socially responsible manner. Income distribution objectives, laws prohibiting social discrimination, and, in some instances, policies intended to rectify the effects of past discrimination--affirmative action goals--have all become a part of "the rules of the game" for American business.
Equal opportunity and fair employment practices legislation has been enacted and enforced (with varying degrees of vigor, depending upon the philosophical stance of the administration in power) since the early 1960s. The concept of equal opportunity often appears to defy precise definition--definitions tend to change with the perspective of the protagonist. One theorist concluded that most assessments asserting that equality of opportunity is absent are actually saying that "certain
individuals, or groups, do not have . . . certain opportunities"
that are available to other individuals and groups. This line
of reasoning is usually extended to the idea that such conditions are "unfair and ought to be remedied."
Equal opportunity is advocated for two reasons. First, equal opportunity promotes distributive justice--the unfairness of an existing situation would be remedied. Second, equal opportunity is promoted on the grounds that it promotes economic efficiency. If this latter contention were widely accepted in society, it is likely that instances of employment discrimination would drop dramatically. This contention, however, is not
universally accepted by either employees, employers, or economists.
Those who promote equal opportunity on the grounds that economic efficiency will be promoted at the same time are stating, in effect, that existing resource allocations are not economically efficient. Conversely, those who hold that improvements in equal opportunity must be gained through losses to others in the economy are stating, in effect, that existing resource allocations are economically efficient, and that gains in equ...