Affirmation policies research paper

Affirmation policies are policies implemented by organizations, whether state or privately owned, to try and improve opportunities and chances for minority groups and to balance gender participation and opportunities as a result of historical instances that show that minority groups in regions and women have been disadvantaged.
After the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, affirmative action was implemented with the goal of giving equal opportunities for minority group members and women in job possibilities and education.In 1961, President Kennedy first used the term ""affirmative action"" in an Executive Order that he used to direct government contractors to take ""affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." (‘’www.ncls.org’’)

Research shows that many different factors influence people’s reactions to affirmative action, including characteristics of the program and features of the individual and that the persistence of prejudice and discrimination is one of the primary reasons why the policy is still needed today and will still be required in the future. We expect that in coming years researchers will produce quality results of affirmative action and its role in promoting effectiveness and fairness across various settings (Bacchi, Carol & Joan, 2015).

In this study i will focus on how affirmative policies should be legislated and the considerations it should incorporate, attitudes towards them and how they have helped minority groups and brought about gender considerations that favour women who have been considered as the disadvantaged in current society.

Affirmative Action policies

Affirmative Action is a poorly understood policy which often viewed as controversial. It is also a strategy that has been widely studied by social scientists. In this review, I explain how affirmative action works and its effects on employment and education settings considering the principal points of affirmative action controversies. I will describe in detail the influences of psychologists and other social scientists to help demonstrate why affirmative action is necessary, how unintended negative consequences may arise; and how its programs can be most successful. We also review how analysts have examined variations in people’s attitudes toward affirmative action, to test the different theories of social behavior (Bacchi, Carol & Joan, 2015).

Affirmative action occurs whenever an organization invests resources such as time and money to see that people are not discriminated against by their gender or their ethnic group. Affirmative Action has the same goal as an equal opportunity but is different from equal opportunity as it is proactive.Equal opportunity is a passive policy aimed at ensuring that discrimination is not tolerated once detected while affirmative action uses established practices not only to subvert but also to avert all forms discrimination (Bacchi, Carol & Joan, 2015).

One traditional form of affirmative action involved reserving federal procurement funds for the Women-owned and minority-owned businesses. Extensive econometric research has, but not unequivocally proved the success of the local procurement programs and the federal state in working towards minority- and women-owned businesses gaining economic footholds.

Affirmative Action strategies offer organizations a chance to monitor their performances and formulate corrections if at all they find themselves guilty of de facto discrimination which determines if an organization is guilty or not guilty of practicing defined sets of calculations (Bacchi, Carol & Joan, 2015).

The said calculations scrutinize if organizations hire people in equal ratios and proportions considering gender balancing and without engaging any forms of racism in available labor opportunities not only unless utilization falls short of the available required qualifications then the organization must develop other corrective steps (Bacchi, Carol & Joan, 2015).

Affirmative Action in educational institutions run in the same way as in organizations providing employment. Universities and colleges have continued to treat characteristics such as race as a factor when making aids such as scholarship selections among the qualified candidates or in student leadership positions at institutions of higher learning.

Why Affirmative Action Policies Are Important

Affirmative action as been proved to be necessary for maintaining diversity at work and in student systems as well as it helps in ensuring that selection and hiring procedures are kept fair to all qualified candidates (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

Diversity

Affirmation policies are also seen to boost diversity because when fairness is incorporated in selection then candidates from different geographical regions who are qualified for a particular task or institution will stand a chance to join an organization or an institution that they seek to join, this would be limited in instances where racism prevailed as some countries would be neglected hence miss a fair chance (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

Ways To Increase Diversity

Affirmative Action enhances diversity in situations such as race-sensitive admissions. Research has proved that presented detailed analyses of data from more than 80,000 students who managed to book a spot in 28 elite colleges and universities for the years 1951,1976,and1989 had instances of race-sensitive admissions policies significantly increasing the numbers of African Americans admitted (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

The research proved contrary to the assumptions made by commentators such as Shelby Steele foreseeing a high abrasion rates among ethnic minority students, those accepted as a result of race-sensitive policies did in equal rates to white students who were earlier viewed to be superior and more intelligent. Additional analyses have shown that social classes cannot achieve ethnic diversities in colleges and universities (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

Hence diversity is much boosted by anti-racism practices which help promote fairness in all manner of selections. Diversity also helps achieve quality as when different minds with different life experiences are brought together then the result is the achievement of high-quality suggestions and decisions in various fields (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

Fairness

Opponents of affirmative action often portray the policy as being unfair raising claims that it intrudes upon a valued structures of meritocracy in the United States by basing selection strategies on demographical aspects other than traits of ability and achievements which point to success (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

At basic levels, proponents questions as to why affirmative action is a single doubt for disapproval while the critics remain silent over other common malpractices that disrupt meritocracy.Universities, for example, create explained validations as to why legacy children are three to four times more likely to be granted admission just like other candidates.

Proponents of affirmative action expand their defense of the policy beyond merely pointing out that the policy is not in any way less fair than the other. The policy as been viewed by others as more fair than the so-called equal opportunity. The fairness argument is founded on two basic premises, i.e., sexism and racism persist in American society and affirmative action present efficient and efficient means aimed at reducing discrimination notions.

Concerning race, patterns of interpersonal behavior speak continued aversive racism on the part of whites in the United States. Unswerving differences by race are also evident in rates of pay, receipt of adequate medical care, educational opportunities, and treatment at the hands of the judicial system (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

Affirmation is thought to be superior to other means formulated to tackle discrimination because the effectiveness of affirmative action is derived from the fact that it is the only means of rectifying injustices in the United States that do not rely on the aggrieved parties to come forward on their behalf. Counting on compromised victims to campaign for themselves is not an effective policy, as many elements make victims unlikely to speak until when they are angry to a level that may raise potentially damaging strikes and conflicts (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

Research has proved that even very liberal people who are liable to admit discrimination are unable to unless on blatant discrimination when they encounter gender injustices on case-by-case experiences. In contrast, most affirmative action programs give organizations the ability to note such biases as they require one or more individuals in a group to monitor systematically collected data that which are viewed afterward. Once discovered, problems can be corrected quietly before a situation becomes explosive (Niederle, Muriele & Lise, 2013).

Test scores are not necessarily accurate in differentiating among applicants for jobs or school for some reasons. Sometimes the target behavior i.e. job performance depends on a variety of factors such that even if all the candidates would be ranked from best to worst on any specific feature, an overall ranking might need to combine different sorts of complex ways.

Making Affirmative Policies Effective

Research has brought forward suggestions which prove that having an affirmative action policy in place is not always sufficient enough to help organizations and universities achieve their diversity and merit goals.Poorly laid affirmative action policies can cause adverse impacts hence paying attention to proper implementation is critical for some reasons (Peter, 2017).

Endorsement from the executive level is essential to the success of many employment programs, including affirmative action. The visible commitment to highly ranked officers in an administration helps legitimate affirmative action programs as they assist in offering resources to implement them. In a survey of affirmative action officers, it was noted that support from the top-level administrators was the most important determinant of successful affirmative action programs in organizations (Peter, 2017).

Also crucial to the success of affirmative action programs is a clear and persuasive communication channel about the goals and mechanics of affirmative action. Practical official statements stress the use of a wide range of relevant and appropriate selection criteria considered when making major employment and admissions decisions (Peter, 2017).

Resistance may be reduced if messages identify prior and continuing barriers to the use of all talent and express how aspects of the affirmative action policies handle the obstacles. Maximally stable communications from the organization tend to emphasize how nonbeneficiaries benefit from the affirmative action programs and often summon a sense of social responsibilities.

Effectivecommunicationneedstogoinbothdirections. A recent study of Arizona police forces enhanced the importance of upward communication. Successful integration of women and ethnic minorities depended on the honesty among the leaders in top ranks and on open dialogues between the same people who typically act as policy makers (Peter, 2017).

The findings of the Arizona study also underscored a point made some years ago when alien measures are practiced, mistakes can be made. Frequent corrections of similar mistakes can help win allies and minimize resentment against newcomers.

Another thought about the successful implementation of affirmative action policies concerns the use of “banding” during the process of candidate evaluation. Assessment experts campaign for the utilization of a band or a range of test scores to determine eligibility other than a single cut-off qualifying mark.Proponents point out that banding can allow insertion of more diverse pools (Peter, 2017).

Attitudes Towards Affirmative Actions

Pollsters and social scientists have found attitudes towards affirmative action to vary considerably and somewhat erratically over time. Given the vastness of the term and confusion aroused in its definition, fluctuations in attitudinal support are expected. Apparently, differences in support of affirmative action may be functions of disparities in the operations of attitudes. Studies have widely varied in attitude measures towards affirmative action (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).

Attitudes toward affirmative action change as a function of how the policy and its practice are portrayed or understood. “Soft” tendencies of affirmative action i.e. outreach programs are favored over “hard” forms i.e. programs that use race or gender as a tiebreaking factor in hiring decisions. People who think or believe that affirmative action is a system of racial or gender preferences incline to dislike affirmative action more than individuals who give it a different view (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).

In past decades affirmative measures in education have provoked more strong emotions in the nation than has affirmative measures in employment. Even though the number of Americans who directly impacted by affirmative action policies in education is about one-quarter of the number of those directly affected by affirmative policies in issues of equity, unemployment, and merit in higher education can ignite intense feelings (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).

