Hockey Diversity Alliance slams NHL/NHLPA announcement of Player Inclusion Coalition

[tarheelhockey]

Socio economic does not include race, gender, sexuality at all. It only looks at four factors - occupation, education, income, wealth and where someone lives.

That’s a very narrow definition.

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation.

www.apa.org

“Socioeconomic status is the position of an individual or group on the socioeconomic scale, which is determined by a combination of social and economic factors such as income, amount and kind of education, type and prestige of occupation, place of residence, and—in some societies or parts of society—ethnic origin or religious background.”

Frankly if you’re going to only go on wealth indicators, you may as well just drop the “socio” because you’re really just talking economics.

In the case of promoting hockey diversity the main ones would be to ensure you are looking at providing advantages to lower income people and try to make sure you are targeting geographic locations that have diverse makeups.

To give you an example, providing hockey scholarships to only people of a certain skin colour is inherently a discriminatory policy. The idea behind it may be noble but the same goal can be achieved by specifically targeting those scholarships to diverse locations whereby there are lots of minority groups or targeting lower income families, which afterall are disproportiatly made up of the minority groups that people want to help.

So you’re going to deliberately target racial groups but… not admit to it?

I don’t think anyone disagrees with providing support to the economically disadvantaged. But it’s a matter of fact that even after economics are accounted for, there are still other disadvantages at play.

If you address only the economic issues but ignore the others, you’re tacitly saying the others don’t matter enough to need addressing. I hope the problems with that stance are self-evident.

Your premise that people feel more comfortable around people of their own race has some kernel of truth but doesnt really matter. Every culture has different interests resulting in large congregations of one culture for certain events or sports. This kind of disparity does not require fixing, the only thing required is that there is no impedement or discrimination against other cultures from participating. Do we really need to have a quota system for NBA teams to make sure the one white guy on each team has fellow caucasions to feel comfortable? I reject that premise.

… ok, so maybe it isn’t self-evident.

To make this as brief as possible — you seem to be operating on a belief that there are no racial impediments or discrimination in hockey. By all evidence, that is incorrect.

In the end, the goal of inclusivity and diversity (to the extent that it will naturally happen as you cannot force diversity by forcing people that have no interest in your sport to be involved) can be achieved by targeting programs at diverse locations, target diverse economic backgrounds, and by promoting of diverse role models to incentive kids of different backgrounds. That is it.....anything else is simply going into a discrimantory territory that has no possible end point.

I think this approach has merit, and I’d be all for it.

I think there’s also a harder core issue of racism than you’re acknowledging, and that’s not going to be addressed unless it’s addressed.

 

[Guinnes66]

One question...why did we have the need for minority scholarships in the first place? Better yet...why was affirmative action even necessary in the first place?

Thats easy, it was under the premise that temporary measures would help offset past discrimination but it was done with the direct understanding that the policy itself is in fact discriminatory and is not a morally good long term solution. The fact that there are ways of achieving the same goals through non-discriminatory means shows us that there is no need to tolerate activist ideas put forth by groups like the HDA.

 

[T REX]

Thats easy, it was under the premise that temporary measures would help offset past discrimination but it was done with the direct understanding that the policy itself is in fact discriminatory and is not a morally good long term solution. The fact that there are ways of achieving the same goals through non-discriminatory means shows us that there is no need to tolerate activist ideas put forth by groups like the HDA.

Past? It's still going on. You're done right there.

 

[Guinnes66]

That’s a very narrow definition.

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation.

www.apa.org

“Socioeconomic status is the position of an individual or group on the socioeconomic scale, which is determined by a combination of social and economic factors such as income, amount and kind of education, type and prestige of occupation, place of residence, and—in some societies or parts of society—ethnic origin or religious background.”

Frankly if you’re going to only go on wealth indicators, you may as well just drop the “socio” because you’re really just talking economics.

The standard definition of socio-economic does not include those factors but it doesnt really matter as the criteria i am suggesting the NHL use is purely based on location and income level.

So you’re going to deliberately target racial groups but… not admit to it?

And what is wrong with that precisely? Individual discrimination based on skin colour is simply a bad policy. Designing programs to target a variety of locations and income levels can achieve the same end goal without explicitly excluding anyone based on immutable characteristics. The NHL playing exhibition games in China for example is a way of promoting the game, promoting diversity but i would never say that is a silly thing to try just because it is targeting a racial group but not admitting to it. There is a big difference between what HDA is promoting and what i am suggesting.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with providing support to the economically disadvantaged. But it’s a matter of fact that even after economics are accounted for, there are still other disadvantages at play. If you address only the economic issues but ignore the others, you’re tacitly saying the others don’t matter enough to need addressing. I hope the problems with that stance are self-evident.

