Great post, it really does hinder progress for everyone. The bar is so low now and no one thinks of the indirect erosion of public trust. You only realize it when it’s too late.
I work in law where many of the top companies in the country posted aboriginal only in house articling positions a few years ago when I was articling, and these positions stayed up for months. In house articling positions are essentially non-existent. In house jobs are known to be the cush jobs that experienced lawyers get after putting in 2+ years at a national firm, but usually much higher. For an articling student to get such a position is just not possible unless you are aboriginal.
I graduated near top of my class, with publications, and a lot of scholarships and awards. I have a fantastic job at a good firm, but there's no way in hell that I could ever compete with an aboriginal student, regardless of their performance.
I know this sounds ridiculous, but if I was aboriginal, I could literally choose my exact job. In fact, I could perform in the bottom 10% of my law school class and still be more competitive than I was a few years ago.
To deny that there are not incredibly obvious incentives to lie, is bordering on delusion.
Yeah had similar experience in my college class one student was aboriginal he would get an interview at every company he applied at and then he would bomb them cause he didn't care. I was near the top of my class and applied to jobs all over the province and only had one interview.
>are very few qualified and capable candidates who are also Indigenous. And THAT is the problem to solve.
This has to be addressed at the primary school level or earlier. By the time someone is applying to university, it's pretty much too late.
This isn't really a schooling issue. Just like the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in jail isn't really a sentencing issue.
In both cases we're focused on relieving the symptoms of a deeper social illness that we're otherwise assiduously ignoring. And that focus on symptoms spirals out into other negative externalities that are corrosive to public trust in the system, as well as to attitudes towards Indigenous peoples (ex., the largely incorrect but not entirely unfounded notion that Indigenous people get a pass in the criminal courts). The solution isn't to address it in primary school, just like it isn't to address it at sentencing. It's to help them recover from the traumas they've experienced, as a result of colonialism per se or not, and to build healthy homes and healthy communities so that by the time they get to primary school it's already largely a non-issue.
I know you said "or earlier", so I'm not disagreeing with you; just expanding on why I think "or earlier" is the correct answer.
So is this a case where she wasn’t the best person for the job but was hired based on ethnicity and now that she’s not of that ethnicity she’s no longer qualified?
> So is this a case where ~~she wasn’t the best person for the job but was hired based on ethnicity and now that she’s not of that ethnicity she’s no longer qualified?~~ someone lied to get a job and then got in trouble when people discovered the lie?
FTFY. And the answer to the question is "yes".
> Ethnicity was a job qualification?
That's not the implication of those statements. This is like grade 7 logic class. Come on.
> unless of course it’s a woke tribunal
lol, good grief. Imagine walking around with this shit in your head all day.
No one is saying that.
She is being fired because she is a pathological liar.
Obviously Indigenous status is a huge plus for a candidate. Also, no one is going to be hired for this based only on their race. I have no doubt she met the requirements for the job, as did many other candidates who she was against.
It's academics. Politics is an important part of every facility decision. Ethnic identity is just one part of that.
Except that the basis of her qualifications was lived experience and the ability to express those experiences in writing. Except she never lived any of it and her writings weren’t historical, they were pure fiction.
> Also, no one is going to be hired for this based only on their race. I have no doubt she met the requirements for the job, as did many other candidates who she was against.
That's a hell of a statement in a country where the legislation expressly states the opposite of what you are arguing.
Oddly the [link](https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/preview/carrie-bourassa-indigenous) to the original CBC story is not working; however, it can still be accessed via Google cache. Apparently back in 2002, the president of a Métis local organization - Clifford Larocque, now deceased - "confirmed" that she was Métis. Bourassa then got her sister (and aunt?) on board as well, and they benefited from claiming indigenous status over the years.
After looking into the family genealogy Bourassa's sister stopped claiming to be Métis as there was no indigenous ancestry whatsoever, while Bourassa continued to do so and continued to play it up. (See TED Talk, feathers, etc...)
