The pros and cons of applying affirmative actions - Essay Example

Moral and Social Problems Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Thesis Statement 3 Accounting both the Pros and Cons of Applying Affirmative Actions 3 The Perceived Viewpoint 5 Rationale to the Viewpoint 6 Counter Arguments 7 Arguments in Response to the Counter Arguments 8 Conclusion 9 Works Cited 10 Introduction Affirmative action is often regarded as a policy concern towards discriminatory factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. The initial affirmative action was enacted in the United States under Executive Order 10925 by President John F. Kennedy on 6th march 1961. Furthermore, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson executed the enactment of Executive Order 11246 focusing on the equal distribution of employment opportunities among various social classes and genders (OEOD, “A Brief History of Affirmative Action”). It was during the Second World War that discrimination amid the socio-economic context had emerged as a serious concern which led to the rising significance of equal rights, humanitarian approaches and various other social norms which aimed at facilitating proper distribution of resources in the community. Through this enactment the application of Affirmative Action was aimed at mitigating unethical discriminatory practices in the fields of education, business and employment among others and thereby imbibing ethical concerns as well as justness within the society. Since its initial application in 1961, the purpose of enacting the affirmative action had been to serve every religion and cast with equal opportunity in order to facilitate proper education and employment throughout the socio-economic context (The New York Times, “Affirmative Action”). Thesis Statement The objective of this essay is to obtain a critical view to the issue of affirmative action giving an account to both pros and cons associated with the application of such policies. Furthermore, it also intends to present the current view or perception perceived by people in general regarding the issue explaining reasons to accept such ideologies. In its discussion, the essay aims at providing adequate significance towards the counter arguments in relation to the perceived ideology behind the issue followed by rational arguments as responses to the objections. Accounting both the Pros and Cons of Applying Affirmative Actions From a generalized perspective, the affirmative action can be observed to guide a society towards equal distribution of wealth and development opportunities. Therefore, it is quite obvious that such policy concerns will motivate growth and thereby prove to be quite advantageous for the society. In this context, the benefits can be recognized as affirmative action tends to compensate minority interests, serve as a booster to social diversity and exposure platform to varied fields. By compensating minority interests in terms of education and employability, affirmative action facilities equal opportunities to various social classes, especially to those groups who are observed to avail limited exposure to national and global prospects owing to their restricted power and involvement in the society. Correspondingly, by serving as a booster to social diversity, affirmative action benefits as the community interests in terms of equal distribution of salary and wages irrespective of the gender, race, ethnicity or any other discriminatory factor, precise and universal employment as well as educational norms which further facilitates the exposure of the society not only in the national but also in the international context. To be summarized, the most significant benefit of affirmative action can be identified as its role towards augmenting sustainable social growth (Holzer, and David, “Affirmative Action: What Do We Know”). Conversely, affirmative action can also be identified to impose crucial disadvantages towards societal development in the long-run. For instance, from a global perspective, affirmative action has often been accused to give rise to reverse discriminations. The ideology of reverse discrimination illustrates the scenario where minority groups are able to avail greater advantages than the dominant members reversing the cycle by hampering the developmental interests of majority groups. It has often been witnessed that owing to the affirmative action related policies, educational bodies are bound to provide extra concern towards minority groups which in turn limits the scope to be gained by the deserving people or students. Lower standard of accountability can be stated as one of the cons which the organizations and colleges often have to face owing to the affirmative action which often deliberates setting a lower grade average to permit lower skilled people to avail the position (Holzer, and David, “Affirmative Action: What Do We Know”). The Perceived Viewpoint According to Spielberger, ‘affirmative action’ can be defined as the term which concentrates on certain measures for the termination of discriminatory practices prevailing within the current environment from a futuristic point of view (66). Thus, from the context it can be assumed that affirmative action is generally used for discouraging inequalities prevailing within the society which are identified to restrict social development. A similar ideology was also explained by Rabe, affirming that affirmative action is the guiding policy measure considered towards the abolition of ongoing discriminatory practices in order to facilitate equal employment opportunities throughout the social dimensions along with ensuring long-run sustainability (73). Hence, from an overall perspective, the currently considered notion regarding affirmative action concentrates on its ethical representation to guide community development by means of equal educational and employability opportunities discouraging the practices which indicate biasness and unjustness within the society, segregating people from availing their developmental needs. However, in majority cases, it is the minority groups or people segregated due to physical as well as mental disabilities, i.e. the direct beneficiaries who are found to be much concerned regarding the pros of the affirmative action practiced by governing bodies. On the other hand, people who belong to the majority group have often been observed to decipher opposing attitude towards the issue depicting that their interests are being seriously hampered as affirmative action promote low skilled people for higher posts which create reverse discrimination within the society (Global Rights, “Affirmative Action: A Global Perspective”). Hence, it can be affirmed that proper concern needs to be rendered in this context to mitigate the impact of discrimination within a society without causing reverse discrimination to secure sustainable growth. Rationale to the Viewpoint With the changing trends of globalization, every economy today is able to attain global exposure and other developmental opportunities. It is fundamentally to avail these opportunities that organizations today are aiming at reframing their operational processes taking into account various sustainability issues such as diversity management, anti-discrimination policies and community welfare through proper allocation of resources. From a critical perspective, in doing so, both the sectors can be observed to voluntarily retain diversity, owing to which the sectors need to mandatorily consider affirmative action enacted by the government or any other authoritative bodies (McInnes, “Diversity World”). Undoubtedly, affirmative action do promote equal allocation of resources in various stages of socio-economic structure rendering prime attention towards the minority interests which conversely affects its consideration towards securing the interests of other social groups. For example, in various instances, it has been observed that affirmative action practiced within a socio-economic context supports hiring and placing individuals who belong to the minority groups by compromising their level of competitive skills which is actually required to hold the position. This in turn tends to hamper the interests of those deserving individuals who are competitive for the position and can prove to be highly beneficial for the organization whether educational or business oriented (Graglia, “The “Affirmative Action” Fraud”). Hence, in a long-run perspective, this enactment tends to hamper the fundamental ideology of equal opportunity acting as the root of affirmative action. Counter Arguments With due consideration to the analysis of practicing affirmative action policy on the basis of the above described pros and cons, it can be stated that such measures tend to be advantageous or disadvantageous owing to the economic circumstances and the interests perceived by the either groups, i.e. the direct beneficiaries and the majority groups. Hence, it can be interpreted in this context that the practiced affirmative action has been giving rise to conflicting beliefs regarding equal opportunity particularly because of altering economic needs of a society or community and the conflicting interests of the two groups possessing distinct ideologies. From a critical perspective, the implications of affirmative action have altered due to rapid globalization impacts in the workplaces and the education sectors, i.e. the core concerned areas of the issue, which has further influenced the awareness, criticality, and requirements of the overall society (Rao, “Globalisation, Affirmative Action and Higher Education Reforms in Malaysia: A Tightrope Walk between Equality and Excellence”). Today, the minority groups have gained a sustainable position in various communities owing to the virtues of affirmative action implemented since long. Thus, it is quite likely that the practice of similar affirmative action will lead to extra benefits to these groups causing a negative impact on the interests of the majority groups. Based on these facts, it becomes arguable whether it is the disadvantages of affirmative action that is causing such social conflicts or is it the reluctance of the governing bodies to revive such policy measures balancing the continuously altering socio-economic needs. Arguments in Response to the Counter Arguments In response to the above discussed counter-arguments emphasizing on the advantages of the affirmative action, it can be argued that since its initial implication, the ideology of affirmative action had been based on segregation. To be precise, since its implementation, affirmative action had been segregating the interests of minority groups and majority groups within a society dividing it into two broad categories. Furthermore, apart from ideology based concerns, the legal affirmations regarding the issue have also been confirming such practices as no more justified to promote growth in the modern world. To be illustrated, in cases such as Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) and Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), courts have argued that educational institutions were actually performing reverse discriminatory practices towards the deserving students by promoting students belonging to the minority cultures with meager consideration to their qualifications. As stated by Levinson, “these cases demonstrate that the majority of Supreme Court Justices today believe that affirmative action (or “reverse” discrimination) is no longer justified under a remedial rationale, which sanctions government programs that favor racial minorities to make up for past discrimination” (2). This implies that affirmative action might impose differing impacts in differing socio-economic situations but in any case it does create segregation and therefore causes injustice to one or the other group. Conclusion With reference to above discussion it can be stated that the limitations of affirmative action policy can be reduced by introducing certain terms and conditions which tend to render due regard towards the modern culture and human values as well as perceptions. It is in this context that with changes in the living standards and overall economic setting, the policy measures should be innovated accordingly which should be ideologically perfect to encourage overall socio-economic development. Notably, the development should be guided in every sphere of the community rather than focusing on the development of a particular section. Works Cited Graglia, L. A. The “Affirmative Action” Fraud. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 54 (1998): 31-38. Global Rights, Affirmative Action: A Global Perspective, 2005. Web. 26 Oct. 2012. Holzer, Harry J. and David Neumark. Affirmative Action: What Do We Know? Urban Institute, 2005. Web. 26 Oct. 2012. Levinson, Rosalie Berger. Gender-Based Affirmative Action And Reverse Gender Bias: Beyond Gratz, Parents Involved, And Ricci. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 34 (2011): 1-36. McInnes, Rob. Diversity World, 2012. Web. 26 Oct. 2012. OEOD, A Brief History of Affirmative Action. 2002. Web. 26 Oct. 2012. Rabe, Johan. Equality, Affirmative Action and Justice. Germany: Books on Demand, 2001. Print. Rao, S. Srinivasa. Globalisation, Affirmative Action and Higher Education Reforms in Malaysia: A Tightrope Walk between Equality and Excellence, 2007. Web. 26 Oct. 2012. Spielberger, Charles Donald. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, Volume 1. The United States: Academic Press, 2004. Print. The New York Times. Affirmative Action, 2012. Web. 26 Oct. 2012. Read More