Couple shocked by hate graffiti

[mrc 0]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Edited November 30, 2006 by mrc

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Racism towards Blacks in America takes on a different tone than racism against Whites. For one, Blacks are in the minority in this country. They statistically are more likely to be turned down a job or other form of racial prejudice because of the color of their skin. Rascism is about power and the Civil Rights movement was about dealing with the inequality that existed and still permeates today.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

[mrc 0]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Racism towards Blacks in America takes on a different tone than racism against Whites. For one, Blacks are in the minority in this country. They statistically are more likely to be turned down a job or other form of racial prejudice because of the color of their skin.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

Here's an example...a base government contract for waste removal isn't given to a local company because they are white male owned. Despite having the lowest bid, they cannot win the job. So, they "subcontract" the job to someone who "owns" a company in Hawaii (Asian Pacific descent) and they pay this gentlemen some money just to have his name attached to the contract.

So, the company wins the contract at a higher price than if they bid as the white male owned company bid, the "minority" doesn't do a thing and gets paid large sums and the white male owned company still removes the waste. What exactly is the purpose? Certainly the government pays more money for the same work. BTW, this is a true story of how the base contract here was won...my ex worked for the waste removal company as a salesperson.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

Edited November 30, 2006 by mrc

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Racism towards Blacks in America takes on a different tone than racism against Whites. For one, Blacks are in the minority in this country. They statistically are more likely to be turned down a job or other form of racial prejudice because of the color of their skin.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

Here's an example...a base government contract for waste removal isn't given to a local company because they are white male owned. Despite having the lowest bid, they cannot win the job. So, they "subcontract" the job to someone who "owns" a company in Hawaii (Asian Pacific descent) and they pay this gentlemen some money just to have his name attached to the contract.

So, this guy wins the contract at a higher price than the white male owned company bid, he doesn't do a thing and gets paid and pays the white male owned company money to remove the waste. What exactly is the purpose? Certainly the government pays more money for the same work.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

That's the biggest misnomer of Affirmative Action. Find the wording of any policy that was created out of Affirmative Action that encourages racial preference - you won't find any. What you will find is that it promotes diversity.

Here's an example of the actual purpose of Affirmative Action:

If we concentrate on hiring only women, or only members of specific minority groups, are we satisfying affirmative action responsibilities?

The goals of diversity cannot be achieved unless we hire veterans and people with disabilities, as well as women and members of all minority groups. Additionally, hiring women or minorities in positions which do not offer potential for advancement, or tokenism in hiring, is not acceptable. Everyone must be subject to equally applied standards of hiring and promotion or advancement. The same kinds of opportunities must exist for all individuals.

Does affirmative action mean that we are applying different standards for white males than for women and minorities?

Affirmative action was never meant to encourage the hiring of any candidate who is less than qualified. One standard should be applied to all candidates. Assuming that there is a double standard implies that minorities and women are less qualified, generally, than white males.

It is important to note here that the term "best qualified" is subjective. Qualifications are often standardized preferences upon which we rely in making broad categorizations about people. We need to examine why we require the qualifications that we do. Sometimes people are differently qualified to do the job and bring different but equally important assets to the position. Candidates are often described as best qualified based on the number of years since award of their terminal degree. That measure of qualification is often not valid, and also works against women and minorities who are frequently newer in their fields. Sometimes women and minorities have to take different paths to arrive at the same place in their careers. Attention should be given to years of related experience. Qualifications are also sometimes measured by the candidate's degree-granting institution. This emphasis on the "top tier" schools (a very subjective description) also tends to work adversely against women and minorities. By themselves, the number of years of experience or the identity of the degree-granting institution are not always adequate indicators of the potential of a candidate. Emphasis on actual references (versus rumor) and on past duties and responsibilities is more reliable.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~eod/searches/manual/FAQ/index.html

[peezey 0]

Sure, it is indeed racism. But I don't think it's newsworthy. Go walk around the Phoenix area (that article is from the Arizona Republic) and pick other racist vandalism off the walls...is that newsworthy? This sort of thing happens everywhere and all the time. This time a well-to-do couple got their custom built house vandalised...submit a police report and file a claim with your insurance. It's not news.

I can imagine someone reading this saying "OMG, HOW HORRIBLE...I DIDN'T REALIZE PEOPLE WERE STILL RACIST!"

Are you talking random graffiti racism or all around Phoenix people's actual homes are being vandalized with racist graffiti? If so, that's majorly news worthy.

[Alex+R 0]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Racism towards Blacks in America takes on a different tone than racism against Whites. For one, Blacks are in the minority in this country. They statistically are more likely to be turned down a job or other form of racial prejudice because of the color of their skin.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

Here's an example...a base government contract for waste removal isn't given to a local company because they are white male owned. Despite having the lowest bid, they cannot win the job. So, they "subcontract" the job to someone who "owns" a company in Hawaii (Asian Pacific descent) and they pay this gentlemen some money just to have his name attached to the contract.

So, the company wins the contract at a higher price than if they bid as the white male owned company bid, the "minority" doesn't do a thing and gets paid large sums and the white male owned company still removes the waste. What exactly is the purpose? Certainly the government pays more money for the same work. BTW, this is a true story of how the base contract here was won...my ex worked for the waste removal company as a salesperson.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

mrc, it is not news that affirmative action can be unfair in the small scale. Sometimes the better applicant, employee, or company loses the spot or job. It is not a perfect solution.

Let me tell you a story. When I was a kid, there were kids who repeatedly drew a swastika on my locker for a year and told me they didn't want to share a locker bank with a Jew. That seems sort of insane, but ok. Did it hurt my feelings? A little. Did I go on to face a society as a whole that hates Jews, pays Jews less in wages, or refuses housing to Jews because of their race/religion? No. Did it affect my life beyond that point? No. Because Jews are not a minority who face institutionalized prejudice.

White people aren't either. Hell, they aren't even a minority (yet).

That company might have lost that job, but they are not going to face that prejudice every time.

[peezey 0]

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Is it possible you rarely here about it because it's RARE?

p.s. Scream all you want. there's no such thing as reverse racism, unless you're an elitist caucasian looking for hot button issues and want to stir up some sh!t.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

Affirmative Action is not countering racism with racism, it is an attempt to level the playing field after hundreds of years of intstitutionalized racism against blacks, then all minorities, prevailed.

What is your solution to correct this injustice of institutionalized racism?

The system isn't supposed to be logical or illogical, it is based on history and centuries of harm.

[mrc 0]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Racism towards Blacks in America takes on a different tone than racism against Whites. For one, Blacks are in the minority in this country. They statistically are more likely to be turned down a job or other form of racial prejudice because of the color of their skin.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

Here's an example...a base government contract for waste removal isn't given to a local company because they are white male owned. Despite having the lowest bid, they cannot win the job. So, they "subcontract" the job to someone who "owns" a company in Hawaii (Asian Pacific descent) and they pay this gentlemen some money just to have his name attached to the contract.

So, this guy wins the contract at a higher price than the white male owned company bid, he doesn't do a thing and gets paid and pays the white male owned company money to remove the waste. What exactly is the purpose? Certainly the government pays more money for the same work.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

That's the biggest misnomer of Affirmative Action. Find the wording of any policy that was created out of Affirmative Action that encourages racial preference - you won't find any. What you will find is that it promotes diversity.

Here's an example of the actual purpose of Affirmative Action:

If we concentrate on hiring only women, or only members of specific minority groups, are we satisfying affirmative action responsibilities?

The goals of diversity cannot be achieved unless we hire veterans and people with disabilities, as well as women and members of all minority groups. Additionally, hiring women or minorities in positions which do not offer potential for advancement, or tokenism in hiring, is not acceptable. Everyone must be subject to equally applied standards of hiring and promotion or advancement. The same kinds of opportunities must exist for all individuals.

Does affirmative action mean that we are applying different standards for white males than for women and minorities?

Affirmative action was never meant to encourage the hiring of any candidate who is less than qualified. One standard should be applied to all candidates. Assuming that there is a double standard implies that minorities and women are less qualified, generally, than white males.

It is important to note here that the term "best qualified" is subjective. Qualifications are often standardized preferences upon which we rely in making broad categorizations about people. We need to examine why we require the qualifications that we do. Sometimes people are differently qualified to do the job and bring different but equally important assets to the position. Candidates are often described as best qualified based on the number of years since award of their terminal degree. That measure of qualification is often not valid, and also works against women and minorities who are frequently newer in their fields. Sometimes women and minorities have to take different paths to arrive at the same place in their careers. Attention should be given to years of related experience. Qualifications are also sometimes measured by the candidate's degree-granting institution. This emphasis on the "top tier" schools (a very subjective description) also tends to work adversely against women and minorities. By themselves, the number of years of experience or the identity of the degree-granting institution are not always adequate indicators of the potential of a candidate. Emphasis on actual references (versus rumor) and on past duties and responsibilities is more reliable.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~eod/searches/manual/FAQ/index.html

Steven, c'mon...you're trying to argue intended purpose versus reality. I'm sorry, it's just not going to work.

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Is it possible you rarely here about it because it's RARE?

p.s. Scream all you want. there's no such thing as reverse racism, unless you're an elitist caucasian looking for hot button issues and want to stir up some sh!t.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

Affirmative Action is not countering racism with racism, it is an attempt to level the playing field after hundreds of years of intstitutionalized racism against blacks, then all minorities, prevailed.

