Ted Re...Myth 1: The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.
Although this statement sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage.
It isn't color blind policies that put minorities at a disadvantage. It is the minority groups themselves who have a disadvantage, and until they address these disadvantages, such as education, crime, drugs, family,etc.; they will always be at a disadvantage.
Color blind policies do put minorities at a disadvantage because color blind policies in reality are not color blind. When a white male is in a position of power and there is no requirement to make affirmative outreach [a color blind policy], then he is more likely to hire another white male than a minority or woman.
Things like crime, drugs, etc do put minorities at a disadvantage but color blind policies only add to that disadvantage.
Myth 2: Affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation.
Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Murrell & Jones, 1996). For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ("Reverse Discrimination," 1995).
Myth 3: Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.
Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every male dollar (Bowler, 1999). Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, twice the rate of infant mortality
Items two and three contradict each other. If the unemployment rates, and wage disparities continue despite AA, what advantages have AA given the minorities to justify its costs.
AA has helped but the situation was far worse before AA was implemented. I don't think you realize how great the disparity once was.
Yes, AA has given minorities more representation in big businesses, who have had to satisfy quotas. On the flip side, quotas have hurt in small businesses, who are too small to be required to follow hiring quotas, and who are now leary of hiring any minorities for fear of litigation, once you hire a minority. Let me put it this way. As a small business, I am not required to hire minorities. However, once I do hire a minority, I am subject to discrimination suits if I don't promote those minorities fast enough, or if I have to dismiss them.
That is not true. A minority may want to try to take advantage of discrimination laws but if the case is well documented, the employer has nothing to fear. When I was a supervisor, I had a racially and gender diverse staff who were mostly older than me......I was threaten with potential discrimination suits on several occasions.....sexual harrassment, promoting younger over older, promoting woman over man and promoting white over a minority.
I should first point out that of the five complainees, four of the five were white. In each case, I had documented my actions somewhat carefully.........I didn't go to any great lengths; frankly, I didn't have the time. However, when threatened [and I didn't like being threatened for one second], I would pull out the files and logically walk the complainee thru my reasoning. They were still pissed when we finished but they usually backed off at that point. The truth of the matter is that they knew that I was truly color and gender blind, and not one to sexually harass, and that there were any number of people who would support me if push came to shove.
That is a risk, I don't want to assume, so when it comes to hiring minorities, one has to be sure the extra risk is worth it.
I understand your fear but let me just say an employee who is good, a minority and/or a woman and is treated fairly will most likely be the most loyal and hardest working employee you will ever have.
ted |
