Left Loses Its Head After Braun Ends Indiana Discrimination - Page 5
- Ending race/sex-based hiring aims to create a level playing field for all businesses.
- Critics argue this is a form of bigotry, while supporters say it promotes fairness.
- The focus should be on whether the program provides value to citizens, not individual characteristics.
Left Loses Its Head After Braun Ends Indiana Discrimination
Is the pursuit of equality and fairness in government contracting a myth or a reality in the state of Indiana? A recent decision to move away from hiring based on race or sex has sparked heated debates among state officials and business owners.
The decision, which aims to promote a level playing field for all businesses, has been met with resistance from some quarters. According to Denise Herd, co-chair of the Government Affairs Committee for the National Association of Women Business Owners, “Women-owned businesses have consistently demonstrated that they can compete and succeed on merit. The issue has never been about capability. It has been about access to opportunity.”
Larry Smith, the Indianapolis African American Quality of Life Initiative, agrees that the current system is not fair. “Our businesses can compete when the playing field is level, when it is fair, when it is applied equally,” he says. Critics like Smith argue that the decision to end hiring based on race or sex is a form of bigotry.
Tony Katz takes issue with this argument, pointing out that if the state is awarding contracts based on certain characteristics, it is, in itself, a form of bigotry. “Show me where the state of Indiana is engaged in bigotry in its awarding of contracts,” Tony says. “If you have to give contracts based on this and based on that, that is in and of itself the bigotry.”
Tony also criticizes the lack of clarity around definitions, particularly when it comes to the term “woman.” “Can you now define what a woman is?” Tony asks sarcastically, highlighting the double standard of the left.
Tony emphasizes that the focus should be on whether the program provides value to Hoosiers, rather than on the characteristics of the individuals receiving contracts. “Does the program get us a better result? Are Hoosiers better served with these contracts?” Tony asks. “If that question gives an answer of well, that’s just ridiculous, then I’m sorry that this absolutely has to go.”
Tony also addresses the issue of nepotism, pointing out that while it is acceptable for private businesses to hire family members, it is not acceptable in government. “If you hire your brother-in-law because they’re your brother-in-law as opposed to a well-qualified woman or black man or Asian woman, or Hispanic man or Jewish guy or Christian person, well that’s just weird,” the speaker says.
Ultimately, Tony argues that the decision to end hiring based on race or sex is a step in the right direction, as it promotes fairness and equality in government contracting. “We should be asking whether the program provides value,” Tony says. “If the program provided a value, and Hoosiers were better off, and it was quantifiable.”
To hear more about this important issue and Tony’s arguments, listen to the full episode and decide for yourself whether the pursuit of equality and fairness in government contracting is a myth or a reality in the state of Indiana.
Listen to the “Left Loses Its Head After Braun Ends Indiana Discrimination” discussion in full here:
