Discrimination and affirmative action: policy perspectives and effects

Discrimination and Affirmative Action

Should disabled veterans get preferential treatment over better qualified candidates who are not disabled veterans?

Over the last several decades, the issue of employment discrimination has been increasingly brought to the forefront. Part of reason for this is because many minorities, women and the disabled are subject to instances of favoritism towards particular groups of workers over them. Once this takes place, it means that anyone who does not fall under these guidelines will have trouble finding good employment opportunities with the possibility of career advancement. This will have an impact on their standard of living and quality of life. To combat these issues, both the state and federal governments have been implementing various hiring quotas to give preference to these individuals. (Muhl, 1999, pg. 48)

However, the practice of enacting these quotas has been creating controversy. The reason why, is because there are previous court decisions which have determined that hiring someone based upon population demographics is unconstitutional. This is when the government will require employers to select staff members for key positions based upon actual population statistics. The basic idea is that this will address issues of discrimination and give select groups of individuals' advantages over the others. In the case of the federal government, they have been setting these kinds of quotas to ensure that disabled veterans are given equal treatment during hiring and promotions. This is troubling, because this practice is entering a gray area that is in violation of case precedent. While at the same time, the intent of these regulations are designed to ensure that everyone has equal access to the best positions based upon their qualifications. To determine if disabled veterans should be receiving this kind of preferential treatment. We will examine the Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) in comparison with those that they have in place for women and minorities. Once this occurs, is when can see if this policy is in compliance with the various provisions of the law. This is the point that we can determine if these individuals should be given preferences over other qualified candidates who are not disabled veterans. (Muhl, 1999, pg. 48)

The DVAAP requires the federal agencies to give preferences in the hiring and promotion to disabled veterans from Vietnam and post-Vietnam conflicts. The basic idea is that by hiring these individuals, the federal government is giving those people who served their country the first opportunity for many job opening. As, these people will have a certain amount of setbacks that they must overcome. To enforce these various provisions each agency is required to submit a report to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). In it they must describe the steps the agency is taking in to hire / promote the maximum number of disabled veterans. ("DVAAP," 2011) (Muhl, 1999, pg. 48)

This is different from other programs that the federal government is using when they are hiring minorities, women and the disabled who are non-veterans. What is happening is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a ruling called MD 715. Inside they changed the hiring requirements and reporting standards for U.S. government agencies. The most notable include: reducing reporting requirements, holding senior managers accountable for reaching agency objectives (versus whom they are hiring), the elimination of predetermined quotas and monitoring for trends when discharging these groups. This is designed to ensure that all federal agencies are hiring the best person for the job. Instead of someone, who fits into a particular demographic of the population that could be considered to be a minority (based on ethnic, gender or disability). This is important, because it is illustrating how there are two different standards that are used by the federal government when hiring various individuals that fall into these categories. As those who are disabled and have served in the military, are given preference over other minorities, women along with non-disabled veterans. ("Federal Civilian Employment Affirmative Action," 2000) (Muhl, 1999, pg. 48)

This is in direction violation of the U.S. Supreme Court's case precedent on affirmative action. What they determined is that employers cannot justify racial classifications by citing societal discrimination. Instead, they have to show that past discrimination occurred and that they must remedy these actions by having these preferences in place. Moreover, they found that each program must be designed to show that it is helping to achieve larger organizational interests. (Muhl, 1999, pg. 48)

In the case of DVAAP, this is highlighting how the federal government is violating previous Supreme Court rulings by giving hiring preferences to disabled veterans. Furthermore, they found that these practices are giving specific benefits to someone who served in the military and is disabled over everyone else through having predetermined quotas that are in place. While at the same time, it is requiring all agencies to report their findings to the OPM. (Muhl, 1999, pg. 48)