Miller - Blog Post 2
In the latter half of “Whiteness as Property,” Harris emphasizes a clear distinction between corrective and distributive justice, clearly favoring the latter. She explains that corrective justice is “compensation” for harms of the past, distributive justice “requires that individuals receive that share of the benefits they would have secured in the absence of racism” (1783). This distinction is fundamental, as Harris explains, because it helps to answer many of the criticisms brought forth by those who are anti-affirmative action. For example, it answers those who claim that affirmative action hurts innocent white descendants. Under a paradigm of distributive justice, the innocence of white people today is irrelevant because, as Harris says, “a distributive justice framework does not focus primarily on guilt and innocence, but rather on entitlement and fairness” (1783).
Harris’s description of corrective and distributive justice immediately brought to mind a cartoon that is commonly used to contrast equality and equity with ladders. I decided to draw out a visual representation of corrective and distributive justice based on the premise of that cartoon, which is posted below. Obviously this cartoon cannot capture all the nuances of racial oppression, corrective justice and distributive justice present in Harris’ account. For example, it does not depict how systems of oppression continually disadvantage non-white individuals, constantly taking their ladder “rungs” away. However, it does attempt to depict the basic contrast between distributive and corrective justice; it shows that while corrective justice is embroiled in notions of punishment, sins, and innocence, distributive justice is about just distributions in the absence of oppression.
Since the idea for this visual representation came from cartoons depicting equity, it is important to consider the role equity might play in Harris’s depiction. Equity “recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.” In her work, Harris criticizes formal equality, which “overlooks structural disadvantage and requires mere nondiscrimination or ‘equal treatment’” and promotes real equality and affirmative action, which she defines as “equalizing treatment by redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities.” It seems to me that the “real equality” that Harris is promoting may be deeply intertwined with, if not exactly the same as, equity.
This is significant because the 14th Amendment, which is the centerpiece of the affirmative action cases presented by Harris, promises “equal protection of the laws.” Perhaps affirmative action cases would be more likely to succeed if there was a constitutional guarantee of “equitable” rather than “equal” treatment. By promoting an equitable rather than equal standard of justice, we might finally be able to address whiteness as property.
Harris’s description of corrective and distributive justice immediately brought to mind a cartoon that is commonly used to contrast equality and equity with ladders. I decided to draw out a visual representation of corrective and distributive justice based on the premise of that cartoon, which is posted below. Obviously this cartoon cannot capture all the nuances of racial oppression, corrective justice and distributive justice present in Harris’ account. For example, it does not depict how systems of oppression continually disadvantage non-white individuals, constantly taking their ladder “rungs” away. However, it does attempt to depict the basic contrast between distributive and corrective justice; it shows that while corrective justice is embroiled in notions of punishment, sins, and innocence, distributive justice is about just distributions in the absence of oppression.
Since the idea for this visual representation came from cartoons depicting equity, it is important to consider the role equity might play in Harris’s depiction. Equity “recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.” In her work, Harris criticizes formal equality, which “overlooks structural disadvantage and requires mere nondiscrimination or ‘equal treatment’” and promotes real equality and affirmative action, which she defines as “equalizing treatment by redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities.” It seems to me that the “real equality” that Harris is promoting may be deeply intertwined with, if not exactly the same as, equity.
This is significant because the 14th Amendment, which is the centerpiece of the affirmative action cases presented by Harris, promises “equal protection of the laws.” Perhaps affirmative action cases would be more likely to succeed if there was a constitutional guarantee of “equitable” rather than “equal” treatment. By promoting an equitable rather than equal standard of justice, we might finally be able to address whiteness as property.
Comments