The Critical Components of Human Resources
Richard Richison
BUS303: Human Resources Management
Professor Gallagher
May 31, 2010 Human Resource Management (HMR) is built upon many different areas. The way each organization allocates resources for each area is different. Since every organization is different and has different requirements, not every HRM process is going to be the same. The areas this paper will focused on are Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and the Commission (EEOC) which governs the EEO regulation, human resource planning, recruitment, and selection, compensation and benefits, safety and health, employee and labor relations, and human resources development. Even though each industry and organization is
…show more content…
The big question today is whether or not women and minorities still require special treatment. Many people will argue there is no need for affirmative action as the country has developed significantly over the past twenty five years and decisions should be based on the qualifications rather than the person sex, race, or religion. Below is a chart of answers for the question posed by Joe Messerli (Messerli, 2010).
|Yes |No |
|Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. |Diversity is desirable and won 't always occur if left to chance. |
|Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to |Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. |
|push students or employees to perform better. |Affirmative action draws people to areas of study and work they |
|Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle |may never consider otherwise. |
|the schools to which they 've been admitted. |Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action. |
|It would help lead a truly color-blind society. |Affirmative action is needed to compensate
There are many supporters and opponents of Affirmative Action. The focus of Affirmative action is meant to be an attempt at equality throughout society. Every sector in America would be equal and unprejudiced. On the other hand, adopting affirmative action would force many employers to replace hard-working employees with those possibly less qualified simply due to their gender or ethnicity. Throughout history, people have been categorized into different groups. These groupings were based on certain characteristics people shared, whether it was their ethnicity, race, gender, or religion. Society is notorious for distinguishing among different groups and favoring one or two of them. Undoubtedly, this separation of peoples, led to increased tension between various groups. As time progressed, the conflicts intensified, and it became apparent that a change was necessary. So I intend to educate the reader on the origin of Affirmative Action; how it impacted the American society; is it still needed in today’s environment; what are some of the drawbacks or issues that came from implementing Affirmative Action, and finally what is the most beneficial aspect from Affirmative Action. One of the most famous quotes about Affirmative Action comes from President Lyndon Johnson who explained the rationale behind the use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: “You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring
In the controversial realms of affirmative action, the largest issue staunchly fought over is whether minorities should be given preferential treatment in the workplace and in the schools. One side declares that those in the minority group need and deserve governmental aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. Opponents of affirmative action point out that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism and can lead to reverse discrimination. I am against affirmative action for the aforementioned reasons, and would not consider such racism as necessary for creating a healthy society, as proponents would insist. It is my belief that affirmative action today is out of date and is
Affirmative action was created to assist minority groups against discrimination, but affirmative action does more harm than what it can do to help. Affirmative action was created with the intention of leveling the playing field so that everyone can have an equal opportunity to be hired or accepted in to a school, but it does the opposite of what it is meant to do. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination against white males, lesser qualified people are admitted into jobs and colleges, and not all people have an equal opportunity to advance.
For some students, race is a central part of their identity. The struggles they face with it determines the achievements that they can present to the admissions officers. Despite the current ban on the usage of race in college admissions in Michigan, admissions officers should not ignore any part of a student’s unique circumstances, which may be related to one’s socioeconomic status, race, or both. In the article, “Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid,” Kozol argues that the ongoing racial segregation and the lack of funding in schools consisting primarily of blacks and Hispanics are putting the poor and minority children at an disadvantage by not providing them a chance to have good teachers, classrooms, and other resources. While universities use scores to assess the academic ability of a student, minorities who attend schools segregated based on race or socioeconomic status may excel at what they are given, have the
“Affirmative action ensures that African American students are allowed access to prestigious universities such as Harvard and Berkeley, which have long been gateways to positions of power and influence in American society” (Glazer 14).
