Leadership perspectives on the philosophy and rationale of diversity in the United States.
The uneasy civil rights consensus of the 1960s and 1970s has become frayed in civic and legal culture, and now it somehow must be mended. Defining discrimination, condemning it, regulating it, and remedying it are complicated issues. To find a solution is not rocket science; it is harder than rocket science. What is the moral cost of making decisions about people based on immutable characteristics like race and gender? In a 1995 review of affirmative action conducted by the author for President William Clinton, one issue was that discrimination can take place without the victim being aware of it. Victims of discrimination cannot litigate what they cannot see. This is but one justification for voluntary affirmative action. The debate about such measures, however, is fueled by sharp differences regarding basic questions of values, and perceptions of how much discrimination exists. Not many prejudices will be abandoned when people are presented with rational, social science evidence about crime, victimization, and the extent of discrimination. Experiences, including experiences with people who are different, are the most powerful tool for changing people's sense of community and people's values.
Edley
C
C
Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
D001290:Attitude; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003415:Crime; D018864:Cultural Diversity; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007857:Leadership; D008297:Male; D009014:Morals; D010684:Philosophy; D011287:Prejudice; D011640:Public Policy; D044469:Racial Groups; D012737:Sex Factors; D012935:Social Justice; D012938:Social Perception; D012942:Social Sciences; D012945:Social Values; D014481:United States