Employment Equity in the CFL

[the paw]

I was reading the 3downnation article by Gasson, which took the position that the Als were being somewhat regressive in replacing a black head coach (Khari) with a white one (Maas).  I'm not sure I buy the critique, as in a sample group of only 9 you can get some wacky percentages.  But the point remains that with Khari out and Bobby Dyce getting promoted, only 2 out of 9 head coaches are black.

That got me thinking, so I did a scan of all the coaching staffs in the league to see where we stand.  Now, there are a couple of caveats.  First, staffs are still in transition, so it is a bit of a moving target.  Secondly, I was simply going by the eyeball test of on-line photos, so doubt there may be some misassumptions (case in point, is Mark Kilam biracial or simply Greek with a deep tan?)

Anyway, based on my pseudo-scientific survey, it looks like 36 of 90 coaches (40%) are persons of colour.  Not too bad, I think.  Some points of interest:

1.  Team that did best was the Elks, with 7/10 coaches persons of colour.

2.  Alouettes were the worst with 1/10 which was me counting Anthony Calvillo as Hispanic.

3.  Riders were almost as bad with 2/7, but they have a few openings to fill, so they might improve that. 

4.  BC Lions were the only team with a female coach.

For the record, I only counted positional coaches, head coaches and coordinators.  I did not count video guys, Chris Jones' Chief of Staff (yes he really has one), etc.

[Jesse]

I brought up race on the other site as soon as they announced the 5 candidates. It looked sketchy at best to me.

Khari was fired because "discipline" and you only interview inside hires of that "undisciplined" team, with the only outside interview going to the person with the least amount of personal control we've seen in recent memory. And having AC as the only person of colour...do you really need to have his resume to be considered in Montreal?

It also caused me to go through our HC list...And, while I don't know all the names, it seems as if we've never hired a black HC? Not a super cool history.

[Tiger]

I think you need to look at more than just numbers.

For example the CFL has Dyce now and Steinauer has been a fixture as head coaches. 

So 2 of 9 coaches or 22% are of African American heritage. 

Canada?s population of African descent is about 5% and United States 12%. So there are more head coaches in the CFL than either population. Now I do not have the numbers but if you are looking at number of players that are of African descent it may be low.  Is that what you mean?

In 2019 we had 3 head coaches of African descent, so 33%. Chamblin, Steinauer and Claybrooks.

The CFL had a long history of allowing African Americans the ability to play quarterback and coach. Currently there are no starting African American quarterbacks, except maybe arguably Vernon Adams.

If Rourke comes back should BC start Adams? Should the Bombers trade Collaros for Adams or Dominique Davis as a starter?

What about the fact there are no indigenous quarterbacks or coaches given the Canadian population?  What about over representation of Mexican quarterbacks in Calvillo and Fajardo given the very small number of Mexicans?

Is there racism? Sure. It is a complex issue that needs to be addressed, continually.  Looking at numbers and requiring numbers is probably not effective. This is the American approach.  Don?t get caught up in this.  The Americans have not done so well.

I recently read a great book The Rise of the black Quarterback.  I suggest you read it. 

At the end of the day we know there is racism and we all need to do our part and address this.  We need to treat people as we want to be treated with decency and respect.

Love y?all - Merry Christmas

[Jesse]

The population argument is a bit of a red herring.

New coaches are often drawn from former players. The percentage of black players in football is far greater than 5 or 12 percent.

[TBURGESS]

Saying you want to hire a black candidate is the same as saying you want to hire a white candidate. Both are equally racist. Race shouldn't have anything to do with hiring decisions.

[the paw]

The population argument is a bit of a red herring.

New coaches are often drawn from former players. The percentage of black players in football is far greater than 5 or 12 percent.

I agree.  I haven?t looked at all the rosters, but I would say that the 2022 Bombers were about 50-50, and that seems fairly typical for the league.

Not all coaches are former players of course, so we shouldn?t jump to the conclusion that the percentage of coaches should be identical to that for players, they are both just benchmarks.

I haven?t gone through the senior management teams (presidents, GMs, AGMs etc), but the examples of Pinball, Steinauer, Hervey and Geroy Simon seem to indicate progress is being made on that front as well.  Of course the counterexample of Kavis Reed reminds us that progress is not linear?.

[Jesse]

Saying you want to hire a black candidate is the same as saying you want to hire a white candidate. Both are equally racist. Race shouldn't have anything to do with hiring decisions.

Another red herring.

No one is suggesting the need to hire a black candidate to any specific role. But when the numbers obviously skew in one direction over time, the argument becomes, have they been given equal opportunity?

[dd]

I truly think teams hire the best candidate available regardless of colour. We as a society in Canada, as well as the cfl, are all about diversity and inclusivity. Colour of skin is not an issue and those suggesting such are looking for something that isn?t there.

[TBURGESS]

No one is suggesting the need to hire a black candidate to any specific role. But when the numbers obviously skew in one direction over time, the argument becomes, have they been given equal opportunity?

Folks are suggesting that the color of a person's skin should be a hiring criteria. That's racist.

I'm all for equal opportunity for everyone, but equal opportunity doesn't mean equal results & that's what's being talked about here.

X% of black folks in society doesn't mean that there 'should be' X% of black folks in CFL coaching any more than Y% of white folks in society 'should' mean Y% of white players in the CFL. Both are equally racist.

[the paw]

I truly think teams hire the best candidate available regardless of colour. We as a society in Canada, as well as the cfl, are all about diversity and inclusivity. Colour of skin is not an issue and those suggesting such are looking for something that isn?t there.

You don't know this to be true unless you track the outcomes.  Based on the data in this thread, I would say that the CFL is doing pretty well, all things considered.  

Your broader statement about Canada's love for diversity and inclusion is a little less evident in our collective history.  Not to say we don't have those values, but we certainly lived up to them as completely as we might have.  The Canadian Museum on Human Rights has many stories about where we could have been better.  We don't have to necessarily hang our heads, but neither should we bury them in the sand....

[VictorRomano]

In a profession where winning is the only measure of success, I only care about meritocracy - everything else is irrelevant.  The most-qualified, best-performing person for the job should get the job, regardless of anything else.  Their socio-economic background, creed, culture, skin color, religion, political affiliation - literally all irrelevant when it comes to wins and losses.

[the paw]

In a profession where winning is the only measure of success, I only care about meritocracy - everything else is irrelevant.  The most-qualified, best-performing person for the job should get the job, regardless of anything else.  Their socio-economic background, creed, culture, skin color, religion, political affiliation - literally all irrelevant when it comes to wins and losses.

That's fine to say, but that's not how things play out in the real world.  An evaluation of diversity-based hires in the NFL showed that despite black head coaches outperforming the average, they had shorter tenures and were fired more frequently.  That doesn't happen by accident.

https://www.playcanada.com/news/cfl-diversity-coaching-front-office-nfl-flores/
 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

In a profession where winning is the only measure of success, I only care about meritocracy - everything else is irrelevant.  The most-qualified, best-performing person for the job should get the job, regardless of anything else.  Their socio-economic background, creed, culture, skin color, religion, political affiliation - literally all irrelevant when it comes to wins and losses.

