POLSC401: Ethics and Public Policy

4a. Identify the legal bases for affirmative action and imposition of income taxes in the United States

• Why was affirmative action introduced in the United States?
• Define Jim Crow Law.
• Define employment discrimination and explain the role of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
• What do incomes taxes pay for in the United States? 
• What reasons did policymakers give for beginning each of these programs? 

Unit four explores three examples of government intervention in the lives of citizens to promote the common good: affirmative action, equal employment opportunity (EEO) compliance, and income taxes.

Affirmative action refers to government policies that promote members of minority groups who have suffered from past discrimination, such as by providing access to education and employment opportunities. Affirmative action laws are designed to ensure employers take extra steps to ensure minority job applicants have a fair chance. 

The John F. Kennedy administration introduced the term affirmative action with an executive order it issued in 1961 that required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

In 1965 Congress created the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, to investigate claims of employment discrimination and ensure federal laws prohibiting these practices are enforced. For example, if the EEOC has reason to suspect an employer is responsible for discriminating against its job applicants or employees based on their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, it will collect evidence to support its case and can legally punish or sue the employer.

The EEOC outlines the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers on its Web site, although employee rights can vary depending on the type of employer, the number of employees the business or organization employs, and the type of discrimination alleged.

Governments impose income taxes to help promote programs and services designed to help the entire community. For example, the U.S. government uses the taxes it raises to pay for the government services in provides, invest in current and future public programs, and slow the growth of the national debt.

Before Congress and the states ratified a federal income tax with the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913, the federal government relied on sales and property taxes to pay for its programs and services. However, Americans were required to pay a federal income tax during the Civil War (1861–1865) and in 1890. 

Review Affirmative Action by Robert Fullinwider; and Laws and Guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Income Tax: A Law Overview by James M. Bickley; the chapters Financing Government and Income Inequality.

4b. Explain arguments and proposals for reform of affirmative action and imposition of income taxes in the United States

• What role does Grutter v. Bollinger play in affirmative action reform efforts?
• What has the U.S. Supreme Court said about the value of diversity in judging affirmative action cases?
• What are some current proposals to reform income taxes in the United States?
• Name some legislation Congress has passed to protect equal opportunity in the workplace.
• Define racial quota.
• In what ways does diversity in the workplace benefit businesses?
• What is the role of equity in reforming income tax policy?
• Define sales, excise and income tax.
• Define regressive and progressive income tax.
• How can governments make income taxes more fair?

Affirmative Action

The policymakers who created affirmative action policies, equal opportunity laws, and federal income taxes in the United States argued that their goal was to promote principles of equity, fairness, and efficiency in their communities. They focused on the need to promote and maintain the public good and minimize costs to individuals. Since the practical application and effectiveness of these federal mandates has varied in practice, policymakers have made periodic adjustments to these laws at the state and federal levels. They have proven to be quite controversial.

Affirmative action policies aim to address the effects of ongoing and past social and economic discrimination which have stymied minority communities for generations. For example, due to past slavery and the Jim Crow laws that still persist in come regions of the country, many African Americans are still unable to obtain bank loans to buy houses or grow their businesses. Many cannot get good jobs despite their qualifications, continue to experience substandard schools, and are incarcerated at much higher rates than white Americans for committing the same crimes.

On the other hand, affirmative action policies can create feelings of anger and resentment among members of the white community who argue the laws unfairly support discriminatory practices against themselves when they were not personally responsible for the injustices that occurred in the past.

In the past educational institutions and businesses used racial quotas, meaning they reserved a specific number of places or staff positions for individuals from certain minority groups. While the Supreme Court rejected the use of strict racial quotas in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), a majority of the justices supported the concept of promoting affirmative action for individuals as long as race was one of many other admissions criteria.

The justices also upheld affirmative action in the case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). Colleges can consider race when choosing whether to admit an individual applicant, but a college cannot simply accept every minority applicant on the basis of race alone.

Equal Opportunity in the Workplace

Today, most communities and businesses recognize the importance of creating and supporting equal opportunity in the workplace. The practice not only supports the idea of equality, fairness, and social justice, but it makes practical business sense. As our population becomes more culturally diverse, global and dynamic, creating a more inclusive workplace environment that welcomes all types of employees who have different ideas can generate an economic and competitive advantage.

New and diverse perspectives, ideas, and strategies foster creative decision making and problem solving, companies can, in turn, understand their diverse clientele more readily, and employees feel more comfortable and welcome in a friendlier, more open work environment.

