Canadian officials who met with Ukrainian unit linked to neo-Nazis feared exposure by news media: documents

Not good, neither the substance nor optics:
The Canadians met with and were briefed by leaders from the Azov Battalion in June 2018. The officers and diplomats did not object to the meeting and instead allowed themselves to be photographed with battalion officials despite previous warnings that the unit saw itself as pro-Nazi. The Azov Battalion then used those photos for its online propaganda, pointing out the Canadian delegation expressed “hopes for further fruitful co-operation.”After a journalist asked the Canadian Forces about the Azov social media postings, officers scrambled to come up with a response, according to documents obtained by this newspaper through Access to Information law.

Lt. Col. Fraser Auld, commander of Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine, warned that a news article might be soon published and could result in questions being asked inside the Canadian government about why such a meeting took place.

A year before the meeting, Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine produced a briefing on the Azov Battalion, acknowledging its links to Nazi ideology. “Multiple members of Azov have described themselves as Nazis,” the Canadian officers warned in their 2017 briefing.Bernie Farber, head of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, said the Canadians should have immediately walked out of the Azov Battalion briefing. “Canadian armed forces personnel do not meet with Nazis; period, full stop,” Farber said. “This a horrendous mistake that shouldn’t have been made.”

Farber said it was also disturbing the Azov unit was able to use the Canadians in propaganda attempts to legitimize its far-right ideology. Besides its support of Nazi ideology, Azov members have been accused of war crimes and torture.

One gathering that journalists didn’t find out about was a December 2018 event in Ukraine attended by then Canadian Army commander Lt.-Gen. Jean-Marc Lanthier, according to the documents.Members of the Azov Battalion were present, but, again, instead of denouncing the battalion’s Nazi sympathies, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces focused concern on the possibility that photos might have been taken showing Canadian soldiers with members of the Azov unit.

Chris Henderson, then assistant deputy minister for public affairs, emailed more than 20 DND public-relations officers, worried that photos might appear online. “Do we have a clear expression of CAF policy toward this group?” he asked of the Azov Battalion. “This may or may not prompt questions, but we need to be ready and not come across as being taken by surprise.”

Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, policy director of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, said Canada had to make it a priority that its military personnel have no involvement with far-right fascist militias in Ukraine under any circumstances. “It’s concerning that, for the second time in a month, we have seen evidence of Canadian military officials engaging with Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups,” she added.Kirzner-Roberts was referring to a recent report from an institute at George Washington University in the United States revealing that Centuria, a far-right group made up of Ukrainian soldiers linked to the Azov movement, boasted they received training from Canada and other NATO countries. Researchers with the university tracked social media accounts of Centuria, documenting its Ukrainian military members giving Nazi salutes, promoting white nationalism and praising members of Nazi SS units.

In 2018, the U.S. Congress banned the use of U.S. funds to provide arms, training and other assistance to the Azov Battalion because of its links to the far-right and neo-Nazis.National Defence spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said the Canadian military was examining its policies on the vetting of foreign troops it trains as well as the information uncovered by the George Washington University report.

He had earlier noted that the 2018 meeting with Azov Battalion members was planned and organized by Ukrainian authorities. Canadian military representatives had no prior knowledge of those who would be attending, he added. Le Bouthillier noted it was the job of the Canadian defence attaché to assess the situation in the conflict zone. “Canada has not, does not, and will not be providing support to Azov and affiliated entities,” Le Bouthillier said.

In 2019, the Soufan Center, created by former FBI agent Ali Soufan, who was involved in a number of counter-terrorism cases, warned about the connection between the Azov Battalion and white nationalists. “In Ukraine, the Azov Battalion has recruited foreign fighters motivated by white supremacy and neo-Nazi beliefs, including many from the West, to join its ranks and receive training, indoctrination and instruction in irregular warfare,” the report outlined.The Azov Battalion has been formerly incorporated into the Ukrainian military, at least in theory, the Soufan Center report noted. But the battalion has cultivated a relationship with members of the Atomwaffen Division, a U.S.-based neo-Nazi terrorist network, it added.

Source: Canadian officials who met with Ukrainian unit linked to neo-Nazis feared exposure by news media: documents

PEN: Educational Gag Orders-Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn and Teach

Significant:

Today PEN America released a report on an alarming trend mounting across the country to impose legislative limitations on teaching and learning on topics including race, gender, and American history. In the first nine months of 2021, 24 state legislatures introduced 54 bills that would restrict teaching and training in K-12 schools, public colleges and universities, and/or state agencies and institutions. Eleven of those bills have become laws in nine states. These bills reflect raging debates underway in communities across the country that came to a head during last week’s gubernatorial election in Virginia and are dominating discussions in school boards and faculty lounges nationwide.

