This essay seeks to establish the abolition of affirmative action for women in employment.

Affirmative action is a process in which selection of minority members of a profession are

actively selected to join the profession and/or join executive positions. This process is

fundamentally disservicing the profession as the minimal benefits that such a process may

provide is outweighed by the fact that those who are deserving of the position based upon

merit are simply overlooked. Furthermore, affirmative action is a flawed process as the

measures of success are based upon fallacious reasoning of confusion of correlation;

additionally the separation of men and women in today’s society is not as drastic as to

warrant such intervention in employment determination. On the other hand, the active process

to hire women in a male dominated profession may provide diversity of sexes, it does not

inherently provide a diversity of perspective.

Meritocracy and affirmative action are constant conflicting ideologies in workplace

employment. Affirmative action seeks diversity and often reparations for past transgressions

such as discrimination1. Conversely, meritocracy in terms of the workplace setting seeks to

simply select the most deserving for employment. To assume that workplaces that do not

undertake affirmative action must undertake meritocracy is a false dilemma. However,

employment practice is still dominated by very subjective and often heavy unconscious bias2

as there is often no regulator to mitigate the bias. Fundamentally, if meritocracy was

implemented in its pure form, meaning that merely hiring based upon ability and suitability

will often provide the most equitable outcome.

1 Eugene Schlossberger, A Holistic Approach to Rights: Affirmative Action, Reproductive Rights, Censorship, and Future Generations (University Press of America, 2008) 3302 Australian Public Service Commission, Unconscious Bias, APS Human Capital Matters, Issue Paper 6 (2012) July, 3-8.

Meritocracy and affirmative action do not have mutually exclusive outcomes. Both processes

can achieve equality, if meritocracy is implemented, then issue of gender should not be an

issue beyond that of diversification. Thereby, if the intelligence of men and women are equal,

equality will be achieved by virtue of meritocracy as both genders are of equal merit. If the

strict legislation and regulation3 that regulates affirmative action is placed upon meritocratic

initiatives then the strength and fundamental value of such employment practices would lead

to diversity. While affirmative action will artificially try to achieve equality, merit will

observe merely qualifications and experience, gender will not be a factor. Affirmative action

pushes gender to the forefront of the hiring decisions. As asserted in the Stanford

Encyclopaedia of philosophy whereby “The aims of real world affirmative action make race

and ethnicity (and sometimes gender) salient, not personal desert or merit.”4 Suggesting that

what affirmative action hopes to eradicate which is discrimination ultimately may just cause

discrimination. This leads to the fact that affirmative action is a flawed process and must be

phased out of law.

Discriminating to end discrimination is Affirmative action. Exemplified in the United States

Supreme Court case which identified that “[w]hat is required by Congress is the removal of

artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate

invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.“5

Essentially trying to mitigate the discriminatory effects that are integrally within affirmative

action. Beyond the discriminatory affect of Affirmative action, the measurements to

determine if affirmative action plans are effective are inherently flawed.

3Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 19864 Robert Fullinwider, Affirmative Action (17 September 2013) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/>5 Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), at 430, 431

When determining the rationale behind affirmative action it is often vague such as attempting

to repair past discriminatory acts or attempting to reach employment quotas.6 The former is

incredibly difficult to determine, if at all able to be determined and the latter is so simplistic

that companies will simply resort to ‘token’ minority groups. In addition, affirmative action

plans may as asserted in an Australian Journal of Labour Economics “be expected to be more

successful in a booming economy with a tight labour market than in a recessionary

economy.”7 This is clearly confusion of correlation, whereby during booming economies

companies are far more willing to adopt diplomatic initiatives such as affirmative action and

will do well because of the booming economy, while the exact opposite will occur in

recessionary economies. Suggesting that the reporting of the effectiveness of affirmative

action will be biased and skewed. Reporting the effectiveness of affirmative action is rather

peculiar, as it touts the incomplete success of affirmative actions programs.8 Essentially the

program cannot be a complete success, as it has not reached complete diversification across

minorities. Yet affirmative action has shown some positive effect, which may be entirely

owed to decline in racialization and inequality. This indicates the inaccuracy of the term

affirmative action becoming synonymous with the term diversity initiative. In a recent study

‘diversity initiative’ was the preferred term and was more effective in reducing workplace

bias,9 but it is wrong to propose that affirmative action procures the same rewards of

diversity.

6 Anne Daly et al, ‘A Case Study of Affirmative Action Australian-style for Indigenous People’ (2013) 16(2) Australian Journal of Labour Economics 277, 2917 Ibid, 2918 Michaeline A Crichlow and Edmund Terence Gomez ‘Revisiting affirmative action, globally’Cultural Dynamics March 2015 27(1) 3, 159 Leanne S. Son Hing et al. ‘The Merit of Meritocracy’ (2011) 101(3) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 433, 444

There are two points to the diversification argument for affirmative action, how it creates

diversity, and what type of diversity it creates. Firstly, Affirmative action can create diversity

of genders in the workplace, as women enter more male dominated fields as evidenced by a

U.S. Census whereby the difference from 1970 to 2006-10 showed more representation in

professional fields of work.10 Interestingly there appears to be a lot of reports and articles

geared towards women entering executive and managerial roles, while no emphasis placed on

manual or trade work. If affirmative action intended to achieve the goal of diversity in the

workplace, it should be placed on all workplaces not those with just higher paying and

physically less intensive employment.

Nevertheless diversity is created in certain industries, however does diversity of gender

actually provide any benefit? Fundamentally diversity should yield benefits by providing new

perspectives, knowledge, and skills resulting in greater creativity and problem-solving

capacity.11 Additionally, ancillary effects such as relief from discrimination, harassment12 and

improved mental and physical health13 subsequently job satisfaction is experienced. A

dissenting argument for the effect gender diversity is that assuming the minority gender is

taught in a similar method for example an undergraduate course, and they have essentially

have come from the same socio-economic background the diversity of skills and knowledge

will not be so grand to warrant affirmative action. This has been highlighted in a report,14

10United States Census, America’s Changing Labor Force United States Census Bureau <http://www.census.gov/how/pdf/EEO_infographic.pdf> Refer to appendix 111 Taylor Cox and Stacy Blake, ‘Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness’ (1991) Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-6 12 Michalle Mor Barak and Amy Levin ‘Outside the corporate mainstream and excluded from the work community: A study of diversity, job satisfaction, and well-being’ (2002) Community, Work & Family 5(2), 133–57.13 Lynda Sagrestano, Health implication of workplace diversity. In Margaret Stockdale and Faye Crosby, The psychology and management of workplace diversity (Malden: MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004)122–4314 Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1, 15. Refer to appendix 2

whereby it was found that there was negative correlation between gender diversity and group

performance. Further a study which seeked to prove that affirmative action created economic

efficiency through diversity concluded, “there does not exist a strong basis for regarding

affirmative action as more or less efficient than meritocratic admissions.”15 Suggesting that

diversity of genders do not actually reap the benefits of diversity, as there is no real diversity,

and that a comparatively simpler merit based process of selection is superior.

Affirmative action places in the highest regard gender. Affirmative action disregards the

knowledge and skill of potential employees which inturn ignores the benefits of meritocracy,

which, fundamentally employment must be based upon for equality to function.

Consequently, affirmative action is a flawed process, which is furthered by the measurements

chosen to determine successful programs, which are either too simplistic or simply have no

basis in quantitative reasoning. Thereby, if affirmative action seeks to establish a diversified,

egalitarian employment system it must be successful in achieving diversity and equality.

When affirmative action initiatives simply provide for gender diversification no benefits of

such diversification are reaped and better initiatives such as those based upon merit achieve

equality. Therefore, Affirmative action for women in employment is an initiative that must be

abolished.

15 Steven N. Durlauf ‘Affirmative action, meritocracy , and efficiency’ [2008] (May) 7(2) Politics Philosophy Economics 131, 153

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Fallacies:

FALLACY 1: CONFUSION OF CORRELATION

“For example, they [Affirmative Action plans] might be expected to be more successful in a

booming economy with a tight labour market than in a recessionary economy.”16

FALLACY 2: AD HOMINEM TU QUOQUE

17

16 Anne Daly et al, ‘A Case Study of Affirmative Action Australian-style for Indigenous People’ (2013) 16(2) Australian Journal of Labour Economics 277, 29117 Rational1, ‘Of course it is a fraud. It may have started out legitimately, but is nothing but an extortion racket now.’ On Adam 2 Is affirmative action a fraud? <http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-affirmative-action-a-fraud>

Paragraph Diagram