Affirmative Action
In almost every economy, jobs are a limited resource. In the United States, the distribution policy for most kinds of work has rested on a merit basis: that is, a given job should go to the most qualified person available. The sad truth is that throughout much of U.S. history, this "ideal" policy has not matched the actual one. For many years, women and various minority groups remained excluded from the best jobs, or in some cases, from any job at all. With the social advances following the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s came the recognition that this situation had to change. The need for a rapid fix, together with leftover barriers, to employment of some groups gave rise to "affirmative action" as a policy basis for hiring. That is, applicants from underrepresented groups were to enjoy a certain measure of preference. Affirmative action became a dominant theme in the hiring practices of governmental and corporate America by the mid-1970s.
With the employment gains achieved by underrepresented groups over the past two decades has come a significant and divisive backlash, centering mainly around how big the "certain measure of preference" should be. As with any social debate, the issues are complex and subtle. We can only sketch some key ideas here. Opponents claim that present policies have gone too far. The most vigorous objectors argue that affirmative action as now practiced offends against fairness as badly as did the discrimination of past decades. They claim that affirmative action represents a thinly disguised quota scheme that merely perpetuates racism, sexism, and other ills. Other less vocal objectors simply state that equal opportunity has now largely been achieved, so that hiring preference is no longer needed. These various arguments carried the day with the 1996 passage of California's Proposition 209, ending state-sanctioned affirmative action.
Proponents of affirmative action have countered vigorously. Some imply a continuing need to "make up" for the evils of the past in almost penitential fashion. Most proponents, however, focus on both anecdotal and demographic evidence that they believe proves old discrimination practices continue to this day. They argue that affirmative action needs to remain in place until such discrimination is completely wiped out. Interestingly, people on both sides of the debate appeal to "fairness" to support their case. Unfortunately, the issue seems unlikely to resolve itself any time soon.
-
Do you see evidence of discrimination today, either for or against underrepresented groups?
-
If so, what sorts of policies would you put in places to solve these problems?
