Dalhousie racially based hiring

[CanuckGAME]

10 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

I was so there 150 years ago when the whole world decided to be racist to every ethnic group that wasn't white.

So was I,  matter of fact so we're my future children and grandchildren.  They should have to pay for the wrongdoing of the past as well.

 

 

[smokes]

This has been happening to non whites for decades. This is just the shoe being on the other foot.

[Tre Mac]

Just now, CanuckGAME said:

So was I,  matter of fact so we're my future children and grandchildren.  They should have to pay for the wrongdoing of the past as well.

 

 

It was something we really should've googled at the time but the servers were down iirc.

[kingofsurrey]

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

The best teachers, regardless of ethnicity, should be hired to give the students, represented by the population, the best education possible. I don't care where my teacher comes from so long as I am getting the best education that I am paying for. I am there to learn, not to view some "ethnic diversity display".

 

(*editted a bit because I disagreed with my first sentence after I wrote it lol)

The best teachers are never hired at University. Usually hired for their research actually. 

[D-Money]

Lots of animosity in this thread. I can only imagine if you white dudes had to face some REAL racism one day!

 

Here's a newsflash for you: 98% of you don't have your job because you were simply the best person available for it (because you're so awesome!). Personal connections, educational opportunities, employer preferences, language, charm, and maybe even sexual attraction come into play (you really think those hot waitresses at Cactus Club were simply the very best at serving food who applied?).

 

The principles of "affirmative action" (or, in Canada, "employment equity"), is that large, public institutions should have a staff that reflect the demographics of the country. It is viewed as beneficial for the general public (perception-wise)...but diversity is also viewed as something that helps the organization(s). In the case of Dalhousie University, they perceive their lack of representation from ethnic minority and indigenous groups weakens their ability to appeal to and serve their students. Therefore, someone from an ethnic minority or indigenous group is providing something unique...hence, they are more qualified to fill the needs of the organization, are they not?

 

There is another aspect to consider as well. If you have a given set of demographics/applicants for your employment opportunities, but the ones who come through the interview and testing phases are predominantly of one group...are they simply the best candidates? Or is it perhaps a weakness or preference in the process? If everyone is truly equal, why don't the final results mirror the demographics of the applicants? And if certain demographics have an advantage when it comes to the ability to acquire employment (whatever the cause), how do we as a society correct that?

 

I'll finish with some words of wisdom from Chris Rock:

 

"Don't get me wrong with affirmative action. I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I get a lower mark in a test. I don't think I should get accepted into a school over a white person if I get a lower mark. But if there's a tie, **** 'em. ****, you had a 400-year head start, ************.

 

...White man, you gonna be all right."

[riffraff]

3 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Lots of animosity in this thread. I can only imagine if you white dudes had to face some REAL racism one day!

 

Here's a newsflash for you: 98% of you don't have your job because you were simply the best person available for it (because you're so awesome!). Personal connections, educational opportunities, employer preferences, language, charm, and maybe even sexual attraction come into play (you really think those hot waitresses at Cactus Club were simply the very best at serving food who applied?).

 

The principles of "affirmative action" (or, in Canada, "employment equity"), is that large, public institutions should have a staff that reflect the demographics of the country. It is viewed as beneficial for the general public (perception-wise)...but diversity is also viewed as something that helps the organization(s). In the case of Dalhousie University, they perceive their lack of representation from ethnic minority and indigenous groups weakens their ability to appeal to and serve their students. Therefore, someone from an ethnic minority or indigenous group is providing something unique...hence, they are more qualified to fill the needs of the organization, are they not?

 

There is another aspect to consider as well. If you have a given set of demographics/applicants for your employment opportunities, but the ones who come through the interview and testing phases are predominantly of one group...are they simply the best candidates? Or is it perhaps a weakness or preference in the process? If everyone is truly equal, why don't the final results mirror the demographics of the applicants? And if certain demographics have an advantage when it comes to the ability to acquire employment (whatever the cause), how do we as a society correct that?

 

I'll finish with some words of wisdom from Chris Rock:

 

"Don't get me wrong with affirmative action. I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I get a lower mark in a test. I don't think I should get accepted into a school over a white person if I get a lower mark. But if there's a tie, **** 'em. ****, you had a 400-year head start, ************.

 

...White man, you gonna be all right."

Totally agree except this hiring involves a restriction.  Which imo goes against what ultimately we are trying to achieve?

[The_Rocket]

7 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

The best teachers are never hired at University. Usually hired for their research actually. 

Yeah universities don’t care at all about how well you teach. They care about how much money you can bring in via research grants and how much publicity you bring the school via your research and your papers. 

 

Thats why high school does nothing to prepare you for how to learn in University, because in high school it’s all about how you learn regardless of if anything actually sticks, where as in university the only thing they care about is what you learn. 

[Warhippy]

9 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Yup, that's pretty racist. But it's okay because they are being racist towards white people. 

 

It's JT's Canada. 

lol

 

 

This has been going on since the late 80's.  If I wanted to apply to be an officer in the RCMP regardless of my height/weight I'd get hired on because of my ethnicity Strome.  If I wanted to apply for a government job, same thing.

 

Like when WCB re-trained me after my accident and deicded "insurance specialist" would be a good idea for a former tradesman (it wasn't) and I couldn't find work in vancouver at all because , and this is a near direct quote from a few different firms,

 

You're not brown enough for surrey and you're not chinese enough for vancouver.  Without a second language in hindi or mandarin don't bother.

 

This isn't because of "JT's Canada or it being 2018, it's because people either feel guilt, have government mandated (MANDATED) policies regarding a certain level of diversity in a workplace, or simply because people are racist trash.

 

As a guy who works on or worked in the patch.  Don't pretend for one single second you didn't see this exact mentality reversed and played out regularly in Alberta and Sask where someone was....shall we say, too diverse for the roughnecks; or their hair was too long, loafers too light, skin to chief like.

[D-Money]

2 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Totally agree except this hiring involves a restriction.  Which imo goes against what ultimately we are trying to achieve?

Not really. Refer to my last question: If certain demographics have an advantage when it comes to the ability to acquire employment (whatever the cause), how do we as a society correct that?

 

If it's better for everyone if the large, public organizations hire a staff that represents the demographics of the public, but that doesn't automatically happen, how do we give it a push?

 

Now, I am a white dude who has worked in the Public Service. My younger brother also once had a government job as well...mostly because I was there. I was not involved in the hiring, and he had to obviously pass the interview process and testing himself. But the whole reason he applied was I told him the job was available (it was online for everyone to see, but not everyone looks), and I told him it was a good job. I also gave him some general pointers and guidance on what is involved in the interview and testing, so he could prepare himself appropriately (as I had gone through the same interviews and tests). He ended up being one of the successful candidates, among hundreds of applicants.

 

Despite a rigorous, open and transparent employment process, my brother had an advantage simply because he had a family member in the organization who could give him some guidance on when and how to get in. (Among private employers, hiring family, friends, or family of friends is very prevalent, so such advantages are only magnified.) It stands to reason that the same would be true about anyone else. So perhaps simply making sure more people from certain demographics just get into the workplace, in the future the playing field will naturally be evened out.

[Down by the River]

Too many people in this thread did not read the article. 

 

The job is not a tenure-track position. It doesn't even have anything to do with teaching. It is for the position of vice-provost of student affairs (TBH I have no idea what this means). If you have a culturally/ethnically diverse student population and you want to ensure that population is represented by someone that is more attuned to the needs of this population, I have ZERO problems with making this part of your targeted hire. Good strategy. Fill a need.

 

However, this ad and the explanation for it are nothing more than virtue signalling. Jasmine Walsh specifically claims that the person is being hired to fill a quota:

 

"Based on our most recent data, we do have gaps," Walsh said. "We're one or two people short of where we need to be in order to be representative of the labour market in relation to those positions."

 

The person is being hired to make numbers work, not because there is a belief that hiring such a person will provide a more diverse set of ideas that can better suit the diversity of the student body. 

 

I think the most insane part of the ad is that they require the minority person to be "racially visible". What the hell does that mean? "Sorry candidate #1, you're black, but we're looking for someone who is "black black". Good grief. 

 

I do not have a problem with administrators hiring someone specifically because their cultural background/values/beliefs helps address the needs of a group of people that that organization feels is not being served adequately. However, nothing in this ad makes it seem like this is the case. Instead, it sounds like they'd prefer hiring a black Donald Trump than a white Oprah simply because black Donald Trump helps them fill a quota.

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

The best teachers are never hired at University. Usually hired for their research actually. 

And that's where it gets frustrating for students. If better teachers were hired to actually teach, we'd have less people dropping out of programs and more students graduating to fill the jobs that are more and more needing to be filled.

[riffraff]

34 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Not really. Refer to my last question: If certain demographics have an advantage when it comes to the ability to acquire employment (whatever the cause), how do we as a society correct that?

 

If it's better for everyone if the large, public organizations hire a staff that represents the demographics of the public, but that doesn't automatically happen, how do we give it a push?

 

Now, I am a white dude who has worked in the Public Service. My younger brother also once had a government job as well...mostly because I was there. I was not involved in the hiring, and he had to obviously pass the interview process and testing himself. But the whole reason he applied was I told him the job was available (it was online for everyone to see, but not everyone looks), and I told him it was a good job. I also gave him some general pointers and guidance on what is involved in the interview and testing, so he could prepare himself appropriately (as I had gone through the same interviews and tests). He ended up being one of the successful candidates, among hundreds of applicants.

 

Despite a rigorous, open and transparent employment process, my brother had an advantage simply because he had a family member in the organization who could give him some guidance on when and how to get in. (Among private employers, hiring family, friends, or family of friends is very prevalent, so such advantages are only magnified.) It stands to reason that the same would be true about anyone else. So perhaps simply making sure more people from certain demographics just get into the workplace, in the future the playing field will naturally be evened out.

