Justice with Michael Sandel — Season 1, Episode 9: Arguing Affirmative Action/What's The Purpose?

Episode synopsis

Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the schools affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a students efforts and achievements should carry more weight than factors that are out of his or her control and therefore arbitrary? When a universitys stated mission is to increase diversity, is it a violation of rights to deny a white person admission?

About Justice with Michael Sandel

Justice is the first Harvard course to be made freely available online and on public television. In this 12-part series, college professor Michael Sandel challenges us with hard moral dilemmas and invites us to ponder the right thing to do-in politics and in our everyday lives.

More episodes from Season 1

• E1The Moral Side of Murder/The Case for Cannibalism
• E2Putting a Price Tag on Life/How to Measure Pleasure
• E3Free to Choose/Who Owns Me?
• E4The Land is My Land/Consenting Adults
• E5Hired Guns?/For Sale: Motherhood
• E6Mind Your Motive/The Supreme Principle of Morality
• E7A Lesson In Lying/A Deal Is A Deal
• E8What's A Fair Start?/What Do We Deserve?
• E10The Good Citizen/ Freedom Vs. Fit
• E11The Claims Of Community/Where Our Loyaty Lies
• E12Debating Same-Sex Marriage/The Good Life