Affirmative action policies and law - Essay Example

Define the current of affirmative action policies and laws in the context of higher education, employment and government contracts. For quite some time now, certain ethnic and minority groups have been pushing for better rights when it comes to higher education, employment, and government contracts. This has resulted in preferential hiring, college admissions and the allocation of government contracts when it comes to women and minority groups. It also applies to the awarding of other social benefits for these groups. The problem is that some people consider it to be reverse discrimination (Bardach, 2005; Holzer and Neumark, 2000 and Holzer and Neumark, 2006). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 started the whole push towards affirmative action. It was designed to make up for past discrimination of women and certain minority groups. In order to be considered in an affirmative action group, one or more of the following criteria must occur, which is considered different than the criteria that a regular employee would have: 1. Race 2. Sex 3. Ethnic origin 4. Religion 5. Disability 6. Age (Holzer and Neumark, 2000; Holzer and Neumark, 2006; and the Urban Underclass, 2010) In the 1978 ruling of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, significant limitations were placed on affirmative action programs. Further limitations were placed on affirmative action programs in 1995's Adarand Constructors v. Pena and 1996's Texas v. Hopwood (Kane, 1998). 1996 brought the most significant change in affirmative action programs up until this date. At that time, California voted in Proposition 209. This proposition refused to allow government agencies and related institutions from giving preferential treatment to or discriminating against individuals based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. This did not just take place in California, as other states soon adopted similar rules. In Michigan, the United States Supreme Court ruled that race could not be the leading factor in making such decisions as admission to the University of Michigan and its law school (Kane, 1998). When President Kennedy developed the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity in 1961, the term 'affirmative action' was first used. Affirmative action can be defined by the Report of the Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights, circa 1984, as any measure that is taken on to prevent or compensate for discriminatory action that was taken in the past, as well as to prevent it in the future. This goes beyond the simple doing away with a discriminatory practice (Kane, 1998 and Long, 2004). Affirmative action has been challenged over and over again, mainly occurring at the level of the state. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the law passed with Proposition 209 in 1996, which bans state and local governments from hiring individuals or showing other types of preferential treatment based on the aforementioned factors in the preceding paragraphs (Kane, 1998 and Long, 2004). In 1997, former President Bill Clinton pushed for the 'mend it, don't end it' measure. As far as racial matters, he began an Initiative on Race to encourage communication on racial issues. There are many affirmative action resources available for the latest updates on the measures. These include the following: 1. The Washington Post: Affirmative Action Special Report 2. American Association for Affirmative Action 3. Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences 4. Official Proposition 209 Site (Powell, 2009) Currently, anti-discrimination laws are reaching a new level. They are being pushed so hard on a daily basis that many believe it has reached a point of 'reverse discrimination.' (Powell, 2009) Discuss the nature of the affirmative action policies you describe above in the context of being antipoverty, antidiscrimination, and compensatory. Worsening circumstances for poor individuals has been at least partially blamed for affirmative action, many scholars agree. The fact is that, after the Current Population Survey and a related model, little evidence was found that affirmative action had a significant impact on black poverty levels. Although the reaction was mixed, it was found to be null overall (Powell, 2009). There tends to be much confusion amongst discrimination, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. Clarifying definitions can help to alleviate this problem (Powell, 2009). There are several laws with regard to anti-discrimination in the employment area. These include the following: 1. The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 2. The four Commonwealth Acts - the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1987, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Powell, 2009) These laws mean that employers must not treat their employees or applicants unfairly or harass them based upon the following: 1. Sex 2. Pregnancy 3. Race, Color, Ethnic Background 4. Marital or Domestic Status 5. Disability 6. Homosexuality 7. Age 8. Transsexual Status 9. Carers' Responsibilities (Powell, 2009) It is also illegal for employers to apply discrimination of any type to an employee because of the aforementioned areas on part of the employee's relatives or associates. The basic fact to follow is that stereotypes cannot rule whether or not an employee is hired or retained based on the aforementioned factors. These stereotypes cannot also rule how these employees are treated at work (Powell, 2009; Kane, 1998; and Long, 2004). Employers can either directly or indirectly discriminate against an employee at work. Employers can assume older people will not fit in with younger team members or may be retiring soon, women can be pregnant and will not stick around, or that a disabled person may not be able to use basic equipment to make a company run smoothly or that they may make customers uncomfortable. These are examples of direct discrimination and often result in the employee being treated differently from other employees without these conditions. Indirectly discriminating can occur when a company has a law or rule that disadvantages a particular sex or ethnic group unless it is absolutely necessary and deemed to be reasonable under certain circumstances. For example, height requirements are likely to discriminate against women and short individuals either because of disability or of ethnic origin. The simple fact is that employers must give equal opportunity to all employees (Powell, 2009; Kane, 1998; and Long, 2004). The law states that employers must make reasonable accommodations to employ persons with disabilities unless it would be deemed to be an unreasonable hardship on them to do so. Examples of reasonable accommodation include the following: 1. Partial or full telecommuting 2. The adjustment of work hours 3. Job-sharing or working part-time 4. Flexibility regarding paid and unpaid leave. (Powell, 2009; Kane, 1998; and Long, 2004) There are certain circumstances where hiring based on the aforementioned factors can be deemed acceptable. For example, hiring a male to do a male role in a play, employing a female to clean female bathrooms and, etc. are not considered discriminatory and do not require any special permission (Powell, 2009; Kane, 1998; and Long, 2004). Employers mean one of two things when they use the term Equal Opportunity Employment. These include: 1. Employers must work to follow anti-discrimination laws and ensure that everyone in the company understands and follows them, too. 2. In certain circumstances, plans and programs must be made to ensure equal opportunity employment in the workplace. (Powell, 2009; Kane, 1998; and Long, 2004) Employers must also pay special attention to certain groups known to have been discriminated against in the past. These include people with disabilities, women, and people from non-English speaking backgrounds (Powell, 2009; Kane, 1998; and Long, 2004). The term 'affirmative action' is typically used in several ways. These include: 1. To encompass the actions set forth within equal opportunity plans 2. To explain detailed affirmative action strategies 3. The allowance of confidence for disadvantaged people to interact equally with other individuals within a company. 4. To allow for programs aimed particularly for females (Powell, 2009; Kane, 1998; and Long, 2004) Finally, describe criteria that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of affirmative action in each of the three contexts listed above, and, then, summarize the literature that has evaluated affirmative action programs. Exhibit 1: The Effectiveness of Affirmative Action Plans Over Time Source: http://ninkendo.org/ken/images/aa.png Institutions of higher education have been under tremendous pressure over the past decade to employ anti-discrimination practices. In order to better comply with the law, programs and procedures have been set up at these institutions to prevent discrimination and encourage affirmative action. However, as can be seen in the graph above, these have not always been effective in eliminating the practice of discrimination (Skocpol, 2001). Criteria for successful affirmative action programs can include the following: 1. Compliance with affirmative action 2. Compliance with Equal Opportunity Employment 3. Training in Management and Human Resources 4. Coaching and Counseling 5. Programs that Encourage Diversity 6. Complaint Resolution 7. Resolution of Employee Problems 8. Compliance with Fair Labor Standards Act 9. Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act 10. Compliance with Family Medical Leave Act 11. Employee Complaint Investigations 12. Resolution of Conflicts 13. Performance Appraisals 14. Interviewing Skills 15. Mentor Programs 16. Employee Harassment 17. Discrimination Charges 18. Applicant Tracking 19. Policy and Procedure Development in Human Resources, Implementation, and Developing (Holzer and Neumark, 2006) There has been a great deal of literature published on affirmative action in the past few decades. For example, Bibliography on Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action (2008) covers economic studies and evaluates all government affirmative action programs. SSRN-Assessing Affirmative Action by Harry J. Holzer and David Neumark discusses the debate and literature available over assessing affirmative action. Models for Affirmative Action Planning and Evaluation by A. Charnes covers statistical evaluation and its issues to a whole new level and adds important, new and updated literature on the subject. Evaluating the Impact of Affirmative Action by G.H. Hildebrand covers some of the earlier issues of affirmative action by evaluating its impact in the 1970's. It also looks at federal compliance. Criminal Justice: Affirmative Action: A Tool for Justice evaluates affirmative action and offers literature reviews and case studies. Affirmative Action Triumphs: The Untold Stories by Paul Rockwell gives one man's experience of entering a university through an affirmative action program so it can be seen firsthand. Essays on Evaluation of Affirmative Action offers a collection of essays on the overall topic. Altering Affirmative Action Attitudes by El Fubara reviews ethics literature and brings up the need consider more programs and opportunities and their resulting impacts. It also evaluates affirmative action. Thirty Years of Affirmative Action at Harvard Medical School by Alane K. Shanks offers a mixed method program evaluation and literature review. The items represented above represent just a handful of the literature available on affirmative action successes and issues. Information is literally available by the ton via the library, Internet, and through database. The interesting thing about affirmative action is that it has been in the works for a long time and most people do not know that. Lawmakers have simply cracked down on it in the past decade to help to ensure fairness overall. Many of the original rules still stand, however, and provide a profound impact on the overall success. Bibliography Bardach, E. (2005). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. The effectiveness of affirmative actions over time. (2010). Ninkendo. Retrieved from http://ninkendo.org/ken/images/aa.png Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. (2000). Assessing affirmative action. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 483-568. Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. (2006). Affirmative action: What do we know Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/url.cfmID=1000862 Jencks, & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The Urban Underclass (pp. 411-436). Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Kane, T. (1998). Racial preferences and higher education. In C. Jencks, & M. Phillips (Eds.). The Black-White Test Score Gap (pp.431-456). Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Long, M. (2004). Race and college admissions: An alternative to affirmative action The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 1020-1033. Powell, J. A. (2009). Post-racialism or targeted universalism Denver University Law Review, 86. Retrieved from http://4909e99d35cada63e7f757471b7243be73e53e14.gripelements.com/publications/post-racialism_or_targeted_universalism_powell_feb2009.pdf Skocpol, T. (1991). Targeting within universalism: Politically viable policies to combat poverty in the United States. In C. Read More