Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Whites need not apply
City of North Little Rock, AR ^ | 15 JUL 09 | dcbryan1

Posted on 07/15/2009 7:56:58 AM PDT by DCBryan1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 last
To: DCBryan1

Where is it stated that ‘whites need not apply’. The add clearly states that “The City of North Little Rock is seeking qualified black and female applicants.”

I understand that many are not aware of the many unwritten laws that existed in the old South. You know, things like water fountains, restrooms, state owned recreation areas....the list goes on. Things like job state and local job listings where there was an understanding (unwritten law) that blacks and women need not apply.

The above conditions existed in a relatively recent past. Arkansas is rural and many job seekers lived those dark days. Some people may still be ‘conditioned’ that they will not be considered for employment. Also, a ‘good ole’ boy’ system still exists in the South.

Just may be a way of saying things have changed...welcome aboard.


101 posted on 07/15/2009 6:40:41 PM PDT by TheInvisibleMan (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Like I said, I have a problem if there is a quota system at the back end. And while it would be nice if job seekers went out to find jobs on their own, the reality is that some minorities, women, and people in poverty are self-defeating and if they understood how to succeed, they’d be succeeding. I don’t think giving them a nudge or even a hand is necessarily a bad thing so long as it results in hiring qualified people and not at the expense of other as or more qualified people simply on the basis of race or sex.


102 posted on 07/15/2009 6:51:25 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

I don’t think giving disadvantaged people a ‘nudge’ or even a hand up is bad either. What is bad is the federal government dictating and mandating(especially in private industry) that it be done and that it be done for only one or two groups of people baised on the color of their skin or their gender.

In fact, it is the ultimate form of rascism and bigotry to assume that because you are black or female, that you are somehow disavantaged on that basis alone. Notice too, that this mandate is not protecting minorities in general or else it would have just said ‘minorities’. It didn’t. It said blacks. What about hispanics, asians, indians or all of the other racial minorities in this country?

Women are not disadvantaged in this country nor are they a minority(I don’t think)...so why are they included for this special treatment under the law?

Equal Opportunity Under The Law should mean just that...EQUAL OPPORTUNITY...not special treatment.


103 posted on 07/15/2009 7:46:17 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

If they are not getting a large number of any particular type of applicant, I don’t think it’s a problem to ask for more of them, so long as there isn’t punishment if they don’t get them.


104 posted on 07/15/2009 8:02:19 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

This law/agreement(consent decree) in Arkansas does not speak to whether they are getting a particular type of candidate or not though. It makes it a general law to specifically say blacks and women are ‘SOUGHT’ in every city job opening ad....whether they are getting tons of blacks and women applicants applying already or not. That is not equal protection or opportunity....that is favoritism and special treatment. You cannot possibly be an equal opportunity employer if you are specifically saying that you are ‘seeking’ one race or gender for a job.

If, as others have said, that the goal of the government is to have the ‘demographics’ of the applicants match the demographics of the area that the job is in and nothing more...then how can it be mandated to only say blacks and women to begin with?

That fails reason. That would mean that a company in a mostly white area of a city would have to hire more whites or have more white applicants than any other race. Assume for a minute that that is the case. The company is in a mostly white area of a city, with a higher percentage of males, but mostly blacks and women are filling out applications for the job. Would it then be ok to have an ad that read..whites and men are ‘sought’ for the job?


105 posted on 07/15/2009 8:45:56 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson