Unit 3: Business and its Internal Constituencies Chapter 4: Ethics of job discrimination Lesson 19: Affirmative Action Dear

Students, today let us talk about reservations (affirmative action) in educational institutions, government jobs etc. Points to be covered in this lecture: Affirmative action arguments for and against affirmative action. Racism Molly has just been accepted at Stanford University and calls her friend Terri to tell her the good news. MOLLY: Hi, Terri! Guess what? TERRI: Hey, Molly! What happened? MOLLY: I got accepted to Stanford!!!! TERRI (surprised and disappointed): Oh. Cool. MOLLY: Thanks, Ter---you sound soo enthused! TERRI: Oh, I am. I have to go---my Mom's calling me for dinner. MOLLY: Oh, ok. See ya! TERRI: Bye, Molly. The two girls hang up with each other. Terri picks up the phone and calls her friend Monica. MONICA: Hello? TERRI: Monica? It's Terri . MONICA: Hey, Terri! Whats up? TERRI: Listen to this, Mon. Molly got into Stanford! MONICA: Oh, that's great! I'm so happy for her!

TERRI: What? Why? MONICA: Terri, Stanford is like the hardest school to get into in the country! Why shouldn't I be happy for her? TERRI: Well, I didn't get in. MONICA: Oh, I didn't know---I'm sorry. TERRI: I don't understand how she got in, though. I have a higher GPA and SAT scores than she does. MONICA: Maybe she had a better application. TERRI: Or maybe it's what was on her application. MONICA: What do you mean? TERRI: Oh, come on, Mon! Molly's black! MONICA: Yes, and. . .? TERRI: Don't you see? IT'S CALLED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! MONICA: Terri, give me a break TERRI: Oh, please. You know it and I know it: She only got in because of her race and because she's poor. Her GPA is really low and so are her SAT scores. MONICA: Did you ever stop and think that maybe she had a good essay? TERRI: Yes, but we've both read some of Molly's papers, and we both know she can't write. Listen, Monica, if you're Black, Asian, Native American, Mexican, or any other minority and poor you've got it made. You can be as stupid as Forrest Gump---which most of them are---and you can still get into any college. It's not fair at all. MONICA (angry): No, you know what isn't fair? That I'm sitting here listening to my socalled "friend" insult my intelligence and my race. How dare you sit here and tell me that the only way I'll ever get into college is through my race. Listen, honey, the only way I'm getting to college is through my brains, and from talking to you it looks like I have a lot more than you! After reading this conversation you must have understood that our focus is on affirmative action. These two girls were talking about affirmative action, which made one

person happy and one person very sad. So, what is affirmative action? What do we mean by this term? In this lecture we will understand this concept. Affirmative Action:

All of the equal opportunity policies discussed are ways of making employment decisions blind with respect to sex and race. These policies are all negative: They aim to prevent any further discrimination. They, therefore, ignore the fact that as a result of past discrimination women and minorities do not now have the same skills as their white male counterparts and that because of past discrimination women and minorities are now underrepresented in the more prestigious and desirable job positions. The policies discussed so far do not call for any positive steps to eliminate these effects of past discrimination. First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs or Affirmative Actions seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination against women and racial minorities. These programs are designed as temporary measures to increase the employment and educational opportunities available to qualified women and minorities by giving them preference in hiring, promotion, and admission. Toward this goal, some firms and institutions aggressively recruit minorities and women, others set numerical targets and timetables to raise the level of minority and female representation, and still others establish quotas to hire or admit a specified number of minority and female candidates. In order to rectify the effects of past discrimination, many employers have instituted affirmative action programs designed to achieve a more representative distribution of minorities and women within the firm by giving preference to women and minorities. Affirmative action programs, in fact, are now legally required of all firms that hold a government contract. What does an affirmative action program involve? The heart of an affirmative action program is a detailed study (a "utilization analysis") of all the major job classifications in the firm. The purpose of the study is to determine whether there are fewer minorities or women in a particular job classification than could be reasonably expected by their availability in the area from which the firm recruits. The utilization analysis will compare the percentage of women and minorities in each job classification with the percentage of those minority and female workers available in the area from

