ABSTRACT This article discusses a particular problem with the race relations legislation: the fact that to show that discrimination has taken place one must prove not only that a person was unfavourably treated but that this was on the grounds of race. The article considers first whether grounds should be interpreted subjectively or objectively, and argues for an objective interpretation, partly to make proof easier, partly because no obvious injustice is done. Then it considers the kinds of evidence relevant to (...) such a proof, and argues that in many cases, although not all, it is in fact available, at least for the level of proof on the balance of the probabilities, required for civil, as opposed to criminal, proceedings. It is concluded that difficult cases remain, but not as many, or as difficult, as might appear at first sight. (shrink)

Though the common sense defense of affirmative action (or employment equity) appeals to principles of restitution, philosophers have tried to defend it in other ways. In contrast, I defend it by appealing to the notion of restitution, arguing (1) that alternative attempts to justify affirmative action fail; and (2) that ordinary affirmative action programs need to be supplemented and amended in keeping with the principles this suggests.