Well, it's simple, for every minority or woman that gets a job when he/she is unqualified, that leaves a more qualified person, well...screwed. I didn't backtrack, I still think that it might not be so much with race. Do you also know that more minorities are on welfare than other races, maybe that is the problem, maybe if we bet rid of that more people will work. I'm not trying to be racist, I'm part African American myself, but that could be the problem.

CP

Which welfare is that? AFDC ended in 1996. Food Stamps keep getting cut. The vast majority of welfare recipients were on AFDC for a period of less than two years. There are systemic problems in this country. Cutting off aid in toto to the poor will not solve the problem. I don't know if you've known people on welfare, CP, but I've never yet met or heard of a "welfare queen." Whether on Welfare or not, poor people in this country have to work damn hard to get by. With capitalism, you won't achieve 0% unemployment. Most economists willl say you wouldn't want that. There's more to the issue than just "getting a job." If 4% of the workforce is unemployed, what do you propose they do? That's over a million people.

There are not jobs for every person who wants to work.

There are not affordable quarters for everyone who wants a place to live.



Please, show me a source justifying the notion that Affirmative Action is generally about the issue of unqualified people being chosen over qualified people. Does it happen? Probably. People haven't created a system yet that wasn't abused by the unscrupuous few. Does it happen as often as the reverse, that is, more qualified women and minorities getting passed over for less qualified white men? Somehow I doubt it.

The U of Michigan is allowing people who are minorities to get in easier than whites, they give more acceptance points for being a minority than writing an outstanding essay. If a minority can prove that they are being descriminated against then they can sue, its that simple.

CP

Your statement in no way shows that as a rule, minority applicants who are accepted at the University of Michigan are less qualified than white males who do not get in. I'm not going to argue that Affirmative Action is perfect. I just fail to see ample proof that getting rid of it will solve racial and sexual inequality, which is far and away suffered more often by women and minorities.

There is a law suit going on in which a more qualified white applicant was passed over by a less qualified minority, it has been all over the news, this is just one example.

CP

No Conservpat, the problem is you have a tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on little more than your own personal beliefs and anecdotal examples.

The vast majority of recipients are not minorities. The face of the person on welfare is that of a white woman.

The number of African Americans receiving assistance in an average month (11.6 million) was only half the number of whites (22.9 million) in 1993. However, percentages of blacks (36%) and Hispanics (29%) who participated in such programs were higher than for whites (11%).

The majority (55%) of mothers who received AFDC were white; about 39% were black and 21% were Hispanic. For Food Stamps, white, black, and Hispanic mothers each comprised about one third of recipients. Among black mothers of childbearing ages, about 33%, or 1.9 million, were Food Stamp recipients, and about 25% (1.5 million) were AFDC recipients. In contrast, 11%, or 3.2 million white mothers were food stamp recipients, and 7 percent or 2.1 million received AFDC. Twenty-five percent (or 1.1 million) of Hispanic mothers ages 15 to 44 received Food Stamps and 20% were on AFDC in 1993.

Source: http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/factsheet/welfpart.htm

The fact that you are--in your words--"part African American myself---is not insulation from wallowing in the worst examples of racist stereotypes. You're perpetuating the myth of the black Welfare Queen and that's your business. There's one problem with this though: IT'S--NOT-TRUE!

Provide proof, not your opinion that "every minority or woman that gets a job when he/she is unqualifed...leaves a more qualified person, well...screwed." Well, if you leave out minorities and women, who does that leave? White Guys?

Show me where "unqualified" women and minorities are pushing White Guys out of jobs. Do you have an equal problem with unqualified White Guys holding onto jobs they can't do, won't do or stopping doing?

White men still run the vast majority of corporations, control the economic systems of the world, make the most money and bang more hookers. There's no reason to fear that White Guys are at any risk of relinquishing their position in the food chain anytime soon.

Or is it that even questioning the positioning of the food chain what has White Guy so bent?

Look, I'm aware of the case. But that's not my point. I've already agreed that systems get abused. What I haven't seen is proof that this is widespread as rule in Affirmative Action programs. You seem to assume this is the rule, not the exception. But you offer nothing to substantiate that notion.

Some corporations abuse their corporate charters, but exceptions and abuses do not automatically negate or indict entire systems.

I believe your thinking on this matter is part of the trap of ideology. I know I've fallen into it many a time. Isolated abuses of systems which you are in support of are anomolies; Isolated abuses of systems you do NOT support are an indication that the system is flawed. Oh well...

I made no distinction of whether these people are black or hispanic or anything, a minotity is a white woman, and I took that into account. I think anyone who is receiving assistance shouldn't be, whether you white, black, pink or purple, you should work for what you get. And again, I did not say that all of these AA cases involved less qualified minorities, I am not saying that at all. I am all for equal opportunity, but giving people something, while making another group work for it is ridiculous.

CP

I assume you are similarly opposed to corporate welfare, farm subsidies, foreign aid and government waste and fraud.

No because they don't really have anything to do with race.

CP

I think you've missed nighttimer's point. You had said this:



The systems he described do that, to a certain extent. All sorts of people are given things without having to work for them, whilst other people have to work to get the very same things. The idea that we must earn everything we receive is antithetical to the totality of human nature.

Affirmative Action is a hot button issue these days. Many people who argue against AA programs use arguments like the one you are presenting; yet they do not believe in that argument across the board, just for the issue at hand.

As an example, earlier in this thread I posted a quote by GHW Bush. He was justifying Zionism using the argument that long years of discrimination and persecution are reason enough to say that Zionism is not "racist" at all. When it comes to Affirmative Action, this same argument gets discredited. Ask yourself, why is that?

Zionism is basically accepted by both major parties due to the fact that Jewish voters are more influential than Arab-American ones. AA will end either if and when the courts decide the 14th Amendment means what it says, or when the Democrats decide that AA is costing them more votes than it is gaining them.

Support of Zionism in Isreal does not violate the 14th.

Thanks for grasping my point, Quarkhead. Conservatives seem to get their undies in a bunch at the notion that a child might get a reduced price lunch at school or a homeless family provided with subsidized housing. That bugs them.

But giving millions of dollars away in corporate welfare---now that's just fine! Conservatives seem to have an innate love for whatever benefits the bottom line and a revulsion for investing in the betterment of the lives of human beings. Even fellow American citizens whom through no fault of their own, may need a helping hand.

Such selfishness is one of the less endearing traits of the modern conservative.

As regards affirmative action, I always find it sad when people say the past has nothing to do with the present. If you don't know where you've been, how can you tell where you're going?

Racism---formal instituionalized racism---was "affirmative action" for the benefit of white people. The policies and programs implemented within the last 30-35 years are an attempt to recognize and redress those injustices and forced inequalities of the past.

Much to the regret and resentment of some.

I don't think that is an accurate statement. There's a difference between giving a handout to someone who is needy versus giving someone a handout because of the color of their skin. And I thought that was the topic.

The Michigan school, for example, gave 20 points to someone because they were black - not because they were poor. So, your comment is pure spin.


That all depends. We need these corporations to invest money, so the more they have to invest, the more jobs that get created. I know this premise is sickening to liberals, but tell me how many people you know that work for a poor person.

Please explain to me how AA will stop job based racism, that is the only answer that I want, by the way, not all conservatives are like me, that would be a generalization.

CP

When white-backlash overcomes white-guilt affirmative action will end. Not saying thats good or bad.

According to NPR this morning, the US administration in Iraq is planning to build a new Iraqi "corps" (they don't want to call it an army) using a quota system to make sure Kurds and Shi'ites are adequately represented. I find it somewhat amusing that the enemies of affirmative action at home support not just preferences but actual numeric quotas for Iraq.

Affirmative action will end when it stops serving the Powers That Be as a convenient lightning rod to divert attention from more pressing issues of equality.

I heard that piece on NPR this morning as well and thought that it was an amusing twist. But of course we are not bound by our laws in dealing with the Iraqi people.

Affirmative Action should not end but we need to remove the reverse racism elements. It should be a tool to make sure that areas that are discriminating are brought into the 21st century.

Come on. The proportioning of an Iraqi "corps" or whatever you want to call it makes sense and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with AA.

The idea behind it is not repairing damage from years of segregation or discrimination, it is simple safety and allowing these different groups to build upon a common goal.

That is a bogus attempt at an argument.

What's next? Will you argue that anti-AA people cannot be for a balance diet? Isn't that a quota system in your diet.

Let's see...

repairing damage from years of segregation or discrimination... check

simple safety (as in a sort of net)... check

allowing these different groups to build upon a common goal... check

Well said, amlord. Glad to see you're "getting" it! Nice to have you on our side!

