Discrimination and Affirmative Action - Research Paper Example

QUESTION: Did the city of New Haven act reasonably in rejecting the test results based on the lack of minority representation?  The paper will first throw light over the theoretical concepts of discrimination and affirmative action to provide readers an insight over differences between the two. The paper will then briefly discuss the business case of City of New Heaven fire department after which the author will reveal perceived managerial implications of cancellation of results obtained from promotional aptitude test by the board members employed at state-owned fire department. Indeed, the author will specifically apply concepts of Utilitarian and Deontological theories over this business case to reach upon a conclusion. The word discrimination, in a business context, refers to one sided behavior, favor or attitude of employers towards a specific group on the basis of ethnicity, race, culture, creed, religion, language, community, feud etc. Indeed, this type of discrimination is usually observed in business organizations where employers from specific ethnicity tend to discriminate against potential applicants who belong to minority groups from other geographical regions. For example, a white employer who owns a firm may discriminate against African – Americans, Asians and Hispanics etc. In contrast, an Asian firm owner operational in USA may give preference to only workers from its own country or from Asia instead of employing US workers in general on merit basis. Affirmative action, on the other hand, refers to providing equal employment and business opportunities to all minority, ethnic and religious groups so that any inequalities in past could be avoided. Hence, in this way, all potential candidates receive equal chances to prove their abilities, skills, knowledge, training and education in a particular business firm and entity. In more simple words, the employees are also offered promotional, pay increase, extrinsic rewards and other opportunities to advance within an organizational setting regardless of race, ethnicity, sect, language or religion. Conflicts are avoided while morale, confidence, affective and normative commitment of workers is enhanced who are treated on the basis of equality. Employee turnover rates and lawsuits against employers are also reduced that in turn decrease costs of doing business. Business Case: Aptitude tests are a common way to select potential candidates in any profit maximizing business entity or in any non-for-profit firm or institution. Indeed, some institutions and enterprises also conduct tests to judge abilities and skills of candidates for future promotions and internal advancements. The New Haven fire department also conducted a test in 2003 comprising of both written multiple-choice questions and oral face-to-face interview questionnaire to assess the abilities and knowledge of employees for promotions at top posts of lieutenant and captain in the state-owned department. Nevertheless, the MCQs part was 60 % of total test score while oral exam accounted for remaining 40 % of cumulative test result. The test received much attention after hue and cry made by successful low and top scorer candidates as well as by local and general public segments because apparently minorities such as African – Americans and Hispanics were ruled out of this promotion contest. In fact, 95 % promotions were bagged by intelligent and smart (disclaimer - in language of public), though white, candidates whereas low skilled and least intelligent (disclaimer) successful minority candidates were denied of their right of social equality and similar employment opportunities regardless of their race and color. (Dorf, 2009) Dorf (2009) has further pointed out some worth mentioning facts such as Hispanics were not granted any promotions ‘at both lieutenant and captain posts’. As far as the case of African – Americans is concerned, it should be pointed out that six test takers successfully cleared exam for lieutenant's seat, while three deemed to be successful for captain’s contest. Nevertheless, they were considered eligible because according to city’s constitution and predefined regulations, only those among top three scorers are awarded promotions and advancements. According to Totenberg (2009), the point that bothered most was the fact that Hispanics and African-Americans average scores were much lesser than that of white candidates, which in turn raised questions in the minds of applicants as well as societal elements. The scores of both above mentioned minority groups ‘were ranged from 34 to 59 % of the scores for whites’. In short, only a single Hispanic candidate was announced eligible for promotion out of total 15 seats while all remaining seats went to white candidates. Obviously, the results were unacceptable because of their unique nature, which later led to discussions for next five days among members and patrons of Civil Service Board. At last, the Board refused to corroborate the results, thereby announcing the test to be not up to standard and completely impeccable. In this way, even white successful candidates denied promotions to appease the anger of minority groups and to shun expected litigation these applicants. However, the situation was aggravated when white candidates initiated a legal war, thereby accused New Haven department for disparate treatment and racial discrimination to favor certain groups. No matter what the result was, the author would now like to elaborate upon managerial implications regarding decision of City to exterminate test results and deny promotions. (Robinson, 2009) Managerial Implications in the light of Ethical Theories and Concepts: Indeed, we are living in a globalized world in which employers tend to higher workers from diverse backgrounds, experiences, cultures, traditions, customs, skills, knowledge, physical strength and capabilities. For instance, if equal employment opportunities are not provided to potential employees from minority groups and communities because of biased attitude and discrimination, the firms and their owners may not be able to attract a talented pool of smart workers from such communities as well as will be unable to make the most of unique and distinctive ideas, opinions and personal experiences of such candidates with diverse backgrounds and strengths. Similar is the case with the city of New Haven fire department where if the discriminatory test and its results were not disregarded and favor continued to be given to a particular majority group (whites of course), it would have given an extremely negative impression to many deserved candidates about going discrimination and biasness. Indeed, the Civil Service Board had rightly disregarded the flawed test and its results, thereby maintaining the impression that USA is free culture, environment and a place where candidates and employees from minority groups are not discriminated for higher posts even in state-owned civil service departments. Hence, any person from any ethnic group, religion or sect who could fulfill the defined employment and performance criteria, code of conduct and standards could opt out to find equitable work opportunities in the Fire Fighting department. Indeed, the decision of withdrawal would definitely boost confidence, normative commitment and morale of existing employees in an organizational setting and assist in reducing employee turnover rates and overall recruitment, selection and training expenditure. Second, the decision from the concerned authorities would also eradicate any negative schemas, perceptions or misconceptions that white candidates might have about easy employment, higher salary or pay increase, financial rewards and quick promotions at the expense of other deserving candidates from any Asian, African- American or Hispanic groups. Third, the decision would also help mitigating the rising concerns about existence of Glass Ceiling and other discriminatory practices in non-for-profit core government institutions and affiliated organizations. As far as implications regarding white candidates are concerned, it should be emphasized that genuinely smart, calculated and deserving candidates who really studied and worked hard for test and passed it easily would take it as a personal offence and might become dejected and disconsolate after this denial and unexpected rejection about guaranteed promotions on key posts. Hence, in this way, the department could fail to entice these capable employees in future as they may switch to other government or private companies where they receive respect, just treatment and on-the-job benefits instead of refutation about their basic rights and interests. Second, the decision would also leave unanswered questions in the minds of general and local publics who might doubt about efficiency, internal policies, norms and code of conduct, control, management, administration and recruitment process of New Haven fire department. According to Utilitarian business ethics theory, only that alternative and available option should be used that has greatest number of perceived benefits and that brings about the greatest good to the majority of people in a society. Second, the proponents of Utilitarian ethical theory also suggest another point that that people could compare various suggestions, alternatives and recommendations on a number system and could then select the most favorable and viable solution that receives highest points. Indeed, this is usually done with mutual consensus and allows people to express their own say and logic on list of available solutions. Hence, it is justified to say that the decision to discard the test results and forgo promotions at both key posts was reasonable because there had been mark difference between scores of white and minority candidates that could not be attributed to the explanation that whites have fairly better analytical, physical and technical skills unlike minority candidates. Although, some white candidates are smart enough than minority candidates because of vast differences in educational, cultural and family backgrounds; however, the explanation that all minority workers are dumbasses and thus should not be promoted to main posts is implausible. As far as Deontological concept is concerned, it says that a person’s action is considered morally right if he has good will whereas it should be morally wrong if the person has bad will. Indeed, the test was considered to be flawed and the results were disregarded for sake of business ethics and retention of positive image about practical implementation of ethical policies and strategies in state-owned US departments. In conclusion, the decision was made for greater good of the society and for providing the evidence that no one is superior or preferred in US society because of its race, culture, color and creed. In short, this option was appropriate in a way that it served an impression that although whites are in majority across USA, yet the nation is an open society with equal opportunities and employment chances. References: Totenberg, Nina “Supreme Court Hears Firefighter Promotion Case” NPR April 22, 2009 Available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103289178 Dorf, Michael “The Supreme Court Decides the New Haven Firefighter Case” Find law July 1, 2009 Available at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090701.html Supreme Court USA “Ricci at al. v. DEStefano et al” Supremecourt.gov June 29, 2009 Available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf Robinson, Charles “Supreme Court Rules on Disparate Impact” Legal Advisory July 10, 2009 Available at http://legal.ucsf.edu/titlevii.pdf Standler, Ronald “Full Text of Judicial Opinions in Ricci v. DeStefano” Rbs0.com March 7, 2010 Available at http://www.rbs0.com/ricci.pdf Read More