Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Sunday, October 22, 2017 11:45 am
Latest:
July 25, 2006

NAACP announces new economic plans

by Miriam Ragen, Online National News Editor and Food Editor
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) announced its new plans to monitor the economy and corporate report card at its 97th annual convention in Washington, DC, on July 17.

NAACP President Bruce Gordon announced his findings on the state of the economy and the NAACP's intended solutions to help further establish racial equities in the workforce and economy. He explained, "Our goal since day one has been to shift some of the focus from social justice to economic empowerment."

The re-engineering program, as he called it, has three main steps: change focus to supply and diversity, create a consequence system and establish a best practice organization.

The supply and diversity system will encourage companies to buy their supplies from companies with a diverse workforce. This will help to stimulate the economy as a whole instead of helping only one demographic group, said Gordon.

The consequence system would allow companies with a "good track record" to benefit by receiving a NAACP product endorsement. Companies that fail to reach NAACP standards will suffer because the NAACP will lead a boycott of their products. Creating a best practice organization will allow the companies that have been successful in establishing a diverse work environment to help companies that have been less successful but want to improve, according to Gordon. By comparing techniques, the less successful company will be able to benefit.

This new system supports Gordon's philosophy. He said, "If corporations spend their money on us, we will spend our money with these companies. It is real simple."

Gordon emphasized that since roughly 13 percent of citizens of the United States citizens are African-American, companies should be spending that much on minority contracts. In reality, even the most minority conscious companies spend barely five percent, while the majority of companies spend in between one and two percent. Gordon believes that these statistics justify a reorganization effort because, "the numbers are inexcusable."

For the last 10 years, the NAACP has been releasing grades that show how corporations work with African-Americans in employment, charitable giving, advertising, contracting and community service. This year the NAACP graded corporations in five industries: telecommunications, lodging, finance, retail and auto.

The companies are graded on a scale of A to F, a grading system similar to that of most schools'. Companies that do not respond to the survey receive Fs. This year, Target, Dillard's, Kohl's and Sears all received failing grades. Gordon has called for a boycott of Target stores to demonstrate the importance of working with the NAACP to promote fair diversity. Gordon explains that a boycott will help direct African-American consumer dollars while pushing companies to be more responsive.

Gordon said, "We will be moderate and scientific, so we are beyond question, and we will create a win-win situation."



Share on Tumblr

Discuss this Article

Silver Chips Online invites you to share your thoughts about this article. Please use this forum to further discussion of the story topic and refrain from personal attacks and offensive language. SCO reserves the right to deny any comment. No comments that include hyperlinks will be posted. If you have a question for us, please include your email address or use this form.
 

  • Libertarian (View Email) on July 26, 2006 at 9:00 AM
    The NAACP is total crap. If I tried to start the NAAWP I would be called a racist. You are talking about advancing only a certain race. That is racism my friend. The NAACP is racist.
  • lilkunta (View Email) on July 27, 2006 at 4:23 PM
    Glad you all are working thru the summer!

    I love Target & I'm sad that they are grade F. But there bargains r great, & even though I'm a 4 yr NAACP memmer, I will not be boycotting Target.

    Miriam, it would be good 2 have/include/add a link 2 the NAACP website part that gives this/the corporate report card .

    Good writing Miriam.
  • Dumb Democrats= (View Email) on July 27, 2006 at 10:50 PM
    silly NAACP :(

    Nice job on the first article Miriam!!!

  • Libertarian (View Email) on July 31, 2006 at 12:24 PM
    "Gordon has called for a boycott of Target stores to demonstrate the importance of working with the NAACP to promote fair diversity."

    I will now be buying everything I can at Target to protest this racist organization (NAACP). Also I doubt the boycott will amount to anything. Most black people aren't racist like the NAACP. They can talk and talk and pretend they're a major organization, but the truth is most people realize that for people of all color to be created equal, we need to quit focusing on forced equality.
  • Negro on August 2, 2006 at 1:37 AM
    NAACP might not be my favorite organization but I think the advancement part is not so much a supremacist KKK thing as Libertarian makes it out to be. If Libertarian would expand his/her mind, he/she would see that maybe the NAACP was trying to advance Americans that happened to be black to an EQUAL place in society. Not African-Americans or Black-Americans or Negro-Americans but AMERICANS. So why shouldn't AMERICANS who happen to be black have associations to advance themselves. If you started the NAAWP that would not make sense because what advancement would white people need? Rythym? Soul? Hip Hop Culture?
  • Dumb Democrats= (View Email) on August 7, 2006 at 4:55 PM
    Negro, your word choice treat the NAACP as if it is no racist. However, let's look at the policies that the NAACP makes.
    NAACP calls for affirmative action. Look at what it does to asians and whites.
    Sure, NAACP calls for the betterment of SOME Americans, but along it way, it pulls down MANY other Americans. So, the NAACP is indirectly racist to people other than African Americans.
    In a perfect world, the statistics should all match. 13% African Americans should mean 13% of any group of people should be African American. However, there are sadly still groups that are based on race. To make everything equal, as Liberatarian said, we need to forget about race in everything. Yet, there are still groups that does not represent the population.
    Take for example, the NAACP with *gasp*, not a 13% African American membership. So, let's all join together and point fingers at the NAACP for failure to have a "good track record" and for having "inexcusable" numbers.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on August 7, 2006 at 7:42 PM
    "what advancement would white people need?" - Negro

    I'm currently working on college apps. Guess what, because I'm white I'm actually considered worse than other people of my similar quality who are black. That is racism, and the NAACP supports Affirmative Action. The NAACP is racist. Just because some (note I said SOME, not all or even most) black people choose to skip school, and focus more on sports and friends than academics, I'm penalized. College applications don't even consider color in their decision yet less blacks proportionally get into the better schools. They have worse average test scores, GPA, etc.

    Why doesn't the NAACP work to encourage black people to work hard? I know plenty of black people who work hard, they don't all fit the stereotype. But for everyone here who goes to Blair, if you go to the bathroom during class and see a person skip, what color are they most likely to be? Not trying to be racist here, just a fact. In GENERAL, black people seem to not care as much about school. So in GENERAL, the statistics show that blacks aren't getting as good test scores, they aren't getting paid as much, etc.

    Whose fault is that?

    Also, I looked up the NAAWP, and it does have a Florida chapter, I thought I was joking about it. It's very similar to the NAACP, but it supports advancing white Americans. This includes getting rid of Affirmative Action and other racism. Yet the MCPS filter blocks it. Why does it block the Florida NAAWP web site but not the NAACP web site? You can bet they'll be receiving a letter in the beginning of the school year on that topic.

    btw, I am a male, so instead of he/she you can say he in the future. And maybe you should expand your mind, realize that being black is currently an advantage in the world. Just because many blacks don't take advantage of that advantage is no excuse. It's still racism.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on August 7, 2006 at 9:42 PM
    Good point Dumb Democrats. The thing is what the NAACP really wants is more blacks, they aren't concerned with equality. Why aren't they fighting the NFL for having more than 13% of their members black?

    But this also brings up the topic of Silver Chips and other newspapers. I'm not sure what other papers' policies are (for example I read the Washington Post), but I'm referring to the page 2 article from the "ombudsmen" (I'd never heard that phrase before). I take issue to the rules they state.

    "no more than one quarter of the sources for any given story may be CAP or Magnet students"

    Really? What if it's an article about the magnet or CAP? Why are magnets and CAP lumped together? Why not at most 1/8 CAP and 1/8 magnet (or some other denomination)? But more importantly, why isn't there a rule that there must be a certain amount of CAP or magnets? To get the full diversity, why don't you need the viewpoints of the CAP and magnets?

    "...no more than half may be white"

    First of all, the majority of the country is white, why only half? I'll give you a pass there and assume you're just referring to representing the Blair comunity. I believe it's about split down the middle with whites and blacks, so why not no more than 50% can be black? You can have a story where all the people interviewed are black but not one where all the people interviewed are white? Why? If you're going to go one way, go the other way too. But back to the article I'm sure the NAACP would have a problem with that. Something like "we're always being oppressed, we need all the help we can get". Cut the racist crap and let your people (black people) stand on their feet. They do a pretty good job from what I can see. If Silver Chips is doing an article, they shouldn't care whether or not the people interviewed are all white, all black, all Asian, all hispanic, or mixed. If we really want equality, race should be a non-issue. If we want to abolish racism we need to give it the same status as last names. Wouldn't it sound rediculous saying at least 1/20th of the people interviewed must have the last name starting with A? I'm pretty sure more than 5% of the people have last names starting with A's, so where is their representative?

    What? Blacks have different views than whites? Are you trying to say they are genetically different (besides skin color of course)? That they have different views? Now THAT would be racist.

    Speaking of different views, what about Republicans and Democrats? Or Conservatives vs. Liberals? How about Libertarians? It seems most people interviewed about political articles are Democrats (unless Hyder or Armin wrote them). Why not require no more than half be Democrats? Why not require at least 1% Libertarians (I'm confident there is at least 1% of the school that's Libertarian) You are not concerned with different views, you are concerned with color. And that is racism, just as bad as the NAACP. I was going to write a letter to the address given there, but the opportunity arose here (I still may write it). I know you probably didn't come up with it, that it was in Silver Chips class, but it is still pure crap.
  • Dumb Democrats= (View Email) on August 8, 2006 at 3:42 PM
    Another thing that comes in mind is that the NAACP only helps African Americans. The NAACP uses Affirmative Action to help only African Americans. Imagine you're a poor white person who had been born into a poor family and tries very hard in school. Is it not fair that some other rich black person who had been born into a slightly better off family can get into a better college even though both of you had around the same grades?

    In addition to what Libertarian said, the NAACP should help the community by holding homework clubs and the likes to promote education for students of all races. This would TRULY be helping AMERICANS, as Negro said, to advance themselves.

    The whole thing about race is rather silly. There is no difference between an African American and a white person. There should be no difference in the way they're treated. There should be no policies that help one race. Instead, there should be policies that help the poor Americans and the less fortunate Americans to get ahead in life, whether they're black, white, yellow, or any other skin color.
  • Negro on August 13, 2006 at 1:56 PM
    Libertarian, Where did you get the idea that being black is currently an advantage in the world? There is no way that after hundreds of years of slavery and abuse, the past 30 years can give blacks an advantage in this country. I have no problem with less fortunate people getting advantages. But even now there are basically no positive images of black people anywhere in the media. Let me put it this way. How is a child in DC, or basically and city gonna expect to do great things when he/she doesn't believe that black people can succeed. In GENERAL who created all these problems for Americans that are black in this country? In General who STILL creates problems for blacks NOW? In GENERAL what race is still the least accepting of others? In GENERAL what skin color is the only one portrayed positively on TV? In GENERAL who robs Americans that are black of their culture and claims it as their own?
  • Dumb Democrats= (View Email) on August 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM
    Did you not read what Libertarian said? Colleges use affirmative action to help African Americans. African Americans have a higher chance of being accepted to a college. Is that not an advantage?
    A child in DC cannot be expected to do great things because he does not believe in himself. Well, I do not see how giving him almost guaranteed access to any college will get that child to believe in himself.
    Besides, lack of confidence is not only in African Americans. There are plenty of other poor people in DC as well who are not black. Shouldn't they get the benefits as well? What difference is there between a poor white child and a poor black child? Why should all these lawyers of the NAACP and all these policies be made to help blacks, while that poor white child in the same situation also needs help? Are you saying skin color really does mean something? Negro, that is racism.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on August 14, 2006 at 3:24 PM
    Reply to Negro "Libertarian, Where did you get the idea that being black is currently an advantage in the world?" Read my post, I said it's an advantage in getting into college and some jobs. "There is no way that after hundreds of years of slavery and abuse, the past 30 years can give blacks an advantage in this country. I have no problem with less fortunate people getting advantages." Read about Affirmative Action. It has nothing to do with wealth, nothing to do with how fortunate you are. It has to do with color of your skin. "But even now there are basically no positive images of black people anywhere in the media. Let me put it this way. How is a child in DC, or basically and city gonna expect to do great things when he/she doesn't believe that black people can succeed." Where do you live? I know plenty of blacks who are doing fine. And how do things like Affirmative Action promote the idea that they can succeed? That promotes the idea that "you need our help to succeed, you can't get in when people are judged regardless of race". "In GENERAL who created all these problems for Americans that are black in this country?" Sorry, generalities don't work. I didn't create a single problem for a black person, I am not racist, but I do expect them to earn their standing in life just as I expect any white, Asian, or any other race. "In GENERAL what race is still the least accepting of others?" In my opinion? Blacks. How many times do you hear people criticized for "acting white". You did good on the test? Quit acting white. "In GENERAL what skin color is the only one portrayed positively on TV?" Depends what you watch. Most shows don't show a skin color as positive or negative. If you watch football the majority are black. If you watch anything with rap blacks are portrayed as superior. What TV do you watch? "In GENERAL who robs Americans that are black of their culture and claims it as their own?" What are you talking about? How can a culture be robbed? I'm not into this whole culture thing. I don't care what people of my color did. I'm not going to take pride in what other people totally unrelated to me accomplished. What I will take pride in is MY accomplishments. It's not possible to rob a culture, that just doesn't make sense. Also wanted to point out that you are a racist. You are making claims that whites (well you never say it but indirectly you imply it) are robbing culture, being least acceptive of others, creating problems for blacks, and being portrayed positively on TV (exculsively). I challenge you to back that up. You have absolutely no proof besides your racist rhetoric. But don't worry, maybe you'll convince someone by repeating pure nonsense with no substance whatsoever. On second thought, maybe not.
  • please think on August 18, 2006 at 4:19 PM
    "You are making claims that whites (well you never say it but indirectly you imply it) are robbing culture, being least acceptive of others, creating problems for blacks, and being portrayed positively on TV (exculsively). I challenge you to back that up. You have absolutely no proof besides your racist rhetoric. But don't worry, maybe you'll convince someone by repeating pure nonsense with no substance whatsoever."



    It's not pure nonsense. If you have even a basic knowledge of this country's history you will know that all of these claims have been completely true for hundreds of years. blacks were enslaved since the 1600s, then when free they were brainwashed, oppressed, intimidated and humiliated to the point where they barely had any self respect or sense of identity. Blacks were at the very bottom for 400 years. Yes, things are better than they were. But 40 years of improvement doesnt erase 400 years of oppression. Don't say that everything is alright. It's not true...
  • Negro on August 18, 2006 at 6:17 PM
    How does AA help somebody especially when people would look down on a black person because they only got to where they are because of affirmative action? And then you're calling me racist. But I surely wouldn't mind taking the spot of someone like you at any college. I'm just telling the truth. I just have a question for you Libertarian..... Do you actually have any black friends outside of the school? Do you even have black friends in school? If you do, you should ask them how they feel about this subject.

    okay so generalities don't work...how about yours?
    "In GENERAL, black people seem to not care as much about school. So in GENERAL, the statistics show that blacks aren't getting as good test scores, they aren't getting paid as much, etc"
  • Libertarian (View Email) on August 19, 2006 at 11:58 PM
    To Negro: One difference, my generalities are true (look at any test breakdown, any football team, and any people skipping in the hallways. It's not pretty, but that's what the NAACP should be trying to solve).