Very true, every GM's neck is already on the line for the coaches they hire with very few missteps allowed, the stakes are too high for them to also worry about inclusivity.  Maybe a great objective if you're middle management working in a large multi-national organization, but a CFL team is run more like a small business than a large corporation.

As for Khari specifically, no evidence he's ever been a great coach and I'd be surprised he still has the H.C. title in 2 years time.

[dd]

You don't know this to be true unless you track the outcomes.  Based on the data in this thread, I would say that the CFL is doing pretty well, all things considered.  

Your broader statement about Canada's love for diversity and inclusion is a little less evident in our collective history.  Not to say we don't have those values, but we certainly lived up to them as completely as we might have.  The Canadian Museum on Human Rights has many stories about where we could have been better.  We don't have to necessarily hang our heads, but neither should we bury them in the sand....

What?s in the past is in the past and you?re right we could have done waaay better. But present day, I would say Canada is a very inclusive country with well below average prejudice. Is there none, no. But I know in the social circles that I am in for the past 60 years there sure as heck isn?t. I have a phillipino daughter in law and a native son in-law. That didn?t happen 60 years ago.

And don?t compare Canada and the cfl with the nfl for prejudice. They are still battling race issues big time. Ain?t nobody kneeling during our national anthem

[GOLDMEMBER]

I tend agree with dd and TBurg. You qualify you get opportunity. Very strange some think this is an issue in the CFL. I for one think it 100% is not! I mean look at the heights Pinball has achieved! Even Ed Hervey ascended to GM! He was not very good or fair to players but he still got to be GM for a significant amount of time.

[Jesse]

I tend agree with dd and TBurg. You qualify you get opportunity. Very strange some think this is an issue in the CFL. I for one think it 100% is not! I mean look at the heights Pinball has achieved! Even Ed Hervey ascended to GM! He was not very good or fair to players but he still got to be GM for a significant amount of time.

So across the league, the only person who qualified for an opportunity for the Als was Jason Maas? Or are there other factors at play in certain opportunities?

Anyone who claims there aren?t racial prejudices out there is just ignorant at this point. There are far too many documented examples in all aspects of life. To assume the CFL is ?different? is just putting your head in the sand.

The CFL literally had a player suspended this year for making racial comments. Players across the league called for him to be ousted, but the league claiming ?Diversity is Strength? didn?t have the ability to do so. Masoli had to make a social media campaign to pressure the league to look into it at all.

[blue_gold_84]

I think Maas was hired due to his history with Macocia during their time together in Edmonton.

I also don't think he was the best candidate available but I think familiarity and favoritism were the main factors in his being hired. FWIW, I don't think the Alouettes are operating well.

I would say Canada is a very inclusive country with well below average prejudice. Is there none, no. But I know in the social circles that I am in for the past 60 years there sure as heck isn?t. I have a phillipino daughter in law and a native son in-law. 

You need to present evidence if you're to make such a claim. And anecdotal evidence does not count.

It's Filipino, BTW. Or in the case of a female, Filipina.

[TBURGESS]

So across the league, the only person who qualified for an opportunity for the Als was Jason Maas? Or are there other factors at play in certain opportunities?

Anyone who claims there aren?t racial prejudices out there is just ignorant at this point. There are far too many documented examples in all aspects of life. To assume the CFL is ?different? is just putting your head in the sand.

The CFL literally had a player suspended this year for making racial comments. Players across the league called for him to be ousted, but the league claiming ?Diversity is Strength? didn?t have the ability to do so. Masoli had to make a social media campaign to pressure the league to look into it at all.

The person who was hired was Jason Mass that's not the same as the only qualified candidate was Jason Mass. Maybe he was the most qualified or the best fit or both. Why bring race into it unless you actually know that the reason he was hired was his race?

Black businesses hire blacks, native businesses hire natives, etc. They are openly racist and no one bats an eye. The 'White Guilt' folks don't even see it as racist while looking for 'hidden' racism in hires of predominantly non-minority companies. They put in affirmative action quotas, which are racist or sexist by definition, to 'help' the lesser groups achieve equality without even seeing the hypocrisy.

If you have some proof that the Mass hire was the result of racism, then I'd like to see it.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

So across the league, the only person who qualified for an opportunity for the Als was Jason Maas? Or are there other factors at play in certain opportunities?

Anyone who claims there aren?t racial prejudices out there is just ignorant at this point. There are far too many documented examples in all aspects of life. To assume the CFL is ?different? is just putting your head in the sand.

The CFL literally had a player suspended this year for making racial comments. Players across the league called for him to be ousted, but the league claiming ?Diversity is Strength? didn?t have the ability to do so. Masoli had to make a social media campaign to pressure the league to look into it at all.

Who do you think they should have hired instead of Maas, and why do you think anyone outside the Als organization has a right to interfere with Macocia's decision when it's his neck on the line?  Is that how people are hired where you work?

[Jesse]

The person who was hired was Jason Mass that's not the same as the only qualified candidate was Jason Mass. Maybe he was the most qualified or the best fit or both. Why bring race into it unless you actually know that the reason he was hired was his race?

Black businesses hire blacks, native businesses hire natives, etc. They are openly racist and no one bats an eye. The 'White Guilt' folks don't even see it as racist while looking for 'hidden' racism in hires of predominantly non-minority companies. They put in affirmative action quotas, which are racist or sexist by definition, to 'help' the lesser groups achieve equality without even seeing the hypocrisy.

If you have some proof that the Mass hire was the result of racism, then I'd like to see it.

Who do you think they should have hired instead of Maas, and why do you think anyone outside the Als organization has a right to interfere with Macocia's decision when it's his neck on the line?  Is that how people are hired where you work?

Again - no one is saying race should be a criteria. No one is suggesting you should hire one race or another for any specific opportunity. Please don't shift the discussion.

People who have suggested positions are given because of merit - make a merit based case for Mass. Or, do other factors other than merit come into play? You can't have it both ways. No one should have forced Macocia to do anything, but to suggest he actively searched for the best candidate is laughable. He hired his buddy.

[blue_gold_84]

...to suggest he actively searched for the best candidate is laughable. He hired his buddy.

This. Pure favoritism looking at that hire. Maas has no merit whatsoever; he was a terrible HC his first time around.

[TBURGESS]

Again - no one is saying race should be a criteria. No one is suggesting you should hire one race or another for any specific opportunity. Please don't shift the discussion.

People who have suggested positions are given because of merit - make a merit based case for Mass. Or, do other factors other than merit come into play? You can't have it both ways. No one should have forced Macocia to do anything, but to suggest he actively searched for the best candidate is laughable. He hired his buddy.

The title of this discussion is "Employment Equity in the CFL". Employment Equity means: "proactive employment practices to increase the representation of four designated groups: women, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and visible minorities". Indigenous Peoples and visible minorities are race based. We aren't shifting the discussion. We're right on topic.

