The Evolution of Affirmative Action Laws - Essay Example

The Evolution of Affirmative Action Laws ’s ’s July 19, Introduction The concept of affirmative action as a law for higher education has been used to provide equal opportunity to different minorities. This particular set of laws began as a result of the civil rights movement, which demanded that those in different ethnic groups have the right to receive the same levels of education as the majority population. Today, affirmative action continues to be a law that is used within higher educational institutions, all which are designed on providing different opportunities to ethnic minorities and those of other races and cultures. While affirmative action was initially designed to provide opportunity, the laws that are currently implemented are unfair and move against the initial intent of the action. The changes in culture and society, as well as the alterations in educational institutions and in requirements for education have led affirmative action into becoming illegitimate. Instead of presenting new opportunities to minorities, it creates disadvantages to providing equal opportunity within educational systems. Thesis When affirmative action began, it was based on opening doors for those that didn’t have opportunity within educational systems or with jobs because of their race, ethnicity or gender. However, in the current educational system, as well as in the work force, the idea of affirmative action has begun to change the way that many look at individuals who are applying for the same job. By the laws, it is required that every corporation and school have a percentage of minorities or ethnicities to show that there is equal opportunity within the work place. This basic requirement has led many to look beyond the main employment needs and instead to offer equal opportunity by providing a balance in diversity. Some researchers (Merritt, Reskin, 1997), have found that work environments and educational institutions will often overlook the credentials and the experience of professionals that are hired. Instead, they will look at hiring those that will present a sense of diversity within the work force. Personal characteristics, such as marital status and age, as well as race and gender, became some of the main priorities to those that were hiring. Supplementing this with experience then creates a different level of accountability to the educational institution or work force area (Merritt, Reskin, 1997). The demands for work areas and educational institutions to show diversity so they can continue to stand against affirmative action laws is only one of the unfair aspects that are a part of this standard. There are also standards that have changed in terms of social and cultural aspects, which have led to even more unfair links to affirmative action. When affirmative action began, it was designed to open society and culture to minorities having equal opportunity with the majority population. The concept of having equality in education and within the work force was then able to create equal opportunity with those that were in society. However, the current stigma that surrounds racial and ethnic groups, as well as gender, has changed from a closed society. The social perception that has been created toward minorities that comply with affirmative action is that they are able to take advantage of their race and ethnicity, despite the qualifications or credentials. Most in society are also susceptible to believing that minorities all have equal opportunity because of the changing work force. The outdated laws that don’t comply with societal needs create a main reason to the imbalances that are currently a part of affirmative action (Krieger, 1998). The main complication that is created from the affirmative action laws and social changes is based on a tension that is between constitutional rights and social movements. The constitutional application in these laws is based on equal opportunity to all, including democratic capabilities to move through education and the work force with the same opportunity as those from other racial or gender profiles. However, the social movements are led against this, specifically because the culture and social expectations have changed in current times. The societal expectations are now in a place that expects equal opportunity for those that have the right credentials and background. However, affirmative action states the opposite, in which the law demands the same equal opportunity through affirmative action. These two forces become opposing to each other and cause a level of friction toward equal opportunity. From the perspective of constitutional rights, it offers more opportunity. However, the social changes show that it is an opposing force to offering equality (Brown – Nagin, 2005). Anti – thesis Even though there are several considerations in terming ideas of equality in educational systems and the work force, there are many believe that affirmative action is justified within society. The basis of affirmative action is reliant on constitutional rights, which show that it is essential to continue to raise standards for equal opportunity and nondiscrimination as a part of the policy and practice within the work force. Affirmative action laws are a representation that show that equality is offered and that provides minorities the same opportunity as others. More importantly, affirmative action becomes a symbol that shows constitutional rights are able to promote equality and show that it is withheld. The policies and practices that are a part of the original laws can continue to evolve as needs for constitutional rights and equality also change, which provides a strong foundation for offering opportunity to all within various systems (Kang, Banaji, 2006). The concept of affirmative action is also known to present a different set of concepts that apply to society more than other applications. There are several universities and work places that have designated their area as one of color blind, which doesn’t recognize the difference in color and race, but instead is only based on basic credentials. However, it was found that with some of these policies and procedures, many of the selections became based more on color and culture than if it were directly approached with equal opportunity laws. Implementation of selective use through model minority discourses became prevalent, with the inability to ignore the fact that minorities were applying to the same jobs. The question becomes whether society is able to recognize different genders and race as equal with their experience and credentials. When looking at the color blind experiments and the minority models, it was found that there was an underlying current of continuous racism and inequal opportunity. This monitor is one that shows that affirmative action may still be needed within some environments to show equal opportunity (Kidder, 2000). Synthesis The different viewpoints that show both constitutional rights and social changes then lead to a question of how effective affirmative action laws are within educational systems and the work force. The main assessment that has to be made is whether affirmative action continues to be effective in eliminating racial conflict and tensions and whether it is able to provide equal opportunity to those that are interested in a specific job or educational program. The first part to this is based on the constitutional rights that are represented through the affirmative action movements. Those who support affirmative action are able to state that this is a symbolic way of presenting constitutional rights that create new levels of diversity and which block out some of the prejudices that would be within law. However, the framework that is used for the laws has not been updated and doesn’t provide provisions to the current needs of those who are working as minorities. The programs that have been developed don’t define equality, constitutional rights or what it means to belong to a specific sub-group. More importantly, the broad definitions that are presented as constitutional rights have led to many showing that they are diverse or qualify students and workers in terms of culture and background. Instead of defining quality, it creates other boundaries for those that are within a specific system (Brest, Oshige, 1995). The lack of definition with equal opportunity and constitutional rights creates unnecessary divisions and ineffectiveness with affirmative action laws. Beyond this, is the inability to re-evaluate the societal and cultural standards within society. From one perspective, those who believe in affirmative action also state that there are still divisions and bias that is in the workplace and educational systems that make the laws and guidelines necessary. However, when looking at and re-examining the specific placement of diversity, it can be seen that a different perspective needs to be placed on affirmative action. The work place and educational institutions are entering into a new era which requires different types of equality. Globalization, new types of labor and the need to be within the information system have all led to different requirements for those that are in the work force. This also creates an alternative perspective on what equal opportunity means. The more that work forces and educational institutions become global, the more diversity is required. More importantly, minority groups no longer become applicable to those within a specific system. In this instance, labor rights, equal opportunity and the idea of constitutional laws are no longer applicable and have to be reexamined by providing those with the highest credentials with the opportunities, jobs and educational invitations (Tilly, 1995). When looking at the social and legal implications of affirmative action, it can be seen that it is outdated and doesn’t have a defined set of information that can be used. Instead, it is causing different layers of bias to remain prevalent and isn’t dividing opportunity from the correct perspective. Those that are in the work force or in educational institutions are found as building a culture based around ideas of diversity to show their belief in affirmative action and equal opportunity. However, this doesn’t provide the best opportunities and doesn’t allow those that are not in minority groups, but which have higher credentials, to have the same opportunities. To alter this, there also needs to be a changing focus in what it means to offer affirmative action. Instead of following the laws of the past, a change in definition to providing equity to all within a specific system should be used. Offering equitable opportunities is one that requires the corporation or educational institution to look first at credentials and how a human resource will fit into the work space. More importantly, there are specific ways in which this can be measured, all which provide a stronger approach to offering diversity without the drawbacks that come from the foundation of affirmative action. Changing public policy to match with equitable solutions, as opposed to ones based on diversity, will then offer contemporary solutions to diversity in education and in the work space (Jain et al, 2003). The newer solutions that businesses and educational institutions are taking in terms of employment and student equity show that affirmative action is no longer effective and that it has to evolve into different considerations to continue to be a part of a specific system. While there were specific foundational parts of affirmative action laws that were required, there are also more necessary actions that are more defined. More importantly, these are aligned with the needs of society and the changing attitudes that are a part of the concept of diversity. This will lead into more options for a global base while providing individuals with the correct options in terms of equality in the work place or in an educational institution. Conclusion The concept of affirmative action laws is one that was built with specific needs to have equal opportunity and diversity for minorities that didn’t have options in the past. However, the current trends in society and culture show that educational institutions and work systems have to alter this perspective into a sense of equity. More importantly, there have to be changes in defining what the laws mean and how they apply to the current systems. By doing this, the term of equal opportunity will change its meaning to provide options to those that have the most credentials and which are deemed fit for a specific environment. Allowing affirmative actions to evolve into something that fits into the contemporary needs will then provide different systems with the right opportunities. References Brest, Paul, Miranda Oshige. (1995). “Affirmative Action for Whom?” Stanford Law Review (47), (5). Brown – Nagin, Tomiko. (2005). “Elites, Social Movements and the Law: the Case of Affirmative Action.” Column of Law Review (105). Jain, Harish, Peter Sloane, Frank Horwitz. (2003). Employment Equity and Affirmative Action: an International Comparison. New York: ME Sharpe. Kang, Jerry, Mahzarin Banaji. (2006). “Fair Measures: A Behavioral Realist Revision of ‘Affirmative Action.’” California Law Review (96). Kidder, William. (2000). “Situating Asian Pacific Americans in Law School Affirmative Action Debate: Empirical Facts About Thernstrom’s Rhetorical Acts.” Asian Law Journal (7), (29). Krieger, Linda. (1998). “Civil Rights Perestrokia: Intergroup Relations after Affirmative Action.” California Law Review (86). Merritt, Deborah, Barbara Reskin. (1997). “Sex, Race and Credentials: the Truth About Affirmative Action in Law Faculty Hiring.” Columbia Law Review(97), (2). Tilly, Charles. (1995). “Globalization Threatens Labor’s Rights.” International Labor and Working Class History (47). Read More