Exam 53: Celia Wolf-Devine

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -According to Wolf-Devine, women's own choices and personal preferences have contributed to their under-representation in academia.

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -According to Wolf-Devine, a person's gender and race offer a reliable guide to what he or she believes.

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -According to Wolf-Devine, affirmative action programs help to decrease economic polarization.

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Making sure faculties are gender and racially diverse is one way of ensuring intellectually diversity according to Wolf-Devine.

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine claims that affirmative action has the negative effect of:

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -According to Wolf-Devine, to suppose that a person will have some particular set of beliefs because of his or her race or ethnicity is:

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine claims that members of ethnic and racial minorities may find college teaching unattractive as a profession because of:

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine thinks that affirmative action has several negative side effects. Is Wolf-Devine right about this? If so, do these side effects make a compelling case against affirmative action in your view? Why or why not?

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine argues that intellectual diversity is not always a good thing for universities.

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -According to Wolf-Devine, the proportional representation of women and minorities is not a requirement of justice.

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -What are some of the reasons Wolf-Devine gives for why women and minorities are not proportionally represented in academia other than discrimination? Are these reasons plausible in your view? Why or why not?

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine argues that women and minorities would be represented in academia proportionately in the absence of discrimination.

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine claims that proportional representation is not a requirement a of justice. What is Wolf-Devine's argument for this claim? Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine examines a presupposition of the current affirmative action debate according to which:

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -What are some possible ways a proponent of affirmative action might respond to Wolf-Devine's criticisms? Would any of these responses be convincing in your view? Why or why not?

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine claims that there is no good reason to suppose proportional representation will produce intellectual diversity of the right sort. What is Wolf-Devine's argument for this claim? Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -One central purpose of universities that Wolf-Devine identifies is:

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine argues that in debates over affirmative action, supporters of affirmative action often ignore:

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine argues that in order to make college teaching a realistic consideration for a greater range of people:

Celia Wolf-Devine: Proportional Representation In "Proportional Representation," Celia Wolf-Devine examines what she takes to be a basic presupposition of the debate over affirmative action: that the low percentage of women and minorities employed as college professors relative to their proportion in society as a whole is a problem in need of remedy. She presents two arguments for this claim and finds each of them wanting. According to the first argument, the under-representation of women and minorities in academia must, as a requirement of justice, be remedied because it is the result of discrimination. Wolf-Devine, however, argues that this under-representation can be reasonably explained by factors other than discrimination. For example, Wolf-Devine argues that there is no reason to suppose all racial and ethnic groups share an equally strong desire to pursue college teaching. On Wolf-Devine's view, different ethnic and racial groups have different ideas about what careers are most prestigious and worth pursuing. In addition, large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities have been scarred by the effects of poverty, which have created serious obstacles to entering college, let alone entering college teaching. And with respect to women, Wolf-Devine claims that their statistical under-representation may partly reflect personal preferences and choices-such as decisions to spend more time on childcare-rather than simply the operation of discriminatory hiring. According to the second argument Wolf-Devine considers, college faculties should reduce the under-representation of women and minorities because of the benefit brought by the resulting increase in diversity. Given that intelligent dialogue is a vital part of the purpose of universities, Wolf-Devine accepts that intellectual diversity is beneficial. However, Wolf-Devine argues that gender and racial diversity does not guarantee intellectual diversity. In fact, gender and racial diversity is compatible with total ideological conformity in Wolf-Devine's view. Moreover, Wolf-Devine argues that we should not suppose that an individuals' gender or race indicates what beliefs or intellectual commitments they hold. Indeed, to do so is to engage in a demeaning form of stereotyping according to Wolf-Devine. -Wolf-Devine argues that women are not proportionately represented in academia partly because of: