It doesn't fit with the other claims made by the socialists. They claim the big evil capitalists are trying to keep the woman, black man, etc down by not hiring them. But aren't they supposed to be money-grubbing? Why would they hire the white guy if the black chick would be better for the job? Some greedy capitalist would have tapped into this reserve of women and black people by now if there was so much opportunity.
If you want to argue in favor of affirmative action, the only argument that you can try and use is the one about making up for past evils.
Of course that is true, but shouldn't it be there choice who they employ? Isn't that kind of big brother forcing us to employ people we don't want? Anyways, if there is a huge surplus of blacks being discriminated against, shouldn't there be some evil greedy capitalist willing to employ them?That's unrealistic. People are still racists and don't care if people are qualified or not. It's not as bad as 20 years ago, but it's still out there. There are white people who think that no matter what is written on a resume, that black people are inferior or they're going to have some kind of problems by hiring them.
20/20 wants to provide something interesting or entertaining. I bet they called a hundred places before they got a reaction like that. It does happen though, but shouldn't it be there choice to hire whoever they want? I'd probably run from a name like Keyshaun myself. Suburban blacks don't call their kids laquitta and shaniqua, that's a poor urban thing that single mothers do.Did you ever see the 20/20 where they had people calling up asking for jobs? They first used black sounding names like "Keyshaun" and asked if a job was still available and they were told "no, sorry". When they called back as "Jason Ross"......"Sure the position is still open, come on down".
In general, they have underperformed, just like whites underperform at RB.Look at this forum as an example. How many people, in here, still feel that blacks can't win as quarterbacks?
If they had the credentials, then that would be fine. In general though, a name like shaquita is usually a bad sign. I guess it's only ok when Bill Cosby calls out black women for calling their kids laquita and ja'marcus.I'd probably run from a name like Keyshaun myself. Suburban blacks don't call their kids laquitta and shaniqua, that's a poor urban thing that single mothers do.
THAT IS THE REASON WE HAVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BECAUSE EINSTEIN'S LIKE YOURSELF!
I edited my last post. I wouldn't run from or hire someone based on their name, that would be ridiculous. I made a bit of an exaggeration.:WTF:
So, you wouldn't hire him because his name is Jim Bob? WOW
So, your entire basis for hiring someone is predicated upon their name? Please let me understand this.
What college are you at in the Bust a Nutmeg state?
Ohh man, this is funny. Laquita, shaquida and jemarcus are part of black history? That is fucking hilarious. Those aren't black or African American names. I highly doubt there are any jemarcuses in Nigeria. How about you tell me the ancestoral history of these stupid names?what levistep said earlier about black names is the stupidest thing i've ever read. he is basically saying give your kids white names and to deny part of your ancestry.
Of course that is true, but shouldn't it be there choice who they employ?
In general, they have underperformed, just like whites underperform at RB.