icial for a largerportion of society, then the policy should be declared fair. Beauchamp argues that this isthe case with affirmative action, and that the benefits of the other principles outweigh theidea of reverse discrimination. Most programs or policies require an analysis based upona balancing test where you balance the interests of one group versus those of another. Beauchamp is correct in his statement that the United States has policies that dodiscriminate, and that the discrimination is not necessarily illegal or immoral or wrong. The key is weighing the interests of the protected group against the greater good (theinterests of society). Affirmative action has created some positive opportunities forminorities who otherwise would have been denied the opportunity. As a result, theindividual and society has benefited. However, that positive does not outweigh thedenial of an opportunity to someone else who was equally or maybe, more qualified forthe same position. All of us have to deal with discrimination daily for many differentreasons. It could be our religion, the way we dress, the way we look, or our accent. Wecan expect it to happen, but what is unreasonable, is to expect the government of theUnited States to endorse a policy that discriminates in such a harmful way againstqualified, competent people. Affirmative action tries to be the redeeming force for past discriminations and italso acts as the stimulus for reverse discrimination. It is the second half of that statementthat serves as the impetus for my argument that affirmative action is not an appropriatemeans of redemption, and it causes more problems than it solves. Does it make sense tooffer a solution to past injustices that will simply create new injustices and harshfeelings? No, it doesn’t, and there must be a new solution. A policy of preferentialtreatment would make more sense if it occurred at the source of the problem. Don’t denyan app...