which the firm recruits who have the requisite skills or who are capable of acquiring the requisite skills with training the firm could reasonably supply. If the utilization analysis shows that women or minorities are underutilized in certain job classifications, the firm must then establish recruiting goals and timetables for correcting these deficiencies. Although the goals and timetables must not be rigid and inflexible quotas, they must nonetheless be specific, measurable, and designed in good faith to correct the deficiencies uncovered by the utilization analysis within a reasonable length of time. The firm appoints an officer to coordinate and administer the affirmative action program, and undertakes special efforts and programs to increase the recruitment of women and minorities so as to meet the goals and timetables it has established for itself. Supreme Court decisions have not been clear about the legality of affirmative action programs. A large number of federal court decisions have agreed that the use of affirmative action programs to redress imbalances that are the result of previous discriminatory hiring practices is legitimate. Moreover, in 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that companies legally can use affirmative action programs to remedy a "manifest racial imbalance" whether or not the imbalance resulted from past discriminatory job practices. In June 1984, however, the Court ruled that companies may not set aside the seniority of white workers during layoffs in favor of women and minority workers hired under affirmative action plans so long as the seniority system was adopted without a discriminatory motive. Thus, although affirmative action programs that give preferences to women or minorities as a group were not declared illegal, their effects could disappear during hard times since the "last hired, first fired" rule of seniority would hit strongest at women and minorities recently hired through the programs These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women and minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has increased 50 percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial positions has jumped fivefold. In 1970, women comprised only 5 percent of lawyers compared to 20 percent today. Affirmative action programs have been attacked mainly on the grounds that, in attempting to correct the effects of past discrimination, these programs themselves have become racially or sexually discriminatory. By showing preference to minorities or women, the programs institute a form of "reverse discrimination" against white males. A forty-five-year-old electrical worker at a Westinghouse plant, for example, is quoted as saying What does bother me is the colored getting the preference because they're black. This I am against. I say, I don't care what his color is. If he has the ability to do the job, he should get the job-not because of his color. They shouldn't hire 20 percent just because they're black. This is discrimination in reverse as far as I'm concerned. . . . If they want it, they can earn it like I did. I am not saying deprive them of something-not at all Affirmative action programs are said to discriminate against white males by using a non-relevant characteristic-race or sex-to make employment decisions, and this violates justice by violating the principles of equality and of equal opportunity.

As civil rights groups press for more aggressive and comprehensive preferential treatment programs to eliminate such inequities, opposition to these programs mounts. According to one poll, a majority of whites and one-third of blacks oppose preferential treatment for minorities. Opponents have long charged that the programs discriminate against white males. Recent critics, including several noted black scholars, argue that preferential treatment programs victimize and stigmatize minorities, increasing friction among groups. But defenders of the programs hail them as the most expedient and fairest way to overcome racial and sexist barriers in our society. Are preferential treatment programs morally justified? The arguments used to justify affirmative action programs in the face of these objections tend to fall into two main groups. One group of arguments interprets the preferential treatment accorded to women and minorities as a form of compensation for past injuries they have suffered. A second set of arguments interprets preferential treatment as an instrument for achieving certain social goals. Whereas compensation arguments for affirmative action are backward looking insofar as they focus on the wrongness of past acts, the instrumentalist arguments are forward looking insofar as they focus on the goodness of a future state (and the wrongness of what happened in the past is irrelevant). We will begin by examining the compensation arguments and then turn to the instrumentalist arguments. In Defense of Preferential Treatment Affirmative action as compensation Arguments that defend affirmative action as a form of compensation are based on the concept of compensatory justice. Compensatory justice, as we noted implies that people have an obligation to compensate those whom they have intentionally and unjustly wronged. Affirmative action programs are then interpreted as a form of reparation by which white male majorities now compensate women and minorities for unjustly injuring them by discriminating against them in the past. One version of this argument holds, for example, that blacks were wronged in the past by American whites and that consequently blacks should now receive compensation from whites. Programs of preferential treatment provide that compensation. The difficulty with arguments that defend affirmative action on the basis of the principle of compensation is that the principle of compensation requires that compensation should come only from those specific individuals who intentionally inflicted a wrong, and it requires them to compensate only those specific individuals whom they wronged. Compensatory justice, however, does not require that compensation should come from all the members of a group that contains some wrongdoers, nor does it require that compensation should go to all the members of a group that contains some injured parties.

Since affirmative action programs usually benefit all the members of a racial or sexual group, regardless of whether they specifically were discriminated against in the past, and since these programs hinder every white male regardless of whether he himself specifically discriminated against someone in the past, it follows that such preferential programs cannot be justified on the basis of compensatory justice. In short, affirmative action programs are unfair because the beneficiaries of affirmative action are not the same individuals who were injured by past discrimination, and the people who must pay for their injuries are usually not the ones who inflicted those injuries. Various authors have tried to counter this objection to the "affirmative action as compensation" argument by claiming that actually every black person (or every woman) living today has been injured by discrimination and that every white person (or every male) has benefited from those injuries. It is unclear whether these arguments succeed in justifying affirmative action programs that benefit groups (all blacks and all women) instead of specific injured individuals and that penalize groups (white males) instead of specific wrongdoers.Has every minority and woman really been injured as Thomson claims, and are all white males really beneficiaries of discrimination as Redish implies? And even if a white male happens (through no fault of his own) to benefit from someone else's injury, does this make him "liable" for that injury? Affirmative action as an instrument for achieving social goals A second set of justifications advanced in support of affirmative action programs is based on the idea that these programs are morally legitimate instruments for achieving morally legitimate ends. Utilitarian, for example, have claimed that affirmative action programs are justified because they promote the public welfare. They have argued that past discrimination has produced a high degree of correlation between race and poverty. As racial minorities were systematically excluded from better-paying, and more prestigious, jobs, their members have become impoverished. Impoverishment in turn has led to unmet needs, lack of self-respect, resentment, social discontent, and crime. The public welfare, therefore, will be promoted if the position of these impoverished persons is improved by giving them special educational and employment opportunities. If opponents object that such affirmative action programs are unjust because they distribute benefits on the basis of an irrelevant criterion such as race, the utilitarian can answer that need, not race, is the criterion by which affirmative action programs distribute benefits. Race provides an inexpensive indicator of need because past discrimination has created a high correlation between race and need. Need, of course, is a just criterion of distribution. And appealing to the reduction of need is consistent with utilitarian principles since reducing need will increase total utility. The major difficulties encountered by these utilitarian justifications of affirmative action have concerned, First, the question whether the social costs of affirmative action programs

(such as, the frustrations felt by white males) outweighs their obvious benefits. The utilitarian defender of affirmative action, of course, will reply that the benefits far outweigh the costs. Second, and more important, opponents of these utilitarian justifications of affirmative action have questioned the assumption that race is an appropriate indicator of need. It may be inconvenient and expensive to identify the needy directly, critics argue, but the costs might be small compared to the gains that would result from having a more accurate way of identifying the needy. Utilitarians answer this criticism by arguing that all minorities (and women) have been impoverished and psychologically harmed by past discrimination. Consequently, race (and sex) provides accurate indicators of need.

Although utilitarian arguments in favor of affirmative action programs are quite convincing, the most elaborate and persuasive array of arguments advanced in support of affirmative action have proceeded in two steps: 1. First, they have argued that the end envisioned by affirmative action programs is equal justice, and 2. Second, they argue that affirmative action programs are morally legitimate means for achieving this end. A third end of affirmative action programs is to neutralize these competitive disadvantages with which women and minorities are currently burdened when they compete with white males, and thereby bring women and minorities to the same starting point in their competitive race with others. The aim is to ensure an equal ability to compete with white males. The basic end that affirmative action programs seek is a more just society, a society in which an individual's opportunities are not limited by his or her race or sex. This goal is morally legitimate insofar as it is morally legitimate to strive for a society with greater equality of opportunity. The means by which affirmative action programs attempt to achieve a just society is giving qualified minorities and females preference over qualified white males in hiring and promotion and instituting special training programs for minorities and females that will qualify them for better jobs. By these means, it is hoped, the more just society outlined will eventually be born. Without some form of affirmative action, it is argued, this end could not be achieved. But is preferential treatment a morally legitimate means for attaining this end? Three reasons have been advanced to show that it is not: 1. First, it is often claimed that affirmative action programs "discriminate" against white males. Supporters of affirmative action programs, however, have pointed out that there are crucial differences between the treatment accorded to whites by preferential treatment programs and immoral discriminatory behavior. To discriminate, as we indicated earlier, is to make an adverse decision against the

