Right-Wing Influencers Are Going Full Racist in Anti-DEI Rants – The Daily Beast

Of note:

Boeing has had its fair share of negative news coverage lately, as the company’s decades of corner-cutting, outsourcing, and neglect led to some recent terrifyingmishaps.

You might wonder what this has to do with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Well, it seems that efforts to create more just and equitable workplaces are the scariest thing imaginable to certain right-wing influencers. So terrifying, in fact, that they could lead to aviation disasters.

Elon Musk, the CEO of a car company whose vehicles have a tendency to catch fire, tweeted, “It will take an airplane crashing and killing hundreds of people for them to change this crazy policy of DIE.” The obvious innuendo is that Black people are responsible for Boeing’s failures. Musk has also referred to DEI as “just another word for racism.”

But Musk didn’t stop there. He amplified a tweet that suggested Black students have lower IQs, attacked HBCUs, and argued Blacks have “borderline intellectual impairment.” This is eugenics, plain and simple. It’s pseudo-science used to dehumanize Blacks, not dissimilar to when pro-slavery white people argued that Blacks were more suited for field work because they couldn’t learn and had smaller brains.

Not to be outdone, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk—a vocal Donald Trump sycophant—used Boeing’s issues to argue against the employment of Black pilots. During a podcast, Kirk said, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” Other MAGA celebrities expressed similarly racist concerns.

Just 3.4 percent of U.S. airline pilots are Black. White men have flown the friendly skies almost exclusively since the Wright brothers’ first flight in 1903. Even with mitigation efforts to make air navigation more reflective of the society it serves, training programs, recruitment strategies, and airlines have fallen short.

United Airlines and Delta Airlines, specifically, have advanced diversity in hiring, but even there the needle hasn’t moved much in diversifying the pilot class—it’s still overwhelmingly majority white male.

So why are the likes of Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, and others using the pilot workforce situation as the target of their DEI takedown?

The simple answer is… because they can. There is a shortage of airline pilots, a growing number of pilots are of retirement age, and the pipeline must be expanded to keep up with consumer demand. These realities scare certain white men who are hellbent on believing they are the master race, and that all others are inherently inferior.

And the attacks on DEI are coordinated and relentless.

As of this week, Florida’s 28 public colleges are prohibited from using government funds for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. And because everything’s bigger in the Lone Star State, Texas boasts 30 new anti-DEI laws. Thirteen states’ attorneys general signed a public letter in July 2023 after the fall of affirmative action in college admissions. The letter had nothing to do with college admissions, but the Republican AGs used the Supreme Court decision as a platform to directly voice their collective opposition to DEI in the workforce.

These efforts don’t even scratch the surface of the anti-DEI architects’ ultimate goal—stratifying the American workforce and reducing access to the C-suite, STEM careers, small businesses, and opportunities previously afforded almost solely to white men. America is more diverse today than it has ever been—and the fix is in to ensure diversity isn’t reflected in high-paying jobs, the highest levels of government, or leadership in America’s top educational institutions.

To be Black in America is to live in a constant threat of attack on your civil rights and humanity, the questioning of your abilities, and a belief that you are unworthy solely because of the color of your skin. Regardless of how often Nikki Haley says, “America isn’t a racist country,” the red, white, and blue time and again finds itself painfully erecting barriers to Black achievement, health access, and any marker of equity.

Source: Right-Wing Influencers Are Going Full Racist in Anti-DEI Rants – The Daily Beast

Thousands of Australians Call National Holiday ‘Invasion Day,’ Protesting British Colonization

Similar to the “woke” crowd here:

Thousands of Australians protested the anniversary of British colonization of their country with large crowds Friday urging for Australia Day to be moved and for a day of mourning on the holiday some call “Invasion Day.”

The holiday marks the arrival of 11 British ships carrying convicts at Port Jackson in present-day Sydney on Jan. 26, 1788. For many activists, the day marked the beginning of a sustained period of discrimination and expulsion of Indigenous people from their land without a treaty.

Thousands of people, many of whom waved Indigenous flags, rallied in front of the Victoria state parliament in Melbourne, calling for an official day of mourning to be declared across Australia. Roads and tram lines were shut down for more than four hours.

Large crowds in Sydney chanted for the Australia Day date to be moved. Thousands of protesters also rallied in Brisbane, and the second day of Australia’s cricket match against the West Indies was briefly disrupted by demonstrators.

Major sports have stopped calling the holiday Australia Day, and the Australian Football League Players Association, several clubs and hockey teams have called for the date to change.

On Thursday, two monuments symbolizing Australia’s colonial past were damaged in Melbourne. A statue of British naval officer James Cook, who in 1770 charted Sydney’s coast, was sawn off at the ankles, and a Queen Victoria monument was doused in red paint.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented 3.8% of Australia’s population of 26 million, according to a Bureau of Statistics census in 2021. Indigenous people are the nation’s most disadvantaged ethnic minority.

Tensions are high after Australian voters in October resoundingly rejected a referendum to create an advocacy committee to offer advice to parliament on policies that affect Indigenous people. The government had proposed the first constitutional change since 1977 as a step forward in Indigenous rights.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Friday that the national day was an opportunity for Australians to “pause and reflect on everything that we have achieved as a nation.”

Source: Thousands of Australians Call National Holiday ‘Invasion Day,’ Protesting British Colonization

Berlin Tosses Out Controversial Funding Clause That Was Protested by Artists – ARTnews

Of note.

Berlin has repealed an anti-discrimination funding clause amid mass protests from artists both in and beyond Germany.

The clause required all recipients of city funding to commit themselves against antisemitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). That organization’s definition says it is a form of prejudice to deny Israel’s right to exist.

After Berlin culture senator Joe Chialo announced the clause earlier this month, many artists claimed that it would be used as a means to silence those who spoke out in favor of Palestine. Hundreds of artists signed an open letter put out by Strike Germany, which calls for a boycott of institutions in the country that rely on “McCarthyist policies that suppress freedom of expression, specifically expressions of solidarity with Palestine,” according to a description on its site.

On Monday, less than a month after enacting the clause, Chialo said he was suspending it because of what he described as “legal concerns.”

But he also said he would continue to commit himself against a “non-discriminatory” culture in Berlin, saying in a statement, “I have to take seriously the legal and critical voices that saw the introduced clause as a restriction on artistic freedom.”

His statement came as some artists started to pull their work from the Berlinale film festival and institutional exhibitions, making widely shared social media statements about their reasons for doing so.

Artists Suneil Sanzgiri and Ayo Tsalithaba pulled new works set to show this February at the Berlinale, which is among the foremost film festivals in their world. “While I do not claim that removing one’s work is the only moral or ethical decision,” Sanzgiri wrote on Instagram, “we have an opportunity to collectively move in support of the Palestinian struggle by not letting our work prop up a country that, like the United States, aids and abets Israel’s war crimes, ignores international law, and requires all cultural institution to wrongly equate critiques of Zionism to anti-semitism.” (In response, the festival said it remained committed to an “open dialogue, which invites and cherishes a wide range of voices and positions.”)

Five artists—Holly Childs and Gediminas Žygus, Mohammad Berro, Monica Basbous and Charbel Alkhoury—pulled their work from the Transmediale, a Berlin festival for digital art that kicks off on January 31. After the artists withdrew, the festival called for a ceasefire and warned that the funding clause “does risk influencing future editions, as Berlin directly accounts for approximately 7% of our budget.”

American Artist and Morehshin Allahyari pulled out of a group show opening at Berlin’s KW Institute for Contemporary Art in February, and filmmaker Maryam Tafakory withdrew a work from a current exhibition at Portikus, a contemporary art museum in Frankfurt beloved by the international art world.

In response to Tafakory’s decision to remove her work, Portikus closed for the weekend. “The cycle of violence and misinformation will not stop until all voices are allowed to be heard,” the museum wrote in a statement posted to social media.

Source: Berlin Tosses Out Controversial Funding Clause That Was Protested by Artists – ARTnews

Marsha Lederman highlights an example of what not to do in Vancouver’s PuSh Festival has a new nickname: The Push Over Festival , when it cancelled performances of the Canadian play The Runner due to pressure from other artists who said they would not participate if the play was performed. The response should have been, fine, don’t participate.

Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works

Contrary to other studies highlighting the limited effectiveness, these HBS academics share their experience with preparing students for a more diverse workforce:

As Harvard-based educators and advisers with decades of collective experience, we have worked with organizations failing to meet this objective and taught M.B.A. students how to negotiate difference, preparing them for a work force more diverse than ever. In our experience, many organizations working on D.E.I. goals are getting stuck at the diversity stage — recruiting difference without managing it effectively — and generating frustration and cynicism about their efforts along the way. They are now at risk of stopping in the middle of a complex change journey, declaring failure prematurely.

Inclusion, as we define it, creates the conditions where everyone can thrive and where our differences as varied, multidimensional people are not only tolerated but also valued. A willingness to pursue the benefits of D.E.I. — the full participation and fair treatment of all team members — renders organizational wholes greater than the sum of their parts.

At a time when some organizations, feeling the politicized ripple effects of affirmative action’s repeal, are at risk of abandoning the objectives of D.E.I., our experiences suggest that to do so is bad for individuals, organizations and American society writ large. Persuasive scholarship has identified the ways in which we become more effective leaders when we collaborate skillfully with people who don’t already think like us — people with different perspectives, assumptions and experiences of moving through the world.

Erik Larson’s firm, Cloverpop, helps companies make and learn from decisions. When Mr. Larson and his research team compared the decision quality of individuals versus teams, they found thatall-male teams outperformed individuals nearly 60 percent of the time, but gender diverse teams outperformed individuals almost 75 percent of the time. Teams that were gender and geographically diverse, and had at least one age gap of 20 years or more, made better decisions than individuals 87 percent of the time. If you’ve ever called a grandparent for advice or tested an idea with a skeptical teenager, you get what this research was trying to quantify. We often learn the most from people who think most differently from us.

Getting people to share what they know that other people don’t know is essential to collective performance. Our Harvard Business School colleague Amy Edmondson and her research collaborator, Mike Roberto, designed a simulation where five-person teams must figure out how to climb Mount Everest. Teams reporting higher feelings of group belonging repeatedly outperform other teams because their members share more of their unique information about summiting Everest.

These findings are consistent with Ms. Edmondson’s research on the performance advantages of “psychological safety,” the cultural underpinning of inclusion. Individuals, she finds, are more likely to share their views in an environment that does not belittle, or worse, punish those who offer differing opinions, particularly to more powerful colleagues. In a recent study of 62 drug development teams, Ms. Edmondson and Henrik Bresman found that diverse teams, when assessed by senior leaders, outperform their more homogenous peers only in the presence of psychological safety. More diversity is not always better – from a performance standpoint, diversity without the inclusion can actually make things worse.

Inclusion work, done well, seeks to scale these kinds of results. Among other payoffs, organizations that get inclusion right at scale seem to be smarter, more innovative and more stable. One explanation is that they can see their competitive landscape — threats, risks, opportunities — more clearly and have greater access to the full knowledge base of their people.

But achieving gains like this can feel elusive when the will to participate in D.E.I. is waning. It can be tempting to put in place superficial fixes to achieve the optics of inclusion — a primary concern of D.E.I. critics — such as reserving roles for specific demographics. This is often illegal and rarely helpful, and it provides at least one area of broad agreement in this polarized debate: a distaste for hiring and promotion schemes based on an individual’s identity. A way to correct for these concerns is inclusive recruitment processes and rigorous, transparent selection criteria that everyone understands. It is not to scale back investments in inclusion, which would restrict our ability to build healthy, dynamic organizations.

Inclusion work is a way to create the conditions where people you don’t already know — those who are separated from you by more than one or two degrees — can succeed. For example, many U.S. tech companies have successfully created workplaces where young, straight, white men they know can thrive, but have a harder time recruiting, developing, promoting and retaining women, people of color, people from the L.G.B.T.Q.+ community, people over the age of 35 and the young, straight, white men they don’tknow. Organizations with these outcomes are typically relying too much on familiar networks — the people they know — and when they find someone good enough in those networks, they stop looking.

