Unjustified Affirmative Action

UNJUSTIFIED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 6

UnjustifiedAffirmative Action

Unjustifieduse of Affirmative Action

Anaffirmative action is a policy or a set of steps taken to increasethe representation of a group or groups of people that are consideredto be the minority or the disadvantaged. In most cases, anaffirmative action is taken to increase the representation of womenand the minority groups in the social, political and economic area.These areas include education, employment, political officers andcultural platforms among other areas. However, the application ofaffirmative action is not justified, especially in hiring. This isbecause of the direct and indirect implication of the affirmativeaction to both the disadvantage group and the advantaged. Thediscussion of the policy will illustrate that it is not justified touse affirmative action in hiring slightly less qualified candidatesfrom a disadvantaged group over a white man.

Affirmativeaction is widely seen as a way of confirming that the disadvantagedgroup is weak or and should be supported. Rabe (2001) argues that itis not justified because it still leaves the people who are favoredby the policy in the same social bracket of the minority. Therefore,hiring the less qualified instead of the white men who are even morequalified does not help the minority groups in terms of thecompetitive nature of getting the jobs. They still remain as thedisadvantaged minority in the hiring process. According toFullinwider(2013),affirmative action gives preference to the minority groups over otherpeople if they identify with the minority group. Therefore, hiringless qualified people over the qualified white males because of theuse of affirmative action is not only unjustified to both the whitemen and the minority groups.

Inaddition, the use of affirmative action in hiring of the lessqualified candidates over the qualified white males is seen asbackward looking way of expressing the position of the minority. Theuse of affirmative action shows that the society is living in the olddays when the minority groups could not access, equal opportunitiesas the other groups of people (Anderson,2010).While the use of affirmative action helps the minority by giving themsuch positions, the policy seems to a traditional way of maintainingthe real status quo as it does not interrogate the causes of thedisparities in the hiring process.

Theuse of affirmative action in hiring minority group raises concernover the exclusion of white males on the basis of inventorycharacters of gender and race. While the motive is different betweenthe racism and gender, the use of the affirmative action against thewhite men may be confused for discrimination. According to Anderson(2010), thisis because the use of the affirmative action to hire the lessqualified people from the minority does not address the qualificationgap. The move just gives the job position to a less qualifiedcandidate simply because he or she belongs to the minority group thatis regarded as disadvantaged. According toFullinwider(2013), theuse of affirmative action should be used in a careful way, not tocompromise the quality of the hiring process in the search for socialequality.

Itis not justified to hire the candidates from the minority group overwhite males because of the perceived disadvantaged group. This isbecause white men do not compensate for the sacrifice they arerequired to do so that they can accommodate the people favored by theaffirmative action from minority groups (Anderson,2010).In addition, the qualified white men may end up working more than theless qualified members of the disadvantaged group. Even though theywork with extra efforts or expertise, white men are not compensated.At the same time, the loss of jobs to the minority group members doesnot attract any just compensation for the white men.

Itis unjustified to use affirmative action to hire less qualifiedminority group candidates over white males, because it does notconsider merit. It is unjustified to tramp down merit in the effortto confirm the elements of stereotype in support of the minoritygroups (Fullinwider,2013).According to Anderson(2010), anyhiring process should present an equal opportunity to all thecandidates without bias over the other. Therefore, hiring the lessqualified candidates is unjustified to the qualified ones. In thiscase, hiring the less qualified in the excuse of inclusion of theminority group defies the general rule of equal opportunities.

Itis unjustified to hire unqualified candidates from minority over thequalified white males, because it unequal representation does notalways arise from gender or racism. According to Rabe (2007), this isbecause unequal representation in terms of race and gender may arisefrom the factors that make the candidates from the minorityunqualified. Instead of applying affirmative action against the whitemales, it is important to apply other policies that will promote theminority groups to be equally qualified (Anderson,2010).It is fairer to hire equally qualified candidates from the minority,rather than unqualified ones.

Itis unjustified to hire candidates for the sake of diversity and notfor the sake of merit. This is because it is unfair to the employerwho is forced to take the less qualified just because of the pursuitof representation. According to Rabe (2001), employers seek to hirepeople in order to work and execute their duties as per the duties ofthe job description. This means that only the qualified people shouldhold certain jobs and not the unqualified. In this case, hiring thequalified will be the only fair way to fulfill the needs of theemployer. Therefore, the pursuit of diversity should not tramp downthe importance of merit.

Itis unjustified to hire the less qualified people who come from theminority group because it violates the basic rights of the whitemales. The basic right of each and every citizen is to be treatedequally and to be treated free of any discrimination (Anderson,2010).However, the use of affirmative action appears to be a form ofdiscrimination based on their gender as males, and based on theirrace as white men. The fact that they are white males does not makethem the sacrificial lambs for the inclusion of the less qualifiedminority members, who sometimes may not be fit for the job.Therefore, the use of affirmative action in hiring the less qualifiedgives a burden of proof that the candidates come from the deserveddisadvantaged group.

Conclusion

Affirmativeaction is a means of promoting diversity and social inclusion in thesociety and in working places. It is unjustified to hire the lessqualified candidates from the disadvantaged group over white males.This is because it is a backward step, discriminative and a policythat tends to reinforce the stereotypes of the minority status ratherthan break them. Therefore, affirmative action should not be used totrample down the quest for merits during the hiring process.

References

Anderson,E. (2010). TheImperative of Integration.Princeton: Princeton University Press

Fullinwider,R. (2013). AffirmativeAction.Retrieved From,&lthttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action&gt April14, 2014

Rabe,J. (2001). Equality,AffirmativeAction and Justice.New York: Books on Demand Ltd