Quote:
|
Originally Posted by madsenj37
Best qualified to me means exactly that, no strings attached. I do not care what ethinicity, country of origin, gender or religion the best qualified comes from. I believe having schools and workplaces be selective based on population is a form of law based discrimination. Just because it is made legal, does not make it moral. With affirmative action, you are affirming that differences do exist. How can we live towards the goal of equality if we seperate people? "Discrimination will only end when we do away with laws that legalize it."
And just so orpheus knows, I am not a right winger. Also, I am a student of politics and economics. I got my B.A. at UC Santa Cruz. |
"Best Qualified" is subjective at best. If you are picking a quarterback for a football team what objective measure is used universally? None. A factor I may use, is going with someone I am "comfortable with". If you are picking a doctor what objective measurement is universally used? None. A factor I may use is sex. If you are picking a vice president to head your sales department, what objective measurement is universally used? None. A factor I may use is - the person is a family member. I think you get the point.
If my organization is privately owned, shouldn't I have the right to determine what "best qualified" means to me? You bet I should, if I own it. If the tax payers "own" government, shouldn't tax payers be able to determine what "best qualified" means for government projects/work/benefits. And if taxpayers say these projects/work/benefits be reflective of the comminity what is the problem? The real problem is not with affirmative action, the problem is with the government being involved in things it has no business being involved in. Privatization will end alot of these affirmative action debates in higher education.