    I have black friends inside and outside of school. And I don't know about you but I don't talk a lot of politics and about contreversial topics such as this in person with my friends. That's what SCO is for :)

    Anyway, prove that you're not a racist. You believe that you (and others of your race) deserve to get into a college or job simply because of the color of your skin (although it is only a boost, you can't get into a good college on skin alone, but it gives you a little push). You know what, I wouldn't even mind using income as a factor of admission, because if a poor person has the same score as a rich person, it means they did better with less resources. But when a black millionaire will get in over a white kid having to shoulder half the work at home with a single parent and still finds time to study hard and succeed in school, I have a problem. There are some the other way around, but if we want to focus on income, focus on income, not race.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on August 20, 2006 at 12:12 AM
    "It's not pure nonsense. If you have even a basic knowledge of this country's history you will know that all of these claims have been completely true for hundreds of years. blacks were enslaved since the 1600s, then when free they were brainwashed, oppressed, intimidated and humiliated to the point where they barely had any self respect or sense of identity. Blacks were at the very bottom for 400 years. Yes, things are better than they were. But 40 years of improvement doesnt erase 400 years of oppression. Don't say that everything is alright. It's not true..." - please think

    How many students at this school are over 40. It's ok, don't be ashamed, no one's going to make fun of you. Really? No one going to this school is over 40? From the posts here you would think half the school were slaves. No one here was impacted by slavery or discrimination (there will always be racists, white and black, but I mean the type that was rampant 40 years ago). Everyone is given a free education. If you're poor, the government helps pay for college. I agree with that. It's ok to help people based on income. But then it's up to you to make something of it. If you're willing to go to school, study, get a good education, and make something of yourself, you'll do pretty well off in life, regardless of race. If you don't and just don't care about school, you may be working at McDonalds, regardless of race. There is no racism in today's system, please get over it.
  • Republican on August 20, 2006 at 11:24 AM
    "How does AA help somebody especially when people would look down on a black person because they only got to where they are because of affirmative action?"
    Negro, Libertarian looks down at those that used the AA system, not those that are black... The AA system only helps those that are black, that is racism.
    Libertarian hates the AA system because it's racist, that's okay.
    Negro, there are also blacks that think differently from you. There are some successful blacks who are against you. Look at supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.

    To please think:
    It's been almost two generations since blacks were discriminated against by the government. Brainwashing and humiliation certainly do not pass from mother to baby. Please explain how being black in today's society is a disadvantage.
    There are racial quotas everywhere that help blacks. The NAACP is trying to make sure 13% of the money companies spend should go toward black contracts. I am sure that 13% of all contracts are not from blacks. Is that not an advantage?

    "Gordon emphasized that since roughly 13 percent of citizens of the United States citizens are African-American, companies should be spending that much on minority contracts."
    African Americans are not the only minorities btw.
  • Negro on August 27, 2006 at 4:25 PM
    Are you sure there's no racism in today's system?
  • Think in Pink on September 2, 2006 at 9:05 PM
    Alright, let's agree to disagree. Clearly, you will never see eye to eye, but that's okay. You have both brought up good points, but you're starting to completely miss the point of SCO comments: for the article!
  • Libertarian (View Email) on September 3, 2006 at 9:41 AM
    "Are you sure there's no racism in today's system?" - Negro

