Affirmative Action Explained

[kimmy]

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

Has this actually been established? Do you have a citation? Has anybody actually shown that this is really the case, or are you just assuming that to be the case because 'the conventional wisdom' says so?

The Statistics Canada paper that Da Shwa and I have been discussing presents some interesting statistics on that point:

-Canadian born visible minorities had *lower* unemployment rates than Canadian-born non-visible minorities.

-Foreign-born visible minorities who had been been in Canada for longer than 10 years had *lower* unemployment rates than Canadian-born non-visible minorities.

-the only visible minority category that had higher unemployment rates than Canadian-born non-visible minorities were foreign-born visible minorities who had been in Canada for less than 10 years.

Given the comparative success of visible minorities who are born in Canada or those who have been here for over 10 years, doesn't that cast serious doubt on the assumptions underlying "affirmative action" or "employment equity"?

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Has this actually been established? Do you have a citation? Has anybody actually shown that this is really the case, or are you just assuming that to be the case because 'the conventional wisdom' says so?

The latter. I have never heard anyone suggest that AA developed to address immigration/melting-pot etc.

[Scotty]

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

I don't believe you can separate races and immigrants because most of those who are of different races are immigrants. And statistically, if even, say, 30% or 50% were immigrants that would wildly throw off the numbers.

From what I've read here, it isn't people of a particular race who have poor employment figures, but immigrants of a particular race.

In order to demonstrate there is a problem I think you need to compare the employment figures of the races who grew up in Canada; white, black, asian, hispanic, and see if they are more or less the same given, one would assume, similar educational backgrounds.

I don't think you can fairly compare those who grew up in Canada with those who came here from other countries, throw up your hands, and say that because the numbers are different there must be discrimination, and we need a big, expensive program to combat it.

Immigration and refugee are two separate systems though.

Well, yes they are, but not really. Refugees, after all, once accepted, tend to become landed immigrants, and then Canadians.

I would expect immigrants who came here with required job skills (such as Asian IT people) are doing better than most.

I would expect you're right, so does this not show that Asians are not discriminated against? And if it does, why then are Asians eligible for employment equity, affirmative action, preferential hiring type programs?

His quote reveals his motivations, IMO:

I don't believe his motivations are important or relevent to the discussion.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

The latter. I have never heard anyone suggest that AA developed to address immigration/melting-pot etc.

AA was developed to address the consequences of the slave trade. It was imported to Canada largely by overzealous, well-meaning people, who felt the need to address what they thought were social inequities here, though there is scant evidence that such programs were or are needed.

[Scotty]

Affirmative action isnt about making amends or reparations.

I have read many times that it is needed to combat the legacy of slavery and racism, and what that did to the black community in the united states, that, in effect, their descendants still suffer, as a community, from the legacy of slavery and then the extreme racism which followed. Affirmative Action is intended to help combat that.

Its any policy that seeks to resolve any situation where people are being disproportionately excluded from something for reasons other than merit.

And yet, evidence that this happens, or has happened any time in the recent past, seems vanishingly scarce.

[Scotty]

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

About half of natives live on reserves TODAY. I don't think it unreasonable to suppose that figure was far higher 50, 60, 70 years ago. Do you have figures which show otherwise?

You hypothetical red herrings haven't even established that there is an argument against affirmative action.

Your failure to appreciate or accept the argument exists has little consequence to the argument itself. It merely makes discussion extremely difficult.

[kimmy]

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

Has this actually been established? Do you have a citation? Has anybody actually shown that this is really the case, or are you just assuming that to be the case because 'the conventional wisdom' says so?

The latter. I have never heard anyone suggest that AA developed to address immigration/melting-pot etc.

You're not actually sure that races are under-represented, and yet you're advocating that discrimination is necessary to solve a problem that you're not actually sure exists?

Like, here you're claiming that "groups hire their own kind"...

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.

...and yet the figures in the Stats Can paper say that the groups they've tagged as visible minorities are actually *more* successful than non-visible minorities.

Doesn't this seem to suggest that peoples' perception of the "problem" might be rather different from the reality? Don't we need to better understand the "problem" before we undertake measures to "solve" it?

-k

Edited January 8, 2011 by kimmy

[Michael Hardner]

You're not actually sure that races are under-represented, and yet you're advocating that discrimination is necessary to solve a problem that you're not actually sure exists?

I believe that they are. I haven't looked at a study, but it makes sense to me.

Like, here you're claiming that "groups hire their own kind"...

...and yet the figures in the Stats Can paper say that the groups they've tagged as visible minorities are actually *more* successful than non-visible minorities.

Doesn't this seem to suggest that peoples' perception of the "problem" might be rather different from the reality? Don't we need to better understand the "problem" before we undertake measures to "solve" it?

Ok, I looked at the paper you published, specifically the conclusions and they seem at odds with excerpts that you posted.

[Shwa]

I have read many times that it is needed to combat the legacy of slavery and racism, and what that did to the black community in the united states, that, in effect, their descendants still suffer, as a community, from the legacy of slavery and then the extreme racism which followed. Affirmative Action is intended to help combat that.

In Canada, we call it Employment Equity. There is an Act of Parliament about it. It has a section in the Act called 'Purpose of Act' and here is the text, which you can reference here.

Purpose of Act

2. The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.

As you can see, slavery isn't mentioned, nor is race or any particular skin colour. And it also lists women first and includes persons with disabilities.

And yet, evidence that this happens, or has happened any time in the recent past, seems vanishingly scarce.

Of course anything seems "vanishly scarce" when you're not actually looking for it notwithstanding the report from a Royal Commission in 1984, the Abella Commission which was the driver for the Act.

Of course, by your logic, Parliament simply created an Act for absolutely no reasons at all. What were they thinking? Those crazy parliamentarians!

Edited January 8, 2011 by Shwa

[kimmy]

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...

If she was writing a paper on job market outcomes vs educational background, maybe that would be a reasonable conclusion. (Of course if she was writing that paper, she'd have also discussed trades, technical school, and other non-university types of education as well.)

But she's writing a paper where she's asserting a labor market gap for visible minorities. Her appeal to this apparent "contradiction" is about all she has to work with, and it's her central thesis.

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!

Yet she completely neglects any mention of it from her paper. Why might that be? There's only a few possibilities.

-she didn't know. (in which case she's an idiot.)

-she knew, but didn't consider it relevant (in which case, she's also an idiot.)

-she chose not to mention it because it undermines the point she wishes to make.

I doubt she's an idiot...

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

From the Stats Canada point of view, people choose to identify their ancestry, but Stats Canada decides whether they're visible minorities based on the chart I linked to.

Perhaps government job applications have a check-box where you can identify yourself as a visible minority. I can't remember if I was presented with such a box when I applied for government jobs way back when.

If it's strictly a matter of self-identification, it would be interesting to see what happened if I applied for a government job and identified myself as a visible minority. Do you think they'd go along with that, or do you think they'd re-classify me once they got a look at me?

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.

So a government minister could go in and say "I need a paper that shows the long gun registry isn't useful", for example?

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.

As has been pointed out a number of times, the Charter itself says that "employment equity" programs are constitutional, so even if the good folks at Justice did think it was "institutionalized racism", there's not much they could do about it.

-k

[kimmy]

I believe that they are. I haven't looked at a study, but it makes sense to me.

Did you look at the graphs on pages 8 and 9 of the Stats Can paper, and particularly the graph at the bottom of page 9?

Ok, I looked at the paper you published, specifically the conclusions and they seem at odds with excerpts that you posted.

That's because the author's conclusions are at odds with the information she presents to make her case.

-k

[Pliny]

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

Disagree. It is a perversion of justice in my view and I'll tell you why I think so.

It is about egalitarianism. It attempts to make things equal without consideration of merit and violates the concept of private property. If one believes in the idea of private property he cannot support another individual determining for him how, who and in what manner he should economically support society. If one does not believe in the concept of private property, such as yourself, he has no argument against the totalitarian socialist who will determine for him what is for the good of society. It is a "progressive" march to the centralization of power which will eventually turn to a political power struggle outside the hands of democracy.

So if one believes in private property he must have full decision making powers over it. Partial decision-making powers, means there is no private property and leads to a progressive loss to government over the self-determination of what is considered private property.

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.

I am suggesting no such thing.

Engineering society was a fault of governments in the past, once they become oppressive, they are overthrown, so why should we perpetuate that cycle today? If you agree the Magna Carta is a good thing then you agree Governments should be restricted in their mandate because that is what it basically did.

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?

Lady Justice must treat all as equals under the law and must see no differences in individuals in it's delivery of justice.

This is another reason that "social justice" is not "just". It determines how it will discriminate between rich and poor, races, genders, etc., based upon it's own perception of who is not equal in society when it should blindly accept all are eqaul who come before her.

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

Affirmative action does not consider contribution whatsoever. It believes it has the ability to decide someone's capacity and will then even things out, making capacity irrelevant.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Pliny

[Shwa]

If she was writing a paper on job market outcomes vs educational background, maybe that would be a reasonable conclusion. (Of course if she was writing that paper, she'd have also discussed trades, technical school, and other non-university types of education as well.)

But she's writing a paper where she's asserting a labor market gap for visible minorities. Her appeal to this apparent "contradiction" is about all she has to work with, and it's her central thesis.

No. The data is showing a labour market gap for visible minorities. She is saying there could be reasons...

Yet she completely neglects any mention of it from her paper. Why might that be? There's only a few possibilities.

-she didn't know. (in which case she's an idiot.)

-she knew, but didn't consider it relevant (in which case, she's also an idiot.)

-she chose not to mention it because it undermines the point she wishes to make.

I doubt she's an idiot...

Canadian-born and foreign-born visible minorities are compared to their non-visible minority counterparts to understand the relationship between labour market outcomes and immigration issues, such as recognition of foreign education qualifications or language abilities.

Although immigrants may face these barriers regardless of their visible minority status, trends suggest that the foreign-born visible minority groups experience more labour market difficulties than nonvisible minorities. All of these factors may contribute to foreign-born visible minority difficulties in the labour market.

The widening gap in labour market performance occurred even though visible minorities were more likely to be university-educated than nonvisible minorities and the educational advantage of foreign-born visible minorities over Canadian-born nonvisible minorities had increased.

Now, wouldn't you say that having a university education would make someone more employable? Especially in an economy turning over to service based as opposed to manufacturing based. I don't think it is any stretch to think that a university degree will open more doors to a wider range of jobs, better opportunities. Don't you? And I believe there are enough studies showing the correlation between more education and higher learning potential, something that is important for immigrants wouldn't you think?

So despite this 'widely held view' how come a university degree isn't helping foreign born visible minorities so much? So why is that? What is your conclusion?

From the Stats Canada point of view, people choose to identify their ancestry, but Stats Canada decides whether they're visible minorities based on the chart I linked to.

Sure. But for Employment Equity purposes, the term is discretionary.

Perhaps government job applications have a check-box where you can identify yourself as a visible minority. I can't remember if I was presented with such a box when I applied for government jobs way back when.

If you were applying with the past 25 years, I would say yes, they had the checkbox.

If it's strictly a matter of self-identification, it would be interesting to see what happened if I applied for a government job and identified myself as a visible minority. Do you think they'd go along with that, or do you think they'd re-classify me once they got a look at me?

It is interesting and I have often wondered myself what would happen as does B-C in his reply on the 6th (which I missed, sorry about that B-C) What do you think would happen if it was a decidedly Caucasion looking Metis or non-status Indian or a fair skinned child of Caucasian and Chinese parents?

So a government minister could go in and say "I need a paper that shows the long gun registry isn't useful", for example?

LOFL! Absolutely and I am betting they often do.

As has been pointed out a number of times, the Charter itself says that "employment equity" programs are constitutional, so even if the good folks at Justice did think it was "institutionalized racism", there's not much they could do about it.

You don't seriously hold that view do you?

[Pliny]

Everybody has an ideal in mind. You do too.

Of course, I do.

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

I don't understand your confusion is here but I'll try....

My statement was that it is absurd to enforce equal representation for Muslims in a Christian church and it is equally absurd to enforce equal representation, though maybe not as obvious, in other aspects of society. In the past governments have shown preference to some groups over others and it is deemed today to be wrong, with which I agree. So government should not correct itself or others by instituting a policy that continues a policy of preferential treatment for one group over another but it instead should institute a policy regarding itself of equal access to all and others can determine for themselves their own preferences. Yes, others can even have a "Blacks only" policy or a "Whites only" policy or a "No girls allowed" policy.

Government, as a monopolistic entity governing all citizens, must be all inclusive and not show biases and preferences. The law is a powerful thing. My opinion and your opinion and anyone else's opinion are not.

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

Staying inside is not an option.

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

They achieved their objective but was the objective a good thing. Maybe they should have continued to foster the family and encouraged women to stay home. Both objectives are an engineering of society and just as government fostering families and keeping women at home was detrimental so shall preferential hiring practices prove detrimental. Some women may be sorry that government persuaded them, with easy access, to get a job.

They do, IMO>

They shouldn't, IMO> People should have more power over their own lives.

[bloodyminded]

Okay. What kind of evidence do you believe I could get. Come on. Be realistic.

I understand, I really do. The point is this: you made the claim that aa is aversely affecting job performance.

i made the claim that I have, as of yet, seen no evidence of this.

That's the crux of our argument.

Are you really saying that my assertion is more unreasonable than yours?

Based on what criteria?

Besides, you keep saying, and I quote:

Logic and knowledge of real world application is what's important

Don't you understand that you are summoning the specter of "real world application"--which surely includes niceties such as evidence to support this "knowledge"--even as you scoff at the very idea of being able to produce any?

You can't have it both ways.

And yes, I noticed that you didn't answer my question - again. I think we both know very well that any municipal politician, much less an administrator, who so much as dared to raise the issue would be history, that no study of abilities or performance based upon race would be permitted.

no, we don't "both know very well" that this is the case. You are positive that it's the case, and I am not. So you are--by definition, mind you--mistaken.

The only criteria for evaluating the performance of police would be crime, and its resolution. But both of those are influenced by multiple factors, not the least of which is demographics, poverty rates, and the number of young men in a population, puls of course, changes in law and sentencing rates. However, I could say that I, and apparently many others, are unimpressed with the police efforts at solving or preventing crime. There seems to be too much of it, and too much of it goes unsolved.

And as you (finally) concede, you have zero idea whether aa policies are in any way related to any of this.

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I'm not a big-time scholar of scholarly things, but I've always been under the impression that footnotes were intended to substantiate the information you present in your paper, not as an alternative to presenting the information.

Nope. Footnotes are for directly substantiating the information you present in your paper, and for providing sources for alternative views, and for simple citation, and for referring the reader to another work of similar interest (including the author's own works, a perfectly legitimate use of footnoting); or even to provide an aside, a sort of parenthetical remark not deemed quite important enough to be lodged within the text itself.

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

......................

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

I understand, I really do. The point is this: you made the claim that aa is aversely affecting job performance.

Not quite. The claim I made was that when you lower your requirements, as for example, the police and fire services have done with strength tests, and then hire applicants based on reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job you must inevitably wind up with a less capable workforce.

We know the requirements have been lessened, and we know that, on top of that, people have been hired ahead of those who finished well above them in combined testing scores. Do you really think it is such a stretch from that to say that a less capable workforce will affect work performance?

no, we don't "both know very well" that this is the case. You are positive that it's the case, and I am not. So you are--by definition, mind you--mistaken.

Really? Okay. I don't know what city you're living in, but I simply cannot imagine any municipal politician having the balls to raise such a question. I CAN imagine the firestorm which would result.

[bloodyminded]

Not quite. The claim I made was that when you lower your requirements, as for example, the police and fire services have done with strength tests, and then hire applicants based on reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job you must inevitably wind up with a less capable workforce.

Since I wrote this:

you made the claim that aa is aversely affecting job performance

....I think your reply is a distinction without a difference.

Really? Okay. I don't know what city you're living in, but I simply cannot imagine any municipal politician having the balls to raise such a question. I CAN imagine the firestorm which would result.

Well now that you've summoned my town, I would suggest that you're mistaken. Consider:

I live in Fredericton, NB. It is a relatively affluent little city; highly educated; a seat of government; with a strong and vocal arts community.

We have one of the highest per capita homosexual populations in North America.

A few years back, the mayor, who doesn't much care for them queers, refused to announce the Gay Pride Parade here.

(Which, by the way, falls incontestably under the rubric of the job for which he is paid.)

Well, guess what? He's still the mayor; not because of his homophobia, which people largely lament, but because he's mostly done a decent job.

And yes, there was a firestorm and a controversy over the matter. That's not a bad thing, Scotty. That's democracy, no more or less.

