Discussions

This program proposal at U of M is about getting people who MEET THE ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS into the program to become teachers. Race/ethnicity wouldn't be the FIRST THING looked at, it would be the LAST THING looked at. This is nothing about hiring unqualified people, there are plenty of people of diverse backgrounds who are just as qualified as anyone else, and due to systemic racism are not getting the same opportunities.  
 
I totally understand the need for a program like this, and all the arguments people make AGAINST it show me how BADLY it's needed. People don't even seem to realize they are advocating for continuing to discriminate against marginalized people. Ignorant.

Tater said "This program proposal at U of M is about getting people who MEET THE ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS into the program to become teachers. Race/ethnicity wouldn't be the FIRST THING looked at, it would be the LAST THING looked at. This is nothing about hiring unqualified people, there are plenty of people of diverse backgrounds who are just as qualified as anyone else, and due to systemic racism are not getting the same opportunities.     I totally understand the need for a program like this, and all the arguments people make AGAINST it show me how BADLY it's needed. People don't even seem to realize they are advocating for continuing to discriminate against marginalized people. Ignorant. "

i didnt see any of what you state in the article. it didnt say how they are going to diversify or what entrance requirements are stopping a diverse student enrollment, which leads me to ask what are the barriers to enrollment for other ethnic groups and men, and how do they propose to change the requirements?  
 
the article did say that they would like to make it easier for foreign trained educators to enter the system and if they meet our standards i would say ok, but they do need to meet the standards. 18 months does seem a little much, depending on your previous training, but i wonder what the curriculum is? maybe they need that much time to understand Canadas system IDK

Tater said "This program proposal at U of M is about getting people who MEET THE ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS into the program to become teachers. Race/ethnicity wouldn't be the FIRST THING looked at, it would be the LAST THING looked at. This is nothing about hiring unqualified people, there are plenty of people of diverse backgrounds who are just as qualified as anyone else, and due to systemic racism are not getting the same opportunities.     I totally understand the need for a program like this, and all the arguments people make AGAINST it show me how BADLY it's needed. People don't even seem to realize they are advocating for continuing to discriminate against marginalized people. Ignorant. "

Even if race is the last thing looked at, It is by DEFINITION discrimination. It does not matter if you're discriminating against the majority that is white.  
 
If you have two equally qualified people, but one has the kicker of being part of a minority group, they'll get hired. How is that not discrimination?  
 
I'm not saying we shouldnt have better representation of minority groups, I'm saying this affirmitive action bs is not the way to do it.  
 
You're actually the one arguing for discrimination based on race, and yet you're calling other people ignorant?  
 

If there was no systemic racism, it would follow that you'd see close to equal representation of diverse groups in all the different professions that would reflect the population at large. Since this doesn't happen, we can conclude that there are barriers to individuals. The discrimination already exists in the system, and the proposed measure are intended to correct the existing discrimination that results from systemic racism/sexism etc.  
There are people looking at race or gender etc. before looking at anything else ALREADY, and they may not even be aware of it, and that IS ignorance.

This opinion piece is related to the U of M initiative:  
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/university-of-manitoba-diversity-faculty-of-education-1.3444082  

Tater said "If there was no systemic racism, it would follow that you'd see close to equal representation of diverse groups in all the different professions that would reflect the population at large. Since this doesn't happen, we can conclude that there are barriers to individuals. The discrimination already exists in the system, and the proposed measure are intended to correct the existing discrimination that results from systemic racism/sexism etc.   There are people looking at race or gender etc. before looking at anything else ALREADY, and they may not even be aware of it, and that IS ignorance. "

That's some seriously faulty logic.  
 
Because we don't see the minorities represented in the teaching profession that we do in the general population therefore RACISM. Those "barriers" MUST be skin color and ethnicity, right?  
 
It couldnt be that there are any other contributing factors, like maybe language barriers for minorities that have immigrated. Or as stated in the article that many people within that minority do not have transferable credentials.  
 
By your logic, since most teachers are women there is a systematic discrimination against men being teachers?  
 
I'm not saying the disparity couldnt be accounted for by racism, I'm saying that I don't think it is.  
 
There is nothing wrong with discussing this issue, and being called a subconsious racist for questioning this hiring practice is a bit of a stretch.  
 
The ignorance here is your inability to consider other possible contributing factors and jumping directly to racism.  
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2016-02-26 10:09:48

Actually if teaching is considered a "woman's job" and not a "men's job", yes that is discrimination against men. It would be good for society if there were more male teachers, and men should be recognized and encouraged to use their gifts in teaching just as much as women.  
As for language barriers, what do you mean? Any person would have to be QUALIFIED in any of these situations. The basis for employment equity has been scientifically shown many times. To argue that it's discriminatory instead of acknowledging that the existing system is discriminatory and that this type of initiative is a correcting action is an error. I have considered many other possible contributing factors, as has the University of Manitoba! Do you think that a UNIVERSITY which teaches professional teachers, sociologists, psychologists etc., as well as conducting research, is the place that HASN'T considered contributing factors???  
 
What about the minorities FROM CANADA? Who speak English?? Who were educated in Canada but to a lower standard because Indian Affairs has chronically underfunded first nations primary education? What about transgender people? What about people with disabilities that can be accommodated?  
Get real.

Tater said "Actually if teaching is considered a "woman's job" and not a "men's job", yes that is discrimination against men. It would be good for society if there were more male teachers, and men should be recognized and encouraged to use their gifts in teaching just as much as women.   As for language barriers, what do you mean? Any person would have to be QUALIFIED in any of these situations. The basis for employment equity has been scientifically shown many times. To argue that it's discriminatory instead of acknowledging that the existing system is discriminatory and that this type of initiative is a correcting action is an error. I have considered many other possible contributing factors, as has the University of Manitoba! Do you think that a UNIVERSITY which teaches professional teachers, sociologists, psychologists etc., as well as conducting research, is the place that HASN'T considered contributing factors???     What about the minorities FROM CANADA? Who speak English?? Who were educated in Canada but to a lower standard because Indian Affairs has chronically underfunded first nations primary education? What about transgender people? What about people with disabilities that can be accommodated?   Get real. "

This is like talking to a wall.  
 
How about you "get real" and stop attacking this strawman that I'm saying discrimination doesn't exist.  
 
I'm saying affirmative action is not the way to go about fixing the problem.  
 
When it comes to hiring competent teachers, there should be no preference given to any race. If First nations educations is underfunded then thats where the changes need to be made, that's where we need to focus. not selecting aboriginals just cause they're aboriginals. That doesn't serve them at all imo.  
 
It would be good for society if there were more male teachers, and men should be recognized and encouraged to use their gifts in teaching just as much as women.  
 
BINGO. That's what i'm saying. The answer is not to then start hiring men over women to correct the imbalance. That's not "encouraging" anyone to do anything, that's simply discrimination.  
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2016-02-26 10:23:54

Farmers Feed the World- Your comment is actually sexist. Why would it be between an unqualified person and a qualified person? All the people selected were qualified. There are just as many qualified women as men in society. The people in question ARE good for the job. The choice was NEVER between unqualified women and qualified men.

Torque said: "When it comes to hiring competent teachers, there should be no preference given to any race. If First nations educations is underfunded then thats where the changes need to be made, that's where we need to focus. not selecting aboriginals just cause they're aboriginals. That doesn't serve them at all imo."  
 
NO one has advocated hiring aboriginal people "just cause" they're aboriginal. Affirmative action, or employment equity, is selecting between QUALIFIED PEOPLE. No one is getting hired to be a teacher BECAUSE they're a lesbian or first nations if they are all qualified.

Tater said "Torque said: "When it comes to hiring competent teachers, there should be no preference given to any race. If First nations educations is underfunded then thats where the changes need to be made, that's where we need to focus. not selecting aboriginals just cause they're aboriginals. That doesn't serve them at all imo."     NO one has advocated hiring aboriginal people "just cause" they're aboriginal. Affirmative action, or employment equity, is selecting between QUALIFIED PEOPLE. No one is getting hired to be a teacher BECAUSE they're a lesbian or first nations if they are all qualified. "

Well then I have misunderstood you, because I am talking about two qualified people.  
 
I have always been talking about two qualified people.  
 
My point is it's still discrimination if you select one of the two qualified people based on their belonging to a minority. That's the whole point, and at no point was it my position that you were advocating hiring unqualified over qualified.  
 
I meant just that with the "selecting aboriginals just cause their aboriginals" comment. I thought it was understood that I was talking about two qualified people, ONE BEING ABORIGINAL as an example. Because as soon as you throw down that minority kicker card, that is by definition discrimination, ie, hiring the aboriginal for them being aboriginal on top of them being qualified. I don't know how many other ways I can put this.  
 
I've either been completely inarticulate in getting my point across, or you're deliberately trying to misrepresent my position.  
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2016-02-26 10:51:53

Lots of good answers here (and some knee-jerk reactions) but just wanted to throw in that as the demographics change, so will the workers. I imagine there are a lot of teachers that come overseas and have to go through some schooling yet again to get the proper credentials for Mb. In a few years, I imagine we'll be seeing a lot of different ethnicities in our teaching staff, and every other professional job.

Torque, if you're selecting between two qualified people, who in all other respects are equally qualified, there are many times that individuals who represent the "usual" can be chosen because bias exists based on what those doing the selecting have seen in the past. So if they are equally qualified, WHAT other criteria would you use to select the candidate, in a situation where you have under-representation by several groups? Why isn't it fair? What do you think would be more fair, when picking between candidates who are both qualified?  
I'm not trying to misrepresent your position, I'm trying to understand it as well as express MY position.

One has to question where the white coloured females and males who finished there high school with good standing are going to higher education ? Quotes at the U of M then all the guess what the rest follow. This is geeting real smelly.

Farmers feed the world, I stand corrected.

Tater said "Actually if teaching is considered a "woman's job" and not a "men's job", yes that is discrimination against men. It would be good for society if there were more male teachers, and men should be recognized and encouraged to use their gifts in teaching just as much as women.   As for language barriers, what do you mean? Any person would have to be QUALIFIED in any of these situations. The basis for employment equity has been scientifically shown many times. To argue that it's discriminatory instead of acknowledging that the existing system is discriminatory and that this type of initiative is a correcting action is an error. I have considered many other possible contributing factors, as has the University of Manitoba! Do you think that a UNIVERSITY which teaches professional teachers, sociologists, psychologists etc., as well as conducting research, is the place that HASN'T considered contributing factors???     What about the minorities FROM CANADA? Who speak English?? Who were educated in Canada but to a lower standard because Indian Affairs has chronically underfunded first nations primary education? What about transgender people? What about people with disabilities that can be accommodated?   Get real. "

the barriers that may contribute from ethnic people seeking to be teachers could come in many forms including language barriers  
 
ex, person immigrates to Canada with a teachers degree from wherever, first as the article stated they have to re-due 18 months of school, in a language that isnt their first, while supporting themselves and maybe family, then they also have to be qualified to teach in english or french, before or after the 18m IDK but with those two factors alone i could see immigrants with language barriers not wanting or able to complete their qualifications therefore i can see that there could easily be a language barrier stopping these candidates from entering the field, these are smart people and there are other jobs that can accommodate a language barrier better and my bet is many choose to go alternative directions, so imo that is not systematic discrimination but it is a product of our system  
 
there are other factors i can see why more men do not enter the system too but i dont think i really need to spell them out to everyone  
 
i also agree that affirmative action is discriminatory and the issues of attracting and training qualified candidates to reflect our population should not be solved by discriminating against another group, until we dont even see color or gender as a deciding factor there is still an a huge issue and jumping to play the same game as was done before isnt going to help it is just creating more discrimination

Immigrants are not the only people who are under represented. Traveller- how would you propose addressing systemic discrimination? You say you don't need to spell out why more men don't get into teaching-- why not?

MBKeith said "Our children deserve the best teachers, the ones who worked the hardest to earn their post. They don't deserve someone who's only there because of anti-white racism (Oops! I mean affirmative action.) "

and it's NOT too many white, female teachers! Asinine, to say the least...  
 
As we all have heard, we have the highest paid teachers yet students in Manitoba rank lowest in math, science and reading.  
 
No we can not totally blame these scores on the lower income areas, reserves, etc like everyone was trying to when this all came out.  
 
Last time I checked, these subjects were pretty damn important subjects which are required for entry into all universities.  
 
It's not about the color of your skin, its about ability to actually teach and we need teachers who can teach the subjects they are employed for.  
 
Too often, you see staff being hired because they are likable or can coach a sport.....don't just hire anyone and then expect them to be able to successfully teach students, if the teacher lacks the confidence this affects the student.  
 
Its not about skin color so no race cards need to be played, schools need to hire employees who specialize in the areas needed for such major subjects  
 
Edited by Seriously?, 2016-02-27 01:29:19

If Teachers are hired because they're "likeable", who is determining this? "Likeability" is NOT a category that is objective, and that means that it is a quality that can easily be used to mask unconscious racism. This is the kind of thing that is a part of systemic racism/discrimination.  

Tater said "Immigrants are not the only people who are under represented. Traveller- how would you propose addressing systemic discrimination? You say you don't need to spell out why more men don't get into teaching-- why not? "

yes immigrants are not the only under represented group but they are the ones most likley to have a language barrier  
 
I didnt feel like another example making my wall o text even longer really helped prof my point so i only used the language barrier example instead of spelling out the barriers men have to entering the teaching profession  
 
i am not a man but from what i have heard some of the barriers are due to interest, many men dont like large groups of younger kids, that could be a product of gender socialization but im not sure men not applying transfers over to gender stereotyping and discrimination in hiring practices.  
 
That is one issue but the BIGGEST issue i hear is that men are scared to enter primary teaching position as men are already discriminated against with everyone believing any man that would like to teach younger children must be pedophiles and young kids are touchy feely and the men who would be interested are uncomfortable having to worry about accusations, again tho that is not in hiring or admission standards, that is in mens views which is a product of society  
 
so while i can see that teaching does have more women then men im not sure it is our job to force men into positions they dont want or hire less then qualified men to fill a quota to make the profession more equal nor should we discriminate to make it equal and that is what affirmative action promotes  
 
what i would rather see other initiatives to look into changing issues like these but reality is that maybe some of these issues is because people have fee choice to go into whatever they want and certain groups dont want to enter certain professions as much as others do, free choice is wonderful and we shouldnt try to force it out of people  
 

Who is advocating taking away free choice? I think the idea is that people have obstacles to their free choice or to success in their chosen field and that it is important to remove those barriers?

Tater said "Who is advocating taking away free choice? I think the idea is that people have obstacles to their free choice or to success in their chosen field and that it is important to remove those barriers? "

obstacles, or reasons, people choose certain professions isnt going to change by discriminating against others its just going to become an obstacle for a different group which is sooo wrong  

Lol i notice alot of white fat people work at mcdonalds ...and more women that are thin and beautiful work at montanas...lol

I swear there is more discrimination and racism in the world then there is bacteria culture floating in my cup of white yogurt...why isnt my.yogurt brown...it should be brown... or at least have some in it so its equal..

Some people have obstacles, some people have advantages, to agree with this statement would make anyone a racist.

I see a lot of comments on here about how it's not fair that some people pay a lot of taxes, others don't want to work, etc.  
Well I think it's not fair that there are people who don't get the education we all pay taxes for because of systemic racism, people who are bullied more than others because they are gay or transgender, people who don't get hired because they don't fit some else's idea of what a teacher or any other profession looks like. And if one way to correct that unfairness is to make rules about it, I'm all for it.  
 
The argument that "that's reality" is nonsense. If our society accepted that as an excuse not to do better, not to BE better, we'd still have slavery, and women, First Nations and Asian Canadians still wouldn't have the vote. There are a hundred ways our country is better because people had the compassion and determination and imagination to make things better.  
 
Edited by Tater, 2016-02-27 17:27:14

Tater said "I see a lot of comments on here about how it's not fair that some people pay a lot of taxes, others don't want to work, etc.   Well I think it's not fair that there are people who don't get the education we all pay taxes for because of systemic racism, people who are bullied more than others because they are gay or transgender, people who don't get hired because they don't fit some else's idea of what a teacher or any other profession looks like. And if one way to correct that unfairness is to make rules about it, I'm all for it.     The argument that "that's reality" is nonsense. If our society accepted that as an excuse not to do better, not to BE better, we'd still have slavery, and women, First Nations and Asian Canadians still wouldn't have the vote. There are a hundred ways our country is better because people had the compassion and determination and imagination to make things better.     Edited by Tater, 2016-02-27 17:27:14"

Who doesn't get the education we all pay taxes for?  
 
Who didn't get hired because they did,'t fit someone else:s idea of what a teacher or any other profession looks like?

First Nations students on reserve don't get the same education as Canadians in the rest of Canada. For example.  
Many people don't get hired because they don't fit the preconceived notions about what a competent teacher looks like, and in that I include religious hiring- where teachers in a catholic school must profess that they are catholic for example- as long as they are professional teachers and teach the curriculum, why does this matter?  
 
Another poster made a point that teachers are preferentially hired if they are likeable for example- idk if that person is correct but if so that is such a subjective criteria that it can easily allow for all kinds of prejudice, as a person may find others who are very like him or herself to be more "likeable".

You weren't stating that first nations don't get the education we all pay taxes for, you were saying that some first nations people don't get the identical education that some pay taxes for. I won't disagree.  
 
As for the Catholicism, that was negotiated with government years ago and I don't like it either. I think the Catholic School System should be privately run and funded.  
 
As for likability, if I am hiring people to work with me, you better believe I will give preference to some one like minded (not necessarily like skinned or genitalled) as I will want to build a smooth running cohesive team.  
 
Edited by CommonTater, 2016-02-27 17:53:07

The education provided by Indian affairs is not just different, it is substandard. It does not meet the standard of any provincial curriculum. Students who graduate from schools on reserve are overwhelmingly underprepared for post secondary studies. That is not equal but different, that is actually less-than.  
 
If you are hiring people to work with you, that's one thing, unless you are hiring teachers to teach children in public schools, maybe people who would form a cohesive team with you are not the same people who would provide the best education and role modelling to my kids.  
 
If a bunch of bigots run the public education system, what's to stop them from hiring those who are likeable to them only?