Affirmative Action in the Public Sector
Jason Crean, MGT 360
Siena Heights University
Affirmative Action in the Public Sector
Diversity in the workplace is a valuable trait for an organization to have. Diversity is defined as differences between people (Dias, 2011,
p.65). A diverse organization will have employees from all facets of life, bringing all of their unique attributes to the table which provides the
organization with a greater dynamic ability to function, solve problems, and develop new ideas. In our modern society, diversity can happen
naturally, with people from all walks of life cohabiting peacefully such as occurs at any grocery store. This has not always been the case in the
United States though, as prejudiced attitudes and policies dominated much of our existence until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. The
government began to realize that steps had to be taken to prevent discrimination against minorities and protected classes, and ensure their
equal participation in the workforce. This notion spawned the birth of affirmative action. According to Carlos Gullett, two underlying reasons
exist for affirmative action, which are the need for diversity within an organization and as a remediation for past discrimination (2000). The
following is a discussion on the history of affirmative action, arguments for and against it, and methods to effectively implement the integral
component of diversity into the public sector workforce.
Affirmative Action is a means by which government activity openly and actively promotes the hiring and promotion of members of groups
that have historically suffered from job-related discrimination. Soni takes the definition further:
Employers must act positively, affirmatively, and aggressively to remove all barriers, however informal or subtle, that prevents
minorities and women from having equal access to all levels of the nation’s educational, industrial, and governmental institutions.
(1999, p.579)
Although first used as a to restrain or end discriminatory actions in the workplace (public and private sectors) and educational
institutions, affirmative action has morphed into a more proactive program, aimed at correcting imbalances in the workforce (Allen, 2003).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was legislation designed to eliminate and prevent future discrimination against anyone of the basis of race,
color, sex, and national origin (Dias, 2011). Since the original passage of the act, age, family status, veteran status, and disability have been
added. Title VII of the act specifically pertained to employment of protected classes, and thus created the ideas for affirmative action.
Surprisingly, Title VII did not pertain to federal employment, and it was not until the creation of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972,
(which amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that federal, state, and local government employment was blanketed (Kogut, 2007). This legislation,
along with the equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment in the Constitution officially placed affirmative action into law.
According to Lee, the federal government specifically set affirmative action into place within itself in 5 CFR Part 720. Sec 7201(c), which
requires:
…that each Executive agency conduct a continuing program for the recruitment of members of minorities for positions in the
agency to carry out the [non- discrimination] policy set forth in subsection (b) in a manner designed to eliminate
under-representation of minorities in the various categories of civil service employment within the federal service, with special efforts
directed at recruiting in minority communities, in educational institutions, and from other sources which minorities can be
recruited…(1999, p. 400)
5 CFR 720.205(e) goes on to describe the requirements of an affirmative action plan.
1. An assessment of categories and numbers of jobs expected to be filled in the current year, whether from inside or outside sources.
2. An assessment of internal availability of candidates from underrepresented groups.
3. A description of the methods the agency intends to use to locate and develop minority and female candidates for each category.
4. A description of special efforts planned by the agency to recruit in communities and educational institutions for qualified minority
candidates
5. A description of efforts that will be undertaken to identify jobs which can be redesigned to involve opportunities for minorities.
6. A list of priorities for special recruitment program activities.
7. An identification of training and job development programs the agency will use to provide skills, knowledge and abilities to qualify increased
numbers of minorities and women (Lee, 1999, p.401).
Even with a legal base, affirmative action is a controversial subject to many, especially in the public sector (such as the federal
government) where applicants sometimes undergo a competitive testing process to obtain their jobs. If an applicant of the predominant
demographic finishes higher in the testing process than a minority candidate, is it fair to give the minority preferential treatment in order to
meet a guideline? Early federal guidelines presumed discrimination existed whenever the percentage of a minority’s presence in the workforce
was less than 80 percent of their share of the surrounding population (Lee, 1999). In 1996, the Clinton administration instructed all local, state,
and federal employers to apply the following four standards to their affirmative action program.
1. There should be no quotas, in theory or practice
2. No illegal discrimination of any kind is permitted, including reverse discrimination.
3. No preference for candidates can be given for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity.
4. No continuation of affirmative action is required for programs that have met their goals (Lee, 1999, p.403).
Affirmative action invokes strong feelings of both strong support and opposition in people. Proponents of affirmative action argue that
discrimination is very much alive in the workforce and needs to be prevented by all means possible. They also argue that merit is very difficult to
ascertain and define, as different demographics are brought up under different educational climates, which may aid or hinder their performance
on “standardized testing”. Opponents of affirmative action believe that it promotes reverse discrimination and gives protected classes an unfair
advantage against the largest group in the workforce. Opponents also argue that affirmative action can harm the workplace by hiring and
promoting lesser qualified individuals on the basis of race and gender rather than specific job qualifications. Finally, opponents feel that
standards of employment should be adhered to without differentiation – they assert employment is not an entitlement, but rather an earned
event that should be filled by the best possible candidate without favor.
A common argument against affirmative action plans is they unfairly discriminate against whites, or more specifically white males, whom
make up the majority of the public sector workforce in the United States. This argument holds validity, as it has been proven to have occurred by
a federal court of law. Prior to September in 1996, the Prince George’s County Fire Department had an affirmative action policy in place that
aided minorities and women in both hiring and promotion, by setting caps on the numbers of whites and men whom could hold jobs (Baumann,
1996). The case was taken to federal court, which ruled the program was in fact discriminatory against whites and men. The court deemed
“outright racial classification” was unfair and the department officials should partake in other methods to facilitate diversity throughout the
department. (Baumann, 1996, p.2). The standards implemented by the Clinton administration sparked this change.
In a perfect system, the workforce makeup would mirror the diversity present in the area in which it is located, but this does not usually
happen. The City of Phoenix has maintained an active affirmative action plan across all of its departments since 1980 with a goal of maximizing
the utilization of minorities, women, and disabled persons, and yet there is still a dramatic misrepresentation of diversity in some departments.
Phoenix is a diverse area with an approximate demographic breakdown of 65 percent Anglo, 28 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Black, 2 percent
Native Indian, and 2 percent Asian (Allen, 2003). Looking at the police department specifically, to meet the city’s affirmative action plan the
department should show similar demographics of the city itself, and yet the police department makeup is substantially different. The Phoenix
Police Department employs 82 percent Anglo officers, 12 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Black, .5 percent Native Indian and 1.5 percent Asian
officers. (Allen, 2003). The demographic makeup of Phoenix Police Department even after decades of an affirmative action plan goes to show
just how long and difficult a task it is to meet a plans desired goals.
It has been agreed upon and even litigated that the public sector workforce should be representative of the demographic who it
represents, but how can this be ensured without the establishment of quotas or unfair hiring policies? Promoting and protecting diversity and
preventing discrimination is a core American value, therefore the driving principles of affirmative action are by default core American values.
First and foremost affirmative action plans must be well thought out, with legal, ethical, and all demographic situations considered. Gullett
suggests that plans should follow the more rigorous requirements of the Constitution in order to avoid challenges (2000). Secondly, proper
informational materials and education must be delivered to the workplace and the surrounding community, highlighting the need and methods
to achieve diversity. By focusing on the ethical principles of affirmative action, an organization can divert the negative attention from
controversial legal issues and emphasize its core purpose (Soni, 1999). Thirdly, all parties must commit long term to the plans and “buy in”, in
order to make the proper transition. Affirmative action was developed in response to serious discrimination, and it has taken and will continue
to take a good deal of time and effort to eradicate it. Finally, the progress of any plan implemented must be continuously monitored for success,
and reevaluated and changed accordingly when the desired outcomes are not achieved.
In surveys, affirmative action tends to be opposed by most Americans in theory because of the perceived notion of unfairness, but when
presented with concrete examples of working affirmative action plans in the workplace, they overwhelmingly support it (Patterson, 1998). When
the debate is steered from the defensive, unproductive notions based on misinformation, and instead focused on the true meaning which is
diversity, positive strides can be made. Affirmative action is an interesting, polarizing, complex and beneficial concept that when correctly
implemented, assures the fairness and diversity that all citizens are entitled to.
References
Allen, Rhonda Y W. (2003). Examining the implementation of affirmative action in law enforcement. Public Personnel Management, 411-418.
Baumann, Gregory C. (1996). Affirmative Action Plan Dies. Prince George’s County Fire Department Told to Amend Hiring Plan. The Daily Record, 1.
Dias, L. (2011) Human Resource Management, Shoreline Community College.
Gullett, Carlos Ray. (2000). Reverse discrimination and remedial affirmative action in employment: Dealing with the paradox of
nondiscrimination. Public Personnel Management, 107-118.
Kogut, Carl A., Short, Larry E. (Fall 2007). Affirmative Action in Federal Employment: Good Intentions Run Amuck? Public Personnel Management,
197-206.
Lee, R A. (1999). The Evolution of Affirmative Action. Public Personnel Management, 393-408.
Patterson, Orlando. (1998). Affirmative Action: What everybody hates in theory but likes in practice. The Brookings Review, 22-23.
Soni, Vidu. (1999). Morality vs. Mandate: Affirmative action in employment. Public Personnel Management, 577-594.
For proper APA formatting and the Word document, click below:
Affirmative Action Word Document | |
File Size: | 27 kb |
File Type: | docx |