Running head: ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
Arguments For and Against the Continuation of Affirmative Action
Introduction to Human Resource Management HRD 502-OL
Angela Bachtel
William Kenneth Ditto
McDaniel College
Summer 2013
1
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
2
Arguments For and Against the Continuation of Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is a highly debated issue in today’s society. Affirmative action has
both strong supporters and staunch critics. Despite the opposition between sides, there really is
no single agreed upon policy or definition that represents affirmative action as a whole (Reyna et
al., 2005). It can be contended that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped pave the way for
affirmative action policies. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a good starting point, but it may
not go far enough in leveling the playing field. There continue to be documented cases of
workplace discrimination. However, opponents argue that affirmative action is ineffective in
today’s world, and that affirmative action policies should come to an end, or at the very least be
altered to better fit the needs of today’s society.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 put quite a few anti-discriminatory policies into practice.
This act is aimed at putting an end to employment discrimination based upon race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin (Byars & Rue, 2011). A strong component of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 is equal employment opportunity. Equal employment opportunity and affirmative
action are slightly synonymous. Equal opportunity employment grants all individuals with the
right to work and advance based upon measures of merit, ability, and potential (Byars & Rue,
2011). Equal opportunity employment, however, lumps all people together as a whole.
Affirmative action goes one step further. Affirmative action provides hiring and advancement
opportunities for minorities, women, disabled persons, and veterans (Affirmative Action, n.d.).
There is a suggestion here that the equal opportunity employment rights granted by the Civil
Rights act of 1964 do not succeed in providing equal opportunities for all.
For the claim of supporting affirmative action, age discrimination is a component that
carries a significant impact with an aging workforce. The Age discrimination in Employment Act
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
3
was passed in 1967, and it provides protection from discrimination based upon one’s age (Byars
& Rue, 2011). Protected individuals include those that are between the ages of 40-69 (Byars &
Rue, 2011). The protection that is provided by this law covers a vast body of older workers.
Whether or not this policy goes far enough to provide protection remains in question.
Occupations such as pilots and bus drivers are allowed to include bona fide occupational
qualifications based on certain ages (Byars & Rue). In today’s world, older workers are
becoming more and more prevalent. A weak economy has increased the need for some
individuals to work longer and retire later. This can result in higher costs for the employer. It is
argued that older employees can be seen as targets during periods of downsizing due to high
pension and health care costs (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2011).
In general, The Civil Rights Act focuses heavily on disparate treatment and disparate
impact (Byars & Rue, 2011). Disparate treatment is described as an intentional form of
discrimination that results in unequal treatment between employees (Byars & Rue, 2011).
Despite the attempts to put an end to employment discrimination, it still occurs both intentionally
and unintentionally. There is evidence of disparate treatment in the nursing field. This form of
discrimination is more prevalent against male nurses. An article appearing in Insights to a
Changing World Journal explains some of the challenges that face male nurses. A few of these
challenges are based upon societal norms. Societal norms can help fuel stereotypes and
prejudices. These societal norms primarily view nursing as a woman’s job (Rangel et al., 2012).
This is actually quite interesting because men are not typically viewed as a minority group. In
essence, the existing gender norms for this occupation have made a minority out of the majority.
Female roles are considered to be the norm for this industry. Nursing has even been referred to as
being women’s work (Rangel et al., 2012). This subjective thinking regarding nursing can have
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
4
negative effects on men that attempt to enter the field. Males in the nursing field have been
stereotyped as being lazy, less intelligent, and even homosexual (Rangel et al., 2012).
Subsequently, an important issue here becomes equal opportunity employment. Male nurses
have been subject to both overt discrimination and disparate treatment. One case involves a male
nurse that was turned away from entering the rooms of female patients because of his gender
(Rangel et al., 2012). Additionally, since this male nurse was unable to administer care, he was
not paid (Rangel et al., 2012). Using the nursing field as an example, there is ample evidence to
support that societal norms have created a continuing need for affirmative action.
Another argument supporting affirmative action is illustrated through a study of minority
groups employed in law enforcement. It is suggested that political and social changes can have
an effect on affirmative action programs. The study claims that a more diverse law enforcement
agency can achieve a higher level of performance along with social significance (Miller & Segal,
2012). The study recalls a court case ruling in which the Alabama Department of Public Safety
was required to meet a racial quota through the use of hires and promotions (Miller & Segal,
2012). The reasoning behind this affirmative action plan was to increase the public trust, and to
create a law enforcement agency that was more representative of the community they serve to
protect (Miller & Segal, 2012). The idea here is that public perception plays a role in the
effectiveness of a law enforcement agency.
The court’s ruling in the Alabama Department of Public Safety litigation is an example
of, what is referred to as, an externally imposed affirmative action plan (Miller & Segal, 2012).
Externally imposed plans are enacted on behalf of an outside entity, or in this case, by a court
ruling. Affirmative action plans can be permanent or temporary, however, temporary plans are
usually favored (Miller & Segal, 2012). Affirmative action plans are highly effective in creating
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
5
a more diverse workplace. However, there is troubling data that shows regression if these plans
are removed. Data has shown a significant drop in black employment when an affirmative action
plan is discontinued (Miller & Segal, 2011). This clearly illustrates what could be in store if
affirmative action came to an end.
Despite the data that shows how important affirmative action can be for hiring practices
in the workplace, there are many opponents to the concept of affirmative action. When
discussing affirmative action policies with people of non-minority groups, one might hear the
words reverse discrimination and racial bias or preference being used. While some of these
opposing thoughts may be based on deeply seeded ideas of racism that still exist in our country,
studies do show that the traditional and initial concept of affirmative action, as it was proposed
decades ago, may no longer be meeting the actual needs of the population in our country. In
their study on affirmative action in the federal government, Kogut and Short (2007) quote a
statement made by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1977 where she said “‘Pursued with intelligence and
good faith, affirmative action should ultimately yield neither a pattern of ‘reverse discrimination’
nor abandonment of the merit of people’” (p. 205). However despite the efforts of affirmative
action supporters over the years, many can be lead to wonder if most affirmative action programs
have truly been pursued with the ideas of intelligence and good faith in mind.
While one can still argue for the benefits of affirmative action programs, it is hard to
argue against the fact that our population in the United States has changed over the years. There
are more minorities living and working in our country than ever before. Kogut and Short (2007)
point out that initial EEO and affirmative action programs were focused mainly on getting
increased representation of the African American population in the workforce. These efforts did
not tend to look at other minority populations, such as Asians or Hispanics. However, in the past
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
6
20 years the African American population has only grown by less than 30%, while the Asian
population has tripled and the Hispanic population has doubled (Kogut and Short, 2007). These
statistics would suggest that the initial purpose of affirmative action, which mainly protected the
African American population, may need to be altered to more closely align with the country’s
current minority demographics.
There are several disparities in the hiring statistics of the federal government, when
looking at the hiring of minority populations. If the goal of the federal government is to ensure
that true equal opportunity exists, then the hiring of employees and the percentage of minority
hires should be proportionate to the overall population of available workers in the American
workforce (Kogut and Short, 2007). However, when looking at actual data from the federal
government, in the year 2000, 33.9% of the federal workforce was from a minority population,
while the expected distribution, based on the population of available workers, was only 28.5%.
This difference was even greater when just looking at the data for African Americans, who had a
17.3% employment rate, but only a 10.7% expected distribution (Kogut and Short, 2007). Even
when breaking down the data in to different occupational categories, minority populations are
still employed at higher rates than one might expect, given their overall availability in the
workforce. Looking at this data might lead one to believe, and opponents of affirmative action to
argue, that the intense efforts of the federal government to ensure affirmative action have
actually ended up benefitting certain minority groups at the expense of others. This means that
the federal government has not actually worked hard enough to ensure true equal opportunity for
all people. Because of this, opponents of affirmative action would argue that if affirmative
action is still going to be considered in hiring practices, then the regulations for affirmative
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
7
action need to be altered to reflect the changing minority demographics in the United States
(Kogut and Short, 2007).
