Affirmative Action Explained

[Shwa]

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.

I think her point is that the 'widely-held view' - that university education should lead to better employment opportunities - doesn't bear out with this or other studies. She says there could be reasons for this...

However, I do agree that university education is not the only bar by which skills and experience are gained. I believe the author would hold the same opinion. At least I would hope she does!

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.

You will note that the definition shows that visible minority is a discretionary designation based upon the choice of the person themselves.

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.

Stats Can has many products and services that provide information so that people - politicians, social scientists and casual readers, etc. - can form opinions on social policy issues or support a social agenda that has already been decided on.

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.

But that is not the point is it? The point is about "institutionalized racism." One would think that if employment equity was actually "institutionalized racism" then it would have been noted by the good folks at Justice and would have been addressed as such. Not only have they not had any cause to take issue with employment equity, the terms and processes - they haven't found cause even in the suggested functional equivalence of "institutionalized racism" and the reason for that is because it simply is not true.

[Shwa]

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

No, it doesn't matter what construct race is defined under insofar as employment equity is concerned, even though there might be elements of both constructs implied in their formal of informal terms.

[Pliny]

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 ?

Government is the only entity that should not discriminate, especially in the formulation of law.

I believe you are correct that groups tend to hire their own kind. Minorities are not different and will shut others out of jobs as well. The question is whether or not there is a problem to rectify. I believe there is only a problem if government sanctions or grants privilege to one group over another, discrimination then becomes "institutionlized". We should all be able to associate or not associate with whomever we wish.

Only the broadest concepts that all citizens of a nation can agree upon will form a common bond between the varied factions of a nation. I would say Muslims are underrepresented in Christian Churches but you will not see any forced integration between them improving their relations. They can agree to be Canadians and have the sanctity of their person and property respected by others.

If they don't they should find themselves on the outside of the law. They should not be forced to mingle together.

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.

It should not even be a program. The problem exists because it had a reverse program earlier. Favouring and granting privilege to one group over another is not corrected by favouring and granting privilege in reverse. It is corrected by eliminating favour and privilege. Why do you believe it should not be a permanent program? Once quotas are met everything is hunky dory and it should be rescinded? What about the tendency of groups to hire their own kind? That certainly won't disappear.

Governments, by granting favour and privileges to one group over another have been the most egregious violators of rights. They are entrusted to deliver justice and equality under the law how can they do that holding these biases and prejudices in law.

The next thing you know they will be saying criminals are merely victims of society and the real criminals are the oppressive majority or parents treating their kids badly so if they can be repressed criminals will have a chance in society. They will no longer see that a criminal has volition, free will, makes choices or has any tendency to disrupt or harbours any intent to harm.

Not only will they grant real criminals favour but they will make laws that make honest people criminals. It's because they have lost the ability to tell the difference between what a criminal is and what an honest person is. Everyone gets a patdown or x-ray at the airport these days.

[Pliny]

But that is not the point is it? The point is about "institutionalized racism." One would think that if employment equity was actually "institutionalized racism" then it would have been noted by the good folks at Justice and would have been addressed as such. Not only have they not had any cause to take issue with employment equity, the terms and processes - they haven't found cause even in the suggested functional equivalence of "institutionalized racism" and the reason for that is because it simply is not true.

The good folks at justice are just as busy making everyone equal. Forms of discrimination that move toward the achievement of that end are entirely valid. It's called "social justice".

[Michael Hardner]

Government is the only entity that should not discriminate, especially in the formulation of law.

But government is arguably more concerned with the results, which happen in the real world. It bases its laws on ideals such as equality, but in the end government isn't an exercise in executing perfect ideals, it's in making sure that the country works.

I believe you are correct that groups tend to hire their own kind. Minorities are not different and will shut others out of jobs as well. The question is whether or not there is a problem to rectify. I believe there is only a problem if government sanctions or grants privilege to one group over another, discrimination then becomes "institutionlized". We should all be able to associate or not associate with whomever we wish.

Yes, and we have always been free to do so.

Only the broadest concepts that all citizens of a nation can agree upon will form a common bond between the varied factions of a nation. I would say Muslims are underrepresented in Christian Churches but you will not see any forced integration between them improving their relations.

This seems like an oxymoron - what is a Christiam Muslim exactly ?

They can agree to be Canadians and have the sanctity of their person and property respected by others.

If they don't they should find themselves on the outside of the law. They should not be forced to mingle together.

No one is forced to mingle.

It should not even be a program. The problem exists because it had a reverse program earlier. Favouring and granting privilege to one group over another is not corrected by favouring and granting privilege in reverse. It is corrected by eliminating favour and privilege.

These programs are intended to achieve that goal.

Why do you believe it should not be a permanent program? Once quotas are met everything is hunky dory and it should be rescinded? What about the tendency of groups to hire their own kind? That certainly won't disappear.

Social factors will cause a mixed group to view themselves differently, i.e. not as a gender, race or religious group but as a group of professionals. I believe that my industry (project management for IT) has achieved this.

Governments, by granting favour and privileges to one group over another have been the most egregious violators of rights. They are entrusted to deliver justice and equality under the law how can they do that holding these biases and prejudices in law.

The next thing you know they will be saying criminals are merely victims of society and the real criminals are the oppressive majority or parents treating their kids badly so if they can be repressed criminals will have a chance in society.

That may be your socialist nightmare of the future, but we have problems today that need to be addressed. Also, government is supposed to balance power - with force of course - and we all know how you feel about that.

They will no longer see that a criminal has volition, free will, makes choices or has any tendency to disrupt or harbours any intent to harm.

Not only will they grant real criminals favour but they will make laws that make honest people criminals. It's because they have lost the ability to tell the difference between what a criminal is and what an honest person is. Everyone gets a patdown or x-ray at the airport these days.

There is the 'free will' model and the 'nature' model for human behavior. Neither is correct on its own, and any social device needs to take both models into account.

The end bit there is more social sci-fi: we've always patted down everyone at airports, and the security personnel type your ID in and can see your criminal record immediately.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it doesn't matter what construct race is defined under insofar as employment equity is concerned, even though there might be elements of both constructs implied in their formal of informal terms.

Then why wouldn't everyone choose/self identify the most advantageous visible minority classification for purposes of employment equity? Clearly there is another dynamic involved.

[Pliny]

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".

I suppose white males granted themselves some privilege since they comprised the government. But was it white males or the concept of government that was the problem? Two or three centuries ago Europeans did believe they were superior to the savages of foreign lands. It's hard to tell what happened back then. They bought some of the land from natives, such as Manhatten, and I'm sure they just pushed natives off other lands usurping it for themselves. But we have to get into how property becomes private property or how ownership is claimed.

I'm certain you would like your friends and associates, "your own kind" to have privileges, and your sanctioning of affirmative action tells me you do. Your justification of it seems to be - "they" did it.

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.

It's too bad laws didn't allow you to contribute to the creation and development of the current society. It would be a richer society if it had have allowed it. Unfortunately, some were not allowed to contribute because of archaic attitudes about government and institutionalized discrimination. Rememeber Blacks were not even considered persons until the late eighteen hundreds and women were still chattel at the beginning of the twentieth century - all by law of course. White males ahd those privileges drawn up in law but we know today that Blacks and Women are persons so the laws were changed. Had they not been there in the first place no change would have been necessary. It is just one of the advances of civilization in forcing government to change their laws, it seems white guys are doing that too. I think the role of government was not understood so that it's laws should be void of discrimination, and apparently, with policies like affirmative action, it is still true today.

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.

Ijust made an argument against affirmative action or any favour or privilege government grants one individual or group over another. It is easy to see that it should not give an individual favour or privilege. It should not be paying for someone's vacation or paying him more than someone else for the same work or just outright giving him a middle class income and it is difficult for me to see why it should be that a

[Shwa]

The good folks at justice are just as busy making everyone equal. Forms of discrimination that move toward the achievement of that end are entirely valid. It's called "social justice".

All justice - that we can know - is social justice Pliny.

[charter.rights]

I'm certain you would like your friends and associates, "your own kind" to have privileges, and your sanctioning of affirmative action tells me you do. Your justification of it seems to be - "they" did it.

Not at all. Equality is impossible unless there is also equity. That is the target of employment equity programs - to remove the barriers that were set in place by the white males to exclude those that were not in their class. And that is the purpose behind 15(20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

15(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Thus "affirmative action" more aptly termed "employment equity" is not only lawful in Canada, it is encouraged as a means to recognize that all Canadians not only have equal access to jobs but also to services and buildings equitably.

It's too bad laws didn't allow you to contribute to the creation and development of the current society. It would be a richer society if it had have allowed it. Unfortunately, some were not allowed to contribute because of archaic attitudes about government and institutionalized discrimination. Rememeber Blacks were not even considered persons until the late eighteen hundreds and women were still chattel at the beginning of the twentieth century - all by law of course. White males ahd those privileges drawn up in law but we know today that Blacks and Women are persons so the laws were changed. Had they not been there in the first place no change would have been necessary. It is just one of the advances of civilization in forcing government to change their laws, it seems white guys are doing that too. I think the role of government was not understood so that it's laws should be void of discrimination, and apparently, with policies like affirmative action, it is still true today.

Despite all the laws restricting movement and access to services, native peoples and other visible minorities have made more contribution to Canadian society then you probably realize. There is no need to go into this yes since it would require a substantial drift from the main topic. But suffice to say that government and society would not be what it is today without native people. (Read "A Fair Country", John Ralston Saul for a more in depth perspective.)

Edited January 6, 2011 by charter.rights

[Scotty]

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 ?

What jobs have minorities been shut out of? Which minorites? All of them or just ones from certain races? Do we know why they've been "shut out" of these jobs? Could it be that as new immigrants their low partiipation rate is due to factors other than their race?

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.

Yes, this the reason why Americans have it. Why does Canada have it when almost all our visible monirity members are 2st generation Canadians?

[Scotty]

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.

Suppose I said to you that I believe the problem is we're bringing in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who have poor job outlooks due to non-existent language skills, lack of modern technical skills, and educational and work backgrounds which can't be proven in Canada?

In other words, that it has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with government incompetence in the immgiration/refugee system?

[Scotty]

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.

But that isn't what he said and you are personalizing this discussion when it need not be.

[Scotty]

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.

Let me propose something which no one seesm to dare to do because it draws accusations of racism.

Why not have immigrants come principally from Europe? Life in much of Europe, particularly eastern Europe, is not particularly pleasant these days. Poverty and unemployment are widespread. In places like Russia and Belarus there is no real freedom. Wouldn't Canada be better off with immigrants who are more closely alligned with our cultural/technical/religious values and culture? Are their work skills and educational backgrounds not more closely alligned with ours than immigrants from Pakistan or Nigeria or Thailand?

[Scotty]

It is design to promote inclusiveness where centuries of those white males built an entire government on basis of exclusiveness.

Aside from natives, who were mostly on reserves, wasn't Canada almost completely white up until the late sixties?

The whole point is that there is no legitimate argument to be made against affirmative action,

Stating it doesn't make it so. I could as easily say there is no legitimate argument to be made in favour of affirmative action. Certainly I have yet to hear one.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Yes, this the reason why Americans have it. Why does Canada have it when almost all our visible monirity members are 2st generation Canadians?

Because Canada had/has discrimination just like the Americans.

[Scotty]

Because Canada had/has discrimination just like the Americans.

Canada was a pretty nearly homogenous white country up until the late sixties. The natives were mostly on reserves. There were only a miniscule number of blacks and asians.

