Dalhousie racially based hiring

[Down by the River]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I hear what you're saying, but thats going to take another generation or two unfortunately. 

 

I don't see this as hiring on the basis or race, more the personal experience of some groups vs. others. I think we all want the same thing, so if one hire helps some kids to be successful then great, its not like this particular hire is going to reduce any opportunities for other kids. 

This is what it should be, but see my post prior to the one you responded to. Whoever wrote the job ad is a god damn moron. 

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

This is what it should be, but see my post prior to the one you responded to. Whoever wrote the job ad is a god damn moron. 

yah it definitely could have been worded "personal experience with issues related to..... x....y...z..." and you'd get who you want with none of the fireworks. 

[D-Money]

40 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

If you want to create equality, start with making sure kids get the same opportunity and then you want have to arbitrarily hire unqualified people to fill quotas in adulthood. 

This is the problem with the reasoning here. No one is suggesting that the person eventually hired is unqualified.

 

For example, Public Service jobs in Canada list "Employment Equity" as a potential staffing consideration in most positions. A series of tests and qualifications are decided on - and then all candidates must pass these to be placed into the candidate pool, regardless of demographic. Then when it comes time to choose which qualified candidate will get the position, they may choose some sort of measurement, such as who had the most experience, who scored highest in communication skills, who showed most attention to detail, etc. However, in some cases, where there is a definitive lack of a particular demographic in an organization, they may filter the available candidates to select only from among them. But all along, they were deemed qualified.

 

To some, this may sound unfair. However, one thing I've definitely learned in life is that just because a person scores higher in a test, is better in an interview, and/or has a more glowing reference, does not mean that they'll be a better employee. And just because someone has had some experience in a field does not mean that the other person won't be even better once they are given the chance to gain a little experience themselves. The tests and measures employers have developed are supposed to be appropriate and objective, but they do not always work, and rarely can accurately measure personal drive, loyalty, accountability, potential, etc. So although these tools are useful to identify candidates who are likely qualified, they are most certainly limited. So saying the higher scoring guy is the more deserving candidate is simplistic and short-sighted. Once you have a pool of people you have deemed qualified, slight differences in scoring among your tests do not indicate who is the best one.

 

This position is slightly different, because they are not even taking applicants who are not in their targeted demographics. However, there is no suggestion that those that apply will not be tested to the same standards. And it sounds as though a person of their targeted demographics is not simply "filling a quota", but their background and experience will likely prove of value for the work required. So for me, once they have a clear idea of what they need for the job, I consider it a courtesy to let people know who cannot fit not to bother applying. It also saves time and money for those involved in the staffing process.

 

[Dral]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

 

That's ridiculous. Its a purely business decision. Fact is if you are in an area with loads of say for example Italian folks, by hiring a few Italian people you are trying to appeal to that demographic and that has never been considered racism.

Hogwash... You don't need to hire Italians to appeal to an Italian demographic and you don't need to hire Asian to appeal to an Asian demographic... you only need to provide some sort of goods and/or services that other humans want/require and then you need to hire other humans to sell it to them...

 

Quote

rac·ist

ˈrāsəst/

noun

noun: racist; plural noun: racists

1. 1.

   a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

 

You think it's better to employ one race over another because it's better ? You're going to actually hire one race over another?

 

The fact that you THINK you need this, shows that you are the one that's racist.... cloaking your opinions as "smart business"

[D-Money]

23 minutes ago, Dral said:

Hogwash... You don't need to hire Italians to appeal to an Italian demographic and you don't need to hire Asian to appeal to an Asian demographic... you only need to provide some sort of goods and/or services that other humans want/require and then you need to hire other humans to sell it to them...

 

 

You think it's better to employ one race over another because it's better ? You're going to actually hire one race over another?

 

The fact that you THINK you need this, shows that you are the one that's racist.... cloaking your opinions as "smart business"

Ahhhh, it sounds so simple, doesn't it?

 

However, the reality is much more nuanced. I recommend this podcast for shedding some light on the issue: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-it-okay-for-restaurants-to-racially-profile-their-employees-a-new-freakonomics-radio-episode/

 

[JM_]

25 minutes ago, Dral said:

Hogwash... You don't need to hire Italians to appeal to an Italian demographic and you don't need to hire Asian to appeal to an Asian demographic... you only need to provide some sort of goods and/or services that other humans want/require and then you need to hire other humans to sell it to them...

 

 

You think it's better to employ one race over another because it's better ? You're going to actually hire one race over another?

 

The fact that you THINK you need this, shows that you are the one that's racist.... cloaking your opinions as "smart business"

If a university is looking for someone with first-hand experience of what its like to be a first nations person in university, how is it "racist"? 

[Toews]

45 minutes ago, Dral said:

Hogwash... You don't need to hire Italians to appeal to an Italian demographic and you don't need to hire Asian to appeal to an Asian demographic... you only need to provide some sort of goods and/or services that other humans want/require and then you need to hire other humans to sell it to them...

Is that the extent of your knowledge on how to run a business? What your reductive definition of a business fails to include is that you are not the only one selling a product or a service. Competition plays a big role, someone out there is selling the exact same product as you so you do have to pull all the stops to make yourself more appealing to your target audience. Are you unaware that businesses frequently do studies on demographics and how they can target certain groups of people to sell them a product or service?  

 

45 minutes ago, Dral said:

You think it's better to employ one race over another because it's better ? You're going to actually hire one race over another?

 

The fact that you THINK you need this, shows that you are the one that's racist.... cloaking your opinions as "smart business"

Why would I not do whatever is in my business' interests? This had nothing to do with race, you can replace Italians with Russians or Chinese or LGBT and it would not make a difference. At the end of the day if I am a business owner I am taking whichever employees serve the purposes of my business. I don't give a flying &^@# about anyone's perception of racism, I am only interested in whatever at the end of the day leaves me with more money in my back account. If hiring more Chinese people and fewer Nigerian people is going to net my business a higher profit then sorry Nigerians but thems the breaks. 

[Down by the River]

1 hour ago, D-Money said:

This is the problem with the reasoning here. No one is suggesting that the person eventually hired is unqualified.

 

If the person eventually hired is qualified, then the  policy/wording of the job ad was not necessary in the first place. You're right in saying that in one specific instance, the person hired may be qualified to do the job. However, my reasoning is looking at things from beyond one single case. 

[Jester13]

The reason why affirmative action is necessary is because when we hold the "hire the most qualified person for the position" approach without affirmative action, the white person has an incredibly higher chance of being hired, because we are built on the Western European system of power over minorities. It's important to know that all the candidates are qualified within affirmative action policies, so the policy is not designed to put minorities above white people but rather minorities on an equal platform as white people. Internal biases are real in our society, so unless we adopt this kind of policy we will continue to discriminate against thousands of equally as qualified candidates of colour.

 

Racism is about power, so to claim that this act is shifting power onto Indigenous peoples and minorities is simply wrong. I urge all of you who think this is a racist act to do some research into the subject of the politics of race, especially.

[The Lock]

11 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

The reason why affirmative action is necessary is because when we hold the "hire the most qualified person for the position" approach without affirmative action, the white person has an incredibly higher chance of being hired, because we are built on the Western European system of power over minorities. It's important to know that all the candidates are qualified within affirmative action policies, so the policy is not designed to put minorities above white people but rather minorities on an equal platform as white people. Internal biases are real in our society, so unless we adopt this kind of policy we will continue to discriminate against thousands of equally as qualified candidates of colour.

 

Racism is about power, so to claim that this act is shifting power onto Indigenous peoples and minorities is simply wrong. I urge all of you who think this is a racist act to do some research into the subject of the politics of race, especially.

If you want a society that's truly not rascist, then the western ideals need to be taken out so that no one cares about what race is chosen, including the person hiring. This then means that the person who did the hiring did it in an unbiased and fair way.

 

As soon as we start only hiring one minority in order to "balance things out", you end up just as racist as if you purposely chose a majority race. There is simply no difference.

