Connect with us

DEI

TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance

Published

6 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk

Race- (and other-) based admissions will inevitably pave the way to race- (and other-) based medical practices, which will only further the divisions that exist in society. You can’t fight discrimination with more discrimination.

Perhaps it should be expected that a so-obviously ‘woke’ institution as the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) would toss aside such antiquated concepts as academic merit as it prepares to open its new medical school in the fall of 2025.

After all, until recently, TMU was more widely known as Ryerson University. But it underwent a rapid period of self-flagellation, statue-tipping and, ultimately, a name change when its namesake, Edgerton Ryerson, was linked (however indirectly) to Canada’s residential school system.

Now that it has sufficiently cleansed itself of any association with past intolerance, it is going forward with a more modern form of intolerance and institutional bias by mandating a huge 80% diversity quota for its inaugural cohort of medical students.

TMU plans to fill 75 of its 94 available seats via three pathways for “equity-deserving groups” in an effort to counter systemic bias and eliminate barriers to success for certain groups. Consequently, there are distinct admission pathways for “Indigenous, Black and Equity-Deserving” groups.

What exactly is an equity-deserving group? It’s almost any identity group you can imagine – that is, except those who identify as white, straight, cisgender, straight-A, middle- and/or upper-class males.

To further facilitate this grand plan, TMU has eliminated the need to write the traditional MCAT exam (often used to assess aptitude, but apparently TMU views it as a barrier to accessing medical education). Further, it has set the minimum grade point average at a rather average 3.3 and, “in order to attract a diverse range of applicants,” it is accepting students with a four-year undergrad degree from any field.

It’s difficult to imagine how such a heterogenous group can begin learning medicine at the same level. Someone with an advanced degree in physiology or anatomy will be light years ahead of a classmate who gained a degree by dissecting Dostoyevsky.

Finally, it should be noted that in “exceptional circumstances” any of these requirements can be reconsidered for, you guessed it, black, indigenous or other equity-deserving groups.

As for the curriculum itself, it promises to be “rooted in community-driven care and cultural respect and safety, with ECA, decolonization and reconciliation woven throughout” which will “help students become a new kind of physician.”

Whether or not this “new kind of physician” will be perceived as fully credible, however, is yet to be seen. Because of its ‘woke’ application process, all TMU medical graduates will be judged differently no matter how skilled they may be and even when physicians are in short supply. Life and death decisions are literally in their hands, and in such cases, one would think that medical expertise is far more important than sharing the same pronouns.

Frankly, if students need a falsely inclusive environment where all minds think alike to feel safe and a part of society, then maybe they aren’t cut out to become doctors who will treat all people equally. After all, race- (and other-) based admissions will inevitably pave the way to race- (and other-) based medical practices, which will only further the divisions that exist in society. You can’t fight discrimination with more discrimination.

It’s ridiculous to use medical school enrollments as a means of resolving issues of social injustice. However, from a broader perspective, this social experiment echoes what is already happening in universities across Canada. The academic merit of individuals is increasingly being pushed aside to fulfill quotas based on gender or even race.

One year ago, the University of Victoria made headlines when it posted a position for an assistant professor in the music department. The catch is that the selection process was limited to black people. Education professor Dr. Patrick Keeney points out that diversity, equity and inclusion policies are reshaping core operations at universities. Grants and prestigious research chair positions are increasingly available only to visible minorities or other identity groups.

Non-academic considerations are given priority, and funding is contingent on meeting minority quotas.

Consequently, Keeney states that the quality of education is falling and universities that were once committed to academic excellence are now perceived as institutions to pursue social justice.

Diversity is a legitimate goal, but it cannot – and should not — be achieved by subjugating academic merit to social experimentation.

Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

WEF Pushes Public-Private Collaboration to Accelerate Digital ID and Censorship

Published on

logo

By

World Economic Forum pushes private funding for UN-led agendas under the guise of resilience and collaboration.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has prepared a white paper – titled, Resilience Pulse Check: Harnessing Collaboration to Navigate a Volatile World – to go with its ongoing annual meeting taking place this week in Davos.

