Ethics+Essay final.docx

8/14/2019 Ethics+Essay final.docx

1/9

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN SOUTH AFRICA: A MORAL DISCRIMINATION ?

In South Africa, and in other countries, moral discrimination has posed difficult problems in terms of

actual agreement on what it is and the actual practice of it. It has not only posed these challenges to

legal entities such as the courts but also to individuals who puzzle on what it actually is. Past

discrimination of blacks in South Africa has led to affirmative action being taken to make amends for

the past. Affirmative action, has however, led to questions on the ability to discriminate between job

applicants based on gender and/ or age as well as the actual practice in South Africa. In a country

such as South Africa, it may seem inappropriate and insensitive to argue against the practice of

affirmative action especially with the history of blatant discrimination against black South Africans

during the apartheid regime (Benatar, 2008). However, both the arguments, in support and against

the idea, have an intuitive appeal. This paper presents a limited defence of affirmative action and

why it is a moral solution as well as arguing against the manner in which it is carried out in South

Africa. This paper also responds to some of the objections against affirmative action, which include

the fact that the people who benefit are those who need affirmative action the least and claims that

affirmative action, in itself, is unjust and unfair. To reiterate, this paper supports the view that;

affirmative action is moral while the manner in which it has been carried out in South Africa is not.

Affirmative action in South Africa can be understood as a remedial strategy that seeks to address the

legal historical exclusion of a group of people (Hawker, 2000). It refers to all the intentional efforts to

increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in a variety of institutions and occupations

(Adam, 1997).Generally, the notion of affirmative action might refer to the redistribution of

resources and opportunities, some social responsibility programmes such that, preferential

treatment is given to previously disadvantaged communities (Maphai, 1989). Affirmative action may

mean different things to different people, for example, the recruitment of black people into

previously discriminatory institutions or the fair and equal treatment of everyone (Maphai, 1989).


2/9

For the purposes of this paper, the notion of affirmative action will be narrowed down into its

application of preferential treatment of previously disadvantaged parties in the work place and in

higher education. Unless stated otherwise, previously disadvantaged parties in the context of this

paper refers to black South Africans, which includes blacks, Indians and coloureds.

Since the practice of affirmative action has taken place, there has been mixed feelings around the

implications for job security, quality and level of production as well as the demands for the

replacement of workers. While affirmative action has been seen as hope for many disadvantaged

blacks, it has also triggered an equally intense rejection by some white people who perceive

themselves to be victims of this reverse discrimination (Adam, 1997). Disagreement prevails about

the extent of harm due to the past discrimination and the collective responsibility of society to

rectify that wrong. To one extreme lies the people that believe that the effects of past discrimination

are pervasive can manifest in economic and social deprivation and institutionalised racism. To the

other extreme are those that believe that past discrimination can no longer be blamed for the

disadvantages suffered by black people in the economy and that affirmative action is unjust in itself

(Forde-Mazrui, 2004).

Those who argue against affirmative action rest their arguments on two moral principles. The first

principle is that racial discrimination, whether positive or negative, is unjust (Wassestrom, 1978).

The second principle is that of corrective justice, which means that one who harms another by

wrongful actions is the one morally obligated to make amends to the victim (Forde-Mazrui, 2004).

These principles, however, have an implication for societys responsibility for past societal

discrimination against blacks and its effects. As a result of societys participation in wrongful

discrimination in the past, it is arguable morally obligated, due to corrective justice, to make amends

to the victims. Thus, if the current socioeconomic disadvantage experienced by blacks reflects the

injustice of the past, society at large is obligated to remedy those disadvantages (Forde-Mazrui,


3/9

2004). A moral conflict thus rises between societys obligation to make amends for past

discrimination and its obligation to refrain form reverse racial discrimination. Yes, affirmative action

may cause injustice to some parties disadvantaged by these policies, but to refrain from making

amends would leave the moral wrong uncorrected, which is a moral wrong in itself according to

corrective justice theory.

There are various arguments that people who are against affirmative action come up with and this

paper will attempt to deal with some of them. One of the arguments against affirmative action is

that affirmative action is, in itself, unjust because it is in a way, reverse discrimination as one group

is given preference to another. It is important to note though, that there is a huge difference in

programmes that give blacks a moderate boost in economic and social activities and blacks not being

allowed to apply for jobs because of their skin colour (Delgado, 1998).The purpose of affirmative

action is remedial whereas apartheid regimes completely excluded other races from being able to

improve the economic wellbeing. Relatively little displacement occurs as a result of affirmative

action, compared to the total exclusion that was enforced by the apartheid regime (Forde-Mazrui,

2004) Another argument against affirmative action is that, it benefits those that need it the least. For

example, the sons and daughters of black lawyers who got into UCT under the race-based

admissions policy. However, one must consider how unevenly we apply this argument. There is an

unstated assumption that resources are only put into where they are needed the most namely,

extremely poor black South Africans. However, we do not apply the same standard to, say, house

committees when they decide to allocate more money to entertainment instead of outreach

programmes, even though the outreach programmes need both more money and time.

