Introduction to Ethics: Arguments for and against Affirmative Action - Coursework Example

The United s of America is a nation with a non-homogeneous cultural mix and with no unique cultural background. It is home to people of different ethnicities and continuous global migration adds to the heterogeneity. The immigrants and the economic sub-class of the people were seen as different from the natives and hence Affirmative Action (AA) was formulated to overcome the discrimination within the society and the workforce. AA implied that employers must act positively, aggressively and affirmatively to remove all barriers that prevent women and minorities from having equal access to all levels of educational industrial and governmental institutions (Soni, 1999). It seeks to create an environment where race and gender will not stand against someone’s ability to move up the hierarchy if one has the necessary skills and credentials for the job (Libertella, Sora & Natale, 2007). It is meant to correct the wrongs that have been created against the people of a specific gender, race, or religion. While the intentions were right, over time the imposition of AA started showing signs of reverse discrimination where the rights of the majority were at stake. Based on the policies of AA, people started giving preference to members of the target group without merit and the quotas for minorities were filled up carelessly. All these resulted in the White males being deprived of their basic rights. Thus Affirmative Action, while trying to provide equal opportunities to all, ends up in discriminating the Whites, and hence unethical. There will always be two sides to an argument and whether it is fair to the Whites or not, remains debatable. At times, some sacrifices for the greater good of the society are better than no action. If this be true, AA is justified because the intention is to provide more opportunities to the minorities and women. Nevertheless, this amounts to social segregation. Arguments again abound that social segmentation exists in every society based on religion, race and economic differences. Such segregation or discrimination might work for some time for social good. People have tried to justify that AA helped to make up for past wrongs. Instead of doing justice it violates the rights of the Whites for equal consideration (Stanford, 2005). Besides, discrimination on the basis of a belief that one race or sex is inferior is wrong because it violates the moral right to equal respect (Himma, 2001). Decision need to be taken based on character and abilities and not on stereotype. In a democratic system, the interest of all citizens ought to be represented, valued and considered in the law-making process which is also the basis for the theory of representative government (Soni, 1999). Women are being given preference as per the AA guidelines even if they do not possess the necessary qualifications. If there are fewer women at the top, the women themselves have to be blamed for it. Women have been found to be incompetent for the top management roles and popular literature is filled with self-help techniques for women, this demonstrates the inherent deficits that women have (Heilman, 1997). Women are trained in communication skills and supervising skills. It is generally accepted that women bring their weaknesses to the workplace and this obstructs their growth. If the purpose is to get maximize profits for an organization how justified is it to employ women just to fill the quota or abide by the policies? Secondly, the preferential treatment indicates that such women are inferior to the rest of the employees. It works as a stigma of substandard performance. Through out their work life they carry the stigma that they have been hired not for their capabilities but because of their gender or race. The stigma theory argues that the stigma suffered by the women at workplace is an injury in itself (Soni, 1999). This may be a de-motivational factor for such employees. It has also been found that there was less occupational interest in the managerial job when women were employed because of preferential selection policies. Even the other associates or the vendors of the company look towards these women as inefficient; their qualifications are discounted. Hence as far as the organization is concerned, it is unethical to discriminate on the basis of gender. When AA was first implemented, racial discrimination was rampant and it did help the minorities to form a base on which to stand. If it continues to be implemented it would lower the levels of efficiency and competency while also polarizing the society along racial or gender lines. The most important justification given for AA is that it compensates of the past injustices and it has now become a battleground for competing notions of justice. The societal benefits should be equally distributed so that it is just for all persons at all times. A program is unfair to Whites as they have not personally caused any harm to minorities or women. Since they are innocent why should they be placed at a disadvantage? This leads to reverse discrimination when women and minorities are hired over the better qualified Whites and is morally wrong. Sometimes it has also been found that minorities and women are hired just to fill the quotas as it is linked to the funds they would receive from the government (as in the Bakke case). This amounts to unfair victimization of white males who are innocent and their rights are overridden by the justifications of AA (Soni, 1999). AA has another advantage as it promotes workforce diversity. Soni argues that diversity at workplace is not possible without AA. It has been found that many firms, just so that can claim to be practicing workplace diversity, apply the AA program. This has been turned down by the appeals court in the New Jersey Board of Education vs. Taxman Case as the court refused to recognize diversity as a legitimate reason for the use of AA. Besides, race-based economic inequality stands in the way of achieving diversity at workplace. Thus, even though workforce diversity may be an advantage as perceived by some, it is unethical on the grounds that economic inequality still persists and just to achieve the diversity is no reason to use AA. While the minorities get more opportunities due to the AA program, Loury (1997) who contends that the widespread use of AA can erode the perception of black competence. Blacks will have no incentive to develop their competitive abilities. When they receive preferential treatment they tend to patronize the workplace or the university. This implies that it becomes established that whites are more capable than the whites and a lower standard of achievement become established for the blacks. Just to meet the guidelines, the officer may appoint the required number of blacks. Not only that, when the question of promotions arise, just because there have to be certain number of promotions among the blacks, their deficiencies are hidden so that they are labeled as eligible for promotion. Thus the blacks also live under the impression that they would be given preferential treatment and it may work as a disincentive for them to strive to work hard. They will never strive to correct their deficiencies and they are also denied an honest feedback from their supervisor. They come to believe that they can get ahead without attaining the same degree of efficiency as the whites. Thus, the AA program is not fair to the minorities and the women also. Affirmative Action creates its own set of problems for those that it intended to help. It affects the incumbent psychologically. It was useful in the 1960s when it was implemented but today the minorities are well positioned and would prefer not to work under stigmatic conditions. Even the women are stigmatized and labeled as less capable than men but the favored lot. It is unfair to the white men as they lose out on opportunities to the minorities and the women. Thirdly, as the recruitment at workplace is not totally based on merits, organizations have to compromise on quality and output. Promotions too are based on racial and gender discrimination. It is not ethical to use AA merely to receive the allotted funds or to promote workforce diversity while compromising on the efficiencies of the firm or the government institutions. The AA program is also unfair to the minorities and not just to the whites. The minorities are always given preference whether in recruitment or even promotions. They know they can get ahead of the whites with lesser qualifications and would never strive to improve. If the nation as a whole has to move ahead, the AA program has to be done away with because it is unfair both to the whites and the minorities. It continues to make both sides conscious of the preferential treatment and is harmful to both. Today the minorities and their second and third generation families are well established in the United States and do not want to carry on with the stigma that continues to be attached to them. AA violates the rights of the common man if it is enforced and implemented. References: Heilman, M. E. (1997). Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: The role of sex stereotypes. Journal of Business Ethics; Jun 1997; 16, 9; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 877 Himma, K. E. (2001). Discrimination and disidentification: The fair-start defense of affirmative action. Journal of Business Ethics; Apr 2001; 30, 3; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 277 Libertella, A. F. Sora. S. A. NAtale, S. M. (2007). Affirmative Action Policy and Changing Views. Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 74:65–71 Loury, G. N. (1997). How to mend affirmative action. Public Interest; Spring 1997; 127; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 33 Soni, V. (1999). Morality vs. mandate: Affirmative action in employment. Public Personnel Management; Winter 1999; 28, 4; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 577 Stanford. (2005). Affirmative Action. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/; accessed 01 May 2008 Read More