member of a group because members of that group are considered inferior or less worthy of respect. Preferential treatment programs, however, are not based on invidious contempt for white males. On the contrary, they are based on the judgment that white males are currently in an advantaged position and that others should have an equal opportunity to achieve the same advantages. Moreover, racist or sexist discrimination is aimed at destroying equal opportunity. Preferential treatment programs are aimed at restoring equal opportunity where it is absent. Thus, preferential treatment programs cannot accurately be described as "discriminatory" in the same immoral sense that racist or sexist behavior is discriminatory. 2. Second, it is sometimes claimed that preferential treatment violates the principle of equality itself ("Individuals who are equal in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be treated equally") by allowing a non relevant characteristic (race and sex) to determine employment decisions. But defenders of affirmative action programs have replied that sexual and racial differences are now relevant to making employment decisions. These differences are relevant because when society distributes a scarce resource (such as jobs) it may legitimately choose to allocate it to those groups that will best advance its legitimate ends. Since, in our present society, allocating scarce jobs to women and minorities will best achieve equality of opportunity, race and sex are now relevant characteristics to use for this purpose. Moreover, as we have seen, the reason that we hold that jobs should be allocated on the basis of job-related qualifications is that such an allocation will achieve a socially desirable (utilitarian) end: maximum productivity. When this end (productivity) conflicts with another socially desirable end (a just society), then it is legitimate to pursue the second end even if doing so means that the first end will not be as fully achieved. 3. Third, some critics have objected that affirmative action programs actually harm women and minorities because such programs imply that women and minorities are so inferior to white males that they need special help to compete. This attribution of inferiority, critics claim, is debilitating to minorities and women and ultimately inflicts harms that are so great that they far outweigh the benefits provided by such programs. This third objection to affirmative action programs has been met in several ways: First, while many minorities concede that affirmative action carries some costs for minorities themselves, they also hold that the benefits of such programs still outweigh the costs. A black worker, for example, who won several jobs through affirmative action, is reported as saying, "I had to deal with the grief it brought, but it was well worth it." Second, proponents of affirmative action programs also argue that these

programs are based not on an assumption of minority or female inferiority but on recognition of the fact that white males, consciously or unconsciously, will bias their decisions in favor of other white males. The only remedy for this, they argue, is some kind of affirmative action program that will force white males to counter this bias by requiring them to accept that proportion of minority applicants that research shows are qualified and willing to work. As studies repeatedly show, even when women and minorities are more qualified, white males are still granted higher salaries and positions by their white male counterparts. Moreover, they claim, the unjustified attributions of inferiority that many minorities experience are the result of lingering racism on the part of coworkers and employees, and such racism is precisely what affirmative action programs are meant to eradicate. A third response that supporters of affirmative action make is that although a portion of minorities may be made to feel inferior by current affirmative action programs, nevertheless many more minorities were made to feel much more devastatingly inferior by the overt and covert racism that affirmative action is gradually eroding. The overt and covert racism that pervaded the workplace prior to the implementation of affirmative action programs systematically disadvantaged, shamed, and undermined the self esteem of all minorities to a much higher degree than is currently the case. Finally, proponents argue that it is simply false that showing preference toward a group makes members of that group feel inferior: For centuries white males have been the beneficiaries of racial and sexual discrimination without apparent loss of their self-esteem. If minority beneficiaries of affirmative action programs are made to feel inferior, it is because of lingering racism, not because of the preference extended to them and their fellows.

Strong arguments can be made in support of affirmative action programs, then, and strong objections can be lodged against them. Because there are such powerful arguments on both sides of the issue, the debate over the legitimacy of affirmative action programs continues to rage without resolution. The review of the arguments, however, seems to suggest that affirmative action programs are at least a morally permissible means for achieving just ends, even if they may not show that they are a morally required means for achieving those ends The end that affirmative action programs are supposed to achieve is phrased in various ways: (1) In our present society, it is argued; jobs are not distributed justly because they are not distributed according to the relevant criteria of ability, effort, contribution, or need. Statistics show that jobs are in fact still distributed according to race and sex. One end of affirmative action is to bring about a distribution of society's benefits and burdens that is consistent with the principles of distributive justice, and that eliminates the important position race and sex currently have in the assignment of jobs.

(2) In our present society, women and minorities do not have the equal opportunities that white males have and that justice demands. Statistics prove this. This lack of equal opportunity is because of subtle racist and sexist attitudes that bias the judgments of those (usually white males) who evaluate job applicants and that are so deeply entrenched that they are virtually ineradicable by good faith measures in any reasonable period of time. A second end of affirmative action programs is to neutralize such conscious and unconscious bias in order to ensure equal opportunity to women and minorities. (3) The lack of equal opportunity under which women and minorities currently labor has also been attributed to the privations they suffered as children. Economic privation hindered minorities from acquiring the skills, experience, training, and education they needed to compete equally with white males. Furthermore, since women and minorities have not been represented in society's prestigious positions, young men and women have had no role models to motivate them to compete for such positions as young white males have. Arguments Against Preferential Treatment Opponents of preferential treatment programs argue that when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different. In deciding who should be hired for a job or admitted to a college or university, the relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex. To award or deny benefits on the basis of race or sex is as unjust as traditional discriminatory practices. Moreover, preferential treatment programs unjustly ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them.

Those who oppose preferential treatment programs also claim that if the purpose of the programs is to compensate for past discrimination or present disadvantages, then only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference. Current preferential treatment programs, however, favor members of selected groups regardless of whether an individual member has ever suffered discrimination. In fact, most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot.

Critics of preferential policies further argue that society's burdens ought to be distributed fairly among its members. Preferential treatment programs are unfair because they impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or

higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices or for rectifying present inequalities than any other individuals. It is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation. Programs awarding preference according to race or sex are also opposed on the grounds that they cause much more harm than good: 1. First, with these programs in force, those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen. The inevitable result is reduced productivity and efficiency in the work place and the lowering of academic standards in colleges and universities.

2. Second, preferential treatment programs harm minorities and women by stigmatizing them and devaluing their achievements. They encourage the belief that all minorities and women gain entry to jobs or universities primarily because they are members of under represented groups and not because they are qualified. Minority individuals may question whether the rules were bent in their case, leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence.

3. Third, preferential treatment programs encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the work place or classroom.

4. Fourth, as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups.

5. Finally, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. And members of groups excluded by preferential treatment programs today will demand tomorrow to be compensated for opportunities denied them. Already the nation is witnessing a barrage of allegations and lawsuits filed by non-minorities charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission.

While the harms resulting from preferential treatment are considerable, critics charge, the benefits are questionable. Giving preference to women and minorities fails to benefit the individuals within these groups who are most likely to have suffered the effects of discrimination and thus most deserving of compensation; the most disadvantaged individuals often lack, the qualifications and skills even to be considered for employment positions or college placement. This is borne out in reports that cite a growing gap between poor blacks with little education and job skills and affluent blacks able to take advantage of a wide variety of employment and educational opportunities. Nor is it clear that even those minorities and women qualifying for preferential treatment benefit from such special consideration. Recent studies reveal a high dropout rate among minority college students admitted under affirmative action programs. At U. C. Berkeley, for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in 1984 had graduated by 1989 compared to 73 percent of Anglos. The high rate of failure that follows the award of employment and educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these groups. Overview: First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs or Affirmative Actions seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination against women and racial minorities. Affirmative action can be viewed as compensation for past injustices, and to achieve social objectives. However, critics of affirmative action say that preferential treatment considers race and sex, and not merit, of the individual.

Activity Why is affirmative action practised in society?