For those concerned about the impact on the higher education sector, 21 of the bills introduced or pre-filed explicitly apply to colleges and universities. Of these, 16 explicitly impose restrictions on academic courses or curricula, and 10 explicitly address training for college students or employees. Ten bills explicitly targeting academic college-level teaching are pending or have been pre-filed for 2022.

This legislative wave followed the mass protests that swept the United States in 2020 in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, and the reckonings initiated to come to grips with the lingering legacy of racial injustice.
Efforts to delve into and more thoroughly address the role that slavery, race, and racism play in American society implicate complex questions relating to history, politics, and human relations. Rather than engaging in reasoned debate on these critical issues, the bills and laws documented in our report seek to shut down discourse through legislative fiat. We label these measures “educational gag orders,” a reflection of their censorious effect that imposes viewpoint-based constrictions on what can be discussed in American classrooms.

PEN America calls on all those who believe in free speech to oppose these efforts to silence discussion and debate through force of law.Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach examines these bills in depth. Many would punish educators, colleges, schools, and districts that dare to cover excluded topics. The report documents how these bills and laws have already had a chilling effect on campuses and in classrooms across the country, on both open discourse and academic freedom, and risk further muzzling vital societal discourse on racism, sexism, and the complexities of American history.

Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach examines these bills in depth. Many would punish educators, colleges, schools, and districts that dare to cover excluded topics. The report documents how these bills and laws have already had a chilling effect on campuses and in classrooms across the country, on both open discourse and academic freedom, and risk further muzzling vital societal discourse on racism, sexism, and the complexities of American history.

Source: https://b46674ee0d922ea3560b2c63b8d5fa34.tinyemails.com/21e22508c148a3777f075d12b9411cca/8e7676d24e8e81dc149a24f1e883a04d.html

James: The divisive activism of Desmond Cole: How a campaign against a Black judge shattered Toronto’s Black community

Good long and disturbing read on how activism to excess can harm the cause, and alienate the very same people one is advocating for:

If you love Black people — if you are part of a Black church in Brampton or run a neighbourhood group in Scarborough or head your diversity committee at work — it has become difficult to “like” Desmond Cole, the self-styled streetfighter and intractable advocate for Black lives.

You can love Cole, in the Christian sense of loving your brother or your enemy. Like, though, is a term of endearment. To a growing number of African Canadians, Cole is anything but likable.

Mainstream media treat Cole as a go-to talking head on racism; progressive white folks by the thousands follow him on Twitter; and allies of Black causes embrace the award-winning author and social media influencer. But at a number of dinner tables where curried goat or roti trumps steak and potatoes, in many barber shops, healing circles and prayer groups, Cole is daily chewed up and spat out.

The sentiments about Cole’s comrades are nearly as strong. Seemingly, Cole and his cohort go out of their way to disparage and diminish Black leaders, branding them as ineffectual moderates too compromised by the racist system to dismantle it.

And, with an online army in tow, they wage a constant campaign against the so-called Black elite — a target that expands to include so many ordinary community workers and volunteers that the attacks amount to undeclared class warfare.

The collateral damage runs wide and deep.

“It has had an impact, in quelling the (volunteer) participation of some people who are just not prepared for (the attacks),” says Craig Wellington, executive director of a new community organization, Black Opportunity Fund. 

Call it the “Cole chill.”

Cole’s more vocal detractors — there are many, surprisingly so, considering his high-profile, commendable confrontation of Toronto police carding practices — say they arrived at their negative conclusions about Cole slowly and painfully over years. Many others landed there in a burst of outrage last year.

That’s when a judicial panel hearing — called to determine whether a Black judge, Donald McLeod, compromised judicial standards by improperly advocating for Black people — revealed that the most serious complaint against McLeod, an allegation of perjury, arose from Cole’s own February 2019 blog.

Cole says his aim was to hold the powerful to account. But a reasonable person, reading that February 2019 blog post and subsequent writings and comments, could conclude that Cole engaged a determined campaign targeting the judge.

McLeod, a successful criminal lawyer with a record of creating social good through community initiatives, was appointed a judge in 2013. Four years later, moved by the gun slaying of someone he knew, McLeod convened a meeting in Regent Park of professionals working in several fields to ask how they might address the issues. He had grown up in social housing in Regent Park and saw some of the worst effects of unaddressed problems from his place on the bench.

Within a year, the Federation of Black Canadians (FBC) was born, McLeod was talking about forming a national organization, and he was meeting with the Prime Minister. He sought and received guidance from the Ontario Judicial Council (OJC) on the limits of advocacy for a judge. The FBC grew to encompass dozens of community volunteers and gained such quick prominence that the federal Liberals announced funds to finance initiatives the FBC flagged.

