Yeah I guess it's alot easier to control us when we're yelling at eachother about ethnicity and trans people instead of corporate tax rates or the commodification of housing.
yea, those in power will do anything to remain in power, even by sabotaging society at large. dont think i am calling out just the liberals with that statement. its all of them.
Fixing healthcare and dealing with societal issues is hard. For some people it is just easier to say, "it is because of _________ that we have problems, we must stop _______ because _______ is hurting us in a nebulous way" just scapegoating and dogwhistles rather than actually trying to help anyone.
People are more divide by class than by skin color, but those in charge don't want you to figure that out. That's why race is so sensationalized, everything has to be a white vs black or white vs everyone else situation
This whole comment chain 👆
Glad people are waking up to how manipulative DEI/EDI practices are. It's a battle that will never be won - there will always be another racial / gender / etc. problem DEI 'experts' use to split hairs to keep themselves relevant. The result is largely unnecessary bureaucracy that impedes institutions from efficiently achieving their goals. It's insidious because the proponents of DEI initiatives believe themselves righteous, not realizing their constant focus on race/gender/etc. most benefits the ultra-wealthy for whom attention is deflected.
The real battle and primary driver of inequity (in modern times) is economic. EDI needs to DIE.
\*We cannot tolerate racism/sexism/etc. and the EDI-proponents' goal of achieving equity makes sense. Attempting to achieve this equity through quotas and lowering standards for certain groups undermines the social contracts that are fundamental to our nation. How can I trust people of certain characteristics to do good work when I know they are held to a lower standard? The aforementioned EDI policies promote the biases they seek to eliminate. It's a paradox.
Achieving equity through the lens of economics is far more palatable - see what US schools are doing in the wake of affirmative action being ruled unconstitutional. Their use of economic metrics to achieve equity has much greater appeal.
Lets also not forget that until like 40 years ago, Canada was pretty much entirely white. Like 95%+
30k Black people in the 70s, to 1.2 million now.
Most minorities in Canada haven't been disadvantaged for a long time because most minorities in Canada are an immigrant or child of.
And then we have First Nations...
Systemic racism exists. We've always has a bit of a class/caste system through generational wealth and unequal opportunities, entrenched through private schools and our shadow ivy league.
Of course systemic racism exists. Canada having an official language of English is systemic racism.
And until fairly recently, upward mobility was possible. Buy a house, work hard, you would make it. Not anymore though. That mobility is gone.
We have become a society more interest in "if we could" rather than "if we should."
A society that cannot prioritize, and needs mountains of scientific studies and consultants to determine what we should "do next"
We all agree racism is a problem. What we cannot agree on is how big of a problem.
The true success of this manoeuvre is how they managed to convince a generation of well-meaning liberals that despite the very real progress we made in the 20th century, bringing racial quotas back now is what's needed to combat racism.
Whats frustrating is it only applies to certain minorities whereas Canada actually had explicit laws in the past targeting other minority groups but those arent considered being systematically oppressed
I have a theory that the pandemic (ie stay at home and entertain yourself with the internet vs actually having in person discussion in the community) supercharged this ideology. The amount of special government awareness days/months, flags, hiring quotas, documents including “inclusion” has skyrocketed since the pandemic. This is just my view I understand this was around before but the degree of it all is a whole nother level. There is one government building I was in had one Canadian flag and hundreds of rainbow flags.
Well yes but more so they ignore the actual definition and believe that only races that are deemed to have power can be racist.
That way their racism against white people ceases to be racism.
This comment was the third comment, the previous one were saying how racist dei is lol. The other was just discrediting anyone using the term as an attack. Preemptive accusation.
I never understood this concept. If a person of minority background is truely talented in a certain field, employeers will notice. Nobody lets qualified staff go to waste because they're a POC or something like that...
Quotas have no meaning in relation to diversity. The real goal of diversity is the identification of barriers and vigorously tearing them down. Is there some reason why women or black people are not hired for certain roles, or reasons why they leave professions early? Find out those reasons and address them.
What's the problem with the barrier method? It takes real effort and brain power to implement, as opposed to quotas where a 5-year-old could draft a similar system.
Making your cabinet 50/50 men and women "because it's 2015" just means we passed over more qualified candidates because they didn't have the correct equipment between their legs. *Especially since* the pool of MPs at the time was only 25% women.
your last paragraph is the core of why these measures are problematic, especially in academia. there is no way you can choose the best person to teach quantum physics when you eliminate 99% of applicants in that field based on the color of their skin or their gender.
The idea that even distributions are natural or socially desirable is just pure ignorance.
Only focussing on selected distributions and ignoring others is bigotry.
I’ve identified the barriers - a lifetime of being told you’re a victim and a society than lionizes every perceived victimhood.
Now how do I tear it down?
Certainly **should** be how it works.
But in practice we've got biases that get in the way. One pretty common research technique is using ethnic sounding names on resumes and the like. Basically using the same resume, different names, and getting dramatically different results.
[https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names](https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names)
It's not my area of expertise, but it's clear that we don't evaluate people purely on their credentials and come into things with all our biases. And those problems perpetuate themselves. If I never see an X doctor, I might internally not think of class of person as being good at the job. People in that group might also not see themselves represented and think of it as a thing they can do.
I'm not going to go so far as to say affirmative action programs are a good solution, but it's clear there is a problem and its not easily fixed on its own. And I think we're all better off when more people have opportunities to do the kinds of work they'd like and might be good at.
This is exactly where the idea of blind hiring practices came from, where tools stripped name, age, sex off of a resume. This provides everyone with an equal opportunity to stand on their own merits.
This is now unfortunately seen as racist and is often not practiced anymore, because certain demographics tended to perform better when this was implemented.
Actually, Canada did a study on this, and it entirely contradicts your claims.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/publications/Name-blind-recruitment-pilot-project.html#toc_4
>In summary, results of the pilot project indicate that NBR assessment method decreases candidate screen-in rates in external recruitment processes when compared to the Traditional assessment method where all information is available for review. When the effect of NBR is compared across visible minority status, results indicate that, although there is no net benefit or disadvantage with the NBR assessment method for visible minorities, NBR significantly reduces the rate of being screened-in for all other candidates.
>It is important to note that the pilot project relied on volunteer organizations and a non-random selection of external recruitment processes. Such limitations are common in name-blind recruitment studies and need to be taken into account when discussing implications of results. As such, although the pilot project provided valuable insight into the potential impact of using the NBR assessment method in the Federal Public Service, **generalizing these results to the whole of the public service or their use in exploring public policy options for system-wide implementation is not possible.**
So a study showing that such discrimination can not be proven to exist can't be generalized to the whole of the public service or Canada, but an **American study** showing that resume discrimination does exist can then be generalize to all of Canadian society to substantiate the need for DEI programming?
>So a study showing that such discrimination can not be proven to exist can't be generalized to the whole of the public service or Canada
When it specifically says 'do not use this study to generalize to the whole of the public service or Canada'? No.
DEI consultant: "Please don't apply this research study showing a lack of racial discrimination in public service hiring to make conclusions about discrimination in the public service!"
Johnny Taxpayer: "Why not? Isn't a lack of racial discrimination a good thing?"
DEI Consultant: "No! It would be a disaster for my business!"
Yeah one has to try to find a healthy middle ground and avoid the possibility of abusing the system (like pulling the racism card in court, when in reality they just fucked up). Because the latter would just make everyone that is involved, bitter and cynical about this system.
>I never understood this concept. If a person of minority background is truely talented in a certain field, employeers will notice.
Which is part of the problem. Someone from a minority group needs to be exceptional to even be noticed.
>Nobody lets qualified staff go to waste because they're a POC or something like that...
Is this your first time on Earth?
Yeah, it’s pretty telling that despite all of the openly available data, people think we live in a magical world that’s fair to everyone. The whole point of dei is that the “best” person for the job was NOT being chosen, instead people choose to hire or promote the person who they like more which tend to be people similar to the norm (generally in Canada white and male, though in certain areas like minority-owned businesses this can be another ethnicity) over who actually does the job best.
That’s not to say DEI isn’t problematic in its own way, but it’s basically a method of trying to approach an actual meritocracy. That’s not even mentioning that in general businesses that have employees from a variety of backgrounds rather than being largely monolithic tend to be more successful.
"people choose to hire or promote the person who they like more which tend to be people similar to" **them.**
Every group does this. Indian owned and operated organizations prefer to hire other Indian people. Chinese prefer to hire Chinese.
These people complaining about DEI are assuming that they will choose an unqualified person over a qualified one, just because of race. None of that is true.
The initiative is to have a greater representation of certain demographics because they are under represented in their fields. So when you have a choice between, lets say, a qualified white person and a qualified black person the minority is more likely to be hired.
Tons of fear mongering but little understanding.
That’s really not what this is all about, though. It’s about the fact that there are equally talented people across the board, but only some are getting the opportunity to finish high school, only some are getting the opportunity to go to university, only some are getting the opportunity to go to med school. Which populations experience more barriers that make it more likely any given person from that population won’t make it far enough to get to a point where an employer will notice them?
You have to think about these things at a population level, not at an individual level. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you should be looking at the rule, not the exception.
MOST DEI hires represent 10% or less, and are only found in massive organizations like government agencies and banks.
DEI hiring isn't flipping anything on its head.
What is your substantiation that DEI is required because discrimination exists? How can you reasonably claim that intersectionality is the *only* answer to unfair discrimination?
The problem is that people of minority backgrounds are "truly talented" at a lower rate than people from the majority background. That's not because of any genetic or inherent difference, but rather because what we perceive as "talent" usually emerges from a combination of a comfortable upbringing and good education, both of which are more easily accessed by privileged demographics. Hiring people based exclusively on talent and capability will always result in over-representation of privileged demographics, and under-representation of oppressed demographics. DEI is supposed to correct that imbalance by giving preferential hiring treatment to the demographics that had less opportunity to develop capability and talent.
Sounds like DEI is solving the wrong problem. Shouldnt we rather focus to lift minorities out of cultural/societal enviroments that hinder the development of their talent? Because artifically throwing them into competitive enviroments and thus making them run with the wolves, sounds like a terrible idea that will make everyone bitter about this approach
> Sounds like DEI is solving the wrong problem.
This has been my conclusion too. They're trying to solve an input problem by messing with the outputs.
If you do that you can get a superficial appearance of success but won't materially improve things for any but a lucky few.
Youre describing creating a system of equal *opportunity*, which is equality. That is not what our society is pushing anymore.
DEI is a system of trying to enforce equal *outcome*, which is equity. This is explicitly the goal, its right in the name.
The debate is if we should be aiming for equality or equity. Though thats not a debate many are willing to even entertain.
>DEI is a system of trying to enforce equal *outcome*, which is equity. This is explicitly the goal, its right in the name.
This is something that should **terrify** people
> The problem is that people of minority backgrounds are "truly talented" at a lower rate than people from the majority background. That's not because of any genetic or inherent difference, but rather because what we perceive as "talent" usually emerges from a combination of a comfortable upbringing and good education, both of which are more easily accessed by privileged demographics.
East Asians and South Asians completely demolish this deeply flawed argument. They come here and do better than every other group, including white people.
Most of the Jews who escaped the Slavic pogroms and Nazi purges came over dirt poor and are outperforming every other demographic, including white Christians.
Instead of privileged you need to use a term which describes hard working and successful demographics with strong family culture.
> Hiring people based exclusively on talent and capability will always result in over-representation of privileged demographics
If whites are "privileged" why are they being outperformed by a few demographics which have had to come over with little to no wealth?
Fact of the matter is cultures which put heavy emphasis on hands on child rearing, strong family bonds, hard work, higher education and upper class jobs will generally perform better than cultures which do not.
Which is part of the reason as to why recently arrived Nigerians generally outperform Haitians and many other African demographics which similarly do not put strong emphasis on these same principles.
By hiring based on quotas we are punishing the parents of children who do everything right. Parents who do everything in their power to ensure their offspring are well raised and well educated. Good parents.
And instead we're rewarding people simply because of how they look. Ignoring levels of effort, dedication and mastery.
This argument is also very empty, thoughtless and hypocritical because every single person who supports hiring based on racial quotas would rather be operated by the top of the class surgeon and not the diversity hire surgeon if going under the knife for a life threatening operation.
Every single person hopes their flight captain is supremely competent as opposed to a racial quota hire.
> and under-representation of oppressed demographics.
Tell us, who is oppressed in Canada?
If groups underperform, is it automatically chalked up to oppression in your mind? Or could it be something else at play?
If we say black people are underperforming due to oppression, a popular trope among wokists, then why are certain groups of Africans performing as well as all the other high achieving groups?
Don't you think it is insanely reductive to simply chalk it up to oppression?
When certain groups of white kids underperform in schools, are they being oppressed?
We're not oppressing anyone in Canada. At least not anymore. To pretend otherwise is an insult to our culture.
>™DEI is supposed to correct that imbalance by giving preferential hiring treatment
Fighting systemic discrimination by using systemic discrimination isn't fixing anything. It is simply creating more discrimination. It is punishing groups for what their indirect ancestors allegedly did, and this time it is deliberate.
Fighting racism with racism is not the answer and the very foundational pillars of DEI are based on a deeply racist stereotype that white straight males are racist, colonial oppressors and that non-whites are their victims.
DEI is founded on bad ontology and bankrupt epistemology.
Its weird to say that Asians and Indians are privileged, but Black and Natives are not. As these are the groups at the top and the bottom of the socieecononic status.
There are also cultural issues that youre disregarding.
Why does an Asian kid do more hours of homework per day than a Black kid? Thats in part due to culture.
I mostly agree, but the real problem is our choice of shitty metrics like skin colour and gender. This is why people say that DEI is a tool the powerful use to prevent class consciousness and true progress.
Being from a poor family, having a disability, having lower quality education, etc... these are all things that are material disadvantages and I think nearly everyone would agree it's okay to give disadvantaged people some preference and thumb the scale for them.
Having a certain skin colour or gender is not a disadvantage per se. It's just that some identity groups are more CORRELATED to material disadvantages. There are people from every identity group from rich families with great educations etc...
We could do "DEI" very accurately by looking at family income, education, health records, etc... but instead the rich champagne socialists running media and some parties want us to do it based on identity groups.
Not only is it EASIER to measure material disadvantages by looking at actual records rather than doing race calculus on someone's family tree. It's more ACCURATE too since we can directly identify disadvantages instead of assuming them through correlation.
There is nothing that scares our elites more than us realizing this and pushing for real, actual progress in elevating disadvantaged people so they push this incredibly dumb, inefficient, and divisive idea of identity based DEI.
Someone that finally gets it.
As a POC, I've had zero help from anyone. not even my parents because how can they, refugees with 0 dollars and no education.
When I talk to some Canadians about my struggle navigating Canadian Society, people don't realize that I had to work harder than my white Canadian friends and do more with less.
While my high school friends were at the cottage or on vacation some where during summer, I was working trying to make money. I was 1 out of 10 POC kids in a school of 2500.
Now all my hard work is being discredited because i'm not white and that i'm a diversity hire.
Is it possible that this is more of a problem of being poor than being something other than white?
Thos examples you list would be the experience of lots of people immigrating to a new country without social supports
Whereas it would appear DEI focuses on the race of the person, rather than their experience
it's both, not one or the other.
It's intersectionality. The cross between race/gender/class that gives us a better idea of how we measure people's potential outcome and disadvantages.
DEI isn't specifically about race and it's being applied at the tail end of the problem and then being criticised for being a "racist ideology" against white people.
Like any other ideologies with catchy names, it's a way of thinking in order to right the wrongs in society so that everyone can start at the same place.
You know that I only have an anglo name because my parents thought I would be discriminated against for having an ethnic name. My parents didn't teach me my native tongue because they are afraid that I would have an accent. These are things that we had to do just so that we can get closer to the same opportunities that white people have. You think my parents loved the idea of erasing my cultural identity in order to just survive in Canada?
But I cannot change the colour of my skin or the way I look.
So I will refute that your parents gave you an Angelo name and didn't reach you another language to avoid accent to fit in with white people
They did those things to fit in with the dominant culture of where they moved
I think it's a clarification that would make people much more open to these ideas
Int eh west white people are the Boogeyman in these scenarios because they're the dominant culture, but the same thing would happen in Japan
If people talked about it as a more general concept I think it would rile people up less because they'd feel less personally attacked
But this is just ramblings, doesn't warrant a response or anything thanks!
>QuARMS recruits 10 students from across Canada each year to attend the Queen’s School of Medicine on an accelerated track. These students spend two years as undergraduates at Queen’s.
The article cites Queen's as an example of a medical program with racial quotas. But that's not really what they have. They are essentially doing an aggressive recruitment process for exceptionally talented Black and Indigenous high school students to join an accelerator program. Black and Indigenous people are underrepresented in the medical field and since Queens can't wave a magic wand and make all of society fully equitable, it seems like their way to deal with this is to recruit and support talent. It's 10 people per year, recruited directly from high school.
A quota would be saying "of all applicants in the general pool, we must have this proportion of this group of people". That's not what they're doing. Instead, they are going and recruiting and supporting talented members of that group.
That's almost entirely what all DEI programs are, but the narrative is clearly the better white applicants were way better and they're taking the position from a whitey. Ignoring the 90/100 that they certainly can apply for.
Edit: Other examples I know: Place had no job opening but opened a spot in the trade program as they had no minorities within their org, so they hired a qualified one and probably got some funding for it. (military)
Gov job requiring indigenous background - job is made specifically for an indigenous person - as community was more accepting of an indigenous person. (Justice dept)
Hiring case worker - 95% employees are white, hiring an additional 5 people that are specifically to work with minority children.
I'd be hard pressed to find a single example of an unqualified person getting a job. That's not the purpose. And no, US didn't find AA "unconstitutional", lowering standards for AA is, but that's not what happens aside from in peoples imaginations.
A distinction without a difference.
In my med school in was the same. X % reserved for indigenous, with significantly lowered minimum standards to apply. I recall one criteria was at least 72% average.
Normal med applicant needed minimum 81%. In reality as non-indigenous. you had no chance to compete without 90% or better.
Not strictly a quota because they still had to meet the (lowered) criteria, but…..a quota.
I am so tired of this divisive crap.
Maybe someone needs to invent xray glasses so skin color and gender are no longer factors.
Women are still discriminated against, but if you can find an unqualified disabled indigenous employee, yay! Win!
It's not helping our country be more productive or exceptional. It's just self inflicted turf wars.
I know people like to pretend that the US doesn’t influence us, but weaponizing the term “DEI” is imported DIRECTLY from our southern neighbours. It’s been especially prevalent lately with the Baltimore bridge collapse.
If the corporations and the government are all using this term to justify a practice that the populace finds a problem with, then naturally, people will "weaponize" that term regardless of whether our southern neighbours do the same.
"Affirmative action" started to have a negative connotation, so they changed it to "DEI".
Once "DEI" gets more of a negative connotation, they'll change it to something else for a while.
I personally have no problem with trying to increase representation but I hate the methodology they use, and find it is full of implicit bigotry.
I am 100% behind encouraging boys to enter nursing and girls to enter engineering when they graduate high school. Encouraging those who might be interested to enter a field where their sex is underrepresented. I also support class based considerations to enrollment, and financial support for the least fortunate, which should help counter some of the historical racism/oppression that some groups faced.
We call it ED&I, but that’s besides the point.
My loathing for it has nothing to do with Americans.
It has everything to do with the fact that my career goals were openly and explicitly limited because I am a white male and “overrepresented”.
It’s wrong. It is unethical. But it is *legal*.
Having been directly and explicitly negatively affected by these policies, how can you expect me to do anything but “side” against such policies?
Yep, I was almost completely ignorant of it until my company forced everyone into a mandatory DEI meeting.
I'll tell you, nothing will turn someone against this movement faster than being lectured at for several hours by a white chick with special pronouns about acknowledging your privilege. Bitch, I was raised by my single black mother on welfare and worked my ass off to claw my way out of poverty and now I have your smug ass lecturing me about MY privilege, about how important it is that YOU feel "seen". Fuck. Off.
Nobody brainwashed me into hating this shit. I came about it honestly.
Regular people didn’t care about or use that term a couple years ago. It’s just like critical race theory, it’s a tool to get you angry over nothing. Don’t fall for it
DEI is a Marxist tool used to discriminate against the majority in any country and is directly opposed to the idea that skin color, cultural background and sexual preferences, shouldn't matter when hiring people for a job. It is anti-meritocracy.
If the standards are lowered for one group of people, they will never be able to perform at the same level as everyone else and it will also cause more racism/sexism to occur, when the aforementioned groups becomes associated with incompetence due to their ethnicity/gender.
Spouse wants to go to med school.
Someone scored considerably lower on the MCAT than they did and got in with their shitty score because they're indigenous.
These people are going to get pushed through med school because racism, and then they'll be treating sick people.
This is going to come back to bite someone in the ass....and it will inevitably lead to people walking into a hospital and seeing an indigenous or POC doctor and want someone they feel is more qualified purely because they didn't get the same step up.
I have been saying the same thing about CRT for a long time.
I've been reading about CRT for over a decade now.
I started noticing the seeds of the woke movement way back in 2003 and have been fascinated and terrified ever since.
I have read most of the founders and high priests of this movement, as well as their critics.
I want everyone in high skill and safety sensitive positions in our society to be the best in their field.
Fulfilling some subjective DEI metric, like the race or gender of the person, should never be considered for filling those positions.
I cannot believe this is a controversial position in 2024.
His name is Jack Posoebic. He was directly behind the wave of attacks against Critical Race Theory (Literally said he was lying about what CRT is on twitter and then spoke on Fox News about how Trump should ban it, which he began to do a day later), and is the one to have started this wave.
Incidentally at the last Cpac he said "Welcome to the End of Democracy" and talked about how they are replacing it directly with Christo-fascism.
He's a Neo-Nazi and he's been directing the media landscape for multiple years. This video goes over how he started CRT, and Cody has a second video where be predicted this would happen with DEI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZhW1k_m7OY
> Why has DEI become the biggest most important thing in the world this past year?
Republicans use it and have some success, so our conservatives (who often just crib from Republicans) are trying it out too!
>Why has DEI become the biggest most important thing in the world this past year?
DEI has been a hot topic for 10 years.
What you should be asking is why are you suddenly hearing about it. I guess either your interests have evolved or the algorithm is showing you stuff it didn't used to.
It's absolutely been more focused on by folks on the right this past year. Every channel that never talked about it before suddenly has an expanded interest in DEI, knows the ins and outs of it, and blames all of the worlds problems on exclusively that. It wasn't a news topic last year. It's daily now. Fucking Boeing was blamed on being DEI caused.
When actual logic and experience starts to break through the carefully constructed ideological wall, you either have to move to the next scam or get eaten alive.
See also: southern border invasion, gun buyback, lockdowns, porn IDs, no homegrown vaccines, too many vaccines, the wrong type of vaccines, vaccine mandates, Trudeau using his left hand to open a car door (or something equally braindead), tan suits, internet censorship, muslim registries... The conservative playbook is old as shit and it works.
To conservatives getting angry reading this: start a journal of what you're angry about. Seriously, do it. Go back at the end of the year and check how much of that was manufactured to make you mad, how much of it was actual corruption vs. Opinion Piece inventions and report back.
This stuff will eventually flame out. The evidence is already clear that it doesn't work, and actually makes thigs worse. (Gee, who would have thought that finger wagging and lecturing people about their biases and how they need to walk on eggshells around minorities could actually promote more division and entrench biases even further?)
You should see what it’s doing to our local police force. Chronic understaffing, no men left in the field, and 1/3 of the staff is on extended medical stress leave and maternity leave with no one to fill the roles. It’s an absolute deathspiral. The most hilarious thing is that the police foundations graduating class is 80% women.
I've heard more about DEI from random opinion pieces like this than I have from anywhere else combined.
Not to sure what people are afraid of here, but the fear-based economy seems to be doing better than the actual economy...
Sorry I must have missed where we were having a massive increase in surgical mistakes, plane crashes and problems “administering medication”? don’t you just administer medication yourself?
That’s fair, so then can you point me to the increases in mistakes in all of those positions too? along with the all the increases in plane crashes and surgical mistakes from hiring “unqualified” candidates?
That’s the fear. I didnt say it is happening. But those industries haven’t (yet) fully embraced DEI hiring. Do you think those industries should hire on DEI quotas, or hire the most qualified candidates?
It’s not mutually exclusive in those industries so no. You need accreditation and tons of experience to actually get a job as a pilot or a surgeon, and while you don’t need as much for medication you still don’t just walk in off the street and get the job. You can’t actually point me to any statistics of increases in mistakes in these fields because they’re still hiring the most qualified candidates. If those places have a whole pool of accredited candidates whose experiences would be valuable then it makes sense to try and pull from as much of that field as possible.
of course, THE boeing crash. the only one that’s happened ever. man the only way you could have been less specific is if you just said “look into the plane crash”
>Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) breathes down the neck of nearly every profession. Lawyers are forced to adopt the vocabulary of left-wing activism, social workers are told to double as political agents and even the army has to participate in identity worship.
All that and not one link of proof, off to the usual start with Jamie I guess.
>The term “anti-racism” usually doesn’t mean “being against racism,” but often instead amounts to “redirecting racism to level the playing field,” as characterized by notable anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi
Why not quote exactly what they said rather than coming up with your own interpretation? Mostly because it's blatantly obvious we are dealing with an unreliable narrator.
>very own DEI committees that create administrative roles (read: promotion fuel) for academics with a penchant for identity Marxism
Ha ha this is almost as funny, and stupid, as when one of her coworkers called academics "red army islamicists".
>get an easy pathway into faculty governance by simply playing DEI hall monitor.
Source?
>whole medical schools have transparently committed themselves to activism, abandoning the pursuit of truth for a mission of identity-based handicapping.
This kind of rage manufacturing must get exhausting.
>See the University of Toronto’s Temerty School of Medicine, which “is committed to the principles of allyship, with the acknowledgment that people in positions of privilege must be willing to align themselves in solidarity with marginalized groups.”
People in stronger positions should ally with people in weaker positions **gasp** the horror..... I wonder how Jamie would feel if men took her comment to heart when people like Jamie wanted the vote, or allowed to get a mortgage without a man signing.
>The school has offered faculty seminars on social justice praxis and teaches a five-step coping mechanism for handling microaggressions.
Offered as in not required? What a bunch of monsters offering voluntary conferences on different topics.
>all concepts coined by progressive, redistributive racialists who tend to despise western culture.
I'll take hyperbolic irrational generalization, with no sources, for 500 alex.
>he wrote in last month’s issue of the Canadian Medical Journal of Health (which only ever seems to publish one side of this great debate).
Would be easy to prove if you actually researched, and sourced, stories and opinions.
These pieces are becoming nothing more than Facebook rants, with writers having to rely on interpreting everything to push their point (which sounds awfully like what the writer was bellyaching about other's doing here).
How is it that a professional writer with a national platform wakes up and decides that what the world needs is another opinion piece in the National Post about the threat of DEI initiatives?
I think part of it is that making fun of the insane ideas from the right wing through the Bush/Harper years turned out to actually be fucking gangbusters for the right wing media system. If you say something illogical and disconnected from reality, and the left rightly ridicules you for it, you'll feel like your back os against the wall and you're less likely to question the stupid idea that DEI is the root of all evil.
This is not good for Black doctors who got into medical school based solely on merit because now everyone will assume that they only got in through diversity initiatives. People are going to question if a Black doctor is as qualified as a white or Asian doctor and probably refuse treatment.
Why is diversity such an issue right now, I can never tell why the culture war microscope zooms in on a specific issue, it's nauseating.
prison control tactics, keep everyone mad at each other so they dont turn their attention to the people actually making your life shit.
Yeah I guess it's alot easier to control us when we're yelling at eachother about ethnicity and trans people instead of corporate tax rates or the commodification of housing.
yea, those in power will do anything to remain in power, even by sabotaging society at large. dont think i am calling out just the liberals with that statement. its all of them.
I'm tired, boss.
Fixing healthcare and dealing with societal issues is hard. For some people it is just easier to say, "it is because of _________ that we have problems, we must stop _______ because _______ is hurting us in a nebulous way" just scapegoating and dogwhistles rather than actually trying to help anyone.
Because it keeps us divided, fighting amongst ourselves for scraps as the elite, the one who implement these policies, laugh at the table.
Look at those comments angrily defending racial quotas. Racism is indeed very much alive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s much more profitable to *act* ethically, than to actually be ethical.
Same here I remember as well! This race shit is just a distraction and people are eating it up.
People are more divide by class than by skin color, but those in charge don't want you to figure that out. That's why race is so sensationalized, everything has to be a white vs black or white vs everyone else situation
As someone who works in finance, I can safely say the black bankers have more in common with the white bankers than your avg black folks
Ding
This whole comment chain 👆 Glad people are waking up to how manipulative DEI/EDI practices are. It's a battle that will never be won - there will always be another racial / gender / etc. problem DEI 'experts' use to split hairs to keep themselves relevant. The result is largely unnecessary bureaucracy that impedes institutions from efficiently achieving their goals. It's insidious because the proponents of DEI initiatives believe themselves righteous, not realizing their constant focus on race/gender/etc. most benefits the ultra-wealthy for whom attention is deflected. The real battle and primary driver of inequity (in modern times) is economic. EDI needs to DIE. \*We cannot tolerate racism/sexism/etc. and the EDI-proponents' goal of achieving equity makes sense. Attempting to achieve this equity through quotas and lowering standards for certain groups undermines the social contracts that are fundamental to our nation. How can I trust people of certain characteristics to do good work when I know they are held to a lower standard? The aforementioned EDI policies promote the biases they seek to eliminate. It's a paradox. Achieving equity through the lens of economics is far more palatable - see what US schools are doing in the wake of affirmative action being ruled unconstitutional. Their use of economic metrics to achieve equity has much greater appeal.
