Diversity in the Workplace: Should Affirmative Action Be Eliminated?
Since the 1960’s, the American workplace has become significantly more diverse This has occurred due to many factors, but one of the first steps began with President Kennedy signing Executive Order 10925 which created the Committee for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) and mandated that projects funded by the federal government take “affirmative action” that the hiring and employment practices are free from racial bias (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids employers from discrimination based upon race, color, gender, religion, and country of origin. However, it did not detail how to eliminate this discrimination; it just made it illegal. Discrimination, by its nature and personal perception, is a bias that is hard to confirm and statistically analyze (Pager & Shepherd, 2008). It is not morally enough for an employer to say they will not discriminate. Milestones that are measurable are required. President Johnson said (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.):
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
To aid with the enforcement of Title VII, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 in 1964 (Brunner, & Rowen, n.d.) which required government contractors to document their efforts in the hiring and employment of minorities, affirmative action was born. Affirmative action is a concept or policy that gives preferential treatment to minorities for admission to college or employment in government & businesses. The policies were created to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities more representation in the workplace.
It has also been beneficial to business. Minorities now comprise 37 percent of the nation’s population (US Census Bureau, 2015). Since the face of America is changing, diversity is now valued in many Fortune 500 companies. “The more diverse the room when decisions are made, the better the decisions” (Lytle, 2014). It is recognized that all levels of the organization should be diversified, not just the lower levels. A corporate board of directors with various backgrounds and experiences reflect the real world and can make a significant impact on adaptability to a changing global market, provide a change to the status quo, and provide better advice to the CEO on business decisions, and provide a trickle-down effect on the makeup of the company (Myatt, 2013).
Diversity in the workplace has allowed new ideas which enable companies to reach new markets and thus increasing profits. Studies have shown that companies with a diverse workforce, particularly the decision-makers, show a significant increase in profit over their less-diverse competitors (American Sociological Association, 2009):
“…companies reporting the highest levels of racial diversity brought in nearly 15 times more sales revenue on average than those with the lowest levels of racial diversity. Gender diversity accounted for a difference of $599.1 million in average sales revenue: organizations with the lowest rates of gender diversity had average sales revenues of $45.2 million, compared with averages of $644.3 million for businesses with the most gender diversity”.
The progress in the diversity of the current American workplace as opposed to that of 60 years ago seems to indicate the programs have been successful. Because of its success and changing attitudes toward race in America, there are some compelling arguments that affirmative action, while important leading out of the Civil Rights movement, is no longer necessary. It is viewed as reverse-discrimination which violates the spirit of Equal Opportunity Employment by giving preferential treatment based upon race or gender.
There are several cases that have been argued in court in opposition to affirmative action with mixed results (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.). One notable example is a case argued in 2000 before a federal court concerning admissions to the University of Michigan. The school had a policy of rating potential applicants on a point system; being a minority student earned you more than twice as many points as achieving a perfect SAT score. Three white students sued citing this as raced-based discrimination. School officials argued that diversity is important to the school and better prepares the students for life and felt affirmative action was the only way to achieve true diversity. The judge ruled on the side of the school. A later Supreme Court case confirmed the constitutionality of race-based goals, but asked schools to re-evaluate their admissions process and see if a workable race-neutral system was capable of achieving the same results. Some schools have opposing views, implementing a ban on using race as a factor for admissions. This ban has also held up under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, allowing them to balance their admissions and diversity goals through different methods.
A Supreme Court case in 2009 involved firefighters whose captain's exams were thrown out after it was determined not enough minorities passed (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.). The court sided with the firefighters and stated that throwing out the results of the exam violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This example shows that affirmative action could be seen as condescending; minorities can only achieve success through affirmative action by setting a lower standard and thus devaluing the individual’s hard work and ability. Clarence Thomas, the only African-American Supreme Court Justice, once wrote: “I was taught there’s no real difference between blacks or whites, and I never thought there was supposed to be an easier or different road for us (Hauser, 2014).”
However, there are still some glaring statistics that show that more progress on employment discrimination is needed. While current unemployment is currently low at 4.6% thanks to 73 months of continued job growth during the economic recovery, unemployment is higher for some minorities; 5.7% for Hispanics and 8.1% for Blacks (Bureau of Labor, 2016). African-Americans have also shown to be unemployed longer (DOL, 2011) than whites or Hispanics, averaging over 27 weeks unemployed versus whites at 19.7 weeks and Hispanics at 18.5 weeks.
The reasons for this are varied, but racism is likely at play. Experiments have shown that people of equal credentials but with perceived ethnic names received significantly fewer calls from potential employers due to possible racism (Mullainathan, 2015), even if subconsciously. The social scientists sent thousands of résumés to potential employers and measured which ones were selected for callbacks for interviews. However, random stereotypically African-American names (such as “DeShawn”) were used on some and stereotypically white names (like “Connor”) on others were used on identical résumés. The same résumé with a “white” name was roughly 50 percent more likely to result in callback for an interview. The author noted other study results, like black people with no criminal history are less likely than whites with a criminal past to be hired for even low wage jobs. Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action.
There is also still a lack of diversity in the corporate boardrooms of American companies, though it has been shown that diversity promotes greater profits. In order to combat this problem, the U.S. Securities and Exchange created a rule in which companies must file their diversity numbers with their statements for shareholder review (Aguilar, 2010). The SEC was flooded with a number of letters from shareholders who supported the measure, in means of social justice as well as for profits. In a speech given to the SAIS Center for Transatlantic Relations, SEC Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar addressed the lack of diversity in the American corporate boardroom:
“Notwithstanding these studies, there is a persistent lack of diversity in corporate boardrooms across this country — women and minorities remain woefully underrepresented. For example, in 2008, the Alliance for Board Diversity compiled statistics about the composition of the boards of directors of Fortune 100 companies and found the majority of board members, 71.5%, were white men, and only 28.5% of the board seats were held by women and minorities. The one bright spot among these low numbers is that, in 2009, women represented 39% of all new board appointments. The 39% figure represents 165 out of 424 board positions filed in 2009 and represents an increase from the 25% of new board seats filled by women in 2008. I hope this upward movement is a trend rather than a year-to-year aberration.”
Even if Corporate America and the rest of the business world recognize the financial benefits of diversity, it won't always occur if left to chance. Women seem to be making great strides in equality in the workplace, but minorities continue to be left behind.
America has come a long way in its attitude toward race and social justice. However, we are still not a color-blind society that treats all equally. Diversity plans and continuing efforts toward reaching out to marginalized people should continue to help balance the playing field for all and helping to create a more just society. While some affirmative action plans should be re-evaluated for fairness and applicability, it appears society still needs help to narrow the gap for certain groups.
References:
Aguilar, L (2010, Sept 16). Speech by the SEC Commissioner: Diversity in the boardroom is important and, unfortunately, still rare. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 12/4/16 from https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2010/spch091610laa.htm
American Sociological Association. (2009, April 3). Diversity Linked To Increased Sales Revenue And Profits, More Customers. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 4, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331091252.htm
Brunner, B. & Rowen, B. (n.d.). Timeline for affirmative action milestones. Infoplease. Retrieved 11/22/16 from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016, Dec 2). News release: Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved 12/7/16 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.
Hauser, S. (2012, April 10). The dream, the reality: Civil rights in the ‘60s and today. Workforce. Retrieved 12/2/16 from http://www.workforce.com/2012/04/10/the-dream-the-reality-civil-rights-in-the-60s-and-today/
Lytle, T. (2014, May 21). Title VII changed the face of the American workplace. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved 11/23/16 from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/title-vii-changed-the-face-of-the-american-workplace.aspx
Mullainathan, Sendhil. (2015, Jan 3). Racial bias, even when we have good intentions. NY Times. Retrieved December 2, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html?_r=0
Myatt, M. (2013, Nov 18). Top 10 reasons why diversity is good for the board room. Forbes. Retrieved 12/2/16 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2013/11/18/top-10-reasons-diversity-is-good-for-the-boardroom/#134277c75fda
U.S. Census Bureau (2015, July 1). Quick facts United States. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved December 2, 2016 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
U.S. Dept. of Labor (2011). The African-American Labor Force in the Recovery. U.S Department of Labor. Retrieved December 7, 2016 from https://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/blacklaborforce/
Since the 1960’s, the American workplace has become significantly more diverse This has occurred due to many factors, but one of the first steps began with President Kennedy signing Executive Order 10925 which created the Committee for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) and mandated that projects funded by the federal government take “affirmative action” that the hiring and employment practices are free from racial bias (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids employers from discrimination based upon race, color, gender, religion, and country of origin. However, it did not detail how to eliminate this discrimination; it just made it illegal. Discrimination, by its nature and personal perception, is a bias that is hard to confirm and statistically analyze (Pager & Shepherd, 2008). It is not morally enough for an employer to say they will not discriminate. Milestones that are measurable are required. President Johnson said (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.):
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
To aid with the enforcement of Title VII, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 in 1964 (Brunner, & Rowen, n.d.) which required government contractors to document their efforts in the hiring and employment of minorities, affirmative action was born. Affirmative action is a concept or policy that gives preferential treatment to minorities for admission to college or employment in government & businesses. The policies were created to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities more representation in the workplace.
It has also been beneficial to business. Minorities now comprise 37 percent of the nation’s population (US Census Bureau, 2015). Since the face of America is changing, diversity is now valued in many Fortune 500 companies. “The more diverse the room when decisions are made, the better the decisions” (Lytle, 2014). It is recognized that all levels of the organization should be diversified, not just the lower levels. A corporate board of directors with various backgrounds and experiences reflect the real world and can make a significant impact on adaptability to a changing global market, provide a change to the status quo, and provide better advice to the CEO on business decisions, and provide a trickle-down effect on the makeup of the company (Myatt, 2013).
Diversity in the workplace has allowed new ideas which enable companies to reach new markets and thus increasing profits. Studies have shown that companies with a diverse workforce, particularly the decision-makers, show a significant increase in profit over their less-diverse competitors (American Sociological Association, 2009):
“…companies reporting the highest levels of racial diversity brought in nearly 15 times more sales revenue on average than those with the lowest levels of racial diversity. Gender diversity accounted for a difference of $599.1 million in average sales revenue: organizations with the lowest rates of gender diversity had average sales revenues of $45.2 million, compared with averages of $644.3 million for businesses with the most gender diversity”.
The progress in the diversity of the current American workplace as opposed to that of 60 years ago seems to indicate the programs have been successful. Because of its success and changing attitudes toward race in America, there are some compelling arguments that affirmative action, while important leading out of the Civil Rights movement, is no longer necessary. It is viewed as reverse-discrimination which violates the spirit of Equal Opportunity Employment by giving preferential treatment based upon race or gender.
There are several cases that have been argued in court in opposition to affirmative action with mixed results (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.). One notable example is a case argued in 2000 before a federal court concerning admissions to the University of Michigan. The school had a policy of rating potential applicants on a point system; being a minority student earned you more than twice as many points as achieving a perfect SAT score. Three white students sued citing this as raced-based discrimination. School officials argued that diversity is important to the school and better prepares the students for life and felt affirmative action was the only way to achieve true diversity. The judge ruled on the side of the school. A later Supreme Court case confirmed the constitutionality of race-based goals, but asked schools to re-evaluate their admissions process and see if a workable race-neutral system was capable of achieving the same results. Some schools have opposing views, implementing a ban on using race as a factor for admissions. This ban has also held up under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, allowing them to balance their admissions and diversity goals through different methods.
A Supreme Court case in 2009 involved firefighters whose captain's exams were thrown out after it was determined not enough minorities passed (Brunner & Rowen, n.d.). The court sided with the firefighters and stated that throwing out the results of the exam violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This example shows that affirmative action could be seen as condescending; minorities can only achieve success through affirmative action by setting a lower standard and thus devaluing the individual’s hard work and ability. Clarence Thomas, the only African-American Supreme Court Justice, once wrote: “I was taught there’s no real difference between blacks or whites, and I never thought there was supposed to be an easier or different road for us (Hauser, 2014).”
