Gender bias and its effects on women

Women and Gender Bias

The purpose of the present paper is to discuss the implications of gender bias and the consequences of Affirmative Action. To be more specific, we will describe the effects which Affirmative action has on women and the principles for moving towards the equality of men.

Right from the beginning we could ask ourselves, taking into consideration the implications of Affirmative Action, the main principle under analysis, whether there is a clear understanding of it, as far as the roles and goals of women are concerned. Trying to answer this question will represent an important part of the paper.

Next, the Affirmative Action programs will be taken into consideration- with both their strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons. The third part of the paper will deal with the "loop holes" which exist in the system. The fourth part will be an attempt to understand whether seniority is an issue concerning a role in Affirmative Action.

Addressing these key questions may help us in our daily routine as administrators and potential administrators in the public and the private sector. Affirmative Action programs throughout the United States have long been a controversial issue particularly concerning employment practices and university student and, or staff recruitment. Public agencies all possess some type of Affirmative Action program. To understand the role of affirmative actions programs, the definition of what Affirmative Action is and why its inception was first developed, should be determined.

If we are to discuss Affirmative action and its implications, one must understand that there is some kind of discrimination involved. In this particular case we are dealing with sexual discrimination in the U.S.A., the consequences of which are obvious in the division of the labor market. The phrase "Affirmative Action" was used in a racial discrimination context, issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1961.

The order indicated that federal contractors should take affirmative action to ensure job applicants and employees are treated without regard to their gender. Any person could define this statement to imply equal access and nothing more. Subsequently, Affirmative Action refers to various efforts to deliberately take sex into account to remedy past and current effects of discrimination. Its primary goal is to ensure that women are widely represented in all occupations and at all organizational levels.

When trying to explain the birth and development of Affirmative Action, the National Organization for Women states that it must be viewed in the broader context of defending the rights of other categories which have had their share of injustice in this regard, namely the African-Americans.

According to Sykes, "affirmative action is a set of public policies and initiatives designed to eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Therefore the analysis of the concept ought to be placed in a further broader context of human rights and the fight against discrimination based on any type of criteria.

Wishing to understand the development of the facts which led to such a measure as the Affirmative Action. We might start with the Thirteenth Amendment which was brought to the American constitution in order to make slavery illegal. Then the Fourteenth Amendment was issued with the purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

The Fifteenth Amendment is meant to regulate the access to the voting process and forbids that people be discriminated based on their race. An important development in the defense of the rights of African-Americans occurs during the year of 1866 when the Civil Rights Act provides black citizens with "the same right to make and enforce contracts.. As is enjoyed by white citizens." (Sykes)

A further relevant episode is represented by the decision of the Supreme court in the case Plessy vs. Ferguson which referred to a "separate, yet equal doctrine." Taking a good look at the historical data it is safe to say that the doctrine was far from being equal when it came to the manifestation of the civil rights for African-Americans. "Thew decision marked the end of the post Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the south." (Sykes)

By 1941 a lot of pressure was being made in order to produce some change. "President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, a. Philip Randolph." (Sykes)

Harry Truman was another American president concerned with nondiscrimination policies. It is during his presidency that the committee on Government contract compliance adviced the Bureau of employment security to "act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of non-discrimination." This means that the labor market was still strongly affected by racial prejudice, which created a lot of social tension. We are getting close to the "birth" of affirmative action. In 1954 a decision of the Supreme Court- Brown vs. Board of Education- overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson. "

The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President John F. Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The same language was later used in Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246." (Sykes). Nevertheless, it was not until 1967 that president Johnson expanded the executive order in a specific manner which would direct the requirements of the affirmative action towards the befits for women.

Other events considered important in this regard by the National Organization for Women include "protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." "

One of the most important controversies which were born based on the affirmative action principles is something called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." It is safe to say that this aspect represents the major attack point of those who are against affirmative action, claiming that it supports preferential treatment of categories which were mistreated before (women for example).

In order to avoid further complications, the existing laws stipulate that those who are likely to benefit from affirmative action must also prove that they have the necessary professional qualifications as well as the needed education. In this manner the above accusation is easier to be faced or avoided.

There are however people who believe that affirmative action is nothing more than reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is concerned with providing equal opportunities for all the people and it was born in a social and political context in which large categories were actually discriminated. A social system based on equal opportunities implies a selection and hiring system which treats people equally and with respect and in which merits are the most important criteria.

According to Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, affirmative action means "positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded." Some voices state that this is likely to give birth to reverse discrimination because it encourages the development of opportunities for the mentioned above categories only.

An example brought as a supportive argument fro the discussion refers to a situation in which let us say a white male with superior education and high incomes is denied an opportunity in favor of a black male with superior studies and low incomes. Some see in this a principles of affirmative action and a means through which society tries to help those who are less fortunate.

Others on the other hand claim that this is reverse discrimination and that race should not be taken into consideration at all in the recruitment processes. In an ideal society this might be true. Taking a look at the real society however, one can not fail to notice that the categories with lower incomes and more difficulties generally speaking are the black citizens. As much as we would like to state that all citizens benefit from perfect equality and have access to the exact same rights, the social data makes us understand that there still is a strong connection between race and status.

Some argue that there is no reason for which categories such as women or African-Americans are to be favored in the recruitment processes. In other words, these categories are perfectly capable of reaching their professional goals on their own and giving them extra support through affirmative action is nothing but reversed discrimination for all the other people. Yet we should return to the considerations in the paragraph above and make some logical considerations.

