Affirmative action

One of the reasons Trump supporters backed him for President was his opposition to minority groups, including immigrants, having special rights that others don’t have. This was first called Affirmative action and the concept goes back to the early 1960s. It was seen as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and was later expanded to address gender discrimination. It was created by Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961.

On Sept. 24, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 which replaced Executive Order 10925 signed by President Kennedy. Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11275 which amended Executive Order 11246 on October 12, 1967, by adding “sex” to the list of protected categories.

Its intention was to promote the opportunities of minority groups to give them equal access to that of the majority population. (Wikipedia)

So that’s the genesis and the technical explanation of how affirmative action got started in the United States. But many residents of this country have never liked it and there’s good reason for that. To deal with that reason, we have to first look at its purpose.

In the early ’60s in this country and especially in the South, the average employee was a white male. That was primarily because the people doing the hiring were white males too. There were certain positions staffed primarily by women like florists, beauticians, cosmetologists, and secretaries because these were seen as effeminate jobs that men wouldn’t take.

The government realized that something had to be done about the hiring practices across the United States because if nothing DID happen, nothing was ever going to change. White males got all the jobs, minority groups were excluded from the process. So the government decided under the Affirmative Action Act to require a certain percentage of minority workers to be hired for most positions, giving them entry into the job market which they hadn’t had before.

This was seen as reverse discrimination by many whites because of the way it was administered. For example, let’s say a police department has three job openings and advertises publicly for applicants to come in and take a test. The tests are then ranked and those test scores along with other factors are used to determine the three applicants to be hired. Let’s pretend that the test scores, the most important part of the hiring process, were scored highest by white guys. In fact, the top five scores were all accomplished by white guys and the 6th highest score was made by a black applicant. Remember, there are only three positions available. Who’s going to be hired?

Under affirmative action, the first two scores and the sixth score would be offered jobs with the police department, even though scores three through five scored higher than number six. They were white, number six was black. The government believed that exceptions like this had to be made to equalize job pools and give everyone a chance at moving up the socio-economic ladder. This was obviously NOT believed by the ones who didn’t get the jobs, even though they qualified higher, because of affirmative action.

So an immediate schism was created between those who got the jobs because of affirmative action and those who were passed over. I think most of us can sympathize with those who were more qualified but weren’t hired. Affirmative action was in place for over 40 years before the Roberts Supreme Court ruled that discrimination was no longer a problem that needed to be addressed by the courts.

So in this group of Trump supporters, we find many people who feel they have been screwed over by the government and that minority groups and immigrants are taking jobs that should have gone to the white man born and raised in this country.

This is where the two sides disagree. One group says that the most qualified person should get the job regardless of who he or she is and the other side insists that minority group politics are still at play. Is it harder to get hired when one has a larger group of applicants to compete against? Of course it is, but if the BEST applicant gets hired, most of would agree that that’s what the hiring process is all about.

When I was hired as a faculty member at MCC, there were many applicants for the position I secured but we all shared a common bond. We were all white males. If I had to compete for a job today, I would theoretically be competing against all races, colors, sex and national origin. So the applicant pool would be greater and my chances of being hired would be smaller but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be hired. If I was the best in the group, I would expect to get the job.

People today are frustrated because they don’t think the process is fair. They don’t think the best person DOES get the job. They believe that racial and sex quotas have more to do with who is hired than competency does. And they may have a point because we don’t know what’s going on in the heads of people making those decisions. Are they being fair, are they being prejudiced, or are they basing their judgments on quotas rather than people?

Until we can answer that question, the battle will continue to rage!