Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp
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.
|
The difference is in making sure the disadvantaged group get the opportunities that they should get, even if it means giving chances when they may nore may not be entirely ready versus giving opportunities only to that group....or giving disproportionate opportunities. It should be about making things equal and fair, not shutting out (or nearly shutting shutting out) a group because there predecessors were unfair. Doing things that way will never work. They will not bring people together. It only provides more ammunition to split them apart.