If a person is born in a family with low or very low incomes (let us assume the family in case is African-American although it may very well be white), generally speaking he or she will not have the same opportunities for superior studies as someone coming from a family with a higher social status and bigger financial incomes. Under these circumstances, an ethical dilemma is born. Should society control its development or leave it to chance? And in the case that it should control it, which categories should it help?

If the person in the above mentioned example is helped, we could assume that in a certain way, the person who was not helped because he or she already disposed of the necessary means, the latter one might be considered as having been subject to reverse discrimination. Yet we ought to look at the picture from an utilitarian point-of-view. Under these circumstances we might state that society as an overall system has more benefits from helping the categories which are in bigger need of help (for example the ones mentioned in the principles of affirmative action).

But what are the exact principles of affirmative action: let us take a look at them and analyze them. Title VI, section 601 states "no person in the United States shall, on grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal assistance." ("zianet.com").

It is clear that the article refers to the manner in which the state positions itself towards the actions of its official organs. In other words the state declares itself forced not to deny anyone any of his rights as expressed through the state organs- based on criteria of race, color and nationality (so far nothing is mentioned about women's status).

Title VII, section 703 is more specific in addressing the issue of employment: "(a) it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."("zianet.com").

If the first title referred to a more general entity, the state, the second one aims to define the position of the employer, thus making sure that all the aspects which have to do with the labor market (from selection, recruitment, motivation, treatment, payment, etc.) are not to be biased by criteria having to do with race, color, religion, sex and national origin. We notice that the list of criteria has been expanded and that the article mentions sex and religion as well. While religion has been a strong discrimination factor, its presence was not that solid in the area of employ.

The sex criterion on the other hand has always been present and has led to various social reactions such as the feminist movement. We also notice that the two titles formulate negative freedoms, in the sense that they refer to those practices which both the state and the entity of the employer must refrain from. This implies that discrimination practices exist and that there is need for official regulation in order to prevent it.

The titles analyzed so far do not say that employers are encouraged to favor categories which in the past have been victims of discrimination, but that discrimination ought to be avoided at all costs in order to protect the rights and freedoms of the American citizens. To conclude with, the manner in which the laws are formulated does not encourage reverse discrimination. On the contrary, it is meant to make sure that no individual is subject to discrimination processes as far as the employment issues are concerned.

This is confirmed by the following section which states "Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available workforce in any community, State, section, or other area. " ("zianet.com")

Things are pretty clear. Imbalances might exist, but this is not a reason for employing entities to favor people based on their sex, race, nationality, etc. In order to solve the problem of these imbalances. Those who declare that affirmative action is reverse discrimination can be proven wrong based on this supportive section which explicitly prevents it. It is important to underline the manner in which the section draws attention to the fact that the title is not subject to the free interpretation of the employing entities. This means that if an employer performs discrimination or reverse discrimination acts, then he can not invoke the affirmative action principles in order to exonerate himself. In this manner the title prevents people from becoming social crusaders trying to impose a social order based upon their own subjective values.

Moving on to section 704 of the title VII, it states that "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment. "("zianet.com")

Bona fide is Latin for good faith, therefore the law states that all the actions and initiatives of the employing entities must e done in good faith, for the mutual advantage of himself and the employed party. Critical voices state that through affirmative action "women and minorities as not becoming successful because they are not reaching their true potential through hard work and instead are trying to cheat the system and cover it up .

By having affirmative action, one is basically undermining the skills of women and minorities by saying they are not capable of reaching the potentials and capabilities that white men are and therefore women and minorities need extra help at the expense of white males and those who are already working hard to qualify for schools and jobs ." ("open salon.com").

In other words if affirmative action supports the employment pf women and African-Americans, this encourages them to become sloppy and lazy. Yet, saying that a law against discrimination is an element which favor people in general and women in particular to pay less attention to their professional formation because they know that they will get a job anyway because of their gender seems to be exaggerate.

Before taking a look at some data regarding the division of the labor market in the U.S.A., we could state that regardless of its good intentions, affirmative action might give way to controversies. From the already analyzed information it has become clear that its purpose is to protect the categories which have been subject to employment discrimination before and here we are speaking mostly about women and African-Americans. It could be stated that affirmative action tries to defend the rights of the minorities. And here we could ask ourselves whether there could be a clash between the rights of the minorities and the ones of the majority.

Is there a bigger unemployment rate among women and African-Americans or among white males? Is it fair to protect just one of the categories? Is affirmative action really doing a protection job for a minority or is it that it is simply meant to prevent any kind of discrimination?

It is safe to say that the criteria mentioned by its articles were necessary because in the past women and African-Americans have not enjoyed the same rights and occupational benefits as the rest of the population. Including a clear criterion such as "white male" among the others in the list might seem strange. Yet there are numerous voices which claim that affirmative action is actually benefiting women and blacks in the detriment of the white males.

Nevertheless, a white male who has been refused for an employment position for example can not sue the state or the employer for reverse discrimination. Even if the state demands that the categories protected through affirmative action must demonstrate they have the relevant educational level and professional qualification, this allows for some personal interpretation on behalf of the employer.

Leaving aside any controversy for the moment, we must make some considerations about women roles and goals in order to take the discussion to a deeper level. Beforehand the role of the woman was to stay indoor and take care of the house. The main roles of the woman were that of wife and mother. She was considered inferior to man because of her strongly emotional nature. She was considered to be fit in educating children and that's it. For a long time the woman was considered a property of her father first and then of her husband. Since the male figure was the one making the money and supporting the entire family, it was in a sense normal for this patriarchal and androcentric view of society to exist.

