Faculdade de Ciência Sociais e Humanas

Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Mestrado em Filosofia Política
Teoria da Justiça Social e Gerações Futuras

Affirmative Action: Assessing its Role in Fair Equality of Opportunities and

Intergenerational Justice
Letícia Melo dos Reis
Devon Cass

Lisboa
2023

1
 Sumário

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3
1 Definition and Overview of Affirmative Action .......................................................................... 4
2 Understanding Fair Equality of opportunity ............................................................................... 5
2.1 The argument by Kristina Meshelski ................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 A fast explanation about Pure Procedural Justice ............................................................ 8
3 Affirmative Action and Intergenerational Justice ....................................................................... 9
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 10
REFERÊNCIAS ............................................................................................................................... 12

2
INTRODUCTION

In the pursuit of a just and equitable society, it is undeniable that affirmative action
encompasses a wide range of diverse policies and emerged as a tool aimed at addressing
social justice and at promoting diversity and inclusivity. In this sense, proponents argue
that affirmative action can rectify systemic discrimination and create a more just
competition field, whereas critics contend that it violates the principle of equal
opportunity by favoring certain individuals to the detriment of others. In the middle of
this ongoing discourse, a deeper examination is required to assess the role of affirmative
action within the framework of equality of opportunity, particularly, for the purpose of
this article, from the perspective of intergenerational justice.
Therefore, this paper seeks to explore the complex relationship among affirmative
action, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational justice. Specifically, we will
critically analyze the argument put forth by Kristina Meshelski in her article "Procedural
Justice and Affirmative Action". According to one of her conclusions, these kinds of
policies, when implemented by specific universities and companies rather than the entire
social and legal system wouldn’t undermine the life chances of individuals outside the
scope of a specific affirmative action, and therefor they wouldn’t violate the principle of
equal opportunity. Going further, she affirms that neither this principle nor procedural
justice would have implications for the affirmative action debate.
However, if we are to consider affirmative action as an instrument to repair
historical injustices and thus foster a real equality of opportunities, it must be considered
as a comprehensive effort that stems from the collective responsibility, including not only
civil society but also governments. To substantiate this perspective, we will examine the
concept of fair equality of opportunities, which posits that individuals with similar skills
and talents should have comparable life chances. We argue that in order to achieve this
range of fairness, affirmative action could actively and universally contribute for breaking
down systemic barriers that prevent a more inclusive society, instead of being used by
isolated institutions only with the scope of increasing its diversity. If this is the case,
affirmative action wouldn’t violate the principle of fair equality of opportunity in neither
circumstance; it would rather promote it substantially.
Furthermore, this paper wants to address the significance of intergenerational
justice in shaping our understanding of affirmative action. By considering the long-term
consequences of past injustices and their intergenerational impact nowadays, we aim to

3
establish the need for affirmative action as a means to rectify historical imbalances and
provide present and future generations with equitable opportunities for success.
Drawing upon a multidisciplinary approach, this paper will address a brief
consideration in order to construct a comprehensive argument that supports the necessity
of affirmative action in achieving fair equality of opportunities and advancing
intergenerational justice.

1 Definition and Overview of Affirmative Action

The concept of affirmative action emerged in the United States during the 1960s
as part of the civil rights movement, with the purpose of addressing past and present
discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities. This different treatment can include
quota systems or preferential hiring practices that prioritize underrepresented individuals.
Nevertheless, important to settle down that, according Meshelski words, affirmative
action seeks to promote equal opportunities for individuals to achieve personal life
outcomes, rather than guaranteeing equal outcomes for everyone (2015, p.5).
Although there have been arguments in favor of justifying affirmative action as a
form of reparations for historical injustices, it remains legally separate from reparations
as its primary purpose is to promote future adherence to civil rights laws rather than
impose penalties for non-compliance. Even if we say they differ from one another, it is
not too extraneous to affirm that, as far as affirmative actions are demanded to correct
inequalities and adjust the system to a fairer one, and this need arose from nothing less
than wrongs made in the past, they are nearly indistinguishable, even if they are called or
regulated differently.
In this sense, an undeniable objective of the affirmative action is clear: they are
policies that aim to promote equal opportunities in employment, education, and other
areas of public life for historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups. It is an active
effort to take proactive steps to ensure that members of underrepresented groups have
equal access to opportunities and resources.
Expanding a bit more what affirmative action means within the society, we can
bring up the idea that it works from a slightly more enlarged premise than that of equal
opportunity, for it is a proactive effort to not only provide equal opportunity, but also to
correct previous injustices by remedying structural discrimination. The main responsible

