1

Logan Finger
CAS138T
Dr. Minbiole
4/12/2016

Protecting Corporate America:

The Right to Choose
Framing the Issue
Affirmative action is defined as an action or
policy favoring those who tend to suffer from
discrimination, especially in relation to employment or
education; positive discrimination. This noun has its
origins in the mid-1960s during the apex of the civil rights
movement following the institution of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. In modern times, we often hear the words

Affirmative action has a

negative effect on our
society when it means
counting us like so many
beans and dividing us into
separate piles.1
- John Kasich

affirmative action used to describe college admissions, internships and scholarships, but it can
also be applied to business situations. One particular section of the above-mentioned document,
Article VII, has set unfair regulations for businesses of every kind. This article, in particular,
outlines how employers are to manage their employees or prospective employees such that no
discrimination occurs (as discrimination is defined by the policy)11. This particular paper will be
discussing the strict protocols that businesses must adhere to when hiring and paying employees.
Additionally, these arguments will not seek to undermine the rights that have been granted to

minorities through these policies but rather aim to relinquish corporations from current
responsibilities that deprive them of their rights and limit their economic success.
To illustrate how and why these regulations are unfair I have an anecdote to share. My
friends father once told me a story about his brother-in-law, my friends uncle, and his
experience applying for a job. His uncle is a pilot with a very distinguished resume but that alone
was not enough to get him hired at an airline. Suspecting that he was being evaluated for
something other than his merit, he altered his application in a way that would make himself more
distinguishable. His application this time included the same resume as last time but with a minor
change, his race. On the new application, he checked his race off as African American and
surprisingly that made all the difference. This seemingly small alteration allowed him to procure
a job that was seemingly unobtainable because he was not the race that the government
vicariously through the corporation, presumably, needed to fulfill a quota of minorities. This
story illuminates several issues with the act that mandates the establishment of those quotas and
equal opportunity laws. Surely, it is unfair to prohibit an extremely qualified individual from
being hired because the government has an anti-discrimination agenda, which forbids companies
from hiring whomever they want even if it would benefit their corporation. This story is a prime
example of why private businesses should not be required to adhere to the rules and regulations
as outlined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Article VII as well as the subsequent policies that
have been passed expanding upon these principles. Corporations are being denied rights and are
being limited in their effectiveness, thus Congress should act to revoke these laws to prevent
further civic and economic deterioration.

Principal Arguments
Under the provisions of Article VII, businesses are not allowed to discriminate in the
hiring of individuals based upon the persons race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and/or
potential disabilities. Corporations are also forced to pay men and women who hold similar
positions the same salary or wage14. These acts effectively limit private businesses in several
ways. First, the corporations forced to follow these rules are completely stripped of their basic
rights to choose. Through these laws, the government effectively mandates whom businesses can
select to hire by implementing quotas and inciting fear through the possibility of lawsuits. In
2013, 12,311 discrimination lawsuits were filed, justifying the corporations anxiety about
possible lawsuits8. Secondly, it prevents businesses from hiring the best options available to
them. It levels the playing field between businesses and prevents them from being the best they
can be. Additionally, it leads to more polarization between ethnic, religious and other groups.
Lastly, it abrogates competition between businesses by making them more similar. This goes
against the free enterprise system that has been established here in the United States. One
commonplace that our nation has always held is that we are a capitalistic society. By seeking to
remove competition from society, we go against the institution that this countrys government
and country was founded upon. These four problems and all of the consequences that come with
them are the reasons that affirmative action policies should not apply to private business.

Limiting Corporations Rights

Imagine living in society where someone else selected all of the choices that were
presented to you and you had no say in the matter whatsoever. How would that resonate with
you? You probably would not like the idea of someone else choosing every aspect of your life for
you because they may not know what is important to you and what would make you better as an

individual. Luckily, this is not an issue in terms of the market because of the consumerism
movement; through which consumers were granted the right to choose9. However, this right is
not extended to businesses and one may ask why would it be since they are the entities that the
right to choose is protecting us from? It should apply to them because in a sense they are the
consumers of a different kind of market, the job market. Despite this, they are not always granted
the right to choose who they hire. A common argument against this is they are not people so they
do not have the same rights. However, the Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions
since the industrialization era of the mid-1800s that corporations act as a single person under the
law and in some cases are granted the same rights as true individuals7. By extension the rights of
individual citizens, including the right to choose, should also be applied to corporations. With
these rights, corporations should have unlimited, absolute power when it comes to hiring and
paying employees. If these rights are distributed equally between both corporations and
individuals, true equality will be reached within the market. This means that not only do
corporations have a right to hire and pay anyone that they want but those potential and current
employees have a right to choose to work for anyone that they would like. Additionally, anyone
that patronizes these businesses has a choice to stop if they feel that unfair treatment is being
dealt upon the employees or in any other way. Thus, if the government stops holding
corporations to the guidelines set in the affirmative action policies mentioned earlier then
corporations gain their deserved rights. With this freedom, the market will open up and regulate
itself, such that any companies involved in any type of discrimination, will not survive into the
future.

Limiting Corporate Success

While the previous point sought to show that, the rights of corporations were being
withheld; this argument seeks to expose how these laws limit the success of businesses. For this
situation, you can look at it as if spring and warm weather were right around the corner and you
were in dire need of good landscaper. The first thing you would proceed to do is seek out the best
landscaper in the business because why would you settle for someone that will not provide the
best product for your money. Regardless of the landscapers gender, race, age, ethnicity or any
other distinguishing factor, if they are the best at their craft and the most suitable for the position
then they should be hired. This same concept applies to businesses. Businesses conduct
interviews with the sole purpose of determining which applicant is the most qualified for the
position. This makes sense since it is in the business best interest to select only the most
distinguished individuals to work for them. Corporations seek to hire the individuals that have a
solid background in the field, work experience, good people skills, and graduated from a credible
university or institution. When businesses are prevented from doing so, their success is
essentially limited. With that in mind, think about the limitations that are placed on businesses
preventing them from hiring too many individuals from one age, racial or ethnic group regardless
if they are the most capable of completing the task well.

Political and Racial Polarization

Furthermore, these affirmative action policies add to the political and racial polarization
of the nation. The figure at right reveals a large difference in the amount of Democrats and
Republicans that support the use of preferential treatment of minorities to improve their position
within society. Additionally, even among Democrats, there is a significant difference between the
percentages of supporters from each race13. With such divided opinions between parties and

races, there is inevitably going to be added tension to an

already volatile situation. Another Pew Research Center
poll found that 79% of Democrats had unfavorable views
of Republicans, while 38% had a very unfavorable view
of Republicans. It was much the same story on the
Republican side, where 82% of individuals had negative
views and 43% had very unfavorable views of the
opposing party12. From a racial standpoint, both blacks and whites alike agree that relations
between the two groups have deteriorated. As can be seen in the graph to the left the number of
both blacks and whites that would describe the relations between the two groups as very or
somewhat good has dropped 15% and 27% in the opinions of blacks and whites, respectively2.
This corroborates the fact that tensions continue to increase year by year between both political
and racial groups, so why then would we proceed with policies that are increasing this pressure
rather than minimizing it as they were originally
meant to do?

Capitalism in America
While the words capitalist and
capitalism were not common in the era
of our Founding Fathers, most historians
agree that the Framers sought to implement a free-market system. Even though the Constitution
has its underpinnings in ideas such as economic liberty and property rights, the founders never
fully advocated for a strictly laissez-faire system either. However, they did believe that the role
of the government in business should be limited and include only protecting the rights of all

parties. This could be done through upholding contracts, lifting artificial trade barriers, and
protecting the right to acquire, possess, and freely use property.5 In fact, despite a recent,
seemingly, large push towards socialist ideas within the United States, a majority of the
population agrees that a capitalistic society is favorable in comparison to a socialist one, as can
be seen in the figure above11. Thus, if America has a foundation in capitalistic ideas and such a
large portion of the population agrees that capitalism is a good choice for an economic system,
then why is the free-market and efficacy of the system being limited by laws such as the ones
discussed until this point? These laws, by restricting corporations right to choose, seek to make
the hiring and payment processes fairer and equal. However, even if this is achieved, the
economy suffers because it forces all companies to be relatively the same and removes
competition from the system. The situation can be thought of like this. Under the current laws, all
employees that perform the same tasks are entitled to equal pay, benefits and other conveniences.
These benefits and conveniences, in a free-market system, act as incentives because their sole
purpose is to first, lure highly qualified individuals to join their company and second, to motivate
the already established workforce to perform well on their assigned tasks. In a society with
socialistic ideals, the things that were once incentives are disincentivized because now everyone
is obligated to receive them. This means that the people that were once working really hard and
earning the benefits no longer are rewarded for hard work in relation to their peers. Accordingly,
once they realize they do not have to work as hard to receive the things they once did for
overachieving, then they will stop producing at the same levels that they did when they were
being remunerated for their commitment and diligence10. If this is looked at from a large scale
perspective, say in a Fortune 500 company, we will see that the overall contribution to the
corporation and economy will diminish because these individuals ceased to dedicate themselves

to their work as they did before. It is one thing to make the job market, seemingly, fairer in a
sense but it is something completely different to do it at the expense of the contributions to the
economy by businesses.

