Assuming we agree that there has been, and that there presently exists, discrimination against women and

minorities in American business, what are we to do about it? When is a program of affirmative action or reverse discrimination morally justified?
As a member of two minority groups, my answer may not go over well. I agree there needs to be an even playing field for all in regards to opportunities, however I do not agree with looking backward for a compensation resolution. We need to be cognizant of our actions and the plans we are making in trying to make it more equal while moving forward. With the aspect of the history of discrimination, no one answer will satisfy, nor resolve the feeling or actual imbalance of said discrimination. A comprehensive plan of multiple solutions needs to be implemented. According to your lecture notes, it is justified when the larger picture of discrimination will assist in the righting of past discriminations; I cant say that I agree.

One difficulty with focusing solely on credentials qualifications -- is that it requires companies or schools to ignore everyone else. Is that possible? Suppose you want to get a job with a large company that is advertising for engineers. You happen to know well a fellow who is an engineer in the very department in which there is an opening. In fact, he's the one who told you about the job. He is knows the H.R. director or the engineering department supervisor and could make sure your application is at the top of the pile and that you get an interview. Further, your friend would put in "a good word" for you, letting the supervisor know that you are talented and honorable and would, all-in-all, be a great person to have on the team. QUESTION FOR ALL: What would you do? Would you ignore your friend's offer and submit the application without notifying him, effectively having your application be just one among a hundred others? If we are going to base the hiring decision just on credentials then you would be obligated to apply, as it were, secretly, to divorce yourself from any and all advantages your might have at the company. Would you be willing to do that? Is taking advantage of this unfair to the other applicants who might merit the job who have perhaps even better qualifications -- just as much or even more than you?

Some, who say they would do the right thing, would submit their application without the extra assistance. However, I would accept the good word from the friend. People would use the old saying, Its who you know, not what you know, this, I disagree with immensely. To say, if you were qualified, you dont need the extra assistance is absurd. For anyone who has been on a hiring committee for your job or know how the application systems work, you are screened beyond just credentials. Applications are screened by keywords found in applications, resumes, cover letters, and even letters of references. Application material that does not contain a certain percentage of keywords or phrases may not be forwarded on to the hiring committee. Additionally, if there were a superfluous amount of applications, an organization may start the hiring process by application submission dates; they may never even see your qualified application. A person, who wanted to submit anonymously, may actually be just thatanonymous. Is it unfair to other applicants if you take advantage of this avenueno. In todays social media society, LinkedIn and Facebook offers great networking opportunities for people to connect with professionals they may not otherwise have the access to.

It's very difficult to get objective evidence of current racism. But there is one case study that is very revealing. CBS news did a study several years ago. They filled out employment applications at a variety of business or organizations. One set of applications they filled out with names that might be described as ethnically African-American. The other set with names that might be described as ethnically European-American (they did this for both male and female applicants). But: all applications had the same or similar schools attended and degrees attained, job experience, etc. They found that the (fictional) applicants with the European-American names received many more requests for interviews than did the other group. From the study: "Previous studies have examined how employers responded to similarly qualified applicants they meet in person, but this experiment attempted to isolate the response to the name itself. "White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for blacksounding names." The complete article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml While race (and perhaps gender in the majority of jobs) should be eliminated from consideration, it's clear that race is being considered--and given negative weight. Given this, is it fair to put a little positive weight on race in order to balance this?

No. I dont think any positive weight should be put on race to balance this out. The idea of the greater immoral act to balance out discrimination of the past is not an excuse or valid reason to continue to do the very act that got us in this situation to begin with. Now look, the text and lecture notes have been talking about an equal ground for hiring. However, I have not seen anyone mention the real fact that even with credentials being equal, and discrimination not happening on the basis of race or the sound of someones name, employers usually hire from within the company and typically already have someone in mind for the job. The job posting and interviews are simply for procedures sake and sometimes have no relevance. Mentoring and a focus on networking from women and minorities who are successful should be emphasized and structured programs should be implemented. I think we need to seriously learn the lessons of the past to improve the future without continuing the bad behavior that created the issue.

QUESTION: Can you articulate in your own words the main thesis of Richard Wasserstroms article in which he discusses the relationship between the concepts of most qualified and most deserving?