Dalhousie racially based hiring

[kingofsurrey]

20 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

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

 

Surely, you can see the similarities....

Public sector

private sector

[Lancaster]

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Public sector

private sector

Customers pays money

Customers pays money

[Dazzle]

19 hours ago, Toews said:

Are people complaining about the fact that an educational institution with 1.9% of employees who are indigenous is now hiring more indigenous people? Have people forgotten about the struggles and strife that indigenous populations have suffered through? Have they forgotten about the history of education in this country involving aboriginal children? Have they forgotten about residential schools? Have they forgotten the damage that was done and the anger and mistrust it created? 

 

It is our own racist and oppressive history that is a big part of why many indigenous people choose not to pursue further education. And yet people have a problem with a university trying to make itself appear less of a "white man's institution". So instead of 2% of employees who are of native descent, maybe it will be 3%, you still have 97% of jobs available for everyone else. This person you hire also becomes a voice for you to reach indigenous communities and impress upon the value of education and assure them that the university campus is safe for all students. 

 

To those that have a big problem with this I have a question. If I own a business and find out that 30% of my customers are Chinese, hence I decide to hire 30% employees who are Chinese. Would this be considered racist hiring policy or just a smart business decision? 

This is the so-called white man's guilt that you're going through. I am not white, so I feel I can speak with a bit more latitude.

 

Honestly, it's not the responsibility to feel 'guilty' for what happened in the past. Don't get me wrong - we shouldn't forget the history, but to question our hiring practices based on 'ethnicity' is racist. It's just as bad as how the minority groups were being treated.

 

Fact: practically every single group of people has gone through a racist period of time. The only reason why the whole racism thing gets brought up was that England/Britain won. Had it been Germany or some other country, it would be interesting to see if they'd bring up the residential schools issue.

As for the Aboriginals, it's not racist to say that they are having more difficulty than other Canadians with how they live their life. Yes, their means of making money have been severely disrupted. Something that isn't mentioned is that the chiefs running their communities are largely corrupt. They're making in excess of 200,000 a year and more (government paid) because they're chosen to better represent their communities.

 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/267309-tax-free-chief-of-90-member-first-nation-may-be-canadas-highest-paid-politician

A dated article from 2015 - a chief responsible for 90 people gets 267,000 TAX FREE.

 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-c-first-nations-chief-and-family-paid-more-than-4-1m-over-last-four-years

 

Also from 2015, another chief getting 500,000 annually, responsible for 200 people.

 

Is this racist to point out facts that some people running these communities are incompetent at best and greedy at worst? No wonder why people feel like their communities are crap.

 

 

 

[CBH1926]

18 hours ago, Cramarossa said:

So many tears in this thread ahaha

 

ETA: To be clear, the tears I'm deriding are those of folks crying this is racist and whining over people of color being prioritized for once.

This trend should carry into professional sports as well.

According to data only 2% of NBA players are Asian and Hispanic, getting some more diversity would be great.

 

Same goes with the NHL, only 7% of players are minorities.

Might as well fix the NFL, in 2016 there were zero white CB’s and zero black kickers and long snappers.

 

 

 

[Duds]

13 hours ago, Toews said:

This thread: You can't employ people based on their race or colour of their skin. That's racist!

 

Last July: You can't hire a black man to play a white man's role! That's reverse white-washing!

 

So which is it @Duds? Seems to me like you had a problem with it when a black actor was more "qualified" than all the actors to play that role.

I gave this comment a few read-throughs and I’m still not quite sure why you seem to see a contradiction @Toews. Flip the races in each case and the PC world would be in uproar. What would your thoughts be if you saw a job application that stated “non-whites need not apply”? Or if the lead roles in the new Black Panther movie went to white people?

 

If you’re offended by a bias towards white people but not offended by a bias against white people, might I introduce you to the concept of hypocrisy?

[kingofsurrey]

12 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Customers pays money

Customers pays money

Public institutions like police, fire , hospital and schools that are public funded need to be representitive of the communities they are centred in.

 

If you prefer a society that is does not integrate minorities and immigrants....  try part of europe and see how that is going for them. 

[189lb enforcers?]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

Public institutions like police, fire , hospital and schools that are public funded need to be representitive of the communities they are centred in.

 

If you prefer a society that is does not integrate minorities and immigrants....  try part of europe and see how that is going for them. 

We only disagree with the integration part. 

I cant see Japan giving a black or white guy a prominent role just because they want to show the world that they are not systematically racist. Only in the West do you see this equality of outcome, Liberalism. 

[Toews]

9 hours ago, Duds said:

I gave this comment a few read-throughs and I’m still not quite sure why you seem to see a contradiction @Toews.

That's understandable. It's easier to see hypocrisy in others than within yourself. 

9 hours ago, Duds said:

Flip the races in each case and the PC world would be in uproar. 

I am not sure how this is relevant to my post. I thought we were discussing your opinion on the subject not that of "PC world". 

9 hours ago, Duds said:

What would your thoughts be if you saw a job application that stated “non-whites need not apply”? 

I would think that the business wants to hire someone that is a white guy. There is absolutely nothing racist about "non-whites need not apply". Where racism comes in is when you factor in intent. Why does the business not want to hire non-whites is the question that you ask? You get your answer back and you learn that the business is a theatre and they are hiring specifically a white actor to play the role of "John Hamilton Gray, the pro-Confederation premier of P.E.I. in 1864". Now you have some context and you realize that a white actor is what was needed for a role where the character is white. Hence you realize that this hiring wasn't motivated by racism but in order to accurately portray a historical figure. How do you think casting calls are done in the entertainment business? Directors specifically reach out to agents and demand for white actors or black actors. That's not racism, its the way the entertainment business functions. 

9 hours ago, Duds said:

Or if the lead roles in the new Black Panther movie went to white people?

And this is where we agree. And this is also the reason my position is consistent while yours isn't. I believe that if my business needs a Chinese guy or an Asian girl or a middle aged white woman, then I have every right to hire the person I want to hire but I should be able to justify that I hired this person precisely because they filled a role that no one else could. Like historical characters in a movie or play as in the example that you pointed out, if a historical character is white then it makes sense that I would say "non-whites need not apply".

 

9 hours ago, Duds said:

If you’re offended by a bias towards white people but not offended by a bias against white people, might I introduce you to the concept of hypocrisy?

I believe it is my position that is consistent while yours isn't.

[Canada Hockey Place]

17 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

We only disagree with the integration part. 

I cant see Japan giving a black or white guy a prominent role just because they want to show the world that they are not systematically racist. Only in the West do you see this equality of outcome, Liberalism. 

Japan specifically hires "white guys" (more specifically, English speakers) to head international development. It's the key to their international success.

 

Sony is headed by a "white guy". Previous President of Soft-Bank was a "black guy". Those are two of the biggest companies in Japan. 

 

But not for optics, you're right about that.

 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

22 minutes ago, Canada Hockey Place said:

Japan specifically hires "white guys" (more specifically, English speakers) to head international development. It's the key to their international success.

 

Sony is headed by a "white guy". Previous President of Soft-Bank was a "black guy". Those are two of the biggest companies in Japan. 

 

But not for optics, you're right about that.

 

 

So it’s not a mandated government policy to have equality of outcome to supply visible minority hiring practices in Japan? 

 

What about in Saudi Arabia?

 

As far as I can work out, it’s only the Western societies that have these diversity engineering, forced hiring practices. I hope someone reading this is more of an expert on the subject than I am and will put further context into this subject. 

 

Stefan Molyneux tried to discuss this. 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

33 minutes ago, Toews said:

It's easier to see hypocrisy in others than within yourself. 

 

There is absolutely nothing racist about "non-whites need not apply". Where racism comes in is when you factor in intent.

Toews, I chopped your post down to show you something. 

