Affirmative Action
1. affirmative action (n)
the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members,
especially in employment.
2. affirmative action (n)
positive discrimination; a policy or program designed to counter discrimination against
minority groups and women in areas such as employment and education.
3. affirmative action (n)
A term referring to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of
African-Americans, women, and other minorities in jobs and educational institutions
historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions
to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities.
Note : Affirmative action has been extremely controversial. Supporters maintain that it is the
only way to overcome the effects of past discrimination and promote integration. Critics
dismiss it as “reverse discrimination,” denying opportunities to qualified whites and men.
The Controversy
First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational
institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal
legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to
rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination against women and
racial minorities. These programs are designed as temporary measures to
increase the employment and educational opportunities available to
qualified women and minorities by giving them preference in hiring,
promotion, and admission. Toward this goal, some firms and institutions
aggressively recruit minorities and women, others set numerical targets and
timetables to raise the level of minority and female representation, and still
others establish quotas to hire or admit a specified number of minority and
female candidates.
These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women
and minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has
increased 50 percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial
positions has jumped fivefold. In 1970, women comprised only 5 percent of
lawyers compared to 20 percent today. Twenty-five years ago, the student
population at University of California, Berkeley, was 80 percent white
compared to 45 percent today.
Despite these strides, severe inequities remain. Nearly 97 percent of
corporate senior executives in the United States are white. Only 5 percent of
all professionals are black though blacks comprise 12.7 percent of the work
force. Hispanics hold only 4 percent of white-collar jobs but make up 7.5
percent of the work force.
Arguments Against Preferential Treatment
Opponents of preferential
treatment programs argue that when distributing social benefits such as
jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals
unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different. In
deciding who should be hired for a job or admitted to a college or university,
the relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or
sex. To award or deny benefits on the basis of race or sex is as unjust as
traditional discriminatory practices. Moreover, preferential treatment
programs unjustly ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to
disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't
in need of them.
Those who oppose preferential treatment programs also claim that if the
purpose of the programs is to compensate for past discrimination or present
disadvantages, then only persons who have been discriminated against
should be given preference. Current preferential treatment programs,
however, favor members of selected groups regardless of whether an
individual member has ever suffered discrimination. In fact, most of the
victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just
compensation is moot.
Critics of preferential policies further argue that society's burdens ought to
be distributed fairly among its members. Preferential treatment programs
are unfair because they impose the burden of compensation on white males
who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more
responsible for past injustices or for rectifying present inequalities than any
other individuals. It is unfair that they should bear the full burden of
compensation.
Programs awarding preference according to race or sex are also opposed on
the grounds that they cause much more harm than good. First, with these
programs in force, those who may be more qualified are overlooked while
others only minimally qualified are chosen. The inevitable result is reduced
productivity and efficiency in the work place and the lowering of academic
standards in colleges and universities.
In Defense of Preferential Treatment
Preferential treatment programs
are often defended on the grounds of distributive justice, which requires
that society's benefits and burdens be distributed equitably among its
members. As a result of past discrimination, women and minorities have
been denied their fair share of opportunities. Entrenched and subtle
discriminatory policies and practices continue to permeate businesses and
educational institutions, ranging from prejudice in job classification and
minority systems to biases in college entrance exams. A recent study of 94
Fortune 1000 companies revealed that only 2.6 percent of the surveyed
firms' executives were minorities and only 6.6 percent were women. In
1988, the wages of women working in full-time jobs were 72 percent those
of men. That same year the unemployment rate for blacks was 11.7 percent
compared to 4.7 percent for whites. Preferential treatment programs seek to
reduce these disparities as justice requires.
Those who support preferential policies also appeal to the principle of
compensatory justice, which states that people who have been treated
unjustly ought to be compensated. Throughout history, race and sex have
been used to deny individuals equal treatment in employment and
education. And while many of today's minorities and women may not have
been themselves the victims of discrimination, they have been victimized by
its effects. As descendants of those who were denied jobs or relegated to
low-paying positions, they have grown up deprived of the resources,
opportunities, and education necessary to develop the skills and confidence
needed to compete on equal terms with white males. Preferential treatment
programs compensate for past harms and present disadvantages by giving
qualified members of these groups preference in hiring or college
admissions.
Supporters of preferential treatment policies counter the charge that
preferential treatment is as unjust as past discrimination. Past practices,
fueled by ignorance, contempt, and hatred, systematically relegated
minorities and women to inferior positions in society, while concentrating
power and wealth in the hands of white males. Preferential treatment
programs, in contrast, are not motivated by contempt for non-minorities and
aim to achieve equal opportunity and provide a more equitable distribution
of social and economic benefits.