Eric Kaufmann: It costs Canada millions to discriminate against white male academics

Sensationalist, even if backed up by by available data using the h-index. But there was a need to improve the balance within academia as previous hiring reflected historical patterns and arguably biases, and again arguably going too far in doing so.

That being said, Kaufmann’s point of activist academics in the social sciences has merit:

…The systematic hiring of lower-achieving minorities and women affects the performance of organizations and programs. In order to assess this, we examined the prestigious federal Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program. This is the pinnacle of Canada’s research system, spending $300 million annually on renewable seven-year awards of between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.

Beginning in 2003, and accelerating after 2017, the CRC program implemented an aggressive regime of diversity targets in which institutions that did not meet their quotas for female, minority and Indigenous chairs were threatened with losing their chair allocations. Canada’s Constitution allows for race and sex discrimination, thus CRC openings routinely state that able-bodied straight white males need not apply.

The effects have been dramatic. In 2000, 80 per cent of CRCs were white men. By 2025, just 20 per cent were. Between 2017, when unvarnished EDI was implemented, and 2025, the female share doubled from 30 to 60 per cent while the Black and Indigenous component jumped from two per cent to between 10 and 15 per cent.

We measured the research productivity of Black, Indigenous and female scholars between 2016 and 2025 and discovered that whites and Asians averaged an h-index of 34, Blacks 23 and Indigenous scholars 15. Men averaged 38 to women’s 28. Blacks, First Nations and women are significantly less productive even after controlling for length of career, tier of chair, discipline and year of award. This echoes American results. Moving from a white or Asian chair to a Black or Indigenous chair, or from a male to a female, results in 12 to 15 per cent less research impact.

The effect on the CRC program has been severe. The Canadian government pays chairs to produce research, and — taking into account differences in citing practices by discipline — the h-index is the best unbiased indicator of its impact. Assigning a dollar value to each h-index point, we estimate that EDI hiring costs the CRC program $18 million a year, or six per cent of its budget….

We calculate that money diverted to scholar activism in the social sciences and humanities costs a further six per cent of the CRC budget — and this excludes the tab for administering EDI. This means that around 12 per cent — $36 million of the program’s $300 million annual budget — is wasted on equity and diversity. The EDI “tax” across the Tri-Council agencies’ entire budget of $4.5 billion, not to mention the wider higher education sector, is enormous….

Source: Eric Kaufmann: It costs Canada millions to discriminate against white male academics

LILLEY: Where was the outrage as Canadians renamed our own history?

Although different in some ways when renaming comes from a foreign power, valid question nevertheless:

…My question for all the people screaming about the renaming of Lake Ontario is: where were they as we renamed schools, roads and more once named for Sir John A. Macdonald? Where were they as we removed our history by pulling down statues dedicated to our first prime minister?

Schools in Nova Scotia and Ontario had Sir John A.’s name dropped from them. Statues in Montreal, Kingston, Regina, Victoria and elsewhere were taken down.

In Saskatoon, John A. Macdonald Road was renamed miyo-wâhkôhtowin, a Cree word meaning “good relationships.” In Ottawa, a federally controlled road, the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway, was renamed under the Trudeau government to Kichi Zībī Mīkan, an Algonquin phrase meaning Great River Road.

Where was the outrage over this by the people now furious about Donald Trump changing the name of Lake Ontario? Where was their national pride? Where was their demand that our history be respected?

What about when Egerton Ryerson had his statue torn down, his name taken off the university long associated with him over false claims of connections to residential schools?

Where was the outrage when Edward Cornwallis had his name and image stripped from our public spaces? When Justin Trudeau unilaterally took the name of Sir Hector-Louis Langevin, a Father of Confederation, off the building that housed the Prime Minister’s Office, why did these same people not step up and raise their voices?

Tearing down our own history

Here in Toronto, we recently renamed Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square on the false claim that Henry Dundas supported and extended slavery in the British Empire. Sankofa is a Ghanaian word, taken from the language of the people on the west coast of Africa who sold most of the slaves into the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

We have spent close to a decade stripping away our own history, being vandals to our own heritage, and most of the public has been silent….

Source: LILLEY: Where was the outrage as Canadians renamed our own history?

Jack Jedwab: The seeds of today’s efforts to excuse antisemitism were planted 25 years ago in Durban

Useful historical reminder:

…That legacy is now visible everywhere. Jews are often required to prove that what they experience as antisemitism is indeed antisemitism. Expressions that would be condemned instantly if directed at other minorities are parsed endlessly when Jews are the target. The same people who insist that minorities must be trusted to define their own experience of racism suddenly demand footnotes, qualifications and geopolitical context when Jews describe hatred directed toward them.

That is one of the enduring legacies of Durban. It showed how easily anti-racism can be inverted when ideology overtakes principle. A movement that begins by defending the vulnerable can end up deciding which vulnerable people are inconvenient. A discourse built to expose hatred can become a vehicle for excusing it. A gathering convened to fight racism can, in the name of fighting racism, make room for one of its oldest forms.

Twenty-five years later, the deeper lesson arising from Durban is that universality is fragile. Anti-racism cannot survive if it becomes selective. Human rights cannot retain their force if some forms of hatred are condemned while others are rationalized because they fit a preferred political narrative….

Source: Jack Jedwab: The seeds of today’s efforts to excuse antisemitism were planted 25 years ago in Durban

CBC reverses restriction on labelling 9/11 as ‘terrorism’

Really wonder what CBC is thinking. Miller’s comment nails it:

…The move was welcomed by Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller, who stated on social media that the earlier policy was “a piece of pedantic and foolish guidance that caused legitimate anger.”

Boshra’s post came within an hour after Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree reiterated the federal government’s view that 9/11 was the “deadliest terrorist attack in history.”

Anger about the CBC policy had exploded online ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks, and as relations plummet between Canada and the U.S. after trade talks fell apart last week.

In a written statement Friday afternoon, Anandasangaree did not mention the CBC policy, but stressed that the Canadian government has “always recognized 9/11 as the deadliest terrorist attack in history” and passed a law in 2001 to create a legal definition of “terrorist activity.”

He noted that Canadians “stood with our American neighbours” after the attack, including by hosting thousands of stranded air passengers in Gander, N.L., and joining the war in Afghanistan, where 158 Canadian soldiers died. …

Source: CBC reverses restriction on labelling 9/11 as ‘terrorism’

Robert Brym: Yes, anti-Zionism is antisemitic

Agree:

…All these findings are in line with results from a 2024 survey of 414 Canadian Jews and a 2018 survey of 2,335 Canadian who identify as Jewish by religion or ethnicity.

Members of the JFN are therefore wrong to claim that being Jewish is only a matter of religion and not a matter of statehood. Moreover, just as it is antisemitic to discriminate against Jews based on their religion, I believe it is antisemitic to erase support for the existence of a Jewish state as a core part of Jewish identify.

Some Jews are anti-Zionists. They deny the need for the existence of a Jewish state. In Canada, a 2025 survey of 332 Jewish Canadians found that one per cent of Canadian Jews at the time regarded themselves as anti-Zionists, while the most recent 2026 survey of 625 Canadian Jews cited earlier puts the number at five per cent. The proportion of Jews who deny the need for Jewish statehood is thus tiny….

It should not surprise us that the JFN has written an op-ed arguing that anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism. In the principles section of their website, they state that they oppose the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism which was accepted by Canada in 2019. It includes non-legally binding illustrative examples of what might constitute antisemitism, including, “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.”

Notably, the JFN’s “principles” page on their website lacks any mention of the horrific attacks on October 7, and their press release page includes only two entries, one opposing the IHRA definition and one about “anti-Palestinian racism.”

Many Jewish Zionists, including me, are highly critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its conduct in the Israel-Hamas war. However, for reasons I’ve indicated, I regard the small coterie of Jewish anti-Zionists as misguided.”

Robert Brym is an emeritus professor of sociology and Jewish studies at University of Toronto.

Source: Robert Brym: Yes, anti-Zionism is antisemitic

ICYMI: Muslim Association promises ‘Jew-free’ incident will not recur at future youth events

Demonstrates the need for moderation…:

In June 30 submission to National Post, Sharaf Sharafeldin, president of strategy at the Muslim Association of Canada, stated that during the three-day conference that attracted thousands of Muslim-Canadians, speakers and attendees examined “faith-rooted life” in Canada. The incident involving the “jew-free” phrase occurred during a youth session and was “a public, anonymous audience-participation exercise” that produced a word cloud image, when asked what kind of community they wanted. It has since been widely circulated.

There were 50 entries visible in the word cloud, wrote Sharafeldin. But the facilitator did not notice the “jew-free” entry.

The August 12 update follows an “internal investigation” into the incident.

“MAC regrets that this phrase appeared at our Convention, even briefly and even though it originated from an anonymous, bad-faith submission with no connection to the youth or the discussion taking place in the session.” The organization did not explain what it meant by bad faith….

Source: Muslim Association promises ‘Jew-free’ incident will not recur at future youth events

Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

Of note:

The federal public service is facing calls to combat antisemitism after Jewish civil servants reported experiencing disproportionately high levels of discrimination in the workplace.

In 2024, the annual federal employee survey tracked responses based on religion for the first time. A breakdown of the responses found that 18 per cent of Jewish civil servants reported experiencing discrimination and harassment in the workplace, including offensive remarks.

Some Jewish community leaders say the survey confirms anecdotal reports they’ve heard about rising antisemitism within the public service. 

Across the federal civil service, 9 per cent of employees who responded to the survey said they had experienced discrimination in the workplace in the preceding 12 months, with 11 per cent reporting they had faced harassment.

Thirteen per cent of Muslim public servants said they had experienced discrimination in the year preceding the survey, with 12 per cent reporting they had experienced harassment. 

Only half of civil servants responded to the survey, including approximately 67,820 Christians, 6,550 Muslims, 3,130 Hindus, 1,830 Sikhs and 1,500 Jews.

Fourteen per cent of Sikh public servants who responded said they had experienced harassment, with 13 per cent saying they had suffered discrimination, including on the basis of their race. …

Source: Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

What is Dominion Society of Canada and why are people of different political backgrounds worried?

