American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Affirmative Action serve as the basic instruments to maintain social equilibrium in a highly biased society through the law. The question is that the ADA provides new opportunities and security to people mentally or physically disabled while the Affirmation Action is based mainly on a scope of policies decreasing the rates of discrimination based on color, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc (Ashutosh, 2001-2002). In this respect the entire evaluation of these two legal documents are provided to coordinate social development within the society.
In other words, it is a precursor for preventing the society from negative influences coming from biases based on physical and mental characteristics of a human being on the whole. Thus, it is an issue of ethics that people living in a civilized society should follow the prescriptions included in the ADA and the Affirmation Action. First of all, it is about time to take a glance at the ADA as such. The thing is that the cruelty of people is unlimited to other human beings who are weaker and essentially disabled to compete on the labor market.
However, in a democratic society there should be no obstacles in adopting legislation making points on equity between physically normal and physically disabled people. Thus, it was not that easy to get through the passage of the ADA so as it worked both now and always. The more complete understanding of the society should take advantage of everything done by citizens for the benefits within their communities. Complementing the needs of individuals notwithstanding their physical and mental state is a must for the current humanity.
Of course, there should be some special treatment and procedures to relieve or improve healthcare prospects among disabled people. Summing up multiple cases on the application of the ADA, there is an assumption in the Court system that providing work for disabled persons is less effective than to implement social enactment programs (Krieger, 2003). Thus, it is not cut and dry, there are too many nuances falling into litigations and struggle of disabled for personal rights.
Nonetheless, the American society is more likely to reject any among points stated in the ADA as long as the majority dictates its preferences in the law system. Thus, disabled people still suffer from unjustified ignorance of their rights since the adoption of the ADA. Hence, it is a direct note on the unethical features of the law system in the United States. To say more, in accordance with the statistical data as compared with normal individuals disabled persons can approach the labor market and compete equally with the rest of human beings (Krieger, 2003).
The ethical prospects hereby admit the idea that “the disabled should be allowed to sell their labor at whatever price, and on whatever terms, they see fit” (Krieger, 2003, p. 263). It is a reminder that there are some fallacies and concrete problems as of the prejudices coming from the Courts toward disabled which cannot be resolved solely by the ADA application to a definite case. In turn it is reflected on the ethical inappropriateness of the American society seeking the norms of the larger societal life.
The Affirmative Action was also adopted to make emphasis on equal opportunities for people living in America despite their ethnicity, sex, religion, etc. Different approaches are taken to disable minorities and women in their workplace. The main reason is all about intrinsic hatred (discrimination) which dominates among Americans providing misbalance in the field of social and work relationships. Thus, it is outlined in the Affirmative Action that this document aims at encouraging employers to prevent any form of racial or gender discrimination at workplace (Yelnosky, 2003).
It means that, despite the Affirmative Action’s postulates, there are codes of color and gender in evidence. On the other hand, different Courts’ decisions based on the implementation of the Affirmative Action go usually apart from considering concrete issues on discrimination. It is mostly done to provide another ground to omit the prescriptions of the Affirmative Action. Hence, the multinational American society is still in danger of socially-based conflicts similar to the time of racial segregation in 1950s.
However unethical are the decisions taken by the US Courts, Title VII of the Affirmative Action plan highlights an obligatory set of an employer’s actions to diminish the presence of racial discrimination at workplace (Yelnosky, 2003). It is said that a so-called “token status” of persons who are more likely to get through racial and gender discrimination exceeds the scope of opportunities and positive attitudes on the part of the employer and colleagues when in the workplace (Yelnosky, 2003).
To make it plain, the Affirmative Action serves solely as a theoretical ground for maintaining racial and gender justice, unfortunately. In practice, this legal document encounters attempts from higher instances of making some amendments as for it. To conclude, both the ADA and the Affirmative Action need to be more elaborated in the law practice today. It is an issue of ethics that people living in a civilized society should follow the ADA and the Affirmative Action in order to reach out a peaceful and higher development of social relationships within the society.