Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the need for diversity in the workforce
development of a diverse workforce
diversity in the workforce today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the need for diversity in the workforce
Employment equity and affirmative action are laws designed to aid people from the four designated groups to increase their representation in the work force, these four groups are: women, aboriginals, visible minorities, and people with disabilities. These laws are in place to ensure diversification of the workforce with people from different backgrounds and views. These laws were not created to give anyone from the designated groups an advantage in the hiring process but to remove any systematic barriers to the historically disadvantaged groups. These laws are not new and have been constantly changing over many years and there have always been misconceptions about them. Employment equity and affirmative action are not forms of discrimination, but often people misinterpret them to be reverse decimation when someone from the designated group gets a job or promotion over them. Before getting to the ethical issue, how these laws were formed and evolved is important in regards to why Employment Equity and Affirmative action are not reverse discrimination.
These laws were implemented for the first time around the 1970’s, both laws progressing in
The program introduced a one in five hiring goal for visible minorities to help diversify the workforce. Any complying company can receive funding for reaching the benchmark. The initiative eventually stops receiving money and was shut down because the benchmark goal was not achieved. To answer some of these diversity shortcomings, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights began to study the extent in which minorities were being discriminated against and how close they were to reaching their goals in 2004. A few years later they released their findings that employment equity was not where they wanted it to be and released recommendation on how employers could engage in more diverse practices in the
Affirmative Action Question: Newton and Wasserstrom seem to disagree about whether affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Explain how each arrives at their position about whether or not affirmative action is similar to or different from discriminatory laws of the Jim Crow era
The policy of affirmative action was created to promote equal opportunity in the workfield, however the policy has its own issues as it has produced lots of controversies since its inception. In particular, opponents of Affirmative action argues against the real effects of affirmative action and skeptical whether societal disparities in employment opportunities and incomes were simply the outcome of socioeconomic labelling, hence the effectiveness of affirmative action to address the disparities was also brought into questioning. Moreover the policy is also controversial in that it does, to a certain extent, exert discriminatory racial tension because it discriminates against non-minority groups. Therefore this essay will discuss some of the issues related to the controversial policy as well as explore some of the underlying causes of the policy and assessment of some of its measured benefits.
Affirmative action or positive discrimination can be defined as providing advantages for people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against. This consists of preferential access to education, employment, health care, or social welfare. In employment, affirmative action may also be known as employment equity. Affirmative action requires that institutions increase hiring and promotion of candidates of mandated groups. (Rubenfeld, 1997, p. 429)
However, even as early as 1978 the Supreme Court has made it a point to not support laws that provide for "reverse discrimination," which Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines as "discrimination against whites or males as in employment or education." The Supreme Court stated that this isn’t acceptable when it decided "reverse discrimination" is not acceptable legally or constitutionally (Affirmative, Encyclopedia American 35). I think what they mean by this is that, even though affirmative action is necessary, it should not be so harsh as to make it so the "majority" is then discriminated against in return, because then it is just reversing the discrimination, hence the term "reverse discrimination." There have been many court cases that support each side of this issue.
Marsh, Julia. "Barneys Busted Student for ‘shopping While black’." New York Post Barneys Busted Student for Shopping Whileblack Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.
Question at Issue Affirmative action was implemented with the idea and hope that America would finally become truly equal. The tension of the 1960's civil rights movement had made it very clear, that the nation's minority and female population were not receiving equal social and economic opportunity. The implementation of affirmative action was America's first honest attempt at solving a problem, it had previously chose to ignore. However, there are many people that don't see affirmative action as a positive solution to this major societal problem of racial inequality. These people feel that Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination in the workplace. The Enthymeme Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination because Affirmative action makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose simply the best employee. A= Affirmative action v1= uses B= reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination Because A= Affirmative action v2= makes C= employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose the best available employee. Assumption: Anything that makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having to simply choosing the best available employee uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. Assumption and Audience The assumption for this paper will appeal to employees who do not qualify for Affirmative action, as well as employers and minorities. Employees not qualifying for...
