The Hockey Diversity Alliance release their ask of the NHL
hockeydiversityalliance.org/news-releases/our...Posted Aug 30, 2020, 9:21 AM UTC
3595
hockeydiversityalliance.org
Points 1 and 2 are contentious for me. There are always problems when you have forced quotas. It's also a mess to implement, the league isn't hiring team executives directly for example. Individual teams are so the league has to co-ordinate with teams to ensure that enough teams have black executives? Forced quotas for anything whether it be education or jobs imo, often backfire. If you work on getting rid of racism from the sport and involving more black people in the sport, then you will eventually start getting black executives naturally rather than through forced quotas.
72
Some of this seems very messy and very much a case if irony. Hiring and choosing suppliers based upon their skin colour... and why not open it up to other unrepresented skin colours.
I am not an expert, I’d hope they consulted some before drafting this, but I don’t think you can use racism to kill racism, I think you just shuffle it around.
38
Yeah I think the NFL has quotas for who gets interviewed which may be more appropriate
10
There are reasons for quotas though. In research, identical resumes with traditionally white and black names show you are almost twice as likely to get a call back with a white name -- even if qualifications are the same. Some of a quota is to overcome that bias, which forces companies to hire equally competent black people.
Also, most jobs require and expect experience. It's super difficult to get a good job in most fields if you don't have experience. All young people are experiencing that now. Add onto that that your industry traditionally hires mostly white people, that mostly white people get experience, and that mostly white people can use that experience to get better jobs -- suddenly we have a cycle where unequal hiring to league jobs in someone's twenties massively impacts what they can achieve in their 50s. By pressuring general quotas on hiring
The last thing to get across is people often say that mandatory minimums mean companies can't hire the "best person". Even ignoring the information above about equal candidates and how experience cycles, Chiarelli is interviewing for the Panthers right now. We see in hockey especially that people try and fail and fail and fail and keep getting opportunities. And there's nothing wrong with second or third chances, but at some point you have to ask if every hire is about getting the best person. The Leafs are looking for assistant coaches and #1 on their search right now is experience. It isn't new age ideas and it isn't a proven system in another league and it isn't creativity, player relations, etc.; They want someone who coaches a solid game with NHL experience to back up Keefe. They probably won't hire the best coach, but they'll hire someone that ticks as many of those boxes as they can while also having playoff success in the past.
Especially for non-executive jobs, there have to be thousands around the league in the head office and other areas. Those jobs can give people the experience to grow and progress in the NHL, which can actually impact the landscape in 40-50 years where you are overachieving the quotas without even worrying about them. The NHL and NHLPA could start with those hiring practices and recommend it to other teams -- some other teams will love to enact them too, and others will be slower to adopt, but it's at least something to overcome the massive white over representation in NHL jobs off the ice.
-2†
The quotas aren't very large at all. 3.5% within years without sacrificing quality should be very doable, for example. For the non hockey personnel, they actually have increased their efforts to hiring more diverse personnel, so they may not actually be far off.
Getting rid of racism sounds great, but hockey already has a problem with the old boys club- for hockey related positions we know it won't come naturally. Part of fighting racism is exposure- making sure people that have been in a mostly white environment are around black working professionals, for example, in the workplace. A lot of racism is perpetuated by people staying in their own bubbles and forming preconceived notions.
-9
Please could you explain to me what you mean by having quotas as 'backfiring'? And if you have any evidence for that opinion?
People have been trying to make hockey more inclusive for over 50 years and the NHL has had a diversity programme since the mid 1990s but the number of minority executives is still super low. Maybe trying a new approach isn't unreasonable?
-21
Forced quotas can backfire because oftentimes the most meritocratic individual will lose out because of their appearance, or worse they'll be replaced after doing nothing wrong. If you'd like more examples google equality of outcome through history.
(remember google equality of outcome, not opportunity. two very different things).
