Now This Kind Of Racism Is "Progressive"

Canada's top bureaucrat has ordered departments to target visible minorities in his latest recruitment drive to hire another 4,000 new university and college graduates by the end of March.
...
Mr. Lynch's plan didn't specify what proportion of the new hires should be visible minorities, but recruitment will have to be in large enough numbers to start "closing the gap in representation of visible minority Canadians in the public service." To do that, the plan says visible minorities will have to be recruited in numbers beyond their proportion of the workforce.

More >>>

But what about the actual job skills of the people that would be hired? Shouldn't people be selected based on their skills, not their origin? Don't worry, the top bureaucrat got that covered:

Each of the new 4,000 recruits must have a personal learning plan, including what training they need to master English or French early in their careers.

Well, that says it all, doesn't it? This whole affair has nothing to do with helping skilled yet underemployed groups to realize their potential. This is about creating token jobs for people whose only asset is their skin color. This is about some bureaucrat who's never received a single vote in his life and his utopian dreams to make the workforce mirror the general population.

I could imagine the public outcry if a certain company decided to hire mostly whites. Such hiring policy would be immediately denounced as racist - and there would be no denying it. But when a top bureaucrat orders public service departments to hire mostly non-whites - that kind of racism is apparently considered to be perfectly acceptable. At least I haven't seen much outrage so far.

Do you think it's ok for skilled graduates to be refused jobs only because they weren't "lucky" enough to be born with the "desired" skin color? Are you comfortable with being served by someone who knows little if anything about his job, let alone - by someone who barely speaks English or French? Finally, do you believe it's ok for $150-$200M of taxpayers' money to be used to create 4,000 token jobs for people with little or no skills? And if your answers are "no" to all of the above - then why are you silent?