No your statement does not logically follow. Addressing economic barriers does not mean that other issues go away in the least. If the issue is racist remarks/behaviours, then you address those by having zero tolerance policy. If the issue is nepotism hires in the NHL you implement anti-nepotism hiring practices. If the issue is growing the game, you can highlight people in the game from diverse backgrounds.

To make this as brief as possible — you seem to be operating on a belief that there are no racial impediments or discrimination in hockey. By all evidence, that is incorrect.



I think this approach has merit, and I’d be all for it.

I think there’s also a harder core issue of racism than you’re acknowledging, and that’s not going to be addressed unless it’s addressed.

No i dont ignore that racism exists. I only acknowlege that using disciminatory policies to fight it are no better than racist policies of the 1950's and gets us absolutely no closer to a tolerant, cohesive society. There is no indication that policies such as those pushed by HDA addresses and solves anything like you want to believe. In fact it does the opposite as it pushes everyone into narrow little arbitrary categories that can have no possible end point or point at which we can declare any kind of success.

Past? It's still going on. You're done right there.

Please, you asked me about the origin of affirmative action which my response addresses directly. At least debate honestly.

 

[Rob]

Socio economic does not include race, gender, sexuality at all. It only looks at four factors - occupation, education, income, wealth and where someone lives. In the case of promoting hockey diversity the main ones would be to ensure you are looking at providing advantages to lower income people and try to make sure you are targeting geographic locations that have diverse makeups.

To give you an example, providing hockey scholarships to only people of a certain skin colour is inherently a discriminatory policy. The idea behind it may be noble but the same goal can be achieved by specifically targeting those scholarships to diverse locations whereby there are lots of minority groups or targeting lower income families, which afterall are disproportiatly made up of the minority groups that people want to help.

HDA's list of demands included a quota for hiring black people to a certain percentage. Quota systems are simply ridiculous, regressive, arbitrary, and ineffective. Why the quota for only black people and not indians, asians, etc? Why no push to have quota's by skin colour in the NBA or the cricket league in canada? This type of policy can never even have an end point as you can ultimitely slice and dice people up into a million different arbitrary categories if you want to truly include all facets of gender, sexual orientation, cultural background, etc.

Your premise that people feel more comfortable around people of their own race has some kernel of truth but doesnt really matter. Every culture has different interests resulting in large congregations of one culture for certain events or sports. This kind of disparity does not require fixing, the only thing required is that there is no impedement or discrimination against other cultures from participating. Do we really need to have a quota system for NBA teams to make sure the one white guy on each team has fellow caucasions to feel comfortable? I reject that premise.

In the end, the goal of inclusivity and diversity (to the extent that it will naturally happen as you cannot force diversity by forcing people that have no interest in your sport to be involved) can be achieved by targeting programs at diverse locations, target diverse economic backgrounds, and by promoting of diverse role models to incentive kids of different backgrounds. That is it.....anything else is simply going into a discrimantory territory that has no possible end point.

Did the HDA say they wanted a quota for NHL teams though? Or just youth hockey?

 

[Guinnes66]

Did the HDA say they wanted a quota for NHL teams though? Or just youth hockey?

They wanted specifically an increase in:

I. the number of Black executives in the NHL to 3.5% before the end of the 2024/2025 season;

II. 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;

II. 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.

 

[Rob]

They wanted specifically an increase in:

I. the number of Black executives in the NHL to 3.5% before the end of the 2024/2025 season;

II. 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;

II. 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.

Do they address women and other minorities?

 

[tarheelhockey]

And what is wrong with that precisely? Individual discrimination based on skin colour is simply a bad policy. Designing programs to target a variety of locations and income levels can achieve the same end goal without explicitly excluding anyone based on immutable characteristics. The NHL playing exhibition games in China for example is a way of promoting the game, promoting diversity but i would never say that is a silly thing to try just because it is targeting a racial group but not admitting to it. There is a big difference between what HDA is promoting and what i am suggesting.