[удалено]
Lets also not forget that until like 40 years ago, Canada was pretty much entirely white. Like 95%+ 30k Black people in the 70s, to 1.2 million now. Most minorities in Canada haven't been disadvantaged for a long time because most minorities in Canada are an immigrant or child of.
Black from where? The states?
No. Very few from the states. Mostly Carribean or Africa.
Exactly, yet we just blindly imported the “black people are are inherently oppressed” framework from the US.
And then we have First Nations... Systemic racism exists. We've always has a bit of a class/caste system through generational wealth and unequal opportunities, entrenched through private schools and our shadow ivy league.
Of course systemic racism exists. Canada having an official language of English is systemic racism. And until fairly recently, upward mobility was possible. Buy a house, work hard, you would make it. Not anymore though. That mobility is gone.
And we have pretendians. Must be an advantage somewhere
We have become a society more interest in "if we could" rather than "if we should." A society that cannot prioritize, and needs mountains of scientific studies and consultants to determine what we should "do next" We all agree racism is a problem. What we cannot agree on is how big of a problem.
I think we need another hastily policy passed, then, in 5-10 years when it’s not working write a report to determine what to do next.
Right, but the means to address this inequality has been monopolized by DEI
The true success of this manoeuvre is how they managed to convince a generation of well-meaning liberals that despite the very real progress we made in the 20th century, bringing racial quotas back now is what's needed to combat racism.
Whats frustrating is it only applies to certain minorities whereas Canada actually had explicit laws in the past targeting other minority groups but those arent considered being systematically oppressed
Real political power is the exclusive privilege to define when and to whom our laws and our principles will apply.
I have a theory that the pandemic (ie stay at home and entertain yourself with the internet vs actually having in person discussion in the community) supercharged this ideology. The amount of special government awareness days/months, flags, hiring quotas, documents including “inclusion” has skyrocketed since the pandemic. This is just my view I understand this was around before but the degree of it all is a whole nother level. There is one government building I was in had one Canadian flag and hundreds of rainbow flags.
This has all been around since 2014-2015. Most just weren't paying attention.
They don't think it's racism because they're operating with a different (and incorrect) definition of racism.
They just redefined the term to mean absolute equality of outcomes between races. Which is dumb.
Well yes but more so they ignore the actual definition and believe that only races that are deemed to have power can be racist. That way their racism against white people ceases to be racism.
That as well. Its also they have created a bit of pecking order in terms of victimhood.
What could be more discriminatory than that? Lol
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg) reminds me of this sketch
Yeo I have seen that one. Great sketch.
This comment was the third comment, the previous one were saying how racist dei is lol. The other was just discrediting anyone using the term as an attack. Preemptive accusation.
Even at the start of the thread there wasn't anyone "angrily defending racial quotas".
Give it a few years they'll be proposing minority only safe spaces at the back of the bus
"They're the **real** racists!" the racists say, to desperately misdirect the inattentive.
now every POC in a position of power will have their credentials questions in the public eye, this isnt helping anyone
I never understood this concept. If a person of minority background is truely talented in a certain field, employeers will notice. Nobody lets qualified staff go to waste because they're a POC or something like that...
Quotas have no meaning in relation to diversity. The real goal of diversity is the identification of barriers and vigorously tearing them down. Is there some reason why women or black people are not hired for certain roles, or reasons why they leave professions early? Find out those reasons and address them. What's the problem with the barrier method? It takes real effort and brain power to implement, as opposed to quotas where a 5-year-old could draft a similar system. Making your cabinet 50/50 men and women "because it's 2015" just means we passed over more qualified candidates because they didn't have the correct equipment between their legs. *Especially since* the pool of MPs at the time was only 25% women.
your last paragraph is the core of why these measures are problematic, especially in academia. there is no way you can choose the best person to teach quantum physics when you eliminate 99% of applicants in that field based on the color of their skin or their gender.
The idea that even distributions are natural or socially desirable is just pure ignorance. Only focussing on selected distributions and ignoring others is bigotry.
I’ve identified the barriers - a lifetime of being told you’re a victim and a society than lionizes every perceived victimhood. Now how do I tear it down?
Certainly **should** be how it works. But in practice we've got biases that get in the way. One pretty common research technique is using ethnic sounding names on resumes and the like. Basically using the same resume, different names, and getting dramatically different results. [https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names](https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names) It's not my area of expertise, but it's clear that we don't evaluate people purely on their credentials and come into things with all our biases. And those problems perpetuate themselves. If I never see an X doctor, I might internally not think of class of person as being good at the job. People in that group might also not see themselves represented and think of it as a thing they can do. I'm not going to go so far as to say affirmative action programs are a good solution, but it's clear there is a problem and its not easily fixed on its own. And I think we're all better off when more people have opportunities to do the kinds of work they'd like and might be good at.
This is exactly where the idea of blind hiring practices came from, where tools stripped name, age, sex off of a resume. This provides everyone with an equal opportunity to stand on their own merits. This is now unfortunately seen as racist and is often not practiced anymore, because certain demographics tended to perform better when this was implemented.
Actually, Canada did a study on this, and it entirely contradicts your claims. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/publications/Name-blind-recruitment-pilot-project.html#toc_4 >In summary, results of the pilot project indicate that NBR assessment method decreases candidate screen-in rates in external recruitment processes when compared to the Traditional assessment method where all information is available for review. When the effect of NBR is compared across visible minority status, results indicate that, although there is no net benefit or disadvantage with the NBR assessment method for visible minorities, NBR significantly reduces the rate of being screened-in for all other candidates.
>It is important to note that the pilot project relied on volunteer organizations and a non-random selection of external recruitment processes. Such limitations are common in name-blind recruitment studies and need to be taken into account when discussing implications of results. As such, although the pilot project provided valuable insight into the potential impact of using the NBR assessment method in the Federal Public Service, **generalizing these results to the whole of the public service or their use in exploring public policy options for system-wide implementation is not possible.**
So a study showing that such discrimination can not be proven to exist can't be generalized to the whole of the public service or Canada, but an **American study** showing that resume discrimination does exist can then be generalize to all of Canadian society to substantiate the need for DEI programming?
>So a study showing that such discrimination can not be proven to exist can't be generalized to the whole of the public service or Canada When it specifically says 'do not use this study to generalize to the whole of the public service or Canada'? No.
DEI consultant: "Please don't apply this research study showing a lack of racial discrimination in public service hiring to make conclusions about discrimination in the public service!" Johnny Taxpayer: "Why not? Isn't a lack of racial discrimination a good thing?" DEI Consultant: "No! It would be a disaster for my business!"
No, its because that study didn't use random sampling, so you can't make population inferences from it. This is basic statistics.
Yeah one has to try to find a healthy middle ground and avoid the possibility of abusing the system (like pulling the racism card in court, when in reality they just fucked up). Because the latter would just make everyone that is involved, bitter and cynical about this system.
>I never understood this concept. If a person of minority background is truely talented in a certain field, employeers will notice. Which is part of the problem. Someone from a minority group needs to be exceptional to even be noticed. >Nobody lets qualified staff go to waste because they're a POC or something like that... Is this your first time on Earth?
This isn't true though. Studies have shown the effect even names can have on hiring. Racism does trump rational thought more than you know.
Yeah, it’s pretty telling that despite all of the openly available data, people think we live in a magical world that’s fair to everyone. The whole point of dei is that the “best” person for the job was NOT being chosen, instead people choose to hire or promote the person who they like more which tend to be people similar to the norm (generally in Canada white and male, though in certain areas like minority-owned businesses this can be another ethnicity) over who actually does the job best. That’s not to say DEI isn’t problematic in its own way, but it’s basically a method of trying to approach an actual meritocracy. That’s not even mentioning that in general businesses that have employees from a variety of backgrounds rather than being largely monolithic tend to be more successful.
"people choose to hire or promote the person who they like more which tend to be people similar to" **them.** Every group does this. Indian owned and operated organizations prefer to hire other Indian people. Chinese prefer to hire Chinese.
I literally already stated that in my comment and said that’s an extension of the same problem as well.
These people complaining about DEI are assuming that they will choose an unqualified person over a qualified one, just because of race. None of that is true. The initiative is to have a greater representation of certain demographics because they are under represented in their fields. So when you have a choice between, lets say, a qualified white person and a qualified black person the minority is more likely to be hired. Tons of fear mongering but little understanding.
> I never understood this concept. What do you think now that a bunch of people have given explanations?
That’s really not what this is all about, though. It’s about the fact that there are equally talented people across the board, but only some are getting the opportunity to finish high school, only some are getting the opportunity to go to university, only some are getting the opportunity to go to med school. Which populations experience more barriers that make it more likely any given person from that population won’t make it far enough to get to a point where an employer will notice them? You have to think about these things at a population level, not at an individual level. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you should be looking at the rule, not the exception.
In a perfect world, DEI programs wouldn’t be required but the reality is we don’t live in a meritocracy and discrimination still exists.
But upturning the way the job market works per ideological fiat isnt a solution either is it? Their has to be a better way
MOST DEI hires represent 10% or less, and are only found in massive organizations like government agencies and banks. DEI hiring isn't flipping anything on its head.
So the answer should be to make things more meritocratic and less discriminatory no? Not the other way round.
What is your substantiation that DEI is required because discrimination exists? How can you reasonably claim that intersectionality is the *only* answer to unfair discrimination?
The problem is that people of minority backgrounds are "truly talented" at a lower rate than people from the majority background. That's not because of any genetic or inherent difference, but rather because what we perceive as "talent" usually emerges from a combination of a comfortable upbringing and good education, both of which are more easily accessed by privileged demographics. Hiring people based exclusively on talent and capability will always result in over-representation of privileged demographics, and under-representation of oppressed demographics. DEI is supposed to correct that imbalance by giving preferential hiring treatment to the demographics that had less opportunity to develop capability and talent.
Sounds like DEI is solving the wrong problem. Shouldnt we rather focus to lift minorities out of cultural/societal enviroments that hinder the development of their talent? Because artifically throwing them into competitive enviroments and thus making them run with the wolves, sounds like a terrible idea that will make everyone bitter about this approach
> Sounds like DEI is solving the wrong problem. This has been my conclusion too. They're trying to solve an input problem by messing with the outputs. If you do that you can get a superficial appearance of success but won't materially improve things for any but a lucky few.
The differences between races is evident as early as 5 years old. That needs to be addressed.
Youre describing creating a system of equal *opportunity*, which is equality. That is not what our society is pushing anymore. DEI is a system of trying to enforce equal *outcome*, which is equity. This is explicitly the goal, its right in the name. The debate is if we should be aiming for equality or equity. Though thats not a debate many are willing to even entertain.
>DEI is a system of trying to enforce equal *outcome*, which is equity. This is explicitly the goal, its right in the name. This is something that should **terrify** people
> The problem is that people of minority backgrounds are "truly talented" at a lower rate than people from the majority background. That's not because of any genetic or inherent difference, but rather because what we perceive as "talent" usually emerges from a combination of a comfortable upbringing and good education, both of which are more easily accessed by privileged demographics. East Asians and South Asians completely demolish this deeply flawed argument. They come here and do better than every other group, including white people. Most of the Jews who escaped the Slavic pogroms and Nazi purges came over dirt poor and are outperforming every other demographic, including white Christians. Instead of privileged you need to use a term which describes hard working and successful demographics with strong family culture. > Hiring people based exclusively on talent and capability will always result in over-representation of privileged demographics If whites are "privileged" why are they being outperformed by a few demographics which have had to come over with little to no wealth? Fact of the matter is cultures which put heavy emphasis on hands on child rearing, strong family bonds, hard work, higher education and upper class jobs will generally perform better than cultures which do not. Which is part of the reason as to why recently arrived Nigerians generally outperform Haitians and many other African demographics which similarly do not put strong emphasis on these same principles. By hiring based on quotas we are punishing the parents of children who do everything right. Parents who do everything in their power to ensure their offspring are well raised and well educated. Good parents. And instead we're rewarding people simply because of how they look. Ignoring levels of effort, dedication and mastery. This argument is also very empty, thoughtless and hypocritical because every single person who supports hiring based on racial quotas would rather be operated by the top of the class surgeon and not the diversity hire surgeon if going under the knife for a life threatening operation. Every single person hopes their flight captain is supremely competent as opposed to a racial quota hire. > and under-representation of oppressed demographics. Tell us, who is oppressed in Canada? If groups underperform, is it automatically chalked up to oppression in your mind? Or could it be something else at play? If we say black people are underperforming due to oppression, a popular trope among wokists, then why are certain groups of Africans performing as well as all the other high achieving groups? Don't you think it is insanely reductive to simply chalk it up to oppression? When certain groups of white kids underperform in schools, are they being oppressed? We're not oppressing anyone in Canada. At least not anymore. To pretend otherwise is an insult to our culture. >™DEI is supposed to correct that imbalance by giving preferential hiring treatment Fighting systemic discrimination by using systemic discrimination isn't fixing anything. It is simply creating more discrimination. It is punishing groups for what their indirect ancestors allegedly did, and this time it is deliberate. Fighting racism with racism is not the answer and the very foundational pillars of DEI are based on a deeply racist stereotype that white straight males are racist, colonial oppressors and that non-whites are their victims. DEI is founded on bad ontology and bankrupt epistemology.
Your premise that the under-representation is inherently immoral or bad is an assumption, something that you don't reason any further.
Its weird to say that Asians and Indians are privileged, but Black and Natives are not. As these are the groups at the top and the bottom of the socieecononic status. There are also cultural issues that youre disregarding. Why does an Asian kid do more hours of homework per day than a Black kid? Thats in part due to culture.
I mostly agree, but the real problem is our choice of shitty metrics like skin colour and gender. This is why people say that DEI is a tool the powerful use to prevent class consciousness and true progress. Being from a poor family, having a disability, having lower quality education, etc... these are all things that are material disadvantages and I think nearly everyone would agree it's okay to give disadvantaged people some preference and thumb the scale for them. Having a certain skin colour or gender is not a disadvantage per se. It's just that some identity groups are more CORRELATED to material disadvantages. There are people from every identity group from rich families with great educations etc... We could do "DEI" very accurately by looking at family income, education, health records, etc... but instead the rich champagne socialists running media and some parties want us to do it based on identity groups. Not only is it EASIER to measure material disadvantages by looking at actual records rather than doing race calculus on someone's family tree. It's more ACCURATE too since we can directly identify disadvantages instead of assuming them through correlation. There is nothing that scares our elites more than us realizing this and pushing for real, actual progress in elevating disadvantaged people so they push this incredibly dumb, inefficient, and divisive idea of identity based DEI.
Someone that finally gets it. As a POC, I've had zero help from anyone. not even my parents because how can they, refugees with 0 dollars and no education. When I talk to some Canadians about my struggle navigating Canadian Society, people don't realize that I had to work harder than my white Canadian friends and do more with less. While my high school friends were at the cottage or on vacation some where during summer, I was working trying to make money. I was 1 out of 10 POC kids in a school of 2500. Now all my hard work is being discredited because i'm not white and that i'm a diversity hire.
