Affirmative Action: Justice or Discrimination - Research Paper Example

Affirmative Action: Justice or Discrimination? Until relatively recent times, people of color were denied an equal opportunity for schools, jobs and housing. The ideology that condoned and enforced the segregation of the races is the very reason that what has been referred to as reverse discrimination had to be legislated. Without this controversial legal action to help ensure equality, the balance in this country would still be heavily in favor of the ethnic majority and segregation would still exist in much more blatant forms than it does today. The evolution of society depends on widespread social acceptance, a process that doesn’t seem to occur naturally without the benefit of affirmative action polices. Since its inception, affirmative action has succeeded in balancing the scale of opportunities available to men and women of all ethnicities. A quota system generally reflects the area’s ethnic demographics thereby allowing for real equality opportunity that is not discriminatory towards any particular race. Although the majority ethnic group may now feel they are being treated unjustly because they have indeed lost ground from an economic standpoint, the scale is actually now adjusted closer to the middle thanks primarily to the use of affirmative action, demonstrating the need for this practice to continue. The idea of affirmative action has had its detractors and its implementation has not been without problems, but to eliminate this policy of equal treatment would be to take away the hard fought victories of the Civil Rights Movement and turn back the clock towards the dark days of overt racism in the pre-1960’s U.S. Debates surrounding affirmative action policies are much more far reaching than the legal issue alone. It is the moral responsibility of every citizen and institution in this country to affect all means of ending racism. Yet there is a faction of society who does not accept and have vehemently challenged affirmative action on legal terms and as a social remedy to bigotry. They argue that affirmative action is an example of two wrongs not making a right claiming reverse discrimination has been the ultimate result, yet they do not challenge traditional forms of favoritism and discriminatory practices that continue to benefit the rich and powerful elements of society. Affirmative action debates are many times divided down racial lines because many types of selection practices continue to discriminate. Examples of this include the exclusionary practice of giving preferential treatment to university applications of children of alumni. Over many decades these practices have led to a huge over-representation of the traditional middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities thus in well-paid professional jobs. These positions of power in our society allow this group to continue its oppression of the working class. Affirmative action serves to help balance the playing field for everyone, not to discriminate against anyone as even with these policies in place, the scales are still tipped toward the white, wealthy portion of society. Reverse discrimination emanating from affirmative action policies is hardly a reasonable conclusion as inclusion inequalities noticeably continue due to racial bias still existent within the economic hierarchy. The fact that affirmative action, in the form of preferences that primarily benefit white people, are not being questioned indicates that attacks on affirmative action are part of a white backlash against equality. During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, the U.S. government enacted affirmative action measures in an effort to eradicate institutional racial discrimination. Beginning with an executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, these government programs were authorized to equalize racial inequality and prevent further injustices. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” (US Equal Employment Opportunity, 1997). Subsequently, an Executive Order (11246) originating from the Johnson administration in 1965, mandated affirmative action for all federally funded programs. It also moved affirmative action enforcement responsibilities to the Labor Department. These governmental efforts to effectively outlaw institutionalized racism was a reaction necessitated by the enormous outpouring of public pressure of all races and gender during the 1950’s and 60’s. Society as a whole as well as many groups and individuals have benefited from these programs including women, those who suffer disabilities and the working class, but their principal emphasis has focused on racial discrimination. Affirmative action was a legislative reaction initiated by the public’s outcry to racism and remains a necessary method to a balance the scales today as racism is still a prevalent oppressive force within all areas of society. In 1991, the ABC news show Prime Time showcased examples of race perceptions thereby reinforcing the continued need for a strong citizen and governmental stance on affirmative action. The documentary, ‘True Colors,’ by Diane Sawyer filmed two friends, one black and one white, similarly educated men of the same age as they dealt with a variety of circumstances that occur in ordinary daily living. The men, acting as if they were new in town, separately tried to rent the same apartment, applied for the same job and shopped. The documentary recorded the troubling disparity in the way the two similar men were treated in identical situations. In department stores, the black man is either ignored by sales clerks or followed to make sure he wasn’t shoplifting. While apartment landlords tell John that a unit is readily available, they had told the black man, just minutes before, that the very same apartment was occupied. A car salesman tried to charge the black man a thousand dollars more for the same car than the white man. “A police car passed the white man while he was walking down the street but it slowed down and took note of the African American” (Horne, 1992, pp. 40-41). Overall, the white man felt welcomed into the community while the black man encountered tangible obstructions and obvious attempts of social oppression at every turn over a quarter of a century since the Civil Rights Act was passed. Much research has determined that discrimination persists against people of color in all parts of everyday life. Full disclosures of equal opportunities in the workplace and other institutions are required by Federal law so that everyone, not only people of color but others know that they have an equal opportunity to apply for employment. Those of color, as a matter of circumstance, face further discrimination from historical patterns of racism that forced segregation in communities, schools and the workplace. Most employment opportunities are learned of through networking through such people as friends, family and neighbors. This leaves minorities on the outside looking in for many advancement opportunities at work and in society. Affirmative action itself doesn’t directly address the needs of this issue but this fact addresses the need for affirmative action. Still, in today’s progressive society, nearing half a century from the Civil Rights Movement, people of color are overtly discriminated against in educational opportunities by the use, or misuse, of inappropriate qualification standards. Latent segregation still plays a major part in standards of education for minorities. Standards for higher education are set for one segment of society and are imposed unjustly and unfairly on another. These imposed barriers to advancement, unintended or not, further enhance the rationale for helping the scales of justice to tip slightly towards the truly disadvantaged through affirmative action laws. As a result of white people receiving preferential treatment since before the beginnings of the country, the Federal mandate directs that when employers face a choice between qualified candidates of different ethnic background, the preference should be for a person of color. A position supported by the courts which have also mandated affirmative action hiring goals so that those employment and scholastic institutions begin to reflect the racial mix of the people from that general area. Though there are no legal requirements to hire unqualified people, opponents argue that affirmative action causes the minority to get a job over a more qualified worker. This logic has two flaws. One, the employer can choose many reasons to hire a ‘qualified’ applicant. It is an open and ambiguous term that can easily be largely ignored or manipulated to suit the employer’s possible racist tendencies. Employers have traditionally hired people not only on test scores, but on personal appearance, family and personal connections, and school ties and on race and gender preferences, demonstrating that talent or desirability can be defined in many ways. These practices have all contributed to a segregated work force where whites hold the best jobs, and people of color work in the least desirable and most poorly paid positions. Another problem with the opponent’s argument is the previously discussed method of standardized testing. The quality of education a person receives doesn’t necessarily predict their future potential. This does not imply that an unqualified person should be hired but that basically qualified people who may not have the higher test grades may very well be eminently prepared to do the job and might be considered for employment. This is not a requirement of law but would be an action in the positive spirit of affirmative action precepts. Actions such as this would help society as a whole to progress from the dark days of horrific racism to more of an age of enlightened thought. Affirmative action policies and implementations, as required by law or not, serve as a socially corrective measure to long-held patterns of oppression and discrimination. These measures help to guide the development toward proportional social representation and place the burden of proof as to why it is not possible to achieve equality within institutions regarding learning, employment and position on those institutions. Another argument by those opposed to affirmative action is that it disproportionately benefits middle and upper-middle class minorities, not the poor and working class people of color who need it most. A more careful examination of this criticism shows that affirmative action programs have benefited substantial numbers of poor and working class people of color. “Access to job training programs, vocational schools, and semi-skilled and skilled blue-collar, craft, pink-collar, police and firefighter jobs has increased substantially through affirmative action programs. Even in the professions, many people of color who have benefited from affirmative action have been from families of low income and job status” (Ezorsky, 1991, p. 64). By virtue of their skin color, middle class minorities have indeed benefited from affirmative action but then people of color in all socio-economic classes have experienced the effects of racial discrimination for a lifetime. While experiencing financial success buffers some of the most extreme effects of racism, it doesnt guard minorities from everyday racial discrimination. Opponents also point out that affirmative action is patently unfair to white males because they are having to pay for the past discriminations of people of a different era and mindset and may not get the jobs they might be more qualified for. These opponents are correct in that specific white people may be passed by for some job opportunities because of affirmative action policies and that they and their families suffer as a result. The lack of employment opportunities is unfortunate and its causes are what the debate should be about, not whether affirmative action should exist or not. Millions of specific people of color have also lost specific job opportunities as a result of racial discrimination. Affirmative action is the counter effect, the balance of societal oppression – not just an attempt to atone what did exist, but also to balance the continued discrimination that exists still. Those that make the opposition’s argument seem to be only concerned with white applicants who don’t get a job because of their race and not with the people of color who don’t get a job for the same reason. That in itself is an exhibition of slanted racial preference. If this argument that white people are losing jobs to affirmative actions policies is valid, it certainly hasn’t materialized into racial equality. “If one looks at the organization of various professions such as law, medicine, architecture, academics and journalism, or at corporate management, or at higher-level government positions or if one looks overall at the average income levels of white men one immediately notices that people of color are still significantly underrepresented and underpaid in every category” (Sklar, 1995, p. 115). Proportionately, minorities do not represent employment of near the proportions equal to their corresponding percentage of the population nor do they earn wages comparable to white men. “White men are tremendously overrepresented in almost any category of work that is highly rewarded except for professional athletics. According to a 1995 government report, white males make up only 29 percent of the workforce, but they hold 95 percent of senior management positions” (Sklar, 1995, p. 115). Affirmative action and its intended effects of inclusiveness in employment and educational opportunity are ultimately as important to white males as well as minorities. Discrimination and exclusion is bad for everyone in both a cultural and economic sense. Affirmative action helps alleviate these historical problems that all workers suffer because of institutional racism. History has proved beyond a doubt that racism is not self-correcting, it is self propagating. The economic and psychological hindrances to people of color as well as the ill effects to society as a whole are passed on to each successive generation unless corrective action is taken. If more people were aware of the overwhelming benefits of affirmative action we, as a society, could ensure that everyone in the future has a fair and equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness. Questions that should be raised by both sides of the argument are why are there not enough adequately paying jobs or enough seats in the universities for everyone? Until there is both equal opportunity and fair distribution of education, employment and chances of advancement for all Americans, affirmative action for the minorities will be necessary to counteract and rectify the many years that similar action has been directed in favor of the upper classes. Affirmative action is a lawful symbol of the ruling class’ acknowledgment of and fundamental responsibility to the elimination of racial discrimination. It is vital for the good of all of society. If we are truly committed to American ideals of justice and equality, than we can not forsake programs that offset the tragedies that result from racial discrimination. References Ezorsky, Gertrude. (1991). Racism & Justice: The Case for Affirmative Action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Horne, Gerald. (1992). Reversing Discrimination: The Case for Affirmative Action. New York: International Publishers. Johnson, Lyndon B. (September 24, 1965). “Executive Order No. 11246.” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved June 19, 2009 from Sklar, Holly. (1995). Chaos or Community?: Seeking Solutions, Not Scapegoats for Bad Economics. Boston: South End Press. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (January 15, 1997). “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” United States Code. Retrieved June 19, 2009 from < http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html> Read More