Affirmative Action For Women: Myth vs. Reality

Myth:

Affirmative action is no longer necessary for women.

Reality:

Discrimination continues to deny women opportunities in many fields. In construction, for instance, women were still only 2.1% of the workforce in 1995. Full-time working women earn less than 74% of men’s earnings nationally. According to the U. S. Department of Labor’s Glass Ceiling Commission Report (1995), women make up 46% of the national work force, but represent only 5% of top management at Fortune 2000 industrial and service firms. White men comprise 43% of the work force, but hold 95% of senior management positions.

Myth:

There are already laws against discrimination in employment. We don’t need affirmative action, too.

Reality:

Civil rights laws don’t address subtle institutional discrimination. Through affirmative action, employers and educational institutions engage in outreach, recruitment, and training to remedy past and existing discrimination.

Myth:

Affirmative action gives preference to undeserving women and people of color solely on the basis of their gender and/or race.

Reality:

Affirmative action does not mean the hiring of unqualified people. In fact, these activities are specifically prohibited by law. Affirmative action allows competent and qualified women and minorities to compete and excel in areas where they are or have been under-represented.

Myth:

Affirmative action forces employers to set quotas for the number of women and minorities they will employ.

Reality:

Quotas are illegal in affirmative action programs. Employers set targets (goals) for the employment of women and minorities and a time frame for achieving their targets. There are no legal penalties if goals are not met, as long as good faith efforts to achieve them are made.

Myth:

Affirmative action results in “reverse” discrimination against white men.

Reality:

A recent report by the Department of Labor found that of more than 3,000 discrimination opinions in Federal district courts from 1990-94, fewer than 100 were claims of “reverse” discrimination. Of these, discrimination against white men was established in only six cases.

Myth:

Unqualified people are being hired and promoted to fulfill affirmative action requirements.

Reality:

When affirmative action programs are administered properly, only qualified people are hired. Poorly managed affirmative action programs may, on occasion, result in a corruption of policies. It is explicitly illegal to establish quotas and fill them with regard only to the race or gender of the applicant. Abuses of the programs must not be allowed—nor should they be used as an excuse to abolish affirmative action programs altogether.

Myth:

Affirmative action undermines an employer’s ability to make employment decisions based on merit.

Reality:

Affirmative action was created precisely because decisions were not being made based on merit. In seeking to achieve its goals, an employer is never required to hire a person who lacks the qualifications needed to perform the job successfully, or hire a less qualified person over a more qualified one.

Myth:

Affirmative action is bad for business.

Reality:

Many prominent business leaders support affirmative action because it widens the labor pool of qualified candidates, introduces more competition for jobs, and helps create a work force that reflects the diversity of the markets that businesses serve.

As K.T. Derr, chairman of the board of Chevron Corporation, put it: “At Chevron, promoting diversity among our employees, contractors and suppliers is a long-term competitive strategy that we intend to pursue whether or not affirmative action laws require us to do so.”

Myth:

Affirmative action should be based on social and economic disadvantage, rather than on gender or race.

Reality:

The idea of changing affirmative action to base it on social or economic disadvantage ignores the reason that affirmative action was created—to prevent race and sex discrimination and ensure inclusion of all qualified individuals. While socioeconomic disadvantage could be used in addition to gender and race, it should not take their place.

 

 



need advice litigation and advocacy join our fight news and media contact ERA about era resources publications search