Affirmative action was necessary for a time. The idea was to get minorities into positions so they
could have a better quality of life. Sometimes they were chosen over more qualified people but it
had to be done to level things. I think now most people have the same opportunities. I don't know
if that would have been the case if there were no affirmative action. The question is: Is it still
necessary? I don't know the answer to that.
You pick a candidate based on skills and ideals for suiting the position. Not because of skin color. I think you are wrong - "Sometimes they were chosen over more qualified people but it had to be done to level things." Level what? A class issue? That's perception because they can be qualified as anyone else can by the same education.
If one judges another based on race (for good or bad intentions), this promotes racism; affirmative
action bases judgment of another on his race, therefore affirmative action promotes racism.
That is not what the executive order on Affirmative Action states by the way. Executive Order 10925 1961 is where affirmative action is first mention and it doesn't say hire base on race but "to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts;" The key word, "QUALIFIED". And this is where the magical words came from,
"(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause."
And than later another executive order where affirmative action is mention in 1965 By president Johnson after the civil rights act which also states similar to above. "Contractors are also required to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
This is the only time these words are ever stated in any mandate of equal employment.
The hiring by race through what most people understand what affirmative action to be was never mandated by any law at all but institutions chose the easy way out like universities and companies by creating the bogus word "quota". It took too much effort to actually go and look for qualified minorities like the executive orders stated.
There is a book that is required reading in Georgetown Law in Washington, DC. The book is called, "The Chosen": The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. It first started to exclude the Jews but later these Universities and others used tactics to prevent other minorities to enter into higher institutions. Applying their prejudices and covert practices during much of the twentieth century. You will learn where some of the ideas of "Quotas" really came from.
Well as it happens I'm helping a friend with a research project on this very subject right now and
you are mistaken. The point you are making is referred to as "reversre discrimination" and it's
been debated for the last 3 dacades as to whether or not you are giving unfair advantage to
minorities in favor of a so called "color blind" society. This debate has raged on for the entire
time that Lyndon B. Johonson first stated the phrase "we must take Affirmative Action". In short
the idea was part of the Civil Rights Movement that said we shoudl offer everyone the chance to
succeed or fail "despite" ethnic, religious, or gender status. It did not say because of the
afrementioned that one should be given "more" opportunities than the so called ruling class. No one
is enabled by Affirmative Action, they were originally just trying to level the playing field, it
was all the law suits that came afterward; Steelworkers VS. The United States for example, that
muddied the waters and turned it into a race VS. Race or class VS. Class thing. Still... I have
learned to see this as a great topic for study IF you are willing to be objective and look at both
sides of the argument.
Why is affirmative action always seen as for minorities? Sonya Sotomayor said she was an affirmative action baby and a product of it because she got to where she was even though she was not as qualified as her peers. She made it seem like minorities were handicaps.
20 Jul 2009 19:17
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
