Part II: Explain the differences between EEO and Affirmative Action.
EEO stands for Equal Employment Opportunity which means that no one can be disregarded for positions based on race, religion, gender, or disability. It ensures hiring is based upon merit rather than personal biases of those in positions to hire or fire individuals. Discrimination is not allowed in hiring but EEO does not give a member of an underrepresented group any advantage. It simply removes disadvantage from being a factor.
Affirmative Action is a punitive measure which awards to modern members of minority groups a special opportunity for achievement to make up for past oppression. Because of its compensatory factors, Affirmative Action is far more controversial than EEO. Since the time long before the Civil War and up until the passage of the Civil Rights Amendment of the 1960s, it was legal to treat African-Americans and other minorities as unequal from Caucasian people. First they were slaves and then they were second-class citizens who faced crime and abuse at all levels of their society. Even after the Civil Right Amendment passed there were still reported cases of minorities being treated unfairly because of their ethnicity and thus Affirmative Action was created. Corruption within the authoritarian boards of educational institutions and places of employment continued the oppression of minorities until legal action was taken to prevent instances (Klitgaard 1998,-page 4). The intent of Affirmative Action was to redress disparate impact in the present historical moment by giving preference to those who are qualified but are underrepresented. There are three distinct forms of Affirmative Action. These include: affirmative mobilization, affirmative fairness, and affirmative preference. The first deals with the group's ability to become socially mobile and to advance socially where they had not before been able to do so. The second refers to conditions wherein those in authority make sure that hiring practices are done fairly and that negative biases do not prevent minorities from employment or admission to higher education. The final form, affirmative preference, deals with a characteristic within the minority group which will be taken into account when they are applying for benefits or grants of some type. It is this third component which has led to the most controversy over Affirmative Action.
One of the major issues that have been debated with regard to Affirmative Action is the potential that it gives unfair advantage to some people not because of actions within our lifetime, but as a reflection of the actions of people in the past. For example, if two candidates have equal qualities and merits, if Affirmative Action is in place, the priority might be in hiring the minority candidate. Even more controversial, if a minority candidate is less qualified for a position, he or she might still be given the job because of a need to diversify the work environment. Beyond the hiring practices, issues regarding Affirmative Action and EEO can be addressed by ensuring that the workplace is one of accessibility for everyone and that intolerable behavior is not allowed. Anyone who behaves with an attitude of discriminatory or prejudicial viewpoints should be dealt with immediately so that their perspective does not unduly impact the rest of the employees or the working environment as a whole. The concept of majority and minority is changing as the ethnic demographic of the country and the workplace changes. It is no doubt possible that soon the group which has been majority, i.e. Caucasians, will eventually be a minority group. It is therefore necessary to create cohesive working environments now so that when and if the percentages change, the transition will be seamless. If race, religion, creed, ability are not determining factors in the present, then it is hoped that the scenario will not be detrimental in the future.
Klitgaard, R. (1998). International cooperation against corruption. Finance and Development.
(35:1). Pro-Quest. 3-6.
Lektzian, D. & Sova, M. (2001). Institutions and international cooperation: an event history analysis of the effects of economic sanctions. The Journal of Conflict Resolution. (45:1). ProQuest Central. 61-79.
UChicago. (2012, March 1). Why leaders lie: the truth about lying in international politics.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe5f5dcrGE
Urpelainen, J. (2011). Early birds: special interests and the strategic logic of international cooperation. Rev. Int.…