Chapter 7 Discussion:

Ethics of Job Discrimination

Paul L. Schumann, Ph.D.

© 2004 by Paul L. Schumann. All rights reserved.

7-1
Nature of Job Discrimination
 What does it mean to discriminate?
 What does it mean to discriminate in
employment?
• What are the 3 basic elements in defining
discrimination in employment?

7-2
Extent of Discrimination
 What evidence is available on the
difference in average income between:
 Whites and Blacks?
 Men and Women?
• What if we limit the data to Men and Women with
the same amount of education?
 How do the poverty rates of Whites and
Blacks compare?
 What do we learn by looking at
occupational comparisons?
7-3
Extent of Discrimination
 To what extent are the differences in pay
and occupations between Men and Women
caused by Women voluntarily choosing
lower paying jobs that are easy to leave in
order to have time to raise children and then
re-enter (e.g., secretary), or in order to
change jobs to accommodate the demands
of their husband’s career?

7-4
Ethics of Discrimination
 Why is discrimination unethical according
to the:
 Utilitarian Principle?
 Rights Principle?
 Justice Principle?
 What is sexual harassment?
 Why is sexual harassment unethical?

7-5
Affirmative Action
 Equal employment opportunity (EEO)
policies are blind with respect to irrelevant
characteristics such as sex or race. As such,
EEO policies have the goal of preventing
further discrimination. What, if anything,
does EEO do to rectify the effects of past
discrimination?

7-6
Affirmative Action
 What is “utilization analysis”?
 What does it mean if a group (e.g., Women, or
Blacks, or Latinos, or whatever) is
“underrepresented” (or “underutilized”)?
 If a group is underrepresented, how is the
company supposed to use goals and
timetables?
 What can a company do to achieve the goals
and timetables in its Affirmative Action Plan?

7-7
Affirmative Action
 How do the supporters of affirmative action
argue that affirmative action is morally
justified because it is:
 Compensation?
• How do the critics of affirmative action respond?
 An instrument for achieving social goals?
According to the supporters:
• What is the basic goal of affirmative action?
• How is affirmative action a morally legitimate
means for achieving these goal?
– How do the critics respond?

7-8
Case: Brian Weber
 Is there evidence suggesting that Kaiser
might have been discriminating against
Blacks before it set up the training program
in 1974?
 How did Kaiser’s affirmative action plan
for admission to the training program work?
 What was the goal of the AA plan?
 Was the AA plan temporary or permanent?
 Did the AA plan create an absolute bar to
Whites who wanted training?
7-9
Case: Brian Weber
 Was the AA plan based on contempt,
hatred, or prejudice against Whites?
 Was the AA plan reverse discrimination?
 Did the AA plan actually hurt Blacks more
than it helped Blacks?
 If Kaiser had used an EEO policy instead of
an AA policy, would it take substantially
longer to eliminate the racial imbalance in
Kaiser’s workforce?

7-10
Case: Brian Weber
 Was the AA plan justified:
 In order to speed the process of eliminating the
effects of past discrimination?
 Based on compensatory justice?
 As a morally justified instrument (means) to a
morally justified goal (ends)?
 If you were a US Supreme Court justice,
would you have ruled that the Kaiser plan
was legal or illegal? Why?

7-11