Connect with us

Education

40 Canadian professors urge Trudeau government to abolish DEI mandates

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“Many agree with us – including senior, tenured faculty – but will not speak publicly for fear of repercussions”

Dozens of Canadian professors have joined together to call for an end to the pro-LGBT diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates in universities. 

In a May 24 letter to Parliament, 40 Canadian university professors appealed to Prime Minster Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government to abandon DEI initiatives in universities, arguing they are both ineffective and harmful to Canadians.  

“While some may view this as a weakness, we hope most will see it simply as an act of conscience from academics no longer able to remain silent,” the professors began.  

“These policies disproportionately punish small institutions, are not supported by evidence, employ flawed metrics with no end goal, and are unpopular with the public who funds the research,” the letter explained.  

“Many agree with us – including senior, tenured faculty – but will not speak publicly for fear of repercussions,” the letter revealed. “Specifically, they are scared even to question Tri-Council policies relating to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).” 

Currently, DEI quotas are mandated across Canada through the Canada Research Chairs program. Under the program, universities must meet specific hiring requirements, skewed in favor of racial minorities and those who identify as “LGBT.”

The letter cited various studies which revealed that the DEI mandates not only harm universities but lead to more discrimination.   

The professors referenced a case at Laurier University in Ontario where the institution sought to hire six black and six indigenous faculty. 

“During the process, an informal outside inquiry made on behalf of a promising black candidate had to be rebuffed because black people were ineligible,” the letter explained. “This open racial discrimination in the name of fighting systemic racism is one concrete example of negative impacts of EDI.” 

Similarly, a February research report from Wilfrid Laurier University social scientist David Millard Haskell, a signatory of the letter, found that there is “no evidence that EDI reduces bias or alters behavior.” 

“In fact, DEI interventions have been shown to do harm by increasing prejudice and activating bigotry,” the letter declared. 

The professor’s recommendation comes as Trudeau recently pledged $110 million of taxpayer money to hire DEI consultants tasked with looking into a supposed problem of “racism” in Canada. 

Indeed, the Trudeau government has spent over $30 million on DEI-affiliated contracts among many federal ministries since January 2019. 

This has led to an increase in woke ideology creeping into all parts of society. As LifeSiteNews reported recently, the University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver campus posted an opening for a research chair position that essentially barred non-homosexual white men from applying for the job. 

Signatories:

Geoff Horsman, PhD
Associate Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University

David Haskell, PhD
Associate Professor of Digital Media & Journalism, and Religion & Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University

Zachary Patterson, PhD
Professor, Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering, Concordia University

Stephen Lupker, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Western University

Lawrence M. Krauss, PhD
President, The Origins Project Foundation
Foundation Professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, retired

Kirsten Kramar, PhD
Mount Royal University

Stephen Quilley, PhD
Associate Professor of Social and Environmental Innovation, University of Waterloo

Scott Davies, PhD
Professor of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, University of Toronto

Edward Vrscay, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo

Martin Drapeau, PhD
Professor of Counselling Psychology and Psychiatry, McGill University

Frances Widdowson, PhD
Political Science professor

Brian F. Smith, PhD
Professor of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University

Christopher Dummitt, PhD
Professor of Canadian Studies, Trent University

Altay Coskun, PhD
Professor of Classical Studies, University of Waterloo

Ron Thomson, PhD
Professor and Chair of Applied Linguistics, Brock University

Chet Robie, PhD
Professor of Organizational Behaviour & Human Resource Management, Wilfrid Laurier University

Mark Collard, PhD
Canada Research Chair in Human Evolutionary Studies and Professor of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University

Janice Fiamengo, PhD
Professor of English, University of Ottawa, retired

Philip Carl Salzman, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, McGill University

Laurence Klotz, CM, MD, FRCSC
Professor of Surgery, University of Toronto
Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research
Chair, Council for Academic Freedom at University of Toronto (CAFUT)
Member, Order of Canada
Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Brad Fedy, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo

Scott Smith, PhD
Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University

Henry Wolkowicz, PhD
Professor of Combinatorics and Optimization, University of Waterloo

Gail S. K. Wolkowicz, PhD
Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, McMaster University

François Charbonneau, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Rima Azar, PhD
Associate Professor of Health Psychology, Mount Allison University

Douglas W. Allen, PhD
Burnaby Mountain Professor, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University

Rachel Altman, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University

Alexandra Lysova, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University

Richard Frank, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University

John Craig, PhD
Professor, Department of History, Simon Fraser University

Dennis Sandgathe, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University

Mike Hart, PhD
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University

William McNally, PhD
Professor of Finance, Wilfrid Laurier University

Yannick Lacroix, PhD
Professor of Philosophy, Collège de Maisonneuve

Julie Guyot, PhD
Professor of History, Cégep Édouard-Montpetit

Leigh Revers, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Chemical & Physical Sciences, Institute of Management for Innovation, University of Toronto

Rob Whitley, PhD
Associate Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University

François Caron
Professor of Chemistry, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston
Emeritus Professor, Laurentian University

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Education

Parents should oppose any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology in schools

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson

According to a recent poll, the vast majority of parents in Canada easily understand letter grades on report cards but are confused by the nouveau “descriptive” grading adopted in British Columbia. This should serve as a warning to any province or school board thinking about adopting this type of convoluted descriptive grading.

