"Affirmative Action" is a judge-made, unconstitutional initiative (it has never been codified in Federal law, believe it or not), intended to compel FEDERAL and STATE institutions (agencies, schools, police departments, etc) to seek out and promote the interests of QUALIFIED persons belonging to groups who were historically the victims of unjust discrimination, based solely on being a person of that group.
Lacking the ability to make AA apply generally, supportive government bureaucrats and officials sought to impose it on the private sector and non-government institutions by making it an obligation of contract (or grant). If you got a large government contract or grant, you had to have an AA plan, so in order even to bid on a significant contract you had to have an AA plan in place.
Typically, AA programs apply to hiring, promotions, and in Academe, admissions. But remember, PRIVATE employers and associations that do not do business with government are NOT REQUIRED by law to have affirmative action programs, although most private employers and schools purport not to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST persons in the traditionally-designated victim groups (my terminology, not theirs).
One of the most famous cases of overt discrimination and a "thumb-your-nose" attitude by a private institution was the notorious unwritten but inviolate policy of the Augusta National Golf Club not to admit women or "knee-grows." Ultimately, they have admitted a few of both, but their refusal and Governments' inability to do anything about it caused a lot of consternation within the Victim Nation. It still does, I suppose.
The question is whether AA is EVER a legitimate, worthwhile programme. The Original Poster is concerned about the possibility of AA for doctors and judges, presumably because incompetence in these positions could be catastrophic.
It's probably not as much of an issue as it could be in those two specific cases. You can't get to be a doctor unless you pass the state medical boards, and you can't be a judge unless you have passed a Bar Exam at some time in your career. These are not insignificant exams and even though there seem to be incompetents in both professions, they can't be stupid - having passed the exams - and there are examples of white men incompetents in both fields.
The fundamental scenario is this: There is a test to qualify for some government job (or admission to a school, or a promotion), and if the Selector were to make the choice purely on quantitative grounds, the Victim-Class applicants might never get the goods. So in order to get some of them hired, promoted, and/or admitted, the Selector dips down a little lower into the pool, and selects the most qualified Victim-Class applicant, in spite of the fact that s/he is not among the top applicants, using the established criteria.
IMHO, a "good" affirmative action plan meets three criteria: First, the person selected must be FULLY QUALIFIED for whatever it is. It can't be a police applicant who lacks the reading and writing skills required to understand laws, testify in court, write a coherent arrest report, and so on. You get the idea. Fully qualified, period. Second, there must be a reasonable case that proves the institution was unfairly discriminating in the past. Third, there must be some benefit to the institution coming out of the AA. For example, there is a benefit for the Chicago police department to have a demographic profile that is similar to the demographics of Chicago.
In short, "bad" AA programs promote the interests of unqualified people They do badly on the job. They fail out of the college, or spend years there taking a watered-down courseload, and eventually can only succeed my majoring in "Black Studies," or some such nonsense.
Now, to be specific, Our Beloved First Lady was employed as the Diversity Director of a large Chicago group of hospitals, and made several hundred thousand dollars a year for doing basically nothing.
This is "good" affirmative action.
