1

In order to correct for inequities in our past, we as a society try to compensate certain groups in areas such as education and the job market. In recent years, there has been a growing concern for the uneven distribution of minorities among jobs. This has led to an upswing in hiring quotas to increase the number of minorities in the workforce. Some employers are being forced to reach a quota of minorities and therefore denying jobs too equally or more qualified whites.

This paper will examine how income, race, education, and sex affect a person’s view on affirmative action programs in the workplace. This is an important issue because of all the racial tension in our society and the ever increasing feeling of inequality between races. Even though these quotas are implemented to increase the equality among races, they are in fact amplifying racism in their hiring techniques against whites. It will be difficult to make all races equal if you give some priority over others. Because of this, Americas are split on their views of affirmative action. It seems that programs that promote preferential treatment are opposed by 90% of whites. However, if programs benefit the ability of blacks to access education and increase their ability to obtain jobs, the opinions can change to 70% in favor (Kluegel, Smith 1983). This is important to politicians because they must know what the majority of the public favors in order to have a successful platform. Business can also benefit from this research due to the fact that they are the ones who are doing the hiring. If they are being unequal in their hiring practices, their business will be scrutinized. The business may also loose government contracts or customers if they are found using bias hiring practices. Equal opportunity groups must also heed the beliefs of the population. If they support a program that is in fact unequal, then they may loose their backing from the citizens, as well as from organizations and the government.

Literary Review

Unfortunately, while researching the effects of a respondent’s income on their views of affirmative action in the job hiring process, it has been found there have been few studies with this in mind. The few who have studied incomes effect, have come to the conclusion that as income increases, the more unfavorable their views are on affirmative action programs (Harris 2002). Though it seems to tie back to racial biases, those with the high income do not seem as concerned with aiding those who are less fortunate (Feagin 1975). Feagin suggests that due to their higher financial bracket, these individuals in the middle to high income, do not believe that those who are not as competent should reap the same benefits as those who are qualified. Feagin, like this study, used the General Social Survey to find his data, and therefore his analysis should reflect similar attributes to this study. Supporting Feagin, a survey study done by Gilenssuggests that this lack of remorse for helping the less qualified minorities gain better jobs is due to the belief that blacks show less effort then whites with work ethics (1999). Gilens’ findings suggested that as the income of an individual (primarily whites) increases, they have this mentality, which makes them less favorable towards these programs. Due to the lack of research on this specific topic, more significant finding would be an asset in understanding this relationship.

There has been some mixed research in regards to the effects on education and a person’s beliefs on affirmative action. Some of the studies have come to the conclusion that the highly educated population is more opened mined and therefore more liberal on the political spectrum. Anderson studied how an increase of knowledge with regard to racial inequalities in the past, and present, create a more open minded and sympathetic individual (2001). She suggests that it is “depressing” to teach individuals about these inequalities and therefore it is not expressed to the masses. Therefore, those who are highly educated are more aware. When studying the effects of education on racial views, political knowledge, not just higher education, affect the views on affirmative action policies. Most studies done recently focus primarily on the topic of political knowledge, due to the large impact that politics have on affirmative action programs. On the contrary to what is assumed; it seems that politically sophisticated white Americas have ideologies tied with racial superiority and dominance, as opposed to politically unsophisticated whites (Federico and Sidanius 2002). Although with their findings, Federico and Sidanius state that, “Various form of egalitarianism predicts support for, rather then opposition to, affirmative action.” Sidanius also, suggests that individuals with higher education, especially in political field, may be able to align their attitudes with group relevant social policies and beliefs similar to their own. Therefore they would not rely on race neutral consideration, but their predisposed ideals that have been amplified with their new information (Sidanius, Pratto and Bobo 1996).

When researching the variables that affect person’s opinions on affirmative action in job hiring, gender is studied in conjunction with race for the most part. By studying these factors in conjunction, it is possible to see if gender has an effect on the respondent’s opinion. Bobo and Kluegel suggest that European males seem to oppose affirmative action programs more then European females (1993). Their findings have now been refuted, due to the fact that they limited their cultural research. Recent research now suggests that gender may not be as large a factor in affirmative action opinions. Smith suggests that race and culture in combination with gender is more important (1998).

Smith says that European males and European females have very similar views on affirmative action. The one seemingly important factor with Smith’s research is that the sample was taken from a population of only Junior college students in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Smith does not take into account the possibility that college educated students may be more likely to favor or oppose affirmative action, then the non college educated person. This may not be a factor, but Smith does not address possible systemic error in his sampling. Similarly, Richard and Kirby studied the attitudes of white American male students toward work diversity programs (1997). In this study, they found that the more a work force diversity program was justified, the more the white males favored the programs. When the programs were discussed in a way that only suggested a black male would be more likely to get a job, the favorability decreased. This is not as significant as the studies above due to its lack of comparison in genders as well as non students, but does stress the importance of how the programs are worded to the average American college male.

