How Misunderstandings Lead to Criticism: Affirmative Action and Employment Equity
By Carmen Garcia
Photo by Brendan Church on Unsplash
Criticism is undoubtedly an unavoidable part of life. Criticism that can be avoided though, often stems from a lack of understanding. This is common when looking at criticism on employment equity in Canada, which is more applicable to affirmative action in the United States’ context. In order to change these attitudes, it is important to understand that Canada’s approach to employment equity is distinct from that of US affirmative action, having been deliberately crafted using a different concept of equality and justice. Furthermore, the effectiveness of employment equity in this sense seems to be overlooked, which is how it earns its support from others - based on decreased turnover rates, increased employee engagement, increased organizational efficiency, improved innovation and problem solving.
Affirmative Action in the United States
Affirmative action emerged during the Civil Rights Movement, and was in response to the systemic discrimination being faced by racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women in both employment and educational opportunities. In 1961, the first official policy to implement affirmative action was signed by US President John F. Kennedy. It stated that federal contractors should take affirmative action to ensure applicants are treated equally without regard to race, colour, religion or national origin. However, following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, changes were made by US President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 to require “federal contractors not discriminate in employment and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity based on race, color, religion, and national origin.” This was later amended to include sex (gender), and following the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, individuals with disabilities as well.
Employment Equity in Canada
Employment equity was first introduced in 1984 by Judge Rosalie Abella in her Report of the commission on equality and employment, in which she stated, “Equality in employment means that no one is denied opportunities for reasons that have nothing to do with inherent ability. It means equal access free from arbitrary obstructions.” The Employment Equity Act proclaimed on August 13, 1986 used Abella’s report as its cornerstone. The intention of this act was to correct disadvantages experienced by four designated groups - women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, and persons with disabilities. It has three major premises: “1. No one shall be denied employment opportunities and benefits for reasons unrelated to ability; 2. Special measures are necessary to improve the employment situation of members of the designated group; 3. Reasonable accommodation requires employers to recognize legitimate differences between groups and take reasonable steps to accommodate those differences.”
Differences Between Affirmative Action and Employment Equity
From Canada’s introduction of employment equity in the Abella Report, what distinguished it from affirmative action in the US, was its employment of a model of social justice that recognizes existing relations of oppression and systemic discrimination. It also did not grant primacy to individual rights and objective merit, as justice is a matter of group differences, group benefits, and group harms, therefore making a culture of individualism hindering to members of dominant social groups from seeing such group-ness.
When it comes down to the landmark case of June 2023, when the US Supreme Court made the majority decision to eliminate affirmative action, it is important to remember that equality protections in the US are grounded in principles of non-discrimination. Affirmative action in this sense, acted as a form of “positive discrimination” according to the majority of Justices in this case. With that being said, Canada’s Employment Equity Act did not contradict equality provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as Section 15(2) recognizes that treating groups differently under the law may sometimes be necessary to ameliorate group disadvantages.
Lack of Understanding Translating into Opposition
There is a common misunderstanding that affirmative action, as applied in the US context, is the same as Canada’s employment equity policies despite critical differences. As a result, Canada’s approach has long been plagued by myths and ideologies more applicable to affirmative action in the US context. Much opposition to Canada’s employment equity policies is centered on individual rights and issues of merit. In forgetting that Canada’s employment equity is built upon justice which is a matter of group differences, group benefits, and group harms, not primarily individual rights, this argument goes unfounded. Furthermore, since employment equity goes beyond the notion of treating everybody the same, and rather accommodating differences to allow for the same chances based on their ability to do the work, it does not disregard merit as critics claim. Another argument opposing employment equity is that such policies are unjustly falling onto those who played no part in structuring existing power relations. For that reason it is believed by the opposing side that it is unacceptable for individuals to pay this penalty. In that sense though, we would be denying ongoing privilege and oppression that is still prevalent.
Effectiveness of Employment Equity
Beyond recognizing these differences between affirmative action in the US context and employment equity in Canada, to make better sense of uninformed criticism, it is also important to understand the importance and long term benefits of employment equity policies in the workplace. In doing so, a new found appreciation and support for employment equity will come as a result. As equity is concerned with ensuring the same opportunity for everyone, incorporating it within the workforce helps achieve a feeling of value in an employee, as though they are full contributors to their organizations. However, by ignoring the inequities that hinder the same opportunity for everyone, and later employees' feelings, it will result in employee disengagement, turnover, and decreased organizational effectiveness. From a business perspective, equity in the workplace contributes to improved innovation and problem solving. In response to employees feeling as though they are valued and appreciated for their contributions as a result of equity in the workplace, with such a variety of perspectives being brought to the table, more creative and effective solutions come as a result.