Lecture 4

Question 1

Arguments for affirmative action

Answer 1

1. Correcting for equal opportunities
2. Compensating for past wrongs (collective responsibility)
   • Counter-argument: is it fair that an individual pays the price of past wrongs?
3. Guarantee equal employment
4. Diversity argument: moral and business case of diversity (common good)

Question 2

Preferential policy

Answer 2

 Requirement of deprivation: must proof social deprivation
 Requirement of diligence: objectivity access all applicants according to criterial, only equal suitability
 Requirement of proportionality: reasonable proportionate to the objective, justify measure by degree of social deprivation
 Requirement of recognizability: explain during recruitment procedure that you have a preference policy, most be in vacancy text -> transparency

Question 3

• Meritocracy: assumption of neutral and objective distribution of rewards, prestige and opportunities

Answer 3

 System based on talent, achievements and capabilities
 Selection criteria are fair, just and culture-free - Unwanted outcomes of affirmative action:
 POV targeted groups:
• Tokenism/ stigmatization
• Cultural cloning-> if existing cultural processes are untouched than insertion of individual will probably merely lead to cultural cloning, socialization
• Conformism
 POV non-targeted groups:
• Induce fear and ambivalence about their own positions
• May believe that minorities benefit from ‘reverse discrimination’ and thus may not deserve their positions
• Reinforce stereotypes

Question 4

How to reduce unwanted effects?

Answer 4

 When recipients are given explicit, unambiguous and focused feedback regarding their abilities and qualifications, the detrimental consequence of affirmative action disappear or are greatly reduced-> reduce insecurity
 Feedback has positive effects on nontargets as well. Nontargets are less resistant to affirmative action when accurate and detailed information is provided-> criteria recognizability
 When people are alerted to the power asymmetries resulting from discriminatory practices and how these asymmetries distort the meritocratic process, they show less resistance to affirmative-action policies

Question 5

How do we tackle organizational inequality?

Answer 5

 Organizational change (establishing responsibility) organizational level: institutionalism
• Affirmative action plan
• Oversight via staff position and departments
• Oversight and advocacy via committees

Question 6

Behavioural change (tries to fix individual bias) in between: social networks theory

Answer 6

• Training

* Feedback

Question 7

 Treating social isolation  interactional level: stereotyping

Answer 7

• Networking

* Mentoring

Question 8

• Conclusion

Answer 8

 Affirmative action is no silver bullet
 The policy measure can compensate for past wrongs, guarantee equal opportunities and further diversity
 However if feedback is targeted and non-targeted groups is lacking, measure can have detrimental effects> backlash: policy in the 80s didn’t work, still referred to
 Also, although inequality may be rooted in managerial bias and the social isolation of women and minorities, the best hope for remedying it may lie in practices that assign organizational responsibility and expertise for change (plans, committees, taskforces, managers and departments) -> making money available to hire people etc.

Question 9

Three programmes work in different ways

Answer 9

 affirmative action plans and diversity staff both centralize authority over and accountability for workforce composition
 diversity committees locate authority and accountability in an interdepartmental task force and may work by causing people from different parts of the organization to take responsibility for pursuing the goal of integration

Question 10

Difference race and gender stereotypes: don’t know enough about specific contents of different stereotypes interacting with processes involved-> important differences in perceptions and self-perceptions of Blacks and
Women-> illuminate reactions to affirmative actions

Answer 10

 Racial groups segregated more than men and women-> divide between black and white due to behaviour, institutional practices and public policies
 Racial stereotypes more descriptive-> gender more prescriptive with descriptive elements (what the group ‘should’ be like)
 Gender stereotypes more complex and more developed, nuanced and multifaceted (earlier in childhood)
 Power asymmetries mostly the same though some are different (white fear blacks and avoid contact) yet women and black more sexually dangerous to powerful groups
 Changing norms different psychological threat-> more sensitive towards being racist than being sexist
 Affirmative action gender less threatening (only career women benefit and communal relationships benefit, e.g. wife’s)-> affirmative action blacks more threatening because benefit entire race;
unidimensional perspective, monolithic entity, homogenous group, so less possibilities for nonthreatening action
 Aversive racists attack affirmative action more than actual out-group members directly

Question 11

• Why feedback not happening?

Answer 11

(a) Employers may be hesitant publicly to recognize race and gender categories, and (b) even if accurate and detailed information is provided, people may not believe it-> focus on race and gender fear of leading to stereotyping and bias -> ignore group difference, feel neutral -> affirmative action requires group-based differences at odds with neutral stand -> only allowed in unfair situations, stereotypes through fairness-> blacks and women exploit to gain
- Employers may ignore these negative responses-> if providing accurate and detailed information recipients refuse to believe it -> outside of experiment, more variables to base bias on and complex stereotypes different means of acceptance -> need to place social psychological processes in sociohistorical context-> why things are as they are
- Awareness on stereotypes and where they come from can make people more positive towards affirmative action