Nenshi’s diversity problem

Why the Calgary mayor’s push for diversity at city hall may be cause for concern

Jeff McIntosh/CP

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi has built up an impressive trove of political capital since first being elected in 2010. On Jan. 15, he spent some. In a speech about diversity given at city hall to a Calgary Economic Development audience, the plain-spoken, ever-direct mayor had some plain-spoken, direct words about the city administration, starting with: “We are lousy at promoting a diverse workforce.

“When you look at our management levels within the city, my top six managers, there are no women right now,” the mayor continued. (The speech was transcribed by the Calgary Herald’s Jason Markusoff.) “There are no people of a visible minority. Throughout our 34 next most-senior managers at the city—I haven’t actually done the census—but off the top of my head, I can think of one person from a visible minority, and a handful of women. We’ve got to do a better job. And we have to look internally at our own organization to determine what are the barriers that are in place toward people getting promoted into these jobs.”

Alberta politicians simply do not say this kind of thing out loud, at least, not so confrontationally. The sort of public handwringing about ethnic diversity and gender equality that is common currency elsewhere has never become part of the climate. Alberta government institutions all have hundred-page diversity plans and officials responsible for pushing them, and provincial governments make visible minorities extra-visible at election time. Lip service is always paid—in a way that makes it obvious that it is lip service.

But for a Calgary mayor to communicate to the public that the upper ranks at “his” city hall are white to an awkwardly high degree? That is unusual and, in a sense, unprecedented.

Alberta possesses a self-image as a place wherein it is unnecessary to count the hues of various noses. We like to think of ourselves as impressively colour-blind, based on a long history of neighbourliness to Chinese restaurateurs, African-American athletes, Japanese beet farmers and Lebanese accountants. Yes, this may be a smug, self-satisfied fantasy constructed in defence of a white ruling class. But it is unfantastic enough for someone named Naheed Nenshi to have been elected mayor of Calgary twice, as he is the first to point out. “In Calgary,” he has said before, “nobody cares who your daddy was.”

That quote sounds a note that is deeply appealing to Albertans; both whites and nonwhites have good reasons for wanting to believe a colour-blindness myth. The racial calculus in Nenshi’s Jan. 15 speech sounds a more dissonant, dividing note—not less so because the math is unimpeachable.

Conservative commentators urged “patience” on Nenshi and promised that visible-minority integration would happen “naturally,” given time. This actually seems like a weird mirror-image of the scornful congratulations Alberta received for electing a female premier in 2012. According to the latest National Household Survey, Calgary’s population is 28 per cent “minority,” making the city significantly more diverse than Montreal (20 per cent) or Ottawa (19 per cent). The contrast between that figure and the folks occupying the big offices in Calgary city hall—even with a South Asian in the biggest, nicest office—is legitimately jarring.

Nenshi says his description of a possible fairness issue is not a call for “quotas” in city hiring. This attracted catcalls from some white chauvinists, and the mayor defended himself by emphasizing that he didn’t mention, or even refer implicitly, to quotas. The problem, of course, is that there is not much daylight between a “quota” and “an implied standard for diversity that the city sure as hell does not seem to be meeting.”

The mayor is not satisfied that his administration is being just to minorities. Presumably, there is some quantum or quotient of minority presence with which he would be satisfied. Hey, pick whatever Latin word starting with “Q” you like. People are going to hear “quota.” (Note: A quota would actually solve the problem, if there is a problem.)

Albertans really are colour-blind, most of ’em. They can afford to be. The province is an affluent land of individualistic, relatively independent farmers, entrepreneurs and non-union workers. But the broaching of racial grievance is not vexing only to those who are racists simpliciter. When well-meaning people hear the mayor talk about how there are not enough women and minorities in the upper ranks of Calgary’s government, they know perfectly well that, as soon as it does recruit some women and minorities, questions about minority women will follow. And then individual ethnic groups will start agitating for parity. And, before long, everybody is plunging into a thicket of mutually irresolvable claims and ad-hoc affirmative-action programs, with no one ever explicitly mentioning “quotas,” while overall institutional quality is neglected.

This is not what the mayor is proposing, but then, no one ever proposes such a thing explicitly. Nenshi’s complaint about city hall is obviously valid on its face—and yet the validity is quite irrelevant to the fears it will tend to arouse.




Browse

Nenshi’s diversity problem

  1. ‘individualistic, relatively independent farmers, entrepreneurs and non-union workers’

    The world in 1776

    • No Emily, the most prosperous generous province in Confederation in 2014.

      • That, you’ve never been.

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Don’t need to.

          • An Inconvenient Education – by M1
            (not the money supply……..or the tank…….although I haven’t seen her picture).

  2. Uh, First Nations, anyone?

    • First Nations what? Alberta, overall, has excellent relations with First Nations people. Don’t believe everything the CBC spoonfeeds you or an expat musician says.

      • Oh, okay, there you have it Frank, Christ731 has given us his personal assurances so that means we can disregard any reporting by a national news organization with decades of broadcasting that adheres to recognized standards. Much easier than critical thinking.

  3. With a 6.5% property tax increase and even more on utilities….bet some seniors and disabled struggling loose their homes and seek social assistance. But we are forced to pay excessive political/union wages for 1/2 assed work.

    Take the city plowing ice off our street, We would have been better off if they had left it alone but to make work and waste, they dug up the 4-6″ sheet ice so you need a 4×4 to navigate our street. It wasn’t a brilliant move for sure but city will not even take a complaint on it. Nenshi knows more than we home owners do (cough).

    Media, please stop putting up Nenshi as a good politician, he s a NWO statism type parachuted in for managing us like tax slaves the same way Redford came to us.

    • The NWO is a religious end times conspiracy theory.

      • nwo is the frontman of the 1%, who want rule the planet.

        • There is no 1% who rule the planet.

          • actually it`s about .01%

          • Nobody rules the planet.

          • Oh idaknow…….I met this guy in Burkina Faso who is a deep-fried dung beetle vendor……..pretty sure he does.

      • Propagated by low class fake cowboys I heard.

        • LOL wouldn’t surprise me.

    • Don’t forget the blue steel ring, aka ‘art work’, the $52 million he stole from taxpayers, etc, etc…

      • “the $52 million he stole”….

        Taxes are the price of what most non-anti social types believe is the cost of living in a civilized society. If you have an issue with that feel free to buy a plot of land somewhere on the tundra where you can live off the land.

        The straight up, point blank assertion that a tax increase = theft exposes you for the mindless trogolodyte that you are.

  4. In the movie “Forrest Gump”, the title character uses the phrase “stupid is as stupid does.” The promotion of diversity for the sake of diversity is plainly stupid.
    Does a lack of diversity automatically suggest racism and sexism? No. Are efforts to promote diversity automatically racist and sexist? Yes.
    What is the purpose of any endeavor? That purpose should always be made clear. For example, if the supposed purpose of hiring a new engineer at city hall is to help serve the people of Calgary, then that is the purpose, and the best candidate should get the job. But, if that purpose gets sidelined by a determination to only hire someone of color, or a female, or someone who is fluent in a language other than English, then the actual purpose is to hire a non-English speaking woman of color. The needs of the electorate are then secondary.
    We have the same problem with our Supreme Court. When we gerrymander the make-up of the Supreme Court, we demote the court’s role in law and promote the court as a tool of multilingualism or multiculturalism, which it most surely ain’t.
    What is the purpose of goals and standards when we are willing to move the goal posts and lower the standards in order to meet other goals and standards which are often immaterial?

    • Yeah, and they can’t find anybody qualified, and things should be on merit, and women might leave to have kids, and the boat rocked and the sun was in your eyes…..we’ve heard it all before.

      • We’ve read your pointless rants before.
        Was this one any different?

      • feminism is a plan of the nwo, turn women into slaves of the corporate elite . Society stood a chance of surviving when mostly men toiled for them, society is doomed now that women are equally represented in the corporate world.

        • ‘Feminism’ is simply the idea that women are people and equal…..it has nothing to do with any ‘nwo plans’.

          • except in sports, where women`s sports are segregated,

          • Women are human beings….and equal. End of nonsense.

    • Where I work, because we supply to the government we have to have certain percentages of women, minorities, those with disabilities, etc.

      We don’t set quotas, despite the government requirements. But we do require that, for any job, if we have qualified applicants from any of the government-identified groups, we must include a representative sampling of them in those we interview. And we have objective measures that are included in evaluating the applicants.

      The best candidate gets the job each time (assuming he or she accepts). And the best candidate is from one of the identified groups often enough that we never have problems meeting government quotas.

      This approach strikes a nice balance in that it makes those hiring aware of the need to be aware of inclusiveness and help eliminate unconscious bias, while still ensuring we select the best person, period. And aside from meeting government targets, we are rated year after year as being one of the top employers in Canada, with a dozen or so such awards from several different groups over the past decade.