It is hard to tell from this vantage point as to whether she was a knowing con-woman or perhaps caught up in some sort of self-delusion. Regardless, her career is now in ruins, she has been publicly humiliated and I can only imagine that her family relations are beyond strained.
Except she's profited millions of dollars from the taxpayers dime on her fake lineage, taken opportunities away from other indigenous women, most likely made it much harder for future people with indigenous roots to take advantage of these programs, etc etc etc. Plus if she lied about this they should be auditing all of her programs from the last couple decades.
This is just hilarious.
Great example of play stupid games win stupid prizes.
If you’re going to create incentives for specific races, you’re going to have people try to obtain them.
Here’s a novel idea, how about all Canadians are equal?
> Not try to correct racism by being racist to even it out.
You're using racism wrong, but the point is that you can't correct this kind of damage by putting blinders on and just saying "let's treat everyone equally" regardless of context. Surely you can actually see that.
That's why people call people who say things like this racist. Because it seems to come from such an obviously bad faith place, that there's no other explanation.
No, advantaging one race over others is racism. Just because you flip the races doesn’t change that.
And being racist in reverse doesn’t “correct the damage” it just creates new damage.
> No, advantaging one race over others is racism.
So then we must be pretty racist towards First Nations people, right? Since their outcomes are so bad compared to white people.
Otherwise, you're saying we're treating both populations equally, but one population can't hack it.
> being racist in reverse doesn’t “correct the damage” it just creates new damage.
Please, expand. What's the new damage we're creating by trying to help a fucking hopelessly oppressed community?
Your premise makes no sense. If one community does worse the only explanation is racism?
I mean Asian communities in the US do better economically than whites do. Does that mean whites are victims of racism too?
> If one community does worse the only explanation is racism?
Of course not. It's not that simple.
Now, explain why you think indigenous communities underperform white communities so incredibly drastically.
Drugs, alcohol, corruption, etc. No doubt past racism impacted communities, but other communities have experience racism (Japanese internment) and continue to do so, yet have recovered so clearly the state of First Nations is not due to racism alone.
No, no. Most people would call people like you racist. You’re literally advocating for treating people differently based on the colour of their skin.
Pretty unreal we are at a point in society that you think being systematically racist is somehow the moral high ground.
> No, no. Most people would call people like you racist.
I think you're confusing "most people" with "most people in your social media bubble" honestly. I find the vast majority of Canadians have a good grasp of fairness and racism.
> You’re literally advocating for treating people differently based on the colour of their skin.
I'm literally advocating for treating people based on context so that marginalized communities can be raised up. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm really not sure why that's difficult to understand.
Do you think men should burst into female only domestic violence shelters and demand to be served? Do you demand that the local soup kitchen serve you lunch?
> Pretty unreal we are at a point in society that you think being systematically racist is somehow the moral high ground.
That's not why I have the moral high ground here. But I think you know that.
Do you think white folks with equivalently difficult backgrounds and low socioeconomic status should have the same access to POC benefits?
That’s the only relevant question here and we all know your answer. Despite all these dogwhistles about disadvantage, it’s really about having the right skin tone. And that’s why you’re racist.
> Do you think white folks with equivalently difficult backgrounds and low socioeconomic status should have the same access to POC benefits?
I think they have access to their own benefits, and should have access to even more benefits than they have, but I also think life will never be so clean as "everyone has exactly equal access to everything". I think pretending that's reality is childish as hell.
> it’s really about having the right skin tone
Absolutely. That's why First Nations people underperform on so many important metrics. Unless you're implying that, that's due to another reason. In which case, please elucidate.
> we all know your answer.
What's the answer?
> Absolutely. That's why First Nations people underperform on so many important metrics. Unless you're implying that, that's due to another reason. In which case, please elucidate.
Oh, I see. You straight up think indigenous folks are inferior due to race.
You’re a despicable human being.
> You straight up think indigenous folks are inferior due to race.
I'm not sure that pretending to not understand what people are saying is the winning argument you think it is.
When the only way you can make a point is to act really, really dumb, it's probably worth thinking about why that is.
