Get your own Free Home PageAffirmative action. It seems that you hear a lot about it these days. It has sparked a heated debate across the United States that has raged on for years. In the media, you can watch as liberals and conservatives, blacks and whites, men and women put up their dukes over this controversial topic. And it seems that wherever an organization plans to phase out affirmative action, legions of people come out flagrantly to protest, and still more people come out to protest them!
But what is affirmative action anyway? Why is it responded to so vehemently on all sides? Why do some people want to see it destroyed while others want its power strengthened? In the next few minutes, we shall discuss affirmative action--its past, present, and future.
Affirmative action had its roots in John F. Kennedy and the civil rights turmoil of the 1960's. Its intentions were good to start. It was designed to help "disadvantaged" people "hobbled" by past discrimination. This included minority ethnic groups, and women of all races, who for years had been passed over for jobs, promotions, and educational opportunities by a homogenous corporate system dominated by white males. In the latter part of the decade, laws were passed prohibiting companies to discriminate against anyone based on race, creed, color, gender, or national origin.
But that wasn't enough, apparently. In 1972, the most controversial portion of affirmative action came into play. The Equal Opportunity Act, instituted by Richard Nixon, required most federal contractors and subcontractors, all state governments and institutions (including universities), and most local governments to increase the proportions of their female and minority employees until they are equal to the proportions existing in the available labor market.
This meant establishing quotas. To illustrate quotas and their place in society, consider that a company contracted with the federal government needs to hire 100 trench excavation engineers, more commonly known as ditch diggers. It needs them today, because it needs to finish its ditch as soon as possible. To comply with affirmative action policies, the company must hire according to the racial demographic in the area. If 20 percent of the population in the area was African-American, it would have to hire 20 African-Americans. If 15 percent was Hispanic, 15 of its workers must be Hispanic. It would also have to make sure that half its employees are men and half are women.
On the outside, this seems like a logical and just process. It seems to "even out" the playing field so minorities can compete in the workplace, and women can get equal pay for equal work. However, on the inside, it shows some serious flaws. First, if half the ditch diggers are women, the company is going to have problems. Not to put down women of course, but in this society, not too many women are brought up with a shovel in hand to dig for long hours. The company hires all these women, but many of them can't work as hard as the men. The company has to lower standards in order to accept the women. That brings productivity down.
Another problem occurs when an applicant to the job is the product of an interracial relationship. How is he, or she, figured in? If he or she is neither one race nor another, which quota does this person fill? Or does he count as 50% of a person in one race and 50% in another? This topic could be severely dividing.
Here is yet another problem. Imagine if you will that you are the employer of these ditch diggers. You have hired 99 workers and you need one more. Now, four people show up in your office for an interview. The first person passed the entrance exam with flying colors. The second person was a third grade dropout, 250 pounds of solid muscle and brought his own shovel. A perfect example of a ditch digger. The third person had a very impressive resume and on the interview, answered all of your questions promptly and correctly. You could tell this person had dug ditches before. The fourth person, however, was a complete klutz who didn't know a shovel from a spade and had a particularly nasty habit of completely humiliating and alienating your employees, your bosses, and your customers.
Now which one do you hire? Before you answer that question, what if I tell you that you have no choice but to hire the fourth person? You look through your employee roll sheet and see that you already have too many people in the races that the other people represent, but you don't have enough of the fourth person's. If you don't hire this person, you could face lawsuits and being permanently branded as a "racist". However, if you do, you've just hired an incompetent jerk who your employees feel so uncomfortable with, it interferes with their work. It's a Catch-22 situation either way.
This is one of the major complaints that critics of affirmative action have. With quotas in place, many employers can't hire who they want to hire, and many employees can't work where they want to either. If they do get hired, they often live in fear of being fired by restructured quotas. It is a sad comment on our times that equality must be purchased at the cost of freedom.
I've talked about the past and present of affirmative action, but what about its future? It can and should not exist as it is today. However, it should not be completely destroyed. Over the years, it has done some good. It has allowed people to succeed and to be advanced in business and education that might not have been otherwise. It has fostered diversity and inspired a move to a more colorblind society with an equal opportunity for all.
However, the quotas must stop. Lumping people into arbitrary groups solely based on their genetic makeup is almost the same as racism, which was what the civil rights movement--and affirmative action--were meant to end. I say that if a person is qualified to have a job, that person should be able to have it, regardless of that person's skin color, facial features, or reproductive organs. Employers should be motivated to find the best and the brightest for the job, not to be forced to fill a biased political agenda!
A revised affirmative action plan should encourage diversity in the workplace, but it should also include a provision for education. In order for everyone to have an equal opportunity to work, there must be an equal opportunity to get the skills required to work. More college aid and programs should be given to those who have always been discriminated against--the poor. Those of any race who are struggling now to leave their sad conditions and live the American dream. College admissions boards should consider such things as the poverty of the student's neighborhood, the financial history of the student's family and specific examples of past discrimination. Though socioeconomic status cannot be the only factor in determining where to give help, it would aid considerably to give people a more fair chance.
So where will affirmative action go? That is yet to be known. But when a person is looked at not as a race, not as a sex, not as a color, but as an individual human being deserving of all life has to offer, things will be much better.
Copyright 1998 By Jack Mileur. All rights reserved.
Get your own Free Home Page