Universities introducing term limits for Research Chairs to meet diversity targets

[Deleted]

Universities continue to fail what are supposed to be. Sorry I will be lazy on this and just give you some google translation:

Education means the formation of an independent sentiment and one
Respect, which goes hand in hand with the fact that in the coexistence of the
preserved memories are made accessible and usable. The
Educational institution provides the center. This places a place in the
Society, in which each of us is aroused by surprise;
a place of encounter, on the other, amaze me with their freedom
to make my own freedom conscious. Let the university take its tradition
it must itself be an institution whose aims as an exercise
of freedom, and whose autonomy is founded on that
Trust that puts the public in the use of this freedom.

- Ivan Illich

(original German:

Bildung bedeutet die Ausbildung eines unabhängigen Lebensgefühls und eine
Bezüglichkeit, die Hand in Hand damit geht, daß die im Zusammenleben der
aufbewahrten Erinnerungen zugänglich und nutzbar gemacht werden. Die
Bildungsinstitution liefert dafür den Mittelpunkt. Das setzt einen Ort in der
Gesellschaft voraus, an dem jeder von uns durch Überraschung aufgeweckt wird;
eine Stätte der Begegnung, an der andere mich mit ihrer Freiheit überraschen und
mir die eigene Freiheit bewußt machen. Soll die Universität sich ihrer Tradition
würdig erweisen, so muß sie selber eine Institution sein, deren Ziele als Ausübung
von Freiheit verstanden werden und deren Autonomie sich gründet auf das
Vertrauen, welches die Öffentlichkeit in den Gebrauch dieser Freiheit setzt.)

[Tennis]

Which is proven with how black immigrants earn more than blacks born in america. Same goes with people from India earning more than all other ethnic groups.

This whole thing has NOTHING to do with race. It has to do with culture. Quotas and affirmative action only diminish the quality of the business.

This thread is about Canada. What does America have to do with anything. They're different countries.....c'mon..this is basic geography.

[urasim]

This thread is about Canada. What does America have to do with anything. They're different countries.....c'mon..this is basic geography.

You mean the states, right? Canada IS part of America.

[Very Tired]

This thread is about Canada. What does America have to do with anything. They're different countries.....c'mon..this is basic geography.

Oh, the irony.

[Logwyn]

I say let the more qualified person get the chair, rather than refusing a chair on the potential basis that that person was not a racial or religious minority enough to meet a quota.

I mean, if I deserve that spot less than someone else - know I do - but get it anyway because I am the lucky #? I will feel pretty great. But what about that other far more qualified candidate?

That's the issue with Affirmative Action. You have 100 spots to give out. They say 49% will go to the "majority". The other 51% go to the "minorities". What if you only have 40 "minorities that qualify for a spot? In the need for "diversity" you give out 49 spots for this "majority" and 40 spots for the "minority". The other 11 spots go to the "minority" solely on skin color, sex, religion, etc. NOT based on being qualified.

All to meet some fabricated quota. This weakens the position of ALL qualified candidates.

[Tennis]

You mean the states, right? Canada IS part of America.

No America, which is short for USA.

[urasim]

No America, which is short for USA.

No.

America
A land mass of the western hemisphere consisting of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama.

Also, the US is by far superior to Canada in this regard. It's far more of a melting pot, and they don't need quotas.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Actually, USA is short for United States of America, not the other way around lol

Don't be a fucking ass.

"America" is universally used to refer to the United States of America, just like "American" is universally used to refer to a citizen thereof. The only time "America" is used to refer to the continents, it's done in the context of "the Americas" or "North and South America." By default "America" refers to the United States, with only context -- and context alone -- diverging from that.

Only a complete moron trying to be an asshole would even try to state otherwise.

[Tennis]

No.


Also, the US is by far superior to Canada in this regard. It's far more of a melting pot, and they don't need quotas.

You said "Which is proven with how black immigrants earn more than blacks born in america. Same goes with people from India earning more than all other ethnic groups."

Where are these America wide statistics. I'm waiting. Thanks.

[Kellhound]

That's not always true and saying otherwise is dishonest as fuck and you know it.

I have never been involved in a hiring incident in my 25 years in high tech were race or sex played a hiring decision except when it was used to hire a less qualified minority. I have, however, spent plenty of time correcting the fuck-ups of quota queens.

[Allerius]

Ethnic groups don't apply for positions. Individuals do. Disadvantaging an individual because of their race is racism.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Did you even read how that got started before you start labeling who is an ass?

Yes, I did. And stand by it.

Dude said Canada is part of America (true [and your context that you wanted])

It's not. It's a part of the Americas. At no point was "America" being used in that context prior to that guy ignorantly trying to twist it so it was.

Tenn then said no it's not because America is short for USA (not true)

Only because of bad grammar. "Short for" clearly meant "in reference to." Which it is.

Again: Only an ignorant fool would try to claim otherwise. Even your fucking news stations use "America" that way. Or what, as a Mexican (presumably from your location, but very doubtfully), do you consider yourself an American living in America, too? Hint: No, you fucking don't.

[Super Kami Dende]

putting diversity before progress.

This is the world we live in now.

[Kellhound]

So, anecdotal evidence?

It is the only evidence I can say is true, and not some under qualified person crying they were not hired "just because I am x". You want to know why there are not many African American engineers? Not many of them get a degree in it! Whites and Hispanics are about properly proportioned in degrees to % of population, and Asians offset the low African American numbers. Women are also far less likely to get an engineering degree than men.

[spanishninja]

You said "Which is proven with how black immigrants earn more than blacks born in america. Same goes with people from India earning more than all other ethnic groups."

Where are these America wide statistics. I'm waiting. Thanks.

Not that these numbers are exactly hard to find, but if you're actually doubting these two statements:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/...nt-population/ (comparison of black immigrants with US-born black population)

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...Income_Poverty (in it stating that Indian immigrants have household median income of $107,000 vs $51,000 and $56,000 for immigrants in general and US-born households, respectively)

[Kellhound]

We're only talking about the qualified people, so they obviously already have a degree. Obviously no one is upset over some high school drop out african american not getting hired as an engineer.

So, your point is moot.

Hardly. You are talking about picking people who are less qualified just because they are minority "x". The most qualified person should get the job, anything else is racist/sexist/whateverelseist.

[Post]

They needed a way to make it even more clear that diversity will come at the detriment of quality (and no, not because white people are better than minorities, don't infract me Endus).

[ravenswood]

Hardly. You are talking about picking people who are less qualified just because they are minority "x". The most qualified person should get the job, anything else is racist/sexist/whateverelseist.

Qualified means one is capable of performing the job to a level expected by the employer. So why does it matter?

[Kellhound]

Are you incapable of reading? I've said twice to you now that no one is saying that less qualified people should be hired and it should always be the most qualified.

The issue comes up when they're passing over the most qualified applicants because of their skin color but you don't think this happens and you're just wrong.

And as I said, I have over two decades only seen skin color used to hire less qualified people of color, not to exclude them.

- - - Updated - - -

Qualified means one is capable of performing the job to a level expected by the employer. So why does it matter?

They meet the minimum standards, which are used to exclude not include. A "C" is a passing grade, so why do "A"s matter? A Yugo qualified as a car in the US, would you take one over a BMW if offered?

[ravenswood]

They meet the minimum standards, which are used to exclude not include. A "C" is a passing grade, so why do "A"s matter? A Yugo qualified as a car in the US, would you take one over a BMW if offered?

Firstly, your example completely disregards the intended outcome of diversity. It is believed a diverse workforce can provide a range of different benefits to an organisation/university that would not be possible with a homogenous workforce. Neither your example, nor any of your previous posts touched on the goals of diversity. Secondly, the most qualified person isn't always the one that is hired. Imagine two software engineers are competitive for a job doing back end web development. One applicant is far more skilled and experienced than the other, however he is also as talkative as a slab of rock. While the other applicant is less skilled/experienced, he is more outgoing, social and enjoyable to be around and therefore gets the job, despite the fact the first applicant would perform more efficiently. How does this situation I proposed, that occurs in many job interviews, differ from choosing an applicant to meet diversity targets? Or are you going to continue to disengenously argue that the more individually 'qualified' applicant always gets the job, knowing full well the employment process takes into account far more than hard skills and experience when hiring?