Other opponents of the “traditional” concept of affirmative action might argue that since
minority populations are being better represented in the workforce, it might be better served to
use socioeconomic factors when applying affirmative action standards. It is thought that societal
discrimination may actually have a larger impact on a person’s ability to advance their economic
opportunities (Findley, et al, 2003-2004). In order to better reflect the realities of our time, a
focus on the economically disadvantaged may help to ensure better opportunities for those that
fall in this category. Findley, et al. (2003-2004), point out that many of those minorities who
have benefitted from the preferential treatment of affirmative action in the past, actually come
from more privileged families. They go on to note that 86% of African American students at
twenty-eight selected universities were actually middle to upper-class. However, people from
the same minority population who also have a lower disadvantaged economic status, do not
appear to be able to reap the same benefits that the preferential treatment should provide to them.
Despite the race of the individual, it is found that “…those with lower levels of income have
lower levels of educational achievement…” (Findley, et al., 2003-2004, p. 27). This idea leads
the authors to conclude that current affirmative action policies and practices that focus mainly on
race, are actually leaving many of the poor and disadvantaged behind, unable to achieve the
same economic advancements or workplace opportunities, regardless of whether they are white,
African American or Latino.
A final argument against the traditional practices of affirmative action is highlighted in
some of the research that has been done regarding the hiring of women and minorities in the
police force. Despite the fact that many women in the police force had higher levels of
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
8
education, they were less likely to advance in the ranks. Those in lower ranking positions were
more likely to support having affirmative action plans in place, to increase the number of women
in the police force. And those in higher ranking administrative and supervisory positions did not
feel that affirmative action plans should be used to increase the population of women (Lee,
2005). So why it is that those ranking higher in the police force do not support affirmative action
plans? For the answer, one might look at a study by Lott (2000), where it was actually found
that has the number of minorities and women on the police force increased, the crime rate in that
area also increased. The study does point out that the increase in crime rates cannot be blamed
solely on the minority population. In order for the police force to be able to accept a greater
number of minority and female candidates, the study shows that there was a lowering of
standards for all new police officers who wanted to enter the force, thus resulting is a less
qualified and able group of officers and an increase in crime in that area. While one cannot
determine exact causation of increased crime based on the increased hiring of females and
minorities, the study does show a strong correlation between the two (Lott, 2000).
Overall, the studies surrounding the arguments for and against affirmative action, clearly
point out the positive aspects and the short comings of these practices. One can determine that
while affirmative action has allowed minority groups to make great strides in the workforce over
the past few decades, there is still no perfect solution to how to make affirmative action policies
effective and relevant moving forward. While both supporters and opponents of traditional
affirmative action practices would likely not favor eliminating affirmative action altogether, it is
clear that as the population in our country shifts, so must the focus of affirmative action. We
must ensure that affirmative action policies are still allowing for equal opportunities for
everyone, including traditionally under-represented minority groups such as Hispanics and
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
9
Asians and possibly even those who are disadvantaged because of socioeconomic status. Only
then can we truly know that affirmative action programs are effective and accomplishing the goal
of providing equal opportunities for everyone in our country.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
10
References
Affirmative Action. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2013 from
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm
Byars, L. L., & Rue, L. W. (2011). Human Resource Management (10th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill
Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2011). Discrimination and the Aging American Workforce:
Recommendations and Strategies for Management. SAM Advanced Management Journal
(07497075), 76(4), 15-26.
Findley, H.; Ingram, E.; Stevens, E. &Wheatley, R. (2003-2004). Modernizing Affirmative
Action. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 11(1), 15-30.
Kogut, C.A. & Short, L.E. (2007). Affirmative Action in Federal Employment: Good Intentions
Run Amuck? Public Personnel Management, 36(3), 197-206.
Lee, T.P. (2005). The Myth and Reality of Affirmative Action: A Study Using the Perceptions
of Female Police. Race, Gender & Class, 12(3-4), 56-72.
Lott, J. R. (2000). Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police
Departments, and Crime. Economic Inquiry, 38(2), 239-277.
Miller, A. R., & Segal, C. (2012). Does Temporary Affirmative Action Produce Persistent
Effects? A Study of Black and Female Employment in Law Enforcement. Review Of
Economics And Statistics, 94(4), 1107-1125.
Rangel, S., Kleiner, K., & Kleiner, B. (2012). New Developments In Sex Discrimination Of
Male Nurses. Insights To A Changing World Journal, 2012(4), 74-86.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CONTINUATION OF
11
Reyna, C., Tucker, A., Korfmacher, W., & Henry, P. J. (2005). Searching for Common Ground
between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action. Political Psychology, 26(5),
667-682.