This file is copyright of Jens Schriver (c) 
It originates from the Evil House of Cheat 
       More essays can always be found at: 
       --- http://www.CheatHouse.com --- 
                ... and contact can always be made to: 
                    Webmaster@cheathouse.com 
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
Essay Name       : 899.txt 
Uploader         : RICE, BERTRAM
Email Address    : 
Language         : txt
Subject          : Politics
Title            : equal opportunity
Grade            : b +
School System    : university maryland
Country          : u.s.
Author Comments  : 
Teacher Comments : good examples
Date             : 961111
Site found at    : search
--------------------------------------------------------------
     	In recent years preferential hiring has become an issue
of great interest.  Preferential hiring, which was devised to
create harmony between the different races and sexes, has divided
the lines even more.  Supporters on both sides seem fixed in
their positions and often refuse to listen to the other group’s
platform. In this essay, the recipients of preferential hiring
will be either black or female, and the position in question will
be a professorship on the university level.  The hirings in
question are cases that involve several candidates, all roughly
equal in their qualifications (including experience, education,
people skills, etc.), with the only difference being race and/or
sex.
	What we have here is a case of predetermined preference.
The two candidates in question are equal in all ways, except race.
The black applicant is selected, not because of skills or
qualifications (in that case the white man would have provided
the same result), but for his skin color.  This seems to be blatant
discrimination, but many believe it is justified.  Some feel
retribution for years of discrimination is reason enough, but that
issue will be discussed later.  First, lets focus on why this is
not a solution to creating an unbiased society.
	Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream: "I have a dream that
my four little children will one day live in a nation where they
will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content
of their character."  He desired a world without discrimination,
without prejudice, and without stereotypes.  The fundamental lesson
years of discrimination should have taught is that to give anyone
preference based on skin color, sex, or religious beliefs is, in
one word, wrong.  As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, judgment based
on skin color must not exist.  All preferential hiring does is
keep judgments based on skin color alive.  Race and sex should not
be issues in today’s society, yet preferential hiring continues to
make these factors issues by treating minorities as a group rather
than as individuals.  More importantly preferential hiring may
actually fuel, rather than extinguish, feelings of racial hostility.
	Applying the concept of preferential hiring to another
situation may help elucidate its shortcomings.  A party of white
men and a party of black men both arrive at a restaurant at the same
time and only one table is free. The headwaiter can only seat one
party and must make a decision.  According to preferential hiring
theory it is necessary to seat the black party first, since
historically blacks have been discriminated against when seated
in restaurants.  In another situation, a white man and a black man
are both equidistant from the last seat on the bus.  Both men are
the same age, have no medical problems, and are equal in all ways
except skin color.  Should the black man get the seat since in the
past black men have been discriminated against?  We could continue
this practice for several centuries before the debt we owe for
depriving blacks of a seat on the bus would be paid.  Perhaps these
examples are invalid.  It could be said that jobs are a different
issue.  They help define social status and provide economic
well-being.  They might even boost self-confidence, something that
discrimination has stolen.
	Two points must be considered before moving any further.
First, blacks may learn better from a black, and women may learn
better from a woman.  Second, hiring women and blacks will provide
role models for others.  The first point Thomson quickly concedes
as likely to be false.  Discussion about the second point however
is required, and will, in effect, serve to negate the first point
as well.
	First, lets create a character, Bill.  Bill is grossly
overweight and unattractive.  Studies have shown that many employers
discriminate (whether subconsciously or not), against both overweight
and unattractive individuals.  Unfortunately for Bill, he fits into
both categories.  His inability to land a job reflective of his
abilities, coupled with years of public humiliation through jokes
made at his expense, has destroyed his self-esteem.  This has caused
him to accept as fact the notion that he will never be able to reach
his goals.  Few "Bill" success stories exist, only further plummeting
his self-confidence.
	This example sounds strikingly similar to a common argument
for preferential hiring.  I have been discriminated against, which
has caused my self esteem to fall, and now I am stuck, with few role
models to follow.  Bill’s success has probably been thwarted by more
sources than the today’s average black or female, but there is no
provision in preferential hiring for him.  Just like no one can
control their race or skin color, Bill’s obesity is caused by a
medical problem beyond treatment.  Selective preferential hiring
won’t work.  Even if one doesn’t accept the fact that preferential
hiring discriminates against the white male, one must accept the
fact that preferential hiring discriminates against Bill.
	Now let’s assume that this argumentation is invalid for one
reason or another.  Let’s assume the lack of self-confidence and
self-respect that today’s blacks and women are suffering from may
deserve some compensation.  But before continuing, it seems necessary
to narrow the range of who qualifies for compensation for suffering.
The issue at hand concerns today’s blacks and today’s women.  Today’s
society is not responsible for incidents preceding its own existence.
 Other opinions may not coincide with this belief, but I do not feel
any responsibility for the positive or negative actions of my
grandfather or my father.  However, as a member of society I will
take responsibility for the positive or negative actions of society
today.  For example, today’s society is not responsible for blacks
or women’s lack of voting rights years ago.  If for some reason we
were responsible, how could this possibly be repaid?  Make a black
or female vote count two or three times?  No, this is preposterous.
We have canceled our debts, simply by giving them a right to vote
and a say in the election of their representatives.  Now that is
not to say that today’s society is not responsible for the
discrimination of blacks and women in recent years.  But, even prior
to the lifetime of those that would be most affected by preferential
hiring: both blacks and women have had the right to vote;
discrimination based on race, color, religion, or sex has been
illegal; segregation has ended; and the civil rights movement has
taken place.  Clearly, we live in a different United States than
out predecessors.
Today’s blacks and women may still experience some repercussions of
discrimination, but for decades laws have been enforced prohibiting
discrimination.  If someone discriminates against a black today,
charges could be filed against that person and that person will be
punished.  That is the bottom line.  Preferential treatment cannot
be given to victims of all crimes.  It would become chaotic trying
pin the level of preference a victim should get for different crimes.
	For a moment let's digress to the case of Judy.  Judy was
raped.  All society can offer her is the punishment of her rapist,
if her rapist is found guilty.  Sure, Judy will probably suffer for
the rest of her life believing that it was her fault; she will lose
self-respect and self-confidence.  But is Judy going to receive
preferential treatment when she walks into an office and applies
for a job?  There is no space on a job application for Judy to say:
"I should receive special consideration, because several years ago I
was raped.  This rape has caused me years of anguish, and now I lack
the self-confidence I once had.  All this has cause me to underachieve
in school and in life.  Please consider this when you review my
application."  If Judy, who lost her self-confidence and self-respect
through the violation of her rights by a member of society, is given
no compensation for her trauma, why should blacks or women? All
society owes the victim of a crime is that the criminal be punished
if in fact a law was breached.
	Possibly their case is more powerful.  Not all women (or men)
are raped each year, but most blacks and women have been discriminated
against at some point in their life.  Could we possibly owe the
victims of discrimination something?
	If, as Thomson claims, all blacks and females have, as a
consequence of their past lack of rights, suffered a lack of
self-confidence and self-respect, then why preferentially give them
jobs?  Jobs have no direct correlation to a lack of self-respect and
self-confidence.  Indirectly, yes, maybe many blacks and women have
not been able to achieve their highest goals due to this lack of
self-confidence and are therefore handicapped when they enter the job
market.  But it seems to me that if we were to solve the problem and
provide repayment with the loosening of qualifications necessary, or
even not the loosening but the offering of preferential treatment
when hiring blacks and women, this does not solve the problem.  It
seems to make more sense to dig deeper; to find the root of the
problem and change it.  Since we can’t go back and change history,
eliminating the poor treatment blacks and women of the past, then the
next best thing seems to be to reverse the effects of discrimination
in the present.
	The lack of presence in the upper levels of the job market is
not a direct effect of discrimination.  It is, as Thomson states, a
lack of self-confidence and self-respect that has kept toady’s blacks
and women down.  So the logical solution would be to renew their
self-respect, and to restore their self-confidence.  It seems like too
superficial of a solution to simply give blacks and women preference
when it comes to hiring.  Certainly it would not bolster my
self-confidence to know that I received a job over another equally
qualified individual, simply due to my skin color or sex.  I would
feel as if again race and sex were dominating decisions.  Wasn’t the
original goal to eliminate the issue of skin color and sex from all
decisions?
	Thomson, in her essay on preferential hiring, tells us that
she is not happy with the solution of preferential hiring in its
entirety:  "If there were some appropriate way in which the community
could make amends to its blacks and women, some way which did not
require depriving anyone of anything he has a right to, then that
would be the best course to take."  There must be a better way.
Psychological treatment would help give the victims of poor treatment
renewed self-confidence, providing them the confidence to go out and
try to earn a job, rather than get handed a job. The feeling of
accomplishment that results from earning a job would help improve
self-confidence.
	But now another issue arises.  We would owe all victims of
crime some sort of compensation.  Maybe there is another way to elevate
the status of minorities without bringing the issue of race or sex into
the arena.  If what is desired by preferential hiring is a jump-start
to promote diversity in the workplace and in society, where race and
sex are irrelevant, why not enact a plan where preferential hiring is
not based on these factors? Instead, why not give preference to
underrepresented towns or areas of town (possibly by zip code), to
those that are financially burdened, and to those with handicaps.
This would help relieve the pressure of race and sex in these issues.
The underprivileged will still be given a jump-start, and diversity will
still be promoted.
	However, this solution breaches another point that any form of
categorization of people should not occur.  The solutions presented are
more acceptable than preferential hiring, though they still have their
defects.  Why not bury the issue of race? Discrimination is waning.  It
has become a crime to discriminate.  Soon blacks and women will become
full members of the job world.  There are plenty of role model success
stories available.  There is no reason to believe that anyone, in today’s
society, cannot achieve whatever they wish.  Hard work and diligence will
pay off and eventually race and sex will no longer be issues.  The goal
is to make race and sex irrelevant, and preferential hiring only keeps
these issues alive.  Let’s try to live in a society modeled after Martin
Luther King Jr.’s dream, and I believe the issues of race and sex will
disappear, leaving people to be judged solely on their character.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------
