The Role of Affirmative Action in Society - Term Paper Example

Introduction: With growing levels of diversity at work places, there is also a growing level of discrimination that has been noted. Diversity at workplaces has become very important and the government aims ensuring that every workplace has a right combination of different people from over the world without giving importance to gender or race (Foothill, 2004). There have been various different regulations that have been made to fight against discrimination at work places. This paper aims at discussing the role of affirmative action in the society and how the laws relating gender, and race have an impact on the overall society. The paper will firstly discuss in detail, about affirmative action following which a definition of the law will be provided. This will be followed by a detailed explanation of how affirmative action impacts the society at large. 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 in Warren, 1991). This highlights the preferential treatment that is present. Definition: Affirmative action has been defined under as, “Racial-preferences and gender-preferences for the correct races and genders.  Under this definition, Affirmative Action is comprised of programs and policies that grant favorable treatment on the basis of race or gender to government-defined "disadvantaged" individuals.  Under this definition, racial or gender preference must be granted even when the favored / aggrieved minority or gender has no actual evidence or proof that a company, boss, individual, or government agency has discriminated against them due to their race or gender” (Adversity.net, 2010). The definition is based on the concept of proportional representation based on the skin color and the gender of the people in all the occupations and endeavors. Affirmative Action and Society: Affirmative action is a very sensitive subject and it stirs up a number of emotions, and in some cases can not only be emotional but can also confusing. It is essential to note that affirmative action is not simply about providing more to the minority or simple minority set – asides, but it includes a lot more like improved recruitment of the minorities and also retention policies which assist the minorities to be more successful in school and also employment. Professor Krishna Tummala, a winning public policy writer and a professor at Kansas State University explains that the affirmative action does not in any manner differentiate one minority over the other; it provides the same protection to all minority groups. However there are a number of tensions that this action stirs among the society. He explains, “You do something unequal to create equality eventually. The constitution says we must treat all people equally, but affirmative action treats some people unequally, actually more equally. This creates constitutional tension” (Potucek, 2003). The tension that the affirmative action causes in the society is one of the many reasons that people are against the imposed law. Professor Tummala also discusses that possibility of affirmative action stigmatizing people and how it can lead to development of a hostile work environment. The main idea of affirmative action is that it provides a preferential treatment to all the people of a certain ethnic group, which is not a very acceptable manner, however any protest against this are not accepted by the courts. Another very extensive argument that has been set out is that affirmative action tends to put a stigma on the ethnic group that it protects. By doing so the ethnic group tend to feel de – motivated and in some cases a level of frustration is evident as the stigma creates a major question in the mind of the person, i.e. whether they got the job due to their own merits or because of the protection from the court. The inferiority complex can lead to high levels of misunderstanding and can also lead to unusual behavior among the people. The main opposition of the act is that people believe that implementation of affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination which in turn leads the individuals of a certain race or gender to be given a higher level of priority. The implementation of Affirmative Action in some manners develops a feeling of ‘us versus them’ (Sztuczko-Payk, 2010). In a recent article, Mr. Connerly, explains, “Every citizen should have an equal chance at the starting line of life's race.. But there should not be a guaranteed outcome in the race. If you discriminate for someone, you discriminate again someone else” (The New York Times, 2009). A major myth that is present in the society is that affirmative action leads to a higher number of minority to be sent to college, hwoever this is merely a myth and is not true. A report highlights that the four year colleges of America are not selective and that anyone with a standard high school education (Mattimore, 2006). However a majority of the students that fall into the minority do not go to college as they prefer to leave high school without the minimum credentials which are required for the admission into colleges. Hence it is mainly the issue of the student themselves and completely their choice. There is not form of discrimination from the colleges (Gryphon, 2004). A very good also brought out by Nakashima of the UC Board, is that, “I've never said that affirmative action has never worked, But when you achieve the purposes that some programs were created for, you don't need to keep it up. If you favor one person, you're going to deny another person. We don't have a limitless supply of rights" (Woo, 2009). The UC board have hence implemented a ban over the use of affirmative action and this has led to a federal suit being planned against the board. The UC Board has already been accussed of discriminating among students and has been noted to rely to much on the honors and counselling, and now the board is planning a ban on the Affirmative action. This has led to a stir in the market and in a recent issue there seem to be a plan for a federal suit against the UC (Gordon, 2010). Although the Affirmative Action does have a major impact on the society both in positive as well as negative ways. The implementation of affirmative action tends to create an unfair advantage to a certain group of people and tend to become a reverse discrimination. When a minority are given a higher priority in almost all steps of life, the actual majority tend to loose out on the oppurtunities and this in turn leads to an unfair advantage for the minority groups. As very rightly explained by Fliter, “My sense is that it does a good job in promoting diverse student bodies and work forces and providing equal opportunity for at least some minorities.. There is a lot of value in diversity, especially in higher education” (Potucek, 2003). Conclusions: As has been explained by a number of experts across the world, the main aim of the affirmative action should be to protect the people who are economically disadvantaged. There is a need to ensure that individuals are assisted rather than complete minority groups. Providing priority to a number of minority groups takes away the regular working of the majority of the society and as very well explained by Professor Tummala, “There are poor whites and poor minorities, and both are denied opportunities” (Potucek, 2003). Successful implementation of affirmative action in any society is one where the people from disadvantaged economical background are given a few opportunities. It is not right if the opportunities are taken away from the majority or people who work hard and earn their merits to cover the needs of the minorities. A society where a people of minority groups and economically disadvantaged groups are treated with little preferential treatment will prove to be more effective and successful than one where the people are given all the rights and preferences. Not giving the majority or the merit holders the due advantage will only lead to reverse discrimination and in turn lead to lowered self morale and motivation. Although this sounds like an individual issue, the overall impact will be clear on the society as a whole. Hence when any judgment is made for preferential rights or preference of minority groups, the court and all decision making authorities need to make well informed and well focused decisions. This will lead to a more balanced society and will also ensure that there is complete and well planned use of all resources. Overall this is the most effective manner of creating a balance among the economically advantaged and disadvantaged individuals. References Adversity.net. (2010). Affirmative Action. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Affirmative_Action.htm Beckwith, F. J., & Jones, T. (1997). Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination? Prometheus Books. Fullinwinder, R. (2005, March 4). Affirmative Action. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/affirmative-action/ Gordon, L. (2010, February 16). Federal suit planned against UC over ban on affirmative action. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/16/local/la-me-affirm16-2010feb16 Gryphon, M. (2004, July 14). The Affirmative Action Myth. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125729,00.html Mattimore, P. (2006, December 03). Connerly's Views of Affirmative Action. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/03/opinion/le-sunday3 Potucek, R. (2003, February). Affirmative action: Pros and cons. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from http://www.k-state.edu/media/webzine/0203/aapros&cons.html Sztuczko-Payk, M. (2010). The Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action: Neccessary for Equal Opportunity or Reverse Discrimination. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/diversity/11063 The New York Times. (2009, June 15). Affirmative Action. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/affirmative_action/index.html Warren, J (1991). There'll be no desert for you today, young man: Affirmative Action as a Numbers Racket. Retrieved on April 22, 2010 from http://www.jwlidz.us/aa.html Woo, E. (2009, January 22). S. Stephen Nakashima dies at 86; former regent voted to end affirmative action at UC campuses. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/22/local/me-nakashima22 Read More