John Delucia Week 2 DB Affirmative Action

John Deluciaweek 2 Db Affirmative Action John Deluciaaffirmative A

John Deluciaweek 2 Db Affirmative Action John Deluciaaffirmative A

John Delucia Week 2 DB - Affirmative Action - John DeLucia Affirmative action can certainly be a hot button issue as many people have strong feelings about this topic. To start affirmative action was established by President Lyndon B. Johnson with executive order 11246. The executive order applied to federal contractors and subcontractors, requiring employers receiving more than $10,000 from the federal government to take affirmative action to prevent discrimination and develop written plans if the contracts exceeded $50,000 within 120 days of starting. Affirmative action was intended for employers receiving federal funds to attract and retain minority employees. However, it has faced criticism, especially when quota systems are used, perceived as reverse discrimination. Focusing on higher education, in 1997, the University of Michigan faced lawsuits (Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger) challenging their affirmative action policies. The Supreme Court decision in Gratz v. Bollinger in 2003 ruled that a point system favoring minority applicants was unconstitutional. Despite legal challenges, affirmative action remains an ongoing debate. I believe many misconceptions exist, often framing the issue solely around college admissions. In the workplace, creating a diverse workforce offers benefits such as diverse perspectives that give organizations a competitive advantage. Given research indicating that minority groups, especially African Americans, may statistically perform worse on cognitive tests, organizations should design hiring practices that are fair and inclusive. Surveys show Americans generally support affirmative action, with a majority favoring diversity efforts but hesitating to explicitly consider race or ethnicity in hiring. Organizations will need to develop creative methods to attract protected classes, such as advertising at minority and female colleges or in targeted publications, to expand qualified applicant pools without relying on test score adjustments. Affirmative action continues to face legal scrutiny, and HR professionals must understand current legal frameworks and employ sustainable diversity strategies. References: Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2019). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage. McGraw-Hill Education. CNN. (2020). Affirmative Action Fast Facts. Newport, F. (2020). Affirmative Action and Public Opinion.

Paper For Above instruction

Affirmative action remains one of the most contentious and debated policies in the realm of employment, education, and social justice. Rooted in the civil rights movement and institutionalized through executive orders such as President Lyndon B. Johnson's Executive Order 11246, affirmative action was designed to address historical inequalities by promoting the inclusion of minorities and underrepresented groups in various sectors. Though initially focused on federal contractors, the scope has expanded over decades to influence broader societal structures, notably in higher education and employment.

At its core, affirmative action’s guiding principle is to foster diversity and reduce discrimination. In the employment context, it mandates that organizations receiving significant federal funding implement proactive measures—such as outreach, training programs, and the development of affirmative action plans—to attract and retain minority employees. These initiatives aim to combat systemic barriers that hinder the participation of underrepresented groups in the workforce. Nevertheless, the implementation of such policies has often sparked controversy, mainly when they are perceived as quotas or reverse discrimination, leading to legal challenges and public debate.

The most prominent legal confrontations surrounding affirmative action in higher education demonstrate the policy’s contentious nature. The University of Michigan's affirmative action policies were scrutinized in two landmark Supreme Court cases—Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The former struck down a point-based undergraduate admission system that granted extra points to minority applicants, deeming it unconstitutional because it violated equal protection provisions. The latter upheld the law school's holistic admissions process, allowing race as one of many factors. These rulings underscored that while race could be considered in admissions, rigid quota systems are unconstitutional. Despite legal setbacks, affirmative action persists in various forms across different sectors, fueling ongoing debate about its fairness and effectiveness.

Beyond the legal landscape, misconceptions abound regarding the primary purpose and application of affirmative action. Many mistakenly associate it solely with college admissions, ignoring its broader impact in corporate hiring and workforce diversity initiatives. The business sector increasingly recognizes that diverse teams enhance organizational performance, creativity, and competitiveness. Research indicates that organizations with diverse workforces benefit from varied perspectives, better problem-solving capabilities, and improved employee engagement. For example, studies have shown that companies with higher diversity levels outperform competitors in innovation and profitability.

However, the challenge lies in designing fair and effective diversity strategies. Given statistical data suggesting that minority groups, particularly African Americans, may perform comparatively lower on certain cognitive assessments, organizations are encouraged to develop holistic, bias-aware hiring practices. Such practices include expanding recruitment channels, advertising in minority-focused and women-oriented publications, and establishing partnerships with historically minority-serving institutions and professional associations. These strategies aim to enlarge the qualified applicant pools without resorting to test score adjustments, which often face legal and ethical scrutiny.

Public opinion polls support a nuanced stance. Surveys reveal that while the majority of Americans favor affirmative action to promote diversity, there is resistance to explicit race-based considerations in hiring. For instance, a Gallup poll indicated that about 61% of Americans support affirmative action, but a Pew Research survey found that 74% of respondents prefer qualifications-based hiring, even if it results in less diversity. This discrepancy highlights that many Americans favor diversity but also value fairness and meritocracy. Consequently, organizations must strike a balance by implementing inclusive recruitment practices that attract diverse candidates while adhering to legal standards and public expectations.

In conclusion, affirmative action is a nuanced and evolving policy landscape. It is rooted in principles of fairness and social justice but has often been met with legal and societal resistance. HR professionals and organizational leaders must stay informed about current legal frameworks and develop innovative, equitable strategies to foster diversity. This includes expanding outreach efforts, emphasizing inclusivity in hiring practices, and fostering organizational cultures that value diverse perspectives. Ultimately, building a genuinely inclusive and fair workforce benefits both organizations and society at large, contributing to social progress and economic vitality.

References

  • Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2019). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • CNN. (2020). Affirmative Action Fast Facts. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com
  • Newport, F. (2020). Affirmative Action and Public Opinion. Gallup Poll. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com
  • Jolls, C. (2009). Affirmative Action and the Law. Harvard Law Review, 122(2), 353-377.
  • Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton University Press.
  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology.
  • Herring, C. (2009). Does Diversity Pay? Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208-224.
  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best Practices or Fad Practices? The Growth of Diversity Management in Corporate America. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617.
  • Teasley, M. L. (2015). Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace: Return on Investment and Impact. Journal of Business Diversity, 15(2), 41-55.
  • Sandy, R., & Holland, B. (2006). Diversity Management: What Works? Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 96-103.

Related Assignments