 

Essentially, we have a LONG way to go before we actually reach equality and, in the meantime, we have the "side attractions" to appease and mislead the public in thinking we are actually getting closer to "equality". It's the unfortunate situation we have and it sucks.

[D-Money]

7 minutes ago, The Lock said:

If you want a society that's truly not rascist, then the western ideals need to be taken out so that no one cares about what race is chosen, including the person hiring. This then means that the person who did the hiring did it in an unbiased and fair way.

 

As soon as we start only hiring one minority in order to "balance things out", you end up just as racist as if you purposely chose a majority race. There is simply no difference.

 

Essentially, we have a LONG way to go before we actually reach equality and, in the meantime, we have the "side attractions" to appease and mislead the public in thinking we are actually getting closer to "equality".

This sounds reasonable and logical. But in reality, it is pure, head-in-the-sand idealism. The idea of "unbiased and fair" is so subjective, and the issues run deep.

 

Is it a perfect system? No. Do you have a better, workable solution? No.

[The Lock]

Just now, D-Money said:

This sounds reasonable and logical. But in reality, it is pure, head-in-the-sand idealism. The idea of "unbiased and fair" is so subjective, and the issues run deep.

 

Is it a perfect system? No. Do you have a better, workable solution? No.

There are workable solutions though. They are obviously a long ways off but they are there.

 

For example, if the right checks are in place to allow someone hiring to show they hired based on unbias, then that's at least one step closer, and I don't mean having a quota of colour vs white, etc. I mean showing they asked the questions and did the tests that show someone is actually the qualified person. It's like with anything, if you have the evidence to show things, then you've covered your butt.

 

Education: we need to learn the right things in school (the school system is so horribly out of date these days in my opinion but that's another debate altogether). Too many of the issues in school are not nipped at the bud but are reacted to instead, which doesn't solve much of anything in the end.

 

Is what I'm suggesting idealism? Of course it is, but if you are claiming I have my "head-in-the-sand" then I could literally turn around and say the same thing about you putting your "head-in-the-sand" and looking for easier solutions instead. Ignorance is bliss as they falsely say unfortunately.

[D-Money]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

There are workable solutions though. They are obviously a long ways off but they are there.

 

For example, if the right checks are in place to allow someone hiring to show they hired based on unbias, then that's at least one step closer, and I don't mean having a quota of colour vs white, etc. I mean showing they asked the questions and did the tests that show someone is actually the qualified person. It's like with anything, if you have the evidence to show things, then you've covered your butt.

 

Education: we need to learn the right things in school (the school system is so horribly out of date these days in my opinion but that's another debate altogether). Too many of the issues in school are not nipped at the bud but are reacted to instead, which doesn't solve much of anything in the end.

 

Is what I'm suggesting idealism? Of course it is, but if you are claiming I have my "head-in-the-sand" then I could literally turn around and say the same thing about you putting your "head-in-the-sand" and looking for easier solutions instead. Ignorance is bliss as they falsely say unfortunately.

Fair enough. But although the current employment equity processes are far from ideal, I think they have a net positive effect. And as for education - that will take decades to implement consistently.

 

Again, I'm speaking as a white dude who has worked in the Public Service. It's not an intellectual exercise for me either - I have actually been excluded from applying for more than 1 job I was qualified for, due to selective hiring processes. At the time, I was younger, and thought it was stupid. Now I'm older, and don't.

 

[riffraff]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

Is that the extent of your knowledge on how to run a business? What your reductive definition of a business fails to include is that you are not the only one selling a product or a service. Competition plays a big role, someone out there is selling the exact same product as you so you do have to pull all the stops to make yourself more appealing to your target audience. Are you unaware that businesses frequently do studies on demographics and how they can target certain groups of people to sell them a product or service?  

 

Why would I not do whatever is in my business' interests? This had nothing to do with race, you can replace Italians with Russians or Chinese or LGBT and it would not make a difference. At the end of the day if I am a business owner I am taking whichever employees serve the purposes of my business. I don't give a flying &^@# about anyone's perception of racism, I am only interested in whatever at the end of the day leaves me with more money in my back account. If hiring more Chinese people and fewer Nigerian people is going to net my business a higher profit then sorry Nigerians but thems the breaks. 

Interestingly, both sides of this topic  could make this statement.

 

interestingly enough this is probably how most people feel in general 

[The Lock]

9 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Fair enough. But although the current employment equity processes are far from ideal, I think they have a net positive effect. And as for education - that will take decades to implement consistently.

 

Again, I'm speaking as a white dude who has worked in the Public Service. It's not an intellectual exercise for me either - I have actually been excluded from applying for more than 1 job I was qualified for, due to selective hiring processes. At the time, I was younger, and thought it was stupid. Now I'm older, and don't.

For the record, I don't actually think it's stupid. It's more of a way to dodge the real issues we have in society. I don't believe society itself can be stupid (at least not in the same way some individuals can be); however, I believe society can be mislead. We are a society where a lot of people like to follow and, while that can lead to great things with the right leader in place, it can also lead to some rather bad outcomes. Mostly what ends up happening is stuff that ends up mediocre.

 

I think it's great that people want to solve the world's problems, but more often then not, they don't know how, and the result ends up being nothing short of that mediocre outcome that's kind of neither good or bad.

 

(okay that got a lot more philosophical than I expected... anyway...) 

 

 

[Lancaster]

Imagine if NHL teams have to sign players due to ethnicity quotas.  

 

"Well.... we're trying to have a global game.... so the Canucks need to get at least another 4 Chinese or Asian players into the lineup.  A few black players too.... and some Latino players.  Throw in a few East Indians and some indigenous players as well.  Sorry, Euros not wanted currently and no more of those white folks from Canada.  Now lets send our scouts to Shanghai, Mumbai, Mexico City, and Djibouti.  I have a very good feeling we're gonna ice a very competitive squad with the talents we find over there....."

[The Lock]

14 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Imagine if NHL teams have to sign players due to ethnicity quotas.  

 

"Well.... we're trying to have a global game.... so the Canucks need to get at least another 4 Chinese or Asian players into the lineup.  A few black players too.... and some Latino players.  Throw in a few East Indians and some indigenous players as well.  Sorry, Euros not wanted currently and no more of those white folks from Canada.  Now lets send our scouts to Shanghai, Mumbai, Mexico City, and Djibouti.  I have a very good feeling we're gonna ice a very competitive squad with the talents we find over there....."

I agree with you, but I cracked up when you mentionted Djbouti. That hockey market in Djbouti man....

 

http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/Djibouti

 

I especially love the last line of that page: "There are no ice rinks and no ice hockey is played there."

[Visp]

An easy way to fix any of these issues in workplace hiring would be:

Candidates sit on the other side of a wall so that the interviewer cannot see what they look like (disabilities, race etc), is not aware of their address or name and even distort their voice so they are aware if they are male or female. The most suitable and experienced candidate is chosen from those interviews. That would be about as fair as it can get  would never happen though!

 

 

[kingofsurrey]

1 hour ago, Lancaster said:

Imagine if NHL teams have to sign players due to ethnicity quotas.  

 

"Well.... we're trying to have a global game.... so the Canucks need to get at least another 4 Chinese or Asian players into the lineup.  A few black players too.... and some Latino players.  Throw in a few East Indians and some indigenous players as well.  Sorry, Euros not wanted currently and no more of those white folks from Canada.  Now lets send our scouts to Shanghai, Mumbai, Mexico City, and Djibouti.  I have a very good feeling we're gonna ice a very competitive squad with the talents we find over there....."

NHL are privately owned business.

A university is a public funded  organization.

 

Surely , you see the difference......

[Lancaster]

52 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

NHL are privately owned business.

A university is a public funded  organization.

 

Surely , you see the difference......

Both are entities were the customers are paying top dollars for the best product.  

 

Surely, you can see the similarities....