Affirmative Action Policy - Term Paper Example

?Maybe you didn’t see my earlier It's been converted to foot s. Making it simpler is ambiguous. I have no idea what your writing level is soyou'll have to modify it to suit. Student name Instructor name Course name Date Affirmative Action Until relatively recently, persons of color, minorities, were not allowed equal access to employment opportunities. The cultural philosophy that justified and imposed racial segregation is the reason that affirmative action, what some consider reverse discrimination, had to be federally mandated. Without this ideologically divisive legislation to help ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, the balance of power in this nation would still more heavily favor the ethnic majority and occupational segregation would still continue much more blatantly than it still does today. A society’s evolution is dependent upon social acceptance on a widespread basis, a slow process that doesn’t appear to happen naturally without the introduction of affirmative action policies. From the time of its implementation, affirmative action laws have succeeded in balancing the scale of employment opportunities available to persons of all ethnicities. The main tool of affirmative action policies, the quota system, is used by governmental offices. It reflects the specific region’s ethnic demographics therefore allowing for legitimate equality that is not biased towards any specific race. Even though the majority ethnic group, white persons, may today think they are being treated unjustly because they have undeniably lost a little ground from an financial perspective, the scale of justice has been adjusted closer to the center thanks mainly to affirmative action hiring policies which demonstrates the need for this system to continue. The expression “affirmative action” first appeared in 1965 on Executive Order 11246 signed by President Lyndon Johnson. The Order mandated that federal government contractors to “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.” In 1967 Johnson expanded the Order to shield women from discrimination too. The Order reads, in part, “A contractor in violation of E.O. 11246 may have its contracts canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be debarred, i.e., declared ineligible for future government contracts.” 1 From its inception, affirmative action hiring policies have helped many thousands from formerly disadvantaged segments of society who have since achieved access to civil service jobs that had been denied previously. This includes persons of color, other ethnic minorities and women who had been excluded from jobs or denied the equal opportunities for advancement within the government institution once attaining access. These employment gains have translated to very real improvements not just in individual person’s lives but in the progression of society’s concept of justice for all. Affirmative action programs cannot hope to eliminate racist attitudes but can mitigate the effects caused by institutional racism. These programs and policies vary with regard to their directives and extent of conformity according to the nature of the chosen organization when applying to the Federal Government. By utilizing this adaptable approach, contractors who maintain a business relationship with the Government may have to adhere more strictly to affirmative action precepts than those of the private sector. The concept of affirmative action has had its opponents and implementing the policy has had its problems, but to eliminate this guiding principle of equal opportunity would be to erase the hard fought successes of the Civil Rights Movement and return to blatant racism present in the country prior to the 1960’s. Arguments involving affirmative action policies are more extensive than just the legality of the issue. It is the ethical responsibility of every person and institution in the nation to use every tool at their disposal to end racism. However there are some who have strongly opposed both the legality of affirmative action policies and as a social solution for bigotry. They claim that “affirmative action is an example of two wrongs not making a right claiming reverse discrimination has been the ultimate result, yet they do not challenge traditional forms of favoritism and discriminatory practices that continue to benefit the rich and powerful elements of society.” 2 The debate surrounding affirmative action is usually divided down ethnic lines because in many cases hiring practices continue to discriminate. Affirmative action is intended to help balance the scales of justice for everyone and not to discriminate against any group. Even after more than 40 years following the implementation of these policies, the scales remain tipped toward the ethnic majority and wealthier segment of society. Reverse discrimination, as some claim is the result of affirmative action policies, is not a reasonable conclusion because employment inequality obviously continues. The economic hierarchy demonstrates that racial bias that still occurs. Unemployment is always higher among minority factions of society. Those opposed to affirmative action are against government enforced equality and are quite content with the white segment of society being economically advantaged. Although there are no federally mandated requirements to employ unqualified people, opponents maintain that affirmative action policies allow the minority applicant to be hired before the more qualified white applicant. This reasoning has two flaws. An employer can choose from several motivations to hire the “qualified applicant.” This is an open and extremely vague phrase that can be essentially ignored or manipulate to fit the employer’s possible racist inclinations. Employers usually hire people not based simply on test scores but on other factors as well including personal and family connections, personal appearance, ties to particular schools and on gender and ethnic preferences whether consciously or not. Hiring preferences such as these have contributed to a segregation of the work force. Whites have historically and continue to have the higher paying positions and persons of color tend to occupy the most poorly paid the least desirable jobs. The other flaw with the opponent’s case is the system of standardized testing. Predominantly white neighborhoods tend to have better schools than predominantly minority neighborhoods. A person’s quality of early education doesn’t always predict their employment potential. This does not mean, however, that an unqualified applicant should be hired but that persons who may not score the highest on testing during the application process may actually be better prepared for the job and should be considered for employment based on additional criteria. The law does not require this extra consideration on the part of an employer but it likely is advisable for the sake of the company and is in keeping with the spirit of affirmative action principles. Hiring considerations such as this would help advance society from the dark days of an institutionalized racist past towards a more enlightened and equitable future. “Affirmative action policies and implementations, as required by law or not, serve as a socially corrective measure to long-held patterns of oppression and discrimination. These measures help to guide the development toward proportional social representation and place the burden of proof as to why it is not possible to achieve equality within institutions regarding learning, employment and position on those institutions.” 3 Given the continued disparity of employment opportunities for the poor in both the private and public sector, an argument proposed by some is that affirmative action has benefited minorities but has disproportionately favored middle and upper-middle class persons of color, not the working class poor who need it most. A closer examination of this criticism demonstrates that affirmative action policies have benefited considerable numbers of the poor and working class minority persons. “Access to job training programs, vocational schools, and semi-skilled and skilled blue-collar, craft, pink-collar, police and firefighter jobs has increased substantially through affirmative action programs. Even in the professions, many people of color who have benefited from affirmative action have been from families of low income and job status” 4 Affirmative action have certainly benefited middle class minorities due to the color of their skin but then all persons of color in all socio-economic groups have experienced the detrimental effects of racial discrimination. While the benefits of financial success shields against some of the more severe effects of racism, it doesn’t protect minorities from racial discrimination in the workplace. Opponents also say that affirmative action is blatantly unfair to white men. Some think they are being punished for those who discriminated against minorities in a different time period and different societal mindset therefore today may not get a job that they may be more qualified to perform. These people are right in that some white males may not get some job opportunities due to affirmative action programs and that their financial situation suffers as a result. Fewer employment opportunities for any particular group are unfortunate and its sources are what the discussion should be about, not whether or not affirmative action should exist. Millions of minorities have also been deprived job opportunities due to racial discrimination. Affirmative action acts as the counterbalance of oppression. It was not intended to make amends for what used to exist, but also to balance the racial discrimination that continues to exist. Those who argue the opponents position seem to be concerned only with white persons who don’t get an employment opportunity because of their race but not with minorities who don’t get the job for the same reason. That is a demonstration of the very slanted racial preference which reinforces the need for affirmative action. If the contention that white persons are losing jobs because of affirmative action policies is legitimate, it surely has not materialized into equal opportunities for minorities. “If one looks at the organization of various professions such as law, medicine, architecture, academics and journalism, or at corporate management, or at higher-level government positions or if one looks overall at the average income levels of white men one immediately notices that people of color are still significantly underrepresented and underpaid in every category” 5 Minorities are not represented proportionately at any level of employment when compared as a percentage of population nor are they paid equitably especially when compared to white males. “White men are tremendously overrepresented in almost any category of work that is highly rewarded except for professional athletics. According to a government report, white males make up only 29 percent of the workforce, but they hold 95 percent of senior management positions” 6 Studies have demonstrated what is commonly acknowledged, many private and public institutions and business privately practice covert discrimination policies while publicly supporting the concepts of equal opportunity and affirmative action. “There are so many subtle and not-so-subtle ways to eliminate people of color from the job application process it is not surprising that employers have found ways around affirmative action unless it is tied to visible hiring and promotion targets” 7 It is essential to have a system in place that monitors and enforces principles of affirmative action because this is the only technique by which compliance with the law and can be guaranteed. Affirmative action policies allow opportunities for entire segments of society who would not otherwise have them and has been conclusively demonstrated to be a wise choice for some immediately and everyone ultimately. Opponents of affirmative action want to prevent comprehensive social progress as well as society’s commitment to equality and justice. Additionally, those that oppose the concept of affirmative action are contributing to the destruction of the social fabric which affects all persons except, of course, the wealthy and powerful. Affirmative action is not a cure-all and will never eradicate racial discrimination but is an effort to combat its ill effects. History has shown beyond question that racism will not correct itself without intervention. The psychological and economic and impediment to minorities and to society itself are passed on to each succeeding generation unless corrective measures are taken. Affirmative action is a legally recognized symbol of America’s the ruling class acknowledging the essential responsibility to eradicate discriminatory practices. It is very important for the greater good of society. If citizens are really committed to the American ideals of equality and justice for all, than we cannot abandon affirmative action programs that help make up for the human misery which results from racial discrimination. Works Cited Chideya, Farai. “Don't Believe the Hype: Fighting Cultural Misinformation about African-Americans.” New York: Plume/Penguin Books. 1995. Ellis, Virginia, Hurst, John “Women, Minorities Still Lag in Government Contracting” Los Angeles Times September 11, 1995. Web. November 25, 2011 < http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-11/news/mn-44605_1_affirmative-action-contracting> “Executive Order 11246 of 1965” Society for Human and Resource Management US Department of Labor 10/7/08. Web. November 25, 2011 Ezorsky, Gertrude. “Racism & Justice: The Case for Affirmative Action.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1991. Sklar, Holly. “Chaos or Community?: Seeking Solutions, Not Scapegoats for Bad Economics.” Boston: South End Press. 1995. Skrentny, John. “The Ironies of Affirmative Action.” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Read More