Makes sense but the difference here without knowing anyone personally is that the job call while restrictive is still public and anonymous.

 

Your example is typical to many hirings.  If an employer can hire a "known variable".....they will do so....if  I vouch for a person and they are hired....it's partly as a result of the credibility I have established.

 

in this instance it is not that way...the applicant doesn't have an "in" other than being a specific race.

[Toews]

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.

 

9 hours ago, greenbean30 said:

It’s not the fact that they are hiring native people at all, it’s that fact that they are advertising native people only, that is discrimination. If any company put in their Job Posting “Must be Caucasian” then this would be a huge deal in all the media.

 

Hiring someone who may be less qualified for the job because of race is 100% discrimination. It happens, and you’ll never get away from it since there is a lot of racism in society. But you can claim ignorance there, but if you post must be this race, then you’re blatantly being discrimitory. 

See above. What is your position regarding that subject?

8 hours ago, Dral said:

It's 100% a racist hiring policy cloaked in an excuse of "smart business"... and it's not even smart if you are refusing to hire better qualified candidates because they aren't Chinese.

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.

[D-Money]

15 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Makes sense but the difference here without knowing anyone personally is that the job call while restrictive is still public and anonymous.

 

Your example is typical to many hirings.  If an employer can hire a "known variable".....they will do so....if  I vouch for a person and they are hired....it's partly as a result of the credibility I have established.

 

in this instance it is not that way...the applicant doesn't have an "in" other than being a specific race.

That's just it. Certain demographics are potentially at a disadvantage simply for not having that "in". So, essentially, without some kind of intervention, it's not equal, is it? How do you fix that?

 

Some suggest giving those demographics occasional preference - particularly in organizations where they are not well represented - will at least partially correct such inequities.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

Hiring based on ethnicity is, by definition, racism. 

Nothing brings the people together like some good old identity politics. 

 

Equality of outcome, the Liberal version of individual merit. 

 

 

[JM_]

12 hours ago, Duds said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-university-recruitment-management-racially-visible-indigenous-1.4531723

 

“Dalhousie University is restricting its search for a new senior position to racially visible and Indigenous candidates in an effort to make the institution more diverse.”

 

I believe “racially visible” is newspeak for “not white.” Because racial discrimination against white people is a celebration of diversity. Because it’s 2018.

 

Thoughts? Am I an old man sitting on my porch telling the young progressives to get off my lawn? This reminds me of Dear Leader Justin and his refusal to hire men in order to achieve a balanced cabinet. When is discrimination OK?

a little 

 

I guess it comes down to whether or not you think institutional or systematic racism exists. If you do, then hiring someone who has personal experience as a visible minority and/or first nations makes sense. By definition you aren't qualified if you aren't in that group, so by that view this isn't discrimination. If you don't think systemic racism is real, then by all means blow your top.

 

As far as the "refusal to hire men" thing goes, thats a different issue. Thats the "best person" fallacy that a lot of conservatives seem to fall for. I'd ask you to show me an example of one job that only one person would be qualified to do. As far as cabinet ministers go, those jobs are so varied and complex there really isn't a 'best person' there are many people who are qualified in most cases, the only exceptions imo are finance minister, justice, defence and health, you probably don't want anyone without real experience in those areas. 

[riffraff]

7 minutes ago, D-Money said:

That's just it. Certain demographics are potentially at a disadvantage simply for not having that "in". So, essentially, without some kind of intervention, it's not equal, is it? How do you fix that?

 

Some suggest giving those demographics occasional preference - particularly in organizations where they are not well represented - will at least partially correct such inequities.

 

You raise a good point.  I can accept that.....I would hope that the person would perform well.  But time would tell.

[Down by the River]

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. 

 

Coming from systemic poverty and a negative family environment is likely a much stronger barrier to adult success than being an Indigenous kid from a well-off, loving family. Its kind of racist to assume that all minorities need the assistance of policy to get a job. The fact of the matter is that Indigenous kids are more likely to come from the negative environments, and so resources should be disproportionately allocated to such kids to ensure successful adult outcomes. Do this and you can stop hiring 40 year-olds on the basis of race.

[Canada Hockey Place]

I see one group of non native people decide to call out another group of non native people for doing something that may be wrong.

 

And the take away for some is, blame the native people and claim that white people are being oppressed.

 

That makes no sense. 

 

 

 

[JM_]

20 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. 

 

Coming from systemic poverty and a negative family environment is likely a much stronger barrier to adult success than being an Indigenous kid from a well-off, loving family. Its kind of racist to assume that all minorities need the assistance of policy to get a job. The fact of the matter is that Indigenous kids are more likely to come from the negative environments, and so resources should be disproportionately allocated to such kids to ensure successful adult outcomes. Do this and you can stop hiring 40 year-olds on the basis of race.

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.