Thursday, 14 April

Resumes that match the districts rubric (see previous entry) are due NEXT class. Students need to bring a hard copy, and a rubric with their name and ID# on it to class.

Here are two examples of resumes. I don't recommend using an "Objective" in your actual job searches; however the District requires you to have one on the resume you submit for your graduation requirement.

The class will continue with an exploration of Affirmative Action and hiring practices.

First the class will ensure that all topics from last class were examined. Then the class will listen to an interview with students in two Washington DC area schools about their views on Affirmative Action "What Is Fair? High School Students Talk About Affirmative Action".

Next the class will get a background sheet to provide all students with a common set of information about Affirmative Action ("Affirmative Action"); after that students will receive one of five different articles looking at whether disparities between races and genders are based on discrimination or not; and with varied viewpoints on how or whether to address these disparities. Students will read and respond both individually, and then in small groups, before addressing the issues with the entire class.

Affirmative Action (all)

Affirmative action is a policy or practice that provides members of minority groups and women greater opportunities in employment, education, housing, and other areas of life. Affirmative action not only forbids employers, landlords, and others from discriminating on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or other factors, but it also aims to actively encourage the recruitment, hiring, and promotion of members of minority groups and women.

Historical Background

Although the Thirteenth Amendment ended institutionalized slavery in the United States in 1865, African Americans were not treated equal to whites in the eyes of the law for nearly another century. In the intervening years they were consistently denied employment, housing, and education. In the South, discrimination was supported by Jim Crow laws, statutes passed in the late 1800s that established separate, generally inferior, public facilities, schools, waiting rooms, railways cars, and restrooms for African Americans. Although white women generally did not face legal barriers such as the Jim Crow laws, they, too, faced discrimination in many areas of life. Other minorities—including the Irish, Italians, Mormons, Jews, and homosexuals—encountered similar difficulties.

The segregation of African Americans continued in the South until the late 1950s and early 1960s, when a series of US Supreme Court rulings struck down the Jim Crow laws. In 1955 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an executive order prohibiting discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment in the federal government because of race, color, or national origin. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order that used the phrase affirmative action for the first time. This order marked the departure point for policies designed to promote equal employment opportunities.

Three years later the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It banned discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and sex in the areas of employment, public facilities, and government programs. Subsequent federal regulations specified what was meant by affirmative action, and a directive by the Department of Labor in 1971 established guidelines that required employers to “achieve prompt and full utilization of minorities and women” in any government-sponsored or government-supported programs. Businesses working under a government contract and groups receiving government support are required to follow these guidelines.

Issues in Affirmative Action

From the beginning, the concept of affirmative action raised difficult questions. Many civil rights activists saw affirmative action as a necessary step in achieving equality for groups that had faced discrimination in the past. However, critics of affirmative action argued that individuals should be treated on their own merits without regard to color, national origin, or sex.

Over the years, affirmative action policies have stirred debate about the fairness or wisdom of favoring certain groups over others. The most controversial part of these programs is their use of quotas—minimum levels of required minority participation. For example, some affirmative action programs specify that a certain percentage of jobs, promotions, or positions must be reserved for minorities. Opponents call this reverse discrimination, claiming that it punishes certain groups, such as white males, for the actions of their ancestors. However, supporters of affirmative action point out that discrimination, although now against the law, continues in many forms today. They say that establishing quotas is the only way to ensure the elimination of discrimination.

Affirmative Action and Schools

Much of the debate about affirmative action focuses on the admissions policies of colleges and universities. To compensate for years of discrimination, many schools created quotas for minority applicants. In some cases, schools admitted minority students who were less qualified than white students in order to meet their quota and to increase the school’s racial and social diversity.

These policies were restricted in 1978 when a white student sued the University of California (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) for refusing to admit him while accepting less-qualified black candidates. In that case, the US Supreme Court ruled that strict quotas were unacceptable but that race could be used as one of many factors in making admissions decisions. In a 2003 case involving the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy, the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in higher education, noting that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a means of redressing past injustice, it promoted a ”compelling state interest“ in maintaining diversity at all levels of society.

The first challenge to the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision came in 2008 when a white applicant sued the University of Texas at Austin (Fisher v. Texas), claiming that she was rejected because of a university policy that allowed the school to consider race in its admission decisions. A federal district court found in favor of the university. In its ruling, the court stated that the university’s interest in creating a diverse student body was “sufficient to justify its consideration of race as a part of its admissions process.” The case, however, eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Opening arguments in the case were scheduled to start in October 2012.

Affirmative Action and the Workplace

Another important case in the affirmative action battle was 2009’s Ricci v. DeStefano. In the case, a group of firefighters, led by Frank Ricci, claimed reverse discrimination when the city of New Haven, Connecticut, decided to throw out test results for promotions to captain and lieutenant when the scores revealed a racial disparity—most of the top candidates for the positions were white. After the scores were thrown out, Ricci and several other firefighters claimed that the city’s actions violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The city claimed that allowing the test results to stand would violate the disparate-impact statute in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The lower courts upheld the city’s decision. In 2009 the Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the lower courts, claiming that New Haven had unlawfully discriminated against the firefighters by not validating the test results.

Banning Affirmative Action

In November 2008 Nebraska became the fourth state after California, Michigan, and Washington to ban affirmative action programs in public education and public employment. Voters approved the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative by 58 percent. It was immediately challenged by opponents but was upheld by a district court in January 2009. In 2010 Arizona voters approved a similar ban, Proposition 107, which banned the use of preferences based on race, sex, and ethnicity at all public institutions. In 2012 citizens in Oklahoma would vote on a ban that would prohibit the use of affirmative action programs in state government. Conversely, in 2008 Colorado became the first state to reject a ban on affirmative action programs. The initiative was narrowly defeated 51 percent to 49 percent.

Conclusion

Although affirmative action has done much to give formerly disadvantaged groups an opportunity to participate fully in society, it has also generated backlash. In the face of charges of reverse discrimination, courts have overturned many affirmative action policies in the past few years. There is still much debate about the overall effect. Some claim that affirmative action has been essential to black progress. Others are skeptical about its benefits; they think it suggests that minority groups are incapable of competing with whites on an equal basis. Affirmative action has undoubtedly played a role in increasing the number of African Americans who gain admission to selective colleges and obtain good jobs. However, observers disagree about how much black progress can be attributed to affirmative action alone.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning.

Source Citation

"Affirmative Action." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVUX&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CPC3010999135&source=Bookmark&u=portland&jsid=e098bb78e1f0d449f43c568d560c0307

Affirmative Action Is Racial Profiling (Group A)

 Racial Profiling, 2013

"Profiling on the basis of race, among other characteristics such as behavior, is likely to become a de facto, if not a de jure, policy in our nation's airports in the years to come."

Elvin Lim is an associate professor of government at Wesleyan University. In the following viewpoint, Lim compares the reasoning behind arguments for affirmative action and racial profiling, and he demonstrates how they are similar. He assigns liberal political values to those who stand behind affirmative action and conservative political values to those who support racial profiling. He explains that in the case of national security some profiling at airports must occur, but this is for the safety of many, just as affirmative action will help some of these same people, who may be disadvantaged because of their racial backgrounds, get better educations and jobs.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1.     How are affirmative action and racial profiling similar, according to Lim? How are they different?

2.     According to Lim, what is the term for opposition to racial profiling, no matter how "noble" the reason?

3.     What less discriminatory signifiers do opponents of racial profiling suggest be used to identify possible criminals, according to the viewpoint?

The Transportation Security Administration's new video-screening and pat-down procedures have given new fuel to advocates of racial profiling at airports around the nation. Opponents of racial profiling argue that treating an individual differently simply because of his or her race is wrong because discrimination, even for noble intentions, is just plain wrong. Let's call this the principle of formal equality.

Oddly enough, this is exactly what opponents of affirmative action say. They typically argue that some other signifier, for example class, can be a more efficient and less discriminatory way of achieving similar outcomes if affirmative action policies were in place.

This argument is analogous to the one offered by those who are against racial profiling. They suggest that some other signifier, for example behavior, can be a more efficient and less discriminatory way of achieving similar outcomes if racial profiling policies were in place.

It seems, then, that one can either be for race-based profiling and affirmative action, or against both. What is problematic is if one is for one but not the other. My guess is that most liberals are for race-based affirmative action but against racial profiling, and most conservatives are against race-based affirmative action but for racial profiling. Inconsistency?

How a Pro-Affirmative Action, Anti-Racial Profiling Position Works

The problem is harder to resolve for the conservative who is anti-affirmative action but for racial profiling than it is for the liberal who is pro-affirmative action and anti-racial profiling. Here is why. The liberal can restate his or her philosophy as such: Discrimination is wrong only when a historically disadvantaged group bears the brunt of a particular policy (as in racial profiling); discrimination is permissible when historically advantaged groups bear the brunt of a particular policy (as in affirmative action). By moving away from formal equality toward a more substantive conception of equality that incorporates the principle of historical remedy, a liberal can remain consistently pro-affirmative action, and still be anti-racial profiling.

For the conservative who is against race-based affirmative action but for profiling, the problem is stickier. Almost every anti-affirmative action argument I have come across turns on the principle of formal equality: that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, no matter what the policy intentions may be.

Suppose, in an effort to reconcile an anti-affirmative action and a pro-profiling position, one argued that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, unless it was done in the name of some higher good, such as national security.

Profiling at Airports Will Become Acceptable for the Greater Good

Well, then in protest, the pro-affirmative action liberal will simply substitute "some higher good" with "diversity," and the anti-affirmative action conservative would be forced to accept the plausibility of the liberal's position on affirmative action—or at least the fact that they share similar argumentative forms with no way to adjudicate between one higher good and another (while retaining his or her pro-profiling stance). The problem is that to admit of any higher principle other than formal equality (the claim that discrimination on the basis of race for any reason is just flat out wrong) to help distinguish the cases decimates the case against affirmative action that was itself built on formal equality.

Profiling on the basis of race, among other characteristics such as behavior, is likely to become a de facto [in effect, though not formally recognized], if not a de jure [based on law], policy in our nation's airports in the years to come. It is going to inconvenience some innocent people simply because, among other factors, their skin was colored a particular way just as, and the hope is, it will save a lot more innocent people a lot of hassle if everyone were treated equally at airports. If Americans accept this trade-off to be worth it, then perhaps we should also accept the analogous trade-off: that as affirmative action on the basis of race, among other characteristics such as gender, has become law and policy in employment and college admissions, the policy is going to make things harder for some equally qualified people, but it is going to make things easier for a bunch of people who would otherwise have had to endure many obstacles to employment and admission to college.

 

 

Source Citation

Lim, Elvin. "Affirmative Action Is Racial Profiling." Racial Profiling. Ed. Carol Ullmann and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Why Racial Profiling Is Like Affirmative Action." www.elvinlim.com 28 Nov. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&dviSelectedPage=&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010572239&source=Bookmark&u=portland&jsid=71d60298c34ecd481d1f4ca4c8704d14

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010572239

Affirmative Action Is Not Racial Profiling (Group B / E)

 Racial Profiling, 2013

"Affirmative action does not seek to create a system of unearned black and brown advantage, but merely to shrink unearned white advantage."

Tim Wise is an author, public speaker, and antiracism trainer who has helped numerous corporations and government agencies dismantle institutional racism. In the following viewpoint, Wise addresses the common question of how affirmative action is different from traditional, racist discrimination. He examines the intent, function, impact, and outcome of affirmative action and traditional discrimination, drawing distinctions between advantages offered to whites through discrimination and attempting to level the field through affirmative action. Despite affirmative action, statistics show that whites still are advantaged in educational opportunities and employment; proof, Wise argues, not that whites are more superior but that the work of affirmative action still has a long way to go as the roots of traditional discrimination run deep.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1.     According to Wise, how does the intent of discrimination differ from the intent of affirmative action?

2.     According to Wise, does affirmative action deprive white people of equal consideration for enrollment at universities, employment, and other opportunities?

3.     Despite affirmative action, what percentage of white people hold management positions in the private sector, according to the viewpoint?

Although discrimination against people of color and affirmative action both involve race-based considerations, historic and contemporary discrimination against people of color differs from affirmative action in a number of distinct ways, both in terms of intent and the underlying premises of each, and in terms of the impact or consequences of each.

