Affirmative Action the Term 'Affirmative Action' Collectively

Affirmative Action The term 'affirmative action' collectively refers to the positive steps that have been taken to increase the representation of minority groups in business, employment, and college admissions by according them preferential treatment in a bid to make up for the injustices committed against them in the past (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001).

Its contestation, defense, and development often proceeds along two paths -- administrative and legal (in the form of executive orders or court rulings requiring organizations to practice affirmative action) and public debate (in the form of literature showing the pros and cons of such preferential treatment).

A notable case of the former was witnessed a few years back, when the Supreme Court ruled against three white students from the University of Michigan who had challenged the university's selection policy, which gave students from minority groups higher points, on grounds that it encouraged race-based discrimination (Messerli, 2012). The school's argument then was that the policy presented opportunities for achieving true diversity; an argument that has been approved by most of the proponents of affirmative action.

Skeptics have, however, questioned its rationale, with some arguing that it has already served its purpose and is no longer necessary, unless the nation plans to make up for past injustices for its entire existence. This text analyses the arguments presented by both the opposing and the proposing factions in a bid to determine whether affirmative action supports an ethical rationale for diversity and inclusion.

Before embarking on the main discussion, however, it would be prudent to first present several examples of situations and court cases with affirmative action in play, just to give insight into the specific ethical questions involved in this case. Weber v.

United Steelworkers of America (1979): in this case, a white employee brought suit against a Louisiana steel manufacturing plant, arguing that its in-plant training program, which distributed positions on a 50-50 basis between white and black employees, was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (The Leadership Conference, 2015).

The argument was that by setting aside a standard number of spots for black and white employees, the program infringed on the rights of white employees as it allowed the promotion of junior blacks ahead of some senior whites, just so the numbers for each group would add up (The Leadership Conference, 2015). The court ruled that private entities had the right to implement their own affirmative action programs to make up for the racial injustices of the past. U.S. v.

Paradise (1987): in this case, a petitioner brought suit against the Alabama Department of Public Safety challenging the legality of its one-black-for-one-white promotion scheme, which required a qualified black to be promoted for every white candidate promoted (The Leadership Conference, 2015). The court ruled in favor of the Department, arguing that the affirmative action program provided a unique opportunity for the state to make up for the racial injustices committed against the black American community in the past (The Leadership Conference, 2015).

These examples stir up three fundamental ethical questions: i) Is it ethical to show preference for one group over another on the basis of demographics? ii) To what extent should these preferences be allowed to overshadow other qualities such as merit and candidate's qualification or experience? iii) Is affirmative action an effective way of eliminating discrimination against minorities? Proponents and opponents of affirmative action have differed in their responses to the above questions. The next subsection presents and weighs the arguments presented both for and against affirmative action.

Arguments for Affirmative Action The most fundamental argument for affirmative action is that it provides avenues for organizations to increase their degree of diversity, and to consequently reap the benefits that come with having a diverse workforce or student body, some of which include a wider array of ideas, and a higher possibility of obtaining fresh perspectives that could help conquer the status quo for the better (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001).

Thanks to affirmative action, minorities are able to venture into areas of work and study that they otherwise would have never considered - for instance, women are able to venture into technology fields and men into 'feminine' fields such as nursing. This, proponents argue, could go a long way in helping society eliminate stereotypes on the abilities and capabilities of minority groups. Affirmative action also provides ample opportunities for majorities to compensate their minority counterparts for injustices committed against them in the past.

Over the first years of America's existence, for instance, native and black Americans were enslaved by white masters, subjected to hours of unpaid labor, brutal punishments, and inhumane treatment. Proponents of affirmative action opine that there is no better way to make up for these injustices than through according these groups preferential treatment.

Skeptics have, however, disputed this claim, arguing that it is not ethical to compensate minority descendants for wrongs committed against their forefathers by punishing majority descendants, who are not even responsible for the actions of their forefathers (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001). Arguments against Affirmative Action The primary argument against affirmative action is that it fosters reverse discrimination. Skeptics argue that rather than eliminate discrimination against minorities, affirmative action works to deny hardworking and deserving whites a chance to excel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001).

A white employee, for instance, who works hard and is sufficiently qualified to earn a promotion may be denied the same, just because they are white, and organizational policy requires there to be a pre-determined number of black employees in a certain position.

Proponents of affirmative action have, however, moved in to reject this view, arguing that the white employee may only be qualified, or the student more hardworking because they have had ample opportunities to do so and have, perhaps, not had to contend with even half the obstacles faced by their minority counterpart (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001). Another argument against affirmative action is that it lowers the accountability standards needed to drive employees or students to perform better.

For instance, why would a student work hard to attain a GPA of 4.0 if institutions have an affirmative policy to increase diversity by admitting minority students at a lower GPA of 3.2? Moreover, wouldn't this be another way of saying that minorities have lower abilities.