Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Zeitgeist

Do you agree with affirmative action?

Do you agree with affirmative action?  

10 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

With all of the accusations of systemic racism, including the idea of unconscious bias, some companies are implementing affirmative action hiring policies that will aim to hire more minorities.  The CBC, for example, claims it will make sure at least 50% of its workforce are minorities.  Do you agree with affirmative action policies?

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Employment equity" (and Employment Equity Act for federal hiring) is the context term for Canada, which specifically rejected the American term "affirmative action" because of the existing baggage associated with such language (1980's).

Either way, the practice is discriminatory.

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

"Employment equity" (and Employment Equity Act for federal hiring) is the context term for Canada, which specifically rejected the American term "affirmative action" because of the existing baggage associated with such language (1980's).

Either way, the practice is discriminatory.

 

Yes, equity is the new manifestation.  I’ve wondered whether it’s possible to have completely blind interviewing, such that employers aren’t allowed to see names or know the race or gender of applicants, and interviews would be blind with computer-modified voices, but I’m quite sure that most interviewers would insist on meeting the applicant to get a sense of grooming and confident body language, for example.

We actually seem to be moving in the opposite direction of providing racial data on a range of practices, such as discipline, incarceration, educational outcomes, income levels, executive positions, etc.  Such data is used to inform system policies.  I can see how such data can be important to preventing unfair practices, but I also wonder if it makes race a focus of organizational practices when race shouldn’t come into decision-making at all.

We seem to fall into the trap of believing we can score victimhood based on a single metric, such as race, when of course we know there are privileged black people and underprivileged white people, for example.  Or we try to add up multiple intersectionalities, such as poverty, marginalization due to homosexuality, minority status, etc., as though victimhood can be quantified.  Do such practices reinforce a victim culture wherein we compete at illustrating how hard done by we are?  Is that really something we can assess when everyone is different and some people come from humble beginnings to achieve great success while others who are given every opportunity fail miserably?

Is there a middle ground that seeks equality, perhaps raising opportunities for those who are genuinely hard done by, and not only based on race, without creating new forms of bias and unfairness?   

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

With all of the accusations of systemic racism, including the idea of unconscious bias, some companies are implementing affirmative action hiring policies that will aim to hire more minorities.  The CBC, for example, claims it will make sure at least 50% of its workforce are minorities.  Do you agree with affirmative action policies?

50% of the CBC 'work' force is deadwood. Taxpayer funded, bought and paid for, pandering to the equally deadwood Liberal government.  50% minorities is another socialist tool . . . how about competition for the job with others who are as qualified?  Who cares if you're a so-called minority . . . if you can do the work better than others - - - the job's yours.  This country is so pussified it's sickening.

Share this post


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

Yes, equity is the new manifestation.  I’ve wondered whether it’s possible to have completely blind interviewing, such that employers aren’t allowed to see names or know the race or gender of applicants, and interviews would be blind with computer-modified voices, but I’m quite sure that most interviewers would insist on meeting the applicant to get a sense of grooming and confident body language, for example.

 

Blind hiring practices are now virtually impossible, as employers and teams want to know far more information about candidates, including social media posts, group affiliations, credit history, illegal drug use, criminal record, etc.  

 

Quote

We actually seem to be moving in the opposite direction of providing racial data on a range of practices, such as discipline, incarceration, educational outcomes, income levels, executive positions, etc.  Such data is used to inform system policies.  I can see how such data can be important to preventing unfair practices, but I also wonder if it makes race a focus of organizational practices when race shouldn’t come into decision-making at all.

 

Canada has overtly avoided race based data as a matter of policy for many years.   This leaves a big hole in demographic data and analysis in many different areas.    Pointing at U.S. data is a common but very imperfect crutch.

 

Quote

... Do such practices reinforce a victim culture wherein we compete at illustrating how hard done by we are?  Is that really something we can assess when everyone is different and some people come from humble beginnings to achieve great success while others who are given every opportunity fail miserably?

Is there a middle ground that seeks equality, perhaps raising opportunities for those who are genuinely hard done by, and not only based on race, without creating new forms of bias and unfairness?   

 

Not right now...the progressive mob demands that race based hiring and opportunity get more support.    Equity in opportunity, not outcomes has become passe.   Political and social pressure will impose their will for more distorted and unfair outcomes.   Demands for so called "guaranteed income" will grow.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affirmative action leads to employee quotas. Meaning you need a few of these, a few of those, some of them, and some others.  Regardless of their ability to actually do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quotas lead to shortfalls in other area, e.g. qualified Asian students being passed over because of a quota system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to stop at just having 50 % of the work force to be of some sort of color, it is going to spread all through out the company or department chain of command....you don't need to be fully qualified ,to raise to the top today just the right color, right sex, right religion, and in most government departments it is this way already.. look at the recruiting ads, or government job descriptions…. How can discriminations be ok if we just reverse it.. This is not the path to equality, its just more of the same shit we already have,  except the colors are changing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

With all of the accusations of systemic racism, including the idea of unconscious bias, some companies are implementing affirmative action hiring policies that will aim to hire more minorities.  The CBC, for example, claims it will make sure at least 50% of its workforce are minorities.  Do you agree with affirmative action policies?

The idea behind affirmative action in the US was to make up for centuries of discrimination. The Jim Crowe laws existed right into the 1940s so bringing in affirmative action was supposed to help make up for the lack of financial opportunities blacks had had.

According to Stats Canada, More than 68.8% of Canadian visible minority population are foreign-born, 27.7% are children of immigrants. Less than 4% are third-generation or beyond. Less than 3,000 Canadians are third-generation and visible minority and over 75 years old, they are mainly Black Nova Scotians.

So Canada has nothing to make up for, at least not for visible minority members. You could make an opportunity with regard to indigenous people, perhaps, but that's not the argument being made here.

If visible minority members are poor in greater numbers than other Canadians, and have lacked economic opportunities, the responsibility for that lies in a poor immigration system, not in any sort of 'systemic racism' towards them.

As for the CBC, there are almost no white males in front of a camera in its news shows, and I doubt there are an awful lot behind the scenes either. It is a racist organization filled with ideologues of the far left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Census Profile, 2016 Census". Statistics Canada

72.9% over Canadian pop is European/White vs 22.3 Visible Minority.  The statistics show some groups are systematically and systemically not treated fairly under various "conditions/test".  The protest is to change "ideas Canada has nothing to make up for, at least not for visible minority members". 

 

 

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...