draft

Counterpoint: By Thine Own Voice, Shall Thou Be Known Author(s): Mary E. Guy Source: Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), pp. 237-242 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3380974 Accessed: 09-06-2021 18:40 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3380974?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Productivity & Management Review

This content downloaded from 96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:40:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

COUNTERPOINT By Thine Own Voice, Shall Thou Be Known

MARY E. GUY University of Alabama at Birmingham

T his point/counterpoint exchange highlights two different ways to discuss affirm-

ative action. Professor Jeffrey prefers to focus on theory and to treat the exception as

if it were the rule. I see little merit in philosophical arguments about how many fairies

fit on the head of a pin, or for revisionist historians' clairvoyance that the founding

fathers' exclusion of women from the Constitution and treatment of African American

men as only partial wholes was, in fact, some sort of an inclusion.

I am a pragmatist and believe that the proof is in output. I believe that, although we

must be aware of history to understand our present and prepare for our future, we must

not let ourselves be mired in yesterday while trying to solve tomorrow's challenges.

In terms of employment-related questions, I believe that merit is a subjective term that must be redefined for each context within which it is applied. Put simply, I shall start

this counterpoint where many of my writings close-at the point where I emphasize that productivity is a people issue; that form must follow function; that trying to make

today's and tomorrow's employment practices fit those of generations ago is fantasy. Put simply, affirmative action means making room at the table for those who are

otherwise squeezed out. This means that those who have been sitting comfortably at

the table with plenty of elbow room must scoot over and give up some of their space to accommodate the newcomers. People tend not to like to give up something that has

been comfortable, whether it is elbow room at a dinner table or promotion to a higher office.

The Frailty of the Labor Marketplace

The American method of workplace competition is a clever means for motivating

employees to be as focused on the organization's goals as possible and for motivating

employers to hire and promote the most productive workers. The system is supposed

to work this way: For employees, those who are more productive are supposed to achieve more: more promotions, more money, more power, more status, more auton-

omy-more of whatever inducements an employer has to offer; for employers, those who offer the best opportunities, benefits, and work environment are supposed to get

the best workers (Guy, 1993). In this, as in other aspects of the economy, what works

Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, March 1997 237-242

?: 1997 Sage Publications, Inc.

237

This content downloaded from 96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:40:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

238 PPMR / March 1997

well in theory sometimes falls short in reality. When market failure results, it is then

appropriate for government to intervene and provide a correction.

In fact, for those who believe that there should be equal opportunity for all

Americans, regardless of gender or race, a market failure does exist. The incentive

system that is supposed to motivate all workers advantages men over women and

Whites over minorities. This results in lesser degrees of economic opportunity for

those in the disadvantaged groups and the underutilization of a major segment of every

agency's human resources. So comes the formal notion of affirmative action-a logical

outgrowth of the persistent tension created by a capitalist economy operating

within a democracy that prides itself on individual equality, freedoms, and eco-

nomic opportunity.

The Notion of Affinnative Action

Affirmative action is nothing more than a means to override our basic proclivity to

hire and promote those who are like ourselves. Historically, workplace policies

developed on the assumption that all workers are (a) White males (or those who act

like White males) who (b) are married to (c) wives who stay home and take care of

the family; (d) women who work do so to supplement the husband's income and,

therefore, do not need wages as high as those of males; moreover, (e) higher paying,

more powerful jobs are simply not suited for others (when others refers to those who

do not look like or act like White males). This conflation of economic privilege, gender,

race, and lifestyle is in a state of transition as the 20th century draws to a close.

Even though employers talk of "personnel" in neutral terms, the women and men

of the workforce are anything but gender neutral or race neutral. Societal expectations

of people's roles, including notions about gender, race, ethnicity, class, and age, are reflected in workplace practices. As changes occur in societal norms, they also occur

in the workplace-accompanied by pushing and shoving. Issues, laws, court cases,

and point/counterpoint debates such as this trace these changes and the tensions they create.

In spite of 30 years of affirmative action guidelines and rhetoric, it is practiced far

less than it is preached. A quick look at the numbers will guide a reasoned debate more

effectively than an enumeration of principles developed in isolation from fact. In terms

of gender, most women of working age are in the workforce and rely on their incomes,

just as men do, to support their families. In fact, each successive cohort of women from 1886 forward has joined the labor force in greater numbers and with greater

persistence. Well over 65% of women born between 1956 and 1965 and almost 65% of women born between 1946 and 1955 are currently in the labor force (Evans & Nelson,

1989). From 1955 through 1985, 6 out of every 10 workers entering the labor force were female (Hutner, 1986).

