Dear Editor,
The purpose of affirmative action in the United States was to create government programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. There is no question that past societal discrimination occurred in the United States and perhaps the only appropriate remedy {at the time} was affirmative action.However, I believe this policy has outlived its purpose. Anywhere you look in the United States, minorities are well represented. Besides, there is a limit to punishing people for the sins of their forefathers. It is unfairto award preference based on race when all other qualifications are equal.This not only undermines the means to determine the best candidates but also serves to de-legitimize the accomplishments of someone who was given preference based on race. Those opposed to affirmative action look to section one of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.I believe the minorities of this country have been given enough time toallow for the "cream to rise to the top" and now must take their equalposition along side of the majority. The time is long overdue to stoprewarding underachieving individuals because of their race and startrewarding overachieving individuals because of their accomplishments. To do otherwise, would mean denying the very principles set forth in theFourteenth Amendment.Joe Bialek
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
When you say "Anywhere you look, in the United States, minorities are 'well represented'".
-What about NFL Head Coaches?
-What about MLB Managers?
-What about the United States Senate?
I could go on and on and on, but I don't have that much time.
You state "Besides, there is a limit to punishing people for the sins of 'their' forefathers".
-Just who is it that Affirmative Action " punished"?
People with dark skin were punished for 250 years, on this soul. Then, after they were free, they were still punished, in certain areas, for another 100 years. To this day, they still don't enjoy the equality that our Constitution affords them.
In one part of your letter you state "It is unfair to award preferences based on race, when all other qualifications are equal". Then later, you stated "The time is long overdue to stop rewarding underachieving individuals because of their race, and start rewarding overachieving individuals for their accomplishments".
-That can only be taken that you believe all minorities as underachievers, based on the premise of the rest of your letter. Your whole argument here is that minorities should be put behind whites. You just use the lipstick words that some, in this country, put on pigs.
Answer this, please:
When two white student applicants are equal in all qualifications, but there's only one spot for them, does one of them get that spot? Or is it considered a quagmire? My point is, that one of them will certainly be picked. When it's one student with dark skin, and one with white, in that same situation, there's isn't any difference, because both students have skin. Affirmative Action didn't require that that situation always required the dark skin student to be picked. It simply said that the darker skinned student shall be picked a fair amount of the time.
You state "I believe that the minorities of this country have been given enough time for the 'cream to rise to the top' and now must take their equal position along side of the majority". Well, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION was built to allow minorities to take their equal position, along side the majorities. Now it's gone! Now schools don't have any responsibility to accept any minorities. Employers don't have any responsibility to interview any minorities. You got what you really wanted. How long before you take the lipstick off of the pig, and put it on your fake elephant?
Applicant regardless of color should be required to meet the requirements before they are hired. It's just as discrimatory to hire someone just based on the color of their skin. Some call it "reverse discrimination " but it's still discrimination either way.
Companies weren't hiring unqualified black people -- I notice you left that qualification out when compared to "qualified white people" -- over white people. Stating as fact that AA hires were being let go for not living up to expectations says a lot.
AA gave whiny white people someone to blame and something to cry over when"being white" wasn't qualification enough.
Don't turn it into something that it's not. Whatever agenda you are on, don't twist my comments into fitting your agenda. Take your fake crusade somewhere else, clown...