I have recently been applying for a number of jobs, with various levels of government and other institutions. A number of these jobs, and particularly those of the federal nature, have declared themselves to be equal-opportunity employers, and have cheerily invited me to self-identify as a woman, an aboriginal, a visible minority, or a person with a disability. I am confused as to why I am being asked this, since the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or for pardoned convictions. Part I, Section 7.b) states:
It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:l_I//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I)
Therefore me answering that question can have no bearing on my candidacy for the job. And yet, the only conclusion that I can draw from repeatedly being asked these questions, is that it must make a difference, which sounds an awful lot to me like discrimination.
Digging deeper into Canadian Law, one will come across the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 deals with equality, and 15[1] states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp402-e.htm#subsection152)
Here again, it would seem that discrimination is explicitly prohibited. But if one were to read further, they would come across 15[2]:
Subsection [15(1)] does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
So there it is. Discrimination is illegal, unless it is to the benefit of groups that have previously been disadvantaged because of race, etc. Affirmative action has been around in the United States since the 1960s, and Canada has had the Employment Equity Act since 1986.
I appreciate that racism and sexism continues to be a problem, and not one that can be dealt with by pretending they don’t exist. I understand that qualified people have been denied many opportunities, whether they be jobs or spots in universities or other such ventures, simply because of the colour of their skin. It appals me that the Canadian government is forced to introduce legislation requiring equal pay for equal work between men and women, and that in 2009 we are still discussing the issue. However, Employment Equity and self-identifying are not the ways to go about rectifying the situation.
Canada is a multicultural nation, and this diversity should be celebrated. Natives, French, English, Europeans, and more recently immigrants from a growing number of countries have come over and flourished. We all benefit from such diversity, as does humanity as a whole. From a young age in diverse educational environments, Canadian children learn about tolerance and inclusiveness, and how to live in a multicultural environment. (This isn’t even a conscious consideration when you’re five, and I consider a lack of a diverse environment another detraction against Catholic schools as I discussed two weeks ago: http://blogjournalists.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-of-religious-education-funding.html.)
If there are problems with certain groups or people in some parts of the country not reaching their full potential, then we must as a country and as a community come together to help give these people the tools to excel. Lowering standards and earmarking spots does not help anybody. Truly qualified minorities are seen in a lesser light if the implication is that they only succeeded because of preferable status. Underqualified minorities may secure a position but they are missing out on the possibilities that knowledge and education can present to them, and they may also not have to work as hard to get to where they are, which is a detriment to society, and a potential danger to coworkers working in dangerous environments. Such programs are also distinctly unfair to those passed-over, as it is unfair to assume that they all had the best possible opportunities, and treating people differently on any basis is inherently wrong and un-Canadian.
There is some suggestion that affirmative action programs are in place to redress past wrongs. Because Kluckers burned crosses in the Twenties, third-generation Canadians of Chinese decent are being granted special consideration in the job market. Perhaps I’m being facetious, but this is not the way to go about correcting past wrongs. Better and more beneficial ways to increase diversity in schools and the workplace would be to advertise and actively recruit qualified people in disadvantaged areas, or provide these people with the skills/education/engagement necessary to incorporate themselves into the workforce.
I am not claiming that I have not yet found a job because I am a white male. I am certain this is not the case, and I have full faith in my ability to secure a job (I instead blame the economy). I am not begrudging anybody who has worked hard and benefited from this program. I am simply putting forward the case that in 21st Century Canada, such tactics are not only discriminatory, but are counter-intuitive to what we should be trying to achieve as a civilization.
Russ MacDonald
It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:l_I//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I)
Therefore me answering that question can have no bearing on my candidacy for the job. And yet, the only conclusion that I can draw from repeatedly being asked these questions, is that it must make a difference, which sounds an awful lot to me like discrimination.
Digging deeper into Canadian Law, one will come across the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 deals with equality, and 15[1] states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp402-e.htm#subsection152)
Here again, it would seem that discrimination is explicitly prohibited. But if one were to read further, they would come across 15[2]:
Subsection [15(1)] does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
So there it is. Discrimination is illegal, unless it is to the benefit of groups that have previously been disadvantaged because of race, etc. Affirmative action has been around in the United States since the 1960s, and Canada has had the Employment Equity Act since 1986.
I appreciate that racism and sexism continues to be a problem, and not one that can be dealt with by pretending they don’t exist. I understand that qualified people have been denied many opportunities, whether they be jobs or spots in universities or other such ventures, simply because of the colour of their skin. It appals me that the Canadian government is forced to introduce legislation requiring equal pay for equal work between men and women, and that in 2009 we are still discussing the issue. However, Employment Equity and self-identifying are not the ways to go about rectifying the situation.
Canada is a multicultural nation, and this diversity should be celebrated. Natives, French, English, Europeans, and more recently immigrants from a growing number of countries have come over and flourished. We all benefit from such diversity, as does humanity as a whole. From a young age in diverse educational environments, Canadian children learn about tolerance and inclusiveness, and how to live in a multicultural environment. (This isn’t even a conscious consideration when you’re five, and I consider a lack of a diverse environment another detraction against Catholic schools as I discussed two weeks ago: http://blogjournalists.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-of-religious-education-funding.html.)
If there are problems with certain groups or people in some parts of the country not reaching their full potential, then we must as a country and as a community come together to help give these people the tools to excel. Lowering standards and earmarking spots does not help anybody. Truly qualified minorities are seen in a lesser light if the implication is that they only succeeded because of preferable status. Underqualified minorities may secure a position but they are missing out on the possibilities that knowledge and education can present to them, and they may also not have to work as hard to get to where they are, which is a detriment to society, and a potential danger to coworkers working in dangerous environments. Such programs are also distinctly unfair to those passed-over, as it is unfair to assume that they all had the best possible opportunities, and treating people differently on any basis is inherently wrong and un-Canadian.
There is some suggestion that affirmative action programs are in place to redress past wrongs. Because Kluckers burned crosses in the Twenties, third-generation Canadians of Chinese decent are being granted special consideration in the job market. Perhaps I’m being facetious, but this is not the way to go about correcting past wrongs. Better and more beneficial ways to increase diversity in schools and the workplace would be to advertise and actively recruit qualified people in disadvantaged areas, or provide these people with the skills/education/engagement necessary to incorporate themselves into the workforce.
I am not claiming that I have not yet found a job because I am a white male. I am certain this is not the case, and I have full faith in my ability to secure a job (I instead blame the economy). I am not begrudging anybody who has worked hard and benefited from this program. I am simply putting forward the case that in 21st Century Canada, such tactics are not only discriminatory, but are counter-intuitive to what we should be trying to achieve as a civilization.
Russ MacDonald
3 comments:
I'm not an expert on this subject but due to my previous attempts to be employed by the CBC I have also come across this question. However I believe that almost all of the time your answer does not get forwarded to the employer ie the supervisor and therefore is not there to sway his decision. Instead it gets forward to HR which keeps track of this kind of information for record keeping purposes.
I did a bit of research and you are in fact correct Vlad. The information gathered is technically only supposed to be used for statistical purposes. An example of this in work can be found in a statement found on Simon Fraser University's website for the way the answers to the "Employment Equity Questionnere" are used:
"Information gathered from individuals is confidential and will not become part of regular personnel records. Only Analytical Studies, the Vice-President, Legal Affairs, and the Director, Human Rights and Equity, have access to individual information. Employment equity information is reported only in the form of statistical summaries. No individuals are identified."
Found at: http://www.sfu.ca/avppolicy/equity/ee_qanda.html
The Canadian Human Rights Commission states the purpose of "Employment Equity" as follows:
"The purpose of the EEA (Employment Equity Act)is to ensure that no person is denied employment opportunities and benefits for reasons unrelated to ability. It requires employers to correct disadvantages in the workplace experienced by members of the four designated groups:
women, Aboriginal peoples persons with disabilities and
visible minorities.
In addition, employers must implement the principle that employment equity means more than treating people in the same way; it also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
Found at: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/ee_faq_ee-en.asp
Personally, I find this all a little bit suspicious. I too have answered these questions on a recent application for a job with Air Canada. Although the EEA states its purpose to ensure equity in the hiring process for "reasons other than related to ability", it's hard to believe that the statistics a company gathers doesn't somehow get back to the employers. F
Furthermore, the EEA conducts periodic audits of companies that show abberations within certain groups of so called "disadvantaged individuals." This coupled with the very interested neagation clause of subsection 15 that you point out Russ, simply shows that companies are essentially being monitored and thus forced to promote a diverse employment environment. This of course sounds fantastic and I am the first person to support fairness and equity in the workplace, but equality includes everybody, not just so called "disadvantaged groups." How many women, immigrants, disabled or Aboriginal people are there out there that want to be labelled as disadvantaged? When companies are forced to hire within certain groups on criteria in order to fill a certain "quota" of "disadvantaged" employees, it is not only in contradiction to the EEA, but also demeaning to all parties involved. If the most qualified applicants are all women, than only women should be hired. The same goes for Aboriginals, white men or three-legged cats for that matter. This is the true meaning of Employment Equity.
If the Canadian Human Rights Commission is concerned with promoted equity in the true sense of the word, they should be monitoring the hiring processes and looking for aberrations between the qualifications of applicants and those that are hired, not at the colour of someones skin or their sex.
Will Grassby
I've been trying to apply for some jobs with the government and I have found that they have particular jobs allocated for those who are visible minorities. This doesn't make sense to me since I thought that it was against the law for employers to hire based on race, colour or ethnicity. Does this mean that visible minorities are being excluded from the regular hiring process?
Post a Comment