Workplace discrimination has been an issue for a considerable length of time. The continued discrimination against minority communities has been the basis on which individuals are treated at work. It is not uncommon to find some organizations preferring individuals from a certain diversity group compared to others. Prevalence of workplace discrimination even in the modern-day has intensified the fight against inequality not only at the workplace, but also in other avenues. Efforts have been made towards ensuring that workplace discrimination does not occur such as through Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) laws and Affirmative Action principles. However, a critical understanding of these perspectives is warranted to determine whether they have been effective and to what extent.
Rubinstein (1985) described affirmative action stating that it is an outreach program focused on promoting selection of individuals without consideration of race, nationality, color, or creed. According to the University of Connecticut, affirmative action promotes recruitment and hiring of minorities reflecting availability of job positions in the market, that privileges of employment, terms, as well as conditions are administered equitably (“Affirmative Action”, n.d.). The description in question demonstrates that affirmative action is mainly targeted towards safeguarding the interests of those who are underrepresented. Some of the principles are such as compensatory and distributive justice, promoting utilitarian justice, extinguishing inherited guilt as well as enhancing operational needs (Rubinstein, 1985). On the other hand, Occhialino and Vail (2005) stated that EEO laws share are meant to eradicated unlawful discrimination at the workplace. Peetz et al. (2008) explained that the EEO laws were passed to address issues associated with employment of women, for instance, that their selection should be based on merit; they should have access to similar employment opportunities as men, and that they should protected from gender-based discrimination. Thus, while affirmative action focuses on the concept of justice, it appears to lean more towards promoting the interests of the minority. However, EEO laws appear to extend beyond getting justice for minorities and instead promoting a culture whereby everybody is treated fairly.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech “I Have A Dream” outlined the challenges that minorities faced in America. He explained that African Americans lacked the freedom that their White counterparts enjoyed. He said, “One hundred years later the Negro is still languished ins the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land”. This particular statement is a demonstration of the discrimination that African Americans, alongside other minority communities, suffered in a White dominated society. Based on Martin Luther Jr.’s speech, it is evident that the American society promoted a culture which led to the birth of White privilege. Unfortunately, this has been the foundation on which some of the decisions at the workplace are made. In support of this view, Glanton (2018) described the culture of White privilege stating that “ American culture itself is white-centric. For example, as an African-American woman, I can rarely find makeup that matches my exact skin tone”. Her explanation is that there is an existing culture in American society which places Whites above other ethnic communities.
Having established the continued existence of the white-centric culture, one could argue whether EEO laws are effective or whether affirmative action is still needed. Occhialino and Vail (2005) explained that EEO laws have a three-pronged approach that can help eliminate discrimination at the workplace involving: emphasis on education and outreach, voluntary resolution of conflicts at work, and lastly, strong and fair of other alternatives in case voluntary resolution is not effective. The discrepancy with this particular three-pronged approach is that it does not address the effects of the white-centric culture that dominates the American society. Therefore, one could notice that the aspect of equality that EEO laws seek to promote is relative to or rather contingent on the nature of a situation. For instance, if an employee from a minority community is likely to underperform at work if he or she comes from a low-income neighborhood thereby, is paid poorly or has a sick relative under his or her care. For such an employee, receiving a promotion is unlikely compared to a White employee who performs highly. In such a case, EEO laws would look at the performance levels of both employees and determine, based on merit, which employee deserves a promotion. Such is the limitation of EEO laws as they do not address the underlying issues that affect individuals from minority communities thereby becoming unproductive at work.
Conclusion
Thus far, the discussion has addressed the nature and limitations of EEO laws as well as the role of affirmative action. Comparing the two aspects, affirmative action is more declarative in that focus is on those who are underrepresented. It emphasizes the need to establish an equilibrium whereby all factors affecting the lives of minorities are considered unlike it is the case with EEO laws which control for these same elements. A gap still exists when it comes to addressing the effects of the white-centric culture which the American society is based. While others might argue against such a proposition, there is considerable evidence demonstrating that discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, among other aspects of diversity, is still prevalent. The American society is yet to realize the benefit of promoting an equality-based culture which does not undermine individuals based on what diversity aspects they embody. Relative to workplace discrimination, EEO laws can only be effective if affirmative action is used.
References
Affirmative Action & Equal Employment Opportunity, Policy Statement. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://policy.uconn.edu/2011/05/17/policy-statement-affirmative-action-equal-employment-opportunity/#
Glanton, D. (2018, March 29). Yes ‘white’ privilege is still the problem. Chicago Tribune . Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-white-privilege-dahleen-glanton-20180328-story.html
King, M. L. (1963). “I Have A Dream…”. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
Occhialino, A N. & Vail, D. (2005). Why the EEOC (Still) Matters. Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal, 22 (2). Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj/vol22/iss2/11
Peetz, D., Gardner, M., Brown, K., & Berns, S. (2008). Workplace effects of equal employment opportunity legislation: The Australian experience. Policy Studies,29 (4), 405-419. doi:10.1080/01442870802482158
Rubinstein, M. H. (1985). The Affirmative Action Controversy. Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal, 3 (1). Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj/vol3/iss1/5
