FREE ESSAY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Although many people believe that affirmative Action is a form of racism, it is actually
used to help minorities find employment in an otherwise racist world. "In the United
States, equality is a recurring theme. It has flared into a fervent moral issue at
crucial stages of American history: The revolutionary and Jacksonian Period, and the New
Deal. In each era, the legitimacy of American society is challenged by some set of people
unhappy with the degree of equality" (Verba and Orren).
Following the Civil War, Congress passed a number of laws designed to put former slaves
on an equal level with white people. The Fourteenth Amendment made the freedmen citizen
and prohibited states from enforcing any law which took away the privliges of any
citizen, depriving men of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, or
denied men equal protection of the laws. In 1875, Republican majority in Congress, aware
that reconstruction would soon end, passed a civil right act to secure by law semblance
of equality for Black Americans (Urofsky 19). Many white Americans really did not like
the idea of equality for the Black Freedmen. "Gideon Welles, who had been prevailing
sentiment when he wrote in 1871: 'Thank God slavery is abolished, but the Negro is not,
and never can be the equal of the white man. He is of an inferior race and must always
remain so'"(Urofsky 23). The supreme court agreed and in 1883 passed the Civil Rights act
which diluted much of the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
Justice Joseph Bradely interpreted the enforcement provision of the amendment as strictly
remedial; "congress has the power to remedy a discriminatory state law, but could not
take affirmative steps to protect blacks from other forms of prejudice" (Urofsky 21). As
a result of this decision, the federal government took no action to combat racism in the
country until the second world war (Urofsky 22).
Because resentment continued to increase within the black communities and because of the
threat of a march on Washington, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive
order on June 25, 1941. This order directed African Americans to be accepted into
job-training programs in defense plants. The order also stated that discrimination would
not be excepted by employers holding defense contracts. It also set up a fair employment
practice commissions to investigate charges of racial discrimination. Harry Truman and
Dwight Eisenhower continued to enforce fair employment legislation after Roosevelt's
policies because Congress was unwilling to do so.
In 1954, the supreme court decision Brown v. Board of Education pressured both houses of
Congress and the executive office to take some positive steps on behalf of civil rights.
In January 1961, John F. Kennedy took office. Almost immediately Roy Wilkins of the NAACP
called for action to promote employment opportunities for African Americans. John F.
Kennedy responded with executive order 10925, which created a presidential commission on
equal employment opportunity; it also mandated federal contractors to take "Affirmative
Action" to ensure that there would be no discrimination by "race, creed, color or
nationality." This was not the first time that the government ordered it own contractors
not only to avoid discrimination, but to take positive steps to redress the effects of
discrimination in society. In some cases contractors were asked to pay employees doing
similar work, the same amount of pay. 
Without congressional action an executive order could only last so long, and in 1963
Kennedy secured passage of the Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act prohibited employers from
paying women less than men for the same work. "A short time later due to the
assassination of kennedy Lyndon B. Johnson called for the passage of the Civil Rights
Bill as a memorial to the late president kennedy. Lyndon B. Johnson skillfully guided and
expanded versions of kennedy's proposal through the house and senate. The Civil Rights
Act was signed into law July 2, 1964. Title VII of the act banned employment
discrimination based on "race, color, sex, and nationality," it also created a permanent
equal employment opportunity commission to enforce its provisions. The act also for the
first time included obligations not to discriminate to private employees, labor unions,
and governmental agencies.(Urofsky 17).
In executive order 11246, issued on September 24, 1965, Johnson require that federal
contractors take affirmative action to recruit, hire, and promote more minorities. Two
years later in executive order 11375 Johnson added women to the group covered by previous
anti- discrimination order" (Urofsky17). Each new order was a modification of the
previous one. Increasing minorities' and women's chances to compete in the job market.
When Richard Nixon took office in 1969, he asked Art Fletcher, the Assistant Secretary of
Labor and a black man himself, to find a way to enforce the hiring provisions of Title
VII in a way that it would withstand court challenge. Fletcher did, and in 1971 Nixon
unveiled the Philadelphia Plan. The Philadelphia Plan made federal contractors meet
specific numerical goals in hiring minorities. Each contractor was to have nine percent
of its work force be made up of minorities and women.
Even with all these Executive Orders, Civil Rights Act, and Amendments passed, only a
small percent of minorities held position in the job force. In recent years, in order to
combat job discrimination in the employment market, the federal government has issued a
series of executive orders and have established government funded firms to secure equal
opportunity in the work force. Affirmative action and other executive orders were created
to insert qualified minorities in the job market, but in recent years it has been used to
deter job discrimination from happening. Yet society's viewpoint on Affirmative Action
has been a way for the federal government to favor one class of people over another. The
fact is, that in order to use Affirmative Action to favor minorities and women against
"white males" in the workplace, jobs must first be integrated with both minorities and
whites. For no one can separate apples and oranges if there are no apples! 
In the case of Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts (1984). The Memphis fire
department was found in violation of Title VII and was under court order to hire and
promote more blacks to make amends for past discrimination. Later, anticipating a budget
deficit, the city planned to lay off public employees with the least seniority, and that
action would have mostly affected recently hired black firemen. Stotts, a black fireman
challenging the proposed personnel actions, received a favorable decision from the
federal court, which granted an injunction enjoining the Fire Department from strictly
adhering to seniority in layoffs. As a result, the union appealed to protect its
seniority plan and white union members. The Burger Court reversed the lower court by
ruling that because no intentional discrimination had been proved, "Title VII protects
bona fida seniority systems, and it is inappropriate to deny an innocent employee the
benefits of his seniority in order to pr!
ovide a remedy in a pattern of practiced [discrimination] suit such as this" (Janosilk
1205). So from then on the court upheld that even if an individual shows that the
discriminatory practice has an impact on him/her, the court noted, "he/she is not
automatically entitled to have a non minority employee laid off to make room for him"
(Janosilk 1205).
One of the most historic Affirmative Action decisions in employment in the 1970's was
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber. In this case tan on-the-job Affirmative action
agreement was collectively bargained by the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and
the United Steel workers of America at a plant in Gramercy, Louisiana. There were no
skilled black craftsmen at the plant, and a voluntary Affirmative Action plan was
developed to avoid the possibility of litigation by black employees into the company.
Even though no past discrimination by the Kaiser Company had ever been proven. Under the
agreement, half the slots for in-plant craft training programs were reserved for black
employees until the proportion of Blacks in the local labor force. Weber, a white denied
admission to the training program, claimed that because this rule it set up a specific
quota, it constituted racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Title VII states
that" an employer cannot be "required" to give preferencetial treatment to any racial
group because of a racial imbalance in the workforce. This case shows that even it is
impossible to discriminate against white males just because a company must meet a quota.

History has shown that discrimination has and always will be a problem as long as society
remains ignorant of its existence. Still many people believe that discrimination in the
workplace is not as bad as the politicians and Service Commissions, such as "Fair
Employment Practice Community" and "Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the
Department of Labor," make it out to be. 
In Stelle v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, a union and an employer had agreed on a
contract under which Blacks' opportunities for employment as firemen had been restricted.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Black employees of the Duke Power Company of North Carolina
stated that employees needed to meet certain requirements: "Employees need to have a high
school diploma or and an acceptable grade on an intelligence test for both new employees
and job transfers" (Janosik 1205). In many cases these tests were used to weed out any
Black employment opportunity, for these tests were biased and not reasonably related to
the abilities or skills necessary for successful performance on the job. In McDonnell
Douglas Corp. V. Green, The McDonnell Douglas Corp. withheld a position from Mr. Green
while attempting to scout for someone with equal qualifications as Green (Janosik 1205).

In Hazelwood School District v. United States, the court decided that "discrimination may
be based on statistical evidence demonstrating an obvious imbalance in the racial
composition of the faculty of a school when compared to the racial make up of the general
community population" (Janosik 1204). Meaning that if the community in which the school
lies in, is made up of a mixture of people with different ethnic backgrounds, that there
should not only be white teachers teaching , but Black and Hispanic teachers teaching as
well. There are to reasons for the ruling on Hazelwood School District v. United States.
