Hacker News Reader

Comment by jarbus | Hacker News Reader

> In accordance with UBC’s CRC Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Action Plan, and pursuant to Section 42 of the BC Human Rights code, the selection will be restricted to members of the following designated groups: persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, women and gender minorities (transgender, gender-fluid, nonbinary and Two-Spirit people), and racialized minorities. Applicants to CRC positions are asked to complete this equity survey as part of the application, and candidates from these groups must self-identify as belonging to one or more of the designated equity groups to be considered for the position. Because the search is limited to those self-identifying as members of designated equity groups, candidates must also provide their name to be considered.

Oh my god this is nuts

View on HN

This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal.

I understand that in some countries with a long history of racial segregation there still is a culture of casual (or even subconscious) racism when considering new hires or university applicants. It's unspoken but very real and unless you've been an immigrant or minority you don't get to see the full extend of it.

But (and it's a big but) you don't solve this problem with more racism. I see headlines about US universities rejecting applicants because of their race or skin colour and how they "already have enough of them". That is crazy. Imagine how unfair it is to be rejected on that basis.

It's hard to tackle conspiring racists as a legislator. That's why all these weird half-measures came to be. But there are better ways. Standardized tests as the main or only criteria for university entry. Effective committees that oversee hiring choices and seek for evidence of racism and favoritism in the choices made by companies.

But when you impose objective criteria you risk hurting the wealthy and well-connected. So it's "better" to just shove a few more minorities on the list and make it look right without it actually being fair.

Another serious side-effect of this is that it breeds racism and resentment.

> This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal.

This problem arises because the people putting these policies into place (or their constituents, whatever) are trying to redefine the meaning of "fair".

Your definition of "fair" (and mine, and most peoples, and the sane one, and the original one before it was hijacked) is "equal treatment". Their definition of "fair" is "equal amounts of assets" - equity. Put another way, these laws are driven by people who think that it's unfair for different people to have different amounts of money.

You can probably guess which ideology this comes from.

Anyway, given that definition of "unfair", it's natural to define "racism" to mean "unequal outcomes" (different amounts of money) instead of the original "unequal treatment". From their perspective, the action mentioned in the article decreases racism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com