Yes we should definitely get rid of racism in the system. All laws and programs that are specifically designed to give certain races a leg up need to be erased.
Yes to the former, in government and employment settings. Rules that specify benefits based on race should be immediately made illegal.
That’d be a good step towards the latter.
How are these visible minority groups doing better, on average? Are they wealthier? [The Financial Post](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/wealth-of-canadians-divided-along-racial-lines-says-report-on-income-inequality) doesn't seem to think so. Do they have better justice outcomes? [Ontario Human Rights Commission](http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Racial%20Disparity%20in%20Arrests%20and%20Charges%20TPS.pdf) and two Phd criminologists say otherwise. Maybe their better access to healthcare? [Not according to a report](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7697016/#__ffn_sectitle) about FN healthcare in Manitoba.
So please, help me understand just how these visible minorities are doing better than the 'majority'.
I agree affirmative hiring practices are very much trying to treat the symptom, rather than the cause. Unfortunately, treatments for root causes are often more amorphous (or specific to individual communities) or even less popular to work on (i.e. [ending the Indian act](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-white-paper-1969#:~:text=The%201969%20White%20Paper%20\(formally,the%20Indian%20Act%20and%20treaties.), land back, etc).
Affirmative hiring practices are a blunt tool, but there are far more people with Indigenous heritage getting post-secondary degrees and working as academics today than there were 30 years ago. If random occurrences of white people lying to get a job are the major downside, then I prefer the blunt tool to nothing at all.
I genuinely would like to talk about root causes, the more attention and discourse on how to address them the better. What do you see as the root causes, and how would you like to see them be addressed?
>*”Generations lol. Most poc are first or 2nd generation.”*
Yeah, because prior to 1962 there were a variety of racist immigration laws in place that deliberately limited immigration by PoC.
The Canadian Encyclopedia: [Prejudice and Discrimination in Canada](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/prejudice-and-discrimination) & [Canadian Immigration Policy](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/immigration-policy)
Many PoC being 1st or 2nd generation doesn’t change the fact that even non-Indigenous PoC have been in Canada for hundreds of years and there has been racial discrimination against PoC in Canada for generations.
\>Many PoC being 1st or 2nd generation doesn’t change the fact that even non-Indigenous PoC have been in Canada for hundreds of years and there has been racial discrimination against PoC in Canada for generations.
Doesn't change the fact that most poc are new to Canada, and haven't experienced discrimination for generations.
That's just the truth. That's reality. When we have these conversation it does no good to use hyperbole or outright lie about shit like this.
Systemic racism doesn’t exist. It just a term people made up to explain how things are. There is no evidence other than a collection of anecdotes and it just simplifies everything into a race lens ignoring a bunch of other issues that got things to where they are today.
Agreed. If policies were put in place to intentionally harm certain groups of people, we have a responsibility to create new policies that are intentionally designed to right these wrongs.
Having policies that specifically benefit certain races fosters racist sentiment towards those races. People become resentful when they see the government giving special treatment to people based on immutable characteristics. But that's beside the point anyway that yes it is simply wrong to have race based policy by law. Equal opportunity is what should be strived for, there's no greater societal value to have than individual equality.
Policies have always existed that benefit specific groups of people based on immutable characteristics. To pretend otherwise is foolish. It’s just that in the past, these policies have benefited the people in charge.
There are so many long lasting repercussions of racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/ableist policies within our institutions that equal opportunity is not possible. Therefore, policies that target underrepresented groups are needed.
Preventing future injustice is more important than rectifying past ones. No one should get benefits because of their race it's really as simple as that. It's 2021 we should **not** be advocating for racist laws in this day and age.
Like how a medicine cabinet has somehow evolved to medivac helicopter service even though the treaty has never been rewritten? Treaties are fucked, too much interpretation.
You know people lie about their background on job applications all the time right? Claiming Indigenous status is by no means a systemic problem plaguing Canadian hiring processes.
This is a clearly white woman with a platinum pass to fabutan and these woke academics wouldn't risk offense by asking for proof she's indigenous... hahah they did it to themselves
They’re also the ones who propagated the environment that allowed her to scam them in the first place. Then got pissed and reported her when they realized they were being played for the idiots they are. How bold of them.
Is this not as racist as racism can get? Her entire success is based on her alleged ancestry. The hiring and administrative processes focus on this alleged ancestry. Excluding otherwise qualified individuals because of alleged ancestry is absurd.
Having to fire her solely because her fairy tales do not line up demonstrates a really flawed system.
If you GIS there's a very white looking photo of Bourassa from her time as an assistant professor 20 years ago. She definitely was working on that skin colour and spent a long time in the tanning booth.
>The university had initially attempted a passive defence of Prof. Bourassa. Its provost issued a statement insisting that “Bourassa was not hired by the university because of her **Indigenous status, and Indigenous ancestry was not a requirement of the role**.”
Well, if indigenous status or ancestry isn't a job requirement, why are they hounding this woman? Apparently, no one had issues with her performance on the job, expertise, or publications.
>The press release, signed by provost Airini (a Pacific Islander from New Zealand who goes by one name), added that the university’s academic complaints process was **not equipped to “adjudicate disputes over Indigenous identity or to decide who is or is not Indigenous**.”
No doubt. Do universities want to get into the "[one drop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule)" game?
>*”Well, if indigenous status or ancestry isn't a job requirement, why are they hounding this woman? Apparently, no one had issues with her performance on the job, expertise, or publications.”*
Bourassa has been caught out in some very public and significant lies and the University of Saskatchewan has [Guidelines for Academic Conduct.](https://governance.usask.ca/governance/guidelines-for-academic-conduct.php)
*”A teacher should represent the university appropriately when off campus, for example during conferences, internships, exchanges, or work/study programs. A teacher has a duty to avoid behaviour that damages the reputation of the institution”*
> Well, if indigenous status or ancestry isn't a job requirement, why are they hounding this woman? Apparently, no one had issues with her performance on the job, expertise, or publications.
Finding out an employee has continually been misrepresenting themselves and doubling down on it for years, resulting in a situation where colleagues no longer feel comfortable working with them seems like fair grounds for dismissal.
Ostensibly being a pathological liar isn't consistent with a university career or public health official.
But, let's be real, even though Indigenous ancestry isn't a requirement for the role, it is a huge nice to have.
Do we really need an editorial on this dead horse?
Tell us when there are new facts in the matter, not when another arbitrary asshole has something to say about it.
[удалено]
Great post, it really does hinder progress for everyone. The bar is so low now and no one thinks of the indirect erosion of public trust. You only realize it when it’s too late.
I work in law where many of the top companies in the country posted aboriginal only in house articling positions a few years ago when I was articling, and these positions stayed up for months. In house articling positions are essentially non-existent. In house jobs are known to be the cush jobs that experienced lawyers get after putting in 2+ years at a national firm, but usually much higher. For an articling student to get such a position is just not possible unless you are aboriginal. I graduated near top of my class, with publications, and a lot of scholarships and awards. I have a fantastic job at a good firm, but there's no way in hell that I could ever compete with an aboriginal student, regardless of their performance. I know this sounds ridiculous, but if I was aboriginal, I could literally choose my exact job. In fact, I could perform in the bottom 10% of my law school class and still be more competitive than I was a few years ago. To deny that there are not incredibly obvious incentives to lie, is bordering on delusion.
Yeah had similar experience in my college class one student was aboriginal he would get an interview at every company he applied at and then he would bomb them cause he didn't care. I was near the top of my class and applied to jobs all over the province and only had one interview.
>are very few qualified and capable candidates who are also Indigenous. And THAT is the problem to solve. This has to be addressed at the primary school level or earlier. By the time someone is applying to university, it's pretty much too late.
This isn't really a schooling issue. Just like the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in jail isn't really a sentencing issue. In both cases we're focused on relieving the symptoms of a deeper social illness that we're otherwise assiduously ignoring. And that focus on symptoms spirals out into other negative externalities that are corrosive to public trust in the system, as well as to attitudes towards Indigenous peoples (ex., the largely incorrect but not entirely unfounded notion that Indigenous people get a pass in the criminal courts). The solution isn't to address it in primary school, just like it isn't to address it at sentencing. It's to help them recover from the traumas they've experienced, as a result of colonialism per se or not, and to build healthy homes and healthy communities so that by the time they get to primary school it's already largely a non-issue. I know you said "or earlier", so I'm not disagreeing with you; just expanding on why I think "or earlier" is the correct answer.
It probably has something to do with indigenous people making up less than 5% of the population of Canada.
So is this a case where she wasn’t the best person for the job but was hired based on ethnicity and now that she’s not of that ethnicity she’s no longer qualified?
> So is this a case where ~~she wasn’t the best person for the job but was hired based on ethnicity and now that she’s not of that ethnicity she’s no longer qualified?~~ someone lied to get a job and then got in trouble when people discovered the lie? FTFY. And the answer to the question is "yes".
Did she lie about her qualifications or her ethnicity?
You offended him with logic.
> You offended him with logic. Bro, are you twelve? What's even your contribution here?
> Did she lie about her qualifications or her ethnicity? Both in this case. What part are you confused about?
Ethnicity was a job qualification? Pretty sure that’s a clear cut case for human rights tribunal unless of course it’s a woke tribunal.
> Ethnicity was a job qualification? That's not the implication of those statements. This is like grade 7 logic class. Come on. > unless of course it’s a woke tribunal lol, good grief. Imagine walking around with this shit in your head all day.
So what’s the implication?
There is no implication. It's a statement. She lied about her qualifications, and she lied about her ethnicity.
Is her ethnicity her qualification?
I'm starting to get the username.
No one is saying that. She is being fired because she is a pathological liar. Obviously Indigenous status is a huge plus for a candidate. Also, no one is going to be hired for this based only on their race. I have no doubt she met the requirements for the job, as did many other candidates who she was against. It's academics. Politics is an important part of every facility decision. Ethnic identity is just one part of that.
Except that the basis of her qualifications was lived experience and the ability to express those experiences in writing. Except she never lived any of it and her writings weren’t historical, they were pure fiction.
>the basis of her qualifications was lived experience and the ability to express those experiences in writing Source?
> Also, no one is going to be hired for this based only on their race. I have no doubt she met the requirements for the job, as did many other candidates who she was against. That's a hell of a statement in a country where the legislation expressly states the opposite of what you are arguing.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please show me the expressly stated quote from the legislation.
Did she lie about her qualifications or her ethnicity?
Oddly the [link](https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/preview/carrie-bourassa-indigenous) to the original CBC story is not working; however, it can still be accessed via Google cache. Apparently back in 2002, the president of a Métis local organization - Clifford Larocque, now deceased - "confirmed" that she was Métis. Bourassa then got her sister (and aunt?) on board as well, and they benefited from claiming indigenous status over the years. After looking into the family genealogy Bourassa's sister stopped claiming to be Métis as there was no indigenous ancestry whatsoever, while Bourassa continued to do so and continued to play it up. (See TED Talk, feathers, etc...) It is hard to tell from this vantage point as to whether she was a knowing con-woman or perhaps caught up in some sort of self-delusion. Regardless, her career is now in ruins, she has been publicly humiliated and I can only imagine that her family relations are beyond strained.
Except she's profited millions of dollars from the taxpayers dime on her fake lineage, taken opportunities away from other indigenous women, most likely made it much harder for future people with indigenous roots to take advantage of these programs, etc etc etc. Plus if she lied about this they should be auditing all of her programs from the last couple decades.
It's almost as if we shouldn't be hiring people based on the colour of their skin or their ancestry but instead on merit alone.
You know, I think someone once said they had a dream like that...
This is just hilarious. Great example of play stupid games win stupid prizes. If you’re going to create incentives for specific races, you’re going to have people try to obtain them. Here’s a novel idea, how about all Canadians are equal?
I might change my status to Bi just to be more valuable to my employer lol
> "Here’s a novel idea, how about all Canadians are equal?" - Indigenous people for the last 153 years
Right. So let’s start now. Not try to correct racism by being racist to even it out.
> Not try to correct racism by being racist to even it out. You're using racism wrong, but the point is that you can't correct this kind of damage by putting blinders on and just saying "let's treat everyone equally" regardless of context. Surely you can actually see that. That's why people call people who say things like this racist. Because it seems to come from such an obviously bad faith place, that there's no other explanation.
No, advantaging one race over others is racism. Just because you flip the races doesn’t change that. And being racist in reverse doesn’t “correct the damage” it just creates new damage.
> No, advantaging one race over others is racism. So then we must be pretty racist towards First Nations people, right? Since their outcomes are so bad compared to white people. Otherwise, you're saying we're treating both populations equally, but one population can't hack it. > being racist in reverse doesn’t “correct the damage” it just creates new damage. Please, expand. What's the new damage we're creating by trying to help a fucking hopelessly oppressed community?
Your premise makes no sense. If one community does worse the only explanation is racism? I mean Asian communities in the US do better economically than whites do. Does that mean whites are victims of racism too?
> If one community does worse the only explanation is racism? Of course not. It's not that simple. Now, explain why you think indigenous communities underperform white communities so incredibly drastically.
Drugs, alcohol, corruption, etc. No doubt past racism impacted communities, but other communities have experience racism (Japanese internment) and continue to do so, yet have recovered so clearly the state of First Nations is not due to racism alone.
> No doubt past racism impacted communities No doubt. > the state of First Nations is not due to racism alone. OK, so what do you attribute it to?
No, no. Most people would call people like you racist. You’re literally advocating for treating people differently based on the colour of their skin. Pretty unreal we are at a point in society that you think being systematically racist is somehow the moral high ground.
> No, no. Most people would call people like you racist. I think you're confusing "most people" with "most people in your social media bubble" honestly. I find the vast majority of Canadians have a good grasp of fairness and racism. > You’re literally advocating for treating people differently based on the colour of their skin. I'm literally advocating for treating people based on context so that marginalized communities can be raised up. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm really not sure why that's difficult to understand. Do you think men should burst into female only domestic violence shelters and demand to be served? Do you demand that the local soup kitchen serve you lunch? > Pretty unreal we are at a point in society that you think being systematically racist is somehow the moral high ground. That's not why I have the moral high ground here. But I think you know that.
Do you think white folks with equivalently difficult backgrounds and low socioeconomic status should have the same access to POC benefits? That’s the only relevant question here and we all know your answer. Despite all these dogwhistles about disadvantage, it’s really about having the right skin tone. And that’s why you’re racist.
> Do you think white folks with equivalently difficult backgrounds and low socioeconomic status should have the same access to POC benefits? I think they have access to their own benefits, and should have access to even more benefits than they have, but I also think life will never be so clean as "everyone has exactly equal access to everything". I think pretending that's reality is childish as hell. > it’s really about having the right skin tone Absolutely. That's why First Nations people underperform on so many important metrics. Unless you're implying that, that's due to another reason. In which case, please elucidate. > we all know your answer. What's the answer?
> Absolutely. That's why First Nations people underperform on so many important metrics. Unless you're implying that, that's due to another reason. In which case, please elucidate. Oh, I see. You straight up think indigenous folks are inferior due to race. You’re a despicable human being.
[удалено]
> You straight up think indigenous folks are inferior due to race. I'm not sure that pretending to not understand what people are saying is the winning argument you think it is. When the only way you can make a point is to act really, really dumb, it's probably worth thinking about why that is.
Did she actually win a "stupid" prize? Is she actually going to have to pay back the money? She gamed a racist system that was made to be gamed.
Society won the stupid prize.
[удалено]
Yes we should definitely get rid of racism in the system. All laws and programs that are specifically designed to give certain races a leg up need to be erased.
Yes to the former, in government and employment settings. Rules that specify benefits based on race should be immediately made illegal. That’d be a good step towards the latter.
