A634.4.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Is Affirmative Action Ethical

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative Action (AA) came to exist with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Intended to eliminate discrimination against minorities and women in America, AA has been one of the most controversial policies ever put in place (Affirmative Action, 2018).  I was born in 1961 too young to experience or understand the horrors that were the news of the day throughout the 60’s and early 70’s.  Growing up I knew there were problems, but it never affected me personally.  I had not witnessed any of the violence that was common.  So, I never connected with the real issue.  Other than a few conversations in school (that did not begin to address both sides equally), I was ignorant. 

 I had heard of AA and superficially understood what it was but did not understand why it was necessary.  So, at 17 years old, freshly out of high school and considering college, I judged AA to be wrong because it simply changed who was on the receiving end of discrimination and it penalized me for something I had not done.  Of course, it did neither. 

 This week, racism became more than slavery and discrimination.  This week AA became more than apology.  What I have learned has changed me.  I have learned a lot about myself over the last week and there are things that I need to work on changing.  Humbled and embarrassed, that is exactly what I will do.

LaFollette (2007) breaks racism down into two separate and distinct types: old fashioned racism and modern racism.  I understood (or thought I did) old fashioned racism; it was overt, personal, physical, superior attitudes, and it was violence.  It was intentional, aggressive hatred (Affirmative Action, n. d.).  In 1982, I was assigned to Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi for technical training.  It was here, at 20 years of age, I witnessed intentional racism.  The reality of it was much worse than I ever allowed myself to imagine.  I saw the KKK march right through the center of Biloxi.  They stopped and one of them gave a makeshift speech through a megaphone.  It was all about instilling fear and was the purest form of hatred I had ever encountered.  It was true evil and it was a common occurrence according to the locals.  Almost 20 years after becoming illegal, this blatant display occurred and no one tried to stop it.  I was appalled, in disbelief, and more than a little frightened for the intended audience. When I got back on base that evening, I did not leave again until I was sent to my first duty station.  So, I understood intentional racism.  What I did not understand was modern racism (LaFollette, 2007) or unintentional racism (Affirmative Action, n. d.). 

 In 1971, the case, Griggs v. Duke Power clarified the intention of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The courts ruled that unintentional discrimination as well as intentional discrimination is illegal and shifted enforcement focus from intentional (Old Fashioned) to unintentional racism.  Enforcement could then focus on ‘disparate impact’.  This meant hiring and employment policies that have perpetuated the effects of past discrimination was also illegal (Affirmative Action, n.d.).  LaFollette (2007) explained that through exposure to years and years of racism and discrimination people form habits, some unknowingly, that guide our thinking and behavior.  Those habits often make us guilty of racism.  Similarly, businesses, social services, and other entities developed policies and practices that unintentionally discriminate.  Until we change our habits and eliminate every policy and practice that discriminates, racism will exist. 

 Coming to understand this concept made me realize the real impact hundreds of years of enslavement, mistreatment, belittling and discrimination can do to a group.  It is no longer overt and much harder to spot.  It is no longer physical or violent but causes equal or more pain.  It is this unintentional racism, alive and well today, that has created the most damage to African-Americans, all minorities in truth, and women.  It is what keeps these American people down fifty-four years after we promised them equal rights. 

 There are people on both sides of AA.  I looked at the arguments for and against AA although I really did not need to.  Indeed, AA is ethical. Furthermore, abandoning AA for programs like diversity management has no ethical basis (Burns & Schapper, 2008). 

The first thing I asked myself was, how well has AA worked since inception. I found that it has made a difference.  “The percentage of blacks in managerial and technical jobs doubled during the AA years. During the same timeframe, the number of black police officers rose from 24,000 to 64,000 and the number of black electricians rose from 14,000 to 43,000.  Where cities have discontinued AA programs, there has been a sharp drop in the number of government contracts going to minority companies” (Schulman, 2015, n. p.).  While the progress has been slow and moderate, it is progress.  Based on information showing regression where AA has been eliminated, if AA is eliminated altogether, we risk any progress we have made to date. 

Racism, though veiled, still exists.  While not obvious anymore, racism is still apparent in individual’s habitual behaviors and thinking.  It is written into policy in business, restaurants, and social entities.  To deny it makes us all racists (LaFollette, 2007).

 Lafollette (2007) also noted that we have not reached equality of opportunity in employment, pay, education, or professional careers.  A step away from AA would almost certainly ensure that we do not.  If AA is allowed and gets support to continue, it will eventually become self-sustaining. 

 We all have a stake; AA can benefit everyone.  Look at the situation in any minority community: crime, violence inadequate education has frozen these communities in this state.  Would you want your child to grow up in that environment?  If not, then helping them get out is something we morally ought to do (Schulman, 2015).  AA can help them.

 AA provides compensatory justice to those who have been treated so unjustly for so long.  “AA, proponents hold, neutralizes the competitive disadvantages that African Americans continue to experience because of past discrimination; segregated neighborhoods served by poor schools would be an example” (Schulman, 2015, n. p.).

Finally, even if AA were replaced with diversity management it would still not be ethically preferable.  AA begins with the fact that an injustice or inequality has occurred and has to be corrected.  It recognizes the problem and commits to fix it.  Diversity management hides the inequality which is the reason for taking action in the first place.  Management makes all the decisions without any external oversight (Burns & Schapper, 2008).

The people who oppose AA generally base their argument on two points: reverse discrimination and it hurts those who have done no wrong.  Opponents argue that if discrimination based on race is wrong, then AA is wrong for the same reason.  The principle of universalizability tells us to treat cases the same unless there are general and relevant differences between them that justify a difference in treatment.  The difference is that whites have not suffered from AA nearly as much nor in the same way as blacks have suffered in the hands of whites and therefore it is not the same, reverse discrimination is not arguable (LaFollette, 2007).

 Opponents also claim that the people being punished have done nothing wrong.  If we considered only intentional racism, this point could have merit.  In 1971 the courts found unintentional racism to be illegal and recognized disparate impact as the result.  This is caused by the habits we acquired as a result of repeated exposure to racism throughout our lives.  These habits still cause harm.  On a higher level, institutions utilize policy and practices that were affected by racism (LaFollette, 2007).  They restrict the employment, rights, and freedom of minorities.

AA is absolutely ethical.  I did not find any opposing argument to be ethical.  There has been a trend moving away from AA over the last decade or so (Schulman, 2015; Burns & Schapper, 2008).  I believe AA has made positive progress in the quest for equal opportunity in education, employment, and contracting.  Where states have eliminated AA, drastic drops have been realized, giving us a clear idea of what will happen if AA is completely eliminated (Schulman, 2015).  To knowingly allow that to happen is an unethical action on its own.  It is my opinion that AA should continue until the time it becomes self-sustaining.

 ~Pete

 References

 Affirmative Action. U. S. History.com. Accessed June 19, 2018, from U. S. History.com.  Retrieved from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1970.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Burns, P., & Schapper, J. (2008). The ethical case for affirmative action. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 369-379. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s10551-007-9625-8

 LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

 Schulman, M. (2015, November 13). Affirmative action or negative action. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/affirmative-action-or-negative-action/