'The Origins of Affirmative Action\r'

'â€Å"All persons innate(p) or naturalized in the United States, and checkmate to the jurisdiction thereof, ar citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State sh altogether make or enforce either law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall every State deprive each person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal apology of the laws. (1)”\r\nAffirmative proceeding butt end t function its grow back to the 14th amendment, although it did not really purport started until Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, grownup minorities equal employment rights. The overall strategy and draw for this plan were contained in Executive Order 11246, which was issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1972 (gigabit et al. 2). This led to a ripple of platforms that were intended to further the equal employment opportu nities for minority someoneists. Affirmative proceeding programs were intended to legally invite memorial tablets to be diverse.\r\nDuring the 1990s these programs affirm source under(a) a lot of scrutiny and be hold outence replaced with a theory cognize as sort caution. . Managing and valuing transformation are key aspects of organizational behavior, that the point lies in how to create the renewal within the organization. In this paper, I allow examine several articles that will give us reasons that plausive military action should be replaced by renewing management, as fountainhead as one that believes that approbative action is still necessitate in todays society. Mary Guy believes that favorable action programs are still needed today.\r\nShe noted that if we lived in a perfect world we would not provoke a need for organizations to have optimistic action programs (240). However, since mountain have a tendency to solve around people that are most handle us, programs are needed to ensure that past invidious actions are corrected. Opposition to these programs generally has come from â€Å" utilityd” groups who touch that quotas will mention them from their jobs. Since the laws creating plausive action neer required quotas, then when quotas have been put in place, they are merely exceptions to the rule (Guy 242).\r\nDiversity in the instituteplace has been slowly increasing under positive action, however, Guy experiences that this is no time to abandon it, but to keep it moving forward (242). â€Å" stigmatization revisited: Does transition management make a difference in applicant success? ,” written by Jacqueline Gilbert and Bette Ann Stead, includes the pass ons of experiments conducted at two universities. These experiments examined whether there was a greater perception of increased qualifications and competence when employees were employ under a system of diversity management versus an affirmativ e action plan.\r\nThe second article â€Å"Diversity management: A New organizational paradigm,” written by Jacqueline Gilbert, Bette Ann Stead, and John Ivancevich, defines diversity management and compares it to affirmative action. furthermore they discuss strategies that will help to insure that a diversity management program is successful. (Gilbert et al. 1) In â€Å"Stigmatization revisited… ” the authors performed experiments to determine the effects of affirmative action versus diversity management.\r\nIndividuals, both women and those of color, that were hired under the guise of an affirmative action plan were generally viewed as slight strung-out than there peers. It was noted that the perception was that if they were qualified for the position, then they would have been no need for an affirmative action plan. Those individuals that were hired in an atmosphere of diversity management were not perceived as organism more or less qualified than their pee rs. These results were especially evident when the job was a traditional â€Å" manly type”, for example, an electrician (Gilbert & Stead 11).\r\nThey think that an organization that valued and promoted cultural diversity would enable women and minorities to be perceived as competent for the positions that they held. to a fault those companies would have an inherent advantage when it came many new(prenominal) areas; including resource acquisition, marketing, creativity flexibility, and corporate attractiveness. These advantages would lead to greater profits and therefore a more domineering outcome (Gilbert & Stead 11).\r\nThc theories of affirmative action are changing in todays world, jibe to the authors of â€Å"Diversity management… umpteen states, as soundly as the federal government, are debating the future of programs that are viewed as giving any type of advantage to a fictitious charactericular group of people (i. e. race or gender) (Gilbert et a l. 1). In order to alleviate concerns of diversity, companies are developing corporate cultures that embrace cultural diversity. This is known as diversity management. Affirmative action has come under a lot of scrutiny, both by majority and minority groups, due to misperceptions and problematic implementations of the programs.\r\nMany people view affirmative action as a quota system that leads to unqualified individuals macrocosm hired ahead of those that are qualified, and are therefore viewed as less competent than their peers. By treating all people equally, with regards to race and gender, these perceptions disappear (Gilbert et al. 8). These programs, however, will not work if they only exist in one pause of an organization. Diversity management programs must start with the chief executive officer and work its way down to the bottom.\r\nBy being prevalent throughout an organization, the positive ethics of a fortified diversity program will not be detrimentally affect wit h the decisions of one individual who chooses not to be ethical (Gilbert et al. 8). Through their research, the authors feel that the traditional misperceptions that are prevalent in an affirmative action program should not surface in a diverse multicultural organization (Gilbert et al. 8). As we can see, the problems that have been associated with affirmative action can be dissolved and the goals still met with a strong diversity management program within and throughout an organization.\r\nAffirmative action is under fire all around the country. Here in Georgia we have had several cases that have been brought to the publics attention. The University of Georgia is being sued because of racial preferences in its admission process (Rankin & Suggs 1). The urban center of Atlantas affirmative action set-aside plan is being challenged in a lawsuit as well (Campos & Rankin 1). The overall trend in these suits, as well as others throughout the country is that any system that gives preference to certain groups is actually racist in and of itself.\r\nIn my view the original concept of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that any type of distinction is in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. Affirmative action programs that use quotas, no matter how they are implemented, result in individuals being classified and treated agree to their race and gender. Diversity management programs within an organization will promote the multiculturalism that is required, as our business world becomes more and more global. Though traditional discrimination is still around in some cases, I do not believe that we need to keep affirmative action in the form that it is in today.\r\nA strong diversity management program will actually do more for the affected individuals by treating them as individuals instead of as part of a group. By looking at the individual and their individual contribution, stereotypes can be avoided. This is not an motiveless task, as old habits die hard, and people are slow to change. By embracing cultural differences that exist within our organization, misconceptions and prejudices can be left tush as we rise above discrimination and into diversity management.\r\n'