Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
So person A discriminates against person B. Then, that, after 30 years (or 50 or 100), makes it right for someone that resembles person B but has no connection with person B to discriminate against someone that resembles person A but has no connection with person A. You believe there is anything at all that is right about that? Really? It would be one thing if it were actually person B that was chosen over person A to make up for the wrong but you're penalizing someone he didn't even have anything to do with the wrong of the past.
|
It's not about person A or person B.
It's about when you systemically and categorically deny group B certain opportunities then the result is that you have a disproportionately large number from group B who lack the experience necessary to ever legitimately compete against individuals from group A.
So in order to create those opportunities you have you make have to give special consideration to people from group B if they are otherwise qualified.
Thats the affirmative action I support and there is 50 years of U.S. policy that says it works in many regards. It's not perfect but it moves us closer to equality.
I do not, and have never, supported unqualified people getting opportunities they shouldn't get and cannot take advantage of. But that has happened throughout history for a number of reasons and will continue to do so.
But that's not what affirmative action, by and large, is about. Sorry but again, balancing the playing field does not happen with the snap of society's fingers. You have to begin to give people opportunities and the ability to rise to the level where they have equitable representation among decision makers. In too many instances that has not just happened on it's own.