Deck 51: Karen Hanson

Question 1

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson claims that the burden of proof in the debate over affirmative action should lie with those who oppose affirmative action. How does Hanson argue for this claim? Is her argument convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Some worry that affirmative action might create new injustices or cases of unfair treatment. Explain this worry and Hanson's response to it. Is Hanson's response convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Some object to affirmative action policies on the grounds that individuals outside historically marginalized groups suffer from social disadvantages and forms of injustice as well. How does Hanson respond to this objection? Is Hanson's response convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson claims that we cannot assume academics are free from gender and racial biases. What is Hanson's argument for this claim? Is her argument convincing? Why or why not?

Question 5

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson acknowledges the existence of social injustices other than sexism and racism. What other forms of social injustice can you think of and how do you think these injustices can best be addressed?

Question 6

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson claims that white men have often been hired for academic positions for reasons other than superior qualifications and were not stigmatized as a result. Do you agree with these claims? Why or why not? If you do agree, why do you think there was no resulting stigmatization?

Question 7

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-What value or benefit do you see in having professors who are diverse in terms of race and gender?

Question 8

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, one of the continuing problems in the debate over affirmative action is:

A) how to ensure fair outcomes for all.
B) determining where the burden of proof should lie.
C) determining who is to blame for racism and sexism.
D) defining what counts as racism and sexism.

Question 9

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, the debate over affirmative action in academia centers around the fact that women and minorities:

A) are not hired for academic positions.
B) do not apply for academic positions.
C) are not hired in numbers proportional to their numbers in qualified applicant pools.
D) none of the above.

Question 10

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson argues that it is the responsibility of __________ to show that gender and race-blind hiring procedures are fair and ensure equal opportunity.

A) advocates of affirmative action.
B) opponents of affirmative action.
C) moral philosophers.
D) all of the above.

Question 11

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, racism and sexism is:

A) still pervasive in society.
B) a thing of the past.
C) limited to certain sectors of society.
D) not present in academia.

Question 12

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to its opponents, affirmative action policies:

A) stigmatize women and minorities.
B) treat white men unfairly.
C) fail to account for injustices outside racism and sexism.
D) all of the above.

Question 13

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson argues that we are not entitled to assume gender and race-blind hiring practices ensure equal opportunity in practice because:

A) academics' commitment to fairness and equality is insincere.
B) gender and race-blind hiring practices are too difficult to implement.
C) academics are not immune to gender and racial biases.
D) all of the above.

Question 14

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, it is unreasonable to think academics are free of gender and racial bias because:

A) academics live in a society where racism and sexism are pervasive.
B) academic training and allegiance to a meritocratic academy have not prevented unfair discrimination in the past.
C) the academy's reaction to integration has not been dissimilar to that of the rest of the work world.
D) all of the above.

Question 15

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-In addition to racism and sexism, Hanson identifies __________ as another kind of social disadvantage individuals may experience.

A) economic injustice.
B) political oppression.
C) homophobia.
D) all of the above.

Question 16

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, the existence of social injustices besides sexism and racism:

A) shows affirmative action should not be used in the academy.
B) shows affirmative action policies should be expanded.
C) is irrelevant to whether affirmative action should be used in the academy.
D) none of the above.

Question 17

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, one concern about affirmative action is that it may generate new injustices by:

A) stigmatizing women and minorities.
B) depriving white men of equal opportunity.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 18

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson doubts affirmative action will harmfully stigmatize women and minorities because:

A) only the most qualified candidates will be hired.
B) no one will be shown special treatment.
C) white men have not been stigmatized for receiving the preferential treatment.
D) all of the above.

Question 19

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson argues __________ have often influenced academic hiring decisions more than individual merit.

A) legacy admissions and family connections.
B) school ties.
C) friendships.
D) all of the above.

Question 20

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson raises the question of whether claims about stigmatization may really express nothing more than:

A) a resolve not to see women and minorities in academic positions.
B) a confusion about the effects of stigmatization.
C) a sincere concern for women and minorities.
D) none of the above.

Question 21

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, academics teach lessons to their student through:

A) the content of their courses.
B) the results of their research.
C) the way their institution is structured.
D) all of the above.

Question 22

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-One assumption Hanson identifies about the value of diversity in academia is that women and minorities:

A) provide role models for female and minority students.
B) bring fresh and different perspectives to the search for truth.
C) help reduce sexism and racism on campus.
D) none of the above.

Question 23

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson argues that gender and race-blind hiring practices are sufficient to ensure equal opportunity.

Question 24

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, the burden of proof is on opponents of affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices are fair and free from gender and racial biases.

Question 25

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Although racism and sexism are still pervasive in society, Hanson believes academics are largely free of racial and gender biases.

Question 26

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Academic training and an allegiance to a meritocratic academy are no barrier to gender and racial biases according to Hanson.

Question 27

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-There are social disadvantages and injustices individuals can suffer apart from sexism and racism according to Hanson.

Question 28

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-Hanson argues that affirmative action policies likely exacerbate economic injustice.

Question 29

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, affirmative action unfairly stigmatizes women and minorities.

Question 30

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, affirmative action can generate hiring procedures that treat white men unfairly.

Question 31

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, white men have not always been hired for academic positions solely on the basis of superior qualifications.

Question 32

Karen Hanson: Facing Facts and Responsibilities
According to Karen Hanson in "Facing Facts and Responsibilities," a central problem in the debate over affirmative action is the lack of consensus over where the burden of proof should lie. Given the under-representation of women and minorities in academia, is it up to those who oppose affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices work fairly and ensure equal opportunity for all? Or is it the responsibility of affirmative action advocates to identify specific ways in which gender and racial biases infect hiring procedures, even those claiming to be gender and race-blind? Hanson's answer is that we are not entitled to assume hiring practices are unproblematic until proven otherwise because it is unreasonable to think academics are free from the racism and sexism that remains pervasive throughout society. After all, academics live in that society as well and academic training and allegiance to meritocratic ideals have not shown themselves to be any barrier to unjust discrimination in the past. Thus according to Hanson, the burden should lie with opponents of affirmative action.
Hanson also addresses two concerns commonly expressed by opponents of affirmative action: first, that affirmative action ignores social disadvantages suffered by individuals outside historically marginalized groups; and secondly, that affirmative action may create new forms of injustice by unfairly depriving white men of opportunities and stigmatizing women and minorities. Regarding the first worry, Hanson notes that attending to one form of injustice does not entail ignoring or denying that other forms exist. And the mere fact that other forms of injustice exist does not undercut the case for affirmative unless it could somehow be shown that affirmative action policies exacerbate those other injustices. Regarding the second worry, Hanson admits that affirmative action policies are not immune in principle from creating unjust outcomes for individuals outside historically marginalized groups. But Hanson argues that the onus is on critics of affirmative action to show when and how this is the case. Furthermore, Hanson does not take concerns about stigmatization seriously, since it is unclear to her how much preferential hiring procedures could increase the stigmatization already created by decades of sexism and racism, especially in light of the fact that many white men have enjoyed various forms of preferential treatment and suffered no appreciable stigmatization as a result.
-According to Hanson, academics teach lessons to students not only through the content of their courses and the results of their research, but through the structure of their institution as well.