affirmativeaction

7/28/2019 affirmativeaction

1/12

Unit 3: Business and its Internal Constituencies

Chapter 4: Ethics of job discrimination

Lesson 19: Affirmative Action

Dear Students, today let us talk about reservations (affirmative action) in educationalinstitutions, government jobs etc.

Points to be covered in this lecture:

Affirmative action arguments for and against affirmative action.

Racism

Molly has just been accepted at Stanford University and calls her friend Terri to tell her

the good news.

MOLLY: Hi, Terri! Guess what?

TERRI: Hey, Molly! What happened?

MOLLY: I got accepted to Stanford!!!!

TERRI (surprised and disappointed): Oh. Cool.

MOLLY: Thanks, Ter---you sound soo enthused!

TERRI: Oh, I am. I have to go---my Mom's calling me for dinner.

MOLLY: Oh, ok. See ya!

TERRI: Bye, Molly.

The two girls hang up with each other. Terri picks up the phone and calls her friend

Monica.

MONICA: Hello?

TERRI: Monica? It's Terri.

MONICA: Hey, Terri! Whats up?

TERRI: Listen to this, Mon. Molly got into Stanford!

MONICA: Oh, that's great! I'm so happy for her!


2/12

TERRI: What? Why?

MONICA: Terri, Stanford is like the hardest school to get into in the country! Why

shouldn't I be happy for her?

TERRI: Well, I didn't get in.

MONICA: Oh, I didn't know---I'm sorry.

TERRI: I don't understand how she got in, though. I have a higher GPA and SAT scores

than she does.

MONICA: Maybe she had a better application.

TERRI: Or maybe it's what was on her application.

MONICA: What do you mean?

TERRI: Oh, come on, Mon! Molly's black!

MONICA: Yes, and. . .?

TERRI: Don't you see?IT'S CALLED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

MONICA: Terri, give me a break

TERRI: Oh, please. You know it and I know it: She only got in because of her race and

because she's poor. Her GPA is really low and so are her SAT scores.

MONICA: Did you ever stop and think that maybe she had a good essay?

TERRI: Yes, but we've both read some of Molly's papers, and we both know she can't

write. Listen, Monica, if you're Black, Asian, Native American, Mexican, or any other

minority and poor you've got it made. You can be as stupid as Forrest Gump---which

most of them are---and you can still get into any college. It's not fair at all.

MONICA (angry): No, you know what isn't fair? That I'm sitting here listening to my so-

called "friend" insult my intelligence and my race. How dare you sit here and tell me thatthe only way I'll ever get into college is through my race. Listen, honey, the only way I'm

getting to college is through my brains, and from talking to you it looks like I have a lot

more than you!

After reading this conversation you must have understood that our focus is on

affirmative action. These two girls were talking about affirmative action, which made one


3/12

person happy and one person very sad. So, what is affirmative action? What do we mean

by this term? In this lecture we will understand this concept.

Affirmative Action:

All of the equal opportunity policies discussed are ways of making employment

decisions blind with respect to sex and race. These policies are all negative: They aim toprevent any further discrimination. They, therefore, ignore the fact that as a result of pastdiscrimination women and minorities do not now have the same skills as their white male

counterparts and that because of past discrimination women and minorities are now

underrepresented in the more prestigious and desirable job positions. The policies

discussed so far do not call for any positive steps to eliminate these effects of pastdiscrimination.

First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions inresponse to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings,

preferential treatment programs or Affirmative Actions seek to rectify the effects of past

and ongoing discrimination against women and racial minorities. These programs aredesigned as temporary measures to increase the employment and educational

opportunities available to qualified women and minorities by giving them preference in

hiring, promotion, and admission. Toward this goal, some firms and institutions

aggressively recruit minorities and women, others set numerical targets and timetables toraise the level of minority and female representation, and still others establish quotas to

hire or admit a specified number of minority and female candidates.

In order to rectify the effects of past discrimination, many employers have instituted

affirmative action programs designed to achieve a more representative distribution of

minorities and women within the firm by giving preference to women and minorities.

Affirmative action programs, in fact, are now legally required of all firms that hold agovernment contract. What does an affirmative action program involve? The heart of an

affirmative action program is a detailed study (a "utilization analysis") of all the majorjob classifications in the firm. The purpose of the study is to determine whether there are

fewer minorities or women in a particular job classification than could be reasonably

expected by their availability in the area from which the firm recruits. The utilization

analysis will compare the percentage of women and minorities in each job classificationwith the percentage of those minority and female workers available in the area from


4/12

which the firm recruits who have the requisite skills or who are capable of acquiring the

requisite skills with training the firm could reasonably supply. If the utilization analysis

shows that women or minorities are underutilized in certain job classifications, the firmmust then establish recruiting goals and timetables for correcting these deficiencies.

Although the goals and timetables must not be rigid and inflexible quotas, they must

nonetheless be specific, measurable, and designed in good faith to correct the deficienciesuncovered by the utilization analysis within a reasonable length of time. The firm

appoints an officer to coordinate and administer the affirmative action program, and

undertakes special efforts and programs to increase the recruitment of women andminorities so as to meet the goals and timetables it has established for itself.

Supreme Court decisions have not been clear about the legality of affirmative action

programs. A large number of federal court decisions have agreed that the use ofaffirmative action programs to redress imbalances that are the result of previous

discriminatory hiring practices is legitimate. Moreover, in 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that companies legally can use affirmative action programs to remedy a "manifest

racial imbalance" whether or not the imbalance resulted from past discriminatory jobpractices. In June 1984, however, the Court ruled that companies may not set aside the

seniority of white workers during layoffs in favor of women and minority workers hiredunder affirmative action plans so long as the seniority system was adopted without a

discriminatory motive. Thus, although affirmative action programs that give preferences

to women or minorities as a group were not declared illegal, their effects could disappearduring hard times since the "last hired, first fired" rule of seniority would hit strongest at

women and minorities recently hired through the programs

These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women and

minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has increased 50

percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial positions has jumped fivefold.In 1970, women comprised only 5 percent of lawyers compared to 20 percent today.

Affirmative action programs have been attacked mainly on the grounds that, in

attempting to correct the effects of past discrimination, these programs themselves havebecome racially or sexually discriminatory. By showing preference to minorities or

women, the programs institute a form of "reverse discrimination" against white males. A

forty-five-year-old electrical worker at a Westinghouse plant, for example, is quoted assaying

What does bother me is the colored getting the preference because they're black. This I

am against. I say, I don't care what his color is. If he has the ability to do the job, heshould get the job-not because of his color. They shouldn't hire 20 percent just because

they're black. This is discrimination in reverse as far as I'm concerned. . . . If they want

it, they can earn it like I did. I am not saying deprive them of something-not at all

Affirmative action programs are said to discriminate against white males by using a

non-relevant characteristic-race or sex-to make employment decisions, and this violatesjustice by violating the principles of equality and of equal opportunity.


5/12

As civil rights groups press for more aggressive and comprehensive preferential

treatment programs to eliminate such inequities, opposition to these programs mounts.

According to one poll, a majority of whites and one-third of blacks oppose preferentialtreatment for minorities. Opponents have long charged that the programs discriminate

against white males. Recent critics, including several noted black scholars, argue that

preferential treatment programs victimize and stigmatize minorities, increasing frictionamong groups. But defenders of the programs hail them as the most expedient and fairest

way to overcome racial and sexist barriers in our society. Are preferential treatment

programs morally justified?

The arguments used to justify affirmative action programs in the face of theseobjections tend to fall into two main groups. One group of arguments interprets the

preferential treatment accorded to women and minorities as a form ofcompensation for

past injuries they have suffered. A second set of arguments interprets preferentialtreatment as an instrument for achieving certain social goals. Whereas compensation

arguments for affirmative action are backward looking insofar as they focus on the

wrongness ofpastacts, the instrumentalist arguments are forward looking insofar as theyfocus on the goodness of a future state (and the wrongness of what happened in the past

is irrelevant). We will begin by examining the compensation arguments and then turn to

the instrumentalist arguments.

In Defense of Preferential Treatment

Affirmative action as compensation

Arguments that defend affirmative action as a form of compensation are based on

the concept of compensatory justice. Compensatory justice, as we noted implies that

people have an obligation to compensate those whom they have intentionally and unjustlywronged. Affirmative action programs are then interpreted as a form of reparation bywhich white male majorities now compensate women and minorities for unjustly injuring

them by discriminating against them in the past.

One version of this argument holds, for example, that blacks were wronged in the

past by American whites and that consequently blacks should now receive compensation

from whites. Programs of preferential treatment provide that compensation.

