Please answer either question #3 or #4, but not both.
Here is the scenario. Recently the VP of Marketing stepped down from his position at Berne AeroWerks, a German based aeronautics company producing high-end corporate jets in the US. An aspiring young director of Internet sales, who graduated from MIT and Harvard Business School, has applied for the position. This director was directly responsible for bringing in an additional 50 million in sales last year. The CEO of Berne AeroWerks has asked to meet with the director to discuss the decision about the VP opening. When the director is led into the CEO's office they are greeted by the VP and one of the corporate lawyers.
After the director sits down, and the cordial chit chat is finish, the CEO tells the director that Berne AeroWerks has decided to hire a woman who is an ethnic minority.
FYI -Decide in advance which one of you will play the role of CEO and the other will play the role of aspiring Director. You are to enter the BCT and pick up where the scenario left off. You are to carry on at least a 10 minute conversation about the CEO's decision to hire from outside Berne AeroWerks. The requirements of the Activity are:
1. Research issues and current laws about Affirmative Action hiring practices and reverse discrimination.
2. Carry on at least a 10 minute conversation.
3. CEO's role is to explain why, according to #1, they have decided to hire the ethnic minority.
4. Director's role is to question, according to #1, why this practice is unfair and a poor business decision.
Thank you.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 3, 2020, 9:37 pm ad1c9bdddf
Let's look at # 4 and some of the arguments you can consider. I also provided an argument for #3 as extra information at the end of this response, as it is always good to know and understand your opponent's potential arguments.
#4 - You are the director who is directly responsible for bringing in an additional 50 million in sales last year
When does affirmative action end and reverse discrimination begin?
Twenty-plus years ago, businesses were mostly made up of white males. Since that time, they have made great strides to correct that problem. Now, for example, our recruitment office is predominantly ethnic minority women. I believe this helps get minorities interested in the job and helps them get hired when they apply for jobs in their profession. This is a good approach. (1) However, are we hiring the best people for the job or meeting the affirmative action goals?
In this case, it seems that the latter is true, because in the best interest of the company, we should be hiring the "aspiring young director of Internet sales, who graduated from MIT and Harvard Business School." He is most qualified and the best fit for the job position. So to not hire him is unfair and a poor business decision.
When the idea of preferential treatment arose in 1961, the nation was in the midst of radical changes regarding civil liberties. The injustices imposed upon minorities were beginning to be recognized, and people wanted to make up for the years of oppression that served as a barrier for the advancement of minorities in America. At the time, the idea was morally justified and socially appropriate. While it is still a morally commendable effort today, the affirmative action system has become an attempt to atone for the sins of our country's past, and a double ...
In reference to the case provided, this solution addressed Affirmative Action hiring practices and reverse discrimination.