Yet, despite the fact that women demonstrated their intellectual capacities, they were still not allowed to go to university or to exercise the same rights and freedoms as men. The goals of the women were supposed to be marrying a rich man, being a good wife for him and a good mother for his children. As far as the African-American women things were much worse. Those who are familiar with the history of the south and the slavery issues, know that it was one thing being a black male slave and a completely different reality being a black female slave.

Centuries had to pass until women were given the right to vote, to attend the same universities as men. Science and philosophy also had to undergo major development stages until the woman was considered a person just like the man, enjoying the freedom of what to do with her body and her mind. Yes women nowadays have the same jobs as men. In theory they can do whatever they wish, but the equality issue remains open for discussion. If they remain pregnant, that is considered as on obstacle for their career. Generally speaking women must work harder then men in order to achieve the same position and financial income. Under these circumstances, saying that women prefer to indulge themselves with doing nothing knowing that their professional future is cared for by affirmative action seems to be rather stupid.

"Today, women and children comprise more than 70% of the people living in poverty globally. According to UNICEF, women perform 66% of the world's work -- both paid and unpaid -- but earn 10% of the world's income and access one percent of the world's resources, including land and credit." (Woods) Under these circumstances, one can see how affirmative action is not a law which is meant to favor certain categories, but to improve their current situation and to prevent from making it worse.

While men are more oriented towards the fulfillment of their own personal goals, it is safe to assume that women demonstrate more openness towards the communal goals, being important pillars for the functioning of the communities.

Researchers have tried to understand why are there only a few women doing scientific and technological jobs compared to the number of men engaged in the same activities. The response seems to be a matter of education and perception: "Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We argue that one important reason for this discrepancy is that STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers in other fields to fulfill communal goals (e.g., working with or helping other people). Such perceptions might disproportionately affect women's career decisions, because women tend to endorse communal goals more than men. As predicted, we found that STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impede communal goals. Moreover, communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest in STEM careers, even when controlling for past experience and self-efficacy in science and mathematics. Understanding how communal goals influence people's interest in STEM fields thus provides a new perspective on the issue of women's representation in STEM careers." (Diekman, Brown, Johnston, Clark)

In other words, women are more oriented towards the others than to themselves and this reflects at professional level where they choose jobs which are meant to improve not only their personal lives, but also the lives of the others. This particular orientation might be connected with education, self-perception as well as with the role which society is still building for women.

Without getting deep into debate, we could assert that despite the proclaimed freedom and equality for all its citizens, America is a state dominated by a patriarchal approach to society. It is enough to look at the female role model promoted by the media. Many studies have been made in order to show how the marketers create and impose a female archetype which bases her entire value upon her sexuality and revealing her "appealing" assets. Authors Sharon Lamb and Lyn Mikel Brown draw an important alarm signal regarding the media tendencies to impose highly sexualized female models, targeting teenage girls.

The same stereotypes are presented and pushed in cartoons, magazines and on the TV. Looks are more important than brain and sexual appeal (a thin body, make up, clothes that show off your body parts) is the most important resource. The act of showing (off) that you are a very sexual persona is promoted as freedom and as means of rebellion. Little girls are taught that sex and good looks are the main tools which they can use in order to be popular and successful (where popularity is synonymous with success). Beforehand there were two options only and girls had to choose between being nurturing mothers or bad girls. Indeed that was limiting, but so is the only alternative that they are presented with nowadays: be like this or you are invisible. (Lamb, Brown)

Centuries ago women were educated to believe that their role was to take care of the family (husband and children). Now the research suggests that women ought to take care not only of the family, at personal level, but also of the community, at professional level. Either that, or follow a stereotyped role model which allows them to be popular with the male audience. It is easy to notice that the focus is still external and that women are likely to be concerned with the well being of everyone, rather than with their own in an exclusive manner.

Klein suggests that "process and outcome goals fall on a continuum of education accomplishments and lifetime outcomes. There are variations among individuals and populations on what is most valued in the U.S. As well as around the world in terms of education processes and outcome goals. Sometimes there are also conflicting public laws and policies that support these values with sanctions or rewards. Conflicts between public secular tendencies and some religious policies, especially related to gender equity and the roles and constraints on women and men, create challenges in establishing consensus goals.

As the Handbook authors point out, often values associated with men's stereotypical achievements have been favored over achievements more typically associated with women, and men have been traditionally expected to obtain more of the desired gender equity goals. If the outcomes are judged valuable for girls and women (such as empathy and cooperation) or for men (such as strength and earning ability) they should be equally valued by society and equally attainable by all population groups." )Klein, 2)

Therefore, the identity of the individual is constructed through social mechanisms. The goals which women set themselves are influenced by these mechanisms (just like other research suggests it). If they are more likely to be oriented towards jobs in areas such as communication or social support, it is because through education, both formal and informal, the social environment teaches women such occupation are likely to be more rewarding for them.

Thinking in stereotypal terms, how do we generally picture men and women? Is it easier to imagine a family in which she works and he stays at home taking care of the children or the other way around? Or is it that we are more and more likely to imagine a family in which both and she are working and someone, such as a baby sitter is taking care of the children?

Regardless of the situation men will be men and women will be women. Women will perhaps want to become important CEOs or CFOs, but they will also like to remain pregnant and have children. While the physical condition of pregnant women might temporarily impact their career, this does not mean that things must change. Business standards must not be changed in order to favor women, but the specific characteristics which make women what they are mustn't be altered either.

Speaking of gender equity, it is also Klein who states that "the concept of gender equity outcomes valued by our society means that women and men, girls and boys should have access to the same personal aspirations, rights and responsibilities related to basic indicators of life such as health, productivity, knowledge, happiness, freedom, safety, economic self sufficiency, etc. Gender equality means attaining parity between men and women in the quality of life, academic and work outcomes valued by our society, without limitations associated with gender stereotypes, gender roles, or prejudices. Although many who work toward these goals have their own definitions of equity and equality, there is no consensus on what these distinctions are." (Klein, 2) if parity of rights must be supported by laws such as affirmative action, then it means this particular regulation does nothing but support the creation of gender equity.

In order to simplify things, it could be stated that "gender equity outcomes are attained when: both women and men acquire or are given equitable opportunity to acquire the most socially valued characteristics and skills (even if they have been attributed to only one gender) so that fewer jobs, roles, activities, expectations and achievements are differentiated by gender; when there is decreased use of gender stereotyping in decision making by or about individuals; when sex segregation in education and society caused by gender stereotyping and other inappropriate discriminatory factors is reduced and eventually eliminated. (Klein, 13) So far it seems that the principles of affirmative action do nothing but support the diminishing of the discrimination risks.

At this point of the research we might wonder about the goals which affirmative action is supposed to serve. If the primary goal is that of making sure that women and minorities are widely represented in all occupations and at all organizational levels, it means that its role is to protect the minorities from discrimination. But this does not imply that employers will hire women and members of minorities just because they are not well represented within the company or within society as a general system.

The criteria upon which employers ought to recruit is represented by merits. In this context however, when two candidates have similar skills and background preparation and experience, a woman might be preferred if the number of women within the company is not relevant enough. But is this reverse discrimination? Could the man in case complain about having been rejected because of his belonging to a gender?

On the one hand he could have all the rights to complain because the criterion which was used in order to eliminate him was not a factor which he could control in any way. Furthermore we could take a look at the big picture and see that the level of representation of women in certain work areas is a lot smaller compared to the one of men, and not because they are not interested in such jobs, but because the employers would rather have men working fro them then women. In an ideal society there would be no need for a regulation such as affirmative action. but, in an ideal society, women, minorities and men would actually have access equally to all the available resources.

An interesting issue is how can someone determine whether he got a job thanks to affirmative action or he lost it because of it? No Human Resources manager will say to a woman "you had the same skills as your male counter candidate but we chose you because we have only two women working for the company and that looks bad from the outside." At the same time nobody will tell a man "you did not get the job because your counter candidate was a woman." It is difficult to demonstrate that a candidate got a job based on affirmative action. It is however just as difficult to prove that it was from the same reason that he or she did not. "You are an apt candidates, but we are letting you go because we need to support women and minorities" is not a phrase that any HR manager will ever use even if he might think it.

The problem is, do people really believe in affirmative action? Do white males let us say understand the importance of letting women and members of minorities do the same jobs as they do? Are females capable of doing these jobs? It could be stated that we are in a situation similar to those times when men asked themselves if women had enough intellectual capacities in order to allow them to make a smart decision about a political candidate (the right to vote).

What is the ethical thing to do? Should someone count the number of young adult men and women and decide the rightful balanced proportion ( how many men should work in this industry and how many women) and then wait for men and women candidates to fill these numbers? Naturally qualifications are more important than gender, yet what affirmative action exists in order to remind employers that in the selection process they must think about that only and not refuse a candidate just because she is a woman or because they belong to a certain minority. "In determining whether an imbalance exists that would justify taking sex or race into account, a comparison of the percentage of minorities or women in the employer's workforce with the percentage in the area labor market or general population is appropriate in analyzing jobs that require no special expertise . . . . Where a job requires special training, however, the comparison should be with those in the labor force who possess the relevant qualifications." (Yelnosky, 1418)

It is here that we could speak about quotas, which "establish a definite number of people who must be hired. A Company cannot by law, use quotas unless it has been ordered to do so by a court to remedy a past action." (Hall and Albrecht, 1979, pp.47-48 in "*****") This is where affirmative action comes into place and it is safe to say that its goal is to correct the existing deficiencies. Although it might seem incredible, the dominance of the white male in the workforce was overwhelming until the birth of affirmative action principles. The labor market is still dominated by the white male figure, but at least women and minorities are represented.

"Affirmative action programs generally achieve their set goals through several common practices called outreach programs. First, there are special recruitment programs where women and minorities will most likely be found. These special outreach programs often target black universities and female dominated educational facilities. A second outreach program involves special advertising.

Generally, this is also implemented in areas that are heavily populated by women and minorities similar to that of recruiting programs. Through outreach programs like the ones mentioned above, goals can be attained to achieve equity and representation without forgoing higher educated and skilled applicants." ("*****") Therefore there is a concrete solution that can allow companies to respect affirmative action and at the same time make sure that their future employees are properly qualified.

The affirmative action principles can be implemented through affirmative action plans. What are the main things that someone ought to know about them? "A written AA Plan is a diagnostic component to evaluate the composition of the employer's workforce and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools. It consists of a narrative, statistical analyses and reports, support data on employment activity and impact ratio analysis/adverse impact analysis."("virginia.edu")

The main statistical analyses which an affirmative plan requires are the organizational profile/display/workforce analysis, the job group analysis, the comparison of incumbency to availability and the placement goals. "A workforce analysis is a listing of each job title as it appears in applicable collective bargaining agreements or payroll records ranked from the lowest paid to the highest paid within each department or other similar organization unit including departmental or unit supervisor while a job group analysis is a method for combining job titles within a contractor's establishment. This is the first step in the contractor's comparison of the representation of the minorities and women in its workforce with the estimated availability of minorities and women in qualified to be employed."