Companies and educational institutions greatly benefit from the guidelines of affirmative action because they profit from the different ideas, work styles, and contributions unique to each diverse individual. As quoted in Paul Connors’s compilation, Affirmative Action, President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, addresses the importance of a diverse educational system by stating, “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a diverse range of backgrounds is essential to students' training for this new world, nurturing in them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or familiar” (12-13). A statement by Southeastern Oklahoma State University further supports the idea that success in modern day society stems from diversity saying, “Our country is strong because of the rich diversity of our culture, not in spite of it” (Affirmative Action).
The purpose of affirmative action is to ensure equal opportunity for minorities. But it has strayed from its original intent and has become largely a program to achieve not equal opportunity but equal results. It is a system of quotas forced upon American businesses and working class by the federal government. A law which forces people to look at race before looking at the individual cannot promote equal opportunity. Affirmative action continues the judgement of minorities by race; it causes reverse discrimination, and contradicts its purpose.
The various alternative forms of Affirmative Action all have received national attention. Yet, the country is divided on all of these issues, specifically how university admissions should assess issues of merit and diversity against national fundamental issues of diversity and fairness.
Historically, African-American, Latino and Native American students were educated in wholly segregated schools whose funding rates were several times lower than schools made up of all white students. These minority students were also being excluded from many higher institutions (Darling-Hammond). This happened until legal segregation came to an end in the 1960s and many efforts were made to equalize school funding. These efforts have made a substantial difference for student achievement and significantly narrowed minority and white
The affirmative action program is important because it gives job opportunities for many people regardless of their race, color, religion, gender, and national origin. The work force should be well represented by the different ethnic backgrounds of our society. Some people look at affirmative action as reverse discrimination, but this program doesn’t guarantee employment based on race, ethnicity, or gender. The affirmative action program gives equal consideration to individuals from a different race, ethnicity, or gender, but not one of these factors may be the only factor used to determine an individual’s qualifications for any job.
In the United States there is a long history of failure to provide every young citizen of this country with a good education. While there has been revolutionary advances to give every child their best possible chance to get an education; the same cannot be said about the quality of the education given to each child. Many studies have brought forth data that show minority groups within the United States have a much more difficult academic experience when you look at a child’s transition to kindergarten, a school required qualification for teachers, and their views on academic achievement based on cultural norms, and racism experienced.
The current state of Affirmative action has its advantages and disadvantages and by no means is it perfect. Addressing the disadvantages is a good place to start on the path for improvement. It is ironic that its detractors now pitch Affirmative action as “reverse discrimination” when the original program was designed to overcome discrimination. In order to overcome this disadvantage we cannot simply eliminate the program because it truly does facilitate the integration and tolerance of women and minorities in the United States.
Many critics of affirmative action believe it has failed to achieve its stated goal of equal employment opportunity. A few even believe that it has done more harm than good. A review of the statistics, however, shows
A major controversy encompassing the country is the issue of affirmative action. Many believe that the abolition, or at least restructure, of affirmative action in the United States will benefit the nation for many logical reasons. Originally, affirmative action began as an attempt to eliminate discrimination and provide a source of opportunity; affirmative action did not begin as an attempt to support just minorities and women. In addition, affirmative action naturally creates resentment when the less qualified are preferred instead of the people actually deserve the admission or job. Another reason that has existed since the abolition of slavery is the myth that women and ?minorities? cannot compete
In recent years, the strongest failings of affirmative action have been revealed: the inability of minority students -- accepted on an affirmative action basis -- to graduate college (Ravitch, par. 7). While the United States and similar governments are trying to quell the ripples of racist and slavery-based pasts, the effectiveness of the strategies employed is being looked over. The ?social promotion? policies of affirmative action end up pushing students with inadequate grades into college where, when faced with having to make a return to remedial teaching, find that graduation is almost impossible (Ravitch, par. 11). The soul of the matter, suggested by Ravitch, exists at an adolescent level where a student?s social and/or family status affects how he or she learns. The end results of this inefficient system of balance, based on liberal society?s collective desire to have minorities catch up with the crowd, can be seen as