Hiring Quotas

Paper Summary:

This paper acknowledges how, for many compounded reasons including opportunity, segregation, and even outright discrimination, women and minorities still hold fewer positions of power in the work place, especially in representation to their statistical occurrence in the larger population. It looks at how, because of this, many organizations have adopted hiring quotas as a part of what is today known as affirmative action and how, even though these quotas have engendered change in the diversity of the workplace, they are being challenged today by some as unnecessary and even unjust.

From the Paper:

"Yet clearly the hiring quotas established by the civil rights legislation and it aftermath have clearly demonstrated a good, albeit artificial, start to the establishment of representative diversity in the work place. "In 1964, just as the Civil Rights Act was being passed, it condoned 'temporary' hiring quotas in organizations with a history of racial discrimination. It continued to reject 'reverse discrimination,'" (Gavora) Reverse discrimination is a concept that claims that hiring quotas and other affirmative actions standards discriminate against the majority. Most legislators agree that the standards have and continue to make a difference in the opportunities of minorities and women to establish careers in non-traditional fields and possibly in positions of power that might further aide the cause of diversity."

More papers on Hiring Quotas:

• Essay # 40154 : "Cultural Diversity in the Workforce"
• Essay # 17871 : "Equal Employment Opportunity & Affirmative Action Programs"
• Term Paper # 108813 : "California's Proposition 209"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: