Beyond Dirty Hands- The Public Perception Dilemma

    How do “dirty hands” apply in situations where there is no clear utilitarian outcome? What do we do when we are forced to make a decision that harms, humiliates or disenfranchises another party equally in its possible outcomes? At this point, public image comes into question. The holder of power has to come to understand the value of his or her own image, and what will happen to it with newfound gratitude and disdain from different groups.

    Such an event has taken place among the New York City Department of Education recently, as a high school admissions test has been taken into question by ethnic advocacy groups. The NAACP has filed a federal complaint with the U.S. Education Department regarding the supposed bias of the city’s Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT), citing the statistical landslide in which asians and whites occupy the city’s top high schools. The question of whether or not to change the admissions process for these schools (which currently consists of a single test) has been reignited, and is at the hands of the NYC Department of Education.

    Many argue that the test is fair and square, and completely non-discriminatory. “There’s nothing subjective about this,” says mayor Michael Bloomberg. “You pass the test, you get the highest score, you get into the school — no matter what your ethnicity, no matter what your economic background is.” However, the NAACP claims that the numbers speak for themselves; that there is no way that “there are only 19 brilliant African-Americans in the city,” (referring to the black population of Stuyvesant High School) and that the nature of the test itself is discriminatory by favoring those with the resources and encouragement to perform well on tests.

Thousands of New Yorkers vie for a far smaller amount of slots in the city's top 8 high schools every year.

    I believe that both arguments hold water, and if I were the decision-maker in this case I would have a tough time making that choice. Either way, thousands of young aspiring students would have altered prospects for getting into their dream high school. Regardless of any decision, the same amount of seats in these schools will exist, and no expanded access to high quality education will be granted. Where does morality lie in a situation like this? No matter what, a couple thousand new students will begin their 4-year process of being beaten into shape for the next stage in life; some at tougher institutions than others.

    Once the idea that there is no moral “right” in a situation is embraced, the decision-maker may then turn to the aesthetic side of things. Who should be aimed to please? To whom do we owe any favors? Who can we tolerate a little bit of flak from? The NYC DoE could option to appear considerate to ethnic and financially struggling groups by routing the test system while sacrificing the appearance of confidence and adherence to results. On the other hand, it could stick to its guns and maintain a strong belief in non-prejudiced number-crunching as the sole means of judging intelligence. If the DoE has to acquire equally dirty hands regardless of which preference it leans to, these are the things it must consider in the process.

    Having dirty hands is not a simple issue. Sometimes there isn’t just morality or logic at stake, but the situational preferences that dictate the outcome of hazy issues like this. What do you think? What plays a role in decision-making once we have passed the point of “dirty hands?” Are we allowed to let non-crucial factors influence our choices? Are such preferences in fact a subset of utilitarianism in the first place? Please sound off in the comments below.