Affirmative Action in Social Psychology - Assignment Example

 Affirmative Action in Social Psychology Introduction Affirmative action, which is also referred to as positive discrimination is a policy in social psychology which favors a disadvantaged group of people. The disadvantaged group is perceived to be suffering from discrimination from a given culture. The manifestation of positive discrimination comes in different ways and its nature varies from place to place. In countries such as India, they use the quota system. In the quota system, a certain percentage of school or job vacancies are set aside specifically for people in a certain group. In some countries, specific quotas never exist, but, minorities are given priority when it comes to any selection process. Affirmative action is one of major controversial policy issues in the contemporary United States. Even though opponents as well as supporters sometimes engage in vicious debates in courts and media social psychologists have taken a step of examining psychological origins. These psychological origins are of favorable as well as unfavorable opinions of affirmative action. They specifically examine how these policies are related to racial equality. Several factors ranging from prejudice and racial resentment to self-interest have been found to be the antecedents of United States’ opposition to affirmative action which only favors minority groups. Even though gender and racial attitudes have recently become more open since those time times in 1960s when affirmative action was incepted, support for affirmative action is generally still not small. This essay does not overlook the effect of self-interest, prejudice or any form of political beliefs aimed at shaping attitudes. However, this essay will aim at complementing the picture by looking at the role cultural values towards determining the psychological construal of this issue in the society. Legal decisions In a certain case in 1978, the United States Supreme Court gave a ruling that using college quota in making decisions concerning college admission greatly violated the Equal Protection Clause. This clause, which was included the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States’ constitution, strongly states that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." With this landmark ruling eliminating racial quotas, race was not allowed to be taken into consideration in making decisions about admission in schools and colleges. The aim of eliminating this quota was to achieve a diverse student body (Crosby et al, 2001). The decision received a direct challenge, in that, the United States Court of Appeal made a ruling in 1996 whereby race could not be considered as a factor in making decisions on college admission. The state of Texas, which was the defendant, made an appeal in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the appeal was refused. In 1995, two lawsuits had to challenge the constitutionality of considering race in the admission of students at the University of Michigan. A student, Jennifer Gratz was not admitted at the University of Michigan undergraduate program. The following year, a student by the name Barbara Grutter was denied admission at the University of Michigan School of law. Both students argued that their academic qualifications were enough to book them a spot at the university. These students argued that they were subjected to this type of discrimination as a result of the University’s affirmative action policies. However, the University argued that its admission was totally constitutional. It went further to argue that the policies promoted an ethnically and racially diverse student body. The two students’ cases were also decided in 2003. The Supreme Court almost upheld a decision which could allow universities and colleges to use racial complements during admissions (Crosby et al, 2001). A zero-sum game for the conservatives The backlash against affirmative action slowly began to build up by the angry white men. To conservatives, this system was a zero-sum game that could open doors for education, jobs and promotions to minorities. At the same time, it shut doors for the whites to get such opportunities. In a nation that prized the goodness of self-reliance and struggling on your own to achieve what you want, conservatives resented the about affirmative action. They argued that some minorities who were unqualified got a free ride on United States’ opportunities. Quotas and preferential treatment greatly became expressions of contempt. More contentious, was the accusation that these minorities enjoyed taking roles of professional victim (Arthur, 2006). Justice and freedom for all is yet to mature Jim Crow laws as well as lynching existed in 1960s. Forms of racism exited in employment, housing and education. The three discriminations persisted in even past the civil rights movement. Conservatives were impatient for the blacks to get past the legacy of slavery. However, they needed to understand that slavery was paramount in the start of racism the United States. Liberals also noted another conservative argument. The argument was that due to affirmative action, minorities were becoming a threat the whites’ jobs. They also argued that affirmative action threatened leadership, salaries and prestige (Martin, 2001). Social psychological concepts related to affirmative action Research has shown that affirmative action has gained popularity. The popularity depends on the policy under consideration. For racial attitudes, studies show that racial attitudes of the white Americans to African Americans show a positive trend. The demise of legalized racial discrimination and segregation was closely followed by a drastic decline in blatant racism. This racism was centered on the notion that black Americans were inferior. Today, surveys show that white Americans greatly endorse equality in race and integration. As earlier on discussed, racism has greatly been shown in decision making about college admission. Credentials of the black college applicants were not considered in their admissions. If affirmative action against such treatment was motivated by fairness which was un-racial, then whites could also oppose unfair policies that could favor all groups. However, the whites were against policies that favored the blacks. It is therefore clear that racial attitudes greatly impact on the attitudes towards affirmative action (Mosley & Capaldi, 2006). Challenges in implementing affirmative action Those who oppose affirmative action have always argued against affirmative action for many decades. They have been against the implementation of this system in many countries. The implementation of this system failed because affirmative action programs were prioritized as being integral to renewal of organizations. They mostly resorted under social responsibility programs. In that case, those blacks who were employed were not expected to carry out their duties in the best way required. However, they got paid as representatives of the blacks. Affirmative action programs were also taken as programs that aimed at equipping black people with some skills. They expected the black people to perform in environments that remained unchanged. In many cases, the environment they worked in was not alien, but also totally unfriendly (Mosley & Capaldi, 2006). Most attitudes that tend to plague the approach to affirmative action that originates from the fact that progression of black is taken as a nuisance factor to be managed by companies and organizations. This advancement of blacks was not considered as a factor that could ultimately lead to better survival and development of organizations. Agreement with authors’ statements According to Crosby et al.(2001), “unless conducted responsibly, debated over affirmative action polarize citizens.” This statement is true because, for a case like in California, the citizens could feel the rhetoric heat when Governor Pete Wilson locked horns with liberal politicians. Governor Wilson seemed to use his opposition to affirmative action as a way of getting to White House. Need for calm and not inflammatory considerations of affirmative action have been seen in many leaders. According to Mosley & Capaldi (2006), “affirmative action as either a compensation or preference is illegal.” This statement is true. In case these policies are pervasive, they reflect the illegal activities of government bureaucracies. Government bureaucracies are problems that may go even beyond affirmative action. Affirmative action leads to a form of discrimination and therefore cannot be considered legal. According to Arthur et al. (2006), “affirmative action policies are aimed at particular, identifiable groups.” The policies aim at favoring a group of minorities. The groups are selected depending on racial or ethnic group. Opposing statements According to Mosley & Capaldi, (2006), “affirmative action is a set of policies that are designed to address a problem.” This statement is totally not true. As discussed in the previous sections, affirmative action makes other groups of people to be favored more than others. This kind of favor to other groups may create conflicts in a nation instead of fostering peace. According to Crosby et al (2006), “organizations with affirmative action plans expect their managers to be able to plan well and not being reactive.” Unfortunately, this is not the case since affirmative action leads to hiring of individuals who are unskilled. In such a case, it will be hard to plan for a business which has unskilled workers. Addressing the issue A modest way of handling the affirmative action issue is by the Court to require colleges and universities that use considered race in their admission to be more transparent about the criteria. The court needs to require universities to give the range of their preference. They also need to disclose the academic performances the employment status of students who graduated with similar academic credentials. Additionally, liberals need to persuade the conservatives to unite with them in coming up with limited racial preferences. The racial preferences need to achieve their objectives. Also, the court needs to make decisions basing on bipartisan evidence and not partisan ideology. Conclusion In summary, it is clear that affirmative action that is based on race will always cause problems in both practical and political platforms. If the main objective of affirmative action is to reapportion wealth and jobs so that the economy of minorities reaches that of non-minorities, then affirmative action based on race is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. An affirmative action policy that is of socioeconomic preferences to replace the current one which is based on race makes more sense. References Arthur, W. (2006). Psychological Perspective on Affirmative Action. Stamford: Nova Publishers. Crosby, F. J. (2001). Affirmative Action: The Pros and Cons of Policy and Practice. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Martin, T. D. (2001). The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union. New York: Cornell University Press. Mosley, A., & Capaldi, N. (2006). Affirmative Action: Social Justice Or Unfair Preference? New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More