I SEE WHT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A NEW HORROR FILM BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SIX SENSE.
This is essentially the main argument of those preaching segregation. What SHOULD be happening is that society should be color-blind; schools prepare candidates and the jobs go to those best suited for them regardless of race, gender or religion. If certain groups of our society have a hard time getting qualified, more effort should be expended getting them ready for professional responsibility. If certain companies or other organizations develop racial imbalances, they should have to explain the reasons and have their selection processes scrutinized. But, when a job opening develops, the best equipped candidate should get it. That's the real goal we are striving for. If not, we are creating a sub-group with special privileges, a situation that's destructive (both for the sub-group and society at large) in the long run.
Not only that, who the hell is the government to tell me as a business owner that I have to hire individuals who are less qualified over those who are more qualified - because of the color of their skin? If I have three slots, six applicants, and the top three applicants are black, all three slots will go to those top applicants who just happen to be black.
obama denies he is black, let alone a racist one too but then I hope obama wins, so he hands americans what they deserve
Your argument only works IF the individual puts in the needed effort to be relevant. A lot of things that we in the African American community do are counterproductive to the standard society. Rebels to the end is a substantial battle cry. An example? Ebonics may be cool on the street, in videos and in the clubs, but I dare say you'd not like me answering your business calls that way. Another? Pants worn down exposing underwear wouldn't translate well into the boardroom either. Baseball caps worn backwards with feet up on the work desk while blaring the latest hood certified hits might be the thoughts in certain minds, but I'll bet not yours. Yet those are the job positions being sought along with the salaries that are being envisioned for merely showing up. The quality skillset and implementation that comes with time, practice and discipline are not attractive lures to today's instant gratification, struggling, thugging, angry, defiant, masses who are crying fiscal and physical foul. And, note for the record, I didn't catagorize race, religion or age. There's a segment in each that qualifies. But all are encompassed when you say, defiant of what society demands of YOUR OWN EFFORTS!!!
The NFL is an example of why we need to force employers to give the opportunity to coaches that are not of the good old boy network. The NFL pushed for blacks to be given a chance to coach because of the pressure put on them by political pressures from outside the NFL. The point is that minorities have to be given the chance, then they have to perform to prove to the majority that their "type" can do the job just as well as the members of the majority group. Often they have to excel beyond the norm of the majority to get credit for a job well done. It has to be a balance of the need to get businesses to take chances on minority group members, through legislation if necessary, then have those individuals demonstrate to their own group members and the majority group member that race, religion, gender, etc. should not hinder the most qualified person from getting the job. The problem often comes when looking at two applicants who have no experience, the hiring authority will typically opt for the one that they feel "most" comfortable with...which tends to be someone like them. Once there is a proven track record, the minority has a greater chance at getting the job and keeping the job, which benefits the other members of the minority groups chances to work hard and be treated as equals. No, I don't think we should hire people because they are women, or black, or green, or gay, etc. I don't think we should hire incompetent people because of their race, gender, religion, etc. However, the hiring process and evaluation process should be color blind, gender blind, sexual preference blind, etc. Is the hiring process of the presidency blind to the color, gender, religion, etc. of the presidential candidates? During the republican election, the republicans attacked Romney because of his religion, something he came forth and proudly admitted. The religious bigotry from the right wing Christians is obvious...and is now seen by baseless attacks on Obama. That we even talk about Obama's religious background, or parents, his race, etc. demonstrates how far we need to evolve if we are to ever live up to the ideals we as a nation preach. We have legislation to prevent discrimination by employers on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, etc. Yet we see continual attacks from the right wing as they employ their attacks specifically in this direction of discrimination for a president on this basis. During the republican primary process the far right wingers attacked McCain because of his age. They want to generate fear among the voters. They don't seek to inspire or uplift their base or the independents. They have little to say about the greatness of McCain...simply because they don't really like or trust the guy or think that McCain is a great man. What was best about the Obama primary in the beginning at least is that he inspired people to vote who had never had hope or inspiration to vote before. It would be a shame if we see a general election that is about little but inspiring fear in the voters to regress to their own primitive and ignorant impulses.
Whites caught a break via Roe v Wade. Abortion basically eliminated an entire generation of low income trailer park trash. Blacks too have made gains. Teenage pregnancies among black girls have fallen by half. Kids of all races (including Latinos) possess the exact same sense of entitlement they inherited from their elders. Whiner nation. LoZZZZers. I blame much of this on the media and entertainment. For years working stiffs have been portrayed as rubes. Well who wants to grow up aspiring to rubeness?
That's how you & I would play it- As a business owner, I just want the most qualified & competent people available for hire, regardless of race. (Obviously!) Unfortunately, many companies just don't work that way: ________ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5DD123AF931A25751C1A9649C8B63 WHAT'S in a name? Evidently plenty if you are looking for a job. To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple résumés from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the résumés, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites. So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent résumés. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four résumés were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews. No single employer was sent two identical résumés, and the names on the résumés were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of résumés. Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them. <b>The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.</b> ________ Since I don't believe in forcing business owners to hire anyone against their will, I have no easy solution. Just pointing out that the problem does indeed exist. While I'm sure that some of this discrimination is rooted in plain old fashioned bigotry, one has to wonder if perhaps some of the employers who favored white over black names were actually semi-decent people, acting under the assumption that many of the black applicants had obtained their academic credentials through affirmative action, instead of by their own merit.