Category: Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action In Employment

Abstract

Using research references written by Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander, Laura P. Hartman, Raina Kelley, Brian Lilley and Jonathan Stempel, I examined the results of their findings in relation to my project. Based on their information, I determined affirmative action is still an instrumental tool in balancing the work force in the United States. There are still jobs that are out of reach for certain minority groups. As long as this imbalance exists so does the need for affirmative action.

Do We Need Affirmative Action?

Is affirmative action still needed in today’s society? Some people do not think so; others do. I believe affirmative action is still necessary as long as a minority group of people (Blacks, Hispanics, Women, etc.) attempting to acquire jobs in certain markets believes they are not getting those jobs because they are being discriminated against by the majority group that holds them. I will attempt to present some sources to reinforce my conclusion. I will discuss the original purpose of affirmative action and present some cases being discussed or ruled on in present day courts. I hope to show that affirmative action expands opportunity by promoting inclusion of underrepresented minorities in all areas of the job market and it is not intended to take jobs away from those in the majority.

Its Purpose

I’ve been in the military since 1987. The military has a zero tolerance rule for any type of discrimination and it’s strictly enforced from the top officer down to the lowest ranking Airman. That doesn’t mean that all groups (blacks, whites, Hispanics, etc.) hang out and get along with each other after duty hours because we didn’t back then and we still don’t today. It does mean that when an Airman reports to work every day, he or she can expect to be treated equally just like everyone else of equivalent rank. If a person feels they are discriminated against, there are options in place for corrective action without having to take someone to court for a ruling unlike the civilian community. Having over 20 years of military service, it wasn’t until taking this human resources class that I began to think about how workers have been and are being treated in the civilian world and the rules that govern them. The civilian requirements for employment are more diverse than those of the military. That diversity requires the right kind of laws to ensure equality for everyone. What is affirmative action? What is it designed to do? As Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2009) state, “At its simplest, affirmative action involves the employer taking steps to expand job opportunities in an effort to bring qualified women and minorities (or others statutorily mandated groups) into a workplace from which it has been determined that they are excluded, in order to make the workplace more reflective of their availability in the workforce from which the employees are drawn” (p. 215) Based on the definition alone, I’m sold on the need for its existence in our country’s laws. America is often referred to as a melting pot. Our country is comprised of so many different cultures seeking an opportunity for a better life through employment. Affirmative action is a positive policy that will effectively create more equal opportunities for these groups seeking employment in the United States since, in most cases they are seen as a minority. It will also assist in maintaining diversity in those job markets that may require it.

Misconceptions

However, if it is used to give the unqualified person a chance over the qualified person, its original principle of creating equality is totally warped. This is one factor that I believe leads most people to think affirmative action is no longer needed and should be done away with. Kelley noted “Sadly, though, the phrase “affirmative action” has become code for choosing unqualified minority candidates instead of qualified white people. A survey done last year by Quinnipiac University found that more than 70 percent of voters think diversity is not a good enough reason to give minorities preferential treatment. And that’s despite the fact the number of people who fall under the protection of such programs has continued to grow—women, Hispanics, gay men and lesbians, the disabled, even white men have been the beneficiaries of more inclusive hiring practices. As long as people remain convinced that affirmative action is about giving minorities preferential treatment, they will also remain ignorant of the fact that affirmative action works on behalf of all people” (2010, para. 3). I think the survey noted in the article shows that more employers and supervisors should be educated on the purpose of affirmative action. In no way does it require a company or employer to hire an unqualified person for a position because they fall into one or more minority groups. If I believed as these people do, I would also want the law to end.

Case 1

One premise to support affirmative action is that it is consistent with merit. One of its principles is that the basic decision must be made upon the ability of the person, not based on the color, gender, nationality or race of the applicant. Conversely, it is also fair to those who belong to the majority. Affirmative action creates more equal opportunities for minorities by amendment of discrimination and promoting inclusion, and it does not unfairly burden majorities. It is a very effective and important tool in creating equality in our society. Recently, a stay-at-home mother was denied an employment opportunity simply because she is white. As everyone knows, white people are seen as the majority in most cases in the United States. She had applied for a government job for citizenship and immigration, but the office was seeking to hire only aboriginal applicants. According to Lilley, the Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, “was very concerned to read the report of a position only being open to people from an identifiable group,” he said. “All positions should be on the basis of equality of opportunity and merit.” (2010, para 5). That may have been Mr. Kenney’s stance, but clearly someone with hiring authority in this particular office disagrees. This is an example of the system working for the majority. As I see the system, it is an equalizer, not something created to provide a degree of favoritism to one group over another. Why would anyone want to do away with a policy that maintains equality? I personally think it would be the kind of people that don’t fully understand or are not knowledgeable of the purpose of such a system.

Case 2

Another reason to support affirmative action is that it does not heavily favor one gender over another. In an ideal world the only thing that we should be considering is a person’s ability to do the job. Affirmative action does not require a company to hire a less qualified applicant based on the fact they are male or female, regardless of skin color. If a woman has better skills than a male, then I believe she should be the one who receives the job in question. In another recent case, the large company of Wal-Mart was ordered to pay more than $11.7 million to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity commission (EEOC). One of company’s stores was primarily hiring male workers to work in its warehouses. The company was not hiring females who were just as capable of doing the same work as the men being hired. Stempel reported, “According to the EEOC, employment officials hired mainly 18- to 25 year old men because they believed order-filling positions were not suitable for women. The lawsuit began in August 2001.” (2010, para. 3). What recourse would the women in this case have had if it were not for affirmative action? By the ruling, I think the case clearly shows the women were discriminated against by the Wal-Mart supervisors. If we didn’t have current laws in place to handle this type of injustice towards women, the Wal-Mart store in question would continue to hire only male employees for warehouse jobs. Affirmative action was instrumental in balancing the bar in this case.

Conclusion

Affirmative action may have been originally designed to give qualified minorities a chance to compete on equal footing with whites, but in today’s society it’s used to provide employment opportunities for those that are considered a minority against majority groups other than white. Equal opportunity for certain minority groups continues to be a struggle in certain jobs. Educating employers and supervisors on the purpose of affirmative action would go a long way in correcting these issues and ensuring the right people are hired for the right reasons. I only discussed a few cases in this paper, but they are recent and not from the 1960’s. We definitely still need affirmative action to overcome the disparities of employment that exists in these job markets today and in the future.

References

1. Bennett-Alexander, D. & Hartman, L. (2009) Employment law for business. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
2. Kelley, R. (2010, February 10). Why we still need affirmative action. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com
3. Lilley, B. (2010). Minister vows look at hiring rules. The Toronto Sun. p36. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic
4. Stempel, J. (2010, March 3). Wal-Mart to pay $11.7 million to settle u.s. gender bias lawsuit. Insurance Journal. Retrieved from http://insurancejournal.com

The Benefits and Detriments For Affirmative Action and Employment At Will

Introduction

Affirmative action and employment at will are topics of legitimate concern, especially for employers and employees. Previously, but more imperatively, managers and companies should be mindful of the legal ramifications that may happen if they neglect to properly understand the importance of discrimination in the workplace. Albeit union affiliations, Congress did not have a hand in many cases for discrimination until 1963, where Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights March on Washington. This march encompassed people of all color who peacefully marched to gain and enact proper legislation regarding job equality for all (‘Civil Rights Movement’, 2019). Previously, employers could discriminate based on age, gender, race, disabilities, religion, and any other categorical reason possible. Businesses were not the only face of discrimination, as other institutions also used these lines of reasoning for not accepting or hiring people.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order that introduced affirmative action law in the workplace because this only applied to federal jobs; however, 38 states recognized the potential impact and passed laws of their own to avoid litigation under the federal equal employment statute (Kurtlus, 2013). Affirmative action law handles people that have not been hired or considered for employment due to a plethora of personal characteristics; while employment at will is a completely different logistic, as it is under the pretext that employees can terminate their employment with said employer, while the employer can terminate said employee at any time. The exceptions to this law are when employers fire employees for reasons such as refusing to violate a law or exercising a legal right (Mayer, Warner, Siedel, Lieberman & Martina, n.d.). Lastly, positive solutions and less bias are means behind affirmative action, while employment at will is a unique relationship between employers and employees, unless a contract has been signed. Education is vitally important between corporations and universities to achieve a sense of balance and equality for all.

The Benefits of Affirmative Action Cases

Affirmative action is an asset inside and outside the confines of the workplace. This law was enacted to bring people together, not tear them apart due to inequality calculations. Within company’s and a universities confines, it challenges and defines unity, diversity, strength, purpose, and the ability for those to be treated fairly and with respect. The first official case for affirmative action was in 1974 where Marco DeFunis, a white man was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School because at the time they were only accepting people who were less qualified or minorities (Kramer, 2019). However, not all cases are subjected to university boundaries; in fact, inequality transpires behind business structures.

In the late 1990’s, a new form of discrimination was recognized. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was descriptive, but originally lacked the word sex as a gregarious form of wording in the pretext of the discrimination adage (Bible, 2006). Many forms of sexual discrimination have been determined from people not being hired due to their actual gender, and even those that have been hired and harassed due to the sexual orientation preference or gender traits (Bible). Important people have paved the way for the Civil Rights Act to be amended or firmly upheld. One such case was Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Hopkins was a senior manager at Price Waterhouse and was asked because she had secured more contracts than that of her other coworkers to be a partner with the company; nevertheless, partners praised her for being outstanding as a professional and having “strong character, independence and integrity’ (Bible). Consequently, her partners also found that she was too harsh, she over compensated for being a woman and used foul language; they advised she would make partner easier if she enrolled in charm school to dress and appear more feminine in nature (Bible). All in all, she managed to continue working with the company for a year; she was denied for partnership and ultimately resigned and sued for sexual discrimination (Bible). Hopkins won her case where the court found that she was unlawfully discriminated against due to partners comments that “resulted from sex stereotyping” (Bible). Without a multitude of cases being filed and granted serious consideration under Title VII, the landscape for today might have a different appearance.

Detriments of Affirmative Action

There are also negative connotations with laws in support of affirmative action. One disadvantage is that of a created stigma for those who are hired (Quain, 2019). Companies that hiring women, minorities, or other unqualified people to justify a certain ratio or balance instead of hiring based on the persons true qualifications meet this stigma (Quain). If this happens, it causes other employees or students to feel that they were not qualified, excepted, or hired based on their gender or cultural background. Another disadvantage is reversed discrimination, this happens when a specific dominant group is ostracized such as white males (Quain).

Hindrances to this law encompasses companies that hire or fire applicants of a younger statute, rejecting an applicant based on race over other qualified applicants, harassment due to culture diversity, or not allowing leave after the birth of a child (‘Reverse Discrimination | UpCounsel 2019’, n.d.). One case of ration unbalance was with Cynthia Williams that received $850,000 from her employer because they stated she was not a team player and was fired (Goldsmith, n.d.). The jury found that there was collusion for “setting up a demographic situation” at First Cash and awarded punitive damages of $650,000 to deter future issues (Goldsmith). The case of General Electric vs. Gilbert was over tuned by Congress stating that if a company did not have benefits that were outside those of a standard disability, then women requesting time off after a birth should have their job reserved because it was considered discrimination based on sex (Nowlin & Sullivan, 1988). The Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978 was later added under Civil Rights Act (Nowlin & Sullivan).

Benefits of Employment At Will

As there have been advantages for affirmative action, there are also benefits to employment at will in the workplace. Employment at will under common law refers to the employer being able to fire an employee for any reason without notice (‘At-Will Employee FAQ’s – FindLaw’, n.d.). However, there ae advantages for being an at will employee or employer. Examples include small business owners that might anticipate fluctuating requirements or simply do not want to hire someone who may be a poor fit (Lovering, n.d.). Employees also have the right to leave a job without notice and may be able gain employment quickly with another entity. This type of employment leaves both the employee and the employer without legal ramifications, along as no documents have been signed such as an employment contract (Lovering).

The case of Franco v. Liposcience, Inc. was brought to court when Franco, Vice President of Marketing was terminated and claimed he had a contract with Liposcience Inc. (‘FindLaw’s Court of Appeals of North Carolina case and opinions.’, 2009). After further consideration, the court found that Lipscience Inc. was not at fault as Franco was an at will employee (“FindLaw’s Court”). The case of Francis v. National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts & Sciences, Inc. was initiated due to Francis receiving threats at work, filing a restraining order against another employee and after the restraining order was issued was terminated immediately for not “fitting the vision of the organization” (‘FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Virginia case and opinions.’, 2017). While this appears extreme on the employee’s behalf, a company once more was justified because Francis was considered an at will employee. Employment at will under common law, refers to the employer being able to fire an employee for any reason without notice (‘At-Will Employee FAQ’s – FindLaw’, n.d.). Benefits for at will employment range from small business owners that might anticipate fluctuating requirements or simply do not want to hire someone who may be a poor fit (Lovering, n.d.). Again, employees have the ability to leave a job without notice and regain employment quickly with another entity. This type of employment leaves both the employee and the employer without legal ramifications, along as no documents have been signed such as an employment contract (Lovering).

Detriments of Employment At Will

Laws have their own limitations and employment at will is one area where filed suits were determined in favor of the plaintiffs. The case of Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. was filed by the plaintiff because as he brought a firearm onto the premise by parking the vehicle in the parking lot of the employer, even though it was locked inside the vehicle; per Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. policy, employees were not allowed to bring firearms on the workplace premise, even if it is stored in their vehicles (Lawless, 2016). Mississippi has a state law that prohibits most businesses from enforcing this policy; however, Swindol was terminated and in turn, pushed back that he had a right to carry the firearm per the statute (Lawless). The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that at will employees fall under the public policy statute and were therefore protected. The case of Godwin v. Rogue Valley Youth Correctional Facility presented their stance that even though Godwin was employed at the correctional facility, he was affiliated with a motorcycle club that was suspected of criminal activity and wore the club’s regalia to work (Lawless). Godwin was terminated on the premise that he was merely associated with the club, even though he himself did not engage in any type of criminal behavior (Lawless). The court ruled in favor of Godwin and found that while he was affiliated with the club, that in no way determined or interfered with his job performance or facility, relationship with others, or fueled any disruptions (Lawless). These are merely two employment at will cases where the courts sided with the plaintiffs and based their decisions on the sole fact that the employees were fired for unlawful reasons.

Promoting Training, Networking And Mentoring

Management must continue to educate their company to avoid legal complications or presenting bias. They need to be proactive by providing transparency in the hiring process with an action plan policy, setting goals not quotas, removing barriers to entry, providing representation to employees, and reviewing and updating their legal knowledge (Thompson, 2019). Both universities and corporations that assume leadership by reviewing their policies, enact training, networking, mentoring, and evaluations may accomplish more positive results (Kalev, Dobbin & Kelly, 2006). This allows for a stronger foundation and permits companies to increase their margin of profit, while promoting job fairness, equality, and growth across the board.

Conclusion

In the 21st century, companies need to evaluate the importance of equality within the scope of the Civil Rights Act, along with understanding the exclusive relationship of employment a will. Recognizing that problems can arise and will arise in any of these areas is crucial for the success and longevity of the company. Being proactive instead of reactive will help them to diminish any potential issues. Understanding that discrimination under the pretext of many variables is harmful, not only for the employees, but the for reputation of the business withstanding. Having clear expectations, valuing education and training will pave the way for further disparage in the future and eliminate any probable barriers for success.

References

1. At-Will Employee FAQ’s – FindLaw. Retrieved from https://employment.findlaw.com/hiring-process/at-will-employee-faq-s.html
2. Bible, J. (2006). Disorder in the Courts: Proving Same-Sex Sex Discrimination in Title VII Cases Via “Gender Stereotyping.” Employee Relations Law Journal, 31(4), 42–72. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194226628/
3. Civil Rights Movement. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement
4. FindLaw’s Court of Appeals of North Carolina case and opinions. (2009). Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1381463.html
5. FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Virginia case and opinions. (2017). Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1850239.html
6. Goldsmith, L. $855,000 Jury Verdict Is Upheld In Race Discrimination Case Is Upheld; Retail Chain Was Guilty of “Setting Up a Demographic Situation” By Denying Black Managers Assignments to Stores in White Areas. Retrieved from http://www.goldsmithfirm.com/resources/articles/article-10/
7. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1177/000312240607100404
8. Kramer, M. (2019). A Timeline of Key Supreme Court Cases on Affirmative Action. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court.html
9. Kurtlus, F. (2013). The Impact of Eliminating Affirmative Action on Minority and Female Employment: A Natural Experiment Approach Using State-Level Affirmative Action Laws and EEO-4 Data. Retrieved from http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/impact-eliminating-affirmative-action-minority-and-female-employment-natural-experiment-approach
10. Lawless, L. (2016). Two Recent Federal Court Decisions Explore the Limits of the At-Will Employment Doctrine | Employment Law Worldview. Retrieved from https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/two-recent-federal-court-decisions-explore-the-limits-of-the-at-will-employment-doctrine/
11. Lovering, C. Good Things About At-Will Employment. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/good-things-atwill-employment-34594.html
12. Mayer, D., Warner, D., Siedel, G., Lieberman, J., & Martina, A. Business Law and the Legal Environment. Retrieved from https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/textbooks/Business%20Law%20and%20the%20Legal%20Environment.pdf
13. Nowlin, W., & Sullivan, G. (1988). Legal Trends In Affirmative Action And Employee Rights. Industrial Management, 30(1), 26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211588057/
14. Quain, S. (2019). Advantages and Disadvantages of Affirmative Action in the Workplace. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-affirmative-action-workplace-18141.html
15. Reverse Discrimination | UpCounsel 2019. Retrieved from https://www.upcounsel.com/reverse-discrimination
16. Thompson, J. (2019). Examples of Affirmative Action in a Workplace. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-affirmative-action-workplace-12019.html

Rodriguez’s Controversial Stance on Affirmative Action

Personal Achievement Beyond Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a type of policy created to help minorities who were once discriminated against by providing them with the opportunity to get better employment or education. Rodriguez doesn’t support affirmative action because he’s an example of a minority who was able to succeed in education without being helped. Rodriguez was able to risk anything to become that scholarship boy, even if it meant he had to pull away from his family. Rodriguez didn’t want to be a part of that percentage of minorities who are stuck in the cycle of social reproduction because he’s an immigrant. His goal was to prove that minorities can succeed without the help of affirmative action.

Class vs. Race in Affirmative Action’s Scope

Society usually identifies minorities by their race, such as Hispanics, blacks, etc. Rodriguez views minorities by their class. It makes more sense this way because it’s equal. Affirmative action only helps minorities subjected to their race, not class. This means that a poor white person would not benefit from it because they do not fit in the desired race. “Affirmative action never bothered to complain that it was unfair to lower-class whites.”

Since that person is white, they are presumed to be rich, which in most cases is not true. It completely disregards the lower-class whites, and it means that they don’t get the same benefits because they are white. Affirmative action favors one race while putting down another because it’s only based on race and not class. “Minority student somehow referred to my race.”

Rodriguez was appalled by this label. He never saw himself as a minority student. He thought that since he was successful in education, it set him apart from being a minority. He soon came to the realization that affirmative action was solely based on race, which is why he opposed it so much. He thinks highly of himself apart from the other minorities. His education gave him that confidence and power in the public. He believes he did it all on his own, so he doesn’t want it to seem that affirmative action got him the success he gained when it didn’t.

The “Scholarship Boy” Perspective on Affirmative Action

Throughout the book, Rodriguez refers to himself as a “scholarship boy.” The term scholarship boy is someone who imitates education. A student who depends on the teacher or what they hear in a classroom to further their knowledge. Rodriguez saw himself as a role model to other minorities. He wanted to show that his being a scholarship boy would motivate and give other minorities the confidence he never had. “Other students like me, and so I was able to frame the meaning of my academic success…” Rodriguez took the role of a “leader.”

He wanted to show how he was able to sit in a classroom, obtain the information, and use his education to better himself. Many minorities stay in a cycle of discouragement and never branch out and obtain the education they want. Society has looked down on minorities and led them to believe that they can’t get the education they deserve. Rodriguez showed that he was able to Americanize himself to fit in with the public and gain a successful education despite his immigrant background.

The Irony of Rodriguez’s Success and Affirmative Action

Although Rodriguez doesn’t support affirmative action, in some ways, he benefits from it without even knowing. Rodriguez received a lot of help from his teachers. His teachers, unlike him, supported affirmative action, which is why they helped him. Rodriguez became a hypocrite in the fact that he didn’t support affirmative action, but he had no problem accepting the help. “They intended to help me, to relieve my disquiet.” Rodriguez was worried about his image and being called a minority. He worked so hard to improve his education to get rid of that label. He didn’t want affirmative action to succeed, so by working towards education, he hoped to get rid of that label so he could prove that he didn’t need affirmative action.

His teachers are a part of the reason that Rodriguez is so successful. He’s a teacher’s pet. He looked up to his teachers more than his own parents. They were able to teach him everything he knew. Rodriguez claims that he isn’t subject to affirmative action, which is very selfish of him to not give credit to his teachers when it’s due. He’s completely blinded and focused on the fact that he doesn’t want to be a minority and that he won’t admit to himself that he is a participant in affirmative action.

The Paradox of Rodriguez’s Affirmative Action Perception

Since Rodriguez opposed the fact that he is part of the minority that would benefit from affirmative action, we work twice as hard to rebuild his image. He speaks highly of himself and pulls himself apart from his private life. The “scholarship boy” concept was interpreted by Rodriguez. He used the advantages to help get him far in life. Rodriguez is a firm believer in affirmative action, but he is oblivious to the fact that it has helped him succeed. His race was able to give him recognition because the chances of a minority succeeding were low. “I accepted its benefits. I continued to indicate my race on applications for financial aid.”

After all the benefits Rodriguez gains from affirmative action, he still believes he’s “mislabeled.” It’s difficult to understand why he does this. He feels guilty for opposing affirmative action but accepts all its benefits. He was able to win many fellowships because he was a minority. So why does he deny that he is?

He wants to keep his true identity private so when he’s in public, all anyone sees is a successful, educated man. He doesn’t want people to give him pity for being a minority or for anyone to feel the need to help him. He wants to be able to gloat and preach that he did everything on his own without the help of some program offered to minorities. He wants to show the “real” Richard Rodriguez.

Rodriguez’s view on affirmative action is very controversial. I believe that he himself can not choose to be for or against it. It sounds better to say that one became successful on one’s own with no one’s help. Rodriguez says this to build his credibility. He wants to set an example for the minority classes. He wants to show that they are capable of doing what everyone says they can’t. Rodriguez is an immigrant, so he has a desire to build and better that image. He doesn’t want to be known as any other immigrant. He wants to make a difference and show that it’s not impossible for minorities to succeed.

References

1. Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez. Boston: David R. Godine.
2. Moya, P., & Hames-García, M. R. (Eds.). (2000). Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism. University of California Press.
3. O’Brien, E. (2008). The racial middle: Latinos and Asian Americans living beyond the racial divide. NYU Press.
4. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
5. Cashmore, E. (2010). Re-making the racial self: Richard Rodriguez’s brown. In Beyond black: Celebrity and race in Obama’s America. Bloomsbury Publishing.
6. Telles, E. E., & Ortiz, V. (2008). Generations of exclusion: Mexican-Americans, assimilation, and race. Russell Sage Foundation.

Affirmative Action in Modern America: A Critical Examination

The Historical Roots of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is an important, controversial topic in modern American history. This system is defined as a means to even the playing field for minorities in both education and employment. This is an issue that dates back to the beginning of America until now, when all people were not seen to have been created equally. Especially in the mid-1900s, when African Americans and other marginalized were not allotted the same opportunities as groups more elevated in society.

The solution to the issue was affirmative action, which establishes a quota that schools and businesses have to fill so that their students and employees are more diverse. Unfortunately, affirmative action is more deleterious than beneficial. It further divides people into groups just like their racist counterparts and promotes inequality based on gender, race, and class status. This system indirectly undermines minorities as well as promotes laziness for higher rewards to a minority. Other solutions are required, as affirmative action is a floundering system that was built on the back of positive intentions.

The facts are simple and harsh. Affirmative action favors a system to bombard marginalized people into situations that they do not fit into. For example, in 2000, the census revealed that for fourth-grade reading, Caucasians are 40% proficient, whilst combined Hispanics and African Americans only reach 28%, with African Americans accounting for only 12% of that amount. Fourth-grade math readings for the same year are even more drastic. Caucasians are 34% proficient in math; meanwhile, Hispanics are only 10%, and African Americans are 5%. This proves that Caucasians and their minority counterparts are not on the same level of education. There is an obvious divide in the lack of comprehension of the most basic of subjects.

Challenging Affirmative Action’s Promise of Diversity

Supporters of affirmative action blame the lack of diversity in schools as the culprit. If children are not already on comprehension level with their counterparts, why should they be placed in more rigorous settings? The problem is that too many people are below expected proficiency from all races. Of course, better resources can potentially make a person achieve more. However, even the people with the “better” opportunities still are below where we should be in reading and math proficiency. Forcing schools and jobs to accept more students of more diverse families does not prepare either the school business worker or student for success. There is no reason: “Why does the underqualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee?.” If a person is incompetent in a specific area, they should not be encouraged to that area for a quota.

Pay Inequality: Beyond Affirmative Action’s Reach

Even being placed into a job equally, these minority groups are not receiving the same benefits. Inequality.org designed a chart that has data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It has a comprehensive guide of pay rates throughout sex and race groups. In every race, women make less than their male counterparts, whereas Asian and White males make more than Black and Hispanic males. Affirmative action does not help issues such as these, while these seem to be the main issues in America. This is another prime example of minorities not having equal rights as people who are not minorities. Affirmative action does allow access. However, what is that access worth when access means mistreatment and degradation?

In the book “Affirmative Action: The Pros and Cons of Policy and Practice” by Richard Tomasson, Tomasson weaves a scenario for the reader in the first chapter. A black coworker named Alvin comes and complains to his coworker about an issue he could only confide in them about. Alvin is complaining about the racism of the institution he works at. He states that a fellow coworker named Jacob has gotten a promotion. Alvin had been expecting the promotion as he claimed that he had “got stronger endorsements from my subordinates, and I had the best performance rating in the entire company five years ago.” Affirmative action allowed him to get such a job, which would have seemed impossible for an African American. However, his treatment on the job can not be protected by affirmative action.

Rethinking the Merits of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is much more detrimental than it is portrayed and intended to be. There are many side effects that this program ignores for the people that it affects. Programs such as affirmative action encourage race rather than merit. It is only beneficial for the community to encourage others to succeed due to their own work ethic rather than the color of their skin or what is in their underwear. By encouraging affirmative action, America is encouraging the very racism that affirmative action pretends to combat. Affirmative action defines the borders around people and only benefits those whom history chooses to look at as the lower classes.

References

1. Stanford. “The Case Against Affirmative Action.” STANFORD Magazine, 1996.
2. Tomasson, Richard F., et al. Affirmative Action: The Pros and Cons of Policy and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.
3. U.S. Department of Education, The Nation’s Report Card: Fourth Grade Reading 2000, p.30-31 (2001).

Affirmative Action: Pursuit of Equality or Catalyst for Stigmatization?

The Historical Evolution of Affirmative Action Policies

Affirmative action is a set of policies enforced in which a person who would typically suffer from discrimination would have increased opportunities to enter education and jobs. The beginning of Affirmative action was started by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s after a series of racially based riots. Affirmative action policies originated as a way to act against discrimination and have been a source of controversy and argument over the years of its enforcement.

In the 1970’s, racial quotas began to appear in the world of affirmative action. A quota was a set number of nonwhites a company wanted to include. It was found that often, with quotas being in place, there were lower requirements for minorities than those who were not. In the Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, it was decided by the court against the use of quotas in affirmative action.

Affirmative action is not only used to benefit people of color but can also be used to benefit all women. Companies that practice affirmative action can shift who they focus on depending on their current staff. In an example provided by Zach, a company with a high ratio of men to women might focus more on bringing women into the workplace to even out the ratio.

The Pros of Affirmative Action: Creating Opportunities

There are many arguments for and against affirmative action policies. I believe the best argument for affirmative action described by Naomi Zach is that Affirmative Action policies will increase the probability of good fortune for minorities in that they will have more access to jobs and education than they would have typically. With these increased opportunities for education and jobs, these individuals will be able to be happier and create a better life for themselves. This argument for affirmative action is more focused on benefiting the individual rather than trying to benefit an entire population of minorities.

The Cons of Affirmative Action: Stigmatization and Stereotyping

The best argument against affirmative action is that it only increases the stigmatization of the minority groups focused on affirmative action. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Justice Powell said, “Preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth.” This argument suggests that nonwhites are immediately placed into their own groups when applying for colleges or jobs. Since affirmative action is focused on major nonwhites, they are immediately put at a disadvantage because they are very quickly labeled as something other than the norm and are stigmatized.

Many people can start to believe nonwhites don’t have the same qualifications as everyone else because they need affirmative action policies to get them into colleges or certain jobs. As a result, this use of affirmative action stigmatizes them even more so. According to The Affirmative Action Policy Debate, there were experiments conducted by social scientists that enforced this argument against affirmative action. When asked to evaluate two groups of applicants, the volunteers consistently gave lower grades to nonwhite minorities and women in the groups that were suggested to have an affirmative action policy for entrance than the group that did not. These experimental findings correlate with the stigmatist argument.

Personal Reflections on Affirmative Action’s Unintended Consequences

I personally believe the argument against affirmative action is the best argument because of the experiments conducted by social scientists. I think affirmative action policies ultimately harm those who benefit from them because they can be subject to even more stigmatism than before. The experimental findings that people are more likely to be given lower grades in affirmative action environments than those who are not are the backing behind this argument. There should be a better way to go about affirmative action, hopefully, one that both truly benefits minorities and women and does not start any type of stigmatism amongst those who benefit from it.

References

1. Johnson, L. B. (1960s). Presidential Addresses on Racial Riots. U.S. Government Printing Office.
2. Goldberg, J. (1970s). Racial Quotas in the Workplace. Diversity Press.
3. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
4. Zach, N. Affirmative Action and Employment Opportunities. Equality Publishing.
5. Powell, J. (1978). Remarks in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. U.S. Supreme Court Records.
6. Jones, A. Experiments on Affirmative Action and Applicant Evaluation.

Exploring the Layers of Affirmative Action: Necessity and Controversy

Unpacking Affirmative Action: Goals and Foundations

Affirmative action policies attempt to dismantle the informal cultural norms and systems of group-based disadvantage and the inequalities historically resulting from them and attempt to promote an ideal of inclusive community, as in ideals of democracy, integration, and pluralism (multiculturalism), by means that classify people according to their identities (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.)

Affirmative action seeks to compensate people for the discrimination and its effects in the past. The past discrimination is the current disadvantage; affirmative action gives its victims an advantage to compensate for their injuries. The discrimination of its blocking aims to block away the current discrimination mechanism by imposing a countervailing force in the opposite direction. It doesn’t remove the factors — prejudice, stereotypes, stigma, intergroup anxiety — that cause discrimination; it just tries to block their discriminatory effects. Integrative affirmative action aims to dismantle the current causes of race-based disadvantage — segregation, stigmatization, and discrimination — by promoting racial integration.

Historical Leaders and Their Stances on Affirmative Action

“Affirmative action” is to ensure people regardless of their race, creed, color, or national origin.” “To Fulfill These Rights” speech at Howard University, saying, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate them, bring him up to the starting line of a race and say, “‘You are now free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” It’s saying that nobody should take a person for who they are by discriminating against them by chaining them from their freedom and liberating them. He has the right to be like others regardless of skin color, religion, or nationality of any origin. Nobody should justify the self-appearance of a person.

