MSLD 634 Module 4 - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative action is basically the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement (LaFollette, 2007). First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination. (Andre, Velasquez & Mazur, 1992).

LaFollette (2007) and Andre et al. (2007) presents some favorable and opposing arguments to affirmative actions (adapted with my words and opinion):

Against:

1.     Reverse discrimination: when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different.

2.     Hurts those who have done no wrong: impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices; therefore, it is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation.

3.     The qualification argument: The relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex.

4.     Stigmatizes minorities: devalue minorities achievements, possibly leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence.

5.     Victimizes minorities: encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace or classroom.

6.     The rights of employers: those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen, resulting is reduced productivity and efficiency in the workplace

7.     Neglects others’ needs: ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them.

8.     Poor target: only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference. Most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot.

9.     Feeds segregation and tensions: as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups.

10.  Opens for all types of discrimination: as racism and discrimination affects several groups and not minorities, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. For instance, non-minorities are already charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission, bringing us back to point number one.

The circle of harms is created!

Favor:

1.      Continuing racism: as a result of past discrimination, women and minorities have been denied their fair share of opportunities. Racism continues to permeate businesses and educational institutions, ranging from prejudice in job classification and minority systems to biases in college entrance exams.

2.      History: Throughout generations, race and sex have been used to deny individuals equal treatment in employment and education. While many of today's minorities and women may not have been themselves the victims of discrimination, they have been victimized by its effects

3.      Domino effect (the minority saga): as descendants of those who were denied jobs or relegated to low-paying positions, they have grown up deprived of the resources, opportunities, and education necessary to develop the skills and confidence needed to compete on equal terms with white males.

4.      Domino effects (the majority saga): while today's white males may not themselves have been perpetrators of discrimination, they have benefitted most from its effects. Racial and sexist policies have given white males an unfair advantage in competing for jobs and college slots. Preferential treatment programs help neutralize this unfair advantage.

5.      Equality of opportunity: preferential treatment programs aim to achieve equal opportunity and provide a more equitable distribution of social and economic benefits.

6.      Cost-benefit: preferential policies redirect jobs and educational opportunities to those who are most in need of them, leading to a reduction in poverty and its associated social costs. And the real cost for the initiative are a fraction of its impacts.

7.      Eye opener for diversity: different perspectives and experiences that minorities and women bring to the workplace and to colleges and universities is an advantage for educational and corporate environments.

8.      Backslash on stigma: any stigmatizing that might concur with affirmative actions is no worse than that resulting from the absence of minorities in positions of influence and power.

9.      Backslash on the productivity factor: in cases in which candidates are equally qualified, productivity will not be affected and in cases in which qualifications do differ, the differences are unlikely to be significant enough to affect productivity.

            While reflecting and inputting my opinions above, I believe that affirmative action programs are only temporary solutions. This doesn’t mean I am against affirmative action, but I believe that other factors should be taken in consideration, in hiring and admission, as:

            1.   Qualification, based not only hard but also soft skills

            2. The hiring and admission requirements should not only look at skin color, geographic                       background or sex, but educational background and family income

                  3. A deep look at criminal background (if any)

                  4.  Quota should allow some flexibility

                  5.   Results after hiring and admission should be a measurement tool on keeping individual or   not., however results should not be limited to numbers but a deep analysis of effort and     contribution.

          I believe a more powerful way to make affirmative action really works is having programs inside corporations and universities that empowers the minorities. There is a high chance the domino effect of the disadvantages from the past will affect the present of individual in minority groups. If the goal of the programs is not only a façade, but it is founded on its espoused intentions, then affirmative actions should be systemic, meaningful and focus on mid and long-term results. Lastly, I defend the idea of affirmative actions at a very early age. Only by working on the cradle of injustice we will see powerful and long-lasting effects.

References

Andre, C; Mazur, T; Velasquez, M. (1992). Affirmative Action:
Twenty-five Years of Controversy. Retrieved from https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing