Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace - Term Paper Example

Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace Discrimination in the labor force is unfortunately much more prevalent than most people think. Job discrimination means that certain groups of individuals face barriers, both hidden and overt, to their active participation and inclusion in an employment setting. Insidious yet pervasive, job discrimination affects all types of people but is particularly harmful to certain group of individuals. Accordingly, women, people with disabilities as well as people who are older face a variety of impediments to their full participation in the labor force in this country. The following will explore job discrimination with an eye to how this form of discrimination affects certain groups of people in the labor market and how society has attempted to protect these people from discrimination. Taking a controversial approach to minority set aside programs, this essay will then persuasively argue that since these programs promote discrimination themselves, they are inherently defeatist and promote the same type of behavior that they try to eradicate. We now begin with an overview of the reasons for minority set aside programs – also called “Affirmative Action” in the United States – and this will follow with a concise rebuttal of the needs for such programs. Discrimination at Work Discrimination in the workforce affects people from all walks of life. Accordingly, the employment opportunities of half of our population are hindered by latent and overt sexism in the offices of America. It is well known that women in America earn substantially less than their male counterparts. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 was established more than four decades ago to protect men and women who perform the same tasks from wage-based discrimination. Sexism is an unfortunate aspect of our modern society but the EPA seeks to combat it through positive legislation aimed at correcting the pay discrepancy between men and women in the labor force. Older workers also face a variety of impediments to their active inclusion in the labor force and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from discrimination at work. Finally, people with disabilities face a plethora of hurdles in society and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was established to ensure the full inclusion of people with disabilities in American society. Covering a wide variety of instances of discrimination, the ADA is one of the most recent pieces of legislation mentioned above which aims to tackle problems associated with discrimination in the labor force (Bernbach, 1996; Ripa, 2007). Job discrimination prevents the active inclusion of certain types of individuals in the work environment and is detrimental both to the diversity of an office as well as to the productivity of a particular work space. Seeking to address the major challenges minorities face with respect to discrimination at work, the government has legislated policies to protect certain groups from harmful work practices. Unfortunately though, these programs end up discriminating themselves and promote exactly the type of discrimination they aim to combat (Murrell, 1994). A Critique of Anti-Discrimination Policies In response to the perception of widespread discrimination in workplaces throughout the United States, the federal government began making forays into combating discrimination in the labor force as early as in the 1960s. Accordingly, US President John F. Kennedy directed all government offices and contracting agencies under Executive Order 10925 to implement “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." (The American Presidency Project, 2009). This Executive Order effectively paved the way for the establishment of an affirmative action regime which has progressively weakened the rights and responsibilities of all American citizens, regardless of race, creed, color or national origin. As affirmative action has had unintended consequences on the visible minority community, this will be discussed below, as well as institutionalize discrimination as the law of the land, to the detriment of the wider American society. In attempting to understand some of the unintended consequences of legislated affirmative action policies on the very people that they are targeted towards, scholars Heilman, Block & Lucas undertook two psychological studies of the effects of stigma and perceived incompetence of men and women who have been subject to affirmative action policies. Seeking to explore the stigmatization of hirees under this label, these researchers undertook their study which persuasively demonstrated the psychological consequences of affirmative action as an institutionalized policy. Accordingly, The implications of these studies and their results are disconcerting. It has already been shown that preferential selection can have negative effects on self-perceptions (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987). The data presented here demonstrate another possible way in which the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action may be unwittingly penalized: They may be burdened with a stigma of incompetence. Furthermore, if such stigmatization occurs, it can have far-reaching consequences for the careers of those targeted by affirmative action efforts...It seems critical, therefore, that the potentially damaging impact of the affirmative action label be recognized and that efforts to better understand it be made. Only then can the objectives of affirmative action be met in spirit as well as in deed (Heilman, Block & Lucas, 1992). In addition to the unintended consequences such as stigma and the psychological internationalizing of inferiority of affirmative action on the very people that affirmative action policies are set to help, there are a variety of social ramifications on the wider society which must be addressed when exploring such an important phenomenon with potentially dire consequences for the wider society. One would think that institutionalizing discrimination to counteract discrimination is counterproductive and bound to fail. For many, affirmative action represents discrimination and discriminatory treatment towards non-visible minorities and men. As a result, minority set aside programs or affirmative action are an inherent contradiction and thus counterproductive. Since anti-discrimination legislation is employed at both the state and federal level, these policies have a variety of ramifications in many social spheres. While the bulk of this essay has focused on the ramifications of affirmative action in the labor force, affirmative action legislation is pervasive when it comes to educational institutions across this country as well as in other social, non-work related, settings. Some universities and colleges in the United States reserve a certain number of openings for visible minorities and other non-majority groups. Thus, lowering entrance standards for medical school, law school or simply allowing more unqualified people into institutions of higher education hurts the wider society as a whole and damages the social requirements necessary for white males and other categories of individuals who do not fit neatly into the affirmative action quota systems. By lowering the standards this also detracts from the achievements of visible minorities who obtain admissions and positions of power through hard work and strong achievement. Our current President Barack Obama exemplifies this argument (Eastland, 1996). A Structural Functionalist analysis of higher education in the United States would emphasize a variety of important social purposes universities and colleges provide society as a whole. Education has evolved as society evolves and a Functionalist will argue that universities and colleges play an important role in socializing members of a given society. The institutions behind higher education in American society inculcate individuals with the important values and norms in society, thus contributing to greater socialization. Additionally, a Functionalist may argue that a lack of accessibility for all to higher education is actually a positive thing since it reinforces the idea that higher education is a social good which one must work hard to attain. If everyone had equal access to the universities and colleges of their choice, higher education would lose its value. Additionally, a lack of accessibility and affordability of higher education in the United States can be seen by functionalists as positive for overall social equilibrium. Looking at the societal implications of higher education, a functionalist would argue that a smart and educated population is an important social good which should be worked towards. Alternatively, not attending university and college – i.e. dropping out of school – is sanctioned as something negative and is used as a social control mechanism thus reinforcing the positive benefits of attending university and college. Conflict between the haves and have-nots is to be expected by functionalists and is not seen as detrimental to the overall organic functioning of society where educational disparities exist. When we attempt to offset natural disparities by attempting to legislate equality – which it must be remembered inherently promotes inequality at all levels – the wider society suffers. This is a consequence of affirmative action policies (Curry 1996). By replacing past discrimination with new forms of legislated discrimination, affirmative action effectively promotes a racialization of American society and exacerbates racial tensions. By promoting institutionalized racism and sexism in an effort to combat these scourges in American society, affirmative action policies are contradictory at best and at worst, terribly harmful to racial reconciliation in America today. Concluding Remarks Job discrimination of any sort is unethical and ends up hurting both the individual as well as the company and the nation. There are a variety of consequences, both intended and unintended of affirmative action / minority set aside programs. First and foremost these programs are inherently contradictory in that they aim to combat discrimination but at the same time promote the same thing that they are trying to do away with. This is one of the most illogical aspects of affirmative action in the United States today. Secondly, these policies represent undue government intrusion in the lives of the citizenry and work to legislate unequal treatment for all Americans. Although President Kennedy argued that the country needed “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." (The American Presidency Project 2009), he failed to understand the ramifications of the policies he was implementing. Another unknown consequence is the unintended stigma associated with gaining admission or obtaining a job for visible minorities and women. Instead of being hired because of one’s merits, many visible minorities harbor a sense of shame a stigma, feeling that they have been hired not because they are the most qualified but because they helped fill a quota. Institutionalized discrimination is wrong against anyone; black, white, male or female and it must be tackled with vigor. Unfortunately affirmative action fails to tackle the important concerns behind institutional discrimination and does more to harm race relations in America today than actually help repair them (Cahn, 2002). References Bernbach, J. (1996). Job Discrimination: How to Fight, How to Win. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks. Cahn, S.M. (2002). The Affirmative Action Debate. London: Routledge, 2002. Curry, G.E. (1996). Affirmative Action. New York: Basic Books. Eastland, T. (1997). Ending Affirmative Action. New York: Basic Books. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536-544. Murrell, A.M. (1994). Aversive Racism and Resistance to Affirmative Action: Perceptions of Justice Are Not Necessarily Color Blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 22-44. Repa, B. K. (2007). Your Rights in the Workplace. Boston: Nolo. The American Presidency Project. (2009). Last Accessed March 19 2010, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58863 Read More