Affirmative Action Plans: Purpose, Policy, and Compliance

Introduction to Affirmative Action

Employment discrimination has historically sidelined minorities, women, veterans, and people with disabilities in favor of the majority population. Affirmative action plans are designed to address this inequity by providing equitable access to employment opportunities. Through statistical analyses of workforce demographics, affirmative action programs work to eliminate the negative effects of employment discrimination in an inclusive manner, without regard to gender, race, or disability (HRUnlimited, 2018).

Affirmative action is a major concern for many employees. The laws governing it affect all federal government workers, as well as private medium-sized to large-scale enterprises. Students in institutions of higher education — approximately 16 million in the United States — are also affected by affirmative action laws. Citizens frequently debate whether affirmative action policies are fair. The United States openly claims fairness in all its employment practices, yet history suggests otherwise. The government has not always treated all individuals equitably, regardless of gender or ethnicity. As a result, any law that highlights disparity tends to spark heated debate. The media plays a significant role in disseminating information related to affirmative action (Golden, Hinkle & Crosby, 2001).

Confusion about what affirmative action actually is has persisted over the past few decades. Proponents and opponents of the policy have rarely agreed, and differing views are common across the general population. Many citizens know little about the basic principles or the technical mechanics of affirmative action. A survey of Chicago residents found that 40% mistakenly believed affirmative action to be a type of quota system, and those individuals tended to oppose it. About half of the sampled population believed it to be a monitoring system and, consequently, supported it. Such differences in perception and endorsement have continued for decades (Golden, Hinkle & Crosby, 2001).

Despite the large number of Americans affected by affirmative action, the policy is not well explained in high school or college curricula. It is therefore unsurprising that many graduates cannot comfortably define it. In 1995, President Bill Clinton publicly evaluated affirmative action, prompting scholars to count articles on the topic published in mainstream outlets — The Washington Post, USA Today, and The New York Times — over a three-month period covering June, July, and August. Of the 176 articles counted, fewer than ten clearly defined affirmative action, suggesting that authors were often reporting on a subject they did not fully understand (Crosby & Cordova, 1996).

The Need for Affirmative Action

In terms of costs, affirmative action is more expensive to implement than simple equal opportunity measures. It has also been known to generate criticism unlike almost any other policy. This criticism can have a negative effect on the very groups the policy is meant to benefit, because persistent questions about its merits undermine its legitimacy. Those who do not identify as minorities tend not to see the benefit of affirmative action, while those who do identify with a minority group generally endorse it strongly (Crosby & Konrad, 2002).

The question therefore remains: is affirmative action truly necessary? What is the value of a policy that places significant burdens on organizations in the name of assuring fairness? How can a proactive policy ever persuade an organization to abandon less costly reactive approaches? Social psychologists offer some of the best answers to these questions. In 1982, a team of psychologists developed the theory known as "the denial of personal discrimination." This describes the tendency of an individual to distance himself from the discrimination experienced by others in his social group. Consider, for example, a person of color living in a predominantly white community. Many Black residents may fear and actually experience discrimination when searching for jobs or accessing vital services such as healthcare. Yet one individual from that same group may manage to rise above his racial circumstances, believe in his own ability, and access opportunities just as white residents would. Such a person is said to have denied his personal discrimination. Research has also shown that discriminated individuals can accept their circumstances and take steps to minimize the effects of discrimination. Western Europeans and North Americans, however, generally do not find appropriate any policy that requires discriminated persons to explain or justify themselves (Day, 2001).

An average person will make every effort to avoid being discriminated against. When they discover that someone has taken advantage of them, the resulting anger can be intense. Consider, for example, a woman of color who has long denied any likelihood of being disadvantaged because of her race or gender. When she finally confronts this reality, she is likely to feel significant rage. Such explosive anger can carry serious organizational costs. A typical organization operates most effectively when internal affairs are predictable. An enraged employee may sue the company, exposing it to substantial financial liability. Statistics indicate that organizations lose anywhere between $100,000 and $1 million when sued for discrimination (Bergmann, 1996).

Who Needs an Affirmative Action Plan?

Virtually all employers must adhere to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) laws. However, a documented Affirmative Action Plan is specifically required for the following types of companies:

• Federal contractors and subcontractors with more than 50 employees
• Companies with contracts worth more than $50,000
• Companies handling contracts with government bills of lading totaling more than $50,000 in any one-year period
• Companies where the government deposits funds
• Financial institutions acting as agents for U.S. savings bonds (HRUnlimited, 2018)

References

Bergmann, B. (1996). In defense of affirmative action. Basic Books: New York.

Crosby, F. J., & Konrad, A. M. (2002). Affirmative action in employment. Diversity Factor, 10(2), 5–9. Elsie Y. Cross Associates, Inc.

Day, J. C. (2001). Retelling the story of affirmative action: Reflections on a decade of federal jurisprudence in the public workplace. California Law Review, 89, 59.

Golden, H., Hinkle, S., & Crosby, F. J. (2001). Reactions to affirmative action: Substance and semantics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 73–88.

HRUnlimited. (2018). Affirmative action compliance programs. Retrieved from https://www.hrunlimitedinc.com/services/compliance/