In addition, "The contractor must compare the percentage of minorities and women in each job group determined pursuant to §60-2.13 with the availability for those job groups determined pursuant to §60-2.14 and when the percentage of minorities or women employed in a particular job group is less than would reasonably be expected given their availability percentage in that particular job group, the contractor must establish a placement goal in accordance with §60.216." ("virginia.edu")

Furthermore, it could be stated that the good faith efforts that the employer makes in order to address underutilization of affirmative action plans in the work field it controls include initiatives such as internal auditing and reporting systems, training, policies, practices and procedures for outreach, recruitment, selection and every other term and privilege associated with employment" ("virginia.edu") it seems that the major danger is that of underutilization. According to the same source, Underutilization exists "when the percentage of minorities or women employed in a particular job group is less than would reasonably be expected given their availability percentage in that particular job group" (41 C.F.R. § 60-2.15) When underutilization exists, the employer is required to set a placement goal. Placement goals are not the same as quotas. Quotas or set asides for specific groups are illegal in employment decisions. Placement goals, in contrast, are "objective or targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action programs work"

Taking a look at the historical and political context which gave birth to affirmative action, it is safe to say that it was meant to protect and help less advantaged min. can we speak about women nowadays as a less advantaged minority and if so, with what implications? " Affirmative action means taking positive steps to improve the material status of the less advantaged in society, usually through the provision of educational or economic benefits. In the United States, affirmative action usually takes place through the provision of government or private benefits in education, employment, or contracting." ("encyclopedia.jrank.org")

As far as the forms that affirmative action can take, they vary "from rigid quotas to targeted outreach meant to encourage minorities to apply -- but all have in common the effort to increase the number of minorities in educational institutions, in the workplace, or in receiving contracts. Affirmative action programs differ in terms of how much weight they give to race as a factor in decision making and the extent to which they require results. For example, rigid quotas or set-asides that mandate that a certain percentage of beneficiaries be members of designated racial groups are very different from programs that use race as one factor among many in decision making. Likewise, there is a significant difference between the government's setting targets or goals and the government's mandating that there be specific results."

("encyclopedia.jrank.org")

"Quotas are rigid and exclusionary; they imply, "This is what you must achieve, no matter what." Goals are flexible and inclusive; they imply, "This is what we think you can achieve if you try your best." Goals are simply program objectives translated into numbers. They provide a target to strive for and a vehicle for measuring progress. The campus does not use quotas, but sets goals for those job groups where underutilization of minorities and women is identified" ("Berkeley.edu")

Taking a look at the manner in which the regulations regarding affirmative action are formulated it is easy to see how there is an attempt to prevent reverse discrimination and other forms of abuse. We have already mentioned the controversies which can arise because of the support given to women or members of minorities.

At this point of the discussion we could ask ourselves whether the social context which produced affirmative action is not by any chance so different from the contemporary one that this principle is no longer valid. In other words, it is true that women and minorities were categories which were under -represented in the work field and the fact that the state tried to improve things through affirmative action policies was the right thing to do. The voices which criticize affirmative action state that in the past such actions and measures were indeed needed, but that nowadays they are no longer useful to help those who used to be less advantaged. Instead, they claim that affirmative action policies can be easily turned into reverse discrimination, hurting the majority and being useless when it comes to improving the status of the minorities.

"Opponents of affirmative action do not contest the moral obligation to remediate past harm. Their objection to remedial policies is frequently centered on the claim that specific affirmative action policies will not help those who have in fact been harmed, but will sweep too broadly and provide benefits to those who do not deserve them. Sometimes opponents of affirmative action argue that the harm to be remediated did not occur, or if it did occur -- as in the case of racial discrimination in the United States -- the harm has dissipated so that remedial measures are no longer necessary." ("encyclopedia.jstor.org")

Those who support affirmative action also use the argument of diversity in order to defend their thesis. According to them, society as a whole can only benefit from the work contributions of people belonging to different genders and coming from different cultural backgrounds. Naturally, those who are against it claim either that there is no clear advantage coming from diversity or that race and gender do not represent factors relevant enough to create large scale social benefits. "Advocates for the diversity rationale argue that society as a whole benefits when affirmative action is used to maintain diverse schools, workplaces, and businesses. According to this argument, people from different backgrounds, cultures, and genders bring complementary skills that collectively enrich the places where they work and learn. Some affirmative action opponents reject the diversity argument outright. They claim there is no inherent social benefit to diverse work-places or schools. Others accept the assertion that diversity is a social benefit, but express doubt over whether racial or gender characteristics provide a meaningful basis on which to assess diversity's social benefit." ("encyclopedia.jstor.org")

Richard Delgado makes a very interesting point about the criticism which is often brought to affirmative action. He states that minorities are not protected by affirmative action principles because in the past they were subject to high injustice, but because such types of discrimination must no longer be tolerated nowadays. As far as the criticism is concerned, according to him, politicians like to do it because the question is easily subject to controversy. However, he underlines the fact that despite all the criticism, no measure is actually being taken against affirmative action, which proves exactly that there is no strong case against it.