Of note:

…People with different political ties have criticized Dominion Society. They include Jason Kenney, former Alberta premier and onetime Conservative MP. 

“There are a bunch of totally legitimate concerns about what I would characterize as imprudent or irresponsible immigration policy,” Kenney, federal immigration minister from 2008 to 2013, told CBC Hamilton in an interview this week. 

“But I think that is categorically different than basing our immigration policy on race.”

Dominion Society, he added, seems more interested in the colour of people’s skin than the kind of contribution they’re making to Canada. 

“That is clearly un-Canadian, and it needs to be called out.

“People like me, who are on the right of centre of Canadian politics, have a special obligation to do that,” Kenney said. “I think it’s really problematic to have a group like that wrapping itself in Canadian patriotism and nationalism that is trying to exploit public concern about immigration and turn it into, frankly, a racist message.” …

Source: What is Dominion Society of Canada and why are people of different political backgrounds worried?

Geist: TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism

The contrast is telling:

…A report like this should have sparked immediate action, and it is difficult to believe that findings of this kind involving any other group would have been met with anything less. For example, in November 2020, amid mounting pressure over Egerton Ryerson’s residential schools legacy, TMU established a task force that issued its report within a year (during which time the Ryerson statue was toppled), and the Board of Governors adopted all 22 recommendations immediately (including changing the name of the university to TMU). But when the issue involves Jewish students, TMU’s response is far different. It sat on the report for nearly two weeks, released it with disciplinary findings redacted, and announced a President’s Implementation Task Force that will report back on the report in 2027. That means students arriving on campus in the next few weeks will face another year of antisemitism with the university signalling that there is no urgency to address the issue.

In fact, the task force membership leaves little doubt that the university intends to reject many of the report’s recommendations. Nearly half of the committee’s members have signed public petitions opposing some of the recommendations, including the adoption of the IHRA definition, and rejecting the report’s findings on the links between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Simply put, delaying the implementation of the Benotto report and stacking a new task force with opponents of its recommendations is precisely what you do when you don’t take the antisemitism report seriously and want to kill its recommendations. As a result, TMU is home to two problems: its antisemitism problem is now the most thoroughly documented in the country, and its leadership is more interested in damage control than fixing the damage. If the university is unable or unwilling to establish a safe environment for all of its students and faculty, it falls to the Ontario government, which already requires universities to implement policies to address and combat hate, including antisemitism, to ensure that it does.

Source: TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism

From the Globe editorial:

….As both reports show, Jews who don’t renounce Israel’s existence are treated as outcasts: “The redefinition of Zionism to incorporate genocide and the insistence that anyone who fails to actively support anti-Zionism is likewise culpable,” Ms. Benotto writes, “have contributed to an environment that has enabled antisemitism to flourish.” A Jewish lecturer says it’s “incredibly unsafe” to wear a Star of David, and even organizing a non-political Sabbath dinner requires a risk assessment, Ms. Benotto reported.

This is not about isolated episodes. It is about a poisoned environment. Our learning institutions should consistently stand up for the values they claim to represent. As Ms. Benotto documents, TMU already has policies against violence, threats of violence, and discriminatory, intimidating or harassing words and conduct. Every school should, as she urges for TMU, “establish clear behavioural expectations, protect the rights of all members of the community, and enforce its policies consistently, transparently, and predictably.”

It hardly seems too much to ask. Yet TMU has not responded to the eight recommendations of the Benotto report, instead announcing an “implementation committee” that has until next March to come up with a “blueprint.”

The report – again, commissioned by TMU – already lays out a course of action. No blueprint is needed, just a spine.

Source: The betrayal of Jewish students needs to end

Austin Harper: The Truths That Failed Jason Arday

One of the more balanced treatment of Arday and how his case is being used by both the right and left:

…I have been dwelling on these two images—the theatrical interracial handclasp; the pages and pages of monomaniacal media coverage of what was ultimately a niche academic scandal—because together they speak to a terrible reality. Arday was fetishized in his ascendancy by white liberals, for whom he served as a mirror in which they could see their own goodness. And he was fetishized in his downfall by white conservatives who saw him as a test case for their own obsessions with an academic apparatus that they believe is not meritocratic enough—which is to say, not white enough.

The right would have us believe that the Arday scandal is a story of affirmative action taken to its most caricaturish conclusion. Many progressives see it as something else: a racist witch hunt in which self-righteous zealots with suspect motives hounded a man to death. The problem with these narratives—and it is a sticky problem—is that they are both right.

To be a Black person in elite institutions, and particularly in elite academia, is to have the standards simultaneously set too low and too high: too low because only a Black person with Arday’s dubious qualifications and seemingly invented biography could have been elevated to the top of the mountain in academia and publishing; and too high because only a Black person could have been pushed off that mountain with such nakedly racist enthusiasm, his tumbling fall so ruthlessly documented, analyzed, and cheered. When a famous white man errs, people tend to rightly understand his mistakes or transgressions as an individual’s missteps. When a famous Black man does, the errors are typically turned into spectacle, characterized as proof of the inferiority, suspected all along, of his race….

Source: The Truths That Failed Jason Arday