Affirmative action: definition, origins, and contemporary arguments

Affirmative action is an initiative based on a set of policies that are intended to eradicate both present and past prejudice against women and minority in areas of employment and businesses where they were historically marginalized. Theses discriminations can also be based on ones race, religion, color or nation of origin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009).

Brief History of affirmative action

Civil rights movements originally endorsed programs that would enable African-Americans acquire full citizenship of the United States; slavery was then illegalized and equal protection under the law was guaranteed and prejudice against voting rights was as well forbidden. The end of post civil war reconstruction era was marked in 1896 by the ruling of the Supreme Court over the Plessy v. Ferguson's decision to uphold anything that displayed equality for African-Americans. President Franklin D. Roosevelt then signed an executive order 8802 in 1941 in order to forbid certain policies that embraced segregation while hiring. The decision of the Supreme Court in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education eventually reversed Plessy v. Ferguson (Sykes Marquita, 2012).

The term 'affirmative action' however was initially used 1961 in the issued executive order 10925 by President John F. Kennedy. The orders provided that government contractors take affirmative action to make sure that those who apply are employed and are treated without discrimination no matter ones race, nation of origin or color. This was to ensure that equal opportunities were realized. President Lyndon B. Johnson's executive order 11246 in 1965 expanded and included the attribute of discrimination against ones sex; affirmative action policies to profit women in unions companies and any other institutions were included. Affirmative action policies were meant to ensure that women and the marginalized in the community had the opportunity to enjoy equal opportunity in school admission, financial aid, scholarships, salary increment advancement in career as well as in promotions.

Affirmative action has however generated deep controversy; the contentious issue being as a result of the nature of timetables and goals forced on the federal contractors. Some people felt that the goals were not practically the same as quotas which required that selection processes were gender and racial preference in institutions. Unlike in quota affirmative action policies do not allow preference of either gender or race. Others argued that there could be some similarities in the sense that in case the preference is not entirely imposed it is somehow tolerated. The courts approval of use of preference principles was only meant to be temporary, flexible and narrowly customized to evade the possibility of becoming like quotas (Brunner Borgna, 2012).

Arguments for affirmative action

Arguments that are in support of affirmative action can be divided into four groups:

1. Arguments based on justice

These arguments can further be subdivided into three groups:

a) The compensatory way whereby one is given a competitive advantage to compensate for past exclusions.

b) Discrimination-blocking which intends to block the effects of discrimination that are caused by factors such as stigma, discrimination or stereotypes.

c) Integrative way -- This type of affirmative action aims at dismantling factors like stigmatization by promoting social integration.

2. Arguments based on democratic views

The core mission of such arguments is to cultivate a democratic culture. Admission into colleges and universities have had to put this issue into consideration; places of employment have also had to embrace these policies because citizens majorly share view and interact at the work place hence making it a major civil society site.

3. Arguments based on social value

Affirmative action is said to encourage diversity and enables the disadvantaged population to have an easier access to services that are professional as well as correct bias criteria of merit and allow those who have talents yet are marginalized still get the recognized and get equal opportunities.

Rosenfield Michael argues that affirmative action is constitutionally and morally justified as it ensures equal opportunities for all.

Arguments against affirmative action

Arguments that seem not to agree with the policies of affirmative action can be divided into two categories:

1. Those that oppose based on certain moral principles

2. Those that oppose with regards to negative outcomes that could either mean they cause harm or inefficiency.

Arguments based on moral principles

There are those groups which argue that affirmative action is just a reverse of the original prejudice in the sense that the previously favored group becomes victimized as well. There are arguments as well that the principles of merit become violated due to the so called affirmative action. He goes ahead to state that such actions based on race opens opportunities to minorities at the expense of white men who are least advantaged.

Another argument that comes up is that compensatory justice principles end up being violated in the sense that those who benefit from it are not the actual victims who suffered discrimination and the individuals who had no hand in discrimination end up paying for a crime they did not commit (Anderson S.E. et al., 2008)

Arguments from social values

There are yet the other groups that argue that affirmative action harms the supposed beneficiaries for the fact that they will not be considered capable enough to gain opportunities just like others by competing but are rather favored. These policies trigger resentment of black community against the white argues Sowell Thomas.

Further, there are arguments that compensatory affirmative action leads to a balkanized society due to social discordance. This means extensive groups may claim privileges on account of historical discrimination. These claims may become limitless hence having to direct most of the incentives towards a certain direction instead of focusing on the nation as a whole.