Affirmative action and reverse discrimination concerns in veteran hiring

Disabled veterans affirmative action program (DVAAP)

Affirmative action is an actually a reasonably new development when looking at the long history of the United States. Basically, it is designed to ensure that anyone who was treated unfairly in the past because of specific characteristics like race or gender gets equal treatment now. But there are also some difficulties with this idea, and there are people who feel that affirmative action is not a fair deal to those who are not minorities. Mostly white males feel that women and minorities are being chosen before them in hiring decisions and that they are also promoted at a higher rate in companies that have affirmative action policies in the workplace.

It has become very difficult for many companies to find a good balance between being fair to white males who are in the workforce or looking to enter the workforce, and being fair to everyone else. There is another group, as well, who must be addressed where this issue is concerned. More and more places have policies that say that they will hire disabled American veterans. There is certainly nothing wrong with hiring these people if they can do the job, but there have been some concerned that they might be selected over other, more qualified, candidates simply because of the service to our country.

The purpose of this particular paper, therefore, is to discuss affirmative action issues, particularly as they pertain to the hiring and promoting decisions that come along with minorities, women, and veterans. The paper will also look at how affirmative action relates to discrimination in both hiring and promoting, and in other aspects of the issue as well. The goal becomes to show that, for the most part, affirmative action actually works well. There are only a few instances when it is really taken too far and where it becomes actually detrimental to both white males because they cannot find work as easily, and minorities because they are believed to be promoted based on their race and/or gender, instead of on the merits of their work (Employment, 2003).

Too Much Action - Reverse Discrimination

In other words, the idea of 'reverse discrimination' has become a serious concern for the white males who have no disabilities, and being able to get promoted on merit has become a serious concern for both women and minorities, as well as for people who do have disabilities. This is certainly not true of every person who falls into these groups, but it is a generalization that has some of its basis in fact. The issue is important enough, though, to cause some concern among many employers, as they do not want to get into any trouble because they did not hire enough minorities, no matter which minority group one is talking about. However, it seems as though they can also see themselves in trouble for hiring too many over and above other workers, especially if those other workers are more qualified and/or better able to do the job that they are hired for. The purpose here is to answer the question: should disabled veterans get preferential treatment over better qualified candidates who are not disabled veterans?

Getting Around the Guidelines

It is a very unfortunate turn of events, but there are a lot of different ways that individual companies use to work around guidelines that they are supposed to be following in an effort to ensure that they are hiring and promoting the right number of minorities and others who they have promised that they will not discriminate against - and for most places, that includes disabled veterans. There are a lot of ways to show people as not being qualified and not able to perform a particular job. Some of these are not entirely accurate and appropriate, but there are still quite a few companies that use them when they can. Sometimes they actually do get caught, and even the federal government has occasionally been hauled into court for unfair hiring practices which were not in compliance with affirmative action regulations (What, 2002). This is a sad state of affairs, especially for veterans.

The main problems that are seen with discrimination and affirmative action claims are that they can be very difficult to prove unless they are almost ridiculously obvious. A company that has a policy not to hire any black people, for example, would easily be found to be in violation of the rules. A company that does not really want to hire black people and finds testing and other procedures that is able to single them out while still appearing legitimate will often be able to get away with this kind of discrimination, at least for a while (What, 2002).

There are a lot of legal and ethical issues which arise when discrimination and affirmative action are being addressed and considered, and these issues present a great many opportunities for change for businesses which are having difficulties meeting the goals that the affirmative action policies are asking of them. For cases that are very problematic, it is sometimes necessary to create more specific goals and quotas that will have to be filled so that any past wrongs can be better corrected. For others, it is only a matter of ensuring that people who are hired represent a fair cross-section of people who live in that area and who would be able to perform that job correctly (Tompkins, 1995). That should include disabled veterans as well, but it seems inappropriate to single them out to the extent that they are hired at a rate that is much higher than the rate that they are seen in the community. This could amount to reverse discrimination, where unqualified people are chosen over qualified people because they fit into a certain category. This kind of discrimination is just as wrong as the other kind.

The Specifics of Law

The laws that are designed to protect against affirmative action can get very confusing, but there is only one basic law that is important to a good understanding of the issue. That particular law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, created in 1964. That law stated that no person can be discriminated against based on color, race, religion, sex, or national origin (Civil, 1964). There is no mention of disability or veteran status. There was an amendment that was added to Title VII in 1991, but it did not change any information related to protected categories and the affirmative action policies that are so important in business today. Title VII, along with other laws about sexual harassment and workplace issues that need to be addressed, is enforced by a governing body called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Commission handles most of the laws that relate to employment, and they are also the ones that will come in and investigate a company when there is a complaint relating to any kind of harassment or discrimination (Code, 1997).

Conclusion

The main ethical principle here should not be a deontological argument, but rather should be utilitarianism. The greatest number of people will actually be helped by ensuring that discrimination of any type (including the issue of reverse discrimination) does not continue in the United States. It is therefore very important to use the arguments that one can make to show why reverse discrimination will harm a large number of people, including those who it is designed to protect and care for. This harm can come from aggravation that others feel when they notice the reverse discrimination, but it can also come from employers and institutions that are being forced to hire or admit people who are clearly not qualified on the basis of their race or gender or handicap, or what they have done for the country in the past. Only when those characteristics are completely irrelevant will everyone really be 'equal' in the quest for employment. While disabled veterans should certainly be given the same opportunities as everyone else and be free from discriminatory practices based on their disabilities, they should not receive preferential treatment to the point that they are hired over individuals who are clearly more qualified.