Affirmative Action And Equal Opportunity As Quotas example essay topic

Affirmative Action in the United States consists of the active efforts that take into account race, sex and national origin for the purpose of remedying and preventing discrimination. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal government requires certain businesses and educational institutions that receive federal funds to develop affirmative action programs. Such policies are enforced and monitored by both The Office of Federal Contract Compliance and The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Lazar 37). The most noteworthy criticism of affirmative action is that of the white male population who insists that such programs are forms of 'reverse discrimination'.

In contrast to their view, the United States Commission on Civil Rights argued until 1983 that only if society were operating fairly would measures that take race, sex, and national origin into account be 'preferential treatment. ' After the commission on civil rights was reorganized in late 1983, however, it took the opposite position. By January of 1984, it approved a statement that 'racial preferences merely constitute another form of unjustified discrimination'. In recent years, however, affirmative action has continued to grow, and the number of controversies surrounding its existence is consistently augmented. In 1978, in University of California Regents vs. Bakke, the U.S. Supreme Court held (5-4) that fixed quotas may not be set for places for minority applicants for medical school if white applicants are denied a chance to compete for those places.

The court, however, did say that professional schools may consider race as a factor in making decisions on admissions. More recently than the Regents decision, in United Steelworkers of America V. Weber (1979) and Fullilove vs. Klutz nick (1980), the court continued to hold for affirmative action. II. An Introduction to the Controversy The transformation of affirmative action over the years is generally considered a negative and socially unfair one. Although the original intention of such programs with regard to minority management was one of an undeniably just nature, my research has clearly indicated that over the years, various legal trends have drastically altered the socio-political implications of affirmative action often creating unfair situations for white males who are not part of the 'guaranteed crowd'. ' Managing Diversity' is one of the newest, most politically sound names for any such policies aimed at bringing minorities into the business mainstream through preferential hiring and promotion.

Whatever the name, it is apparent that our contemporary society must come to grips with a sobering fact: We are some twenty-five years into a national drive and it has been about fifty years since the government first embraced the idea of giving blacks and other minorities a foothold in white, male-dominated Corporate America, yet the ideal of racial equality remains elusive, and the means of attaining it is increasingly controversial. Affirmative action encompasses both race and gender. Indeed women have been among its' greatest beneficiaries but the discussion of race stirs the fiercest emotions. The concept of affirmative action itself remains shrouded in ignorance, mistrust, and political cynicism. According to Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder, 'The term conjures up the vilest of connotations making it much like a four letter word'. (Fiscus 86).

It was not always that way, of course. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act banned discrimination in employment and ordered that all hiring be 'colorblind'. Affirmative action, established by a series of Presidential directives going back to Lyndon B. Johnson's in 1965, was intended to socially compensate minorities for past injustices, to overcome continuing discrimination, and ultimately to provide equal job opportunities for whites and blacks. Unhappily, those aims sometimes contain a painful contradiction: Compensating for past discrimination against some people can create 'fresh discrimination' against others. When companies make extraordinary efforts to hire or to promote minority workers, they are both directly and indirectly penalizing white workers. (Graglier 27-8) Since the 1970's, most major companies and many smaller ones have adopted formal written policies to recruit minorities.

The result has helpfully produced major gains for black job-seekers. In fact, the percentage of blacks in the work force has risen by fifty percent in the past twenty-five years; a solid advance taking into account a significantly larger black population. The largest of such gains were in the South by black women. Many jobs came in government itself, where as many as 850,000 blacks found jobs in the social welfare bureaucracy from 1960 to 1976.

Huge numbers of blacks have moved into the middle class. (Graglier 28) In 1989, about five percent of all managers in the United States were black. That constitutes a fivefold increase since 1966 and a 30 percent increase since 1978. Still, there is a 'long road' ahead. Nearly 97 percent of senior executives in the largest United States companies are white. And while black males make up 12.7 percent of the private-sector work force, only five percent of all professionals are black.

However, overall progress seems to be slowing. After dramatic income gains in the 1960's and 70's, blacks have been losing economic ground for the past decade. The higher-paying manufacturing jobs that were once a doorway to economic security for working-class blacks are harder to come by in an increasingly service-based economy. The idea that affirmative action is not 'moving fast enough' or 'far enough' is reinforced by the widespread view within the black community that, ever since Ronald Reagan took office, Republicans have been using the White House bully pulpit to equate preferential hiring with racial quotas.