Then came the 2018 complaint, brought by former associate chief justice Faith Finnestad and heard by the OJC, that McLeod had acted inappropriately for a judge. He was cleared of the charge. A second complaint followed in 2019, alleging (among other things) that McLeod had perjured himself in the hearings for the first one. The OJC tossed out that complaint, too, on June 2 of this year.

McLeod, then the only Black judge at the Ontario Court of Justice in Peel Region, one of Canada’s most diverse regions, was back on the bench on June 21 following a 22-month paid suspension while the judicial complaint process played out. But by then swathes of the Black community were awash in trauma over the general conclusion that McLeod’s blood was on Desmond Cole’s hands.

In his writings Cole has called the FBC “a shady organization” that is too close to the Liberal Party. “The total lack of representation from Canada’s Black Lives Matter chapters, who are doing some of the most important and celebrated advocacy in the country,” he wrote in his blog, “seems too much of an oversight to be an accident.” As for the FBC’s head, McLeod is a “cherished and untouchable” elite considered “sacrosanct” in the Black community and allowed “to do whatever he wants,” Cole told the Star in an interview. “I’m holding people in power to account; that’s what journalism is.”

Cole’s opponents say he and his confrères acted as the investigative arm of the OJC, de facto undercover agents intent on trapping the judge — only to fail ingloriously. The OJC hearing unmasked what aggrieved citizens described as dirty tricks, and what one witness called a “failed witch hunt” — actions that went demonstrably beyond the bounds of acceptable journalism, traditional or otherwise.

“I was disgusted that it was our own people who were involved in what I consider to be a public lynching of Donald McLeod,” said Peel district school board trustee Kathy McDonald, who said she and others watched in despair as the virtual hearing streamed for 17 days last December and February.

“In the end it boiled down to a bunch of vindictive, envious people that just hate the skin they are in,” she said. 

Dave D’Oyen, a local activist and diversity consultant who says he is trying to help his Scarborough community heal from the tragic affair, convened a healing circle for people to vent. He summed up their feelings in a post for Medium:

“Something is wrong when our actions are to malign ardent individuals who wish to be in genuine service of our people … The unintended consequence is a flight of capable individuals from community service because the risks of reputational damage and career suicide are too palpable. In this case, a possible removal of Brampton’s only Black judge from the bench. Many now find themselves asking, ‘If this could happen to a judge, could this happen to me?’”


I have known Desmond Cole for about a decade. In glowing and proud tones, I have introduced him to more than one audience as he received an award or delivered a keynote speech. I watched from a front-seat vantage point as he challenged the Toronto Police Services Board to end the evil practice of carding. Tears streaked down onto my glasses as the board greeted his cries with indifference.

I helped grease the path to his freelance columnist job at the Star because I felt the platform was so huge and so right for a voice this large and forceful. And, of course, I was disappointed he chose to give up that platform.

No matter how he spins it, and he has written about his experiences at the Star as well as in his book, he gave it up — in much the same way he approaches many issues — by adhering to an uncompromising rigidity that’s incompatible with improvement by degrees. His tactic has its place, for sure.

On the question of whether he could report and opine in the Star on the very issues he is actively and publicly protesting — to the point of disrupting and halting public meetings because his demands are not met — Cole considered the guidance from Star editors as an encroachment on his desire to practise journalism how he felt compelled to do it. So he chose to advocate for Black lives, without constraints. He gave up the column. His world is black or white, no grey.

I accepted his decision.

What is surprising, then, is how someone who seeks such latitude for his own radical advocacy would deny the same to a judge — even where the judge’s governing body allows it, acknowledges the risk of crossing ethical lines, and struggles to set some limits so as not to ban advocacy outright for judges. Cole dismisses the possibility of such a double consciousness for Justice McLeod.

“A sitting judge saying he is going to lead a political advocacy group is a quite novel and bizarre occurrence that warrants greater scrutiny … That’s why the fixation,” says Cole, explaining his repeated interest in McLeod and the FBC.

Community members watching the OJC hearings were dismayed to learn of a surreptitious recording of a conversation between McLeod and Idil Abdillahi, assistant professor of disability studies at Ryerson University. McLeod called Abdillahi in early 2018 for an off-the-record conversation to clear up misconceptions between the FBC and its critics. It lasted more than three hours. What McLeod didn’t know was that Abdillahi recorded the private conversation and also linked in Cole and others (listening in a car) the judicial panel would hear.

The anguish among many Black residents and community leaders spiked when Dahabo Ahmed-Omer, the current FBC chair, testified during the hearings about the stress of dealing with what she felt were daily online attacks from Cole and friends. 

It climaxed when McLeod testified of the “violence” done to him by Cole’s assertions, which he branded as false; the betrayal he felt when Abdillahi’s secret recording of their telephone conversation ended up as evidence at the panel hearing; and how, at his lowest point in the ordeal, his mortgage provider began questioning his viability as a client because he could be fired from his job.

Cole “maligned my name. He had been doing it for years and continued to do it. It was now offensive. This was violence to me. He took someone’s name and decided to brandish it as if I were lying,” McLeod told the OJC hearing.

McLeod’s words unleashed a torrent of anger. “Treachery,” “Judas” and other highly charged words and images were frequently unfurled within the Black community. The conclusion among many was that Cole and his allies were responsible for McLeod’s public flogging.

One tweet, from Danielle Dowdy, an early FBC volunteer read: “Having taken in 9 days of the hearing into the conduct of Justice Donald McLeod, what’s abundantly clear and impossible to measure is the depth of pain and hurt many of us are feeling. The emotional collateral damage among the local and national Black community is incalculable.”

How did we get to this stage? And why is it set to continue — fracturing the vital advocacy of tens of thousands of anti-racism fighters across the country? Consider the judicial lynching of Justice McLeod as exhibit A.


I became aware of Donald McLeod in Seventh-day Adventist church circles in the late 1980s when he sang in a men’s gospel quartet. We worship with different congregations but share the same strictures of this relatively small religious denomination.

Soon McLeod, the lawyer, was seen on television representing clients in high-profile cases like the Toronto 18 terrorists and arguing racial profiling before the Supreme Court. In my capacity as city columnist, I attended his launch of 100 Strong, an organization aimed at empowering Black youth through education.

In 2016 he called to say he was convening a group of Black professionals who have an interest in improving the outcomes for Black people in Toronto and Canada. Something needed to be done to stem gun violence. And Black folk can’t just sit and watch the carnage. By then he was a judge. The fact that he cared enough to step out of his judicial ivory tower was not lost on anyone.

I attended the Regent Park meeting, now known as the Toronto 37. It was part of my journalistic information-gathering around community engagements. The only thing that sticks out was that the attendees were all business, laser-focused on seeking a way to make a difference. They agreed to create a document leading to this end. I don’t recall reading it. But not long after, I understood they were taking their findings and recommendations to politicians and agencies and anyone who could spark the changes needed.

The Federation of Black Canadians came out of this beginning. How they advocated, and why, and to whom was never my concern. I was just happy for their advocacy. It takes all kinds. I marched with Charlie Roach, embraced Dudley Laws and felt proud of Lincoln Alexander, Wilson Head and Sen. Anne Cools — all entirely different Black community icons and representatives, with sometimes incongruous sensibilities. It’s this belief that allows me to embrace radicals and conservatives, elites and common folks — while remaining mindful of their varying impact.

Cole and his comrades were not among the 37 at that 2016 Regent Park meeting. As the fledgling organization quickly gained traction in Ottawa, and the Trudeau government promised funding for Black community projects, jealousies surfaced.

Cole and others created a Twitter storm and stirred acrid debate over the FBC. They questioned the legitimacy of “elites” lobbying for Black people, their political loyalties and Black credentials. Besides, Cole argued, a judge can’t lobby, period, much less advocate to root out the systemic racism endemic in the government institutions from which he and the elites earn a living.

Those are reasonable debating points and fair comment — but they provided fodder to the former associate chief justice of Ontario to complain against McLeod’s advocacy. The OJC, the governing body for Ontario judges, hauled McLeod before a complaint hearing panel in 2018. But the panel ruled that McLeod’s intentions were noble. He crossed the line here and there, but there is no judicial misconduct. So, carry on and follow the new guidelines.

Cole told me his criticisms of McLeod are not motivated by jealousy. He doesn’t apply for government funding but he was concerned that “when there are lots of groups that have been out there for five, 10, 15, 20, 25 years doing real work in the Black community and are unable to receive federal funding … But a new group that is led by a very powerful person introduces itself on the scene and is immediately able to secure hundreds of thousands of federal funding. That is a story, my friend.”

So was this the driving force behind his preoccupation with Justice McLeod and the FBC, I asked Cole in late August.

“You say driving force; I would say important factor,” Cole said, adding later, “I’m following the money and power. That’s what journalists do.”

After the 2018 complaint against McLeod was dismissed, Cole and his cohort doubled down. McLeod told the hearing that Cole called him a “house negro” on his Newstalk 1010 radio show — as despicable a slur as there is for someone to attach to a Black advocate. In other words, McLeod was sucking up to Massa in the big house while selling out his people toiling in the “field.”

Since 2018, the hearing documents show, Cole alone issued more than 130 criticisms of the FBC and more than 70 against McLeod on several print, online and social media platforms. He and his colleagues frequently attacked the FBC for faux activism. One recurring issue was the deportation of Somali refugee Abdoul Abdi. If the FBC wouldn’t join them in pushing to stop the deportation, then the organization was proving itself to be a fraud. Cole blamed McLeod for FBC’s inaction; with him as chairperson, the group couldn’t do more. 

The criticisms stung. Inside the FBC, a struggle raged on how to proceed. With their leader being a judge who must tiptoe around public advocacy, how could they prove their bona fides? The actions of Cole and some of his allies as disclosed during the McLeod hearing took the betrayal to a new level.

Cole colleague Rinaldo Walcott, a well-known scholar and Black Lives Matter member, tweeted criticism questioning the relevance of the FBC. Notwithstanding his public criticism of FBC, Walcott privately asked McLeod to set up a meeting with the immigration minister. McLeod did so. Walcott never acknowledged the meeting publicly, asked McLeod to not disclose it either and later tweeted that the FBC was useless because it wouldn’t help Abdi. 

Abdillahi’s role in the campaign against McLeod elicits much scorn. In her covert recording of the phone call with McLeod, which became part of the evidence heard by the panel, she repeatedly reassured McLeod the conversation was off the record. She didn’t mention that others were listening in. Some of Cole’s later accounts were spiced with information from that call. 

Cole explained it this way. Yes, his ally recorded and shared a private conversation with the judge. But there was no entrapment, Cole said. The judge telephoned Abdillahi and exposed himself to the recording, which was legally made. 

Notwithstanding that explanation, the essence of the narrative was: Look, people, last year Justice McLeod told his disciplinary panel he had not advocated for Abdi, but I have people and info and a taped recording that show he did. So he lied. Hello, OJC. Perjury!! The judge’s going down. 

So, Cole and friends went from: You are a fraud and can’t advocate effectively for Black people, so get out and let us do the job to … Breaking news, my investigation uncovers evidence of the judge being the very advocate we say he can’t be. Oops! That’s an offence. Let’s see what his bosses do now.

The narrative was so convincing McLeod’s judicial bosses sprang into action and filed an official complaint, the second against the judge, paying him to sit at home for 22 months while they conducted a public hearing that they knew could signal career death for him.

Most egregiously, the OJC did so despite its own policies, which favour remedial measures to resolve complaints. In the 2019-20 year, the Council processed 37 complaints against judges. None went to a hearing. McLeod had two complaints against him, and both went to a hearing.

The OJC was acting on thin evidence. For example, the investigators did not have the secretly made recording before the hearing was called. Fatally, the OJC investigation relied too heavily on Cole’s interpretation (in blog posts and elsewhere), which could not be supported by the recording when it got to the hearing. And the kicker came when Walcott — described by McLeod’s lawyer as the OJC’s “star witness” — failed to confirm that McLeod advocated for Abdi at the meeting with the minister. Case against McLeod dismissed. For a second time.

The Star has reported that the second hearing alone cost taxpayers $3.4 million to pay the battery of high-priced lawyers for McLeod and the “presenting counsel” or lawyers hired to present the case for the complainant. These costs do not cover the OJC staff, the panel of judges, and attendant costs to hold the hearing. So don’t be surprised if the tab for the two hearings approaches $5 million. 

Cole presents as one who relishes a brawl. He’s built for this and can capitalize on the fame, or notoriety, to increase his online presence and grow his brand — all the time benefiting from the very thing he condemns. He’s promising more of the same.

Before McLeod, he pulled the rug from under Saron Gebresellassi, the young Eritrean lawyer and long-time activist and mayoral hopeful in 2018. Days before the election Cole withdrew his endorsement. Why? Incumbent Mayor John Tory had given Gebresellassi a list of the debate organizers — favourable inside information that, in Cole’s mind, must have meant Gebresellassi had “sold out.”

At one Toronto Police Services Board Meeting, attendees had to restrain Ken Jeffers, community elder and police board member, from going after Cole, who disrespected Jeffers’ years of sterling community service, charging Jeffers had betrayed community interest over police presence in schools.

“He was accusing me of betraying my community, imagine that. You will not see me speak at any platform with him,” Jeffers said in late July. 

Recently, Cole slammed the efforts of Black North Initiative — the corporate “show your love and respect for Black people” initiative started by Black businessman Wes Hall, following the murder of George Floyd. Hall’s sin? Partnering with a company that has contracts to ensure bail bonds and bail conditions are met in the U.S. Black men overwhelmingly are the target. The criticism falls into fair comment, but many in the Black community see it as another Cole attack.

There are normal, intergenerational philosophical differences in any movement, and it can be painful for older advocates for Black communities to hear some of the young radicals speak. They think the protest and advocacy that preceded Black Lives Matter was somehow less impactful and authentic. They talk about the old guard hopping onto their bandwagon to take credit for the blood the young ones now shed on the streets.

