Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's generally illegal to boot (see 42 USC section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ).
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the shareholders money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's generally illegal to boot (see 42 USC section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ).
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, etc. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the stockholders money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's generally illegal to boot (see 42 USC 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ).
"Graycor has also committed to sourcing 11 percent of the contract to minority and woman-owned suppliers." Such discrimination--this is nothing but a quota--on the basis of skin color and sex is unfair, divisive, and illegal (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981). Shame on Volkswagen, shame on Graycor.
Chattanooga: BlueCross hits minority participation goal for its new headquarters
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's generally illegal to boot (see 42 USC section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ).
BlueCross hits goal on minorities
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the shareholders money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's generally illegal to boot (see 42 USC section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ).
Washington stimulus is for banks, here stimulus is VW
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, etc. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the stockholders money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's generally illegal to boot (see 42 USC 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ).
Chattanooga: Chicago firm to build VW buildings
"Graycor has also committed to sourcing 11 percent of the contract to minority and woman-owned suppliers." Such discrimination--this is nothing but a quota--on the basis of skin color and sex is unfair, divisive, and illegal (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981). Shame on Volkswagen, shame on Graycor.