That, my friend, is a bogus attempt at an argument. A quota system for Iraq is based on the same "we can't afford to be color-blind" philosophical foundation as AA; a balanced diet is not. Can you say "false analogy"?

Not everyone who is currently against affirmative action believes it was never a necessity. The climate in Iraq between the religious classes today would be the equivalent of racial relations in 1950 America (at best). Considering the 1990s genocide against Kurds, it might pre date the Civil war. It has been a long time since Americans of any ethnicity have faced that level of oppression.

Can you say facetious?

Let's try and make our posts constructive to the debate.

Debate question:

Affirmative action has served its purpose, minorities need to and I think are able to, by themselve become successful, how long does the gov't need to help, unessessarily? The gov't is getting bigger when it doesn't need to be.

CP

One of the reasons the government is growing is Bush's Homeland Security initiatives (and the unfunded
mandates that are being passed on to states and cities).

But to the point, how is it determined that the affirmative action is "unnecessary?"

Poverty rates remain high for black and Latino children, as do the rates of unemployment. When people of color see those numbers on the declining instead of rising, perhaps your point will be proven true. I can provide data to back that this is the case.

Affirmative action has now been flipped on its head and The Supreme Court under Rehnquist now primarily concerns itself with "reverse-discrimination" cases such as the University of Michigan where the Bush II Administration argues that whites are the victims of a quota system.

Affirmative action programs work, but they come at a cost---for both sides.

If discrimination isn't the reason for the growing rates of poverty among minorities, is AA still necessary? My neighborhood is very nice (I always talk about my great neighborhood because I've live in so many dives in the past), and very integrated. It looks nothing like the neighborhood I grew up in, about twice as affluent, but is simultaneously much more integrated. Maybe the growing poverty in indigent areas has little to do with race?
If the poverty rate of minorities is actually increasing while measures to avoid discrimination are in place, perhaps the measures are either ineffective or counterproductive.

Affirmative action has been around for what, 45 years, and if people think we still need it, that proves it isn't working. Almost 45 years and we haven't "achieved equality"?

CP

Let's go back to the U of Michigan. They have a 150 point evaluation scale. The issue was that minorities get 20 points for their minority status. What do whites get? Are there any points that, even if they don't say they are for whites, are effectively for them anyway? Let's look. (thanks to Tim Wise)

It really doesn't matter who is the recipient of unfair college admission points, it's the principal of giving people things they haven't earned. If one person is more qualified than another, he/she should get whatever job or admission he/she is applying for.

CP

the institution of slavery as it existed in the United States from the early 17th century until 1865. Slavery played a central role in the history of the United States. It existed in all the English mainland colonies and came to dominate agricultural production in the states from Maryland south. Eight of the first 12 presidents of the United States were slaveowners. Debate over slavery increasingly dominated American politics, leading eventually to the American Civil War (1861-1865), which finally brought slavery to an end. After emancipation, overcoming slavery's legacy remained a crucial issue in American history, from Reconstruction following the war to the civil rights movement a century later.

In the Americas, however, slavery emerged as a system of forced labor designed for the production of staple crops. Depending on location, these crops included sugar, tobacco, coffee, and cotton; in the southern United States, by far the most important staples were tobacco and cotton. A stark racial component distinguished this modern Western slavery from the slavery that existed in many other times and places: the vast majority of slaves were black Africans and their descendants, while the vast majority of masters were white Europeans and their descendants.

"Slavery in the United States," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Affirmative Action, policies used in the United States to increase opportunities for minorities by favoring them in hiring and promotion, college admissions, and the awarding of government contracts. Depending upon the situation, "minorities" might include any underrepresented group, especially one defined by race, ethnicity, or gender. Generally, affirmative action has been undertaken by governments, businesses, or educational institutions to remedy the effects of past discrimination against a group, whether by a specific entity, such as a corporation, or by society as a whole.

Until the mid-1960s, legal barriers prevented blacks and other racial minorities in the United States from entering many jobs and educational institutions. While women were rarely legally barred from jobs or education, many universities would not admit them and many employers would not hire them. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and employment. A section of the act known as Title VII, which specifically banned discrimination in employment, laid the groundwork for the subsequent development of affirmative action. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance became important enforcement agencies for affirmative action.

The term affirmative action was first used by President John F. Kennedy in a 1961 executive order. This order declared that federal contractors should "take affirmative action" to ensure that job applicants and employees "are treated... without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." While the original goal of the civil rights movement had been "color-blind" laws, simply ending a long-standing policy of discrimination did not go far enough for many people. As President Lyndon B. Johnson explained in a 1965 speech, "You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and ... bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."

President Richard Nixon was the first to implement federal policies designed to guarantee minority hiring. Responding to continuing racial inequalities in the workforce, in 1969 the Nixon Administration developed the Philadelphia Plan, requiring that contractors on federally assisted projects set specific goals for hiring minorities. Federal courts upheld this plan in 1970 and 1971.

"Affirmative Action," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

It boggles my mind that anyone can seriously argue that the need for affirmative action has ended after 40 plus years of moving in fits and starts as if that can overcome over 200 years of codified white supremacy and legalized racism. The systemic problem of America's uniquely vicious participation in the evil of slavery created a racial schism that has yet to be closed.

No, 45 years is not enough. The inpatient and intolerance of those opposed to affirmative action coupled with their complete lack of a better alternative calls into question their true commitment to the creation of a truly color-blind society.

I've seen examples ad nauseaum of the impatient and intolerance, but for a change it would be nice to see some viable and realistic alternatives to affirmative action. Merely saying, "Oh well, it hasn't worked so we don't need it anymore" doesn't cut it. Neither does the fantasy of proclaiming the playing field is level and systemic institutional racism no longer exists. I could care less about the bigotry of an individual, but when that individual still is in positions of power, authority and influence that does concern me.

If those whom are opposed to affirmative action are impatient, what makes you think those whom it was supposed to benefit are any less so?


Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.

---Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks, 1965

Well nighttimer, I have consistently called for a full-blown effort to fight racial inequality by fixing the piblic school system in the elementary grades first. This is the only real way to level the playing field, but it will take time.

Give-aways at the college and workforce level only serve to further the inequities. And that is the goal of many who supposedly support minority rights.

I think that your remarks would be more accurate if you said them of capitalists rather than conservatives.
I consider myself moderate to conservative and have no issues with helping the less fortunate of any color get access to the education needed to get ahead, and needed subsidies while they are getting the education, or training. Still, the majority of the effort required to get ahead in life is up to the individual.
I have seen government programs in post High School training and in subsidized housing that were supposedly for the benefit of the poor. Trade/technical schools collected government guaranteed student loans on behalf of the students, then folded leaving the student with no training and a debt owed to their wonderful government. Construction companies built shoddy houses and tenements and then went out of business before they could be held accountable for their actions.
As long as someone can make money from 'helping' the poor or minorities, the program will continue.
And you can bet that federal grants to Universities are partly based on their admissions practices.
So, AA will be around a bit longer....

Nightimer, don't you think that people have grown and gotten a clue since the 1800's? Come on, 95% of the country is probably understands the fact that African Americans are just as capable as anyone else. So, should we descriminate against other people, just for the small minority of racists in the country? Doesn't sound fair to me.

CP

...and there you have arrived at the heart of the matter, Conservpat.

Fairness. What's fair?

Is affirmative action unfair? Yes, it is in certain cases. Quotas are unfair. Getting a job based on a social program rather than individual merit is unfair. I am quite certain that many people are legitimately opposed to affirmative action based on it being a program of preference and that strikes them as unjust
and unfair.

I ask again though---what's the better alternative? Too often I hear the condemnation of affirmative action and civil rights initiatives, but what I don't seem to get are reasoned and rational alternatives.

Slavery was unfair. Jim Crow and segregation was unfair. But discrimination still exists in the workplace, on college campuses and in private industry. Merely wishing it would go away won't make it so.

Passion51: As a parent with two children in inner-city schools, I couldn't agree with you more that the best way to fix the problem of racial inequity is through the education system. I don't think president Bush is being realistic if he believes standardized testing is going to improve the lot of black and brown schoolchildren. There needs to be much more involvement by politicians, parents, children and educators to get the job done.

Bill55AZ: I despise fraud and waste in any government program and you are correct that affirmative action programs have been rife with both. And yes, I also believe that it is up to the individual to make something of themselves rather than wait for someone to create a governmental program to give it to them for nothing. Still, there are always those who need a helping hand and there is no doubt that the creation of a black and Latino middle class has been aided by affirmative action and civil rights programs.

Basically what I said. Didn't say wait til a program comes along. But to be more clear, no amount of programs will help those who don't make an effort to take advantage of the help offered, and to do the work involved.
I have worked with middle class minorities in the military and in my civilian job, and a common complaint among them is that so few of their people will take advantage of the help being offered. Another is the name calling done against those who do use the programs to get ahead, names like 'oreo' and 'uncle tom'. You have to admire those who go up against their culture to get ahead. I know a few native americans who get flack from their family to give up their jobs and move back to the reservation. Clinging to the more outdated aspects of culture is a handicap.
And while there may be a politician or two who really wants to see all of us get a better education, that won't be enough to get it done.

Show me a slave now. Show me somone who finds it impossible to get over something that happend 150 years ago without someone elses help. How can we determine if AA has served its purpose? The same way we figured out why we should establish it, inequality. Get rid of it, and everyone gets chosen based on inteligence and skill, just like it should be.

CP

Let's not pretend that Affirmative Action was put in place to recompense individuals for the fact that their ancestors were enslaved.

Affirmative Action had its legitimate time and place. Through the 1950s and 1960s there was no such thing as equal opportuinty for blacks in society. To recognize this, I think it was fair to try to create an immediate remedy of the situation by levelling the playing field for individuals who had been directly limited in their educational and professional opportunity by systematic racism that permeated this nation. It was a good plan.

Its time has passed because new entries to the educational and professional fields have legal equality. We have established a reasonably consistent practice of providing this legal access for over a generation. It is time to replace affirmative action with class based systems that assure that our most talented people have access to the best education. That will help our society thrive and grow.

I am ready for AA to be replaced, but I still believe in a level playing field of opportunity for individuals with widely varying natural abilities.

Four Supreme Court justices agree with you. Five Supreme Court justices do not.

Narrow use of affirmative action preserved in college admissions

I wonder if those judges have even read the 14th amendment?

Can't seem to find the part about "compelling interest of the state"(??) being able to override the Constitution.

The decision on the law school is almost laughable. So, if the discrimination exists, but there is no set "value" then it's ok? So some arbitrary number is used and not disclosed publicly. That makes it ok?

Wow.

I'm starting to think that Affirmative Action is downright demeaning.

It's giving preferential treatment for access to basically, jobs that aren't that important.

when I get on an airplane and the pilot is a woman, black, whatever, I feel just as safe as any white guy flying the plane.

If I go to the hospital and a black doctor is checking me or one of my family out, I know I'm getting the best care our system has to offer.

They are there because they are very smart and very good at what they do. Not because they got extra points on their tests.

Clarence Thomas of the Supreme court, quoted Frederick Douglas in his opinion on the recent AA ruling. It took me a while, but I found the speech it came from. entitled: What the Black Man Wants. The speech was given shortly before the end of the civil war, and before Abe was assassinated.

The quote Clarence gave, was the following: (He paraphrased, I did not)



Source: http://www.frederickdouglass.org/speeches/...ndex.html#wants

Positive injury is a good way of putting it. AA is positive injury.

--cheers

But Frederick Douglass' vision was not realized. Nothing was not done to the black people. Instead there were black codes, followed by Jim Crow laws, de facto segregation, de jure segregation, discrimination, inferior education and housing options etc.

As I asserted earlier let us not pretend that Affirmative Action was a program to apologize to people whose ancestors had been violated. Sometimes justice needs to be speedy.

A person who was born in the 1940s who was black almost always faced limitations on opportunities because of prejudicial and discriminatory behavior that directly affected that living individual.

Affirmative Actions had its place at its inception to redress wrongs done to individuals whose 14th amendment rights were violated.

Before 1964 you could deny a person a job based on the color of their skin. Flagship univeristies of states were still trying to keep their student body segregated.

However, I believe that this program that served its time and place needs to be removed and replaced with a better system of providing a level playing field of opportunity for individuals of widely varying natural abilities. In this way society will benefit by having the most talented and capable people finding there way into the most important positions.

This is not a program that never had its place, but we have reengineered our society to weed out legal segregation. I agree, let's move on to something better, but let's stop pretending that AA is a slavery reparations payment. It was to redress evils done to the individuals who were harmed by public and private discrimination.

Well in that case, AA must be good, and I'm wrong. Of course the Supreme Court will uphold it, if they didn't do you know how many groups and organizations would be on their back? They had no choice and I wasn't expecting AA to be abolished. But just cause it was upheld it still doesn't make AA any better.

CP

An injury to whom? Not for those that receive an education, I would think.

Douglass said a lot of things. He didn't say much about affirmative action (regardless of how Clarence Thomas would like to spin it) but if you change the subject here from universal suffrage to affirmative action the principle would remain the same. At least that's how I spin it.

It may be asked, "Why do you want it? Some men have got along very well without it. Women have not this right." Shall we justify one wrong by another? This is the sufficient answer. Shall we at this moment justify the deprivation of the Negro of the right to vote, because some one else is deprived of that privilege? I hold that women, as well as men, have the right to vote [applause], and my heart and voice go with the movement to extend suffrage to woman; but that question rests upon another basis than which our right rests. We may be asked, I say, why we want it. I will tell you why we want it. We want it because it is our right, first of all. No class of men can, without insulting their own nature, be content with any deprivation of their rights. We want it again, as a means for educating our race. Men are so constituted that they derive their conviction of their own possibilities largely by the estimate formed of them by others. If nothing is expected of a people, that people will find it difficult to contradict that expectation. By depriving us of suffrage, you affirm our incapacity to form an intelligent judgment respecting public men and public measures; you declare before the world that we are unfit to exercise the elective franchise, and by this means lead us to undervalue ourselves, to put a low estimate upon ourselves, and to feel that we have no possibilities like other men.

Dr. Martin Luther King wasn't talking about affirmative action either during The March On Washington, but specific relief for specific injury was on his mind when he said:

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

http://web66.coled.umn.edu/new/MLK/MLK.html


Only 25 years to go until "this promissory note" is paid in full?

Both Douglass and King wanted JUSTICE, not hand outs.

AA is a hand-out, a crutch. An unnecessary one. One that keeps (some) blacks from being able to say to themselves "I did this on my own, with no help from others. I succeeded."

AA has no place in a color blind society.

Are we a color blind society Amlord?

We should be. AA is only an obstacle to being color-blind because it FORCES people to consider race in the equation.

If I, as a businessman, choose not to hire top-qualified minorities, who gets hurt?

Ultimately, it is me. Sure, in the short term that minority may not get MY job, but eventually any competent (especially highly qualified) person will get a job with someone without such prejudices.

Now the prejudiced employer needs to pay the white guy he hires more (assuming that minorities make less at the same job) for less results. In other words, it is a losing proposition to the intelligent businessman.

The same argument can be made for salaries of minorities (or any other group). If I, as a businessman, choose to underpay minorities, then eventually they will leave to work for employers who will pay them more.

I want to be able to hire the BEST qualified applicants, not worry that if I, personally, cannot find the right quota of "under-represented minorities" that I will face the wrath of government intervention or (God forbid) a lawsuit by a rejected candidate.

In the free market, the highest qualified individuals will excel, regardless of race or any other (non-qualifying) factor. Those that choose to NOT employ the best are hurt by their own actions. On the other hand, those that are FORCED to employ less-qualified individuals are hurt by the actions of the quota system.



All forms of AA are quota systems, since they aim at acheiving some numerical balance.

You're not helping anyone by giving them a handout. So, yes, the positive injury is applied to those on the receiving end of a handout



Clarence was not trying to spin Doug's words. As Amlord said, Doug and King wanted justice, not handouts. That speech makes it clear that Doug didn't want anyone to do anything with the black people of the time.

Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.

Don't you think AA could fit into that category? I do



I know. But it should have been.

--cheers

If a minority group consistently loses the best jobs because they are minorities it is that minority group that gets hurt.

In a society that frowns upon the principle of equality the person that hires the highly qualified minority might be able to provide better services but faces a decline in business for it.

In the 1950s and 1960s in Alabama I imagine many business owners who were open minded about race matters had to take this into consideration when hiring.

AA was created in a society with widespread racism and widespread belief in the inequality for blacks. Something had to be more than legal equality to remedy this situation. Affirmative Action was not simply a spontaneous and insane eruption of reverse racism. It was a remedy to a widespread problem in this country that made the 14th Amendment irrelevant for blacks for a century.

If you as a business owner choose to not hire someone because of their skin color you are doing an injustice to society and you deserve to be punished accordingly.