Nevertheless, American business managers are legally required to promote anti-discriminatory practices. Those who fail to comply with equal employment opportunity laws, risk running afoul of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Income Taxes vs. Sales and Excise Taxes

Before the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, those who supported creating a national income tax argued it was unfair to rely on working class Americans and businesses to pay for government services when the entire community benefits. They argued that everyone should be required to pay taxes accordingly.

Sales and excise taxes on particular goods and services are inherently regressive, which means they disproportionately hurt poor individuals. In other words, it is more difficult for someone who earns less money to pay the extra sales tax amount, but easier for a wealthy individual. For example, it is unfair that someone who earns $200 a week is forced to struggle to pay $10 in sales taxes for an item they need, while someone who earns $2,000 a week hardly has to think twice about the payment. The $10 is a large percentage of a poor person's paycheck, but a minor percentage of the wealthy individual's income.

A progressive income tax system adjusts the amount due to each taxpayer's annual income level. So someone who earns below the poverty line pays little, if any, taxes, while someone who is wealthy pays a higher percentage of their income. Many say this type of system asks each person to pay their fair share because it they contribute according to how much they can afford.

A proportional income tax levies the same percentage of tax on all taxpayers, regardless of their income. For example, everyone would be required to pay 25 percent of their income regardless of whether they have an annual income of $25,000 or $300,000.

Some argue this system is more fair, since everyone pays the same percentage of their income. However, others argue it hurts poor individuals more dearly since, as with the sales and excise taxes, a poor person will likely struggle to generate even this small amount because they have a hard time paying for their most basic needs at this income level. Meanwhile, a rich person can easily afford the extra amount due.

As with affirmative action and equal opportunity laws, income and business taxes can be quite controversial. Wealthy individuals argue they should not have to pay more: they deserve to enjoy the wealth they earned. The higher tax rates discourage U.S. investment, as companies move their operations abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Others argue the system is unfair for other reasons. Since the government does not enforce its tax laws, wealthy individuals take advantage of legal exceptions and tax loopholes that allow them to avoid paying their fair share. 

Review the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger in Affirmative Action by Robert Fullinwider; Basics of Employment Discrimnation Law for Law Clerks from the Federal Judicial Center;

Tax Reform: An Overview of Proposals in the 112th Congress by James M. Bickley; and

Arguing Affirmative Action/What's the Purpose? by Michael Sandel.

4c. Assess the frameworks through which dilemmas involving affirmative action and imposition of income taxes can be effectively analyzed

• What are some ethical dilemmas involving affirmative action?
• Name one ethical dilemma regarding income tax policy. 

We usually think about an ethical dilemma as a situation where there are no morally good alternatives   where an individual must choose between two or more options that present consequences that are both undesirable. However, life is usually more complicated and nuanced. The consequences of our choices   the beneficial and negative results of the dilemmas we confront   are not always readily apparent or easy to decipher as completely right or wrong.

A policymaker who follows virtue ethics will focus on acting in a way that is right and just, in a way that promotes their concept of the right thing to do. For example, they will choose the option that resembles their society's ideal representation of courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. Would a virtue ethicist support affirmative action? How about an income tax policy?

A policymaker who follows utilitarianism will choose the path that benefits the greatest number of people and promotes the most happiness. They will choose the option where the majority benefits. Would a utilitarian support affirmative action? How about an income tax policy?

A policymaker who follows a fairness approach wants to ensure recipients are treated fairly, regardless of whether they are in the majority. They will choose the option where members of the community benefit in some way, not simply the majority. Would someone who promotes a fairness approach support affirmative action? How about an income tax policy?

These are the questions you will examine throughout this course as we explore the ethical dilemmas and issues policymakers must grapple with on a daily basis.

Review the video Five Ways to Think Ethically and follow up article A Framework for Ethical Decision Making from Santa Clara University; 

Review these articles on the five ethical frameworks: Ethics and Virtue (virtue ethics), Rights (deontology), Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics (utilitarianism), The Common Good (the common good or communitarianism), and Justice and Fairness (justice as fairness approach), by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J. and Michael J. Meyer.

Review the lecture Arguing Affirmative Action/What's the Purpose? by Michael Sandel, Laws and Guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Comparing Regressive, Progressive, and Proportional Taxes from the Internal Revenue Service.

Review the appropriate resources listed in Unit 3 to help think about how different ethical framework approaches would approach particular questions of public policy.

Unit 4 Vocabulary

• 16th Amendment
• Affirmative action
• Diversity
• Efficiency
• Equal opportunity
• Equity
• Employment discrimination
• Excise tax
• Fair share
• Grutter v. Bollinger
• Income tax
• Progressive income taxes
• Proportional taxes
• Racial quota 
• Reform
• Regressive income tax
• Sales tax
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
• U.S. Supreme Court