Affirmative
action is a plan designed to end discrimination by
guaranteeing
minorities will be hired, regardless of race or gender. While
our country hires
such groups based upon these guarantees, the
qualifications of
such people are occasionally overlooked.
Many believe
that affirmative
action is a very effective plan; however, the population
which opposes
such action frequently includes people of various minorities,
as well as many
others who have been wronged by this plan
In several
cases, this plan
causes minorities to be perceived as being under-qualified
when hired; in
addition, it also causes a new minority, the white male.
Our government
must acknowledge the fact that affirmative action is not
putting an end to
discrimination; in all actuality, this plan has succeeded in
creating new
minorities, and more reasons for discrimination.
Affirmative
action frequently causes qualified employees to be
looked down upon
because some believe them to be "affirmative action
hires". Two of my female relatives are currently on
the police force; as a
result, I have
encountered many discriminatory comments pertaining to
their
positions. The first remark I usually
receive suggests that they were
hired for their
position solely based on gender. Another
comment which I
usually receive
is, "Well, being a woman probably didn't hurt their resume."
Both of my
relatives are very good at their jobs; one was even on the
popular
television show, Cops. Neither of them
are "wimps", yet most
males look down
upon them as being hired because of affirmative action.
This type of
criticism is received by many minorities holding good jobs,
whether they are
qualified or not. To quote William
Reynolds, assistant
attorney general
in the civil rights division:
In many cases,
affirmative action takes away from legitimate
minority success.
People look at the black banker
downtown who has
made it on his own and say, "He got his
job because of
affirmative action." Or, an employer hires a
few talented
minority people who would have succeeded
anyway and says,
"Those are my affirmative-action hires."
(26)
In this
particular case, affirmative action may, or may not, have
been the reason
for hiring, yet that is what most perceive.
People of any
race or gender
should be able to hold a job where their colleagues respect
them as equals,
not as "affirmative-action hires".
My cousin,
Christine, has also added to my knowledge on how well
affirmative action
works at the hospital where she works.
One of the
administrators
happened to be a black male--who was very qualified for his
position--yet
most of the staff accused him of being promoted because of
his race. This
affected his morality to such an extent that he resigned
shortly after his
promotion. Another black female--who was hired because
of her race and
gender--is not qualified for her position, yet is esteemed by
her colleagues
for her accomplishments. It seems that
minorities are
accepted to a
certain extent, until they become someone's boss. It is also a
scary situation
when a person has an under-qualified surgeon performing
surgery on them
because of affirmative action.
Affirmative
action insists that the employer must "[a]void the kind
of unnecessary
escalation of criteria for selection and promotion which has
sometimes been
used to keep certain classes of people from entering the
mainstream of our
economic life" (Berry 19). This aspect of the plan
creates more
openings for minorities; however, it also suggests that the
standards should
be maintained at a low to guarantee these openings. In
my opinion, if
the standards for any position are raised, the productivity
and accuracy of
the country will rise accordingly. When
the policy of
affirmative
action is to almost lower the standards of our society, this
sacrifices
quality for the sake of equality. Roy
Wilkins, a former Executive
Director of the
NAACP, stated to the congress:
Our association
has never been in favor of a quota system.
We believe the
quota system is unfair whether it is used for
or against
blacks...We feel people ought to be hired because
of their ability,
irrespective of their color...We want
equality,
equality of opportunity and employment on the
basis of ability.
(qtd. in Reynolds 26)
If the people
which affirmative action was made for are against
most of it's
principles--and the white male loses jobs because of it--why is
the majority so
supportive of this plan?
One of the most
powerful arguments for affirmative action is based
upon claims from
minorities who believe that they deserve a certain amount
of compensation
because of the past discrimination which they have
received. Diana Axelson, chairperson of the Department
of Philosophy of
Spelman
College, states this in her essay,
"Affirmative Action
Compensates for
Past Discrimination", by claiming, "The first form of
compensation
which seems appropriate is compensations...for injuries they
themselves have
received as a result of individualized or institutionalized
racism and
sexism" (33). In my opinion, the
blame of past wrongs should
not be put upon
the employer, nor should something which happened in the
past be a factor
in hiring practices. To quote Michael Levin, professor of
philosophy:
Other past wrongs
have left their traces-acts of theft,
despoliation,
fraud, anti-Semitism-yet society has no
organized policy
of rectifying those wrongs. It surely
seems
that if the
consequences of one kind of wrong should not be
allowed to
unfold, neither should those of any other.
(40)
Although society
may sympathize with past wrongs, it is not any
employer's
obligation to compensate these people; further, it would be a
great injustice
to society's majority to ignore them in order to accomplish
this.
Affirmative
action is a successful plan in theory, but hiring a certain percentage of
minorities--qualified
or unqualified--has turned into a larger problem than what already
existed. In all actuality, the hiring requirements of
affirmative action have caused the
white male to
become a minority because they cannot be hired unless the required
percentage of
minorities are already employed. A more
effective method of hiring fairly,
without
discrimination, may be a faceless and nameless interview. If perspective
employees could
send in their resumes, be assigned a number, fill out a written interview,
and be hired
entirely based on their qualifications, this would solve many of the problems.
Using this method
to hire and promote would guarantee the most qualified people would
be hired, and
there could be no accusations of choosing a person solely on their race or
gender. We live in a country where a certain percent
of the work force is hired based
entirely on their
race or gender, not their qualifications.
It is quite obvious that affirmative
action does not
fulfill the intended purpose; contrary to its objective, this plan has only
created more
discrimination than could ever be imagined.
No comments:
Post a Comment