Researchers have also systematically varied the specified target of the affirmative action realizing that affirmative action is alleged to be more acceptable for some groups over others maybe due to different judgments. Most people express more interests in affirmative action programs aimed at helping disabled persons than those designed to help women or minorities. People also provide varying support on gender-based considerations compared with race.

Attitudes toward affirmative action also vary as a function of characteristics of the attitude holder. Simple demographic characteristics of attitude holders i.e. race, gender, general prejudice as well as political ideologies and education levels turn out important. Studies across a variety of samples including workers and students have compared women’s and men’s attitudes toward affirmative action and found that women endorse affirmative actions much more strongly than men (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).



Similarly, validation of affirmative action is generally, but not always greater among people of color than among whites compared with other groups; white men tend to be the least supportive of the affirmative action.In some instances, Latino’s actions fall between those of blacks and whites. The attitudes of Asian Americans have rarely been studied, although one survey found Asian Americans tend to feel ambivalent about the policy.

Education levels have also been proven by researchers to affect attitudes in affirmative action policies in that higher education levels mediated the relationship between attitude and prejudice towards affirmative action in a manner that the association was stronger for college graduates than for others proving a positive correlation between education and affirmative action policies (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).

Current research has factored some contingencies of relations between prejudice and anti-affirmative action attitudes. Whereas past studies focused on differences among groups of participants or associations among variables across research factors, the current study looks into different relationships of variables within specific subgroups.

Surveys on Republicans and Democrats are illustrative. Among Democrats, racial attitudes and attitudes toward black activist policies are strongly correlated whereas they are not among Republicans, they are not. Research data shows that Republicans are less likely to disparage African Americans than to disparage poor people in general. Aspects of personalities apart from prejudice such as discrimination influence affirmative action attitudes (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).

Personality variables known to vary with bias i.e. social dominance orientation, have been realized to explain significant aspects of attitude variations towards affirmative action, variables that are arguably unrelated to racial prejudice or gender such as ideology identification with one’s ethnic group, conservatism, and propensity toward individualism or individualistic explanations. Feelings of “white guilt” among in-group’s privileges or discrimination tendencies have also been shown to offer support to some constructions of affirmative action.

Theories Explaining Attitude Variations Towards Affirmative Policies

Social psychologists have recommended some theoretical frameworks to help explain the different attitude changes towards affirmative action policies. Researchers have directly contrasted different variations in lively exchanges; scholars debate whether differences in support for (or opposing to) affirmative action are better viewed in intergroup conflict, symbolic politics, ideologically delimited cognitions, self-interest or in principled objections (Ivan, Neil & Stanley, 2015).

Some researchers have propelled conflicts arguing that the symbolic politics point of view, maintains reactions to affirmative action to be determined much by what race and relationships existing between different races which tend to determine what people stand to benefit from or lose personally from the policies. Researchers have also advocated that the clashes over affirmative policies are because of different social groups (Ivan, Neil & Stanley, 2015).

Affirmation policy battles have also been seen to be caused by people's ideologies specifically hierarchy related to equality being among the chief determinants to affirmative action attitude variations. Although these three views agree that opposition to affirmative action portrays racial prejudice, they disagree about the context in understanding the dynamics of racism (Ivan, Neil & Stanley, 2015).

It is not logical to explain attitudes toward affirmative action merely regarding any one theory or approach simply because for the first reason; people may have different whys and wherefores for supporting different types of affirmative action (Ivan, Neil & Stanley, 2015).

Secondly, it seems possible that many of the observed relationships among measured variables may be reconceptualized regarding other measured and unmeasured variables i.e. one’s political worldview conceived regarding political principles that may conclude what one sees as the best interest of one’s self or group and determine how one judge's merit.

For principled objections towards affirmative action, it is easy imagining racist who assume that people of another color, i.e. blacks inferior to whites, who then criticize affirmative action as abrogations of equitable principles of meritocracy in the way it allows “inferior” people who are in the case considered as disadvantaged to gain an advantage.

Implications Of Social Stasis And Social Changes

Acute studies of affirmative action in theoretically and practice have given a broad understanding of social stasis and social change. Applied research on affirmative action has widened our knowledge of people’s behavior in social inequality and oppressive backgrounds in three ways, i.e., even in unfair situations (Hobman, Elizabeth & Walker, 2015).

People opt to view the world as fair and just, this resistance is particularly resilient among those who are advantaged more from the status quo, and lastly, the modifications in processes brought by affirmative policies always seem unjust, even when the modified rules themselves are subjective by nature. Some implications of social stasis and changes include;

Perceiving fairness and unfairness. Research has proved that one foundation of opposition to affirmative action is where people do not recognize the need for them due to the rising false beliefs that race and gender discrimination are no longer common problems.

