Ethics of Affirmative Action

Ethics of Affirmative Action

Introduction

Over the years, minority groups have been empowered and that has led to the decrease of discrimination. Almost all people are self-conscious in whatever action they take so as to avoid discriminating against the minority. Groups that were historically disadvantaged have now found a safe haven in society because discrimination has reduced admirably. However, this has led to reverse discrimination; this is where members of a majority group are discriminated in order to favor the minority.  For instance, in job places, where there are two qualified employees seeking for a promotion but belonging to different races, the person belonging to the minority race gets the promotion. This is done to favor the person belonging to the minority group in order to uphold anti-racism practices regardless of whether the other person was qualified too. This case is similar to Smith and Jones whereby Jones was laid off and Smith was retained in order to retain racial diversity in the school. This paper is going to discuss whether the school board was right in firing Smith in regards to Tom Beauchamp.

Discussion

Tom Beauchamp would not agree with the school board’s reasons for firing Jones. Both Smith and Jones have similar qualifications. They were hired on the same day and neither had seniority. Also, they both have bachelor’s degree and they were both considered to be good teachers. The only difference between the tow teachers was their race and that was used as the determining factor. This was a case of arbitrary where the school board picked Smith over Jones based on individual preference rather than on reason or planned criteria. The school board obviously preferred Smith because retaining him would make them appear as an anti-racist institution while firing him would make them appear as a racist institution. Furthermore, Beauchamp stands for moral philosophy whereby one contemplates right or wrong and examines how people should live in relation to one another. All people of equal qualifications should be given an equal platform to showcase their ability. When the minority are given the leeway against the majority, it translates to discrimination. In a work place, when the minority are favored, the majority feel oppressed but they cannot speak out because of the stern war against racism.

Tom Beauchamp would agree with the settlement Jones received. Jones had gone through negative affirmative action when he was fired unfairly. Considering meritocracy in a workplace, when workers are being laid off, the ones with high achievement and high qualifications are maintained while others are laid off. Since Jones was not laid off because of incompetence, he suffered psychologically seeing that he had similar qualifications to Smith but her was laid off because of his race. Jones was a victim of negative affirmative action since the two were not given an equal platform. In pursuing his rights, Jones used money to pay for legal fees and also, he suffered psychological distress for being fired simply because he belonged to the majority group. Therefore, Jones deserved settlement from the school board to compensate his psychological damages and the legal fees he used.

Jones deserved to be rehired by the school board since they did not have concrete reasons for firing him. The school board ought to evaluate the two teachers thoroughly using a systematic criterion in order to determine who was going to be retained. The criterion should be free of discrimination and based purely on qualifications and competence.

I disagree with the reasons the school board had for retaining Smith and firing Jones. America has struggled to end racism and provide equal opportunities to people of all races. However, in attempts to achieve fairness in the workplace, the majority have suffered discrimination while the majority enjoy favoritism. The favors are a way of making up for how their group was discriminated against in the past. Considering that both Smith and Jones had similar qualifications and experience, it was wrong for them to fire Jones simply because he belonged to the majority race. Over the years, authorities assume that the majority have always been favored by their superiority complex and therefore in order to bring fairness, they need to favor the minority to make them feel included in the system. However, favoring the minority does not empower them. On the other hand, it makes them feel titled to favors and they feel inferior unless accorded with favor over other people.

Favoring the minority creates social inequality. The majority are forced to accept unfair treatment in fear of being branded racists if they speak up. Such inequality brings the society at crossroads whereby the society wants to fight against racism and at the same time uphold social equality. The controversy over the ethics of affirmative action is also a controversy in the justice system. All people in a work place who hold the same qualifications should be treated equally unless there is a very concrete reason as to why they should be treated differently. Both benefits and burdens should be distributed equally to enhance fairness.

Conclusion

Affirmative action should be used to level the competitive ground by upraising the minority and giving them an equal chance with the majority rather than giving them a leeway and favoring them over others. In the case of Smith and Jones, the school board should have provided concrete reasons for firing Jones and retaining smith other that of maintaining diversity in the institution