Final answer:
Ronald Dworkin and other philosophers defend affirmative action as a means to equitably rectify past biases and racial injustices, a stance that has been supported by certain Supreme Court rulings. Although criticized for potential impact on meritocracy, affirmative action's overall positive contributions to workforce diversity and educational opportunities tend to outweigh the concerns.
Step-by-step explanation:
Ronald Dworkin's argument regarding affirmative action policies suggests that they do not infringe on anyone's rights because these policies attempt to rectify the disadvantages that certain races have historically faced. Dworkin, along with other philosophers like James Rachels, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and Mary Anne Warren, posits that giving preference based on race in situations like college admissions can serve as a form of redress or compensation for past injustices and exclusions. This is anchored in the idea that historical privileges have tipped the scales in favor of certain groups, and affirmative action is seen as a means to promote a fairer and more equitable society.
Moreover, the practice of considering race as one of several factors in university admissions has been upheld by significant Supreme Court decisions such as Bakke v. California and Grutter v. Bollinger. These rulings determined that while racial quotas are not permissible, race can be considered to achieve a diverse educational environment, which is recognized as a compelling governmental interest.
Critics, however, argue that such policies could undermine meritocracy and efficiency, and potentially harm nonminority individuals. Nonetheless, the overall impact of affirmative action on minorities and women in the workforce and education has been found to be positive without causing a significant detriment to white males, who are often depicted as being disadvantaged by these policies.