Affirmative Action Explained

[Michael Hardner]

The issue is whether race/gender should be one of the qualifying conditions. In most job categories it should not be. All affimitative action does is create a culture of racism by giving people special treatment because of their race.

It addresses a problem whereby some sectors become completely homogeneous, which is a disadvantage to everyone. These programs don`t exist in all jobs - they don`t exist only for women, or certain races and these measures shouldn't be permanent solutions so I can see the value in them.

[TimG]

It addresses a problem whereby some sectors become completely homogeneous, which is a disadvantage to everyone.

Why? Some sectors are homogeneous because only people with a certain background are even interested in the job. The government should not care unless the homogeneity infers with the ability to the job. Police is the one example where a lack of minorities could inferfer with getting the job done because community liaison is important.

These programs don`t exist in all jobs - they don`t exist only for women, or certain races and these measures shouldn't be permanent solutions so I can see the value in them.

The problem is they are permanent because the social engineers can't accept outcomes that fail to conform to their prejudices. e.g. women generally don't want to be firemen so it is completely unreasonable to set any target for female participation in that field. Edited January 1, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why? Some sectors are homogeneous because only people with a certain background are even interested in the job. The government should not care unless the homogeneity infers with the ability to the job. Police is the one example where a lack of minorities could inferfer with getting the job done because community liaison is important.

Right, police is a good example of why these programs are needed sometimes.

The problem is they are permanent because the social engineers can't accept outcomes that fail to conform to their prejudices. e.g. women generally don't want to be firemen so it is completely unreasonable to set any target for female participation in that field.

How many women want to be firemen ? What's the rationale for the programmes there ? What are the specifics here or alternately are there in fact social engineers who will admit to not accepting the outcomes in this example ?

[Saipan]

Right, police is a good example of why these programs are needed sometimes.

Needed by whom?

Edited January 1, 2011 by Saipan

[Michael Hardner]

Needed by whom?

See previous posts on this topic.

[Scotty]

I think we want the best force possible - which includes minorities and women to deal with situations where that perspective is helpful. 100% white male cops doesn't meet that.

I've never quite understood this argument. On the face of it, for PR purposes, I suppose, it would be helpful to have black/female/asian police officers in order to liason with community leaders. However, when you get beyond that, what really is the point? Any police officer is going to be dealing with a broad swath of the community. Unless you get to the point where black constables are assigned only to "black" areas, Asian constables go only to "asian" areas and women only deal with female criminals and witnesses, which seems silly on the face of it.

The RCMP, as an example, would rarely deal with blacks at all. Given the geographic responsibilty of the force, it would deal with whites, asians and natives. Yet it will give preference to a Black applicant with far fewer qualifications, then select him from a pool of "qualified" candidates even though he finishes far lower down in the testing than white officers. What's the reason behind that?

[Scotty]

It addresses a problem whereby some sectors become completely homogeneous, which is a disadvantage to everyone.

Why? Who says? Why would you turn down applicants for a white police officer, then beg, plead and bribe some asian, almost ANY asian, to please, pretty please apply? The fact is Asians don't want to be cops. To recruit them you have to drastically lower your standards and select from a minute pool which will inevitably yield lower quality results.

What possible difference is it to society if firefighteres are all whites? Why does it need to go to desperate lengths, almost anything short of dragging the riverfront bars, to dredge up a few black candidates, then accept them and pass them regardless of qualifications?

[Shwa]

Racism is racism no matter how you twist to justify it.

What "race" is a visible minority?

[Guest TrueMetis]

This is simply continued avoidance of the obvious. You're well aware that large men are physically stronger than small men or women but refuse to concede the point because you believe this will damage your argument in favour of affirmative action.

1) This is sometimes but not always the case 2) as someone who has studied martial arts that meant for taking out larger opponents I stopped caring about size and strength, give me skill. Their names weights and heights is not enough information for me to make a choice.

Levitation not yet being an option, victims are still carried where that is a possibilty. Granted, where firefighters are too weak to carry the victims they have to be dragged, inevitably resulting in further harm and slowing the rescue. But that appears to be something the supporters of AA are willing to accept in pursuit of equality of results.

No they aren't for a very simple reason, smoke rises. For the nephew of a firefighter you sure a missing a lot of basic knowledge on fires. Dragging is the preferred method as it keeps the victim out of the smoke, if done right doesn't harm the victim, and isn't any slower than carrying. When you drag someone you are using the strongest muscles in your body.

This is just silly. Stop please. Is it your position that firefighters knock politely at each apartment door and then shrug and walk off if someone doesn't open it? If they hear children crying do they urgently call for a locksmith? Come on.

No but they go carefully and don't use an axe, this would avoid ya know killing the people they are trying to rescue. If they are going to break through a door they are going to use one of these.

[bush_cheney2004]

What "race" is a visible minority?

I think the silly notion behind that idea is clearly anything but the "white standard". The concept of a 'visible minority" is inherently "racist" by definition.

[Shwa]

Do you really feel its advisable to make such definitive statements without a single shred of supporting evidence?

This from a guy who starts off with this wonderful gem, not even a statement of fact, but "supporting evidence" hinging on a make-believe scenario and then asks me to explain 'the logic' of the make-believe scenario, one which has never happened or to which he cannot - and does not - supply any proof whatsoever. Riiiiight.

So let's review:

I hire Jim instead of Joe because Jim is White and I give preference to White people, and that's racist. Okay.

But if I'm a government manager and I hire Joe instead of Jim because Joe is Black and I give preference to Blacks that's NOT racist?

Please explain the logic.

So let's take a look at this:

I mean, you're not even stating it as an opinion but as a fact. That's chutzpah but poor debating.

I have already - and very easily I might add - countered your make-believe scenario with a statement based in fact:

No government manager anywhere in Canada or any province or territory has hired someone because they are Black. So there is no "preference to Blacks."

Because any hire under any affirmative action program does not specify skin colour, eye configuration nor any other aspect of ethnicity; it specifies 'visible minority' and as you surely must be aware by now the term visible minority does not equate to "blacks." Now, if you have overwhelming evidence that affirmative action hires were done specifically based on hiring blacks - sufficient enough to overturn the meaning of the term 'visible minority' to specifically refer to blacks - or any other race or ethnicity - then you might be on to something.

But the onus is on you to provide this overwhelming evidence and you can't. Because it doesn't exist and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't have to provide a make-believe scenario as your main premise in the first place. Therefore your entire argument is invalidated. Out to lunch. It doesn't even have to qualify as wrong, because it is a non-starting, nothing argument. If you want to argue fairy tales, just say so.

Your habit for personalizing these types of discussions inevitably leads to nothing more than back and forth echanges of insults. If you continue it I will simply stop responding to you.

How on earth can one "personalize" any anonymous discussion? Besides, me saying:

What you are trying to do is weasel your ideology onto the back of affirmative action, but because you don't have a clue about it, your ideology is exposed for what it is.

this is not meant as an insult, but as another statement of fact and a premise in my argument. Now if you have some evidence to the contrary, please feel free to respond to it, but whining about it does not constitute evidence at all.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Shwa

[Shwa]

I think the silly notion behind that idea is clearly anything but the "white standard". The concept of a 'visible minority" is inherently "racist" by definition.

How so B-C? Please, do tell...

[Michael Hardner]

Why? Who says? Why would you turn down applicants for a white police officer, then beg, plead and bribe some asian, almost ANY asian, to please, pretty please apply? The fact is Asians don't want to be cops. To recruit them you have to drastically lower your standards and select from a minute pool which will inevitably yield lower quality results.

You don't have to drastically lower your standards, that's the point. Having different backgrounds and points of view is good for group dynamics, and it breaks up a clannish mentality that can accumulate in certain jobs.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[bush_cheney2004]

How so B-C? Please, do tell...

It's not my idea...just ask Canada's beloved UN:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/08/canada-minorities.html

"Visible minority" is inherently discriminatory because it establishes a racial attribute baseline and comparison solely with respect to "whites". What is an "invisible minority? What is a "visible majority"? What is the relationship of language to this strange categorization? Why are "Aboriginals" excluded from such a sweeping racial label?

Edited January 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You don't have to drastically lower your standards, that's the point. Having different backgrounds and points of view is good for group dynamics, and it breaks up a clannish mentality that can accumulate in certain jobs.

As most fans of social engineering will agree with you, I will take the opposing view. I will say that this politically correct concept is merely a play on words giving lip service to a perceived problem. Our society persists in taking one step forward and two steps back. Affirmative action is no more than legalized discrimination. WE have made the same mistake in legislative efforts time after time and still don't see ourselves as insane. Because WE know better.

Level the playing field yes, that is what should be done without doubt, but not this way. Equality will solve the problem without question, now just try and enforce it! Its the guy that does the hiring and firing that makes the only and all of the difference. So remove the"guy", ensure all applicants for all positions are compelled to use a scorecard system of points as an opener, prior to interviews. The interview process is where all problems stem from and it should be subject to levels of appeals. Set up a process and deal with it, that would be real affirmative action, not lip service.

[bloodyminded]

As most fans of social engineering will agree with you, I will take the opposing view.

But of course you don't. Every law, as well as many social conventions that you believe in, are forms of "social engineering." So you don't oppose it in any way.

No, your actual complaint here--at bottom--is the sober political philosophy, relatively old but honed into perfect precision over the past three decades, so it can be summed up, all its brilliance and nuance distilled and intact, in ten words:

"I hate the Left, and anything that looks like it!"

(Sure, it sounds vacuous and laughable as a form of Political Economy to which a person might loyally cling; but those of us in the know comprehend its genius.)

Edited January 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[charter.rights]

1) This is sometimes but not always the case 2) as someone who has studied martial arts that meant for taking out larger opponents I stopped caring about size and strength, give me skill. Their names weights and heights is not enough information for me to make a choice.

Neither large large nor smaller people have a strength advantage. It is all about muscle groups and the ability to distribute the load over a number of muscles. So a small thin women could just as easily out lift a fat man by mere understanding.

No they aren't for a very simple reason, smoke rises. For the nephew of a firefighter you sure a missing a lot of basic knowledge on fires. Dragging is the preferred method as it keeps the victim out of the smoke, if done right doesn't harm the victim, and isn't any slower than carrying. When you drag someone you are using the strongest muscles in your body.

What a fool.

In a burning building heat rises and it is the heat that fire fighters need protection from. SCBAs prevent smoke inhalation. The smoke is unburned productions of combustion and along with the heat it travels along the ceilings searching for air. However when the heat is substantial near flash over conditions, there is no stratification of smoke or heat and this is the most critical and deadly time.

Fire fighters don't drag a victim unless it is to pull them out of immediate danger and only so long as that danger is removed. In a fire situation, the preferred carry is the chair method using two people with arms crossed and the victim placed between. For a single fire fighter carry it is the "fireman's carry" in which the victim is raised over one's back and the weight is distributed over both shoulders. A fire fighter would never drag a victim out of a building. Not only is it too strenuous but it puts the fire fighter at risk from other hazards and the last thing fire fighters will do is put themselves into the position of having to have other fire fighters come in to rescue them. Yes there are risks but they are calculated and they are trained for them.

No but they go carefully and don't use an axe, this would avoid ya know killing the people they are trying to rescue. If they are going to break through a door they are going to use one of these.

Now I know you are just pulling this out of your ass.

An axe is a basic firefighter tool and goes into every building with every firefighter. It is used to cut through doors (or the wall beside doors which is easier to get through) and to clear debris or make ventilation openings (to vent the heat and smoke). Pry axes are sometimes used but the most versatile tool is still the fire axe.

Stop trying to look more knowledgeable than you really are. Just like your appropriation of Metis culture you are proving to be an ultra maroon.

[Saipan]

No, your actual complaint here--at bottom--is the sober political philosophy, relatively old but honed into perfect precision over the past three decades, so it can be summed up, all its brilliance and nuance distilled and intact, in ten words:

"I hate the Left, and anything that looks like it!"

No, your actual complaint here--at bottom--is the sober political philosophy, relatively old but honed into perfect precision over the past three decades, so it can be summed up, all its brilliance and nuance distilled and intact, in ten words:

"I hate the Right, and anything that looks like it!"

[bloodyminded]

No, your actual complaint here--at bottom--is the sober political philosophy, relatively old but honed into perfect precision over the past three decades, so it can be summed up, all its brilliance and nuance distilled and intact, in ten words:

"I hate the Right, and anything that looks like it!"

Not at all. Dead false.

I have some respectful disagreements with conservatives. The only ones I actively disparage are the paranoid, lunatic Right...the Glenn Becks among us.

Edited January 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest TrueMetis]

Now I know you are just pulling this out of your ass.

An axe is a basic firefighter tool and goes into every building with every firefighter. It is used to cut through doors (or the wall beside doors which is easier to get through) and to clear debris or make ventilation openings (to vent the heat and smoke). Pry axes are sometimes used but the most versatile tool is still the fire axe.

Stop trying to look more knowledgeable than you really are. Just like your appropriation of Metis culture you are proving to be an ultra maroon.

Ya know I'm bored so I think I'll respond to this.

My link

Halligan Bar is for doors, pick headed axe is for floorboards and roofs. Though I will admit a slight mistake as the flat headed axe is used in conjunction with the halligan tool.

Edited January 2, 2011 by TrueMetis

[Saipan]

The only ones I actively disparage are the paranoid, lunatic Right...the Glenn Becks among us.

Who are actively disparaging the paranoid, lunatic left chicken little sky is faling global warmalists.

