Affirmative Action: Equal Opportunity Hire

Affirmative action elicits a reaction. Which do you prefer to side with? Support or oppose?

At a recent social gathering, a friend communicated that he doesn't believe in hiring minorities, but equal opportunity hiring. Makes sense. One should not be hired to fill the quota on hiring visible minorities, but they should be equally and fairly considered in terms of their qualifications.

What is disturbing is that often, people believe that affirmative action means that minorities will be hired regardless of their lack in their qualifications, just because they are a minority. No. Let's not get this twisted here. With that attitude, affirmative action is no longer affirmative.

What debaters, policy makers, gate keepers and YOU have to understand is, people often look at an individual that may be categorized as a minority and think they were only hired because of their race, religion, gender etc. In actuality, that is the exact maintenance of discrimination that affirmative action intends to deconstruct.
The idea is, HIRE BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS.

When applying for a job, it really should be what you know, not who you know. Unfortunately, it is not so. Unfortunately, it is also, who you are, what skin colour you wear, who your parents are etc.

Minorities are faced with discrimination even prior to the job interview. The education system is filled with hidden curriculum that undermines the abilities and opportunities of minorities. The fact that something like AFFIRMATIVE ACTION even exists tells you right there what kind of world we live in... A world that needs policies to ensure organizations and companies hire fairly. ... Why? Because at one point in time, it was well accepted that minorities WEREN'T being considered fairly.

Just ask the person next to you. Chances are, they're categorized as a minority too.

Gay Parents CAN Parent

I don't think anyone can argue with me when I say that the sexual orientation of any individual is NOT a determinant of how successful they can be as parents. To argue that a gay couple cannot provide a child with above adequate love, nurture and other necessities is a weak argument based solely on a social division, and has no convincing premise. 
To say that two people cannot marry because they don't fit the normal grouping of two people of the opposite sex is exercising the authoritative domination of the privileged group.
Zach Wahl, a student at the University of Iowa and business owner was raised by two women who married a few years ago. He was born through artificial insemination, as well as his sister (from the same donour) and therefore are both biologically siblings. 


He presents his case in Iowa here**:

Being in the field of social services, I have seen countless parents that identify as "heterosexual" make the wrong choices. I avoid calling them "mistakes" as I don't consider their actions accidental. Leaving a child home alone because you couldn't find a sitter while you were out with friends drinking is hardly a mistake now is it...?
But they were allowed to marry, and allowed to have children with no stigma or discrimination attached. Yet, what would be the court's explanation for their lack of judgement on child rearing since they're heterosexual? Don't have one? ... Well that just confirms my argument :)


The wrong choices were made because they were unfit parents, people I consider that weren't ready to have children, but happily collected the cheques. 


The bottom line is: Straight, bisexual, homosexual, black, white, purple... none of these identify with "the best parent" or "the best married couple".
As Wahl states, the sexual orientation of his parents does not have any impact on the content of his character.


Well said Wahl.

-----

**Thank you to my friend Diane for bringing this to my attention

Diesel Brand: The modern colonizers?

Appropriation: To take over goods, resources, knowledge and ideas.

Diesel, the Italian brand clothing company aren't killing Natives. They're just buying them. 


In their ad campaign for "Diesel Island", they use appropriation of colonialism through humour to mock the history of murder and inhumane acts toward Indigenous individuals. 


We've seen ads that were just ridiculous. And most times, we skim through these ads and pay it no mind. This doesn't excuse the advertisers, companies, designers etc. to advertise whatever they like behind the protective wall of humour.

Ad reads: "Instead of conquering and island and KILLING NATIVES, we decided to
simply buy it. (Besides, have you seen the price of weapons these days?)"

Apparently, theft of an island is still the okay thing to do. ... Really? 


This may not seem like much of a controversy to a lot of you who many not have a background in Colonialism or marginalization for that matter. But think of it this way for example:

If you're black: Imagine if this ad read, "Instead of supporting slavery or lynching black people to reinforce our position of power, we decided to simply buy your 'blackness'. Besides, have you seen the price of slaves lately?"

If you're a woman: Imagine if this ad read, "Instead of using rape as a weapon and sexually assaulting any women we please, we decided to simply buy your sexual objectivity and strengthen the power dynamic. Besides, have you seen the price of weapons lately?"

If you're LGBTQ: Imagine if this ad read, "Instead of cyber/bullying the LGBTQ community, we decided to simple buy your gayness. Besides, have you seen the price of emotional distress from suicidal attempts in lawsuits lately?"

...Hit closer to home yet?

The above ad is a portion of the message that Diesel is sending: "We're not killing natives... no no that's bad. But we're gonna make fun of it, and simultaneously using our economic status we're gonna buy it. We're gonna use privilege through hegemony and make light of our history as colonizers and commodify it. This way, everyone is happy. You are entertained, the Indigenous people won't know... and we make money."

If we analyze the above ad, Diesel labels colonizers as "pioneers" that were seeking refuge. The attempt at appropriating through humour is right there---> "...and reality shows". 

The above ad here shows a couple that look like their taking a couples vacation on Indigenous land. Tourism has become the new Colonialism. Diesel are the modern colonizers.

"Land of the stupid, Home of the brave" ????? (Does "Home of the brave" sound familiar to you...?)

Land of the stupid refers to the Indigenous people... and that exact land became "home" to the so-called "brave".

Get it? No?

It's okay. I'll wait.