In Summary
It cannot be denied that in the time that the laws and policies that were discussed in this
paper were necessary to remedy the
past racial and economic tension of the period. However,
over the fifty

years since the institution of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, tensions have been
relieved and the situation is nowhere as
volatile as it once was. This has

allowed the country to equilibrate; providing heavily discriminated groups with opportunities to
facilitate their own success. Despite this fact, the policies that were instated in the sixties, a
decade that was filled with segregation and Jim Crow laws, are still in place today. This has
allowed corporations to be deprived of rights and success, has added to racial and political
polarization, and has limited the efficacy of the free-market system through the reduction of
competition. To start, we began talking about how consumers were guaranteed a right to choose
in terms of products, sellers and manufacturers. Furthermore, since corporations are guaranteed
the same rights that true individuals are granted, these businesses, in the eyes of the law, are
practically persons. This means that they also have the right to choose. Next, the issue of
placing limitations on businesses, such that their success is limited was deliberated. In this
section, we addressed the fact that certain government regulations prevent corporations from
hiring the most qualified individuals for the position. Thirdly, we talked about how requiring

companies to hire a certain number of minorities or

through standardization methods like racenorming, polarization of races and political parties
is greatly increased. Lastly, it was established that
our country has its groundwork in capitalistic

Affirmative action was

never meant to be
permanent, and now is truly
the time to move on to some
other approach1
- Susan Estrich

ideals as the Founding Fathers had intended. We

then went on to discuss that while these laws appear to open the market to everyone, they in fact
limit it by removing the competitiveness from the system. This leads to disincentivization of
benefits and other conveniences that in an open market would inspire employees to work harder
and perform more efficiently. These four points were the basis of the argument against the
affirmative action policies by which corporations are bound. All together, these principle
arguments seek to establish that by limiting businesses in the ways discussed their role in the
American economy and society is greatly demeaned and unappreciated.

Economic Welfare of America

Corporations contribute a little over 11% to our GDP, which translates to about 1.9
trillion dollars5. Despite this however, we are still seeking to limit their rights and success
through government regulation. If we continue down this path, we will surely undermine our
own economy. Deregulation is crucial for the long-term welfare of corporate America and thus
also of the American economy as a whole. It creates competition that otherwise would not exist4.
Most economists agree that, in addition to increased competition, deregulation lowers the
barriers within an industry and increases efficiency as well as promotes entrepreneurship and
innovation3. Two things that are highly valued within a society that is advancing at an
astonishing pace such as ours. Thus, this constant implementation of new regulations puts

10

corporations at risk of collapsing under the pressure that it being applied by the government and
its entities. Subsequently, since businesses play such an integral role in our economy both
directly and indirectly by hiring, buying and selling then the constant stress will have
consequences that affect every individual in America. Beyond diminishing the United States
bottom line in the global market, regulation also causes the degradation of our unity as a nation
and our culture. The policies drive a wedge between groups of individuals adding to an already
polarized situation within the United States. It begins to strip individuals of their equality by
enabling others to distinguish them based off more than just their merit and integrity. It is as if
we regressed to an earlier time when discrimination based on skin color, religion, or ethnic
background was the social norm. How can we have claimed to make as much progress in the
area of civil rights as we say we have if we are promoting the same discrimination that we sought
to eradicate? Government regulation in this country, if it continues to increase at the same rate as
it has in recent years, will have devastating implications in the future. Not only will it surely
undermine and contribute to the recession of our economy, which will undoubtedly have an
impact on all of us, but it will also divide the nation driving us further and further apart. As a
nation, we cannot afford to have these policies tearing away at both our economic and cultural
integrity. It is crucial that Congress act to repeal the laws outlined in Article VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 that deny corporations of their rights and limit their success while also
polarizing our nation and pitting ourselves against each other.

11

Works Cited
1

"Affirmative Action Quotes." BrainyQuote. Xplore, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

"Americans' Views of Black-White Relations Deteriorate." Gallup.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr.

2016.
3

"Deregulation." Definition & Example. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.

"Deregulation Definition | Investopedia." Investopedia. N.p., 25 Nov. 2003. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.

"Did the Founders Support Free-Market Capitalism?" The Daily Signal. N.p., 13 Jan. 2012.

Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

6

"GDP at Market Prices (current US$)." GDP at Market Prices (current US$). N.p., n.d. Web. 07

Apr. 2016.
7

Henning, Peter J. "Treating Corporations as People." The New York Times. The New York

Times, 26 May 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

8

"It's Here! The 2014 Workplace Class Action Litigation Report."Workplace Class Action Blog.

N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

9

"John F. Kennedy: Special Message to the Congress on Protecting the Consumer Interest." John

F. Kennedy: Special Message to the Congress on Protecting the Consumer Interest. N.p., n.d.
Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
10

Joslyn, R. Waite. The Rights of Labor, an Inquiry as to the Relation, Employer and Employed.

Chicago: C.H. Kerr, 1894. Print.

11

"One Third of Millennials View Socialism Favorably." YouGov: What the World Thinks. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

12

"Section 2: Growing Partisan Antipathy." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

RSS. N.p., 11 June 2014. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

12
13

"Section 8: Values About Immigration and Race." Pew Research Center for the People and the

Press RSS. N.p., 04 June 2012. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

14

"Welcome to OurDocuments.gov." Welcome to OurDocuments.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr.

2016.