Perhaps the biggest draw back and I refer particulalry to some of Marq posts is the practice of using EE as a cover or excuse. Just as there are barriers from a white perspective I believe that there are barriers being created by Black people. White people are prejudiced in varying degrees based on 100 years of past history and black people have a feeling that they must revenge the past inequaliites. It si a difficult balance to strike and I do not believe it is possible. America still ahs problems with their AA policies and practices. We are seeing the same circle. Black person gets advanteged, white person feels aggrieved and becomes angry towards balck etc, etc.
The original BEE had the same results. Someone is appointed to some big position. Is not qualified the denied white people say see told you so and the circle goes around.
Where the SAPS is looking like falling short is the practice of not appointing. i want to once again re-iterate that no act allows for a non exclusionary policy. The SAPS decisions to not appoint some one becuase the only available person is white is a non exclusionery one. The case is certainly based on this, there was no one qualified, otehr tahn Barnard, so the SPAS did not appoint anyone, that is exclusionery. Had some one else been appointed and the appointment defended with the EE policy it might have had more substance.
The importance of this case is the challenging of a company's EE policy. The hiding behind the policy, which is what the SAP seem to be doing, could be the undoing. Just because a policy exists or a rule exists does not make it lawful.
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.