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. -According to Hanson, one concern about affirmative action is that it may generate new injustices by:

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. -Although racism and sexism are still pervasive in society, Hanson believes academics are largely free of racial and gender biases.

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 white men have often been hired for academic positions for reasons other than superior qualifications and were not stigmatized as a result. Do you agree with these claims? Why or why not? If you do agree, why do you think there was no resulting stigmatization?

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 gender and race-blind hiring practices are sufficient to 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, the burden of proof is on opponents of affirmative action to demonstrate that current hiring practices are fair and free from gender and racial biases.

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 debate over affirmative action in academia centers around the fact 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 Hanson, affirmative action unfairly stigmatizes 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. -Hanson acknowledges the existence of social injustices other than sexism and racism. What other forms of social injustice can you think of and how do you think these injustices can best be addressed?

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, affirmative action can generate hiring procedures that treat white men unfairly.

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 we cannot assume academics are free from gender and racial biases. What is Hanson's argument 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. -In addition to racism and sexism, Hanson identifies __________ as another kind of social disadvantage individuals may experience.

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 worry that affirmative action might create new injustices or cases of unfair treatment. Explain this worry and Hanson's response to it. Is Hanson's response convincing? Why or why not?