Affirmative Action Explained

[DogOnPorch]

No ill will intended. I believe you just missed the point of the post.

No worries.

[Pliny]

Getting back to the topic of the thread, affirmative action. It is in the least discriminatory. It is a practice acceptable and promoted by law, that is to say government, and has the potential to become institutionalized racism. Once the people start practicing this "legal" form of forced integration it will create divisiveness between favoured groups no less than segregation did in the US before the Civil Rights act.

I do not believe there is anything wrong with a person or group wisihing not to associate with whomever they choose and to not associate with whokmever they choose.

Affirmative action is decreed by government which should not grant privilege but treat all equal under the law. Everyone in the country is a citizen. They got into trouble with providing privilege to the white race which they never should have done and now are trying to correct the problem by reversing privilege.

I note the NDP is having trouble with it's gender equality policy. There are not enough women on the executive board it seems. Some support rescinding the policy and some don't. One thing for sure it is a divisive policy.

If you ask me blondes are vastly underrepresented in government. Should there be law for better representation? Any aspirations, kimmy?

Edited January 5, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Getting back to the topic of the thread, affirmative action. It is in the least discriminatory.

Of course it's discriminatory. Groups tend to hire their own kind and minorities have been shut out of certain jobs. What would you do to rectify that then ?

The idea is to create positions that will be set aside to hire minorities and give them a leg-up and the ability to catch up against years of discrimination. It shouldn't be a permanent program.

[DogOnPorch]

What would you do to rectify that then ?

So-called visible minorities can start their own businesses and hire who they like. Solved.

[bush_cheney2004]

So-called visible minorities can start their own businesses and hire who they like. Solved.

That's a great idea! Visible Minority Inc. would be an excellent business opportunity...starting with silk screen tee shirts.

[Michael Hardner]

So-called visible minorities can start their own businesses and hire who they like. Solved.

Exactly. Do nothing, but tell them to pick up their socks ... and nothing happens.

Your attitude perfectly explains why liberals continue to impose such problems on the dorkeoisie.

[Michael Hardner]

That's a great idea! Visible Minority Inc. would be an excellent business opportunity...starting with silk screen tee shirts.

Go ahead, then, if it's such a good idea... minority poverty disappearing in 10... 9... 8...

[bush_cheney2004]

Go ahead, then, if it's such a good idea... minority poverty disappearing in 10... 9... 8...

Making any money would be secondary...mocking the term would be priceless. How about some fun "Caucasian" masks, like that Chinese student who made it to Vancouver?

[Michael Hardner]

Making any money would be secondary...mocking the term would be priceless. How about some fun "Caucasian" masks, like that Chinese student who made it to Vancouver?

Ok, as silly as your idea is - it's still the best alternative to Affirmative Action offered on the thread.

[DogOnPorch]

Go ahead, then, if it's such a good idea... minority poverty disappearing in 10... 9... 8...

So all 'minority' (Chinese?? Pakistani??) are poor? So why the heck let them into Canada in the first place? Guilt? Do-goodiness? Your beloved old-age pension which these 'poor' minorities are apparently paying into? Did you invite them via your political leanings?

Face it...if you own 50 dogs/cats, your house starts to smell like 50 dogs/cats.

[Michael Hardner]

So all 'minority' (Chinese?? Pakistani??) are poor? So why the heck let them into Canada in the first place? Guilt? Do-goodiness? Your beloved old-age pension which these 'poor' minorities are apparently paying into? Did you invite them via your political leanings?

Face it...if you own 50 dogs/cats, your house starts to smell like 50 dogs/cats.

Your analogy here has unveiled your true feelings about immigrants. I invite you to come to this issue with an open mind, and not an emotional take on it, since that's often a criticism we hear from your side about this debate.

If minority poverty doesn't exist as a problem, then do you think it's being invented ? I was asking how to solve the problem above, and you responded - which indicates to me that you agree there is some kind of problem.

[DogOnPorch]

Your analogy here has unveiled your true feelings about immigrants. I invite you to come to this issue with an open mind, and not an emotional take on it, since that's often a criticism we hear from your side about this debate.

If minority poverty doesn't exist as a problem, then do you think it's being invented ? I was asking how to solve the problem above, and you responded - which indicates to me that you agree there is some kind of problem.