The most widely researched variable with regard to a respondent’s attitudes towards affirmative actions in the workplace and in general, is how race influences opinions. This would seem to be the most controversial, yet variable easiest to asses. For the most part, African American males and females feel much stronger about affirmative action programs then white American males and females (Kaplowitz, Fisher and Broman 2003). Bobo recently suggests that there may not be as large of a difference in the races on their views on affirmative action as previously believed (1998). Bobo suggests that mass biased information in the media still lead the population to believe that there are strong racial tensions. However, Bobo does concede the fact that those in the race that are being helped by the programs are the ones that will be in most favor in keeping the program installed. There also seems to be more situational bases for races views on affirmative action. Stoll, Raphael, and Holzer decided to research the affects of the race of the employer and their hiring ethics, on a respondent’s views (2004). From their research it seems that blacks are more likely to favor biased job hiring from a black employer then from a white employer. This does not seem to fallow suit with white respondents.

Hypotheses

From the previous research it is expected that the income of the respondent will have a high correlation with their views on affirmative action in the workplace. As the income of the respondent increases, it is expected that the favorability of affirmative action will decrease. Similarly, it is expected that education strongly affects a person’s view on affirmative action in the workplace. Based on previous research, a strong relationship between race and a person’s views on affirmative action in the workplace should be expected. From the limited research done prior, it is expected that gender will not have a large impact on a persons views on affirmative action in the workplace.

Methodology

In order to perform this research, a previous sampling had to be done of the target population, in this case the United States. The target population used in this study will be provided by the General Social Survey, from 1998 (Davis, Smith, and Marsden 2003). In this study, the samples universe contains people who are over the age of 18 and living in households and speak English. The sample methods used will be in multistage. Multistage stratifies the cluster sample with a probability proportionate to the size. Stage 1 in the GSS is the primary sampling units, county groups. The second stage is randomly select city blocks or census tracts. The third stage is randomly select households and random selection method of who is in the research.

The Dependent variable, respondent’s view of affirmative action programs in the job hiring process for a black applicant, was asked in scale form. This scale ranges from strongly in favor of black preference over white applicants, to strongly oppose. In the question, it discusses past discriminations on blacks by whites. This information could sway a person to be in favor. It also discusses the opposing view, suggesting that these programs are discriminating towards whites. By having both sides of the spectrum, it gives the respondents the ability to agree or disagree but only after being educated on both sides of the topic.

For my independent variable regarding income, the GSS asks the respondents income in ranges of $10,000. The range of incomes goes from under $1,000 to over $110,000. By having this large range, the researcher is able to divide the incomes if necessary into smaller brackets, but still be given more detailed information if needed. As for the independent variable of race, the GSS puts the respondents into 3 different categories, white, black, and other. Due to the fact that this study is primarily interested in the relationship between white and black respondents, this information will work well. It is easier to generalize with these few categories as compared to every possible race being listed. Many people could consider themselves multiple categories, as well as cultural possibilities for answers.Consequently, the simplest variable is sex. The respondent is only given male or female as a possibility. This will allow us to avoid the worry about inter-gender individuals. The final variable is education. The GSS breaks this down by years, from year 1 to year 20. The researcher is then able to break these down into smaller categories if possible. In this study it will be broken down into non-high school, high school, college, and graduate.

Bibliography

  • Andersen, Margaret L. 2002. “Restructuring for Whom? Race, Class, Gender, and the Ideology of Invisibility.” Sociological Forum 16:2.
  • Bobo, l., J. Kluegel. 1993. “Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or prejudice?” American Sociological Review 58:443-464.
  • Bobo, Lawrence. 1998. “Race, interest, and beliefs about affirmative action.” The American Behavioral Scientist 41:985.
  • Davis, James A., Tom W. Smith, and Peter V. Marsden. 2003. General Social Surveys, 1972-2002: Cumulative File.Chicago, IL:NationalOpinionResearchCenter.
  • Feagin, J.R. 1975. “Subordinating the poor: welfare and American beliefs.”New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  • Federico, Christopher M., Jim Sidanius. 2002. “Sophistication and the Antecedents of Whites’ Racial Policy Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly 66:145.
  • Gilens, M.1999. Why Americans hate welfare: race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
  • Harris, Cherise A. 2002. “Who Supports Welfare Reform and Why? Race, Gender & Class.” New Orleans 9:96-102
  • Kaplowitz, Stan A., Bradley J. Fisher, Clifford L. Broman. 2003. “How Accurate Are Perception of Social Statistics about Blacks and Whites?” Public Opinion Quarterly 67:237-243.
  • Kluegel, James R., Eliot R. Smith. 1983. “Affirmative Action Attitudes: Effects on Self-Interest, Racial Affect, and Stratification Beliefs on Whites’ Views.” Social Forces 61:797-824.
  • Richard, Orlando C., Susan L. Kirby. 1997. “Attitudes of white American male students toward work force diversity programs.” The Journal of Social Psychology 137:784.
  • Sidanius, F. Pratto, and L. Bobo, 1996. “Racism, Conservatism, Affirmative Action and Intellectual Sophistication: A Matter of Principled Conservatism or Group Dominance?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:476-90.
  • Smith, William A., 1998. “Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Affirmative Action Attitudes of U.S. College Students.” The Journal of Negro Education 67:127-141.
  • Stoll, Michael A., Steven Raphael, Harry J. Holzer. 2004 “Black Job Applicants and the Hiring Officer’s Race.” Industrial & Labor Review. CornellUniversity 267-287.