29
You're saying that a with quotas qualified people will lose out, have you got any evidence if this? It seems like that is already happening because of racism- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46927417
When I googled what you suggested I didn't get any evidence of discrimination against qualified white people, it was just a philosophical description of different terms, which are tangentially revlavant but don't really address the point.
-9
If you went to school for 10 years to do a specific job, but lost that job to someone else that only did 4 years of schooling because you look one way and they look another, wouldn't you be upset?
11
When I googled it the first link is a Ben Shairpo video so I'm not exactly convinced that is a decent argument.
I'm now reading through this: https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/formal-equality-opportunity Which is clearly more well sourced but it does say that it doesn't account for discrimination by an employer, so I don't see how it would help in a situation where we are discussing systemic racism?
-12
Okay well I can't help what your first search result is lol but 20th century history, if anything, proved that it will never work. Are you trying to attack my argument by saying I somehow agree with Ben Shapiro or something? That doesn't make sense to me.
All I'm saying is psychological research indicates that what I am saying happens to be the case, regardless or opinion.
Edit: your link is equality of opportunity, which I clearly stated I agree is a good idea. Equality of outcome is the issue. Also as a general rule of thumb, and I mean this sincerely, you have to look beyond the first page of Google for information.
18
They shouldn't call themselves the hockey diversity alliance if they are only going to advocate for one race
55
People shit on others for not rushing to support initiatives the second they leave the gate.
But this, I don’t really support this. I don’t know what I was expecting but I’m really disappointed in the HDA. Totally tone deaf imo.
In terms of visible minorities, there are more people of Asian descent in Canada and Latin descent in the US, than African descent in either country.
23
What makes it even weirder is one of their members is Filipino?
20
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
6
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
31
As opposed to a specific but difference race having exclusive control over that income? If you're mad that people want black people to be represented in hockey business and behind the scenes because it empowers black people, consider that under this conditions, those behind the scene jobs are still going to be 90%+ white.
It's a shame they aren't pushing for indigenous and Asian people as well, but I don't think that invalidates an attempt to add diversity into a white dominated game.
Hell when Dubas came on he hired multiple women to his staff and no one said "he's empowering only women" or he's giving "a privilege to a specific gender to have guaranteed income". Dubas just found talent that wasn't a white man and said he wanted his staff to reflect the diversity there.
Before you counter with "quotas force companies to hire worse people", the Panthers are actively interviewing Chiarelli right now -- a lot of the times people with experience they only got because of privilege get multiple chances to mess up and aren't the best option for a franchise.
1†
[deleted]
3
bioanthropology scientists have come to a consensus that race isn't a valid concept
First of all, that's a massive claim and would probably benefit from a source.
Second,
Ultimately, the science seems to support that race isn't a valid concept biologically. But it seems incorrect to say that race doesn't exist socially, which is the whole issue we're all talking about here.
Third, what do you mean by "instaurate" in this context? The only definition I can find for it is "to renew or rejuvenate," which I don't quite understand the usage of here
2
[deleted]
1
Eliminating racism means giving everyone a level playing field. Giving everyone a level playing field means eliminating the racial wealth gap. To do that, you have to hire and pay BIPOC.
-3†
I understand that this ask and the HDA were formed as a direct result of the Black Lives Matter movement and the recent abhorrent injustices faced by black Americans, but I think it's a huge misstep to just focus on making improvements for one race only. Indigenous people and people of color (Asians and Hispanics for example) are still immensely underrepresented. If not the HDA to raise their voices about them, then who?
30
So I guess we need a Hockey Diversity-er Alliance to advocate for Hispanics, since the Hockey Diversity Alliance doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about us.
19
[deleted]
13
So what happens if that many black people don’t want to be apart of the NHL? Are they just going to hire non qualified/non interested black people just to meet this quota
12
[removed]
1
As indigenous people, we don't even ask that much of new mining companies that are situated in our traditional territories. It's unrealistic, and too much. How we word it is that our First Nation-owned companies, when competitive equal in the bidding process (within XYZ points) then it'll go to us. Our policies at the tribal council/community level are simply just foot in the door policies, from there it's up to the FN business/employee, and there's nothing whatsoever about an overall quota.
