Affirmative Action - Essay Example

? Affirmative Action Teacher: December 9, Affirmative action is still needed in There are discrepancies between thewhite males versus women and nonwhite males in terms of equal rights to education and higher paying jobs. The research delves into the hiring of minorities and accepting minorities in school programs. The research also focuses on viability of implementing the provisions of the affirmative action law during 2012. The companies and schools must implement all the provisions of the affirmative action law. Affirmative action includes requiring the companies to reserve a certain percentage of its total employment force or total student enrollees to the minorities of society. Affirmative action entails avoiding discrimination in the hiring of employees and acceptance of students enrolling in a school. Some companies interpret affirmative action as a quota system (Lapenson, 2009). Companies must allot a certain percentage of the entire work force to minorities. In the same manner, schools should allocate a certain percentage of the total enrollment to minorities. Initially, affirmative action was crafted into law to eliminate racial discrimination against the African Americans. The companies are penalized for discriminating against the minority job applicants and minority student enrollees. Further, statistical data shows that affirmative action has changed the landscapes. The prior data indicated that 47.5 percent of the total work force before 1909 were women. During the current period, the female workers increased to 85 percent of the total workforce in the US. The affirmation action triggered the current environment where companies hire more nonwhites and female employees (Clayton, 1992). Initially, the affirmative action plan was implemented to eliminate the racial discrimination activities in the hiring of employees and accepting the enrollment applications by new students. In sports, some games required hiring female coaches to eliminate gender-based as well as race-based affirmative action abuse (McKay, 1997). United States President John F. Kennedy approved Executive Order 10925. The order required affirmative action to be implemented in all areas of American life. The executive order requires the elimination of discrimination in the work place. Discrimination can be done in several aspects. The aspects include race, color, creed, and national origin. President John F. Kennedy envisioned that companies would not hire a job applicant or accept the enrollment of student based on one’s race, color, gender, religion, religion or national origin. The order firmly established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Prior to President Kennedy’s executive order, African Americans had more difficulty in finding jobs when compared to the Caucasian Americans (Spann, 2000). Next, United States President Lyndon Johnson interpreted the affirmative action to include generating more job opportunities and school enrollment rights to the African Americans. President Johnson spearheaded an updated version of the affirmation action provision during 1965. President Johnson insists that the affirmative action law gave everyone of all races, color, religion, gender, and national origin equal rights to land a vacant job or enroll in a school of their choice (Fischer, 2010). Lastly, the affirmative action fluctuated during different time periods (Platt, 1997). Women benefitted from affirmative action. During the 1970s, 53 percent of college and university students were nonwhites. Affirmative action triggered an increase in female graduates in medical school (8 percent increase) and law schools (5 percent increase). Specifically, the 1979 to 1989 research period shows that there was a 31 percent increase in African American men and 55 percent increase in African American women. Further, there is a 39 percent increase in Hispanic men and 45 percent increase in Hispanic women in terms of medical school enrollment statistics (Welch, 1998). The research shows that many white Americans prefer cancellation of the affirmative action law. Many white American respondents prefer the United States government would implement their right to choose any person they wish to work with. The white American respondents insist that prioritizing the African Americans or minorities abuses the rights of the white Americans to freely choose their fellow white Americans for the job vacancies. Another research shows that the implementation of the affirmative action plan often works (Hays, 1993). The plan works if all affected parties willingly cooperate within the tenets of the affirmative action provisions. The study indicates that the companies should not consider the job applicants and student applicants’ race, gender, religion, and national origin as significant factors in choosing a new employee or new student. The human resource department must implement the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action in the hiring, training, promotion, firing, and retiring of the company’s current and future employees. Further, another research shows that the implementation of the affirmative action provisions affected employment statistics (Bisping, 2000). The research shows that affirmative action increased the unemployment rate of minorities. Since the affirmative action provisions require the hiring of African Americans and other nonwhite job applicants and student enrollees, more Afican Americans could not find jobs because the companies must retain the African Americans and other minorities within their workforce. Further, affirmative action should not be reduced or eliminated during our current period (Hays, 1993). The research shows that some schools had been lenient in the implementation of the affirmative action provisions. Many schools reduce the approval of African American student applicants. In terms of school employees, a study showed that 87 percent of faculty members are white Americans. The government must monitor all affirmative action situations. The government must help penalize companies that violate the provisions of affirmative action sections. Title 7 of the United States Constitution pertaining to the United States citizen’s civil rights specifically requires that affirmative action – civil rights – should be implemented in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Tucker, 2000). The 14th Amendment includes the necessary implementation of the affirmative action provisions (Sims, 2007). However, many white Americans may feel that they have a right to stop the implementation of the affirmative action provisions. The affected white Americans may question the validity of hiring an Asian employee instead of hiring a white American. Some white Americans happily explain that lack of expertise in the African American may wreak havoc on the company meeting its goals and objectives on time. The opposing argument that affirmative action is no longer needed in 2012 violates our Constitution’s provisions that seek to eliminate discrimination (Tucker, 2000). Without the affirmative action provisions, some companies may refuse to hire female applicants. With the affirmative action provisions being removed, the human right abusers can refuse to hire more skilled African Americans or reduce the number of female applicants winning a tightly contested office job. Consequently, the absence of the above affirmative action law may tempt the employers and schools to discriminate against nonwhites and female job applicants and student enrollees. Summarizing the important points of the above discussion, affirmative action provisions equate to implementation of the civil right provisions and anti-discriminatory act provisions of the United States Constitution. Affirmative action focuses on ensuring discrimination is not allowed in the hiring of employees and accepting students’ application papers. The action entails eliminating discrimination both at home and at school. Evidently, affirmative action is still needed in 2012 and in the future in order to ensure compliance with the United States laws on racial discrimination including racial discrimination based on one’s gender and race factors. References Bisping, T. (2000). Job queues, discrimination, and affirmative action. Economic Inquiry, 38 (1), 123–135. Clayton, S. (1992). Justice, gender. New York: University Press. Fischer, K. (2010). Advantages and controversy of U.S. "affirmative action" concerning african americans. New York: Grin Press. Lapenson, B. (2009). Affirmative action and the meanings of merit. New York: University Press. Platt, A. (1997). Endgame: The rise and fall of affirmative action in higher education. Social Justice, 24, 103-118. Sims, R. (2007). Human resource management: Contemporary issues, challenges and opportunities. New York: IAP Press. Spann, G. (2000). The Law of Affirmative Action: 25 years of Supreme Court decisions on race and remedies. New York: University Press. Tucker, R. (2000). Affirmation action: The Supreme Court, and political power. New York: University Press. Welch, S. (1998). Affirmative action. New York: University Press. Read More