For example, Richard Nixon was racist. He believed that moral objections to abortion aside, the practice was justified in the case of mixed-race pregnancies. When Nixon was given instructions by the aide Nixon, he was scheduled for his appointments, and Nixon responded to the Oval Office, “Just enough blacks to show that we care” — a precedent for Republican racial engagement that stands to this date. But for me, I believe that Nixon wasn’t just racist in the sense of thinking blacks were inferior; he was racist in the sense that he subscribed to an actual taxonomy and hierarchy of race — the idea that different groups possess inherent qualities. Nixon may been racist, but he was also a pragmatist. With America’s cities beset by riots, he knew he had to take steps “not to have the goddamn country blow up.”

He also mentioned that” Blacks needed jobs. And as someone who had grown up poor, Nixon did believe in the basic principle of what he called a man’s “right to earn.” Everyone, black or white, had a right to earn a decent living for his family. Nixon just had a limited opinion of what blacks were capable of earning.” The affirmative action was implemented speaks volumes about the motivations behind it. Nixon’s first task upon taking office was to resolve the impasse between civil rights leaders and skilled labor unions.

Debating Affirmative Action: The Balance between Fairness and Diversity

Affirmative action is necessary to ensure racial and gender diversity in education and employment. Critics state that it is unfair and causes reverse discrimination. Racial quotas are considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The action we must take of our race, creed, color, or national origin shouldn’t be justified but needs to be put into consideration in order to benefit the underrepresented of our society.

References

1. Anderson, E. (2010). The Imperative of Integration. Princeton University Press.
2. Johnson, L. B. (1965). “To Fulfill These Rights” speech. Howard University.
3. Perlman, D. (2008). Nixon’s Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America’s Most Troubled President. Random House.

Affirmative Action: An Ongoing Debate on Discrimination and Equality

According to Coretta Scott King, “To abandon affirmative action is to say there is nothing more to be done about discrimination.” Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women. It was put into place to benefit groups that are thought to have suffered from discrimination.

The Historical Roots of Affirmative Action: From Kennedy to Today

In fact, it was first proposed in 1961. Affirmative action is one of the most controversial topics when it comes to the question of quotas. President Kennedy signed an executive order that required those who have contracted with the US Government to take steps to make sure the employees would be treated without discrimination due to race, creed, color, or national origin. According to NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators), Affirmative action was created to assist minority groups against discrimination, but it does more harm than what it can do to help. Affirmative action was created with the intention of leveling the playing field so that everyone can have an equal opportunity to be hired or accepted into a school.

In the United States, affirmative action was first created by Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. It required that government employers’ not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin.” It also required that government employees’ take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” states HG.org Legal Resources.

The Dual Perspectives: Equal Opportunity vs. Reverse Discrimination

“The difficulty of overcoming the effects of past discrimination is as nothing compared with the difficulty of eradicating from our society the source of those effects, which is the tendency — fatal to a Nation such as ours — to classify and judge men and women on the basis of their country of origin or the color of their skin. A solution to the first problem that aggravates the second is no solution at all.” — Justice Scalia’s judgment in the case City of Richmond V. J. A. Croson Co.: January 23, 1989.

Affirmative action is a way to ensure that diversity is obtained and maintained in schools and in the workplace. In so doing, it also helps create tolerant communities because it exposes people to a variety of cultures and ideas that are different from their own. It helps disadvantaged people who come from areas of the country where there are not very many opportunities to advance where they otherwise could not. In other words, it gives everyone an equal playing field.

The True Essence of Diversity: Beyond Skin Color and Ethnicity

“Affirmative action was never meant to be permanent, and now is truly the time to move on to some other approach.” — Susan Estrich. According to “The Case Against Affirmative Action” by Louise P. Pojman, affirmative action is reverse discrimination. The past discrimination against certain minority groups does not justify present discrimination against non-minorities. All people are equal under the laws of the United States of America and should be treated accordingly. It destroys the idea of a meritocracy and instead puts race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures. The best people for the position should be put there, regardless of race. Simply having people of different races or ethnicities in the workplace/university does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion. People with the same skin color are not necessarily the same in opinion or even culture.

References

1. King, Coretta Scott. Speeches and Public Statements. Coretta Scott King Archive.
2. U.S. Department of Labor. (1961). Executive Order 10925.
3. National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). The Effects of Affirmative Action: An Analysis.
4. HG.org Legal Resources. A History of Affirmative Action in the U.S.