"Nothing about affirmative action requires employers to hire or promote unqualified candidates. What is required is that employers take affirmative steps to ensure that their pool of candidates is as inclusive as possible, that everyone who potentially meets job standards learns about the opportunity and has a chance to apply for it, and that everyone who meets the standards is considered fairly." --THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEBATE by George E. Curry and Cornel West
Is this--by itself--affirmative action? I don't view it as such; I see it as outreach, and I fully support outreach efforts. Affirmative action would be taking two equally-qualified candidates and choosing the woman or the minority instead of rolling the dice or looking for some other distinction. At the more extreme end, affirmative action involves the establishment of quotas or the addition of "points" on the basis of race/gender/another protected class.
To give an example from the area I'm most familiar with, admissions--Stephen Carter related an incident from his applications to law schools. One law school mistakenly thought he was white and issued him a rejection letter; later it discovered its mistake and retracted the rejection, instead offering him acceptance. (He declined and went elsewhere, but that is beside the point.)
From Focus on Affirmative Action: "The University of Michigan's point system has been criticized for granting 20 points to students from underrepresented racial minority groups. In fact, it turns out that there were all kinds of points awarded under the University of Michigan system that would have been nearly impossible for students of color to get. For instance, 10 points were awarded to students at elite high schools, very few of which include students of color. Eight points were awarded to students with AP-laden course loads, courses that are often impossible to take at most of the schools attended by students of color, which rarely have a full complement of such classes. Six points were allocated for students from "underrepresented counties" in rural Michigan -- counties that are largely white. And, 4 points were given to students whose parents attended the University of Michigan -- the vast majority of whom are white."
It is true that many of these point favor white people. But it is not "nearly impossible" for a black student to take a heavy-AP course load, or attend an elite school; it is merely less likely. And what of the middle-/upper-class black student who does very well in a private school, with high test scores? Why should this student get 20 extra points just for being black? It is fundamentally unethical to discriminate on the basis of race or gender, particularly when the effects of those attributes do not apply across the board. Context is important and "severe obstacles" ought to be accounted for--but a wealthy black/Latin@ student has not necessarily experienced "equivalent" hardship to a poor white/Asian student, as much as it's possible to equalize such things (you can't, but the point system forces you to).
Also, the socioeconomic AA argument is not restricted to conservatives who don't particularly care about "the plight of the working poor"; I consider myself socialist more than anything, and I was arguing class-based AA before I knew what socioeconomics meant.
no subject
--THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEBATE by George E. Curry and Cornel West
Is this--by itself--affirmative action? I don't view it as such; I see it as outreach, and I fully support outreach efforts. Affirmative action would be taking two equally-qualified candidates and choosing the woman or the minority instead of rolling the dice or looking for some other distinction. At the more extreme end, affirmative action involves the establishment of quotas or the addition of "points" on the basis of race/gender/another protected class.
To give an example from the area I'm most familiar with, admissions--Stephen Carter related an incident from his applications to law schools. One law school mistakenly thought he was white and issued him a rejection letter; later it discovered its mistake and retracted the rejection, instead offering him acceptance. (He declined and went elsewhere, but that is beside the point.)
From Focus on Affirmative Action:
"The University of Michigan's point system has been criticized for granting 20 points to students from underrepresented racial minority groups. In fact, it turns out that there were all kinds of points awarded under the University of Michigan system that would have been nearly impossible for students of color to get. For instance, 10 points were awarded to students at elite high schools, very few of which include students of color. Eight points were awarded to students with AP-laden course loads, courses that are often impossible to take at most of the schools attended by students of color, which rarely have a full complement of such classes. Six points were allocated for students from "underrepresented counties" in rural Michigan -- counties that are largely white. And, 4 points were given to students whose parents attended the University of Michigan -- the vast majority of whom are white."
It is true that many of these point favor white people. But it is not "nearly impossible" for a black student to take a heavy-AP course load, or attend an elite school; it is merely less likely. And what of the middle-/upper-class black student who does very well in a private school, with high test scores? Why should this student get 20 extra points just for being black? It is fundamentally unethical to discriminate on the basis of race or gender, particularly when the effects of those attributes do not apply across the board. Context is important and "severe obstacles" ought to be accounted for--but a wealthy black/Latin@ student has not necessarily experienced "equivalent" hardship to a poor white/Asian student, as much as it's possible to equalize such things (you can't, but the point system forces you to).
Also, the socioeconomic AA argument is not restricted to conservatives who don't particularly care about "the plight of the working poor"; I consider myself socialist more than anything, and I was arguing class-based AA before I knew what socioeconomics meant.