Affirmative Action: Reverse Discrimination?

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action: Reverse Discrimination? Affirmative Action is a hot issue in the United States, with wide differences of opinion over the correct way to expand opportunity for people who have historically been discriminated against. While the philosophical difference behind the legal and political tension is deep. One side wants a total rollback of affirmative action programs, making individual merit the only criterion for hiring and promotional considerations. While the other extreme wants affirmative action to be pushed until the racial makeup of all professions mirrors the racial makeup of US society exactly. While both these sides are to the greatest ends of the argument there needs to be an approach to come up with a medium. This could include laws to force companies to vigorously recruit and develop minorities for professional and managerial jobs. However, there should not be any outright quotas, which reserve a certain number of slots for particular minority groups. This will cause resentments and constitutional obstacles down the road. The objective here is not to do away with affirmative action in one sweep, rather to seek out strategies to help promising minorities and match them with opportunities they have rightfully earned and deserve. Now, what does the law say? Although Title VII has an affirmative action component part of it, most regulations stem from a requirement imposed by Executive Order 11246. There are a lot of misconceptions about affirmative action and what laws companies actual have to follow. One is that all companies are required to adhere to the laws under affirmative action, this is not the case. Executive Order 11246 states that once a company enters into a contract with a federal governmental agency that exceeds $10,000 it must abide by the affirmative action rules and regulations. These regulations include, but are not limited to, the following: to post in a conspicuous place, available to all applicants, provisions of the nondiscrimination clause; include in contractor's advertisements that all qualified applicants will receive consideration without regard to race, color, religion, gender, or national origin; include statements of these obligations to all subcontractors; and furnish all information and reports to the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the executive order and its regulations. In addition to the above regulations if a corporation enters into a contract of $50,000 or more additional requirements are put in place. A Corporation must develop a written action plan within 120 days of the beginning of a governmental contract. They must also perform a workforce analysis, which must indicate how many women and minorities are in job categories ranging from unskilled workers to managerial employees. These are the basic rules and regulations companies and corporations must follow in order to be within the compliance of the law. There have been several major court decisions that have helped define the application of the statutes and regulations. One of the biggest and earliest cases was that of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This case was not against an individual's employer rather against a university. Bakke applied to Davis for two consecutive years but was rejected on both occasions. In both years, applicants with lower scores than Bakke were admitted due to a special admit program. Davis had a program that says applicants who are not of minority status are totally excluded from a specific percentage of the seats in the entering class. When the State's distribution of benefits hinges on the color of a person skin, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification