Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Federal government creating inventory of racial minorities.


Recommended Posts

Ottawa creating ‘inventory’ of racial minorities to fill senior public service posts.

Oh just what we need. The federal government apparently doesn't feel there's enough racism and is looking to create more by encouraging resentment towards racial minorities. Now every time a senior public servant is non-white everyone will simply assume they've got the job solely due to skin colour. Way to go, brainiacs. By the way, the great majority of these 'racialized' candidates will be immigrants. Somehow or other we have to make it up to them for not hiring their parents - who never lived in Canada! Because according to Statistics Canada 68.8% of visible minorities are immigrants and most of the rest (27%) are their kids, who are likely too young for senior positions in government. Of course, the list will also include indigenous Canadians. After all, only 4% of senior positions are held by indigenous Canadians even though they make up 4% of Canada's population.

The Liberal government wants to create an “inventory” of Black, Indigenous and other racialized people who could play high-ranking roles in the federal public service.

It is looking for an executive search firm to create and maintain the list of candidates from minority groups, as well as people with disabilities, who could be considered for deputy minister and assistant deputy minister positions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-creating-inventory-of-racial-minorities-to-fill-senior-public/#comments

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Any position or job should be merit based. 

Ottawa creating ‘inventory’ of racial minorities to fill senior public service posts. Oh just what we need. The federal government apparently doesn't feel there's enough racism and is looking to

There were no insults, you shrew, nor ad hominem attacks. I returned the level of respect he gave me, just as I always do with you. Both of you, being on the far left, despise anyone who disagrees wit

When was the last time a minority person or a person with disabilities served in these roles?  I don't know and not going to look it up right now, but if the answer is never, I'd ask if its true that there has never been an individual from these groups who didn't have the requisite skills and experience.  

This announcement certainly will fire up a certain group of people who think they're hard done by, regardless of facts.

On the other hand, it would be a much better world if such appointments happened because people were really judged on their merits, and not have a leg-up because they're white, or be filling some kind of "quota" of not-normally-considered people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I agree.  But too often, its not - doesn't matter if its an inherent preference for or bias against any particular group.   "Quotas", whatever they are called, aren't a good solution but they do at least bring more diversity into the work force.  

Dr Tam has achieved a pretty high level in her career, and I regularly see comments about her being male - as if it mattered in terms of how she does her job (I don't know if she's transgender and don't care).  Singh is subject to comments suggesting that he's not loyal to Canada, as is Sajjan - comments based entirely on their ethnicity and having no basis in fact.  People of color are told to "go back home", even those born in Canada.  

I know of an employer who decided that when hiring, he would not consider resumes where the name indicated the applicant was from a minority group.  He assumption is that the applicant would not speak good English, would not understand Canadian humor and so would not fit into the workplace.  Now the requirement for English and fitting into office culture may be valid, but "assuming" people would fail those requirements based on nothing more than their names is racism.  

Attitudes like the above are why we end up with controversial policies that seek to level the playing field.  Until those kinds of attitudes are eliminated, we cannot claim to have a system that rewards people based entirely on merit.  Under these conditions, focusing on bringing more diversity into positions of power seems like the next best option.  

So, my opinion that all positions should be merit based is now an attitude?  Good to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mowich said:

So, my opinion that all positions should be merit based is now an attitude?  Good to know.

Not at all, I was agreeing with you, then expressing my opinion on why it isn't that way at all.  Why did you take what I said so personally?  

But I've fixed it to reduce confusion.  ;)

Edited by dialamah
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the ideal is that positions are awarded on merit, too often, its not - doesn't matter if its an inherent preference for or bias against any particular group.   "Quotas", whatever they are called, aren't a good solution but they do at least bring more diversity into the work force.  

Dr Tam has achieved a pretty high level in her career, and I regularly see comments about her being male - as if it mattered in terms of how she does her job (I don't know if she's transgender and don't care).  Singh is subject to comments suggesting that he's not loyal to Canada, as is Sajjan - comments based entirely on their ethnicity and having no basis in fact.  People of color are told to "go back home", even those born in Canada.  

I know of an employer who decided that when hiring, he would not consider resumes where the name indicated the applicant was from a minority group.  He assumption is that the applicant would not speak good English, would not understand Canadian humor and so would not fit into the workplace.  Now the requirement for English and fitting into office culture may be valid, but "assuming" people would fail those requirements based on nothing more than their names is racism.  

Attitudes like the above are why we end up with controversial policies that seek to level the playing field.  Until those kinds of attitudes are eliminated, we cannot claim to have a system that rewards people based entirely on merit.  Under these conditions, focusing on bringing more diversity into positions of power seems like the next best option.  

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

When was the last time a minority person or a person with disabilities served in these roles?  I don't know and not going to look it up right now, but if the answer is never, I'd ask if its true that there has never been an individual from these groups who didn't have the requisite skills and experience.  

This announcement certainly will fire up a certain group of people who think they're hard done by, regardless of facts.

On the other hand, it would be a much better world if such appointments happened because people were really judged on their merits, and not have a leg-up because they're white, or be filling some kind of "quota" of not-normally-considered people.

If people are judged on merit then you don't need to hire on colour. And as I pointed out, there virtually were no racial minorities in Canada prior to the liberalization in the late 1970s. Those people who came in often had and have poor English skills and often had education and job skills which don't apply here. The Americans engage in this sort of racial hiring as a means of making up for historical racism. But that didn't exist here, except for natives, and as the article points out, the percentage of natives in high positions is the same as in society at large.

What is the point in hiring someone for a job based on race? Just because no one of that particular race or ethnicity has held the job before? That seems ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

While the ideal is that positions are awarded on merit, too often, its not - doesn't matter if its an inherent preference for or bias against any particular group.   "Quotas", whatever they are called, aren't a good solution but they do at least bring more diversity into the work force.  

Dr Tam has achieved a pretty high level in her career, and I regularly see comments about her being male - as if it mattered in terms of how she does her job (I don't know if she's transgender and don't care). 

The insults directed at Tam come from her poor performance on the job. Had she ensured our PPE stock was kept up, had she warned about this disease, advised ways to combat it, then I doubt anyone would be insulting her or demanding she be fired. But she did the opposite, failing in almost every way.

Quote

Singh is subject to comments suggesting that he's not loyal to Canada,

Singh has spent much of his life obsessing over politics in India, working for Punjabi independence as a Sikh state, and representing Sikhs who have been accused of violence there. Accusing him of having duel loyalties, especially given his hesitation to offer up much if any condemnation of Sikh terrorists, is merited. But of course both he and Sajjan, who is an idiot who should have resigned when he got caught lying about his wartime experiences to Indian government officials, also suffer under their cultural need to wear turbans, which is a very visible sign of religious devotion not native to Canada, which has become almost entirely secular. Those who wear visible signs of their religion make many secular Canadians uncomfortable.

Quote

I know of an employer who decided that when hiring, he would not consider resumes where the name indicated the applicant was from a minority group.  He assumption is that the applicant would not speak good English, would not understand Canadian humor and so would not fit into the workplace. 

Born from experience. And I know of many outfits run by ethnic people who only hire their own kind. My last car dealership was one of those. Toronto and Vancouver especially are filled with such businesses. The Australians did a huge study on their immigration system a few years back, and one of the things they realized was that the success of immigrants was deeply impacted by the level of English they possessed. After this they focused their priority for immigrants on source countries which speak English.

Canada's immigration department did a small scale study which came to roughly the same conclusions, and which said immigrants from the middle east and north africa perform especially poorly. But since Muslims vote Liberal the government decided to increase their numbers.

Quote

Now the requirement for English and fitting into office culture may be valid, but "assuming" people would fail those requirements based on nothing more than their names is racism.  

No, it's acknowledging reality given two thirds of racial minorities are immigrants.

Quote

Attitudes like the above are why we end up with controversial policies that seek to level the playing field. 

There's no evidence the 'playing field' isn't level. None.

Quote

 Until those kinds of attitudes are eliminated,

That will never happen. People always prefer to be around their own kind, everywhere in the world.

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

What is the point in hiring someone for a job based on race? Just because no one of that particular race or ethnicity has held the job before? That seems ridiculous.

If no no-one of a particular race or disability hasn't been hired, there's a history of racism and "hiding" those with disability, its fair to question whether that racism or ableism has had some effect on their lack of success.  If there's indication that such racism/ableism has indeed held these people back from opportunity, then its fair to see if there's a way to level the playing field, so to speak. I would also rather that such programs didn't exist, but until our society can truly eradicate their biases, hiring on merit isn't any guarantee.

Racism was very prevalent when I was young, and its still with us though I believe less so than it was.  Perhaps as dinosaurs such as myself move on, merit-based advancement will become even more normalized and special programs will be eliminated.

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

The insults directed at Tam come from her poor performance on the job

Thats fine, if true, but still has nothing to do with her gender or change of it.  That is just people attempting to discredit her based on their own prejudices.  if you see such insults, perhaps remind people that gender is irrelevant in a meritocracy.

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

There's no evidence the 'playing field' isn't level. None.

Researchers study this by sending out resumes with identical credentials with only the name indicating sex or ethnicity. What they find is that resumes with names indicating males of European descent get the most callbacks, while those with names indicating an individual from a minority group gets fewest callbacks.  Knowing that and still claiming the playing field is "level" is head in sand level of thinking.

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

That will never happen. People always prefer to be around their own kind, everywhere in the world.

So, your stance is that hiring on merit is impossible, and that its perfectly fine that some people are left behind - regardless of merit - because they "aren't the same."

Got it.

Edited by dialamah
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that this gov't continues using race as a wedge and a divisive tactic; does mean 'no whites need apply' and if so, how does discriminating against one group solve discrimination.    All hiring should be based on merit and qualifications, all things being equal then they can use race to be the deciding factor,  but IMO, it should alternate.  (between white/non white)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scribblet said:

It's a shame that this gov't continues using race as a wedge and a divisive tactic; does mean 'no whites need apply' and if so, how does discriminating against one group solve discrimination.

And at what point does the discrimination stop?

There's already a false narrative created about white people being the race of enslavement, and another about white privilege, and  while these are cute little lies right now, but they will cease to be cute when white people are eventually in the minority. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dialamah said:

If no no-one of a particular race or disability hasn't been hired, there's a history of racism

As I have pointed out, Canada was almost entirely white until immigration was liberalized in the late 1970s. Almost everyone old enough to be in positions like this - which normally takes many decades of experience - is an immigrant. Most of them have imperfect English and lack the education to have gotten into the public service after arrival. Their kids will and are being hired and will work their way up over time - with merit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Researchers study this by sending out resumes with identical credentials with only the name indicating sex or ethnicity. What they find is that resumes with names indicating males of European descent get the most callbacks, while those with names indicating an individual from a minority group gets fewest callbacks.  Knowing that and still claiming the playing field is "level" is head in sand level of thinking.

You're citing old research. There have been a number of new ones done which shows just the opposite. Because of the pressure on managers to find racialized people, as well as women and gays to satisfy quotas such people are now routinely given preference. This is especially pronounced in universities both in hiring professors and teaching assistants and in putting forward racialized graduate students.

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

 By the way, the great majority of these 'racialized' candidates will be immigrants.

I knew I never had a chance for any political role: I am an immigrant and white.  I cannot score points with the whites since I am an immigrant and will never score points with the minorities because I am white.

In conclusion I belong to the most discriminated against group in Canada!  :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, cougar said:

I knew I never had a chance for any political role: I am an immigrant and white.  I cannot score points with the whites since I am an immigrant and will never score points with the minorities because I am white.

In conclusion I belong to the most discriminated against group in Canada!  :D

 

Yeah, me too.  I'm constantly being asked where I am from, as though people don't know how such micro-aggressions really hurt.

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

Yeah, me too.  I'm constantly being asked where I am from, as though people don't know how such micro-aggressions really hurt.

If you'd bothered to learn good Canadian English, nobody would ever know you weren't a real Canadian.  :P

Edited by dialamah
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If you'd bothered to learn good Canadian English, nobody would ever know you weren't a real Canadian.  :P

True story.  I was in Home Depot, (or Rona or Lowes, I can't tell) recently, and I asked a young woman of African descent if they had some of those "solar powered lights for my yard". 

She said "Say yard again"

We both laughed.

 

Edited by bcsapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

What are the chances a white male anglophone (doesn't speak french) can be hired to work for their own federal government in Ottawa?  Everything is systematically set up against them.

Barring a rare, in-demand skill, virtually nil. Maybe for some lower level clerk job out west if they can't find a minority to do it. Person I know works for Indigenous Affairs at the middle management level and is looking to get out because they've been told only indigenous people will be promoted. She's seen a number of them promoted already despite low levels of skills and in some cases antisocial behavior and laziness. The waste of money that department engages in is breathtaking. For example, a native on a reserve can make a medical appointment in the city, and the department will fly them out there and back. But there's no actual need to keep the appointment, so natives do this in order to go shopping or visit friends.

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

Not at all, I was agreeing with you, then expressing my opinion on why it isn't that way at all.  Why did you take what I said so personally?  

But I've fixed it to reduce confusion.  ;)

My bad, dialamah......I misread your comment.  I do apologize. 

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.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...