About a Moral Issue in Society - Term Paper Example

Introduction In the contemporary social and political realm, one of the major moral questions is the issue of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a progressive governmental social policy that attempts to equalize, or create a multi-cultural workplace, through the requirement of businesses to engage in workplace minority hiring. Initially instituted as a result of the 1960s Civil Rights movement, the policy was initially designed to be a temporary program to ensure educational institutes and work places don’t practice discriminatory hiring practices. Despite its intentions to function as a temporary progressive social policy it has persisted nearly forty-years after its institution. Indeed, while the American cultural landscape has made great strides in terms of ethnic diversity and women’s rights, the affirmative action policy still remains. This essay considers the background of the affirmative action policy and the arguments for its existence, then presents an analysis that demonstrates how affirmative action is an unfair and outdated policy that must be repealed for the benefit and progression of the United States. II. Background The United States has a history of discrimination throughout its history. As a slave nation a large element of the country’s economic structure was initially founded on extreme oppression. Even with the abolition slavery following the Civil War, large regions of the country were slow to respond to the changing social climate. Discrimination itself is understood as, "the act of making a difference in treatment on a basis other than individual merit" (Groton 1). While one can trace progressive social policies to post-Civil War efforts to encourage integration, what can be termed the contemporary approach has been linked with the 20th century Civil Rights movement. During this 1960s progressive effort, the government recognized and acknowledged the reality of discrimination levied against minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was ultimately created making it “unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (Jones 35). As a direct response to this tenant of the act, affirmative action was instituted as a "temporary way to promote greater representation of blacks in the work force" (Jones 35). While it was understood that from a strict technical standpoint requiring individuals to hire one individual over another was a form of discrimination itself, it was generally accepted that it was a temporary condition that would allow for a “transition from segregation to integration” (Jones 36). Today affirmative action remains a core policy in workplace hiring decisions. A substantial amount of businesses and university environments implement affirmative action policies in deciding on the appropriate level of minority hires. While there is substantial opposition to affirmative action, there still exists a sizeable portion of the public in the United States that contends affirmative action policies benefit the nation for clearly identifiable reasons. As there a broad number of contentions for this perspective, this is not to explore them in exhaustive depth; however it’s necessary to consider the predominant points made by individuals in favor of affirmative action. The most overarching of these contentions hold that there is an innate benefit in have a multi-cultural perspective in the workplace and that this would not occur naturally if individuals and businesses were not compelled to engage in minority hiring. Another contention is that affirmative action functions to give individuals an advantage to combat their disadvantaged social and economic background. This reasoning argues that generally minorities occupy low economic status in society and, as a result, don’t not have access to the resources that would allow them to compete on the same scale as their more privileged peers. Consider this issue from a more foundational perspective, a number of individuals argue that the unprivileged status of minorities is a direct result of their historical oppression dating to the American slavery period and carrying over through the present cultural landscape; this individuals then believe that it is necessary for the United States government to act pro-actively to amend the years of oppression that are a result of these historical actions. Without the affirmative action policies then, it’s believed that minorities will perpetually exist in this disadvantaged and negatively stereotyped state. III. Analysis a. Reverse Discrimination While individuals and groups that support affirmative action policies make a number of convincing points, in considering the issue from a more broad range perspective it becomes abundantly clear that affirmative action is an unfair and wrongly constructed social policy that should be repealed. While the policy started as a temporary program to reduce civil rights violations, it has now been over thirty-five years since it was originally implemented in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In gaining its widespread support during this period, individuals did not realize that it would continue to expand and become such an all-consuming aspect of society. With the rapidly changing ethnic composition of society, society has changed to the point where what was previously considered the legal minority is actually moving towards majority status. Affirmative action includes, “other minorities, women, and the disabled” (Curry 37), except rather than helping these individuals it is creating the entirely converse effect. In these regards, the progress of minority groups will continue to rapidly develop as more individuals fall under the auspices of this policy, until the group outgrows minority status. In reality, this group will become the majority, yet still claim minority status according to the defined categories of sexual preference, race, gender, disability, income, and even age and weight; virtually anyone can claim to be disadvantaged. It’s clear that this is contrary to the original intentions of the Civil Rights Act, which strived towards equal opportunities for all individuals in terms of educational and workplace opportunities. Considered within the contemporary work environment, the problem with affirmative action is even more abundantly clear. In the contemporary economic climate businesses, companies, and even college admissions departments must meet pre-defined quotas for ethnic hiring to demonstrate they are not practicing discriminatory policies by hiring too stringently in the direction of a specific race or gender. Indeed, affirmative action includes "government intervention into private and business life and adds the force, power and arbitrary consequences of government power to the potential threats overhanging American citizens" (Edley 28). In examining a practical example, consider the case of a software company that must hire a new graphics designer to develop front-end web design. As one realizes this is a challenging position that requires significant experience and skill