Affirmative Action

I will proceed with my arguments against AA, and look forward to fun and challenging debate. The term, Affirmative Action, originated in the U. S. during the Kennedy administration. Its initial purpose was to promote equal opportunity, without regard to race, religion and national origin. It was first implemented by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and required federal contractors to take affirmative action in hiring, regardless of these, and women were added in 1968. I completely agree with equal opportunity for all Americans, which is precisely the reason I instigated this debate. There are several reasons why these policies defeat their own purpose, and furthermore, they are detrimental to employers, employees, minorities, and society as a whole. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. These policies absolutely discriminate based on race, in the hiring process, as well as in college admissions. They force quotas to be set in place, and businesses and schools MUST hire and admit a certain number of minorities, regardless of whether there are more suitable candidates. This is the very definition of discrimination, and has no place in America. Again, I would like to reiterate that I support EQUAL rights for ALL Americans. I quote the original Kennedy executive order:"not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin", "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". Clearly, this is not reflective of the current policies, which actually ensure discrimination based on race, as well as ensuring that some applicants will NOT be employed strictly because they are white. How could this happen? Apparently, California and Michigan had the same question, and banned AA in their states. My point here is that Affirmative Action is a self defeating proposition. 2. These policies are absolutely detrimental to businesses. Why should a company be forced to hire a less qualified candidate for a position within their organization? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so as an employer myself, I only hire the strongest candidate for a job, period. When companies are forced to hire less qualified employees, their workforce is diluted, so obviously the products or services that company offers are going to be negatively affected, lowering the value of the product and the company overall. Moreover, many governmental agencies are bound by AA laws. This is an unbelievable travesty, as these are the agencies responsible for our nation's stability! As my opponent, the readers, and hopefully our citizens are aware, our stability is in doubt already. 3. These ill conceived policies were meant to advance minorities, however, I believe they have the opposite effect. While it helps a less qualified individual obtain admittance into a school, or obtain a job, it hinders the advancement of that group as a whole. For instance, what possible good could come out of lowering the bar for members of a certain race? What parents would want their child to have a lower standard set for them? They reduce the incentives of both the minorities and the majority to perform at their best. The former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile. thereby resulting in a decline of standards for society as a whole. Affirmative Action is not only ineffective, but detrimental to minorities who have lifted themselves out of poverty through actual hard work and determination. Why would we attempt discredit this by creating an uneven playing field? . http://www.intellectualconservative.com... In reflection, it is not debatable whether these policies are racist. They clearly are, and I believe my argument that they are detrimental to our country is absolutely valid. I will end my round, and anxiously await very strong argument from m93samman. Thanks you for this forum, DDO. . http://www.answers.com...