Here's a boring precis of a study I did in college and the subsequent treaties agreed after that time. As with all things political, it wasn't quite that simple. Panama wasn't even a country originally until the U.S. supported the independence of a new state (Panama) in the land that was originally Colombia. Ignoring the fact that France had originally tried to build the canal but failed after many years and thousands of deaths of the workers, America supported the forming of the new state of Panama with its armed forces, mainly the navy. America and Panama signed the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty. It allowed for America to have a strip of land 10 miles wide (The Panama Canal) in exchange for lots of money and a guarantee of independence for Panama. Although America then owned/controlled the ten mile wide strip Roosevelt said that ownership was never the intention but the right to use the canal for their benefit was the intention. There were a number of contentions on both sides about ownership and control and after 63 years of negotiations and treaties an agreement was reached between the two governments in 1977. The Panama Canal Treaty was signed on September 7 of that year by Gen. Omar Torrijos Herrera of Panama and Pres. Jimmy Carter of the United States. It terminated all prior treaties between the United States and Panama concerning the canal and abolished the Canal Zone (the ten mile strip). The treaty recognized Panama as territorial sovereign in the former Canal Zone, but it gave the United States the right to continue managing, operating, and maintaining the canal and to use lands and waters necessary for those purposes during an interim period of 20 years covered by the agreement, expiring December 31, 1999, (although that appears to me to be 22 years ) after which Panama would be sole owner.
Some far right pundit in the US (Matt Walsh) has said all female police officers are diversity hires and this should be stopped. With the Taliban on one side and right-wing misogynists on the other, plus trans activists and the pro-life brigade throwing in their tuppence worth, we women are going to have to stand up to a lot of pressure.
Exactly, my point. The problem with so called diversity is its become reverse discrimination and its all about quoters and ticking boxes rather than choosing the right person for the job.
If that was all it was doing I would be supportive of it, but it isn't. Any form of discrimination in favour of one section of society is automatically discrimination against another. Quotas have exactly the same effect. On what basis are the quotas set? Age, colour, sex, nationality, ability,....... As far as I'm concerned the deciding factor in employment anyway, should be the person appointed being the best fit for the role. That may include any or none of the above (apart from ability) but shouldn't automatically exclude anybody who doesn't tick all the diversity boxes.
I am old enough to remember going for interview after interview, as a newly married woman with no desire to have children and hoping to secure a well paid job, and being asked how I would cope with the job on offer when (not if) I became pregnant and then a mother. I have been told to my face that I am not a suitable candidate because of that risk. I have turned the question in on my interviewer (always a man) and asked how they would cope with being a father (they sometimes were) and was put down as a trouble maker. No, when you have been on the receiving end of straightjacketed, narrow minded, unthinking and uncaring discrimination you know how it feels and you sympathise with the next generation who are still fighting the same fights that you fought. P.S. I never did have children. And I never got the jobs that I applied for either.
According to what appears to be diversity and discrimination I realise that I used both when employing apprentices. Their suitability to do the job was never an issue as we would be training them and all I asked for was enthusiasm for the job. Where, I suppose. the diversity came in was that I tried to always employ trainees that came from disadvantaged home lives. Single parents, alcoholic or drug taking parent/s etc. Where I discriminated was nothing to do with the person at all. We always had a lot more suitable applicants than jobs so one criteria was how far away they lived and was it on a bus route that was notoriously bad (always late or not turning up etc.). None of them had parents with cars. Not a good system but we had to short list somehow. Then it came down to whether their manager liked them. Even, sometimes, drawing a name out of a hat.