The final objection that the paper will look at is that affirmative action is wrong because the

programmes take into account race and gender, instead of an individuals qualifications. This

argument assumes that a preference is given to less qualified people due to their race and gender,


4/9

completely ignoring people who are more qualified for the position (Wasserstrom, 1978). However

the objection based on qualification is inconsistent. The argument assumes that qualification

translates to efficiency. However, qualifications, especially educational qualifications, are often not

closely related to any plausible conception of social effectiveness (Wasserstrom, 1978).

Wasserstrom, in his paper, makes an example of law students, stating that admitting the most

qualified law students, means that those who have the highest chance of scoring high grades, are

admitted. It says nothing about efficiency apart from the fact that the students are the easiest to

teach.

The reason why affirmative is so important, is that the effects of the past injustice to black people

has resulted in many families being stuck in a cycle of never-ending poverty. Black people are

generally worse off compared to white people when it comes to socioeconomic activities.

Compensation and redress is thus required for the present injustice that has occurred due to the

past injustice to blacks in South Africa. Of course, not all blacks are currently disadvantaged, but the

majority of people that fall under this race bracket are. Furthermore black poverty is different to

that of white poverty. The cycle of poverty in black families tends to last forever while that of white

people tends to only last for a generation or two (Delgado, 1998). This, therefore, means that

socioeconomic based policies are not likely to do much about racial social integration. It is therefore

the responsibility of society to compensate this injustice, because if we limit ourselves to only civil

laws against discrimination but do nothing about the system of networks, favours, and family

cronyism, the social structure will remain the same, with white dynasties at the top and blacks at the

bottom. Moderate discrimination methods such as strong-preference are therefore moral as the

discrimination is used to remedy and not to harm (Delgado, 1998).

As a result of past discrimination in South Africa, there is a very small pool of skilled labour due to

the poor education systems such as the Bantu Education System as well as other tribalised education


5/9

policies (Alexander, 2007). Under these conditions, it is clear that any empowerment strategy would

have to give priority to education and training. However, very little progress has been made in South

Africa in this regard. It is important to note, however, that the legislation, such as the Public Services

Act and the Skills Development Act that has been implemented, is a policy that mainly benefits the

rising middle class and therefore deepens the class inequality among blacks therefore deepening

inequality in our society (Alexander, 2007).

The Black Economic Empowerment policy has also contributed to the widening of the gap between

the black middle class and the poor blacks as the policy has mostly benefited a handful of the black

elite. Amid the increase of the black elite, the large majority of black people have been growing

poorer since the end of apartheid. As a result of the protests, the government was spurred to

legislate BEE into a more broad-based process. In practice though, the acquisition of equity by blacks

is still viewed as the crux of empowerment (Tangri, R, and Southall, R., 2008).

From the arguments above, we can see that affirmative action as practised in South Africa has

limited morality. The idea behind it is moral as the policies try to remedy the past injustice. However,

the corrupt government officials and the fact that connections and positions of power lead to

empowerment defeat the whole purpose of affirmative action. The BEE policy now leads to the vast

majority questioning the credibility of the scheme, and the abilities and qualifications of the black

people that do actually succeed.

As a result of the past injustice due to discrimination, South Africas current society is obliged to

redress the effects of that discrimination. Such an obligation should not, however, negate the

personal responsibility of those that experience the effects of the past injustice nor imply personal

blame on the white people that must bear the cost of past discrimination. It is however, not enough

to provide superficial opportunities that advance only the elite of the blacks. Furthermore,


6/9

affirmative action seeks to remedy the past injustices and thus is, in itself, a moral act. However, the

way that affirmative action is practised in South Africa is a cause for concern, as corruption and the

advancement of a few individuals is prominent. Those issues have led to this paper concluding that

the practice of affirmative action in South Africa is not moral.


7/9

References

Adam, K., 1997, The Politics of Redress: South African Style A affirmative Action, The Journal of

Modern African Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 231-249

Alexander, N., 2007, Affirmative action and the perpetuation of racial identities in post -apartheid

South Africa, Transfor mation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, Number 63,

2007, pp. 92-108 (Article)

Benatar, D., 2008, Justice, Diversity & Racial Preference, South African Law Journal (Juta & Co),

Volume 125, Issue 2, pp 274-306

Delgado, R., 1998 1998 Hugo L. Black Lecture: Ten Arguments against Affirmative Action--How

Valid. Ala. L. Rev. 50: 135.

Forde- Mazrui, K., 2004, Taking conservatives seriously: a moral justification for affirmative action

and reparations, California Law Review, Vol. 92, pp 204 -279

Hawker, G., 2000, P olitical leadership in the ANC: The South African provinces

1994- 1999, The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 631-658

Maphai, V., 2008, Affirmative action in South Africa a

genuine option?, Social Dynamics: A journal of African studies , 15:2, 1-24, DOI:

10.1080/02533958908458471


8/9

Tangri, R, and Southall, R., 2008, The politics of black economic empowerment in South Africa.

Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol 34. No 3, pp 699-716.

Wasserstrom, R., 1978, A Defence of Programs of Preferential Treatment. In DesJardins, J. &

McCall, J.,

2005, Ethics and Multinational Corporations in Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics,

(Wadsworth),

pp. 454-457


9/9

Documents

Ethics+Essay final.docx