‘The Bigotry of Quotas’

‘Quotas’ are a result of segregating people into categories, and are a denial of individuality. The communistic ‘quota’ method being forced on Canadian universities by Prime Minister Trudeau not only institutionalizes sexism and racism as structural norms — and elevates them to primary consideration — but also has consistently succeeded in lowering performance wherever applied. Now, our blundering federal government wants to extend this approach to funding academic research: 

“The federal granting councils that award the prestigious ‘Canada Research Chairs’ say universities must offer up more ‘diverse’ candidates for the honour or they will lose their funds. 

“Directors of the program, which sends out $265-million every year across 1,600 researchers, say new measures unveiled on Thursday would help to address the ‘chronic underrepresentation’ {If one accepts the sexist, racist approach of sex and racial quotas…} of women, ‘indigenous’ {‘Siberian settler’} people, those with disabilities and ‘visible minorities’ {Another racist category. How ‘visible’ is ‘visible’?} among the award’s ranks…

“Under the new rules, post-secondary institutions have until Dec. 15 to create an ‘action plan’ on how to achieve more ‘diversity’ {How is conforming to quotas now ‘diversity’?} among their candidates, and then they have another 18 to 24 months to ensure the demographics of those given the awards reflect the demographics of those academics eligible to receive them…

“Academics are nominated for the positions by their universities, which receive an allotted number of chairs from the government based on the institution’s size. The program is one of the federal government’s most prominent tools to attract and retain top academic talent in Canada.

“But for most academics, research chairs represent a milestone far along in their career. Addressing ‘diversity’ earlier in academic careers {When they are not yet qualified} will require more work on the part of universities and provinces, Dr. Hewitt said…

“University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran {“Attaran was born in California to immigrants from Iran.”}, who has held a ‘Canada Research Chair’, filed a complaint with the ‘Human Rights’ Commission last year over what he said was discrimination in the program. He said he’ll be watching to see if the government makes good on its threat to pull funding from universities that ‘underperform’…”

–‘Ottawa to universities: Improve diversity or lose research chair funds’, Chris Hannay, Toronto Globe and Mail, May 04, 2017

Feature IMAGE: https://i1.wp.com/therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/embrace_diversity.jpg

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-pull-research-chair-funding-unless-diversity-issue-addressed-at-universities/article34905004/

“Kirsty Duncan { kirsty.duncan@parl.gc.ca }, Justin Trudeau’s Science Minister {One of her claims to fame was serving on the fraudulent United Nations ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (IPCC), the body primarily responsible for the ‘Global Warming’ hoax…}, is on the rampage against Canada’s leading universities. She’s told them to improve ‘diversity’ – or else. Unless they meet their ‘gender quotas’ {Unbelievable that Canada has sunk to this…} for new research chairs, the federal government will yank their funding.

“Despite a decade of concerted hectoring, Canada’s most prestigious researchers are still too non-‘indigenous’, too ‘white’, too abled and, especially, too male {Says the sexist Science minister}.

“Frankly, our country cannot reach its full potential if more than half of its people do not feel welcomed into the lab where their ideas, their talent and their ambition is needed,” she sermonized.

{“More than half of its people” have no interest in lab work…}

“At stake is hundreds of millions in grant money – as well as the ability of expert hiring committees to make their own decisions. (Universities must sponsor the grant applications, which are nearly all approved by the federal funding bodies.) From now on, these committees will be overseen by phalanxes of bureaucrats whose job is to ensure that they come up with the ‘right’ {Politically correct} answers {Just like under Communist regimes…}.

“The government’s emphasis on ‘equity’ {‘socialism’} and ‘diversity’ {As opposed to merit} is central to its branding. Its ‘50-50’ cabinet has won universal praise {It most certainly HAS NOT!}. But now, it has embarked on a campaign of reverse discrimination that deeply undermines the concepts of fairness and excellence. {What else did you expect???} 

“Academia isn’t the only target. Since last fall, the Trudeau government has named 56 judges, of whom 33 – or 59% – are women. (Women made up only 42% of the applicants.) It’s clear the ‘Liberals’ will keep it up until the balance of judges is more to their liking. But at what cost?

“In the old days, it was offensive that people got judgeships just because they were ‘Liberals’ or ‘Tories’,” Ian Holloway, law dean at the University of Calgary, told the ‘Globe and Mail’. “That helped breed contempt for the judiciary. What we don’t want to do is replicate that in a different form.”

“The definition of ‘equality’ has changed dramatically in recent times {Yes, from the classical liberal definition, to the communist one…}. ‘Equality’ used to mean fairness. It meant that everybody should be treated equally, and that discrimination is not acceptable. But the new definition of ‘equality’ is ‘equal outcomes’. And if outcomes aren’t equal, they must be adjusted until they are. {That is classic communist government methodology…}

“No one disagrees that our institutions should broadly reflect the society we live in. No one disagrees that disadvantaged people and underrepresented groups deserve a helping hand, and sometimes preferential treatment. Many businesses and public institutions have an unwritten rule: If all else is equal, hire the minority candidate.

“But what if it isn’t? What if fair hiring practices produce disparities in outcome – as they inevitably do? For example, it’s mainly men who like hard sciences – despite a generation of effort to encourage women. This effort has borne fruit. But it has not produced a massive change in women’s career choices, which are overwhelmingly on the “soft” side. There’s also a sizable body of research showing that even women who are highly career-minded are less intent on attaining senior positions than men are.

“On the face of it, the ‘Canada Research Chair’ numbers don’t look great. Women hold only 30% of the 1,615 filled positions, a number that Ms. Duncan regards as “dismal”, and at some universities it’s much lower. Among the new applications, she notes disapprovingly that twice as many come from men. But these positions are heavily skewed toward hard sciences. Forty-five per cent are for natural sciences and engineering; 35% are for health sciences; and just 20% are for the {increasingly fake} ‘social sciences’ and ‘humanities’. 

“But “fair” is no longer good enough. Only outcomes matter. The new quotas for ‘Canada Research Chairs’ are: 31% women, 15% visible minorities, 4% disabled, 1% aboriginal. And woe to you if you do not comply. “Other institutions have gone much farther. At St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, a document called ‘Gender Equity Guidelines for Research Search Committees’ states,

“We are hoping to achieve recruitment of 50% female scientists in the next 3-5 years, as well as to achieve 50% female faculty in leadership positions in the next 5-7 years.”

“Given the natural gender imbalance in science research, they might as well just post a sign saying: ‘Men, don’t bother!

“The document further states that all search committee members must take training in ‘unconscious bias’ (an increasingly discredited idea) {And a concept derived from Communist Mao Tse Tung’s ‘re-education’ camps}, and that their work will be closely scrutinized by the ‘diversity police’ to ensure the proper outcomes.

“I’m all for diversity. But these future researchers have important work to do. They could save lives. Don’t we want people who can research and teach, instead of prove how diverse we are? I guess not. We’ve got quotas to fill.” {And that, of course, eventually resulted — and results — in the low quality of everything in Communist societies…}

–‘Liberals’ reverse discrimination comes at a cost’,
MARGARET WENTE, Toronto Globe and Mail, June 10, 2017 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-war-against-merit-marches-on/article35261591/

“Mandatory diversity, also known as affirmative action, is founded on the premise that forced…equality makes up for, or is a just response to, past…injustice.

“But here’s the problem with this idea: race, sexual orientation, and gender are usually not factors in determining if someone is capable of performing a task. An accountant’s ability to calculate isn’t dependent on their skin color. A singer’s vocal prowess has no bearing on their gender. A doctor’s ability to heal is not derived from their sexual orientation. But through mandatory diversity laws and policies, we have put a higher priority on image than substance…

“…If two people are applying for a job, and the criteria for selection is dependent on a person’s skill set — for instance, the ability to play an instrument — then would it make sense to ignore those skills in favor of their race, gender, or sexual orientation? Does a symphony, sports team, or medical wing operate better because there is more “diversity” or is the skill of each individual more of a factor?

“If a man was turned down for a job because he was gay, we would call this prejudice.

“If a woman was suspected of a crime purely for being black, we would call this racism.

“But if someone is chosen for a job or position specifically because they are gay, black, or female, today, we call it ‘progressive’. We actually think this is a sign of fairness and more equality.

“Oh, how blind we have become.

“In essence, mandatory diversity is a euphemism for

“positive or reverse discrimination.” …

“And what does it say about contemporary culture and society that it would so readily take up a prejudicial stance in response to the prejudice of the past? …”

–‘Examining Mandatory Diversity and Affirmative Action | Racial Quotas & Reverse Discrimination’,
Stillness in the Storm, February 11, 2017

http://www.stillnessinthestorm.com/2017/02/examining-mandatory-diversity-and-affirmative-action-racial-quotas-reverse-discrimination.html

VIDEO (‘Mandatory Diversity! Racial Quotas & Reverse Discrimination’):
https://youtu.be/eEkXOfFw5IM

“Now, let’s take a step back and look at the big picture, for a moment. Homogeneity is a bad thing. Diversity is a good thing. Diversity does facilitate new ideas and viewpoints. It creates constructive conflict and debate that leads to better decisions. It improves team dynamics that fight the status quo and the treachery of group-think.

“But when you lower your standards and hire or promote less-qualified people based on race or gender, you erase whatever benefit you may have gained by adding diversity. When you undermine the tenets of meritocracy and personal accountability by giving unfair advantage to some chosen group, it breeds resentment and diminishes organizational performance…

“Political correctness already has our culture on a slippery slope that leads to mediocrity and collectivism. Call it what you want, diversity recruiting just makes that slippery slope even more treacherous. Maybe it’s legal, but to me, it’s unethical and discriminatory.”

–‘Is Diversity Just Another Name for Discrimination?’,
Steve Tobak, FOX Business, April 22, 2014 http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/04/22/is-diversity-just-another-name-for-discrimination.html

“Responding to criticism about dismal diversity metrics, Chris Patten, the chancellor of the University of Oxford, disparaged the concept of racial quotas, as ‘Quartz’ reported.

“In an interview with ‘The Telegraph’, Patten said that quotas lower standards:

“I am in favor of universities recognizing their responsibilities for promoting social inclusion. But I don’t think that if you want high-class universities, you should expect them to lower their standards… “Nobody will explain to me how you can make a system of quotas work while retaining the highest admissions standards. Quotas must mean lower standards.”

–‘The head of one of the best universities in the world says that affirmative action means ‘lower standards’,
Abby Jackson, Business Insider, May 17, 2016
http://www.businessinsider.com/oxford-chancellor-quotas-lower-standards-2016-5
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Post also at: 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s