Affirmative Action - Essay Example

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Affirmative action was born of the civil rights movement three decades ago and it calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. Institutions with affirmative action policies generally set goals and timetables for increased diversity – and use recruitment, set-asides and preference as ways of achieving those goals. Affirmative action generates intense controversy when it involves preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. According to Wikipedia, Affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically and socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all races) intended to promote access to education or employment. Motivation for affirmative action is a desire to redress the effects of past and current discrimination that is regarded as unfair and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population. This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs aimed at applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups. The overall framework of affirmative action in the United States was established by Executive Order 10925, issued in March 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, but has evolved significantly. The original order required government contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure equal treatment of applicants and employees "without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Reservation in Indian law is a form of affirmative action whereby a percentage of seats are reserved in the public sector units, union and state civil services, union and state government departments and in all public and private educational institutions, except in the religious/ linguistic minority educational institutions, for the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes who were inadequately represented in these services and institutions. The reservation policy is extended for the SC and STs in representing the Parliament of India & state legislative assemblies. In its modern form, affirmative action can call for a recruiting officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man. Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates. And they are not supposed to harm anyone through "reverse discrimination." Dan Froomkin (n.d.) in Washingtonpost.com Staff states, “Affirmative action is the nations most ambitious attempt to redress its long history of racial and sexual discrimination. But these days it seems to incite, rather than ease, the nations internal divisions. An increasingly assertive opposition movement argues that the battle to guarantee equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won – and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain. But defenders of affirmative action say that the playing field is not level yet – and that granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men.” Even though opponents of affirmative action routinely use terms like “preferences” or “quotas” interchangeably with the term “affirmative action”, Affirmative action plans do not advocate “quotas” as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that quotas are illegal .Such opponents use what research psychologists have understood for many years—that framing the issue as one of “reverse discrimination” or implying unfair advantage reduces public support for such programs dramatically. Conversely, providing the public with a fair and accurate definition of affirmative action increases support. In one public opinion survey, 59 percent of voters said they support keeping affirmative action programs the same or changing them only a little after hearing the definition of affirmative action as “programs that expand access to jobs and education by creating a broader pool of applicants.” Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy talks about how Affirmative action has travelled along two often different paths. “The development, defense, and contestation of preferential affirmative action has proceeded along two paths. One has been legal and administrative as courts, legislatures, and executive departments of government have made and applied rules requiring affirmative action. The other has been the path of public debate, where the practice of preferential treatment has spawned a vast literature, pro and con. Often enough, the two paths have failed to make adequate contact, with the public quarrels not always very securely anchored in any existing legal basis or practice. Numerous Supreme Court rulings have confirmed the importance of affirmative action in modern America, but affirmative action policies in education, employment, state contracting and other spheres have continued to come under attack.” American Civil Liberties Union, while explaining why it chooses to support Affirmative action states, “Affirmative action helps ensure equal access to opportunities and brings our nation closer to the ideal of giving everyone a fair chance. We support affirmative action and other race- and gender-conscious policies as vital tools in the struggle to provide all Americans with equal opportunity, to promote diversity in academic and professional settings, and to give each and every one of us a fair chance to compete. Affirmative action helps ensure equal access to opportunities and brings our nation closer to the ideal of giving everyone a fair chance. We support affirmative action and other race- and gender-conscious policies as vital tools in the struggle to provide all Americans with equal opportunity, to promote diversity in academic and professional settings, and to give each and every one of us a fair chance to compete.” Opponents of affirmative action argue that it benefits only people of color who are already well off or have middle class advantages, not the poor and working class people of color who most need it. But the truth is, many people of color who have benefited from affirmative action have been from families of low income and job status. Many people argue that affirmative action has caused reverse discrimination against Whites. However, a 1995 analysis by the U.S. Department of Labor found that affirmative action programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims by Whites. In fact, a high proportion of such claims filed were found to lack merit. The analysis found that fewer than 100 out of 3,000 discrimination cases filed actually involved reverse discrimination, and in only six cases were such claims substantiated (Wilson, 1995). The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) refutes the charge of the critics who usually believe that people should be selected for positions based on merit alone, by confirming that white men tend to be more comfortable with, and therefore more likely to hire and promote, other white men, thus revealing the prevalence of racial- and gender-based preferential treatment. Affirmative action is therefore justified by these well-researched facts. Affirmative action gives every one a fair chance, irrespective of creed or colour.Therefore President Clinton is fully justified in defending affirmative action, by saying "Mend it, but dont end it." References Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995, March). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Wilson, R. (1995, May). Affirmative action: Yesterday, today, and beyond. Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Online References American Civil Liberties Union. Striving for Equal Opportunity: Why the ACLU Supports Affirmative Action. Available at 25 April 2008 Fullinwider, Robert, "Affirmative Action", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at URL = . 25 April 2008 Washington Post.com Staff Available at 25 April 2008 Affirmative Action.Wikipedia.Available at 25 April 2008 Read More