Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Which is better: affirmative action hiring or equal opportunity hiring?
Affirmative action: hiring people based on race, sex or other such demographics.
Equal Opportunity: hiring people based on their merit only, with no discrimination for or against people based on race, sex or other such demographics.
- Anonymous1 week agoFavourite answer
People should be hired based on their merit. Discrimination such as affirmative action should be illegal.
- 1 week ago
equal opportunitySource(s): God
Hire people based on their ability to do the job. Just checking the boxes creates a toxic workforce that is also incompetent.
That said, lets make sure people get the training and skills they need to be qualified and stop the crime in our schools so kids can learn. then teach real subjects, not this gender neutrality and participation trophy nonsense.
Stop making excuses for schools that have a 15 and 20% graduation rate where kids cannot even read their diplomas.
Racism is real, but this new wokeness is only making hate a permanent feature on both sides.
Lets reintroduce real competition in our schools and realize that life has winners and losers.
I sure has heck do not want to ride up 50 floors in an elevator installed by people who cannot read the instruction manual or use a tape measure to be sure the bolts are properly spaced. Even if the installers were diverse and felt good about themselves.
Nor do I want to cross a bridge 150 feet over a fast river built by people who cannot be trusted to be sure the bolts are tight or welds are done correctly.
Should be able to hire whom you want and not be dictated to by the government.
Deny for any reason should be OK.
Same with hiring too.
- Anonymous1 week ago
Affirmative Action helps to level an uneven playing field while 'Equal Opportunity' just assumes that it is already even. We can prove through the current statistics that there is a severe under representation of minorities in most fields and as such Affirmative Action helps to address that issue instead of ignoring it.
Furthermore, the name Equal Opportunity in itself is a bit of a lie as it assumes that the Opportunity would be equal if affirmative action wasn't used, however, this is fairly incorrect due to implicit and non-implicit biases within the hiring bodies.
- Anonymous1 week ago
Hiring based on merit.
- CoryLv 51 week ago
The only people who think AA hiring is wrong are those who believe minorities aren't as qualified as white people.
Which in an of itself is white supremacy.
Doesnt mean you're wrong. It means mission accomplished.
When you destroy their communities, push them to avoid education and be more athletic or entertainers (you own the teams, Hollywood, record labels and marketers)
Then you constantly remove funding from schools and put them in crappy conditions. In communities where you wont stop the crime. Then blame them when you dont provide the education how to.
Then you deny them entry level jobs. Then complain they are inexperienced.
- 1 week ago
The better question is, which is truer to equal opportunity, affirmative action or "equal opportunity hiring". I put it in quotes because the intent is what is important. If the intent is fairness and justice and a better overall society for all is the objective, its obvious that affirmative action is needed to bring things closer to that fairness due to historical wrongs of the past and inequalities of today. You cannot start something with a total distortion of pain and suffering among the population and say....stop everything henceforth we must never do anything to help any group that has suffered from those past injustices from catching up. If you do, what you are really saying is too bad so sad for past injustices, we are going to continue the unjust system as we pretend to be about blind equality. You can do it, you can try it, people have been saying it, but its not what is right if doing right is you true goal.
- Anonymous1 week ago
I think that conservatives scared way too worked up about formative action which is a very minor thing in American society. In particular, a lot of them don't seem to understand what affirmative action is or how it works. For example, many conservatives seem to believe that infirmity of action involves racial hiring quotas but racial quotas have been illegal since the back a decision in the 1970s.
Probably saying that you're not going to engage in some sort of proactive effort to increase representation within your organization is that this can often have the effect of perpetuating underrepresentation. You say that we should hire based on qualifications for the job I'm a witch it's obvious. You shouldn't hire someone who is unqualified or unsuited for the job. But the idea that you can run an objectively unbiased search based on quality is problematic. There's comparatively few people in positions to hire employees who are actively racist and who, for example, would admit to someone that they don't want to hire black people. Most people think they are not racist and think that they are hiring purely based on qualifications for the job. But we still see a lot of problems of bias in hiring. For example, one study created resumes for job applicants. The resumes were identical except that one set of resumes had someone with a stereotypically African-American named like Rayshawn or Tamika and the other one had a Les racially specific name like John or Sandra. The ones with the less stereotypically black named got more callbacks than the other one. Big problem now is not over racism. This was a huge problem in the 20th century, at least until such racism was outlawed in the job market. In the early and mid 20th century you actually have advertisements that said, for example, that African Americans shouldn't apply for certain jobs. You had other jobs which were not advertised as specifically for One race but we're hiring officials would simply refuse to consider someone of another race. That's rarely the problem now. The problem now is mostly to do with implicit bias. People have racial bias he's which they aren't even necessarily aware. There's an old saying that like hires like. People, often unconsciously, will tend to favor those who are like them. So a man, will tend to hire men. A white person will tend to hire other white people. This extends as well to network switch can help perpetuate underrepresentation of minorities. Your idea is that people are simply coming in off the street to apply for a job and are getting evaluated based purely on their merits. But what we see, particularly in more professional jobs, is that there's often informal networks which funnel people into these jobs. People get a leg in the door because they know someone who knows someone. And often, these Networks end up being biased in favor of men and white people. Because the existing power structure is disproportionately white, the social structures which can help people get into these jobs are disproportionately white. So, a hiring professional hears about someone from their church, or social club, or a fraternity brother. These social organizations and networks all have racial bias built into them. So the pool of applicants that you're getting, before you even do anything about whether or not they're qualified, will be misrepresented. You can also get situations where a parent qualifications have Tobias to them. That's a personal example, when I was applying to colleges I had it a vice president of a Fortune 500 company offer to write me a recommendation. Now he did this because he thought I was a smart guy would be a good student. But I only had this opportunity because my parents were friends with him. Other people, ones who might be just as smart, would not necessarily have those opportunities. This is another source of potential bias. Because of pre-existing racial disparities, white people will often tend to have more access to things such as that. So someone may not be any smarter or better than someone else, but they might appear so because of credentialing.
All these things are the reason why we need formative action, which is not a set of quotas four different racial groups, but rather of broad constellation of policies and to try and overcome both implicit bias and the lingering effects of Freddy's. The idea behind affirmative action is to try and overcome the structural disadvantages which many people of color suffer from and get them an opportunity to prove what they're worth. The policies used to do this aren't racial quotas, which as I said were made it legal by the Supreme Court decades ago. Instead, they tend to the policies meant to give more opportunity to people of color. An example of this is Texas. They had a policy where the top students at each Texas High School could gain automatic admission to a state-run college. This was a game-changer in terms of admissions because it eliminated structural bias which is built into the system. Now, it didn't matter that there was widespread racial segregation in the education system across the US. If you were the top student in a Texas High School, regardless of whether it was a well-funded elite high school, or a school where everyone was poor, you had an opportunity to go to one of the state-run colleges, many of which are exceptional institutions. There are other policies which organizations can engage in which are meant to get more people of color and opportunity. And we need these because supposedly colorblind and merit-based hiring is not necessarily enough.
If republicans would stop being bigoted, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
- ?Lv 71 week ago
Hiring people based on merit is a myth. Over 90% of CEOs are white men. We should guarantee a job for all Americans. Jobs should never be scarce.