Writing in Maclean’s magazine in 2018, during the buzz over the FBC’s worthiness as a national rep, Melayna Williams and Lincoln Anthony Blades argued:

“While younger, more militant activists see a colour-aware future of intersectional acceptance, and a complete eradication of systemic discrimination, other movements involve private luncheons and glad-handing, which haven’t historically been effective measures of overcoming white supremacy, but rather demonstrate an obscene allowance of it … efforts from groups like the FBC appear to be rooted in an investment in the oppressive structures themselves.”

Such hubris — elegantly and arrogantly stated in this useful insight. The wiser among the young activists are less haughty and more mindful of the foundational work of the thousands from “other movements.” 

Just know this: some of the quiet advocates who work for institutions founded and sustained by systemic racism, do more in a year for the advancement of Black people than some radicals are on track to accomplish in a lifetime.

Cole and his colleagues add another disrupting layer to these generational dynamics, crossing the median from critique to personal attack. Rarely have persons who claim to love Black people waged such a targeted, destructive, dis-unifying assault on their own flesh and blood.

Well, McLeod’s bosses rejected both complaints about the judge’s behaviour. They ruled that his interface with governments amounted to lobbying and that some of his community activities are incompatible with his judicial role, but there was no misconduct. They found he didn’t lie.

But even if the judge were guilty of all that Cole claims, the attacks are excessive and smack of unstated animus — a realization that prompted one witness to tell the OJC panel she feared she was caught up in a vendetta against the judge.

It’s counterproductive, destructive and dispiriting to anti-racism fighters when one of their fighters is pilloried by others on the same side because he successfully engaged government. The result is that many ordinary Black community volunteers who do the majority of the heavy lifting are turned off advocacy because of the toll the unrelenting criticism takes on their profession, their family and personal lives.

They are not in it for fame and fortune. They consider the price paid to be unfair and crippling.

So many have expressed this as trauma that someone like me —committed to free expression and welcoming of all kinds of advocacy in the fight for the dismantling of racism — is forced to request less stridency from Cole and friends.

I’ve loved Cole for a long time and respect much of his work. Lately, it’s been with a sigh, and so much regret. I prefer to like him, but we don’t get everything we desire.

Despite all of this, I still want Cole as an advocate. His voice is resonant, strong and distinct. It is one of many voices the community needs. Black people don’t have the luxury of discarding tactics and approaches that don’t quite meet the “best” advocacy standards. That is a reality both radicals and moderates might want to embrace.

Source: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2021/11/07/the-divisive-activism-of-desmond-cole-how-a-campaign-against-a-black-judge-shattered-torontos-black-community.html

New Increase In H-1B Visa Fees Further Shatters ‘Cheap Labor’ Myth

Reality vs the rhetoric:

The mistaken premise of nearly all restrictions on high-skilled immigration is that foreign-born scientists and engineers offer no value to America or U.S. companies except for a willingness to work for less money, note analysts. That is the premise even though the key people behind the vaccines that saved the lives of many Americans from Covid-19 are former international students, H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants. Even some members of Congress sympathetic to refugees and individuals without legal status imply that it is a gift to business to allow companies to hire high-skilled foreign nationals and sponsor them for permanent residence.

In reality, coming to America as an international student and gaining H-1B status, or being hired directly on an H-1B visa, is just another way to pursue the American Dream. For many, it is a necessary step under the U.S. immigration system for an opportunity to stay permanently and start a career and family in America. A new House bill will make it more expensive for employers to file petitions for those pursuing those dreams.

Critics of H-1B visa holders do not mention the high fees required to file an H-1B petition or the large number of job openings in computer occupations. If the House reconciliation bill becomes law, filing an H-1B petition will become more expensive, further shattering what businesses and attorneys call the myth of H-1B visa holders as “cheap labor.”

The mistaken premise of nearly all restrictions on high-skilled immigration is that foreign-born scientists and engineers offer no value to America or U.S. companies except for a willingness to work for less money, note analysts. That is the premise even though the key people behind the vaccines that saved the lives of many Americans from Covid-19 are former international students, H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants. Even some members of Congress sympathetic to refugees and individuals without legal status imply that it is a gift to business to allow companies to hire high-skilled foreign nationals and sponsor them for permanent residence.

In reality, coming to America as an international student and gaining H-1B status, or being hired directly on an H-1B visa, is just another way to pursue the American Dream. For many, it is a necessary step under the U.S. immigration system for an opportunity to stay permanently and start a career and family in America. A new House bill will make it more expensive for employers to file petitions for those pursuing those dreams.

The most recent version of the House reconciliation bill, which is expected to be voted on soon, adds a supplemental fee of $500 to existing fees for H-1B petitions. This is one of several fee increases added to the bill after immigration measures passed the House Judiciary Committee in September 2021.

As detailed in a section-by-section summary released with the House bill’s text:

“Section 60004 provides that the fees collected under Subtitle A shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury and may not be waived. This section also establishes additional supplemental fees as follows

• $100 for certain family-sponsored immigrant visa petitions (Form I-130) 

• $800 for each employment-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-140) 

• $15,000 for each employment-based fifth preference petition (Form I-526) 

• $19 for each Form I-94/I-94W issued to nonimmigrants who enter the United States 

• $250 for each F-1 and M-1 nonimmigrant student and J-1 exchange visitor to be paid by the approved educational institution or designated exchange visitor program 

• $500 for each application to replace an LPR card that has expired or is expiring 

• $500 for each petition for E, H-1B, L, O, or P status (Form I-129) 

• $500 for each application to change or extend nonimmigrant status (Form I-539) 

• $500 for applications for employment authorization (Form I-765) filed by spouses of certain nonimmigrants, students seeking optional practical training, and applicants for adjustment of status 

• $75 for each approved nonimmigrant visa.”

With the fee increase, a company may spend as much as $31,800 for the cost of filing an initial H-1B petition (for three years) and an extension for an additional three years, based on a National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis of government fees and attorney costs. For an initial H-1B petition that would include a $460 application fee, the new $500 supplemental fee, attorney fees that range from $1,500 to $4,000, additional legal fees of $2,000 to $4,500 if there is a Request for Evidence, $1,500 for the scholarship and training fee ($750 for smaller employers), a $500 anti-fraud fee (on an initial petition), $2,500 for premium processing (not required but typically necessary), a $4,000 fee for certain employers with a higher proportion of H-1Bs in their workforce and $190 visa application fee.

An employer would need to pay most of the costs cited above again for an extension, while the cost to sponsor an H-1B professional for permanent residence would likely add another $10,000 to $15,000 or more.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/11/01/new-increase-in-h-1b-visa-fees-further-shatters-cheap-labor-myth/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=follow&cdlcid=5e4bc7f55b099ce02faa6b40&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=follow&cdlcid=5e4bc7f55b099ce02faa6b40&sh=5a689b395b15

Priti Patel’s immigration bill will make it harder to prosecute human traffickers, top police officers warn

Police warnings of note:

Priti Patel’s immigration bill risks hampering the prosecution of human traffickers in the UK and making it more difficult for people to escape exploitation, senior police officers have warned.

Cross-party MPs, including two former Tory leaders, and the country’s leading prosecutor in trafficking cases, have also criticised the government’s Nationality and Borders Bill, which is currently going through parliament, saying it will “water down” vital protections for modern slavery victims.

The bill includes a number of changes to modern slavery support, which the home secretary says will prevent people from being able to “frustrate immigration action” by disclosing late in the process that they have suffered abuse.

It would mean any victim who has been sentenced to prison for more than 12 months anywhere in the world would be disqualified from modern slavery support in the UK, and that survivors would be given a defined period to disclose the abuse they have suffered.

Senior police officers have warned that it can often take a considerable amount of time for trafficking survivors to disclose their exploitation, meaning reducing the time they are given could hinder prosecutions.

Source: Priti Patel’s immigration bill will make it harder to prosecute human traffickers, top police officers warn

Kaplan-Myrth: As a doctor promoting vaccination, I live in fear

From our family doctor:

I am afraid. I can no longer walk to work alone. I startle awake at night. I’ve ramped up my security but still my sense of safety has gone out the window.

A couple of months ago, I stood up in front of Queen’s Park and asserted that “we aren’t seeking normal, we are seeking safety.” It was late August and I had organized a panel to talk about what we needed for a safe September for our children at school. We called for better ventilation in schools, higher quality masks, and mandates for COVID-19 vaccination for all educators and staff who interact with children. We spoke to the news media and reached out to politicians. We were all busy and exhausted from a summer immunizing our patients and advocating for marginalized populations, seniors, children and others in our communities.

Nobody is safe until we are all safe, I said.

The next day, the anti-vaccination protests started in the streets outside of hospitals across Canada. Throngs of people blocked ambulances. They were disruptive to patients seeking care and disrespectful of the staff hard at work indoors. The media caught ample footage of those hostilities.

What’s hidden from view – then and now – is the daily, private onslaught of nastiness directed at those of us who stand up for science, for vaccines and for your safety and care. We are bombarded with vitriol from anti-vaccination and anti-science trolls on social media. Some of these perpetrators go even further.

