Employment Equity in the CFL

[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.