RogerClegg's comment history

RogerClegg said...

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/ ).

June 19, 2009 at 2:35 p.m.
RogerClegg said...

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/ ).

June 19, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.
RogerClegg said...

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/ ).

June 18, 2009 at 2:37 p.m.
RogerClegg said...

"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.

April 7, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.