Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
AA isn't supposed to be "hire on the basis of gender/race/etc." It's supposed to be, "among qualified candidates--choose one of a nonprivileged category."
When supermarkets hire stock clerks, they don't look for "the most qualified candidates." There are no "most qualified" candidates. There are qualified candidates, and utterly incompetent candidates, and otherwise qualified candidates who will steal from them. They don't want to hire group B or C candidates... but among the (often very large) pool of group A candidates, affirmative action says they should hire the ones who started out at a disadvantage.
This is important to establish as a rule, because without some kind of outside nudge, people like others who are like themselves. They like *similar* people. Employers will hire to match the race, gender, nationalit and cultural background of the current management without thinking about it, because they "felt more comfortable" with those candidates. Oppression sustains itself without any overt bigotry at all; Affirmative Action is an attempt to correct that.
|
Yeah yeah........I know what affirmative action is trying to correct. I was there for the beginning. Such pretty words.
Trouble is, in real life it doesn't work that way. The wrong people get hired many times because employers know if they don't hire them.......the dreaded "discrimination" card will be played.
I've never understood how people can't understand that you can't build a truly great society without going after the best and brightest......
regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or gender....and thats the truth!
So why wasn't that made law instead?