That is one reason we end up with all-male boards. Senior teams with no people of color. Professorial ranks with no conservatives. If the demographics of your team don’t bear much resemblance to the demographics of the broader population, then you’ve likely put artificial barriers on your talent pools and undermined your ability to reap the rewards of inclusion.

Everyone must be better off for inclusion initiatives to work. An example from Harvard Business School illustrates that point. It has always been an important part of our school’s mission to recruit military leaders and ensure that they can thrive, not in spite of their nontraditional training and experience, but precisely because of it. Over a decade ago, the school was succeeding at recruiting military veterans, but once in the classroom, they were less likely to excel academically. The military student group began providing specialized review sessions that focused on where its constituents were collectively getting stuck, making explicit the links between the M.B.A. curriculum and their military technical training.

Within a few years, gaps in performance closed. The performance of nonmilitary students did not decline because those students got extra attention. In fact, the rest of the student body benefited because military veterans became more active and confident in classroom discussions, offering unique insights into the high stakes of leadership decisions. The school’s experience with the value of customized review sessions also helped close performance gaps with other groups, including women and international students.

What does this work look like inside organizations? Sometimes it means more actively recruiting in unfamiliar places. Sometimes it means becoming more systematic about development opportunities. It can mean improving the ways you assess people for promotion, which can be riddled with bias and pitfalls, relying instead on more objective and self-evident advancement criteria. Indeed, what we hear most often from underrepresented leaders — X’s in organizations filled with Y’s — is the desire for a fair chance to compete, in workplaces where the rules of the game are clear and applied equally to all.

We know that historical change is like sleep. It happens gradually, sometimes fitfully, then all at once. We are in the fitful stage of our evolution toward truly inclusive organizations. But let us not get confused: Inclusion is an end goal that channels universal hopes for meritocracy, reflects America at its best and creates the foundation for an even more competitive future.

Caroline Elkins and Frances Frei are professors at Harvard Business School. Anne Morriss is the co-author, with Professor Frei, of “Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems.”

Source: Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works

Québec bloque la nomination au CA de l’INRS d’une prof étudiant le racisme systémique

This blocking of the nomination of Denise Helly, who I know from my time in government, is creating quite a stir in Quebec from what I understand. Always found her work and opinions reasonable even if I didn’t always agree:

La ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, Pascale Déry, a semé l’émoi chez les professeurs, dans les partis d’opposition et dans les plus hautes sphères de l’Université du Québec (UQ) en bloquant la nomination d’une professeure qui s’intéresse, dans ses travaux, au multiculturalisme, à l’islamophobie, au racisme systémique et, depuis peu, au mouvement anti-woke. 

Le 20 décembre, la professeure titulaire Denise Helly, de l’Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS), a reçu un message du secrétaire général de son établissement qui l’avisait avec « regret » que sa candidature au conseil d’administration (CA) de l’INRS n’avait pas été « retenue » par le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur. 

La raison ? Dans le courriel que Le Devoir a pu consulter, le secrétaire général, Michel Fortin, écrit à Mme Helly que la décision relève de la « discrétion ministérielle » et que, dans ce type de situation, « le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur ne fournit aucune explication additionnelle ».

L’INRS fait partie du réseau de l’UQ. En entrevue, le président de l’UQ, Alexandre Cloutier, a dit s’inquiéter de cette intervention de la ministre, qui n’est pas « habituelle ». « Ça soulève deux enjeux. Un qui est lié à l’autonomie des universités et l’autre, celui de la liberté universitaire, mérite une attention d’analyse également », lance-t-il. Ces deux principes sont enchâssés dans la Loi sur la liberté académique dans le milieu universitaire, adoptée par le gouvernement Legault en juin 2022

M. Cloutier a dit avoir sollicité — et obtenu — un rendez-vous avec l’équipe de la ministre Déry. « La rencontre est prévue à la fin du mois de janvier prochain, et c’est certain qu’on va faire valoir la validité de nos processus internes pour la nomination des membres de notre CA », a-t-il averti. Sollicité pour cet article, le cabinet de la ministre a refusé de commenter le dossier. À Québec, les partis d’opposition, eux, y ont vu un geste relevant de la censure. 

Dans un courriel envoyé au Devoir, l’INRS a dit avoir avisé le ministère du fait que « ne pas nommer une professeure désignée par son assemblée était inhabituel et contrevenait [à son avis] à l’autonomie universitaire ». En vertu de la Loi sur la liberté académique, « les universités doivent pouvoir accomplir leur mission sans contrainte doctrinale, idéologique ou morale », ont aussi souligné dans un communiqué commun Jean-Charles Grégoire, président du Syndicat des professeurs de l’INRS, et Madeleine Pastinelli, présidente de la Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université.

Bloquée pourquoi ?

Les deux syndicats exigent des explications de la ministre Déry au sujet du rejet de la candidature de Mme Helly, qui détient un doctorat de la Sorbonne. « À nos yeux, s’il est justifié, ce refus ne peut que reposer sur des motifs très sérieux, et ces motifs doivent être communiqués clairement et sans délai à toutes les instances impliquées. »

En entrevue, Mme Helly dit s’attendre à la même chose. « Si [la ministre] ne donne pas d’explication en exerçant son pouvoir discrétionnaire, ça devient de l’arbitraire », estime-t-elle. Faute de justification, elle formule des hypothèses pour expliquer le refus ministériel. 

De l’avis de la professeure, la décision pourrait constituer « de la discrimination selon l’âge, parce que j’ai 81 ans ».Ou alors relever de l’« ingérence », une « atteinte à l’autonomie universitaire et une tentative de politiser les débats ».Se disant encore très active dans la vie universitaire, Mme Helly tend à privilégier sa deuxième hypothèse, de concert avec une troisième, cette dernière voulant qu’elle ait été écartée en raison de ses orientations de recherche.

« Je travaille depuis 40 ans sur le multiculturalisme canadien, le racisme systémique, la discrimination, l’islamophobie, les musulmans. Et puis récemment — et ça, la ministre ne le sait pas encore, parce que je n’ai pas encore publié — sur les courants anti-woke, la dernière offensive politique et publique contre les droits des minorités, explique-t-elle. Donc, ce sont des sujets un peu fâcheux pour les gens de la CAQ. » Elle dit ne pas comprendre « l’intérêt » de lui interdire une présence au CA de l’INRS, un rôle qui, à son avis, constitue « un détail » dans la vie universitaire. « Alors, pourquoi prendre un risque pareil ? Je pense que c’est une erreur politique de la part de la ministre », laisse-t-elle tomber. 

La professeure Helly explique avoir été élue par le corps professoral de son établissement conformément à la procédure interne. Sa candidature a ensuite été soumise par l’INRS au ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur. Selon les règles, le ministère doit retenir une candidature avant de la proposer au Conseil des ministres, qui rend la décision finale. Dans le cas de Mme Helly, la candidature n’a pas été retenue, ce qui veut dire qu’elle n’a pas été soumise au conseil exécutif.

Dans un échange avec Le Devoir, l’INRS assure avoir respecté « chacune des étapes du processus de nomination ».

Source: Québec bloque la nomination au CA de l’INRS d’une prof étudiant le racisme systémique

New Electoral Map and Diversity

My analysis of the impact of the new electoral map on racialized and religious minorities and Indigenous, and how it will be further impacted by the ongoing increase in immigrants.

Source: New Electoral Map and Diversity – The Hill Times

Tara Henley: What happened to Canada?

Tara Henley, who left the CBC over concerns over its overly “woke” approach to stories, continues her critique of narrow identity focused analysis rather than more universal class-based approaches:

…During the same decade or so that housing affordability was tanking in Canada, an ideology arrived that took a radical posture on social issues while maintaining the economic status quo. 

This new line of thinking originated at elite American universities and spread to Canada through social media. It presents itself as leftist but eschews key leftist concepts such as class analysis, universalism, and the importance of free speech. Instead, it views politics through the lens of identity, focusing on equalizing outcomes between identity groups, as well as on problematizing language, criticizing social, cultural, and interpersonal norms, and building up a vast administrative class to advance such efforts.