Do you see what is plain to see?

 

[Alflives]

32 minutes ago, Toews said:

That's understandable. It's easier to see hypocrisy in others than within yourself. 

I am not sure how this is relevant to my post. I thought we were discussing your opinion on the subject not that of "PC world". 

I would think that the business wants to hire someone that is a white guy. There is absolutely nothing racist about "non-whites need not apply". Where racism comes in is when you factor in intent. Why does the business not want to hire non-whites is the question that you ask? You get your answer back and you learn that the business is a theatre and they are hiring specifically a white actor to play the role of "John Hamilton Gray, the pro-Confederation premier of P.E.I. in 1864". Now you have some context and you realize that a white actor is what was needed for a role where the character is white. Hence you realize that this hiring wasn't motivated by racism but in order to accurately portray a historical figure. How do you think casting calls are done in the entertainment business? Directors specifically reach out to agents and demand for white actors or black actors. That's not racism, its the way the entertainment business functions. 

And this is where we agree. And this is also the reason my position is consistent while yours isn't. I believe that if my business needs a Chinese guy or an Asian girl or a middle aged white woman, then I have every right to hire the person I want to hire but I should be able to justify that I hired this person precisely because they filled a role that no one else could. Like historical characters in a movie or play as in the example that you pointed out, if a historical character is white then it makes sense that I would say "non-whites need not apply".

 

I believe it is my position that is consistent while yours isn't.

Many years ago a local gas station - when gas was still pumped by a gas jockey, and your windows were washed, and your oil checked - hired only (can I say?) top heavy female gas attendants.  That station got A LOT of business.  I think all the young guys, who might have wanted a job pumping gas, knew there was no need to apply at that station. 

Is that discrimination or exploitation, or both?

Maybe, when we hire only certain people (based on some sort of physical appearance) we are being discriminatory, and exploitative at the same time? 

[Toews]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Toews, I chopped your post down to show you something. 

Do you see what is plain to see?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The first statement that you quoted applies to everyone including me. I am not perfect but I try to stay consistent with my positions. And if I do realize that I have contradicted myself then I re-evaluate my position on the subject.

 

In this case though, I have not contradicted myself. Whether you agree with me or not my position has been consistent.

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Many years ago a local gas station - when gas was still pumped by a gas jockey, and your windows were washed, and your oil checked - hired only (can I say?) top heavy female gas attendants.  That station got A LOT of business.  I think all the young guys, who might have wanted a job pumping gas, knew there was no need to apply at that station. 

Is that discrimination or exploitation, or both?

Maybe, when we hire only certain people (based on some sort of physical appearance) we are being discriminatory, and exploitative at the same time? 

I see no issue with this either. As long as an employer makes sure that their employees are protected from harassment I have no problem with "creative" solutions to promote one's business. At the end of the day those young women were more valuable to an employer because they brought in more business. We all have our own advantages and these young women used their's. There are jobs out there which are dominated by men because of their own advantages.

[Alflives]

12 minutes ago, Toews said:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The first statement that you quoted applies to everyone including me. I am not perfect but I try to stay consistent with my positions. And if I do realize that I have contradicted myself then I re-evaluate my position on the subject.

 

In this case though, I have not contradicted myself. Whether you agree with me or not my position has been consistent.

I see no issue with this either. As long as an employer makes sure that their employees are protected from harassment I have no problem with "creative" solutions to promote one's business. At the end of the day those young women were more valuable to an employer because they brought in more business. We all have our own advantages and these young women used their's. There are jobs out there which are dominated by men because of their own advantages.

Jobs like a fireman, where physical strength is needed, are mostly men.  

Hopefully, we get to a point when the best person is hired for a job, and there is no need for some sort of government imposed "quota". 

[Duds]

4 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Public institutions like police, fire , hospital and schools that are public funded need to be representitive of the communities they are centred in.

 

If you prefer a society that is does not integrate minorities and immigrants....  try part of europe and see how that is going for them. 

