Bruce Bostwick wrote: >> It is not offensive to me is because it would >> address the inequity in proportionate representation >> between white men and minority women in government... >> Jon > > If they're qualified for the job (which I fully believe many are, > possibly much more than they're commonly given credit for), then go by > the qualifications themselves. Same with anyone else who is qualified > for the job. The inequity does exist, for most minorities, > particularly for female applicants, and I don't intend to deny that. > But it's just as racist to hand-pick one applicant for their gender/ > religion/ethnicity and *then* evaluate them for qualifications as it > is to use any other gender/religion/ethnicity as a desired starting > point. The inequity exists because of exactly that sort of prejudiced > preselection in the process, to a large extent. > > (To a smaller extent, it's dependent on inequities in the higher > education system that make it somewhat more difficult to become > "qualified" for the job, in the sense of obtaining degrees, etc., but > that is a rapidly declining factor these days. To the extent that > access to education is a factor, *that* is probably the best place to > make adjustments as far as those inequities go, rather than adjusting > the requirements for the jobs themselves to meet quotas.)
I think Affirmative action is racist and wrong. However I see nothing wrong in giving lower income people a leg up especially when it comes to education. This would benefit minorities disproportionally but it wouldn't be an attempt to correct racism with a racist solution. Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
