In this chapter, a number of pages are devoted to affirmative action–federal and

Question

In this chapter, a number of pages are devoted to affirmative action–federal and state “programs (that) aim to correct racial imbalances existing as a result of past discrimination.” On pp. 571-573, moral issues are raised–pro/con arguments with point/counterpoints. Review the arguments and then decide which one is the most persuasive either for or against affirmative action (choose one argument only from the pro or con side). Explain your position and also be sure to address the counterpoint for the argument you favor (at least 500 word reply).

Please use the below part of textbook to answer this question:

            Affirmative action programs aim to correct racial imbalances existing as a result of past discrimination. Today, many companies believe that they benefit from affirmative action by becoming more diverse. Critics charge, however, that in practice affirmative action has often meant preferential treatment of women and minorities and even reverse discrimination against white men.

            Although the legal situation is complex, in a series of rulings over the years a majority of the Court has upheld the general principle of affirmative action, as long as such programs are moderate and flexible. Race can legitimately be taken into account in employment- related decisions, but only as one among several factors. Affirmative action programs that rely on rigid and unreasonable quotas or that impose excessive hardship on present employees are illegal.

Affirmative action: the moral issues

Understanding the Supreme Court’s evolving position on affirmative action is important, because the court sets the legal context in which business operates and lets employers know what they are and are not legally permitted to do. But legal decisions by themselves do not exhaust the relevant moral issues. Employers—as well as women, minorities, and white men—want to know whether affirmative action programs are morally right. Indeed, it is a safe bet that the Supreme Court’s own decisions are influenced not only by technical legal issues but also by how the justices answer this moral question.

Before evaluating arguments for and against affirmative action, one needs to know what is being debated. Affirmative action here means programs taking the race or sex of employees or job candidates into account as part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exist as a result of past discrimination, either in the company itself or in the larger society. to keep the discussion relevant, it is limited to affirmative action pro- grams that might realistically be expected to be upheld by the Supreme court. Excluded are programs that establish rigid, permanent quotas or that hire and promote unqualified persons. Included are programs that hire or promote a woman or an African American, who might not otherwise, according to established but reasonable criteria, be the best- qualified candidate.

A word about terminology: critics of affirmative action often label it “reverse dis- crimination,” but this term is misleading. According to the definition offered earlier, job discrimination involves prejudice, inaccurate stereotypes, or the assumption that a certain group is inferior and deserves unequal treatment. No such forces are at work in the affirmative action cases already discussed. Those who designed the programs that worked to the disadvantage of white men like Allan Bakke and Paul Johnson did not do so because they were biased against white men and believed them inferior and deserving of less respect than other human beings. those who designed the programs in question were themselves white men.

Arguments for affirmative action

1.         Compensatory justice demands affirmative action programs.

Point: “as groups, women and minorities have historically been discriminated against, often viciously. As individuals and as a nation, we can’t ignore the sins of our fathers and mothers. In fact, we have an obligation to do something to help repair the wrongs of the past. Affirmative action in employment is one sound way to do this.”

Counterpoint: “people today can’t be expected to atone for the sins of the past. We’re not responsible for them, and in any case, we wouldn’t be compensating those who rightly deserve it. Young African Americans and women coming for their first job have never suffered employment discrimination. Their parents and grandparents may deserve compensation, but why should today’s candidates receive any special consideration? no one should discriminate against them, of course, but they should have to compete openly and on their merits, just like everybody else.”

2.         Affirmative action is necessary to permit fairer competition.

Point: “even if young blacks and young women today have not themselves suffered job discrimination, blacks in particular have suffered all the disadvantages of growing up in families that have been affected by discrimination. In our racist society, they have suffered from inferior schools and poor environment. In addition, as victims of society’s prejudiced attitudes, young blacks and young women have been hampered by a lack of self-confidence and self-respect. Taking race and sex into account makes job competition fairer by keeping white men from having a competitive edge that they don’t really deserve.”

Counterpoint: “Your point is better when applied to blacks than to women, it seems to me, but I’m still not persuaded. You overlook the fact that there are a lot of disadvantaged whites out there, too. Is an employer going to have to investigate everyone’s life history to see who had to overcome the most obstacles? I think an employer has a right to seek the best-qualified candidate without trying to make life fair for everybody. And isn’t the best-qualified person entitled to get the job or the promotion?”

3. Affirmative action is necessary to break the cycle that keeps minorities and women locked into low-paying, low-prestige jobs.

point: “You advocate neutral, nondiscriminatory employment practices, as if we could just ignore our whole history of racial and sexual discrimination. Statistics show that African Americans in particular have been trapped in a socioeconomically subordinate position. If we want to break that pattern and eventually heal the racial rifts in our country, we’ve got to adopt vigorous affirmative action programs that push more African Americans into middle-class jobs. Even assuming racism were dead in our society, with mere nondiscrimination alone it would take a hundred years or more for blacks to equalize their position.”

Counterpoint: “You ignore the fact that affirmative action has its costs, too. You talk about healing the racial rifts in our country, but affirmative action programs make everybody more racially conscious. They also cause resentment and frustration among white men. Many African Americans and women also resent being advanced on grounds other than merit. Finally, if you hire and promote people faster and farther than they merit, you’re only asking for problems.”

Arguments against affirmative action

1.         Affirmative action injures white men and infringes their rights.

Point: “even moderate affirmative action programs injure the white men who are made to bear their brunt. Other people design the programs, but it is Allan Bakke, Paul Johnson, and others like them, who find their career opportunities hampered. Moreover, such programs violate the right of white men to be treated as individuals and to have racial or sexual considerations not affect employment decisions.”

Counterpoint: “I’m not sure that Bakke and Johnson have the rights you are talking about. Racial and sexual considerations are often relevant to employment decisions. Jobs and medical school slots are scarce resources, and society may distribute these in a way that furthers its legitimate ends—like breaking the cycle of poverty for minorities. I admit that with affirmative action programs white men do not have as many advantages as they did before, and I’m against extreme programs that disregard their interests altogether. But their interests have to be balanced against society’s interest in promoting these programs.”

2.         Affirmative action itself violates the principle of equality.

Point: “affirmative action programs are intended to enhance racial and sexual equality, but you can’t do that by treating people unequally. If equality is the goal, it must be the means, too. With affirmative action programs, you use racial and sexual considerations—but that is the very thing that has caused so much harm in the past and that affirmative action itself is hoping to get rid of.”

Counterpoint: “I admit that it is distasteful to have to take racial and sexual considerations into account when dealing with individuals in employment situations. I wish we didn’t have to. But the unfortunate reality is that in the real world racial and sexual factors go a long way toward determining what life prospects an individual has. We can’t wish that reality away by pretending the world is color blind when it is not. Formal, color-blind equality has to be encroached upon now if we are ever to achieve real, meaningful racial and sexual equality.”

3.         Nondiscrimination will achieve our social goals; stronger affirmative action is unnecessary.

Point: “the 1964 civil rights act unequivocally outlaws job discrimination, and numerous employees and job candidates have won discrimination cases before the EEOC or in court. We need to insist on rigorous enforcement of the law. Also, employers should continue to recruit in a way that attracts minority applicants and to make sure that their screening and review practices do not involve any implicit racist or sexist assumptions. And they should monitor their internal procedures and the behavior of their white male employees to root out any discriminatory behavior. Stronger affirmative action measures, in particular taking race or sex into account in employment matters, are unnecessary. They only bring undesirable results.”

Counterpoint: “Without affirmative action, progress often stops. The percentage of minorities and women employed by those subject to federal affirmative action requirements has risen much higher than it has elsewhere. Take the example of Alabama. In the late 1960s, a federal court found that only twenty-seven out of the state’s 3,000 clerical and managerial employees were African American. Federal Judge Frank Johnson ordered extensive recruiting of blacks, as well as the hiring of the few specifically identified blacks who could prove they were victims of discrimination. Nothing happened. Another suit was filed, this time just against the state police, and this time a 50 percent hiring quota was imposed, until blacks reached 25 percent of the force. as a result, Alabama’s state police quickly became the most thoroughly integrated state police force in the country.”

the debate over affirmative action is not the only controversy connected with job discrimination. two other issues, both primarily concerning women, have been the topic of recent moral, legal, and political discussion: the issue of comparable worth and the problem of sexual harassment on the job.

Explanation / Answer

On the debate of correcting racial imbalances, which exist due to the result of past discrimination, there were many moral issues that were raised as a form of pro/con arguments with points as well as counterpoints. But the argument which drew my attention most was against the affirmative action which addressed towards the violation of the principle of equality by the affirmative action itself, in which point was being said which summarizes that although there is African American people feel trapped in socio-economic position, affirmative action programs make everybody racially conscious, the objective of the affirmative action programs is to balance the equality, and this cannot be treated itself by treating people unequally. One harm can never be the solution for other’s harm, it should be compensation, which should be given to the needy. Although women and African American may have suffered in the past, but treating the entire generations for the same is like a reminder of their past. It is also a discrimination for the present men and white people which causes tension and frustration among white people when anyone gets promoted just by their background rather than their merits, these actions violate the very cause it is working for.

Affirmative action programs should only be a gentle push to the one who lacks resources to gain momentum, organizations profit from diverse races and cultures in men as well as women. Although there is an ironical situation in which the government has to deal with situation by discriminating the other, this push may bring a change in someone’s lifestyle, this may help to heal the wrong doings of the past, and this also brings a motivation in young blacks and young women to achieve more than their previous generations, this boost of self-esteem and self-respect are the priority of the affirmative action, for which these actions are being taken on. Statistics shows that a large population of African American are below middle class jobs, this racial rift in the country takes hundreds of years to heal by itself, even now when jobs few and schools are expensive already, these gaps may further draw the line and it may be impossible for the later to reach them and the cycle of discrimination may be never-ending. As it may be ironical, but without proper affirmative action, the progress towards equality stops.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.