See Instructions

SEE INSTRCTIONS 6

SeeInstructions

SeeInstructions: Affirmative Action

  1. Affirmative action entails favoring the less disadvantaged group at the expense of other groups. It involves providing them with certain economic and social benefits because they are less fortunate in the society. Affirmative action is to as discriminating other people in positively. There are various proponents who support the affirmative action one of the most typical supporters of affirmative action is African civil liberties Union. The union believes that the positive discriminatory policies may help to remedy the numerous problems of social injustice that have been there for many decades. The proponents of affirmative action believe that equality can be through affirmative action (Crosby, Iyer, &amp Sincharoen, 2006). The proponents of affirmative action assert that the motives of affirmative actions are different from the motives of sexism and racism and hence, it should be encouraged. They argue that hiring a slightly qualified candidate from the disadvantaged group may help to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in the society. In addition, affirmative action may help to ensure that there is equal job opportunity among all people irrespective of their gender, religion, and race. Over the years, the blacks have been highly neglected in the employment sector. It was difficult to obtain a job even if one was qualified especially in the presence of whites. The white men were highly preferred because it was believed that they some possessed the skills and competencies required to perform a given job. However, the emergence of affirmative action has changed the entire cycle. The affirmative action policies allow the fewer disadvantages people to be given favors at the expense of other with an aim of ensuring equity among less fortunate members of the society. The proponents of affirmative action justify it by arguing that affirmative action’s help to turn around and ensure that those who were less fortunate can become successful members of the society. It to ensure that disadvantaged groups are in the employment centers. It helps to ensure the right of women is taken into consideration (Crosby, Iyer, &amp Sincharoen, 2006). On the contrary, hiring a slightly qualified candidate from a disadvantaged group at the expense of white male is a form of affirmative action. Some of those against affirmative action include Pojman and Hettinger, they argued that the justification provide do not have any basis. They asserted that affirmative action’s should not only be discouraged but should also be discouraged. The affirmative actions promote discrimination and hence it is unjustified. Those against affirmative action like Pojman and Hettinger asserts that affirmative action discourages diversity. They believe that people should not be hired based on their gender or race where they emanate but rather they should be hired based on their qualifications. By doing so, equity and fairness can be achieved. In addition, the tension and fear among the white male may be eradicated. Hiring a less qualified candidate is not only against the corporate norm but it is also against societal, ethical standards. There are various arguments against the affirmative action. Some of those arguments include but not limited to discrimination, promote tension, kills diversity and discourages hardworking. Hiring a less qualified candidate from a disadvantaged group is a form of discrimination it denies the qualified job applicant to be his/her right of acquiring a job. It also causes lower productivity in an organization. Hiring a less qualified candidate is a precarious act that jeopardizes the operations of the organization. A less qualified candidate may not possess vital skills that are necessary to execute the required task. Instead of bringing profitability to a company such as a person may make the organization to incur more losses than expected. It is, therefore, unjustified to hire a candidate just because he/she come from a disadvantaged group. The other argument against affirmative action is that it discourages hardworking. Hiring a slightly qualified candidate from a disadvantaged group at the expense of a highly qualified white discourages people to become diligent. It demotivates students in school and colleges to work hard because they may not be rewarded their hard work at the end of their studies. In addition, affirmative action increases tension. The white people may feel threatened by affirmative action policies that tend to favor disadvantaged groups at their expense (Crosby, Iyer, &amp Sincharoen, 2006). There is worry of excluding the white males on the basis of their gender and sex. Being born a white male was not an option but rather than an involuntary natural occurrence that no human being has control. Hiring the less disadvantaged group at the expense of the qualified whites may increase not only worry but also tension for displacement among the white males. The white male may perceive that affirmative action as a threat that aims at excluding them in getting a job. It implies that a lot of worries tends to be. The white’s male may view the blacks and the less disadvantaged group as an enemy who want to take away their jobs. Therefore, based on this argument, affirmative action in the hiring process is unjustified and should be entirely discouraged. People should be equal chances to go through the interview process and compete for the available jobs without any form of favoritism (Crosby, Iyer, &amp Sincharoen, 2006). Hettinger advised utilitarian intuition that it is a small price to pay for ensuring that the worry among white male is eradicated by eliminating affirmative action in the hiring process. Hettinger implied that the damage that could occur in the future as a result of discriminating the white male was high. The damage is significantly higher as compared to the little price of giving all the groups equal chances when hiring. Hittinger provides similar justification that the young white male are not with any reward for their sacrifices. For example, they are expected to go through the entire education system from lower schools to college’s levels without being compensated. The compensation here involves giving them equal opportunities to compete for the available j with the disadvantaged group. The affirmative action in the hiring process demotivates them to work harder as there is no reward at the end (Crosby, Iyer, &amp Sincharoen, 2006).

Conclusion

Basedonthestudyitcan be observedthattheargumentagainst affirmativeactionoutweighstheargumentsforaffirmativeaction.Thoseagainst affirmativeaction’sin thehiring processsuchas Pojman andHettinger arguesthatthere assertionsraisedby thesupportersdonot holdanybasis.Itimpliesthathiringa slightlyqualifiedcandidatefora jobat theexpenseof a qualifiedwhite manis fullyunjustified. Itdeniesthewhite maleandotherqualifiedjobapplicantswith a chanceto geta job.In addition,itcreatesfearandtensionamong thelessfortunateandwhite malesas discussed.

References

Crosby,F. J., Iyer, A., &amp Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understandingaffirmative action. Annu.Rev. Psychol.,57,585-611.