I've never hid my 'true feelings' re: unfettered immigration from the planet's various shitholes. If you wish to paint yourself as Capt. Good and me as Dr. Bad for it, I really don't care. Have a falafel on me, Mike. That's about all it's good for.

Solve the problem? How many empty one-way ships/airliners can Canada muster?

Edited January 5, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Michael Hardner]

I've never hid my 'true feelings' re: unfettered immigration from the planet's various shitholes. If you wish to paint yourself as Capt. Good and me as Dr. Bad for it, I really don't care. Have a falafel on me, Mike. That's about all it's good for.

No, it's good for more than that. Saying you just hate people, or that they stink is exactly the kind of irrational argument that the left is always criticized for. If it's good for the Canada Goose, then it's good for the Ghanan Gander, you see.

Solve thew problem? How many empty one-way ships/airliners can Canada muster?

You don't want to have immigration because you just don't like them, so there's no making you happy really, unless some new party proposes stopping all immigration.

[Shwa]

Exactly. Do nothing, but tell them to pick up their socks ... and nothing happens.

Your attitude perfectly explains why liberals continue to impose such problems on the dorkeoisie.

[DogOnPorch]

No, it's good for more than that. Saying you just hate people, or that they stink is exactly the kind of irrational argument that the left is always criticized for. If it's good for the Canada Goose, then it's good for the Ghanan Gander, you see.

So it's your guilt, then.

You don't want to have immigration because you just don't like them, so there's no making you happy really, unless some new party proposes stopping all immigration.

So what? How many will be enough in your opinion at X hundreds of thousands per year from some of the biggest loser countries...not to mention dubious "friends"...on the globe? Fifty years? One hundred years? Two hundred years? Forever?

[Michael Hardner]

So it's your guilt, then.

What guilt ? I see a problem and I'd like to talk about solving it. You're holding your nose and whining, from what I can see.

I have no guilt, just a brain. You're projecting your crankiness into imaginary guilt on my part.

So what? How many will be enough in your opinion at X hundreds of thousands per year from some of the biggest loser countries...not to mention dubious "friends"...on the globe? Fifty years? One hundred years? Two hundred years? Forever?

So what ? Ok... SAYS YOU !

Why should we go on debating this, now that you have admitted your argument is based on your sense of smell ?

For the record, if our birthrate goes back up for some reason, I'd be happy with curtailing immigration - down to zero if that works.

[DogOnPorch]

What guilt ? I see a problem and I'd like to talk about solving it. You're holding your nose and whining, from what I can see.

I have no guilt, just a brain. You're projecting your crankiness into imaginary guilt on my part.

Yawn...geeze...look at all this snow falling.

So what ? Ok... SAYS YOU !

That's right. I don't think Canada should become yet another third world country where buildings fall over and you get executed for blasphemy.

Why should we go on debating this, now that you have admitted your argument is based on your sense of smell ?

Unlike yourself, I'm willing to draw a line in the sand.

For the record, if our birthrate goes back up for some reason, I'd be happy with curtailing immigration - down to zero if that works.

Yeah...let's all retire to our million dollar mansions and enjoy the good life until the bucket is kicked. After that we can send the women back to the kitchen and ban birth control.

Edited January 5, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Michael Hardner]

That's right. I don't think Canada should become yet another third world country when buildings fall over and you get executed for blasphemy.

Unlike yourself, I'm willing to draw a line in the sand.

Yeah...let's all retire to our million dollar mansions and enjoy the good life until the bucket is kicked. After that we can send the women back to the kitchen and ban birth control.

Ok, well there's your argument then.

[DogOnPorch]

Ok, well there's your argument then.

How are the retirement plans going?

[Michael Hardner]

How are the retirement plans going?

Very well thanks. I work until I die, then I retire.

[charter.rights]

Getting back to the topic of the thread, affirmative action. It is in the least discriminatory.

Sure it is. It is also legally protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Had white males not been discriminatory for the last century or more in their hiring practices it is very likely this kind of amelioration would not be necessary. And since white males are still reluctant to give up their privilege and discriminatory hiring practices in this day and age it would likely still not be necessary today. But they won't stop their discrimination so the law must do it for them and prevent them from selecting...as someone put it?...."from their own kind".

