In January of 1961, a new President was elected to office, John F. Kennedy. Within two months, he issued executive order (#10925). Its goal was to end discrimination against any employee by the government and its contractors. The order required every federal contractor to “Not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action, to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during the employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This order did not take into account the discrimination of sex, but it was the first steps towards affirmative action.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in an att

Through many court cases and years of legal issues, the intent and purpose of affirmative action was more clearly defined. The most obvious one is the need to make efforts to fight the discrimination that exists in many workplaces against minorities. A motivation by companies, aside from legal aspects, is the desire for integration with the intent of achieving racial and gender diversity. Socially, the desired effects of affirmative action are to reduce the poverty of certain groups of race or gender.

Though not currently protected by affirmative action laws, gay right activists seek to place themselves under these plans. It is illegal to consider ones sexual preference, or even ask, when considering them for positions with in a company, but they do not enjoy the advantage of preferential selection under affirmative action plans. Some local governments have instituted local laws, like in San Francisco, where 20% of all city appointments have been granted to homosexuals, and in Seattle, where the police department has established hiring quotas for gay officers.

With the ruling of this case, now companies were forced to analyze all their procedures and requirements. It was communicated by the court that the intent was not to “preclude the use of testing or measuring procedures, but it does proscribe giving them controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance”. This statement allows for the fact that there are requirements and tests directly applicable to jobs, and that it was not the intent of the court to make these illegal.

Any HRM department must constantly be aware of the changing affirmative action rulings, and proposed changes. Since these issues are so turbulent and controversial, they require constant changes made to policies and practices. An effective HRM department must always be aware of current court cases that can affect them, and have plans ready to quickly be able to institute fair and legal practices. Any affirmative action plans should be reviewed for validity in an effort to ensure that if any lawsuit is brought against the company, the company has the legal documentation to prove its innocence. While it is commonly argued that affirmative action is no longer required, until the goals of these laws has been achieved do not expect them to disappear anytime in the near future.

Though affirmative action also includes white woman under its protection, the problem they face is typically different from those minorities do. White woman typically have the same educational opportunities afforded to men. In the past, social norms have prevented woman from perusing jobs in many areas, such as fields that involve science and business. From the day a female is born, she is nicknamed “princess”, and given flowers and little dolls to play with. Children books depict them of requiring saving and protection from men. If a little girl falls she is instantly smothered, while a boy of the same age would be expected to “walk it off”. A female child is typically expected to work in the house with her mother, while a male child will do what society deems as proper male chores. While these may sound like normal and un-effecting to a females choice of occupation, because of these social upbringings woman have not chosen fields where men typically dominate, and are only now beginning to show that they can perform as well as

Some topics in this essay:
African Americans, HRM Department, Supreme Court, Lyndon Johnson, Rights Act, San Francisco, Title VII, Birmingham Alabama, John Kennedy, affirmative action, Rights Movement, affirmative action plans, action plans, civil rights, reverse discrimination, public facilities, supreme court, hrm department, public schooling, race creed, affirmative action plan, national origin, civil rights act, court ruled favor, hiring process advancement,