Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests NAACP is pi$$ing me off

Funny!

My work place is just the oppposite! As a minority owned gov't contractor, we are over 60% minority! Our contract was the same before this company took over, former company Litton PRC. We hire based on qualifications not race or creed!

-Andy

I never said race and gender didn't play a factor. I said to hire unqualified folks simply because they are minorities is ridiculous. It makes all of us look bad.

As far as companies representing what the population is, I guess that's why the majority (95%) of those in position of authority are white too? That's my point. It'd be fine if the 20% who are minorities were well represented through out the company. In most cases they are not. We we tend to end up in most of the lower ranking positions.

Well that consitituion of ours allowed slavery, white only restaraunts, bathrooms, fountains, and every thing else I can think of. The idea of the affirmative action was to force employers to consider minority candiates. To actively go out and recruit and hire. Shame on them if they just go and look for anyone they kind find just to keep someone else from pointing the finger at them.

As far as the girl who didn't get in...think about how many black students were turned away with exmeplary records? Again, I'm not saying an eye for an eye here and she deserved it. Not at all. It's just that the biggest difference is, she won't encounter that every where she goes. I realize she wanted to attend U of M and that was her dream but she also probably had the option to attend many other schools in Michigan and through out this country. We didn't.

You take 2 applicants, one white, one black. Race not being an issue, out of the 100 points total, the white applicant an only achieve 80. So you could have a white applicant who score's 80, and a black applicant who scores 61, and the black applicant would be admitted under their policy which has been in place for years.

That is plain and simple wrong. As I said before, the goal is right, the means to achieve that goal is wrong. Just as discrimination against blacks was wrong, so is discrimination against whites. Discrimination and racism are wrong no matter what the situation in which they arise.

Are you saying because blacks were discriminated against it's OK to discriminate against white's now?

Equality means ignoring race, not giving one side an advantage, the other a disadvantage because of it. I've never rooted for discrimination against minorities, and I'll never root for discrimination against the majority. In my mind discrimination is wrong no matter why it happens.

You don't think affirmative action discriminates?

Bkent, please go back and re-read my post. I stated that it is not right to discriminate against whites because that was what was done to blacks.

One of my other points is that things are not equal. That balance was thrown off long ago. It's a shame that we had to resort to affirmative action in order to be considered for the same jobs, schooling, etc as white folks.

So let me ask this...are you saying that if both applicants are highly qualified for the position but the black applicant got it because he was black, that would be a problem or even wrong?

Quote:

---

So let me ask this...are you saying that if both applicants are highly qualified for the position but the black applicant got it because he was black, that would be a problem or even wrong?

---

No, I never once said anything about equal qualification. What I would like to see is race being IGNORED, and people being hired/admitted/whatever based on their merits and qualifications. Affirmative action seeks to remedy one injustice with another.

And that was my point in this day in age. Back in the day, I don't know if one could have found a number qualified black canadiates because we had all kinds of obsticles and barriers in place preventing us from achieving. I won't even go in to all of that.

Now if an instituion in today's age is using it incorrectly as in a strong weighting system then shame on them. That's is the reason why I wrote that I hate the idea or thought that coporations, schools or whatever were/are hiring minorities who are far less qualified or not all just for the sake of saying they did something. I'll repeat it again, it makes all minorities look bad because the first thing that's going to be said is, see I told you so. They don't know what they're doing. Hire qualified minorities. That's my only point.

Another thing to consider, if the degree of seperation is small between the two canidates and you decide to hire one over the other because you feel your company needs some diversity, is that grossly unfair too? What about some of the other points systems that are in place for legacy and things like that. Is that okay?

My beef with the NAACP is that as an organization it seems determined to "sniff out" anti-black sentiment where they want it to be, valid or not. If a black person loses a job or a college slot TRULY based on merit or qualifications, then that should be that. But it seems awfully easy to sit back, not consider the facts and reasons for the choice, and just go "well, that's just racist." It's the easy way out. The NAACP as a body needs to have a "needy" clientele in order to continue to have power in the public forum. Ultimately, it raises the question of whether or not the NAACP is a problem or a solution...or maybe its own circular situation.

I love reading arguments on this subject...