I'm not going to play the who else would be better game. We all have our own ideas (Personally, I'd rather have Khari than Mass), but none of us are making the decision so it doesn't matter who any of us would choose.

[the paw]

The title of this discussion is "Employment Equity in the CFL". Employment Equity means: "proactive employment practices to increase the representation of four designated groups: women, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and visible minorities". Indigenous Peoples and visible minorities are race based. We aren't shifting the discussion. We're right on topic.

I'm not going to play the who else would be better game. We all have our own ideas (Personally, I'd rather have Khari than Mass), but none of us are making the decision so it doesn't matter who any of us would choose.

" Proactive employment practices" are different than quotas or simplistic notions of race as criteria for a specific hire.  They are more about tracking results and having vigilance to eliminate barriers that the status quo tend not to see.  Your over simplification is a straw man.

Having said that, I think the hiring of Maas is defensible.  I don't know enough about Maccioca to speculate about his reasons for canning Khari.  But not having a single black coach on the Al's staff is troubling....

[theaardvark]

I really don't think we, as a Canadian league, have anywhere hear the issues they have in the NFL.

Players, coaches, all get opportunities based on skill and character.  Does that create a racial bias somewhere along the line?  I don't think specifically, but i can see how it could be construed that way.

We have had diversity in the league all along.  Be it size, race, talent or even sexual orientation, the CFL is a more embracing landing site for players.  Many players make it here based solely on heart, look at a guy like Wade "Rudy" Miller.  One of the leagues all time ST players, who was kept on a roster due to work ethic and heart.  

Yes, the optics of Khari being replaced by Maas is not good.  But then again, Lapo got replaced by Dyce in the same year.  I don't think either case ha anything to do with race.  But the woke agenda demands it.  

I think "affirmative action" is something that should be taught, but not mandated.  Making people aware in their hiring practice to not give a diversity hire either preference or discrimination is the key.  As soon as you start making hires based on race, creed or sex, you are asking for a fan base to over criticize that hire.  Not that they won't do that anyway, but it has to be done right to ensure that they don't get the "He/she/they were hired to fit quota"

Best person for the job has always been a CFL proud spot.  We have had far more QB's, coaches, gm's or colour than the NFL, many of whom got thier pro start here, and then moved to the NFL after having the opportunity.

We are far from perfect in diversity, but we are far from offensively non-diverse.  

As to the Maas hiring in MTL, Macchocia will be judged on it.  If he hired someone unequipped for the job, then he will pay for that decision.  The fact that the MTL team president is not being renewed is also a consideration here.  If you hire out of bias and without merit, you are doomed to fail and lose your job.

Pretty simple, really...

[ModAdmin]

Without going into detail or commenting on this thread, a friend of mine had to fill out a registration form that stipulated you had to give your "Race".  The friend wrote "Human Race".  If only everyone could view the world that way!

[Jesse]

Without going into detail or commenting on this thread, a friend of mine had to fill out a registration form that stipulated you had to give your "Race".  The friend wrote "Human Race".  If only everyone could view the world that way!

I disagree.

People come from a wide range of backgrounds. We are different. The idea is to acknowledge those differences and differing viewpoints as strengths - without holding obvious or even subconscious biases against those who are different from us.

[GOLDMEMBER]

Thanks paw for opening this can of worms over the holidays. Bravo! Nothing like inequality points of  contention over the holiday season. 

[blue_gold_84]

I disagree.

People come from a wide range of backgrounds. We are different. The idea is to acknowledge those differences and differing viewpoints as strengths - without holding obvious or even subconscious biases against those who are different from us.

What does that have to do with race, though? It's a social construct and an antiquated way to categorize people based on little more than skin colour (melanin concentration).

Thanks paw for opening this can of worms over the holidays. Bravo! Nothing like inequality points of contention over the holiday season. 

Your participation in this thread isn't mandatory. And why does it matter what time of year it is? These important social issues don't go away just because it's the "holiday season."

[Jesse]

Thanks paw for opening this can of worms over the holidays. Bravo! Nothing like inequality points of  contention over the holiday season. 

I think we?re mostly being respectful. And it?s in the context of football hiring practices.

What does that have to do with race, though? It's a social construct and an antiquated way to categorize people based on little more than skin colour (melanin concentration).

I get what you?re trying to say; and biologically, I?m sure you?re mostly correct.

However it ignores that skin colour is indicative of cultural and experiential differences. It ignores the simple reality that racism does exist and people are treated differently based on how they look and where they?re from.

[Tiger]

The population argument is a bit of a red herring.

New coaches are often drawn from former players. The percentage of black players in football is far greater than 5 or 12 percent.

Sure,  point taken,  but usually equity applies to population.

Let?s use number of players then.  But that in and out itself is also inaccurate. How many are American and want to return to the USA? How many have better job or career opportunities, such as working their way up the US college ranks or a job they trained for in university. 

Can you give me one example where African Americans were discriminated against in CFL head coach hiring?

[the paw]

Sure,  point taken,  but usually equity applies to population.

Let?s use number of players then.  But that in and out itself is also inaccurate. How many are American and want to return to the USA? How many have better job or career opportunities, such as working their way up the US college ranks or a job they trained for in university. 

Can you give me one example where African Americans were discriminated against in CFL head coach hiring?

The population comparison is more directly relevant if you were to apply it to admin staff, concessions, stadium personnel, marketing, etc.  the club?s staff should be roughly representative of the community.  In terms of coaches, this is a job where former players have relevant experience, and it isn?t unreasonable to suggest that a league built around players who age out in their early 30s should provide opportunities to that player group.  As you say, not all want to coach (or coach in Canada) but there are enough that we should expect the coaching population to bear some resemblance to the player demographics.

My argument is that the CFL is actually pretty close to the mark when you look at the pool of all coaches. Not perfect, but pretty good. 

However, asking for a specific example of discrimination in head coaching hires is to miss the point.  Some, perhaps most, of the bias is applied unconsciously.  GMs are simply hiring ?their guy?, and sometimes that comfort might reflect unconscious bias.  And if there was an overtly racist GM, he certainly isn?t going to go on the record saying that?s why he didn?t make a hire.

But we can certainly infer systemic discrimination from results.  Willie Wood was the first black head coach in 1980.  But African Americans had been a substantive percentage for many years before that.  I looked at the 1978 Bomber roster and it appears about 25% were African American (this was before the explosion of DI positions, and at a time when the number of Black Canadian players was much smaller).  But 25% is still a lot, and not one black head coach before 1980?  One can only conclude there were barriers.

Since then, the situation for coaches has improved dramatically.  A few years ago, 4/9 head coaches were black.  A temporary dip to 2 isn?t cause for immediate concern to me, but it does bear watching.  So long as the the pool of all coaches runs 40-50% as persons of colour, then the head coach numbers will take care of themselves.

[bomb squad]

Without going into detail or commenting on this thread, a friend of mine had to fill out a registration form that stipulated you had to give your "Race".  The friend wrote "Human Race".  If only everyone could view the world that way!

