Which Of These Arguments Appear To Stand Behind Affirmative Action At Google?

438 Words2 Pages

1. Which of these arguments appear to stand behind affirmative action at Google? Explain. Are any of the other justifications applicable even though they may not be the reason Google seeks diverse talent?
The argument that appears to stand behind affirmative action at Google is that “Affirmative action is necessary to create fairness and equal opportunity within organizations because discrimination is so ingrained” (Brusseau, 2012, p. 513). They are trying to break the barrier of discrimination by hiring people from different ethnic backgrounds, minority groups, skills and talents in order to gain a competitive advantage of the workforce within their industry. Another justification that is applicable to Google’s affirmative action, regardless …show more content…

In sweeping terms, there are two types of arguments in favor of affirmative action. First, it serves a broad social good by integrating society. Second, companies employing affirmative action do better in the marketplace than those that don’t. If you had to choose one of these as a better and more persuasive argument for affirmative action, which would you choose? Why?
I would choose the first argument as a better and more persuasive argument for affirmative action because it creates a more safe, well balanced and fair society where the majority of the people searching for employment feel they are included.
3. At some publicly funded universities, scholarships are, in essence, set aside for minorities. Google privately funds scholarships that are, in essence, set aside for minorities. Taxpayers, in other words, fund one affirmative action endeavor and private investors the other. Now, is one endeavor ethically superior to the other? Why or why not? It is possible that one affirmative action endeavor is ethically superior to the other if the scholarship fund is a higher amount than the other. Also, one endeavor can be ethically superior to the other if it doesn’t only fund the economically disadvantaged within a specific minority