Red pen out, 1 (i, ii, iii), 2 are severely exclusionary, possibly illegal. 3 is okay, on the surface. 4 is doable. 5. needs to remove "and sanctions" from the language. 6. needs to remove the language about the provision of goods, services and facilities, etc., 7. you don't just immediately ask for annual reports on how they're spending the money you made them spend, which segues into 8. which is outright ballsy, the fact that they don't make the number public is telling.
I like the HDA but "that ain't it, Chief". Even the definition of a black supplier is problematic: a FN-owned business has to be owned 50%+ controlled/owned/operated by FN, not just ii.) "35% comprised" as the latter tends to lead to things the newspapers would like to call cronyism, backroom dealings, and is essentially the privatization of FN rights.
12
Hmmm, I want equality, but at the same time I think asking for executives to be a specific race is problematic. The executives in the NHL should be determined by their ability to do their job well, not their skin colour.
11
They've got George Parros as director of player safety, I'm not sure they are that great at identifying ability and hiring the most qualified person
4
I never said who are currently employed are good, im just saying if george parros were to get replaced I would want the most qualified person to take his place, not a black guy JUST because hes black. If he is the most qualified AND black then great hire him.
10
I am surprised this thread hasn't been locked.
8
I was expecting people to be more supportive
2
Why? People were hoping for them to help bring inclusivity and fairness to the NHL, not increase the preferred races up by one. Replace Black with minority and no one has any issues.
14
Really? Cos there are a lot of people in these comments saying that hiring targets are wrong (and possibly racist).
1
While the ideas are good, I don’t see the league agreeing to this without heavy heavy alterations, which I think is understandable. Hopefully both sides are able to come out with something positive that they’re happy with.
7
Here in Long Island, New York, ice time (as of 15 years ago) was $700 an hour. Playing AAA costs something around $20k a year once you factor in hotels and all those non tuition charges. Getting through NYC alone to get to the bulk of the games is a minimum $35 in tolls, and that’s only 1 hour into the trip. Plus the amount of days parents need to miss from work. The reality is it’s the cost keeping black people from playing the game. Outside of Minnesota, maybe some parts of Michigan, it’s not really a school sport. You MUST play AAA if you want to have a prayer of moving on to college or major junior. To get hockey related jobs in the NHL you need to be qualified and know the game personally by playing at a high level. If we want black people to fill the NHL jobs then we need some form of a scholarship/financial aid starting at the mini mite/mite level (atom for Canada) and following through midgets.
Please correct me if I’m missing anything. I think this is an important topic and very worthwhile to pursue fully.
6
Separate to this the HDA (and many other people) are funding hockey schools for disadvantaged, majority Black neighbourhoods. It is certainly one issue but it is not the only one. People have been funding these projects since the 70s and it has not translated into represention in hockey management.
For example Val James was a Black NHL player in the 80s, when he retired he said he couldn't even stand to watch hockey for 10 years due to all the racial abuse he'd suffered. Other players his age are now coaches, managers, executives etc but he couldn't even watch it. That wouldn't be solved by access, he made the NHL, but the treatment he recieved while in it was so unacceptable he certainly wasn't looking for a coaching or front office job.
So yes, grass roots level is important but so is ensuring players are supported when they do make it.
I'm not trying to have a go, you seemed interested so I thought I'd explain some more of the issue. I hope it helps
5
Just looked him up. Unfortunate and judging by his stats it looks like refs never missed a chance to give him a penalty. But some progress has been made since the 70s/80s. Hopefully progress speeds up now. Thank you for the info.
