The civil-rights movement presents a challenging paradox in that the prohibition of racial discrimination has increased difficulty in addressing its lingering consequences. After the Constitution was amended and laws were enacted to safeguard individuals of color from discriminatory treatment that could cause them harm, the government encountered difficulties in implementing programs that different treatment towards people of color in ways that could potentially be advantageous. The removal of race as a factor was initially implemented. However, it was later recognized that to achieve equal opportunities and outcomes for all individuals in the United States, it was necessary to reintroduce race as a consideration. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as affirmative action. Contemporary society is characterized by the perpetual evolution of legal regulations and business environments, giving rise to contentious issues that present dual perspectives. Critical thinking is crucial when analyzing these subjects to arrive at well-informed conclusions. Advocates of affirmative action contend that it is imperative to rectify historical inequalities and furnish equitable prospects for individuals who have been previously marginalized. Notwithstanding, critics argue that affirmative action results in reverse discrimination, weakens the principle of selection based on merit, and generates societal conflicts. This essay aims to critically analyze the arguments presented on both sides of the affirmative action debate and give our current position. In light of this, the present paper explores the contentious issue of affirmative action and its continued viability in addressing historical discrimination. Utilizing Brookfield’s critical thinking methodology, the central points about affirmative action will be identified and analyzed, alternative perspectives will be evaluated, and an informed position will be taken.
First, let us start with a definition of affirmative action. The US Commission on Civil Rights defines affirmative action as “any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, that permits the consideration of race, national origin, sex, or disability along with other criteria and which is adopted to provide opportunities to a class of qualified individuals who have historically or actually been denied those opportunities and to prevent the recurrence of discrimination.” (US Commission on Civil Rights). John F. Kennedy initially instituted this regulation in 1961 with Executive Order 10925. With the creation of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, he mandated that all federal contractors take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” (Menand, 2020).
Affirmative action proponents argue it levels the playing field for historically discriminated against marginalized groups. Affirmative action is viewed as a means to increase minority workforce participation and provide historically denied opportunities to these groups. Affirmative action is also considered necessary because discrimination still exists in our society. Without affirmative action, minority groups may continue to be denied access to numerous employment opportunities (Bengtson, 2022; April 2023). An argument in support of affirmative action posits that it serves to rectify historical discrimination by creating a more equitable environment. The initiative enhances the presence of underrepresented groups in the labor market and expands prospects for historically marginalized minorities. The persistence of discrimination in our society and the lack of complete colorblindness necessitate implementing affirmative action as a viable solution (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2022). Notably, a crucial rationale behind implementing affirmative action is its capacity to foster egalitarianism in a society that historical occurrences of prejudice have marred. To a certain extent, it can be argued that affirmative action has been instrumental in enhancing the representation of women and minorities in the workforce. Nevertheless, there exists a disputed debate concerning the extent of these progressions.
Nevertheless, it is a valid assertion that affirmative action may result in the occurrence of ‘social stigma’ by fostering a notion that individuals from minority groups are employed solely based on their race or gender. Consequently, such circumstances may give rise to heightened intergroup hatred based on race and generate strain within the professional environment. Advocates of affirmative action contend that it is imperative to rectify historical inequities and furnish commensurate prospects for individuals who have been systemically marginalized. The belief is held that historical discrimination has resulted in an inequitable society, and implementing affirmative action is deemed necessary to avert its reoccurrence (Salib, 2022). Advocates contend that discrimination persists and that our community has not achieved colorblindness.
Nonetheless, there exist counterarguments to support the notion that affirmative action may not be an optimal approach. Hiring individuals from minority groups based solely on race or gender can develop a “social stigma” and heightened racial awareness, leading non-minority individuals to believe the hiring decision was based on factors other than merit. Implementing affirmative action policies has the potential to generate workplace tension (Adams, 2021). It may only sometimes lead to selecting the most competent candidates for a job or opportunity. An additional significant contention opposing affirmative action is that contemporary society differs from the one that existed three decades ago, during the inception of affirmative action. After that time, noteworthy progress has been made about parity, with numerous marginalized factions achieving substantial advancements regarding financial remuneration and prospects.
Moreover, affirmative action may have a detrimental effect, as it has the potential to result in a scenario where competent candidates are overlooked in favor of unskilled ones. In broad terms, critics of affirmative action contend that it results in reverse discrimination and erodes the principle of selection based on merit. The belief is that affirmative action engenders social tensions and may result in individuals not being evaluated based on their values. In addition, the argument posits that affirmative action has a detrimental effect on the self-worth of women and ethnic minorities and is merely a political maneuver by left-leaning Democrats aimed at societal manipulation (Bengtson, 2022). Individuals exhibit a sense of civic pride when they are part of a workplace or educational institution that embraces racial diversity. Several individuals prefer to avoid closely considering the methods utilized to attain a specific outcome.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a relevant factor to consider when analyzing the constitutionality of affirmative action. Does the policy allow for the inclusion of race in the decision-making process for undergraduate admissions? The topic at hand is still a subject of discussion and disagreement.
Upon conducting a thorough analysis of the various perspectives surrounding the issue, affirmative action represents a crucial policy tool for redressing historical discrimination and advancing principles of equity. Although there are apprehensions regarding the possibility of reverse discrimination and the erosion of merit-based selection, affirmative action measures can be formulated to guarantee that preference is accorded to competent individuals (Dorsey & Chambers, 2023). Moreover, implementing affirmative action policies can mitigate disparities and enhance the inclusivity of underrepresented demographics within the labor market. Implementing affirmative action is deemed necessary until our society attains a state of genuine colorblindness and eliminates discrimination.
Through my analysis, I have identified the underlying assumptions upon which affirmative action policies are predicated and evaluated the assumptions’ accuracy and validity. After examining the matter from multiple angles, I have concluded that affirmative action served a crucial purpose in remedying past discrimination. However, exploring alternative approaches to establish equal opportunities in contemporary times may be more effective. One potential approach to decision-making is prioritizing merit-based selection procedures rather than considering factors such as race or gender (Sangiuliano, 2023). The objective should be to establish a societal framework where individuals are evaluated solely based on their qualifications and competencies, regardless of race or gender.
Conclusively, affirmative action continues to be a contentious subject within the legal sphere and the regulation of commerce. While some critics contend that affirmative action compromises merit-based selection and engender social conflicts, advocates assert that it is indispensable for rectifying historical disadvantages and promoting equal opportunities. Through a rigorous examination of the various viewpoints and underlying assumptions, we contend that affirmative action remains a crucial measure until our society achieves genuine colorblindness and discrimination is eliminated. Critical thinking is paramount when analyzing contentious matters about the legal environment and business regulation. The efficacy of affirmative action in promoting equal opportunities in contemporary times warrants a critical appraisal, despite its historical role in mitigating discrimination. Prioritizing selection procedures based on merit and establishing a societal framework that evaluates individuals based on their abilities and qualifications is paramount. The effectiveness of affirmative action in advancing equity for minority groups in the United States has been subject to scrutiny, and alternative strategies may be more suitable for attaining this objective. Despite its historical necessity, the contemporary efficacy of affirmative action is a subject of debate.
References
Bengtson, A. (2022). Affirmative Action in the Political Domain. Political Studies, 00323217221095379. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00323217221095379
Adams, M. (2021). Nonideal Justice, Fairness, and Affirmative Action. J. Ethics & Soc. Phil., pp. 20, 310. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jetshy20§ion=21
Salib, P. N. (2022). Big Data Affirmative Action. Nw. UL Rev., pp. 117, 821. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/illlr117§ion=28
Menand, L. (2020). The changing meaning of affirmative action. The New Yorker, pp. 306, 339. https://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/Menand%20on%20%20AFFIRMATIVE%20ACTION.pdf
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2020). Making sense of affirmative action. Oxford University Press.
April, K., Dharani, B., & April, A. (2023). Affirmative Action and Empowerment. In Lived Experiences of Exclusion in the Workplace: Psychological & Behavioural Effects (pp. 155-168). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2051-233320230000007006/full/html
Sangiuliano, A. (2023). Justifying Antisubordination. American Journal of Law and Equality, forthcoming. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4365177
Dorsey, D. N. T., & Chambers, T. T. V. (2023). Working the Intersections of Interest Convergence and Whiteness as Property in the Affirmative Action Legal Debate. Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rE-eEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT186&dq=arguments+of+whether+affirmative+action+is+still+a+viable+option+for+our+society+to+deal+with+past+discrimination.&ots=CfON_qE1II&sig=jRvN3IsVQrhJ3thGsvLSaOxX8-s
write