In terms of intent, affirmative action is nothing like old-fashioned or ongoing discrimination against people of color. Discrimination against so-called racial minorities has always been predicated on the belief that whites were more capable than people of color in terms of their abilities, and more deserving of consideration with regard to their rights and place in the nation. So when employers have refused to hire blacks, or have limited them to lower-level positions, this they have done because they view them as being less capable or deserving than whites—as less desirable employees. Likewise, racial profiling is based on pejorative assumptions about black and brown criminality and character. Housing discrimination is rooted in assumptions about folks of color being less desirable as neighbors or tenants.

Affirmative Action Corrects Problems of Equality Within the Social Order

Affirmative action, on the other hand, does not presume in the reverse that whites are inferior to people of color, or less desirable as workers, students or contractors. In fact, it presumes nothing at all about white abilities, relative to people of color. It merely presumes that whites have been afforded more-than-equal, extra opportunity relative to people of color, and that this arrangement has skewed the opportunity structure for jobs, college slots and contracts.Affirmative action is not predicated on any assumptions about whites, as whites, in terms of our humanity, decency, intelligence or abilities. It is based solely on assumptions about what being white has meant in the larger social structure. It casts judgment upon the social order and its results, not people per se. Although one is free to disagree with the sociological judgment being rendered in this case—that the social structure has produced disparities that require a response—it is intellectually dishonest and vulgar to compare this presumption about the social structure to the presumption that black people are biologically, culturally or behaviorally inferior to whites.

Additionally, discrimination against people of color has always had the intent of creating and protecting a system of inequality, and maintaining unearned white advantage. Affirmative action does not seek to create a system of unearned black and brown advantage, but merely to shrink unearned white advantage. In other words, unless one presumes there is no difference between policies that maximize inequality and those that seek to minimize it, it is impossible to compare affirmative action to discrimination against people of color, in the past or present.

Affirmative Action vs. Old-School Discrimination: Differences in Impact and Outcome

In terms of impact, affirmative action and discrimination against people of color are completely different. Discrimination against people of color, historically and today, deprives those people of color of the right to equal consideration for various opportunities on equitable terms. While some may think affirmative action does the same thing to whites, in fact this is untrue. Affirmative action programs only deprive whites, in effect, of the ability to continue banking our extraconsideration, and the credentials and advantages we have accumulated under a system of unfairness, which afforded us more-than-equal opportunities. There is no moral entitlement to the use of such advantages, since they have not come about in a free and fair competition. History—and ongoing racial bias against people of color—have served as "thumbs on the scale" for whites, so to speak. Or even more so, as the equivalent of a "Warp Speed" button on a video game. Merely removing one's finger from the warp speed button cannot address the head start accumulated over many generations, nor the mentality that developed as a justification for that head start: a mentality that has sought to rationalize and legitimize the resulting inequities passed down through the generations. Soaffirmative action is tantamount to hitting a warp speed button for people of color, in an attempt to even out those unearned head starts, and allow everyone to compete on as level a playing field as possible. To not do so would be to cement the head start that has been obtained by whites, and especially white men, in the economic and educational realms. It would be like having an 8-lap relay race, in which one runner has had a 5-lap head start, and instead of placing the second runner at the same point as the first, so as to see who really is faster, we were to merely proclaim the race fair and implore the runner who had been held back to "run faster" and try harder, fairness be damned.

The Slight Impact of Affirmative Action

Finally, discrimination against people of color, historically, has had the real social impact of creating profound imbalances, inequities and disparities in life chances between whites and people of color. In other words, the consequences of that history have been visible: It has led to wealth gaps of more than 10:1 between whites and blacks, for instance (and 8:1 between whites and Latinos). It has led to major disparities in occupational status, educational attainment, poverty rates, earnings ratios, and rates of home ownership. Affirmative action has barely made a dent in these structural inequities, in large part because the programs and policies have been so weakly enforced, scattershot, and pared back over the past twenty years. So despite affirmative action, whites continue (as I document in my books, Colorblind and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White) to receive over 90 percent of government contracts, to hold over 90 percent of tenured faculty positions, to hold over 85 percent of management-level jobs in the private sector workforce, to be half as likely as blacks to be unemployed (even when only comparing whites and blacks with college degrees), and to get into their college of first choice at higher rates thanAfrican Americans or Latinos.

In other words, when institutional racism is operating, we can actually see the results. We can see the aftereffects in terms of social disparities that favor the group receiving all the preferences. But affirmative action has produced no such disparities, in reverse. It hasn't even really closed the existing ones all that much. So if anything, a proper critique of affirmative action would insist that it hasn't gone far enough, or been enforced enough to break the grip of white institutional privilege.

The Racist Underpinning of Anti-Affirmative Action Sentiment

Although not all who oppose affirmative action are racists who purposely seek to maintain institutionalized white advantage, the underlying premise of the anti-affirmative action position comes dangerously close to being intrinsically racist in nature. After all, affirmative action rests on the premise that, in the absence of institutional obstacles to equal opportunity—both past and present—people of color would have obtained positions across the occupational structure, and throughout academia and business, roughly equal to their percentages of the national population. So, on this view,affirmative action merely seeks to create a distribution of jobs, college enrollments and contract opportunities more similar to that which would have been obtained anyway in a just society. To reject this premise is to believe, virtually by definition, that people of color are inferior, and that they would have lagged significantly behind whites anyway, even if equal opportunity had ruled the day. Either because of biological or cultural inadequacy, black and brown folks would simply have failed to obtain a much better outcome than they did under conditions of formal apartheid and oppression. Therefore, to this way of thinking, affirmative action artificially elevates those who would have failed if left to their own devices—at least, relative to whites—and injures whites who naturally would have ended up on top, and who because of their merits deserve to do so.

Despite the fact that this is simply absurd—and the research here is clear, indicating that contract dollars flow to old boy's networks largely unrelated to objective merit—on a purely philosophical and analytical level as well, this argument is nonsensical.

Fact is, even were we to accept the fundamentally racist notion that whites as a group really are superior in terms of ability, intelligence, drive and determination relative to blacks and other people of color, and thus, that even in a system without artificial impediments, those people of color would lag behind whites in all areas of human well-being, the fact would remain, there were such impediments, and many of these remain in place today. And those impediments matter, above and beyond whatever "natural" inequities the racist mind might envision existing anyway. And those additional disparities require our attention, no matter what one may think about the inherent inequities between so-called racial groups.

The Tennis Analogy of Racist Discrimination

By way of analogy, consider the following: Imagine that tennis stars, Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick were to play 100 matches: roughly two a week, for the next year. Statistically, Nadal is the stronger player. He is, simply, better than Roddick. But yet, the better player doesn't always win every competition, despite their advantage. So we might expect, rather than winning every time, that Nadal would emerge victorious, say, 70 times. But imagine now that we were to place ankle weights on Roddick, or prohibit him, by rule, from using backhand strokes, thereby forcing him to run around every Nadal ground stroke to his backhand court. Needless to say, given such artificial limitations, Roddick would now lose nearly every time, certainly more often than nine in ten matches. The fact that Nadal would have won most of the time anyway says nothing about how unfair the artificial impediments placed upon Roddick would be in this instance. And had those impediments not been there, the results, though uneven, would not have been nearly as lopsided as they were. Surely, even someone who starts from the racist assumption that whites would have naturally beaten out people of color for most of the best jobs, contracts and college slots, cannot help but admit that if "only" nature had been operating—rather than nature plus artificially imposed obstacles for people of color and artificial boosts for whites—whatever gaps emerged would, by necessity, be smaller than the ones we see now.

Affirmative Action Is Necessary to Balance Out Racist Discrimination

So in order to create a just society, in which people can prove themselves on their merits, we must have as close to an equal footing for all as possible. Even if the racists were right—and they are not—that some groups are simply "better" than others, there would be no way to tell which of the individuals in those various groups were the superior or inferior ones, unless all are afforded the chance to prove themselves, without the artificial burdens imposed by the society. Ifaffirmative action were eliminated, we would not have the equal and fair race. We would have institutionalized white advantage, unchecked by a countervailing force.

In the end, we really shouldn't think of affirmative action as a matter of racial preference, so much as a preference based on a recognition of what race means, and what racism has meant in American life. It is a preference that takes into consideration the simple and indisputable fact that people of color have not been afforded truly equal opportunity. Whereas old-school discrimination against people of color was (and is) predicated on actual value judgments about the ability, character, and value of black and brown folks, affirmative action is predicated on no personal or group-based judgments whatsoever, but rather, upon the judgment that the social structure has produced inequities that require our attention and redress.

We can deal with that reality or not. But for those who would rather not, at least know that this is where the rest of us are coming from. Calling affirmative action a form of institutional racism doesn't make it so. And analogizing it to racial profiling—this time of white people—is historically and philosophically perverse.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2013 Greenhaven Press, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning.

Source Citation

Wise, Tim. "Affirmative Action Is Not Racial Profiling." Racial Profiling. Ed. Carol Ullmann and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Affirmative Action for Dummies: Explaining the Difference Between Oppression and Opportunity." Timwise.org. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&dviSelectedPage=&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010572240&source=Bookmark&u=portland&jsid=cf43d1f00e18e71a24155ec00ba4c814

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010572240

The Wage Gap Is the Result of Discrimination (Group C)

 Are Women Paid Fairly?, 2013

Mashaun D. Simon is a writer for Black Enterprise.

The following viewpoint discusses a bill to end gender pay discrimination that was still pending Senate approval in 2008. At the time of this article's publication, statistics claimed that on average, women earned only 77 percent of the amount men earned. The Payness Fairness Act would put gender-based wage discrimination on equal footing with other discriminations by allowing women to sue for punitive damages.

Women across America are claiming a small victory thanks to the passage of a bill designed to end gender-based pay discrimination. H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, still pending Senate approval, could make it easier for women to sue employers for wage bias.

The Paycheck Fairness Act takes immediate steps to close the wage gap for women by amending and strengthening the Equal Pay Act of 1963, according to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a cosponsor of the bill who spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives. "Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of the EPA, gender-based wage discrimination remains a problem for women in the U.S. workforce," Lee said in a statement.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, women still earn on average only 77% of what men earn. The situation is far worse for women of color. For every dollar men earned in 2006, African American women were paid just 64 cents; Hispanic women earned 52 cents.

"The wage disparity between men and women costs women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime—keenly impacting the economic security of single women who are heads of households and those women in retirement," adds Lee.

Based on AAUW research, just one year after college graduation, women earn only 80% of what their male counterparts earn.

Not even a college degree is much help, says Lisa M. Maatz, director of Public Policy and Government Relations at the American Association of University Women. Based on AAUW research, just one year after college graduation, women earn only 80% of what their male counterparts earn. As they move further up in their careers, women fall further behind, earning about 69% of what men earn 10 years after having graduated college.

Maatz says the Paycheck Fairness Act takes some basic yet meaningful steps. While it strengthens some of the loopholes of the EPA, it also puts some enforcement efforts into place. Most importantly, she says, it prohibits retaliation by employers against employees who speak out or even discuss their pay with colleagues. Moreover, it puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of discrimination—such as discrimination based on race, disability, or age—by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. The Paycheck Fairness Act would also increase the available penalties of companies found in violation of the law and provide additional training opportunities for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes.

It might have taken more than a decade, says Maatz, but a message has been sent by the House: "Gender-based pay discrimination will not be tolerated." Maatz hopes that, as law, the Paycheck Fairness Act will deter employers from unequal pay practices and encourage them to self-police.

But not all women see the necessity in H.R. 1338. "I am really scratching my head over why the Paycheck Fairness Act is a priority," says Deborah Stallings, president and CEO of HR ANEW, a minority- and woman-owned agency specializing in human resources management, compensation and benefits design and administration, employment law, management, recruitment, and hiring. "This problem [of gender-based pay discrimination] has improved greatly since the passage of the EPA."

As an HR consultant, Stallings says she's opposed to HR 1338 as it is currently written. However, "paying women and all people fairly is a marketplace issue, and I'm not opposed to an agenda that ensures that all people are paid fairly and equally based upon knowledge, skills, abilities, education, and other demographics such as geographical location, industry, etc."

Maatz says she urges the Senate to pass HR 1338. "Equal pay for equal work is a serious issue, and women are paying more attention in this election season."

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2013 Greenhaven Press, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning.

Source Citation

Simon, Mashaun D. "The Wage Gap Is the Result of Discrimination." Are Women Paid Fairly? Ed. Jennifer Dorman. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Equal Work, Equal Pay: Congress Seeks to Make Gender Pay Discrimination a Thing of the Past." Black Enterprise (1 Nov. 2008). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&dviSelectedPage=&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010851206&source=Bookmark&u=portland&jsid=d73920cffc160ec0dddb1699eedf2c5d

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010851206

The Wage Gap Is a Result of Women's Choices (Group D)

 Are Women Paid Fairly?, 2013

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The latest proposal of a paycheck fairness bill is misguided, as it aligns with those who believe that a male-female wage gap exists as a result of discrimination against women. Any wage gap can be explained by many other factors, particularly individual choices. The bill would be unfair to employers and create an inaccurately bleak picture of women in the workplace.

Among the top items left on the Senate's to-do list before the November [2010] elections is a "paycheck fairness" bill [this bill, which would make it easier for women to file class-action, punitive-damages suits against employers they accuse of sex-based pay discrimination [The Paycheck Fairness Act did not pass].

The bill's passage is hardly certain, but it has received strong support from women's rights groups, professional organizations and even President Obama, who has called it "a common-sense bill."

But the bill isn't as commonsensical as it might seem. It overlooks mountains of research showing that discrimination plays little role in pay disparities between men and women, and it threatens to impose onerous requirements on employers to correct gaps over which they have little control.

The bill is based on the premise that the 1963 Equal Pay Act, which bans sex discrimination in the workplace, has failed; for proof, proponents point out that for every dollar men earn, women earn just 77 cents.

But that wage gap isn't necessarily the result of discrimination. On the contrary, there are lots of other reasons men might earn more than women, including differences in education, experience and job tenure.

When these factors are taken into account the gap narrows considerably—in some studies, to the point of vanishing. A recent survey found that young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts, mostly because more of them earn college degrees.

[T]here are lots of other reasons men might earn more than women, including differences in education, experience and job tenure.

How Choices Affect Wages

Moreover, a 2009 analysis of wage-gap studies commissioned by the Labor Department evaluated more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the aggregate wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

In addition to differences in education and training, the review found that women are more likely than men to leave the workforce to take care of children or older parents. They also tend to value family-friendly workplace policies more than men, and will often accept lower salaries in exchange for more benefits. In fact, there were so many differences in pay-related choices that the researchers were unable to specify a residual effect due to discrimination.

Some of the bill's supporters admit that the pay gap is largely explained by women's choices, but they argue that those choices are skewed by sexist stereotypes and social pressures. Those are interesting and important points, worthy of continued public debate.

[Women] also tend to value family-friendly workplace policies more than men, and will often accept lower salaries in exchange for more benefits.

The problem is that while the debate proceeds, the bill assumes the answer: it would hold employers liable for the "lingering effects of past discrimination"—"pay disparities" that have been "spread and perpetuated through commerce." Under the bill, it's not enough for an employer to guard against intentional discrimination; it also has to police potentially discriminatory assumptions behind market-driven wage disparities that have nothing to do withsexism.

Universities, for example, typically pay professors in their business schools more than they pay those in the school of social work, citing market forces as the justification. But according to the gender theory that informs this bill, sexist attitudes led society to place a higher value on male-centered fields like business than on female-centered fields like social work.

The Paycheck Fairness Act Is Unfair to Employers

The bill's language regarding these "lingering effects" is vague, but that's the problem: it could prove a legal nightmare for even the best-intentioned employers. The theory will be elaborated in feminist expert testimony when cases go to trial, and it's not hard to imagine a media firestorm developing from it. Faced with multimillion-dollar lawsuits and the attendant publicity, many innocent employers would choose to settle.

The Paycheck Fairness bill would set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in a precarious job market. It is 1970s-style gender-warfeminism for a society that should be celebrating its success in substantially, if not yet completely, overcoming sex-based workplace discrimination.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2013 Greenhaven Press, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning.

Source Citation

Sommers, Christina Hoff. "The Wage Gap Is a Result of Women's Choices." Are Women Paid Fairly? Ed. Jennifer Dorman. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Fair Pay Isn't Always Equal Pay." www.NYTimes.com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&dviSelectedPage=&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010851207&source=Bookmark&u=portland&jsid=3521b2cd60aef55c32ab5046bc698b02

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010851207