Exam 51: Karen Hanson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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