13 Jun DESCRIBE THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN COURT CASE AND ITS IMPLI- CATIONS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
Read Issue 1 and write a 2 page paper summarizing the issue.
IT 1
Legal Environment
What rights should employees have? Should federal laws sup- port employees? HRM practices in the U.S. corporate world enjoy a very strong federal support. This section addresses some laws that have been introduced to attain an equal opportunity work environment. Affirmative action was introduced in the 1960s to reduce racial discrimination while the Americans with Disabilities Act appeared in the early 1990s to miti- gate disability discrimination. The Sarbanes–Oxley Act was introduced in the early 2000s as a result of the corporate scandals the U.S. corporate world witnessed. Should employees be allowed to express their religion at the workplace? What kind of federal interventions do we need to make the work environment fair and just?
• Is Affirmative Action Still Necessary?
• Is the Americans with Disabilities Act Being Abused in the U.S. Workplace?
• Has the Sarbanes–Oxley Act Helped the U.S. Corporations?
• Should Employees Be Allowed to Wear Symbols of Faith in the Workplace?
ISSUE 1
Is Affirmative Action Still Necessary?
YES: David L. Chappell, from “If Affirmative Action Fails . . . What Then?” New York Times (May 8, 2004)
NO: Jonathan Kaufman, from “Fair Enough? Barack Obama’s Rise Has Americans Debating Whether Affirmative Action Has Run Its Course,” Wall Street Journal (June 14, 2008)
Learning Outcomes
After reading this issue, you should be able to:
• Gain an understanding of the challenges of affirmative action programs.
• Describe the University of Michigan court case and its impli- cations on affirmative action.
• Discuss the case of Brown v. Board of Education and its conse- quences on affirmative action.
• Identify how affirmative action programs are adopted in other countries.
• Define the terms preferential treatment and reverse discrimination.
ISSUE SUMMARY
YES: David L. Chappell, a columnist and public speaker, believes that affirmative action programs are still required as our society continues to live in racial segregation in tacit and non-tacit ways. He feels that affirmative action programs will benefit individuals who are truly in need of better opportunities in academe or the corporate world.
NO: Jonathan Kauffman, education editor at Bloomberg, believes that affirmative action programs should refocus their overarching goals so that the truly disadvantaged get opportunities to advance.
He emphasizes how President Obama, an African American, is the highest political leader today, making policymakers question that affirmative action programs need to be readdressed.
The term affirmative action was introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 to address the issue of racial discrimination that existed at that time. It was federally mandated in 1965 by the issuing of Executive Order 11246. The main goal was to remedy past acts of discrimination against protected groups (such as African Americans, women) who did not have similar labor opportunities in the workforce. Affirmative action is legally mandated for all federal contrac- tors ($50,000 and 50 or more employees) and can also be a legal settlement in discrimination law suits.
Affirmative action is implemented through utilization analysis and affirmative action plans. The utilization analysis is a statistical method of com- paring percentages of the organization’s internal labor force with those of the external labor force. The affirmative action plans provide goals as to remedy any underrepresentation of protected groups.
The consequences of affirmative action being implemented in the 1970s and 1980s were that educational institutions saw a reduction of achievement gaps between white and minority students. Further in the 1990s, as the busi- nesses became increasingly global, they benefited from a diverse qualified work force that was able to provide better work solutions.
However, preferential treatment and reverse discrimination have become contentious outbursts of affirmative action plans. Preferential treatment is the process of proactively hiring underutilized groups into the organization’s workforce. Reverse discrimination is when dominant groups (such as white males) begin to feel discriminated against during the employment process as a result of preferential treatment. A high-profile reverse discrimination court case is that of Alan Bakke, a qualified white male student, who was refused medical school admission in 1978 due to a quota system (a predetermined number) adopted by school during the admission process. The quota system kept 16 seats out of 100 seats for minority applicants. The outcome of this case resulted in courts prohibiting the use of quota systems in any admission process.
The Supreme Court ruling in 2003 supported the view that affirmative action plans can be applied to students at the university level. The judges affirmed that a diverse university student population will help students under- stand the dynamics and nuances of today’s global work force. Organizations are becoming increasingly global in their interactions today with almost 700 out of 1,000 large U.S. firms stating that their international operations exceed those of their domestic operations. Proactive affirmative efforts will also gradu- ally mitigate the racial disparity experienced at high-profile U.S. universities. Affirmative action will attract protected individuals to careers and universities they might have not considered if there were no such programs. Do we not want see a diverse society?
Chappell states celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Edu- cation is a well-deserved victory for affirmative action proponents. In Brown v. Board of Education, racial segregation in public schools was deemed unlawful as it went against the tenets of the Constitution. The case began when an African American Linda Brown was not allowed to attend a white elementary school near her house. She had had to walk quite a distance to get to her “black” elementary school. Her father, with other disgruntled parents, sued the board of education. The board of education argued that as separation between races was the norm at that time, it would only help both races to experience this concept in their schooling also. The board suggested that great American lead- ers attended “segregation schools”—hence such schools should not carry a negative connotation. The case was heard initially in the district court and subsequently in the Supreme Court. In 1954, the Supreme Court made the hallmark decision to ban segregation of races in public schools.
Chappell suggests while this law is clearly put into practice today, racial segregation continues to permeate at other levels. Ms. Cashin, a law professor from Georgetown, supports this viewpoint, contending that the first step in creating this segregation problem is real-estate properties. Housing properties are becoming very largely racially segregated as real-estate agents sell proper- ties as “black or white” neighborhoods. They imply to customers that they will feel at home if they choose “racially appropriate” neighborhoods. Racial segregation is further strengthened by federal housing laws that make sure the properties are distinguished by economic classes creating racially based neighborhoods. This racial segregation of neighborhoods has unfortunately created public schools systems that are seemingly dominated by one race or the other. While we do not have obvious racial segregation in schools, neigh- borhoods have created their own closed societies and racial schools. This defi- nitely dampens academic opportunities for certain races, making affirmative action still a necessity.
Chappell reiterates that affirmative action laws are still required as races live and experience predominantly in their own separate cliques. However, affirmative action programs need to refocus on groups who are truly disadvan- taged today. These programs need to address the needs of racial groups who are economically disadvantaged and truly need the help of federal interven- tions. Such groups would benefit tremendously as they have been unfairly left behind and affirmative action programs would provide them meaningful education or appropriate work. Though the Michigan law school case sup- ported affirmative action at university levels, the judge concluded hoping that affirmative action programs might not be needed 25 years hence. This was disturbing for many who feel that this program is still sine quo non (essential).
However, opponents of affirmative action plans feel that providing preferential treatment sets a stigma suggesting their performance (academic or job) requires federal intervention and support. Employees and students have expressed negative behavior because of preferential treatment. Further, it attributes any individual’s hard work for academic or job admission to be a result of external factors. Further, opponents argue that if we continue with affirmative action mandated three decades ago, the U.S. society continues to live in shades of black and white. Do we still want to live in a color-biased society?
Critics are skeptical about affirmative action programs as they observe Senator Obama rise to be president of the United States. The nation witnessed an African American individual reaching the highest political position in the nation today. Further, we have several women and African American indi- viduals holding high positions in political, academic, and corporate life. This program was enacted initially in 1960s to provide opportunities for special groups who were denied employment and academic opportunities. Today we see these “protected” people in the highest corporate boardrooms and educa- tional institutions. Do we need affirmative action programs still?
Opponents of affirmative action are convinced that affirmative action results in reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination suits continue to dominate legal courtrooms even today. Recently, white and Hispanic fire- fighters in New Haven, Connecticut, won a reverse discrimination suit as the city of Connecticut threw out the test scores of white and Hispanic employ- ees on a promotional exam as African Americans firefighters did not receive high scores on the same tests. The city management threw the tests out as they feared lawsuits from African Americans about the promotional test being racially based. The firefighters won as they claimed their race and skin color was discriminated against for further employment opportunities.
A concluding twist to this debate is whether such programs are quintes- sentially American. Have other countries initiated federal programs for disad- vantaged groups? In fact—yes they do. India provides affirmative programs to people from different castes (distinct labor groups) and Malaysia offers support to different ethnic groups (Muslims and Chinese). These groups are truly dis- advantaged and the local governments have taken proactive action to help in their personal advancement.
YES David L. Chappell
If Affirmative Action Fails . . . What Then?
The 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision this month is a well-deserved feel-good moment for civil rights strategists, but it is only a temporary distraction from the deep conflicts that remain.
Many people earnestly believe that aggressive remedies like affirmative action are still necessary to eliminate the inequality at which Brown made only a glancing blow. Even the most ardent supporters of affirmative action are frustrated, however, because of its persistent unpopularity and its very limited success in closing the academic and economic gaps between black and white Americans.
The Supreme Court’s decision last year involving the University of Michi- gan Law School, though it defended a form of affirmative action, appears to put a 25-year limit on the court’s tolerance of even the most scrupulously moderate considerations of race. In the companion decision on Michigan’s undergraduate program, the court banned broader forms of affirmative action altogether.
So what now?
Of the shelfload of new books that try to answer that question, “The Pur- suit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action” by Terry H. Anderson (Oxford University Press) is a good place to get your bearings. Following the politi- cal scientist John David Skrentny and the historian Hugh Davis Graham, Mr. Anderson emphasizes the “ironies of affirmative action,” the policies’ logical contradictions and perverse effects. Mr. Anderson, a history professor at Texas A&M, defends many of the policies from simplistic attack. But he makes clear that the best defense of affirmative action has always been that the alternatives to it are even worse.
Mr. Anderson will surprise many with his reminder that the federal government did not commit itself to affirmative action until the Republi- can administration of Richard M. Nixon. Racial hiring preferences had been declared illegal after President Lyndon B. Johnson’s brief experiment with them. Nixon revived them, Mr. Anderson says, partly from political calcu- lations. Democratic liberals would be forced to defend and expand Nixon’s affirmative action policy. Black hiring preferences would supersede white workers’ hard-won seniority rights, thus driving a wedge between union mem- bers and black voters. Nixon was able to capitalize on the division by the end of his first term, turning against his own initiatives and other strong remedies, like court-ordered busing. As Nixon hoped, white rank-and-filers abandoned the Democrats in droves.
Opposition to affirmative action persisted, partly because racists resented black success. But people who were not racists also found it hard to justify violating the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause to serve its deeper purpose. And when affirmative action worked at all, it tended to aid those who least needed aid: black students who had already qualified for university admission or come very close. That increasingly meant affluent black students with college-trained parents. Affirmative action offered little to those who suf- fered most from racism, the poor.
Sheryll Cashin, a law professor at Georgetown, offers the most refreshing path away from the confusion: integration, a goal so long out of fashion that it is ripe for revival. In “The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class Are Undermining the American Dream” (PublicAffairs), she warns upwardly mobile black parents that their growing separatism is a swindle even as she sympathizes with their desire to forgo fighting for acceptance in their neighborhoods. Black enclaves in leafy suburbs are now available. But one of the selling points of these enclaves—the huge racial discounts on nice houses that white buyers won’t con- sider because too many neighbors are black—make the benefits short-lived. Real estate agents steer black buyers into these areas, emphasizing that they will “fit in.” They don’t mention that economic development is moving away from these areas or that underfinanced schools and services often explain much of the racial discount. Black enclaves are often closest to declining areas of the city.
Ms. Cashin addresses the white middle class with equal seriousness, see- ing among them too many flight risks. They, too, are getting cheated. As the rich hunker down in gated communities or otherwise remove themselves from the common tax base, they stick the rest of America with the bill for their extended sewer lines and commuting time (increased road maintenance, pol- lution, accidents).
Ms. Cashin presents historical evidence that America’s unusual stratifica- tion does not result from individual choices or market forces. Laws have trapped a desperate underclass in ghettos and ferried a decadent overclass away. The Fed- eral Housing Administration, created in 1937, underwrote one-third of all new housing construction in its first 35 years. Its manual required that all properties “continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes.” The Interstate Highway Act (1956), in addition to subsidizing oil barons in Texas and Saudi Arabia, directly displaced 330,000 poor families, mostly black. State laws made things worse. A combination of new town charters (which encourage creation of low-tax havens), zoning laws (which artificially concentrate both poverty and wealth) and local building codes (which make housing affordable to a select stratum) have sharply segregated, and to some extent created, social classes.
The recent vintage of these policies is important. The widespread barriers—which are arguably more harmful than legal segregation or the lin- gering effects of slavery—created the world we live in today.
In “Silent Convenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform” (Oxford University Press), Derrick Bell tacks in the opposite direction from Ms. Cashin, insisting that separatism is unavoidable and that benefits can be had within it. It is significant that Mr. Bell, who pro- vocatively posits that black people might have been better off without the Brown decision, still strongly supports affirmative action. White opponents of affirmative action were deluded, he writes: affirmative action never deprived them of opportunities or benefits. This is hard to square with Mr. Bell’s advo- cacy of slave reparations. His logic seems to be: white people resisted giving black people their due when it cost them nothing. Why don’t we try making them pay a lot of money instead?
Mr. Bell’s main theme is the “interest convergence” theory he advanced 24 years ago—that white leaders grant concessions to black people only to prevent upheaval or otherwise serve their own interests. The theory was novel not so much for its realism as for the outrage that Mr. Bell conveyed when explaining it. Though many call him a cynic, Mr. Bell, a visiting professor at New York University Law School, still appears deeply hurt that white people do not voluntarily give up their privileges.
Mr. Bell’s most practical section covers alternatives to school desegrega- tion. He will irritate liberals and union supporters by advocating experiments with vouchers, along with charter schools and single-sex education. Unfortu- nately, he leaves the proposals underdeveloped. Showing advanced symptoms of academic celebrity, he may be too busy to put in the long hours of contem- plation or to do the digging necessary to come up with fresh, factually rich arguments to vie with Ms. Cashin’s.
Charles Ogletree Jr., a professor at Harvard Law School, names Mr. Bell as a mentor and is clearly on the celebrity track with him. Like Mr. Bell, he is a brilliant lawyer, but he writes evenhandedly in “All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education” (W. W. Norton), more like a judge than Mr. Bell, who is content to advocate one side. Mr. Ogletree shares Ms. Cashin’s concerns about black flight and, like her, takes economic divisions, including those within the black population, very seriously. The best part of his book is an invigorating memoir of his rise from poverty. He found opportunity and hope in desegregation, which balance his disappointment with Brown’s unfinished business.
Mr. Ogletree gives critics of reparations a fair hearing, though he ulti- mately rejects their arguments. His proposal for reparations, one of many in this wide-ranging book, is his most fully developed idea—perhaps because he is preparing a related suit, on behalf of victims of the Tulsa race riot in 1921. Since the Tulsa victims are few, and since they sustained direct injuries, their case sidesteps some of the objections to reparations for slavery: slavery was perfectly legal until 1865; its victims and perpetrators are long dead; only rac- ists think guilt is genetically transferable. (So far, the Tulsa suit does not answer the objection that, politically, reparations are a pipe dream.)
If the suit helps revive black commitment to the freedom struggle, or white support, it will revive the most elusive part of the struggle’s half-century- old heyday. If not, the frustrations of the affirmative-action era may not go away so much as change form.
Jonathan Kaufman NO
Fair Enough? Barack Obama’s Rise Has Americans Debating Whether Affirmative Action Has Run Its Course
Warren, Mich.—Stan Sheyn, a white student who attends community college in this working-class Detroit suburb, supports Barack Obama for presi- dent. But he has no time for what he calls “double standards and propagation of victim mentality.”
“The fact that a black man can run for the position of the President of the United States of America only corroborates that there is enough opportunity and equality for great things like that to happen,” he says. “And that there is no need to create special advantages for any demographic group.”
Electra Fulbright, a black small-business consultant in prosperous South- field, Mich., couldn’t disagree more.
“Obama’s privileges and his accomplishments are minute compared to the black population at large,” says Ms. Fulbright, who plans to vote for Sen. Obama. “When we talk about Obama, we are not talking about the average black American. There is injustice in this country, and until we correct it, we need affirmative action.”
Few issues have been as incendiary in the workplace and on college campuses as affirmative action—in large part because so many blacks and whites have been personally affected by affirmative action, in ways both good and bad.
Now, Sen. Obama’s rise is prompting some whites to ask—and some blacks to fear—the question: Does America still need affirmative action, given that an African-American has made it to the top of American politics?
The question has been asked before, as other blacks have risen to high positions. But Sen. Obama’s swift ascent to the verge of the presidency may have created a turning point in the debate.
The issue of affirmative action is likely to dog Sen. Obama on the cam- paign trail as he seeks to win over white blue-collar voters in battleground states like Michigan. For many of these voters, affirmative action has been divisive since the 1970s. Ward Connerly, a prominent affirmative-action oppo- nent, is seeking to place anti-affirmative action referendums on the ballot in Arizona, Nebraska and Colorado. Voters would be asked to ban “preferential treatment” of women and minorities in state university admissions, the filling of state-funded jobs and awarding of state contracts.
White anger over affirmative action has diminished as the Supreme Court has systematically narrowed the scope of programs in colleges and the workplace. Still, the gap between black and white opinion remains wide.
More than half of blacks—57%—say the country should make “every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving preferential treatment,” according to a poll conducted last year by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan Washington think tank that studies social attitudes. Just 27% of whites agree with that view. The same poll shows that nearly half of whites—48%—believe the U.S. has “gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country.” Far fewer African Americans—27%—agree.
Opinions about affirmative action vary depending on how researchers word their questions; support tends to grow, for example, when the ques- tion describes the programs in more detail. But the Gallup polling firm says that regardless of the wording, all of its surveys on affirmative action show blacks overwhelmingly support it, while whites tend to be much more divided.
Sen. Obama’s success has also stirred an uncomfortable debate within the black community over who has reaped the gains of affirmative action. Some argue the policies skew toward middle-class blacks instead of poor blacks, and have favored too many individuals like Sen. Obama—people with a biracial background or the children of African and Caribbean immigrants, as opposed to blacks born in the U.S.
In a 2000 interview with the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Sen. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, said: “I have no way of knowing if I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the [Harvard Law] Review. If I was, then I am certainly not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.”
Sen. Obama’s newfound prominence has also prompted some success- ful blacks to wonder whether his achievements, and theirs, mean affirmative action should be modified to help poor and working-class whites.
“You have this traditional assumption that whites have made it and have it all—that ‘because I am black, I am disadvantaged,’ and ‘because I am white, I am advantaged,’” says Rev. Carlyle Stewart, who holds degrees from the University of Chicago and Northwestern and heads a large middle-class black church in Southfield, a short drive from Warren. “It may be time to broaden that discussion.”
Sen. Obama “believes that no one can deny that our country has made tremendous progress in the past 50 years,” said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor in a statement. “But the suggestion that somehow Senator Obama’s campaign represents an easy shortcut to racial reconciliation is just not real- istic.” He said Sen. Obama believes “affirmative action in universities today is appropriate only if race is one of many factors. The Supreme Court has made that clear.”
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain opposes “affirma- tive action plans and quotas that give weight to one group of Americans at the expense of another,” says McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. “Plans that result in quotas, where such plans have not been judicially created to remedy a specific, proven act of discrimination, only result in more discrimination and violate the concept of equality of opportunity.”
Affirmative action began in 1961, when President Kennedy issued an executive order declaring that federal contractors should “take affirmative action” to integrate their work forces.
The initiative broadened to include policies that favored women and minorities in hiring and promotion at work and in college admissions, the goal being to overcome past discrimination.
Many whites charged that this amounted to “reverse discrimination.” In the landmark Bakke case of 1978, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of affirmative action, declaring unconstitutional the use of some rigid quota systems. But it upheld the principle of affirmative action.
In 2003, a more-conservative Supreme Court again upheld the principle of affirmative action, but narrowed the interpretation still further, adding in a majority opinion, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial prefer- ences will no longer be necessary.” Opponents of affirmative action recently filed another suit challenging affirmative action in Texas.
Many economists and sociologists agree that affirmative-action pro- grams have helped spur the growth of the black middle and upper classes, defined as households making more than $40,000 a year. Today, this group accounts for about 40% of black households, up from about 25% in 1970, according to U.S. Census figures. During that same period, the percentage of white households in the middle class and above has risen to about 60%, from just under 50%.
Affirmative action policies have helped blacks gain access to large corpo- rations and top universities, studies have shown, and the presence of blacks in these places has encouraged others to follow. The number of African Americans at the country’s top 50 colleges and universities has doubled in recent decades, according to Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University economist. Women have benefited, too, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when they began breaking into traditionally male-dominated fields.
Michigan’s Macomb County is home to many of the fabled “Reagan Democrats,” the conservative working-class whites who left the Democratic Party largely over social issues including race in the 1980s. Here, life has been changed by affirmative action and the rise of the black middle class. In the past five years, the African-American population has doubled to about 6% from about 3%, in part as blacks have left Detroit for safer suburbs with better schools.
Such changes make some whites here wonder why affirmative action is needed at all. “If blacks are living in the same houses that I am living in, and they can afford the same things I can afford, why shouldn’t I have the same breaks as they do?” says Tony Licata, a professional photographer in Macomb County who is white and says he is leaning toward voting for Sen. McCain.
“Race should not be the deciding point about who gets what,” says Jessalin Horne, a white working-class college student who plans to vote for Sen. Obama in the fall.
In conversations, many white blue-collar and middle-class workers in Macomb County said they blame competition from China, India and else- where for their job losses, not competition from blacks. But the economic battering that many poor and working-class whites have taken as Michi- gan’s auto industry has shrunk makes some whites feel that it’s their turn for a leg up.
“I have been a supporter of affirmative action, but it needs to be refocused—other groups need to be included,” says Marceia Lugo, a divorced white mother of three whose mother and ex-husband have left Michigan to look for work. Ms. Lugo says she backed Sen. Clinton but will now vote for Sen. Obama. “I am not black, so I don’t know those issues. But I have been poor, and I have had to struggle, so I should get special treatment.”
A half-hour drive from Warren lies Southfield, Mich., a leafy, integrated middle-class and upper-middle-class suburb that is a testament to the impact of affirmative action. Barbara Talley, now a retired financial analyst and a Southfield resident, became one of the first black owners of a KFC franchise in the 1980s, after Rev. Jesse Jackson lobbied the company to sell more fran- chises to African Americans. Wanda Cook-Robinson, Southfield’s black school superintendent, has been the first black in several teaching and administrative positions at area schools. “That wouldn’t have happened without affirmative action,” says Ms. Cook-Robinson.
Many blacks here don’t want to lose the boost that they say affirmative action gives them. Stephen Kemp, a successful black funeral director in South- field, sends his son to a $24,000-a-year private high school. His son, a junior, has been receiving letters from elite colleges wooing him to apply. “When they look at his application they see he is an African-American male—he has so much opportunity,” says Mr. Kemp, who himself attended the University of Michigan. “Brown called him yesterday.”
Mr. Kemp thinks it is fine that his son gets special attention, because diversity on campus benefits whites as well as blacks. “If you are getting a true education, that has to reflect all kinds of people,” he says.
The election, especially Sen. Obama’s success in winning white voters, has Mary Donaldson thinking that affirmative action is likely to fade away in coming years as the country continues to change. “My son is 9 years old. Just because he is black, he can’t think he’s going to get special treatment,” says Ms. Donaldson, who works at a pre-school in Southfield and supports Sen. Obama. “I don’t want him to totally depend on something like that.”
Twyla Griffin, who works for a health-care company and attends church in Southfield, says she thinks bias lives on. “It’s fear—‘this black boy is going to take my little white Johnny’s job,’” says Ms. Griffin. Affirmative action, she says, simply levels a still-tilted playing field.
“It would be great if Obama made all the decisions for us, but there are a lot of people who still have decision-making power who are still a little preju- diced,” says Marilyn Hobbs, an intellectual-property manager who supports Sen. Obama.
James Jackson, a black banker and another Obama supporter, nods in agreement. He says he doesn’t put his photograph on his business card like many of his white colleagues, because he thinks it will discourage white customers. “Race is a real issue still, no matter what happens in November,” he says.
EXPLORING THE ISSUE
Is Affirmative Action Still Necessary?
Critical Thinking and Reflection
• What suggestions would you have to mitigate the effects of racially segregated neighborhoods and schools?
• If you were making the decision on the test scores that the New Haven firefighters took, what would you have done? Why?
• Should policymakers identify new groups that should be included as “protected groups” in affirmative action? Which groups would you suggest and why?
• Why do we need affirmative programs when we have protected group members as our president and Supreme Court judge?
• Explain how the affirmative action programs in India are different from those of the United States?
Is There Common Ground?
The most important guiding principle of affirmative action is to provide and enhance opportunities to individuals who are truly disadvantaged either at the workplace or education. The word disadvantaged has many times carried wrongful interpretations, which has led to ugly lawsuits. Policymakers even suggest that EEOC identifies new groups that can be included in affirmative action programs. The affirmative program was established initially to protect women and African Americans in the 1960s as they were largely discriminated at that time. Today, we have females as leaders of Fortune 500 companies and African Americans leading the nation. Should we reconsider the focus of the affirmative action programs? What about other groups that are truly disad- vantaged? For instance, what about economically disadvantaged groups? And economically disadvantaged groups who are white? Their skin color does not allow them to currently qualify for affirmative action. Why should they not benefit from such programs? What other groups of people do you think can benefit from being included in affirmative action programs?
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Writedemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.