Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:36, 14 October 2009

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Health mental in poverty Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia In-group Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Outgroup Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism Aryanism Autistic Black Chauvinism Female Illusory Jewish Male Nordicism Tigraynization Ultranationalism White Transphobia 21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Atheism Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon Protestantism Tewahedo Orthodoxy post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Rastafari Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Australian Austrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Colombian Croat Dutch English Estonian Filipino French Fulani Finnish Georgian German Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Iranian Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Antisemitism New Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Portuguese Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Spanish Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh
Manifestations Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Anti-LGBTQ movement in the US Anti-trans movement in the UK Anti-Zionism Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Gender-based dress codes Cosmetics policy High heel policy Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime Violence against LGBTQ people Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ+ grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Paper genocide Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sentencing disparity Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Untermensch Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Transphobia in the US House of Representatives Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation LGBTQ rights opposition MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Criminalization of homosexuality Dehumanization Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Medical model of disability autism Net bias Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social equity Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

The terms affirmative action and positive action refer to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity or increase ethnic or other forms of diversity. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. Opponents argue that it promotes reverse discrimination.

Support

Template:Globalize/USA The principle of affirmative action stipulates --- to treat unequals as equals is to perpetuate inequality. Affirmative action is seen by its proponents as a foundational principle of democratic societies such as India, that seek to redress imbalances, due to disproportionate representation of underprivileged sections of society in governmental, educational and industrial institutions. Proponents of affirmative action argue, that the disproportionate representations, results from covert, institutionalized and involuntary forms of discriminations that permeates the fabric of society; particularly in societies that have had a long history of racial, ethinic, or sex based discrimination. Such acts of discrimination may take many forms. Some are overt such as stereotypes (eg. women are only fit to be secretaries and housewives, and blacks are great entertainers and sportsmen—modern day gladiators but little else). Others are covert, such as "old boys" clubs, that tend to favor racially akin new members.

Most Americans support affirmative action for women; with minorities, it is more split. Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women; though a majority of both do. However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that affirmative action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of preferential treatment.

In Ten Myths About Affirmative Action (2003) by Scott Plous, it is argued that critics of affirmative action often rely on misconceptions.

• One can not hope to create a color blind society by practicing color blind policies since such policies put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance color blind seniority systems tend to favor white workers against job layoffs, since senior employees tend to be white. The point being existing imbalances in representation tend to perpetuate themselves in the absence of affirmative action.

• While a few studies claimed that affirmative action undermined the self-esteem of women and minorities, more recent studies and public opinion polls have indicated that such is not that case

• The claim that one can not redress one form of discrimination by introducing another is a play on words that uses the same word "discrimination" to refer to two different things. Racial, ethnic or sex based discrimination is often based on unfounded, often irrational and deeply ingrained prejudices. Affirmative action is a response to a statistically observed inequity in representation, reproducibly demonstrated by social scientists in many societies with a history of discrimination.

• Some opponents of affirmation action believe the practice implies the preferential selection of unqualified candidates over qualified candidates. But in fact, most supporters of affirmative action oppose such preferential selection and instead prefer preferential selection among equal or comparable candidates.

Opposition

Template:Globalize/USA Some opponents, say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications. Opponents also contend that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of all those who belong to groups it is intended to help, therefore making affirmative action counterproductive.

Some people, such as American Republican Ward Connerly, also feel that affirmative action is discrimination in itself since it judges people by their ethnicity.

Opponents, who sometimes call affirmative action "reverse discrimination," further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects in addition to failing to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages groups to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites).

Conservative commentator Dr. Thomas Sowell identified some negative results of race-based affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups.

Affirmative Action is a solution to the growing disparity of economic inequality between blacks and whites. Simply put, it is essentially a lawsuit, atonement of the transgressions of white slave owners, which have greatly contributed to this economic disparity. I have never benefited from affirmative action myself nor do, I know of anyone who has as well. However, I am aware that white women have benefited the most from this federal program. Nevertheless, I do not think affirmative action is sufficient in terms of retribution, but it is essential and it is a start.

Civil rights programs, during the reconstruction era, helped African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery. Emancipated slaves searched for families and jobs, most former slaves, without land or resources, became laborers.

Freed slaves were making progress-building schools, teachers’ trained and black politicians elected to office. However, these gains vanquished after southern whites took back political power. The Black Codes of 1865 was a unique attempt for white southerners to maintain the way of life prior to the civil war. Meaning that while slaves were free, they were restricted and opportunities limited.

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law, which also meant to protect the rights of newly freed slaves in the South, limit the participation of ex-Confederate leaders in government, and guarantee the payment of debt. President Abraham Lincoln promised the freed slaves 40 acres and a mule. Nevertheless, President Andrew Johnson revoked that promise.

The Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen “the same right to make and enforce contracts…as is enjoyed by white citizens…” The Ku Klux Klan was a white underground terrorist group, which created a wave of terror. Threaten violence, bullying, lynching, setting fire to buildings and murdering blacks. The KKK would not accept black people as equals. Their beliefs were that whites were superior to blacks and as a result, many blacks did not register to vote and kept away from white areas.

Blacks were entitled to receive the same public services as mandated by the “separate but equal” doctrine. In June of 1892, blacks were required to sit in a black-only railroad car. Homer Plessy arrested and thrown in a New Orleans jail, a black man, for sitting in a whites-only car. In one of the most shameful decisions ever issued by the United States Supreme Court, PLESSY V. FERGUSON. Segregation was insult enough, but the suggestion that such an oppressive policy was, in part, meant for an oppressed race benefit was galling in its dishonesty. Therefore, Homer Plessy lost his petition in the courts; Plessy would not receive equal treatment with whites in America.

President John Kennedy first used the term, “affirmative action”, in 1961. He required that all federal contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed… without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." President Lyndon Johnson reinforced this obligation by Executive Order in 1965 by requiring “goals and timetables.” However, political pressure forced Johnson to retract this demand. Nevertheless, in 1969, President Richard Nixon revived the idea in the "Philadelphia Order" aimed at increasing minority membership in the city's construction trades, and in 1970, he extended the requirement to all private companies with a federal government contract.

Meanwhile, the courts were turning to the use of quotas in order to break racial barriers when other methods proved ineffective. For example, in 1970 Alabama State Troopers did not employ a single black trooper. A federal court ordered the state agency to develop a plan for the recruitment and hiring of African Americans. After Eighteen-months (18), still there were no black troopers. Therefore, the court ordered the hiring of one African American for every white trooper hired until blacks constituted 25% of the force.

Families pass their wealth down to their children. In turn, their hope is that their children will be successful and can pass wealth down to the next generation, and so on. The black unemployment rate continues to hover at twice that among whites, being the first to rise at the start of recessions. Some white people understand the complexities of black people struggles in that racism manifests itself on many levels. Black people know that the system is compromising them in ways that they could never imagine. In an effort to right a wrong of the past treatment of blacks, various policies were enacted or created. The thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth amendments and other civil rights policies were to make blacks “whole” again.

Conservatives voice opposition to civil rights legislation to avoid costly litigation associated with Affirmative Action, employers will inevitably resort to a hiring quota for women and minorities. Affirmative action is a test of character. Minority preference is the meagerness recompense for centuries of unrelieved oppression. In America, many marginally competent or flatly incompetent whites gain employment every day, some because their white skin suits the conscious or unconscious racial preference of their employers. Worse, white incompetence is always an individual matter, but for blacks it is often confirmation of ugly stereotypes. Given that unfairness cuts both ways, does it not only balance the scales of history, does this repay, in a small way, the systematic denial under which African-American ancestors lived out their days?

In theory, affirmative action certainly has all the moral symmetry that fairness requires. It is reformist and corrective, even repentant and redemptive.

The idea that affirmative action violates the rights of white citizens confuses a right with an expectation. We all have a right to be “seriously and fairly considered” for a job or a position. In the past, blacks were not even considered for a job had their rights violated; in the present, whites are seriously and fairly considered, yet still not selected. However, their rights are not violated, but rather had their expectations frustrated. If affirmative action disappears from the American scene, many blacks will continue to excel and succeed. However, that will be “the signal” that would prove to be lethal for our country. That is, white supremacy now has one less constraint and black people have one more reason to lose trust in the promise of American democracy.

Advocates of affirmative action say that the playing field is “not yet leveled” and that granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men. My own view is that the case against affirmative action is weak, resting, as it does so heavily, on myth and misunderstanding. The arguments favoring affirmative action and the arguments opposing it have considerable appeal, with the ultimate persuasiveness of those arguments being a function of the analytical perspective that one adopt when evaluating them. Each set of arguments “can be framed” in a manner that makes it seem consistent with general principles of equality and race neutrality. If one views equality as a concept that is to “be measured” against an ideal or aspiration baseline, race-conscious affirmative action seems necessary to equalize imbalances caused by slavery and segregation.

The myth, that affirmative action undermines standards and that it is unfair to white males. Affirmative action's legitimacy reveal both distorted notions of how affirmative action works and an insidious values hierarchy that puts expectations of white males over the rights and expectations of members of other groups. Affirmative action's viability for the future may depend upon a proponents' strategy that responds vigorously to these criticisms. Affirmative action does not undermine merit selection and the use of qualification criteria is perhaps the most repeated, and least substantiated, criticism. One way to examine this assertion is to evaluate what has happened at the nation's most competitive colleges and universities. If affirmative action in fact lowers standards, then increased numbers of minorities and white women at highly competitive schools should coincide with demonstrable declines in academic excellence among those student populations. Yet no one, not even affirmative action's harshest critics has suggested that the nation's most academically competitive colleges and universities have increased the diversity of their student bodies at the expense of their overall excellence.

Affirmative action's critics focus instead on evidence that blacks and Latinos have, at some schools, lower average GPAs and standardized test scores. They also point to lower graduation rates among those groups as evidence of academic inadequacy. While such data may justify attention to the particular educational and social needs of minority students, there are at least two reasons why they are a poor basis on which to judge affirmative action. First, since blacks and Latino students are more likely than whites to come from weaker academic backgrounds, their relative under-performance is not surprising. Second, minority group status brings special challenges to the college experience, even at the most welcoming institutions. Therefore, the performance and graduation rate data may reveal as much about these challenges as they do about academics.

Affirmative action underwent a remarkable escalation of its mission from simple anti-discrimination enforcement to social engineering by means of quotas, goals, time-tables, set-asides and other forms of preferential treatment. When affirmative action grew into social engineering, diversity became a golden word. Diversity is a term that applies democratic principles to races and cultures rather than to citizens, despite the fact that there is nothing to indicate that real diversity is the same thing as proportionate representation. Democracy demands obligation of its citizens, however democracy has to be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

International policies

An in-depth examination of the legal status of affirmative action, as well as the different kinds of programs that exist and their pros and cons, can be found in a paper written for the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights by one of its members, Marc Bossuyt.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that have ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." The United Nations Human Rights Committee states, "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."

Types

Affirmative action is generally established for:

• racial minorities.
• ethnic minorities.
• underprivileged castes (such as in India).
• women.
• the physically disabled.
• those who served in the military.

Implementation worldwide

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal because it doesn't treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color blind", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action" or "positive discrimination".

The Americas

• United States. The intended beneficiaries of affirmative action in the United States include historically disadvantaged ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and veterans. Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been contested on constitutional grounds. In 2003 a Supreme Court decision concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems are unconstitutional. Conservatives say that state officials have widely disobeyed it. Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under represented and typically have lower living conditions. Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. Some states such as California and Michigan have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states.

• Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are already quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for the disabled in the civil public services. The Democrats party, accusing the board of directors of University of Brasília of "nazism", questioned the constitutionality of the quotas the University reserves to minorities on the Supreme Federal Court.

• Canada. The equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not require legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection Two of Section 15 states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. In most Canadian Universities, people of Aboriginal background normally have lower entrance requirements and are eligible to receive exclusive scholarships. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type polices. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and disabled people.

South Asia

• IndiaMain article: Reservation in India

• Sri Lanka. In 1971 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for students from areas which had poor educational facilities due to 200 years purposeful discrimination by British colonialists. The British had practised communal favoritism towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka, as part of a policy of divide and conquer.

East Asia

• China. "preferential policies" required some of the top positions in governments be distributed to ethnic minorities and women. Also, many universities are required by government to give preferred admissions to ethnic minorities.

• Japan. Admission to universities as well as all government positions (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria; however, there are informal policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.

South East Asia and Oceania

• Malaysia. The Malaysian New Economic Policy or NEP serves as a form of affirmative action. Malaysia is the only country in the world which provides affirmative action to the majority because in general, the Malays have lower income than the Chinese who have traditionally been involved businesses and industries. Malaysia is a multiethnic country, with Malays making up the majority of close to 52% of the population. About 30% of the population are Malaysians of Chinese descent, while Malaysians of Indian descent comprise about 8% of the population. Government policy provides preferential placement for ethnic Malays, and 95% of all new intakes for the army, hospital nurses, police, and other government institutions are Malays. As of 2004, only 7% of all government servants are ethnic Chinese, a drop from 30% in 1960. All eight of the directors of the national petroleum company, Petronas, are Malays, and only 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese. Additionally, 95% of all government contracts are awarded to ethnic Malays. (See also Bumiputra) The mean income for Malays, Chinese and Indians in 1957/58 were 134, 288 and 228 respectively. In 1967/68 it was 154, 329 and 245, and in in 1970 it was 170, 390 and 300. Mean income disparity ratio for Chinese/Malays rose from 2.1 in 1957/58 to 2.3 in 1970, whereas for Indians/Malays the disparity ratio also rose from 1.7 to 1.8 in the same period The Malays viewed Independence as restoring their proper place in their own country's socioeconomic order while the non-Malays were opposing government efforts to advance Malay political primacy and economic welfare. The rising tension and resentment of the Malays for the Chinese and vice versa culminated in the vicious riots of 13 May 1969.

• New Zealand. Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.

Europe

• Finland. In certain university education programs, including legal and medical education, there are quotas for Swedish-speaking applicants. The aim of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of Swedish speaking professionals are educated, thus safeguarding the linguistic rights of the Swedish-speaking Finns. The quota system has met with criticism from the Finnish speaking majority, some of whom consider the system unfair. In addition to these linguistic quotas, women may get preferential treatment in recruitment for certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in the field.

• France. No distinctions based on race, religion or sex are allowed under the 1958 French Constitution. Since the 1980s, a French version of affirmative action based on neighborhood is in place for primary and secondary education. Some schools, in neighborhoods labeled "Prioritary Education Zones", are granted more funds than the others. Students from these schools also benefit from special policies in certain institutions (such as Sciences Po). The French Ministry of Defense tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with North-African origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in the Ministry of Defense newspaper ("Armées d'aujourd'hui"), this driving license and rank project was canceled. After the Sarkozy election, a new attempt in favour of Arabian-French students was made but Sarkozy did not gain enough political support to change the French constitution and then there is no affirmative action based on notions such an ethnicity, race or national origin. The closest thing is that highly ranked French schools are obliged to take a certain amount of student of poor background and then the closest thing to affirmative action in France is based on the social background.

• Germany. Article 3 of the German basic law provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. In recent years there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job. This is typical for all positions in state and university service as of 2007, typically using the phrase "We try to increase the percentage of females in this line of work"

• Norway. In all public limited companies (PCL) boards, either gender should be represented by 40%. This affects roughly 400 companies.

• Sweden. Swedish democracy, although very solicitous about minorities' rights and integration, does not allow affirmative action.

• The United Kingdom. In the UK, the term positive action is generally used, and this term is used in legislation including the proposed Equality Bill. There are strict limits on positive action, as positive discrimination is unlawful. Quotas and selective systems are for the most part not permitted. An exception to this is a provision made under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which requires that the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics. Positive action in encouraging people from under-represented backgrounds to apply for jobs is permitted, but it is illegal to discriminate in favour of them in awarding employment. A form of positive action is used by the governing Labour Party, which uses All-women shortlists to ensure that more women are selected as election candidates. This is exempt from the ban on positive discrimination in employment under the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. The proposed Equality Bill, published in April 2009 includes provisions to allow positive action in employment in some cases.

• Republic of Macedonia. Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.

• Slovakia. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution.

South Africa

Apartheid policies were aimed at advancing the lives of white South Africans. There was job reservation policy aimed at improving the lives of white South Africans. Apartheid government favoured white-owned companies and created statutory companies for white South Africans. As a result, majority of companies in South Africa are owned by white people. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Black people were forcefully removed from their previous property, without compensation, and said property was given to the white minority.

When the new majority government came to power, they decided to implement an affimative action campaign to correct previous imbalances. As such, the previously disenfranchised majority and minority groups are being supported by forcing the formerly privileged white minority group to implement certain policies. These policies include quotas regarding how much of the procurement is bought from non-white companies, how much of the equity is owned by non-whites, how many employees are non-white, and what position the non-whites have.

The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically dis-advancing the others. Those specifically hindered are the white minority. By legal definition, the designated groups who are to be advanced in society include all people of colour, white women, people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term "black economic empowerment" is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because the acts cover empowerment of any member of the designated groups, regardless of race. However, government’s employment legislation reserves 80% of new jobs for black people and favours black-owned companies. It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others. In 2008, the High Court in South Africa has ruled that Chinese South Africans are to be reclassified as black people. As a result of this ruling, ethnically Chinese citizens will be able to benefit from government Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policies.

Other types of affirmative action

Given the history of discrimination against LGBT people, actions in favor of them in activities such as hiring, promotions, and college admissions have been proposed. In many college campuses in the United States, for example, sexual orientation is a characteristic asked on college applications so that administrators can promote what they see as a diverse student body. A 2009 Quinnipiac University survey found American voters opposed to the application of affirmative action to gay people, 65 over 27 percent. African-Americans were found to be in favor by 54 over 38 percent.

See also

Notes and references

1. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/085/voli/09085i.i-ii.html
2. http://www.equality-online.org.uk/equality_advice/positive_action.html
3. Christophe Jaffrelot , India's Silent Revolution : The rise of lower castes in northern India, pg. 321 2003
4. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0623.htm
5. http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
6. Ezorsky, G. Racism and justice: The case for affirmative action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1991
7. Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68. 1987
8. Steele, S. The content of our character: A new vision of race in America. New York: St. Martin's Press.
9. Taylor. M. C. Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the 1990 General Social Survey. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 143-178. 1994
10. Roper Center for Public Opinion. Question ID: USGALLUP.950317, R31 . Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe 1995
11. Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. Effects of sex-based preferential selection and discrimination on job attitudes. Human Relations, 47, 133-157. 1994
12. Bowler, M. Women's earnings: An overview. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 13-21. December 1999
13. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1998
14. ^ Sher, George, "Preferential Hiring", in Tom Regan (ed.), Just Business: New Introductory Essays In Business Ethics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1983, p.40.
15. American Civil Rights Institute
16. Cultural Whiplash: Unforeseen Consequences of America's Crusade Against Racial Discrimination / Patrick Garry (2006) ISBN 1581825692
17. ISBN 0-300-10199-6, 2004
18. United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, 17 June 2002
19. United Nations Committee on Human Rights, General Comment 18 on Non-discrimination, Paragraph 10
20. Indy fire-fighters sue city, charge bias
21. Highlights of the 2002-2003 Supreme Court Term
22. Plummer, Robert. "Black Brazil Seeks a Better Future." BBC News, São Paulo 25 September 2006. 16 November 2006 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5357842.stm>.
24. GNWT - Human Resources - Affirmative Action <http://www.hr.gov.nt.ca/employment/affirmativeaction/>
25. 2007 Graduate Student Admission Ordainment - Ministry of Education, PRC<http://www.moe.gov.cn/edoas/website18/30/info26630.htm>
26. Ethnic and Religious Affairs Commission of Guangdong Province <http://www.mzzjw.gd.gov.cn/mzjy/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=541>
27. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/Malaysia-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html
28. Bumiputra Policy in Malaysia
29. Perumal, M., 1989, 'Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Malaysia, 1957–1984', Singapore. Economic Review, Vol.34, No.2, pp.33–46.
30. Income Inequality and Poverty in Malaysia by Shireen Mardziah Hashim
31. ^ UK Commission for Racial Equality website "Affirmative action around the world" http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew0l0.RefLocID-0hg01b001006009.Lang-EN.htm
32. Jean-Pierre Steinhofer: "Beur ou ordinaire" in "Armee d'Ajourd'hui, 1991.
34. http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19970613-045-032.html#6-3
35. Personneltoday.com "Is there a case for positive discrimination?" http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2006/01/17/33430/is-there-a-case-for-positive-discrimination.html
36. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/forbusinessesandorganisation/employers/pages/recruitmentandjobadvertisements.aspx
38. Simon Wood meets the people who lost most when Mandela won in South Africa
39. We agree that you are black, South African court tells Chinese, The Times
40. U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case. Quinnipiac University. Published June 3, 2009.

External links

• Does the success of Barack Obama mean we no longer need affirmative action? NOW on PBS investigates
• "Affirmative action" entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Washington Post Section on Affirmative Action
• Substantive Equality, Positive Action and Roma Rights in the European Union, Report by Minority Rights Group International

• Education issues
• History of education
• Education policy
• Discrimination
• Politics and race
• Social inequality
• Prejudice and discrimination
• Anti-racism
• Race-related legal issues
• Affirmative action