Affirmative Action in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

Affirmative Action in the Workplace Affirmative Action: Aiming to End Discrimination in the US Discrimination – most notably racial discrimination characterized by too much hatred and antagonism specifically against the Blacks had been a dark part of American history haunting it until now. Unequal treatment due to race, gender, creed and nationality was rampant, and in fact had been the norm in the past. Particularly in the workplace, discrimination has affected hiring and promotion. Data have shown that compared with their male counterparts, promotion of similarly qualified women is 50 % slower than that of the former; in the US, although women hold 69 % of white-collar positions, only 10 % of them are in the management position; in the private business sector, employees of Asian origin make up 87% of its professionals but only 1.3% of them are in the management position; generally, the ratio for employees holding white-collar positions in the US is 3 out of 7 employees, but for Blacks it is 1 of 7; Blacks get 50 % of menial jobs in the US such as garbage collectors and maids, and only 4% of managerial positions (Taylor 1991, National Center for Education Statistics 1990, Schwartz 1984, Vetter 1989, and Pave 1986, quoted in Beauchamp 1997, 216). While the US prides its self to be the epitome of freedom and equality with civil liberties deeply engraved in its constitution, data above clearly contradict this claim. Aiming to correct past mistakes and to pursue fairness and equality by taking legal measures against racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in employment (in the years to come, gender discrimination was also included) President John F. Kennedy, barely two months after assuming office, issued Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961 creating his Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity charged to take affirmative action that ensures the federal government and its contractors observe equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons in the government. This consequentially has institutionalized the US government’s commitment to affirmative action (Cohen 2003,12). President Kennedy’s Executive Order introducing affirmative action to the consciousness of the American people was followed by succeeding Acts further institutionalizing affirmative action: The Civil Rights Act signed on July 2, 1964 and Executive Order 11246 issued on September 24, 1965 both by President Lyndon Johnson; and The Philadelphia Order initiated by President Richard Nixon in 1969 (Brunner 2007, 1). Thus, affirmative action has come to mean “positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded” (Fullinwider 2009: par. 1). This is America’s way of paying back and rectifying past practices of discrimination, with the hope of ultimately ending any discriminatory practices in all endeavors basic to human progress. Given its intention, affirmative action sounds right. What could be wrong in righting injustices done to others in the past? What could be bad in giving the historically excluded equal opportunity to be included with the end hope of treating everyone fairly? But as had been the case of affirmative action, not all good intentions usually reap good results, especially so when the root of the problem lies not only in the policies but more on the consciousness of a culture, that sees itself superior which deserves the bests of life even to the detriment of others. For this matter, affirmative action has in fact created many unfavorable reactions questioning not only its justness but also its wisdom. Others call it reverse discrimination as in its process of including Black-Americans, in effect, White-Americans are excluded; others see it illogical and incoherent for crimes of the past are burdened on the innocent; and some rejects its necessity believing that the modern world is already color-blind. Matters become more complicated and problematic when affirmative action has involved preferential treatment in the workplace. Affirmative Action in the Workplace: Problems and Dilemmas Unity in diversity in the workplace is used to define the intent of affirmative action programs in employment, but as it gives preferential treatment to the historically discriminated sections of American society, its effect on the lives of millions of Americans as to “their access to professional and skill training, their place in the hierarchy of employment, and, consequently, the living standard they and their families enjoy” (Ezorsky 1991, 1) would naturally be not the same, as their would be those who would lose something for the few. And here is where the problem comes in especially in the workplace because job means life. Everyone – whether Black or White – needs job to survive not only economically but also socially; everyone works hard to be promoted because it means better work, better salary, and better life. On the other hand, employers, who are non-discriminatory, efficiency in work matters most whether it creates diversity in the workplace or not. But with the institutionalization of affirmative action, employers have to consider preferential treatment or else they will face the court of law as what had happened to the Alabama Department of Public Safety. In the US v. Paradise case, a “federal court found that the State of Alabama Department of Public Safety systematically discriminated against blacks in hiring… The court ordered that the state reform its hiring practices… the court ordered specific racial quotas to correct the situation. For every white hired or promoted, one black would also be hired or promoted until at least 25% of the upper ranks of the department were composed of blacks. This … was challenged. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the use of strict quotas in this case as one of the only means of combating the departments overt and defiant racism” (Brunner 2007, 1). Although this is a case of deliberate exclusion of Blacks in the workplace, it shows that discriminatory acts in the workplace would make you liable in the courts of law. And court cases mean disturbance to work schedules that should better be avoided. Even in workplaces where discrimination has been avoided, affirmative action still creates problems and dilemmas, which commonly are encountered in hiring and promotion. A case in point is the dilemma faced by New Haven officials who for fear of being sued if no Black firefighter would be promoted, deliberately ignored the result of promotion test that would have resulted in the failure of any black firefighters to pass. In so doing, the White and Latino firefighters who passed the promotion test were denied of promotion. In the end, the New Haven officials met the very thing they feared – they were sued and lost as the US Supreme Court ruled their act illegal (Jaschik 2009, par. 2). The dilemma faced by the officials of New Haven here centers on the question as to when a situation warrants affirmative action? Officials of New Haven only considered the sanction of violating affirmative action but missed understanding the essence of the act itself resulting to their incorrect judgment of the situation. In extension, confusion due to the mix signals being sent by different court cases invoking and revoking affirmative action is among the many sources of problems it creates. Moreover, due to many factors, the aim to achieve unity in diversity in the workplace through affirmative action has resulted to the same problems being addressed: animosity between Black and White employees; feeling of alienation, awkwardness, and frustration by the minority employees; and feeling of mistrust among employees (Muir 1996, 475). These draw an unseen line that essentially segregates employees due to racial and ethnic differences. In this context, affirmative action is acting against the very intention it pursues. In extension, with this kind of a tensed working environment, employee’s efficient performance might more probably than not be jeopardized, that naturally would affect company’s overall performance. Notwithstanding the fact that, hiring and promotion done not based on merit results to mediocrity, which any organization works hard to surpass. Resolving Problems in the Workplace: Affirmative Action or Effciency? Problems in the workplace are a common sight. They are in fact part of company’s daily operation. They come in varied forms and range, but no single approach could fit them all. Yet, they make the company going, provided they are dealt with appropriately. Commonly, these problems revolve around people in the company from hiring to firing. With the institutionalization of affirmative action, these problems have become more complicated to solve. So how does one resolve problems in the workplace? With the workplace becoming more diverse and working climate becoming more complicated, the more problems should be solved intelligently. Meaning, analyze first the problem – its nature, its magnitude as to its size, scope and severity or impact – before taking any actions, but do not also let the problem linger on until it’s no longer soluble, because aside from intelligence, time is of essence. Learn to be patient, when waiting is needed and be alert, when immediate action should be taken. Then have the correct attitude to appropriately implement the steps meant to solve the problem. And of course, the most important thing that anyone should never forget in solving problem in the workplace is the framework as to how the problem should be dealt with. Will it be in compliance with affirmative action or in pursuit of efficiency? With the controversies surrounding affirmative action, it would be best to consider first efficiency before affirmative action. For example, in hiring, if affirmative action will not prejudice efficiency, then, comply with affirmative action, but if affirmative action does prejudice efficiency, then, forget affirmative action. Reference List Brunner, Borgna. 2007. Timeline of affirmative action milestones. Infoplease. Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html (accessed July 27, 2009). Cohen, Carl. 2003. Why race preference is wrong and bad, In Affirmative Action and Racial Preference: A Debate, eds. Cohen, Carl and James P. Sterba, 3-71. NY: Oxford University Press. Ezorsky, Gertrude. 1991. Racism and justice. New York: Cornell University Press. Fullinwider, Robert. 2009. Affirmative Action. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ (accessed Jul 27, 2009). Jaschik, Scott. 2009. Firefighters and Professors. Inside Higher Ed. 30 June http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/30/newhaven (accessed July 24, 2009). Muir, Clive. 1996. Workplace readiness for communicating diversity. The Journal of Business Communication. 33 (4): 475+ Taylor, Bron. 1991. Affirmative action at work: Law, politics, and ethics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; National Center for Education Statistics. 1990. Faculty in Higher Education Institutions, 1988. Contractor Survey Report. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Education. 5-13; Schwartz, Herman. 1984. Affirmative Action. In Minority Report, ed. Dunbar. L. W. 61-62. New York: Pantheon Books; Vetter, Betty M. ed. 1989. Professional women and minorities: A manpower data resource service, 8th ed. Washington, DC: Commission on Science and Technology; Pave, Irene. 1986. A Womans Place Is at GE, Federal Express, P&G.... Business Week. June 23, pp. 75-76. Quoted in Beauchamp, Tom L. 1997. Goals and quotas in hiring and promotion. In Affirmative action: Social justice or reverse discrimination? ed. Beckwith, Francis J. and Todd E. Jones, 214-226. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Read More