Yet again reiterating the main theme of the gathering – “collaboration” – the document seeks to promote it among private and public sector entities in order to speed up the process of reaching UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This collection of 17 interconnected goals is criticized by opponents of the spread of digital ID and censorship, since the first is openly, and the second indirectly pushed via the initiative – when it deals with “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation” that the UN wants to be treated as threats to information integrity, which negatively impact the ability to achieve the SDGs.

The WEF white paper states that its own goal was to find out how businesses are tackling “today’s challenges,” opting once again for some doom-mongering by revealing that responses from 250 (highly likely hand-picked) participants, leaders from the public sector, showed that “84% of companies feel underprepared for future disruptions.”

And among the ways to achieve greater “resilience” in this context, the WEF endorses the SDGs, as well as the Paris Agreement (on climate change), and the “societal shifts” they aim for.

The white paper invites businesses to “work collectively” and promotes public-private collaboration as “essential” – as it turns out, mainly to find efficient ways to bankroll SDGs with private sector money.

The WEF wants to see “determined (and coordinated) action across both the public and private sectors” to get there. This informal group with a massive influence on elites in a large number of countries also pushes a pro-SDG entity, the Global Investors for Sustainable Development (GISD) Alliance, and singles it out as a positive example.

The white paper’s authors explain that the GISD Alliance is led by the UN and gathers major financial institutions and corporations who are coming up with coordinated strategies to “channel private investment towards SDGs.”

That, however, is not enough – besides the UN-led alliance, the WEF sees other “still untapped opportunities to deepen public-private collaboration.”

Continue Reading

Christopher Rufo

What the Left Did to Me and My Family

Published on

For the past five years, I have been fighting to defeat critical race theory and DEI.

This is a historic moment. For the past five years, I have been fighting to defeat critical race theory, gender cultism, and DEI. Now, President Trump has taken decisive action and instructed his administration to rip out these malicious ideologies root and branch, not just from the federal government but from all institutions that receive federal funding—universities, schools, corporations. All of it.

It has been a long road. The Left will try to memory-hole the recent past, but we must not forget a simple historical truth: the Left put America through a reign of terror after 2020. I have long hesitated to tell my personal story—I did not want to give my enemies the satisfaction—but now it’s time to lay out the facts. This is some of what the Left’s activists did to me and my family as they sought to intimidate me and shut me up.

When I lived in Seattle, they put up posters around my neighborhood with my home address, telling insane lies about me and instructing activists to show up at my door. Later, they sent letters to a few hundred of my neighbors, claiming I was a Nazi white supremacist. Death threats, references to my family, the whole deal. A few times, we had to pack up the kids and leave town.

One of these activists found one of my children at a park with the babysitter and yelled at him until he started crying. My son came home terrified. I figured out who this person was—a software developer who lived in the neighborhood—got his number, called him, delivered some “persuasive” words, and forced him to apologize to my son over the phone. I made sure he was much more frightened than my son had been.

Leftist activists organized employees within Microsoft to email-bomb my wife’s boss, claiming that she was a white supremacist. Thankfully, he thought it strange for her to be an Asian white supremacist and knew it was all a fabrication. I tracked down the ringleader and, “coincidentally,” he was fired a few months later. He overestimated his position and underestimated mine.

Then there were the calls and texts to our private numbers. Threats to rape my wife and murder my children. At one point, I reached out to the FBI about it, but the perpetrators had used number-cloaking apps and there was nothing law enforcement could do. I thought we had a lead in St. Louis and hired a private investigator to look into it, but the trail went cold. We fortified our home and studied up on the law. I was prepared to kill anyone who crossed the threshold to harm my family.

The institutions got in on it, too: organized campaigns to ruin my reputation, manipulate my Wikipedia page, cancel my speaking engagements, and list me on the websites of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, in an attempt to get me banned from social media. The censorship apparatus put a target on my back, and the federal government egged it on. They all failed.

My experience is hardly unique. Many other conservatives have faced similar circumstances. Yes, our fight has been about CRT, DEI, and other ideological issues—but more than anything, it has been about safeguarding America’s free society from threats, violence, intimidation, and madness. That is why I fight. And, by the grace of God, why we are winning.


I have been able to continue this work, in part, because of my readers on Substack, who have provided an independent source of income for us. This is high-risk, high-reward work and my readers make it all possible. If you’re able, I encourage you to become a paid subscriber now.

Continue Reading

Trending

X