Expert: John Fuller - 5/24/2009

Question
What are the strongest arguments that a defender of affirmative action could use to rebut the reverse discrimination charge? How persuasive do ou find these argument? Do you agree that even if affirmative action policies discriminate against white men, the potential benefits from affirmative action far outweigh the potential costs? Do you think that this type of cost-benefit analysis is relevant to understanding the ethic of affirmative action?

Answer
Hi Sheri,

Your questions are a source of continual ethical and moral inquiry that permeates the entire equal employment opportunity profession and those who are outside of the profession and affected by it.

To your first question, there is actually no such thing as reverse discrimination.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects every employee from discrimination based upon national origin, disability, sex, religion, race, or color.  Color is not relegated to colors other than white and is also a  distinguished category from race.  Therefore a white male or white female can bring a charge of racial or color discrimination against another without using the term reverse.  

To your second question, there are no real "affirmative action policies" only those laws that pertain to having an affirmative action plan as required by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.  If you read the actual wording most affirmative action plans that are normally contained within them, the disclaimers abound particularly that the data is basically not necessarily relevant.  That being said, the goals established in affirmative action plans are actually those which are purely business related and reflect market parity.  Market parity as it relates to recruiting is a business recruiting to the actual percentage of minorities who are qualified for the position for which you are applying in your metropolitan recruiting zone.  The key is the word qualified since you are not actually recruiting to the actual percentage of minorities in the recruiting zone but actual qualified.  This of course can be expanded when you are recruiting for executive level position but again it is qualified and not percentage alone.  

I do believe that this type of cost benefit analysis is not only relevant to understanding the ethics of affirmative action but also is an actual cost benefit to a company or institution.  

I do not believe that affirmative action plans can discriminate unless people who use them are ignorant of how they should be constructed or if there are pressures to achieve a quota versus a goal.  If quotas are established (which are not legal unless court ordered), then there would be actual discrimination if one race were hired against another.  Court ordered quotas to remedy past discrimination are acceptable but only for the limited time established by the court.  

The current court case being decided next month by the US Supreme Court may have far reaching implications to the future of affirmative action.  If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

John