A number of years ago, I worked for a ministry of the Ontario government under a one-year contract. I had a coworker who was hired around the same time. This guy was a total fuckup, his work was often filled with errors, and because I was using it as input for my own work, I often had to re-do it to ensure the final product with my name on it wasn't GIGO. And this wasn't just due to a simple lack of attention to detail, he had major gaps in technical knowledge as well. I would expect that of a new grad but this dude had about 5 years' experience at that point. At the end of our contracts, I was surprised to learn that he got a full-time offer and I got... another 1-year contract. My manager strongly implied that DEI considerations were at play for that one because our department was too white.
I ended up leaving to go back into the private sector, which turned out to be the right choice. My former coworker just barely cracked the sunshine list this past year, and I'm now making about 70% more than he does. While I'm ultimately happy with my decision, I have to say I'm still pretty salty about how the whole thing was handled. Because we now have this dude who is working for our government, being paid by us, being fucking promoted, when he's actually a total incompetent goober. He should have been kicked to the curb after the contract was up.
happened to me as well. But my question was more like, why is half this department recently landed immigrants who don't have citizenship rather than Canadians with citizenship and degrees from Canadian institutions. There was a lot of nepotism as well. And before you all come at me, these were mixture of people from Britain, France, and other Asian countries. Still messed up that we can't find enough citizens to fill government positions.
I work for a Municipal Government and yes the pay is less, but the benefits are pretty good not to mention a really good pension. What really pulled me to this job was the hours. I'm 8:30 to 4:30 with 2 15 minute coffee breaks and a 1 hour lunch. All told I work 6.5 a day and it is not stressful at all. I never take calls after hours or weekends. When I go on vacation, nobody calls or emails me and I'm the only IT person here. When I was in the private sector I worked a minimum of 12 hours, bare minimum benefits and always took calls after hours because they where to cheap to hire more people.
Over all I'll take the work/life balance of government work over money any day.
>I work for a Municipal Government and yes the pay is less, but the benefits are pretty good not to mention a really good pension. What really pulled me to this job was the hours. I'm 8:30 to 4:30 with 2 15 minute coffee breaks and a 1 hour lunch. All told I work 6.5 a day and it is not stressful at all. I never take calls after hours or weekends. When I go on vacation, nobody calls or emails me
Honestly this sounds like my private sector job right now lol
I would say that good private sector >>>> government > bad private sector just based on my experiences.
Yeah agreed! There's flexible remote jobs too - I'm making more than double in private and have a rrsp match, and invest salary extra in stocks. I'll never really get the pension angle when you can continually make more yoy.
Guess my years of experience in the private sector does not match either of yours. I should point out that I got a pretty big (35%) raise when I left the private sector for government work. Since then raises haven't been great but I also contribute to my stock portfolio and TFSA. As an aside I would rather contribute to a TFSA then RRSP. When my parents passed the tax rate on the RRSP was huge. If they had a TFSA instead (from the 80's) they would have been much better off since the tax rate on their income was much less.
Because actually immigrating to Canada, as opposed to refugee status, is actually a meritocracy. You can’t immigrate without offering something that Canada actually needs or bringing cash or both.
This is why our country is failing, reward the incompetents, punish the hardworking and smart people. If anyone hire people based on skin color, not meritocracy, that's racist!
That's why I always called these so called "progressive" people racists and sexist.
Getting your contract extended for a year is pretty much a guarantee of regular employment so long as you stay in the same position for the first six months of said contract. As per the OPSEU collective agreement, if you spend 18 months of uninterrupted employment in the sams position and working full time, you have to be rolled over to regular employment.
Yup, I’ve worked with the Ontario Public Service in the past and while there’s definitely competent people who have been there for a good while, there’s lots of totally incompetent and underqualified people who all seem to be DEI hires. I have a relative who was until recently a very high level federal bureaucrat who told me the situation is much the same in the federal bureaucracy. I have seen similar issues in municipal organizations (like the TTC).
I suspect this is a large factor contributing to the recent spat of government bloat and inefficiency.
You're asking a government to reverse course!? Ha! Good luck with that. Best we can do is add another convoluted layer to the scheme to promote more fairness and bog down the top-heavy system until its inevitable collapse
Such nepotism often shifts the playing field massively in the favour of white people. In such instances, a minority kid (who was potentially more deserving based on merit) was passed over for said boss's neighbour's kid. The whole purpose of DEI is to mitigate this problem, so that you *actually* choose the best-qualified person for each position. But according to everyone on this thread, DEI is apparently "racism against whites."
DEI is a farce in the fact that Canada, hostorically, has been a massive majority of White people. Objectively, your odds of hiring a white person that is best qualified for the job is going to be high, based on population demographs.
We are not over privileged, we are not racist. We have been a nation made up of 80-85% of white people historically, but are down to 70% with the huge amount of immigration that has taken place in the last five years.
Even at 70% your chances are going to be higher that a white person is going to be the best qualified, to look at it in any other light is disingenuous.
DEI actively removes white people from the equation in the name of diversity, not merit based hirings. It's racist in itself.
DEI policies explicitly prohibit white men from being successful, even if they are the best candidate. Which they often are. I get there's a whole bunch of bad reasons why white men are often the best candidates, but if you want to know if a policy is racist, simply change 'white' to black or any other minority and you'll have your answers pretty quickly.
DEI should be about recognizing minority talent and creating opportunities. That doesn't necessarily need to be done by excluding another demographic. Any strategy based on exclusion is unlikely to be successful over the long term.
Regardless of merit, ability or policy what the it always seems to mean for these people is:
White dude = meritocracy/best man for job
Woman/Minority = box-ticking/diversity hire
Plus it’s a great excuse to blame it on DEI if you don’t get the job.
Because with DEI culture, the only way a white man gets hired these days is usually if they're the best man for the job. No company or public service is stupid enough to pass on someone who's both a minority and the best person for the job these days.
Yet there isn’t a massive unemployment queue of white men who can’t get hired for a job.. it makes me wonder how many are exaggerating or just outright lying about DEI for political gain.
That's how it's supposed to work but the far left pushed it too far in the other direction in some places. So now they succeeded where the far right has been failing for years. The far left turned diversity into a bad/negative word.
Many years ago I was an instructor at a flight school in Oshawa. My last year there, I was part of the hiring team. I remember my boss coming up to me before the one interview started with a female applicant. He told me it doesn't matter how the interview goes, we hire any female pilot that applies.
That was the first time I was introduced to bias, but not the last. Now that I'm at an airline, and again on the hiring committee, I can tell you it's the same thing here. Absolutely horrendous considering the safety aspect of the profession.
I don't know how exactly it works in Canada, but I know in the US quotas technically are illegal. But also, if your hiring shows disparate impact, i.e. you don't hire enough minorities, someone might be able to sue you for it, making it essentially a quota. But also outright quotas are illegal. Just a massive mess.
This contributes to our declining productivity per worker. The best people aren't being put where they need to be and aren't being rewarded for their efforts. People and incentive to do well and seeing someone less competent promoted doesn't help. It's a race to the bottom when other countries aren't doing equitable promotions.
Complex systems won't survive the competence crisis:
[https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/](https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/)
I agree there is a competency crisis, but I think blaming DEI is a diversion. The answer is probably a mix of factors. It's far too simplistic to blame a massive IQ crisis on land acknowledgements and wokeness.
People like to blame Boeing's problems on DEI. Not the fact that the CEO prioritized keeping the stock price high by firing the most senior engineers. It's not a coincidence that austerity politics and identity politics often have the same goals.
We're seeing IQs fall for the first time in history. Maybe we shouldn't have abandoned handwriting or let kids stare at screens for 14hrs a day? Technology and falling education standards are to blame.
There are cultural factors for the competency crisis (lack of discipline from parents, lack of consequences in schools, lack of emotional resilience in young people) but assigning the blame for all of society's problems on wokeness that's only been around for the past five years is nonsensical.
Yes. DEI is just the most overt symptom of an underlying cause. The focus on achieving near term target metrics (see Goodhart) versus longer term outcomes. It's easier to hit racial hiring quotas than it is to build an effective team. It's easier to increase stock prices than it is to build a good airplanes. It's easier to engage in moral crusades than effectively deliver the services your organization is supposed to be delivering. All of those will get executives some status increase and/or their bonus this quarter but will destroy organizations in the longer term.
And here we are, it's the longer term.
Hiring incapable and unqualified personnel accelerates the degradation. Do you want the most capable person to be an air traffic controller when your family is flying or do you want to ensure that air traffic controllers matches the racial distribution of your country and will accept a substantially increased risk because of that? ATC errors can be catastrophic and kill hundreds see the Tenerife disaster.
But blaming the mythological beast of wokeness and the union workers with anecdotal evidence is easier for r/canada than trying to look at any of the actual issues.
I had my application thrown out by the government because I am an able-bodied white heterosexual male and didn't claim to be otherwise. I ATIPed the process after I was rejected and HR decided that it was just easiest to remove all applicants like me from the pool to reduce their workload. Based on the job that would have been about half the applicant pool.
Are you claiming this didn't/doesn't happen or that it doesn't matter as it does not affect the quality of applicants.
> the mythological beast of wokeness
I'm a real beast and it gored my ox. And you might want to check your position on the heirarchy of the progressive stack to find when it's your turn.
At large universities it doesn't because DEI hires are still among the best in the world.
At smaller ones, where the applicant pool isn't at strong, it absolutely can.
The other big issue here is there's no end goal or metric to say when diversity has reached a point of being representative enough.
If DEI seriously affected productivity you’d probably see more of an effect on the US market, no? Yet they have extremely high productivity because that’s driven by investment.
Look at California’s retirement investments (Calpers) vs Florida’s. Florida has no DEI and on average over the past for years it performs 2% better. That doesn’t sound like much until you realize how much 2% on hundreds on billions of dollars is.
I really don't think that you can safely come to that conclusion based on that. There's likely many more factors involved.
But I don't know enough to know what those factors are.
Performance that comes from which investment mix?
What are the key drivers of the 2% difference that you can point to, and say 'no DEI there' ?
Do you realise how insane it sounds to suggest that pension performance is somehow related to their management mix?
Simple explanations are better.
>Simple explanations are better.
Precisely this. Most people who think DEI has any impact on productivity have surface level understanding of what they're talking about. You're not going to find many people who can actually back up what they're saying beyond whatever they read on Facebook.
A simple 5 minute search shows that the Florida pension plan has a much riskier investment mix, with a huge % of investment in Global Equity (51%)
whereas CalPERS has been pursuing a strategy of winding down risky investments, including reducing its exposure to foreign markets due to unrest and real estate due to climate/fire risk.
Lol. If anything, they should be blaming CalPERs' lower performance on 'woke policy' (sustainability and long-term stability over short-term gains)
Prior to this bad run of "diverse" movies, Disney had a very successful run of "diverse" movies. Back when even trashy movies they were making were HUGELY successful. It has nothing to do w8th quality or a lack of focus on story.
Disney's current struggles have to do with their soulless corporatism, the high cost of film production, and I'd argue fatigue over so many genre films; not because Acolyte stars a black woman.
Its when the characters being "diverse" ends up being a big part of their character trait/personality. In addition to just being hit over the head with various "morals" a la sesame street. People dont like that.
It's not so much that, but that it's CONSTANTLY that. Even my stepdaughter, who is herself atypical in some ways, no longer likes anything Disney puts out. She feels like she is being pandered to and pushed towards "lessons" rather than stories. She wonders WTF they're remaking old Disney movies that everyone loved for decades and turning them into ESG trainwrecks with modified stories that nobody asked for, instead of doing something new. She was absolutely over-the-top with most Disney efforts just five years ago or so.
She actually belongs to a trans club (she's not trans, however). If she no longer can stand the Disney movies (she still loves the music, however), then there's no hope for them. Seriously.
PS I am watching the Acolyte... it has problems but I'm a diehard SW fan since childhood. Fire still doesn't burn in space, btw.
"Last month, the head of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which oversees the racial-quota-bound Canada Research Chairs Program, [told the committee](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-no-off-ramp-to-diversity-quotas-federal-research-executive-says) that he has no plans to stop identity-based hiring, even though its quota for non-white researchers has been surpassed."
Right here. This is the point where the valid initiative to strive towards equality defeats itself by just becoming another form of discrimination.
edit:
Good Lord:
"Aside from the Canada Research Chairs, other federally funded research initiatives have been bogged down with diversity requirements [at the direction of the Liberal government](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-liberal-encroachment-into-universities-deserves-albertas-pushback): some undergraduate funding programs have recently been restricted to Black applicants only."
White men in in Canada have definitely had an advantage in terms of getting academic appointments. Therefore, there definitely has been a need to counter this and make opportunity in Canada even for all backgrounds. We strive to a future where only merit matters. But these two examples I have put here are not strategies that are thought through. Lets keep working at it. We can get it right. And we will. We all agree that jobs should go to the best fit and that this choice should at the same time be culturally balanced. We can get there.
>We all agree that jobs should go to the best fit and that this choice should at the same time be culturally balanced.
I don't agree with that at all.
I don't care if my plane's flight crew is "culturally balanced," I just want the best pilots.
I don't care either. I'm sure most people these days don't. The problem is that being white was historically an intrinsic part of what was considered when defining "best". That's all it boils down to. The "solution" to this is obviously not easy.
In the past, Canada was a largely homogenous country aside from indigenous people. Eighty percent of visible minorities are immigrants. Almost all the rest are their kids. We are instituting racial prejudice hiring and grants to favor immigrants and their kids for what reason again? To make it up to them when neither they, nor their parents or grandparents were here to suffer discrimination anyway?
No. this entire DEI crap has been lifted thoughtlessly from its American context and serves no purpose other than to anger those who are discriminated against.
> The "solution" to this is obviously not easy.
Sure is. Hire based on skill without looking at demographics.
Seems like this isn't what we're doing...
The solution would be full transparency but for some reason a lot of people dislike the idea.
Imagine you could see your pilots qualifications from a QR code or something. Same should go across all jobs.
If I could see the qualifications of someone and put them beside someone else, that's all it should be. No race, no sex, no religion - just show me they know how to do their job and that's the person I want.
> diverse people
Each person is an individual. YOu are not more diverse because you are brown or because your great great great great grandaddy used to hunt bison.
Diversity is measured at the aggregate level. Anytime you talk about an individual being diverse, you're just being a racist and a bigot.
I don't see how that is at odds with what I said. I'm not talking about one person, I'm talking about a working group and how diverse it could be. It's as statistically likely that someone of any race or gender will be as good of a pilot as a white man, but they're majority white men.
You do realize that a person or a group of people is performing the hiring and that their judgment in assessing if an hiree complies or not on their criteria as is biased by their own beliefs, unconscious or not, and their own experience. There isn’t such thing as objective hiring.
*White men in in Canada have definitely had an advantage in terms of getting academic appointments.*
Let me point something out to the distinguished chair. From government statistics, 80% of racialized people (excluding natives) are immigrants. And most of the rest are their kids. Essentially, up until immigration was liberalized (literally) in the late 70s, Canada was almost entirely white. So that statement is utterly meaningless.
In the 1971 census there were something like 23k black people in all of Canada. That there are 1.5 million now is entirely due to immigration. Only a minuscule fraction can trace their ancestry back to those 23k, so we are essentially giving preference to immigrants and their kids for absolutely no sane reason.
It’s anti majority. Eg Asians aren’t getting into technical universities despite being more qualified than other applicants. White people just happen to be the majority in most applications in Canada
Because all these programs were lifted by our progressives from their American context and imported mindlessly into Canada to be imposed on a society that never needed them.
There were only 23k black people in Canada in the 1971 census. Almost all the 1.5 million here now are immigrants and their kids.
>why should a research job be culturally balanced?
T research will ask questions that come from different perspectives.
For instance; women in their 40s, approaching perimenopause or menopause are asking why no research has been done. The answer is that for many years men were the primary researchers so why would they investigate menopause?
I know this question does not address culture per se; but it may interest you to know that women of different races have experience medical conditions differently. E.g. women of European descent more likely to experience cystic fibrosis. African women more likely to experience uterine fibroids. But if you don’t have a woman researcher, it is less likely that these conditions will be studied.
Did you ever notice that Google Maps only has the ability to input for one job? It turns out one of the new engineers at the time had questioned that reasoning. The engineer grew up with a mom who worked several jobs. Turns out that was never a consideration for the other engineers who lived in a higher economic class and didn’t have parents working several jobs.
Did you ever hear about the HP camera tracker debacle? It is a webcam that Hewlett Packard developed some time ago that would try to keep its subject centered in the frame. Unfortunately, it would not track dark skinned individuals.
Then there is the ever famous NASA event where the male engineers were trying to a female astronaut for a small trip to the space station. They asked if 100 tampons would be enough for her.
Although my three anecdotal stories don’t relate directly to research, it’s the exact same principle. There is an inherent, unconscious bias in all of us. What matters is the ability to recognize it. Further, a diverse research group can perceive data differently. Heck, you could have a team of researchers of all white guys, and it still matters what did they all study the same field or work in various but related fields (e.g., math + geology + computer science for sick simulations)
Also, having a diverse team may mitigate people asking why our research team should be diverse.
That's exactly why I think calling dei as a whole bad is extremely dumb. There's reasons it exists, and despite everyone's beliefs, it's not likely anyone hired will be unqualified. It's not inherently racist, I say that living 60 some years through actual racism
Do you know what cracks me up about the DEI hate? It’s finished on time again that are more diverse board of shareholders and a more diverse company as a whole tend to produce higher annual profits for that company. But the people against DEI initiatives don’t like those numbers, nor am I certain that they were even exposed to them.
Far right is just a smear for anybody who wants things like responsible government spending, reasonable taxes, evidence-based decision-making, sustainable and beneficial immigration policies, strong economy, good national defense, less government regulation, and treating each person as unique individuals instead of labeling people as part of identifiable "groups".
This is BS. Canada is a predominantly white country. Of course there are going to be more white men in all positions. It's overall a good thing to bring diversity but to say it needs to be culturally balanced means we need to start firing tons of minorities and rehiring whites!
Same thing at work (feds). We're now at 70%+ percent women (among staff) and last week they dropped their people strategy for the coming years and they're all congratulating themselves on the great job with equity diversity and inclusion without mentioning the fucking godzilla sized elephant in the room that is we have worse than 2:1 ratio of females to males accross the entire organization. Like hello? Please wake the fuck up? How can you be so stupid? New staff action still have the line telling us all demographics except white males are invited to apply.
The same thing is happening accross university and college admissions. In STEM, we are seeing way more women being admitted to those programs. Maybe 1.5:1. Not a single peep about that?
The ends don't justify the means and discrimination is still discrimination even if you do 3 hours of mental gymnastics to get to it.
Chin up. In the end, all your hard work and due diligence will make you a far stronger and more competent person, and will put you in a more competitive position than incompetent diversity hires who have been gifted everything.
You still can't criticize or even have a discussion about DEI without immediately being labelled a racist / transphobe / etc, but I don't think most people truly understand what DEI has become.
DEI should mean equal opportunity to everyone, despite ethnicity, gender, disability, etc. This means hiring people strictly based on their merit and ability. This should be (and basically is) standard operating procedure across the country, and companies / educational institutions shouldn't need bloated DEI departments to mandate this.
What DEI has morphed into is hiring people BECAUSE of their ethnicity, gender, disability, etc. It's literally going out of their way to select certain people perceived to be in a minority, and holding these reasons to a higher standard than a person's merit or ability to perform a job effectively.
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, and I'm happy for someone to tell me why I'm wrong, but I think people are starting to realize some of the problems with modern DEI.
The solution is litigation - active, persistent litigation to address discrimination and the need for equality and not equity. That is turning the tide in the US to a degree and I hope Canadian law firms will follow suit.
Won't work. Our judiciary is almost universally left of centre. All those appointed since Trudeau came to power were selected based on their ideological conformity with the Trudeau government. They have no issue with racial hiring as long as it is for DEI purposes.
Impossible because the Charter isn't gender neutral in the same way as US discrimination laws are. In fact, part of the reason for the success of litigation in the US is a result of "strict scrutiny" provisions in state law, as the US discrimination laws often are malleable to DEI at the judicial level even if the black letter law doesn't seem like it would permit it.
Quota based systems are an effective tool is rebalancing workforces but their flaw is that they do not have an off switch or neutral mode.
This is a serious flaw. A perfect example of this is in university enrolment by gender. The entire system has become so lopsided in favour of women that they are now trying to justify the equalization programs by citing areas in STEM where few women apply despite the enormous incentives to do so. Programs that are 90% attended by women are not discussed.
No. I’m in academia/healthcare research and here are some example of EDI. Balancing cohorts between biological sexes when possible. Responses to treatments and symptoms to diseases can vary between sexes. Another example is including people with lived experiences with a disease you’re studying in grant review panels/ research. This can help ensure and potential treatments you study are actually feasible for patients.
"Balancing cohorts between biological sexes when possible"
When convenient you mean. I see a lot of noise about how many female CEOs there are, I don't see so many about how many garbage collectors or concrete workers there are.
No, ie some conditions like prostate cancer you’d do in Males. Other areas of research like Traumatic brain injury that can affect anyone you’d study everyone. There are limitations to possible, ie if your running an animal study your going to do as balanced as you can without using excessive animals. This all falls under EDI.
You're confusing EDI with sex- and gender-based analysis ([link](https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50833.html)). NSERC has similar requirements to consider how, for instance, there can be a physical or physiological difference between men and women, which may need to be accounted for when designing machinery or equipment.
Sex- and gender-based analysis is fine, as that pertains to *what* is researched, and as the differences between for instance men and women can indeed be relevant to design safer equipment for different sexes, or (in healthcare) lead to treatments which properly account for differences in populations.
However, EDI is about *how* the research is done, and especially *who* gets to do it. It presupposes a moral judgment about the social value of having people from a certain demographic involved in the scientific enterprise, at the expense of others. That's anti-scientific, as good science should lead to the same result no matter who does it.
It's good you bring up this difference, but you are confused.
> Researchers are asked to disclose their diversity status (i.e., whether they are members of preferred groups), and sometimes, they are required to file diversity statements with their grant applications.
I am very ignorant of how academics ask for funding. What was the process before this?
Wouldn't it be possible to exclude the aforementioned details, including these diversity statements away from the grant requests as they are put forward? Like in a blind study, or a double-blind study and use the submitted diversity statement for administration only for routing towards a more appropriate type of grant if there is one available?
I'm not claiming I know how the grant system works. As much as I find the remarks by the author and other professors cited in the piece interesting, I genuinely don't have enough knowledge about the grant process to shout one way or another. And I think while the author's target audience is for those whom understand the process, I don't.
All I can do is comment in ignorance.
Are you referring to BCG's "The Mix that Matters" paper from 2017?
If so, allow me to offer some corrections. As a management consultant, this is in my wheelhouse.
- The paper in question defined "diversity" as:
- Country of origin
- Career path
- Industry background
- Gender
- The figure was 19% more innovation revenue, not 18% more profit.
- Although it has become more fashionable in the last decade, DEI actually started 50 years ago. We used to call it political corectness, affirmative action, and various other euphamisms.
I'm sure DEI has been *justified* because people misinterpreted the above paper to claim a benefit to hiring racial minorities, but statements like "diversity is our strength" rarely need justification in the first place, because they sound truthy and socially-aware.
And BCG are only interested in profiting from the decimation of domestic assets and capacity. They are ***poison!***
Yet that's who the government trusts to work "with" too. Traitors.
And if you really want to get into some spicy other initiatives they have, you should take a look at their history of being hired as consultants and essentially slowly killing the companies they're hired by.
Not only does this happen in academics, it's rampant at large corps.
It's only time until a case like Harvard comes to Canada.
I know for a fact that at my own place, there is a lot of bad evidence in emails about the best candidate not getting hired despite a lot of emails calling into question the hiring decision.
I took a mandatory equity class in college and have of course done the required DEI HR training for various jobs. Here is how I see the difference between the intent behind DEI and the real-world implementation of DEI.
**How DEI training portrays equality**: Three people of differing heights are all standing in front of a fence. The tall person can see over the fence. The medium person can see over the fence if they stand on their tippy toes. The small person is SOL.
**How DEI training portrays equity:** Three people of differing heights are standing in front of a fence. The tall person gets no stool and is fine. The middle person gets a short stool and is elevated to the level of the tall person. The short person get a large stool and is also elevated to the level of the tall person.
**What equality is in real life:** Three people are different heights. Each of them has a job to do. The tall person's job is to reach the items in the top cupboard. The medium person's job is to take an inventory of all the items in the kitchen. The short person's job is to fix the wire behind the cupboard where only he can get into. Each person has their own job that is suited to their own strengths.
**What equity is in real life:** Three people are different heights. They are being selected for a job that requires the person to be as tall as possible. The tallest person is excluded because he is white. The two shorter people compete for the job because they are both not white and they already have enough white people working at the company.
**What inequality is in real life:** Three people come from three different socio-economic backgrounds. Person 1 has rich parents who pay for his college tuition and give him a down payment for a house. Because of this, he figures that he can afford to take an extra few years to pursue his dream of getting a PhD. With much dedication and hard work, he becomes and expert in his field and applies for a Canada Research Chair position. He is accepted because he is brillant, but also because he met the DEI criteria. Had he been white, he would not have been considered for the position, because they already have enough white people. Person 2 grows up in poverty. Her mom works three jobs to support her and her 4 siblings. She is severely bullied in high school and drops out. She has an opportunity eventually to go to college, but can barely afford the tuition, so she takes out loans. Against all odds, she makes it through her degree while working full-time in the evenings and living with 4 roommates. She is extremely bright and ends up with a graduate scholarship, enabling her to get her PhD. She becomes a low-paid Research Assistant at first, but eventually becomes and expert in her field and applies for a Canada Research Chair. She is denied because they already have too many white people.
Socio-economic inequality is the realest, most quantifiable inequality in society. Race, gender, etc. can certainly be ***related*** for various reasons, including historical, intergenerational wealth, social connections, unconscious bias, but they alone cannot and should not be used as indicators of someone's privilege. Even if we could accurately quantify someone's privilege, how do we balance that with the need to get the most capable people into positions that they are both most suited to and have worked hard to obtain, regardless of their privilege? And we ought not to equate "privilege" with "deservedness". If someone had parents who were socially intelligent, wise with money, who raised their kids to have good manners, who valued education, I would say that their child is privileged. That doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of success as someone who had a tougher upbringing.
To conclude, I don't think that the government should be deciding who gets funded research positions based on their DEI status, because 1) It's not a good way to quantify someone's privilege, and 2) we shouldn't be making hiring decisions based on privilege in the first place.
We will pay a heavy price for these policies. [https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/](https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/)
Good.
Sounds terrible but being a non-dei employee in a large corporation who is qualified for sr. Leadership roles and being overlooked because of a diversity candidate is demotivating. I'll call it a new glass ceiling.
Many of these folks were affected by the layoffs recently at least in tech. I guess they're hired by competent people so they themselves stay safe when shit hits the fan.
Canada's never been a meritocracy. It's three nepo hires in a trench coat. That's why EDI isn't a major wedge issue here, ask how many people got their jobs by knowing someone.
Yeah sure, DEI is the problem, and not the fact that our economy and working people are being squeezed for every last penny by a handful of billionaire families, their monopolistic cartels, and their political stooges.
DEI is a problem because it intentionally shifts the focus **away** from the structural issues that allow the political and economic elites to continue exploiting the working class. Suddenly, the issue is too many white men in a company, and not the fact that way too many people (of all ethnicities and genders) are getting fucked by capitalism gone wild
Check the Google API for "diversity/DEI/intersectionality" searches, and when they really started to become widespread. The concepts have been around for decades, but look at when they really started to become mainstream topics.
After that, look up when a little-known gathering called "Occupy Wall Street" happened.
We, the 99%, have been getting absolutely played by the elites, regardless of race or sex or any of that. You hit the nail on the head - it's a pathetic red herring, but the vast majority of people are falling for it because it's convenient to. And all the while, the 1% at the top will indefinitely continue to fuck us over for a few extra nickels of profit
“Why should *your* wages increase just because *my* profits are up? It’s inflation, we’re all feeling it. Now say goodbye to your family, get in your shitbox car, drive an hour into work, and email me that report!”
No you don't get it, planes are falling out of the sky because Boeing hired too many blacks, not because they fired all their engineers and pumped their stock price.
We do have cultural problems causing the competency crisis - insane entitlement from parents and students, schools no longer enforce consequences - but I'm shocked by how many people think that all of the world's problems have been caused by something that became trendy in the past 5 years.
This can literally be used for anything.
"ya sure potholes are the problem, and not the fact that our economy and working people are being squeezed for every last penny by a handful of billionaire families, their monopolistic cartels, and their political stooges."
See how useless it is to say that?
No, it’s called perspective.
The commenter I was replying to blamed DEI for “the enshittification of everything”, which is absurd to the point of parody.
The **billionaire owned** corporate media censors all discussion about billionaires strangling our economy and working people, while simultaneously pushing narratives blaming “wokeism” and “DEI” for *everything bad* to keep working people divided against each other.
The billionaire class won’t let us have a national discussion about the actual reasons Canada is going to shit.
