LGST 210
Should employers be able to hire whomever they want, on whatever terms they are able, or should there be significant rules about non-discrimination and anti-nepotism put in place as to hiring and terms of employment? Explain your position in terms of moral and/or economic factors.
Samuel Ward
LGST 210-002
Matthew Lister
12/19/2014
Workplace morality and hiring ethics Following my graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, I will be flung into the job-search market competing against millions of other well qualified students. What is interesting however, is that I am equipped with my usual resume items: GPA, my major, extra-curricular achievements, etc…, and I have the advantage of being mixed-race. As a dual citizen, I can better fit the diverse profile that firms today are seeking. The underlying issue is that these employers are facing pressure to hire individuals that increase the racial, gender, and economic background diversity of the company. Even though it might give me the slight preference I need, I reject the belief that these non-discrimination profiles should be met and instead support the claim that employers should not be constrained in their decision making. Hirers should select applicants without bias and match them with their job according to their own merit and character. Any affirmative action should not be based on gender nor race, but instead should be financially based in order to provide a fair chance for success. The purpose of affirmative action is to “level the playing field”; to ensure that no matter the race, gender, or economic disadvantage, there is an equal opportunity for everyone. In the context of the hiring process, it means that nobody should be overlooked due to those reasons. According to American philosopher Louis P. Pojman (1998), there is a division in the overreaching topic of affirmative action. Pojman separates the topic into two classes: weak and strong affirmative action with the
Samuel Ward
LGST 210-002
Matthew Lister
12/19/2014
Workplace morality and hiring ethics Following my graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, I will be flung into the job-search market competing against millions of other well qualified students. What is interesting however, is that I am equipped with my usual resume items: GPA, my major, extra-curricular achievements, etc…, and I have the advantage of being mixed-race. As a dual citizen, I can better fit the diverse profile that firms today are seeking. The underlying issue is that these employers are facing pressure to hire individuals that increase the racial, gender, and economic background diversity of the company. Even though it might give me the slight preference I need, I reject the belief that these non-discrimination profiles should be met and instead support the claim that employers should not be constrained in their decision making. Hirers should select applicants without bias and match them with their job according to their own merit and character. Any affirmative action should not be based on gender nor race, but instead should be financially based in order to provide a fair chance for success. The purpose of affirmative action is to “level the playing field”; to ensure that no matter the race, gender, or economic disadvantage, there is an equal opportunity for everyone. In the context of the hiring process, it means that nobody should be overlooked due to those reasons. According to American philosopher Louis P. Pojman (1998), there is a division in the overreaching topic of affirmative action. Pojman separates the topic into two classes: weak and strong affirmative action with the