One is that to prevent students from learning certain skills only a teacher of a certain
ethnic background can provide is discrimination too. Students should be able to
experience different kinds of cultures and languages. The second reason is that in a
community mostly are made up of women and minorities, out of the many possible teachers
in that community their !
should be at least a dozen teachers at a school in that district. That way the teacher
understands the problems the students are facing in their communities. By having a
teacher that come from the same communities as their students they will be aware of the
problems facing their community and that of their students, that way they can better help
theses kids, than someone that lives outside of the children The community and has no
idea of the problems they are facing. In 1984 their were seventy-one women professors out
of 1,112 (6.4 per cent). They were not however, evenly distributed across subjects and
departments, but were concentrated in conventionally 'female' areas. Three out of five
professors of library science are women, and five out of seven professors or nursing.
Women are also notable represented in education ( seven out of forty-nine professors) and
social work (six out of twenty- one professors). In contrast there is only one women
professor out of thir!
ty-eight in business administration and one out of 147 in engineering(Webb 538). "An
examination of numbers of posts lost or gained between 1980 and 1984 also reveals that
areas where women are most concentrated have been cut back most significantly: numbers of
post in nursing, for example, have declined across all grades while numbers of posts in
engineering and business administration have stayed constant or increased. 
A case study demonstrated that equal opportunity is far from a matter of "following a
simple programme"(Webb 545). Sonia Liff was quoted as say "Women and minorities fail not
because they are less Abel to carry out the tasks; they are excluded because of the way
that they necessary qualification are defined. The competition is structured against
women and minorities because the job is perceived as requiring skills, experience and
working patterns far mor likely to be found amongst white men, or indeed seen as
inherently male. What should be asked of employers is not that they accept less
qualified, less able women or minorities in preference to white men but that they rethink
what the job requires that do not rule out competent women or minarets. 
In Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Bowman Transportation Co. discriminated against
black applicants for jobs as truck drivers within the company to more desirable position.
The lower courts found in favor of the blacks in this predicament, ordering that they be
given preference in the future job opening. The Burger court took the previous ruling
against Bowman Transportation Co. One step further and ruled that "retroactive seniority
could be awarded to racial minorities who had been discriminated against in violation of
Title VII" (Janosik 1204). A major objective of Title VII, noted by the court majority,
is to provide appropriate compensation for those injured because of discrimation in the
workplace.
Even though the court ruled that awarding a minority who has been discriminated against
is acceptable, it might not be so in some cases, so compenstating minorities for past
discriminatory action upon them by some other company would not apply, but if a company
does discrimate against someone, the person that they discriminate against is applicable
for compensation.
"After the mid-1970's an increasing number of Burger Courts cases involved the widely
debated issue of Affirmative Action in employment" (Janosik 1210). Society must realize
that Affirmative Action plans is rather a safety net to prevent discriminatory acts
against non whites males than just a method of employing minorities and women into the
workforce " there is substantial evidence of the countinuing veritical and horizontal
occupational segregation between men, women and minorities"( Webb 533). Yet many people
against Affirmative Action see Affirmative Action plans and Executive orders as an
advantage that is given to minorities and woment by the Federal Government and that is
why they cannot see Affirmative Action plans and executive orders as safety nets for
women and minorities. 
Those opposed to the idea of affirmative action feel that affirmative action is actually
reversed discrimination at work; but a recent study by Alfred Blumorosen, a professor at
Rutgers University law school, found that only a few dozen reported cases of reverse
discrimination in federal courts over the past four years, most of which were rejected by
the courts. (America Online 1). These same people also feel that Affirmative Action leads
to lower standards of education needed to work, this is totally untrue. Affirmative
action plans are not placing people in job that they are not qualified for. The people
that are given job by Affirmative Action plans have graduated from four year universities
or have the Assossiates degree. No one can stay employed in a job if they do not have
skills to preform their task. 
To say Affirmative action acts on the basis of prejudice is not true. Affirmative Action
does not display bias or has irrational hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Affirmative action plans is just a way of helping poeple to get jobs. "Republican
lawmakers and presidential hopefulls are vying with eac other to stake out the strongest
position for curtailing or abolishing racial and gender preferences in federal programs"
(Gottlieb551). Robert Dole's closest rival, senator Phil Gramm of Texas, pledged to wipe
out minority preference in the ferderal government with a stroke of a pen if elected.
