The Ethical Sides of Affirmative Action
At just over 50 years old, the
debate surrounding Affirmative Action (AA) is heating up yet again. Those favoring and those opposing AA are
gearing up for another round of discourse to discuss whether AA promotes racism
or provides opportunities for minorities.
The question for this blog is not to determine its effectiveness but
rather its ethicality.
Ethics is often separated into two
distinct theories: consequentialism and the deontology. According to LaFallotte
(2007), “consequentialism claims that we are morally obligated to act in ways
that produce the best consequences” (p. 23).
In short, “the ends justify the means.”
The other theory, deontology, purports there are strict rules upon which
to follow and that “we can be confident that we know how we should act and how
to morally evaluate ours and others’ actions” (p. 24).
Taking these theories and applying
them to AA would lead us to assume:
Under
consequentialism, AA is beneficial
because it provides more jobs to minorities regardless of what society thinks,
assumes, or believes. For example,
blacks were discriminated against and have suffered at the hands of white
authority. AA gives them more jobs;
therefore, it is ethical.
Under
deontology, AA is harmful because, as
a nation, we are trying to promote equality.
AA, by definition, focuses on race and makes decisions on the basis of
the skin color. It is often referred to
as “positive discrimination” and/or “reverse discrimination.” In other words, we are still judging people by
skin color and therefore the program is unethical.
The America Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) (2013) said, “Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for
redressing the injustices caused by our nation's historic discrimination
against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an
uneven playing field. A centuries-long
legacy of racism and sexism has not been eradicated despite the gains made
during the civil rights era. Avenues of
opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow. We need affirmative action now more than ever.”
On the other side of the aisle, and
as recent as yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addressed current
AA programs at a university by saying, “"The University’s professed good
intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such
intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and
segregationists." Thomas further said
the [Affirmative Action] policy hurts those black and Hispanic students who are
admitted more than those who are not. "Although cloaked in good
intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims
to be helping” (Johnson, 2013).
LaFollete (2007) discusses arguments
for and against affirmative action.
Three of the most common arguments against affirmative action are: it
promotes reverse discrimination, it penalizes those who have done no wrong, and
as Justice Thomas mentioned above, it stigmatizes blacks. Also, as mentioned above, the first point
against AA is that it focuses on the issue of race (p. 87-94). In short, “two wrongs don’t make a right” (p.
88). Those opposed to AA believe time
heals all wounds and that whites today should not be penalized for sins of
distant lineage. Lastly, and oft
mentioned is that AA stigmatizes blacks.
Many of those who reject AA programs believe that where AA policies are
practiced, even the most qualified minority will be considered an AA hire
rather than one who earned the position through hard work and effort.
LaFollete (2012) also provides
justification for affirmative action.
The primary three reason supporting AA are that racism still exist and
without policies such as affirmative action, less minorities would have jobs. AA is needed because it provides equality of
opportunity. By implementing AA, society
exposes blatant racism and eliminates its ability to operate unfettered. And
lastly, AA programs force employers and school officials to think more fairly
about their hiring practices.
Along those lines, in 2003 the NFL
established The Rooney Rule after
Pittsburgh Steelers’ owner Dan Rooney.
As chairman of the NFLs diversity committee, Mr. Rooney established the
rule to require NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching
positions and senior football operation jobs.
Currently, the Steelers head coach, Mike Tomlin, is an African
American. While the rule does not
guarantee minority coaches will be hired, there are currently three black NFL
head coaches.
It is obvious that Hugh LaFollette
is a proponent of affirmative action.
Personally, I see both sides of the issue. I do believe there are measures we must take
as a society to provide more high-level positions for minorities but I do not
believe affirmative action is the primary means with which our society should
pursue it. I think it can still be an
effective programs but not one that operates in isolation. I think there are other programs our nation
should continue pursuing; such as, education, awareness training, providing
opportunities such as the Rooney Rule, and continuing to promote regular
diversity training.
Removing qualified candidates from
contention merely for their skin color seems unethical regardless of the
reasoning. While racism still exists
today it is not as pervasive as it once was and our children are learning more
and more to appreciate diversity. Again,
I understand the premise behind affirmative action but I get concerned that as
leaders, we are continuing the racial divide and training our children to see
individual differences in an unhealthy manner.
The ACLU said, “According to 1998
U.S. Department of Labor statistics, blacks are almost twice as likely as
whites to be unemployed. The unemployment rate is also higher for Latinos than
for whites. Blacks and Latinos generally earn far less than whites. In 2000,
the median weekly earning for blacks was $459; for Latinos, it was $395. In
that period, average income for whites was $590. Workers of color are still
concentrated in the less well-paying, unskilled sector.”
This is a serious national issue
that needs to be addressed at the executive level. Executives and CEOs should be having regular
discussions about racial diversity. Along
with certain affirmative action policies, Human Resource personnel must
advertise and welcome the opportunities to minorities. This can be done by advertising jobs in areas
that otherwise might not get a chance to see the opening.
The goal is inclusion. Morality promotes equal opportunity. Ethics promises integrity and
character—especially in the workplace and hiring practices. Whether companies rely solely on affirmative
action or other measures to promote diversity and equality, the first place we
all must start is within ourselves. Our
speech and behaviors should line up with the moral standards undergirding equal
rights. Regardless of your ethical
affiliation, when it comes to equality, the right thing is always looking past
skin color and into the character of the person. To quote Dr. King, “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.”
Steve
References:
American Civil Liberties Union.
(2013). Affirmative Action. Retrieved from
Johnson, L. (2013). Clarence Thomas
compares affirmative action to slavery and segregation in
opinion. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment