Affirmative Action is a process put in place which requires a company to hire more minorities. When a company looks to hire someone, it should be based on skills, experience and training. The race of the person applying should not be a determining factor on who to hire. Looking at each employee’s credentials, I would agree with the senior partner, Samuel Thompson that Susan’s experience would be helpful to the firm.
It could not be argued that diversity is a good thing to have in a company. The reason given by Thomas Cleveland for needing diversity is questionable. He appears to think that the main reason Susan should be hired is her race. She could bring diversity to the firm, but hiring her based on race is showing a level of discrimination. It shows poor character to be against something, and then do the very thing it is that the person is against. It is like telling someone it is bad to steal, and then turn around and steal something.
William Wilkins brings up a good point about Susan’s experience. She has faced the Court of Appeals meaning she is comfortable with those types of cases. Being licensed in three different states helps expand the area the firm can cover. It would also be less money spent on getting the licenses, and allows almost immediate expansion to the clients. William Wilkins does not focus on the race of the candidate, but mentions her qualifications and skills.
Lindsey Kurtz would be the only one that shares the resentment of the friend being overlooked for the position. She focusses on the school attended, and the race of the candidates. She would be a non-supporter of the affirmative action. The amount of languages spoken could help the firm with international cases, but after talking with the senior partners, I would have to decide to go along with their decision, and take the action of accepting the choice that was made. This acceptance would be solely on the grounds of the qualifications, and skills