Tories and Affirmative Action

[Jack Weber]

I tell you what. You go tell them that.

I'd love to see Conrad Bla...er....I mean Argus,do that....

[Argus]

Coming from a self described elitist,the fact you think I'm a leftist is funny...

Naw, what's funny is how you don't seem to realize it. But damn near every position you've taken since arriving here would make Jack Layton smile.

Since you clearly are above most people(

Well, I am actually.

,could you tell us your intellectually superior plan for overcoming the obvious societal disadvantages certain groups have because of a system that was clearly not designed for their societal advancement?

Excuse me? Overcoming what? A uh, a "system" that wasn't "designed for their societal advancement?"

What in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know or are you repeating some mush-brained drivel you read in a sociology text?

Why it's Jack Weber, the Black man's friend! Taa-taa-ta-taaa! "I'll help you, Black man! I'll make sure no one can compete with you so you can get a big important job!"

"Uh, but I think I can do that anyway."

"Don't be silly! You're a darkie! You need my help if you're going to get a good job!"

And by the way,I don't particularily like any sort of hiring quota's.I think the downside of these things is that they are indirectly paternalistic and infantilizing

You don't particularly like them, because, after all, you're not a lefty, but on the other hand, you'll fight tooth and claw to keep them in place so them poor wittle brown boys can get them a good job!

You are just so... noble! I'm in awe!

But you know what, they're not "indirectly paternalistic", they're directly paternalistic in a directly racist manner which both allows for skin based hiring, and also says for the whole country to hear, that non-whites can't possibly succeed on a level playing field.

[Argus]

I tell you what. You go tell them that.

Howzabout you go to a reserve and you stand up and say "Good people! Because of how poorly the natives of Canada were treated by the reserve schools, I'm going to make sure we hire lots of Nigerians and Somalians and Chinese to work in the federal government!"

No doubt you'll have to take a lot of bows.

[Handsome Rob]

Bonam...

This is'nt an attack...

Do you think that the generational problems(state sponsored illiteracy etc.) of 300+years of slavery,approximately 100 years of Jim Crow can be erased within the 45 years period since the sweeping civil rights legislation of the early '60's?

If we need affirmative action to solve discriminatory issues, what exactly, are we paying the human rights commissions & tribunals for?

I don't really understand where this expectation comes from, that we can unite people and eliminate discrimination based on such things as skin color, when we have government policy to divide and categorize people into different groups based on skin color?

As I've said before, I'm a white visible minority in the workplace, but their are a couple of remarkable observations:

-At any sort of conflict or negative event, the workplace polarizes racially, every time. I strongly suspect that if we had a 9/11 type event, we as Canadians would be unable to even show a semblance of unity.

-The furthest progress I can observe, is in the somewhat evident, linear correlation between generations in Canada and amount of integration within the workplace community. IE: 1st generation Punjabi immigrants will associate with like, but 2nd generation, born here to original immigrants will associate with everyone. Given enough time, North American consumerism eliminates culture, religion, etc.

[TimG]

But on a strictly merit bases, First Nations officers explicitly being sent to communities with troubled First Nations groups within it fails muster. Surely a white or Chinese cop, if a good man, should be accepted by First Nations people, right?

There are a few job categories where being a specific race is a legimate requirement for certain positions. Policing and acting are two that come mind immediately.

As I said, affirmative action may be the wrong way to go about righting these wrongs, but make believing these wrongs didn't exist and still can't rear their heads is just navel gazing at its worst.

The problem with affirmative action programs are two fold:

1) They don't take into account that a shift in composition of a workforce like the civil service will take a generation or more because of the time it takes for the groups to get the training and rise up the ranks.

2) They don't take into account that cutural/ethnic/gender differences do affect job/career choices which means the pool of qualified applicants will never exactly match the community.

[capricorn]

If we need affirmative action to solve discriminatory issues, what exactly, are we paying the human rights commissions & tribunals for?

I think affirmative action in the public service and Human Rights tribunals serve different purposes but work in tandem.

Affirmative action is a hiring and promotion process. One could also argue it relates to access to training. Human Rights tribunals offer remedies in cases of discrimination.

In general terms, as far as employment in the public service goes, if a visible minority perceives discrimination in applying to ENTER the public service, he/she can take a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. If a visible minority already employed in the public service claims discrimination on any employment related matter, including promotion, then the union is there to help file a grievance or launch an appeal against a selection process, or both. I would expect if the aggrieved person doesn't get satisfaction through those mechanisms, then the Human Rights Commission provides another avenue for redress.

[Handsome Rob]

Remarkable that the Harper hating CBC comment pages are batting at least 10 to 1 in favor of changing these policies. I'd venture this stands to be a home run for the Tories.

How about exchanging affirmative action & quotas for equal opportunity?

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/22/affirmative-action-review.html#socialcomments

[capricorn]

Thanks for the link, Handsome Rob. I'm not surprised by the response. Can't wait for the official retort by the opposition parties.

[Remiel]

You know, I would not put much store in how many people on CBC want to change it. In my experience, despite the fact that the Toronto Star is left of the Globe & Mail, the people that post in its comments are far right of the people who post on the Glove & Mail. It is like a bizarre version of opposites attract.

[Jack Weber]

If we need affirmative action to solve discriminatory issues, what exactly, are we paying the human rights commissions & tribunals for?

I don't really understand where this expectation comes from, that we can unite people and eliminate discrimination based on such things as skin color, when we have government policy to divide and categorize people into different groups based on skin color?

As I've said before, I'm a white visible minority in the workplace, but their are a couple of remarkable observations:

-At any sort of conflict or negative event, the workplace polarizes racially, every time. I strongly suspect that if we had a 9/11 type event, we as Canadians would be unable to even show a semblance of unity.

-The furthest progress I can observe, is in the somewhat evident, linear correlation between generations in Canada and amount of integration within the workplace community. IE: 1st generation Punjabi immigrants will associate with like, but 2nd generation, born here to original immigrants will associate with everyone. Given enough time, North American consumerism eliminates culture, religion, etc.

I don't think we do need Human Rights commissions.This where I rarely agree with the likes of Ezra Levant.

As far as uniting people?The failing of multicuturlism is that it presupposes that everyone will simply intermingle and we will osmotically become better for it.The fact is that all it has done is et up ehtnic enclaves in large cities were diferent ethnic groups only mingle amongst thenselves.

As far as Affirmative Action goes.I've always felt it should be a means to an end,not the end itself.The problem is that no one seems to know when that end game should be played,or how it should be played.The civil rights movement,which was necessary,has become the civil rights establishment and it does'nt want to give up the power it has.That's understandable,but it's stagnant,and there has to be something beyong racial quotas.

I think your right about the genrational thing.The more people become removed from thier home ethnicities,they seem to become more westernized.I don't know if mindless consumerism is the greatest vehicle for this,however,it's the best we've got.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's about time, merit and qualifications should be the deciding factors, not race.

You think this is achieved without affirmative action. Whitey still often gets the job all thing being equal, or even when blacky is more qualified.

Just ask my dad. Retired long-time small business owner. Didn;t much like brown people.

[Jack Weber]

Naw, what's funny is how you don't seem to realize it. But damn near every position you've taken since arriving here would make Jack Layton smile.

Well, I am actually.

Excuse me? Overcoming what? A uh, a "system" that wasn't "designed for their societal advancement?"

What in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know or are you repeating some mush-brained drivel you read in a sociology text?

Why it's Jack Weber, the Black man's friend! Taa-taa-ta-taaa! "I'll help you, Black man! I'll make sure no one can compete with you so you can get a big important job!"

"Uh, but I think I can do that anyway."

"Don't be silly! You're a darkie! You need my help if you're going to get a good job!"

You don't particularly like them, because, after all, you're not a lefty, but on the other hand, you'll fight tooth and claw to keep them in place so them poor wittle brown boys can get them a good job!

You are just so... noble! I'm in awe!

But you know what, they're not "indirectly paternalistic", they're directly paternalistic in a directly racist manner which both allows for skin based hiring, and also says for the whole country to hear, that non-whites can't possibly succeed on a level playing field.

Damn near every position I take here would make Layton smile....Hmmm....

What's my position on Man Made Global Cimate change?

Truth in sentencing?

Gay Marriage?

The Israel/Palestinian situation?

Abortion?

Free speech?

Truth be told,I think Layton is alot like...Well..You...By that,I mean a phony who's in love with his own mind.

But seeing as you're in love with your own mind,why don't you use it and thrill us with your intellectually superior acumen...And tell us the positive end game for things like Affirmative Action?

Share your superior sense of humanity with the rest of us slack jawed plebes,and give us a glimpse into your inspiring wisdom,will you please?

The rest of this is your usual self agrandizing blather when someone calls you out,so I can't be bothered wasting my sunken foreheaded time with it...

And you should'nt have wasted the boards bandwidth unless you had a useful response to add to the discussion...

Edited July 23, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

As I said, I have my problems with affirmative action. But that there is a problem that needs a solution should not be doubted.

Everything should be doubted until proof of it is shown. I do not feel that there is anything near the kind of problem, today, that merits as extreme a solution as racist hiring practices.

But on a strictly merit bases, First Nations officers explicitly being sent to communities with troubled First Nations groups within it fails muster. Surely a white or Chinese cop, if a good man, should be accepted by First Nations people, right?

A white or Chinese cop might get the job done, but it should be reasonably clear that a first nations person might be more quickly and easily received in a first nations community. Thus if a police department is having problems with some such community, then it may well be judged beneficial to have a native cop or two be hired by that department. It becomes an attribute useful to performing a certain job. This is not affirmative action, but hiring based on needed traits.

Similarly, a company that wants to do lots of business with China could prefer a Chinese speaker for a given position, for certain positions a women may be preferable than a man (or the other way around), etc. There is nothing wrong with this.

What is wrong is when, absent any benefit to the job, a person of a certain race or gender is given preference based solely on that.

That's the problem with following an ideology to the letter. Pragmatism should always be a factor.

Agreed.

And this is where we enter the "We're so different!" Don't you see, it's the Wizard of Oz defense "Ignore the man behind the curtain!" The scars of past racism, of past discrimination still linger. The First Nations communities, for instance, were devastated by it, and it's damned cold comfort to simply say "Well, that was twenty or thirty years ago, time to get over it."

The scars of past racism and discrimination may still exist, but such scars heal with time if one simply leaves the wounds undisturbed. Affirmative action on the other hand, clearly annoys many whites, as you can see in this thread. Some of them may grow some resentment against the minorities that are constantly preferred over them (think back to some of mikedavid's threads for example). This generates new racism, where none would have otherwise existed. Affirmative action may be a "quick fix" in terms of the numbers to get larger numbers of minorities employed, but it only enflames racial tensions where otherwise none need exist. My opinion is that the scars will take longer to heal this way.

Clearly a part of any healing process, or in general a process of righting injustices, has to be more than simply telling the abused party that there's no problem any more, because that sounds more like you're trying abrogate society's past evils than actually deal with deep-rooted problems.

A process of "justice" has a defined limit. Someone who has done a wrong is fined a certain amount of money, or sentenced to a certain amount of time. How long is affirmative action to continue? Have we imposed a life sentence on our civilization? Or do we have a release date? And that of course ignores the fact that many of the whites who live here today had nothing to do with the wrongs of which you speak. Why must they endure this collective punishment?

I mean, do you seriously think that just because Eisenhower sent the troops into Little Rock, that the problems of African-Americans just disappeared? That somehow you can draw some line in the sand, and declare "it isn't the 1960s anymore" as if somehow the 1960s represent the wall between Jim Crow and the modern America society?

As I said, affirmative action may be the wrong way to go about righting these wrongs, but make believing these wrongs didn't exist and still can't rear their heads is just navel gazing at its worst.

Affirmative action is indeed the wrong way. Race blind hiring practices are the right way. If someone best deserves a job, whether they be white or black, man or woman, they should be hired for it. You should get what you earn. Black people (and others) can be every bit as successful as white people through their own efforts, they do not need the crutch of affirmative action.

[scribblet]

Can you imagine the opposition opposing this and causing election because they are against ending discrimination LOL

[Shwa]

My opinion is that whoever is best qualified for a job is the person who should be hired. No one should be barred from a job, or preferentially hired for a job, on the basis of their race, except in such cases where being a member of a certain race is useful to perform a certain job (for example, TB's example of a few First Nations police officers being useful).

This is the thin edge right here, thanks for posting that Bonam. So instead of an 'objective' merit based non-racist hiring system - which "the mode of thinking that sees it as something positive is utterly alien to" to you, now you are allowing exceptions. So not quite as "utterly alien" afterall eh? Good one.

So, if instances where hiring visible minorities is useful to perform a certain job - the example given was what is called a 'front-line' or 'public facing' job - all jobs where the public is served should have some sort of visible minority hiring quota to reflect the population is serves because it would be useful to perform this job. Is this what you are saying?

So let's carry this a little further as to the meaning of the word "useful" and who determines how that is played out in a practical sense. In creating affirmative action and employment equity programs, someone "thought" it would be "useful" to have visible minorities serving in front line situations that reflected a population's diversity because it could improve service, add comfort to clients, allow for integration, etc. Whatever. They took these thoughts to others, who started thinking about the ideas and eventually it made it into legislation. So, as you can see, the thinking isn't "utterly alien" at all.

So let's carry it even a little further using the same sort of sense of "useful" as the example you agreed with. It if is useful to have visible minorities in situations where they reflect their client base, then it would be equally useful to have visible minorities in situations in the back-ends (those providing services to the front end visible minority staff) to reflect their client base, that is, the visible minorities who were in the front ends.

So now we end up with visible minorities in HR, IT, file rooms, boiler rooms, barracks, reserves, etc., etc. Some of them, being pretty smart human beings, take full advantage of the internal job training, access to oragnizational knowledge and staff experience and next thing you know, they are qualifying and winning management jobs, then joining the senior management ranks, etc. And trust me Bonam, I have seen enough people over the years access career progression in this way far more than some unqualified person hired just because they are a visible minority and this is with fairly extensive experience in three (or four) levels of government over the past 30 years.

While you find affirmative action thinking "uttery alien" it appears that your humble exception has the same end with regard to usefulness. I am sure that the review the Tories will do will come to the same conclusion as you have. When they do, I am sure you will be one of the first to applaud their findings.

[Mr.Canada]

I thought the opposition want equality? Aren't they always saying that everyone is equal? Why are they now seemingly against equality? Why are they demanding some groups of people should be afforded special rights that other groups aren't privy too? Sounds like economic apartheid is what the Liberals and NDP want.

Why are they so afraid to have people judged for employment on the applicants skill and character? Are the Liberals and NDP trying to say that minorities, women and other groups have less character and aren't as skilled?

[ToadBrother]

Affirmative action is indeed the wrong way. Race blind hiring practices are the right way. If someone best deserves a job, whether they be white or black, man or woman, they should be hired for it. You should get what you earn. Black people (and others) can be every bit as successful as white people through their own efforts, they do not need the crutch of affirmative action.

Some would disagree, and while I don't like affirmative action, there is a compelling argument to be made that in a society where certain groups have been the victims of long-standing and systemic prejudices, you can't just say "You're free!" and expect everything to work. One of the chief reasons that the Jim Crow laws even existed in the first place was because, after Lincoln's assassination, the will to make Reconstruction more than just simply resuscitating the South died with him. On paper African-Americans were equal, in reality, even apart from the Jim Crow laws, a lack of meaningful economic equality castrated the Thirteenth Amendment.

Equality doesn't just happen. It didn't just happen even when the electoral franchise was increased. It takes actual effort to create equality. Affirmative action works, though I tend to believe it's nearly as bad as the disease it tries to cure, but I'm coming up short if I replay the plight of African-Americans after the Civil War to the present that would not have ultimately required some severe intervention by the government.

Edited July 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jack Weber]

I thought the opposition want equality? Aren't they always saying that everyone is equal? Why are they now seemingly against equality? Why are they demanding some groups of people should be afforded special rights that other groups aren't privy too? Sounds like economic apartheid is what the Liberals and NDP want.

Why are they so afraid to have people judged for employment on the applicants skill and character? Are the Liberals and NDP trying to say that minorities, women and other groups have less character and aren't as skilled?

How's the Fascist revolution coming?

[Bonam]

Equality doesn't just happen. It didn't just happen even when the electoral franchise was increased. It takes actual effort to create equality. Affirmative action works, though I tend to believe it's nearly as bad as the disease it tries to cure, but I'm coming up short if I replay the plight of African-Americans after the Civil War to the present that would not have ultimately required some severe intervention by the government.

We are already far past "curing" anything. Minority hiring to the public service over-represents their share of the population:

According to the commission's latest figures, 18.8% of public servants hired in 2008-09 were visible minorities, 4.2% were aboriginal, 3.3% were people with disabilities and 57.1% were women. Canada-wide, according to the 2006 census, 16.2% of Canadians are visible minorities, 3.8% are aboriginal and 51% are women. There were no statistics for people with disabilities.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/AFFIRMATIVE+ACTION+OTTAWA+OVERHAUL/3311772/story.html#ixzz0uWdVKVMz

Also, I agree with you, affirmative action is as bad as what it "tries to cure". That's why it shouldn't be used.

By the way, we are talking about Canada here, in case you forgot. We never had a civil war. Nor did we have Jim Crow laws.

[bebe]

Why are they so afraid to have people judged for employment on the applicants skill and character?

I think because we know that isn't what happens:

http://www.straight.com/article-222933/blog-politics-ubc-employment-study-shows-white-supremacy-still-exists-canada

UBC employment study shows white supremacy still exists in Canada

By Charlie Smith

It was a story the media couldn’t resist: UBC study discovers that employers discriminate against applicants with non-English names.

[Jack Weber]

We are already far past "curing" anything. Minority hiring to the public service over-represents their share of the population:

According to the commission's latest figures, 18.8% of public servants hired in 2008-09 were visible minorities, 4.2% were aboriginal, 3.3% were people with disabilities and 57.1% were women. Canada-wide, according to the 2006 census, 16.2% of Canadians are visible minorities, 3.8% are aboriginal and 51% are women. There were no statistics for people with disabilities.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/AFFIRMATIVE+ACTION+OTTAWA+OVERHAUL/3311772/story.html#ixzz0uWdVKVMz

Also, I agree with you, affirmative action is as bad as what it "tries to cure". That's why it shouldn't be used.

By the way, we are talking about Canada here, in case you forgot. We never had a civil war. Nor did we have Jim Crow laws.

We had segregated beaches in Toronto into the '40's.

We had the Africville razing.

We have the residential school issue.The apology does'nt change the damage that was done.

I have seen photo's of the Ku Klux Klan marching in large numbers through the streets of Hamilton in the 1930's.

Obviously these are'nt on the scale of the US Civil War,and the resulting failure of the US government,which allowed Jim Crowism through inaction.But just a few of these does prove that we have had the same problems as our neighbours to the South,just on a smaller scale...

Edited July 23, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

I think because we know that isn't what happens:

http://www.straight.com/article-222933/blog-politics-ubc-employment-study-shows-white-supremacy-still-exists-canada

UBC employment study shows white supremacy still exists in Canada

By Charlie Smith

It was a story the media couldn’t resist: UBC study discovers that employers discriminate against applicants with non-English names.

You should know that Mr.Falange(Mr.Canada) is an avowed Fascist...

[Bonam]

I think because we know that isn't what happens:

http://www.straight.com/article-222933/blog-politics-ubc-employment-study-shows-white-supremacy-still-exists-canada

UBC employment study shows white supremacy still exists in Canada

By Charlie Smith

It was a story the media couldn’t resist: UBC study discovers that employers discriminate against applicants with non-English names.

Useless article. It uses one paragraph to briefly refer to a study whose methodology and validity is not explained, and then spends the rest of the time moralizing and lecturing whites on how evil they are.

[Bonam]

We had segregated beaches in Toronto into the '40's.

We had the Africville razing.

We have the residential school issue.The apology does'nt change the damage that was done.

I have seen photo's of the Ku Klux Klan marching in large numbers through the streets of Hamilton in the 1930's.

Obviously these are'nt on the scale of the US Civil War,and the resulting failure of the US government,which allowed Jim Crowism through inaction.But just few of these does prove that we have had the same problems as our neighbours to the South,just on a smaller scale...

That's all fine, and people can refer to these incidents if they wish in their arguments to try to justify current Canadian policies, but referring to the US Civil War or to the Jim Crow laws is invalid since those were not Canadian issues. By the way, you did not address any of the rest of the post which you quoted.

[Jack Weber]

That's all fine, and people can refer to these incidents if they wish in their arguments to try to justify current Canadian policies, but referring to the US Civil War or to the Jim Crow laws is invalid since those were not Canadian issues. By the way, you did not address any of the rest of the post which you quoted.

Well,that's because I agree with you.If things like this were done as a percentage of the population,it probably would not seem so unfair,but public entites are all about "diversity",and seem to go overboard to prove it.