In “The Justification of Reverse Discrimination in Hiring,” Tom Beauchamp displays statistics on races and genders underrepresented in institutions. The inequality is due to underlying persistent racism that emerged decades ago. This measure was applied across the board despite federal equality laws. The expectation of a level playing field is not a reality, as statistics show among underrepresented African Americans (1. Beauchamp, CC2011, p 0228). Beauchamp points out that on the surface, reverse discrimination appears immoral, because it creates a bias in favor of one race over another. However, he claims that this conclusion is not applicable in the real world where pervasive biases still exist, as statistics indicate. Because we currently do not have a level playing field, humans are morally obligated to do whatever it takes to achieve this if they aspire to an ideal, egalitarian society (2. Beauchamp, CC2011, p 0226) . In order to free itself from discriminatory practices, society must practice reverse discrimination, because it is ultimately morally justified for the common good. Once a level playing field is achieved through the addition of minorities through preferential treatment, reverse discrimination becomes unnecessary. James Rachels bases his moral reasoning for reverse discrimination on what people deserve. Although he is aware that reverse discrimination seems unfair to those directly affected, he proposes that fairness depends on desert. What an individual deserves is based on effort and the desire to succeed (3. Rachels, CC2011, p 0201). Therefore, it is morally acceptable to give preferential treatment to a deserving person if they try harder. Rachels moral reasoning for supporting middle of paper reinforces the negative stereotype that incoming minorities had an unfair racial advantage. Therefore, reverse discrimination has even worse consequences that stem from the glorified end result that Rachels suggests with role models. Furthermore, I would argue that effort is too subjective to quantify when both parties have distinct unearned disadvantages. Caucasians face different types of obstacles, such as psychological pressure to succeed and increased competition at top schools, making it more difficult to get good grades. Rachels' argument is not universal in all situations. This makes reverse discrimination morally wrong when it generalizes Caucasians from disadvantaged backgrounds as inherently possessing advantages. Justice is still not served if the policy cannot be extended to all circumstances, making even the moderate form of reverse discrimination unjust..