Consequences of affirmative action:
1-Subjective identification:
Anti-discrimination statutes are by their very nature, arbitrary and subjective. Who is objective enough to decide whether aboriginal or black people in Canada should be protected by such programs as affirmative action? Who can decide what percentage of a company work force should be constituted by Asian people? In such decisions, every human being is influenced by his culture, values, and even his stereotypes in judging people from other nationalities and the way those people should be treated.
2-Harm the talented:
First off, affirmative actions harm qualified minorities since preferential treatment is destructive to a person’s self image. Under affirmative action programs, an individual will never know whether he owes his promotion or acceptance to his own merit or to the fact that he is a member of a minority group. To a greater extent, peers and even customers may not fully appreciate competences of a candidate chosen under affirmative action programs. The abilities of the candidate will be open to suspicion in the eyes of everybody. Being hired because of his sex or color demeans true minority achievement leading to the conclusion that affirmative action goes against article 4 of C.C.Q.; everybody has the right to the safeguard of his dignity, honor, and reputation.
Moreover, it is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. When you give preferential treatment to minorities in admission or hiring practices, you're in effect saying "You're too stupid or incapable of achieving on your own, so let me help you". It is condescending and insulting to imply that minorities cannot achieve their goals through hard work and ability. Ask Condi Rice or Colin Powell how they got to where they are -- hard work or affirmative action? Both were hired because they are bright, articulate, and well-suited for their positions. Probably both would be offended if you said they got to where they were strictly because of affirmative action. The same can be said of minority doctors, lawyers, business leaders, etc. Too often, their achievements are demeaned by people who believe preferential treatment got them to their current positions. Minorities must then work twice as hard to earn respect.
3-Harm the unqualified:
Affirmative action also harms unqualified minorities. Under those programs, instead of being hired because they are the most qualified individuals for the position, candidates are selected based on criteria such as their race or sex. This kind of selection often causes individuals to work in positions which require greater ability than they have. Imagine an AA minor league baseball player suddenly asked to bat cleanup in the majors, or a high school science fair contestant suddenly asked to take a rocket scientist job at NASA. There's a possibility of success in these situations, but it's more likely they will be in over their heads. When institutions are forced to lower standards to achieve a minority quota, some candidates just can’t keep up. This isn't to say these individuals are less capable, but chances are that if they can't meet minimum requirements, they probably aren't ready to go there. It is then possible to conclude that, in many situations, affirmative actions only serve as self-deception.
4- Promote the unqualified: (Pushing down selection criteria)
Only qualified candidates should benefit from affirmative action; however there is mounting evidence proving that this is not the case in many situations. Workers hired under affirmative action are often less qualified than other workers. This phenomenon is due to two principal reasons. First, affirmative actions are often accompanied by quotas. Those quotas represent a minimum percentage of a company work force that must be constituted by minorities. In order to fulfill the quotas, agencies are obliged to admit less qualified candidates. The second reason is that, not much empirical work has been devoted to the qualification question. In affirmative action programs, the focus is on quantity rather than quality. It is important to integrate minorities (qualified or not) in the Canadian work force. However, unqualified employees can have damaging consequences on companies, such as drastically reduce productivity.
5- Increases Social Inequity:
Affirmative action increases the amount of apparent inequality in the public sector. Furthermore, some affirmative action programs implemented in the past have had negative impact on minority group social status. For example, those programs can bring limited skilled workers into comparatively low-paying jobs. The effect of such programs just increases income inequality apparent in the market place. When inequality is more visible, individuals tend to discriminate more and thus, affirmative actions have the opposite effect.
6- Redefining merit
There are several factors that institutions should take into account when considering applicants. For example, professional experience, school background, test scores, personality traits, and extra-curricular achievements. Taken together, those factors help determining which candidate deserves the job. With affirmative actions, merit is not anymore the main reason for hiring or promoting someone. The new criteria are; skin colors, sex, language spoken, etc. However, an applicant's race is not a legitimate factor to take into consideration because it is outside of his control. It is impossible for a company to consider every aspect of a candidate’s background when making admission decisions. Why focus on race in particular, as opposed to the thousands of other aspects that differentiate students from one another? Under affirmative action programs, success is labeled as result of discriminative factors rather than hard work and ability.
7- Attrition:
Even though affirmative actions are effective in increasing the amount of minority entrants in institution, they do not contribute to the success of enrolled individuals. In other word, affirmative action has not achieved its equality of result goal. The best example to illustrate this point is affirmative programs in school. Through affirmative actions, universities increase the number of minorities’ enrolment. However, it has been proven that affirmative actions do not increase minority graduation rate. In short, under affirmative action programs, there is more minority students enrolled in universities, but the number of graduated minorities does not increase. The far-lower graduation rate of minorities is testament to the fact that they are too often going to schools that don't match their ability. The original application criteria of schools were put in for a reason. We should adhere to them. This principle is applicable to work environment. There are selection criteria for each job, and in order to be efficient, candidates must fulfill those criteria. Even if under qualified employee are hired, they are not going to be successful.
8- Reverse discrimination:
Affirmative action is supposed to be a program designed to end discrimination, but isn’t it really justifying discrimination by its own actions. Its policies judge people based on their race and gender, which is discrimination in itself. Two wrongs don’t make a right. How can a program be considered as good when it hurts others. Whites who work harder and/or are more qualified can be passed over strictly because they are white. Contrary to many stereotypes, many minorities fall into the middle or upper class, and many whites live in poverty. Unfortunately, the way things are set up now, a poverty-stricken white student who uses discipline and hard work to become the best he can be can be passed over by a rich minority student who doesn't put in much effort at all. According to Cohen, the very term affirmative action has lost its honor and has become, for most, a euphemism for racial preference, as such; it is presumably unjust, immoral, and illegal on its face. It is contrary to both article 10 and article 9.1 of the Québec human rights and freedoms charter which states that every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, etc… When a white is refused a promotion or a job because a minority must be selected, is that not a form of distinction, exclusion or preference? As people start to suspect that preferences have skewed the entire class affirmative action programs are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences. It is a strange cure that generates its own disease.
9- The disadvantaged:
In many cases, affirmative action does not achieve its goal of helping the disadvantaged minority groups. Instead, it enables socioeconomic inequalities by making it easy for members of racial minorities from privileged backgrounds, middle-upper class, to get into prestigious institutions while not helping members of the lower classes. If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.
10- Diversity:
It is important that we learn to live in a pluralistic world, learning to get along with those of other cultures, so we should have fully integrated institutions and employment environments. We live in a shrinking world and need to appreciate each others cultures and specific way of looking at life. However, yes diversity of opinion is important in community, but racial diversity is not. Affirmative action gives preferential treatment based exclusively on race, a purely external characteristic. If "diversity" were really the goal of affirmative action then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way. Many minorities may be of Asian descent, for example, but have been born and raised in Québec speaking only French and sharing the same values, beliefs and customs associated to a "typical" Québécois. The only difference would be their race. Diversity may expand our moral horizons, but although we can admit the value of diversity, it hardly seems right to override the moral requirements to treat each person with equal respect. Diversity for diversities sake is immoral, treating individuals as means to an end.
Rational:
Affirmative action does not improve the quality of our work force. Legally speaking, affirmative action goes against art.4 - 9.1 – 10. It is therefore possible to conclude that affirmative action is contrary to public order. Moreover, as proven above, there are at least ten obvious negative consequences resulting from the implementation of affirmative action in the work place including, reverse discrimination, promote the unqualified as well as harm the talented. Finally there is no guarantee that affirmative action will help the disadvantage and it doesn’t promote true diversity.
Conclusion:
The goal of the human rights movement and of moral people everywhere has been justice for all, including equal opportunity. However, affirmative action rather than unite people of good will for the common cause of justice, tends to steer us towards segregation thinking. The human rights movement removed certain legal barriers, opening the way towards equal opportunity, but it did not tackle the deeper causes that produce discrimination. If we want to improve our society, the best way to do so is to concentrate on families, children and early education. Affirmative action on one hand is too much too soon, because the implementation of it’s polices does not change societies way of thinking and on the other hand it is too little to late, because we can not request of society today to compensate for errors committed in the past.
Bibliography:
- Franklin, Martin & Franklin, David, Business Law and Ethics Readings, Revised August 1998.
-Duplessis, Enman, Gunz, O’Byrne, Canadian Business and the Law, Edition Nelson, Thompson Learning.
- Mills, Nicolaus, Debating Affirmative Action; Race, Gender, Ethnicity, and the Politics of Inclusion, Delta, 1994.
- Becker, Thomas, and Vonnegut, Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and Equal Opportunity; an Economic and Social Perspective, The Fraser Institute, 1982.
- Reskin, Barbara, The Realities of Affirmative Action in Employment, American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, 1998.
- International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Reports of Canada, 1997.
Becker Garry, Sowell Thomas, & Vonnegut Jr. Kurt, Discrimination Affirmative Action, and Equal Opportunity, Co-edited by W.E. Block & M.A. Walker, The Fraser Institute 1982, p.149.
