The Role and Importance of Affirmative Action Plans - Term Paper Example

The Role and Importance of Affirmative Action Plans Table of Contents Introduction 3 Background and History 4 Affirmative Action Plans in Modern Organizations 5 Designing and Implementing an Affirmative Action Plan 7 The Future of Affirmative Action 8 Reverse Discrimination 9 The Supreme Court 10 Is Affirmative Action Still Needed? 13 Conclusion 13 References 14 Introduction Affirmative action plans are important tools within management that act to eliminate barriers to employment for people who are disabled, part of a minority group or female for jobs that do not have specific requirements. One of the most critical aspects of an affirmative action plan is that it is a set of policies that are goal related, giving organizations the ability to tell when the plan is being carried out. These plans can be considered an extension of the battle for equal rights that has occurred throughout America and an essential tool for ensuring that equal rights and treatment are present within the workplace1.The purpose of affirmative action plans is to ensure that there is equal opportunity for all people. However, this approach differs from a traditional equal opportunity approach, because equal opportunity attempts to eliminate discrimination when it occurs, but affirmative action plans are more active, and aim to prevent discrimination happening2. This is an important distinction and is critical in the way that organizations develop and enact affirmative action plans. Despite their prevalence throughout the United States, and the legislative support that is present for them, there is considerable controversy about the use of affirmative action plans. Opponents argue that they promote discrimination through the process of reverse discrimination, where people who are not part of a minority group have less opportunities and benefits than those who are in a minority. The purpose of this paper is to examine this history surrounding affirmative action plans, their use in present day organizations, the controversy about them and to consider what this is likely to mean for affirmative action plans in the future. Background and History People of racial or ethnic minority groups as well as women have often experienced legal or social exclusion in many areas. In the 1960s and 1970s, Hispanic Americans and African Americans were mostly segregated into low income jobs, leaving some categories of employment for white males only, including fire departments and police departments in many major cities. In contrast, roles that required hard manual labor tended to be almost exclusively occupied by people from ethnic minorities. Although there were significant improvements to civil rights, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the creation of equal opportunities for women and minority groups was often difficult. This was in part due to the difficulties in implementing the changes and the fact that organizations could easily ignore the legislation, as many forms of prejudice are difficult to prove, despite being effective3. The civil rights movement resulted in the creation of Executive Order 10925 in 1961, which was the first introduction of the term affirmative action as a measure to introduce measures designed to remove discrimination within the workplace. This was followed by Executive Order 11246, in 1965 which required all federal contractors to make use of affirmative action in order to ensure that there was equality in employment opportunities, for national origin, race and religion. Gender was added as a category in 19684. However, although the Executive Order was put into place in 1965, it was not until 1970 that the effects of this became evident. In 1970 and 1971 laws were issued that required the development of written affirmative action programs, which were to include correctly constructed timetables both for minority groups and for women. Although programs for affirmative action had been put into place, the 1970s and 1980s were challenging times for these plans to actually be implemented. This was in part related to decisions made by the Supreme Court5. However, despite this initial resistance, affirmative action plans have become critical in organizations. Affirmative action plans have continued to develop in United States history, with legislation and court decisions reinforcing the concepts developed in the 1960s and 1970s. However there have been many debates about when it is appropriate to apply this approach and when it is not. For example in 1978 the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as a factor in choosing which applicants were admitted to the University of California Medical School. Yet, in the same ruling the Supreme Court also determined that reserving a certain number of seats for people from disadvantaged minorities was illegal. Likewise, in 1979 the Supreme Court determined that employers were able to use affirmative action centered on race to correct a conspicuous racial imbalance within the workforce that was the result of past discrimination, as long as the efforts were temporary, and the rights of the non-minority worker were not violated6. Affirmative Action Plans in Modern Organizations Affirmative action plans have developed to be a critical aspect of modern organizations, and they are strongly reinforced through the use of regulation, legislation and court decisions7. One of the main objectives of an affirmative action plan is the development of a workforce that is reflective of the distribution of individuals within the population. Many affirmative action plans go beyond this objective, and make special efforts to hire people who are from groups that have historically been underrepresented in the workforce. As such, programs that consider race in employment can be broken down into two types. The first is neutrality programs, which eliminate face as a factor when employing staff members. The second type of program is affirmative action, which focuses on increasing the opportunities for protected groups, through factors such as hiring, college or university admission and job promotions8. As such, affirmative action programs are active, and they focus on making sure discrimination does not occur and that there is diversity within the organization. Despite the increases in equality throughout the United States since affirmative action plans were first developed, disparities in employment and opportunity continues to exist. People of Latino heritage earn approximately 56 cents for each dollar that a white person earns, while African American males earn only 75% of what a white male earns. In addition, for each dollar that males earn, females earn about 77 cents. Thus, affirmative action provides a mechanism to help increase the fairness of the workforce and also of colleges and universities, ensuring that society remains diverse and that people from both genders and all races have the chance to excel. Affirmative action programs have already resulted in an increase in diversity and fairness for many people9. Designing and Implementing an Affirmative Action Plan The types of affirmative action plans that organizations make use of differ depending on many factors including the type of organization, the preferences of management, the specific objective and the physical location of the organization. Affirmative action plans are often comprehensive, detailing information about the organization, the objectives of the affirmative action, the way that the plan will be disseminated, methods of ensuring compliance and the action plan for how the organization will progress. An example of an affirmative action plan is the one developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for the period of 2007 to 201110. The WSDOT developed an executive summary that is seven pages in length, and covers the key aspects of their affirmative action plan. This includes a definition of what an affirmative action plan is, and a consideration of they benefit WSDOT. The authors identify a range of strategies that can be used to increase diversity within the organization. Some of these included the development of relationships with people in ethnic communities for sourcing candidates, encouragement of a wide range of tools for broadening the recruitment tool, analyzing of the flow rate of applicants and determination of where minority applicants are most often being screened out of recruitment. The affirmative action plan for WSDOT considers not only minority groups, but also females, veterans and disabled people as groups where recruitment needs to be increased. One way that the affirmative action plan considers this is the creation of charts which map out the relatively utilization that WSDOT has of each group, compared to their availability. This allows the planners to see at a glance what areas their efforts are being most successful in, and where a significant amount of work is still required. This measure is what the authors are using as a method of measuring the success of affirmative approaches. The aim is to see the internal availability for minority groups be similar to the availability from outside of the organization. The Future of Affirmative Action Although affirmative action plans have become prevalent in modern society, they remain controversial, especially for people who are entering the workforce11 and despite the benefits of affirmative action plans, they are not without their disadvantages. In particular, there are several key constitutional concerns about the use of affirmative action plans. The first of these is the clause for equal protection that is present within the Fourteenth Amendment. It is possible that affirmative action plans actually violate this amendment because they are providing benefits to one section of the population, but not to another. The second problem is that affirmative action plans may discriminate against the rights of individual white people in order to provide for minority groups preferentially. These two issues suggest that the use of affirmative action may bring about a phenomenon known as reverse discrimination12. Reverse Discrimination While reverse discrimination initially appeared to be a purely academic issue, there are beginning to be examples of this occurring within the workforce. As a result it has become a highly debated issue, creating difficulties for employers who make use of affirmative action. Here, employers caught between the need to ensure that minority groups are adequately represented, and are not discriminated against, and making sure that non-minority groups are also not discriminated against. Any decision that is made for one person and against another where race plays a factor is one of considerable controversy, particularly to the person who has been slighted. This has resulted in the development of many cases and lawsuits where people argue that they have been discriminated against. An example of reverse discrimination that has hit the headlines occurred in Freeport, New York in 2012. In this case, the position of chief of police was available, and multiple people took the chief’s exam. Controversially, a white, veteran police man with 21 years’ experience on the police force was overlooked for the position, in favor of a Hispanic candidate. This occurred despite the fact that the white applicant had the highest score on the test. The police lieutenant argued that this was an example of reverse discrimination, where he was not able to obtain the position on the basis of his race. In addition, there were many examples of the mayor for Freeport actively terminating or demoting white males and females from roles, and replacing them with minority employees who tended to have a lower level of qualifications13. The outcome of this case is not yet known, but this represents one example of a problem that is become prevalent throughout the country, both for employers and also for schools. The Supreme Court The controversy associated with affirmative action and reverse discrimination has been significant enough to result in cases that have been taken to the Supreme Court. These cases have the potential to define the future of affirmative action, and whether it will remain an accepted process throughout businesses and schools within the United States. In 2009, a Supreme Court case, Ricci v. DeStefano considered the use of affirmative action within businesses to increase diversity by making race-conscious decisions. The case involved a Connecticut Fire Department which made use of a testing process to determine what candidates were eligible for promotion to the positions of captain or lieutenant. The test was taken by 41 individuals, 25 of whom were white, eight African American and eight Hispanic. The test revealed that nine individuals were eligible for immediate promotion; seven of these people were white, while the remaining two were Hispanic. There was considerable concern that the African American test-takers would take up a lawsuit. As a consequence, it was determined that the results of the tests would be rejected, and the process of promotions would be started over. This meant that the people who had scored high on the test and were eligible for promotion lost that opportunity. It was argued that this represented a case of discrimination against the whites and Hispanics, as the test results were rejected solely on the basis of the race of the successful participants. This treatment was believed to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Court of Appeals ruled that because of the potential for litigation if the tests results had been retained, the City had acted reasonably. However, the Supreme Court ruled that despite the positive intention of the case, the result was an employment decision that was made solely on the basis of race14. The outcome of the Ricci left a number of unanswered questions, but also has significant negative impacts on the ability of employers to use affirmative action as the basis of decisions for reductions in workforce, hiring or promotion. The Supreme Court’s ruling indicates that using race statistics to make these decisions may contravene the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and consequently be illegal. The only way that an employer could legally achieve this would be if they could prove that the decision-making process that was used had fundamental flaws15 The debate of affirmative action versus reverse discrimination may be resolved in the near future, with a case going to the Supreme Court that could determine whether the University of Texas is able to continue its affirmative action program. The case in question is the result of a lawsuit by Abigail Fisher, a young white female who applied for the University of Texas. Despite her high grades, Fisher was rejected from entering the university. However, there were many people from the same area who had lower grades and had been accepted to the University of Texas, where the only difference was the fact that they were from a minority group, while she was not. In the year that Fisher applied for the University of Texas, 15 percent of Hispanic students, and 20 percent of African American students that were added to the university’s population came through a review process that took race into account as a factor16. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that in certain cases, schools were able to consider race as a deciding factor for enrollment in order to achieve a certain level of minority students within the student population. However, within the same ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that the practice of using color for the admission process is a practice that cannot continue indefinitely. Supporters of affirmative action argue that creating a colorblind process of admission for schools or businesses would undermine civil rights developments that have occurred for many decades17. If the Supreme Court does rule against the University of Texas, this has significant implications for the practice of affirmative action within schools, and is likely to eventually also have an effect on the use of affirmative action within businesses. It is difficult to know whether it is the right time for affirmative action to be ended, and for people to begin to make employment decisions in a colorblind manner. However, the approaches of the Supreme Court in this case, as well as in Ricci suggest that at some point in the future, the use of affirmative action to determine factors like employment or entry into a university. Is Affirmative Action Still Needed? Affirmative action plans were originally created because of the need to enforce equal rights and to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against in schools and in the work force. However, society has progressed significantly since this point in time, and many schools and employers do not take race or gender into consideration during selection processes. Affirmative action processes have developed into a method of ensuring diversity, sometimes at the cost of fairness, and they can serve to create discrimination rather than to remove it. It may be that the time for affirmative action within the United States is drawing to an end, and will eventually result in a transition to race and gender neutral models instead. There is significant debate about whether or not affirmative action plans and programs are necessary within the United States. While some people believe that the current situation is unfair to whites, others argue that females and people from minority backgrounds have many disadvantages that need to be overcome. For example, minority groups are poorer on average than non-minority groups and may have a lower level of education. Likewise, women continue to fare less well in the workplace than males, and it can be harder for them to achieve jobs in management18. Conclusion Affirmative action plans are an ever-evolving approach used by organizations to correct racial imbalances and to ensure that discrimination does not occur. While they are often considered to be highly effective, and result in the creation of a diverse and productive workforce, there are concerns that this approach may be driving another form of discrimination, known as reverse discrimination. Businesses are in the difficult position of trying to find a balance between the needs of minority groups and those of the majority. In recent years, there has been considerable controversy about whether affirmative action plans should remain in effect, with opponents arguing that they discriminate against whites and violate their rights. There is no easy solution to the problems associated with discrimination and diversity within workplaces and schools. The Supreme Court faces some difficult decisions in determining the extent that affirmative action plans can operate to, and how much of an impact they are able to have on non-minority groups. Because of this, the future for affirmative action plans remains uncertain, although it is likely that they will continue to play a considerable role in the American system for some time to come. Perhaps one day, America will have developed to the point where affirmative action is not needed to ensure there is no discrimination. However, that day has not yet come. There are still many examples of how minority groups and females earn less than white males, and can find it difficult to get some jobs. As long as discrimination exists within the workforce, it is unlikely that America can do away with affirmative action plans. References Affirmative action: History and rationale. (n.d.), Retrieved October 19, 2012 from: http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html Agocs, C. and Burr, C. (1996). Employment equity, affirmative action and managing diversity: Assessing the differences. International Journal of Manpower, 17(4/5), 30-45. Americans for a Fair Chance (n.d.). Frequently asked questions about affirmative action. Retrieved October 19, Americans for a Fair Chance (n.d.). Frequently asked questions about affirmative action. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from: http://www.civilrights.org/equal-opportunity/fact-sheets/fact_sheet_packet.pdf CBS News. (2012, January). White police lieutenant files reverse discrimination lawsuit against Mayor of Freeport. Retrieved October 19, 2012 from: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/27/police-lieutenant-files-discrimination-lawsuit-against-freeport/ Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A. and Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585-611. Garcia, M. (Ed.). (1997). Affirmative action’s testament of hope: Strategies for a new era in higher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p. 53. Johnson, B. L. (2008). Supreme Court tackles reverse discrimination. Retrieved October 16, 2012 from http://www.ccwomenofcolor.org/outside-counsel-corner/supreme-court-reverse-discrimination.html Little, B.L., Murry, W.D. and Wimbush, J.C. (1998). Perceptions of workplace affirmative action plans: A psychological perspective. Tolson, M. (2012, October). Supreme Court could decide future of affirmative action in University of Texas reverse discrimination case. Chron. Retrieved October 18, 2012 from: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/10/supreme-court-could-decide-future-of-affirmative-action-in-university-of-texas-reverse-discrimination-case/ Tucker, R. B. (2000). Affirmative action, The Supreme Court, and political power in the old confederacy. Lanham, MD: United Press of America, pp. 21-22. Washington State Department of Transportation. (2006). WSDOT equal employment opportunity and affirmative action program. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0F051D31-8077-40AA-B4C3-D6D8603FF1CC/0/ExecutiveSummary.pdf Read More