Amendment and Affirmitave Action - Research Paper Example

 Introduction Affirmative Action developed when the need for civil rights became a main issue for minority races. From the unfair laws, many began to focus on the concept of initiating new regulations to ensure that fair opportunity was provided in institutional arenas, such as educational programs and among the workforce. The 14th amendment was the main outcome of this, which created a different association with the concept of offering equal opportunity within the public sector. Today, the concept of Affirmative Action has become a debate in society with issues related to how far the equal rights should go. From one perspective, many believe there is the need for the law because of a lack of opportunities from minorities in the workforce which should be supported by the Constitution. However, many have also disagreed with this with the belief that this violates Constitutional rights from another perspective and with regards to modern concepts and equal opportunity. The court cases of the earlier regulations for Affirmative Action state that there should be guidance with the 14th Amendment; however newer regulations question the concept of needed rights made through these laws. For Affirmative Action to remain effective, there needs to be rebuilding of what equal opportunity means, not only through race and gender, but instead based on qualification and talent of every individual. Background of Affirmative Action The concept of Affirmative Action resulted from the civil rights movement, with several believing that there needed to be a different association with principles and fair rights among minorities and women. The main set of laws for Affirmative Action resulted from several protests from African – Americans, all which believed there needed to be an alteration in the power of the law and how minorities were treated. The protest movements began through the leader, Martin Luther King Jr., who noted that specific changes had to be made to empower those who had been kept under the consensus of slavery and which didn’t have the same opportunity as others. The regulations created through the policies began with smaller concepts, such as African – Americans having the right to specific benefits in society and by having the same privileges as others within society. The focus that was created from the Civil Rights movement was to create policies and legislation that would end discrimination and would force employers and institutions to offer the same services and opportunity that was provided to whites. During this time, most African – Americans were denied a fair education, were segregated into different living sections and were not able to have employment available that was based on credential. The push of the Civil Rights movement was to initiate change that would stop the unfair policies from occurring (Skrentny, 143, 1996). The policies that were pushed forward with affirmative action were not only developed because of the ideologies of John F Kennedy and the way in which he approached racial injustice. In 1961, Kennedy implemented the first policy to bring a sense of justice and fair practice to those who were suffering from discrimination. This came from the several protests throughout the 1950s which accumulated into uprisings that required action. Kennedy’s response was to make this a public issue and to offer a voice to those who were undergoing discrimination. By the 1960s, the African American population carried 70% of Kennedy’s vote because of his continuous action to end discrimination. The policy in 1961 was followed by immediate action in which Kennedy initiated a forced change in the workforce for the government. The initiative focused on having a percentage of minorities working within the government field and to use federal contracts as a means of offering African – Americans and other minorities more work within their area of expertise. The executive order 10925 was developed after this, which associated the concept of affirmative action with fair rights for employment in the workforce. There was also an establishment of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity or PCEEO, which focused on enforcing nondiscrimination within various institutions. The Kennedy administration then became known for initiating racial justice within the workforce while supporting policies to assist in better options for the work force (Lapenson, 3, 2009). After the death of Kennedy, a change in the political realm occurred through Lyndon Johnson. However, the same concepts applied to initiating affirmative action and the changes which were required through offering civil rights and fair action. Several speeches were given by Johnson to offer minorities more options in education and within the workforce. The focus that Johnson took was to ensure that every American had the opportunity to live the American dream and to enjoy equality and a fulfilling life, which caused him to have a high level of commitment and action toward affirmative action. The philosophy which Lyndon followed was best said with a speech in which he stated “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of the race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair” (Johnson, 23, 1995). Creating this ideology and following it with actions toward affirmative action was then able to provide more opportunity for those who were from minority programs. More important, there was the ability to create new initiatives within the workforce while working toward a deeper understanding of what civil rights and equality meant. Executive Order 10925 The first movement toward affirmative action was from Executive Order 10925, developed by John F. Kennedy. The term of affirmative action was first coined through this term, which led to several initiatives to create equal opportunity in employment and the educational environment. The concept was to provide that each individual was employed fairly and was treated with equal consideration during employment, specifically which was based on their talent and credentials, as opposed to race, creed or color. The executive order later became linked to the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, or PCEEO, through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main promotion that Kennedy pointed out with this act is that there should be fair practices based on the need to secure the economy, national defense and the union of the nation as a whole. The labor force could contribute to this by stopping the inner discrimination and instead working toward the security and the economy that was a part of the nation. Executive Order 10925 became important because it led to several policies in terms of affirmative action while changing the focus of many businesses and institutions for higher education. The ideology was to use anti-discrimination components to change the practices of employment. Kennedy first began this by initiating federal contracts to those that were of color to offer equal employment. The PCEEO further initiated this by taking in complaints that were a part of the affirmative action policy required for every business (Mayer, 19, 1999). Executive Order 11246 One way in which affirmative action became a main focus of policies and laws in America was through the executive order 11246. This was initiated in 1965 by Lyndon Johnson and was built with the specific focus of preventing discrimination in business firms, specifically by using federal contracts. This was the fifth executive order that was based on fair employment for contracts and was enforced by stating that unfair practices could not be practiced within any work environment. The enforcement was not only stated through the policy created but was also reinforced through the U.S. Department of Labor. If minorities or women didn’t receive fair treatment within the work place, then they had the right to have an executive order that would grant them the same rights as others within the work force. The result was that businesses were required to develop affirmative action plans that would guarantee fair practices for hiring within the work force (Anderson, 298, 1996). The main focus of the Executive Order 11246 created several changes within the work force and with the initiation of fair policies. However, the concept of affirmative action was known o change through time. One of the last was through the case of Gratz vs. Bollinger. The case opened in 2003 as a legal standing from Jennifer Gratz, who stated that she had been denied to law school in 1995 because of a points system in the University of Michigan. The points system stated that certain individuals would be able to attend while others with the points would have to go into a waiting list based on the amount of points collected. Gratz stated that the points system had not been initiated when she had applied and she was still not admitted. It was stated that there was not a discriminatory barrier in allowing Gratz to attend the school and no equal basis for the distinction. The case turned into one which guarantees the rights of those who are fit to go into a school with the correct merits as a specific association with affirmative action (Perry, 17 2007). Another court case which showed the same concept was Fullilove vs. Klutznick, a court case issued in 1980. In this instance, it was stated that Congress could use legal powers to eliminate discrimination that was a part of the workforce, specifically which was based on past discriminations. A budget of 10% was created specifically for public works that would go to minority owned companies as a result of this case. The basis of this case was associated with contractors which were denied rights for federal contracting before the executive orders were initiated. The federal contracts were reversed and the workers were able to receive the contracts which were initially denied because of the unfair practices from before. More important, the budget created was able to change how most focused on unfair contracting (Drake, 3, 1997). Another initiative which was taken was with the United States vs. Paradise in 1972. The main problem was based on a ruling in the Public Safety Department of Alabama which used a system that would stop blacks and other minorities from being hired. The state was told to issue a reform that didn’t discriminate against minorities and which offered them the same jobs as others that were on the force. The Public Safety Department rebutted the claim made for a fair hiring system. The problem lasted through several lawsuits and continued to move through court for the next 12 years since a racial system for fair hiring had never been initiated. The end result was that one black would be hired for every white and would take at least 25% of the police force in the state of Alabama. This was determined by the number of blacks and whites in the population as well as what was expected to initiate diversity (Glazer, 54, 1987). Another court case that shows the same initiative is the Hopwood vs. University of Texas Law School. The main court hearing began in 1992 when Cheryl Hopwood was rejected from the University of Texas to study law. The main complaint was that Hopwood was denied admission to the school because of reverse discrimination. The school had a policy that a number of minorities had to be in the school, which caused her to be denied admission into the school. The point which she showed was based on her high academic credentials as well as her problems with a muscular disease, which were not considered with her admission into the school. It was decided that Hopwood was correct in her allegations of reverse discrimination. The school was basing the merits of the discrimination on racial