Reverse discrimination refers to the discrimination of members of a majority group in society in favour of members that belong to a minority or historically disadvantaged group in society (Pincus 2003: pp 3). The two main rationales for ‘reverse discrimination’ are backward-looking rationale which is about providing compensation for past discrimination and forward/ future directed rationale which is about ensuring future social equality without directly making references to past discrimination (Sher 1999: pp 190). In this essay, I will argue that the the most convincing rationale for ‘reverse discrimination’ in awarding positions within public institutions is the future directed rationale. To prove this, I will first present the diversity argument and show that it leads to better results in the workplace and increases overall welfare. I will then consider a possible criticism of this argument which is that diversity is sometimes a source of tension and discomfort which prevents it from producing better results. Next, I will present a possible reply to this criticism …show more content…
A result of this is that the economy as a whole benefits as well because if firms are growing and expanding, there will be positive multiplier effects on the economy and this creates job opportunities for more people, majority and minority groups included, which will increase their incomes and ultimately their utility. Thus, forward directed rationale is also justified by Utilitarianism because as shown above, it is the action that maximises utility the best, and Utilitarians believe that actions are morally permissible only if they do more good than harm (Utilitarianism, Act And Rule | Internet Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy). Even Thompson is supportive of this and claims that reverse discrimination is morally permissible in terms of preferential hiring in favour of Blacks and Women (Thompson 1973: pp
In 1973 a thirty-three year-old Caucasian male named Allan Bakke applied to and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. In 1974 he filed another application and was once again rejected, even though his test scores were considerably higher than various minorities that were admitted under a special program. This special program specified that 16 out of 100 possible spaces for the students in the medical program were set aside solely for minorities, while the other 84 slots were for anyone who qualified, including minorities. What happened to Bakke is known as reverse discrimination. Bakke felt his rejections to be violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, so he took the University of California Regents to the Superior Court of California. It was ruled that "the admissions program violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment"1 The clause reads as follows:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."2 The court ruled that race could not be a factor in admissions. However, they did not force the admittance of Bakke because the court could not know if he would have been admitted if the special admissions program for minorities did not exist.
basic charge of this criticism can be stated in the words of a recent critic,
Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted on July 2nd, 1964 as a mitigation strategy to prohibit any form of discrimination on grounds of a person’s religion, sex, color, race or their national origin. The law was originally meant to solve the problem of discrimination witnessed during voter registration. It was also expected to solve discrimination present at workplaces and schools where there was widespread racial discrimination. However, the law has become an even more relevant tool and has seen to it that hiring and firing processes by many companies are adherent to it.
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
Affirmative action programs may or may not have been appropriate in times past where inequalities were prevalent and programs to build diversity were mandated. In the United States today, where law bars discrimination, I feel employment opportunities should be based on merit and not on race, sex or any other preconceived notion. Actively recruiting candidates that do not meet minimum requirements or standards is counterproductive to any agency that strives to serve the public in an efficient and effective manner and further erode confidence in government.
Over the course of the recent past, universities across the U.S. have been faced with decisions on admissions. What was once popular, affirmative action, is now fading with a long past of problems, and new programs are entering into the picture. The University of Dayton and many others are taking actions to improve the standards of their students, regardless of race and background. These new concepts are reflecting higher academic progress, and increase in prestige and national reputation. By basing selection on academic ability and incorporating improved recruiting techniques, the nation would be filled with greater college standards and no use for an old and tiring affirmative action process.
Over the past 15 years tremendous awareness has been raised around this and programs of preferential treatment emerged. These programs ensured equal rights for people of color and females in the work place, allowing for them to apply for executive level positions and earn the same amount of money, benefits, and prestige as a white male ensuring equality for all race and sex. Lisa Newton argues that, “reverse discrimination does not advance but actually undermines equality because it violates the concept of equal justice under law for all citizens. In addition, to this theoretical objection to reverse discrimination, Newton opposes it because she believes it raises insoluble problems.” Among them are determining what groups have been sufficiently discriminated against in the past to deserve preferred treatment in the present and determining the degree of reverse discrimination that will be compensatory. Newton outlines the importance of ensuring her argument is recognized as logically distinct from the condition of justice in the political sense. She begins her argument for reverse discrimination as unjustified by addressing the “simple justice” claim requiring that we favor women and blacks in employment and education opportunities. Since women and blacks were unjustly excluded from such opportunities for so many years in the not so distant past, however when employers and schools favor women and blacks, the same injustice is done. This reverse discrimination violates the public equality which defines citizenship and destroys the rule of law for the areas in which these favors are granted. To the extent that we adopt a program of discrimination, reverse or otherwise, justice in the political sense is destroyed, and none of us, specifically affected or no is a citizen, as bearers of rights we are all petitioners
First of all, the establishment of affirmative action after the Civil Rights Era of 1960s promoted the thinking of reverse discrimination. Defined by Dictionary, reverse discrimination is “the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities” (Dictionary.com). It is true that women and peop...
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?
Affirmative action in the U.S. started to come about in the early nineteen sixties. It was enacted along with many other anti-segregation laws, as part of the "Civil Rights act of 1964 and an executive order in 1965 (Affirmative, Encyclopedia Britannica par. 2)." Today affirmative action is still going strong. It has many positive aspects, but it also has several negative affects, one of which is "reverse discrimination.
When the Civil Rights Bill was being debated on the floor of the Senate, Barry Goldwater predicted that this particular bill might be abused. Herbert Humphrey, however, stated that he would eat every page of the bill if ever it were used to justify discrimination against anybody on account of race or sex. The bill eventually passed and became the Civil Rights Act. From college admissions to government contracts, the Civil Rights Act has been grossly abused by giving race and gender primary consideration in admissions and hiring, resulting in blatant reverse discrimination.
Discrimination based on race, gender, class, and culture has been reoccurring since the beginning stages of mankind. Discrimination can derive from several different factors, whether sexual identity, race, gender, social-class as this paper demonstrated. The purpose of the paper was to discuss how discrimination was locked to institutional power between 1600s and 1990s, but even today discrimination is very prevalent and will continue to be, as the criminal justice system and the war on drugs acts as a form of discrimination towards people of color. Discrimination based on race, sexual ideologies and practices, and social class seem to still be very prevalent, while discrimination based on gender seems to have left the publics view.
Now, reader response criticism is very different. In our text book for class it is portrayed by these three key facts:
Affirmative action has been the topic of debate for many years. It has been controversial because it has been said to be a form of reverse discrimination. This paper will discuss the purpose behind affirmative action, as well as, its various strengths and weaknesses. Also, this paper will look at the following issues surrounding affirmative action such as the incompetency myth ( are companies hiring less qualified people?), the impact on employment (what has changed in the work place?), the impact on women (how have their lives changed?) and the impact on employment law (what documents back up affirmative action?). Lastly, a discussion of affirmative action on an international scale, and what international documents have to say about the topic. The purpose of this paper is to bring to light all the issues, and then make an educated statement of whether affirmative action is a worthwhile activity or if there is a better solution.
Discrimination is known to exist in all workplaces, sometimes it is too subtle to notice, and other times it is exceedingly obvious. It is known that everyone subconsciously discriminates, dependant on their own beliefs and environments that surround them. However, discrimination can be either positive or negative in their results, and sometimes discrimination is a necessary part of life.