The merit system standards case is based on Congressman Wally Herger’s comments regarding the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) civil rights program (Reeves, 2006). In an attempt to persuade the House of Representatives that change was necessary, Herger quoted several United States Forest Service job announcements that included language such as “only unqualified applicants may apply” and “only applicants who do not meet Office of Personnel Management (OPM) qualification requirements will be considered” (Reeves, 2006). The This case study analysis will focus on the Forest Service’s unfair practice of actively recruiting and hiring unqualified applicants, the reasons for discontinuing this practice, and the increase in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints due to this practice and suggestions for increasing diversity without compromising the merit system (Reeves, 2006).
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.
Due to the constraints included in Forest Service’s postings many otherwise qualified applicants are excluded (Reeves, 2006). Hiring by quota is unfair to applicants and can lead to dangerous conditions when positions are filled by temporary employees or remain vacant because ...
... middle of paper ...
...to accomplish diversity without compromising the merit system (U.S. Office of Personnel, 2011).
Works Cited
Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Van Wart, M. R. (2013). Human resources management in public service (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Exec. Order No. 13583, 76 Fed. Reg. 52847 (Aug. 23, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-23/pdf/2011-21704.pdf Reeves, T. Z. (2006). Merit system standards: Hiring the unqualified. In
Public human resource management (2nd ed., pp. 41-43). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth Cenage Learning.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management Office of Diversity and Inclusion,
Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2011, Rep. (2011).
Retrieved from http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/
diversity-and-inclusion/reports/governmentwidedistrategicplan.pdf
...evidence, the committee should have adhered to the Cumberland plant HR Director’s correspondence that clearly stated that interviewers should not award points to candidates for being a “diversity candidate” and “it is really important up front before your interviews start to have a definition of what ‘Outstanding,’ ‘Well-Qualified,’ and ‘Qualified’ is. This needs to be documented and dated before the interview process starts” (Walsh, 2010). The district court found the interviewers placed candidates in these categories after the interviews and ranking had been completed. In turn, this ensured the number of “Outstanding” applicants equaled the ‘exact’ number of job openings and their candidates of choice were in the top 10 group. As a result, TVA should ensure a legitimate matrix is developed for scoring purposes and not be manipulated for preferred results.
Affirmative action, while a great idea in the beginning, is no longer needed to make up for the past discrimination of women and minorities. It does not get rid of discrimination, but rather creates it towards whites and men. Any form of discrimination is wrong, whether intentional or unintentional. Businesses and universities will set aside a separate pool for minorities and women so they don’t have to originally compete against the whole pool of applicants. A person’s qualifications and how they got to where they are should not be questioned because of affirmative action. The only reason some people are still questioned or considered undeserving is because affirmative action still takes place. Getting rid of affirmative action in universities and businesses will eliminate reverse discrimination and ensure that their qualifications, along with achievements, will not be questioned based on the skin color or gender of a
If America is to become an equal society, then the direction of affirmative action must be changed. Rather than continuing to focus the brunt of our efforts on helping those individuals near the top succeed, we must implement policies designed to provide opportunities to those individuals at or near the bottom. Specifically, affirmative action must return to its original purpose--helping minorities move into the middle class through programs based upon equality of educational opportunity and job creation.
The problem is determining if a person’s ability and character is devalued due to this preference for minority groups. Affirmative action is often abused when people use their ethnicity rather than workmanship or skill level to receive a job or college opportunity. Through the years after President John F. Kennedy first introduced affirmative action, there has not been significant steps toward equality of the races in the workplace or schools. Therefore, new actions and plans should be put in place to help solve this on-going
Page-Reeves, J., Niforatos, J., Mishra, S., Regino, L., Gingrich, A., & Bulten, J. (2011). Health
Affirmative action was created to allow minorities to have more opportunities in the workforce and in education. It still remains to be a debate whether affirmative action should be a necessary route even though we have made progress towards greater equality. The argument over Affirmative action has been going on for some time with two opposing sides. There is one side who finds Affirmative action as an opportunity to the less fortunate; those who are against have the belief that it promotes less qualified individuals rather than a person own merit.
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is prohibited by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace, including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American descent.
The roots of affirmative action may be traced back to the early 1960’s, during the Civil Rights Movement. It was in 1961 that President John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order that first introduced affirmative action. This order included an establishment that government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated fairly during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” (University of California Irvine) Over the years, there have been many adjustments to affirmative action, but they all reiterated the same general idea. This idea is that there would be equal opportunity for all qualified persons, and to take positive actions in order to ensure there would be equal opportunity for all. (University of California Irvine) Affirmative action has been successful, it has increased the number of recruiting and screening practices by employers, raised employers’ inclination to hire denounced applicants, increased the number of minority or female applicants and employees, and it increased the likelihood that employers will provide training and evaluate the...
Khenzi, N., Hutton, D. N., Garber, A. M., Hupert, N., & Owens, D. K. (2009).
Affirmative action is an attempt by the United States to amend a long history of racial discrimination and injustice. Our school textbook defines affirmative action as “a program established that attempts to improve the chances of minority applicants for educational or employment purposes, although they may have the same qualifications, by giving them leverage so that they can attain a level that is equal to caucasian applicants” (Berman 522). There are people that support and oppose this issue. Opponents of affirmative action have many reasons for opposing this issue, one of them being that the battle for equal rights is over, and that this advantage made for people of color discriminates against people that are not of color. The people that defend affirmative action argue this advantage is needed because of how badly discriminated the people of color once were. Because of the discrimination that once was these people claim that they are at a disadvantage, and always have been, therefore equality of opportunity is needed. It is also said that affirmative action is used to encourage diversity and integration. This paper will discuss the history of affirmative action, how it is implemented in society today, and evaluate the arguments that it presents.
Kobau, R., Zack, M. M., Manderscheid, R., Palpant, R. G., Morales, D. S., Luncheon, C., et al.
Vahey, C. D., Aiken, H. L., Sloane, M. D., Clarke, P. S., and Vargas, D. (2010 Jan. 15).
Trautner, H. M., Ruble, D. N., Cyphers, L., Kirsten, B., Behrendt, R., & Hartmann, P. (2005).
The purpose ofAffirmative Action is a simple one, it exists to level the playing field, so to speak, in the areas of hiring and college admissions based on characteristics that usually include race, sex, and/or ethnicity. A certain minority group or gender may be underrepresented in an arena, often employment or academia, in theory due to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. In such a circumstance, one school of thought maintains that unless this group is concretely helped to achieve a more substantial representation, it will have difficulty gaining the critical mass and acceptance in that role, even if overt discrimination against the group is eradicated. For this reason, more effort must be made to recruit persons from that background, train them, and lower the entrance requirements for them. (Goldman, 1976, p. 179) Proponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action is the best way to corre...
Hill, T.F., & Nabors, L.A., & Reynolds, M.W., & Wallace, J., & Weist, M.D. (2001). The