No your statement does not logically follow. Addressing economic barriers does not mean that other issues go away in the least. If the issue is racist remarks/behaviours, then you address those by having zero tolerance policy. If the issue is nepotism hires in the NHL you implement anti-nepotism hiring practices. If the issue is growing the game, you can highlight people in the game from diverse backgrounds.

Highlighting people from diverse backgrounds is essentially a marketing tactic. It might make customers more comfortable engaging with the NHL, but it has little-to-no impact on the accessibility of playing the sport. It’s something the NHL ought to have been doing all along, just as a matter of common sense social awareness.

(Notably, this tactic is one of the only substantial actions in the NHL’s diversity plan. Allow them to be self-serving while dodging the issue, and that’s exactly what they’ll do.)

That leaves us with the no-tolerance policies. I’m all in favor of those. But how much do they move the needle, really? The core issue in hiring isn’t nepotism, it’s that the NHL hires damn near zero people of color for any role higher than custodian. That’s not the result of nepotism. The core issue in youth hockey isn’t simply racist remarks, it’s a broader cultural dynamic where a black guy playing hockey becomes “lol look, it’s a black guy playing hockey” — not just behind the scenes, but right out in front of everyone. Translate that sentiment to a bunch of unsupervised 11-year-olds. All the policy work in the world won’t make that comfortable.

And no, counting on kids from poor neighborhoods to spontaneously become tolerant of each other won’t work. That’s not the on-the-ground reality of how economically depressed neighborhoods work.

No i dont ignore that racism exists. I only acknowlege that using disciminatory policies to fight it are no better than racist policies of the 1950's and gets us absolutely no closer to a tolerant, cohesive society. There is no indication that policies such as those pushed by HDA addresses and solves anything like you want to believe. In fact it does the opposite as it pushes everyone into narrow little arbitrary categories that can have no possible end point or point at which we can declare any kind of success.

I mean, HBCUs certainly would not agree with that sentiment.

They wanted specifically an increase in:

I. the number of Black executives in the NHL to 3.5% before the end of the 2024/2025 season;

II. 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;

II. 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.

So how do you diversify the NHL workforce without facing the numbers head-on?

 

[Guinnes66]

Do they address women and other minorities?

No mention of any other minority group other then they put in a generic demand that voices of indigenous people should be heard as well. No mention of Muslims, Asians, Indians, latinos, etc.

They even demand a quota for NHL suppliers:

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.

* 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 and whose management is comprised of at least 35% black individuals

 

[T REX]

The standard definition of socio-economic does not include those factors but it doesnt really matter as the criteria i am suggesting the NHL use is purely based on location and income level.


And what is wrong with that precisely? Individual discrimination based on skin colour is simply a bad policy. Designing programs to target a variety of locations and income levels can achieve the same end goal without explicitly excluding anyone based on immutable characteristics. The NHL playing exhibition games in China for example is a way of promoting the game, promoting diversity but i would never say that is a silly thing to try just because it is targeting a racial group but not admitting to it. There is a big difference between what HDA is promoting and what i am suggesting.

No your statement does not logically follow. Addressing economic barriers does not mean that other issues go away in the least. If the issue is racist remarks/behaviours, then you address those by having zero tolerance policy. If the issue is nepotism hires in the NHL you implement anti-nepotism hiring practices. If the issue is growing the game, you can highlight people in the game from diverse backgrounds.

No i dont ignore that racism exists. I only acknowlege that using disciminatory policies to fight it are no better than racist policies of the 1950's and gets us absolutely no closer to a tolerant, cohesive society. There is no indication that policies such as those pushed by HDA addresses and solves anything like you want to believe. In fact it does the opposite as it pushes everyone into narrow little arbitrary categories that can have no possible end point or point at which we can declare any kind of success.


Please, you asked me about the origin of affirmative action which my response addresses directly. At least debate honestly.

Where your opinion totally breaks down is when you try to argue the guardrails put in place to fight the very racism you completely admit exists. How can affirmative action be discriminatory when it is being used to fight discrimination? Your argument fails on its very foundation. I've seen your argument before...and the people that use it. Yikes. I 100% support ending AA when a predetermined criteria is met. I will share with you this...whatever minimum criteria or metrics you come up with...they will never ever be met while people who lived through segregation are still alive. We will agree to disagree. Move on.

 

[Kimota]

"Fans would yell, 'Go back to the South' and 'How come you're not picking cotton?' Things like that. It didn't bother me. I just wanted to be a hockey player, and if they couldn't accept that fact, that was their problem, not mine."

"O'Ree was then traded to the Montreal Canadiens. O'Ree described the Canadiens were run by racists and that he wasn't invited to try out for the team, but was sent to a minor league team in Hull, Quebec."

"After O'Ree's stint in the NHL, there were no other black players in the NHL until another Canadian player, Mike Marson, was drafted by the Washington Capitals in 1974."

Some quotes taken from Willie O'Ree's wikipedia page.

What you said is not grounded in reality. I assume then that you would say to O'Ree or any of the other BIPOC player that they should just be happy that they are allowed to play? Most people would say that anyone should able to play hockey without having to endure racial, homophobic, gender, and/or any other form of bigotry. The only reason I can see for someone disagreeing with this is that they themselves are

Even the discourse on the recent spitting incident perpetrated by K'Andre Miller highlights the need for enhancing inclusivity in the sport and trying to eradicate the racism that still abounds within the sport. If HF is at all to be an indicator of the average hockey fan, the amount of people I saw callig him a "thug" or an "animal" is deeply unsettling.

But this is why a player inclusion coalition is so important. Like many others I am deeply skeptical of the NHL in meaningfully addressing anything given that their most recent action related to inclusivity in hockey was to completely undermine it. But the fact of the matter is that the NHL, like any business, just wants to make money. And regardless of what some people on here want to think, most people in NA favour diversity and inclusion.

Ultimately, I cannot blame the HDA for constantly calling out the NHL because, you know, their stated mission is to promote diversity in hockey, of which the NHL is the top professional league... I think the HDA was fully justified in calling out the NHL given the previously mentioned regressive actions taken by the NHL (presumably because they do not want to deal with all the people crying and pissing themselves over players wearing Pride jerseys). So yeah, I doubt the NHL surprises me given their track record to date.

What does 1974 have to do with 2023.

 

[Guinnes66]

Highlighting people from diverse backgrounds is essentially a marketing tactic. It might make customers more comfortable engaging with the NHL, but it has little-to-no impact on the accessibility of playing the sport. It’s something the NHL ought to have been doing all along, just as a matter of common sense social awareness.

(Notably, this tactic is one of the only substantial actions in the NHL’s diversity plan. Allow them to be self-serving while dodging the issue, and that’s exactly what they’ll do.)

That leaves us with the no-tolerance policies. I’m all in favor of those. But how much do they move the needle, really? The core issue in hiring isn’t nepotism, it’s that the NHL hires damn near zero people of color for any role higher than custodian. That’s not the result of nepotism. The core issue in youth hockey isn’t simply racist remarks, it’s a broader cultural dynamic where a black guy playing hockey becomes “lol look, it’s a black guy playing hockey” — not just behind the scenes, but right out in front of everyone. Translate that sentiment to a bunch of unsupervised 11-year-olds. All the policy work in the world won’t make that comfortable.

And no, counting on kids from poor neighborhoods to spontaneously become tolerant of each other won’t work. That’s not the on-the-ground reality of how economically depressed neighborhoods work.



I mean, HBCUs certainly would not agree with that sentiment.



So how do you diversify the NHL workforce without facing the numbers head-on?

Your argument relies on a massive assumption:

You assume that the racial makeup of the general population must align exactly in every segment of society or else that is proof of discrimination. Why is it all the owners of the american cricket league are indian or the majority of american ping pong players asian or majority of the NBA players black? Are those all a result of discrimination (as that is certainly the equivalent of what you are arguing when it comes to hockey)? Do you think its possible that hockey is majority white because of the fact that it is culturally ingrained in cold weather countries that were predominately white historically? Should we enforce that the american ping pong league force out asians so that white people can take their spots such that they account for 75% of the players or management to match that of the population? I already know you would not likely support that.

Now that does not mean discrimination does not occur as multiple things can certainly be true at the same time. But to show evidence of your argument you would need to show that qualified people from minority groups are applying to NHL jobs at a rate that does not match their hiring rate.

Your problem is that you believe in the notion of forcing equality of outcome. This is an unattainable and misguided goal. The goal should simply be to provide equality of opportunity regardless of race and to make sure that everyone that desires it has equal access to the game. That is very much achievable and can be done through many non-discriminatory means, even though they may not be perfect. And yeah i think those who agree with HBCUs would disagree with your assertion that role models and representation is meaningless and simply a marketing tactic.

 

[Guinnes66]

Where your opinion totally breaks down is when you try to argue the guardrails put in place to fight the very racism you completely admit exists. How can affirmative action be discriminatory when it is being used to fight discrimination? Your argument fails on its very foundation. I've seen your argument before...and the people that use it. Yikes. I 100% support ending AA when a predetermined criteria is met. I will share with you this...whatever minimum criteria or metrics you come up with...they will never ever be met while people who lived through segregation are still alive. We will agree to disagree. Move on.

Ask the asian community that sued harvard if they agree with your emperically false assertion that affirmative action is not discriminatory. That is flat out wrong. If you want to believe that current discrimination is good and past discrimination is bad without even looking at the facts thats fine. Me, i'll call out blatant discrimination wherever it exists whether past or present.

And please enlighten me as to what criteria would have to be met in order to satisfy your diversity goal. I would love to hear that.

 

[HTFN]

This would be a non issue if the HDA could form a good working relationship with the NHL but at almost every turn they call the league out for something or other.

Like the things it's doing wrong? Something the in-house branch is less likely to do? Yeah, what a tragedy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Your argument relies on a massive assumption:

You assume that the racial makeup of the general population must align exactly in every segment of society or else that is proof of discrimination.

Why on earth do you think I am assuming that? I’ve said nothing of the sort.

Why is it all the owners of the american cricket league are indian or the majority of american ping pong players asian or majority of the NBA players black? Are those all a result of discrimination (as that is certainly the equivalent of what you are arguing when it comes to hockey)? Do you think its possible that hockey is majority white because of the fact that it is culturally ingrained in cold weather countries that were predominately white historically? Should we enforce that the american ping pong league force out asians so that white people can take their spots such that they account for 75% of the players or management to match that of the population? I already know you would not likely support that.

Nobody is suggesting that the player pool should reflect general population demographics.

You’re strawmanning the hell out of me, and it is noted.

Your problem is that you believe in the notion of forcing equality of outcome. This is an unattainable and misguided goal.

Show where I have said this. Otherwise, that’s 3/3 strawman arguments in one post.

And yeah i think those who agree with HBCUs would disagree with your assertion that role models and representation is meaningless and simply a marketing tactic.

Ok, so 4/4 strawman arguments as I clearly did not say it was meaningless.

That’s just a really badly conceived post. Delete and try again.

 

[Guinnes66]

Why on earth do you think I am assuming that? I’ve said nothing of the sort.




Nobody is suggesting that the player pool should reflect general population demographics.

You’re strawmanning the hell out of me, and it is noted.

You stated that:

"the NHL hires damn near zero people of color for any role higher than custodian."

And said that you support HDAs mission which includes hiring quotas.

These statements logically lend itself to the belief that there is some predetermined number of non white people that should be hired or that having a certain percentage of white people is evidence of discrimination. What other possible explaination do you have for these statements? I will freely correct my post if I am misunderstading your argument here.

Show where I have said this. Otherwise, that’s 3/3 strawman arguments in one post.

HDAs demands are aligned with equality of outcome and it seemed to me from your statement that you agree with their mission. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Ok, so 4/4 strawman arguments as I clearly did not say it was meaningless.

That’s just a really badly conceived post. Delete and try again.

Well what should I call it when you state that representation is just a marketing tactic? So you do feel that representation is meaningful and thus more then a marketing tactic?

 

[Voight]

"Fans would yell, 'Go back to the South' and 'How come you're not picking cotton?' Things like that. It didn't bother me. I just wanted to be a hockey player, and if they couldn't accept that fact, that was their problem, not mine."

"O'Ree was then traded to the Montreal Canadiens. O'Ree described the Canadiens were run by racists and that he wasn't invited to try out for the team, but was sent to a minor league team in Hull, Quebec."

"After O'Ree's stint in the NHL, there were no other black players in the NHL until another Canadian player, Mike Marson, was drafted by the Washington Capitals in 1974."

Some quotes taken from Willie O'Ree's wikipedia page.

What you said is not grounded in reality. I assume then that you would say to O'Ree or any of the other BIPOC player that they should just be happy that they are allowed to play? Most people would say that anyone should able to play hockey without having to endure racial, homophobic, gender, and/or any other form of bigotry. The only reason I can see for someone disagreeing with this is that they themselves are

Even the discourse on the recent spitting incident perpetrated by K'Andre Miller highlights the need for enhancing inclusivity in the sport and trying to eradicate the racism that still abounds within the sport. If HF is at all to be an indicator of the average hockey fan, the amount of people I saw callig him a "thug" or an "animal" is deeply unsettling.

But this is why a player inclusion coalition is so important. Like many others I am deeply skeptical of the NHL in meaningfully addressing anything given that their most recent action related to inclusivity in hockey was to completely undermine it. But the fact of the matter is that the NHL, like any business, just wants to make money. And regardless of what some people on here want to think, most people in NA favour diversity and inclusion.

Ultimately, I cannot blame the HDA for constantly calling out the NHL because, you know, their stated mission is to promote diversity in hockey, of which the NHL is the top professional league... I think the HDA was fully justified in calling out the NHL given the previously mentioned regressive actions taken by the NHL (presumably because they do not want to deal with all the people crying and pissing themselves over players wearing Pride jerseys). So yeah, I doubt the NHL surprises me given their track record to date.

Its a separate topic but IMO that had more to do with players opting out of wearing said jerseys. That apparently pissed off certain people who made it a bigger issue than it actually was. In some cases the outrage/complaints overshadowed everything else.

 

[daver]

If this whole thing is about "growing the game", something that serves the business interests of the NHL, then grassroots programming and financial support/accessibility are the best options. Consideration for "Representation" based on culture is more palatable than superficially basing it only on race, especially if "racism", past and present, is always being brought up or as the obvious foundation. Why anyone thinking picking at that scab makes sense is beyond me.

If it is something other than this, it is naïve to think that the NHL, or any other corporation, will do things that do not serve their business interest.

As someone noted, the whole social justice train was just about to pull into the station but then someone took the wheel, accelerated. and drove it off the rails. If individuals feel there needs to be more done, do something about it. Then you may have something tangible to offer other than going on social media and pointing to any unequal racial breakdown and claiming racism, etc...

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

One problem for me with these sports "diversity" programs is that they moralise over different populations choosing different sports. Guess what? They do. In general, Indians like cricket, Chinese like ping pong and Japanese like baseball. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no racist conspiracy behind it. Racism is very seldom a valid explanation for differing results between ethnic groups. I have noticed that when people say that there are systemic barriers for ethnic groups to play a particular sport, the number of examples is virtually zero. So ice hockey is less popular among Blacks than, say, basketball is. Who gives a damn? Maybe people should be left alone to follow whatever sport they want.

 

[daver]

One problem for me with these sports "diversity" programs is that they moralise over different populations choosing different sports. Guess what? They do. In general, Indians like cricket, Chinese like ping pong and Japanese like baseball. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no racist conspiracy behind it. Racism is very seldom a valid explanation for differing results between ethnic groups. I have noticed that when people say that there are systemic barriers for ethnic groups to play a particular sport, the number of examples is virtually zero. So ice hockey is less popular among Blacks than, say, basketball is. Who gives a damn? Maybe people should be left alone to follow whatever sport they want.

I expect the reply will be about "growing the game" with the explicit claim that bias and prejudice are baked into people, especially those of a particular race, so intervention is needed.

 

[Grinner]

Hey. HDA. Nobody really cares

 

[daver]

That’s a very narrow definition.

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation.

www.apa.org

“Socioeconomic status is the position of an individual or group on the socioeconomic scale, which is determined by a combination of social and economic factors such as income, amount and kind of education, type and prestige of occupation, place of residence, and—in some societies or parts of society—ethnic origin or religious background.”

What part of hockey, at any level, are specific ethnicities or religions not allowed to participate?

It says "some societies". like the Caste System in India, for example. If you think that Western or North American society, the most open and accepting society in human history, fall into the "some" category, then you are not on reasonable ground.

 

[Ignite111]

Hey. HDA. Nobody really cares

Hey grinner chill with that. You a racist or something?

 

[Grinner]

Hey grinner chill with that. You a racist or something?

No, not at all. I'm good with trying to grow the game, but the fact of the matter it's a costly sport to participate in.What more dominate in. Costly in money and time. The parents are often as dedicated as the child learning to play the sport

 

[BigEezyE22]

They wanted specifically an increase in:

I. the number of Black executives in the NHL to 3.5% before the end of the 2024/2025 season;

II. 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;

II. 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.

Also minimum goal of 10% service and supply contracting to black owned businesses...even in places where the black population amounted to less than 5% of the population as a whole.