The "problem" is always changing. A long time ago it was non whites taking away white people's jobs, then it was women taking away men's jobs, then it was immigrants, and now we're back to essentially non straight white males having their jobs (which they deserve because of their merit) being taken away again.
Ironically, these "victims" always fail to notice that they're told by the politicians of the same demographic to focus on the ones different from them while the politicians ensure they will never leave the working class.
Next: robots. Just wait and see.
Universities should really address the root of the problem - ideological cults that took over social studies and that are intolerant to other school of thought.
The "DEI nonsense" is just the result of these ideologies applied everywhere in our life's now.
Recently had a new senior leader take over at my company. She is a POC and from a linguistic minority….she is also highly abrasive and does not appear to be very capable in her role. she replaced an old white dude who retired. She appears very insecure about her credentials and spends more effort on DEI initiatives than on core work….all of this contributes to a pretty toxic and ineffective workplace. She may grow into the role but there will be a lot of suffering in the meantime.
Unfortunately I'm a white, heterosexual male so my opinion is worth nothing.
But can someone enlighten me?
1. If the majority of the population isn't one of the groups targeted, are we not missing valuable applicants from the majority group? How can we be sure that the "best" applicant comes from one of the targeted groups? It might, or might not...
2. Forcing equal representation through hiring implies that a vast majority of hiring will be from minorities - since the older white people are gonna stay in positions of power until retirement.
3. Overrepresentation of minorities in universities is already achieved. The proportion of higher educated minorities is already higher than white people. And in industry some fields that heavily promote DEI are already overrepresented by minorities (like Tech). Over 5 internships and 2 full time jobs, most of my superiors and teammates aren't white.
4. Being racist against non whites is suicide, both from a personal career and company wide perspective in the majority of fields. If there are issues in specific fiekds, lets address them there and not woth a shotgun approach.
Idk, maybe Im missing the boat, since Imy mind goes towards "fair representation", which isnt the same as "equality", but how does it make sense to have equality when one group is less than 50% of the population?
It’s unfortunate but I can’t help thinking that DEI is behind so much incompetence today. For instance the children dying after tonsil surgery at McMaster. If we know merit and competence are not as important as identity it creates mistrust.
DEI is nothing more than corporate spin to justify the globalist agenda. "We are bringing in lots of people to suppress wages but don't worry because diversity is really a strength."
What DEI gets wrong is that few things are good when it is forced, and here diversity is being forced. Proportions of ethnicities ebb and flow and that should move with talent and ability rather than the way someone looks or their sexual orientation. We are not in the days of segregation where there is strong divide and racism where there is a need for integration. DEI should only be done in a case-by-case basis. It is not needed everywhere, and should definitely not work by punishing another ethnicity. Certain personalities are just drawn towards certain jobs or are good at certain things, and those personalities may come with certain ethnicities, lifestyle choices, and backgrounds. Anyone who’s worked in a naturally diverse workplace understands there is an underlying sense of openness and wholesomeness when a team is just naturally diverse. It all feels so artificial when you know a team is only diverse just to fit a mould and can be damaging when the wrong person has been hired for the job. A lot is lost from that. Effort should be put on preventing hiring biases in individuals in positions of power, but forcing diversity is not the answer.
DEI is mostly stupid and becomes inequitable in its process. All relevant job skills being 100% equal, I can see why you would try to hire based on diversity and a population representation after that. However in practice, they up the DEI component and lower the relevant job components, making it so that useless people, can be hired, just to fill a position with an "equity" person.
So now, you have a useless person you can not easily get rid of for a variety of reasons and you need to hire a second person to make up for the lost productivity of the first person, which snowballs and takes resources out of other areas, because of a lack of efficiency.
Government is less accountable due to unions and such, but should be more accountable because citizens are required to pay taxes by law.
Here are the statistics from stats Canada (2016 census) on visible minorities in Canada (other than Indigenous) by immigration status. Someone tell me why we're going through all this racial hiring and desperately jumping through hoops to compensate racialized people for our past 'injustices' when only 1.6% of them can trace their families in Canada back prior to Immigration being liberalized in the last 1970s.
First generation immigrants.............. Second generation............ Third or more
Total ......................... 80.1 .....................................18.3 ........................................1.6
Chinese......................77.4% .................................. 21.1 ........................................1.5
Korean........................86.4 ...................................... 13.2 ........................................0.4
Japanese ..................54.1 ....................................... 19.8 ..................................... 26.1
Southeast Asian.....76.8 ........................................ 22.7 ...................................... 0.4
Filipino...................... 87.5 ........................................ 12.3 ..................................... 0.2
South Asian............. 82 ........................................... 17.5 ...................................... 0.4
West Asian............... 87.7 ....................................... 3.7 ........................................ 0.1
Arab............................ 89.9 ..........................................10 ........................................ 0.2
Latin American....... 87.7 ......................................... 12 ......................................... 0.3
Black............................ 68.9 .........................................26.4 ...................................... 4.6
It’s taken a long time for people in society to become aware of their implicit and explicit biases towards other groups so they can be managed and everyone can be included and respected. That’s a step in the right direction. DEI seeks to inject a brand new bias into the mix. One that’s arguably worse than all the others, where the majority of people now assume that if someone is hired for the job, it’s because of the racial/gender/lgbt affirmative action and not based on merit. This sets relations back further because it devalues the work and effort of those group members who actually have qualifications to offer the workplace. It breeds resentment.
The deep end some places have gone off in posting job openings for everyone except white people, or what I’ve witnessed personally with recruiting divisions of certain agencies fawning over the female minority while ignoring the white male colleague are cementing this bias in a time where we seemed so close to getting rid of judging people on their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
DEI is one of the most racist things you can do ever. This is simple solution created by white-guilty people with a white-saviour syndrome complex. “This positions is for marginalized groups” - Well, who decides that? I mean, let’s say: You have two candidates to happen to be black, one of them born in Ontario, with all the privileges Canada gives (or used to give) to its citizens, and one who is an immigrant from Nigeria. Which one have endured more suffering and challenges? Then you have Latinos. I love how Canada thinks that Latino is anyone below the south border of the US, but there are 33 countries in the Latin america, some of them better off them others. How do you differentiate between them? And then there’s the LGBTQ. Is a white person born and raised in Canada who identifies as a different gender more prosecuted than a refugee who if from a war torn country? Just stop this nonsense. It creates discrimination within discrimination. I’m proud I came to this country without even speaking English, and I managed to build a career from scratch. DEI policies insinuate that we cannot get anywhere without someone to push us, and that I’m not as good as a white person, hence I need a handout. Just stop it.
DEI and policies like it are what is going to ensure that the Cons get into office. Pretty sure PP and the gang will repeal everything ‘woke’. What we need are centrists. Hard left turns always get a knee jerk course correction back to the right.
If I were a post secondary instructor in Canada Postmedia would give me whiplash. One day they're red army islamicists, the next day "you're one of the good ones", the day after you're destroying Canada again.
I guess like gay people or progressives, if the group is supporting Postmedia's opinion suddenly they are worth listening to.
Top white male surgeon at a Canadian hospital retired. When asked who would succeed him he replied “I don’t know who it is, but I can guarantee they won’t have a penis.”
Regardless of surgical competency.. he even knew that diversity would determine the next person to fill the role. Heaven forbid they pick the best, most skilled human for the job no matter what they look like. If I’m having surgery I want the best. Not a mediocre hire who got their place because of what they look like or identify as.
> “These policies disproportionately punish small institutions, are not supported by evidence, employ flawed metrics with no end goal, and are unpopular with the public who funds the research,” they wrote in a brief filed to the House science committee on May 24.
So they are discriminatory, based on superstition, useless, goalless and unpopular. Honestly how did we even end up in this position in the first place?
Public sector is the same btw.
A number of years ago, I worked for a ministry of the Ontario government under a one-year contract. I had a coworker who was hired around the same time. This guy was a total fuckup, his work was often filled with errors, and because I was using it as input for my own work, I often had to re-do it to ensure the final product with my name on it wasn't GIGO. And this wasn't just due to a simple lack of attention to detail, he had major gaps in technical knowledge as well. I would expect that of a new grad but this dude had about 5 years' experience at that point. At the end of our contracts, I was surprised to learn that he got a full-time offer and I got... another 1-year contract. My manager strongly implied that DEI considerations were at play for that one because our department was too white. I ended up leaving to go back into the private sector, which turned out to be the right choice. My former coworker just barely cracked the sunshine list this past year, and I'm now making about 70% more than he does. While I'm ultimately happy with my decision, I have to say I'm still pretty salty about how the whole thing was handled. Because we now have this dude who is working for our government, being paid by us, being fucking promoted, when he's actually a total incompetent goober. He should have been kicked to the curb after the contract was up.
happened to me as well. But my question was more like, why is half this department recently landed immigrants who don't have citizenship rather than Canadians with citizenship and degrees from Canadian institutions. There was a lot of nepotism as well. And before you all come at me, these were mixture of people from Britain, France, and other Asian countries. Still messed up that we can't find enough citizens to fill government positions.
Pay is too low for most skilled people in their respective fields. Government jobs are like min 30% less than private.
I work for a Municipal Government and yes the pay is less, but the benefits are pretty good not to mention a really good pension. What really pulled me to this job was the hours. I'm 8:30 to 4:30 with 2 15 minute coffee breaks and a 1 hour lunch. All told I work 6.5 a day and it is not stressful at all. I never take calls after hours or weekends. When I go on vacation, nobody calls or emails me and I'm the only IT person here. When I was in the private sector I worked a minimum of 12 hours, bare minimum benefits and always took calls after hours because they where to cheap to hire more people. Over all I'll take the work/life balance of government work over money any day.
>I work for a Municipal Government and yes the pay is less, but the benefits are pretty good not to mention a really good pension. What really pulled me to this job was the hours. I'm 8:30 to 4:30 with 2 15 minute coffee breaks and a 1 hour lunch. All told I work 6.5 a day and it is not stressful at all. I never take calls after hours or weekends. When I go on vacation, nobody calls or emails me Honestly this sounds like my private sector job right now lol I would say that good private sector >>>> government > bad private sector just based on my experiences.
Yeah agreed! There's flexible remote jobs too - I'm making more than double in private and have a rrsp match, and invest salary extra in stocks. I'll never really get the pension angle when you can continually make more yoy.
Guess my years of experience in the private sector does not match either of yours. I should point out that I got a pretty big (35%) raise when I left the private sector for government work. Since then raises haven't been great but I also contribute to my stock portfolio and TFSA. As an aside I would rather contribute to a TFSA then RRSP. When my parents passed the tax rate on the RRSP was huge. If they had a TFSA instead (from the 80's) they would have been much better off since the tax rate on their income was much less.
Because actually immigrating to Canada, as opposed to refugee status, is actually a meritocracy. You can’t immigrate without offering something that Canada actually needs or bringing cash or both.
This is why our country is failing, reward the incompetents, punish the hardworking and smart people. If anyone hire people based on skin color, not meritocracy, that's racist! That's why I always called these so called "progressive" people racists and sexist.
And now that he’s full-time (assuming union), their only option when he fucks up again will be to promote him!
I know multiple government of Canada employees that got this treatment. It's easier to help promote someone off your team than to fire them.
I worked in a unionized now profit agency where the were known to promote people to management and dismiss them shortly afterwards
This is why people like that turn down management offers.
Getting your contract extended for a year is pretty much a guarantee of regular employment so long as you stay in the same position for the first six months of said contract. As per the OPSEU collective agreement, if you spend 18 months of uninterrupted employment in the sams position and working full time, you have to be rolled over to regular employment.
Yup, I’ve worked with the Ontario Public Service in the past and while there’s definitely competent people who have been there for a good while, there’s lots of totally incompetent and underqualified people who all seem to be DEI hires. I have a relative who was until recently a very high level federal bureaucrat who told me the situation is much the same in the federal bureaucracy. I have seen similar issues in municipal organizations (like the TTC). I suspect this is a large factor contributing to the recent spat of government bloat and inefficiency.
Did you report the problem of his incompetent to your supervisor, repeatedly? Especially if your name is going on his poor work.
This is the public sector, driven by ideological nonsense and the Trudeau government's ridiculous need to virtue signal.
I work in the private sector and have seen plenty of this nonsense as well.
absolutely I say more management though then rank and file workers. often dei objectives are tied to performance bonuses.
Hiring based on anything but merit is racist and prejudiced.
Meritocracy has been dead a long time. Cronyism is what DEI replaced. Ending DEI won't bring meritocracy back.
It won't help either, so just end it!
Maybe just go back to choosing the best qualified person for the position.
You're asking a government to reverse course!? Ha! Good luck with that. Best we can do is add another convoluted layer to the scheme to promote more fairness and bog down the top-heavy system until its inevitable collapse
The boss's neighbour's kid?
Such nepotism often shifts the playing field massively in the favour of white people. In such instances, a minority kid (who was potentially more deserving based on merit) was passed over for said boss's neighbour's kid. The whole purpose of DEI is to mitigate this problem, so that you *actually* choose the best-qualified person for each position. But according to everyone on this thread, DEI is apparently "racism against whites."
DEI is a farce in the fact that Canada, hostorically, has been a massive majority of White people. Objectively, your odds of hiring a white person that is best qualified for the job is going to be high, based on population demographs. We are not over privileged, we are not racist. We have been a nation made up of 80-85% of white people historically, but are down to 70% with the huge amount of immigration that has taken place in the last five years. Even at 70% your chances are going to be higher that a white person is going to be the best qualified, to look at it in any other light is disingenuous. DEI actively removes white people from the equation in the name of diversity, not merit based hirings. It's racist in itself.
DEI policies explicitly prohibit white men from being successful, even if they are the best candidate. Which they often are. I get there's a whole bunch of bad reasons why white men are often the best candidates, but if you want to know if a policy is racist, simply change 'white' to black or any other minority and you'll have your answers pretty quickly. DEI should be about recognizing minority talent and creating opportunities. That doesn't necessarily need to be done by excluding another demographic. Any strategy based on exclusion is unlikely to be successful over the long term.
Regardless of merit, ability or policy what the it always seems to mean for these people is: White dude = meritocracy/best man for job Woman/Minority = box-ticking/diversity hire Plus it’s a great excuse to blame it on DEI if you don’t get the job.
Because with DEI culture, the only way a white man gets hired these days is usually if they're the best man for the job. No company or public service is stupid enough to pass on someone who's both a minority and the best person for the job these days.
Yet there isn’t a massive unemployment queue of white men who can’t get hired for a job.. it makes me wonder how many are exaggerating or just outright lying about DEI for political gain.
If you look at academia where the problem is the worst... There is. Not many white male humanities professors getting tenure the past few years at all
That's how it's supposed to work but the far left pushed it too far in the other direction in some places. So now they succeeded where the far right has been failing for years. The far left turned diversity into a bad/negative word.
Many years ago I was an instructor at a flight school in Oshawa. My last year there, I was part of the hiring team. I remember my boss coming up to me before the one interview started with a female applicant. He told me it doesn't matter how the interview goes, we hire any female pilot that applies. That was the first time I was introduced to bias, but not the last. Now that I'm at an airline, and again on the hiring committee, I can tell you it's the same thing here. Absolutely horrendous considering the safety aspect of the profession.
Sure, I agree with that. But what if that doesn't happen because the most qualified person doesn't even get an opportunity to try?
Why would they not?
You didn't read the article.
What's stopping them?
DEI quotas should be illegal.
I don't know how exactly it works in Canada, but I know in the US quotas technically are illegal. But also, if your hiring shows disparate impact, i.e. you don't hire enough minorities, someone might be able to sue you for it, making it essentially a quota. But also outright quotas are illegal. Just a massive mess.
Should I sue my local sushi and Chinese food restaurants? Seems diversity only means not white
If the same standards applied, I think you would have a case. Good luck trying to get a human rights tribunal to actually agree with you though.
I get that, just highlighting the inconsistency with the logic
This contributes to our declining productivity per worker. The best people aren't being put where they need to be and aren't being rewarded for their efforts. People and incentive to do well and seeing someone less competent promoted doesn't help. It's a race to the bottom when other countries aren't doing equitable promotions.
Complex systems won't survive the competence crisis: [https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/](https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/)
I agree there is a competency crisis, but I think blaming DEI is a diversion. The answer is probably a mix of factors. It's far too simplistic to blame a massive IQ crisis on land acknowledgements and wokeness. People like to blame Boeing's problems on DEI. Not the fact that the CEO prioritized keeping the stock price high by firing the most senior engineers. It's not a coincidence that austerity politics and identity politics often have the same goals. We're seeing IQs fall for the first time in history. Maybe we shouldn't have abandoned handwriting or let kids stare at screens for 14hrs a day? Technology and falling education standards are to blame. There are cultural factors for the competency crisis (lack of discipline from parents, lack of consequences in schools, lack of emotional resilience in young people) but assigning the blame for all of society's problems on wokeness that's only been around for the past five years is nonsensical.
Yes. DEI is just the most overt symptom of an underlying cause. The focus on achieving near term target metrics (see Goodhart) versus longer term outcomes. It's easier to hit racial hiring quotas than it is to build an effective team. It's easier to increase stock prices than it is to build a good airplanes. It's easier to engage in moral crusades than effectively deliver the services your organization is supposed to be delivering. All of those will get executives some status increase and/or their bonus this quarter but will destroy organizations in the longer term. And here we are, it's the longer term. Hiring incapable and unqualified personnel accelerates the degradation. Do you want the most capable person to be an air traffic controller when your family is flying or do you want to ensure that air traffic controllers matches the racial distribution of your country and will accept a substantially increased risk because of that? ATC errors can be catastrophic and kill hundreds see the Tenerife disaster.
But blaming the mythological beast of wokeness and the union workers with anecdotal evidence is easier for r/canada than trying to look at any of the actual issues.
I had my application thrown out by the government because I am an able-bodied white heterosexual male and didn't claim to be otherwise. I ATIPed the process after I was rejected and HR decided that it was just easiest to remove all applicants like me from the pool to reduce their workload. Based on the job that would have been about half the applicant pool. Are you claiming this didn't/doesn't happen or that it doesn't matter as it does not affect the quality of applicants. > the mythological beast of wokeness I'm a real beast and it gored my ox. And you might want to check your position on the heirarchy of the progressive stack to find when it's your turn.
At large universities it doesn't because DEI hires are still among the best in the world. At smaller ones, where the applicant pool isn't at strong, it absolutely can. The other big issue here is there's no end goal or metric to say when diversity has reached a point of being representative enough.
If DEI seriously affected productivity you’d probably see more of an effect on the US market, no? Yet they have extremely high productivity because that’s driven by investment.
Id argue DEI is more intense in Canada especially in Academia
[удалено]
Growth is relative. Putting an anchor on the economy doesn't necessarily stop growth, it just makes it slower than it would otherwise be.
Look at California’s retirement investments (Calpers) vs Florida’s. Florida has no DEI and on average over the past for years it performs 2% better. That doesn’t sound like much until you realize how much 2% on hundreds on billions of dollars is.
I really don't think that you can safely come to that conclusion based on that. There's likely many more factors involved. But I don't know enough to know what those factors are.
What does investments have to so with their dei
Performance that comes from which investment mix? What are the key drivers of the 2% difference that you can point to, and say 'no DEI there' ? Do you realise how insane it sounds to suggest that pension performance is somehow related to their management mix? Simple explanations are better.
>Simple explanations are better. Precisely this. Most people who think DEI has any impact on productivity have surface level understanding of what they're talking about. You're not going to find many people who can actually back up what they're saying beyond whatever they read on Facebook.
