Diversity Ethical Perspective of Affirmative Action

1. Diversity Ethical Perspective of Affirmative Action For: Dr. Landrum By: James Esch December 21, 2002

2. Affirmative Action Overview and Definitions • Diversity Brings important and valuable benefits to businesses, organizations, government, communities and education. • Affirmative action was first established nearly 40 years ago in hopes to “level the playing field” for minorities by excluding one’s race, gender, religion, or any other minority status in the decision making process (especially when hiring and admitting to schools). • History has demonstrated however, that Affirmative Action has done little to achieve its original goals and has turned out to be a fundamentally flawed vehicle to attain true diversity. • Affirmative Action is commonly abused and used as a tool for those it was never intended.

3. Ethical Perspectives • Deontological Perspective – • Primarily deals with duties and rights • Human Rights – rights people have simply by virtue of being human • Civil Rights – rights given to a citizen of any given country by the constitution or other relevant political document of their home country • Contractual Rights – rights agreed upon between two or more individuals or groups • Utilitarian Perspective - • Serves the greater good and interests of all concerned • An action is morally acceptable if it provides the most happiness for the most people

4. History of Affirmative Action • First introduced through Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 (which became Title VI, aka, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in hopes to create a “level playing field” where race, gender, and other minority statuses would not be considered in decisions such as employment and admission to higher education institutions) • Was widely enforced and misconstrued to forms in which it was not intended; so much so that it is now being reversed, such as in Proposition 209. • Definition 1: • Race-neutral, gender-neutral assurance against actual discrimination. This is the type of affirmative action contemplated by President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246, in which he sought to ensure that individuals are treated equal WITHOUT regard to their race, sex, or ethnicity. • Definition 2: • Racial-preferences and gender-preferences for the correct races and genders. Under this definition, Affirmative Action is comprised of programs and policies that grant favorable treatment on the basis of race or gender to government-defined “disadvantaged” individuals.

5. Deontological Perspective • The Deontological arguments in favor of Affirmative Action are flawed. Instead, objections to these common arguments support Affirmative Action as unethical. Why? • Compensatory Justice • The wrong people are benefiting from this idea • Just because person A’s ancestors endured hardship at the hand of person B’s ancestors, it does not necessarily mean that person A deserves to be compensated, nor does it mean person B did something wrong. • Quotas • Affirmative Action (especially when based on quotas) can be seen as a form of reverse discrimination. • If the original intent of Affirmative Action was to exclude race, gender, and other minority traits from the decision process, then quotas practically contradict this original intent. Non-minorities are often turned down in favor of minorities based on the traits that were meant to be excluded.

6. Utilitarian Perspective • The Utilitarian perspective supports that Affirmative Action is morally wrong since it does not serve the larger interest of all concerned. Why? • Long-term effects of entitlement • As a result of Affirmative Action, minorities as a whole have been negatively affected in the long-term. • Entitlement created dependencies rather than sustainable self-sufficiency • Entitlements have diminished the perception of that minorities as a whole are capable of self-sufficiency • Lesser-qualified individuals are performing critical and sensitive jobs (i.e.: surgeons, lawyers, and scientists) • Merit • As a result of abuse, merit arguments in favor of Affirmative Action fail • People that Affirmative Action was never intended to help in fact are gaining preference over those that are more in need (i.e.: the exploitation of token minorities as a vehicle for contract award)

7. Utilitarian Perspective (cont) • Dumping and arbitrary acceptance • Puts the wrong person in the wrong job. • Not good for the employee, organization, nor the customers they serve. • Generally not sustainable (i.e.: those in the wrong job for the wrong purpose will more likely fail) • Exploitation and abuse • Affirmative Action did not end up helping the people it was intended to help. • Commonly, few benefit at the expense of many.

8. Evidence • Affirmative action proportionally has not been effective The gap remains the same

9. Evidence (cont) • Affirmative action proportionally has not been effective

10. Conclusion • Diversity is extremely important in the effect that it brings important and valuable benefits to businesses, organizations, government, communities, and education; However as our geographic and distances decrease, and we become a more global society, diversity provides access to a much larger workforce that transcends cultural and social barriers. • Despite the good intentions, Affirmative Action has failed to accomplish what was intended. • Affirmative Action can be argued it is morally unethical based on its most common applications. • Affirmative Action may have worked if it was balanced within its original intent. • Because Affirmative Action has failed, we should explore other alternatives that are more effective.

11. Bibliography "Affirmative Action Source Page." University of Rhode Island, 2002. http://www.uri.edu/affirmative_action/aa.html. "Definition: Affirmative Action." Adversity.Net, 2002. http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definition/TERMS/Affirmative_Action.htm. Fieser, James. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Ethics." University of Tennessee - Martin, 2001. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm. Sidgwick, Henry. "The Meaning of Utilitarianism." University of Texas, Feb 15, 2002. http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/sidgwick/me/me.b04.c01.s01.html. "Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964." US Department of Labor, 1964. http://www.dol.gov/dol/oasam/regs/statutes/titlevi.htm. "University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265." US Supreme Course, 1978.