      So it can be done without lowering standards or moving goalposts.

      • That’s all well and good, but if I’m buying steel girders to build a structure, and I’m required to purchase girders only supplied by brown-skinned, one-legged, bilingual, vegetarian lesbians, what guarantees would I be able to provide that the steel girders actually meet the engineered requirements?
        Yes, that’s an exaggeration, but in every case where you modify standards in order to meet goals not germaine to the task at hand, it is mathematically inevitable that you will be faced with exactly the type of scenario I’ve just presented.
        The problem is that the very moment you choose to ignore the written policy in order to meet the real requirements of the task at hand you’ll be accused of racism or sexism or some other kind of distatsteful “ism”. So, you bow to the pressure of political correctness and pray that you have enough insurance to cover the lawsuits when the steel girders supllied by the brown-skinned, one-legged, bilingual, vegetarian lesbian collapse on a classroom full of French-immersion ESL kindergardener’s.

        • You did not include Jews in you rant , are you scared?

          • It’s not a rant. Let’s assume I need the best lawyer in the country to help me draft a contract, and the best lawyer in the country happens to be a guy by the name of Epstein. If I then adjust my request for the best lawyer period to a request for the best lawyer who isn’t Jewish, I’ve pretty much changed the standard, haven’t I?
            Look, if I don’t purchase steel from a brown-skinned, one-legged, bilingual, vegetarian lesbian, it doesn’t necessarily mean I’m discriminating against BSOLBV lesbians. Maybe the price of their steel was too high. Maybe they couldn’t deliver on time. Who knows. Ditto for the lawyer.
            If I put out the call for the best lawyer, and then reject Epstein because he’s a Jew, then I’m discriminating, just as I would be if I specifically asked for a Jewish lawyer to draft my contract. Now, it’s possible that my contract requires someone with a knowledge of Jewish tradition. Then, asking for the best Jewish lawyer might be discriminatory or not.
            Where this is tricky is that, as a free person, I am absolutely free to decide that I do or don’t want a Jewish lawyer to draft my steel purchasing contract, nor am I legally required to do business with the aformentioned lesbian steelmaker, even if her price and terms of delivery, as well as her ability to meet the engineering requirments of my steel beams are in line with my request.
            I am absolutely free to discriminate on any grounds I see fit.
            Now, governments, on the other hand are legally bound to avoid discrimination on any of the grounds I am free to. I can discriminate on the basis of skin color, political or religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or any other reason I choose. I can decide not to do business with a am because he wears a toupee, drives a Gremlin, and owns a copy of Margaret Trudeau’s autobiography.
            She’s a free country, kids.
            But, when governments choose to endorse a course of “affirmative action” they are then making a conscious choice to immorally discriminate on the basis of skin color, religious or political belief, sexual orientation, etc.

          • The problem you’re having, and what you explicitly missed from Keith’s post, is that the fantasy scenarios you’re concocting simply don’t exist.

            As Keith points out, so long as you make the effort to *look* at the minority candidates, you are extremely likely to find more than enough who are the best qualified.

            What Nenshi is pointing out is that the lack of women or visible minorities points to one of two things.

            That in a city the size of Calgary–with over a million people–either:
            A: the women and visible minorities are almost *never* the best candidates, or
            B: that there may be some sort of bias that is preventing them from attaining these positions.

            Which of these strikes you as the more likely?

          • The hard reality that few people want to accept is one you’ve not mentioned. In almost any area where there is supposed under-representation of one of our current “approved victim groups”, the most likely reason is that there is a decided lack of candidates from the ranks of those particular groups.
            If only 2% of the applicants for certain jobs are visible minorities or women, then it’s only logical that they would only comprise 2% of those hired.
            A lack of so-called oppressed minorities is not evidence in and of itself of discriminatory practice, therefore taking action to correct supposed discrimination without evidence, is itself discriminatory.

          • Do we have any indications that these visible minorities have less a need to eat and work than the rest of us? No?

            So even if we accept your assertion that fewer of them apply than their statistical numbers would have us believe.. and for the record, I don’t accept that assertion, I think it’s just a comfortable cover story so that you don’t have to accept that just maybe there’s racism and sexism going on in our hiring processes.. but even if we do, then the question becomes: well.. why not?