4
for these structural inequalities is the history of slavery. This tragic and unjust event,
which blemishes the history of humanity, may be held accountable for ensuring certain
groups of individuals to be discriminated against by way of ineffective schooling, implicit
prejudices, and lowered expectations. (TIERNEY, 2007, p. 396).
Thereby, the representants of these marginalized groups were and keep being
subjects of racial discrimination, facing a genuine denial of equal opportunities.
Regardless its importance on this matter, we can say that it is only one of the many other
range of policies necessary to end these inequities. Yet according to Tierney:
(…) one might ask whether the policy has been effective. Has it achieved its goals?
What would happen if the policy did not exist? With the publication of books such as
The Shape of the River: Long Term Consequences of Considering Race in College
and University Admissions (Bowen & Bok, 1998) the answer to such questions seems
clearer than before. The authors persuasively make the case that affirmative action has
been successful. Without affirmative action, they argue, Black and Latino youth would
be even more seriously underrepresented in the most selective colleges and
universities. (2007, p. 386).

It’s also undeniable that these very polices cause lots of controversies under
philosophical and economic perspectives, as well as who is legitimately eligible, for what
compensatory benefits, and whether redress is for establishing equal opportunity or equal
shares of the product of society. (PREMDAS, 2015, p. 450). Thus, it's important to note
that affirmative action is a complex and controversial topic, and there are diverse
perspectives on its efficacy and potential drawbacks. The argument presented here is just
one perspective in favor of affirmative action.
For the purposes of this study, we will proceed on the premise that Affirmative
action acknowledges the historical injustices and disadvantages that certain groups have
endured. It recognizes that the effects of past discrimination continue to persist in society,
creating unequal starting points for individuals. By implementing affirmative action,
society acknowledges its responsibility to rectify these past wrongs and strives to create
a more just and inclusive society.

2 Understanding Fair Equality of opportunity

5
 Given this difficulty of measuring opportunities because of this empirical
consideration, let us consider how Ralws distinguishes formal equality of opportunity
from fair equality of opportunity, according to Meshelski.
The formal equality of opportunity mostly refers to the fact that every opportunity
disposable within the society, either in education or in the world of work, must be open
for everyone willing to strive and qualify themselves. In this instance, as long as
individuals demonstrate sufficient qualifications, they have the right to hold this position.
Therefore, his apprehension regarding the concept of formal equality of opportunity lies
in the notion that the distribution is influenced by societal preferences, prioritizing certain
abilities and innate talents. Moreover, it raises the question of whether the individual's
environment, such as parents who possess the knowledge to foster the cultivation of these
abilities, plays a role in facilitating their exploitation. In this sense, holding a position just
for a matter of skills was not enough for the philosopher (MESHELSKI, 2015, p. 5).
Considering the aforementioned, Rawls introduces an additional notion pertaining
to the principle of equal opportunity, namely, the concept of fair equality of opportunity.
Within this framework, individuals possessing comparable abilities should be afforded
similar prospects in life. However, this proposition alone falls short of establishing a
comprehensive framework for justice, as it allows for the continuation of wealth and
income disparities rooted in the innate distribution of talents and abilities.
Hence, Rawls introduces the Difference Principle as an additional component,
which stipulates that the advantages accrued by the more privileged members of society
ought to in some way ameliorate the circumstances of the least advantaged. From this
vantage point, combining the Difference Principle with the fair equality of opportunity
can potentially justify inequalities within a society, as it recognizes that:
The social and economic inequalities must fulfill two conditions: firstly, they must be
connected to roles and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunities; and secondly, they must result in the greatest benefit for the most
disadvantaged members of society (RAWLS, 2000, TRANSLATION OURS, p. 207).

In other words, inequalities must be arranged in a way that they are simultaneously
advantageous to all within reasonable limits and connected to positions of public office
accessible to all. It looks like the formal equality of opportunity in its essence – careers
open to talents – plus – fair background (Arenson apud MESHELSKI, 2015, p.6).

6
 This principle, as evident, pertains to the material interests of individuals. It should
guide the allocation of primary, social, and economic goods, thereby serving as a
promoter of social cooperation and aiding in the preservation of democratic equality. It is
important to emphasize that the steadiest the difference principal presents itself within a
society, stronger it is to be its justification for inequality.

2.1 The argument by Kristina Meshelski

An important aspect highlighted by Meshelski pertains to the prevalent argument

raised against affirmative action, which asserts that treating individuals differently based
on race interferes with traditional hiring or college admissions processes, potentially
guaranteeing success for applicants from specific racial groups before considering
applications from white individuals. The crucial question raised is whether such a practice
would contravene the principle of fair equality of opportunities.
Let us begin by examining the prevailing argument against affirmative action,
which posits that differential treatment based on race is morally unjust. In the context of
affirmative action, differential treatment based on race occurs when it disrupts established
hiring or college application procedures to ensure that successful applicants belong to
specific racial groups. In extreme scenarios, affirmative action may entail the prioritized
hiring or placement of a predetermined number of black applicants before considering
any applications from white applicants, thereby conferring an advantage to black
applicants in this regard over their white counterparts (MESHELSKI, 2015, p. 14).
Which principle does this contravene? Does it constitute a violation of fair
equality of opportunity? If we adhere to the perspective of thinkers like Rawls, who argue
that fair equality of opportunity is valuable because it guarantees comparable life
prospects for individuals with similar skills and talents, we cannot determine whether any
individual hiring procedure violates this principle. In her opinion, rather, the principle can
only be violated or upheld by the entire basic structure. In a large society like ours, the
employment of affirmative action by a single institution would rarely suffice to impede
anyone's life prospects. Thus, to assess whether affirmative action violates fair equality
of opportunity, we must evaluate whether the social system embodies pure procedural
justice. However, in this instance, we need not pass judgment solely on the entire basic
structure. The basic structure of a society does not necessarily violate fair equality of

7
opportunity merely because a single company within that society fails to grant
opportunities equitably.
This is the point of view we aimed to contest, for affirmative action is one of the
mainly instruments on the agenda directly considered in cases of correcting past
injustices. And, for this to happen broadly, it demands a broader and more relevant
implementation, which can mobilize the whole system, not only isolated cases. From this
perspective, fair equality of opportunity cannot be violated by affirmative action, but not
because it doesn’t have a broad enough scope to undermine someone other than those
embraced by this policy, implemented by this and that enterprise or college, but because
of its undeniable capacity of rectifying wrong from the past and, consequently, promoting
a real and substantial equality of opportunity.

2.1.1 A fast explanation about Pure Procedural Justice

For the purpose of better understanding, pure procedural justice is, according to
Rawls, founded on the notion that the right outcome is achieved through a correct and fair
procedure, rather than relying on an independent criterion for determining what
constitutes the right result. The procedure must be followed diligently, and as long as it is
executed properly, the outcome will also be deemed correct or fair, regardless of its
specific nature. In this approach, the desired result is not predetermined or explicitly
defined. Any injustice in the outcome would inherently taint the procedure itself, and
conversely, any flaw in the procedure would inevitably lead to an unjust outcome. For
Rawls, justice as fairness is an inherent objective, and the idea of pure procedural justice
is integral to its foundation from the very beginning. According to Rawls apud Meshelski:
Pure procedural justice is exemplified by gambling, it …obtains when there is no
independent criterion for the right result; instead there is a correct or fair procedure
such that the outcome is likewise correct or fair, whatever it is, provided that the
procedure has been correctly followed (2015, p. 9).

Thus, as long as the established rules and procedures are followed correctly, the
resulting outcome is considered fair and correct, regardless of the specific outcome itself.
This idea of pure procedural justice emphasizes the importance of fair procedures in
determining justice. It suggests that as seeing the procedure is properly followed, the
outcome is deemed fair, regardless of whether it aligns with individual preferences or

8
expectations. The emphasis is placed on the integrity and fairness of the process rather
than on predetermined notions of what the outcome should be.

3 Affirmative Action and Intergenerational Justice

What it is to know about intergenerational justice that can help us demonstrate

how both this concept and affirmative actions can be related? Intergenerational justice
refers to the perspective of fairness and equity between different generations, recognizing
that the actions, policies, and decisions of one generation can have consequences that
impact the well-being and opportunities of future generations. It emphasizes the need to
consider the long-term effects and sustainability of societal, economic, and environmental
practices, ensuring that resources and opportunities are fairly distributed across
generations. In Frow’s understanding:
(…) the actions taken by one generation to transfer a world in an enhanced state to
those who come after. This is a transfer effected at the level of social structures, and
we can think of it as tradition, the passing on of a culture, a language, a stock of
knowledge, a way of life. It can take the form of the wealth amassed over a span of
time and passed on as a legacy to the next generation (2023, p. 25)

In this regard, the theory recognizes that present actions can have far-reaching
implications for future generations. It encompasses a range of issues, such as
environmental sustainability, economic policies, social welfare, and resource allocation.
It raises questions about the responsibility of current generations to preserve and protect
resources for the benefit of future generations, as well as the need to address the legacies
of past injustices that may still impact the opportunities and well-being of present and
future generations. Furthermore:
The definition encourages us to think of ourselves as belonging to an intergenerational
continuum that stretches indefinitely into the future. It reminds us that a society is not
merely an association of contemporaries. It extends forward and backward in time. It
encompasses people of the past who provided us with an inheritance, and people of
the future who will inherit what we have achieved — good and bad. We cooperate
with each other to provide social goods and to ensure that each of us can pursue his
or her own good. The definition tells us that we should also cooperate through the
generations to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that people whenever they live
will be able to flourish (THOMPSON, 2009, p. 6).

9
 In this sense, the conceptualization of intergenerational justice encourages a
broader perspective and ethical consideration of the long-term implications of our actions,
aiming to ensure that the interests and needs of future generations are considered in
decision-making processes. It emphasizes the importance of sustainable development,
fairness, and equity across generations to create a just and balanced society over time.
Conversely, affirmative action goes beyond providing immediate redress; it serves as an
active mechanism for addressing historical injustices and simultaneously acts as an
investment in the future. By providing opportunities to marginalized groups, they help to
break the cycle of generational disadvantage. It empowers individuals to acquire
education, skills, and positions of influence, which can lead to improved socioeconomic
outcomes for themselves and future generations. This positive impact on intergenerational
mobility contributes to long-term social advancements and a more equitable society.
Thus, by creating pathways for advancement and equalizing opportunities,
affirmative action helps foster intergenerational mobility. This means that the positive
impact of affirmative action extends beyond the immediate beneficiaries to subsequent
generations, as they have greater access to resources, education, and opportunities. This,
in turn, contributes to long-term social progress and a more equitable society.
From this perspective, we can state that affirmative action is not only about
addressing present inequities but also about investing in the future by breaking the cycle
of generational disadvantage and promoting intergenerational mobility, leading to a more
just and equitable society.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this article highlights the importance of affirmative action in the

pursuit of a just and equitable society. It recognizes that affirmative action encompasses
diverse policies aimed at addressing social justice and promoting diversity and inclusivity.
While critics argue that affirmative action violates the principle of equal opportunity, this
paper challenges that viewpoint.
The concept of fair equality of opportunities is introduced, emphasizing that
individuals with similar skills and talents should have comparable life chances. It is
argued that affirmative action, when applied universally and actively to break down
systemic barriers, promotes fair equality of opportunity rather than violating it. Under this

10
perspective, thus, affirmative action is seen as a means to rectify historical injustices and
create a more inclusive society.
The argument put forth by Kristina Meshelski, which suggests that affirmative
action implemented by specific institutions does not undermine the life chances of
individuals outside its scope, and thus doesn’t violate the principle of e was also criticized,
with the claim that for affirmative action to truly foster equality of opportunity, it must be
viewed as a comprehensive effort supported by collective responsibility, including civil
society and governments, rather than being limited to isolated institutions seeking to
increase diversity.
Moreover, the paper emphasizes the significance of intergenerational justice in
understanding the importance of affirmative action. By considering the intergenerational
impact of past injustices, affirmative action is seen as a necessary tool to provide present
and future generations with equitable opportunities for success.
Through a multidisciplinary approach, this article presents a comprehensive
argument in support of affirmative action as a means to achieve fair equality of
opportunities and advance intergenerational justice. It underscores the need for a broader
understanding and collective action to ensure a more just and equitable society, not only
for the present generation, but also for the upcoming ones.

11
REFERÊNCIAS

FROW, John. On Intergenerational Justice. Australian Humanities Review, 2023, 71: 24-
36.

MESHELSKI, Kristina. Procedural justice and affirmative action. Ethical theory and
moral practice, 2016, 19: 425-443.

PREMDAS, Ralph. Social justice and affirmative action. Ethnic and racial studies, 2016,
39.3: 449-462.

RAWLS, J. Justiça e Democracia. Trad. Irene A. Peternot. São Paulo: Martins Fontes,
2000.

THOMPSON, Janna, et al. Intergenerational justice. Rights and Responsibilities in an

Intergenerational Polity, 2009.

TIERNEY, William G. Merit and affirmative action in education: Promulgating a

democratic public culture. Urban Education, 2007, 42.5: 385-402.

12