960s, a little more
than a generation ago. It is unreasonable to assume that discrimination
can be declared illegal one day and that an entire group will
rebound to equality the next. Many factors work to keep the group
suppressed. These are:
1. The poverty trap. Generally, poverty does not give a
person the tools to escape it. The two primary methods of "bootstrapping"
-- starting a business and attending college -- require a significant
amount of money in the first place. We all know this Catch-22
in its more common form: the young adult who needs credit to secure
his first loan. People mired in poverty can hardly afford to buy
the essentials of living, let alone save a large portion of their
paychecks. Even if they could somehow hoard enough to make these
attempts, they would find themselves competing against well-funded
companies, families, and venture capitalists -- who already have
every advantage.
College loans and grants were devised to help alleviate this problem,
but not even full participation in all the major programs covers
the costs of college. In the 1993-94 school year, total average
loans and grants fell $1,194 short of paying the costs of attending
a public college. (1) Furthermore, college crowds out the time
that most people normally reserve for work. Not surprisingly,
most students tend to be starving students. If a student's family
is rich, that increases the likelihood of surviving to graduation.
Unfortunately, this means that the poor have much weaker bootstraps
to pull themselves up with.
For these reasons, poverty tends to be intergenerational. Slavery
and Jim Crow laws kept blacks trapped at the bottom of society
until very recently. As late as 1959, the black poverty rate was
55 percent. Today, thanks to affirmative action, this has been
reduced to about 31 percent. But to expect this population to
rise out of poverty overnight is to misunderstand the limitations
of poverty.
2. Improvements are intergenerational. Unfortunately, changes
often occur most easily between generations than within them. The current computer
revolution is a perfect example of how intergenerational change works. Although
people of all ages have a good reason to learn computers, it is
largely a phenomenon of the young. They are the ones who have
adapted most quickly to computers, and use them most widely and
proficiently. This points up a rather sad and unfortunate fact:
that, as people age, they tend to become set in their ways. Their
belief systems, habits, talents, education, values, goals and
self-esteem all become more and more fixed over the years. We
see this phenomenon in immigrant families as well: adults may
remain stuck in the ways of the "Old World," but their
children will become rapidly Americanized.
The same holds true for poverty. Suppose you could remove an entire
family from poverty, placing them in a middle class neighborhood
with all the income and opportunities available to most families.
The formerly poor adults might not change much, but their children
would be profoundly affected. And that's because they are still
in their critical developmental years.
This is yet another reason why full equality does not occur overnight.
It will take generations to raise children who are as qualified
and competitive as the rest of society.
3. Prejudices linger. Legal discrimination existed in the
U.S. for hundreds of years only because it reflected the deep
prejudices of the dominant culture. Obviously, the passage of
the Civil Rights Act in 1964 did not end this deep-seated racial
hatred and stereotyping in a day. Minorities struggling to gain
equality and better-paying jobs have had to fight a head wind
of continuing racism and resentment.
For all the above reasons, present-day minorities and women are
still suffering from the discriminations of the past. They therefore
deserve compensation for these injustices. The situation is analogous
to the above mentioned nuclear bomb blast. The immediate survivors
are not the only victims. The children they raise will suffer
the effects of radiation poisoning too, and, as victims, deserve
compensation as well.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. In the 1993-94 school year, it cost a state resident an
average of $8,562 to attend a public university, and $17,846 to
attend a private one. (This includes just the basics: tuition,
fees, room, board, books and transportation.) Here are the average
payments of the major student assistance programs:
Pell Grant $1,418 SEO Grant 730 Perkins Loan 1,261 Work-Study 1,000 Stafford Loan 2,959 ---------------------- Total 7,368
So even full participation in these programs fails to cover the
costs of attending a public college by $1,194.
College costs: The College Board, New York, NY, Annual Survey
of Colleges, 1993. Average payments of student assistance programs:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education,
unpublished data. Figures are estimates for 1993.