Affirmative action appeared as a result of social controversies and inability of the state to provide sufficient solution of that inevitable dilemma. Era of discrimination brought significant sufferings to unprotected groups of society.
Thus, the primary objective of affirmative action was to give minorities and women an equal opportunity at employment and in collegiate admissions. Whereas affirmative action was progressive and efficient social program during the period of discrimination and civil rights movement, in contemporary context the program gives minorities and women an unfair advantage.Disguised as an equal opportunity program affirmative action discriminates against non-minorities. Affirmative action had short-term positive effect on employment, however, in the long-term remained highly controversial. Indeed, being considered as a disparate treatment for crucial social problem, affirmative action is characterized with critical disparate impact on contemporary work practice.Idealistically, the application of mandatory affirmative action in the workplace should be substituted with thoroughly designed and voluntary diversity programs.
The implementation of affirmative action was America’s first honest attempt at solving a problem, it had previously chosen to ignore. In a variety of areas, from the quality of health care to the rate of employment, blacks, women, racial and ethnic minorities remained far behind white dominant males.Programs of affirmative action have had significant success in city, state, and government jobs. Since the 1960s the area of law enforcement witnessed the greatest increase in minority applicants, and in jobs offered to minorities. However, in the book “From the Content of Our Character:A new Vision of Race in America” author Shelby Steele refers to affirmative action as to a “preferential treatment” used to balance or “proportionate racial representations” in the society.
In addition, Steele argues that affirmative action is the not the solution to today’s racial inequality. Moreover, careful analysis of contemporary social trends that affirmative action causes “disparate impact.”Having a diverse workplace creates an increase in attracting and retaining the most qualified candidates. The Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) study found that 91 percent of respondents think diversity initiatives helped their organizations maintain a competitive advantage.According to the study, 79 percent of the companies believe their diversity programs improved corporate culture, 77 percent think they helped in recruitment and 52 percent said they fostered better client relations (Pelled et al, 1999:17).
Companies will gain a competitive advantage of being able to market and deliver their products within different cultures. Having inside information on how to communicate and what a community wants in a product is a great asset.A multicultural company can penetrate and widen their markets with the knowledge of political, social, legal, economic and cultural environments (White, 1999:477). Further, having someone within the organization who can negotiate and speak the language of the country is a very valuable asset.
Take for example Chevrolet’s experience in Latin America. They produced a car, which they called the Nova.They marketed the car and at first could not understand why they were not having success with it in the Latin communities. As they soon learned, Nova, or no va as the Spanish speaking communities heard and read it, means does not go in their language.This all could have been prevented.
There have been many of these kinds of examples of cultural blindness, which could have been prevented by having a culturally diverse company.With all of the positive aspects that multiculturalism brings a company, there are a few disadvantages. Many people feel threatened by working with people of a different age, sex, or culture. However, the foremost disadvantage of diversity in modern business context a company may encounter is reverse discrimination. This is a feeling that is associated with affirmative action policies.
It is a major argument against such policies. Reverse discrimination is a claim by white males that they have been unfairly discriminated against. They claim they are equally or more qualified for the position, yet were passed over for a minority to receive the job (Brunner, 2003).This can cause lawsuits in some cases, but mostly a sense of rejection by other workers in the company toward the minority who received the position. Reverse discrimination became an issue by the famous Bakke case in 1978.Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applicants.
The school had a separate admissions policy for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students.The Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs, which in this case had unfairly discriminated against a white applicant. In the same ruling, however, the Court upheld the legality of affirmative action (Brunner, 2003).The feminists did not want special treatment nor did the feminists want to be treated as inferior to men. Affirmative action denies women the dream that early feminist had worked hard for, the program insists on treating women as inferior by giving them special treatment.
The goal of equal treatment in the work force is never to guarantee women a fixed percentage, a woman can do and should do anything she desires, however, she must earn her position and not rely on a program that has racial and gender preferences.“By demanding real, not rigged, competition for jobs, promotions, or admission to academic institution women will be fulfilling the true goal of early feminist” (Glendon, 1991: 69). Why would any self-respecting woman prefer a job pondering if she was hired because of some quota? Surely every woman would rather know she obtained the position based on her skill and merit. Racial preference programs are not the best method of overcome barriers that keep colored people out of prestigious positions, these are indirect ways that insult the capability and potential of minorities; these programs simply add to the barriers.
Criticizing affirmative action Bernbach claims that the program was and remains to be an exception to the constitution, because rather than treating people equally it treats minorities more favorably than others (Bernbach, 1998:102).The criteria of employment should not be based on color, however a priori it should be getting the most qualified person for the job, and second, “rewarding the most merited candidate based on job-relevant qualifications” (Glendon, 1991: 87). Affirmative action now promotes rewarding undeserving candidates. Positions and promotions are given on race rather than merit.Affirmative action has a “disparate impact” on the national economy. In the business world the main concern of an employer should be to hire personnel that will increase productivity, therefore the concern should not be to hire to have a racially diverse faculty.
The best way increase productivity and the economy is to hire on merit. Hiring on something other than merit may result in economic hardship and a less qualified staff. Employers are judging minorities’ job positions only by the color of their skin.Racial preference is an obscure form of racism and discrimination, and the government should not any part in preferring certain racial groups. Affirmative action promotes reverse discrimination.
Giving the job positions to less qualified candidates is favoritism; this harms those who should who be obtaining the job position.A more dedicated person who worked hard in his education would lose a position to a minority that slipped into the position undeservingly. Moreover, affirmative action forces employers to hire convicted felons; one town for instance was forced to hire a convicted murderer on its police force.The criteria on a held upon a police officer candidate is extremely strict, recruiters check the background of a candidate for any blemish, the background check goes as far as high school records and neighbors, yet a murderer gets passed the regulations and standards. Favoritism of this sort does nothing but imply that reverse discrimination and special treatment towards minorities is admissible, this is not equal opportunity.
If minorities have a qualified resume` and are available, they will meet the criteria of the employer. Grants and scholarship are wasted among the irresponsible and unprepared minorities. The drop out rate of minorities in academic institutions is double and in some cases nearly the triple than that of non-minorities.The discrimination follows to government programs such as the Small Business Administration (SBA), which was founded to help socially and economically disadvantaged small business owners.
Although the program is to help anyone regardless of race or gender, it deals more exclusively with minorities, which gives non-minorities the back seat, the acceptance of white females is slim even though the program began in the 1970s.ReferencesPelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M.
, & Xin, K.R. (1999) “Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44White, R.D. (1999), “Managing the diverse organization: the imperative for a new multicultural paradigm”, available at < www.
pamij.com/4_4_pdf/99_4_4_4_w.pdf> Accessed Nov 29, 2005Brunner, B. (2003), “Bakke and beyond”, available at <http://www.
uis.edu/multiculturalstudentaffairs/bakke_and_beyond.htm> Accessed Nov 29, 2005Glendon, Mary Ann (1991). Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse.
New York: The Free Press.Bernbach, Alan (1998). Justice and Reverse Discrimination. Princeton: Princeton University Press,.
