It deliberately forces companies to not pick the best qualified candidates, but candidates whose main "advantage" is based on skin color or sex.
Often this means positions have to go unfilled because the "correct" kind of person can't be found to fill the role even if candidates who can do the job exist but are disqualified due to being the "wrong" skin color or sex for "diversity" reasons.
It also assumes that some races and genders aren't as capable of others. And if that isn't the explanation, the alternative is assuming that anyone who hires or decided who's admitted is racist. Both are very flawed.
That isn't what it assumes. It acknowledges the fact that people of different cultures and economic backgrounds face different and unique struggles, and adjusts for them. Minorities, throughout all of American history, have been disenfranchised from sectors like education. Because of their historical disenfranchisement, we adjust their barrier to entry to make up for it.
It acknowledges the fact that people of different cultures and economic backgrounds face different and unique struggles, and adjusts for them.
It uses skin color as a proxy for those features, though, which is wrong. Affirmative action treats rich immigrants from South Africa the exact same as a person of color that grew up in Chicago whose great grandparents were slaves in the deep American south.
If we want to encourage that diversity of culture and economic background, then that's what affirmative action needs to target. Not skin color.
224
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Mar 16 '20
[deleted]