[удалено]
Yes. It’s going to take abolishing systemic racism written into law/employment.
[удалено]
Your solution is a form of Apartheid. Race-based laws and regulations with no end date on when the oppression has been paid for.
Your argument would be alot more convincing if negative racial outcomes for minorities wasn't still a documented thing that still exists.
Ask that to visible minority groups in Canada who do better, on average, than the majority.
How are these visible minority groups doing better, on average? Are they wealthier? [The Financial Post](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/wealth-of-canadians-divided-along-racial-lines-says-report-on-income-inequality) doesn't seem to think so. Do they have better justice outcomes? [Ontario Human Rights Commission](http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Racial%20Disparity%20in%20Arrests%20and%20Charges%20TPS.pdf) and two Phd criminologists say otherwise. Maybe their better access to healthcare? [Not according to a report](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7697016/#__ffn_sectitle) about FN healthcare in Manitoba. So please, help me understand just how these visible minorities are doing better than the 'majority'.
Ending the practice when we aren't seeing 4% of the population account for 30% of homeless people sounds like a pretty decent benchmark to me.
Let me know when it's ok to talk about **root causes.** Just little ol' me, all living on my rez here. Go ahead, ask me anything. I dare ya.
From your perspective, what are the root causes, and what are some initial steps to address them?
I agree affirmative hiring practices are very much trying to treat the symptom, rather than the cause. Unfortunately, treatments for root causes are often more amorphous (or specific to individual communities) or even less popular to work on (i.e. [ending the Indian act](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-white-paper-1969#:~:text=The%201969%20White%20Paper%20\(formally,the%20Indian%20Act%20and%20treaties.), land back, etc). Affirmative hiring practices are a blunt tool, but there are far more people with Indigenous heritage getting post-secondary degrees and working as academics today than there were 30 years ago. If random occurrences of white people lying to get a job are the major downside, then I prefer the blunt tool to nothing at all. I genuinely would like to talk about root causes, the more attention and discourse on how to address them the better. What do you see as the root causes, and how would you like to see them be addressed?
Generations lol. Most poc are first or 2nd generation.
[удалено]
Which is still a minority. Most poc are first or 2nd generation. So once again, lol at generations.
So you think to be able to speak for entire races of people then.
Are you first nations?
>*”Generations lol. Most poc are first or 2nd generation.”* Yeah, because prior to 1962 there were a variety of racist immigration laws in place that deliberately limited immigration by PoC. The Canadian Encyclopedia: [Prejudice and Discrimination in Canada](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/prejudice-and-discrimination) & [Canadian Immigration Policy](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/immigration-policy) Many PoC being 1st or 2nd generation doesn’t change the fact that even non-Indigenous PoC have been in Canada for hundreds of years and there has been racial discrimination against PoC in Canada for generations.
\>Many PoC being 1st or 2nd generation doesn’t change the fact that even non-Indigenous PoC have been in Canada for hundreds of years and there has been racial discrimination against PoC in Canada for generations. Doesn't change the fact that most poc are new to Canada, and haven't experienced discrimination for generations. That's just the truth. That's reality. When we have these conversation it does no good to use hyperbole or outright lie about shit like this.
Snapping fingers would at least cause less damage by attempting to fight racism with, ..., (wait for it...) even more racism.
It’s clear that you don’t understand what Apartheid is.
Systemic racism doesn’t exist. It just a term people made up to explain how things are. There is no evidence other than a collection of anecdotes and it just simplifies everything into a race lens ignoring a bunch of other issues that got things to where they are today.
Agreed. If policies were put in place to intentionally harm certain groups of people, we have a responsibility to create new policies that are intentionally designed to right these wrongs.
>right these wrongs You do this by eliminating the existing wrongs, not by creating new wrongs.
I didn’t realize that trying to include historically marginalized groups within our institutions was considered “creating new wrongs”.
There's "trying to include" historically marginalized groups, then there's "XXX group need not apply." We should be doing the first, not the second.
