So: Do you honestly believe that they honestly believed that even a majority of blacks in the US would have advanced from where they were into the middle class within, say, 10 years, which was about when they started pushing affirmative action?
If they did believe that, they were bigger fools than anyone even began to imagine at the time.
And if they did not, then what they did was fraudulent.
But regardless of what the situation was, it was used as an excuse to continue discrimination- -just against different people now.
<>So, when parity wasn't achieved with the original affirmative action, more measures were added, and then more.
BACK UP! There's the flaw! That's the justification for quotas and when they get declared illegal, other things that are intended to have the same result.
Isn't the idea here that if a minority person has better qualifications than a Caucasian, the minority gets chosen? Not hat because that minority is X% of the population, you must insure that X% of your sample is that minority?
Since when are Chinese and Japanese not minorities? Since when are they Caucasians? Given that neither of those are true, how do you justify discriminating AGAINST them and in favor of blacks and Hispanics with lower achievement?
Like, who can argue with equal access, for heaven's sake.
Is that equal access based on race? Or equal access based on ability and achievement? I have no problem arguing against the first. |