"This is a policy that needs to be overturned. Gramm said on CBS' 'Face the Nation' April
16. Yet none of these politican have a solution more effective of preventing
discrimination in jobs and at the same time helps minorites find jobs.
President Clinton, is facing a no-win situation betweeen traditional civil rights
constitutenciesand the many "angry white males" in this country. These men wish to change
federal affimative action policies but promise to continue efforts to eliminate
discrimination. Yet no plan or proposal that Republican lawmakers, or "angry white males"
have created has help decrease the number of discrimantory act by a company or has helped
minorities find jobs than Affirmative Action plans existing today.
These same Republican lawmakers are pushing ahead with efforts to unravel affirmative
action, encouraged and empowered by a dramatic Supreme court ruling that cas doubt on
federal programs seeking to advance women and minorities. The high court June 12 handed
down a 5-4 opinion in a closely watched case, Adarand Construction v. Pena, that
challenged a federal Affirmative Action Program. The majority opinion written by Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, did not actually strike down any Affirmative Action programs, but it
criticized the moral justification for Affirmative Aciton, saying that race conscious
programs can amount to unconstitutional reverse discrimination and even harm those they
seek to advance. Yet they had not proven any way in which Affirmative Action can "harm
those they seek to advance".
Republican had been preparing a legislative assault on federal Affirmative Action, either
by eliminating programs or with a sweeping measure to outlaw virtually all federal
preferecnes on the basis of race or gender. Their targets include scores of congressional
and executive branch initiatives that offer special consideration or set-aside for women,
minorities and others in federal contracting and hiring. This proves that Republicans
wish to eliminate Affirmative Action plan and replace it with nothing. With nothing to
help women or minorities their is minimal chances of them competing in the job market. 
In defending the program, the Clinton administration stressed that white-owned companies
can quaify for bonuses given by Affrimative Action Plans if they prove that they are
"Socially or enconomically disadvantaged." Some critics of Affirmative Action want to
adopt social or economic hardship as a criterion for all Affirmative Action plans. " Civi
rights groups say they are not opposed to using socioeconomic disadvantages, but want to
keep policies specifically aimed at women and minorities too"(America Online 3).
Speculation about the future of Affirmative Action must go beyond "prognosis" of the
court's configuration and estimations of its respect for precedents said John Naibandian
of University of Kansas (Public Administration Reveiw 43). He was also quoted as saying ,
"Over an 18-year period, adminstrators hve become sensitized to court decisionexpressing
the value of social equity. It is unreasonable to anticpate sudden administrative
reversal of these impacts now regardlass of Court action (Public Administration Review
43).
Bibliography
Kaus, Mickey. The End of Equality New York: Basic,1992.
Urofsky, Melvin. The Conflicts of Rights New York: Scribner 1990.
Verba, Sidney, and Gary R. Orren. Equality in America Massaschuettes Harvard, 1984.
Hugh, Graham The American Judical System New York:Scribner, 1987.
Webb, Janette and Sonia, Liff. Play he white man: the social construction of fairness and
competition in equal opportunity. The Sociological Reveiw v.36, Aug. 88 d 532-51 
Perman, Florence. The players and the problems in the Eeo enforcement process: a status
report Pulbic Administration Reveiw v.48, July/Aug. 88, 827-33
Boris Eileen and Honey Michael. Gender, race and the policies of the Labor Department.
Monthly Labor Review v.111, Feb. 88, 26-36.
Nalbandian, John. The U.S. Supreme court's "consensus" on Affirmative Action. Public
Administration Reveiw. v.49, Jan./Feb. 89, 38-45
Tatel, David and Minchber, Elliot. The Supreme Court's 1987 decision on voluntary
Affirmative Action. Public Management. v.69, Dec. 87, 3-5
Steel, Brents and Lovrich, Nicholas P. Equality and Efficiency Tradeoffs in Affirmative
Action. The Social Science Journal v.24, Nov. 87, 53-70
Leonard, Jonathan S. What was Affirmative Action. The American Economic Review v.76, May
86, 359-63