The difficulty with arguments that defend affirmative action on the basis of the

principle of compensation is that the principle of compensation requires that

compensation should come only from those specific individuals who intentionallyinflicted a wrong, and it requires them to compensate only those specific individuals

whom they wronged. Compensatory justice, however, does not require that compensation

should come from allthe members of a group that contains some wrongdoers, nor does itrequire that compensation should go to all the members of a group that contains some

injured parties.


6/12

Since affirmative action programs usually benefit all the members of a racial or

sexual group, regardless of whether they specifically were discriminated against in the

past, and since these programs hinder every white male regardless of whether he himselfspecifically discriminated against someone in the past, it follows that such preferential

programs cannot be justified on the basis of compensatory justice. In short, affirmative

action programs are unfair because the beneficiaries of affirmative action are not thesame individuals who were injured by past discrimination, and the people who must pay

for their injuries are usually not the ones who inflicted those injuries.

Various authors have tried to counter this objection to the "affirmative action as

compensation" argument by claiming that actually everyblack person (or every woman)living today has been injured by discrimination and that every white person (or every

male) has benefited from those injuries.

It is unclear whether these arguments succeed in justifying affirmative action

programs that benefit groups (all blacks and all women) instead of specific injured

individuals and that penalize groups (white males) instead of specific wrongdoers.Hasevery minority and woman really been injured as Thomson claims, and are all white

males really beneficiaries of discrimination as Redish implies? And even if a white malehappens (through no fault of his own) to benefit from someone else's injury, does this

make him "liable" for that injury?

Affirmative action as an instrument for achieving social goals

A second set of justifications advanced in support of affirmative action programs isbased on the idea that these programs are morally legitimate instruments for achieving

morally legitimate ends. Utilitarian, for example, have claimed that affirmative action

programs are justified because they promote the public welfare. They have argued thatpast discrimination has produced a high degree of correlation between race and poverty.As racial minorities were systematically excluded from better-paying, and more pres-

tigious, jobs, their members have become impoverished. Impoverishment in turn has led

to unmet needs, lack of self-respect, resentment, social discontent, and crime. The publicwelfare, therefore, will be promoted if the position of these impoverished persons is

improved by giving them special educational and employment opportunities. If

opponents object that such affirmative action programs are unjust because they distributebenefits on the basis of an irrelevant criterion such as race, the utilitarian can answer that

need, not race, is the criterion by which affirmative action programs distribute benefits.

Race provides an inexpensive indicatorof need because past discrimination has created a

high correlation between race and need. Need, of course, is a just criterion of distribution.And appealing to the reduction of need is consistent with utilitarian principles since

reducing need will increase total utility.

The major difficulties encountered by these utilitarian justifications of affirmative

action have concerned,

First, the question whether the social costs of affirmative action programs


7/12

(such as, the frustrations felt by white males) outweighs their obvious

benefits. The utilitarian defender of affirmative action, of course, will reply

that the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Second, and more important, opponents of these utilitarian justifications of

affirmative action have questioned the assumption that race is an appropriateindicator of need. It may be inconvenient and expensive to identify the needy

directly, critics argue, but the costs might be small compared to the gains that

would result from having a more accurate way of identifying the needy.Utilitarians answer this criticism by arguing that allminorities (and women)

have been impoverished and psychologically harmed by past discrimination.

Consequently, race (and sex) provides accurate indicators of need.

Although utilitarian arguments in favor of affirmative action programs are quite

convincing, the most elaborate and persuasive array of arguments advanced in support of

affirmative action have proceeded in two steps:

1. First, they have argued that the end envisioned by affirmative action

programs is equal justice, and2. Second, they argue that affirmative action programs are morally legitimate

means for achieving this end.

A third end of affirmative action programs is to neutralize these competitive

disadvantages with which women and minorities are currently burdened when they

compete with white males, and thereby bring women and minorities to the same starting

point in their competitive race with others. The aim is to ensure an equal ability tocompete with white males.

The basic endthat affirmative action programs seek is a more just society, a societyin which an individual's opportunities are not limited by his or her race or sex. This goal

is morally legitimate insofar as it is morally legitimate to strive for a society with greater

equality of opportunity. The means by which affirmative action programs attempt toachieve a just society is giving qualified minorities and females preference over qualified

white males in hiring and promotion and instituting special training programs for

minorities and females that will qualify them for better jobs. By these means, it is hoped,

the more just society outlined will eventually be born. Without some form of affirmativeaction, it is argued, this end could not be achieved. But is preferential treatment a morally

legitimate means for attaining this end?

Three reasons have been advanced to show that it is not:

1. First, it is often claimed that affirmative action programs "discriminate" againstwhite males. Supporters of affirmative action programs, however, have pointed

out that there are crucial differences between the treatment accorded to whites by

preferential treatment programs and immoral discriminatory behavior. To

discriminate, as we indicated earlier, is to make an adverse decision against the


8/12

member of a group because members of that group are considered inferior or less

worthy of respect. Preferential treatment programs, however, are not based on

invidious contempt for white males. On the contrary, they are based on thejudgment that white males are currently in an advantaged position and that others

should have an equal opportunity to achieve the same advantages. Moreover,

racist or sexist discrimination is aimed at destroying equal opportunity.Preferential treatment programs are aimed at restoring equal opportunity where it

is absent. Thus, preferential treatment programs cannot accurately be described as

"discriminatory" in the same immoral sense that racist or sexist behavior isdiscriminatory.

2. Second, it is sometimes claimed that preferential treatment violates the principleof equality itself ("Individuals who are equal in all respects relevant to the kind of

treatment in question should be treated equally") by allowing a non relevant

characteristic (race and sex) to determine employment decisions. But defenders of

affirmative action programs have replied that sexual and racial differences arenow relevant to making employment decisions. These differences are relevant

because when society distributes a scarce resource (such as jobs) it maylegitimately choose to allocate it to those groups that will best advance its

legitimate ends. Since, in our present society, allocating scarce jobs to women and

minorities will best achieve equality of opportunity, race and sex are now relevantcharacteristics to use for this purpose. Moreover, as we have seen, the reason that

we hold that jobs should be allocated on the basis of job-related qualifications is

that such an allocation will achieve a socially desirable (utilitarian) end:

maximum productivity. When this end (productivity) conflicts with anothersocially desirable end (a just society), then it is legitimate to pursue the second

end even if doing so means that the first end will not be as fully achieved.

3. Third, some critics have objected that affirmative action programs actually harm

women and minorities because such programs imply that women and minoritiesare so inferior to white males that they need special help to compete. This

attribution of inferiority, critics claim, is debilitating to minorities and women and

ultimately inflicts harms that are so great that they far outweigh the benefits

provided by such programs.

This third objection to affirmative action programs has been met in several ways:

First, while many minorities concede that affirmative action carries some costs

for minorities themselves, they also hold that the benefits of such programs still

outweigh the costs. A black worker, for example, who won several jobs throughaffirmative action, is reported as saying, "I had to deal with the grief it brought,

but it was well worth it."

Second, proponents of affirmative action programs also argue that these


9/12

programs are based noton an assumption of minority or female inferiority but on

recognition of the fact that white males, consciously or unconsciously, will bias

their decisions in favor of other white males. The only remedy for this, theyargue, is some kind of affirmative action program that will force white males to

counter this bias by requiring them to accept that proportion of minority

applicants that research shows are qualified and willing to work. As studiesrepeatedly show, even when women and minorities are more qualified, white

males are still granted higher salaries and positions by their white male

counterparts. Moreover, they claim, the unjustified attributions of inferiority thatmany minorities experience are the result of lingering racism on the part of

coworkers and employees, and such racism is precisely what affirmative action

programs are meant to eradicate.

A third response that supporters of affirmative action make is that although a

portion of minorities may be made to feel inferior by current affirmative action

programs, nevertheless many more minorities were made to feel much more

devastatingly inferior by the overt and covert racism that affirmative action isgradually eroding. The overt and covert racism that pervaded the workplace prior

to the implementation of affirmative action programs systematicallydisadvantaged, shamed, and undermined the self esteem of all minorities to a

much higher degree than is currently the case. Finally, proponents argue that it is

simply false that showing preference toward a group makes members of thatgroup feel inferior: For centuries white males have been the beneficiaries of

racial and sexual discrimination without apparent loss of their self-esteem. If

minority beneficiaries of affirmative action programs are made to feel inferior, it

is because of lingering racism, not because of the preference extended to themand their fellows.

Strong arguments can be made in support of affirmative action programs, then, andstrong objections can be lodged against them. Because there are such powerful arguments

on both sides of the issue, the debate over the legitimacy of affirmative action programs

continues to rage without resolution. The review of the arguments, however, seems tosuggest that affirmative action programs are at least a morally permissible means for

achieving just ends, even if they may not show that they are a morally required means for

achieving those ends

The end that affirmative action programs are supposed to achieve is phrased in variousways:

(1) In our present society, it is argued; jobs are not distributed justly because

they are not distributed according to the relevant criteria of ability, effort,

contribution, or need. Statistics show that jobs are in fact still distributedaccording to race and sex. One end of affirmative action is to bring about a

distribution of society's benefits and burdens that is consistent with the

principles of distributive justice, and that eliminates the important positionrace and sex currently have in the assignment of jobs.


10/12

(2) In our present society, women and minorities do not have the equal

opportunities that white males have and that justice demands. Statistics

prove this. This lack of equal opportunity is because of subtle racist andsexist attitudes that bias the judgments of those (usually white males) who

evaluate job applicants and that are so deeply entrenched that they are

virtually ineradicable by good faith measures in any reasonable period oftime. A second end of affirmative action programs is to neutralize such

conscious and unconscious bias in order to ensure equal opportunity to

women and minorities.

(3) The lack of equal opportunity under which women and minoritiescurrently labor has also been attributed to the privations they suffered as

children. Economic privation hindered minorities from acquiring the skills,

experience, training, and education they needed to compete equally with whitemales. Furthermore, since women and minorities have not been represented in

society's prestigious positions, young men and women have had no role

models to motivate them to compete for such positions as young white maleshave.

Arguments Against Preferential Treatment

Opponents of preferential treatment programs argue that 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. Indeciding who should be hired for a job or admitted to a college or university, the

relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex. To award

or deny benefits on the basis of race or sex is as unjust as traditional discriminatory

practices. Moreover, preferential treatment programs unjustly ignore the claim ofneed, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on

minorities who aren't in need of them.

Those who oppose preferential treatment programs also claim that if the purpose of

the programs is to compensate for past discrimination or present disadvantages, then

only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference.

Current preferential treatment programs, however, favor members of selected groups

regardless of whether an individual member has ever suffered discrimination. In fact,

most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of justcompensation is moot.

Critics of preferential policies further argue that society's burdens ought to be

distributed fairly among its members. Preferential treatment programs are unfair

because they impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or


11/12

higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices or for

rectifying present inequalities than any other individuals. It is unfair that they should

bear the full burden of compensation.

Programs awarding preference according to race or sex are also opposed on the grounds

that they cause much more harm than good:

1. First, with these programs in force, those who may be more qualified are

overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen. The inevitableresult is reduced productivity and efficiency in the work place and the

lowering of academic standards in colleges and universities.

2. Second, preferential treatment programs harm minorities and women by

stigmatizing them and devaluing their achievements. They encourage the

belief that all minorities and women gain entry to jobs or universitiesprimarily because they are members of under represented groups and not

because they are qualified. Minority individuals may question whether therules were bent in their case, leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and

incompetence.

3. Third, preferential treatment programs encourage dependency and rewardpeople for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to

become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the work

place or classroom.

4. Fourth, as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minoritiesand women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity

and tension among groups.

5. Finally, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they

have been victims of injustice. And members of groups excluded bypreferential treatment programs today will demand tomorrow to be

compensated for opportunities denied them. Already the nation is witnessing abarrage of allegations and lawsuits filed by non-minorities charging

employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other

formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission.


12/12

While the harms resulting from preferential treatment are considerable, critics charge, the

benefits are questionable. Giving preference to women and minorities fails to benefit the

individuals within these groups who are most likely to have suffered the effects ofdiscrimination and thus most deserving of compensation; the most disadvantaged

individuals often lack, the qualifications and skills even to be considered for employment

positions or college placement. This is borne out in reports that cite a growing gapbetween poor blacks with little education and job skills and affluent blacks able to take

advantage of a wide variety of employment and educational opportunities.

Nor is it clear that even those minorities and women qualifying for preferential treatment

benefit from such special consideration. Recent studies reveal a high dropout rate amongminority college students admitted under affirmative action programs. At U. C. Berkeley,

for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in 1984 had graduated by 1989

compared to 73 percent of Anglos. The high rate of failure that follows the award ofemployment and educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the

challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these

groups.

Overview:

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 or Affirmative

Actions seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination againstwomen and racial minorities.

Affirmative action can be viewed as compensation for past injustices, and to

achieve social objectives. However, critics of affirmative action say thatpreferential treatment considers race and sex, and not merit, of the

individual.

Activity

Why is affirmative action practised in society?

affirmativeaction

Documents

Transcript of affirmativeaction