Surveys have shown that the poor outcomes from people in disadvantaged groups are not regarded as indications of sexism, racism, or any other form of prejudice but rather are perceived to be brought by the inferior qualifications of low-status people (Hobman, Elizabeth & Walker, 2015).

Recent researchers showed that people prefer being open with justifications of affirmative actions that referenced merit rather than an account that spoke of injustices. Even individuals who express strong commitments to ending gender and racial imbalances provide hesitating supports towards affirmative action because of their discomfort with policies that assume imperfections in the status quo (Hobman, Elizabeth & Walker, 2015).

Even when assumptions are brought into conscious awareness, stereotypes exist change.Whenpeopleencountermembersoftargetgroupswhoviolatetheir(negative)stereotypes,theyoftenmaintainthestereotypeinthefaceofthisdisconfirming evidence by subtyping the group member as someone who is not prototypical of the group (Hobman, Elizabeth & Walker, 2015).

Protection privilege. Larger part aggregate individuals are more outlandish than minority bunch individuals to see segregation. Studies demonstrate that white individuals (white men specifically) regularly trust that racial imbalance is a relic of times gone by in American culture all in all. Correspondingly, a review of expert ladies found that high contrast ladies were similarly prone to see sex segregation in the work environment. However, white ladies were more outlandish than were dark women to see race separation (Hobman, Elizabeth & Walker, 2015).

One reason that high-status aggregate individuals may have difficulty recognizing bunch disparity is that they wish to save the hallucination of having earned every one of their results. White guys appear to have an overdeveloped feeling of privilege, as they frequently don't recognize the essential favorable circumstances they have gotten as a group (Hobman, Elizabeth & Walker, 2015).

Individuals who rail against "special treatment" stood to ethnic minorities in school confirmations arrangements choosing not to see to the inclinations that keep on being given to heritages. As Myrtle Bell notes,“My great-great-grandmother was a slave. Anyone whose ancestors were not slaves has been given advantages that they didn’t earn”.

Understanding Change. People experienced a change in procedures as unfair even when they recognized that the original rules were biased regarding arbitration or imbalanced. Experiments had confirmed that those who benefited under one set of arbitrary rules felt sorely cheated when the rules they benefited from were modified.

Organizations that realize faults in their practices face a challenge to either persist with unfair practices or choose to change the practices for the better to an extent where employees experience the change as coming and perceive it as a violation of procedural justice hence reacting negatively (Hobman, Elizabeth & Walker, 2015).

Negative Implications of Affirmative Action

Critics of affirmative action sometimes worry that it is a medicine that harms its patients. Even when they recognize that discrimination persists and should be addressed, critics maintain that affirmative action undermines its intended beneficiaries by promoting the stereotype that those who benefit from the policy could not succeed on their own (Bacchi, Carol & Joan, 2015).

Several researchers have argued that under certain conditions i.e. when the person has no other way of knowing his eligibility, telling people that they have received positive outcomes simply because of, say, gender results in self-doubt and uncertainty is made an excuse.

Activists campaigning against the effects of deliberate benefits also file its limiting conditions. Practical instances which may not be realized in the laboratory research but exist in the real outside world for example when a person knows she is qualified to do a job, the undermining effects of “affirmative action privilege” evaporate and lose meaning then.

Wrong practices by use of affirmative policies according to critics function as a method of reverse discrimination and end up increasing intergroup tensions and resistances. Any categorization by ethnic or racial groups is likely to elicit animosity against the group granted preferential treatment by other ethnic groups (Bacchi, Carol & Joan, 2015).

Conclusion

In considerations to women and minority lives, recent affirmative put forward by governments favor the gender rule where women are given certain seats in parliament to increase the number of female representatives in parliament. Even if they were not elected, they end up being nominated to parliament. Recent affirmative policies also consider minority races, for example, the blacks today in the United States have equal opportunities to whites in any field where you are eligible and qualified. Affirmative policies also helped move policies such as the Apartheid rule to the gutter by helping fight the old uncivilized laws.



































References

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx

Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (2015). Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory (p. 368). University of Adelaide Press.

Drucker, P. (2017). What Makes an Effective Executive (Harvard Business Review Classics). Harvard Business Review Press.

Hobman, E., & Walker, I. (2015). Stasis and change: social psychological insights into social-ecological resilience. Ecology and Society, 20(1).

Katchanovski, I., Nevitte, N., & Rothman, S. (2015). Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action Attitudes in American and Canadian Universities. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(4), 18.

Niederle, M., Segal, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2013). How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Management Science, 59(1), 1-16.

Wilkins, V. M., & Wenger, J. B. (2014). Belief in a just world and attitudes toward affirmative action. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 325-343.