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

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of 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?