And it isn't racism either because it addresses women...and gays...and the physically challenged...just as it address visible minorities. It is design to promote inclusiveness where centuries of those white males built an entire government on basis of exclusiveness. And in fact there are still many of those in government who would still exclude all others if they were in the positions of hiring people. Thanks God Argus is only a mail clerk in a go nowhere job. Otherwise we would still ahve to deal with the kind of racism and misogyny white males have been known for over the years.

The whole point is that there is no legitimate argument to be made against affirmative action, once the air is cleared of the white male racism that has existed in government and at the heads of most major North American Corporations. While the process can certainly be questioned the OP doesn't make that point. It merely perpetuates a misrepresentation of the processes and the reasons behind them. And that is just silly.

[kimmy]

If you ask me blondes are vastly underrepresented in government. Should there be law for better representation? Any aspirations, kimmy?

I've expressed my outrage many, many times at the discrimination we blondes face each day. And yet, still no assistance from the government.

I've said before that I'll never apply for another job with those douchebags.

-k

[kimmy]

Of course it's discriminatory. Groups tend to hire their own kind and minorities have been shut out of certain jobs. What would you do to rectify that then ?

The idea is to create positions that will be set aside to hire minorities and give them a leg-up and the ability to catch up against years of discrimination. It shouldn't be a permanent program.

You seem to take it on faith that some sort of intervention is needed.

Are you sure?

The Stats Can paper that myself and Da Shwa have been discussing may suggest that it isn't.

-k

[kimmy]

I don't see it that way. Her argument boils down to "conventional wisdom says that skills and experience make you more employable" but the statistics presented here, and in other studies, do not show this to be true.

The only information she has provided regarding "skills and experience" is the factoid that visible minorities have more university degrees. But as I've said (and you haven't disagreed) that's far from adequate to discuss the "skills and experience" of the groups she wishes to compare.

So her "contradiction" is based on a premise she has utterly failed to demonstrate.

Aboriginals is not the only demographic group included in non-visible-minorities. BTW - what race are white people anyways? Does it include very light skinned Chinese-Canadians? How about the child of a Metis and Caucasion? Etc.

What does it matter what "race" they are? All that matters, for purposes of this discussion, is which fictional group they get filed under.

The chart here says: the child of a white person and a Chinese person is ... a visible minority.

The child of a white person and a Metis person would obviously be a non-visible minority... but subject to other legalities would possibly be eligible for some other advantageous classification.

And this is relevant how? It's social science kimmy, not math.

That's a matter for debate. This is a paper published by Statistics Canada. So, what is Statistics Canada's function? Are they supposed to provide objective information so that people can form opinions on social policy issues? Or is their mission to try to provide information to support a social agenda that has already been decided upon?

I think Statistics Canada should be in the math business and leave the politicking to the politicians. This paper has the appearance of being designed to con casual readers into supporting a particular point of view. I don't care for it.

This is where we disagree and I think it is an important distinction to make with regard to affirmative action, at least in Canada. Discrimination is not always racism even though many people of varying shades find it convenient to say it is. In employment equity terms, there is no racism and I would think that if there were, it would have been successfully challenged in court - where sematics do count - as proof. Now, are you aware of any court challenges that have struck down employment equity programs as racist? I'm not. That isn't to say that indivdual cases haven't been examined, but not employment equity as a whole.

I think we all realize that the Charter itself says "employment equity" is allowed.

"In employment equity terms, there is no racism" because the issue has been dodged by categorizing people in terms that while not race are are functionally equivalent to race.

-k

[kimmy]

Aboriginals is not the only demographic group included in non-visible-minorities. BTW - what race are white people anyways? Does it include very light skinned Chinese-Canadians? How about the child of a Metis and Caucasion? Etc.

Further to this... you appear to be attacking race as a scientific concept.

But the relevant angle isn't race as a scientific concept, but race as a social construct.

While the merits of race as a scientific concept may be slim or non-existent, race as a social construct is very real.

What race is a very light-skinned Chinese-Canadian? What race is the child of a Metis and Caucasian?

In discussing the subject of race-as-social-construct, the statement that has struck me most, and the one I've referenced before on this forum, is this:

"In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black." -Colin Powell.

-k

Edited January 6, 2011 by kimmy