No more than 500 words per question reply. One peer-reviewed or scholarly journal (no books, book reviews, magazines, or Internet sites not having peer-reviewed articles) per question.
Rubric: responses show evidence of knowledge and understanding of course content and applicability to professional practice, and include other resources that extend the learning of the community.
Question 1 Women’s Empowerment Campaigns: Helpful or Harmful in the Workplace?:
In the article attached, The authors discuss how women’s empowerment campaigns, which at their core are about equality of men and women in terms of rights and opportunities, have become more vicious in their depiction of males in their attempt to achieve gender parity. Their messages have increasingly been associated with strong, forceful, and vitriolic language. These characterizations may stimulate psychological reactance in men, which may do more harm to women than good.
Please read this article. Do you agree with the premise of the paper that increasingly angry and enraged messages directed toward males to “clean up their act” is helpful or hurtful to women? How? Please explain. What should women do differently? What should men do differently? Please discuss psychological reactance. It this a real phenomenon or just plain ole psychobabble? Why? Please cite research in your comments and please do not just offer your opinions without some evidence-based research to back up your comments.
Bottom of Form
Question 2 Tolerance:
Often, workplace multicultural training initiatives discuss the business benefits of diversity and pluralism in the workplace with guidelines on interacting with different personalities and cultures and teach employees to approach diverse people with acceptance and approval. Such programs frequently promote an atmosphere of inclusion and tolerance that is said to lead to high morale and productivity, a positive corporate identity, etc.
Tolerance is considered essential, a highly desirable quality in U.S. society, and one of its few non-controversial values. Many people insist that, in a world burdened by injustice, inequality, and related bigotry, the best solution to address these evils involves developing a greater degree of tolerance, generally understood nowadays as an approval of others’ views and behavior.
Within the last generation, tolerance rose to the apex of America’s public moral philosophy. The new religion in America seems to be tolerance. In many arenas it appears to be valued above all virtues. We’re not just to forbear; the new tolerance says we must accept and even celebrate. To do otherwise is to be judgmental and intolerant—unpardonable sins in our contemporary American culture.
Today, many believe a good, moral person to be tolerant, considering tolerance a virtue essential for democracy and civilized life. The lexicon of today’s tolerance supporters requires approving others’ principles and standards. Some believe that to argue otherwise would invite charges of engaging in “mean-spirited, right-wing polemic endorsing hatefulness.” Indeed, one of the worst things that could be said of a person might be that they are intolerant. Such a moniker helps demonize certain individuals and groups by faulting their worldview as ignorant and bigoted.
Today, many consider tolerance so important that museums dedicated to it can be found in Los Angeles and in New York City. There is even an International Day for Tolerance that is observed on November 16 to educate people about the need for tolerance in society. Nowhere is this growing emphasis on tolerance more evident than in the prominence given it in education and training programs addressing issues of multiculturalism, inclusion, pluralism, and diversity.
Please read Question 2 article about tolerance and then comment about contemporary interpretations of tolerance professed by many with those offered by the authors In what areas do you agree or disagree with these professors? Be sure you understand their definition of tolerance.
Question 3 Affirmative Action/Affirmative Discrimination:
Often associated with diversity is the idea of affirmative action (AA), the policy of giving special consideration to minorities and women. This policy is used to prevent discrimination and to level the playing field. It can be used in a variety of different situations. Common examples include:
- Decisions by employers as to who to hire for a job;
- Decisions by colleges as to who to accept for admission;
- Decisions by governments as to who to hire for contracting work.
Most supporters claim that AA is never used to force a school or employer to choose an unqualified person. It is used to help minorities and women when they are qualified. The hope is that schools and the workforce will become more diverse with qualified individuals using AA. Opponents of AA claim that no group should be favored over another group based on the sex of a person or the color of his or her skin. It was not right when schools and employers favored white men in the past, and it is not right to favor minorities and women now. They want all schools and employers to be blind to race and gender when choosing students or employees. This blind method will create the best, most qualified group of individuals.
This issue was recently (August 13, 2020) revisited by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that found that Yale University illegally discriminates against Asians and Whites (Justice Department Finds Yale Illegally Discriminates Against Asians and Whites in Undergraduate Admissions in Violation of Federal Civil-Rights Laws) resulting from its efforts with regard to affirmative action to increase Black and African American enrollment at the Ivy League school.
In responding to the DOJ Yale President Peter Salovey stated that the University would continue to consider race in its admissions process and reiterated Yale’s commitment to diversity in its student body. The Justice Department sent a letter to Yale threatening a lawsuit if the University does not suspend the consideration of race in admissions. This follows an earlier investigation by the DOJ of Harvard that has backed anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions in its lawsuit against Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies that perpetrate “unlawful racial discrimination” against Asian American applicants the Justice Department said in 2018.
Samuel R. Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan who formerly worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said that, though Harvard and Yale are facing separate legal challenges, the two cases represent broader opposition to affirmative action at universities nationwide. It seems that both cases are part of the same agenda challenging affirmative action in elite education. Bagenstos also said he believes that the Justice Department’s decision is an especially strategic move considering the upcoming 2020 presidential election.
“What you’re likely to see over the next several months — and even after November, if Trump loses — is a real acceleration of issuing findings, letters, filing lawsuits, and taking other actions that are designed to force a Biden administration to live with the priorities of the Trump administration,” Bagenstos said.
University of New Mexico law professor Vinay Harpalani said the Justice Department’s timing seemed strategic and added that he believes the Justice Department would have a significantly different approach under presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s leadership. “I don’t know if the Yale lawsuit is going to go very far if Trump loses the election,” Harpalani said. “I think it would be a complete reversal. I think the DOJ would actually defend race-conscious policies.”
Please read the article by Jason Riley entitled Affirmative Discrimination and comment about his view and how it fits with your opinion of this practice. In his chapter Riley discusses “mis-match” theory. This is a controversial idea once clumsily supported by Supreme Court Antonin Scalia who said after the Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) affirmative action case that “there are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.” Scalia was awkwardly alluding to “mismatch theory” and a prominent critique of affirmative action. Its proponents argue that non-academic preferences in college admissions ill-serve some intended beneficiaries, who end up admitted to schools for which they are relatively unprepared, and struggling, rather than thriving at different schools where they would be at least as well prepared as their classmates.
Other empirical research suggests that affirmative action plans designed to facilitate workplace success for members of the groups they target (e.g., women, ethnic minorities) may sometimes have the ironic effect of stigmatizing these targets which, in turn, decreases their performance outcomes.
In this thread discuss affirmative action. Should it be continued and for how long? Should organizations be able to use race-conscious criteria in the various decisions they make? What are the good and bad aspects of affirmative action? Do you feel that affirmative action is a political topic and that Republicans and Democrats think differently? Do racial preferences work? In Riley’s chapter, he discusses “mis-match” theory. What research supports or criticizes this theory? How do you feel about mis-match theory?
For a custom paper on the above topic or any other topic, place your order now!
What Awaits you:
• High Quality custom-written papers
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• Timely delivery guarantee