in order to contribute to the company’s needs. In accepting applications the company receives three employee applications, one from an experienced and qualified white male applicant, one from an African American with little prior experience, and one from an Asian female also with no practical experience. In terms of quota making the white applicant is immediately rejected as he does not fit the company’s needs for ethnic diversity. In a sense this applicant is discriminated against. While the minority hire fits to meet the affirmative action requirements, it does not help the company in the long term, and contributes to making the contemporary American economic climate stale and, to some degrees, inefficient, ultimately hurting both majority and minority citizens alike. In following this reasoning it’s clear that affirmative action is founded on policies that when examined contradict what is it intended to protect. In ignoring qualified candidates, majority individuals lose out on a position that they have trained and worked to achieve to individuals without their equal qualifications. Simply put, this is reverse discrimination; that is, “the solution to the problem of racism and discrimination that affirmative action employs is more discrimination" (Screntny 78). Rather than aiding minorities, it creates an environment wherein they are pandered to and made to feel incapacitated to achieve substantial employment through their own agency. The undercurrent of this policy, rather than uplifting these individuals, creates an atmosphere and feeling of helplessness that actually contributes to their furthered oppression. Indeed, the affirmative action social policy subtly indicates that, “women are inherently weaker and less intelligent than white males because standards are lowered and special compromises need to be made for them" (Screntny 20). Ultimately, individuals that receive positions through affirmative action are always left wondering ability their true individual ability and success. b. An Outdated Social Policy While it’s clear that affirmative action is now an unfair social policy, it has also long outgrown whatever benefits it once held. Initially affirmative action was put into action to, "start the integration of women and minorities into the realm of the workplace and higher education" (Scott 1). Recession time employment aside, today’s social climate has progressed to the extent that all individuals are given the chance to achieve employment, not specifically majority citizens. While in the earlier half of the 20th century women extreme economic disparity and the challenges of a largely patriarchal society, with the feminist movement and progressive social change there has been significant changes in their status within the American social order. Today women and minority groups enjoy a status in the workplace that is unparalleled in anytime in American history. The alteration of the contemporary work climate makes it so that today making it required for companies to hire women or minorities is superfluous. The process of minority acceptance within the educational establishment has occurred, and the "process will continue on its own, without the help of affirmative action programs" (‘The Con Side’ 1). Even so, a significant amount of time and funding continues to be devoted to preserving the status quo regarding affirmative action. Rather than utilizing these funds to benefit society equally, they are utilized to aid only a portion of society, further establishing the inequity of the affirmative action programs. Consider that the state of in 2008 California spent close to 130 million dollars on state programs to that functioned to ensure affirmative action policies were followed (Lowery 2009). When one considers that the state of California, and indeed the entire country, is in economic distress it is not hard to realize that these funds could be better utilized in measures that would function to aid all citizens equitably. Rather than implementing blanket affirmative action programs, it’s necessary for society to consider means that social equity can be achieved through more moral measures. In these regards, some organizations and university systems have been pro-active in instituting programs wherein minorities can gain the training and education they need to compete in work environment without preferential treatment. Another such program is the United States Military Prep School (USMAPS). This program is “devoted to a single crucial task: preparing the promising but under-qualified applicant of any race for admission to West Point and causing success when he gets there” (Jones 44). While these are small steps, it’s clear that this is the direction that needs to be taken to improve the problem. Instead of artificially creating equal opportunity for all members of society, the government needs to work towards establishing deeper structures that work to truly give individuals the education and training they need to compete equitably. Conclusion In conclusion, it’s clear that affirmative action is an unfair and outdated social policy that must be repealed for the United States to progress to a more equitable nation. While the policy may have initially served a beneficial purpose, it’s clear that today it functions as a sort of reverse discrimination. In these regards, it’s shown that it prevents qualified professionals from finding gainful employment when facing individuals that are less qualified but function to meet an organization’s necessary quota for minority hiring. Similarly, rather than helping the individuals it is designed for, it creates a sense of helplessness in them; these individuals come to believe that they are unable to find success through their own talents and skills, and come to be overly reliant on policies that promote helplessness. Furthermore, it’s proved that affirmative action is an outdated social policy that is no longer necessary in the contemporary social climate. It also utilizes public funding that can be implemented in more equitable ways. Ultimately, the collection of these reasons demonstrates the need to repeal the affirmative action policy in American society. References Curry, George (1996). The Affirmative Action Debate. New York: Basic Books. Edley, Christopher (1998). Not All Black and White: Affirmative Action, Race, and American Values. New York: Copernican. Groton, Stephen B. "Affirmative Action, AKA: Reverse Discrimination." Racial Injustice. Internet. October 3, 2000. http://www.liberty.com/home/thrall/affirm.htm Jones, Todd (1997) Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination? New York: Prometheus Books. Lowery, Mark. (2009) "The Golden State War." Black Enterprise. Scott, Reginald. "Affirmative Action." End Affirmative Action. Internet. October 15, 2010. http://diver.ups.edu/~svanbergen/aaction.htm Screntny, John. (2001) The Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture, and Justice in America. New York: Spectator. "The Con Side." Prism. Internet. October 15, 2010. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jgpadley/con.html Read More