FREE ESSAY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

INTRODUCTION
Considering the subject of affirmative action the following questions frequently are
raised: Is there a clear understanding of affirmative action roles/goals? What are the
pros/cons of these programs? What are the loop holes in the system? Does seniority play a
role in affirmative action? Addressing these key questions may help us all in our daily
routine, as administrators and/or potential administrator in the public/private sector. 
Affirmative action programs throughout the United States have long been a controversial
issue particularly concerning employment practices (public/private) and university
student and/or staff recruitment. Most public agencies have some type of instituted
affirmative action program. According to Cheryl Perry-League, Director of Equal
Opportunity of the Port of Oakland, every business operating on Port of Oakland owned
land must have a standing affirmative action program on record and businesses bidding to
do work for the Port of Oakland must have an acceptably diverse workforce.
BACKGROUND
To understand the role and/or goals of affirmative actions programs we should define what
the broad definition of what affirmative action is and what caused its development. The
phase affirmative action was used in a racial discrimination context. Executive Order No.
10,925 issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. The order indicated that federal
contractors should take affirmative action to ensure job applicants and employees are
treated without regard to their race, creed, or national origin. A person could define
this statement as an order to imply equal access and nothing else. Subsequently,
Executive Order 11246 issued by President Johnson in September 1965, mandated affirmative
action goals for all federally funded programs and moved monitoring and enforcement of
affirmative action programs out of the White House and into the Labor Department.
Affirmative action refers to various efforts to deliberately take race, sex, and national
origins into account to remedy past and current effects of discrimination. Its primary
goal is to ensure that women and minorities are widely represented in all occupations and
at all organizational levels (Tompkins, 1995, p.161). Another definition of affirmative
action according to Barbara Bergmann is planning and acting to end the absence of certain
kinds of people-those who belong to groups that have been subordinated or left out-from
certain jobs and schools (1997 p.7).
Tracing the history of affirmative action, laws against racial discrimination have proved
inadequate for workplace integration because they often provide remedies only after the
fact. Affirmative action requires proactive steps to provide equal opportunities in
employment as well as access to education. Many affirmative action programs were born
from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII references to affirmative
action programs were brought about because of the history of discrimination in the United
States, certain groups are viewed as disadvantage in the current marketplace. Thus
affirmative action laws impose temporary requirements to correct underutilization of
these groups (e.g., goals and timetables for increasing the number of minorities and
women in a facility) (Gutman, 1993, p.9). Prior to these laws and the Title VII law, the
U.S workforce was primarily dominated by white males. Although, still somewhat white male
dominated, quotas that were designed through affirmative action programs have helped
achieve some representation of women and minorities in the current work force. Some
remedies brought about through affirmative action programs include goal setting, quotas,
and timetables. 
GOALS AND QUOTAS
The term goal refers to specific outcomes which, when achieved, will result in equal
employment opportunity and equitable representation (Hall & Albrecht, 1979, p.47-78).
Goals and hiring quotas vary somewhat in their function. Goals generally are long range
plans that organizations use and there are no expected minimum or maximum limitations.
Quotas by comparison, establishes a definite number of people who must be hired. A
Company cannot by law, use quotas unless it has been ordered to do so by a court to
remedy a past action (Hall & Albrecht, 1979, p.47-78). Deficiency correction is the
primary target of goal setting through affirmative action. For an organization to be
effective with goals, they must be realistic, attainable, and monitored by the human
resource department. Affirmative action programs generally achieve their set goals
through several common practices called outreach programs. First, there are special
recruiting programs where women and minorities will most likely be found. These special
outreach programs often target black universities and female dominated educational
facilities. A second outreach program involves special advertising. Generally, this is
also implemented in areas that are heavily populated by women and minorities similar to
that of recruiting programs. Through outreach programs like the ones mentioned above,
goals can be attained to achieve equity and representation without forgoing higher
educated and skilled applicants.
PROGRAM JUSTICATION
These programs can be justified because discrimination is still apparent in the United
States today. A 1990 study by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research
Center found that the majority of white Americans still believe blacks to be inferior.
For example, 53% of non-black respondents said they thought blacks were less intelligent
than whites, 62% said they thought blacks were less patriotic, 62% said they thought
blacks were lazier, and 78% said they thought blacks preferred to live off welfare.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, a series of national standardize tests,
evaluates students on their proficiency in reading, writing and science. They divide and
compare these results to better understand the effectiveness of public schools. Their
results suggest a large imbalance in the educational quality received by whites and other
races. The most noticeable imbalance in the three fundamentals of learning was the most
important, reading. When students cannot read well, they usually cannot succeed in other
subject areas. 
With the background of affirmative action and its programs established we should evaluate
some of the problems with affirmative action and if affirmative action programs work.
Opponents against affirmative action programs often believe that the system currently in
place is a misuse of the original intent of affirmative action. The programs as they
apply now are detrimental to the operation of the job market, to white males, and to the
groups it is supposed to benefit. They further contend affirmative action causes reverse
discrimination. It is not good practice for Opponents pro affirmative action to use it as
a way to make up for past discrimination. Another problem caused by affirmative action is
that it often places a stigma on any groups, which receive preferential treatment,
especially on individuals who earn positions because of their ability.
Opponents of affirmative action programs believe that these programs when handled
properly through the human resources department within an organization can minimize the
negative references received regarding hiring practices. Nye states that positive
information regarding an employee's job qualifications should minimize assumptions of
incompetence associated with affirmative action hiring programs. In other words, when
co-workers have information that clearly describes an individual's job qualifications,
they should be less likely to assume that he or she was hired solely on race or
gender(1998). By making this information available within the organization, it would help
remove the pressures from the employee and co-worker regarding the hiring practices. This
could further help the organization in the area of productivity, public relations within
the community, and morale. By increasing morale, you maybe able to retain more employees,
recruitment made easier, and motivate employees into a very competitive workforce.
Opponents of affirmative action also do not believe that women and minorities will be
treated fairly without affirmative action programs. Opportunities in today's workplace
are extremely competitive. Glazer states that the battle over affirmative action today is
a contest between a clear principle on the one hand and a clear reality on the other. The
principle is that ability, qualifications, and merit, independent of race, national
origin, or sex should prevail when one applies for a job or promotion, or for selective
institutions for higher education, or when one bids for contracts. The reality is that
strict adherence to this principle would result in few African Americans getting jobs,
admissions, and contracts (1998).
With that being said, women and minorities cannot possibly have a fair chance in today's
society without positive affirmative action programs. However, with affirmative action,
it has been noted that their incentives to achieve success may be decreased because
preferential treatment can lead to the patronization of minorities and women workers and
students. By patronization I mean the setting of a lower standard of expected
accomplishment because of the belief that these people are not as capable of meeting a
higher standard (Loury, 1997). With a white male dominated workforce, negative public
perceptions, and low self-esteem of applicants, affirmative action offers a solution for
race and gender equity. Further stated, everyone in America should be afforded equal
opportunity. If this cannot be achieved voluntarily, then we must continue to take action
to remedy these situations.
Opponents of affirmative action won a landmark victory, in 1998, with the passage of
California's Proposition 209. This proposition abolished all public-sector affirmative
action programs in the state in employment, education and contracting. Clause(C) of Prop.
209 permits gender discrimination that is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of
public education, employment and contracting. In 1998, The ban on use of affirmative
action in admissions at the University of California went into effect. UC Berkeley had a
61% drop in admissions, and UCLA had a 36% decline. This decline strengthens the position
of the Pro side of affirmative action.
However, a contingency plan has been established. According to a source (who asked to
remain nameless), UC Berkeley has a program to actively recruit more minority students
that falls out of the guidelines established by prop. 209. These types of loop holes can
ultimately hurt the various studies on the effectiveness of anti-affirmative action
laws.
LOOPHOLES
Loop holes are exceptions to the rules or standards. It's a way around the system.
Opponents for affirmative action might feel that the Washington State government utilized
such a loop hole in 1997. Under an affirmative action program criticized as the ultimate
example of preferential treatment by supporters against affirmative action, the
Washington State government hired more white men than African Americans did or any other
minority group. In fact, white men fell second to white women being hired (Brune).
The program in question is Washington State's plus three program, according to Tom Brune
of the Seattle Times, allows the state to hire people who qualify for affirmative action
over finalists with higher job-test scores. White men qualify because the state's
affirmative action policy cover not only people of color and women, but also Vietnam-era
veterans, disabled veterans and people with disabilities. Majority of the veterans are
white men and nearly half of them are disabled in the State of Washington.
Another example of how affirmative action works for the disadvantaged can be found in
Hayward, California. Bonnie Kellogg was admitted into the government's Small Business
Administration program that gives her company competitive advantages in its quest for
government and large corporate contracts.
Prior to 1995, Kellogg's chances of getting into this program, officially known as the
8(a) Business Development program, would have been slim to none. However, in 1995 court
ruling stemming from a law suit by a white business owner alleging reverse discrimination
relaxed government standards. This ruling as allow for whites, Egyptians and Iranians,
who fall outside the SBA's minority designation easier access to the program.
This relaxation of the rules as helped non-minorities business owners greatly. Report K.
Oanh Ha of the Knight Rider Tribune finds a, a big statistical change. From 1968 until
mid-1998, only 40 businesses owned by whites and non-minorities out of 13,400 firms
nationally were admitted, were admitted into the 8(a) program. So far this year, 74
non-minority companies have been admitted. (1999)
SENORITY
Seniority must be examined because in my opinion it is the most widely used preferential
treatment policy in the American workplace? With affirmative action being view as
preference by many Americans and seniority being an unchallenged rule-of-thumb. In an
article by Paul Rockwell he explains, The seniority system may be legitimate, but it is
no less preferential in its execution than affirmative action. When layoffs take place by
seniority, many highly skilled women, many well-qualified people of color, among others,
are bumped out of their jobs by less qualified older white males. In a seniority system,
the last hired is the first fired, whether the employee is more skilled and competent
than an employee protected by seniority. (1999).