Affirmative action must exist at least as symbolism of this country's commitment to civil rights. The thick blood of prejudice will still continue to run through the veins of U.S. society, despite upbeat talk about the increasingly diversified work force. Government-mandated hiring preferences prod companies into integrating their work force, and in the past twenty-five years of
The black rights and women’s rights movements of the 1960’s fought against injustice and discrimination that had been suffered by minorities for years (Hudson). In response, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 in 1961, creating a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandating that projects financed by federal funding would “take affirmative action” to ensure that hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias (Hudson). Two more executive orders in 1965 and 1968 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and gender, giving the federal government the power to enforce this prohibition (Hudson). However, in current times, affirmative action programs have suffered setbacks. Affirmative action in education has been abolished in Texas by court order, and in California and Washington it has been terminated by public referendum (Bybee).
The equal opportunities law was passed so that everyone can have an equal opportunity. Affirmative action doesn't treat everyone as equals. What affirmative action does is it gives minorities a better chance of being chosen for a job just because...
I wholeheartedly agree with Richard Rodriguez that the approach of affirmative action based on race was misguided and that a race-blind approach to affirmative action would yield the desired objectives of equality among the American population. Race-based affirmative action results in biased favoritism which brings up a new form of discrimination in the name of alleviating it. It is because of this rising discrimination in university admissions that made me feel the full effect of the existing policies on affirmative action in the U.S.
The landscape of race-based affirmative action has changed drastically since the ruling of Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 Gurin, Lehman, Lewis, Gurin, and Dey (2004). In 1997, Barbara Grutter sued the University of Michigan’s Law School admission policy of race-conscious affirmative action (Gurin, et al., 2004). The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions…” (Gurin, et al., 2004, p. 98). This ruling is significant because it found that institutional interest in diversity is not only convincing for educational pedagogy, but also for students’ future civic duties
Social inequality, an issue that has been debated many times throughout the years, has discrimination, racism and sexism. Since people have to deal with this every day, social inequality seems like it will never disappear. However, society believes that their answer to solving this problem has been created, which is Affirmative Action. The purpose of affirmative action is to acquire more diversity and to control the basis of racism in America. This idea is to represent equality for women and minorities who work and are attending universities. For example, when applying to universities, they always ask about your ethnicity, depending on what race you are, you have the upper hand of getting into the school. This is how Universities are trying to bring more diversity and affirmative action is a great idea. However, looking at the sociological attributes to the idea of affirmative action, it does not seem like it is the best way to handle social inequality. In order for affirmative action to truly be a success in society, there are three aspects that need to be analysis: functional analysis (functionalism), conflict theory, symbolic interactionism. Through these three aspects, the advantages and disadvantages of affirmative action will be shown.
This racial study will define the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the context of Affirmative action in the class-based success of higher education and access to higher paying jobs in the labor markets. Affirmative Action was a major legal victory for the Civil Rights movement, which allowed African Americans and other minorities to find access to higher education as a part of the social mobility platform of the movement. Increased diversity in colleges and universities was a major aspect of this success in terms of raising the awareness and educational background of minorities in the community. Also, Affirmative Action allowed greater access to higher paying job access for minorities that defines the political premise of the Civil Rights
...creasingly diverse labor force. The only downside of affirmative action is specifically focusing on the minority employees. They may be viewed as solely being hired as a result of affirmative action, rather than as equally as accomplished, qualified, and productive. This is demeaning to minorities because it sends them the message that they are not capable enough to be considered on their own merits. However, without the application of equal opportunity programs, minorities and women are more probable to have less access to opportunities, and will affect their goal to become successful in general because they think it will not pay off. With the use of affirmative action, it is imperative to find the appropriate method to level the playing field in order reduce the occurrence of minorities not being viewed as equally qualified when being employed at any company.
Most companies after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employed the idea of affirmative action. “Affirmative action is legally driven by federal, state and provincial, and local laws, as well as numerous court cases. It requires written reports containing plans and statistical goals for specific groups of people in terms of such employment practices as hiring, promotions, and layoffs” (Hunt, Osborn, Schermerhorn Jr., 2003, pg.62).