"Liberals love talking about and sitting on committees that define, oversee, defend, and give shape to it. Conservatives are attached to the concept for different reasons: they can rail against it, declare it lacking in virtue and principle, and use it to rally the troops. Affirmative action is something they love to hate. The program also generates a great deal of paper, conversation, and jobs, probably more of the latter for persons of the majority persuasion than it has for its intended beneficiaries. Yet, despite its rather meager accomplishments and dubious lineage, a number of us have jumped on the bandwagon, maybe because it seemed one of the few that would let us on. " (Delgado, 2)

Despite all the voices which are contrary to affirmative action because they believe it helps discriminate the white male, "an impressive body of research shows that minorities and women are less likely to succeed in workplaces where they are present in token numbers. Discrimination is more likely to hold back blacks and women in the workforces with a dramatic racial or gender imbalance. Thus, an employer seeking to prevent future discrimination in the workplace might use preferences to achieve a better racial or gender balance." (Yelnosky, 1) in other words, as long as we can speak about differential workforce participation rates, differential earnings and job segregation there still is need for protective laws such as affirmative action.

Kanter declares that "people whose type are present in small numbers tend to be more visible, feel pressure to conform, often try to become invisible, find it hard to gain credibility, feel isolated and peripheral, can be excluded from informal peer networks, have fewer opportunities to be sponsored, face stress and are often stereotyped" (Kanter in Yelnosky, 1390).

Therefore, numbers are important. They affect not only those who are not part of the work process, but also those who are. "As the ratio in a workgroup of men and women reaches 65:35, the effects of minority status are less exaggerated: women become individuals differentiated from each other as well as a type differentiated from the majority. Outcomes for individuals in such a group will depend less on group membership and more on other personal factors, including differentiated abilities."(Kanter in Yelnosky, 1391).

From this we can deduct that if minorities and women are encouraged and supported this will allow them to use their personal qualities in a manner that will help the business achieve various benefits. This is a very important argument which can be used against the voices which criticize affirmative action stating that it brings no obvious advantage to business or to society in general.

We have already established that despite the fact that they are just as qualified as men, women are generally under represented in the workforce. What about the women who are occupying positions of equality with men in environments which used to be dominated by the male figure? "Other research, this in the area of sexual harassment, found that women "pioneers," those among the first to enter male-dominated occupations, often reported pervasive and severe harassment and hostility. The more recent research into this phenomenon confirms that women in male-dominated workplaces experience more harassment than women in other workplaces and that a gender imbalance in the workforce is a more likely predictor of sexual harassment than the presence of a woman in a traditionally male job as measured by national occupational statistics." ( Yelnosky, 1392)

In other words, despite the fact that women are encouraged and supported by the government through affirmative action in order to get more involved in the work field and to have access to the same positions as men, the facts demonstrate that the discrimination phenomenon persists under the form of harassment. Studies suggest that harassment is favored by the dominance of a single gender. The solution ought to be found in the creation of a stronger balance between gender representation in the work place. From here we can deduce that affirmative action is just as necessary as it was at the time when it was first formulated.

But is the cause of the social clash between genders ? Indeed we live in a patriarchal society, but this does not mean that men hate women and that women are disregarded because of their belonging to a gender not inferior, but simply different. "Krieger showed that much bias against women and minorities is not the product of a corrupt choice to discriminate, but instead results from the natural tendency of individuals to use categories.

Cognitive bias occurs, not consciously at the time of the adverse decision, but unconsciously and unintentionally when stereotypes caused by using categories (eg: "man," "woman," "black," "white") subtly distort the way an employer perceives, interprets, stores and then recalls information about an individual's job performance. Thus, at the moment of decision, biased decision makers can in good faith believe their decisions are based on -the facts-." (Krieger in Yelnosky, 2003)

Research suggests that the core of the problem is stereotyping and that this occurs in the absence of the people's intention. In other words, stereotypes are so strong that people often do not even realize that their actions are guided by them and not by what they believe to be their values and beliefs. What is then the practical solution?

"The implications for affirmative action seem clear: Employers could reduce discrimination against blacks in an organization by increasing their representation in the workforce. It appears that racial stereotypes can be changed through exposure to numerous examples of individuals who moderately disconfirm the group stereotype. However, a few examples may not suffice because people tend to respond to individuals who do not confirm a strongly held stereotype by creating a subtype rather than modifying the preexisting stereotype." (Kanter in Yelnosky, 2003) Once again we turn to the issue of the numbers and once again their importance seems to be overwhelming (just like the relevance of affirmative action being continuously exercised).

While affirmative action seems to be the solution, we must underline once more the complexity of the issue: "The increased salience of race or gender caused by their overt use in decision making can trigger more racial or gender stereotyping. For example, using preferences may tend to exacerbate subtle forms of intergroup bias in the evaluation of affirmative action beneficiaries if people assume those selected are less qualified and less capable than others. Finally, some studies show that preferences injure beneficiaries by creating or reinforcing an internal sense of stigma and self-doubt and by creating disincentives to investment in human capital." ( Yelnosky, 1395)

It is extremely important for the employees to understand that merits are the most important selection criteria and that factors such as gender and race are only a plus, and not the main elements which have influenced the selection. Once this happens, the employees will be able to perceive the others' presence as being normal and non-biased. This is the method through which those who do not benefit from affirmative action will become less resentful towards those who do benefit. At the same time, those who benefit from the advantages of affirmative action will more likely have less doubts about themselves and their merits. "Finding ways to promote identification with the larger group and to foster intergroup cooperation are especially important in minimizing potential backfire effects." ( Yelnosky, 1396)

"Several race- and sex-neutral practices has suggested might reduce intergroup bias involve decision making in the context of explicit fairness and antidiscrimination norms. For example, she suggests that employers carefully specify evaluative criteria and provide decision makers with a large amount of information on those criteria." (Krieger in Yelnosky, 1397)

" Studies show that when asked to make judgments about the characteristics associated with different classes of people, individuals are less likely to draw unfounded, stereotype-consistent associations "when they actually view, arrange, and make notes about the data from which judgments are to be made." Another fairness practice that may prevent stereotyping from influencing decisions is requiring decision makers to "consider the opposite;" i.e., to make the case for the option they are not selecting, or to summarize the evidence tending to contradict their conclusions. These approaches are also consistent with study results showing that people are less likely to activate stereotypes during periods in which they are kept "cognitively busy." Studies have found that "white evaluators were less likely to deliver disproportionately harsh sanctions to black targets" when they believed that their actions would be reviewed closely. Moreover, workplace practices consistent with norms such as equal consideration, fair and equal access and participation, professionalism, and respectful treatment can improve the workplace for all employees, which is also likely to reduce any backfire effect of the use of preferences." (Kanter in Yelnosky, 1397)

It is easy to see that while the state tries to help women and minorities acquire a better representation level in the workforce, the ultimate decision belongs to the employer. If we were to speak about a loop hole in the legislation, we might refer to the bona fide mention. The article states that an employer can engage in intentional discrimination "on the basis of . . . religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise."(Yelnosky, 1412)

Reading between the lines we understand that discrimination is allowed when it comes to the best interest of the company. At this point we might ask ourselves if this particular specification of the law does not actually allow for the annulment of the entire cause. The main argument that an employer can bring in order to justify discriminatory hiring practices is his good faith.

How can one demonstrate the absence of good faith of another person he does not even know under the circumstances in which he -the person who did not benefit from affirmative action -does have the necessary professional background to fir the required position? The formulation leaves a lot of room for interpretation, thus making things complicated. "But the standard diversity justification is about more than customer or co-worker preference for employees of a particular race or sex; it is based on the assertion that demographic diversity will improve the employer's products or services.

However, "a utilitarian justification lends itself to a utilitarian critique," and many "employers would be hard-pressed -- if pressed beyond platitudes -- to demonstrate the instrumental benefits of [demographic] diversity within their operations. To the contrary, demographic homogeneity may be more operationally efficient, particularly to the extent that a job requires the exercise of personal discretion, because the firm may choose to rely on the trust that comes from "homosocial reproduction' -- selection of incumbents on the basis of social similarity." (Yelnosky, 1414)

A further interesting aspect that can be discussed when speaking about affirmative action is represented by seniority. "Seniority systems eliminate arbitrary and discriminatory employer decisions by establishing length of service as the criterion for layoff and recall. Where a minority group member has been among the "last hired" in an expansionary phase for reasons of discrimination based on race, skill or whatever, the seniority system insures that the minority group member will be among those "first fired" in a subsequent contraction. Moreover, members of the group will be among those last recalled in a later period of expansion" ("Industrial and Labor Reviews," 686)

It is enough to read the paragraph above in order to grasp the importance of seniority and the impact it potentially has upon the beneficiaries of affirmative action. The "senior" is a person who has worked with the company for a long time. He has a lot of experience in the field and he is trusted in the organization. Another strategic advantage that he has is that he knows the company and all its members very well. Therefore seniority might have an impact upon affirmative action but not in a manner that can be controlled. In other words, a senior is most likely to be a more valuable resource for the company than a person who has been recently hired. It is only because of this that the seniority practices are justified. In the end, one must take into consideration the interest of the company which must be protected first and foremost .

"The extent to which seniority reinforces minority group sensitivity to economic conditions is largely dependent upon the flexibility of the collective bargaining agreement as it enables employees to protect themselves from layoff by transferring and upgrading within occupations and departments and affirmative action taken by employers to assign, train, and promote minority employees within the agreement to job classification less sensitive to layoff"("Industrial and Labor Reviews," 686)

When is seniority most likely to have an important impact upon other newer employees? When the company is likely to fire part of the staff due to the impossibility to maintain them. This does not happen constantly and not in all the industries. Therefore we must underline that the impact of seniority is felt especially in those work areas in which fluctuations in employment are more frequent.

Nevertheless sometimes strong conflicts occur between the beneficiaries of affirmative action and the ones of seniority. Let us take the example of a circumsstance in which the company must take a decision whether to favor seniority groups or to respect the quotas system. Gregory refers to a situation of the kind, stating "In W.R. Grace the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Fifth Circuit's enforcement of an arbitration award of backpay damages to senor male employees who were laid off while junior female employees were retained in accordance with the provisions of a conciliation agreement between the employer and the EEOC.

The terms of the conciliation agreement, which contained a quota system for layoffs, contravened the seniority terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Despite one arbitration award and repeated federal district court decisions sustaining the layoffs because they comported with the affirmative action conciliation agreement, the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court ultimately vindicated the union's position of strict adherence to the traditional seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreement "(Gregory, introduction)

Other researchers state "if the policy of using seniority and tenure to decide which school employees will be maintained is continued, those hired under comparatively recent affirmative action programs will be laid off. Educators should explore and give serious consideration to new policies that will not reverse the positive effects for minorities that have resulted from affirmative action programs. More successful remedies to eliminate the inequity that disproportionately affects women and minorities must be found; to do less would be to abandon a significant portion of the population and repudiate a long struggle for equity and equal opportunity." (Smith, 20)

Reading between the lines we understand that women and minority members, despite being supported through affirmative action, they are not completely protected by it. They ought to be able to face the employment fluctuations on their own and this means being prepared to do more than one job or be prepared to move from one geographical area to another.

