Deck 53: Celia Wolf-Devine

Question 1

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine claims that proportional representation is not a requirement a of justice. What is Wolf-Devine's argument for this claim? Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine claims that there is no good reason to suppose proportional representation will produce intellectual diversity of the right sort. What is Wolf-Devine's argument for this claim? Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine thinks that affirmative action has several negative side effects. Is Wolf-Devine right about this? If so, do these side effects make a compelling case against affirmative action in your view? Why or why not?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-What are some possible ways a proponent of affirmative action might respond to Wolf-Devine's criticisms? Would any of these responses be convincing in your view? Why or why not?

Question 5

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-What are some of the reasons Wolf-Devine gives for why women and minorities are not proportionally represented in academia other than discrimination? Are these reasons plausible in your view? Why or why not?

Question 6

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine seems to think poverty-related issues have played just as much of a role in the under-representation of minorities in academia as discrimination has. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

Question 7

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Do you agree that intellectual diversity is important in academia? If so, how do you think it is best achieved? Explain your answer.

Question 8

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine examines a presupposition of the current affirmative action debate according to which:

A) affirmative action policies are supposed to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
B) race and gender-blind hiring practices are ineffective.
C) affirmative action hires are less qualified than non-affirmative action hires.
D) the low percentage of women and minorities in academia relative to their proportion in society is problematic.

Question 9

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, the number of women and minorities in academia is a problem if:

A) it is not proportional to the number of women and minorities in society.
B) it is not proportional to the number of women and minorities applying for academic jobs.
C) it is lower than the number of white men in academia.
D) it is not proportional to the number of women and minorities in other professions.

Question 10

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to the first argument Wolf-Devine examines, women and racial minorities are not proportionately represented in academia because of:

A) the effects of poverty.
B) a lack of qualified applicants.
C) unjust discrimination.
D) all of the above.

Question 11

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that racial and ethnic minorities are not proportionately represented in academia because of:

A) cultural differences among racial and ethnic groups.
B) low academic salaries.
C) the effects of poverty.
D) all of the above.

Question 12

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine claims that members of ethnic and racial minorities may find college teaching unattractive as a profession because of:

A) low pay and a lack of cultural prestige.
B) institutional racism.
C) a lack of faculty diversity.
D) all of the above.

Question 13

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that women are not proportionately represented in academia partly because of:

A) discrimination.
B) personal choices.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 14

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, affirmative action does nothing to improve:

A) the diversity of college faculties.
B) economic polarization.
C) gender relations.
D) all of the above.

Question 15

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that in debates over affirmative action, supporters of affirmative action often ignore:

A) the widening gap between rich and poor.
B) alternatives to affirmative action like race and gender-blind hiring procedures.
C) religious discrimination.
D) the progress that has already been made toward racial and gender equality.

Question 16

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that in order to make college teaching a realistic consideration for a greater range of people:

A) affirmative action policies need to be rolled back.
B) race and gender-blind hiring procedures should be implemented.
C) direct assistance should be given to the poor.
D) all of the above.

Question 17

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine claims that affirmative action has the negative effect of:

A) generating racial resentment.
B) contributing to economic polarization.
C) making people more, rather than less, race conscious.
D) all of the above.

Question 18

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, affirmative action is often defended not only as a way of combating unjust discrimination in academic hiring, but also as a way of:

A) improving race relations.
B) promoting diversity.
C) closing the gap between rich and poor.
D) all of the above.

Question 19

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-One central purpose of universities that Wolf-Devine identifies is:

A) encouraging intelligent dialogue.
B) fostering awareness of other cultures.
C) increasing economic mobility.
D) providing intellectual affirmation.

Question 20

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Although intellectual diversity is generally a good thing for universities, Wolf-Devine also believes that:

A) too much intellectual diversity can have negative consequences.
B) the virtue of intellectual diversity must be weighed against the value of community.
C) intellectual diversity is not ensured by gender and racial diversity.
D) all of the above.

Question 21

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that there is no good reason to suppose proportional representation will produce intellectual diversity of the right sort because:

A) women and minorities hold similar views to white men.
B) the presence of women and minorities in academic faculties will lead to a breakdown of communication.
C) gender and race are not reliable guides to what a person believes.
D) all of the above.

Question 22

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, to suppose that a person will have some particular set of beliefs because of his or her race or ethnicity is:

A) reasonable given that members of racial and ethnic groups face pressure to conform ideologically.
B) a form of stereotyping that is demeaning to the person in question.
C) unreasonable given that racial and ethnic groups do not form self-contained communities.
D) none of the above.

Question 23

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine denies that women and minorities have been victims of discrimination.

Question 24

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that women and minorities would be represented in academia proportionately in the absence of discrimination.

Question 25

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, the proportional representation of women and minorities is not a requirement of justice.

Question 26

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, one reason why ethnic and racial minorities are nor proportionally represented in academia is because they have been scarred by the effects of poverty.

Question 27

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, affirmative action programs help to decrease economic polarization.

Question 28

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, women's own choices and personal preferences have contributed to their under-representation in academia.

Question 29

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that intellectual diversity is not always a good thing for universities.

Question 30

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Wolf-Devine argues that intellectual diversity can be good for stimulating intelligent dialogue.

Question 31

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-Making sure faculties are gender and racially diverse is one way of ensuring intellectually diversity according to Wolf-Devine.

Question 32

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation
In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring.
According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine.
-According to Wolf-Devine, a person's gender and race offer a reliable guide to what he or she believes.