Why affirmative action is still needed in 2012 - Essay Example

Module This paper seeks to investigate whether or not affirmative action is still warranted in especially with respect towomen and minority groups, and the extent to which they can access prime or high-paying employment opportunities in the United States. The central argument of this paper is that while it is true that there have been significant strides in the direction of equality, the present state of things have not managed to completely overturn decades of historical discrepancies in the way that males and females were being treated. Affirmative action is a policy by which marginalized groups (with marginalization usually defined on the basis of gender or race or class) are given preferential treatment, usually in the form of quotas. For example, in universities, a set quota may be allocated to, for example, black people or Latin Americans in order to create a heterogeneous atmosphere and increase possibilities for racial minorities. Or a gender quota might be imposed in companies, to ensure an equal number of men and women. Whilst the focal point of affirmative action is to improve the lives of those who belong to historically marginalized sectors, one very important aim as well of this policy and perhaps its long-term goal is to achieve social integration, to break down stereotypes and biases, and to foster a more gender-fair and color-blind society. To quote Coate and Loury, in workplace affirmative action, “an important component of this question would seem to be the impact of affirmative action on employers’ stereotypes about the capabilities of minority workers. If affirmative action serves to break down negative stereotypes, then to the extent that these underlie discrimination, a temporary program of affirmative action should lead to permanent gains for minorities” (1220). What must be remembered, however, if we are to break down these stereotypes by any sort of policy, is that these stereotypes did not take place overnight, but are the products or outcomes of socially-reproduced perceptions. Women have been considered as the weaker sex, unable to carry out masculine tasks and duties requiring intellectual development. In the past, a little girl would learn from her mother that a woman’s place was at home – doing household work like cooking and cleaning and watching over young children. Indeed, societal norms have greatly affected women in many cultures. Women, in most cultures, are considered to be inferior, a situation that has continued to hinder their career progress. In many societies, men and women are assigned distinct social roles which are restricted by certain norms. The perception of the role of women in the workforce has widely changed over time in the society. Historically, the society viewed women society as in the home taking care of the husband and children. Social norms required the woman to be submissive to the husband and should not leave the home for work. Social norms treated women traits as meek and submissive, and work, especially in demanding fields like engineering, would make them lose the traits. Hence, this discouraged women to work in demanding occupations like engineering, science, and mathematics with low pay. We must bear in mind that these “dichotomous, mutually exclusive categories that shape our understanding of the world are gendered and they are key to the production and reproduction of violence at all levels” (Confrontini 333). This cultural pressure to be a homemaker and not to aspire to work professionally or to yearn for achievements such as those done by men was what impacted on access to education by girls vis a vis boys. According to the Women’s International Center: Formal education for girls historically has been secondary to that for boys. In colonial America girls learned to read and write at dame schools. They could attend the master's schools for boys when there was room, usually during the summer when most of the boys were working. By the end of the 19th century, however, the number of women students had increased greatly. Higher education particularly was broadened by the rise of women's colleges and the admission of women to regular colleges and universities. In 1870 an estimated one fifth of resident college and university students were women. By 1900 the proportion had increased to more than one third. In the fields of engineering, science and mathematics, the common social perception is that these jobs are for men alone. Women are perceived to be irrational and emotional and thus have no capacity for jobs that require mental discipline and rigor. Social and family pressures also discouraged women from taking up careers in the sciences, in engineering or in mathematics, as these careers were perceived to be masculine. They also required decision-making, and women were perceived to be weak in such. Thus, involving them in such demanding careers as science and engineering was not favorable. Clearly, stereotyping in professions in the United States has also affected women’s orientation to such fields (Layne 120). However, today, women have proven this wrong and many of them have contributed in interventions. In the early 1920s, it was even against the social norm for a woman to do heavy jobs such as those involved in engineering (Sheffield 90). There are also certain taboos associated with these jobs, in the sense that they are said to take time away from the family and the woman’s allegedly primary responsibility as a spouse and mother. Also, since these professional careers require higher education or longer years in academic training, many women find it impossible to even be academically qualified for such positions. Women find themselves facing pressure from their families and society to get married immediately and raise a family, and thus, women who seek higher education, such as a masters degree, used to be frowned upon or thought of as an aberration. Worse, they may even be derided for not being attractive enough to get a spouse and higher education is the “next best thing.” What we see here at play is the gender stratification hypothesis, which states that in case of societal stratifications based on gender, there are more social inequalities based on social norms. This happens particularly in demanding fields such as mathematics, science and engineering. Socio-cultural aspects such as teachers’ and parents’ attitudes towards the girl child shape the attitude of the female student’s interest in a certain career. These notions have been whittled down considerably in this day and age as women are making rapid inroads in male-dominated jobs. Another theory to look into is the Occupational-Crowding Hypothesis, which states that women are sometimes intentionally isolated from certain occupations (Solberg and Laughlin 692). This means that women’s failure to pursue certain professions may come as a result of the unfavorable social climate, certain jobs being deemed inaccessible to women. This is why I believe that affirmative action is still necessary to this day. What affirmative action does is create a diverse workplace and a diverse campus, which enriches both the minority groups and the majority groups. There is clear and compelling evidence (see for example, Orfield, 2001) that affirmative action and the diverse environment it creates have helped provide minority groups with the access necessary to move forward and pursue their goals and majority groups with a greater sensitivity and openness. It has also helped stimulate a productive atmosphere with greater returns. While much has been done, much still remains to be done. There must be recognition on the part of institutions that the struggle for equality of gender and race and for the protection of the rights of minority groups is constant and evolving. We should not rest simply because we have secured the vote for women, have come up with a sophisticated set of anti-discrimination laws, and have powerful women holding powerful positions in public office and a black president. While these policy changes are important in that they signpost significant societal transitions and paradigm shifts, there are still forces that seek to maintain the gender and race differential, and there still remain barriers to a truly level playing field. While old challenges have been addressed, new ones emerge. Everyday there are unseen acts of oppression being perpetrated that must be addressed. This means that states and institutions must always work towards creating equitable and fair policies for men and women and all races, so that more minorities will break glass ceilings and develop themselves and their talents and skills in a manner of their choosing. (word count: 1403) Works Cited Coate, Stephen and Glenn Loury. “Will Affirmative Action Policies Eliminate Negative Stereotypes?”. The American Economic Review 83.5, (1993). 1220-1240. Print. Confortini C.C. “Galtung, violence, and gender: the case for a peace studies/feminism alliance”. Peace and Change 31.3, (2006). 333-367. Print. Laughlin, Teresa and Eric Solberg. “The Gender Pay Gap, Fringe Benefits and Occupational Crowding.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. (1995). 692-708. Web. Layne, Margaret. Women in engineering: Professional life. New York: ASCE Publications, 2009. Print. Orfield, Gary. Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing. 2001. Print. Sheffield, Suzanne. Women and science: social impact and interaction. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2005. Women’s International Center. Women’s History in America, 1994. Web. Read More