Two Ethical Theories Of Affirmative Action
Affirmative action has evolved since the executive order signed by President John Kennedy in 1961, which created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandated that federally funded projects take "affirmative action" to insure that hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 566). The mandate was then followed up with the equal pay act, aimed at wage discrimination against women then as followed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits all forms of discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin by employers with fifteen or more employees (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 566). Although there was definitely a need for affirmative action at the time, two ethical theories that
…show more content…
would consider portions of the act unjust would be Libertarian and Rawl’s theory. A libertarian would say if an individual is not hired based on their merit, but their position in life, then that would infringe on their liberty. And, Rawl’s would say a person in the original position would choose for advancement by merit not by race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Furthermore, to support libertarian and Rawl’s theory are cases in which the acts and mandates created a type of reverse discrimination such as Bakke v. Regents of the university of California in which Bakke, a white male, was denied entry in to medical school due to sixteen places being held for minorities (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 569). Although the above mentioned laid the ground work to improving society by helping the disadvantaged by leveling the playing field, we still see unfair practices regarding discrimination against women and minorities. In today’s age companies are no longer able to operate under the shadows due to the speed information is shared with the use of social media, blogs, and forums creating an openness of their policies and pay practices. Therefore, people are going to social media to exposing companies that are not practicing fair and equal treatment of employees and demanding change. Ultimately the younger consumers and workforce are driving the efforts of equality between the individuals of society, considering they are looking for employers and products that support their values and beliefs (Steinmetz, K.2016). Kant’s theory best supports the contemporary strategy of the youth driving the change of affirmative action, taking into consideration universal acceptability. Basically as stated in (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 69),”Suppose a man advocates a hiring policy that discriminates against women. For this rule to be universally acceptable, the man would have to be willing it if he were a women, something he would presumably be unwilling to do”. Therefore, taking into consideration the statement today’s society would consider any form of discrimination unjust.
In my opinion Affirmative action is an outdated mandate especially as the United States becomes more ethnically and racially diverse in addition to being the cause of reverse discrimination in society.
Affirmative action was mandated mainly to prevent discrimination and promote equality in society, which was not happening organically, therefore in order to approach an equal society the government stepped in to remove discrimination from hiring and pay practices. In doing so affirmative action then violated the principle of equality considering the programs made companies hire based on race and sexual considerations and not on merit, therefore discriminating against a qualified person because of their race (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 573). Kant’s theory would state that affirmative action is unethical based on the mandate being a means to our own ends and not as ends in themselves if equality is the end (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 69). For example, the strides of affirmative action has definitely improved society, however sometimes at the cost of another race or sex such as when Bakke was not accepted into medical school due to sixteen openings being held for minorities or the case of Johnson v. transportation agency in which Diane Joyce was promoted over Paul Johnson based on sex in correlation with the organizations affirmative action plan (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 569). Furthermore, employees from all groups have more rights than ever considering the amendments to the Civil rights act of 1964 and EEOC in addition to the exposure of organizations in society. In (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 573) a counterpoint is made to this argument, “Without affirmative action progress often stops”. I tend to disagree with the statement considering I feel there is an organic movement of society insure people of all race, color, sex, religion, or national origin are treated fairly and equitably through the exposure of organizations who are conducting business in a manner that does not promote
equality.
would consider portions of the act unjust would be Libertarian and Rawl’s theory. A libertarian would say if an individual is not hired based on their merit, but their position in life, then that would infringe on their liberty. And, Rawl’s would say a person in the original position would choose for advancement by merit not by race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Furthermore, to support libertarian and Rawl’s theory are cases in which the acts and mandates created a type of reverse discrimination such as Bakke v. Regents of the university of California in which Bakke, a white male, was denied entry in to medical school due to sixteen places being held for minorities (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 569). Although the above mentioned laid the ground work to improving society by helping the disadvantaged by leveling the playing field, we still see unfair practices regarding discrimination against women and minorities. In today’s age companies are no longer able to operate under the shadows due to the speed information is shared with the use of social media, blogs, and forums creating an openness of their policies and pay practices. Therefore, people are going to social media to exposing companies that are not practicing fair and equal treatment of employees and demanding change. Ultimately the younger consumers and workforce are driving the efforts of equality between the individuals of society, considering they are looking for employers and products that support their values and beliefs (Steinmetz, K.2016). Kant’s theory best supports the contemporary strategy of the youth driving the change of affirmative action, taking into consideration universal acceptability. Basically as stated in (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 69),”Suppose a man advocates a hiring policy that discriminates against women. For this rule to be universally acceptable, the man would have to be willing it if he were a women, something he would presumably be unwilling to do”. Therefore, taking into consideration the statement today’s society would consider any form of discrimination unjust.
In my opinion Affirmative action is an outdated mandate especially as the United States becomes more ethnically and racially diverse in addition to being the cause of reverse discrimination in society.
Affirmative action was mandated mainly to prevent discrimination and promote equality in society, which was not happening organically, therefore in order to approach an equal society the government stepped in to remove discrimination from hiring and pay practices. In doing so affirmative action then violated the principle of equality considering the programs made companies hire based on race and sexual considerations and not on merit, therefore discriminating against a qualified person because of their race (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 573). Kant’s theory would state that affirmative action is unethical based on the mandate being a means to our own ends and not as ends in themselves if equality is the end (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 69). For example, the strides of affirmative action has definitely improved society, however sometimes at the cost of another race or sex such as when Bakke was not accepted into medical school due to sixteen openings being held for minorities or the case of Johnson v. transportation agency in which Diane Joyce was promoted over Paul Johnson based on sex in correlation with the organizations affirmative action plan (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 569). Furthermore, employees from all groups have more rights than ever considering the amendments to the Civil rights act of 1964 and EEOC in addition to the exposure of organizations in society. In (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p. 573) a counterpoint is made to this argument, “Without affirmative action progress often stops”. I tend to disagree with the statement considering I feel there is an organic movement of society insure people of all race, color, sex, religion, or national origin are treated fairly and equitably through the exposure of organizations who are conducting business in a manner that does not promote
equality.