Some people have got such an overblown bee in their bonnet about "political correctness" that they think controversy and firestorms are inherently bad things.

They're not. They're integral to the democratic process.

Oh...unless it's some social issue about which they feel more inclined....in which "political correctness" doesn't seem to be the issue, but rather a segment of the population making their disaffection felt.

But the Mayor wasn't turfed out; he didn't "get in trouble," and he was decidedly "allowed" to speak his mind. Indeed, the primary issue is that he wasn't doing his job in that instance.

Another case: we had a local elite, a Business fixture of the city who became a councilman, opining that "the Palestinians should just move away if they're unhappy." Well, Fredericton has a lot of immigrants, a lot of Muslims, and a lot of lefties. So, again, there was a notable controversy.

But that's because his remark was controversial.

He didn't "get in trouble"; and he was, by definition, "allowed to say it."

So...that's my city. I don't see any reason why it would be utterly unique in any of these matters.

The profound and stultifying power of "political correctness" is a actually a profound exaggeration, promoted by right-wing commentators (who similarly say what they want, while being informed that "no one is allowed to say" such things).

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

Now, wouldn't you say that having a university education would make someone more employable? Especially in an economy turning over to service based as opposed to manufacturing based. I don't think it is any stretch to think that a university degree will open more doors to a wider range of jobs, better opportunities. Don't you? And I believe there are enough studies showing the correlation between more education and higher learning potential, something that is important for immigrants wouldn't you think?

"Now, wouldn't you say that having a university education would make someone more employable?"

It sounds like such a reasonable assumption, doesn't it.

But "more employable" than who?

-More employable than a high school drop-out? Of course!

-More employable than a high school grad? Sure!

-More employable than a tech school grad? Not on average.

-More employable than someone with a trades ticket? Not on average.

-More employable than someone who has obtained certification in specialized skills? Probably not.

So no, I wouldn't say that a university education would make someone "more employable" than someone else, unless that someone's education is limited to high-school or less. That's one of the major faults here: the way the question is presented invites the assumption that university grads are being compared to people with no education beyond highschool. In fact, it compares university grads to people without university degrees, and large numbers of those people possess skills that make them equally or more employable than university graduates.

That's the first major flaw. The second is, she's inviting us to make assumptions about the least qualified members of both groups based on the amount of university degrees held by the most qualified members of both groups. I illustrated the problem earlier on with the Smith kids and Johnson kids. 2 of the 5 Smith kids have university degrees, while only 1 of the 5 Johnson kids does. What's the employment rate and income level of the Smith kids and the Johnson kids? I forgot to mention that 2 of the remaining 3 Smith kids are grade 10 drop-outs, while 3 of the remaining 4 Johnson kids have tech school diplomas. Does that change your assumption? The fact that 2 of the Smith kids have university degrees gives us no insight at all into the qualifications of the remainder.

So despite this 'widely held view' how come a university degree isn't helping foreign born visible minorities so much? So why is that? What is your conclusion?

I suspect that the university degrees are probably very helpful to the foreign born visible minorities who possess them, and probably of no help at all to the foreign born visible minorities who don't possess them.

I suspect that the foreign born visible minorities who are out of work are probably in large measure those who lack university education (or recognized university education, at least) and might be lacking in other skills that Canadian born people possess (language fluency being a big one.)

You don't seriously hold that view do you?

If enough MPs decided "you know, this is wrong, we should change this," or "this doesn't appear to be necessary, this isn't actually helping" they could repeal the law.

But if somebody wanted to challenge this because they think it's "institutionalized racism", they're out of luck, because clearly the law says it's allowed.

-k

[Shwa]

Disagree. It is a perversion of justice in my view and I'll tell you why I think so.

The problem here is that anyone can - and they frequently do - make the claim that this or that form of justice is a perversion of some other form of justice that has more merit for a varity of reasons. And there is no quarrel with those sorts of opinions. What is indispitable is that justice - as a social construct - reflects the society in which in lives, regardless of any overthrow or radical change. Thus it is a current reflection of the wishes of that society and is therefore valid in form.

All the rest is opinion, but when it comes to taking things into the court of law, your best bet is to believe that the current form of justice is the operational form.

It is about egalitarianism. It attempts to make things equal without consideration of merit and violates the concept of private property. If one believes in the idea of private property he cannot support another individual determining for him how, who and in what manner he should economically support society. If one does not believe in the concept of private property, such as yourself, he has no argument against the totalitarian socialist who will determine for him what is for the good of society. It is a "progressive" march to the centralization of power which will eventually turn to a political power struggle outside the hands of democracy.

I'llleave the egalitarian concept for now and address the idea of private property.

There has never been - in the entirety of human history - the full value you give to the concept of private property since there has never been a single person invested with total authority over any property to be considered "private." At best, any claim to such authority is tentative and tenuous as any form of force and always resitable in the long rung and into the current day. Because of this, claims that private property mean this or that are also tentative and tenuous since they do no reflect the force of the current society, which overwhelms all and considers its force to be "just."

Now, this could be due to the fact that we are ultimately social animals, I am not sure. There are plenty of opinions about it.

Secondly, the movement towards the collectivization of property certain makes sense with regard to a slide toward totalitarian governance and - in some cases - this has proven true. But not for all propery at all times. There appears to be a mitigating force - a justice - that prevents it from happening as a imperative. At best I would say these large social forces cycle between the two extremes and sometimes - but not necessarily all the time or predictably - touch on one extreme or another. And the reason I say these forces cycle is because there is no ultimate force over a long time that can compel it to remain. All empires eventually have ended or cycled through to something else.

So if one believes in private property he must have full decision making powers over it. Partial decision-making powers, means there is no private property and leads to a progressive loss to government over the self-determination of what is considered private property.

And the matter of belief is very important, but ultimately it is only a belief and not necessarily fact since any individual can be ruled out by a stronger, proximate group. Which is what history shows. The best any individual can get is a partial authority dependent on others along with a belief that they are this or that.

I am suggesting no such thing.

Engineering society was a fault of governments in the past, once they become oppressive, they are overthrown, so why should we perpetuate that cycle today? If you agree the Magna Carta is a good thing then you agree Governments should be restricted in their mandate because that is what it basically did.

All governments should have restrictions, but even applying those restrictions is 'social engineering.' You have to remember that the Magna Carta was an effort by the 'government' to restrict itself.

Lady Justice must treat all as equals under the law and must see no differences in individuals in it's delivery of justice.

This is another reason that "social justice" is not "just". It determines how it will discriminate between rich and poor, races, genders, etc., based upon it's own perception of who is not equal in society when it should blindly accept all are eqaul who come before her.

Don't forget those scales of justice!

Affirmative action does not consider contribution whatsoever. It believes it has the ability to decide someone's capacity and will then even things out, making capacity irrelevant.

Affirmative Action considers the potential contribution and this ethic is at it's heart. Capacity is about qualifications, which are also a significant part of its process.

[Shwa]

"Now, wouldn't you say that having a university education would make someone more employable?"

It sounds like such a reasonable assumption, doesn't it.

But "more employable" than who?

-More employable than a high school drop-out? Of course!

-More employable than a high school grad? Sure!

-More employable than a tech school grad? Not on average.

-More employable than someone with a trades ticket? Not on average.

-More employable than someone who has obtained certification in specialized skills? Probably not.

So no, I wouldn't say that a university education would make someone "more employable" than someone else, unless that someone's education is limited to high-school or less. That's one of the major faults here: the way the question is presented invites the assumption that university grads are being compared to people with no education beyond highschool. In fact, it compares university grads to people without university degrees, and large numbers of those people possess skills that make them equally or more employable than university graduates.

Well these statistics here seem to show that the more education you have the more employable you are - and top of the list is a university education.

Employment rates, by educational attainment

Not only more employable, but earn more income too:

Average employment income...by education level

So this data - at a glance - would contribute to a 'widely held view' that university education is desirable to get a job.

That's the first major flaw. The second is, she's inviting us to make assumptions about the least qualified members of both groups based on the amount of university degrees held by the most qualified members of both groups. I illustrated the problem earlier on with the Smith kids and Johnson kids. 2 of the 5 Smith kids have university degrees, while only 1 of the 5 Johnson kids does. What's the employment rate and income level of the Smith kids and the Johnson kids? I forgot to mention that 2 of the remaining 3 Smith kids are grade 10 drop-outs, while 3 of the remaining 4 Johnson kids have tech school diplomas. Does that change your assumption? The fact that 2 of the Smith kids have university degrees gives us no insight at all into the qualifications of the remainder.