Critically, it presents its ideas as moral imperatives, trading persuasion for campaigns of public shaming.

It is a political project that’s been widely embraced by economic elites in Canada, from individuals to corporate and governmental leaders, including Justin Trudeau. Though clearly well-intentioned in some instances, in practice it serves to assuage the guilt of the haves and to signal their virtue to the have-nots. (See the prevalence of Indigenous land acknowledgments at public events in Canada. This exercise makes participants look and feel good but does nothing to improve the living conditions of Indigenous people.)

Identitarian moralism, as it happens, has also appealed to a vocal and understandably pessimistic segment of the have-nots—chiefly a class of young, educated knowledge workers, whose economic prospects have markedly declined. As other writers have pointed out in the past, this ethos provides a low-effort outlet for feelings of powerlessness. The causes of Canada’s decline are multifold, complex, and difficult to address. Calling someone a bigot online is relatively easy….

Source: Tara Henley: What happened to Canada?

McWhorter: The Hidden Lesson of ‘American Fiction’

On my watch list:

Cord Jefferson’s film “American Fiction” offers a delightful portrayal of the white fetishization of Black pain — and also, in 2024, at least, one that is more satire than documentary. In the movie, an erudite Black author writes a baldly melodramatic “ghetto” novel titled “My Pafology” in protest of the way white audiences seem to go wild for such material — and to his surprise, nobody gets the joke and white audiences do, in fact, go wild for the book.


America had a conversation of this sort long ago — especially amid the debates over hip-hop in the 1990s and afterward — about treating inner-city violence, sexism and multigenerational poverty as “authentic” and entertaining. I think we can give the non-Black public here in the real world at least some credit. Today they would not embrace nakedly cartoonish tripe like the novel cooked up by the film’s protagonist, Thelonious “Monk” Ellison, or the best seller “We’s Lives in Da Ghetto” by the Black author Sintara Golden that inspired his sarcastic stunt in the first place.


However, such exotification of Blackness has hardly disappeared entirely, and the film perfectly captures facets of the contemporary continuation of it. I was especially struck by a scene in which Monk finds that a bookstore has stocked his earlier novel, an adaptation of Aeschylus’ “The Persians,” in the African American section simply because he is Black.


I had the exact same experience.


Twenty years ago, I wrote a book called “Doing Our Own Thing,” a study of the increasing informality in public language in America since the 1800s. It mentioned race only in passing, yet I twice found it stocked in the Black studies (or some equivalent description) section of a bookstore. Apparently someone — at least twice! — blithely assumed that because I’m Black, the book must be an indignant shout-out on behalf of Black English, an appeal that Black people should be able to “do our own thing” (thang?). To the bookstore employees — and perhaps customers — the paramount aspect of a Black author was his Blackness.

But let’s face it: White people don’t get this view of us only from their own subconscious bias or objectification. Black people play a part in fostering this vision, too, in the ways we present our souls to the public. Not in silly novels like “My Pafology,” but more broadly.
Some of us enthusiastically portray microaggressions as grave harms to our well-being, despite the fact that the literature on microaggressions is mostly of questionable scientific rigor and yields only limited evidence that they injure this deeply, or even that most Black people experience them in this way.

Many of us also insist that there remains something insufficient and inadequately “representative” about the degree to which Blackness is depicted in popular culture. The implication is that Blackness is marginalized, held at least at half an arm’s length. Yet a random list of recent Black-oriented films and television shows — “Black Panther,” “Atlanta,” “Black-ish,” “Dear White People,” “Insecure,” “The Book of Clarence” — demonstrates enough richness and variety to make an old-time Southern segregationist retch. “American Fiction” itself has been widely nominated for major awards and features exquisite performances by Jeffrey Wright, Erika Alexander and Myra Lucretia Taylor in particular. An uninformed observer of Black representation in contemporary American popular culture would be mystified that anyone felt there remained any real deficit at all.


Meanwhile, some believe it is antiracist for Black people to portray ourselves as a people for whom standards must be loosened thanks to the legacies of our past. The SAT, for instance, has been presumed such a racist burden that it should be withdrawn — despite evidence that it has been better at identifying gifted Black students from disadvantaged backgrounds than alternatives.


Is it any wonder that white people listen to these kinds of reasoning and feel compelled to think of us as poster children and stereotypes rather than as whole people? There is a straight line from the positions I outlined above, often thought of as forms of enlightenment, and a well-meaning but Kabuki version of pity that becomes a kind of racism in itself.

Source: The Hidden Lesson of ‘American Fiction’

Black public servants locked in three-year legal battle with Ottawa with no end in sight [and related equity issues]

Good overview. One issue I have is the lack of comparison with other minority groups. Citing the numbers for Black public servants without the other groups provides an incomplete picture, as the table below shows, highlighting that other groups have more significant under-representation than Blacks, both at the all public service and EX levels. Disaggregated data for the last six years shows similar differences (https://multiculturalmeanderings.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ee-analysis-of-disaggregated-data-by-group-and-gender-2022-submission-1.pdf):

Jasminka Kalajdzic, director of the Class Action Clinic at the University of Windsor, says the mere pursuit of the lawsuit has already led to more changes than what a public servant could ever achieve with a grievance.

For example, Treasury Board is working on a more accurate self-identification process and centralizing employment equity data collection and reporting. As well, many departments have created anti-racism secretariats.

The government committed to a Black justice strategy and set aside $46 million in funding for a Black mental-health plan, although efforts to get that up and running have been mired in controversy.

The government recently announced a new panel to develop a “restorative engagement” program to address discrimination.

There has also been a flurry of promotions. In August 2022, Caroline Xavier became the first Black deputy minister when she was appointed president of Communications Security Establishment – 33 years after Ontario appointed its first Black deputy minister.

The Black Executives Network, established in July 2020, delivered its first report in June 2023, which noted “tremendous progress” in building a Black executive community over the past three years. The number of Black executives in the federal public service has grown to 168 today from 68 in 2016, with four deputy ministers and 15 assistant deputy ministers and a few dozen directors-general.

That’s still only about 2.3 per cent of the executives in the core public service, while Black people account for about 4.2 per cent of all public-service employees.

“This (issue) is so much bigger than the Black class action,” says Courtney Betty, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer. “This is reflection of Canadian society. This is who we are. And for many Black individuals, that’s what they feel. It’s not a reality for any other Canadian. But for Black Canadians, it is a reality.”

Source: Black public servants locked in three-year legal battle with Ottawa with no end in sight

Few immigrant applicants to Canadian military get enlisted: Report

Of note:

Efforts by Canada’s military to recruit new immigrants have been futile.

In fact, a December 2023 briefing note for Defence Minister Bill Blair said only 77 applicants out of thousands of permanent residents successfully enlisted, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

“Between November 1, 2022 and November 24, 2023, the Canadian Armed Forces received 21,472 applications from permanent residents,” said the note Recruitment Of Permanent Residents. “Seventy-seven permanent residents have been enrolled.”

In 2022, the military altered regulations that promised a quicker path to citizenship for landed immigrants if they enlisted as soldiers, sailors and air crew.

Despite the more favourable regulation changes, the note cited lengthy security checks with the abysmal number of successful recruits during that timeframe.

“There are important and necessary measures which need to be completed such as security checks and medical evaluations,” said the note. “As well the validation of security clearances generally takes longer for permanent residents.”

Due to a 35% decline in recruitment numbers in 2022 — from 8,069 to 5,242 volunteers — the military turned to foreigners who had army training to fill the gap.

“The Canadian Forces recruiting group accepts trained applicants from foreign militaries,” said the note. “These applicants include pilots, logistics officers, infantry officers and other skilled professionals who may become enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces if they have permanent resident status in Canada. This enables other permanent residents who meet the same criteria as Canadian citizens to enroll in the Canadian Armed Forces as new recruits or officer cadets.”

The military says at minimum 60,500 fully trained full-time members are required while also setting a goal of reaching 68,000 military forces.

Source: Few immigrant applicants to Canadian military get enlisted: Report