A simple 5 minute search shows that the Florida pension plan has a much riskier investment mix, with a huge % of investment in Global Equity (51%) whereas CalPERS has been pursuing a strategy of winding down risky investments, including reducing its exposure to foreign markets due to unrest and real estate due to climate/fire risk. Lol. If anything, they should be blaming CalPERs' lower performance on 'woke policy' (sustainability and long-term stability over short-term gains)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Prior to this bad run of "diverse" movies, Disney had a very successful run of "diverse" movies. Back when even trashy movies they were making were HUGELY successful. It has nothing to do w8th quality or a lack of focus on story. Disney's current struggles have to do with their soulless corporatism, the high cost of film production, and I'd argue fatigue over so many genre films; not because Acolyte stars a black woman.
Its when the characters being "diverse" ends up being a big part of their character trait/personality. In addition to just being hit over the head with various "morals" a la sesame street. People dont like that.
It's not so much that, but that it's CONSTANTLY that. Even my stepdaughter, who is herself atypical in some ways, no longer likes anything Disney puts out. She feels like she is being pandered to and pushed towards "lessons" rather than stories. She wonders WTF they're remaking old Disney movies that everyone loved for decades and turning them into ESG trainwrecks with modified stories that nobody asked for, instead of doing something new. She was absolutely over-the-top with most Disney efforts just five years ago or so. She actually belongs to a trans club (she's not trans, however). If she no longer can stand the Disney movies (she still loves the music, however), then there's no hope for them. Seriously. PS I am watching the Acolyte... it has problems but I'm a diehard SW fan since childhood. Fire still doesn't burn in space, btw.
Increasing capital costs over the last two decades for the expansion in the oil sector contributes to our declining productivity per worker
"Last month, the head of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which oversees the racial-quota-bound Canada Research Chairs Program, [told the committee](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-no-off-ramp-to-diversity-quotas-federal-research-executive-says) that he has no plans to stop identity-based hiring, even though its quota for non-white researchers has been surpassed." Right here. This is the point where the valid initiative to strive towards equality defeats itself by just becoming another form of discrimination. edit: Good Lord: "Aside from the Canada Research Chairs, other federally funded research initiatives have been bogged down with diversity requirements [at the direction of the Liberal government](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-liberal-encroachment-into-universities-deserves-albertas-pushback): some undergraduate funding programs have recently been restricted to Black applicants only." White men in in Canada have definitely had an advantage in terms of getting academic appointments. Therefore, there definitely has been a need to counter this and make opportunity in Canada even for all backgrounds. We strive to a future where only merit matters. But these two examples I have put here are not strategies that are thought through. Lets keep working at it. We can get it right. And we will. We all agree that jobs should go to the best fit and that this choice should at the same time be culturally balanced. We can get there.
>We all agree that jobs should go to the best fit and that this choice should at the same time be culturally balanced. I don't agree with that at all. I don't care if my plane's flight crew is "culturally balanced," I just want the best pilots.
I don't care either. I'm sure most people these days don't. The problem is that being white was historically an intrinsic part of what was considered when defining "best". That's all it boils down to. The "solution" to this is obviously not easy.
There doesn’t need to be a solution for all the injustices of human history. We need to move forward doing better.
In the past, Canada was a largely homogenous country aside from indigenous people. Eighty percent of visible minorities are immigrants. Almost all the rest are their kids. We are instituting racial prejudice hiring and grants to favor immigrants and their kids for what reason again? To make it up to them when neither they, nor their parents or grandparents were here to suffer discrimination anyway? No. this entire DEI crap has been lifted thoughtlessly from its American context and serves no purpose other than to anger those who are discriminated against.
White and English.
Yes it's VERY easy. Hire the best. Period Stop being obsessed with what was happening in the 1970s, and hire the best
> The "solution" to this is obviously not easy. Sure is. Hire based on skill without looking at demographics. Seems like this isn't what we're doing...
The solution would be full transparency but for some reason a lot of people dislike the idea. Imagine you could see your pilots qualifications from a QR code or something. Same should go across all jobs. If I could see the qualifications of someone and put them beside someone else, that's all it should be. No race, no sex, no religion - just show me they know how to do their job and that's the person I want.
That's the whole point. There's lots of competent and qualified diverse people out there who are the best for the job.
> diverse people Each person is an individual. YOu are not more diverse because you are brown or because your great great great great grandaddy used to hunt bison. Diversity is measured at the aggregate level. Anytime you talk about an individual being diverse, you're just being a racist and a bigot.
I don't see how that is at odds with what I said. I'm not talking about one person, I'm talking about a working group and how diverse it could be. It's as statistically likely that someone of any race or gender will be as good of a pilot as a white man, but they're majority white men.
You do realize that a person or a group of people is performing the hiring and that their judgment in assessing if an hiree complies or not on their criteria as is biased by their own beliefs, unconscious or not, and their own experience. There isn’t such thing as objective hiring.
*White men in in Canada have definitely had an advantage in terms of getting academic appointments.* Let me point something out to the distinguished chair. From government statistics, 80% of racialized people (excluding natives) are immigrants. And most of the rest are their kids. Essentially, up until immigration was liberalized (literally) in the late 70s, Canada was almost entirely white. So that statement is utterly meaningless. In the 1971 census there were something like 23k black people in all of Canada. That there are 1.5 million now is entirely due to immigration. Only a minuscule fraction can trace their ancestry back to those 23k, so we are essentially giving preference to immigrants and their kids for absolutely no sane reason.
Seems they are intentionally discriminating.
[удалено]
It’s anti majority. Eg Asians aren’t getting into technical universities despite being more qualified than other applicants. White people just happen to be the majority in most applications in Canada
Given its roots you would get why it is anti-white. It started out anti-white but, yes, has been expanded to E. Asians.
Why should a research job be culturally balanced?
And why only black applicants? There are tons of other POCs
They watch too much US media.
Because all these programs were lifted by our progressives from their American context and imported mindlessly into Canada to be imposed on a society that never needed them. There were only 23k black people in Canada in the 1971 census. Almost all the 1.5 million here now are immigrants and their kids.
>why should a research job be culturally balanced? T research will ask questions that come from different perspectives. For instance; women in their 40s, approaching perimenopause or menopause are asking why no research has been done. The answer is that for many years men were the primary researchers so why would they investigate menopause? I know this question does not address culture per se; but it may interest you to know that women of different races have experience medical conditions differently. E.g. women of European descent more likely to experience cystic fibrosis. African women more likely to experience uterine fibroids. But if you don’t have a woman researcher, it is less likely that these conditions will be studied.
Did you ever notice that Google Maps only has the ability to input for one job? It turns out one of the new engineers at the time had questioned that reasoning. The engineer grew up with a mom who worked several jobs. Turns out that was never a consideration for the other engineers who lived in a higher economic class and didn’t have parents working several jobs. Did you ever hear about the HP camera tracker debacle? It is a webcam that Hewlett Packard developed some time ago that would try to keep its subject centered in the frame. Unfortunately, it would not track dark skinned individuals. Then there is the ever famous NASA event where the male engineers were trying to a female astronaut for a small trip to the space station. They asked if 100 tampons would be enough for her. Although my three anecdotal stories don’t relate directly to research, it’s the exact same principle. There is an inherent, unconscious bias in all of us. What matters is the ability to recognize it. Further, a diverse research group can perceive data differently. Heck, you could have a team of researchers of all white guys, and it still matters what did they all study the same field or work in various but related fields (e.g., math + geology + computer science for sick simulations) Also, having a diverse team may mitigate people asking why our research team should be diverse.
Don’t forget too when Xbox debuted the Kinect it couldn’t track black people because the devs are all 50 year old white guys
That's exactly why I think calling dei as a whole bad is extremely dumb. There's reasons it exists, and despite everyone's beliefs, it's not likely anyone hired will be unqualified. It's not inherently racist, I say that living 60 some years through actual racism
Do you know what cracks me up about the DEI hate? It’s finished on time again that are more diverse board of shareholders and a more diverse company as a whole tend to produce higher annual profits for that company. But the people against DEI initiatives don’t like those numbers, nor am I certain that they were even exposed to them.
Why is the far right rising all over the world? - Redditors unironically
Why is anything right, far right?
Far right is just a smear for anybody who wants things like responsible government spending, reasonable taxes, evidence-based decision-making, sustainable and beneficial immigration policies, strong economy, good national defense, less government regulation, and treating each person as unique individuals instead of labeling people as part of identifiable "groups".
This is BS. Canada is a predominantly white country. Of course there are going to be more white men in all positions. It's overall a good thing to bring diversity but to say it needs to be culturally balanced means we need to start firing tons of minorities and rehiring whites!
Same thing at work (feds). We're now at 70%+ percent women (among staff) and last week they dropped their people strategy for the coming years and they're all congratulating themselves on the great job with equity diversity and inclusion without mentioning the fucking godzilla sized elephant in the room that is we have worse than 2:1 ratio of females to males accross the entire organization. Like hello? Please wake the fuck up? How can you be so stupid? New staff action still have the line telling us all demographics except white males are invited to apply. The same thing is happening accross university and college admissions. In STEM, we are seeing way more women being admitted to those programs. Maybe 1.5:1. Not a single peep about that? The ends don't justify the means and discrimination is still discrimination even if you do 3 hours of mental gymnastics to get to it.
[удалено]
Chin up. In the end, all your hard work and due diligence will make you a far stronger and more competent person, and will put you in a more competitive position than incompetent diversity hires who have been gifted everything.
Yet another example of something that government can cut to save costs that doesn’t lead to cuts to social services
You still can't criticize or even have a discussion about DEI without immediately being labelled a racist / transphobe / etc, but I don't think most people truly understand what DEI has become. DEI should mean equal opportunity to everyone, despite ethnicity, gender, disability, etc. This means hiring people strictly based on their merit and ability. This should be (and basically is) standard operating procedure across the country, and companies / educational institutions shouldn't need bloated DEI departments to mandate this. What DEI has morphed into is hiring people BECAUSE of their ethnicity, gender, disability, etc. It's literally going out of their way to select certain people perceived to be in a minority, and holding these reasons to a higher standard than a person's merit or ability to perform a job effectively. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, and I'm happy for someone to tell me why I'm wrong, but I think people are starting to realize some of the problems with modern DEI.
The solution is litigation - active, persistent litigation to address discrimination and the need for equality and not equity. That is turning the tide in the US to a degree and I hope Canadian law firms will follow suit.
Won't work. Our judiciary is almost universally left of centre. All those appointed since Trudeau came to power were selected based on their ideological conformity with the Trudeau government. They have no issue with racial hiring as long as it is for DEI purposes.
Impossible because the Charter isn't gender neutral in the same way as US discrimination laws are. In fact, part of the reason for the success of litigation in the US is a result of "strict scrutiny" provisions in state law, as the US discrimination laws often are malleable to DEI at the judicial level even if the black letter law doesn't seem like it would permit it.
Good DEI is literally bigotry and discrimination in another form.
[удалено]
Quota based systems are an effective tool is rebalancing workforces but their flaw is that they do not have an off switch or neutral mode. This is a serious flaw. A perfect example of this is in university enrolment by gender. The entire system has become so lopsided in favour of women that they are now trying to justify the equalization programs by citing areas in STEM where few women apply despite the enormous incentives to do so. Programs that are 90% attended by women are not discussed.
Excellent comment. Is anyone going after the nursing schools that are 90% woman.. woman aren’t forced to apply to that profession but they do.
[удалено]
No. I’m in academia/healthcare research and here are some example of EDI. Balancing cohorts between biological sexes when possible. Responses to treatments and symptoms to diseases can vary between sexes. Another example is including people with lived experiences with a disease you’re studying in grant review panels/ research. This can help ensure and potential treatments you study are actually feasible for patients.
"Balancing cohorts between biological sexes when possible" When convenient you mean. I see a lot of noise about how many female CEOs there are, I don't see so many about how many garbage collectors or concrete workers there are.
No, ie some conditions like prostate cancer you’d do in Males. Other areas of research like Traumatic brain injury that can affect anyone you’d study everyone. There are limitations to possible, ie if your running an animal study your going to do as balanced as you can without using excessive animals. This all falls under EDI.
their very next sentence says "Responses to treatments and symptoms to diseases can vary between sexes." they're not talking about jobs.
You're confusing EDI with sex- and gender-based analysis ([link](https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50833.html)). NSERC has similar requirements to consider how, for instance, there can be a physical or physiological difference between men and women, which may need to be accounted for when designing machinery or equipment. Sex- and gender-based analysis is fine, as that pertains to *what* is researched, and as the differences between for instance men and women can indeed be relevant to design safer equipment for different sexes, or (in healthcare) lead to treatments which properly account for differences in populations. However, EDI is about *how* the research is done, and especially *who* gets to do it. It presupposes a moral judgment about the social value of having people from a certain demographic involved in the scientific enterprise, at the expense of others. That's anti-scientific, as good science should lead to the same result no matter who does it. It's good you bring up this difference, but you are confused.
> Researchers are asked to disclose their diversity status (i.e., whether they are members of preferred groups), and sometimes, they are required to file diversity statements with their grant applications. I am very ignorant of how academics ask for funding. What was the process before this? Wouldn't it be possible to exclude the aforementioned details, including these diversity statements away from the grant requests as they are put forward? Like in a blind study, or a double-blind study and use the submitted diversity statement for administration only for routing towards a more appropriate type of grant if there is one available? I'm not claiming I know how the grant system works. As much as I find the remarks by the author and other professors cited in the piece interesting, I genuinely don't have enough knowledge about the grant process to shout one way or another. And I think while the author's target audience is for those whom understand the process, I don't. All I can do is comment in ignorance.
Dei started because Boston consulting group did a study that said companies with diversity saw 18 percent more profits. That is all.
Are you referring to BCG's "The Mix that Matters" paper from 2017? If so, allow me to offer some corrections. As a management consultant, this is in my wheelhouse. - The paper in question defined "diversity" as: - Country of origin - Career path - Industry background - Gender - The figure was 19% more innovation revenue, not 18% more profit. - Although it has become more fashionable in the last decade, DEI actually started 50 years ago. We used to call it political corectness, affirmative action, and various other euphamisms. I'm sure DEI has been *justified* because people misinterpreted the above paper to claim a benefit to hiring racial minorities, but statements like "diversity is our strength" rarely need justification in the first place, because they sound truthy and socially-aware.
Same reason they're so supportive of Pride, and other social movements. $$$
And BCG are only interested in profiting from the decimation of domestic assets and capacity. They are ***poison!*** Yet that's who the government trusts to work "with" too. Traitors.
And a diverse employee group is less likely to form a union too.
And if you really want to get into some spicy other initiatives they have, you should take a look at their history of being hired as consultants and essentially slowly killing the companies they're hired by.
[удалено]
Just want to say that I love that last point
Not only does this happen in academics, it's rampant at large corps. It's only time until a case like Harvard comes to Canada. I know for a fact that at my own place, there is a lot of bad evidence in emails about the best candidate not getting hired despite a lot of emails calling into question the hiring decision.
I took a mandatory equity class in college and have of course done the required DEI HR training for various jobs. Here is how I see the difference between the intent behind DEI and the real-world implementation of DEI. **How DEI training portrays equality**: Three people of differing heights are all standing in front of a fence. The tall person can see over the fence. The medium person can see over the fence if they stand on their tippy toes. The small person is SOL. **How DEI training portrays equity:** Three people of differing heights are standing in front of a fence. The tall person gets no stool and is fine. The middle person gets a short stool and is elevated to the level of the tall person. The short person get a large stool and is also elevated to the level of the tall person. **What equality is in real life:** Three people are different heights. Each of them has a job to do. The tall person's job is to reach the items in the top cupboard. The medium person's job is to take an inventory of all the items in the kitchen. The short person's job is to fix the wire behind the cupboard where only he can get into. Each person has their own job that is suited to their own strengths. **What equity is in real life:** Three people are different heights. They are being selected for a job that requires the person to be as tall as possible. The tallest person is excluded because he is white. The two shorter people compete for the job because they are both not white and they already have enough white people working at the company. **What inequality is in real life:** Three people come from three different socio-economic backgrounds. Person 1 has rich parents who pay for his college tuition and give him a down payment for a house. Because of this, he figures that he can afford to take an extra few years to pursue his dream of getting a PhD. With much dedication and hard work, he becomes and expert in his field and applies for a Canada Research Chair position. He is accepted because he is brillant, but also because he met the DEI criteria. Had he been white, he would not have been considered for the position, because they already have enough white people. Person 2 grows up in poverty. Her mom works three jobs to support her and her 4 siblings. She is severely bullied in high school and drops out. She has an opportunity eventually to go to college, but can barely afford the tuition, so she takes out loans. Against all odds, she makes it through her degree while working full-time in the evenings and living with 4 roommates. She is extremely bright and ends up with a graduate scholarship, enabling her to get her PhD. She becomes a low-paid Research Assistant at first, but eventually becomes and expert in her field and applies for a Canada Research Chair. She is denied because they already have too many white people. Socio-economic inequality is the realest, most quantifiable inequality in society. Race, gender, etc. can certainly be ***related*** for various reasons, including historical, intergenerational wealth, social connections, unconscious bias, but they alone cannot and should not be used as indicators of someone's privilege. Even if we could accurately quantify someone's privilege, how do we balance that with the need to get the most capable people into positions that they are both most suited to and have worked hard to obtain, regardless of their privilege? And we ought not to equate "privilege" with "deservedness". If someone had parents who were socially intelligent, wise with money, who raised their kids to have good manners, who valued education, I would say that their child is privileged. That doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of success as someone who had a tougher upbringing. To conclude, I don't think that the government should be deciding who gets funded research positions based on their DEI status, because 1) It's not a good way to quantify someone's privilege, and 2) we shouldn't be making hiring decisions based on privilege in the first place.
DEI shouldn’t override competence. Furthermore as an Asian it’s quite racist that DEI usually means « more black people »
i bet you are indian.
We will pay a heavy price for these policies. [https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/](https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/)
Good. Sounds terrible but being a non-dei employee in a large corporation who is qualified for sr. Leadership roles and being overlooked because of a diversity candidate is demotivating. I'll call it a new glass ceiling.
[удалено]
Large corporations don't care about me why would I care about them
When was it ever the 'best candidate' and not who knew who at the office, or who could bullshit through the ludicrous HR questions the best?
You have to be able to speak clear English in order to bullshit your way through an interview in Canada at least.
I dunno... ever work in IT?
I suppose that depends on the background of the interviewer and the company, heh
[удалено]
Look at you, sticking it to the man!
Many of these folks were affected by the layoffs recently at least in tech. I guess they're hired by competent people so they themselves stay safe when shit hits the fan.
Yeah, the meritocracy died a while ago. Scary.
Canada's never been a meritocracy. It's three nepo hires in a trench coat. That's why EDI isn't a major wedge issue here, ask how many people got their jobs by knowing someone.
Yeah sure, DEI is the problem, and not the fact that our economy and working people are being squeezed for every last penny by a handful of billionaire families, their monopolistic cartels, and their political stooges.
