Like many plicies, the theory is great, but it doesn't work quickly enough in practice. Our government want to show that they are equal opportunists, but wiping away centuries of downtreading women doesn't happen in one generation. The ones who are balshy enough to get up and in the public view are terrible at their job, and so are seen as being 'trophy' ministers (Hazel Blears is a prime example). The real powerful women are avoiding politics like the plague, and areas that were traditionally female dominated, such as the Public Sector administration is being cut to appease voters who are aying more tax than ever. So government create affirmative action, where they 'fast stream' women, giving them opportunities that their male counterparts don't get to redress a balance that never existed in the first place. If you are on the right side of the fence then it is great, but the middle-management who feel threatened are then not encouraged t motivate their female staff for fear of being surpassed unfairly. The government claim it is not discriminatin to create notional targets and then pick and choose sectors of the community to reach these targets, regardless of the abilities of others. That is the difference between equal opportunities, which everybody should be behind, and affirmative action, which is discrimination against those whom nobody will listen to.

i believe that might have to do with the declining number of minorities amd women that are able to have the qualifications needed to compete if you will in the principles of what Equal Opportunity is. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex was made more for employemnt than anyting else. This meant that you would hire simply based on the qualifications a"person" had. Back in 1964 not very many minorities or women had the qualifications needed to compete in anything. Schools did not except women or minorites beyond high school. Women has junior colleges that has careers for them in the administrative field only. So advancement was out of the questions, therefore not being able to have equal opportunity. Affirmative action has its roots in the civil rights movement. In March of 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which established the President's Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity. The order stated that contractors doing business with the government "will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The order did not advocate preferential treatment of affected groups but rather sought to eliminate discrimination in the traditional sense.The legal status of affirmative action was solidified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation prohibited discrimination in voting, public education and accommodations, and employment in firms with more than fifteen employees. Affirmative action refers to concrete steps that are taken not only to eliminate discrimination—whether in employment, education, or contracting—but also to attempt to redress the effects of past discrimination. The underlying motive for affirmative action is the Constitutional principle of equal opportunity, which holds that all persons have the right to equal access to self-development. In other words, persons with equal abilities should have equal opportunities. Affirmative action programs differ widely in the extent to which they attempt to overturn discrimination. Some programs might simply institute reviews of the hiring process for women, minorities, and other affected groups. Other affirmative action programs might explicitly prefer members of affected groups. In such programs, minimum job requirements are used to create a pool of qualified applicants from which members of affected groups are given preference. Affirmative action affects small businesses in two main ways. First, it prevents businesses with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and physical capability in practices relating to hiring, compensating, promoting, training, and firing employees. Second, it allows the state and federal governments to favor women-owned and minority-owned businesses when awarding contracts, and to reject bids from businesses that do not make good faith efforts to include minority-owned businesses among their subcontractors. I believe that affirmative action is being used to prevent the discrimination that there may be due to economic hardships. For example in education fo you do not have the ability to pay for a higher education you cannot progress so affirmative action is being used to provide the means for people tp prosper. THat also brings me to the statistics we have on people below the poverty level. We provide a public education but do not provide a higher public eduaction. THe majority within the poverty level are minorities and women. So pushing affirmative action so women and miniorites can have a better chance at education will ensure that they will have a better chance in the work force and then they can be given the equal opporutinties based on the qualifications they have. Without affirmative action in this way we can ensure that minorites and women will never get the same opportunity as thier more financially able counterparts.

Basically it's the unequal playing field problem. I see this in small towns as a problem yet. Ideally, equal opportunity is the best goal for society. Unfortunately this country is populated by less than ideal people. I am well acquainted with business owners and managers who admit to prefererencial hiring practices towards their fellow whites. (This is also true of some asians I know, too--they would prefer to hire other asians.) Even if the black or other minority is better qualified, excellent employment record, excellent and relevant education achievement, the minority is going to be left out of consideration unless their chances are tweaked a bit. There should be allowances to counter these cultural prejudices, however I'm not decided on how much so or exactly what kind. Those should be decided by people in touch with various cities and how skewed employement practices have been. Furthermore, these should always be up for re-evaluation. The how-to would best be accomplished with a cross-section of community representatives, etc. Again, in an ideal country where there was no history of slavery, discrimination, intimidation, etc. I would likely have a different opinion. BTW: I am a working class caucasian with no axe to grind, just a regular wage earner trying to make ends meet.