Connect with us

DEI

Top Canadian university posts job listing that excludes white heterosexual men

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The University of British Columbia says the new job is ‘restricted to members of the following federally designated groups: people with disabilities, indigenous people, racialized people, women, and people from minoritized gender identity groups.’

One of Canada’s most well-known universities has posted a job opening for a new research chair position but has essentially barred non-homosexual white men from applying for the job. 

A recent job posting for the position of “Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Oral Cancer Research” at the University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver campus has explicitly mentioned that those who don’t meet its so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements need not apply.  

The UBC job posting was published on May 21, and notes that the seven-year contract for the chair role has with it certain “eligibility requirements,” such as candidates having to demonstrate a track record of “supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion.”  

According to UBC, the selection for the role will be “restricted to members of the following federally designated groups: people with disabilities, indigenous people, racialized people, women, and people from minoritized gender identity groups.” 

This rules out straight white men from applying for the role. UBC uses its Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Action Plan as well as the B.C. Human Rights Code as validation for its job requirements.  

The UBC claims that its current faculty is underrepresented by those who “self-identify” as having a disability, thus it notes that a person from this category is “preferential.” 

To ensure that straight white men do not apply for the job, the UBC is also mandating that anyone who applies for the role must first conduct what it calls an “equity survey.” 

“Candidates from these groups must self-identify as belonging to one or more of the designated equity groups to be considered for the position,” notes UBC. 

According to the UBC, “Equity and diversity are essential to academic excellence.” 

Musk: Is the even legal?  

As news of the UBC job posting spread on social media, X owner Elon Musk chimed in to comment on the matter, writing on June 3, “Is this legal in Canada?” in reply to a sarcastic post from Quebec-based academic Gad Saad mocking the job posting.  

“Yes! Oral cancer research has long been dominated by white heterosexual males. Imagine the progress that can be made if the relevant research were conducted by Trans People of Color. Thank you @UBC for your epistemological courage in fighting against the scourge of White Heterosexual Science,” sarcastically wrote Saad on June 3 on X.  

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the promotion of so-called DEI requirements on employers, because of a push for it from the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. 

Indeed, LifeSiteNews recently reported on how Trudeau’s Liberal government has spent over $30 million DEI affiliated contracts amongst many federal ministries since January 2019.   

When it comes to DEI, Musk has been a formidable opponent to the discriminatory hiring practices. In Canada, the only main party speaking out against it is the People’s Party of Canada, under its leader Maxime Bernier. He has been outspoken against radical gender ideology repeatedly over the last few years as well as the COVID jabs and mandates. 

In April, he announced a new party policy officially denouncing the so-called DEI agenda, saying it is nothing more than a “fundamentally racist, sexist, and discriminatory ideology” that “divides Canadians.” 

Bernier told LifeSiteNews recently that the only way to stop the “radical policies” of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda – which he calls a combination of “official discrimination against white heterosexual males” and the “promotion of weird mental illnesses” – is for people to fight back against those seeking to undermine “traditional norms and values.” 

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

DEI

TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance

Published on

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.

Continue Reading

David Clinton

Is Canada Abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Published on

The Audit

 David Clinton

Canadians have no absolute right to equal treatment under the law.

Monitoring the intersection between equality and equity

Let me explain that. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was, from the perspective of the Charter’s creators, an exceedingly difficult needle to thread. The tension between its two subsections carries the potential for confusion and even abuse. Here’s the text itself:

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Section (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

15(1) guaranteed the equal treatment of all individuals. That’s something I can’t imagine any reasonable-minded person opposing. The problem was that, at the same time, the authors also wanted to leave room for unfair treatment for select groups through affirmative action programs. That’s the purpose of 15(2).

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

If 15(2) didn’t exist, challenges to, say, hiring practices targeting historically disadvantaged racial groups could be launched based on the rights found in 15(1). Imagine people who didn’t technically qualify as disadvantaged but who might be better suited for and in greater immediate need of an advertised job. If the “affirmative action” candidate was nevertheless hired, couldn’t the others argue that they’d just suffered Charter-level discrimination? 15(2) is designed to ensure such challenges don’t happen.

Such state-imposed inequality may or may not be justifiable. That’s a debate that doesn’t interest me right now. Instead, my primary focus is on how the principle could be widely abused.

I should clarify that these rules only apply to government programs and agencies. While private companies might be bound by other areas of related law, the Charter was only written for government operations. But it’s nevertheless worth remembering that 4.4 million Canadians work for one level or another of government (when you include hospitals and public schools). That’s around 21 percent of all Canadian workers. And many more of us interact with governments regularly.

What kinds of abuse are possible? Well, consider how so many equality-related decisions are highly subjective and rely on the good faith and clarity of mind of the policy makers and public officials in positions of power. In that context:

  • How can we know that factors like “ameliorative”, “disproportionate”, or “disadvantaged” are accurately and appropriately defined?
  • How can we know that favoring one group won’t cause deep and irreparable harm to others?
  • How can we know that even good-faith decisions aren’t made based on outdated assumptions or inaccurate stereotypes?

Easy-to-imagine practical examples of abuse could include:

  • Provincial scholarship programs that target low-income students from only certain ethnic groups while excluding members of other groups who might currently experience even greater financial hardship.
  • Seats in highly competitive university programs that are restricted to only candidates expressing specified identities without objective evidence that such individuals are currently meaningfully underrepresented in those programs or professional fields.
  • Government-funded employment programs that subtly target communities likely to share particular political beliefs.
  • Internal career advancement policies that prioritize identity and ethnicity over competence that lead to reduced organizational capacity.
  • Social disruption due to arbitrary official favoritism for some ethnicities and identities over others.

Of course, misuse of 15(2) can always be tested in court. Programs are, after all, expected to pass the Oakes Test (for objectives that are pressing and substantial) and the Kapp Test (for goals that are truly ameliorative and appropriately targeted).

But that requires someone who notices the problem and has the considerable means necessary to launch a court challenge. There aren’t many people like that running around.

A government that felt that misuse of the law was causing significant damage to society could choose to by-pass 15(2) altogether by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause or by amending the constitution itself. But…well, good luck surviving either attempt.

More realistically, the government could write new legislation that guides the interpretation or application of 15(2). That could mean carefully defining what constitutes an “ameliorative program” or setting clear eligibility criteria for such programs. There would be no need to change the constitution, simply to properly define it.

Alternatively, governments could govern by example. This might mean tailoring their own policies and programs to reflect a more constrained interpretation of 15(2). They could actively participate in court cases to advocate for particular interpretations and present compelling arguments to influence how courts understand and apply the provision.

Finally, of course, they could appoint judges to the Supreme Court and federal courts who are more aligned with values associated with absolute equality under the law.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X