Smith speaks about the crisis which exists in the educational sector and tries to address the manner in which both schools and professors could face the difficulties in a pro-active manner. Taking into consideration the fact that the financial crisis is shaking the entire world at present, it is worth looking at what these recommendations are: "a) Review policy alternatives such as early retirement programs, work-sharing programs, and leave of absence programs for existing staff. These program options may provide opportunities to offset the negative impact of retrenchment. b) Review all entry level and promotional criteria for all job classifications to determine their job -relatedness, their validity and their predictability of successful performance of employees on the job (..). c) Modify collective bargaining agreements to include an equal opportunity clause, a layoff procedure which considers factors other than seniority and tenure, and a promotional program which is equitable and job-related. Review any contractual provisions that could result in "adverse impact" for minorities, women and handicapped persons. Recognize the legal liability of school committees and professional associations for contractual agreements which are discriminatory or result in "adverse impact." "(Smith, 21)

Analyzing all the suggestions in the above paragraph, it is safe to say that the most relevant one refers to the modification of the collective bargaining agreements. If seniority is no longer the only factor which protects employees from employment fluctuations, then all the members of the staff are more or less protected in the same way. While this could work for the advantage of the beneficiaries of affirmative action, the seniors might have something to say against it (but this is not the interest of the present paper). An additional situation that we could imagine is one in which the seniors are also women or perhaps part of a minority of some kind. In these circumstances they could evoke both affirmative action principles and seniority rights.

Taking the discussion a step further, it must be underlined that affirmative action is not a quota system. "Affirmative action does not establish quota in hiring. Quotas are illegal for hiring decision. Rather, if underutilization is identified in the Affirmative Action Plan, placements goals will be developed for job groups with underutilization. Placement goals are objectives or targets which are reasonably attainable with good faith effort." ("virginia.edu")

Even in the case in which the organization is acting out affirmative action principles, this does not mean that solving underutilization is the most important principle. The qualifications of the candidates and their experience remain the most important factors to be taken into consideration.

It must also be reminded that having a written AA Plan does not imply that a company has fulfilled its obligations in this regard. The written affirmative action plan is only the staring point. The second step requires the actual implementation of the plan. From this point-of-view, it is clear that a good employer can be recognized from the efforts which he does in good faith in order to solve the underutilization issue. The elements which demonstrate the employer's good faith efforts to meet the affirmative action obligations throughout all the stages of the employment process include policies and procedures, outreach and recruitment and last but not least, workforce monitoring, analyses and reporting. ("virginia.edu")

Affirmative action sis translated into efforts which are meant to provide equal employment opportunities to all the citizens. This means that the person who is in charge of this within a company or organization provides equal access to all available jobs, training and promotional opportunities. In addition, similar benefits and services must be offered to everyone. Furthermore, all the policies and practices must be applied consistently to applicants and the staff. And just like the affirmative action principles state, no differentiation is to be made based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, medical condition, ancestry, marital status or age.

" in other words, EEO forbids employment discrimination and it requires the elimination of any bias in personnel activities. The roles of the supervisors handling affirmative action and employment opportunities are defined as being the following ones: 1) Ensure bias-free selection processes by forming diverse selection committees, evaluating candidates on job-related criteria, and completing and maintaining necessary records such as the Interview Data Form, 2) Promote accountability for EEO/AA by ensuring that responsibilities in this area are clearly indicated in the applicable job descriptions of managers and supervisors who report to you, 3) Evaluate the performance of your supervisory staff in implementing established EEO/AA responsibilities, 4)Educate yourself by participating in relevant training and education programs on campus and encouraging subordinate staff with EEO/AA responsibilities to do the same, 5) Provide reasonable accommodations such as assistive devices, job restructuring, and site modification for disabled staff members, 6) Maintain a hospitable work environment; ethnic jokes and harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, 7) Review all personnel activities for potential differential impacts on different groups and unintentional bias in such personnel actions as selection, salary increases, promotion, reclassification, layoff, corrective action, training, and termination, 8) Encourage and invest in staff development, ensuring that all staff have access to opportunities, 9) Make sure all staff are informed of the University's non-discrimination policy and the procedures for resolving discrimination complaints." ("Berkeley.edu")

Returning to the category which most interests the present paper, that is women, it must be mentioned that education is a key factor which can help them achieve the professional positions which they require. Women realized this soon after affirmative action was declared. If it was more difficult to get a job similar in terms of wage and importance to the one of a white male, the new existing regulation made access to university level studies easier for women. "At first, university administrators and faculty found the rules of Order No. 4 murky but hardly a threat to the established order. The number of racial and ethnic minorities receiving PhDs each year and thus eligible for faculty jobs was tiny. Any mandate to increase their representation on campus would require more diligent searches by universities, to be sure, but searches fated nevertheless largely to mirror past results. The Revised Order, on the other hand, effected a change that punctured any campus complacency: it included women among the "protected classes" whose "underutilization" demanded the setting of "goals" and "timetables" for "full utilization" (Graham 1990, 413). Unlike African-Americans and Hispanics, women were getting PhDs in substantial and growing numbers. If the affirmative action required of federal contractors was a recipe for "proportional representation," then Revised Order No. 4 was bound to leave a large footprint on campus. Some among the professoriate exploded in a fury of opposition to the new rules, while others responded with an equally vehement defense of them," ("stanford.edu")