jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (05/31/85)
---- >> Some individuals think that just because >> they are so fortunate that somehow if you aren't then it's your >> fault. Why is it that if a woman or minority gets a promotion, >> it somehow is not based upon their qualifications. > >Maybe I am missing something, but I think your second to last sentence >completely contradicts the rest of your article. After all, you are >saying that the minorities need this help (discrimination in their >favor) because of past wrongs. Ok, that is one point of view. I don't >subscribe to it, but it is valid. But then you wonder why, if this >is going on, somehow people don't think minorities are being promoted >on the basis of their qualifications. Either they don't need the help >and should be in the pack with the rest of us, or they do need extra >help because they cannot otherwise compete. I don't think you can have >it both ways. And, obviously, I feel they are qualified to compete >and SHOULD. No, no. The point is that EVEN THOUGH these people are qualified, they get passed over for hiring or promotion. Affirmative Action does not mean that unqualified people will be hired. It means that the qualified people who were previously ignored will finally get a chance. The same point can be made to this remark: >Then why don't you leave the hiring of employees also to the market. >If I am running a business and competing in a free market economy, then >give me one good reason why I will not hire a person with the maximum >productivity level from the available pool of workers. There is no *good* reason but the fact remains that prejudice still exists and a lot of well-qualified people are passed over. The free market forces that some people feel will overcome prejudice haven't done so, yet. --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan