affirmative action

is not reverse discrimination because, definitionally, to repair the effects of unfair treatment based on morally irrelevant characteristics (i.e. Discrimination), it is necessary that these same characteristics be invoked in the remedy, and necessarily in a 'morally relevant' manner (i.e. Definitionally non-discriminatory manner).

Nickel argues that affirmative action does not involve reverse discrimination because the preferential treatment involved in affirmative action for purposes of reparations is not based on a morally irrelevant characteristic. For example, if it is decided to apply affirmative action measures as a form of reparation to benefit members of a group who have been discriminated on account of their race, the differential treatment is not based on an irrelevant characteristic, but on the fact that members of that group were treated unfairly because of their race. While the original act of discrimination was indeed based on a morally irrelevant characteristic belonging to a particular race affirmative action measures are not based on a morally irrelevant characteristic having been treated unfairly because of her race. The characteristic which was the basis of the act of discrimination is thus, according to Nickel, not the same as the characteristic which is used to extend preferential treatment under affirmative action programs. Hence, affirmative action measures cannot be regarded as discrimination in reverse.

James W. NickelThinkers

James W. Nickel