December 4, 2025Open Access

Using Affirmative Action as a Tiebreaker

SCShalom ChalsonNational University of Singapore JWJames Bernard WilloughbyAustralian National University

Key Points

Preference for disadvantaged candidates occurs when competence is matched, indicating a need for affirmative action.
The argument highlights that instances of matched competence among candidates are more common than assumed.
Assessment of selection procedures reveals the frequent relevance of affirmative action in candidate evaluation.
Supports the justification for affirmative action from two minimally controversial premises.

Abstract

ABSTRACT We argue in favor of affirmative action. There are two central points to our argument. First, if two or more candidates for a position are matched in competence, then one ought to prefer a candidate from a disadvantaged, disenfranchised, or minority background rather than defer to the outcome of a lottery. Second, a closer look at actual selection procedures reveals that situations where candidates are matched in competence are much more common than one might think. Our argument results in a robust justification for affirmative action from minimally controversial premises.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper