Any honest attempt by a minority worker to climb to the top of the of the corporate ladder in any organization in America should arguably be a discrete case study in itself whose rightful place rests in the bosoms of scholars enwrapped in academia and technocrats engrossed in policy studies. With minorities now vastly represented in the workforce all around the country, one would think that there would be sufficient data by now for scholars and policy makers to design policy notes and forceful initiatives to make sure that past racial offenses against minority workers are no longer repeated on one hand, and that opportunities in the workplace are effortlessly available to each worker who hail from every conceivable race and ethnic background on the other. But the truth is, even the sharpest constitutional minds agree - and disagree - that it may take a generation before court-assisted policies on race-conscious hiring can once and for all be eliminated.
The sad reality is that minorities, even in this day and age, must fight for every inch of advancement in the workplace. The illusion that the "good-old-boy-network" that had permeated corporate boardrooms and influenced hiring decisions for generations has faded in the pages of history still remains, sadly, an illusion.
Although a smattering of Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Indians, Thais, and others may crow about seeing their kind sitting in prominent positions in corporations and organizations, these accomplishments become mere cultural high-fives and ritualistic chest-thumping goaded and impishly patronized by "mainstream society" - the milder and gentler term for the white-dominated populace. The true test of parity and acceptance of Asians and their accomplishments by the folks in the boardrooms and society as a whole is when promotions and awards are afforded without the tolerated fanfare and the implicit sanction of pinstriped, crossed-armed male Caucasians standing by the sidelines acting as if they need to be congratulated for allowing the promotion or hiring to happen in the first place.
Many a reason has been given why minorities fail to get to the plum positions either in state-run agencies or those self-professed well-meaning corporations. The most prominent reason given is that "no minorities in the pool of current workers are qualified". How convenient! In fact, what a perfect set up. It seems that the most effective means to get employers to pay attention to racial and ethnic bias in the workplace these days is hit them with lawsuits. WalMart, the world's largest retailer got a dose of reality from various court actions inspite of its down home next-door-neighbor image. The reality they woke up to is that insidious bias and prejudice ran rampant in their hiring practices prompting numerous lawsuits by aggrieved workers. Echoing this predicament is the coast-to-coast discrimination lawsuit filed against Microsoft. One was filed in Seattle through the flamboyant Johnnie Cochran, while seven former employees filed the other lawsuit in Washington D.C. Microsoft claims (their defense) that the level of minorities in the tech industry, thus Microsoft included, is lower than other industries. This lame excuse validates the "waiting room" notion that whites have traditionally enjoyed.
Many companies and even civil service-supported bodies do not possess a bona fide pool of workers composed of minorities who can be tapped to fill in slots that are often given to whites. Why? The answer is quite obvious. On the surface, it is antithetical to the alleged espoused policy of racial equality to which these corporations and state agencies are expected to adhere. But there is never a shortage of whites to fill vacant jobs especially those that are in management category and pay better. It raises the conundrum of where and when did it ever come to pass that the white man (in most cases) is always the best person for the job in the first place. An unwritten entitlement rule (this is a white man's land) seems to be the guiding heuristic that guides senior managers and executives in solving even their simplest hiring challenge. And implicit to this entitlement rule is the perpetuation of the good-old-boy-network. This is the luxury that most male white workers are afforded - rightly or wrongly - regardless of skills, abilities, and competencies. The consequence of this perverted entitlement is that minorities - Asians, Blacks, South Americans, and Women - end up carrying their white colleagues and superiors on their backs while they (white managers and associates) sweet talk and hobnob their way up to the top.
The true in-crowd of any Caucasian corporate clique is not the public face that one sees in the press and television after a promotional announcement. The true in-crowd is systemically formed in the transitional "waiting rooms" of workforce replacement pools. One can simply look at current organizational programs or corporate agenda whether these "waiting rooms" are staffed with the appropriate faces that represent the minority population. When these pools appear anemic of the minority crowd, these sets up the convenience excuse of "there are no minorities" qualified for the job (shades of Microsoft).
The color and ethnic lines are still drawn no matter what most people say to the contrary. However, one will always find a staunch advocate of how discrimination had ended with the martyrdom of Martin Luther King, the pronouncements of Frederick Douglass, and the sacrifices of James Chaney and two of his Jewish associates, Michael Schewerner and Andrew Goodman. On the other hand supporters of the "discrimination is dead" position argue that significant advancements by numerous people of color clearly belie a myth that is perpetuated by various self-interest groups whose only aim is to capitalize on an episode in history that has been rectified and continually being vigilantly guarded from ever happening again. These self-styled parity seekers who trumpet a one-nation indivisible belief prey on racial attitudes that were frowned upon then and visibly disdained now.
Discrimination is a two-way affair. It is pernicious when propagated by those who dominate mainstream society. It is just as deleterious when perpetrated the other way by those who bark out for group rights and entitlement for historical hurt. A classic example is allotment based on race and ethic position. It is this set-aside notion for a group that casts aspersions upon any well-meaning effort by those involved in Affirmative Action. The concept of meritocracy thus occupies a stepchild status because a cloud of suspicion and the idea of allotment taint any advancement by any hard working minority worker. So called civil rights activists look at individual achievement with a scornful eye. They thrive under a gang mentality hoping that a common cry of current pain and past maltreatment, no matter how old or outmoded, will serve as their meal ticket to special treatment and allocations. These pressure groups work to ossify long forgotten hurts and misdeeds and use them as collection plates that are incessantly passed around in government and corporate spheres. This begs the question of "who are the true racists?"
Affirmative Action: The Racial ProphylaxisThere is a camp of activists however, who find that the country is well on its way to healing the racial and ethnic wounds that have polarized the country for over a century. Consequently, we do not have to hide behind lobby groups and special interest organizations merely to see that minorities today are competing on equal footing with the white dominated workforce. Let's take a look at Affirmative Action promulgated under Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. This provision under the law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin. This dates back to the Kennedy administration when it mandated that all companies doing business with the government to actively weed out racism and discrimination from their operations. The term has since metamorphosed into a form of social reengineering sporting various stripes of political agenda.
Thus affirmative action, as had been originally conceived, and as a form of a prophylactic rule, protects the Equal Employment Opportunity practice its own self. Affirmative Action is viewed as the guardian of equal opportunities designed to prevent past injustices against minorities and to ensure that historically oppressed groups are not discriminated against when it comes to hiring and admissions in schools, business, and industry. In some rather suspicious glance, detractors of affirmative action see its underlying message as a form of preference; it is a counterintuitive notion that can do more harm than good toward the quest for parity and respect among minorities.
Just recently the Supreme Court of the United States issued two rulings in the case of University of Michigan's college admissions policies. For one, the court acknowledged the pivotal role of diversity in the social life of the school but came short of issuing prescriptive guidelines. By a vote of 5-4 the law school was allowed to select students in part on race. However, with regard to the University's undergraduate admissions policies which automatically give points to all minority applicants, the Court ruled 6-3 against it. This ruling strikes at the heart of the quantification of race which on first pass appears unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the first ruling by the Court provides a plus factor for race if the applicant happens to be a minority. Their formula - in line with the Affirmative Action spirit instituted 25 years ago - applies a fluid and inexact rule which gives extra consideration to minorities. The caveat to this provision is that the Justices recognize that this race-oriented policy may not go on forever.
Affirmative Action At A GlanceNote: Affirmative Action was initiated in the 1960's to rectify past discrimination practices against minorities. Women were later included.1961. President John F. Kennedy orders Affirmative Action involving hiring in federal programs. The idea is to eliminate racial bias.1964. President Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin.1969. President Richard Nixon signs the "Philadelphia Order" guaranteeing fair hiring programs for the construction industry.1978. The Bakke case limits ethnic quotas making a point for "reverse discrimination" proponents.1987. The Alabama State Police allows to grant strict hiring quotas to correct long history of discrimination.1989. The Supreme Court directs the state of Virginia to make a cogent case for implementing Affirmative Action.1996. The Supreme Court affirms lower court decision that bars Texas colleges from using race in admissions decisions.1996. Proposition 209 wins in California banning Affirmative Action in state employment, education, and contracting.1998. Initiative 200 abolishes Affirmative Action in the state of Washington.2000. Florida enacts law to eliminate race as a primary factor in college admission.2003. The Supreme Court allows University of Michigan law school to use race as a "plus factor" for admissions but rejects the undergraduate practice of giving minorities points bonus.Source: Columbia University Press.Quo Vadis Equal Employment OpportunityThe Equal Employment Opportunity Act articulates the doctrine that Americans are created equal and therefore requires the same treatment under the law regardless of skin color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, and creed. Although this provision appears sincere and benign, it has its own tyrannical side however. Since those responsible for instituting this equality happen to be those who also who dominate mainstream society (Remember, this is the euphemism for the white majority) and eventually responsible in meting out rewards and punishments. Affirmative Action prevents those whose who happen to wield power to be "too equal" with their own kind.
It is a hard pill to swallow seeing blatant incompetent or borderline competent white workers leapfrog over more deserving Asians when it comes to hiring and job promotions. When one looks at those who wield power and authority, it confirms the mutterings of justice seekers since the same people in power are made up of the male white variety, who for all intents and purposes appoint workers (consciously or unconsciously) of their kind and skin color. Exacerbating this condition is when a white worker is fired or disciplined, it is treated as an individual case. Meanwhile when an Asian is terminated, the matter tends to apply to the entire ethnic group.
On the surface, Affirmative Action may represent what is good about America and how noble its intentions are when it comes to matters of recompense and redressing past social ills. Affirmative Action displays a moral balance and justice that paints a picture of more than a thousand words where White advantage is neutralized by minority advances apportioned in the form of quotas, set asides, allocations, and preferences. Moralistic proponents - especially those who hold that Affirmative Action is a mere window dressing, and that it does more damage against a minority's self-image and psyche - not only push for the abolition of Affirmative Action but more significantly advance the idea of an equal playing field where hiring and job promotions be performed on the basis of a meritocracy. However, one thing is certain: detractors and sycophants alike do not have a common platform that advances the plight of minorities. It is clear that proponents and advocates tend to make Affirmative Action a political football where each side demagogues its cause among those who can claim a historical hurt, and using the ballot as the means to gain an edge at the expense of reasonable debate and civilized discourse. The latest ruling by the Supreme Court on Affirmative Action where their votes were split 5-4 and 6-3 affirms in screaming fashion that even the most prominent constitutionalists of the land do differ on the issue; that their decisions cut deep along individual and philosophical lines when it comes to the matter of race.
Critical Questions Remain UnansweredIs Affirmative Action a friend or fiend to minorities? Are quotas, set asides, and preferences the types of gate passes minorities need to get a leg up in the workplace? Can an Asian walk and lift his or her head with pride knowing that if one ever gets ahead in life it is because of a "push" that carries with it a stigma of implied inferiority?
What detractors of Affirmative Action constantly argue is its subtle yet insidious creep toward becoming a social instrument for racial parity. It capitalizes on color, ethnic origin, and nationality as its determinants of action regardless of its relevance to the ideals of equal opportunity and justice. It puts the cart before the horse. Instead of instilling pride, drive, and motivation as critical elements of one's character that are necessary for success, it posits Affirmative Action as a pre-requisite for acquiring those traits. Advancing along the corporate ladder by virtue of race casts aspersions on the beneficiary of the preferential treatment and paints the individual unfairly along with one's race or ethnic affiliation. Hence despite of one's advancement as a result of personal achievement, race and ethnic background can unfairly drag one down to the stereotype that may be ascribed to it thus negating a person's individual accomplishments.
Discrimination will be around us for as long as ignorance and prejudice find unwashed minds that act as breeding pools of hate, in the same manner that disease-carrying mosquitoes find haven in the shallow puddles of stagnant waters. Asians have the responsibility to see to it that if Affirmative Action is to work, it should be made vigilant against the sins of human treatment and not against the offenses of race. That essence of equality is found in the way we treat one another, not by how much allocation we give one race or the other. Furthermore, Asians ought to develop a taxonomy that delineates the factors that truly constitutes racial discrimination against the context of Asian culture, beliefs, mores, and values. For years, Asians have followed the lead of Blacks with regard to issues of discrimination. What is racial discrimination against Asians? What are the subtle nuances and indicators that constitute racial discrimination that are inherent to the Asian people?
No comments:
Post a Comment