Workplace Discrimination and Preferential Hiring Debate

Introduction: The Preferential Hiring Debate

In recent years, preferential hiring has become an issue of great interest. Preferential hiring, which was devised to create harmony between different races and sexes, has in practice divided those lines even further. Supporters on both sides seem fixed in their positions and often refuse to engage with the other group's platform. As an African-American woman, there have been times when I believe I was not hired due to my gender and race. In this essay, however, the hypothetical scenario concerns a professorship at the university level, with roughly equal candidates. The hiring cases in question involve several candidates, all roughly equal in their qualifications — including experience, education, and people skills — with the only difference being race and/or gender (Nelson, 2009). To buttress the argument, we will focus on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a broad basis for the prohibition of discrimination in the workplace.

In this scenario, we have a case of predetermined preference. The two candidates in question are equal in all ways except race. The Black applicant is selected not because of skills or qualifications — in that case the white candidate would have produced the same result — but for his skin color. This may appear to be blatant discrimination, yet many believe it is justified. Some feel that retribution for years of discrimination is reason enough, a claim this essay will address in due course.

Why Preferential Hiring Fails as a Solution

First, let us consider why preferential hiring is not a solution to creating an unbiased society. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." He desired a world without discrimination, without prejudice, and without stereotypes. The fundamental lesson that decades of discrimination should have taught us is that giving anyone preference based on skin color, sex, or religious belief is, in a word, wrong. As King articulated, judgment based on skin color must not exist. All preferential hiring does is keep judgments based on skin color alive. Race and gender should not be determining factors in today's society, yet preferential hiring continues to make them so, by treating minorities as a group rather than as individuals (King, 1963; Colaiaco, 1989).

More importantly, preferential hiring may actually fuel, rather than extinguish, feelings of racial hostility. Applying the concept of preferential hiring to other situations helps illustrate its shortcomings. Imagine a party of white men and a party of Black men arriving at a restaurant at the same time, with only one table free. According to preferential hiring logic, it would be necessary to seat the Black party first, since historically Black patrons have been discriminated against in restaurants. In another situation, a white man and a Black man are both equidistant from the last seat on a bus, equal in age, health, and every other respect except skin color. Should the Black man receive the seat simply because Black men have historically been discriminated against in such settings? Carried to its logical conclusion, this practice could continue for centuries before the accumulated "debt" would be repaid.

Perhaps these analogies are imperfect. It could be argued that jobs are a different matter entirely — they define social status, provide economic well-being, and may even restore self-confidence that discrimination has stripped away. Two points are often raised in favor of preferential hiring: first, that Black students may learn better from Black teachers, and women from women; and second, that hiring women and Black candidates provides role models for others. The second point, however, requires scrutiny that will, in effect, undermine the first as well. We must also remember that discrimination in hiring operates in multiple directions — it is, in a sense, colorblind. In the academic case examined here, the African-American candidate was hired while the woman was not, raising its own concerns of bias within the hiring committee (Rushevsky, 2002; Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination — including sex-based discrimination — by trade unions, schools, or employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government. The Act prohibits discrimination in a broad array of private conduct, including public accommodations, governmental services, and education. Title VII specifically prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, and national origin. It covers virtually every aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, wages, assignment, promotions, benefits, discipline, discharge, and layoffs (Loevy, 1997).

Employers subject to Title VII's jurisdiction include trade unions, schools, and employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government. The EEOC's governing law also covers employment agencies. The origins of Title VII can be traced as far back as 1787, with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting religious discrimination. In 1864, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments abolished slavery and established equal protection for all U.S. citizens. The Civil Service Act of 1883 replaced political patronage with merit-based hiring, eliminating the so-called "spoils system." The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established minimum wage, overtime compensation, and child labor protections. Executive Order 8587, issued by President Roosevelt in 1940, declared that public employment could not be denied on the basis of race, creed, or color. Also in 1940, the Ramspeck Act banned discrimination in the federal civil service on those same grounds (Ibid).

In 1948, Executive Order 9980 under President Truman established a Fair Employment Board within the Civil Service Commission. In 1955, Executive Order 10950 under President Eisenhower directed that equal employment opportunity be afforded to all persons in federal government service. An executive order under President Kennedy introduced the concept of affirmative action by directing "positive measures" to eliminate discrimination, both direct and indirect. In 1961, the Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, outlawing wage discrimination based on sex, though it did not apply to federal, state, or local governments at the time (Dierenfield, 2008).

Conclusion: Toward a Society Judged on Character and Merit

It may be idealistic to suggest that we simply set aside the issue of race. However, overt discrimination is waning, and it has become a clearly enforceable crime to discriminate. There is no compelling reason to believe that anyone in today's society cannot achieve whatever he or she sets out to accomplish. Hard work and diligence will ultimately prevail, and in time race and gender will cease to be decisive factors. The goal must be to make race and sex irrelevant in employment decisions, and preferential hiring only keeps these issues alive.

The aspiration should be to build a society modeled on Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream — one in which the issues of race and sex fade from prominence, leaving people to be judged solely on their character, skills, and ability to perform within academic, professional, and business environments.

References

Casenotes. (2003). Employment discrimination. Aspen Publishers.

Colaiaco, J. (1989). Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Carlson Publishing.

Cordes, R. (1994). The obese gain protection under disabilities law. Trial, 30(1), 85.

Dierenfield, B. (2008). A history of the civil rights movement. Longman.

King, M. L., Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Retrieved from

Loevy, R., et al. (Eds.). (1997). The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The passage of the law that ended racial segregation. State University of New York Press.

Nelson, T. D. (2009). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Psychology Press.

Player, M. (2004). Federal law of employment discrimination in a nutshell. West.

Powell, B. (1988). Meeting the EEO challenge: An insider's strategy for EEOC compliance. Alexander Hamilton Institute.

Rooth, D.-O. (n.d.). Automatically activated stereotypes and differential treatment against the obese in hiring. IZA Discussion Paper No. 3799. Available at SSRN:

Rushevsky, M. (2002). Public policy in the United States at the dawn of the twenty-first century. M. E. Sharpe.

Rutherglen, G. A. (2007). Employment discrimination law. Foundation Press.

Uhlmann, E., & Cohen, G. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474–480.