            Again, we’re left with two choices.. either

            A) you think they are simply sub-par human beings, and don’t have the skill-set to make them the best candidates, or

            B) they feel that they are probably going to be discriminated against anyway, so don’t bother, in which case, making explicit statements that we want to hire more of them should counter-act this yes?

            So.. which is it?

          • duh…A) those who fall in the 28% of the population who are minorities are virtually never the best candidate

            I kid. I kid. Billy Greenwood’s very selective “logic” is absolutely a$$ backwards. He says if people are forced to make the workplace more diverse there *COULD BE* situations where, hypothetically, the best candidate might not be hired. Yet, he’s entirely prepared to accept a situation where some of the best people *AREN’T* being hired because they’re not old, white males. After all, with almost 100% of senior management at Calgary being old, white and a large majority male you’d have to almost always believe white males are the best candidates. I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion when close to a 1/3 of Calgary are minorities and 1/2 are female. It’s completely out of proportion and completely defies statistical common sense (you know like populations falling on a distribution)…unless you believe there’s something about white males that is inherently superior ………… which could partially explain the City of Calgary’s workforce ignoring existing (old boy’s) networks

          • Your stars need work.

          • Am I supposed to be annoyed that you can’t string more than 4 words together to construct a logical thought?

          • Whatever strikes your fancy.

          • Four’s all I need.

          • You have nice stars.

        • You are assuming your brown-skinned, one-legged, bilingual, vegetarian lesbian doesn’t have the qualifications. And the problem is, a brown-skinned, one-legged, bilingual, vegetarian lesbian who actually has the qualifications wouldn’t get hired by someone like you even if she were the most qualified because you make assumptions based on criteria that have absolutely nothing to do with her ability to do the job.

          Which is why we end up with quotas – because white a-holes can’t see talent in anyone who isn’t also a white a-hole.

        • Once again, expanding your pools of candidates or suppliers to “unusual suspects” does not necessarily mean that you put your standards in jeopardy. It is your job to make sure that the standards are met and the best candidate / supplier is selected but it is discriminatory to think that because somebody is one-legged or a lesbian they are not qualified to compete for a job/contract. It is because of this mentality we still have institutional and systemic discrimination.

          • The problems with affirmative action are multiple and well documented. Fallacies abound. For example, if you “expand” your candidate list to specifically include members of specific groups, the net effective result is that you’ve limited your talent pool to members of said groups. The reality is that the recruiters actively exclude other prospects for fear of being viewed as racist or sexist.
            The other hard reality is that while proponents of affirmative action love to praise the progress that various minorities have made as a result of affirmative action, you will not find a single, solitary individual affirmative action proponent in the entire United States who will point to an individual who has been granted a job or position and found success due to his being the recipient of unwarranted promotion based upon his skin color.
            In short, while affirmative action has been tremendously successful, every recipient of affirmative action advantage was actually the best candidate regardless of other factors.
            Right. Where’s Allan Funt?
            Sorry folks, but the dog yer barkin’ ’bout don’t hunt. The big boogeyman man of racism is a toothless, three legged Chihuahua.

          • While I’m neutral towards quotas and affirmative action because I don’t know enough about how they actually work I’d like you to answer the following question you still haven’t addressed: Why are you okay with a situation where some of the best candidates theoretically *MIGHT NOT* be hired but are perfectly okay with a situation where some of the best candidates *AREN’T* being hired?

            You’re afraid of some hypothetical world but you’re perfectly okay with the current world where the thing you’re allegedly afraid of is already happening (based on statistical probability alone – unless you think there’s some competence skew based on race and gender which I’d really like to hear you rationalize with actual evidence – and no population based generalizations won’t work).

            But feel free to continue to flog the dead horse without actually addressing what several people have pointed out to you in various ways.

          • You have it backwards. Quotas ensure that the most qualified don’t always get the reward. Quotas skew the results.
            Let’s say you are the HR dweeb for Dept. A. The minister for Dept. A points out that Dept A seems to lack diversity, and sets a target for the Dept. to have more Jewish lesbians of color in the accounting department of Dept. A. It is determined that 5 would be the proper number.
            So, the next year, the HR dweeb is told that the Dept. needs 100 new hires in accounting. An advert is placed, and 150 souls apply, but only 3 of them are Jewish lesbians of color. Now, one of them happens to score in the top 100 but the other two are in the bottom third in skills and qualifications. Unforunately for the taxpayers and the other candidates who were well qualified, the other two JLOC’s get hired.
            Why? Simple. The target had to be met. Two of the better candididates were discriminated against on the basis of skin color, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity and religion. Is that morally, ethically, and intellectually sound? No.
            The biggest problem is not just that it happens, and it most assuredly does happen, but that it happens in government HR departments ALL the time. Ask yourself why it is that some 50% of the federal workforce claims French as their mother tongue, yet less than a quarter of Canadians are born Francophones. It’s called hiring quotas, kids and kiddies.
            If private sector employers wish to discriminate for any reason- hair color, language, sex, political beliefs, you name it- they are free to do so. That’s what free means. That’s what liberty means.
            But, when government hiring departments set quotas, they are announcing an intent to discriminate on the basis of language, sex and sexual orientation, religion, skin color, ethnicity, and place of birth. That, my friends is morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt.

          • This belongs here:

            http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/01/31/manitoba-child-welfare-left-murdered-girl-at-mercy-of-mom-boyfriend-judge/

            Affirmative action takes many forms, such as the directives handed to child welfare agencies to place native children in the custody of native families when they are taken from their parents. In this instance, politically correct affirmative action led directly to the death of Phoenix Sinclair. This isn’t some lonely, outlier case either.
            Phoenix Sinclair died a horrible death simply because the government agencies at hand were directed to put skin color at the top of the list of criteria for determining who was to care for this little girl, and look what it got her.
            Every month of every year in every province, a child dies because of race-based social policies, which are just another form of affirmative action.
            You try and ask Phoenix Sinclair if my concern is based on hypotheticals.
            BTW- I first heard about this tragedy long before the mainstream Canadian media got wind of it thanks to some courageous native bloggers who look at this much the same way I do.

          • And here I assumed that you were a toothy, 2-legged Albertan Hairless.
            My bad.

        • I’m curious: How does Michael Jackson’s older brother fit into this picture?

          Edit: I just realized that you said “NOT Jermaine”, so I retract my question.

  5. Maybe that Jackass in that picture, should just “ride off on that horse he came in on”.
    Here we go with the racecard again.
    Hey Mayor, your supposed to “promote” people based on their abillity, performance,…, and NOT just because their favourite tanning salon happens to be yours too ?.

    • And how’s that working for you – are the best and the brightest the ones who end up at the top?

      • NO, of course it doesn’t work for me, or for you, unfortunately,
        ’cause naturally, if the “best and brightest” were at the top, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, regarding “silly standards” in mayoral-city-workplace promotions.

      • How’s that working out for FN’s bands?

      • In Calgary, the best and brightest don’t go work for the government. There’s much more money to be made in the private sector.

        • So you’re saying they employ mostly white males because white males are the bottom feeders and non-whites and women find better places to work? Interesting perspective…

          • clangs symbol

  6. Diversity for the sake of diversity accomplishes little. The best ;leaders are one who take charge and don’t play identity politics. One of Britain’s best leaders was Margaret Thatcher who didn’t
    play the gender politics game. She viewed herself as a leader first and a woman leader second. When she ran in 1979, most feminist groups campaigned againt her. One feminist group even said “Vote for the right woman not a right-wing woman.”

    • Well, it’s true that you’re not REALLY female unless you’re left-wing. At least according to certain feminists . . .

      • I would never vote for a party that didn’t fully support my reproductive rights – so I could and did (once) vote the the PC’s, but could never vote for any of the Reform based conservative parties.

  7. Nenshi has a point. But what purpose does it serve to go public? Unless he is frustrated by all other avenues. Must be the case.
    You don’t need to travel far from Calgary City hall to see similar examples. One of the leading social agencies has a similarly blanched executive while at the same time appealing to the donating public to help support a visibly disdvantaged minority.
    Even Paris Hilton’s dog would blush if it had free range amongst this organization’s upper floor.

  8. it was nice knowing you Calgary, this female wannabe is going to get his revenge against white males and take your fine city with him. He was probably the last guy selected at a pickup baseball game when he was 12.

  9. Nenshi is just a long line of progressive mayors parroting the same line. I remember David Miller coming up with the same thing. He wanted to start a group promoting young urban minorities into leadership roles. The problem is nepotism. These affirmative action rules don’t apply to anybody but the rank and file. If Janice, the accounting clerk wants to get her son in, the kid will be allowed to apply but he will be passed over as a white male. If Marsha, the Director of Social Services wants her son in government, she will pick up the phone and call her opposite number in another municipality and the kid will have a job. Janice doesn’t have the connections but Marsha does. The same goes for politicians involved in local government. So you have white politicians and bureaucrats pushing their kids into government while rank and file members are told their kids are the wrong colour or the wrong sex. End nepotism and the boat will right itself all on its own.