    Nope, you've proven earlier that there is. But really, there will always be racism, both ways I may add. But that doesn't mean we need to legislate it. I will say there is no racism in public education. Teachers will not fail a kid because he/she is a certain race. So why Affirmative Action? If the kid is poor, there is need-based financial aid no matter what color of your skin. So why do we need Affirmative Action when all things having to do with education are color-blind?
  • Libertarian (View Email) on September 4, 2006 at 9:28 AM
    Agree to disagree is a term used when both people agree on the facts, but have reached different conclusions based on their beliefs and past experiences. This has not occurred here. Negro is repeatedly making blanket false racist statements. If he were to agree that Affirmative Action was racist, but he was fine with racism, that would mean we'd have to agree to disagree, because all I can prove is that it's racism. If he's ok with that then this debate is done. Otherwise he has some of his statements to defend.
  • Negro on September 5, 2006 at 7:38 PM
    You are obviously blind to the children in places that don't have the same school as we do. Not every school in DC is as good as Blair or Montgomery County for example. For the most part, schools that are in bad condition with high dropout rates are in poorer black neighborhoods. How can schools be so good in Montgomery County but in PG or DC they can be so crappy. It's racism right there in your face. And don't tell me its about budget or anything like that.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on September 5, 2006 at 9:43 PM
    *sigh*
    Then why don't you fight the problem? Why aren't you fighting to improve those schools? And guess what? Your racism shows through again. There aren't poor whites? You've got problems with poor neighborhoods, not black neighborhoods. But also the solution doesn't make sense.

    These kids aren't receiving as "good" an education, so we just let them into college over smarter kids? Will that help them? Isn't the point of college so that the people who get in can actually keep up? Not only does Affirmative Action hurt the schools (lowering the level of discussion, etc. in the classrooms), it hurts the individual students, who may not be ready for it. I agree with you somewhat here, we do need to help to fix some of the schools. You should be able to receive an education no matter what school you go to. And a quality one.

    As to your claim of racism. This is the same claim made about New Orleans. I've heard it before. "If they were white, FEMA would have been there within 24 hours". Yet they chose to overlook the blatant racism from the mayor (I'm pretty sure it was the mayor) saying "let's make this a chocolate city".

    Let's examine the real problem. These poor cities don't have good schools. How do you define good school? I'd define it as quality of teachers, and actually a large part of education is the other kids there with you. At least the way public schools are these days, having to turn all 30 kids into the same robots. Knowing the exact same thing, taking the exact same tests, etc.

    I don't have a solution. No quality teacher wants to teach there because the schools are so bad. And the schools can't get better until it can attract better teachers. And meanwhile the kids are running around with knives and guns (this is a generality and what I've heard. I've never been into a DC public school) and they don't care about school. So it's an endless cycle downwards. I don't have a solution and I doubt anyone does.

    Because of this, I don't mind SO MUCH Affirmative Action when it is based on family income rather than race. If we're talking about poor neighborhoods, we're talking about poor neighborhoods. That's black people, white people, hispanic people, asian people, and every other type of person. But only focusing on minorities (and including the rich minorities) only makes it worse, strengthening the racial tensions. Why is it that a black person in a DC public school has it better than a white kid at a DC public school? Why does a black Blair kid have it better than a white DC kid? Makes no sense.
  • Republican on September 6, 2006 at 10:24 PM
    Libertarian, though I do not agree with Affirmative Action, I can see how affirmative action is trying to help those smart kids in the poor neighborhoods to succeed. People in poor neighborhoods go to worse schools so they are not at the same level as those students that go to richer schools.

    It's a good idea trying to help those that are poor, but when it only helps those who are black, the racism appears.

    Negro, as Libertarian said, poor whites, poor asians, poor people, are at a same level of difficulty as poor blacks.

    In fact, back then, I believe asians, hispanics, and other minorities were just as discriminated against as blacks. Zoot suit riots and the like.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on September 9, 2006 at 12:26 AM
    Reluctantly, I can accept AA based on income. It's not perfect, but it can be a temporary solution while we find out how to get all of the schools better. I'm open to that. But race Affirmative Action is just plain wrong. It's racism, plain and simple.
  • to Negro on April 26, 2007 at 1:43 PM
    thats exactly why people want to introduce affirmative action based on income, not race. there are some white kids in bad neighborhoods too, you know.
Jump to first comment