Because when you’re going under the knife your biggest concern is, “do these surgeons represent a sufficiently ethnically diverse cross-section of my community?” If that’s not your priority, you just might be racist.

[PhillipBlunt]

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 9:56 PM, kingofsurrey said:

Public funded  institutions do need to represent the ethnicity of  their communities.  Senior positions as well.

 

Just the way it is. 

Publicly funded institutions should do everything to hire the most qualified and capable individual for the position, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Hiring purely based on "diversifying" your workplace is a pathetic practice that takes nothing related to capability or competency into consideration.

 

It's an ultra PC tactic that does nothing but weaken society by rewarding someone for essentially being, rather than doing.

[kingofsurrey]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Publicly funded institutions should do everything to hire the most qualified and capable individual for the position, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Hiring purely based on "diversifying" your workplace is a pathetic practice that takes nothing related to capability or competency into consideration.

 

It's an ultra PC tactic that does nothing but weaken society by rewarding someone for essentially being, rather than doing.

Publicly funded institutions need to diverse in ethnic representation.

 

I want a diverse country with opportunties for all ethnic backgrounds.

 

We have seen in Europe happens when immigrants are not given opportunities for working....

 

I am not suggesting that only minorities to be hired... but clearly  having ethnic representation and diversity makes all organizations stronger.

 

Surrey without any ethnicity on its police department would simply not be acceptable as an example. 

 

 

[Jägermeister]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Jobs like a fireman, where physical strength is needed, are mostly men.  

This isn't even necessarily true anymore.  Take lifeguarding for example.

 

I was taking a training recertification course the other day, and had to be an unconscious and non-breathing victim in the water during a simulated emergency.  The guards during this sim were 4 girls of particularly small stature.  I weigh about 190lbs, so I'm by no means a large human.  Normally a removal should take a maximum of 2 people to get someone fully out of the water and onto the pool deck so that CPR can be started.  Of course, this means that it should be done in an extremely short time frame.  It took all 4 of these girls to get me (well my upper half at least) out of the water and it took them close to 3 minutes due to the numerous challenges they had with the normal procedure.  All of these girls still passed the course.

 

Next time you or anyone else goes to a public pool look at the lifeguards there and question whether they would be adequately able to pull you out of the water should it be necessary.  I have been a guard for nearly 7 years, and I have seen far too many people who I know do not have the physical strength to do their job.

[PhillipBlunt]

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Publicly funded institutions need to diverse in ethnic representation.

 

I want a diverse country with opportunties for all ethnic backgrounds.

Canada is a multicultural country and has been for some time. There have been plenty of opportunities already for all ethnicities.

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

We have seen in Europe happens when immigrants are not given opportunities for working....

Please provide an example. You've made this Europe comment numerous times.

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I am not suggesting that only minorities to be hired... but clearly  having ethnic representation and diversity makes all organizations stronger.

Having the best equipped, most qualified, most dedicated workforce makes an organization stronger. Being ethnically diverse just for the sake of being ethnically diverse does not equal a strong organization, merely a politically correct one that is more concerned with pleasing the PC crowd than staffing effectively.

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Surrey without any ethnicity on its police department would simply not be acceptable as an example. 

Surrey's population, much like Vancouver's has many different folks from different ethnic backgrounds who have been here for four or more generations. I know a few RCMP officers in Surrey who are from varying backgrounds, and the biggest complaint they have is that some of the employees on the force aren't physically capable or mentally strong enough to manage the job.

 

The best person for the job is no longer a racist statement at all.

[CBH1926]

4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Publicly funded institutions should do everything to hire the most qualified and capable individual for the position, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Hiring purely based on "diversifying" your workplace is a pathetic practice that takes nothing related to capability or competency into consideration.

 

It's an ultra PC tactic that does nothing but weaken society by rewarding someone for essentially being, rather than doing.

Enough with common sense posts!

Hiring based on ethnicity, gender, sexuality and race will catch up with USA and Canada sooner than later.