Blacks feel, with some justification, that this is part of a deliberate political strategy to stampede blue-collar Democrats toward the GOP. 'Prior to 1980, companies were learning to live with the new order,' said John E. Jacob, president of the National Urban League in 1991. He further stated that 'After Reagan began challenging affirmative action, companies began to question it. ' The result: A decade of backsliding and 'a grade of C+ for Corporate America'. (Graglier 29) . Problems Created by Affirmative Action Even those whites who still support affirmative action in principle think it can lead to too-rapid advancement of unprepared minorities.

One white employee at United Technologies Corp.'s Hamilton Standard Division in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, told an interviewer that he works for a black foreman who is not 'up to the job' and it is hurting his unit's morale. 'I don't know if he's there because management thinks he is qualified, or just because he is black,' said the employee in a recent-year Time magazine interview. (White 35-6). Whites are not the only ones questioning race-based preferences in the nineties. Many black intellectuals, such as Shelby Steele, professor at San Jose State University, says that affirmative action works against our race. By singling out blacks and other minorities for 'special treatment', we are not only stigmatized as unworthy, but we learn to accept a false sense of victimization as well.

Such feelings, he says, can stifle attempts to throw off the bonds of dependency and poverty that continue to plague many blacks. Other blacks are equally dissatisfied with preferential hiring for reasons which I can definitely relate to; while the fact that affirmative action has expanded our opportunities, it is statistically obvious that many companies lose interest in black advancement once a hiring goal has been met. Some black middle managers feel they are being shunted into human resources or public relations; jobs which often spell 'dead end' in the corporation. (Magner 14-5). It is of course not that way at every company. Some corporations' commitment to equal opportunity goes far beyond lip service and a government mandate; not for altruistic reasons, but for pragmatic ones.

Minorities, who now make up twenty-eight percent of the U.S. population, have become a major force in the domestic economy, and businesses want to reach these growing markets. According to Henry L. Warren, vice-president for planning and control at Arkansas Power & Light Company, 'Companies are able to see that the customers they " ll provide service to are changing. ' To serve these nonwhite customers, companies need a multiracial work force. Furthermore, for a company to ignore the rising numbers of minority workers, (non-whites now account for over 22 percent of the labor market) is to let a valuable talent pool go untapped...

Affirmative action is not just 'the right thing to do', it is in fact a business necessity'. (Magner, 1991.) Not all contemporary managers have come around to such an enlightened view, however. Many companies, do still only hire just enough minority workers to satisfy the government and to protect themselves against discrimination suits. To corporate executives, minorities are not much more than 'just another quota to meet'.

According to a 1992 poll, black workers contended that once hired, they often meet with indifference or outright hostility. For example, a black woman middle manager who has been with a large New York insurance company for ten years complains that minority managers have a tough time advancing because plum jobs are often filled before they are ever posted. (Stimpson, 1992.) IV. 'The Assembly Line " The recent debate over proposed civil rights legislation produces only more anger and confusion. Democrats claim that merely want to restore the intent of civil rights laws by making it easier for minorities to win discrimination lawsuits. Republicans are using the Democrats as a trampoline for pushing that most dreaded of all measures, a 'quota bill.

' In fact, the passage of the Democratic bill would make very little difference in how blacks are treated by corporations. This is because the concept of affirmative action is now so deeply ingrained in American corporate culture that changes at 'the margin of the law' won't have much impact. The machinery hums along, nearly automatically, at the largest U.S. corporations. They have turned affirmative action into a smoothly running assembly line, with phalanxes of lawyers and affirmative-action managers. 'Whether we have new civil rights legislation or not is irrelevant to us,' insisted St & T's John Allen, who several years ago tried unsuccessfully to broker a civil rights bill acceptable to both large corporations and minority activists.

Not every corporation functions on automatic pilot. Some highly visible companies, such as IBM, American Express, and Xerox, have embraced aggressive hiring and promotion programs for women and minorities in recent years. Although these 'models of equal opportunity' cut across diverse fields, the key ingredient often seems to be a sustained top-down push from a chief executive. Randall Kinder, a black senior vice-president at Equitable Financial Consulting company, is quoted as saying 'Without commitment from a C.E.O., it just doesn't work. ' (Stimpson 1992). Price Waterhouse is one firm where the message comes directly from 'the top.

' IN 1989, as the accounting giant was reeling from adverse publicity from an embarrassing sex-discrimination case, new CEO Shaun F. O'Malley set up an advisory committee on women and minorities. He invited prominent black accountants to sit on the panel. To ensure that all member realized the committee's importance, O'Malley appointed himself as chairman. In 1973, AT & T settled a landmark government discrimination suit by agreeing to hire and promote more minorities. The court order expired in 1979 but with CEO Allen pushing hard, the company continues its aggressive recruitment of blacks. Today, minorities make up nearly twenty-one percent of AT & T's work force.

