英语论文网

inked to the funds they would receive from the government (as in the Bakke case). This amounts to unfair victimization of white males who are innocent and their rights are overridden by the justifications of AA (Soni, 1999).

 

AA has another advantage as it promotes workforce diversity. Soni argues that diversity at workplace is not possible without AA. It has been found that many firms, just so that can claim to be practicing workplace diversity, apply the AA program to their hiring and promotion process. This has been turned down by the appeals court in the New Jersey Board of Education vs. Taxman Case as the court refused to recognize diversity as a legitimate reason for the use of AA. A common notion is that race-based economic inequality and the corresponding deficiencies (illiteracy, etc) stands in the way of achieving true and competent diversity at workplace. Thus, even though workforce diversity may be perceived as an advantage by some, it is considered unethical to use AA to achieve it based on the grounds that economic inequality still persists.

 

While the minorities get more opportunities due to the AA program, Loury (1997) contends that the widespread use of AA can erode the perception of black competence (this line of reasoning can be applied to any minority who realizes opportunity due to AA). Blacks will have no incentive to develop their competitive abilities. When they receive preferential treatment they tend to patronize the workplace or the university. This implies that it becomes established that whites are more capable than the blacks and a lower standard of achievement become established for the blacks. Just to meet the guidelines, the officer may appoint the required number of blacks. Not only that, when the question of promotions arise, just because there have to be certain number of promotions among the blacks, their deficiencies are hidden so that they are labeled as eligible for promotion. Thus the blacks also live under the impression that they would be given preferential treatment and it may work as a disincentive for them to strive to work hard. It is possible that they will never strive to correct their deficiencies and they are also denied an honest feedback from their supervisor. They come to believe that they can get ahead without attaining the same degree of efficiency as the whites. Thus, the AA program can be seen as not fair to the minorities or to women.

 

Affirmative Action creates its own set of problems for those that it intended to help. It affects the incumbent psychologically. It was useful in the 1960s when it was implemented but today the minorities are well positioned and would prefer not to work under stigmatic conditions. Even the women are stigmatized and labeled as less capable than men but are a favored lot. It is unfair to the white men as they lose out on opportunities to the minorities and the women. Thirdly, as the recruitment at workplace is not totally based on merits, organizations may have to compromise on quality and output. Promotions too are based on racial and gender discrimination. It is not ethical to use AA merely to receive the allotted funds or to promote workforce diversity while compr本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。