Affirmative Action and the Workplace

Affirmative Action and the Workplace

Brandilynn Woods
Excelsior College

Author Note
17 Lockwood St. Binghamton, NY 13901

Affirmative Action and the Workplace

Affirmative Action Yesterday and Today

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was first act and later amended by the 1972 Equal
Opportunity Act that states an employer cannot discriminate against someone based on race,
color, religion, sex or national origin. (Dessler, 2013, p. 32) These acts cover almost everyone,
they attempt to deter employers from unlawful employment practices. Today it is standard
practice for large corporations to have an equal opportunity officer for employees to report issues
to. Employers bear an enormous amount of responsibility and since its inception the burden of
proof has only risen and limits it protection of women.
Do we still need Affirmative Action?
The answer to this question is can only be answered with a question. Is there still racism
in the world today? As long as people see race or feel hate towards others of other religions we
will need affirmative action and equal opportunity. While Affirmative Action isnt perfect, its
what we have. Most agree that Affirmative Action needs amendment that it should place a
priority on those of lower income levels. Denying the existence of the issues can only hurt, some
states such Florida have been criticized for their treatment of minorities. According to CNN,
the Florida State Board of Education has recently come under fire because the academic
achievement goals it set for minority students appear to be lower than the ones set for white
students. By the 2017-18 school year, the board wants to have 88% of white students at or above
the grade level benchmark for reading but only 81% of Latinos and 74% of blacks.
(Granderson, 2012) This is exactly the purpose for present day Affirmative Action even with its
deficiencies.

Affirmative Action and the Workplace

Is Equal Opportunity sufficient to prevent discrimination?

In some industries the Equal Opportunity Act is all that prevents nepotism and the exclusion of
those considered outsiders. The David Terpstra wrote in Employment Relations Today that It
has been argued that recruitment practices such as employee referrals, word-of-mouth, and the
use of "old-boy" networks tend to unfairly discriminate against minorities and women. AA's
emphasis on numerical goals may force some organizations to broaden their search efforts and
employ alternative recruiting methods and sources that will yield more minority and women
applicants. (Terpstra, 1995, p. 6) If employers and their employees are not held to higher
standards their personal beliefs will infect their business practices. Every employer even the
most rigorous supporters of the Equal Opportunity Act will face claims of discrimination of one
form or another at some time. Equal Opportunity isnt sufficient to prevent discrimination, but it
does encourage organization to improve the employment and advancement of women and
minorities. Women and minorities are breaking the glass ceiling and being disparaged for it, that
their achievements are unearned and based not on their merits. According to Terpstra, Most
studies report that blacks have made little progress in closing the income and employment gap
with whites. Until the socioeconomic disparity has lessened there will always be a need for
equal opportunity and a need for reforms to the current act. Equal Opportunity and Affirmative
Action may be resented by some employers while others embrace it, some use it as another tool
to find the most talented employees to recruit.

Affirmative Action and the Workplace

4
References

Dessler, G. (2013). Human Resource Management (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
References
Granderson, L. Z. (2012, October). What's wrong with affirmative action -- and why we need it
- CNN.com. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/13/opinion/grandersonaffirmative-action/Hall.
Terpstra, D. E. (1995). Reassessing Affirmative Action: Today's Basic Issues and Questions.
Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 22(2), 33-42.