Can I ask you to provide just one detail please (if you know)? What was the registration for?

[TecnoGenius]

not all want to coach (or coach in Canada) but there are enough that we should expect the coaching population to bear some resemblance to the player demographics.

You apply that logic to HC vs player population, but then turn around and refuse to apply it to player vs Canadian population.  Can't have it both ways.

As was already stated, maybe 5% of Canadians are black, but 50%+ of the CFL players are black.  According to your ideals on "equity" shouldn't we get that 50% down to 5%?  If it's so important that any subgroup of a group reflect its proportional diversity, then it should apply to all such subgroup/group relationships.  Otherwise it's hypocritical.

As others also said, the CFL is probably one of the best organizations in Canada when it comes to "diversity" and meritocracy.  You know, the whole think MLK was striving for?  Is the CFL perfect?  Who knows.  But when the Bombers suit up and go to war, they are in it to back their brothers no matter what they look like.  You can take that to the bank.

If you hire your buddy who sucks, or matches an arbitrary color preference, rather than the best guy for the job, you will lose games.  Then you all lose your jobs and everyone hates you.  This isn't some cushy office job where you can hide incompetence.  Hiring on anything except merit (within your budget) is suicide in the CFL.  No one hires a Hurl when they can get a Muamba at the same price, no matter their personal prejudice.

Maas got hired because, really, who else is there?  Killam is being groomed for arguably the best HC gig in the CFL.  Buck is most likely being groomed and promised the world here.  There's so few good current ones, and slim pickings in the coordinator pipelines.  Kind of like the CFL's QB situation.  Forcing "equity" isn't going to make any of this better.  No one here had ever heard of the word before 2015*.  We don't need to all subscribe to the "latest thing", you know.

* outside a business/shares definition

[the paw]

You apply that logic to HC vs player population, but then turn around and refuse to apply it to player vs Canadian population.  Can't have it both ways.

As was already stated, maybe 5% of Canadians are black, but 50%+ of the CFL players are black.  According to your ideals on "equity" shouldn't we get that 50% down to 5%?  If it's so important that any subgroup of a group reflect its proportional diversity, then it should apply to all such subgroup/group relationships.  Otherwise it's hypocritical.

As others also said, the CFL is probably one of the best organizations in Canada when it comes to "diversity" and meritocracy.  You know, the whole think MLK was striving for?  Is the CFL perfect?  Who knows.  But when the Bombers suit up and go to war, they are in it to back their brothers no matter what they look like.  You can take that to the bank.

If you hire your buddy who sucks, or matches an arbitrary color preference, rather than the best guy for the job, you will lose games.  Then you all lose your jobs and everyone hates you.  This isn't some cushy office job where you can hide incompetence.  Hiring on anything except merit (within your budget) is suicide in the CFL.  No one hires a Hurl when they can get a Muamba at the same price, no matter their personal prejudice.

Maas got hired because, really, who else is there?  Killam is being groomed for arguably the best HC gig in the CFL.  Buck is most likely being groomed and promised the world here.  There's so few good current ones, and slim pickings in the coordinator pipelines.  Kind of like the CFL's QB situation.  Forcing "equity" isn't going to make any of this better.  No one here had ever heard of the word before 2015*.  We don't need to all subscribe to the "latest thing", you know.

* outside a business/shares definition

Son, the fact that you think employment equity was unheard of before 2015 reflects a deficiency in your education.  It has been a central social and policy issue since the 1960's.  Go back to your social studies teachers and get your money back.

It kind of makes it difficult to take the rest of your arguments seriously. 

[TBURGESS]

the club?s staff should be roughly representative of the community. ... we should expect the coaching population to bear some resemblance to the player demographics.

You're stating the idea behind "Employment Equity" as a fact. Why should the staff roughly represent the community? Why should the coaching staff represent the players demographics? Why are you using two different demographics to define "Equity"?  Why shouldn't the best players, staff, coaches get the jobs regardless of race?

I'd guess that there are more black players than white in the CFL. That's not roughly representative of Canadian communities, nor should it be. It's based on the best players get the jobs, not on trying to force teams to look like their community. The same should hold true for all levels of the clubs.

Equity can only be achieved if we, as a society, stop trying to define anything in terms of race. It starts with Governments removing race from all laws. Any law that needs to know your race or skin colour to be applied is racist by definition.

Merry Xmas.

[theaardvark]

25 years ago, my wife's workplace went under the pay equity microscope.  The auditors ended up giving her a 50% raise because she was actually doing more and had more responsibilities than her boss.  The audit was to assess all positions regardless title and reward employees that were being underpaid.

The fact that almost 100% of the pay bumps went to women alarmed no one.

Employment equity has been a thing for decades,  I really think that great strides have been made, in all facets of life, but we're not done yet,  For as diverse a country as we are, with the issues we have in everyday life, I think the CFL has done a pretty good job so far, and I have every faith it will continue to do so.

[ModAdmin]

Can I ask you to provide just one detail please (if you know)? What was the registration for?

I don't know what the registration was for.  It was several years ago and I would imagine questions like this may not exist any more.  My point in posting the info was to suggest what's inside us is what is important rather than outside appearance.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I don't know what the registration was for.  It was several years ago and I would imagine questions like this may not exist any more.  My point in posting the info was to suggest what's inside us is what is important rather than outside appearance.

I've definitely seen questions on forms the last few years asking if I was a member of a visible minority or of aboriginal background. Can't recall what they were related to either, but most likely some govt. program.

[the paw]

You're stating the idea behind "Employment Equity" as a fact. Why should the staff roughly represent the community? Why should the coaching staff represent the players demographics? Why are you using two different demographics to define "Equity"?  Why shouldn't the best players, staff, coaches get the jobs regardless of race?

I'd guess that there are more black players than white in the CFL. That's not roughly representative of Canadian communities, nor should it be. It's based on the best players get the jobs, not on trying to force teams to look like their community. The same should hold true for all levels of the clubs.

Equity can only be achieved if we, as a society, stop trying to define anything in terms of race. It starts with Governments removing race from all laws. Any law that needs to know your race or skin colour to be applied is racist by definition.

Merry Xmas.

Yeah, I'm not highly motivated to participate in your contrarian shenanigans.  If you want to stay mired in some sort of 1950's "colour-blind" libertarian ideology, that's up to you, but I think society has passed you by. 

[Jesse]

Yeah, I'm not highly motivated to participate in your contrarian shenanigans.  If you want to stay mired in some sort of 1950's "colour-blind" libertarian ideology, that's up to you, but I think society has passed you by. 

It's tough - because it's important to have open discussions such as these to help move away from some of those deeply held feelings (that many people still have). It's an easy line of thought: best person gets the job, n = 1, etc. But ignores the fact marginalized communities became marginalized through racist laws and policies over the course of centuries and expecting things to just suddenly be equal for all is simply so unrealistic I can't believe so many can buy into it.

[blue_or_die]

You're stating the idea behind "Employment Equity" as a fact. Why should the staff roughly represent the community? Why should the coaching staff represent the players demographics? Why are you using two different demographics to define "Equity"?  Why shouldn't the best players, staff, coaches get the jobs regardless of race?

