Discrimination and affirmative action: effects and policy perspectives

Discrimination and Affirmative Action

In today's widely diverse world, it is difficult to imagine a workplace or business authority that still discriminates against minorities. Indeed, any workplace that does so is subject to legal prosecution. Laws are in place to protect people belonging to minority groups from being marginalized in the business world. Yet it is also true that, despite these laws, discrimination is still a common phenomenon in the business world, particularly when persons from minority groups are attempting to start a business. It is often claimed that outdated paradigms and ideas held by banks and other service companies for example tend to be unsupportive of diverse ownership. Because of such claims, many states have adopted programs that require a certain percentage of business to be allocated to minority- or female-owned businesses. Violations of these programs however still occur, as is the case with a recent report from Maryland, where business was allocated to a company that failed to meet the state's minority goals. When considering the question from a deontological and utilitarian approach, a certain number of conclusions can be drawn regarding whether this contract should have been awarded or not.

The deontological ethical viewpoint considers the case in terms of human rights. Maryland has implemented the minority program to ensure that all persons within the state receive the equal rights of business opportunities. It is therefore imperative that this program be adhered to in order to ensure that business opportunities are available to all minorities. When this is taken into consideration, accepting the contract is a violation of Maryland's determination of human rights and should not have been awarded. Instead, the search for a complying company should have continued in order to ensure that the requirements for human rights are fulfilled.

On the other hand, it must also be recognized that non-minority groups have rights. The company that received the contract for example should have as much right to be considered for the contract as a company that does meet the minority standard. From a deontological viewpoint, exclusively considering certain groups for the contract on the basis of their minority status is not ethically sound. If this point-of-view is considered, awarding the contract is a sound decision, as discrimination should not occur either against the minority groups under consideration or the non-minority groups also opting for the contract.

A third deontological viewpoint is that, historically, minorities have been excluded from business opportunities for the majority of the twentieth century. If the balance of rights is to be restored, minorities should now enjoy rights above those who have been favored in the past. From the global historical viewpoint, it is therefore more desirable to award the contract to a company that meets the minority standards rather than one that does not.

From the utilitarian viewpoint, the greatest good and the most favorable outcome are taken into account. This viewpoint does not consider the rights of certain groups, but instead considers the advantages and disadvantages of awarding contracts on the merit of the level of service that will be obtained. In the case considered, there are two possibilities for the award of the contract: The first is that there may have been no companies on the applicant list that met the minority standards. The second is that non-minority companies far outweighed their minority counterparts in the level of service that would be provided.

In the first case, the deontological viewpoint would not have been applicable, as there were no companies available to meet the minority standards. The ethical argument might then be that, all persons should have an equal right to receive the contract, and be chosen on merit. The second case could then have been decided on the grounds of a utilitarian approach. Quality of service takes precedence over human rights considerations.

The utilitarian viewpoint also considers the importance of quality of the specific service involved, as well as the setting and safety levels promoted by the service. In an airport setting, public and professional safety are of utmost concern. A company that provides shuttle services should therefore provide high value in terms of vehicle and logistical safety. When awarding a contract in an airport setting, utilitarian issues should take precedence over deontological ones. If no correlation can be found between deontological ethics and the utilitarian viewpoint, utility should overrule where public safety is a concern.

In investigating this case, it is therefore important to have an understanding of the details of the case. Only once the deontological and utilitarian issues are clear can a judgment be made of whether the case indeed has merit or not. It should also be considered that minority programs are often controversial and could be unfair in terms of competition, where the best service at the best price is encouraged.

Entities such as the Legislative Black Caucus and NAACP often tend to consider deontological ethics as overriding all other considerations in today's business and employment world. This is not desirable in terms of utility, where the greatest good is served, especially in matters that affect citizens that are not as concerned with the merits of the case as with their own safety and well-being.