Taking about hiring more minorities is one thing; actually doing so is another. In practice, many minorities are less likely to be using the Internet, for instance, and less likely to hear about good jobs from their friends. One option is to direct recruiting ads to one or more of the online minority oriented job markets. For example, Recruiting-Online lists dozens of online diversity candidates resources. Diversity candidate Web sites with job banks include the African American Network, National Action Council of Minorities in Engineering, national Urban League, Hispanic Online, Latino Web, Society of Hispanic Engineers, Gay.com Association for Women in Science, and Minorities Job Bank.
The National Urban League’s Web site is a good example. Clicking on it Career Center tab brings you to a page with five options: Job Search; Post a Job; Resume Center; Job agents; and Career Resources. The job agents section lets job seekers create their own job profiles. It then searches for employers’ listings that may match and sends a message to the job seeker when it finds a match.
Reverse Discrimination claim that due to affirmative action quota systems, white males are discriminated against.
The courts have long been grappling with the use of quotas in hiring, and particularly with claims of reverse discrimination (discriminating against non-minority applicants and employees). Many cases addressed these issues, but no consistent answer has emerged. For example, in Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978), the University of California at Davis medical school denied admission to white student Allen bake allegedly because of he school’s affirmative action quota system, which required that a specific number of opening go to minority applicants. In a 5 to 4 vote, the Court struck down the policy that made race the only factor in considering applications for a certain number of class openings and thus allowed Bakke’s admission. In Wygant v Jackson Board of Education (1986) the court struck down a mechanism in a collective bargaining agreement that gave preferential treatment to minority teachers in the event of a layoff. In US v Paradise (1987) the Court ruled that the lower courts can impose racial quotas to address the most serious cases of racial discrimination. In Johnson v Transportation Agency Santa Clara County (1987) the Court held that public and private employers may voluntarily adapt and promotion goals to benefit minorities and women. This ruling limited claims of reverse discrimination by white males. In June 2001, the US Supreme Court refused to hear Texas’s challenge to a ruing that one of its law school affirmative action programs, which gives special consideration to black and Mexican American student applicants, discriminated against whites. In 2003, the US Supreme Court decided against the University of Michigan’s quota- based admissions programs. In June 2007, the Court (in its Meredith case) ruled against race biased school assignment (abusing) plans. In practice though, few employers now set such quotas for minority hiring so the Court’s narrow opinion here should have little effect in the workplace.
For one thing, voluntary affirmative action programs may conflict with the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Read literally, it may bar employers from giving any consideration whatsoever to an individual’s status as a racial or ethnic minority or as a woman when making an employment decision. Employers should therefore emphasize the external recruitment and internal development of better qualified minority and female employees, while employment decisions on legitimate criteria.
Furthermore, affirmative action may influence attitudes in counterproductive ways. Non-beneficiaries may of course react negatively when they believe such programs result in their being treated unfairly. But even beneficiaries may react badly. In one study, subjects who felt they’d benefited from affirmative action based preferential selection gave themselves unfavorable self evaluations.