I'd guess that there are more black players than white in the CFL. That's not roughly representative of Canadian communities, nor should it be. It's based on the best players get the jobs, not on trying to force teams to look like their community. The same should hold true for all levels of the clubs.

Equity can only be achieved if we, as a society, stop trying to define anything in terms of race. It starts with Governments removing race from all laws. Any law that needs to know your race or skin colour to be applied is racist by definition.

Merry Xmas.

The prevailing thought is, if race is not a factor in ability and we're colour blind, then statistically it should all come out in the wash. If White people and Black people can be equally capable of doing a job like coaching, then the amount in that position should be congruent with the demographics/population distribution. So if, for example, 100% of coaches were White, that means that, if we are to believe White and Black folks are capable of achieving this feat equally, there is some inherent barrier to having a proportional amount of Black people as coaches. If one thinks that the reason that 100% of coaches are White is because White people are way better coaches, that's racism.

When you're asked these types of questions, it's not always to "make quota". It's usually for statistical purposes to detect these barriers are in their practices and to try and address them. We shouldn't flatter ourselves by thinking that a form cares so deeply about how we personally answer on it.

[TBURGESS]

Yeah, I'm not highly motivated to participate in your contrarian shenanigans.  If you want to stay mired in some sort of 1950's "colour-blind" libertarian ideology, that's up to you, but I think society has passed you by. 

They're simple questions that go to the heart of the issue. If you can't answer them, then you haven't thought them through.

I'm not color-blind. No one is & that includes people of colour.

The prevailing thought is, if race is not a factor in ability and we're colour blind, then statistically it should all come out in the wash. If White people and Black people can be equally capable of doing a job like coaching, then the amount in that position should be congruent with the demographics/population distribution. So if, for example, 100% of coaches were White, that means that, if we are to believe White and Black folks are capable of achieving this feat equally, there is some inherent barrier to having a proportional amount of Black people as coaches. If one thinks that the reason that 100% of coaches are White is because White people are way better coaches, that's racism.

When you're asked these types of questions, it's not always to "make quota". It's usually for statistical purposes to detect these barriers are in their practices and to try and address them. We shouldn't flatter ourselves by thinking that a form cares so deeply about how we personally answer on it.

The THEORY that statistically speaking it should come out in the wash is so simplistic as to be useless because it only takes race into account. It doesn't take training, education, economic factors, or a plethora of other data points into account which are as important if not more important than race. Example: Rich folks who went to the right schools & know the right people will get way more opportunities than poor folks who might not even have a high school education, who don't know the right people and it doesn't matter what colour their skin is or where their ancestors were born.

The chances of finding two identical prospects one white, one 'of colour' for every job you post is statistically insignificant. That's what you would need to make the theory relevant.

The Human Rights Act says you can't discriminate based on: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. The Employment Equity Act (EEA) says you must discriminate in favor of 4 special rights groups - women, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and visible minorities (Defined as Not White).  (Note: Reverse discrimination is still discrimination) It takes some serious mental gymnastics to say both can be applied at the same time. Examples: I can't discriminate based on sex, but I must discriminate in favour of the Women. I can't discriminate based on colour, but I must discriminate in favour or visible minorities.

I believe in equality of opportunity, the EEA is trying to enforce equality of results. I believe that any two people who do the same job equally well, should be paid the same. (That won't happen unless people share salary information). I believe that employer's should be able to choose whoever they think is the best candidate regardless of race or sex or the local demographics. I believe that employer's will find ways to 'get around', IE discriminate against those that they want to. Example: I know of a women run company that won't hire women of child rearing age unless they already have a couple of kids because that means holding the job open if/when they get pregnant.

[blue_gold_84]

Imagine claiming that the EEA is discriminatory legislation. LOL

[Ricky Bobby]

Just about time to shut this topic down, I can see where it's headed and it's not good.

[pjrocksmb]

You don't know this to be true unless you track the outcomes.  Based on the data in this thread, I would say that the CFL is doing pretty well, all things considered.  

Your broader statement about Canada's love for diversity and inclusion is a little less evident in our collective history.  Not to say we don't have those values, but we certainly lived up to them as completely as we might have.  The Canadian Museum on Human Rights has many stories about where we could have been better.  We don't have to necessarily hang our heads, but neither should we bury them in the sand....

That's fine to say, but that's not how things play out in the real world.  An evaluation of diversity-based hires in the NFL showed that despite black head coaches outperforming the average, they had shorter tenures and were fired more frequently.  That doesn't happen by accident.

https://www.playcanada.com/news/cfl-diversity-coaching-front-office-nfl-flores/
 

As usual the paw is bang on here and I also read your other comments and we are very lucky to have your voice on here man

What?s in the past is in the past and you?re right we could have done waaay better. But present day, I would say Canada is a very inclusive country with well below average prejudice. Is there none, no. But I know in the social circles that I am in for the past 60 years there sure as heck isn?t. I have a phillipino daughter in law and a native son in-law. That didn?t happen 60 years ago.

And don?t compare Canada and the cfl with the nfl for prejudice. They are still battling race issues big time. Ain?t nobody kneeling during our national anthem

Disagree mostly with this post and your previous.  Canada has a long way to go to both heal from problems and issues we have had in the past and also to improve on the present and future situation. 

People of colour / Indigenous/ Inuit / Metis/lgbtqia2s+/ poor and marginalized folks have always faced many barriers (including employment) and serious injustice in this nation.  We are headed in the right direction and I am a proud  Canadian (but also very disappointed in our past).  We have so much more to do.

Thanks for everyone being as respectful as they can on this discussion and thanks to the mods for allowing it to stay.

In the past we have shut down posts like this and it's time we discuss this stuff.  Can't move forward otherwise.

Google unconscious racial bias; almost everyone has it (I know I do).  Having the self awareness on this topic and admitting ones faults is the 1st step to figuring out a better future imo.

[TBURGESS]

Imagine claiming that the EEA is discriminatory legislation. LOL

Imagine not being able to see the discrimination in it. LOL.

[blue_gold_84]

Imagine not being able to see the discrimination in it. LOL.

Feel free to back up your claim, rather than your usual retorts.

[blue_or_die]

The THEORY that statistically speaking it should come out in the wash is so simplistic as to be useless because it only takes race into account. It doesn't take training, education, economic factors, or a plethora of other data points into account which are as important if not more important than race. Example: Rich folks who went to the right schools & know the right people will get way more opportunities than poor folks who might not even have a high school education, who don't know the right people and it doesn't matter what colour their skin is or where their ancestors were born.

The chances of finding two identical prospects one white, one 'of colour' for every job you post is statistically insignificant. That's what you would need to make the theory relevant.

The Human Rights Act says you can't discriminate based on: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. The Employment Equity Act (EEA) says you must discriminate in favor of 4 special rights groups - women, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and visible minorities (Defined as Not White).  (Note: Reverse discrimination is still discrimination) It takes some serious mental gymnastics to say both can be applied at the same time. Examples: I can't discriminate based on sex, but I must discriminate in favour of the Women. I can't discriminate based on colour, but I must discriminate in favour or visible minorities.

I believe in equality of opportunity, the EEA is trying to enforce equality of results. I believe that any two people who do the same job equally well, should be paid the same. (That won't happen unless people share salary information). I believe that employer's should be able to choose whoever they think is the best candidate regardless of race or sex or the local demographics. I believe that employer's will find ways to 'get around', IE discriminate against those that they want to. Example: I know of a women run company that won't hire women of child rearing age unless they already have a couple of kids because that means holding the job open if/when they get pregnant.

You're entirely right (bolded part) and that's kind of the point, right? At the group level, there are historical reasons how certain folks don't get the same opportunities and so intervention/correction is a way to compensate and "catch up" those groups. It is by no means clean or fair (to anyone) but that's how I understand it. Fixing mistakes of the past is complicated and I don't think there's a way to do it that is clean or fair to everyone. If it's status quo, the outcomes will continue to be skewed indefinitely. Things are getting better but it's a much slower process without intervention.

[theaardvark]

I think the issue some have with affirmative action is that "all things being equal" is never a case, no two candidates are exactly the same except for colour. 

Which allows for interpretation and selection based on a personal bias, and in today's environment, there are those that say a diversity hire may get selected over a non-diverse applicant solely based on diversity.  So, a "reverse discrimination" gets them angry.

Does this happen more than the opposite does?  Are "diversity hires" being made purely to appease "Employment Equity"?  No doubt that someone can find examples of both. 

Neither are correct, but one gets applauded, and the other vilified.  In either case, if a less qualified applicant is hired for a position, it is unfair to the organization and the applicant. 

There is no correct answer short of letting every candidate succeed or fail on talent and ability alone.  Hopefully that becomes the norm, and people stop judging, either way, a hire based on anything but talent.  And organizations are judged based on their results, not their group picture.

[TBURGESS]

You're entirely right (bolded part) and that's kind of the point, right? At the group level, there are historical reasons how certain folks don't get the same opportunities and so intervention/correction is a way to compensate and "catch up" those groups. It is by no means clean or fair (to anyone) but that's how I understand it. Fixing mistakes of the past is complicated and I don't think there's a way to do it that is clean or fair to everyone. If it's status quo, the outcomes will continue to be skewed indefinitely. Things are getting better but it's a much slower process without intervention.

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

I'm not suggesting the status quo. I'm saying that women, natives and people of colour are equal to men, non-natives, and non people of colour. I agree that we need to give disabled people additional help.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

The EEA is just another example of looking like you're doing something without actually doing much of anything. Just check of some boxes to show you're doing the 'right thing'. You can't fix racism with reverse racism or sexism with reverse sexism. You need to address the root problems like education, poverty, language skills, etc. You need to remove all references to every group that can't be discriminated against in the HRA from CV's. Removing first names would be helpful, but people could still make pretty good guesses based on last names. Maybe the names should be removed before even making the interview list. Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I think the issue some have with affirmative action is that "all things being equal" is never a case, no two candidates are exactly the same except for colour. 

Which allows for interpretation and selection based on a personal bias, and in today's environment, there are those that say a diversity hire may get selected over a non-diverse applicant solely based on diversity.  So, a "reverse discrimination" gets them angry.

Does this happen more than the opposite does?  Are "diversity hires" being made purely to appease "Employment Equity"?  No doubt that someone can find examples of both. 

Neither are correct, but one gets applauded, and the other vilified.  In either case, if a less qualified applicant is hired for a position, it is unfair to the organization and the applicant. 

There is no correct answer short of letting every candidate succeed or fail on talent and ability alone.  Hopefully that becomes the norm, and people stop judging, either way, a hire based on anything but talent.  And organizations are judged based on their results, not their group picture.

Case in point Vernon Adams is currently the only black QB listed as a CFL starter and his grip on the position is tenuous at best.  We all know this has nothing to do with race and is a matter of finding the most proficient QB available for the job at the time, as all CFL teams main objective is to win as many games as possible. 

That being said black QB's coming out of the US may have faced discrimination along the way through their high school and college careers, which put them on an unequal footing competing for the limited QB opportunities in pro football. I don't know what the ratio is in the NFL at this time, so I can't say whether this is just a current CFL anomaly, but there have been plenty of black starting QB's in the past 40 years.

[Jesse]

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

I'm not suggesting the status quo. I'm saying that women, natives and people of colour are equal to men, non-natives, and non people of colour. I agree that we need to give disabled people additional help.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

The EEA is just another example of looking like you're doing something without actually doing much of anything. Just check of some boxes to show you're doing the 'right thing'. You can't fix racism with reverse racism or sexism with reverse sexism. You need to address the root problems like education, poverty, language skills, etc. You need to remove all references to every group that can't be discriminated against in the HRA from CV's. Removing first names would be helpful, but people could still make pretty good guesses based on last names. Maybe the names should be removed before even making the interview list. Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

There's no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism, first of all.

Companies who hire "token" people are kind of the reason some of these policies have to exist. If you're in charge of a large enough company and there's a noticeable lack of diversity of any marginalized groups, it probably means that there are systematic barriers keeping those groups from getting jobs at your company.

Again, it is not about forcing people to hire anyone. It is not about, "this next job has to go to the race or sex or gender". It is about understanding why and addressing the barriers in place.

All of your points come from a place that assume all people are born with the same opportunities. It is unfortunately not true. It is also unfortunately true that the colour of your skin, sex, gender, age, religion, sexual preference affects all of those other things you mention; ie, "training, education, economic factors, or a plethora of other data points". To ignore that is to want to keep the status quo - which isn't uncommon for a lot of people - but it's still wrong (And always has been).

[blue_or_die]

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

I'm not suggesting the status quo. I'm saying that women, natives and people of colour are equal to men, non-natives, and non people of colour. I agree that we need to give disabled people additional help.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

The EEA is just another example of looking like you're doing something without actually doing much of anything. Just check of some boxes to show you're doing the 'right thing'. You can't fix racism with reverse racism or sexism with reverse sexism. You need to address the root problems like education, poverty, language skills, etc. You need to remove all references to every group that can't be discriminated against in the HRA from CV's. Removing first names would be helpful, but people could still make pretty good guesses based on last names. Maybe the names should be removed before even making the interview list. Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

...But those things are inextricably linked. Differences in experience, training, etc. can be traced to lagging behind in those opportunities for historical reasons, i.e. discrimination.

And so you don't think we can change the past but want to change the present and future? Well that's exactly what's trying to be accomplished here.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

It gives them the opportunity that they wouldn't otherwise have. No one is suggesting that unqualified candidates should be hired, but rather given a pool of qualified candidates, is perhaps the reason the non-best candidate is such due to additional barriers they experience? If the workplace currently doesn't reflect the demographic distribution, then the answer is yes.

Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

It actually does address racism because it compensates for historical racism (so yes, it is possible to fix mistakes of the past). Racism or sexism in the workplace (or anywhere else) is not really the old white man who runs a business and just doesn't care for black people and thinks women belong in the kitchen, it's having populations that are in the state they're in due to historical discrimination that's lead to less opportunities and therefore incongruent representation in the workplace. If I was in charge of hiring for a job, and and my pool of qualified candidates came down to say a white man and indigenous woman, the white man would statistically be more qualified and so I'd very likely give him the job. If this perpetuates, that other person and group she's a part of would never have the opportunity to overcome those historical circumstances. Yes, it comes at the expense of a more qualified candidate and so white men (like myself, I should add) are eating it here. There's probably no way of doing this without tradeoffs.

So with that, your last comment about people needing to be trained to look past these factors (while still true) is a bit of a red herring because an individual not being considered for a position is likely not to their race but because of the lack of opportunities given over their lives and even generations before that lead to that situation in the first place...which is linked to racism. While it's true that this situation can't be rectified overnight, we shouldn't accept that this will just take a very long time without taking any real action beyond telling kids they should be open minded when they grow up.

[TBURGESS]

There's no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism, first of all.

Companies who hire "token" people are kind of the reason some of these policies have to exist. If you're in charge of a large enough company and there's a noticeable lack of diversity of any marginalized groups, it probably means that there are systematic barriers keeping those groups from getting jobs at your company.

Again, it is not about forcing people to hire anyone. It is not about, "this next job has to go to the race or sex or gender". It is about understanding why and addressing the barriers in place.

All of your points come from a place that assume all people are born with the same opportunities. It is unfortunately not true. It is also unfortunately true that the colour of your skin, sex, gender, age, religion, sexual preference affects all of those other things you mention; ie, "training, education, economic factors, or a plethora of other data points". To ignore that is to want to keep the status quo - which isn't uncommon for a lot of people - but it's still wrong (And always has been).

Reverse racism is racism.

Companies hiring token people are the result of policies like this, not the reason for them.

Disabled people likely have physical barriers in place. Those things can & should be eliminated or at least minimized. Barriers for people of colour, natives and women are much harder to address and simply forcing companies to hire them doesn't address them.

I'm not assuming that all people are born with the same opportunities, quite the contrary. I'm saying working on the things that reduce opportunities is a better plan than check boxes on a form or pro special groups racism.

[TBURGESS]

@BlueOrDie
Differences in training etc are linked more to poverty than to race. I'm saying we need to address those things no matter the color of your skin is or your sex.

Qualified candidates don't come from poverty no matter their race or sex. We need to attack poverty. Everyone should have enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, a good education, medical & RX (No use in knowing what's wrong if you can't get the drugs to help you). Training is key to lifting people out of poverty and to getting better jobs.

The myth of two equally qualified people for each job is used to justify giving special groups special access to jobs that they wouldn't get otherwise. (If they're the best candidates in the first place, they wouldn't need the EEA) It also justifies the idea that X number of EEA people would already be in the jobs if racism didn't exist.

White Guilt justifies giving non-white groups a leg up because of what their ancestors went through. That's treating non-whites as lesser peoples who can't get ahead on their own merit, which simply isn't true. 

You can't change the past, no matter how much you may want to. The few hundred extra opportunities the EEA gives is a drop in the bucket. It makes some folks feel good about what they are doing for people of colour and women. It gives some companies the ability to crow about how racially sensitive they are. It doesn't fix anything for most people who the EEA considers special.

[blue_or_die]

@BlueOrDie
Differences in training etc are linked more to poverty than to race. I'm saying we need to address those things no matter the color of your skin is or your sex.

Qualified candidates don't come from poverty no matter their race or sex. We need to attack poverty. Everyone should have enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, a good education, medical & RX (No use in knowing what's wrong if you can't get the drugs to help you). Training is key to lifting people out of poverty and to getting better jobs.

The myth of two equally qualified people for each job is used to justify giving special groups special access to jobs that they wouldn't get otherwise. (If they're the best candidates in the first place, they wouldn't need the EEA) It also justifies the idea that X number of EEA people would already be in the jobs if racism didn't exist.

White Guilt justifies giving non-white groups a leg up because of what their ancestors went through. That's treating non-whites as lesser peoples who can't get ahead on their own merit, which simply isn't true. 

You can't change the past, no matter how much you may want to. The few hundred extra opportunities the EEA gives is a drop in the bucket. It makes some folks feel good about what they are doing for people of colour and women. It gives some companies the ability to crow about how racially sensitive they are. It doesn't fix anything for most people who the EEA considers special.

Differences in training etc are linked more to poverty than to race. I'm saying we need to address those things no matter the color of your skin is or your sex.

Qualified candidates don't come from poverty no matter their race or sex. We need to attack poverty. Everyone should have enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, a good education, medical & RX (No use in knowing what's wrong if you can't get the drugs to help you). Training is key to lifting people out of poverty and to getting better jobs.

Sure, but that's a bit of a straw man in the context of what we're talking about because to eliminate poverty and to have those effects ripple through to the extent we want not only would take generations, but is just an example of one tool that can be used. I'm saying "yes" to your suggestion but employment equity and poverty reduction, etc. do not have to be mutually exclusive. What's attractive about giving people an opportunity to excel that they may otherwise not get is that it's relatively immediately effective by comparison and has an indirect positive feedback. For example, inspiring others in the same group who are able to physically see someone who looks like them in a position of power they didn't even know was possible.

The myth of two equally qualified people for each job is used to justify giving special groups special access to jobs that they wouldn't get otherwise. (If they're the best candidates in the first place, they wouldn't need the EEA) It also justifies the idea that X number of EEA people would already be in the jobs if racism didn't exist.

That's....exactly right, yeah. Again, we aren't talking about giving jobs to unqualified people, we're talking about making a tradeoff for two *similar* candidates but where one comes from a group that may have lacked the same opportunities and correcting for that at the expense of someone else with no barriers who may only be a slightly better candidate.

You can't change the past, no matter how much you may want to. The few hundred extra opportunities the EEA gives is a drop in the bucket. It makes some folks feel good about what they are doing for people of colour and women. It gives some companies the ability to crow about how racially sensitive they are. It doesn't fix anything for most people who the EEA considers special.

You think that it if all companies had workforces that reflected population demographics that it would only result in a few hundred new opportunities? That's Rider math. I'm not talking about virtue signaling bs, I'm talking about an impactful change for how we approach workforce management. And having the chance at a role you wouldn't normally absolutely does fix things. If you can give a little economic power to a group that's never had the same access to, how is that "nothing"?

[TBURGESS]

If you want impactful change, the EEA isn't what your looking for. It just applies to a small group of businesses that deal with Government contracts. It doesn't cover most businesses in Canada including the CFL. A few hundred jobs isn't Rider math, it's a reasonable guesstimate.

The EEA is virtue signalling. Give jobs to a few people, who otherwise wouldn't get the jobs, because we understand how racism affected & affects their families. What evolved people we are.