In case the Smith/Johnson scenario doesn't work, go to the StatsCan tables.

I suspect that the university degrees are probably very helpful to the foreign born visible minorities who possess them, and probably of no help at all to the foreign born visible minorities who don't possess them.

I suspect that the foreign born visible minorities who are out of work are probably in large measure those who lack university education (or recognized university education, at least) and might be lacking in other skills that Canadian born people possess (language fluency being a big one.)

This could well be.

If enough MPs decided "you know, this is wrong, we should change this," or "this doesn't appear to be necessary, this isn't actually helping" they could repeal the law.

But if somebody wanted to challenge this because they think it's "institutionalized racism", they're out of luck, because clearly the law says it's allowed.

The law doesn't say "institutionalized racism" is allowed. And since it has no traction - anywhere - as such, it is likely because it isn't. Now, if enough people got behind the idea that it is, presented their case to MP's like say, de-indexing old age pensions, then perhaps it might have traction. But even the MP's say nothing, because the idea that Employment Equity is "institutionalized racism" is a nothing idea.

[Oleg Bach]

The eccense of affirmative action is taking a child that suffered oxygen starvation in the womb...and calling said child "special" - now if that child is exceptional...then everyone is the same and all are oxygen starved and special...Look at the affirmative action that brought about the hiring of police officers of limited intelligence and size - they tend to shoot or taze automatically.

[dre]

Disagree. It is a perversion of justice in my view and I'll tell you why I think so.

It is about egalitarianism. It attempts to make things equal without consideration of merit and violates the concept of private property. If one believes in the idea of private property he cannot support another individual determining for him how, who and in what manner he should economically support society. If one does not believe in the concept of private property, such as yourself, he has no argument against the totalitarian socialist who will determine for him what is for the good of society. It is a "progressive" march to the centralization of power which will eventually turn to a political power struggle outside the hands of democracy.

So if one believes in private property he must have full decision making powers over it. Partial decision-making powers, means there is no private property and leads to a progressive loss to government over the self-determination of what is considered private property.

I am suggesting no such thing.

Engineering society was a fault of governments in the past, once they become oppressive, they are overthrown, so why should we perpetuate that cycle today? If you agree the Magna Carta is a good thing then you agree Governments should be restricted in their mandate because that is what it basically did.

Lady Justice must treat all as equals under the law and must see no differences in individuals in it's delivery of justice.

This is another reason that "social justice" is not "just". It determines how it will discriminate between rich and poor, races, genders, etc., based upon it's own perception of who is not equal in society when it should blindly accept all are eqaul who come before her.

Affirmative action does not consider contribution whatsoever. It believes it has the ability to decide someone's capacity and will then even things out, making capacity irrelevant.

It is about egalitarianism. It attempts to make things equal without consideration of merit and violates the concept of private property. If one believes in the idea of private property he cannot support another individual determining for him how, who and in what manner he should economically support society. If one does not believe in the concept of private property, such as yourself, he has no argument against the totalitarian socialist who will determine for him what is for the good of society.

It is about egalitarianism.

No it really isnt.

It attempts to make things equal without consideration of merit and violates the concept of private property.

No it doesnt. In fact merit is the whole consideration behind AA. It has nothing to do with equality and nobody expects an equal outcome for all people. They just want the outcome to be based on merit, instead of factors like skin color, religion, or gender.

If one believes in the idea of private property he cannot support another individual determining for him how, who and in what manner he should economically support society

Pure fantasy. Collective rules are the central contruct in human society. You can accept that and still support private property. You appear to be taking this argument to silly ideological extremes.

[Oleg Bach]

Make everyone the same..debase them..bring them to their dirty knees with political correctness and mind melting sensationalism...and NOW you have a great compliant docile population that can be ruled by an elite...affirmative action creates servants for the super rich...I am not a servant....to those lesser than I...affirmative action will create a perverse situation where the inferior rules over his superiour..I don't see that sense of that out of order situtation..There must be order..MY dogs do not have the same rights as I...but to some - they sleep with the dogs and eat off the same dish....sorry...we all have a right to discriminte - to be partial to what we like best - to be bias - to be prejudice...to say that honey is better than shit.