The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. The impetus towards aiHrmadve action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination.

The principle of affirmative action is to treat unequals as equals in order to promote equality. Affirmative action is seen by its proponents as a foundational principle of democratic societies that seek to redress imbalances, due to disproportionate representation of underprivileged sections of sodecy in governmental, educational and industrial institutions. Proponents of affirmative action argue, that the disproportionate representations, results fix>m covcrt, institutionalized and involuntary forms of discrimination that permeates the £abric of society; particularly in societies that have had a long history of racial, ethnic, or sex based discrimination. Such acts of discrimination may take many forms. Some are overt such as stereotypes (e.g. women are only fit to be secretaries and housewives, and blacks are great entertainers and sportsmen — modem day Radiators but little else). Others are covert, such as “old boys” dubs, that tend to favor racially akin new members.

Some exponents say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group to which diey belong rather than their qualifications. Opponents also contend that affinnadve action devalues the accomplishments of all those who belong to groups it is intended to help, therefore making affirmative action counterproductive.

Some people also fed that affirmative action is discrimination in itself since it judges people by their ethnicity.

Opponents, who sometimes say that affirmative action is “reverse discrimination”，further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects in addition to failing to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they arc not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites).

Most Americans support afHrmative action for women; with minorities, it is more split. Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women; thou^i a majority of both do. However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that afHrmadve action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of preferential treatment.

It requires positive steps to ensure that qualified minorities and women receive a fair share of jobs at all levels.

1) A job must be advertised publicly in places minorities and women are likely to hear about it, and the qualifications must be related to the job (such as hei^it, physical appearance, age, diploma, etc.).

2) In hiring，more than one candidate should be interviewed and evaluated objectively by more than one interviewer.

3) If the number of minorities and women in a company or government j^cncy is less than the number in the local labor force, the company or agency must agree to recruit more or draw up an aiFirmative action plan，which must include goals to hire or promote more minorities or women and timetable to reach these goals. Failure to realize them can result in the loss of future contracts or aid.