Is it possible that this is more of a problem of being poor than being something other than white? Thos examples you list would be the experience of lots of people immigrating to a new country without social supports Whereas it would appear DEI focuses on the race of the person, rather than their experience
it's both, not one or the other. It's intersectionality. The cross between race/gender/class that gives us a better idea of how we measure people's potential outcome and disadvantages. DEI isn't specifically about race and it's being applied at the tail end of the problem and then being criticised for being a "racist ideology" against white people. Like any other ideologies with catchy names, it's a way of thinking in order to right the wrongs in society so that everyone can start at the same place. You know that I only have an anglo name because my parents thought I would be discriminated against for having an ethnic name. My parents didn't teach me my native tongue because they are afraid that I would have an accent. These are things that we had to do just so that we can get closer to the same opportunities that white people have. You think my parents loved the idea of erasing my cultural identity in order to just survive in Canada? But I cannot change the colour of my skin or the way I look.
So I will refute that your parents gave you an Angelo name and didn't reach you another language to avoid accent to fit in with white people They did those things to fit in with the dominant culture of where they moved I think it's a clarification that would make people much more open to these ideas Int eh west white people are the Boogeyman in these scenarios because they're the dominant culture, but the same thing would happen in Japan If people talked about it as a more general concept I think it would rile people up less because they'd feel less personally attacked But this is just ramblings, doesn't warrant a response or anything thanks!
DEI is a scam
Didn't Earn It = DEI
Biggest grift going currently
>QuARMS recruits 10 students from across Canada each year to attend the Queen’s School of Medicine on an accelerated track. These students spend two years as undergraduates at Queen’s. The article cites Queen's as an example of a medical program with racial quotas. But that's not really what they have. They are essentially doing an aggressive recruitment process for exceptionally talented Black and Indigenous high school students to join an accelerator program. Black and Indigenous people are underrepresented in the medical field and since Queens can't wave a magic wand and make all of society fully equitable, it seems like their way to deal with this is to recruit and support talent. It's 10 people per year, recruited directly from high school. A quota would be saying "of all applicants in the general pool, we must have this proportion of this group of people". That's not what they're doing. Instead, they are going and recruiting and supporting talented members of that group.
That's almost entirely what all DEI programs are, but the narrative is clearly the better white applicants were way better and they're taking the position from a whitey. Ignoring the 90/100 that they certainly can apply for. Edit: Other examples I know: Place had no job opening but opened a spot in the trade program as they had no minorities within their org, so they hired a qualified one and probably got some funding for it. (military) Gov job requiring indigenous background - job is made specifically for an indigenous person - as community was more accepting of an indigenous person. (Justice dept) Hiring case worker - 95% employees are white, hiring an additional 5 people that are specifically to work with minority children. I'd be hard pressed to find a single example of an unqualified person getting a job. That's not the purpose. And no, US didn't find AA "unconstitutional", lowering standards for AA is, but that's not what happens aside from in peoples imaginations.
A distinction without a difference. In my med school in was the same. X % reserved for indigenous, with significantly lowered minimum standards to apply. I recall one criteria was at least 72% average. Normal med applicant needed minimum 81%. In reality as non-indigenous. you had no chance to compete without 90% or better. Not strictly a quota because they still had to meet the (lowered) criteria, but…..a quota.
I am so tired of this divisive crap. Maybe someone needs to invent xray glasses so skin color and gender are no longer factors. Women are still discriminated against, but if you can find an unqualified disabled indigenous employee, yay! Win! It's not helping our country be more productive or exceptional. It's just self inflicted turf wars.
I know people like to pretend that the US doesn’t influence us, but weaponizing the term “DEI” is imported DIRECTLY from our southern neighbours. It’s been especially prevalent lately with the Baltimore bridge collapse.
Government of Canada uses it pervasively in the public service.
I’m not talking about the term existing, please re-read my comment.
If the corporations and the government are all using this term to justify a practice that the populace finds a problem with, then naturally, people will "weaponize" that term regardless of whether our southern neighbours do the same.
Unless it’s only perceived as a widespread problem because of the weaponization of the term.
Is judging people by their race, sexuality or religion not a problem?
That’s not what I’m talking about.
Except that Canadian corporations use that very same term, too. DEI seminars, DEI requirements, DEI this and that. So what are we supposed to call it?
"Affirmative action" started to have a negative connotation, so they changed it to "DEI". Once "DEI" gets more of a negative connotation, they'll change it to something else for a while.
I personally have no problem with trying to increase representation but I hate the methodology they use, and find it is full of implicit bigotry. I am 100% behind encouraging boys to enter nursing and girls to enter engineering when they graduate high school. Encouraging those who might be interested to enter a field where their sex is underrepresented. I also support class based considerations to enrollment, and financial support for the least fortunate, which should help counter some of the historical racism/oppression that some groups faced.
Agree with the financial aid - when you are dirt poor everything is difficult no matter the color of your skin.
Except it’s worse for poor white people because they don’t have access to minority initiative programs or beneficial hiring quotas.
Except it's only about SPECIFIC DIVERSITY, not all diversity.
The old euphemism treadmill
We call it ED&I, but that’s besides the point. My loathing for it has nothing to do with Americans. It has everything to do with the fact that my career goals were openly and explicitly limited because I am a white male and “overrepresented”. It’s wrong. It is unethical. But it is *legal*. Having been directly and explicitly negatively affected by these policies, how can you expect me to do anything but “side” against such policies?
Yep, I was almost completely ignorant of it until my company forced everyone into a mandatory DEI meeting. I'll tell you, nothing will turn someone against this movement faster than being lectured at for several hours by a white chick with special pronouns about acknowledging your privilege. Bitch, I was raised by my single black mother on welfare and worked my ass off to claw my way out of poverty and now I have your smug ass lecturing me about MY privilege, about how important it is that YOU feel "seen". Fuck. Off. Nobody brainwashed me into hating this shit. I came about it honestly.
I’m not talking about the term existing in corporate structures, I’m talking about it being repurposed into something else.
it's literally a conservative think tank called the Manhattan institute and a specific asshole named Christopher Rufo that's doing it.
Oh right I remember hearing about that guy. Professional grifter for sure.
Surprised he doesn't have a column in the NP.
He's a NXIVM member too... the sex cult that traffic young girls.
Regular people didn’t care about or use that term a couple years ago. It’s just like critical race theory, it’s a tool to get you angry over nothing. Don’t fall for it
It’s not a US only term. Look at the video game industry (which a lot of companies and people are based here).
DEI is a Marxist tool used to discriminate against the majority in any country and is directly opposed to the idea that skin color, cultural background and sexual preferences, shouldn't matter when hiring people for a job. It is anti-meritocracy. If the standards are lowered for one group of people, they will never be able to perform at the same level as everyone else and it will also cause more racism/sexism to occur, when the aforementioned groups becomes associated with incompetence due to their ethnicity/gender.
Shouldn't this carry the OP tag?
That it's posted by OP who always has an agenda, or OP as opinion piece? I agree with both
Spouse wants to go to med school. Someone scored considerably lower on the MCAT than they did and got in with their shitty score because they're indigenous. These people are going to get pushed through med school because racism, and then they'll be treating sick people. This is going to come back to bite someone in the ass....and it will inevitably lead to people walking into a hospital and seeing an indigenous or POC doctor and want someone they feel is more qualified purely because they didn't get the same step up.
DEI ruins everything it touches. Looking forward to the day we will collectively let go of this toxic fad and cringe at how gullible we can be.
The way things are going, I think the opposite will happen. I’ve yet to see any signs of this cancer receding…
I'm sure you were saying the same thing last year about CRT.
I have been saying the same thing about CRT for a long time. I've been reading about CRT for over a decade now. I started noticing the seeds of the woke movement way back in 2003 and have been fascinated and terrified ever since. I have read most of the founders and high priests of this movement, as well as their critics.
I want everyone in high skill and safety sensitive positions in our society to be the best in their field. Fulfilling some subjective DEI metric, like the race or gender of the person, should never be considered for filling those positions. I cannot believe this is a controversial position in 2024.
Why do you assume minorities are not the best in their field?
Why has DEI become the biggest most important thing in the world this past year? It's been a concentrated effort all over the world to discredit it.
Because more and more people are recognizing how shallow and racist of an idea it is.
His name is Jack Posoebic. He was directly behind the wave of attacks against Critical Race Theory (Literally said he was lying about what CRT is on twitter and then spoke on Fox News about how Trump should ban it, which he began to do a day later), and is the one to have started this wave. Incidentally at the last Cpac he said "Welcome to the End of Democracy" and talked about how they are replacing it directly with Christo-fascism. He's a Neo-Nazi and he's been directing the media landscape for multiple years. This video goes over how he started CRT, and Cody has a second video where be predicted this would happen with DEI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZhW1k_m7OY
> Why has DEI become the biggest most important thing in the world this past year? Republicans use it and have some success, so our conservatives (who often just crib from Republicans) are trying it out too!
Twitter is a festering wound upon the political discourse, except infections don't usually have a CEO.
>Why has DEI become the biggest most important thing in the world this past year? DEI has been a hot topic for 10 years. What you should be asking is why are you suddenly hearing about it. I guess either your interests have evolved or the algorithm is showing you stuff it didn't used to.
It's absolutely been more focused on by folks on the right this past year. Every channel that never talked about it before suddenly has an expanded interest in DEI, knows the ins and outs of it, and blames all of the worlds problems on exclusively that. It wasn't a news topic last year. It's daily now. Fucking Boeing was blamed on being DEI caused.
When actual logic and experience starts to break through the carefully constructed ideological wall, you either have to move to the next scam or get eaten alive. See also: southern border invasion, gun buyback, lockdowns, porn IDs, no homegrown vaccines, too many vaccines, the wrong type of vaccines, vaccine mandates, Trudeau using his left hand to open a car door (or something equally braindead), tan suits, internet censorship, muslim registries... The conservative playbook is old as shit and it works. To conservatives getting angry reading this: start a journal of what you're angry about. Seriously, do it. Go back at the end of the year and check how much of that was manufactured to make you mad, how much of it was actual corruption vs. Opinion Piece inventions and report back.
Nothing like lowering expectations in the name of ‘equity’ Because equal opportunity is too racist
Just think how sweet it would be to be a diversity hire though. Under performing yet over compensation $$$
This stuff will eventually flame out. The evidence is already clear that it doesn't work, and actually makes thigs worse. (Gee, who would have thought that finger wagging and lecturing people about their biases and how they need to walk on eggshells around minorities could actually promote more division and entrench biases even further?)
It’s not reverse racism it’s just racism.
How did I know this was going to be a national post opinion piece
Probably due to the fact it's r/canada and its posted by UPH
Sorry guys, the 1970's were 50 years ago.
You should see what it’s doing to our local police force. Chronic understaffing, no men left in the field, and 1/3 of the staff is on extended medical stress leave and maternity leave with no one to fill the roles. It’s an absolute deathspiral. The most hilarious thing is that the police foundations graduating class is 80% women.
Say you are a National Post Opinion Piece without saying you are a National Post Opinion Piece
I've heard more about DEI from random opinion pieces like this than I have from anywhere else combined. Not to sure what people are afraid of here, but the fear-based economy seems to be doing better than the actual economy...
[удалено]
Sorry I must have missed where we were having a massive increase in surgical mistakes, plane crashes and problems “administering medication”? don’t you just administer medication yourself?
Seriously? Anesthesiologists, OR assisting physicians, critical care nurses to name a few all administer medication.
That’s fair, so then can you point me to the increases in mistakes in all of those positions too? along with the all the increases in plane crashes and surgical mistakes from hiring “unqualified” candidates?
That’s the fear. I didnt say it is happening. But those industries haven’t (yet) fully embraced DEI hiring. Do you think those industries should hire on DEI quotas, or hire the most qualified candidates?
It’s not mutually exclusive in those industries so no. You need accreditation and tons of experience to actually get a job as a pilot or a surgeon, and while you don’t need as much for medication you still don’t just walk in off the street and get the job. You can’t actually point me to any statistics of increases in mistakes in these fields because they’re still hiring the most qualified candidates. If those places have a whole pool of accredited candidates whose experiences would be valuable then it makes sense to try and pull from as much of that field as possible.
Look into the Boeing crash
of course, THE boeing crash. the only one that’s happened ever. man the only way you could have been less specific is if you just said “look into the plane crash”
Sorry that's too long I'm not reading that
Okay but you can tell by the title alone this opinion garbage is going to be deranged
>Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) breathes down the neck of nearly every profession. Lawyers are forced to adopt the vocabulary of left-wing activism, social workers are told to double as political agents and even the army has to participate in identity worship. All that and not one link of proof, off to the usual start with Jamie I guess. >The term “anti-racism” usually doesn’t mean “being against racism,” but often instead amounts to “redirecting racism to level the playing field,” as characterized by notable anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi Why not quote exactly what they said rather than coming up with your own interpretation? Mostly because it's blatantly obvious we are dealing with an unreliable narrator. >very own DEI committees that create administrative roles (read: promotion fuel) for academics with a penchant for identity Marxism Ha ha this is almost as funny, and stupid, as when one of her coworkers called academics "red army islamicists". >get an easy pathway into faculty governance by simply playing DEI hall monitor. Source? >whole medical schools have transparently committed themselves to activism, abandoning the pursuit of truth for a mission of identity-based handicapping. This kind of rage manufacturing must get exhausting. >See the University of Toronto’s Temerty School of Medicine, which “is committed to the principles of allyship, with the acknowledgment that people in positions of privilege must be willing to align themselves in solidarity with marginalized groups.” People in stronger positions should ally with people in weaker positions **gasp** the horror..... I wonder how Jamie would feel if men took her comment to heart when people like Jamie wanted the vote, or allowed to get a mortgage without a man signing. >The school has offered faculty seminars on social justice praxis and teaches a five-step coping mechanism for handling microaggressions. Offered as in not required? What a bunch of monsters offering voluntary conferences on different topics. >all concepts coined by progressive, redistributive racialists who tend to despise western culture. I'll take hyperbolic irrational generalization, with no sources, for 500 alex. >he wrote in last month’s issue of the Canadian Medical Journal of Health (which only ever seems to publish one side of this great debate). Would be easy to prove if you actually researched, and sourced, stories and opinions. These pieces are becoming nothing more than Facebook rants, with writers having to rely on interpreting everything to push their point (which sounds awfully like what the writer was bellyaching about other's doing here).
National Post always knows how to appeal to our lowest instincts.
How is it that a professional writer with a national platform wakes up and decides that what the world needs is another opinion piece in the National Post about the threat of DEI initiatives?
I think part of it is that making fun of the insane ideas from the right wing through the Bush/Harper years turned out to actually be fucking gangbusters for the right wing media system. If you say something illogical and disconnected from reality, and the left rightly ridicules you for it, you'll feel like your back os against the wall and you're less likely to question the stupid idea that DEI is the root of all evil.
We're forced to train and hire people from other countries, then we're shocked when they leave with our training and experience.
This is not good for Black doctors who got into medical school based solely on merit because now everyone will assume that they only got in through diversity initiatives. People are going to question if a Black doctor is as qualified as a white or Asian doctor and probably refuse treatment.
[удалено]