Richard Lester, author of Manpower Planning, believes that seniority places less
qualified employees ahead of employees who are often better educated, more skilled in
computers. Arthur Whitehill & Shin Ichi Takezawa in Work Ways, concluded the same
thoughts Younger worker in some cases are more competent than older workers because of
[them being} better education, greater adaptability and physical fitness.
The public sector and much of the private sector have recognized seniority for quite
sometime. We can find this system practiced by older teachers at various universities who
are often protected by tenure. Professor Daniel Barber has even stated in candid
conversion that when he was the department chair for the Master of Public Administration
he took care of the tenured faculty first.
Knowing this, why do Opponents of affirmative action, have appeared to be, judgmental of
about so-called merit and preference, why isn't there the same concern about the biggest
workplace exception to strict meritocracy - Seniority? Seniority is yet another way to
protect the good 'o boys networks. Found in many of the historically white male dominated
professions, for example, Firefighters, police, school superintendents, and college
professors.
Coming from a public sector background (Disabled Army War Veteran, Bureau of Prisons
office administrator, Department of Veterans Affairs administrator, and to many federal
internships to count) I support the seniority system in those places where affirmative
action is still in place. Workplace should reflect the diversity of the community it
serves, seniority is a fair system of labor management relations. Seniority gives
employees for the personnel problems and private preferences of an employer. 
However, seniority is a widely used exception to strict merit system only if the
workplace is democratic and applied with affirmative action the workplace can become more
inclusive. Where affirmative action is repealed, seniority loses some of its legitimacy.
I argue that only loses some of its legitimacy because I personally was retained as an
employee in a seniority situation. I was the last hired but I was not fired.
In short, the scope of seniority and affirmative action are similar. The goal of
seniority is job security and affirmative action is integration; both goals are good for
America. The American labor movement has a major stake in seniority. The movement should
embrace affirmative action because in good conscience it should not take advantage of one
and not honor the other. Basically, benefiting for seniority practices but opposing
affirmative action for others.
If affirmative action is repealed, seniority should go as well. Labor unions and
movements should concentrate on saving affirmative action. At a time when all progressive
social policies are under attack, unity between women, labor, and people of color is
imperative. Seniority and affirmative action should stand or fall together.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding affirmative action programs today will continue
into the future. Society as a whole does not appear to be ready to relinquish its
negative perception of the hiring practices brought about by Title VII. However, the
benefits brought about this act has greatly increased the opportunity for women and
minorities in employment that may not have otherwise been available. These programs have
offered hope to some if not all-socioeconomic groups that they will be afforded the
opportunity of equal employment and/or representation in our society. Furthermore, human
resource departments in the public sector will have to become more skilled in
implementing positive affirmative action programs if we are to reap the full benefits
from them. 
Finally, Affirmative action is not a cure-all. It will not eliminate racial
discrimination, nor will it eliminate competition for scare resources. Affirmative action
programs can only ensure that everyone has a fair chance at what is available. They
cannot direct us to the social policies necessary so people do not have to compete for
scarce resources in the first place. The larger question to ask is why are there not
enough decent paying, challenging and safe jobs for everyone? Why are there not enough
seats in the universities for everyone who wants an education? Expanding opportunity for
people of color means expanding not only their access to existing jobs & education, but
also removing the obstacles that cause these resources to be limited. 
Bibliography
SOURCES
Bergmann, Barbara (1997). In Defense of Affirmative Action: New York: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Brune, Tom (1998). Nearly half of all affirmative-action hires are white. Seattle Times -
Internet Edition.
November 6, 1999, on the world wide
web:http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/article/html98
/plus_020998.html. 
Ezorsky, Gertrude (1991). Racism*Justice: The Case for Affirmative Action. Ithaca, New
York: Cornell
University Press.
Glazer, Nathan (1998). In Defense of Preference. The New Republic, 218 (14), 18-25.
Gutman, Arthur (1993). EEO Law and Personnel Practices. California: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Ha, Oamh K. (1999). Rules help white entrepreneurs qualify as disadvantaged. Chicago
Tribune - Internet
Edition. Retrieved Saturday, November 6, 1999, on the world wide
web:http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/smallbusiness/article/article/0,2669,art-34423,ff.html
Hall, F. S., & Albrecht, M. H. (1979). The Management of Affirmative Action. California:
Goodyear 
Publishing.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Stathatos, P. (1997). The Affirmative action stigma of
incompetence.
Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3), 603-625.
Horne, Gerald (1992). Reversing Discrimination: The Case for Affirmative Action. Ithaca,
New York:
Cornell University Press.
Lester, Richard (1948). Manpower Planning in a Free Society. Washington, D.C. Foundation
publishing. 
Loury, Glenn (1997). How to mend affirmative action. Public Interest (127), 33-45.
Nye, David (1998) Affirmative action and the stigma of incompetence. The Academy of
Management
Executive, 12 (1), 88-92.
Pasour, Ernest (1999). Affirmative Action: A Counter- Productive Policy. The Freeman, 3
(7), 23-32.
Sklar, Holly (1995). Chaos or Community?: Seeking Solutions, Not Scapegoats for Bad
Economics.
Boston: South End Press.
Tompkins, Jonathon (1995). Human Resource Management in Government New York:
HarperCollins.