An Analysis of Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity Laws

In today's workplace, ideas of ethnic and gender diversity are sometimes foreign despite the introduction of federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws. In recent years, may companies have instituted polices that attempt to end workplace discrimination. Often, companies migrate towards policies that increase workplace diversity, which will be the main issue of debate. There is no question that these programs are aimed at ending a very important social problem. A major issue arises when one steps back and tries to figure out whether the programs are addressing the problems presented, or creating newer more complicated ones.

An analysis of this issue would not be possible without proper definition of terms such as "affirmative action" and "preferential hiring." In any modern dictionary, affirmative action is defined as "A policy or program that seeks to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment." Preferential hiring, on the other hand, is described by our textbook as "hiring that gives preference in recruitment and ranking in groups previously and presently affected by discrimination." There has been strong debate in recent years over these two ideas and their usage in the workplace.

Starting with affirmative action, we shall look at its original origins and relate current opinions to issues relating to the workplace. Only then can one truly make a decision on the ethical nature of the programs in today's society. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy created a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Also during this year he issued Executive Order 10925 which is the first place where the term affirmative action was used in its present context. While this order was intended to address issues of minorities in government employment and government funded contracts, it became the "stepping stone" for many other important changes in the field of workplace discrimination. According to the order, "It is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts...". After the assignation of President John F. Kennedy, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. The section to which we will refer is Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunity. According to section 703, part a "It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities...". Notice that in 1964 this provision only applies to males, completely discounting the discrimination enacted against females in the working population. At the same time, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was created and given charge to enforce anti-discrimination laws and resolve all complaints brought forth in this area. It wasn't until 1972 that Title VII was expanded and strengthened to include race and gender-conscious remedies that had been developed by federal courts.

Many would agree that a good education opens the world for many in terms of workplace opportunity. It is because of this idea that educational affirmative action has been brought forth as one of the most controversial issues facing the civil rights arena. In 1978 University of California Board of Regents v. Bakke established that in an affirmative action context, face can be used as a deciding factor in admissions decisions.

Now with a proper stage set, we will move on to an ethical analysis of the situation and its impacts on society. Looking at current societal issues, it is known that discrimination based on race, creed, color, etc is by far the most important. In an effort to extinguish the fires started by the usage of discrimination in the workplace, many companies use affirmative action and preferential hiring, both of which have been described above. In my opinion, it must first be addressed that we as a society are looking at the issue in the wrong way. Instead of trying to fix past injustices of a particular group of people, whether they be African Americans or members of the female gender, we should look to make changes for society as a whole. Who sat back and said that it was an ethically sound decision to treat the minorities harmed as a group rather then treating them as harmed individuals. Going along with this same idea, one should realize that the perpetrators involved are commonly placed in one large group, as white males. This in fact may not be true as the individuals who created these ideas of discrimination and began to apply them to the workplace may not be in existence today. With that said, is it unfair to apply ideas of retributive justice in today's societal constructs?

First, looking at the impact that affirmative action has on the minority applicant, one will notice that the results are not always pointing in the positive direction. What happens when the applicant in question gains the position desired and enters the company? Will his or her self-esteem be affected by the negative stereotypes already present in the minds of their coworkers and supervisors? The answer to this question is a resounding yes. Because of the preferential nature of their position, there may be feelings of animosity present in the culture of that particular company. This says nothing to address the ideas of racial discrimination present in the minds of the person doing the actual hiring for the company. These feelings of discomfort caused by the existence of racial tension in the company will undoubtedly affect the performance of the employee relative to that of their coworkers. This of course, directly compares the performance of the members of a minority group with that of their majority-group counterparts.

Stepping back even further, one should consider ideas of profit maximization and the overall financial wellbeing of the company. It is the duty of the executives of the company to maximize the profit for all shareholders/stakeholders. So expanding on this idea, would it be an economically sound decision to hire employees that may be less qualified simply because of their minority group status? The answer is not exactly a simple one. One must consider factors such as governmental requirements stating that a certain number of employees must be of a certain minority group relative to the local job pool in order for the company to receive funding. In fact, it may be easier in terms of implementation for an executive to simply sacrifice the small amount of profit lost due to worker output, than to suffer the loss of economic viability caused by the loss of a substantial government contract or contribution. Going along with the concept that these workers may not be as qualified as their counterparts, one should take a look at why this is in fact true. Educational inequalities may be the leading answer among individuals in today's society. These educational inequalities are brought forth, in my opinion, by the same negative stereotypes and discriminatory practices which affirmative action is seeking to solve. If we were to implement a social policy that solves these problems in an effective and expedient manner, then eventually due to societal advancement, we will no longer be in need of such programs.

In one article used in the classroom lecture, the author mentions that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of the minority worker. This happens as a direct result of the comparative mindset brought forth by our society. If one feels as if they were hired because of their race, rather than their professional qualifications, then they may be less likely to consider their accomplishments within the company as the same way as others. Looking at the judgments of other workers, one can say that because this person was hired using affirmative action, then any positive outcome will be devalued. On the other hand, if the outcome leans toward the negative side, it will only further the stereotype that the person of minority status is less competent and less able to perform the same job function. Whether or not this problem is present in every are where affirmative action is used, it should still be a considered when evaluating the ethical practicality of the program.

Going back to the idea of economic viability and market competitiveness, one should take a strong look at the prevalence of many companies using statements such as "We are an equal opportunity employer". These statements serve to protect the company from action by the EEOC. The EEOC has become a very important force in the drive towards workplace equality in the United States. In order to be compliant with existing laws as well as staying competitive with other companies, many executives have inserted a similar statement in their company bylaws. An example can be found when looking at the Xerox Corporation. President and CEO Anne Mulcahy is advertised as saying "Diversity is more than race and gender; it's about more than numbers. It's about inclusion. Diversity means creating an environment where all employees can grow to their fullest potential". When companies move their focus towards workplace inequality in ways such as this, we are making strides towards a better society.

Moving to a slightly different topic, some opponents of affirmative action state that the programs are helping those who are not being harmed by today's standards. In reality, it is hard to discern exactly who is being harmed by the inequalities present in today's society. It is relatively easy to say that the person in the minority status is the one being harmed and the person in the majority group is the one doing the harm. This attitude doesn't take into account the idea that the minority applicant maybe doing more harm to themselves by applying to companies that practice strong forms of reverse discrimination or affirmative action when hiring new employees. In some instances it may be the case that the applicant in the minority group is equally qualified and in some instances more qualified than their counterparts. Despite these conditions, the applicant will gain an "unfair" advantage over others simply based on their race. Instances like this are ethically wrong in my opinion and serve to move society away from solving the primary problem.

Most articles written on this subject neglect to cover an issue that may very well be important in the consideration of the ethical viability of affirmative action programs. One must address the attitudes of the members of a majority group when affirmative action policies are put in place, especially in the academic setting. The polices themselves may serve to lessen ones drive for excellence and advancement. For example, a White male in a typical academic institution may not be as motivated to make good grades as, say an African American female. This condition exists because of the known problems the female will face in today's marketplace. The White male knows that despite his average performance, he will find gainful employment, as he is a member of the majority group in control of the resources in society. This attitude may serve to negatively affect his success because of the "positive points" received by minorities, his professional qualifications may not be enough to succeed.

Opponents of affirmative action programs have been said to compare it to social evils like Communism. Simply put "Affirmative action in the 90s is beginning to resemble Soviet Communism in 1969. Outside of sheltered elites, the majority of people loathe it. The circumstances in which it was dreamed up no longer exist." Personally, I find this statement to be false in that the discrimination present outweighs the unfair advantage some say it gives to minorities. Going even further with this idea, lets consider the case of a young female (majority or minority status) who is raped by a male. All our society can offer is the satisfaction of knowing that the criminal will be punished with the fullest extent of the law. Looking on a larger scale, not all women are raped by men during their lifetimes. According to most sociologists, women and African Americans are discriminated against during the course of their lives. So, we establish that all of these individuals have suffered as a direct result of their experiences in society. This suffering can be expanded to a loss of self-confidence and self-respect. But, when it comes to applying for a job, there is no consideration for applicants that may have suffered personal anguish and as a result may have underachieved in school. Under this assumption, the personal trauma suffered by the female victim of rape is not on the same level as the anguish endured by those discriminated against due to racism or gender-bias. To bring it all together, we should ask ourselves as a society why this is possible and why we still use these ideas as justification for affirmative action programs.

Moving towards a society that is devoid of classifications that include race and gender may be the first logical step towards progress. If as a whole, we are able to create social policies that benefited those who are disadvantaged while leaving race and gender out, we will move in the right direction. One might receive preferential treatment if they are a member of a lower social class, in terms of economic presence. In other words, poorer neighborhood may receive more funding for school systems and community centers where residents can help further their educations and gain competitiveness in today's market. One major problem with this idea is that of government funding. The school systems that receive the most funding are in areas with higher property taxes. Those areas, consequentially have residents who earn the most in comparison to other citizens in poverty stricken areas. If we can move to rectify these basic educational inequalities, then progress towards the aforementioned social problems will be made. This plan does nothing to address the idea that racial minorities are the individuals living these poor neighborhoods and that they are the ones directly suffering in two societal aspects.

The primary goal of this text is to consider the ethical viability of affirmative action programs in the United States. Through my experience in the higher education system and competitive workplace, I have gained a strong understanding of the underlying problem present in our society. Personally, I come from an upper class family that afforded me the luxuries that members of the matching majority such as a great education. When I look back at my admission to Tulane University, I like to think that my acceptance was not due to my race, but more to the fact that I was able to graduate from the highest ranked high school in the state with a 3.8GPA and a 34 ACT score. if in fact this was untrue and my race was used as a deciding factor without my knowledge, I would feel no different about my accomplishments as a student or as a member of society. Through careful introspection and research, I have found that it is more important to fix the problems present in society rather than analyzing the creation of newer ones. In other words, I think that affirmative action and preferential hiring programs serve to solve a larger social problem and therefore outweigh the smaller problems created by their instantiation. As I stated earlier, this opinion has no bearing on the fact that I am a member of a minority group or that my group has been discriminated against in the past. The economic viability of affirmative action is an area which, in my opinion, deserves more attention. Since today's definition of success in centered around gainful employment in the marketplace, we should always look to ensure that a true ethical analysis of a societal issue include this important aspect.

Another idea that has not been carefully researched is the situation where affirmative action would be instituted for help members of another minority group, such as those applicants who come from a lower income household. These individuals may suffer the same self-deprivation as those who are exposed to racism or gender bias. In fact, they may be entitled to the same benefits given to current minorities in our society.