Introduction
Affirmative action has been designed to resolve the major ethnic/ racial controversies and to provide minority populations with a chance to realize themselves in a foreign society. Given the continuous racial prejudice and the growing percentage of a minority population in the U.S., affirmative action was expected to give minority representatives another chance to make a good career and to obtain a good education. Unfortunately, with the expanding role of affirmative action, American populations have come to realize the discriminative attitudes they were given against preferential treatment of minorities. To a large extent, the system of affirmative action principles was too misbalanced to eliminate racism and to provide everyone with equal social opportunities. Now, as diversity is valued more than any other social concept, as more and more Asians and Latin Americans come to the U.S. seeking better living, and as racism remains an essential component of our social relations with other ethnic populations, affirmative action should remain valid but should be reconstructed in a way that would work to provide everyone with equal opportunities and would eliminate preferential treatment with regard to any ethnic group.
Discussion section
Affirmative action “generally means giving preferential treatment to minorities in admission to universities or employment in government and businesses. The policies were originally developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities a boost” (Curry 44). Unfortunately, affirmative action was initially too misbalanced to resolve the major racial controversies and to provide minority and native populations with equal chances for self-realization. Very often, affirmative action implied too radical measures to promote better social opportunities which all populations would be able to use on equal terms. In this context, the use of quotas seems one of the most extreme forms of multiculturalism and non-racism which nevertheless, would never lead to improve the general situation. On the contrary, and it is difficult not to agree with Justice Powell that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre, 2003, p. 71). In this context, affirmative action is important to teach university faculties and employers not to use race as the factor that may prevent a student or a potential employee to make a good career. Simultaneously, affirmative action cannot provide minority students with a better chance for admission only due to the fact that they are of Asian origin. Here, affirmative action does not eliminate discrimination, but on the contrary, makes native populations the victim of this very affirmative action, for they appear to be blamed for having been born white.
The truth is that what affirmative action seeks to promote are multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. Pan-ethnicity is one of the concepts that was created to explain the changes which ethnic minorities undergo in their process of assimilation with native populations and cultures. It appears, however, that ethnicity and cultural diversity are notions too evasive to be effectively promoted by affirmative action. “Ethnicity endures because individuals derive psychological or material support from their ethnic affiliations. But the obverse is also true: once sentimental and economic ties disappear, ethnics will vanish into the acculturated mainstream” (Espiritu, 2002, p. 6). That is why affirmative action should exist as a form of promoting and welcoming diversity and eliminating cultural and ethnic bias, but it should no longer give preferential treatment to those who are considered to be ethnic minority representatives (Mor Berak, 2005).
Numerous factors should be taken into account before a student or an employee is given a chance to realize himself in studies or career growth; race should not be one of them, but it should not also be used as a stimulus that discriminates against white populations which have a better potential to cope with the same tasks and obligations (Thomas and Ely, 2001). When analyzing the history of affirmative action one can see that the history of this event has accumulated about 48 years. During this time affirmative action has been both praised and pilloried what occurred due to racial inequalities that existed within the society. The term is multidimensional. The history of affirmative action dates back to the times of President Kennedy. He first introduced the term in 1961. During those times affirmative action was perceived as the major method of redressing discrimination. (Curry, 1996). The term has existed despite the presence of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees. Later on, the law was developed and enforced. The first action toward the solution of the issue has been taken by President Johnson. He was the main initiator of the program that was aimed at battling civil rights.
In general, affirmative action is the combination of policies that are required that active measures. These are usually taken to ensure that blacks and other minorities will be able to enjoy the same opportunities as the other representatives of the groups. The first and the foremost important benefit is achieving salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships, and financial aid that is usually provided for people who represent a whole group. In the majority of cases, affirmative action provides people with a temporary remedy for the ailment (Thomas and Ely, 2001). The late ’70s proved the presence of certain flaws in the policy that was aimed at combating the rights of the national minorities. As for reverse discrimination, this thing became a serious issue. Later on, this issue has been epitomized by the famous Bakke case. The case was first introduced in 1978 (Curry 1996). For instance, Allan Bakke, a white male, was reported to be rejected in the right to enter medical school. What the school actually did was accenting less qualified minority applicants. The school was reported to introduce a separate admissions policy. This admission policy was basically aimed at meeting the interests of the minority group. After this case, the Supreme Court was reported to outlaw inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs. The major reason for this action was the unfair discrimination of white applicants. The same ruling has been introduced in reference to people who legally upheld the legality of affirmative action per se (Thomas and Ely, 2001).
Affirmative action has been widely negated by the white man. These people were known to backlash against affirmative action. Many conservatives assumed that the system has been based on a zero-sum game. The latest report proves that this game was known to open the door for jobs, promotions, or education to minorities. The main argument that was used by conservatives against affirmative action was based on the idea that these laws give access to power from the side of some unqualified minorities. This group of people was reported to get a free ride on the American system (Mor Berak, 2005).
In affirmative action programs, “preferential treatment” and “quotas” are the things that are frequently used to express disbelieve in the credibility of affirmative action laws. The most structural was the accusation that some minorities enjoyed better rights than the white people. Under the circumstance like these people started to enjoy the right of being a professional victim. (Curry 1996). Many of the minorities that have been engaged in affirmative action were reported to experience terrible adversity and racism. The negative feelings were aimed at Jews and Asians (Mor Berak, 2005).
Conclusion
The debate about affirmative action has become a rather murky thing. This thing was rather difficult to perceive for the general public. At present, a major part of people starts to perceive the complexity of the issue. A positive thing about the whole issue is that many people start to seriously consider the rights of national minorities. Traditionally, the workplace represents a homogeneous unity consisting of British employees. Thus, globalization and immigration processes create new problems for managers. Managing ethnic diversity is one of the main problems that required effective solutions and strategies to be introduced. Ethnicity and race are often confused in the United States. Some critics suppose that cultural diversity brings benefits and opportunities to the workplace, influences the climate and morale of employees. Thus, other research studies prove that ethnic diversity has a negative influence on the organization and requires additional resources spent on training and management. Ethnic diversity is not easy to manage. Despite the perception of ethnic diversity as a benefit and opportunity for the workforce, it creates a lot of problems including additional training and supervision costs. The white flight, triggered by the influx of minorities, has dramatically changed the demographics of cities and small towns.
References
Aguirre, A. (2003). Racial and Ethnic Diversity in America: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO.
Curry, G.E. (1996). The Affirmative Action Debate. Addison-Wesley.
Espiritu, Y.L. (2002). Asian American Panethnicity: Bringing Institutions and Identities. Temple University Press.
Mor Berak, M. H. (2005). Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. Sage Publications, Inc.
Thomas, D. A. Ely, R. J. (2001). Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (3), 229.