On Affirmative Action and Liberalism
Despite what American Republicans may tell you liberalism is not simply the sometimes empty rhetoric and policy of American Democrats. Did you know liberalism is the term that refers to the theory and organization behind nearly all governments in most of the Western Hemisphere? The definition of the term liberalism is actually a robust political and philosophical ideology that emphasizes individual rights, freedoms, and the protection of personal liberties. Liberalism places a strong emphasis on the value of individual independence, equality, and the rule of law.
Limited government intervention, free markets, constitutionalism, and the protection of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, religion, and the freedom of association are some of the core values of liberalism. Liberalism embodies a wide range of perspectives and interpretations, from classical liberalism that emphasizes minimal government intervention to modern liberalism that advocates for a more active role of the state in ensuring social justice and equality. Overall, liberalism seeks to strike a balance between individual freedom and social equality, aiming to create a society that respects and protects the rights and freedoms of all its members.
Liberalism, with its prioritization of individual rights and freedoms, has played a pivotal role in shaping modern democratic societies. However, it is important to critically analyze the flaws that arise from the application of liberal principles, particularly regarding the rhetoric of individual rights. Let’s explore the limitations and potential pitfalls of liberalism's focus on individual rights, including its potential for social inequality, the neglect of communal responsibilities, and the challenge of balancing competing rights. This will be key to understanding how the absolute prioritization of individual rights over minority groups rights in liberal societies easily leads to the end of Affirmative Action in college admissions.
Individual rights are a cornerstone of liberal thought; however, their strict prioritization can sometimes contribute to inequality between groups. Liberalism's protection of individual liberties can often benefit those already in positions of privilege, as those who possess greater resources and influence posses a greater ability to assert and defend their rights through the legal system and through voting. Majorities can easily assert their individual rights, even at the expense of minorities who may not posses the numbers to influence the law by voting or the judicial system. This can perpetuate systemic inequalities and hinder efforts to address disparities. The focus on individual rights alone may fail to adequately address issues of social and economic justice, leading to a society that prioritizes the interests of the few over the needs of the many.
Liberalism's prioritization of individual rights can sometimes overshadow the importance of responsibilities to minority communities who cannot assert their rights as easily through the liberal political system. The rhetoric of individual rights also often promotes a culture of self-interest, potentially undermining the sense of shared responsibility and collective action necessary for the well-being of society as a whole. The excessive focus on individuals may downplay the significance of community, solidarity, and the common good. Neglecting communal responsibilities can lead to social fragmentation and undermine the overall fabric of society. Individuals can also get together in identity groups, form a majority, and take away the human rights of minority groups through the political and legal system of liberalism which prioritizes individuals over the group.
This issue of individual rights being used to take away minority rights is seen in the striking down of Affirmative Action in college admissions.
Today, the Supreme Court has struck down the use of Affirmative Action in college admissions. Affirmative action refers to policies and practices aimed at promoting equal opportunities for individuals belonging to historically disadvantaged or underrepresented groups. It is a proactive approach designed to address systemic discrimination and promote diversity and inclusion in areas such as education, employment, and public contracting.
Affirmative action typically involves measures such as recognizing the merit of overcoming disadvantage, acknowledging the characteristics one must posses to overcome adversity, and valuing diversity through efforts like targeted outreach to minority communities. These initiatives aim to provide individuals from marginalized groups with greater access to educational and employment opportunities that they may have historically been excluded from due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background.
Supporters of affirmative action insist that it is a necessary tool to overcome systemic barriers and promote equal opportunities for historically marginalized individuals and groups, fostering a more equitable and diverse society.
The goal of affirmative action is to redress past and ongoing injustices by leveling the playing field, acknowledging the merits of marginalized community members in overcoming adversities, and promoting diversity in various sectors of society. Affirmative action seeks to create a more inclusive society by considering factors beyond those things which have traditionally been the only types of achievements we recognized, recognizing that historical disadvantages and biases can hinder the acheviement of certain types of traditional merits for underrepresented groups. Some of these merits, like SAT and ACT tests, have even proven to be systematically biased.
By striking down the use of affirmative action in college admissions, the rights of individual students are prioritized over the benefits of diversity to the entire campus community and to this society. This is an example of how the rhetoric of individual rights can pose challenges when it comes to balancing competing rights and resolving conflicts. Different rights can often come into conflict, necessitating a nuanced approach that considers the broader societal impact and the impact upon minority groups. The absolutist application of individual rights rhetoric, seen in this ruling against affirmative action, may lead to a zero-sum game where the rights of one individual or group are prioritized at the expense of others. Resolving such conflicts requires a thoughtful examination of the broader social context, the impact on marginalized groups, and the recognition that rights must be balanced with other societal values.
Another flaw of liberal rhetoric surrounding individual rights is its potential to reinforce existing biases and exclusionary tendencies. The framing of rights within a liberal framework may exclude certain groups or fail to account for intersectional forms of discrimination and marginalization since people’s belonging to multiple group identities is not recognized as essential to their individual rights. The universal application of individual rights as more important than the collective rights of minorities may not adequately address the historical and structural factors that perpetuate inequality and marginalization in a society which is a flaw highlighted by the ruling against Affirmative Action handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States today. Therefore, we see how the rhetoric of individual rights can unintentionally perpetuate systemic biases and hinder efforts to achieve true equality and justice for all.
While liberalism's focus on individual rights has undoubtedly contributed to the advancement of personal freedoms and democratic values, it is important to recognize the limitations and flaws inherent in the rhetoric of individual rights. The strict prioritization of individual rights can perpetuate social inequality, neglect our responsibilities to community, pose difficulties in balancing competing rights, and reinforce biases and exclusionary rules. Addressing these flaws requires an ideological perspective that integrates considerations of social justice, communal responsibilities, and a more comprehensive understanding of equality. Striving for a more inclusive and equitable society necessitates a critical look at liberal principles and the development of approaches that address the limitations and challenges posed by the rhetoric of individual rights.
Group rights are just as important as individual rights. Liberalism and group rights are integral components of modern political discussions, both seeking to promote social justice and equality. Liberalism emphasizes individual freedom and limited government intervention, while group rights focuses on the recognition and protection of the issues facing specific identities or minority communities.
As we discussed, Liberalism is rooted in the principles of individual freedom, personal independence, and limited state intervention—even to protect rights. It emphasizes the protection of individual rights, such as freedom of speech, expression, and property rights, to foster economic and social equality. Liberalism aims to create a society where individuals have the freedom to pursue their own goals and interests within the bounds of the rule of law. Group rights refer to the rights and protections granted to specific identities or communities based on shared characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The concept of group rights recognizes the historical marginalization and systemic discrimination faced by certain communities. It advocates for the protection and recognition of these identities' rights and their inclusion in society. Group rights play a vital role in fostering an inclusive society by recognizing and affirming the unique experiences and needs of marginalized communities. Group rights advocate for the protection of identity-based rights, representation, and cultural preservation for minority communities. Group rights contribute to the empowerment and visibility of marginalized groups, promoting diversity and social cohesion.
Liberalism faces the unique challenge of balancing individual freedom with the recognition and protection of group rights. While liberalism prioritizes individual rights, it should also recognize the importance of addressing systemic inequalities and discrimination. Liberalism seeks to ensure that individual freedoms are not used to infringe upon the rights and well-being of others, while still promoting inclusivity and equality. Group rights navigate the delicate balance between protecting the rights of specific communities and upholding individual liberties. Group rights seek to address historical injustices and promote equal treatment for marginalized groups, while respecting the principles of individual rights and non-discrimination. Balancing group rights with individual rights involves recognizing the many identities people hold and the value of the diverse perspectives within marginalized communities to our society in the law.
In conclusion, liberalism’s concept of individual rights and the concept of group rights offer distinct yet interconnected approaches to social justice and equality. Liberalism emphasizes individual freedom and limited state intervention, aiming to create a just society where individuals can exercise their rights and pursue their goals. Group rights focus on recognizing and protecting the rights of marginalized communities, aiming to address historical injustices and promote equality. So that individuals do not use the language of individual rights to take away the rights of entire groups, the recognition and equal prioritization of group rights is essential to maintaining a democracy where even minority communities have rights. The right to an education, recognized by Brown versus The Board of Education, is an essential human right that the discourse of individual rights alone cannot protect for minorities. This is a foundational problem in the law that must be addressed or many more minority rights may be undermined.