Hire a minority rather than a more skilled non minority?
Hire with a view toward hiring minority candidates rather than hiring the most qualified persons?
2007-08-20 08:03:56 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, I don't favor it, and I'm black.
But for this issue to be resolved we need compromise on both sides.
Black folks: Stop playing the race card whenever things don't go your way. Every negative doesn't equal racism.
White folks: Stop discriminating just because you see the name Lakisha, or Tyrone on a resume. A name doesn't define a person's intellect or persona.
We can both work together and ultimately get rid of something as divisive as affirmative action.
2007-08-20 08:08:03 · answer #1 · answered by Still Beautifully Conservative 5 · 11⤊ 1⤋
Affirmative action is pretty much over in most states since the 1980's. Don't confuse equal opportunity with affirmative action. It is not even close because no racial quota is required.
Don't assume because you weren't hired that your race has anything to do with it. Use one of those companies that verify references to find out what your past employers really said about you. If your employer actually says race was the reason you were hired, it is a reverse discrimination lawsuit. If you are minority, then you know to sue.This advice could apply no matter race you are, minority or majority.
By the way, most companies are encouraged to hire less qualified welfare or disabled applicants because of the HUGE tax breaks offered. It is not affirmative action but a welfare to word incentive. Different program but trying to get people of ANY race off public benefits...
2007-08-20 08:14:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In its day it was a good idea. It helped people get hired who were qualified but because of their race were not being hired. Most companies, today, don't consider race as there are enough people around to call them on it and other laws that make it illegal to descriminate based on one's race, gender, sexual orientation or other such reasons when the person would otherwise be considered qualified. So a renewal of Affirmative Action is not necessary. If, we find companies going back to the 50's than we would need to reinstate such laws to level the field and make equal job opportunities for everyone who is qualified for the position.
One should not be hired based strictly on racial quotas etc. either. If one is not qualified he is not qualified. No one gains and everyone loses.
2007-08-20 08:13:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Affirmative action relies on the basis that the low financial mobility of specific populations is a right away results of the historic repression of previous generations. the reason at the back of affirmative action became to help segments of the inhabitants who've been traditionally repressed to attain modern-day environments. that should, in turn, help those populations take excitement in economically cellular careers and thereby confirm that the subsequent technology does not be harassed by skill of the historic repression of the previous generations. hence, it does not persist with that those populations are by some skill innately inferior intellectually or by some skill much less inspired than maximum persons. whether it quite is "an insult" is a question that persons could desire to ask theirselves
2016-11-13 00:14:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Affirmative action stresses that a minority is hired over a white person so that no discrimination is involved in hiring practices. Makes sense to me...NOT!
2007-08-20 08:10:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't favor it. i believe affirmative action was needed to get the ball rolling in the right direction. Now it is time to take the lead and hire the most qualified as opposed to balancing out the numbers.. whoever the most qualified may be. Martin Luther King Jr. wouldn't have condoned affirmative action.. he believed men should be judged on their character, not on their color or creed. We should no longer condone it either.
2007-08-20 08:09:56 · answer #6 · answered by pip 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
If you disagree with something it's much easier to criticize it if you mischaracterize it. Republicans have done this with affirmative action for years, saying that it means hiring minorities regardless of qualifications, or that it means numerical quotas.
During the first President Bush's term, the Democratic Congress came up with an updated version of the Civil Rights bill. All it actually did was to allow minorities who felt they had been discriminated against to file a complaint, to seek legal recourse.
Republicans in Congress, and President Bush, called it 'The Quota Bill' and said that ANY legislation against discrimination in the workplace or in schools would necessarily lead to quotas. This was even though the bill actually included language making quotas illegal.
Senator John Danforth of Missouri (Republican) sought to modify the bill to make it more acceptable to Republicans. Danforth had helped write the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the law that made it illegal to discriminate against disabled people. He put the EXACT SAME language in the Civil Rights bill. GHW Bush vetoed it, saying it would cause quotas. Has anyone ever complained that the ADA causes quotas?
Inside sources suggested that Bush wanted to use 'quotas' in his re-election campaign, and also to run against Congress. Almost every president runs against Congress. Even Congressmen run against Congress! 8^)
It was only after the riots in East LA following the acquittal of the police officers who beat up Rodney King that Bush decided he better sign the bill.
2007-08-20 08:23:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I favor hiring the most qualified applicant without regard to sex or origin
2007-08-20 08:11:38 · answer #8 · answered by Mike 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Affirmative Action is government is a well-intentioned idea gone bad. This is discrimination no matter how you cut it.
The most qualified individual person should get the job.
2007-08-20 08:12:58 · answer #9 · answered by Echo 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
When it was introduced, AA was necessary. Ethnic 'minorities' and anyone other than 'white' was discriminated against in the workplace. Ugly fact, but true nonetheless. AA is responsible for all the successes we see today in the black community.
Having said that, AA is no longer necessary...and it is not a good practice. It is unfair, and promotes weakness in a workforce.
2007-08-20 08:13:53 · answer #10 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