[bloodyminded]

Who are actively disparaging the paranoid, lunatic left chicken little sky is faling global warmalists.

No. Beck is a paranoid conspiracist.

He's personally responsible for the resurgence and bestselling status of W, Cleon Skousen, a right-wing paranoiac racist and conspiracy theorist.

Beck is a big fan. He wrote a Forward for the new edition of Skousen's book, pushed his audience to buy it (it then sold hundreds of thousands of copies, making it to number 1 on Amazon), and is available at the "9/12" rallies.

A whole new generation of people believing in racist, paranoid commie conspiracy theories?

Well done, Mr. Beck!

Here's his wiki bio...read it and weep; meanwhile, you're concerned about "hippie of the 60s theory"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleon_Skousen

Edited January 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

This from a guy who starts off with this wonderful gem, not even a statement of fact, but "supporting evidence" hinging on a make-believe scenario and then asks me to explain 'the logic' of the make-believe scenario, one which has never happened or to which he cannot - and does not - supply any proof whatsoever. Riiiiight.

The above is simply bluster without meaning. I will ask the question once again.

Do you really feel its advisable to make such definitive statements without a single shred of supporting evidence?

I have already - and very easily I might add - countered your make-believe scenario with a statement based in fact:

You haven't supplied any facts, merely your opinion. Nor could you possibly have any facts to support such a conclusion. There are thousands of hiring managers and you can't possibly, nor can anyone, have any idea what goes through their minds as they make decisions under the pressure of affirmative action quotas and pressure from above to increase their minority mumbers.

Thus to make the following statement...

No government manager anywhere in Canada or any province or territory has hired someone because they are Black.

Borders on the silly. No, actually, it IS silly.

Because any hire under any affirmative action program does not specify skin colour, eye configuration nor any other aspect of ethnicity; it specifies 'visible minority' and as you surely must be aware by now the term visible minority does not equate to "blacks."

This is an argument based on denial. The discussion is not about individual visible minority races but the demands of AA to hire them. Thus in one case a Black person is hired over a more competent White person, in another case it's an Asian, and in another case a native or a woman. I frankly don't understand why you would seize on a particular race merely because that was used as an example and claim this disqualifies the argument.

Now, if you have overwhelming evidence that affirmative action hires were done specifically based on hiring blacks

And now you continue along the path to changing the basis of the discussion to the point of absurdity while demanding "overwhelming evidence" to counter it.

Is it unfair of me to point out you have yet to provide a single, solitary shred of evidence in support of your all-encompassing support for affirmative action?

How on earth can one "personalize" any anonymous discussion?

By insults and innuendo, by snearing or using deliberately insulting tones. Discussions of this nature are better carried out in a mature and adult fashion. I will not lower myself to an exchange of contemptuous dismissal of other people's imaginary motivations or ideologies, of their morality or intelligence. And I won't discuss politics with those who do.

[Scotty]

You don't have to drastically lower your standards, that's the point. Having different backgrounds and points of view is good for group dynamics, and it breaks up a clannish mentality that can accumulate in certain jobs.

With respect, the police are the most clannish group in our society, and having minorities among them has done absolutely nothing to change that. Even in the U.S., where some police departments are 50% or even 90% black, the clannish mentality persists just as strong as it ever was when they were 100% white.

And you DO have to lower your standards. When you have one particular group, in this case young white men, who for cultural reasons apply in droves for a job, and work their asses off, accumulating volunteer time, doing ride-alongs, getting training and employment in security and the military, in first aid, in self defense and firearms, in psychology, all in a desperate effort to get into that job they love...

And then you have another community, Asians, who have virtually NO interest in policing as a career, who make NO effort to prepare themselves for the job, who have to be begged, bribed and persuaded, in very small numbers, to grudgingly apply, you are simply not going to have the same quality of candidates, to say nothing of the selection. 100 of those eager young white men apply for one of 2 jobs. Meanwhile the police manage to, through herculean efforts, recruit 2 Asians to apply for the second job. What is the likelihood the Asian candidate will be of the same quality as the White candidate who succeeds?

And I'm not picking on Asians. I could as easily have used women or some other disinterested minority.

Would you recruit a hockey team this way? Would you tell yourself that you absolely had to find a Black man to be goalie and needed an Asian for defense and an Arab to play center?

[Scotty]

It's not my idea...just ask Canada's beloved UN:

I'm satisfied that the term visible minority is understood in Canada and is used in a number of necessary functions, reports and statistical studies which are in no way racist.

The U.N., on the other hand, is a fairly racist organization peopled by individuals of no moral and little intellectual value. I have as close to zero respect for any pronunciations it makes as is possible.