Affirmative Action Programs For Minorities And Women example essay topic

Table of Contents 1) Introduction 2) Public Support 3) White's lose out? 4) Advancement 5) Discrimination 6) Self-Esteem 7) Social Engineering 8) Equal Opportunities 9) Progress 10) Color Blind 11) Preferential Selection 12) Conclusion 13) Bibliography Introduction Affirmative action is one of the most widely debated social policies ever brought about by the American government. The biggest problems facing affirmative action and its constituents are the attitudes of its opposition. These attitudes come from a long history of racism that has been passed on from generation to generation. They also stem from lack of education and lack of understanding of the way affirmative action effects the people involved emotionally, financially, and in status. Affirmative action is a policy implemented in order to artificially install equality between white males and minorities over time.

Affirmative action cannot be expected to cure the problems of inequality in a matter of years, it will take decades to fix these deep-rooted problems of society. It is a necessary, yet imperfect remedy for an intractable social disease. The case against affirmative action is a weak one, resting heavily on myth and misunderstanding. This report will outline many of the most popular myths in the case against affirmative action. The information in this report was derived from public opinion polls done by the government and private sources. The first myth is that the public does not support affirmative action anymore.

Some believe that a large percentage of white workers will lose out if affirmative action stays in place. Another misunderstanding is that Jews and Asians shared the same hardships, and if they can advance rapidly, why can't African Americans? Another misleading statement is that you can't cure discrimination with discrimination. Some think that affirmative action tends to destroy the self-esteem of women and African Americans. Some people think that affirmative action is just another attempt by liberal democrats at social engineering. Another is that affirmative action was necessary more than thirty years ago, but that minorities now have the same opportunities for advancement educationally and in the workplace.

The next myth is the notion that affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation. Some also believe that the only way to create a color-blind society is to implement color-blind policies. Lastly, some believe that support for affirmative action means support for unqualified candidates over qualified candidates. The stigma that is attached to affirmative action and the racist attitudes that are deep within its opponents can only be cured through education and understanding. People need to take a step back and think of what life would be like for a minority person who was not given the opportunities accompanying a good education. Public Support There is a misconception by many that the public no longer supports affirmative action.

This myth is largely based upon public-opinion polls which have all-or-none choices between affirmative action as it currently exists and no affirmative action whatsoever. When alternate choices are added, surveys show that most people want to maintain some form of affirmative action. For example, one Time / CNN poll found that 80% of the public felt that "affirmative action programs for minorities and women should be continued at some level". (Roper Center, 1995 a) What the public opposes are quotas, set asides, and "reverse discrimination". For instance, when the same poll asked people whether they favored programs "requiring businesses to hire a specific number or quota of minorities and women, "63% opposed such a plan. An NBC News / Washington Journal poll asked, "In your view, should federal affirmative action programs that give preference to women and minorities be continued as they are?

Or should they be continued but reformed to prevent reverse discrimination. Or should they be ended?" 13% said that they want to keep them as they are. 57% said they wish for the programs to be kept but reformed. 26% said that they should be ended.

4% said they were not sure. (Roper Center 1995 b) Another public opinion poll conducted by Gallup asked, "What is your view of affirmative action today? Is it fundamentally flawed and needs to be eliminated, is it good in principle but needs to be reformed, or is it basically fine the way it is?" 22% said that it should be eliminated. 61% said that it should be reformed.

9% said that it is fine the way it is. Also, 9% said that they don't know. (Roper Center 1995 b) Another Gallup public opinion poll asked, "What do you think the federal government should do with its affirmative action programs? Should it eliminate all of them? Should it eliminate many of them? Should it keep many of them, or should it keep all of them?" 11% said that it should eliminate all of them.

67% said they should keep many of them. 10% said it should keep them all and 11% didn't know what it should do. (Roper Center 1995 b) Another poll by Time / CNN asked, "If you had to choose, would you rather see the federal government's affirmative action programs mended, that is, changed in certain ways, or ended altogether? 65% said they would like to see them mended. 24% said that they would like to see them ended. 1% said they would like them kept as is, and 10% said they were not sure.

(Roper Center 1995 a) A public opinion poll from the Associated Press asked "What about affirmative action programs that set quotas... Do you favor affirmative action programs with quotas, or do you favor affirmative action programs only without quotas, or do you oppose all affirmative action programs?" 16% said that they favored affirmative action programs with quotas. 47% said that they favored affirmative action programs without quotas. 28% opposed all affirmative action plans, and 9% didn't know. (Roper Center 1995 b) As these results suggest, most members of the public oppose extreme forms of affirmative action that violate the concepts of procedural justice.

They do not oppose affirmative action itself. White's lose out? There is a widespread feeling that a large percentage of white workers will lose their jobs if affirmative action remains intact. This myth is not supported by statistics collected by the government.

According to the Commerce Department, there are fewer than 2 million unemployed Black civilians and more than 100 million employed White civilians. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994) Thus, even if every unemployed black worker was to displace a white worker, less than 2 percent of whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to applicants who are qualified for the job, so the actual percentage of affected whites would be a fraction of 1 percent. The main sources of job loss among white workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing. (Ivins, 1995) Advancement Another myth is the notion that Asian Americans and Jews faced the same hardships and therefore African Americans should be able to rapidly advance economically as the Asian Americans and Jews did. This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, blacks have a 375-year history on this continent.

245 years involved slavery. 100 years involved legalized discrimination, and 30 years involving anything else. (Wilkins, 1995) Jews and Asian Americans, on the other hand, have immigrated to North America, often as doctors, lawyers, professors, entrepreneurs, and so forth. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the white majority.

To expect blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asian Americans is to deny the historical and social reality that black people face. Discrimination The next myth is that "You can't cure discrimination with discrimination". The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word, discrimination, to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion.

The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance. Self-Esteem The opinion that affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities is another myth. Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, and Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare.

(Taylor, 1994) For instance, a Gallup poll asked employed blacks and employed white women whether they had ever felt that others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action. (Roper Center, 1995d) Nearly 90% of respondents said no, which is understandable. After all, white men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered be self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem. Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries. (Graves and Powell, 1994) Social Engineering Some people believe that affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering be liberal Democrats.

In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned several different presidential administrations, including Republican and Democratic administrations. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President Bush enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, despite the current split along party lines, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.

Equal Opportunities Many feel that affirmative action had its place more than 30 years ago, but that the playing field is fairly level today. Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 72 cents for every male dollar. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate or White people. They also have half the median family income of white people, and half the proportion of whites that attend four years of college.

In fact, without affirmative action, the percentage of black students on many campuses would drop below 2%. This would effectively choke off Black access to higher education and severely restrict progress toward racial equality. Progress Another misrepresentation is that affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation. Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action.

For example, according to a report from the Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million white and minority women move up in the workforce. ("Reverse discrimination", 1995) Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors, who were required to adopt affirmative action goals, added black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of non contractors. (Citizens' Commission, 1984) There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies like AT&T, IBM, and Sears Roebuck increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies. Color-Blind One theory is that adopting color-blind policies is the only way to create a color-blind society. Although this assertion sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect white workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually white.

(Ezorsky, 1991) Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor white students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless pre-existing inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not eliminate racial injustice, they reinforce it. Preferential Selection Another falsehood is the idea that support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified ones. Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection.

One preferential selection procedure is selection among equally qualified candidates. This, the mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants, for example, students with identical college entrance scores. Survey research suggests that three quarters of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory. (Roper Center, 1995d) Another one is selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates, for example, when their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount.

The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates. All that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630. The next is selection among unequal candidates. A still stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount. Another is selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified.

Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired. (Bureau of National Affairs, 1979) Even though these selection procedures occasionally blend into one another, due in part to the difficulty of comparing incommensurable records, a few general observations can be made. First, of the four different procedures, the selection of women and minority members among equal or roughly comparable candidates has the greatest public support. It adheres most closely to popular conceptions of procedural justice, and reduces the chances that affirmative action beneficiaries will be perceived as unqualified or undeserving. (Kravitz and Platania, 1993; Nacoste, 1985; Turner and Pratkanis, 1994) Second, the selection of women and minority members among unequal candidates, used routinely in college admissions, has deeply divided the nation, with the strongest opposition coming from white males and conservative voters. And finally, the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action.

By distinguishing among these four different selection procedures, it becomes clear that opposition to stronger selection procedures need not imply opposition to milder ones. What is needed, is less of an effort to caricature affirmative action and more of an effort to discuss which of its many forms is beneficial. Conclusion In conclusion, the problem facing affirmative action is the attitude of its opponents. This attitude stems from a deep-rooted racism, which has been passed on from parents to their children. It also resides in the lack of education and understanding of affirmative action and the way in which it works to benefit educationally underprivileged minorities. This problem can only be solved by educating the opposition and disproving the following myths, misconceptions and misnomers.

The first of these myths is that the public does not support affirmative action anymore. Secondly, some believe that a large percentage of white workers will lose out if affirmative action stays in place. These theories supporting the opposition have all been thoroughly disproved through this report citing sources such as government and private polls. Affirmative action is a very important part in the solution of this countries racial inequality.

Bibliography

Bureau of National Affairs. (1979).
Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Washington, DC: Author. Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. (1984, June).
Affirmative action to open doors of job opportunity. Washington, DC: Author. Ezorsky, G. (1991) Racism and justice: The case for affirmative action.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Graves, L.M., & Powell, G.N. (1994).
Effects of sex-based preferential selection and discrimination on job attitudes. Human Relations, 47,133-157. Heilman, M.E., Simon, M.C., & Repper, D.P. (1987).
Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68. Ivins, M. (1995, February 23).
Affirmative action is more than black-and-white issue. Philadelphia Daily News, p. 28. Kravitz, D.A., & Platania, J. (1993).
Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,928-938. Nacoste, R.W. (1985).
Selection procedure and responses to affirmative action: The case of favorable treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 9,225-242. Reverse discrimination of whites is rare, labor study reports. (1995, March 31).
New York Times, p. A 23. Roper Center for Public Opinion-POLL Database (Question IDs: USYANKP. 95007. Q 21 and USYANKP. 95007. Q 18 A). [Electronic database]. (1995 a).
Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion [Producer and Distributor]. Roper Center for Public Opinion-POLL Database (Question IDs: USNBCWSJ. 080495. R 20 C, USGALLUP. 95 JL 20. R 24, USGALLUP. 95 Jul. R 27, and USYANKP. 072195. R 24 B). [Electronic database]. (1995 b).
Roper Center for Public Opinion-POLL Database (Question ID: USGALLUP. 95 MRW 1. R 31). [Electronic database]. (1995 c).
95 MRW 1. R 32). [Electronic database]. (1995d).
Steele, S. (1990).
The content of our character: A new vision of race in America (pp. 111-125). New York: St. Martin's Press. Taylor, M.C. (1994).
Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the 1990 General Social Survey.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15,143-178. Turner, M.E., & Pratkanis, A.R. (1994).
Affirmative action as help: A review of recipient reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 43-69. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1984).
Statistical abstract of the United States: 1984 (104th ed.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1994).
Statistical abstract of the United States: 1994 (114th ed.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wilkins, R. (1995, May).