More coursework: 1 - A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I - J | K - L | M | N - O | P - S | T | U - Y

Hiring minorities

Hiring Minorities

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


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-


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


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


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.

Source: Essay UK -

About this resource

This coursework was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

Search our content:

  • Download this page
  • Print this page
  • Search again

  • Word count:

    This page has approximately words.



    If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

    Essay UK, Hiring Minorities. Available from: <> [31-05-20].

    More information:

    If you are the original author of this content and no longer wish to have it published on our website then please click on the link below to request removal: