Guilford County Hires FIVE To Assure Contracting with Minority Businesses

The Rhino Times reported on Friday that the Guilford County Board of Commissioners have hired a total of 5 (five) employees for the Minority-and-Women-Business-Enterprises (MWBE) program. It is intended to assure that the contracts the county has with private businesses go to those that are owned by minorities or women.

Guilford County, of course, is socialist-controlled on its Board of Commissioners. “To the victors go the spoils”– at least, under the spoils system we now have in place in the county.

This topic has been a perennial grievance for the Simkins PAC- aligned black politicians in Greensboro and Guilford County for many years. Getting government contracts for minority-owned businesses has been a key priority for them, even to the extent that it is nearly idolatrous. They cannot imagine life without clinging to their identity politics.

The county previously had one employee handling this function. With five employees, it is nearly certain that the purchasing department and other county departments will feel browbeaten to extend contracts to minorities even though it might not be in the best interests of taxpayers and citizens.

We are supposed to have equal protection under the law and color-blind policies, but this move effectively further extends preferences to minorities. It is a form of discrimination.

And of course, women are beneficiaries also. Many male business owners and entrepreneurs have even had their wives named as the owner of their businesses in order to get access to such contracts in the past.

All three Republican commissioners voted in favor. The Rhino reporter said this was a sign of their “picking their battles”. But many Republican local elected officials in this area have avidly sought the Simkins PAC endorsement to get a competitive advantage– even though it represents crawling in bed with socialists and cultural marxists. This might be yet another example of our corrupt local machine politics.


2 thoughts on “Guilford County Hires FIVE To Assure Contracting with Minority Businesses

  1. I am not an attorney but Guilford County’s underlying plan sounds unconstitutional. Am I wrong ?

    From the SCOTUS

    City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)

    Primary Holding

    The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow a city to require general contractors working for it to subcontract a certain proportion of the work to minority-owned businesses.


    The Minority Business Utilization Plan imposed by the city of Richmond, Virginia required general contractors who worked for the city to subcontract at least 30 percent of the dollar value of each contract to one or more Minority Business Enterprises. These consisted of businesses that were at least 51 percent owned and controlled by African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Eskimos, or Aleuts. At the hearing where the Plan was adopted, the city did not present evidence that it had discriminated on the basis of race in awarding government contracts or that general contractors working with the city had discriminated on the basis of race when awarding subcontracts. However, the alleged justification for the Plan was to serve as a remedy for past discrimination.

    The implementation of the Plan prevented J.A. Croson Co. from receiving a contract, since it was the only non-MBE to bid on it. Croson brought an action to have the Plan declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The lower courts were divided on whether it was constitutional.


    Sandra Day O’Connor (Author)
    William Hubbs Rehnquist
    Byron Raymond White
    John Paul Stevens
    Anthony M. Kennedy

    State and local governments can provide remedies for past discrimination only within their own jurisdiction, since the power of redressing nationwide discrimination is reserved to Congress. Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard for evaluating the Plan because it creates distinctions based on race. The stated interest of providing a remedy for past discrimination in the construction industry is not compelling, based on evidence that shows little previous discrimination in this area. Moreover, the Plan was not a narrowly tailored means to achieve that goal, especially since it favors all minorities rather than only African-Americans. There are alternative ways for a city to accomplish this objective that would be race-neutral. Its rigid pursuit of racial balancing is unconstitutional, especially when there is no specific proof of past discrimination that the local government can identify.


    Antonin Scalia (Author)

    Government discrimination should be inherently invalid, even if it is intended to provide a remedy for a past wrong. The single exception is when it is necessary to undo currently existing discriminatory practices through affirmative action.

Comments are closed.