However, there are still some glaring statistics that show that more progress on employment discrimination is needed. While current unemployment is currently low at 4.6% thanks to 73 months of continued job growth during the economic recovery, unemployment is higher for some minorities; 5.7% for Hispanics and 8.1% for Blacks (Bureau of Labor, 2016). African-Americans have also shown to be unemployed longer (DOL, 2011) than whites or Hispanics, averaging over 27 weeks unemployed versus whites at 19.7 weeks and Hispanics at 18.5 weeks.
The reasons for this are varied, but racism is likely at play. Experiments have shown that people of equal credentials but with perceived ethnic names received significantly fewer calls from potential employers due to possible racism (Mullainathan, 2015), even if subconsciously. The social scientists sent thousands of résumés to potential employers and measured which ones were selected for callbacks for interviews. However, random stereotypically African-American names (such as “DeShawn”) were used on some and stereotypically white names (like “Connor”) on others were used on identical résumés. The same résumé with a “white” name was roughly 50 percent more likely to result in callback for an interview. The author noted other study results, like black people with no criminal history are less likely than whites with a criminal past to be hired for even low wage jobs. Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action.
There is also still a lack of diversity in the corporate boardrooms of American companies, though it has been shown that diversity promotes greater profits. In order to combat this problem, the U.S. Securities and Exchange created a rule in which companies must file their diversity numbers with their statements for shareholder review (Aguilar, 2010). The SEC was flooded with a number of letters from shareholders who supported the measure, in means of social justice as well as for profits. In a speech given to the SAIS Center for Transatlantic Relations, SEC Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar addressed the lack of diversity in the American corporate boardroom:
“Notwithstanding these studies, there is a persistent lack of diversity in corporate boardrooms across this country — women and minorities remain woefully underrepresented. For example, in 2008, the Alliance for Board Diversity compiled statistics about the composition of the boards of directors of Fortune 100 companies and found the majority of board members, 71.5%, were white men, and only 28.5% of the board seats were held by women and minorities. The one bright spot among these low numbers is that, in 2009, women represented 39% of all new board appointments. The 39% figure represents 165 out of 424 board positions filed in 2009 and represents an increase from the 25% of new board seats filled by women in 2008. I hope this upward movement is a trend rather than a year-to-year aberration.”
Even if Corporate America and the rest of the business world recognize the financial benefits of diversity, it won't always occur if left to chance. Women seem to be making great strides in equality in the workplace, but minorities continue to be left behind.
America has come a long way in its attitude toward race and social justice. However, we are still not a color-blind society that treats all equally. Diversity plans and continuing efforts toward reaching out to marginalized people should continue to help balance the playing field for all and helping to create a more just society. While some affirmative action plans should be re-evaluated for fairness and applicability, it appears society still needs help to narrow the gap for certain groups.
References:
Aguilar, L (2010, Sept 16). Speech by the SEC Commissioner: Diversity in the boardroom is important and, unfortunately, still rare. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 12/4/16 from https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2010/spch091610laa.htm
American Sociological Association. (2009, April 3). Diversity Linked To Increased Sales Revenue And Profits, More Customers. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 4, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331091252.htm
Brunner, B. & Rowen, B. (n.d.). Timeline for affirmative action milestones. Infoplease. Retrieved 11/22/16 from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016, Dec 2). News release: Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved 12/7/16 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.
Hauser, S. (2012, April 10). The dream, the reality: Civil rights in the ‘60s and today. Workforce. Retrieved 12/2/16 from http://www.workforce.com/2012/04/10/the-dream-the-reality-civil-rights-in-the-60s-and-today/
Lytle, T. (2014, May 21). Title VII changed the face of the American workplace. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved 11/23/16 from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/title-vii-changed-the-face-of-the-american-workplace.aspx
Mullainathan, Sendhil. (2015, Jan 3). Racial bias, even when we have good intentions. NY Times. Retrieved December 2, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html?_r=0
Myatt, M. (2013, Nov 18). Top 10 reasons why diversity is good for the board room. Forbes. Retrieved 12/2/16 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2013/11/18/top-10-reasons-diversity-is-good-for-the-boardroom/#134277c75fda
U.S. Census Bureau (2015, July 1). Quick facts United States. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved December 2, 2016 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
U.S. Dept. of Labor (2011). The African-American Labor Force in the Recovery. U.S Department of Labor. Retrieved December 7, 2016 from https://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/blacklaborforce/