What is interesting however, is that I am equipped with my usual assume items: GAP my major, extra-curricular achievements, etc… , and have the advantage of being mixed-race. As a dual citizen, I can better fit the diverse profile that firms today are seeking. The underlying issue is that these employers are facing pressure to hire individuals that increase the racial, gender, and economic background diversity of the company.
Even though it might give me the slight preference I need, I reject the belief that these non- discrimination profiles should be met and instead support the claim that employers should not be constrained in their decision making. Hirers should select applicants without bias and match them with their job according to their own merit and character. Any affirmative action should not be based on gender nor race, but instead should be financially based in order to provide a fair chance for success.
The purpose of affirmative action is to “level the playing field”; to ensure that no matter the race, gender, or economic disadvantage, there is an equal opportunity for everyone. In the context of the hiring process, it means that nobody should be overlooked due to those reasons. According to American philosopher Louis P. Pajama (1 998), there is a division in the overreaching topic of affirmative action. Pajama separates the topic into two classes: weak and strong affirmative action with the distinguishing factor being that “weak” action seeks equal opportunity whereas “strong” goes for equal results.
This “strong’ type of affirmative action looks to compensate for groups of people that have been oppressed in the past. The advancement of people within the same group that had been historically discriminated upon does not truly aid the issue because those that faced the oppression are not present any longer (Fingers, 1998, p. 88). Such action only furthers the discrimination. Relating this advancement to workplace hiring, employers are pressured to specifically hire minorities or females. In some cases, the employer can benefit financially from a diverse hire.
Former Time magazine writer, Lisa Attacked Culled, who was born and grew up in Japan, acknowledges the strong possibility that she may have been a “quota hire”. She writes that her boss was known for his trend of hiring to increase diversity and that he did receive bonuses for doing so (Culled 2007). The argument is not that Culled or any of the other employees that were aired due to a non-merit reason were not qualified to earn their positions. The argument is that in the process of searching for diversity, reverse discrimination occurred when a whole subset of the population was overlooked due to aspects outside of their control.
Stated by American philosopher and Professor Carl Cohen (2003), “There is no ethnic preference that can be ‘benign”. What may seemingly aid in the erasure of prior discrimination ultimately leads to new, unwanted discrimination. The moral problem here is that if person A is discriminated upon, he is due compensation. However, person A should not be due compensation at the expense of person B. Moreover, preferential or compensatory hiring has an overall negative effect economically. In order to avoid lawsuits and to create an appropriate and respectful environment, companies have to go through a diversity training process (Bergman 2012).
In a study on diversity training, researchers found that the negative effects were more than just economic. Management diversity itself has been found to be damaged when firms make the training mandatory. The data collected over 30 years amounted to annual losses of millions of dollars by the hundreds of companies observed. (Dobbin, Kale, & Kelly, 2007). Using this information to support the original claim that hiring to meet a diversity profile, we can see the compounding effect of discrimination and how affirmative action for those racially or sexually discriminated upon can be detrimental to them as well.
Hiring based on merit and character certainly has its economic advantages. Suppose you have person A and person B. Both have equal ability but person B has a higher skill level than person A. Therefore, you would hire person B because he/she would not impose the training cost that person A would. Also, the time that person A would spend training, person B could spend working Fingers, 1998, p. 282). Of course, the disadvantage to solely hiring based upon merit would be the lack of equality. People with higher skill levels would us episodes go to prestigious institutions with heavy financial requirements.
Therefore the individual starting from a lower class family would not have the equal opportunity that someone from a well to do family would. This is where believe affirmative action should be used; regardless of race or gender. In today’s world, believe a man and woman equally able to succeed given the same tools and resources. Instead of focusing on leveling the difference teen men and women, we should devote our attention to those resources and in doing so, advance both men and women… Minorities and majorities.
As a result, we could minimalism the ill effects of reverse discrimination. Promotion and hiring due to nepotism and familial relations is an inherently unfair advantage that decreases the legitimacy of that individual’s merit. Nepotism shares similarities to hiring based on a diversity fueled agenda in that the job applicant may not be qualified for the position. However, nepotism differs in that the employer may have a greater knowledge Of the applicant’s character since they are related. This relation could result in “… Stability and continuation” (Durham, 2014).
This personal knowledge could indeed make the applicant more qualified than individuals who are not related to the employer even if they are equal in all other aspects. Therefore, deciding against nepotism is seemingly more difficult and should be taken case by case. In an eye-opening excerpt, Stanford alumni David Sacks and Peter Thiele co- wrote about how the Stanford University admission process had begun to rethink why they were racially discriminated to the benefit of minorities. .. Why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? They asked (Sacks & Thiele, 1998). College admissions is one of the biggest steps in creating equal opportunity for individuals since an education provides the skills that makes one qualified to be employed. My argument supports the movement for an affirmative action that is based more upon one’s financial background and eliminating the related barriers. “Strong” affirmative action has its goal as compensation for historical wrongdoings. Believe that this causes more discrimination for hose receiving the action as well as reverse discrimination for those whose opportunity is taken away from them.