Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Whites need not apply


Recommended Posts

So Dalhousie university, in keeping with the Canadian practice of ignoring merit and emphasizing race in hiring and promotion, is hiring a new dean of students. And they're openly saying "Whites need not apply". Well, not that openly. That would be a little blunt for the progressives who infest post-secondary education in Canada like cockroaches.  Instead they want someone who is uhm 'racially visible'. Why a person's race would be the primary concern is something only that most racist of ideologies - progressives  - would be capable of understanding.

It’s a strange thing about identity progressivism: If the cause is so just, the need so compelling and the case for it so clear, why is the language so mealy-mouthed? If you don’t want a white person for your dean of students, and you think that’s a perfectly reasonable position to take, indeed the only reasonable position to take, why not just say “This job is only open to people who are not white”? Why hide behind an indirect, euphemistic, invented categorization? 

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-whites-not-wanted-is-what-dalhousie-evidently-considers-progressive

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Argus said:

It’s a strange thing about identity progressivism: If the cause is so just, the need so compelling and the case for it so clear, why is the language so mealy-mouthed?

Obviously its to prevent delicate flaky conservatives from coming unglued.

OTOH it could be to provoke them to go nuts so we can say something like 'there but for the grace of rational thinking go the rest of us'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Obviously its to prevent delicate flaky conservatives from coming unglued.

OTOH it could be to provoke them to go nuts so we can say something like 'there but for the grace of rational thinking go the rest of us'.

You clearly miss the point!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jariax said:

I think I prefer the openness, as opposed to companies that don't come out and say they aren't hiring a white male candidate, and waste everyone's time.

 

Imagine the outrage and fury had the racism been reversed. We'd never hear the end of it. But, it seems that this sort of racism is okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Prospective candidates should simply self identify as whatever race Dalhousie seems to favour.  It's hard to see how anyone on the hiring committee would argue, for fear of offending someone.

 

Perhaps include one's portfolio of black chicks beheading white chicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Perhaps include one's portfolio of black chicks beheading white chicks.

Oh, come now.  The paintings are based on Renaissance works by Caravaggio and Gentileschi depicting the Biblical story of Judith beheading the Assyrian general Holofernes.

How could anyone possible think otherwise?


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Oh, come now.  The paintings are based on Renaissance works by Caravaggio and Gentileschi depicting the Biblical story of Judith beheading the Assyrian general Holofernes.

How could anyone possible think otherwise?


 

 

Come to think of it...yeah...yeah...I see it now.

:D

Wait...no I don't.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in the linked article about what the job posting actually said. I believe it could have been this: All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply. Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. Dalhousie. University is an Employment Equity/Affirmative Action employer. The University encourages applications from qualified Aboriginal people, persons with a disability, racially visible persons and women.

 

Can anyone confirm what the actual job posting said, not what someone thought it said translated 70 times to restricted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I don't see anything in the linked article about what the job posting actually said. I believe it could have been this: All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply. Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. Dalhousie. University is an Employment Equity/Affirmative Action employer. The University encourages applications from qualified Aboriginal people, persons with a disability, racially visible persons and women.

 

Can anyone confirm what the actual job posting said, not what someone thought it said translated 70 times to restricted.

It's clearer in this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-university-recruitment-management-racially-visible-indigenous-1.4531723

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

What is a "racially visible person" ?   Is this a distinction from the equally silly and racist Canadian term "visible minority"  ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's clearer in this article.

Thank you, that is much clearer. They go through the background of how the university in failing in being representative of the diversity of the community, and the important quote is: In keeping with the principles of our Employment Equity Policy, and with an aim to increase the representation of underrepresented groups at Dalhousie, this search for a new Vice-Provost Student Affairs will be restricted to racially visible persons and Aboriginal peoples at this time.

I just wish everyone could quote them properly so we have the right baseline.

Edited by ?Impact
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

What is a "racially visible person" ?   Is this a distinction from the equally silly and racist Canadian term "visible minority"  ?

Same I think.  Maybe someone pointed out to them how silly "visible minority" was, and they struck a committee to come up with a better term.  They came up with "racially visible person" because they couldn't.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Same I think.  Maybe someone pointed out to them how silly "visible minority" was, and they struck a committee to come up with a better term.  They came up with "racially visible person" because they couldn't.

 

Thanks for the clarification....I immediately smelled a Canadian rat when the term "affirmative action" popped up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Argus said:

So Dalhousie university, in keeping with the Canadian practice of ignoring merit and emphasizing race in hiring and promotion, is hiring a new dean of students. And they're openly saying "Whites need not apply". Well, not that openly.

I am not sure why the OP would object to this, since he has posted that he will not even consider hiring anyone with an immigrant, non-European name and claims to be doing so in order to find people who fit into his workplace "culture".  If the OP defends his right to do so, then it seems hypocritical to then suggest that Dalhousie does not also have the right to select only candidates who will fit into their workplace "culture" of diversity.  Or is the right to refuse candidates based on "culture" only available to exclude "racially visible minorities"?

Edited by dialamah
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Thank you, that is much clearer. They go through the background of how the university in failing in being representative of the diversity of the community, and the important quote is: In keeping with the principles of our Employment Equity Policy, and with an aim to increase the representation of underrepresented groups at Dalhousie, this search for a new Vice-Provost Student Affairs will be restricted to racially visible persons and Aboriginal peoples at this time.

I just wish everyone could quote them properly so we have the right baseline.

All they  said was "whites need not apply" in mealy mouthed academicspeak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I am not sure why the OP would object to this, since he has posted that he will not even consider hiring anyone with an immigrant, non-European name

Got a cite for that?

I related a story about hiring wherein there was limited time and I wanted someone who had good communication skills. For that I wanted someone raised here, not an immigrant. Many, many, many, many immigrants (almost all, in fact) have a very poor grasp of the language and would have been out of place. 

52 minutes ago, dialamah said:

and claims to be doing so in order to find people who fit into his workplace "culture".  If the OP defends his right to do so, then it seems hypocritical to then suggest that Dalhousie does not also have the right to select only candidates who will fit into their workplace "culture" of diversity. 

Dalhousie did not say anything about finding someone to fit into their culture. They said they wanted anyone not white because they would help fill their quota system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Argus said:

Got a cite for that?

I related a story about hiring wherein there was limited time and I wanted someone who had good communication skills.

Ah, a change of story!  At the time you merely said that if a resume didn't have a Canadian name, you wouldn't call them.  No mention at the time of extenuating circumstances or it being a one-off, merely repition of yout intention to ensure you hired people who fit your culture and you screened via names on the resume.  

On topic:  again, the assumption here seems to be that "only" a white person can meet standards based on merit.  If a non-white person is hired, its only because a more qualified white person was passed over.   Its a stupid argument, really.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dialamah said:

Ah, a change of story!  At the time you merely said that if a resume didn't have a Canadian name, you wouldn't call them.

It was more a matter of selecting.

17 hours ago, dialamah said:

 No mention at the time of extenuating circumstances

Look again.

17 hours ago, dialamah said:

On topic:  again, the assumption here seems to be that "only" a white person can meet standards based on merit.  If a non-white person is hired, its only because a more qualified white person was passed over.   Its a stupid argument, really.  

Dalhousie has explicitly stated it will ONLY hire non-whites, without regard to merit.

If actual merit is of importance and if a non-white  is the best then there is no need to give them preference as they would be hired on merit alone.

Same goes for Trudeau's cabinet. If he selected strictly on merit, and if the allegation is these women actually ARE best, then he had no need to ensure a 50% quota. They'd have been selected on their merit.

But they weren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Dalhousie has explicitly stated it will ONLY hire non-whites, without regard to merit.

Not quite true, you conveniently ignored the "at this time" qualifier. Another way to look at this is they really don't have an urgent need to fill this position so they will try and address their failure to have proper diversity until the matter becomes more urgent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Not quite true, you conveniently ignored the "at this time" qualifier. Another way to look at this is they really don't have an urgent need to fill this position so they will try and address their failure to have proper diversity until the matter becomes more urgent.

And do you think they or any other department of government will ever decide there aren't enough whites in a particular department and post a "whites only' employment notice? I have noticed that progressives are frantic to get women into a position wherever there is a gender imbalance which has them in the minority, but show zero interest in taking any real measures to redress gender imbalance where women are in the majority.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 12:11 PM, Argus said:

It was more a matter of selecting.

Look again.

Dalhousie has explicitly stated it will ONLY hire non-whites, without regard to merit.

If actual merit is of importance and if a non-white  is the best then there is no need to give them preference as they would be hired on merit alone.

Same goes for Trudeau's cabinet. If he selected strictly on merit, and if the allegation is these women actually ARE best, then he had no need to ensure a 50% quota. They'd have been selected on their merit.

But they weren't.

Isn't that called racism in Canada? Naw, can't be right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...