Juno News - July 09, 2024


Affirmative Action is harmful and insulting


Episode Stats

Length

14 minutes

Words per Minute

171.4133

Word Count

2,566

Sentence Count

123


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 The government's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion sounds great on paper,
00:00:04.480 but in reality, it's identity politics, which is discriminatory and bad for Canada.
00:00:09.120 I'm Jasmine Moulton, and it's time for another episode of Reality Check.
00:00:19.940 Every week on Reality Check, we take on one leftist argument, and this week we're taking
00:00:24.960 on affirmative action. Now, leftists claim that the point of affirmative action is to redress
00:00:30.880 historical inequities, but in reality, affirmative action just perpetuates discrimination, and it
00:00:35.920 undermines the credibility of the groups that it purports to help. But first things first, if you
00:00:39.880 like the show, please share it so that other people can also discover it, like the show, or share on
00:00:44.940 social media. If you think that the work that we do here at TNC is important, then you can consider
00:00:49.860 donating to support that work at donate.tnc.news. Also, if you have a topic that you'd like reality
00:00:56.400 checked to cover, a leftist myth that you think we should debunk, please leave it below in the
00:01:01.100 comments, and I'll be sure I read them every week, so please let me know what you think we should
00:01:05.360 tackle next. Back to this week's show. Here are some examples of affirmative action, or equity,
00:01:10.260 or identity politics, whatever you want to call it, in action in Canada. Take a listen.
00:01:14.720 I understand one of the priorities for you was to have a cabinet that was gender balanced,
00:01:19.480 why was that so important to you? Because it's 2015.
00:01:24.480 A few months ago, I was at the World Economic Forum, and amidst a sea of political and business
00:01:35.860 leaders, I issued a challenge. I asked each and every one of those leaders to make a conscious
00:01:41.960 effort to hire, promote, and retain more women. For every dollar of hourly wages a
00:01:49.420 man working full-time earns in Canada, a woman working full-time earns about 88 cents. Canada
00:01:56.900 ranks 15th out of 29 OECD countries based on the hourly gender wage gap. This disparity persists,
00:02:06.760 despite the fact that pay equity is a human right entrenched in law.
00:02:13.760 So today, we're taking another step forward to reduce barriers and address that. This morning,
00:02:24.980 I can announce that the Government of Canada, in partnership with Canadian banks, is investing
00:02:30.960 nearly $221 million to launch Canada's...
00:02:35.960 Now, a few notes on those clips in case you're listening to the podcast version of this show.
00:02:40.940 Back where the Prime Minister says, because it's 2015, you can actually see Jody Wilson-Raybould
00:02:46.100 in the back smiling as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says this. Now, recall, she was the Attorney
00:02:51.440 General of Canada until Trudeau kicked her out of caucus, along with her colleague,
00:02:56.260 Jean Philpott, over his government's SNC-Lavalin scandal. Next, if you were just listening to the
00:03:02.320 show instead of watching the YouTube video, you might not have seen, but that was Prime Minister
00:03:06.720 Justin Trudeau there taking the knee during a Black Lives Matter protest back in Ottawa.
00:03:12.140 Now, recall, these protests were against systemic racism, which means that the head of that apparently
00:03:18.220 racist system, Justin Trudeau, is taking a knee to protest the system. It's like, dude, you're the
00:03:23.700 leader. You're also the only known Canadian Prime Minister with a penchant for blackface.
00:03:27.700 But, of course, that didn't stop him from funding for Black entrepreneurs or female entrepreneurs
00:03:33.260 as well, amongst a myriad of other announcements for identity politics-related policies.
00:03:38.700 As I said at the beginning of this show, diversity, equity, and inclusion all sound really great on paper,
00:03:44.340 and you'd have to be some sort of monster to object to any of these things.
00:03:47.460 But on today's show, we're going to go through each of diversity, equity, and inclusion and talk about
00:03:52.580 how even though they're really nice sounding ideas, in reality, they've been disastrous and even harmful
00:03:59.300 or insulting policies in Canada. So let's start with the first one, diversity. Now, there is merit
00:04:05.460 to this idea of diversity. If you think of the financial world, for example, in your financial
00:04:10.660 portfolio, it's a good idea, generally speaking, to be diversified, because if you're invested in
00:04:16.020 different areas, for example, those stocks could react differently to the same event, therefore,
00:04:21.220 balancing risk and helping you to achieve your long-term financial goals. This, of course, is not
00:04:26.020 financial advice, but it is an analogy to say that while in the financial world, diversity is a good
00:04:32.820 thing, it is generally a good principle to abide by. So while it's true that the principle of diversity
00:04:38.660 is good, the government's definition of diversity is only skin deep, which, of course, is very superficial.
00:04:45.220 According to the government's Employment Equity Act, there are four designated groups recognized under
00:04:51.220 the act. First, women, then Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and also visible minorities.
00:04:58.500 So as the theory goes, the government thinks that these groups are discriminated against,
00:05:03.780 and they come up with affirmative action policies and programs to try to redress that discrimination.
00:05:10.020 One example of such policies, of course, would be gender balancing the cabinet. So as just a quick
00:05:15.220 explainer for those who might not be familiar, in Canada, the Prime Minister actually chooses his or
00:05:19.940 her own cabinet. So he or she will assign ministers to head certain ministries, such as the Minister of
00:05:27.140 Finance, for example, or Defence. Those are all appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. As you heard in the
00:05:32.500 opening clip, Trudeau made a commitment to gender balance the cabinet, meaning appoint approximately half of
00:05:38.820 all cabinet ministers as women. And this is apparently necessary because of the year, which at the time was
00:05:46.180 2015. Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of issues with that. And let's start with number one, it's logically
00:05:51.780 inconsistent. The very first question that needs to be asked of this government is, are women different than
00:05:57.860 men? Because the fact that they say a gender balanced cabinet is required, would imply that yes, women are
00:06:04.660 different from men, because if 50% of cabinet must be women, clearly they bring something different to
00:06:10.340 the table. They're different than men. But at the same time, this government talks so constantly and
00:06:15.780 frequently about the gendered wage gap in this country, which would imply that women are in fact not
00:06:22.180 different than men. They're saying men and women do the same jobs, make the same choices, yet they're being
00:06:27.780 paid differently. So which is it? Are men and women the same or are they different? Famed psychologist Dr. Jordan
00:06:33.860 Peterson has elaborated often on the psychological difference between men and women with respect to
00:06:39.620 personality traits. He explains how average differences in personality traits between men and
00:06:45.220 women can actually lead to vastly different choices in terms of career. For example, this is just one
00:06:50.740 factor of many that can help account for and explain the wage gap. Now the wage gap really does deserve its
00:06:57.060 own dedicated show because it's such a complicated issue and one that left us really reduced down to
00:07:02.820 discrimination. But ultimately, at the end of the day, the point is that a disparity between average
00:07:09.380 pay, for example, between two genders, disparity is not evidence of discrimination. You really do need to
00:07:15.620 identify tangible discrimination in society and fight it at its source, not just simply state that two
00:07:21.540 things are different, therefore discrimination must have taken place. The second problem with the left's
00:07:25.460 approach to diversity is that, of course, it doesn't mean diversity of thought, which would actually be
00:07:30.660 beneficial. It refers more to diversity of skin color or genitalia. And the Jody Wilson-Raybould case
00:07:37.540 exposed just how superficial the government's notion of diversity is. So you can really start to see how
00:07:42.980 absurd this is that its diversity to the left isn't about having a different opinion and finding maybe some
00:07:49.380 common ground or a new approach. It really is about all having the same opinion but looking different when
00:07:54.260 you express it. This notion of diversity would be like having a financial portfolio of all airline
00:07:59.940 stocks but saying, hey, I'm diversified because all of the logos look different. So just as it's really
00:08:04.900 stupid and superficial to say a financial portfolio would be diversified because you have companies
00:08:09.700 that have a lot of different looking logos, it is equally as stupid to say that your cabinet is
00:08:15.220 diversified because you have different looking people. If they all act and think the same, it's not
00:08:19.940 diversity. Another problem with this superficial form of diversity is that it doesn't actually fix
00:08:26.100 the root causes. If you're going to have a gender balanced cabinet, you're going to put 50% women in
00:08:31.700 cabinet positions and 50% men. That does nothing for women facing actual discrimination. Now, this is a
00:08:38.420 funny one because this is where the left actually starts to believe in trickle down. Of course, they always
00:08:43.780 criticize that argument on the right side of the aisle, but they say, no, there will be trickle down effects.
00:08:48.580 If you have female cabinet ministers, their policies and lived experience will somehow translate and
00:08:54.340 trickle down to women actually facing discrimination because they'll change policies, etc, etc. But again,
00:09:00.820 this kind of diversity is not about diversity of thought. As we saw with Jody Wilson-Raybould,
00:09:06.180 you're really not allowed to disagree. And the issue with fighting systemic discrimination is that it's
00:09:12.500 unclear how to actually tackle that when it's this nebulous concept. You actually have to pinpoint
00:09:18.420 where is the discrimination happening and use the law to address it head on. So when the government
00:09:23.300 focuses on disparities instead of actual acts of discrimination, you're not changing anything.
00:09:29.460 Really, the government's just trying to play its hand to reshape society according to its own
00:09:33.700 ideological vision. And the final problem with the government's definition of diversity is that they
00:09:39.540 focus on these four designated groups that we mentioned. And of course, there's a lot of diversity
00:09:44.820 within those groups. That really is the problem with identity politics or affirmative action. It
00:09:49.540 doesn't look at individuals, which of course, vary greatly by categories as broad as woman. There are
00:09:56.820 a lot of advantaged women in our society and some disadvantaged women. So it really is problematic
00:10:02.820 that the government talks about diversity when it's not talking about individuals, it talks about their
00:10:07.860 group identity. And in reality, it's some of the most privileged within these four designated categories
00:10:13.460 that the government has called disadvantaged that are best poised to take advantage of the affirmative
00:10:18.420 action policies of the government, since these policies are being targeted based on group identity,
00:10:23.460 not on the basis of being disadvantaged. And ultimately, it's really problematic to treat members
00:10:27.860 of a broad group as all the same, because actually they're quite different. Alright, so that's the issue
00:10:33.460 with the government's take on quote unquote diversity. So let's move on from diversity now to equity. Now,
00:10:40.260 leftists claim that affirmative action policies are really about equity or putting everybody on the
00:10:46.100 same playing field. Now, anytime you talk about equity, you've probably seen this graphic. For
00:10:51.380 those of you who are not watching the show, you're listening. This is the graphic of the three people
00:10:55.780 standing at the baseball game, each are standing on a box. And when they all have one box, which is
00:11:01.220 equality, only two of them are tall enough to see over the fence into the baseball game. But when the tallest
00:11:06.900 person gives his box to the shortest, so now he has zero boxes, the middle person is one, the person
00:11:12.900 on the right has two, they're all now tall enough to look over the fence into the baseball game. And this
00:11:18.580 of course, is defined as equity, which means people are treated differently to be put on the same
00:11:24.660 playing field. Now, this graphic and the statement that it makes about equity are incredibly flawed. And it's kind of
00:11:30.660 funny that this part is lost on the left that obviously, if everybody just skipped the line,
00:11:37.380 and instead of buying a ticket, watched a baseball game over a fence, then there would be no ticket
00:11:42.740 sale revenue to pay the players, and therefore no baseball game to watch. But I digress. But what this
00:11:48.340 graphic really fails to capture is that people are different. And what do I mean by that? This graphic
00:11:54.580 implies that if you put everyone on the same playing field, then you'll have equity, people will all be
00:12:00.500 the same. But as any sibling can tell you, even people that are raised from the identical starting
00:12:07.220 point, they're in the same socioeconomic situation, because they both have the same parents, they're in
00:12:12.340 the same family, they're in the exact same setting, may go on to do very different things and earn very
00:12:18.980 different amounts of money because of individual differences and also choices. So it's obviously not
00:12:24.980 even possible that the government could create this sort of equity or equality amongst all people,
00:12:31.380 because people are not equal, they're all very different. So while most would agree that we
00:12:35.860 should care for the most vulnerable in society, most would not agree with this communist ideal of equity,
00:12:41.940 which is undesirable at best and deadly at worst. Okay, so we've gone through the problems with the
00:12:47.460 government's definition of diversity and equity. Let's get to inclusion. The funny thing about the
00:12:52.820 government's definition of inclusion is that it's actually quite discriminatory. I think we could all
00:12:58.260 agree that hiring should be done based on merit. But when the government is saying that they're going to
00:13:03.540 give hiring preference to people within its four designated groups and under the Employment Equity Act,
00:13:10.180 then necessarily you're discriminating against the people in Canada outside of those groups. And the
00:13:16.260 problem with hiring based on immutable characteristics or group identity as opposed to merit
00:13:22.580 and letting merit alone be your only hiring principle is that it actually really lessens
00:13:27.380 the achievement and even self-esteem of the people that you're hiring. Being appointed to a position
00:13:33.140 because your employer is trying to meet a certain quota would make you feel like a token. It would
00:13:38.020 really reek of tokenism. And whether that's real or perceived, perhaps you really deserve the position.
00:13:43.860 Of course, it would serve to lower your self-esteem and make you feel like you're only appointed to that
00:13:48.420 position because of an immutable characteristic, not because you deserve it. And of course,
00:13:53.060 when the government creates programs for specific groups such as women or visible minorities,
00:13:58.820 it sends the message that the government thinks they're inferior because obviously the government
00:14:03.460 thinks that they need extra help. This of course is incredibly insulting. So to conclude, the government's
00:14:09.700 version of inclusion does not include disadvantaged people like it purports to. What it really does is
00:14:16.020 tokenizes them and insults them by implying that somehow they're lesser and need the extra help.
00:14:22.340 So here's a reality check. The government's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies are
00:14:27.060 harmful and insulting. People are different and that's a good thing. The government should treat
00:14:31.540 people as individuals and reward merit instead of playing the discriminatory game of identity politics.
00:14:37.140 That's our show for this week. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Jasmine Moulton and don't forget to tune in
00:14:41.860 next week, every Monday to the next episode of Reality Chat.