What is your solution to correct this injustice of institutionalized racism?

The system isn't supposed to be logical or illogical, it is based on history and centuries of harm.

Oh no...not the "hundreds of years" argument...I don't know about you, but I'm 35, not 300. Last time I checked, I wasn't involved in slavery. So, let's "level" the playing field by setting diversity numbers and giving 35 percent of the jobs to a group that represents 12 percent of the population...that will fix all of those centuries of harm!

I'M AN ELITIST CAUCASIAN TRYING TO STIR UP #######! Anyone that is involved or knows anything about the government hiring process as far as contracts is concerned, knows there are rules that you must follow. I know if I'm bidding, I'm going to have a partner that isn't a white male.

These are my opinions...I just never bought into Affirmative Action. While it may sound equitable and fair on paper, it just doesn't work out that way.

[Alex+R 0]

Oh no...not the "hundreds of years" argument...I don't know about you, but I'm 35, not 300. Last time I checked, I wasn't involved in slavery. So, let's "level" the playing field by setting diversity numbers and giving 35 percent of the jobs to a group that represents 12 percent of the population...that will fix all of those centuries of harm!

I'M AN ELITIST CAUCASIAN TRYING TO STIR UP #######! Anyone that is involved or knows anything about the government hiring process as far as contracts is concerned, knows there are rules that you must follow. I know if I'm bidding, I'm going to have a partner that isn't a white male.

These are my opinions...I just never bought into Affirmative Action. While it may sound equitable and fair on paper, it just doesn't work out that way.

Would you prefer that the government have no program to try to level the playing field?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Racism towards Blacks in America takes on a different tone than racism against Whites. For one, Blacks are in the minority in this country. They statistically are more likely to be turned down a job or other form of racial prejudice because of the color of their skin.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

Here's an example...a base government contract for waste removal isn't given to a local company because they are white male owned. Despite having the lowest bid, they cannot win the job. So, they "subcontract" the job to someone who "owns" a company in Hawaii (Asian Pacific descent) and they pay this gentlemen some money just to have his name attached to the contract.

So, this guy wins the contract at a higher price than the white male owned company bid, he doesn't do a thing and gets paid and pays the white male owned company money to remove the waste. What exactly is the purpose? Certainly the government pays more money for the same work.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

That's the biggest misnomer of Affirmative Action. Find the wording of any policy that was created out of Affirmative Action that encourages racial preference - you won't find any. What you will find is that it promotes diversity.

Here's an example of the actual purpose of Affirmative Action:

If we concentrate on hiring only women, or only members of specific minority groups, are we satisfying affirmative action responsibilities?

The goals of diversity cannot be achieved unless we hire veterans and people with disabilities, as well as women and members of all minority groups. Additionally, hiring women or minorities in positions which do not offer potential for advancement, or tokenism in hiring, is not acceptable. Everyone must be subject to equally applied standards of hiring and promotion or advancement. The same kinds of opportunities must exist for all individuals.

Does affirmative action mean that we are applying different standards for white males than for women and minorities?

Affirmative action was never meant to encourage the hiring of any candidate who is less than qualified. One standard should be applied to all candidates. Assuming that there is a double standard implies that minorities and women are less qualified, generally, than white males.

It is important to note here that the term "best qualified" is subjective. Qualifications are often standardized preferences upon which we rely in making broad categorizations about people. We need to examine why we require the qualifications that we do. Sometimes people are differently qualified to do the job and bring different but equally important assets to the position. Candidates are often described as best qualified based on the number of years since award of their terminal degree. That measure of qualification is often not valid, and also works against women and minorities who are frequently newer in their fields. Sometimes women and minorities have to take different paths to arrive at the same place in their careers. Attention should be given to years of related experience. Qualifications are also sometimes measured by the candidate's degree-granting institution. This emphasis on the "top tier" schools (a very subjective description) also tends to work adversely against women and minorities. By themselves, the number of years of experience or the identity of the degree-granting institution are not always adequate indicators of the potential of a candidate. Emphasis on actual references (versus rumor) and on past duties and responsibilities is more reliable.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~eod/searches/manual/FAQ/index.html

Steven, c'mon...you're trying to argue intended purpose versus reality. I'm sorry, it's just not going to work.

Well, anything different from that is discrimination. Can you point to a policy by an employer or university which clearly promotes racial discrimination?

[peezey 0]

Yeah, I am numb to it. You're right. I'm also tired of one-sided reporting. If you are going to report racism, how about reporting the other side? You never see a case of racism against a white person reported.

