April Fichter
Period 7/8
10-26-10
Affirmative Action
Have you ever been denied an educational or employment opportunity and don’t quite understand why? If so, listen carefully because you just might be a victim of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action refers to policies that take factors including race, gender, color, religion, sexual orientation and national origin into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group. The reasoning behind this practice is to make up for past discrimination of minorities in the workplace, schools and other areas of life. Since African Americans were not worthy of being treated equal in the eyes of whites for nearly a century, affirmative action programs were built to help bring back equality to minorities for ancestry discrimination. Not only were African Americans faced with discrimination but women, homosexuals, Jews and many other underrepresented groups as well. I strongly do not believe in Affirmative Action. Employment and educational opportunities should not be based on the content of skin color, but rather the content of character and the capability of the person.
Each year, many majorities are skipped an opportunity of education or employment because certain employers and admissions for colleges or universities are supporters of Affirmative Action. Many schools and businesses have to meet certain quotas. In other words, the minimum levels of required minority participation. For example, some Affirmative Action programs specify that a certain percentage of jobs, promotions, or positions must be reserved for minorities. In some cases, even if the minorities are under-qualified, they still are offered the opportunities over the qualified participants.
Reverse discrimination is a popular nickname for Affirmative Action. This nickname comes from the ironic idea of making things equal because of past discrimination. The ironic part is that giving minorities, over a generally favored group, a better advantage for employment and admission opportunities, is not making things equal, but rather creating reverse discrimination. David Thiel states, “The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism.” This quote explains that because America
Many may argue that Affirmative Action is a program of opportunity and it is not a program of discrimination. They argue that Affirmative Action has never been a program about meeting quotas and hiring less qualified persons. However, Affirmative Action programs open up opportunities for minority groups only. This is not making things equal at all, but rather giving more opportunities to one group. And providing one group more opportunities than another group is discriminating against the other group. Also, proven data has shown that many educational facilities and government businesses are required to meet quotas. Affirmative Action is supposed to “open up opportunity” and make things equal. Again, however, Affirmative Action programs hire people and admit people based on skin color, national origin, sex, and a variety of factors. They are not based on the qualifications of the person.
The solution to Affirmative Action is to end it all together. There should no longer be any form of Affirmative Action in the United States
In conclusion, Affirmative Action programs should be banned in America
Work Cited
Haas, Michael. "Affirmative action." The Seventies in America Pasadena , CA Salem
Hi April, I realise that my commenting on your blog may seem strange – it is for a business ethics assignment in which we are required to critically comment on a blog about a specific topic. I chose affirmative action and found your blog.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with some of your points, I do not believe that affirmative action should be banned. I will address two of the topics you touched on – the use of quotas in employment and reverse discrimination. I will show that well-constructed affirmative action policies are morally justified and are necessary to combat the discrimination that is present in the United States today.
To expand on your definition, the ultimate aim of affirmative action is to create a colour-blind (racially just) and gender-free (sexually just) society (Sterba, 2003). In the workplace, affirmative action policies aim to make up for past employment disadvantages that specific groups have suffered due to some form of social injustice (e.g. discriminatory laws, or social prejudice), and to give these groups fair representation in the workforce (The Open Polytechnic, 2013).
I agree with your comment that people should be hired based on their character and capability, yet, while I do not support strict quotas, I do support forms of affirmative action that help disadvantaged groups in a more productive way. Quotas and preferential hiring programs are one of the more contentious forms of affirmative action, and like you say, quotas may lead to under-qualified applicants from minority groups being hired over more qualified conventional applicants. However, more relaxed preferential hiring programs may simply lead to an applicant’s race or gender ‘tipping the scales’ when they are considered along with others of equal merit. Companies can use affirmative action policies to proactively recruit, hire, develop, and promote qualified employees from groups that have been affected by discrimination. For example, General Motors say “workplace diversity is so important that affirmative action is often appropriate to achieve it” (cited in Beauchamp, 2007, p. 196). In their 2012 Sustainability Report General Motors describe their strong commitment to the global advancement of women, as well as outlining their Indigenous Apprenticeship Program that aims to provide better career pathways for aboriginal workers in Australia (General Motors, 2012.) General Motors recognise that it is in a company’s best interests to hire a diverse workforce as this can lead to a more diverse customer base, thus increasing profits. It can also benefit the company’s reputation if it is seen as an equal opportunity employer, resulting in a win-win situation – the company gets a good reputation and increased profits, and minorities gain skills and employment.
I agree that affirmative action causes a certain amount of reverse discrimination. Affirmative action policies sometimes only focus on race or gender and do not consider other factors like social position and education. The minority groups that are covered by affirmative action policies are often less well-off on average than their conventional counterparts, but the individuals who benefit are often not (Richards, 1993). For example, sometimes an advantaged minority applicant is given preference over a disadvantaged conventional applicant through affirmative action policies. In these ways I believe affirmative action is flawed and that it would be better to offer support to individuals who have been explicitly victimised by discrimination, not to groups. Nevertheless, without affirmative action policies members of minority groups who really are disadvantaged would not be given the equal opportunity they deserve. According to a study done by the U.S. Department of Labour in the early 1990s, affirmative action policies have helped 5 million minorities and 6 million women move up in the workplace since the 1960s (“Reverse Discrimination,” 1995). ...
...contd. This, along with the very few complaints that have been made about reverse discrimination (also discussed in “Reverse Discrimination,” 1995) leads me to the conclusion that affirmative action policies result in more good than harm; that essentially, they oppose the suffering of minorities by reducing discrimination, and promote their happiness by allowing them to advance in the workplace at only a small cost to the majority. Therefore, from a utility perspective, affirmative action policies are morally justified because they result in the greatest overall happiness (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). Affirmative action policies are also morally justified by virtue ethics. According to Crosby, Iyer & Sincharoen (2006), to oppose affirmative action is to reflect racial prejudice (a vice). A virtue ethicist would say that it is morally required to avoid actions that exhibit vices (The Open Polytechnic, 2013). Therefore, it is morally required to support affirmative action policies.
ReplyDeleteI was interested to read your point that banning affirmative action policies would create equal opportunity for everybody. However, have you considered the extent of discrimination in today’s society? Studies have shown that racial discrimination is rampant in employment the United States, with the unemployment rate for African Americans being consistently double that for Whites (United States Department of Labor, 2013). One study, done by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that ‘Black’ sounding names had fewer job call backs (Muhammed, 2013); another study, done by the Urban Institute in 1991 sent equally qualified, similarly dressed African Americans and Whites of equivalent age and characteristics to the same job interviews. The study found that there was repeated discrimination against male African American applicants, leading to the authors’ conclusion that discrimination against African American men is “widespread and entrenched.” (Beauchamp, 2007, p. 197). Unfortunately, the discrimination does not end there; while women have come a long way since affirmative action was introduced, they are still underrepresented in certain industries and receive lower pay than their male counterparts (United States Department of Labor, 2013). This extent of discrimination shows that everybody does not have equal opportunities, and that the ultimate goal of affirmative action – to achieve a colour-blind, gender-free society – has not yet been achieved.
I do acknowledge that some affirmative action policies may create reverse discrimination, and that quotas are not always ideal, but I believe they are morally justified. Until society can regulate itself and eliminate discrimination, affirmative action policies remain the best way to create equal employment opportunities for all.