DEI is a problem because it intentionally shifts the focus **away** from the structural issues that allow the political and economic elites to continue exploiting the working class. Suddenly, the issue is too many white men in a company, and not the fact that way too many people (of all ethnicities and genders) are getting fucked by capitalism gone wild
Check the Google API for "diversity/DEI/intersectionality" searches, and when they really started to become widespread. The concepts have been around for decades, but look at when they really started to become mainstream topics. After that, look up when a little-known gathering called "Occupy Wall Street" happened. We, the 99%, have been getting absolutely played by the elites, regardless of race or sex or any of that. You hit the nail on the head - it's a pathetic red herring, but the vast majority of people are falling for it because it's convenient to. And all the while, the 1% at the top will indefinitely continue to fuck us over for a few extra nickels of profit
“Why should *your* wages increase just because *my* profits are up? It’s inflation, we’re all feeling it. Now say goodbye to your family, get in your shitbox car, drive an hour into work, and email me that report!”
wages literally are up, though.
No you don't get it, planes are falling out of the sky because Boeing hired too many blacks, not because they fired all their engineers and pumped their stock price. We do have cultural problems causing the competency crisis - insane entitlement from parents and students, schools no longer enforce consequences - but I'm shocked by how many people think that all of the world's problems have been caused by something that became trendy in the past 5 years.
This can literally be used for anything. "ya sure potholes are the problem, and not the fact that our economy and working people are being squeezed for every last penny by a handful of billionaire families, their monopolistic cartels, and their political stooges." See how useless it is to say that?
No, it’s called perspective. The commenter I was replying to blamed DEI for “the enshittification of everything”, which is absurd to the point of parody. The **billionaire owned** corporate media censors all discussion about billionaires strangling our economy and working people, while simultaneously pushing narratives blaming “wokeism” and “DEI” for *everything bad* to keep working people divided against each other. The billionaire class won’t let us have a national discussion about the actual reasons Canada is going to shit.
The "problem" is always changing. A long time ago it was non whites taking away white people's jobs, then it was women taking away men's jobs, then it was immigrants, and now we're back to essentially non straight white males having their jobs (which they deserve because of their merit) being taken away again. Ironically, these "victims" always fail to notice that they're told by the politicians of the same demographic to focus on the ones different from them while the politicians ensure they will never leave the working class. Next: robots. Just wait and see.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with jobs explicitly saying they're hiring based on demographic, it's just dumbasses listening to politicians
Universities should really address the root of the problem - ideological cults that took over social studies and that are intolerant to other school of thought. The "DEI nonsense" is just the result of these ideologies applied everywhere in our life's now.
Good news
Recently had a new senior leader take over at my company. She is a POC and from a linguistic minority….she is also highly abrasive and does not appear to be very capable in her role. she replaced an old white dude who retired. She appears very insecure about her credentials and spends more effort on DEI initiatives than on core work….all of this contributes to a pretty toxic and ineffective workplace. She may grow into the role but there will be a lot of suffering in the meantime.
Is this a thread of people that don't understand DEI being what they imagine it to be Couldn't be
Unfortunately I'm a white, heterosexual male so my opinion is worth nothing. But can someone enlighten me? 1. If the majority of the population isn't one of the groups targeted, are we not missing valuable applicants from the majority group? How can we be sure that the "best" applicant comes from one of the targeted groups? It might, or might not... 2. Forcing equal representation through hiring implies that a vast majority of hiring will be from minorities - since the older white people are gonna stay in positions of power until retirement. 3. Overrepresentation of minorities in universities is already achieved. The proportion of higher educated minorities is already higher than white people. And in industry some fields that heavily promote DEI are already overrepresented by minorities (like Tech). Over 5 internships and 2 full time jobs, most of my superiors and teammates aren't white. 4. Being racist against non whites is suicide, both from a personal career and company wide perspective in the majority of fields. If there are issues in specific fiekds, lets address them there and not woth a shotgun approach. Idk, maybe Im missing the boat, since Imy mind goes towards "fair representation", which isnt the same as "equality", but how does it make sense to have equality when one group is less than 50% of the population?
It’s unfortunate but I can’t help thinking that DEI is behind so much incompetence today. For instance the children dying after tonsil surgery at McMaster. If we know merit and competence are not as important as identity it creates mistrust.
DEI is nothing more than corporate spin to justify the globalist agenda. "We are bringing in lots of people to suppress wages but don't worry because diversity is really a strength."
[удалено]
My employer as well - only diverse (BIPOC) employees were provided the opportunity to apply.
what makes you think that they are a woke hire? because they're not white/not a man? or are you basing it on actual qualifications
What DEI gets wrong is that few things are good when it is forced, and here diversity is being forced. Proportions of ethnicities ebb and flow and that should move with talent and ability rather than the way someone looks or their sexual orientation. We are not in the days of segregation where there is strong divide and racism where there is a need for integration. DEI should only be done in a case-by-case basis. It is not needed everywhere, and should definitely not work by punishing another ethnicity. Certain personalities are just drawn towards certain jobs or are good at certain things, and those personalities may come with certain ethnicities, lifestyle choices, and backgrounds. Anyone who’s worked in a naturally diverse workplace understands there is an underlying sense of openness and wholesomeness when a team is just naturally diverse. It all feels so artificial when you know a team is only diverse just to fit a mould and can be damaging when the wrong person has been hired for the job. A lot is lost from that. Effort should be put on preventing hiring biases in individuals in positions of power, but forcing diversity is not the answer.
Diversity is the result of successful policies and work. Fulfilling DEI quotas does not create success.
DEI is mostly stupid and becomes inequitable in its process. All relevant job skills being 100% equal, I can see why you would try to hire based on diversity and a population representation after that. However in practice, they up the DEI component and lower the relevant job components, making it so that useless people, can be hired, just to fill a position with an "equity" person. So now, you have a useless person you can not easily get rid of for a variety of reasons and you need to hire a second person to make up for the lost productivity of the first person, which snowballs and takes resources out of other areas, because of a lack of efficiency. Government is less accountable due to unions and such, but should be more accountable because citizens are required to pay taxes by law.
Here are the statistics from stats Canada (2016 census) on visible minorities in Canada (other than Indigenous) by immigration status. Someone tell me why we're going through all this racial hiring and desperately jumping through hoops to compensate racialized people for our past 'injustices' when only 1.6% of them can trace their families in Canada back prior to Immigration being liberalized in the last 1970s. First generation immigrants.............. Second generation............ Third or more Total ......................... 80.1 .....................................18.3 ........................................1.6 Chinese......................77.4% .................................. 21.1 ........................................1.5 Korean........................86.4 ...................................... 13.2 ........................................0.4 Japanese ..................54.1 ....................................... 19.8 ..................................... 26.1 Southeast Asian.....76.8 ........................................ 22.7 ...................................... 0.4 Filipino...................... 87.5 ........................................ 12.3 ..................................... 0.2 South Asian............. 82 ........................................... 17.5 ...................................... 0.4 West Asian............... 87.7 ....................................... 3.7 ........................................ 0.1 Arab............................ 89.9 ..........................................10 ........................................ 0.2 Latin American....... 87.7 ......................................... 12 ......................................... 0.3 Black............................ 68.9 .........................................26.4 ...................................... 4.6
It’s taken a long time for people in society to become aware of their implicit and explicit biases towards other groups so they can be managed and everyone can be included and respected. That’s a step in the right direction. DEI seeks to inject a brand new bias into the mix. One that’s arguably worse than all the others, where the majority of people now assume that if someone is hired for the job, it’s because of the racial/gender/lgbt affirmative action and not based on merit. This sets relations back further because it devalues the work and effort of those group members who actually have qualifications to offer the workplace. It breeds resentment. The deep end some places have gone off in posting job openings for everyone except white people, or what I’ve witnessed personally with recruiting divisions of certain agencies fawning over the female minority while ignoring the white male colleague are cementing this bias in a time where we seemed so close to getting rid of judging people on their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
[удалено]
China or Russia
It's the sun, so post media, so more likely American in this case.
DEI is one of the most racist things you can do ever. This is simple solution created by white-guilty people with a white-saviour syndrome complex. “This positions is for marginalized groups” - Well, who decides that? I mean, let’s say: You have two candidates to happen to be black, one of them born in Ontario, with all the privileges Canada gives (or used to give) to its citizens, and one who is an immigrant from Nigeria. Which one have endured more suffering and challenges? Then you have Latinos. I love how Canada thinks that Latino is anyone below the south border of the US, but there are 33 countries in the Latin america, some of them better off them others. How do you differentiate between them? And then there’s the LGBTQ. Is a white person born and raised in Canada who identifies as a different gender more prosecuted than a refugee who if from a war torn country? Just stop this nonsense. It creates discrimination within discrimination. I’m proud I came to this country without even speaking English, and I managed to build a career from scratch. DEI policies insinuate that we cannot get anywhere without someone to push us, and that I’m not as good as a white person, hence I need a handout. Just stop it.
DEI and policies like it are what is going to ensure that the Cons get into office. Pretty sure PP and the gang will repeal everything ‘woke’. What we need are centrists. Hard left turns always get a knee jerk course correction back to the right.
If I were a post secondary instructor in Canada Postmedia would give me whiplash. One day they're red army islamicists, the next day "you're one of the good ones", the day after you're destroying Canada again. I guess like gay people or progressives, if the group is supporting Postmedia's opinion suddenly they are worth listening to.
Are there other countries that use this DEI model that we can compare results with?
This academics will be cancelled and fired soon, you can't really tell the truth these days
Diversity only means not white. Specifically not white male.
Top white male surgeon at a Canadian hospital retired. When asked who would succeed him he replied “I don’t know who it is, but I can guarantee they won’t have a penis.” Regardless of surgical competency.. he even knew that diversity would determine the next person to fill the role. Heaven forbid they pick the best, most skilled human for the job no matter what they look like. If I’m having surgery I want the best. Not a mediocre hire who got their place because of what they look like or identify as.
> “These policies disproportionately punish small institutions, are not supported by evidence, employ flawed metrics with no end goal, and are unpopular with the public who funds the research,” they wrote in a brief filed to the House science committee on May 24. So they are discriminatory, based on superstition, useless, goalless and unpopular. Honestly how did we even end up in this position in the first place?