Affirmative action aims to promote inclusion and address past and current discrimination. Critics argue it promotes reverse discrimination and devalues individual achievements. Laws and policies aim to ensure fair inclusion of minorities and diversity. Proponents argue it benefits workplaces and reduces cultural gaps.
Affirmative action is a set of policies designed to promote the inclusion of all individuals, thereby addressing concerns about discrimination. Some form has been around in the United States since the late 1800s, but the push for broader laws and their enforcement began in the 1960s with the civil rights movement. There are a range of arguments against affirmative action, with critics calling it “reverse discrimination” and arguing that it strengthens barriers between people, rather than breaking them down.
Several problems are designed to be addressed with affirmative action. The first is a past history of discrimination, with laws recognizing the fact that many people have historically been excluded from work, school and social endeavours, and that in many cases this historical pattern of exclusion has created disadvantages. Concerns about current discrimination should also be addressed by these policies, as should the desire to create a more fully integrated and diverse society.
Many laws and policies related to discrimination issues revolve around the idea of equal opportunity, with proponents arguing that everyone should have a chance to succeed in society and that people may be disadvantaged because of race, ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. Rather than giving preference to minorities, these laws should ensure that minorities are included fairly and reward the inclusion of diversity. Proponents say these laws also recognize that there are differences between people and that these differences need to be addressed, rather than taking a ‘colour-blind’ view, which can often be a disservice to minorities.
Opponents often suggest that such laws can promote underqualified people, taking away jobs or other positions from those who are more suitable, through no fault of the qualified candidate. Such actions, which may disproportionately affect white males, are simply another form of discrimination, they suggest. Practicing a new wrong in the present, some argue, does not actually correct past wrongs.
Furthermore, it is often argued that affirmative action devalues the achievements of individuals in groups that have been discriminated against in the past. Such policies can be seen as suggesting that these people need help to be successful rather than doing it on their own merits. The lower standards for minorities, others suggest, discourage those individuals from doing their best.
An example of this type of law is one that states that landlords cannot deny rental units to people based on race or family status. These types of laws are specifically designed to identify examples of discrimination and make it clear that such actions are not legal. Another example would be a law giving preference to government bids that include the use of minority subcontractors. People won’t necessarily automatically bid to subcontract a women’s paint crew, for example, but they will be given more weight in the decision-making process.
Many nations have laws on the books that fall under the umbrella of affirmative action. Additionally, many companies and government agencies have policies designed to promote diversity. Proponents argue that these policies not only benefit the minorities who are protected and promoted under these policies, but also the company and the workplace as a whole, because including people from diverse backgrounds can contribute to a better variety of ideas and ways of working. The direct fight against discrimination through such policies also aims to reduce cultural, socio-economic and class gaps between people from different social backgrounds.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
