Argus Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Not that I know of. It stands to reason that it's better to have a racially mixed force to police, say, a community of all black people. Can you see that ? If not, I will look up some studies on this topic but it seems pretty obvious to me. Qualifications are set apart from race - they include fitness, and educational background. I don't question that it is preferable. I question whether it is so much of an improvement that it's worthwhile lowering the qualifications of the applicants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I don't question that it is preferable. I question whether it is so much of an improvement that it's worthwhile lowering the qualifications of the applicants. It's not. That's were AA loses support. If they give preference to under represented groups who meet the same qualifications, then AA has my full support. But when they do what you describe, no way. For one thing, it's a kind of racism/sexism that says non-whites and women can't be as good as white males. Seems to me it would also lead to it being recognized within the organization that the white males are superior employees. So then the organization has to have further discriminatory policies for advancement, because the non-whites and females will be competing with superior white males. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatJob! Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) Not that I know of. It stands to reason that it's better to have a racially mixed force to police, say, a community of all black people. Can you see that ? If not, I will look up some studies on this topic but it seems pretty obvious to me. Qualifications are set apart from race - they include fitness, and educational background. that sounds like a racist thing to say... are you saying that to police a diverse group of people ... you need diverse police officers? Like white people won't listen or respect black officers, and black people won't respect white officers? sounds like the future is going to look pretty crappy if we admit that its impossible to intergrate the races at even that bare minimum level... We'll need tagalog speaking officers for this community, Sikh turban wearing ones for another region, rastafarian ones for the other city... what kind of a bladerunner ghettoized dystopia is canada going to devolve into if we keep this nonsense up? Why stop there? howabout minority specific firefighters, city workers? Howabout we break up canada in a racial/ethnic map and delegate administrative cantons for each "region"? that's the same as saying that diverse societies are weak, divisive and choatic... I don't think they need to be... and its attitudes like yours that perpetuate all sorts of social ills in our country.... diversity is SUPPOSED to be a strength, not a source of tension, disunity, mutual distrust and chaos... Edited December 31, 2012 by GreatJob! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatJob! Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Do you have a source for that $120 million in diversity job fairs aimed solely at visible minorities ? Maybe we can start with that. well... by their very name: Diversity Job fairs are indeed intended almost exclusively at minorities ... and the reason I quoted an amazon book is because it actually is a compendium of how affirmative action works, and in it are some facts and figures (that granted I did not cite very academically)... at any rate there is no disputing that affirmative action is a waste of money... because it is based on a misreading of social problems and offers a false solution... wether it costs 1 million or 10 billion$ is irrelevent... it should be scrapped all together if we want to move towards a free, equal society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Still waiting for links GJ. Let me know what you find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatJob! Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Still waiting for links GJ. Let me know what you find. well, while I get on that... howabout you address my previous comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 well... by their very name: Diversity Job fairs are indeed intended almost exclusively at minorities ... and the reason I quoted an amazon book is because it actually is a compendium of how affirmative action works, and in it are some facts and figures (that granted I did not cite very academically)... at any rate there is no disputing that affirmative action is a waste of money... because it is based on a misreading of social problems and offers a false solution... wether it costs 1 million or 10 billion$ is irrelevent... it should be scrapped all together if we want to move towards a free, equal society. My concept would be to have a diversity jobs fair aimed at whites and Asians by basketball teams. After all Jeremy Lin did rather well for the Knicks last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 well, while I get on that... howabout you address my previous comment? Yes, I think you need a diverse police force. That is a reflection of a process wherein there aren't cultural biases against certain jobs, not a weakness as you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 In Québec we call that "positive discrimination". Advantaging visible minorities to get some jobs does not sound right at first sight. No discriminations of what-so-ever should be allowed. Neverthenless, it is a necessary one. Because whether you like it or not, there is racism (even if it's a small level) among police forces or other public jobs. Having more visible minorities to those jobs help to balance at least the perception and the relation between those communities and the workers. Unfortunatly, it is not rare that between two equal qualifications, one employer will choose the white guy rather than the other non-white one. Those rules help to balance the chances. Even the people in the minorities don't like those rules. They want to be recognised for the merit. But those rules are necessary. Let's all hope that one day no positive discriminations will be necessary to offset the negative ones. Unfortunatly, the other way around won't happen. It's not by removing the positive discrimination that you will end the negative one. What is very arbitrary tho, is to determine if those rules are still necessary or not. Because the discrimination against visible minorities is not always obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatJob! Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Yes, I think you need a diverse police force. That is a reflection of a process wherein there aren't cultural biases against certain jobs, not a weakness as you suggest. i'm not sure I understand... bare with me on this. You are essentially saying that you need a diverse police force to deal with diverse neighborhoods, That, to me sounds a lot like an admission that a multi-ethnic country can never truly be integrated racially or culturally. After all if you "NEED" black officers to police black people and indians to police indians etc. It means that the entire notion of a diverse society is now an ordeal, where racial headcounting and full on/ institutional racism is now a central faculty in the way our society organizes itself... gone is the principle of "best man for the job"... gone is the notion of treating everyone as equals. Is integration not even a goal anymore? have we given up? Personally, I don't need a white police officer to carry out the job of policing me... I don't care about race or erthnic origin... I just want to know that he is the best man for the job... and I certainly hope that is the attitude ALL canadians have. Governments teach by example, you don't eliminate violence by beating violent people up, you don't end poverty by empoverishing the wealthy, you don't teach politeness by being rude to impolite people.... and you don't end discrimination by discriminating against people... these truths should be pretty obvious to everyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Can you both be right/wrong. If we have an all white male police force, then people are not going to feel very well represented by it. Women and minorities bring attitudes and approaches to the work that most of the white men may not have. OTOH, it can go too far. We have the police in Vancouver take course after course on aboriginals, as if they are so vastly different they need to be policed differently. The laws should apply the same to everybody, but of course we've seen that isn't true for aboriginals. And what, we're going to have people of a certain ethnicity demand they can only dealt with by a police officer of their own ethnicity and gender? We do want integration, and that should go both ways. I have no problem with trying to bring more minorities into policing, as long as they meet the same standards as the white men. Otherwise it's just racism. And one thing Canada seems to be losing is pride in its European heritage. We should be building up that pride - that's what made the country what it is, and why people want to emigrate here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatJob! Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 In Québec we call that "positive discrimination". Advantaging visible minorities to get some jobs does not sound right at first sight. No discriminations of what-so-ever should be allowed. Neverthenless, it is a necessary one. Because whether you like it or not, there is racism (even if it's a small level) among police forces or other public jobs. Having more visible minorities to those jobs help to balance at least the perception and the relation between those communities and the workers. Unfortunatly, it is not rare that between two equal qualifications, one employer will choose the white guy rather than the other non-white one. Those rules help to balance the chances. Even the people in the minorities don't like those rules. They want to be recognised for the merit. But those rules are necessary. Let's all hope that one day no positive discriminations will be necessary to offset the negative ones. Unfortunatly, the other way around won't happen. It's not by removing the positive discrimination that you will end the negative one. What is very arbitrary tho, is to determine if those rules are still necessary or not. Because the discrimination against visible minorities is not always obvious. positive//negative... pure nonsense. Discrimination is discrimination, racism is racism... period. If there is racism in police or government jobs (and that is VERY LITTLE racism), then it isn't going to help using INSTITUTIONAL RACISM against an identifiable group in order to combat it... At any rate, what it will succeed in producing is RESENTMENT and hatred on the part of the people being discriminated against... trust me on this: if you want to see an increase in actual racism, just keep setting up systematic rejections of better or equal qualified whites... and then you'll see a backlash... an utterly legitimate backlash... Ordinary citizens will lose their respect for minority police officers... assuming they got their job through spurrious affirmative action schemes... and from them it doesn't take long to see the slippery slope towards prolonged ethnic conflict. affiramtive action doesn't "balance out the chances"... it sways them solidly in one groups favor. "balancing out the chances" would imply complete equality... treating EVERYONE as individuals... not as races... and you're right, discrimination against minorities is not always obvious at all... but the discrimination created by affirmative action and similar policies: is patently obvious... It real gvt sponsored discrimination... the worst kind ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 It means that the entire notion of a diverse society is now an ordeal, where racial headcounting and full on/ institutional racism is now a central faculty in the way our society organizes itself... gone is the principle of "best man for the job"... gone is the notion of treating everyone as equals. No - the idea of 'best man for the job' is not gone - unqualified people need not apply. As for the ordeal idea - I think you need to ask why non-diverse groups form and what biases are happening there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) No - the idea of 'best man for the job' is not gone - unqualified people need not apply. And if the institution involved has different standards of qualification based on race and gender? Edited January 4, 2013 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I don't agree with that, personally. But it also depends on what the qualifications being discussed are. It could be height, it could be academics... I think I'm still waiting for details on that question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatJob! Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) No - the idea of 'best man for the job' is not gone - unqualified people need not apply. As for the ordeal idea - I think you need to ask why non-diverse groups form and what biases are happening there. riiight. also this: http://articles.phil...iverse-nominees racial nose counting already starting in the US it seems... So it appears everyone can blatantly racially discriminate under the guise of "social justice" and neither the media nor politicians (of any party anywhere) will call them on it. Meanwhile, a white person is presumed to have racist intentions if he does not nominate a black or Hispanic regardless of whether there is any indication of actual racism. The media and politicians will, in turn, second that unfounded accusation of racism. The whole race argument is shifted so far in one direction because it's framed around the presumption that whites are automatically racist (and only they can be racist). Edited January 4, 2013 by GreatJob! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Before we start on that... From Dec 31st: Do you have a source for that $120 million in diversity job fairs aimed solely at visible minorities ? Maybe we can start with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yes, I think you need a diverse police force. That is a reflection of a process wherein there aren't cultural biases against certain jobs, not a weakness as you suggest. So black police officers cannot understand the white communities? Is that what you're saying? If one is true then opposite must also be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 So black police officers cannot understand the white communities? Is that what you're saying? If one is true then opposite must also be true. You've presented me with a false dilemma, so the best option is to not answer that question. Here's a hint, we're talking about group dynamics and macro-behavior. It's very difficult to discuss such things objectively, as people will undoubtedly bring their own experiences and studies to the question. I, for example, lived in Europe as a youth - at a time and place where competing cultures were challenging a traditional status quo in a situation at once similar and dissimilar from Canada's. I studied sociology and psychology and have read extensively on such subjects, and have lived in places where the diversity outside my walls was unicultural and wholly diverse as well. This is what I bring to this question. You need to acknowledge that you have a deficit when you come to these forums to discuss such matters - as you have already described yourself as a disabled shut-in who has [irrational] fears that Muslims are coming to decapitate you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 You've presented me with a false dilemma, so the best option is to not answer that question. Here's a hint, we're talking about group dynamics and macro-behavior. It's very difficult to discuss such things objectively, as people will undoubtedly bring their own experiences and studies to the question. I, for example, lived in Europe as a youth - at a time and place where competing cultures were challenging a traditional status quo in a situation at once similar and dissimilar from Canada's. I studied sociology and psychology and have read extensively on such subjects, and have lived in places where the diversity outside my walls was unicultural and wholly diverse as well. This is what I bring to this question. You need to acknowledge that you have a deficit when you come to these forums to discuss such matters - as you have already described yourself as a disabled shut-in who has [irrational] fears that Muslims are coming to decapitate you. Bit of a dodge tho. I think his question is a fair one. If someone white claimed they were discriminated against because a black police officer dealt with them, they would be laughed out of court and called a racist. Reverse the colors and not so much. Minority groups can be just as insular as majority ones. I agree that having a police force that represents the community is a good thing - as long as standards aren't lowered. And you dodged on that question too, talking about height. The question Argus was posing was is it right to have different height requirements for whites vs Asians, say. If you have one height requirement for all races, then that's fair. But firefighters for instance set different strength requirements for men and women. How is that just? Are women better able to compensate for less strength than a weaker man is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Bit of a dodge tho. I think his question is a fair one. If someone white claimed they were discriminated against because a black police officer dealt with them, they would be laughed out of court and called a racist. Reverse the colors and not so much. Minority groups can be just as insular as majority ones. Would they ? Are you saying black people are given a pass for racism ? I agree that having a police force that represents the community is a good thing - as long as standards aren't lowered. And you dodged on that question too, talking about height. The question Argus was posing was is it right to have different height requirements for whites vs Asians, say. If you have one height requirement for all races, then that's fair. But firefighters for instance set different strength requirements for men and women. How is that just? Are women better able to compensate for less strength than a weaker man is? Well, keeping in mind that you're evaluating people I agree with you to a point. There should be a minimum requirement, but do you give preference to taller males than shorter females ? That's not a dodge, it's a hedge. The people here would like to pretend there's a cop evaluation machine that you walk into with a big screen that produces your numeric value. Note that I keep asking for examples and I'm not really getting much. Of course, there shouldn't be unqualified people serving the public. Of course politics enters into these questions more than it should. Are we just complaining about that here ? If so, I'm on board with that. But I think we're doing more than that. I hear people demanding to throw out any process to achieve goals of diversity, not offering much in the way of alternative solutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I agree with Canuckstani on this one. I brought up double standards in the other topic "We're all immigrants here!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I hear people demanding to throw out any process to achieve goals of diversity, not offering much in the way of alternative solutions. This is the second time you said that. Why are we required to offer an alternative solution? That's the government's job, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Would they ? Are you saying black people are given a pass for racism ? I'm saying non-whites are given a pass on crying racism when there may not be. And yes, non-whites are given a pass on racism - very rare you get a charge of hate crime against non-white on white violence for instance, but it's quick to be alleged when colors are reversed.Well, keeping in mind that you're evaluating people I agree with you to a point. There should be a minimum requirement, but do you give preference to taller males than shorter females ? That's not a dodge, it's a hedge. The people here would like to pretend there's a cop evaluation machine that you walk into with a big screen that produces your numeric value. Note that I keep asking for examples and I'm not really getting much. Of course, there shouldn't be unqualified people serving the public. Of course politics enters into these questions more than it should. No preference for taller males. Or taller whites vs Asians. Set a min height requirement, that all must meet. Feel free to hire tall enough women and Asians over white males, if height is the only criterion an white males are over represented. But as I said, reducing strength requirements only for women is discriminatory and makes no sense.Are we just complaining about that here ? If so, I'm on board with that. But I think we're doing more than that. I hear people demanding to throw out any process to achieve goals of diversity, not offering much in the way of alternative solutions. " We're" not doing more than that. I'm saying set a single standard, then feel free to preferentially hire under represented groups that meet that standard. I think Angus is saying the same thing. Can't speak for anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 This is the second time you said that. Why are we required to offer an alternative solution? That's the government's job, isn't it? So you demand the govt offer alternatives that you can't come up with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.