Affirmative Action and Discrimination

Affirmative action plans are not the same as diversity plans. These differ in several ways, with the most notable being that affirmative action is a law, and diversity plans are simply created by companies wanting to incorporate various levels and types of diversity into their organizations (Anderson, 2004). In other words, employers must follow affirmative action requirements, but they do not have any requirement to have a diversity plan.

This is an important distinction, because many employers mistakenly believe that they can create their own diversity plan, and that will meet the affirmative action requirements if they are ever questioned about the issue (Riccucci, 2002). This is not the case, though, and can land employers in some serious trouble if they mistakenly believe that they are doing enough to bring diversity into their workplace. By ignoring the actual law in favor of their own diversity plan, they are putting their company at risk.

Employers who are serious about caring for their company and their employees will take affirmative action seriously (Riccucci, 2002). These employers understand that affirmative action was created to correct years of wrong treatment and skewed hiring practices, meaning it is still in effect to equalize the playing field for those who struggled in the past. As such, it is an important law that must be upheld by companies throughout the country (Anderson, 2004).

Some companies, however, choose to go above and beyond the minimum requirements of affirmative action, and create their own diversity plans. These kinds of plans typically mean that more diversity is seen within the company than would be officially required by affirmative action. This is good news for those attempting to get a job, and can also lead to better, stronger companies, because having diverse viewpoints can mean a company sees things in new ways that can benefit customers (Anderson, 2004).

Part II - Both employees and employers have become more focused on diversity in recent years. While this has helped some individuals get ahead, it has also hindered workers and employers in some ways. One overt practice that would impede the development of an individual within an organization is affirmative action. This is an excellent practice for those who fall into specific categories, but not a good choice for those who do not meet those conditions.

For example, white males are often the ones who are most harmed by affirmative action requirements (Anderson, 2004). While they may be highly qualified for a promotion within their company, there may be an equally, or nearly equally, qualified black person. Because of affirmative action requirements, the minority applicant for the position may have to be chosen for the promotion. That can stop the white male from moving up in the ranks in the company, even when he is truly the most qualified candidate.

There are also covert practices that can impede individual development, such as the stereotyping of various cultures. Stereotypes are unfortunate, because they take an entire category of people and lump them together to the point that it becomes hard to see people in that group as individuals (Riccucci, 2002). Right after 9/11, for example, Muslims and anyone who looked Middle Eastern had a very difficult time. Everyone seemed to see them as terrorists, even if.