firmative action, which is designed to combat ongoing job discrimination. Critics of affirmative action often claim that it causes employers to hire less qualified and productive workers, resulting in inefficiencies in the workplace. Advocates contend that it has generally spurred the hiring of more women and minorities without compromising work performance. To determine which view is more accurate, economists Harry J. Holzer and David Neumark of Michigan State University analyzed the results of a survey of some 3,200 employers in the Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles areas from 1992 to 1994. Their findings suggest that affirmative action programs have little if any negative effect on worker productivity. The survey results indicate that employers who stress affirmative action in their recruiting programs make extensive efforts to attract and screen job applicants. They also are more likely to provide training to those they do hire and to evaluate their performance carefully. While such efforts enable companies to hire more female and minority workers, the survey results indicate that aside from educational backgrounds, the qualifications and--more important--the work performance of such hires are on a par with other employees. To be sure, those employers whose affirmative action policies are focused more directly on hiring and who don't engage in strong ``outreach'' recruitment efforts do indicate that they are more likely to hire less-qualified females and minorities. But even these workers' job performance does not appear to suffer-- probably because their employers also tend to provide them with more training to bring them up to snuff. In short, claims that affirmative action entails costs in terms of lower worker productivity aren't borne out by employer reports. To further examine Affirmation Actions, here are ten myths and facts that must be considered in the debate:Myth #1: Affirmative Action is "reverse discrim...
