Cavico & Mujtaba, 2004 Business Ethics: Transcending Requirements through Moral Leadership Chapter 17 – The Morality of Affirmative Action

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Chapter 17 – The Morality of Affirmative Action A.Introduction B.Purpose and History of Affirmative Action C.Affirmative Action-Preference/Plus Plans D.The Morality of Preference Plans Utilitarian Ethical Arguments E.The Morality of Affirmative Action Preference Plans- Kantian Ethical Arguments F.Affirmative Action-Alternatives to Race and Sex-based Preference/Plus Plans G.Affirmative-Proactive Diversity Efforts H.Summary

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action A corporation, that strives to do the “right” thing may find itself thrown into disorder by clashing values and competing claims; and no where do these contentious issues come to a greater head than in the area of affirmative action.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Introduction What type of an affirmative action program should a company adopt, and what is the moral propriety of so doing? What moral choices must business make to help redress the effects of past discrimination and stereotyping and to achieve the societal goals of equality of opportunity, social balance, and social harmony?

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Introduction The purposes of this section are to examine current affirmative action programs and practices, and then to apply ethical theories thereto in order to make moral conclusions about affirmative action.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Purpose of Affirmative Action The challenge for executives, leaders and managers of today's workforce is to work not merely toward culture and color blindness but also toward an openly multicultural workplace that taps into and energizes the full potential of every employee without artificial programs, standards or barriers.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 History of Affirmative Action U.S. history reveals that minority groups and women have been victimized and hindered by past discrimination and social stereotyping; in many instances, they still are being harmed by both the cumulative and current effects of racial, ethnic, and sexual prejudice.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 History of Affirmative Action These negative effects are especially apparent in the private employment sector where, despite some achievement of workplace equality, the rank of upper-level managerial and executive positions remain noticeably underrepresented by women and minorities.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Meeting the Affirmative Action Challenge The affirmative action challenge can be met by Managing Diversity. The purpose/goal of managing diversity has been and should be to develop everyone’s capacity to accept, incorporate, and empower the diverse human talents in the organization, in the nation, and eventually in the world so everyone can be as productive as possible.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action Preference/Plus Plans Take race, ethnic heritage, or sex into account when selecting among qualified candidates and that gives such individuals a preference over equally or more qualified white men. Are designed to eliminate obvious racial or sexual imbalances in the employer's workforce.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action Preference/Plus Plans Are adopted voluntarily by an employer to integrate its workforce in order to redress past discrimination and social stereotyping. Are not designed as an absolute principle, but a contingent one, since race or sex is merely one “plus” factor.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action Preference/Plus Plans The University of Michigan Law School: –Permitted race as a preference factor in the college admissions process. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated, this plan did not violate the “equal protection” guarantee of the 14 th Amendment to the Constitution.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action Preference/Plus Plans The U.S. Supreme court in June 2003 permitted the use of race as a preference factor in the college admissions process (University of Michigan Decisions), but the court also issued a stern warning that colleges cannot use rigid affirmative action systems that resemble quotas and that they also must adopt race neutral policies as soon as possible. Twenty five years from now, Justice O’Connor stated, the court would expect that racial preferences will no longer be necessary.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action Preference/Plus Plans The Supreme Court’s University of Michigan affirmative action cases in 2003 emerge as landmark decisions with wide ranging implications not only for education but also for business and for society as a whole, especially so because the use of race has been upheld legally as a permissible component to an affirmative action preference plan.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 The Morality of Preference Plans –Utilitarian Ethical Argument Utilitarian analysis determines if the consequences of a preference type plan produce more good than harm in the long run--a moral plan, or if the harm outweighs the good--an immoral plan. Action to be analyzed ethically: –Is an affirmative action preference plan with a “plus” factor being awarded for “diversity” moral?

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 The Morality of Preference Plans –Utilitarian Ethical Argument Steps to utilitarian action analysis: –ID of all persons/groups directly/indirectly affected by having the action implemented; –Determining all reasonably foreseeable, long term consequences, good/bad for all persons/groups; –Consequences are measured, weighed, and quantified; –Resulting number yields moral conclusion.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 The Morality of Preference Plans –Utilitarian Ethical Argument The utilitarian analysis effect (of pp plans) generally will be positive: –U.S. business and industry more accurately will reflect the population and society in which they are based and which they seek to serve. –Decisions will be made based on the additional knowledge and experience contributed by a more diverse workforce.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 The Morality of Preference Plans –Utilitarian Ethical Argument Affirmative action will result in more productive relationships among U.S. business and industry and sectors of the U.S. and world population, thereby enhancing domestic and global opportunities.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 The Morality of Preference Plans –Kantian Ethical Argument Kantian analysis is based on the belief that morality is derived formally from reason, not the presence of “good’ consequences. Action to be analyzed ethically: –The morality of business affirmative action plans that accord an applicant or a candidate a preference of “plus” factor based on his/her sex or minority or diversity status.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 The Morality of Preference Plans –Kantian Ethical Argument Kant’s principle is his Categorical Imperative: –It is “categorical” because no other ethical theories or principles are required to determine the morality of the action under examination. –It is “imperative” because one must be moral regardless of the consequences, and one’s will can and must compel one to do what one’s mind has reasoned as the moral course of action.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Kant’s Categorical Imperative An action must meet Kant’s three tests to be a moral pursuant to the Categorical Imperative: –It must be possible to be made consistently universal; –Treat rational beings with dignity and respect; –It must be acceptable to a rational person who did not know whether he or she would be the agent, that is, the “giver” of the action, or the receiver of the action.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 The Morality of Preference Plans –Kantian Ethical Argument The Preference (“plus” factor) type plan failed Kant’s second and third tests: –It creates serious moral problems, so it as immoral; –The rational person-would not want to be the “receiver”: Would not want to take the risk of being discriminated against, even for laudable business and societal objectives, on the basis of characteristics that are not directly relevant to a person’s capability to perform a particular job.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action-Alternatives to Race and Sex-based Preference/Plus Plans Here, preferences are necessary to correct provable past injustices. The Kantian “rational” person would also recognize the need for action and give in to limited targeted preferences. Preferences are based on: –Past discrimination; –Socioeconomic disadvantages; or –Economically distressed areas.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Affirmative Action-Proactive Diversity Efforts Companies use proactive diversity efforts to attract and maintain a more balanced workforce by: –Target recruiting; –Increasing the pool of qualified women and minority applicants and candidates; –Mentoring, and training in diversity awareness.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Summary Refocusing affirmative action plans away from race-and-sex-based “plus” programs to more neutral factors, socioeconomic status, and to the use of diversity as a potential and legitimate job criterion, will help to ensure that affirmative action continues to produce greater good, but not at the cost of reverse discrimination toward white men.

© Cavico & Mujtaba, 2005 Reference Cavico, F., & Mujtaba, B. (2005). Business ethics: Transcending requirements through moral leadership. Boston: Pearson Custom Publications.