No, I don't think that companies need to or even should match the local demographics. That's not what the EEA does anyway. It says that white owned companies should match the local demographics, but people of colour & women can totally ignore the demographics. I think companies should hire the best candidates period. Full stop.

[blue_or_die]

I guess we?re talking about different things because I?m talking generally, not specific to EEA legislation.

I think companies should hire highly qualified candidates while also considering other factors, full stop.

[blue_gold_84]

So, still no evidence showing how the EEA is discriminatory...?

Oh, okay.

[blue_gold_84]

Still nothing. LOL

[ModAdmin]

It's both racist and discriminatory. Racist because it uses race to determine who it applies to and discriminatory because it discriminates against those who it doesn't apply to. 

The EEA states...

"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."

It further states...

"Every employer shall implement employment equity by:

    (a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers against persons in designated groups that result from the employer's employment systems, policies and practices that are not authorized by law."

Seems that the intent of the Act is to correct a situation that was inequitable to some people and create a balanced approach to employment.

Is your solution to scrap the Act and go back to what many believe was discrimination?

[TBURGESS]

The EEA states...

"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."

It further states...

"Every employer shall implement employment equity by:

    (a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers against persons in designated groups that result from the employer's employment systems, policies and practices that are not authorized by law."

Seems that the intent of the Act is to correct a situation that was inequitable to some people and create a balanced approach to employment.

Is your solution to scrap the Act and go back to what many believe was discrimination?

It says no groups shall be denied employment opportunities, then states which special groups get special opportunities.

It pretends that there are two equally qualified people for jobs and that employer's should hire the special group over the other one.

It pretends that companies, run by white people, should have the same demographics as the population. It doesn't apply to companies run by the special groups. IE: It doesn't try to change their ethnic make up. Hint: It shouldn't try to do either.

It pretends that equity, which is being just and fair, is giving special groups special rights.

It suggests that inequality means "too few of the special groups being hired".

The act is Canada's version of Affirmative Action & it applies to very few businesses. The CFL is not covered by it. It's more that you and yours want to apply it to the CFL than me wanting to get rid of it.

I want to get rid of it because it's a white guilt based, racist & discriminatory. It doesn't make up for the past, doesn't apply to everyone or to every business & doesn't make any kind of dent in the problem. A few hundred less qualified folks aren't going to make it easier for the next generation.

[ModAdmin]

It says no groups shall be denied employment opportunities, then states which special groups get special opportunities.

It pretends that there are two equally qualified people for jobs and that employer's should hire the special group over the other one.

It pretends that companies, run by white people, should have the same demographics as the population. It doesn't apply to companies run by the special groups. IE: It doesn't try to change their ethnic make up. Hint: It shouldn't try to do either.

It pretends thatess equity, which is being just and fair, is giving special groups special rights.

It suggests that inequality means "too few of the special groups being hired".

The act is Canada's version of Affirmative Action & it applies to very few businesses. The CFL is not covered by it. It's more that you and yours want to apply it to the CFL than me wanting to get rid of it.

I want to get rid of it because it's a white guilt based, racist & discriminatory. It doesn't make up for the past, doesn't apply to everyone or to every business & doesn't make any kind of dent in the problem. A few hundred less qualified folks aren't going to make it easier for the next generation.

I guess we have different opinions on the EEA then.

[TBURGESS]

I guess we have different opinions on the EEA then.

I guess you have White Guilt and I don't.

[ModAdmin]

I guess you have White Guilt and I don't.

I guess you really don't know very much about me.

[blue_gold_84]

Aaaaaand still nothing. LOL

I guess we have different opinions on the EEA then.

You have the right one.

Terry has yet to actually present evidence the EEA is discriminatory and would rather resort to repeatedly using fabricated nonsensical terms like white guilt, virtue signaling, and reverse racism.

[TBURGESS]

Aaaaaand still nothing. LOL

You have the right one.

Terry has yet to actually present evidence the EEA is discriminatory and would rather resort to repeatedly using fabricated nonsensical terms like white guilt, virtue signaling, and reverse racism.

Just cuz you can't make sense of white guilt, virtue signalling and reverse racism (Actually I'd argue that all racism is simple racism, including reverse racism) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just cuz you can't understand the evidence that the EEA is discriminatory doesn't mean it isn't.

The EEA discriminates against the non-special groups. Lets try this one last time. If there was an act that said White males must be given special rights you'd be able see the discrimination, racism and sexism in it because it's obvious. The same holds true when you give different groups special rights, but you refuse to admit it.

I guess you really don't know very much about me.

You're right I don't know you, but I do know that your opinion matches either white guilt or being one of the special groups.

[Jesse]

Just cuz you can't make sense of white guilt, virtue signalling and reverse racism doesn't mean they don't exist.

They don't exist.

They are catch phrases for people who don't want to upset the status quo and are afraid to not have all the advantages they once did.

With that, I'll be bowing out of this discussion. I will no longer give this counter-argument a platform for their discourse. I recommend others do the same.

Always open to DMs for respectful discussion.

[blue_gold_84]

Just cuz you can't make sense of white guilt, virtue signalling and reverse racism (Actually I'd argue that all racism is simple racism, including reverse racism) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just cuz you can't understand the evidence that the EEA is discriminatory doesn't mean it isn't.

The EEA discriminates against the non-special groups. Lets try this one last time. If there was an act that said White males must be given special rights you'd be able see the discrimination, racism and sexism in it because it's obvious. The same holds true when you give different groups special rights, but you refuse to admit it.
You're right I don't know you, but I do know that your opinion matches either white guilt or being one of the special groups.

What evidence? You have presented absolutely none.

Your woefully insufferable opinions being feebly passed off as factual despite no factual data to back any of them is not a good look.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

They don't exist.

They are catch phrases for people who don't want to upset the status quo and are afraid to not have all the advantages they once did.

With that, I'll be bowing out of this discussion. I will no longer give this counter-argument a platform for their discourse. I recommend others do the same.

Always open to DMs for respectful discussion.

The point made repeatedly is this situation does not really apply to the Als coaching situation or the CFL in general.

[pjrocksmb]

If you want impactful change, the EEA isn't what your looking for. It just applies to a small group of businesses that deal with Government contracts. It doesn't cover most businesses in Canada including the CFL. A few hundred jobs isn't Rider math, it's a reasonable guesstimate.

The EEA is virtue signalling. Give jobs to a few people, who otherwise wouldn't get the jobs, because we understand how racism affected & affects their families. What evolved people we are.

No, I don't think that companies need to or even should match the local demographics. That's not what the EEA does anyway. It says that white owned companies should match the local demographics, but people of colour, natives, & women can totally ignore the demographics. I think companies should hire the best candidates period. Full stop.

Please don't use the term "natives" on here

And for the the record I don't agree with anything you have posted in this thread

[ModAdmin]

The thread will be locked as there is are repetitive comments to the discussion and I don't think more can be gained by letting the discussion continue.  Nothing is perfect in life and while the EEA may have deficiencies, it is an attempt to correct a previously unbalanced situation that negatively affected a groups or groups of people.