Canadian Politics Today

I don't actually disagree with most of this, but education and social programs are a long game and don't help anyone in the short term who needs a job or access to education.

I agree, it's a long game and goes at root problems, but what are we to do?  Somebody is going to get the job and somebody isn't, that's just how it works.

I see the value in AA and diversity hires etc because it creates new norms.  Like you see lots of POC and female directors now in movies and TV, a bunch of that probably due to AA, so executives with racial/gender biases probably change their biases when they see people from different groups can succeed.  But then at what cost is this being done?  This stuff has to be done carefully, there's a fine line in AA because when helping someone get a job you're denying another.  We need to think really hard about these things and not take them as lightly as many seem to be doing, which has been my whole point.

Progressives need to be careful with this stuff because if they do it wrong it could create resentment from people who are being denied the jobs from AA and fuel white nationalism, Trumpism etc.  Everyone needs to be treated fairly and be respected.  The only way politics works is when everyone has their voices heard and are able to live freely without others holding them down unfairly.  You don't do that and you things like aboriginal resentment, Quebec nationalism, Alberta alienation, BLM protests etc.

I don't know how many times I can say that the point of AA or diversity hiring is not to correct for individual incidences of individual racism or discrimination, but to  break down systemic barriers. So it's not about whether or not an individual hiring manager is being discriminatory, it's about the discriminatory structures that prevent someone from even getting in the door in the first place.

That's not necessarily true, there's all sorts of reasons why AA is put in place, it will completely depend on the people implementing them, their reasons/motivations will vary.  I'm also not talking only about individual managers but organizations as a whole, or even units within orgs.  At least if things are studied and implemented on an org-wide or industry-wide level that's fine by me.

As I said, I'm open to AA in principle if it's evidence-based and not people pulling things out of their butts because of their feelings or "things just don't look right".  If minorities are legit losing job opportunities because of racism/sexism ok that's wrong let's fix that, let's even make up for those numbers with AA, but let's do it scientifically so we don't end up making things unfair for other people.  If people are really concerned about justice they will agree with me because it's the logical and fair thing to do.  But instead we see a lot of places that see a lot of men and white faces and just assume racism and try to correct it without bothering to check if that's actually going on.  This shouldn't be a guessing game, these are people's jobs.

And if group X has higher incomes in general across the board, but it doesn't have anything to do with racist/sexist hiring biases, AA if not an appropriate way to create more income equality.  That should be done through things like education and social programs that should be available to everyone in financial need, because this is equality of opportunity.  AA should be done to address unfair hiring biases (again, equality of opportunity), not as a social program to lift up entire groups that have lower socioeconomic status because people just want to help them.  That's just social engineering and its unjust to those discriminated against.  AA should not be a charity program.

If that's the intention, and the people hiring actually mean it, then sure at least that makes logical sense and I can kinda get behind that.  And as I've said, IF racism/discrimination is shown to be happening against certain groups at certain organizations I have no real issues with correcting that with affirmative action, because that's the whole point of AA.

I don't know how many times I can say that the point of AA or diversity hiring is not to correct for individual incidences of individual racism or discrimination, but to  break down systemic barriers. So it's not about whether or not an individual hiring manager is being discriminatory, it's about the discriminatory structures that prevent someone from even getting in the door in the first place.

I don't want the status quo.  I want a society where everyone is judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.  There are measures that can be done to reduce racial/gender bias, like hiding names on resumes.

It's nice to have dreams but we have to work in the world we live in and if we dismantled equity hiring/AA, we know what would happen: minority participation in the workforce and education would plummet because equality of opportunity doesn't exist.

 omicron <=> moronic

So were all the cabinets that weren't 50% female discriminating against women?

I have no idea, it's very well possible, and at some point especially decades ago even highly likely.  I guess someone would have to do some research and try to figure that out, which seems a lot better than making assumptions.

People from different background can offer different perspectives and bring different experiences to the table. It doesn't need to be about hard skills or having token representation that you can trot out.

If that's the intention, and the people hiring actually mean it, then sure at least that makes logical sense and I can kinda get behind that.  And as I've said, IF racism/discrimination is shown to be happening against certain groups at certain organizations I have no real issues with correcting that with affirmative action, because that's the whole point of AA.

The problem I have is a situation like ie: men are shown to be admitted to universities at a rate lower than women, so then they put in gender quotas to let in more men and thus by default denying admission some women who were more qualified.  (It being assumed that nobody is discriminating against men in admissions and they just have worse marks).  I'm sure women would be PO'd at this, as they should be, because it's fundamentally unfair and I don't agree with it.