Discrimination is not only persists in the United States with regard to race, but also in connection with gender. There are many obstacles that women face today that are different from what men face. Expectation regarding stereotyping is subjected to women and men of today. ( Desjaradins, 2008 p, 211) There are several matters that scholars, jurists, and corporate leaders continue to debate. But from Kantian, deontological perspective, agreement on the fundamental rights implied by the following issues and on their appropriate prioritization is not yet universal.
From a utilitarian view point, reasonable minds engaged in these ethical issues do not always agree on which resolution might lead towards the greater common good, or even what that good should ultimately be. Distributive justice does not provide a clear-cut solution as each camp can often make an argument for fairness. (Hartman, Desjardins 2008 p, 208) One approach toward discrimination in employment calls for no corporation is governmental intervention. There are many business owners who argued that if the market would leave the decision to the business owner’s discrimination would phase-out.
And that is, if a firm hires its employees on the basis of prejudices and discriminatory opinion (like women is not capable of doing the job), this is where they are limiting their search for feature employees. Whereas another employer may not discriminate, can choose from a wider verity will obtain more individuals for the job. This is therefore and opportunity cost to discrimination. The human capital of women and minorities is lost when we deny them opportunities in economy. (Hartman, Desjardin, 2008 p, 209)
Reverse discrimination is a term that is used of affirmative action to refer to the policies that the government designed to remedy historical effects of past discrimination. Affirmative action was introduced after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 during the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. It was to help eradicate the biasness of racial discrimination. President L. B. Johnson said that legal protection for civil rights was not enough to guarantee equal opportunity African Americans, because of the two enturies of segregation and racial attitudes that had deprived them of good education, jobs, and the hampering of their ability to develop necessary skills to compete. President L. B. Johnson believed that the intended action was necessary, therefore issued an executive order in 1965 authorizing affirmative action policies that will recognized the separation of race, gender, ethnicity, religion and age. Affirmative Action, reverse discrimination and comparable worth action began as corrective for past governmental and social injustices against human population that was subjective to prejudice.
These groups are classified by the color of their skin or ethnicity. Affirmative action has increased the representation worldwide population in fields of study a work in which they have believe to be biased. (Kelloug, J. C. 2006) There are opponents of affirmative action who said that the reverse in reverse discrimination indicates that normal discrimination is an attribute to majority. Thus when racial discrimination is targeted at the majority instead of non-whites it is reverse. This is considered a misnomer since racial discrimination is discrimination against any human being, including white ones on the basis of race or color. Ezorsky, G. 1999) Many advocates believed that using reverse or positive as qualification was criticized as diminishing the significance of this kind of discrimination, because it seems to imply a special status for ordinary discrimination against women and minorities. (Ezorsky, G. 1999) Affirmative action is still controversial today as in the late 1970 where the majority began to bring legal challenges against what was called reverse discrimination. They argue that the Civil Right Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against individuals, not groups. And that affirmative action constituted reverse discrimination.
Here is an example of reverse discrimination that was challenged in Regents of University of California, (University of California Vs. Bkke 1978). In this case, twice he was denied admission to University of California at Davis Medical School’s despite better grades and test scores than successful minority applicants. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the University of California at Davis Medical School’s set-aside policy that reversed sixteen places each year for minority applicant and that was a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.
S. Constitution. Therefore the court found that promoting members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination. And the court acknowledge, that affirmative action was permissible if past discrimination had existed and if minority statue was but one of several consideration in admission process. (Bell, H. Nov. 2000) After Bkke, the Supreme Court uses extreme caution in conducting claims of reverse discrimination, upholding some affirmative action policies and condemning others.
In 1968, the court was rejected by a six to three majority the Regan administration’s argued that racial preferences should never be used except to redress actual victims of discrimination, stating that race should not be an automatic remedy but that race-conscious remedies may be appropriate where necessary to break up the lingering effects of pervasive discrimination. Then by 1980s the court began handing down decisions that gave much greater weigh to reverse discrimination claims. The court limited states use of racial preferences policies, and in the Adarand constructors vs.
Pena (1995), the court ruled that federal affirmative action programs is unconstitutional unless they fulfilled a compelling interest. (Reverse Discrimination, 2001) Here are a few reverse discrimination cases the Supreme Court heard and ruled on. In a potentially influential case, white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Conn, made a claim of racial bias in promotion. They won and the court s said “No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race,” (Barnes, R. June 3, 2009) The case where the Federal Aviation Admn. Denied Michael C.
Ryan of toms River, N. J. eight promotions to GS-15. He worked at the FAA research and development facility as a GS-14 manager. After nine year Formal consent order gives Ryan, 9 28-year FAA workers, the managerial and supervisory position he wanted. (Pulliam, D. Oct. 22, 2004) References Hartman, Desjardins, (2008). Business Ethics: Decision-making for personal integrity and social responsibility. (1st ed. ) New York, NY: Mc-Graw-Hill/Irwin, Aug 7, 2010 from AIU Online, Virtual Campus, 1003B Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, BUSN150-1003B-42 website Truitt, C.
Feb. 15, 2004 Affirmative Action or Reverse Discrimination? Retrieved Aug. 4, 2010 from http://www. christruitt. gov/archives/afformative_action. php Kellough, J. E. (2006) Understanding Affirmative Action: Politic, Discrimination, and the Search for Justice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; Ezorsky, G. (1999). Racism and Justice: The case for Affirmative Action. Ithacan” Cornell University Press Bill, H. (2000). The Bakk. Case Race, Education, and Affirmative Action Retrieved Aug. 6, 2010 from http://www. kanaspress. ku. edu/bakbak. tml “Reverse Discrimination. ” (2001). In World of Sociology, Gale. Retrieved from http://credo reference. com/entry/worldsoca/reverse discrimination Barnes, R. (June3, 2009). The Washington Post. Justice Rule for White and Hispanic Firemen in Bias Lawsuit, Sotomayor’s Decision Is Overturned. Retrieved Aug. 6, 2010 from http://www. washington post. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608. HTML Pullman, D. (Oct. 22, 2004). Reverse Discrimination Retrieved Aug. 6, 2010 from http://www. govexec. com/dailyfed/104/1020041b. htm