The Affirmative Action Debate: Possible Influences

running head: INFLUENCE ON ATTITUDES TOWARDS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The affirmative action debate: possible influences

on individual attitudes towards its policies

Abstract

President John F. Kennedy proposed the first major legislation to combat discrimination in the workplace, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which led to President Clinton's Affirmative Action legislation in 1996. This legislation was based upon existent prejudices within the workforce and was aimed to correct past inequities as well as present ones. Although American society has advanced a great deal since 1964 and even since Affirmative Action legislation was implemented, basic theories of human behavior assert that individuals will always hold prejudices and practice discrimination. Affirmative action policies have been criticized by nonbeneficiaries who believe that its policies do little to end discrimination and instead create unfair job opportunities for beneficiaries. However, a considerable amount of research has shown that many Americans are in support of affirmative action and that those who are not in support of its policies are simply unaware of how affirmative action truly works.

Discrimination against minorities in the United States has existed for centuries, and each generation makes its own attempt to end this discrimination. The Civil War brought emancipation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped protected groups gain employment, and the Affirmative Action legislation of 1996 completed the gaps left by the Civil Rights Act. Although prejudices in American society have diminished greatly since the Civil War and even since the Civil Rights Act was passed, discrimination is still present within the United States. Because there is no guarantee that employers will hire based solely upon merit and abilities, legislation is necessary to ensure that members of protected groups are not treated unfairly during the hiring and promotional processes. Affirmative action policies help regulate employment opportunities for women and minorities so that they are not robbed of job opportunities because of their status as a woman or minority member. Affirmative action policies act as the babysitters for organizations, and while they may need revision, they are certainly still necessary.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

While Affirmative Action is a fairly new government policy, its roots lie in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, America's attempt to end discrimination in the workplace does not begin there. During their terms in the White House, both Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt took steps to end discrimination. Eisenhower's executive orders on federal contract compliance led to Roosevelt's Executive Order 88021 of 1941, which banned discrimination in war industries and in the armed services (Mills,1994,p. 5). Kennedy took the actions of these presidents one step further when he established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a branch of the federal government that is very active today. Although Kennedy only used the phrase "affirmative action" once while outlining the Commission's goals, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 two years later, giving America, and Bill Clinton, firm ground to begin Affirmative Action.

While the federal government had long since regulated things, such as food and medicine, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first instance of its regulation of human behavior (Muchinsky, 2003, p.140). Because African Americans were so underemployed, the government intervened in America's hiring practices. Title VII of the Act allows the federal government to regulate and monitor the hiring practice that occurs within American organizations. The Civil Rights Act specifies that an employer may not refuse to hire based on one's membership in a protected group, which the government defined as members of society who are granted legal recognition by virtue of a demographic characteristic, such as race, gender, national origin, color, age, religion, or disability. Although protected groups encompass age, national origin, religion, and disability, most of the popular attention that the Civil Rights Act garnered was based upon race and gender.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 regulates all aspects of decision making and functions regarding personnel, including practices of training, promotion, retention, and performance appraisal. It also specifies that tests, interviews, assessment centers, and other on-the-job personnel evaluations and decisions are subject to the same guidelines and standards as hiring practices (Muchinsky, 2003, p.140). Kennedy carefully worded the Act so as not to give any preferential treatment to minority members, and, unlike Affirmative Action, the Civil Rights Act does not state that an employer must maintain a racial balance within his organization. The Act states that an employer cannot refuse to hire, or discharge, any person due to their membership in one of the protected groups. An employer may not separate or categorize applicants so as to deny anyone employment on the basis of their membership in any of the protected groups. The Act also states that, when advertising employment or training opportunities, an employer cannot indicate his preference for any group, protected or non (Muchinsky, 2003, p.141).

Legal Theories of Discrimination

The consequences of incompliance with the Civil Rights Act are based upon two legal theories of discrimination, adverse, or disparate, impact and disparate treatment. According to the Act and to the federal government, adverse impact occurs when the result of using a particular personnel selection method results in an adverse effect on protected group members, in comparison with majority group members (Muchinsky, 2003, p.141). For example, if there is evidence that an organization is refusing or failing to hire an entire group, such as African Americans or the aged, then adverse impact has occurred. Disparate treatment involves the treatment of a member of members of a protected group based. According to the Civil Rights Act, all job applicants should receive equal treatment and consideration during the hiring process. If an organization is singling out a member or members of a protected group and treating them differently during the employment process, then the organization is engaging in disparate treatment of these individuals (Muchinsky, 2003, p.141).

Adverse