1. Of the two candidate, who should be promoted? Which criteria should be used to help us make that decision, and to which candidate does the evidence point?
In reference to the Santa Clara case, where Paul Johnson and Joyce are the final two candidates in the selection process for the promotion, I believe that Joyce is the best candidate for the job.
Although Paul was the candidate recommended by the board, we cannot ignore the fact that the Transportation agency has a history of only promoting male employees. The culture within this organization must be changed! In looking at the EEO Considerations table A, the percentage of female employees are alarming. Taking a deeper look at the data reveals that there are more women in positions of office or clerical roles than in Professional and/or technical roles, which would indicate to me that there is an appalling stereotype in action here where people in positions of power (ie Males in this case) believe that women are better suited for non-professional roles, thereby pigeonholing an entire sex of individuals. During the interview process, it was noted that during the second round of interviews there was not one female on the second panel, whereas on the first panel there was at least one. This is concerning, since the final offer for the position would likely come from the second round/second panel of interviewers. Also, Joyce was the first woman to hold the position of RMV; she was a trailblazer and a leader. When she initially applied for the Road Dispatcher position she did not meet the full requirements, in terms of her education. So, she made a move to the RMW I role and then took college courses in order to become qualified for the Road Dispatcher position which would prove to me how motivated she is and how badly she wants to position. Finally, one of the panelists seemed to not like Joyce’s personality, which should never be one of the deciding factors when hiring an individual.
Again, I believe that Joyce should be promoted and the culture within this organization must be changed, such that qualified females must be placed in professional and/or technical roles. This population is greatly underrepresented.

2. Is Affirmative Action good for businesses? What about for society? What about for women and racial minorities?

Yes, I believe Affirmative Action is good for businesses and society because it is an indicator that the company or business values the make-up of the American people and the different cultures that are represented in our country and acknowledges the talent within those cultures. There is such a long, negative history of racial inequality in our country and I believe Affirmative action aims to level the playing field for everyone, even those that don’t have access to resources or have consistently faced an oppressive system. Unfortunately, for some racial groups, there are many break points that prevent success.
In many cases, the story is so much bigger than just two applicants applying for a job or entrance into a university. The minority has, more often than not, faced such adversity within a broken system of education, justice, and community that it’s almost a miracle that they meet the requirements to even apply to university and/or professional position. I stated in some cases, not all.
From a Women’s perspective, I believe that as long as an organization is recognizing balanced talent from both males and females, there would be no need for Affirmative Action. However, in the example of the Santa Clara case where the data clearly shows that there are very few, if any, females in professional nor technical roles I believe some initiative must be in place to balance the equation. I find it difficult to believe there would be no qualified females for these roles.