Kim Blog Post 2

 In the latter half of Whiteness as a Property, Harris makes the argument that affirmative action moves to challenge the property interest in whiteness. She argues that there is a difference between merely setting by law for the equal treatment of all people and "equalizing" the treatment amongst different groups of people. One of the particular arguments that she focuses on is affirmative action as not just a corrective but distributive justice.

Harris argues that that affirmative action not only contains forms of corrective but distributive justice as well. She uses the definition of corrective justice in affirmative action as a "claim to compensation for...harm done to minority groups," while using the definition of distributive justice in affirmative action as the "claim an individual or group has to the position...they would have been awarded under fair conditions." The problem, she argues, with corrective justice is that the focus is shifted from reparations to black people for historic harms done in the past to the harm being done to "innocent whites." Distributive justice, however, focuses on "entitlement and fairness."(1782-1783) She claims that affirmative action as distributive justice is attempting to answer what would have society looked like if there had been no racism.

I have to agree with Harris's argument as a theory. I believe that policies like affirmative action are necessary to right the wrongs of the past. Social conflicts, especially racial ones and those between countries are usually done throughout long periods of time, and basing policies like affirmative action solely on corrective justice would not work. The group that committed the wrong could claim innocence due to the gap in time between the point in time the wrong occurred and the point in time that society was looking to correct the wrong. Affirmative action in the form of distributive justice seems to be the right approach. But even she admits that "affirmative action can only be implemented through conscious intervention and requires constant monitoring and reevaluation."(1786) The questions that obviously come up seem to be: who gets to do the monitoring and reevaluation? What are the standards by which the judges will reevaluate? When and who can say that the purposes of affirmative action have been fulfilled and are thus no longer needed? I believe that policies like affirmative action are necessary but who can be the judge of what society would have looked like with no racism. Can we affirm without a doubt that if there had been no racism, that 30% of doctors would have been black because 30% of the population is black?