EQUALITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES

INTRODUCTION

Equal Opportunity is described as the standard of decision-making, stipulating that all people should be treated the same, except when distinctions can be made. In other words, prejudices, artificial barriers or personal preferences should not increase or decrease ones chances of getting for example hired, having a job promotion, wages, admission to schools and other concerns. [1, 4]

True equality between races, genders, religion and social classes have always been what the western consensus have strived to achieve. Some claim that true equality already exists, others claim that it’s a myth. The varying sources of opinions depends partly on which agenda they carry, and which minority or majority group they represent.

The majority view on this issue though is that while there is an effort for equality, we are still far from achieving it, and that’s what this essay will focus on, but also on opposing views.

EQUALITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

President Obama said in his second inaugural address: “We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.” [2]

Joseph E. Stiglitz of New York Times explains in his blog that the gap between aspiration and reality only gets wider, and that that today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country[2]. “It’s not that social mobility is impossible”, he explains, “but that the upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity”.

An investigation from the Brookings Institution [3] revealed that only 58% of those born into the bottom fifth category of income earners move out of that category, and that 6% of those born into the bottom category move into the top category. Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in all Scandinavian countries. [2, 3]

So although clear efforts have been made in US, and even though there is a near universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible, it still exists.

Certain efforts have been made to tackle discrimination and enforcement of equal opportunity. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination [5]. This commission was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [6], and works with investigating discrimination complaints based on a person’s “race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for reporting, participating in, and/or opposing a discriminatory practice” according to Wikipedia [7]. However, these rulings are not binding in court, and would need the Supreme Court for a final decision. Employers with at least 15 employees are covered by the EEOC laws [5].

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a federal law aimed to tackle the gender pay gap. It was signed into law by John F. Kennedy as part a of his New Frontiers program [8]. By doing this, they hoped to maximize utilization of available labor resources, abolish an unfair method of competition and increase living standards of employees, women in particular.

In 2013, the female to male earnings ratio was 0.82, meaning that a woman earns 18% less than men for the same work. It’s slightly higher than 2010, indicating progress, but still far from equal [9].

^{Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, 2009 [16]}

It needs to be noted that the statistic does not include differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, only what qualifies as full time work.

Affirmative action is a policy favoring minorities, or those of a disadvantaged group, who suffer from discrimination. The term affirmative action was first coined in the United States by John F. Kennedy when he signed the Executive Order 10925. It required government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” [10]. The intent was to assert the government’s commitment to achieving equal opportunity for all qualified persons. Reports show that minorities and women faced discrimination in schools and businesses for years and that white males received unfair advantages in these areas, hence this executive order was an important step towards achieving true equality [11].

OPPOSING VIEWS ON EQUALITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Affirmative Action has been a subject of controversy. Some claim that one of its unintended consequences is reverse discrimination by installing racial and gender quotas. “Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it” it says in an article by David Sacks and Peter Thiel about affirmative action in Stanford University [12]. They further explain that preferences mostly benefit minority applicants from middle and upper class backgrounds, and that lower class whites and Asians receive the short end of the stick (particularly Asians who usually meet admission standards in disproportionate numbers. “Why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee?” they further explain. “Certainly, no one has accused Stanford's admissions officers of being racist, so perhaps the real problem with affirmative action is that we are pretending to solve a problem that no longer exists. Moreover, there is a growing sense that if affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination after 25 years of determined implementation, then perhaps it is time to try something else.” [12].

Supreme Court Justine Clarence Thomas, currently the only black Justice in America, is opposed to affirmative action. He believes that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment disallows consideration of race, such as preferential treatment or race-based affirmative action. He believes that it creates victimization and that it implies that black people need special treatment in order to succeed [13].

“I don't believe in Equality of Opportunity and, most likely, neither do you. At least not in the way that Progressives have perverted this once noble idea”, writes blogger Chet Richards in the conservative website “American Thinker” [14]. He proclaims that this idea, that he considers poisonous, may lead to the destruction of the United States. The equality law doesn’t play favorites, there must be a level playing field and the government should not engage in social engineering, he says. “If we step back from the feel good propaganda, we see that Equality of Opportunity doesn't mean what most people think it means [...] what Equality of Opportunity really means is that everyone should be treated like the lowest common denominator […]. It is of interest that Karl Marx was an advocate of just such a program”, says Chet Richards, who is also known for writing articles debunking global warming through unscientific means [15].

CONCLUSION

The goal of achieving educational, occupational and societal equity is attainable as long as it’s what the general consensus aims to achieve. The United States remains committed to equality and equal opportunity in employment and education. The progress that women have made stands as powerful evidence of the American commitment. But polarizing opinions on the issue, and the government’s negligence to conduct more detailed studies, has given those standing on the opposite side of the spectrum valid arguments. When one group is favored, another tends to feel discriminated against, and vice versa. Henceforth, perhaps a viable solution to mankind’s never-ending dilemma, equality, is to shape the society in a way where those who achieve are rewarded, no matter what ethnicity, religion or gender, rather than forcing it through installing quotas.

Bibliography:

1. P. De Vries, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, Volume II, ‘Equal Opportunity’, 2005, http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631233176_chunk_g97814051001378_ss1-15, (accessed 3rd of December, 2015)

2. J. E. Stiglitz, ‘Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth’, The New York Times Opinionator [web blog], 16 February 2013, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/, (accessed 3rd of December, 2015)

3. J. B. Isaacs, ‘Economic Mobility of Families Across Generations’, Economic Mobility Project, 2007, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/11/generations-isaacs/11_generations_isaacs.pdf, (accessed 3rd of December, 2015)

4. R. Arneson et al., ‘ An Introduction to Equality of Opportunity’, Stanford University, https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/equality-opportunity-introduction (accessed 3rd of December 2015)

5. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comission, Overview, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/, (accessed 3rd of December)

6. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University, ‘Equal Employment Opportunity Commision’, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_employment_opportunity_commission, (accessed 4th of December, 2015)

7. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission, (accessed 4th of December, 2015)

8. Equal Pay Act of 1963, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963, (accessed 4th of December, 2015)

9. Gender pay gap in the United States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States, (accessed 4th of December, 2015)

10. Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, ‘A Brief History of Affirmative Action’, http://www.oeod.uci.edu/aa.html, (accessed 4th of December, 2015)

11. J. S. Leonard, ‘The Impact of Affirmative Action Regulation and Equal Employment Law on Black Employment’, Jo...