On Oct 22, 2008, at 2:49 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: >> Choosing someone for a public office >> based on their gender/religion/ethnicity >> first and their qualifications second >> is as offensive to me in the case of >> choosing "a qualified Hispanic >> woman" as it is "a qualified white man". >> (I'm willing to make an exception in the >> case of challenging a previously >> unchallenged stereotype and not enabling >> a historical hysteria about it, but this >> in particular doesn't seem to qualify.) > > It is not offensive to me is because it would > address the inequity in proportionate representation > between white men and minority women in government... > Jon
If they're qualified for the job (which I fully believe many are, possibly much more than they're commonly given credit for), then go by the qualifications themselves. Same with anyone else who is qualified for the job. The inequity does exist, for most minorities, particularly for female applicants, and I don't intend to deny that. But it's just as racist to hand-pick one applicant for their gender/ religion/ethnicity and *then* evaluate them for qualifications as it is to use any other gender/religion/ethnicity as a desired starting point. The inequity exists because of exactly that sort of prejudiced preselection in the process, to a large extent. (To a smaller extent, it's dependent on inequities in the higher education system that make it somewhat more difficult to become "qualified" for the job, in the sense of obtaining degrees, etc., but that is a rapidly declining factor these days. To the extent that access to education is a factor, *that* is probably the best place to make adjustments as far as those inequities go, rather than adjusting the requirements for the jobs themselves to meet quotas.) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
