Are you hiking on Woke Back Moutain without an emergency kit?
“Wokeness” in Canada and elsewhere…
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
Don't be daft. Equity, obviously. They've just intentionally conflated the two, like they do with SO much else.
Both sometimes. Everyone should have the right to equal access, but not necessarily equal outcome. A person that doesn't finish high school certainly doesn't have the right to a multi million dollar waterfront estate. Or to the same pay as the person that put in the time in school or apprenticeship to better themselves.
There's no arguing that at all; people who do are idiots.
That said.
When no amount of work you put in for school or apprenticeship or world experience still proves you're the better candidate to be picked for a position, over someone with the right money or religion or skin color, what, exactly, is the recourse?
What hurt you so bad, Harry? Did a non-White get a job you wanted, just because he was non-White?
I'm sure his Ph.D. and 25 years of relevant experience had nothing to do with it.
I'm sure his Ph.D. and 25 years of relevant experience had nothing to do with it.
If he/she had a ph.d and 25 years experience he shouldn’t need dei . Smart employers would be banging on his/her door .
Oooo that doesn't work if you're White though. Especially if you're a White male. For decades (since the Mulroney era at least) federal govt hirings have been very decidedly "no White males need apply". Haven't heard of any HRT cases over the last 35 years because of that.
It's funny how you push the concept of quota hiring/promoting/appointing as somehow being just and/or fair.
Or do you simply not have an issue with hiring/promoting/appointing someone just because of their skin colour or gender?
That's equality. Rights to equal access isn't equity it's equality.
Equity is about trying to force equal outcomes.
Absolutely true. Yet for a long, long time, Whites would not employ a Black doctor, or engineer, or mechanic. (I'm speaking of the U.S.).
And White colleges wouldn't accept them. And their schools were divided by race.
Here's the point of DEI. Those things had effects. And now that we've realized they were wrong, we should address those effects as best we can.
I know you regard this as horrifying, and don't believe people are entitled to compensation for wrongs done to them. That's where we part ways.
That said, I thing we are near the point where "affirmative action" and "DEI" have pretty much done their jobs. What I think we can agree on is that, this being true, time to shut 'em down. Or close enough for jazz.
I don't push the concept, Jin, I acknowledge it was needed and might still be in some circumstances.
If you have two people apply for a position and they're both qualified, you take the one with experience, OR, you take the one who will most likely help your company/business.
If one is black and one is white, the answer is still the same.
If one is a man and one is a woman, the answer should still be the same.
If one is Asian and one is European, the answer should still be the same.
If one is gay and one straight, the answer should still be the same.
If one is trans and one is straight, the answer should still be the same.
What ISN'T right is if one of those people is NOT qualified. Then you take the qualified person. If that person is White, then take them. Black; take them. A woman, take them.
What happens sometimes still though is that the white person is taken OVER the others and lame excuses are given as to why.
I actually agree with TB's post above and if there IS any situation of discrimination then there are ways to deal with it. That said the down side of that stance - even if I agree with it - is it's too easy to slip back into making excuses and the person who was discriminated against not having any chance to push back, due to costs of doing so. If any sort of anti-discrimination policies are taken away (as is already happening) and suddenly there's issues with hiring people who were qualified and "not white", there's a high chance anyone who wants to do something about it, can't or won't. And when you don't hold companies and business to account for their discrimination, they'll keep doing it.
Kind'a like the old thought that women couldn't do construction "It'll distract the men!"
Sweetheart, if men are distracted doing construction, they're not working (or maybe they are, they work for the town/city cause they don't really work much at all
)
They made the same argument in the military. "If we allow wimmins in combat roles, the boyz'll be too horn-doggy to pay attention to their killin'!"Kind'a like the old thought that women couldn't do construction "It'll distract the men!"
Sweetheart, if men are distracted doing construction, they're not working (or maybe they are, they work for the town/city cause they don't really work much at all
Turned out that nothing gets your mind off your dick like the threat of getting it shot off. . .
Yup. That's why I've always said that discrimination shoulda been made a criminal offense, rather than a civil matter.
It's indicative of how disinterested our government was in discrimination in the '60s that they made it a civil matter. Basically, they were saying "Yeah, we'll give the niggers some redress of their grievances, but we'll make it a civil matter, so if they wanna sue, they can pay for their lawyers with the money they don't have from the jobs they didn't get."
And, true story, bro. . . the "sex" part of discrimination was inserted into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by conservatives who wanted to sink the bill by adding the obviously-ridiculous provision that WOMEN should have equal rights!
Fucked up, didn't they?
That last bit I did not know.
But yeah, really fucked up.
I never understood why discrimination was never a criminal offence; makes sense though now that you bring that up.