1
The full details found in link:
Our Ask of the NHL (the HDA NHL pledge):
We will accelerate our efforts to ensure that no barriers exist to prevent Black individuals from getting hired by, and advancing within, the NHL and each of our member franchises (individually and collectively, the “League”) and hereby commit to increase:
the number of Black executives in the NHL to 3.5% before the end of the 2024/2025 season; the employment of Black hockey-related personnel to 5% before the end of the 2020/2021 season; and 8% before the end of the 2022-2023 season; the employment of Black non hockey-related personnel to 10% before the end of the 2020-2021 season; and 12.5% before the end of the 2022-2023 season.
We recognize that it is important that our supplier base reflects the diversity of the communities from which we operate and hereby commit to create an inclusive procurement process that ensures that Black suppliers* are selected to deliver at least 10% of the League procurement expenditure before the start of the 2020-2021 season.
We will ensure that the voices of our Black, Indigenous and racialized players are heard and that they have an opportunity to help change the culture of the League by imposing a requirement that at least 50% of the Executive Inclusion Committee (or any successor thereof) shall be comprised of members selected by the HDA.
We will implement anti-racism and unconscious bias education within the League and make it mandatory for all League employees before the start of the 2020-2021 season.
We will create HDA-approved policies and sanctions that reflect a commitment to zero tolerance with respect to racial discrimination and abuse before the start of the 2020-2021 season. We will not support, partner with or accept support from any organization that has engaged in, promoted or failed to appropriately respond to racist conduct in their organization of any kind (including, without limitation, the proliferation of hate speech, discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities and other areas such as employment).
We understand that the collection and sharing of relevant, accurate and timely data is critical to the success of this initiative and hereby commit to transparency in the collection and communication to HDA of all information related to the policies, targets and commitments in this Pledge and the performance of the League in respect thereof on an annual basis.
We will commit to provide HDA with funding, commencing July 28, 2020, for the following purposes: to support social justice initiatives that target racism and access to justice for members of Black, Indigenous and racialized communities; to create and maintain grassroots hockey development programs that will introduce, develop and support BIPOC players in minor hockey; and to create an anti-racism and unconscious bias training program for use by minor hockey leagues across North America.
We acknowledge the research that has proven that organizations with truly diverse teams perform better and the fact that the game of hockey cannot truly grow to its potential without substantive changes to address systemic racism. It is our hope that this Pledge will be a meaningful first step to help the League ‘open its doors’ to underrepresented visible minorities across North America
- a Black supplier is a supplier who is either: (i) more than 50% owned, controlled and operated by black individuals; or (ii) whose personnel is comprised of at least 35% black individuals andwhose management is comprised of at least 35% black individuals
4†
Are we really running with the term 'racialized' for non-white people? That doesn't sit right with me. It sounds like when people say that non-white people 'have an ethnicity' as though white is the standard and everything else a deviation.
35
Lol yeah that sounds like something George Bush would say when he can't find the words "people of color"
10
Lol that's exactly it, I can hear it in his voice now
8
Racialized in this context means people who have experienced racial discrimination.
3
Okay, that makes sense. Still sounds weird though. Idk, seems like they could just say 'players who have experienced racial discrimination.' But I'm glad it's not a new identity label!
4
Visible minorities is usually the go to.
1
[removed]
1
I think everyone could use some unconscious bias training. I try to do what I can for antiracist causes, try to treat everyone as well as I can while being conscious of their background, have shared the best and worst times with Black colleagues for many years now. Then I took the Harvard implicit bias test and got moderate pro-white preference! What?? It totally shocked me. I'm sure there are better and more accurate tests out there, but it definitely opened my eyes. Ever since, I've been more critically examining how I react to people and situations. You can't control your subconscious thoughts, but you can control how you respond to them
-7
I've taken those, but there seems to be some question as to whether they actually work.
7
Yeah, like I said, I'm sure there are better and more accurate tests. But it got me to examine my unconscious biases, which is never a bad thing
1
It's funny there's a push to have 3.5% of the league executives be black, when African American players account for less than 1% of players in the league. Why not a push to have executives from places where players are from? More execs from: Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Russia, Switzerland, etc.? If representation matters, then it goes beyond skin colour.
The intentions are good, but I feel like they've narrowed the focus so much as to have missed out on the bigger picture.
2
[removed]
1
[removed]
1
[removed]
1
It's that Louisville business list of demands again.
1
Edit: deleted.... I can't read
1
It’s the last point...
1
Well shit.
2
Is it weird that the hiring requirements are only for “Black executives and hockey and non-hockey related personnel”
I would have hoped that indigenous peoples would be in there as well
Although I guess just because you’re hiring black executives doesn’t mean you can’t hire indigenous executives but still I would have liked to have see them outlined in the ask
They are always an afterthought at best and its upsetting, I also have a hard time taking the HDA seriously with such a massive oversight.
edit Instantly downvoted but don't kid yourselves, Native Americans are largely ignored and people continuously try to keep their voices unheard.
"Following Christopher Columbus' arrival in North America in 1492, violence and disease killed 90% of the indigenous population — nearly 55 million people — according to a study published this year."
Fucking downvote me
I think there are definitely valid critisms, like the lack of inclusion of indigenous people but I think it would be best to encourage the HDA to expand and improve rather than dismiss them, I feel that they will still push the NHL in the right direction, hopefully to everyone's benefit.
I think the HDA was set in up response to the BLM protests which are very focused on anti-Black racism, but they have said that they are for all BIPOC players so will need to do more going forward.
[deleted]
But it’s the Hockey Diversity Alliance which might have formed in response to BLM in the US, but their scope is eliminating racism in hockey. From everything I’ve heard racism toward indigenous people is a notable issue in Canada, especially in hockey.
Just because you have criticism for something doesn’t mean you’re diverting from it.
the worst part is they even mentioned Native people, but only to say they deserve a voice. The HDA feel that they (or any race other than black people) don't deserve to be hired in the NHL or be suppliers. You're completely right, it's hard to take them seriously as a group that wants to combat racism and promote diversity
Genghis Khan's empire nearly wiped the Persians into non exsistance and today Iran is one of the largest countries in the region, with far more nations in its proximity than the natives had to contend with here. At the end of the day it's not what's fair or not, it's the "strong" win and the "weak" lose.
They get lost in the shuffle of current events all the time. The focus in Canada should be on this.
I read a comment in a protest related thread on reddit a while back and it was a black nurse that moved up here from the US. She said it was sad that there were people that were treated worse than black people up here.
This is why I'll always cheer for First Nations hockey players like Ethan Bear as long as I live.
Comparative suffering is never a good look, but for fucks sake the first nations really are in the back seat of this movement.
There's a lot of the "one thing at a time" or "undermining the movement" which are very fair but also problematic arguments at the same time. If you push for one specific concrete thing that has loads of national support, you tend to achieve more. If you want to push indigenous concerns here, suddenly you get a larger backlash (certainly in Canada, don't know about the US) and you recontextualize some of what is happening to look at who is the most marginalized in different regions.
It's an important step and if there was a timeline or a codified understanding that once we see growth of black voices and black employment we turn to help another marginalized group, it would be excellent. For now though, it's disappointing even if understandable why the rhetoric mostly focuses on Black Americans and Canadians.
Well if advocating for one group of people has loads of national support and advocating for another group of people has loads of backlash, it's more important to advocate for the 2nd group
I agree with you in concept but I can understand why someone wouldn’t have faith that it would get around to them. From a lot of comments on here and even Burke last night acknowledged Canada has issues but downplayed them a bit (I did like the segment though), it seems like there’s an undercurrent of being dismissive of issues in Canada because the US is “worse”, where I think the sentiment should be more even though we’re not that bad we should be doing more to make sure we don’t get that bad and fix issues while they’re smaller.
[removed]