In September 2023, despite overwhelming opposition from British Columbians, the B.C. government replaced letter grades—such as A, B, C, D, etc.—on K-9 report cards with a “proficiency scale,” which includes the descriptive terms “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.” If these four terms seem confusing to you, you’re not alone.

According to the recent poll (conducted by Leger and commissioned by the Fraser Institute), 93 per cent of Canadian parents from coast to coast said the letter grade “A” was “clear and easy” to understand while 83 per cent said the letter grade “C” was “clear and easy” to understand. (For the sake of brevity, the poll only asked respondents about these two letter grades.)

By contrast, 58 per cent of Canadian parents said the descriptive grade “extending” was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 26 per cent could correctly identify what “extending” means on a report card.

It was a similar story for the descriptive grade “emerging,” as 57 per cent of Canadian parents said the term was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 28 per cent could correctly identify what “emerging” means on a report card.

It’s also worth noting that the poll simplified the definitions of the four “descriptive” grading terms. The B.C. government’s official definitions, which can be found on the government’s website, speak for themselves. For example: “Extending is not synonymous with perfection. A student is Extending when they demonstrate learning, in relation to learning standards, with increasing depth and complexity. Extending is not a bonus or a reward and does not necessarily require that students do a greater volume of work or work at a higher grade level. Extending is not the goal for all students; Proficient is. Therefore, if a student turns in all their work and demonstrates evidence of learning in all learning standards for an area of learning, they are not automatically assigned Extending.”

So, what are the consequences of this confusing gobbledygook? Well, we already have some anecdotes.

Before the B.C. government made the changes provincewide, the Surrey School District participated in a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of descriptive grading. According to Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA in Surrey and mother of three, for three years her daughter’s report cards said she was “emerging” rather than clearly stating she was failing. Sturko was unaware there was a problem until the child’s Third Grade teacher called to tell Sturko that her daughter was reading at a Kindergarten level.

Former B.C. education minister Rachna Singh tried to justify the change saying descriptive grading would help students become “better prepared for the outside world” where you “don’t get feedback in letters.” But parents in B.C. clearly aren’t happy.

Of course, other provinces also use terms in their grading systems (meeting expectations, exceeding expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, etc.) in addition to letter grades. But based on this polling data, the descriptive grading now used in B.C.—which again, has completely replaced letter grades—makes it much harder for B.C. parents to understand how their children are doing in school. The B.C. government should take a red pen to this confusing new policy before it does any more damage. And parents across the country should keep a watchful eye on their local school boards for any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology open to interpretation.

Paige MacPherson

Associate Director, Education Policy
Continue Reading

Alberta

Parents in every province—not just Alberta—deserve as much school choice as possible

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents.

This week, the Smith government in Alberta will likely pass Bill 27, which requires schools to get signed permission from parents or guardians prior to any lessons on human sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation.

It’s a sensible move. The government is proactively ensuring that students are in these classes because their parents want them there. Given the sensitive nature of these topics, for everyone’s sake it makes sense to ensure parental buy-in at the outset.

Unfortunately, many school trustees don’t agree. A recent resolution passed by the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) calls on the Smith government to maintain the status quo where parents are assumed to have opted in to these lessons unless they contact the school and opt their children out. Apparently, the ASBA thinks parents can’t be trusted to make the right decisions for their children on this issue.

This ASBA resolution is, in fact, a good example of the reflexive opposition by government school trustees to parental rights. They don’t want parents to take control of their children’s education, especially in sensitive areas. Fortunately, the Alberta government rebuffed ASBA’s demands and this attempt to abolish Bill 27 will likely fall on deaf ears.

However, there’s an even better safeguard available to Alberta parents—school choice. Out of all Canadian provinces, Alberta offers the most school choice. Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents. Simply put, parents who are dissatisfied with the government school system have plenty of options—more than parents in any other province. This means Alberta parents can vote with their feet.

Things are quite different in other parts of the country. For example, Ontario and the four Atlantic provinces do not allow any provincial funding to follow students to independent schools. In other words, parents in these provinces who choose an independent school must pay the full cost themselves—while still paying taxes that fund government schools. And no province other than Alberta allows charter schools.

This is why it’s important to give parents as much school choice as possible. Given the tendency of government school boards to remove choices from parents, it’s important that all parents, including those with limited means, have other options available for their children.

Imagine if the owners of a large grocery store tried to impose their dietary preferences by removing all meat products and telling customers that the only way they could purchase meat is to make a special order. What would happen in that scenario? It depends on what other options are available. If this was the only grocery store in the community, customers would have no choice but to comply. However, if there were other stores, customers could simply shop elsewhere. Choice empowers people and limits the ability of one company to limit the choices of people who live in the community.

Think of government school boards as a monopolistic service provider like a grocery store. They often do everything possible to prevent parents from going anywhere else for their children’s education. Trusting them to do what’s best for parents and children is like assuming that the owners of a grocery store would always put the interests of their customers first and not their own self-interest. Monopolies are bad in the private sector and they’re bad in the education sector, too.

Clearly, it makes sense to require schools to get proactive consent from parents. This ensures maximum buy-in from parents for whatever courses their children take. It’s also important that Alberta remains a bastion of school choice. By making it easier for parents to choose from a variety of education options, Alberta puts power in the hands of parents, exactly where it belongs. Parents in other provinces should want that same power, too.

Continue Reading

Trending

X