Equal Outcomes Vs. Equal Opportunities Equal Outcomes vs. Equal Opportunities Description: If you take all the change out of your pocket and look at the tail side of each coin you will find written in Latin the motto of the United States of America; ‘e pluribus Unum’. It states : ‘out of many, one’. This statement suggests that there are many different cultures that comprise our country, and all these cultures are as one.
The United States political system has enacted numerous policies in order to ensure the equality promised by this motto among all the people of this Nation. Due to the discrimination that is sadly, still a part of this society, blacks, Indians (of both vernaculars), Hispanics, women, gays, and the disabled are sometimes denied the opportunity to the outcomes enjoyed by the majority. Policy makers fight every day concerning a persons ability to receive the same equal opportunities and equal results (or outcomes) as everyone else. It is important to distinguish the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. An employer who offers equal opportunity does not discriminate based on a persons race, creed, or disability. That employer makes sure that everyone has a chance to achieve a certain outcome. Equal outcomes is making sure that everyone ends up at the same place.
For instance if a crippled man and a Olympic runner were to race, in order to achieve an equal outcome the crippled man would have to start well before the Olympic runner. Equal outcomes is rooted in discrimination because it looks at a persons race, creed, or disability in order to place them where they can finish the race at the same time. Each of these policies have beneficial effects on our society. Equal Opportunity employment has made it possible for people of all races to enter the national workforce, avoiding the discrimination of the past. By doing so it has diversified the workplace adding new levels of thinking and efficiency. Equal Outcome policies have made sure that all races, creeds, and peoples with disabilities are proportionally represented in the work place.
This has sent a message to the minority that it is possible to for their group to succeed in a given workforce, thus giving them motivation to strive for the best and eventually eliminating the need for an equal outcome policy. With the implementation of such equal outcome policies, in time the workplace will become a equal opportunity for everyone. With the rise of equal outcome/equal opportunity policies, many problems have risen, however, that present a detriment to egalitarianism. Equal opportunity policies all too often go too far and focus more on equal outcome policies such as quotas. Quotas are hiring based on the percentage of a certain minority in a community.
For instance, if there are two percent Asians, and ten percent Hispanics in an area, then a company will hire two percent Asians, and ten percent Hispanics. This is unfavorable because if a company has a position open and needs Asians to fulfill its quotas, they will pass over a more qualified white male to hire the Asian and meet its requirement. Though equal outcomes strives to eliminate discrimination, it forces employers to discriminate against a possibly more qualified individual in order to meet a quota. Analysis: If the United States Government were to implement a policy to increase equal opportunity what would be the effects? Companies would no longer be able to discriminate in the employment process, which in itself is the goal of equality programs. Equal equality programs represent social progress towards minority groups.
The continuation of such programs is a sign that society is more readily accepting minority groups on a whole. This shift in societal mindset will be reflected in the views of Americas youth, and by doing so, killing discrimination more and more every year. An equal opportunity program would allow students from lower income, less competitive school districts to enter into a college experience that at one time was denied to them. This will better prepare the student for the real world. Equal opportunity policies, however, are often self defeating.
Equal opportunity employment would make the employer focus on not discriminating in the hiring process. By focusing in on that the employer might make a decision based solely on the applicants race. By trying not to make a choice based on race, the employer ends up doing just that. An equal opportunity policy would only end up focusing on the wrong goals. For instance, if a prestigious college accepts a broader spectrum of races into the school body, it would have to accept less qualified people of minority races. This is because areas with higher percentages of minorities tend to have less competitive school environments.
When a group of these students are accepted based on their race, many non-minority students who are more qualified will be denied. Thus the an Equal opportunity policy would turn into an equal outcome policy. If an equal outcome policy were enacted then companies would have to hire a proportional amount of minorities into their workforce. This would mean that when the quota for each minority group is meet, then each of those groups would be equally represented in the workplace. The perception of equal representation in the workplace would be very clear to younger minorities making them see that it is possible for them to succeed in the American workplace. This would eventually eliminate the need for the policy, because all peoples would be striving for the best.
This policy also subverts its aims, however. When a company tries to meet quotas it puts less qualified people into the same jobs as qualified people. This can be dangerous when the jobs safety is reliant on the mental acuity of the co-worker. For the country to be its most competitive globally it must rely on its workforce to be the very best in every field. If the Government were to enact an equal outcomes policy the idea that merit and merit alone dictates how successful a person is would erode. And a country driven by merits is at its most competitive ability.
An anti-meritocracy would possibly disable American productivity, stifling the economy, and risking out hegemonic power. Evaluation: Though equal opportunity and equal outcome policies are at the root moral and somewhat just policies, their disadvantages totally outweigh the benefits. So in order to allow for a more just society, all mandated racial quotas should be discontinued. The immediate reaction to this policy is that America will regress back to the times of white domination in all realms of business. This is couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact that equal outcome and equal opportunity policies have taken a forefront in modern political debate outlines the fact that America thinks that it is unjust to discriminate.
The onslaught of quotas was merely a sign that society was progressing rapidly. Sadly, it is the continuation of quotas and equality policies that is hindering the ability of the minority to be accepted in the workplace. An unqualified minority employee’s achievements are stigmatized by the fact that someone out there could do a better job. That is not equality, that is feeling below the majority, further entrenching the invisible hand of racism. If equality programs were discontinued, it would dissolve the antagonism that white males feel towards those who might be unqualified, and would create goodwill instead.
And furthermore, living in a merit based competitive world would give minorities the self esteem to destroy the barriers, and create a world where success of the many, is won. Politics Essays.