When dealing with academic issues it points out to the academic experts to apply a lot of professional, social, and individual judgment. They ought to uphold and understand the moral dilemmas in the situations they are addressing and also learn their responsibility to the situation. Most of the education sectors are seriously suffering from the inability to administer equality. This is commonly known as affirmative action.
In this case, the education sector should be very ethical as they deal with this highly sensitive issue in society today. A lot of wisdom and consultation is needed to allow things to go well for these institutions and those which they directly or indirectly influence. Equity is important for it offers diversity and also a wide range of individuals who can easily complement each other.
The following discourse examines an issue that brings contention in which individual beliefs and values don’t move along well with societies and legal exceptions. The report also looks at the consequences and the benefits that are accrued to these systems values. It also keenly looks at the conflicts with the expectations and the decisions and the actions to be taken if they don’t maintain the ethical part of the implementation of these ethical issues.
The discussion summarizes the results of the implementation of affirmative action in some institutions and the vitality of this kind of plan. It criticizes how the issues ethically affect those who are involved in and their implementation. It also points out some of the major happenings associated with its actualization.
Looking at the performance and the admissions of students in the education institutions, educators are been cornered to enforce or neglect affirmative action. The education institutions have been using the student motivations to help students meet the standards for admission to be able to apply affirmative action through equality in chances offered in these institutions and even beyond. The issues of affirmative actions are issues that the law would not handle lightly in case one is proven guilty of committing.
Affirmative action is a policy that deals with issues that deal with equity in students’ admission, employment, and deals with negative discrimination. Affirmative action came into existence in 1964 in a legal sense. Some people are claiming it is no longer important in that it has already met its purpose others are complaining it is denying them opportunities. While the minorities and those who are victims of gender discrimination feel that it is not even a quarter way to accomplishing its work (Vidu, 1999, 1).
The policies have extended to the point of some reserved opportunities for some gender and minority. There is also a point for people who have qualified for some opportunity to be denied so that the minority and certain gender especially women who, out of traditional practices and belief, have been discriminated against.
Affirmative action policies have been under criticism from some students, parents, and some teachers. They have been termed as discriminative hence not meeting the very purpose for setting it. The mode of implementing it is seen as wanting for it is said to miss out on the vitality of qualification. The individuals who support its implementation in schools say it opens up opportunities for minorities and promoted gender equity in future stages of life. On the other hand, those who are against its use claim some of the qualified individuals are denied opportunities and they would have performed better and even been able to meet their dreams in life. They are therefore mostly delayed or forced to change to other institutions or pursue other lines of study (Vidu, 1999, 2).
Some companies as a result have suffered serious consequences due to the implementation of this action. Other people especially students have lived with painful moments as a result of being denied opportunities in the institutions they desired and hence pursued their dreams in places out of their choices. Some students are missing the education offered in these institutions hence having hard lessons and experiences for being out of these institutions.
Consequences and benefits
Research has shown that most of these reserved opportunities have not been justly set aside. The enforcers have taken advantage of this and made them available for their friends and those of their families. This is even the highest level of discrimination than what existed there before. This is an issue that many of the legal implementers would be found guilty of and it extends even to the working or employment world. For they give the opportunities to people they know and those who ought to have been given these opportunities miss them a great deal (Vidu, 1999, 2).
Several students have lacked opportunities to study certain courses because they are for male students for example in the engineering departments. Affirmative action has not been well utilized to overcome the discrimination in this department even though some are qualified and they have the desire to pursue this particular field (Vidu, 2000, 3).
With the affirmative action or avoidance of discrimination, it has been hard to draw a line between merit and or pretext to include the minorities in high education programs. For some merited students have missed out chances to students who are not merited simply because they come from minorities. This is another name for discrimination that has been offered differently backed up by law. If it would be purely done about merit it would be well for all and no complaints would arise. But as a matter of fact, many officials in the legislature have done it for the benefit of their friends and families while others for money (Vidu, 1999, 2).
Affirmative actions have been praised for polarizing society along the racial and gender lines. It has also allowed long-term tolerance and harmony which has made society a better place for all individuals eliminating fear in the learning institutions which was initially caused by discrimination. In terms of utility, this equity action has been attacked for lowering the level of competence in the society and raising and giving a provision of mentors who will help unnecessary preferential treatment in the future.
Ethical conflict issues
According to Fries & DeMitchell (2007, 3), connected to affirmative action is merit controversy on one side and issue 4related to organizational justice on the other side. It is a moral issue that has a high impact on ethics this is because it is an anti-discrimination measure. The ethical issues rise because of the increased sensitivity of the rights of the minorities which do not so much reflect on the moral essentiality rather than the political correctness (Vidu, 1999, 2).
The legal advisors do not use affirmative action to help the victim’s organizations and individuals but instead, they are using them to incorporate people they desire into the systems. The policies are therefore not able to eliminate discrimination and offer equal opportunity due to lack of the attention needed.
The whites feel they are losing their opportunities to women and minorities strictly based on race and gender issues. It is confidently being claimed that there is a lot of inefficiencies and inadequacies in performance both in educational institutions and the workplaces. This is been caused by the females and minorities who are given opportunities in education and workplaces yet are unqualified. It is more appropriate if better remedies would be sought for overcoming impacts of past historical and social practices which are the major causes of discrimination to provide reach to societal goods either in education or in jobs (Denig & Quinn, 2001, 2).
Taking another aspect of the ethical conflict is that there are individuals who would pursue the opportunities they have been offered through this plan for the sake of fear of what society may say. In other words, they finish and move on to do other courses they desire for they either gave in due to pressure from their minority groups or their gender affiliations. Others may find it difficult to pursue and drop out in the middle due to the junk they are expected to contain (Devine, 2002, 5). This is unfair the more to the individuals who had all it demanded to pursue this opportunity and even make it to the final stage.
If such an issue would occur in my institution; which is a common occurrence it calls for one to be very much firm on the principles one holds. This means that the student seeking an opportunity should be qualified and meet the standards required for admission. Secondly, I encourage the parent to motivate their children to work extra harder to achieve the requirements for the opportunity. I have encouraged others to rewind the last year of their second level of education to allow them to get the grades expected for higher education entry (Vidu, 2000, 5).
The idea of equity can be well established if all individuals would allow themselves to be the first agents of change. In that, each would seriously play their part. If all the students would play their parts they would give the parent an easy time and the education planners and implementer. For there would be equity automatically for they all would have made sure also there would be balanced development. This would keep the education leaders out of the temptation of favoritism (Starratt, 2004, 1). If the ideas were not well taken, teaching the parents and the students in a forum meant to improve academic performance and increasing the entry opportunities to high institutions of learning would put a taste in helping them understand.
In conclusion, as explained above, the issues of equity do not involve offering chances alone. They are deeper and involve the input of all the parties involved in education including parents and the government. This would make it more reliable and make all aspects of education applicable without discrimination and favor to some which make others feel they deserved it but were denied it.
Denig, S.J. & Quinn, T. (2001). Ethical dilemmas for school administrators. California: the University of North California press.
Devine, J, (2002). Zero tolerance: A contemporary educational ethics issue. Brick stone Square Andover: helium.com. Web.
Fries, K. & DeMitchell, T.A. (2007). Zero tolerance and the paradox of fairness. USA: CBS Interactive Inc
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nav Bar Spacer
Vidu, S, (1999). Morality vs. Mandate: Affirmative Action in Employment. California: the University of North California press.
Vidu, S, (2000). Education systems and institutions. California: the University of North California press.