Disabled Veterans - Assignment Example

Should disabled veterans get preferential treatment over better qualified candi s who are not disabled veterans? Introduction: Discrimination among the workers in a workplace is a very common. This report aims at understanding the laws of affirmative action in brief. Also a detailed discussion has been included to correctly understand the question of whether a disabled veteran should be given preferential treatment over the better qualified candidates. The first section will deal with the affirmative action. Following which the different views to the above question has been discussed. Based on the various views, a personal view has been provided as a conclusion to the report. Affirmative Action: Affirmative action is an American approach that has been developed to deal with problems. In 1965, the orders of President Lyndon Johnson passed an executive order which required federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure they were not discriminating among employees. Since then the US government has taken a number of steps to increase the inclusion and representation of women and other minorities in areas of employment, business, education etc. This has been developed in two paths, one being the legal path and the other path includes public debates. The contractors have been set down with time tables and goals to ensure that there were no racial or gender preferences in the selection processes (Fullinwider, 2005). However it has been seen that not a single white advocate of affirmative action has ever offered their job to any minority class qualified person. Even if the minority class person and qualification would prove to be very beneficial for the and highly credential. Although there is no clear preference or help that is provided. In an attempt by George Sher to try and justify reverse discrimination is a clear proof: "The crucial fact about [white males who suffer reverse discrimination] is ... that unless reverse discrimination is practiced, they will benefit more than the others from its effects on their competitors. They will benefit more because unless they are restrained, they, but not the others, will use their competitive edge to claim jobs which their competitors would otherwise have gotten. Thus, it is only because they stand to gain the most from the role of the effects of the original discrimination, that the bypassed individuals stand to lose the most from reverse discrimination"(Beckwith & Jones, 1997). This highlights the preferential treatment that is present. Disabled Veterans vs. Qualified Veterans: Referring to the question of whether the disabled veterans should be given preferential treatment over the better qualified candidates, the answer is quite controversial. This is keeping in mind the utilitarian and deontological considerations. These considerations in general favor the affirmative action as a whole. Preferential treatment normally includes two major facts, forward looking which classifies under the utilitarian and the backward looking which categories under the deontological types (Beckwith, & Jones, 1997). In utilitarian argument, there is a strong ad vocation for preferential treatments. It seeks to highlight the benefits that are likely to be gained when a few of the jobs are provided to minorities on the preferential basis. This however gets more complicated when there is an urge by the fact that people differ over what constitutes relevant and appropriate benefits. In common utilitarian argument, there is generally a strongly favor for the preferential hiring. These claims that include things like a) break down stereotype; b) this allows the minority people to be role models for the other groups of minority people, c) Also provides for better service to the minority clients more effectively, d) this also leads to a reduction of being excluded in the minds of the minority groups, in terms of the jobs in desirable positions. Also in the affirmative action literature, it is clear that the utilitarian arguments are equal and opposite counter arguments. It has been noted by Michel Rosenfeld, a professor of human rights, that: "One of the principal drawbacks of the pure utilitarian argument in favor of race- and gender-based affirmative action is that it seems to justify the use of race or gender for purposes of excluding blacks or women. Indeed, if, for example, whites are so hostile to blacks that hiring the latter would generate such tension and discontent on the job as to lead to a net decrease in efficiency, it would seem perfectly justified under the pure utilitarian position to refuse to hire blacks on account of their race"(Roseland, 1993). While on the other hand famous author Richard Wasserstrom argues that while importance is laid on taking qualifications into account to gain good consequences, so is the affirmative action which is justifiable on similar grounds. This however does not include the discrimination of candidates based on their qualifications versus the distinguishing factors which are relevant to the final goal. The final goal is to produce competent practitioners, whereas any preferential treatment the chances of the goal being disrupted are very high. It is clear that the affirmative action is not defendable rationally to the extent that the goals are rationally defendable. However there have been a number of arguments against placing preference above merit. Thinking about this in a rational manner, there is a high chance that people who work all through their lives to ensure they excel in all they do so as to get a great job later are not given the jobs because of someone else who is a part of the minority group. This gives the minority people the idea that they could not work hard and could still get a great job based out of the minority quota. Also if a minority person does work hard and gain the status based on hard work, there is always a question if it was on merit or based on quota. Here the affirmative action to a great extent reinforces the stereotype rather than overcoming them. Thus based on the above mentioned discussion it is clear that there are two major views on the recruiting of minority over the qualified candidates. There is a clear lack of understanding of the people who have worked hard and this in a number of ways prevents the people from achieving their dreams and ambitions in life. This discrimination is completely unfair as people have out in a lot of efforts to study and prove themselves unlike the others who are given all the opportunities without having put in the same amounts of efforts. It is essential to understand that if a person has worked hard to study and qualify, and has a good knowledge about the subject in a number of ways proved to be a better at the job than the others. Hence if a company aims at recruiting a strong person for the post, it is essential that people are competent at that their jobs and this will allow the to apply all the knowledge on the work. Conclusions: Based on all the above discussions of the affirmative action and the two opinions on whether or not a minority class person should be given preference over a well qualified person, it is safe to say that it is a better option not to provide the preferential rights (Wise, 2005). This is a personal view point and is keeping in mind the utilitarian and the deontological views. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, it is essential that every person who has worked hard and has succeeded based on own efforts is more worthy of gaining a job rather than a person who is a minority. It is essential that people are given a job based on their skills, qualifications, and completely based on merits. By allowing people with lower education levels and to provide jobs on the basis of minority, there is a clear discrimination that happens. This however is a reverse discrimination and is not very beneficial for the majority groups in the country. Thus in the midst of providing a support to the minority groups, there is a strong possibility that the people who have worked hard to gain their qualification. Thus personally, it would be a better option to always, choose people who have worked hard to gain their qualifications, and skills. It is extremely important to realise that a person who has studied and worked to gain their degrees and learn the skills will prove to be more efficient at their jobs and will prove to be very efficient and effective at their job. Thus it is always a better option to choose a person who is well qualified and has the skills rather than choosing a person who is chosen based on the minority groups. Bibliography Beckwith, F. J., & Jones, T.E., 1997, ‘Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination?’, September 1997, Prometheus Books Fullinwider, R., 2005, ‘Affirmative Action’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4 March 2005, Accessed on 04 March 2009, Retrieved from http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/affirmative-action/ Rosenfeld, M., 1993, ‘Affirmative Action and Justice’, p. 99, 27th January 1993, Yale University press Wasserstrom, 1983, ‘A Defense of Programs of Preferential Treatment’, in Jan Narveson, ed., Moral Issues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 395 Wise, T.J., 2005, ‘Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White’, 3rd February 2005, 1st edition, RoutledgeFalmer Read More