[skip2myloo]

The question is not is he qualified.

THE question is, at the time he was hired, was he the very BEST candidate available?

The VERY BEST candidate should be hired, irrespective whether he/she is purple with pink polka-dots.

Mere qualification is not optimum - diversity is OK, but it ought not to be the primary objective, at the expense of more important factors such as experience, education and demonstrated leadership.

In the past the failure to hire blacks, when they were the best-qualified candidates was wrong.

Today, hiring lesser qualified candidates for reasons of diversity is equally wrong.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Affirmative action is descriminatory, and descrimination is wrong -- affirmative action and quotas are wrong.

[Dave S]

THE question is, at the time he was hired, was he the very BEST candidate available?

How often is the best candidate available ever hired for any post? Most often its the person that the hiring person is most comfortable with. Could be a brother in law, a college chum, etc.

The best candidate for a given position depends on the objectives that the hiring manager has for the position. There is no totally objective way to hire the "best" candidate for a position. You certainly dont do it based on tests or based on seniority. If you think hiring is or should be made based on hiring, then I suggest that you probably have little real world experience.

[shocked]

Three cheers Skip. I will say this for the Moose, I dont think too many people could stand up under the enormous pressures being brought to bear on him. If you watch the press conferences the suits in the background seem to be glad to have a sacrificual lamb.

Shocked!