Introduction
One of the best methods for righting the wrongs brought about by long-standing prejudice in our country against women and people of color is affirmative action. It also helps level the playing field where there has long been inequality. Despite the progress made during the civil rights period, racism and sexism have a lengthy history that has not yet been completely eradicated. Opportunities for people who were previously excluded still need to be expanded. This essay addresses how crucial affirmative action is to women of color and how diversity and inclusion are parallel to their plight. The social lenses will teach others how women of color will be affected if affirmative action is rescinded.
Discussion
There has always been a stigma associated with fulfilling a quota, which refers to having or desiring a limited quality of something or someone when it comes to organizations and their employment process. Although one of the best ways to promote equality and diversity in the workplace, affirmative action measures are frequently derided by the general population (Hideg & Ferris, 2017). Generally, affirmative action and quotas continue to be highly contentious issues that generate the unwillingness of members of the dominant group to make concerted efforts on behalf of minority groups (Morgenroth & Ryan, 2018). A fair, equal ground must be created since minorities of all genders are all being harmed for factors they cannot alter. Since such thinking exists and is active, affirmative action refers to a collection of policies and practices used by a government or organization to include specific minority groups.
Minorities will frequently be stuck in communities and institutions that lack the educational system if there is no affirmative action. Affirmative action was created to combat racial injustice and exclusion in American society and was then brought before the US Supreme Court. Regarding racial concerns, colleges and institutions sought to be recognized as progressive. Justice Powell only accepted the compelling state interest in a varied student body where everyone benefits from several viewpoints in the classroom as a rationale in that case. Fair treatment aims to stop current patterns of discrimination against people who identify with particular identities.
It offers financial support to groups that have historically experienced and still experience discrimination. Policies frequently set hiring targets, provide grants and scholarships, and even withhold government money and contracts from organizations that disobey policy requirements. Assistance for gender representation, those with impairments, and covered veterans are now included in affirmative action. Positive discrimination is criticized for its expensive programs, hiring fewer suitable applicants, and lack of historical advancement and inequitable representation.
Affirmative action defenses typically center on the idea that minorities and women still encounter systemic obstacles to obtaining educational and career opportunities. Stereotypes about minorities and women’s skills have persisted into the present, and the cumulative consequences of prior discrimination continue to hinder minorities’ growth in several ways. The neighborhoods in American cities, suburbs, and rural areas are still obstinately separated along racial and ethnic lines. According to Pincus (2019), affirmative action would be supported by white people, showing minorities that they are sincerely interested in racial equality. It is not unusual for members of affluent and underprivileged groups to contribute significantly to collective action that strives to better the status of minority groups. Thus, there has been an increase in interest in recent studies of what drives privileged group members to take acts that advance the interests of the underprivileged.
Conclusion
In conclusion, affirmative action was created to lessen racial and gender prejudice in the workplace and educational settings. To boost representation, policies mandated that institutions admit or recruit a certain percentage of people from particular racial or ethnic groups. Depending on how secure they feel in their identity and their group’s standing, members of the majority group may be reticent or willing to speak up against injustice on behalf of the minority.
References
Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2017). Dialectical thinking and fairness-based perspectives of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 782–801. Web.
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Quotas and affirmative action: Understanding group‐based outcomes and attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(3), e12374. Web.
Pincus, F. L. (2019). The case for affirmative action. Routledge.