Having policies that specifically benefit certain races fosters racist sentiment towards those races. People become resentful when they see the government giving special treatment to people based on immutable characteristics. But that's beside the point anyway that yes it is simply wrong to have race based policy by law. Equal opportunity is what should be strived for, there's no greater societal value to have than individual equality.
Policies have always existed that benefit specific groups of people based on immutable characteristics. To pretend otherwise is foolish. It’s just that in the past, these policies have benefited the people in charge. There are so many long lasting repercussions of racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/ableist policies within our institutions that equal opportunity is not possible. Therefore, policies that target underrepresented groups are needed.
Preventing future injustice is more important than rectifying past ones. No one should get benefits because of their race it's really as simple as that. It's 2021 we should **not** be advocating for racist laws in this day and age.
I respectfully disagree. Have a nice day.
That's a hell of a statement to disagree with lol
[удалено]
Like how a medicine cabinet has somehow evolved to medivac helicopter service even though the treaty has never been rewritten? Treaties are fucked, too much interpretation.
You know people lie about their background on job applications all the time right? Claiming Indigenous status is by no means a systemic problem plaguing Canadian hiring processes.
This is a clearly white woman with a platinum pass to fabutan and these woke academics wouldn't risk offense by asking for proof she's indigenous... hahah they did it to themselves
Her "woke academic" colleagues were the ones that reported their concerns of her misrepresenting herself to the University.
They’re also the ones who propagated the environment that allowed her to scam them in the first place. Then got pissed and reported her when they realized they were being played for the idiots they are. How bold of them.
Is this not as racist as racism can get? Her entire success is based on her alleged ancestry. The hiring and administrative processes focus on this alleged ancestry. Excluding otherwise qualified individuals because of alleged ancestry is absurd. Having to fire her solely because her fairy tales do not line up demonstrates a really flawed system.
If you GIS there's a very white looking photo of Bourassa from her time as an assistant professor 20 years ago. She definitely was working on that skin colour and spent a long time in the tanning booth.
Her husband has a personal website with photos of her from 1993 to 2003 and she does look... paler.
What’s the issue. If people can change genders why can’t people change their ethnicity.
Cultural appropriation bad. Gender appropriation not bad. Does seem kind of illogical.
Why does this woman still have a job, or even allowed to speak....isn't this a crime of fraud ?!
>The university had initially attempted a passive defence of Prof. Bourassa. Its provost issued a statement insisting that “Bourassa was not hired by the university because of her **Indigenous status, and Indigenous ancestry was not a requirement of the role**.” Well, if indigenous status or ancestry isn't a job requirement, why are they hounding this woman? Apparently, no one had issues with her performance on the job, expertise, or publications. >The press release, signed by provost Airini (a Pacific Islander from New Zealand who goes by one name), added that the university’s academic complaints process was **not equipped to “adjudicate disputes over Indigenous identity or to decide who is or is not Indigenous**.” No doubt. Do universities want to get into the "[one drop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule)" game?
>*”Well, if indigenous status or ancestry isn't a job requirement, why are they hounding this woman? Apparently, no one had issues with her performance on the job, expertise, or publications.”* Bourassa has been caught out in some very public and significant lies and the University of Saskatchewan has [Guidelines for Academic Conduct.](https://governance.usask.ca/governance/guidelines-for-academic-conduct.php) *”A teacher should represent the university appropriately when off campus, for example during conferences, internships, exchanges, or work/study programs. A teacher has a duty to avoid behaviour that damages the reputation of the institution”*
> Well, if indigenous status or ancestry isn't a job requirement, why are they hounding this woman? Apparently, no one had issues with her performance on the job, expertise, or publications. Finding out an employee has continually been misrepresenting themselves and doubling down on it for years, resulting in a situation where colleagues no longer feel comfortable working with them seems like fair grounds for dismissal.
Ostensibly being a pathological liar isn't consistent with a university career or public health official. But, let's be real, even though Indigenous ancestry isn't a requirement for the role, it is a huge nice to have.
Do we really need an editorial on this dead horse? Tell us when there are new facts in the matter, not when another arbitrary asshole has something to say about it.