There are tons of idiots out there that still subscribe to this antiquated thinking like these vandals, we're all aware of this. But I also know it works both ways. Why can we have a United Negro College Fund yet when a group offers a 500. dollar college scholarship available to white professionals, it creates an uproar with everyone screaming racism (yes, this recently happened)?

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Pieces like the groundhog reporting are fluff or human interest stories...they are only newsworthy because they fill space in between all the racism articles.

Racism towards Blacks in America takes on a different tone than racism against Whites. For one, Blacks are in the minority in this country. They statistically are more likely to be turned down a job or other form of racial prejudice because of the color of their skin.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

Here's an example...a base government contract for waste removal isn't given to a local company because they are white male owned. Despite having the lowest bid, they cannot win the job. So, they "subcontract" the job to someone who "owns" a company in Hawaii (Asian Pacific descent) and they pay this gentlemen some money just to have his name attached to the contract.

So, this guy wins the contract at a higher price than the white male owned company bid, he doesn't do a thing and gets paid and pays the white male owned company money to remove the waste. What exactly is the purpose? Certainly the government pays more money for the same work.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

That's the biggest misnomer of Affirmative Action. Find the wording of any policy that was created out of Affirmative Action that encourages racial preference - you won't find any. What you will find is that it promotes diversity.

Here's an example of the actual purpose of Affirmative Action:

If we concentrate on hiring only women, or only members of specific minority groups, are we satisfying affirmative action responsibilities?

The goals of diversity cannot be achieved unless we hire veterans and people with disabilities, as well as women and members of all minority groups. Additionally, hiring women or minorities in positions which do not offer potential for advancement, or tokenism in hiring, is not acceptable. Everyone must be subject to equally applied standards of hiring and promotion or advancement. The same kinds of opportunities must exist for all individuals.

Does affirmative action mean that we are applying different standards for white males than for women and minorities?

Affirmative action was never meant to encourage the hiring of any candidate who is less than qualified. One standard should be applied to all candidates. Assuming that there is a double standard implies that minorities and women are less qualified, generally, than white males.

It is important to note here that the term "best qualified" is subjective. Qualifications are often standardized preferences upon which we rely in making broad categorizations about people. We need to examine why we require the qualifications that we do. Sometimes people are differently qualified to do the job and bring different but equally important assets to the position. Candidates are often described as best qualified based on the number of years since award of their terminal degree. That measure of qualification is often not valid, and also works against women and minorities who are frequently newer in their fields. Sometimes women and minorities have to take different paths to arrive at the same place in their careers. Attention should be given to years of related experience. Qualifications are also sometimes measured by the candidate's degree-granting institution. This emphasis on the "top tier" schools (a very subjective description) also tends to work adversely against women and minorities. By themselves, the number of years of experience or the identity of the degree-granting institution are not always adequate indicators of the potential of a candidate. Emphasis on actual references (versus rumor) and on past duties and responsibilities is more reliable.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~eod/searches/manual/FAQ/index.html

Steven, c'mon...you're trying to argue intended purpose versus reality. I'm sorry, it's just not going to work.

I'm just tired of the slanted coverage. I know blacks are the primary target to racism but I also know they aren't the only ones that are affected. Asians, Whites and Hispanics are affected everyday but you rarely hear a pip about that.

Is it possible you rarely here about it because it's RARE?

p.s. Scream all you want. there's no such thing as reverse racism, unless you're an elitist caucasian looking for hot button issues and want to stir up some sh!t.

Right, that's why they create things like Affirmative Action...to counter that racism with more racism.

I fail to see any logic in this system...it's racism intended to counter racism and it turns out to be plain stupidity.

Racism against blacks may take on a different tone, but that still doesn't mean either is right. Both are troubling.

Affirmative Action is not countering racism with racism, it is an attempt to level the playing field after hundreds of years of intstitutionalized racism against blacks, then all minorities, prevailed.

What is your solution to correct this injustice of institutionalized racism?

The system isn't supposed to be logical or illogical, it is based on history and centuries of harm.

Oh no...not the "hundreds of years" argument...I don't know about you, but I'm 35, not 300. Last time I checked, I wasn't involved in slavery. So, let's "level" the playing field by setting diversity numbers and giving 35 percent of the jobs to a group that represents 12 percent of the population...that will fix all of those centuries of harm!

I'M AN ELITIST CAUCASIAN TRYING TO STIR UP #######! Anyone that is involved or knows anything about the government hiring process as far as contracts is concerned, knows there are rules that you must follow. I know if I'm bidding, I'm going to have a partner that isn't a white male.

These are my opinions...I just never bought into Affirmative Action. While it may sound equitable and fair on paper, it just doesn't work out that way.

So again, I ask you, as I did before, what is your solution?