More than seventeen percent of the company managers are minorities, up from only twelve percent ten years ago in 1984. (White, 1992.) At & T also encourages its minority workers' participation in race-based support groups. These forums, which often have branches at every work site in the country, offer black managers an opportunity to share ideas, to solve problems, and to develop the networks which white men have long relied on. AT & T's Black Manager's Group is one of twelve (1992) such affinity groups. All branches of the BMG, which was set up in the early 1970's, meet twice a year for two-day. Such race-based advocacy networks are increasingly common among progressive companies.

To 'get past' the emotional charge carried by affirmative action, some employers have embraced a new catchphrase: managing diversity (mentioned earlier.) Sometimes, this is done merely to settle lawsuits. In 1991, Northwest Airlines Incorporated agreed to spend 1.2 million dollars on cultural-diversity training for all managers and to provide cash incentives for managers who meet minority hiring goals. That same year, Pillsbury Company settled a class action, in part by agreeing to set up a 'cultural diversity and training fund. ' The program will, among other things, promote 'ethnic cuisine and specialty events the Pillsbury cafeteria.'s ome such earnest efforts can be easily lampooned. But many companies are serious about making their workplaces more congenial to minorities. DuPont chairman Edgar S. Woodard Jr. encourages workers to confront their individual biases during five-day workshop programs.

The company also sponsored an 'all-expenses-paid' conference for black managers to discuss how 'African-American culture' can improve the company's bottom line. Followed in such a case is the logical social principle that managers who feel their heritage is valued, will be more productive than those who do not. (Fiscus, 1992) & (Stimpson, 1992.) V. 'Hard Times " Even with all of the attention it has been given, plenty of corporations still duck the issue of hiring preferences. One larger publisher based in the Midwest scrapped its' voluntary affirmative action program when it failed to meet its' own company goals. When asked what 'went wrong', a company official claimed there was a lack of interest at the top.

Even the best of corporate intentions can be undone by economic hard times. Equitable, the New York-based financial services company spent years building its' image among black managers as a 'good' company. Now, after changing top management, Equitable is in the midst of a painful restructuring. Its' black middle managers believe that affirmative action has been a casualty and worry that black advancement will suffer. ' We have maintained some semblance of affirmative action,' said Darwen Davis, a black senior vice-president and twenty-five year Equitable veteran.

But, he says, because of the company's 'financial and internal problems, these are all back-burner issues. ' For example, the Black officers' Council which Davis used to head no longer meets. Equitable denies that it has reduced its' commitment to affirmative action. (Rusher, 1993.) For other businesses, distaste for hiring blacks still exists. The owner of a small western-Pennsylvania plastics company said in 1993 that he hired a black woman three years earlier 'to do the right thing.

' But after he passed her off for promotion, she sued, claiming race discrimination. As of my research, that particular case was still in court but the owner stereotypically says that he wont hire other blacks because he 'doesn't need all the aggravation. ' (Bernstein, 1994.) Racial stereotypes persist as well. The owner of a small foundry near Pittsburgh says that he has had blacks on the payroll for years and has been fully satisfied with their work. But he says, he will not actively recruit blacks.

Claiming 'it's not like back in the old days... ', this particular business owner insists that blacks should be more appreciative when someone gives them a job and 'they shouldn't stir up so much trouble. ' Of course, no CEO when surrounded by lawyers and affirmative action advisors would ever openly admit to such views, but some big companies have established practices that can end up being just as discriminatory. They call it 'hiring by the numbers'. Affirmative action was never intended to be synonymous with quotas. But virtually all companies doing business with the federal government must set annual plans, sometimes in the shape of numerical goals or timetables, for increasing employment of women and of minorities.

Companies often agree to meet specific hiring goals when they settle discrimination suits. In effect, quotas are prohibited and required at the same time which can make compliance a virtual nightmare. Since the system encourages companies to focus on numbers of blacks on the payroll, rather than on individuals, companies face no penalty if their policies establish a revolving door, where a fixed percentage of black employees come and go, simply filling the same slots thus creating a sort-of artificial compliance. In addition to the difficulties involved in 'getting past the numbers game', there is also evidence that the current system may be setting a ceiling on minority hiring and promotion. Donald L. Huizenga, president of Larson Foundries in Grafton, Ohio is quoted as saying 'We don't have to go out and hire minorities because our percentage of minority workers is higher than the community of Grafton. If it weren't, we'd be going out and recruiting.

