ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research Sep. Dec. 2017 Vol.11 Nr. 2 166 Rethinking the Dworkinian Forward-Looking Approach: is Affirmative Action Compatible with Fairness? Chong Ho Yu Azusa Pacific University, USA Kwok Tung Cheung University of Dayton, USA Abstract Whether Affirmative Action is a proper way to accomplish social justice in terms of fairness has been an ongoing debate in the United States. Late philosopher Ronald Dworkin was a vocal supporter of Category 4 Affirmative Action, in which preferential treatments for minorities is justified. Dworkin emphasized a forward-looking approach as a means to achieve social justice and overall fairness. In his view, it is not sufficient for black applicants to enjoy preferential treatment now just because in the past their ancestors suffered due to slavery. Rather, a successful argument for affirmative action programs must include a forward-looking justification. To be specific, this policy promises a better educational environment in terms of diversity and promotes a less racially conscious society for all citizens. Additionally, Dworkin often cited the study entitled The Shape of the River to substantiate his claim that special treatment for minorities could amend social injustice and produce fairer outcomes. This article attempts to evaluate this Dworkinian theory on both the principle and practical levels. It concluded that while a neutral or non-interventional policy is insufficient to achieve racial equality, interventions in terms of special treatments and soft quotas are not yet shown to be fair in practice. Keywords: Action, Affirmative, Compatible, Fairness. Introduction Whether affirmative action is a proper way to accomplish social justice in terms of fairness has been an ongoing debate in the United States. Late philosopher Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013) was a vocal supporter of affirmative action and his contribution to this field is well-recognized. Atman (2001) highlighted the importance of the Dworkinian theory as follows: “Ronald DworkТn’s wrТtТng on affТrmatТve actТon Сas been among tСe best of tСe work tСat lТ beral jurisprudence has had to offer on matters of race Тn tСe вears sТnce tСe end of tСe CТvТl RТgСts Movement Тn tСe UnТted States” (p. 241). AltСougС there is no direct and explicit evidence that the Dworkinian theory had been adopted by the US public authorities, and Dworkin was critical of some opinions of the US Supreme Court justices, the widespread endorsement of affirmative action polТcТes bв tСe Supreme Court Тs compatТble wТtС DworkТn’s narratТve (SabbagС, 2011). For example, in June 2003 the US Supreme Court determined by a 5-4 split on the case of Grutter vs. Bollinger regarding the University of Michigan Law School that the consideration of race in university admissions is not contradicted by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her opinion “todaв we endorse JustТce Powell's vТew tСat student bodв dТversТtв Тs a compellТng state Тnterest tСat can УustТfв tСe use of race in university admissions” (Legal InformatТon InstТtute, 2003, sectТon A, para. 8). TСТs Тs a vТew tСat Тs consТstent wТtС DworkТn’s and, despТte some dТsagreement Тn tСe reasonТng, supported bв DworkТn (1985, 2000). Specifically, the Supreme Court asserts that affirmative action is acceptable if race is only one of many factors for consideration by university admissions to achieve diversity. This decision reflects two major trends of conceptualization of affirmative action in recent years. First, the race factor in admissions is justified by the rationale that it is only one of several factors. Second, the focus of affirmative action programs has been shifted from reparation to diversity. Actuallв, tСe US Supreme Court’s decТsТon could be viewed as an actualization of the Dworkinian theory. Given the importance of the Dworkinian theory, it is imperative to evaluate the efficacy of this theory through a multi-disciplinary lens.