    • Yeah, there’s definitely tons of nepotism in government (on the political and bureaucratic sides) … offspring, babysitters, etc. of politicians or political staff getting their “in” through their familial connections … in-laws or the offspring of previous employees mysteriously showing up in ministries … or Director John Doe’s college buddies getting positions … I imagine it’s a lot worse in municipal politics than provincially or federally, then again, maybe not

      all that said, while nepotism/political connections play a role, to put it down to just nepotism, is naive

      • I’ve worked for a municipal utility and municipal government. One place I worked for had a human resources officer of a certain ethnic persuasion and was known for hiring friends and relations right off the boat and the boat didn’t arrive from a Third World country. Another Human Resources person was originally at the place I worked for, managed to trash the anti-nepotism rules as being discriminatory and proceeded to get her kids hired. No, I’m afraid you are the naive one.

        • No, I’m afraid you’re naive (or at least willfully oblivious). You’re using 1, 2, 3 or 40 anecdotes to rationalize away something that is seen Canada wide at the senior management level (in the public and private sectors) and can’t be explained by nepotism alone or even in large part (unless you believe the entire Canadian economy is rife with nepotism).

          You’re saying virtually 100% of Calgary’s senior management are old, white males because Billy Bob hired his cousin Jim Bob and Jim Bob hired his brother Darrell who hired his other brother Darrell? No doubt it happens, I even conceded several anecdotes about having heard about it happening, but there’s no way nepotism explains the entire or even most of the phenomenon discussed by Nenshi.

  10. I am not certain but is Nenshi talking about unionized workforce of bureaucrats? Calgarians vote for mayor and I doubt they vote for public admin positions as well.

    I wonder about unions in Canada myself. Public service and journos belong to unions and they are incredibly white professions. Canada’s msm is 98.6% white, it has to be whitest profession in Canada, and journos are quite comfortable with separate but equal philosophy of making ethnic minorities write for their own ethnic group and no one else. I just did a quick search on google for deputy ministers in ottawa and it is mixture of men and women, anglo and franco, but there are no obvious ethnic people making it up the ladder in ottawa either.

    Minorities seem to be accepted everywhere in Canada, except Que of course, but they are not well represented in government. Middle class white people have paternalistic attitude towards others.

    • That might be a function of public sector unions doing a good job of keeping anyone but boomers out of the sector. The boomers generation is a lot whiter than Gen Xers, and Gen Yers are less white than Gen Xers. If you look at public services they’re grey as fcuk. Ergo, public sector (at least on the government bureaucrat side) is grey and white.

      If the boomers leave you’ll see government bureaucrats who’ll be less white.

  11. Those who manage Calgary, should represent all Calgarians.

    • If I’m not mistaken, it would appear that you are inferring that one can only represent another if they are of the same race and/or gender.

  12. No more Nenshi come November.

    • November 2017, unfortunately.

    • Oh William Robert, you are the cheeky monkey.

  13. Diversity problem is a polite term for racism ,It is a real problem not just in Calgary but in all branches of Govt , Working for the city of Edmonton as a member of minority I know that Nenshi is right , a few minorities hired are expected to be constantly thankful to the kind and condescending whites for letting them work for the city of champions , forget about promotion or moving up the corporate ladder ,just be thankful because “we were so bad that we never hired minorities at all so you should give us some medals of honor because we do hire minorities now” what is even more scandalous is that the perfect member of minority is the one who happens to be incompetent, preferably with heavy accent and the one who shows flattery in all manners and conversations. They want to make a point that if you want to hire minorities; this is what you get , a member of minority who is capable of correcting the math of their incompetent co-workers or someone who is capable of correcting the spelling and grammar of whites or questioning the shady deals is never a good idea and will be kicked out sooner or later, they will rather pay him compensation even if there is a lawsuit later, it is tax payers money after all, those who were involved in racism get to keep their jobs while their friends appreciate them for sticking to the old values. with a facade of diversity inclusion and all that good stuff , some people have jobs maintaining that facade while the reality is bleak.

  14. It has been long known city workers have always been hired through nepotism, and that means, no diversity, simply because the city was founded by whites. So, statistically, if you have all whites hiring family, you will have all whites being hired. Logic.

Sign in to comment.