A University of Wisconsin professor applied philosophical arguments to the hot topic of preferential admission policies in universities in a lecture Wednesday evening at Grainger Hall.

Philosophy professor Daniel Hausman, who joined the UW faculty in 1988, addressed the quality of various arguments in opposition to UW’s preferential admission policies brought about by affirmative action laws.

Hausman said there are three main arguments for and against the preferential admissions policies. He said the issue of discrimination goes against these policies, while the idea that universities rectify past injustices against African-Americans and lessen inequalities in opportunity support them.

However, Hausman said the arguments regarding compensation for past injustices and discrimination are not sound.

“Preferential admissions just isn’t like the Jim Crow laws. It isn’t degradation or hatred against the white students, which is what made the Jim Crow laws so unacceptable,” Hausman stated. “And rectification and replication arguments don’t hold because it is very hard to identify a perpetrator and a victim.”

Hausman identified the argument that preferential admissions helps diminish the inequality in educational opportunities faced by African Americans and whites as a reasonable way to approach the debate.

“When one takes into account that many whites have been privileged in a variety of ways and they’ve been in circumstances of greater opportunities than African-Americans by providing preferential admissions for African-Americans, I think they are made more equal in a lifetime sense,” Hausman said.

Hausman said while his speech was made more timely by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to address affirmative action policies, he was more interested in how philosophical arguments could be used when looking at the debate.

UW spokesperson John Lucas said in an interview with The Badger Herald that current UW policies are a “comprehensive review of applicants.” Lucas said while race is taken into account, the primary qualification evaluated is academic preparation.

While the national Center for Equal Opportunity does not consider the preferential admissions process in such a positive light, Hausman said he still considers them to be necessary. The center started a series of discussions and small protests last semester when it accused UW of reverse discrimination policies.

“The Center for Equal Opportunity has not shown that preferential admissions at UW is unfair or harmful,” Hausman said. “Equal opportunity, like diversity, is a good reason for preferential admissions.”

Listeners at the event responded positively to Hausman’s points, but also questioned whether the preferential admissions policy was the best way to accomplish UW’s education objectives, specifically of achieving the highest graduation rates.

Hausman replied the absolute highest possible graduation rate is not the sole objective of UW. He said UW also has an objective of diversity, which will prepare students for positions in the real world where they will have to work with people from every background.

Despite the major debates behind the issue of preferential admissions, many listeners said they enjoyed hearing the different arguments from a philosophical perspective.

“I gained a deeper understanding about the reasons why [genuinely] racist policies [like those of the Jim Crow era] are wrong,” Jacob Krch, a fifth-year graduate student in the philosophy department at UW, said.

Correction: A previous version of this article quoted Krch saying, “I gained a deeper understanding about the reasons why racist policies are wrong.” We regret the error.