Affirmative actions

What do you do when a society observes situations of deep injustice and entrenched habits whose transformation through the ordinary way - that of awareness and cultural change - is difficult, extremely prolonged or impossible? Are there situations in which the granting of differential treatment to a particular social group is justified? This question is at the root of what has often been called "affirmative action," of which the most common examples are the quotas in higher education.

The adoption of affirmative actions by the public power or by private institutions is directly related to the purpose that these institutions or the state attribute to themselves. The philosopher Michael Sandel, in his book Justice, presents the example of a university located in an area where there is a deep social inequality that affects a specific group. Universities usually aim to disseminate knowledge and to do scientific research at a higher level, but this particular institution also aims to reduce inequality in the region where it is located. Thus, it offers places in its courses to members of this disadvantaged group, so that they can be a factor of development and social ascendancy. Affirmative action is adopted in line with the institution's self-assigned purpose.

'' Affirmative action can neither be the only nor the principal way of resolving the injustice observed''

In the university example offered by Sandel, it is an option of the institution. In the case of public power, the adoption of affirmative actions can be seen as an imposition. In fact, it would be best if the correction of eminent injustices occurred spontaneously, or at most with incentives. However, in extreme situations, the state can intervene in order to guarantee affirmative action, always respecting the principle of proportionality - the balance between the intended purpose and the means used for it, with the least possible harm to others.

The use of affirmative action, however, is subject to two criteria. They must be ancillary measures to achieve the desired end. They cannot be the only, nor the main, way to resolve the injustice observed. In addition, affirmative action must be temporary; when the palliative becomes a permanent policy, it causes divisions in society and causes it to forget the true origin of the problem that it intended to solve. When these two criteria are disregarded, affirmative action becomes a convenient crutch for public power or society to omit the solution of injustices and social ills.

It is also advisable that affirmative action should be directed to the beginning of the cycle that perpetuates injustices, attacking them at the root - in the vast majority of cases, this means applying them in basic education instead of higher education; or in higher education instead of the job market. Thinking in this way helps to eliminate the temptation to impose affirmative action in a cross-cutting way, covering all aspects of a society - for example, including quotas not only in education, but also in the public service, in tenders or even in the private sector. When this happens, affirmative action ceases to be an instrument of solution to injustice to become an advanced form of social engineering, creating new situations of injustice before nonexistent and new classes of privileged, slowly undermining the essential ideals of the pursuit of excellence and of personal improvement.