Workforce Demographics

In terms of race, in 1992, 78% of the American workforce was White, 11% was Black, 8% was Hispanic, and 3% were Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. By the year 2005, changes will occur primarily among the gender

This content downloaded from 96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:40:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Guy / BY THINE OWN VOICE, SHALL THOU BE KNOWN 239

Table 1. Demographic Composition of the Workforce

Asians, Pacific Islanders, White Black Hispanic American Indians,

Year Women Men (Non-Hispanic) (Non-Hispanic) (all races) and Alaska Natives

1992 46% 54% 78% 11% 8% 3%

2005 48% 52% 73% 11% 11% 5%

Source. "The American Work Force: 1992-2005," 1993, Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 37(3), pp. 10, 12, 13.

composition of the workforce and the increase in Hispanic and Asian workers.

Projections show that by the year 2005, 73% of the workforce will be White and non-Hispanic, 11% will be Black and non-Hispanic, 11% will be Hispanic (all races),

and 5% will be Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. These

numbers are reflected in Table 1.

So, where's the beef? There are no serious threats to the status quo. The traditionally

advantaged group, White males, will continue to be the majority. Racial minorities

will continue to be small in proportion to the majority. The small changes that are

occurring have been in progress for some time but fail to shift the current numerical

balance or the power imbalance. The change in the demographic composition of the workforce is small enough that probability is low that a traditionally advantaged

worker will be replaced by a worker from a traditionally disadvantaged group. Then

why the continuing attacks on affirmative action, an initiative that fails to perturb the

power imbalance that has been in effect for over a century? Is it a reflection of a focus

on form rather than function? On theory to the exclusion of reality? Or is it merely a

last-gasp effort to retain the moorings set down by the landed gentry who designed a

system that would advantage them, discount minorities, and ignore women? Opposition to affirmative action among White men surged to 67% in 1995 from

44% in 1991. But when the same poll was repeated in 1996, opposition to it among

White men had dropped to 52% (Kaufman, 1996; Naff, 1995). In fact, even the most vocal critics of affirmative action are beginning to open their eyes to see that the sky

is not falling, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, and they still have a preferred place at the table. After the wailing of the past few years among those who

oppose affirmative action, they have opened their eyes to see that their position of advantage has not materially changed.

Legal Establishment of Affirmative Action

Even with the full force of the law behind them, women and racial minorities still have a long way to go to gain economic parity in the workplace. Job protection

legislation started with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Title VII, employers may neither refuse to hire nor discharge any person on the basis of color, race, sex,

national origin, or religion. Neither may employers discriminate with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Nor may they limit,

segregate, or classify employees or applicants in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affects their employment status. In

This content downloaded from 96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:40:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

240 PPMR / March 1997

1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 requiring nondiscrimi-

nation and positive action by federal contractors on behalf of minorities, including recruitment and training, employment, and upgrading. In 1967 he followed with Executive Order 11375, which extended similar protections to women. It is these two

executive orders that formally began what has come to be called affirmative action. Although not directly related to gender, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 called

for a federal workforce that reflects the nation's diversity. To that end, it effectively

codified the push to diversify the federal workforce and make the bureaucracy representative of the population, both horizontally and vertically. With women and minorities severely underrepresented, this act served to heighten employers' sensitiv-

ity to their absence in civil service posts, especially at the middle and upper ranks.

Affirmative action has had a significant impact, although it has fallen far short of

original intentions. I hesitate to think how much slower progress would have been in

the absence of any affirmative action consciousness. A chronological look at women's

advancement into top-level positions in federal agencies shows that since the begin- ning of affirmative action standards, women have made strides, from 2.1 % of top jobs

in 1968 to as many as 17.2% in 1994 (Bayes, 1995). Keeton (1994) reports that in 1992, 34.8% of federal managers at the GS 11 pay grade were women. This marked an increase from 9.5% in 1970. In terms of race, advances have been made as well. However, despite the presence of a growing acceptance of the rightness of affirmative

action, women and minorities still face subtle race- and sex-based biases in employ- ment-related decision making (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1996).

Governing for Today, Not Yesterday

Affirmative action is a response to the need to have a workforce that is repre- sentative of the citizenry and a workplace that truly provides equal'opportunity to all

Americans. Put in place by executive order and boosted by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, affirmative action has helped to pry open doors. In most cases, quotas are irrelevant. Goals and timetables have been the measuring stick by which adherence has been assessed. Affirmative action means that special efforts should be made to recruit equally qualified job candidates from underrepresented groups.

Why is affirmative action problematic for those who enjoy quoting from constitu-

tional procedures? Are not congressional districts mapped in such a way to ensure representation of all groups? Perhaps it is just change that is frightening. When the U.S. military forces were integrated, critics wailed that it would destroy the esprit de corps among the troops. It did not. When Harvard Business School finally allowed women to enter in 1963, many claimed that it was a disastrous mistake. It was not. Now that the Citadel has opened its doors to women students, opponents claim that it will ruin the school. It will not. Curiously, the same cognitive approach to societal and

economic change that caused opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment to oppose its passage in the 1970s is now being brought to bear against affirmative action in the 1990s.

Lest a discourse on American government and the Federalist papers take me too far astray from my response to Professor Jeffrey, I simply remind readers that the United

This content downloaded from 96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:40:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Guy / BY THINE OWN VOICE, SHALL THOU BE KNOWN 241

States has been able to breathe life into an otherwise antiquated document, the U.S.

Constitution, by judiciously amending it and by interpreting it in the light of contem-

porary times, rather than colonial times. We are most successful when we keep our

feet firmly planted in the results of those interpretations, making modifications when

necessary and leaving things well enough alone otherwise.

Biting the Hand That Feeds

Why this tempest in a teapot? What are the triggers that rally those who benefit

from affrmnative action to bite the hand that feeds it? I have been quite successful in

my career and I am fully cognizant of the fact who my best job opportunities would never have come my way were it not for affirmative action. As a woman, I have walked

through several doors in my career that were closed to women who had applied prior

to me. I suspect that Professor Jeffrey has been similarly advantaged by affirmative

action. Whether he has the humility to acknowledge it or not, Clarence Thomas, a

sitting Supreme Court justice, has also been the beneficiary of affirmative action at

key points in his career. What causes people to be so shortsighted that they cannot

appreciate the hand that feeds them? Why dredge up the exceptions, those few cases in which quotas have actually been applied, and use that to demean the intent of

affirmative action?

Everyone is part of a group, either by gender, by race, by religion, or by ethnicity.

Our nation has moved beyond that point in time when judgments of that which is

meritorious and/or qualified hinges on the standards and traditions of one group- White males. The past must give way to a multidimensional assessment of merit and

qualification. For those who are afraid, fear not. This change is happening-slowly- and it will continue to evolve-slowly-amidst debates that reflect the tensions inherent in an economy that is accustomed to parceling out advantage.

Affirmative action is about opening up opportunity and ensuring a level playing

field. To argue that it dilutes quality is a failure to understand the practicality of

affirmative action or to understand the true meaning of quality. In a perfect world there

would be no need for affirmative action initiatives. The ultimate goal is for it to become

so much of an accepted public good that employers will, in good faith, balance their workforces with no external prodding. This is no time to backtrack. We still have a

way to go.

References

Bayes, J. H. (1995, March). Evaluating the effectiveness of affirmative action policies in top federal administrative positions for women and minorities 1968-1994. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Portland, OR.

Evans, S. M., & Nelson, B. J. (1989). Wage justice: Comparable worth and the paradox of technocratic reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Guy, Mary E. (1993). Workplaceproductivity and gender issues. PublicAdministration Review, 53, 279-282.

Hutner, E C. (1986). Equal pay for comparable worth: The working woman's issue of the eighties. New

York: Praeger.

This content downloaded from 96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:40:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

242 PPMR / March 1997

Kaufman, J. (1996, September 5). White men shake off that losing feeling on affirmative action: Angst gives

way to reality: Gains by women, Blacks don't look so daunting. Wall Street Journal, pp. 1, A6. Keeton, K. B. (1994). Women's access to federal civil service management positions: The issue of veterans'

preference. Southeastern Political Review, 22(1), 37-49.

Naff, K. C. (1995, March). The politics of representative bureaucracy. Paperpresented atthe annual meeting

of the Westemn Political Science Association, Portland, OR.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1996). Fair & equitable treatment: A progress report on minority

employment in the federal government. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Mary E. Guy is a professor in and the chair of the Department of Govemment and Public

Service at the University ofAlabama at Birmingham. She currently serves as president-

elect of the American Society for Public Administration. Her research interests include

workforce diversity and public management.

This content downloaded from 96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:40:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms