Equal opportunity or preferential treatment?

What some term equal opportunity, others term preferential treatment.

Another in a seeming endless number of studies recently cited “many obstacles to achieving equality for African Americans in the federal workforce.”  (EEOC African American Workgroup Report)  One of the seven cited obstacles states, “Educational requirements create obstacles for African Americans in the federal work force.”

While accepting bias still exists in too many segments of our society, against racial and ethnic groups, including blacks, Hispanics, Asians, whites (yes, whites), asserting that "educational requirements" create obstacles is too far a stretch in my view.  If a position description, in the public or private sector, specifies certain education as a matter of basic eligibility, it is perfectly reasonable.  To assert, directly or obliquely, that “Educational requirements create obstacles for African Americans in the federal work force” is merely a ploy.  A ploy that seeks to provide preferential treatment, in this case to African Americans, in the name of equal opportunity.  

Thus, what some view as equal opportunity, others view as preferential treatment.  Specifically, as implied in the cited report, establishing educational requirements specifically denies African Americans opportunities in the federal work force.  By extension then, as a matter of equal opportunity, African Americans should not be required to meet said educational requirements and implicitly should be hired into the positions.  Doing so wouldn't be a matter of equal opportunity as much as a matter of preferential treatment.  Hire an African American who does not meet the educational requirements over some other who does.

We are at a point in the development of out society that neither discrimination nor preferential treatment should be tolerated.  On this, most of us would agree.  And some states have codified such as stance.  For example, California's Proposition 209 clearly states, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."  California is certainly considered a liberal, progressive state.  So its law is formidable in pursuit of civil rights.

It clearly states discrimination and preferential treatment are against the law.  Therefore, in response to the cited EOC study, we offer one word: balderdash!

If the essence of the issue is that too few African Americans lack the educational credentials to compete for higher level positions in the federal government, take issue with both an educational system that fails to educate young African Americans (a very valid, documented situation) and African American households in which education is not seen as important (equally valid and documented).  Therein lay the solutions, not in advocating preferential treatment in hiring individuals who lack the education to be successful.

Because it may be inevitable that when an individual, no matter how motivated and energetic, is provided preferential treatment and hired into a position for which he/she lacks the education to be successful, that individual is more likely to fail.  And in failing, another one of the reports cites obstacles may manifest, “Insufficient training and development assignments perpetuate inequalities in skills and opportunities for African Americans.”

The goal, in reference to this cited obstacle, must be to address education and family expectations.  Then the individual will have the skills and knowledge to have the opportunity to compete equally against others, regardless of "race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin."

What one terms equal opportunity, another terms preferential treatment.