' In nearly 'lily-white' Grafton, fourteen percent of Larson's work force is black or Hispanic. (Bernstein, 1994.) Those blacks who do make it into management ranks can find life lonely and reportedly frustrating as well. Of ninety-two top management jobs at Hughes Aircraft Company., for example, only two are filled by blacks; the vice-presidents for communications and workplace diversity. In fact, many black executives and workers of all levels insist that finding a black man or woman with 'profit-loss' responsibility is very rare indeed.

Intellectuals such as Steele (mentioned earlier) see an even deeper problem. In a collection of provocative essays on black-white relations, Steele writes: 'One of the most troubling effects of racial preferences for blacks is a kind of demoralization, an enlargement of self-doubt. ' Even when blacks get a promotion, said University of Pennsylvania sociologist Elijah Anderson, they 'run the risk of being seen as 'tokens'. The kind of hiring by the numbers that bothers Steele is also what angers many whites. Their anger does not seem to be based on personal experience, since, according to a 1992 poll, fewer than 1 in 10 whites actually say that they have been a victim of reverse discrimination. Still, when companies hire or promote blacks who are considered unqualified by their colleagues, it only creates bitterness.

VI. Educational Policy & Affirmative Action: A Recent Case Study With the divisive campaign over California's Proposition 187 barely over at the dawn of this year, a new initiative drive was beginning that many believed will prove just as controversial. The California Civil Rights Initiative aims to entirely end state and local affirmative-action quotas based on gender, race or ethnicity for public contracts, public hiring and university admissions. In my relevant research, supporters of the initiative generally seem to call it a step toward a color-blind society, but civil rights groups say it turns a blind eye to racism and threatens to erase decades of progress toward equality. (Adams, 1995) (Aronovich, 1995). Republican Assemblyman Bernie Richter introduced a bill in the state Assembly to put the constitutional amendment before state voters.

Even if the Legislature defeats his bill, Richter was confident earlier this year that such a loss would help spur a petition campaign to put the measure to a vote through the initiative process in either March or November 1996. Richter's legislative bill is based on an eight-sentence initiative written by two Northern California academics -GlynnCustred, an anthropology professor at California State University, Hayward, and Thomas E. Wood, executive director of the California Association of Scholars. (Davidson, 1995). The scholars organization, with Cust red on its board, battles 'political correctness' and quota policies on college campuses. 'It's very clear an overwhelming majority of the American public are opposed to discrimination,' ' including the policies the initiative seeks to prohibit, Wood said in a fairly recent interview. 'It will be a great boon for society.

I think it actually will be a unifying factor. ' ' (Aronovich, 1995). The initiative and Richter's bill would not ban affirmative action that is aimed at helping the poor, but they would ban any type of preference in public hiring, public contracting and public education based on race, gender or ethnic group. From what I have learned, the key provision of the text is, 'Neither the state of California nor any of its political subdivisions or agents shall use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group in the operation of the state's system of public employment, public education or public contracting.

' ' (Davidson, 1995). Proponents of the measure say affirmative action could continue if it is so-called outreach efforts aimed at encouraging women and minorities to apply for opportunities, or if it is preferential treatment based on socioeconomic disadvantage. The measure would apply to most government entities in the state including cities, counties, school districts, water districts, transportation agencies, colleges, hospitals and many others. But the issue already had created a flap in Los Angeles City Hall.

A mayoral- appointed Civil Service commissioner who was helping spearhead the initiative campaign had come under fire from some City Council members in January, who wanted Los Angeles Mayor Riordan to come out against the measure and consider dismissing Commissioner Joe C. Gelman all together. Seven council members wrote to the mayor, saying Gelman's position conflicts with the city's longstanding affirmative-action policy. Also, Los Angeles requests bidders for city contracts to submit proposals in conjunction with minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses. Initiative supporters and professional pollsters say opinion surveys indicate strong public opposition to preferential treatment for selected groups. Mark Di Camillo, director of the California Field Poll, said the nonpartisan organization surveyed state residents in 1988 and found a solid majority opposed to preferences granted on the basis of race or gender. The survey in February 1988 found 68 percent of Californians opposed to giving women preferences in hiring and job promotions.

(Aronovich 1995). Equally large opposition was found against giving the same preferences to members of various ethnic groups. Also, the survey found overwhelming opposition to preferential treatment in college admissions for the same groups, he said. But, critics say the initiative faces a storm of opposition. The California Teachers Association, which represents 230,000 teachers and other certificated employees in California school districts, is opposed to Richter's legislation.

Beverly Tucker, CTA chief counsel, said laws require government agencies not to discriminate even if they have affirmative-action guidelines in hiring and contracting. (Aronovich, 1995). In other cases, court's have ordered affirmative-action hiring patterns to counteract past discrimination. Both sides agree the initiative will not affect such court orders.

According to University of California officials, the UC system admits no student on race or ethnicity alone. All regularly admitted students meet the eligibility requirements, usually with a high school grade average of 3.3 or higher, a UC spokesman said. According to UC figures, grade-point averages for 1993 freshmen at all UC campuses were 3.48 for African-American students, 3.78 for whites / others and 3.86 for Asians, with other ethnic groups at other points within that range. (Aronovich, 1995). The California State Employees Association, representing 100,000 state employees, also views the proposed initiative warily.

'It's almost reactionary, not a thoughtful reaction to problems,' 's aid CSEA spokeswoman Pat McConahay in the beginning of this year. 'Maybe there need to be changes. If so, there needs to be thoughtful study. ' ' (Aronovich, 1995).

Saying they want to provide students with a thorough examination of a controversial subject, UCLA's social science professors have now started a class titled 'History and Politics of Affirmative Action. ' ' But opponents of affirmative action - and some of the students who attended the first lecture in February say the course appears to be more like a propaganda campaign in favor of affirmative action, instead of a dispassionate discussion of its merits. The ten week course met twice a week and featured a different professor or panel for each class. History Professor Ellen Dubois, who taught one session, compared proposals to eliminate race and gender preferences to post-Civil War rulings by the Supreme Court that denied citizenship rights to minorities. The class comes as opponents of affirmative action are preparing an initiative for the 1996 ballot I discussed that would eliminate government preferences in hiring, contracting or college admissions based on race or gender. In an interview, Dubois said she intentionally slanted her presentation in favor of affirmative action to make it more interesting and to provoke debate.

According to her, nobody presents an unbiased point of view. But critics question the motivation behind the hastily organized class, and they suspect the college is attempting to promote its pro-affirmative action views. (Aronovich, 1995). VII.

Personal Reactions & Conclusions In 1995, there is undoubtedly no question that the social and the political costs of affirmative action are indeed high. The dilemma created by its' existence is one which can only be handled by weighing both the negatives and the positives and consequently favoring the greater. Despite the recent West Coast controversy, it is clear that minority management could not function as successfully as it does without affirmative action. The existence of affirmative action programs is in fact an apparent necessity in maintaining job opportunities for minorities.

Since so many corporations of so many sizes still insist on regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity as 'quotas' which they just barely meet, it follows logically that the absence of such policies would be followed by the virtual absence of minorities in the work force. Therefore, while it can be concluded that affirmative action has done little to teach mainstream executives the humanistic importance of hiring minorities, it has at least guaranteed us a fair opportunity to achieve greater successes. While the problems of minority tokens and company morale further fuel the various controversies pertaining to reverse discrimination, there is little that can conceivably be done to transform the corporate United States into a utopia of multicultural employment opportunity. As with any other code, law, rule or regulation, equal opportunity has undeniably opened doors to dishonesty, unfairness and controversy. Regardless of its's hort comings, however, affirmative action is still a necessity in the United States. Until our society can live without prejudice and without stereotype, minorities will require at least minimal legal protection.

Although there do exist cases in which qualified white males may be denied employment as an indirect result of affirmative action, there would be a significantly greater amount of qualified minorities denied employment if affirmative action was banned entirely from corporate existence. Therefore, weighing the two potential evils, it is obvious we can not afford to do away with laws and policies regarding the hiring of minorities. Perhaps the greatest improvement our society can hope for in the current system is an augmentation in the number of companies educating their employees on multicultural human relations. Since the eventual long-term goal is to eliminate prejudice, the only way to do so in corporate America is to teach people about acceptance. Executive stereotyping only exists because mainstream stereotyping exists. Minorities can stop feeling like 'inferior tokens' when whites stop regarding us as such and stereotyping us out of sheer ignorance.

Affirmative action must exist at least as symbolism of this country's commitment to civil rights. The thick blood of prejudice will still continue to run through the veins of U.S. society, despite upbeat talk about the increasingly diversified work force. Government-mandated hiring preferences prod companies into integrating their work force, and in the past twenty-five years of affirmative action, blacks and other minorities have indeed benefit ted both socially and economically. Individual businesses and the economy have profited, not lost. Until the United States conceives a better idea, it is most wise to maintain a policy that despite its flaws, is both a moral imperative and an economic necessity.