profiles as opposed to academic credentials, showing that it was a part of racial discrimination. Reissuing the policies then had to be considered to ensure that the denial or acceptance into an institution was based on academic merit (Merle, 7, 1996). Racial and Gender Workforce in the 1960s The executive actions that have changed the mindsets of equal rights and employment through time can be seen through the specific changes in gender and race through time. The 1960s, which was the main point of change, was initiated first by John F Kennedy and then through Martin Luther King Jr. During this time, the workforce was comprised mostly of whites and males as the expected majority population. This is further associated with the occupational hierarchy, where it is expected that white males will have the opportunity to further their education and to receive higher paying jobs and careers because of their color and gender. In the 1960s, there were very few women who were working, while most were caregivers. Minorities were also not offered jobs as it was expected that their educational levels would be lower and that the social status would only cause difficulties within the workforce. More important, the jobs which were offered to minorities and women were based on an occupational belief in which many believed that women and minorities should hold a specific type of position. The professions were divided according to female and male jobs, as well as minority work and white male work. While the 1960s noticed some expansion in opportunity, there was difficulty in receiving higher paying jobs that required more education and which led to significant opportunity within the work field (Sokoloff, 56, 1992). The concepts that were initiated to offer equal opportunity in the 1960s began specifically because of Affirmative Action laws and policies, as well as the forced implementation taken by different organizations. Governments moved into specific plans that would provide a specific amount of the population to have a sociological basis that would balance equal opportunity. The concept of policy and law that was in each area moved from federal regulations and into specific and systematized efforts that were linked to Affirmative Action. The basis of the policies moved down to the local areas which responded to Affirmative Action with local policies that altered the language, cultural values and past and future laws to uphold the concept of Affirmative Action. Through these initiatives, there was the ability to uphold the concept of equal rights and employment within the work force while adjusting the main policies to the needs of each locality that would provide the proper adjustment to the national policies. Many saw this as problematic because of the swift changes and expectations; however, the concept of providing equal employment and opportunity slowly began to submerge into the main culture and was accepted by society because of the court cases and expectations for Affirmative Action (Pedriana, Sryker, 633, 1997). Even though there were specific initiatives that were required for Affirmative Action, several groups were distinguished outside of the concept. Barriers were not only affiliated with race and color, but also moved into hierarchies of discrimination. Since Affirmative Action was required specifically for those who were coming out of slavery, there were still problems that arose because of other types of discrimination. One of the noted difficulties that were seen and which were not directly impacted by the new laws was in relation to gender. Affirmative Action did not support or assist women when the Civil Rights movement was a part of the discrimination, beginning in the 1960s. It wasn’t until women took a separate set of protests and movements that change began to occur. The trademark year for women implementing Affirmative Action was in 1972, specifically because barriers were not taken out completely for women. More important, female employment was based on hierarchical expectations of what type of work women could or couldn’t do. The discrimination was not only based on the right to employment, but also constraints that had already been established within the workplace and which created further problems for women. Most women were required to create separate movements from minorities, specifically to have a gain with the available options for changing career levels and to have equal opportunity within educational fields as well as through employment opportunity (Leonard, 61, 1989). Racial and Gender Workforce in the 1970s By the 1970s, most of the employers and work force institutions were able to initiate different concepts for Affirmative Action. However, the expectations and percentages that were required led to the opposing problems, which created a sense of reverse discrimination within different employment arenas. The commitment to affirmative action by different employers also led to several businesses claiming that they were able to hire a specific percentage of minorities or women even if they were under qualified or didn’t have as many credentials as others. The interpretation of affirmative action then led to another extreme, in which individuals were separated because of race; however, the opportunities and lack of options were not available to the majority instead of the minority. Soft Affirmative Action was then initiated as a concept, which would look at minorities in the work force and would hire them specifically because of color and the percentages that would promote the company. The concept was based on offering favors to minorities as opposed to hiring those that were qualified for specific opportunities. The program of Affirmative Action then led into complications where employees were hired specifically because of category, as opposed to credentials (Bacchi, 11, 1996). Racial and Gender Workforce from 1980-2010 The question of Affirmative Action in the modern time frame is one that has changed context because of the alterations in what discrimination means. The concept of Affirmative Action has now turned into best practices concepts and ethical standards within corporations that state they support diversity. Diversity policies from the 1980s have grown into several components that show that businesses promote diversity in the workforce and in universities. More important, there has been a noticed response with reverse discrimination, specifically because diversity often means not hiring more qualified individuals because they are a part of the majority population. It is noted that stereotyping continues to shape the way in which one is hired and promoted and the networks which are established among individuals continue to influence the career path in which one takes. Managerial bias and the hierarchy of different occupational demands are also noted for both race and gender. The current problem is one known as the glass ceiling, which only allows one to be within a work force and doesn’t promote them or allow the individual to move forward with their career, specifically because of the focus on percentages and formulas for diversity which have to be initiated (Kalev, Dobbin, Kelly, 589, 1996). The question that is now being attributed to Affirmative Action is whether it is still needed as well as what the guidelines should be in opposition to diversity discrimination and reverse discrimination. The change that has currently been noted with this is through President Clinton’s standard of what is acceptable or not in hiring, which was first noted in 1995. In this speech, he noted that “The rift between blacks and whites exists still in a very special way in America, in spite of the fact that we have become much more racially and ethnically diverse…. [We have to] defend and enhance real opportunity…We can do this first by truly rewarding work and family in government policies, in employment policies, in community practices” (Clinton, 1995). The challenge that Clinton placed was to redefine the concept of Affirmative Action not as a percentage for diversity, but instead by initiating practices of rewarding those who were most competent in the community and within their jobs. Doing this was then able to change the acceptable levels of hiring that were initiated in terms of Affirmative Action and which pushed the policies forward from the first executive orders. The concept of Affirmative Action in present times is further defined by those in political power who believe in the concept because of those who were able to have opportunity from the policies and practices. For instance, Judge Sotomayor stated that she was a product of the Affirmative Action policies and would have never been able to become a judge if there was no opportunity to get into the law school by the policies. However, there was also notification that she didn’t have the highest test scores and was not necessarily educated enough to receive the admittance into the law schools, specifically since she was admitted into Ivy League schools. The controversy which has been created over this shows that there are several which can take advantage of the system of Affirmative Action and which are accepted into different levels of institutions, specifically because of the quotas needed for diversity, as opposed to having the correct academic credentials. While the controversy of the judge continues, there is also a noticed question of why minorities aren’t able to receive the same levels of education and to pursue their interests in the same manner because of Affirmative Action policies (Fox, 1, 2009). The concept which Judge Sotomayor states is one that shows that Affirmative Action allows opportunity to minorities; however, it doesn’t push for education and credentials to be at expected levels because of expectations for diversity. Affirmative Action Benefits and Downfalls The controversies with Affirmative Action in the present have created different debates over whether it is needed or not. When looking at specific cases, it can be seen that the beginnings of Affirmative Action were based on the mentality of most who were not interested in hiring those of minorities and which wouldn’t provide the same opportunity to those who were within the work force. The need to open the door for new opportunity and to represent what was needed within employment sectors was at first needed to provide equal opportunities for education and employment. More important, it has led to concepts of a diverse workforce and equal opportunity initiatives that many have taken in the workforce to offer better opportunity to every individual (Beckwith, 7, 1997). The concept of diversity, as well as reverse discrimination, makes the Affirmative Action laws permissible for today. There are many that are using the policies and concepts as a basis for not only Affirmative Action, but also to show that reverse discrimination is just as possible. Without the policies in place, there could easily be a lack of diversity in the workforce as well as reverse discrimination because of the continuous promotion of diversity that is required by employers and higher institutions. Changing the ideologies of diversity through both reverse discrimination and bias then becomes a foundational principle that businesses are required to use to offer the best opportunity to all candidates that are a part of the changing work force (Garcia, 25, 1997). Even though many have noted that Affirmative Action is required to continue to offer diverse workplaces, there are others who are stating that the policies which have been implemented are out of date. Many work areas are using diversity as an excuse to hire individuals which are in a specific network and which are needed to reach a quota of diversity. Others that are more qualified are then left at a disadvantage specifically because diversity is the first qualification of many businesses. The lack of definition for qualifications and credentials as well as the ability to pass through because of Affirmative Action then become problematic because of the policies and expectations that are implemented within each work force. From past cases, such as Hopwood vs. the University of Texas Law school, it can be seen that diversity and the need to have a minority qualification is problematic with the Affirmative Action policies (Lydia, 7, 1998). The law that protects the minority then discriminates against the majority, leading to reverse discrimination and other problems within the workforce. The concept of reverse discrimination and problems with reaching a quota for diversity has then led to other concepts which are being initialized with those that are within the work force The changes for Affirmative Action are now demanding that individuals be hired not by ethnicity, race or gender. Instead, there is the need to create a level of color blindness toward discrimination while allowing individuals to be accepted into a specific arena because of their credentials and qualifications. The demand that is now being expected is to stop focusing only on concepts of diversity and instead to expand the workforce into one which contains diverse resources. This means that individuals which are most qualified for a specific position will have the opportunity to move into the work force or within an institutional field for education. The more that this occurs, the more that discrimination and bias can be eliminated while individuals are given more opportunity to qualify within a given setting based on the level of intelligence and talent which is offered to their given area of study or career (Lydia, 62, 1998). The debate of Affirmative Action then changes with a divide that is noted with specific changes in society. From one perspective, there is the need to demand diversity in the work force while creating equal opportunity, despite one’s race or gender. Since some of the business arenas don’t promote this concept, the need for policies and foundational laws are still required. However, the change of times is one that has shown a higher understanding and level of education toward the ideology of diversity and equal opportunity. Instead of initiating this by gender or race, there is the need to look only at the credentials of an individual while finding more constructive options that assist with the development of Affirmative Action. Conclusion The concept of Affirmative Action was initiated when needing to replace an older system of discrimination in the work force and among educational institutions. For different minority races and women, the ability to have equal opportunity through this act was one which initiated a new door that was open for equal employment and education. Through time, the Affirmative Action policy has been used in different ways. This has moved from resistance to the laws created from this to reverse discrimination, where diversity is favored over credentials. Today, the concept of Affirmative Action is changing again with the initiative focused on providing a stronger work force based specifically on credentials while continuing to build understanding of what equal opportunity means. Redefining the concept of equality for all will then recreate the ideology of diversity in the work force as well as rebuilding diversity through other means outside of race and gender. References Anderson, Bernard. 1996. “The Ebb and Flow of Enforcing Executive Order 11246.” The American Economic Review (86), (2). Bacchi, Carol Lee. 1996. The Politics of Affirmative Action: ‘Women’, Equality and Category Politics. London: Sage Publications. Beckwith, Francis. 1997. Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination?. Los Angeles: Prometheus Books. Clinton, Bill. 1995. “President Clinton’s Speech on Race Relations.” CNN (October 17). Drake W. 1997. Affirmative Action and the Stalled Quest for Black Progress. Albany: University of Illinois. Fox News. 2009. “Sotomayor: Affirmative Action Sent me to Princeton.” Fox News (June 11). Garcia. Mildred. 1997. Affirmative Action's Testament of Hope: Strategies for a New Era in Higher Education. Albany: State University of New York. Glazer, Nathan. 1987. Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy. New York: Basic Books. Johnson, Lynden. 1995. “Affirmative Action had Beginnings in Lyndon Johnson Speech at Maryland.” Jet Magazine (88), (5). Kalev, Alexandara, Frank Dobbin, Erin Kelly. 1996. “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficiency of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review (71), (4). Lapenson, Bruce. 2009. Affirmative Action and the Meanings of Merit. Maryland: University Press of America. Leonard, Jonathan. 1989. “Women and Affirmative Action.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives (3), (1). Lydia, Chavez. 1998. The Color Bind: California's Campaign to End Affirmative Action. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Mayer, KR. 1999. Executive Orders and Presidential Power. Boston: Cambridge University Press. Merle, Renae. 1996. “Court Rules Against Affirmative Action at UT Law School.” Daily Texan. (March). Pedriana, Nicholas, Robin Stryker. 1997. “Political Cultural Wars 1960s Style: Equal Employment Opportunity – Affirmative Action Law and the Philadelphia Plan.” The American Journal of Sociology (103), (3). Perry, Barbara. 2007. The Michigan Affirmative Action Cases. Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Skrentny, David. 1996. The Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture and Justice in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sokoff, Natalie. 1992. Black Women and White Women in the Professions: Occupational Segregation by Color. New York: Routledge. Read More