DISCRIMINATION BY ANOTHER NAME

Harry Lali, a candidate running for the provincial NDP leadership in British Columbia, made a statement on Thursday, January 6, that's sure to get every liberal-minded Canadian citizen tied in a knot.

(Photo from cbc.ca)

Lali made the statement that "(e)quity quotas are anti-democratic and discriminate, specifically against older, white males. As leader, I would welcome back older, white males into our NDP family. I say to older, white males, don't stand outside the tent and complain. Come and join my campaign team."

Critics will immediately pounce on him for making the statement that equity quotas are anti-democratic and discriminate against white males. I can almost guarantee that the portion of the statement he made within the same speech in which he states "(w)e need to empower women and equity groups through an incentive-based and target-based approach, but NOT through equity quotas" will be largely ignored by his detractors and the media.

The reality of the situation is that equity quotas are anti-democratic and discriminate. The purpose of these measures was to eliminate the glass ceiling that prevented women and members of visible minorities from reaching the same heights within organizations as their predominantly white male counterparts.

There is no doubt that equity quotas, or employment equity, has had an impact on the number of women and visible minorities entering the workforce and political parties, and competing for high profile jobs. But at a certain point, we must, as a nation, collectively reevaluate equity quotas.

Anyone who has ever applied for a government job, whether at the civic, provincial, or federal level, will have no doubt read the disclaimers noting that preference will be given to members of one of the four employment equity designated groups. Members of this group include aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and women.

On the one hand, I'm glad governments proactively disclose this information; on the other, I think it's a discriminatory practice. When you make the statement that you are hiring members of specific groups, it bluntly gives the impression that you are hiring based on sex and race.

What's worse is that keeping such a practice in place also demeans members of the employment equity designated groups. It virtually gives the impression that members of those groups got their jobs simply due to the fact that they fall within the desired criteria rather than solely based on their qualifications.

Make no mistake, members of these equity groups are just as qualified as those who are not, and they were historically mistreated and under-represented in the workforce. However, current hiring practices leave a sour taste. We shouldn't be hiring based on guilt over historical mistreatment. I believe on hiring based on merit, plain and simple.

I firmly believe in an incentive-based and target-based approach that would empower women and minority groups as Lali suggested. Quotas don't fix problems. They act as a fancy window-dressings. But as noted, it is unlikely that much attention will be paid to that portion of his speech. The media will undoubtedly choose to focus on the more controversial portion of his statement which, taken out of context, looks confrontational and controversial.

Lali took a stand, but he'll probably fall on his sword.