Affirmative Action

Con’s Case: No Evidence and Half Truth Argumentation It seems that con’s arguments are based on what-if scenarios and are not backed up by any evidence or sources. In, an americanbar. org publication, it is suggested that affirmative action is seen in a negative light because of the way that surveyors pose questions regarding affirmative action, that cause the respondents in these surveys to view affirmative action programs unfavorably. [1] I prefer to focus on the facts about affirmative action, which I will state whileI refute my cons claims. In con’s opening statement where he describes the forms of affirmative action, he states that “they (I’m assuming he is referring to the government) mandate compliance or provide economic incentive. ” Both of these claims are inaccurate (nonspecific) or unfounded. After researching this topic, that makes some people uneasy at its implications, I have found evidence that affirmative action programs based on race or gender are nowhere near as prevalent as many people perceive them to be. Affirmative Action: Racial and Gender Mandates in the Workplace Con implies that mandatory Affirmative action programs are formally in place in all employment situations. Formal Affirmative Action Programs, as far as how they relate to the workplace, are only required for companies that meet specific criteria or under certain conditions. This leaves the majority of employers,(including small businesses) with hiring and promotion practices at liberty to hire and promote individuals (as long as they adhere to the EEOC [2]) without specific quotas or formal regulation. Under Executive Order 11246, OFCCP administers and enforces regulations which prohibit federal contractors and federally-assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Executive Order also requires Government contractors to take affirmative action to insure that equal opportunity is provided in all aspects of their employment. Each Government contractor with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each of its establishments. [3] Courts may require employers to adopt affirmative action programs as a remedy for past discrimination under Title VII. [4] Taking these factors into consideration, affirmative action, by law, isn’t affecting most employers in the US. The employers that formal affirmative action programs are effecting through government mandates, are companies that get much of their business from the government themselves, therefore affirmative action programs are warranted to ensure that these companies are hiring and promoting those who could be at a disadvantage without these mandates. The history and continuance of discrimination within labor unions of the construction trade, is one of the reasons that affirmative action programs are needed for companies that receive government contracts. [5] Affirmative Action: Economic Incentives I could not find any evidence that economic incentives are given to companies to employ or promote individuals based on race or gender; what I did find was evidence that companies can receive economic incentives for employing those with disabilities [6][7](including those deemed economically disadvantaged who had previously received economic government assistance) or Military Veterans who were unemployed. [8] Cons argument is based on what if scenarios that don’t exist in reality. There are no economic incentives given by the US Government to hire minorities or women, only economic incentives to hire the disabled, economically disadvantaged, or unemployed veterans. Affirmative Action: Supply and Demand Con makes the claim that supply and demand should dictate the hiring and promotional practices of employers. Many employers chose to implement affirmative action programs within their hiring and promotion practices. It is still “affirmative action” whether it is mandated by the government, or practiced voluntarily. “The majority of corporate affirmative action programs are voluntary attempts to improve workforce diversity. ” Many corporations voluntarily engage in affirmative action practices because diversity of the workforce is desirable. Problem solving that requires more than one approach or perspective improves with the creative solutions offered by a diverse workforce. [1] “Strong corporate support for affirmative action programs makes it likely that such programs will persist, even in the absence of government support. ” [1] In a free market capitalistic society, private companies themselves are finding that hiring a more diverse workforce, including minorities, women, and those with disabilities offers an advantage in the manufacture and market of their products or services. If companies are choosing to implement their own affirmative actions policies, without being required by law to do so, then affirmative action must hold benefits to companies themselves, and not just to the individuals who benefit from these policies. Affirmative Action is beneficial to more than just minorities, women, or individuals with disabilities, as the perspectives they bring to the workforce offer innovative ideas to solving problems that may have never been thought of in a work setting where everyone came from similar perspectives in life. This concludes my arguments and rebuttals for round two. Sources [1]. http://www.americanbar.org... [2]. https://www.eeoc.gov... [3]. https://www.dol.gov... [4]. https://www.dol.gov... [5]. http://laborunionreport.com... [6]. https://www.doleta.gov... [7]. https://www.doleta.gov... [8]. http://www.benefits.va.gov...