Which means we are trying to make amends for past behaviour.... to people whose families were not in Canada to experience it.

[Bonam]

Which means we are trying to make amends for past behaviour.... to people whose families were not in Canada to experience it.

Exactly, I've made this point several times now in this thread but people conveniently ignore it.

[dre]

Exactly, I've made this point several times now in this thread but people conveniently ignore it.

Affirmative action isnt about making amends or reparations. Its any policy that seeks to resolve any situation where people are being disproportionately excluded from something for reasons other than merit.

Its not about owing them anything, its about addressing structural problems that exist in our society today REGARDLESS of where they came from, or if they are "our fault".

Edited January 7, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada was a pretty nearly homogenous white country up until the late sixties. The natives were mostly on reserves. There were only a miniscule number of blacks and asians.

You are still dismissing hundreds of thousands of "visible minorities", homosexuals, ESLs, disabled, etc., and millions of "white" women. The Great White North is largely a demographic myth.

Which means we are trying to make amends for past behaviour.... to people whose families were not in Canada to experience it.

Ever been to an internment camp?

[charter.rights]

Aside from natives, who were mostly on reserves, wasn't Canada almost completely white up until the late sixties?

No. And most natives have been off reserves for about a century now. Where have you been?

Stating it doesn't make it so. I could as easily say there is no legitimate argument to be made in favour of affirmative action. Certainly I have yet to hear one.

You hypothetical red herrings haven't even established that there is an argument against affirmative action. You have failed to make any legitimate case.All you have presented thus far is an argument ignoratio elenchi. Nonsense doesn't make fact.

[Michael Hardner]

Scotty,

What jobs have minorities been shut out of? Which minorites? All of them or just ones from certain races? Do we know why they've been "shut out" of these jobs? Could it be that as new immigrants their low partiipation rate is due to factors other than their race?

Yes, this the reason why Americans have it. Why does Canada have it when almost all our visible monirity members are 2st generation Canadians?

We don't know why. It's not immigrants, it's races that are under represented.

Suppose I said to you that I believe the problem is we're bringing in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who have poor job outlooks due to non-existent language skills, lack of modern technical skills, and educational and work backgrounds which can't be proven in Canada?

In other words, that it has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with government incompetence in the immgiration/refugee system?

Ok, that could be true. Immigration and refugee are two separate systems though. I would expect immigrants who came here with required job skills (such as Asian IT people) are doing better than most.

IT is a particular example, because those are high quality jobs that we need, and there aren't institutional barriers to entry as with law/medicine etc.

But that isn't what he said and you are personalizing this discussion when it need not be.

His quote reveals his motivations, IMO:

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

[Pliny]

All justice - that we can know - is social justice Pliny.

Justice can indeed only be a social construct. "Social justice" has a special connotation.

Social Justice defined

Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

Justice then has become an engineering of society under this definition. Whereas, it previously concerned itself with righting wrongs it has taken upon itself to determine that "inequalities" in and of themselves are wrongs and equality of individuals and groups in society must be one of the objectives of society and proactively pursued. It then proceeds to make things equal. There is no determination that individuals have committed criminal acts and correction is necessary nor is there any consideration of contribution to the creation of society. There is only the judgement of inequality that exists and is determined to exist because society has created those inequalities, and while that may be true, the cohesion of society depends upon those creating it, a contribution is necessary, and for there to be equality there must also be equal contribution or minimally some contribution, otherwise there is no identification with the society. One essentially can become a foreigner in one's own country.

It isn't entitlements or the creation of egalitarianism that is the glue of a society it is the contribution to society of individuals and groups that is important and is the criteria that determines one's sense of belonging and worth.

Social justice perceives only one side of the coin in creating equality. It cannot force equal contribution. Isn't that what affirmative action is really about; allowing an individual or group an opportunity to contribute to the existing society? In reality it creates resentment towards the society by implanting the idea that it was unfair, that unfairness still exists, that society must die, and a new society must be created, which it proceeds to do - justice be damned.

[Pliny]

But government is arguably more concerned with the results, which happen in the real world. It bases its laws on ideals such as equality, but in the end government isn't an exercise in executing perfect ideals, it's in making sure that the country works.

It has an ideal in mind or it would not perceive any wrongs.

This seems like an oxymoron - what is a Christiam Muslim exactly ?

It is an absurdity to illustrate the absurdity of forced integration.

No one is forced to mingle.

Then you are to be congratulated on your lack of discrimination. Some people would complain about having a halfway house in their neghbourhood or a needle exchange program.

These programs are intended to achieve that goal.

Why they never do is the question?

Social factors will cause a mixed group to view themselves differently, i.e. not as a gender, race or religious group but as a group of professionals. I believe that my industry (project management for IT) has achieved this.

Congratulations again. Gender, race, religion are now eliminated in your industry. People only recognize their own gender race and religion and hope no one else does. There will be trouble if they do.

That may be your socialist nightmare of the future, but we have problems today that need to be addressed. Also, government is supposed to balance power - with force of course - and we all know how you feel about that.

Governments must balance power? You have never asked yourself why they never do?

[Shwa]

Justice can indeed only be a social construct. "Social justice" has a special connotation.

Social Justice defined

Of course. And as a 'modern' social construct, "social justice" is as equally valid.

Justice then has become an engineering of society under this definition.

Surely you are not suggesting that previous forms of justice did not attempt to engineer the society under its own terms? The creators of the Magna Carta, for example, would disagree. And then cut your head off or burn you at the stake. Or worse.

Whereas, it previously concerned itself with righting wrongs it has taken upon itself to determine that "inequalities" in and of themselves are wrongs and equality of individuals and groups in society must be one of the objectives of society and proactively pursued. It then proceeds to make things equal.

Like Lady Justice, the balanced scales in her hands?

There is no determination that individuals have committed criminal acts and correction is necessary nor is there any consideration of contribution to the creation of society. There is only the judgement of inequality that exists and is determined to exist because society has created those inequalities, and while that may be true, the cohesion of society depends upon those creating it, a contribution is necessary, and for there to be equality there must also be equal contribution or minimally some contribution, otherwise there is no identification with the society. One essentially can become a foreigner in one's own country.

If one chooses. Not more need to be said about that.

It isn't entitlements or the creation of egalitarianism that is the glue of a society it is the contribution to society of individuals and groups that is important and is the criteria that determines one's sense of belonging and worth.

Agree. And this principle should apply equally to everyone in their capacity.

Social justice perceives only one side of the coin in creating equality. It cannot force equal contribution. Isn't that what affirmative action is really about; allowing an individual or group an opportunity to contribute to the existing society?

Affirmative Action does not force equal contribution, but it allows individuals the ability to choose to make a contribution equal to their capacity.

In reality it creates resentment towards the society by implanting the idea that it was unfair, that unfairness still exists, that society must die, and a new society must be created, which it proceeds to do - justice be damned.

And on the other hand, the resentment being show here, in this thread, is that resentment is created towards the society by implanting the idea that it is unfair, that unfairness exists and society must die, etc,. "justice be damned."

Which is the other side of the coin, which social justice reveals as codified in our Constitution.

[Michael Hardner]

It has an ideal in mind or it would not perceive any wrongs.

Everybody has an ideal in mind. You do too.

It is an absurdity to illustrate the absurdity of forced integration.

I don't know what a Christian Muslim is. You talked about them a few posts back. Explain or yield.

Then you are to be congratulated on your lack of discrimination. Some people would complain about having a halfway house in their neghbourhood or a needle exchange program.

Walk around the block, or stay inside. Minging is still your option.

Why they never do is the question?

Gender balance in the government seems to be pretty much there. Now will you explain whether government AA programs worked or not ?

Governments must balance power? You have never asked yourself why they never do?

They do, IMO>