The Civil Rights Act of 1964 puts emphasis on the need for religious accommodation in the places of work, that employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical and moral beliefs or practices. However an employer is exempted in the event that by doing so, it would impose undue hardship in the organization or company. A reasonable religious accommodation is a conducive working environment that allows employees to exercise their religious, ethical and moral beliefs without discrimination or victimization. Roundy (2009) argues that the world is becoming increasingly religious and people are carrying their spiritual and religious beliefs to work hence if an accommodative environment is not catered for, morale and productivity may be affected. Modified workplace practices, policies procedures and organizational culture that respects and accommodates religious diversity by having flexible scheduling, swaps, voluntary substitutions, job reassignments and transfers are examples of how to create a working environment that is religiously and culturally accommodative to employees.
Employers have a challenge of making working environment accommodative, this requirement is a difficult balancing act because such freedom can be misconstrued as proselytizing in the workplace. Religious freedom in workplace, mistaken for proselytizing can infringe on other employees with contrary religious beliefs, or those reserved can feel intimidated and indoctrinated. Therefore, the question to many employers, is the degree of accommodating divergent religious beliefs, practices and expression. Cohen et al. (2003) Contend that Christianity particularly protestants belief systems have a focuses in faith than Orthodox or Judaism.( Cohen et al, 2003) further highlight that, membership in Judaism is defined by descent while in the protestant sects , it is defined by a person’s set of faith, belief and conviction. With such fundamental and diverse differences in the various Christian beliefs it is paramount to ensure religious freedom just as it is to guard against proselytizing. The difference in the various Christian teachings affects the mental states. (Cohen et al, 2003) further argue that, Protestants consider thoughts and feelings to be morally relevant than the Jews, to protestants a married person contemplating adultery has already sinned while to the Jews mere thoughts are neutral.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Roundy (2009) contends that, all religious practices implore their believers to do well and have a positive impact in society. Most religious beliefs put emphasis on honesty and fortitudeness; these are positive attributes that all organizations can benefit from without any hardships. The Hindu believes that truth is eternal; this belief inculcated to the work environment is bound to have a positive impact. The Orthodox and Latter-Day Church all share Biblical beliefs that that teach love and shuns discrimination of all kinds. These are very positive beliefs that if brought to work will easily align with the Civil Rights Act, Title VII of 1964.
Employers will face challenges in implementing flexible policies that would allow employees time to go worship on a daily basis like some religious sects advocate for. This untimely change on shifts and personnel can be detrimental to an organization. The religious freedom in workplace if expressed or practiced overzealously may intimidate those who do not share in the beliefs. Human Resource managers and the Organizational leadership, must at all times guard against religious favouritism, all diverse belief must be treated equally. The (HRM) must have educational fora to educate against religious discrimination and harassment while protecting diversity. It is incumbent upon (HR) practitioners to protect against retaliatory acts from those feeling disenfranchised on matters of religious freedom.
Affirmative action can be defined as reversed discrimination. It is applied when an individual’s race, sex, religion or national origin are used in consideration to provide opportunities to underrepresented sections of the society. It was first created from Executive Order number 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6th 1961. It envisioned an American society especially government institutions free from discrimination based on race color , religion,sex or national origin. At the time American society was highly imbalanced and civil unrest was at the peak. There was need for progressive and inclusive policies to chart the way for new United States of America. President Kennedy was bestowed with the honour of leading USA during such tumultuous period when a progressive America was born. As fate would have it, he was assassinated in the early term of his presidency. The role of realizing the ambitious and progressive policies of the Kennedy administration fell on Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the Affirmative Legislation, using his experience as a seasoned legislature.
The original intention of Affirmative Action legislation was to stop discrimination of any kind in all public appointments and in public educational institutions. Over the years, the desire to bridge racial and gender imbalances in various public institutions prompted the creation of special programmes to help bridge the gaps and address inequality. This well meaning intention however, is in contradiction to the Equal Protection Clause of 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 601 of Title VI of the ( Civil Rights Act of 1964), which provide that, no person shall on the ground of race or color be excluded from participating in any program receiving federal funding . This however demonstrates a contradiction; those with the good intentions to cure the societal imbalances often find themselves contravening the constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment. The need to make the society equal and actions taken to address those inequalities are themselves discriminatory.
Solorzano and Yosso (2002) argue that America is going back to segregation days especially in Higher education. (Solorzano & Yosso) point to the landmark Bekke Vs Regent ruling as the catalyst of the rollback of all the gains that had been made. The passage of Proposition 209, the California Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative, a decline in the admission of Latinos and Native Americans in undergraduate,, graduate and professional schools. The country seem to take its cue from the development in California, the effect will be cumulative reduction in admission at all public higher institutions of learning, these will negatively impact on the professional progression of people with color and Native Americans hence reducing their chances to get jobs. Slorzano and Yosso (20020 points to the historical case of Bakke Vs Regent of 1978 as the catalyst to drive to end racial based quotas in education system across the country. The four dissenting judges in this ruling stated that, “where there is a need to overcome the effects of past racially discriminatory or exclusionary practices engaged in by a federally funded institutions, race conscious action is not only permitted but required to accomplish the remedial objectives of Title VI”. In the view of the four dissenting judges, we are unequal because federally funded institutions engaged in discrimination in the past, and to balance the scales and make us equal society racially conscious decisions must be taken.
The landmark case of Bakke Vs Regent by a majority of five judges however, held that that the University of California Davis Medical School, by setting aside 16 slots of its 100 for the underrepresented minority students, preferential racial quotas in education admission violated Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited, discrimination based on race, color or origin. The basis for that ruling was that, the racial quotas that were set for the minority students in trying to address discrimination and underrepresentation were in fact advancing them. This landmark ruling equally affects work environment, (HR) managers in their desire to give equal opportunities to everyone, must guard against discriminating on the basis of race, color, origin and gender.
The four dissenting judges in the case of Bakke Vs Regent in 1978 were clear that racially inflicted inequalities can only be reversed by making conscious decisions that can boldly address them and eventually create an equal society. Affirmative Action (Racial quotas) in education improved accessibility to the underprivileged, especially to those who discrimination had affected immensely. If the increasing decline in registration by persons of color in higher institutions of education is any indicator, then Affirmative Action has been of great help (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). The upside to Affirmative Action can be the appointment of an incompetent person to position of great influence. Willig (2005) argues that argues that Justice Clarence Thomas benefited from Affirmative Action throughout his education, he later diversified into tax law, which makes him incompetent to seat in the Supreme Court. President Bush who made the appointment refuses that race was factor in Justice Clarence Thomas’ nomination. The former Democratic Senator Joseph Biden stated that, “Had Thomas been white, he never would have been nominated”.
Wilig (2005) further states that most of Thomas’ critics view him as unqualified. These criticisms are an indication that Affirmative Action, despites, its noble intention can give way to incompetent persons getting opportunities they did not merit. Such appointments based purely on Affirmative Action and not merit, if blindly made in positions of influence within the organization, can negatively impact productivity. Those lucky enough to get the racial quotas must also work hard and competently fill those positions.
References
Solorzano, G., D. And Yosso, J., T. (2002) “ A Critical Race Counterstory of Race, Racism and Affirmative Action Critical_Race_Counterstory_of_Race_Rac%20(2).pdf
Willig, O., A. (2005) “Using the Master’s Tool to Dismantle His House: Why Justice Clarence Thomas Makes the Case for Affirmative Action”. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs?utm_source=scholarship.law.berkeley.edu%2Ffacpubs%2F2836&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Roundy, T., P. (2009) ‘Religion and Work: Artificial Dichotomy or Competing Interests? https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4606/0802edd540968928f925b16a7fa32ef8a2b2.pdf
Cohen, B., A., Siegel, I., J., Rozin, P. (2003) “ Faith versus Practice: Different Bases for Religiosity Judgements by Jews and Protestants. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/