This past week, I was targeted by one such individual. Someone I have never met sent a threat, guised as a complaint, to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The letter started with, “Complaint versus criminal fraudulent chart violating Nazi slut,” and then the person went on to threaten to kill me in retribution for immunizing my patients and others in Ottawa.

It is shocking, but it is not an isolated event. It has happened to many of my esteemed colleagues. Tires slashed in hospital parking lots. Hand-written letters of hate dropped off at offices. Racist slurs. Misogynist attacks. Death threats.

We care about what we do, so we have been stoic, put on our scrubs and our masks and persisted in our work. We certainly continue to immunize our patients. We speak on behalf of pandemic safety measures, even while police cruisers sit in front of our homes to protect our families.

What does this say about our society? What does it say about our political leaders who stoke the flames of divisiveness and gaslight those same health care professionals who they once said were heroes?

Canada’s beleaguered health care providers, advocates for your safety, are being targeted. We haven’t even started to immunize children aged 5 to 11 against COVID-19 and we are so tired, so scared. The thousands of adults who I immunized last spring and summer at my “Jabapalooza” clinics were hoping I’d do similar events for their children. I cannot because it would not be safe for me or my volunteers. The schoolyard bullies have chased us off our street. That is where we are, in this pandemic, after 20 months of saying we are “in this together.” Demoralized isn’t a strong enough word to describe how we feel.

A police sergeant finally phoned me four days after I submitted a request to them for help. The College of Physicians and Surgeons sat on the letter for 12 days before they sent it to me, and they never phoned the police themselves. Even though it contains a death threat and an antisemitic message of hate. Who has our backs?

If we want this pandemic to end, if we want to ensure that we thrive as a country, then to safeguard the health of all Canadians it is up to our leaders and organizations to step forward and say they condemn any – and all – threatening behaviour directed at health care workers.

Take care of us, so that we can take care of you. That isn’t asking too much.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-as-a-doctor-promoting-vaccination-i-live-in-fear/

University of Ottawa must protect academic freedom, says report

Trying to thread the needle…:

A report on academic freedom at the University of Ottawa prompted in part by the outcry over a professor’s use of a racial slur in class says the university must make clear its commitment to intellectual inquiry and free expression, and oppose the exclusion of words, works or ideas.

But although the report, authored by a committee chaired by retired Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache and released on Thursday, concludes that academic freedom should be protected, it cautions that this must not happen “at the expense of silencing marginalized people and groups.”

The report says controversial speech should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. It recommends the university create a committee to review complaints and concerns related to freedom of expression or academic freedom. The committee would be empowered to investigate and impose penalties when necessary.

The report also calls for training for faculty on equity and diversity, and stronger protections against cyberbullying. And it recommends the university create an action plan to fight racism and discrimination.

University of Ottawa president Jacques Frémont told The Globe and Mail on Thursday he is committed to implementing the report’s recommendations.

The university was thrust into the spotlight a year ago when Verushka Lieutenant-Duval, a professor with expertise in art, was suspended for saying the n-word in class while explaining how some social groups had reappropriated words considered slurs. She said the word out loud in its entirety, and a student later objected. The case became a focal point, particularly in Quebec, for debates about whether it’s appropriate to impose limits on speech, particularly in a classroom.

Students and faculty were divided over whether the university had reacted appropriately. Some defended the professor because she did not appear to have intended harm, while others said she should not have used the word. Academic associations defended her on the grounds that her words were germane to the subject she was teaching, uttered in a class context and intended to instruct. The university soon lifted Prof. Lieutenant-Duval’s suspension.

“The campus was in turmoil, and rightly so, because people were wondering what the rules were, and what are the boundaries, and how should such cases be dealt with,” Mr. Frémont said. “The report equips us with more concrete means of dealing with similar issues involving academic freedom and human dignity, equality, diversity and inclusion.”

Mr. Frémont said he could not comment on the incident involving Prof. Lieutenant-Duval, because it is the subject of a workplace grievance. She could not be reached for comment Thursday.

In the report, Mr. Bastarache says he received submissions from people at the university who said they feel they must censor themselves to avoid public backlash.

Mr. Frémont said self-censorship is probably happening in some cases, and he called for it to end.

“Our faculty members should not self-censor. That’s crystal clear. Academic freedom is the basic soul, the foundation of universities. If we don’t have that, we’re dead,” he said.

But he added that professors should think carefully about how best to deal with sensitive topics. He said a university owes that much to its students.

In March, 2021, another controversy erupted at the university when law professor Amir Attaran made comments on Twitter criticizing racism in Quebec. Quebec Premier François Legault and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were eventually drawn into the resulting political firestorm, and there were calls from Quebec politicians for Mr. Frémont to discipline Prof. Attaran.

At the time, Mr. Frémont said he deplored the kind of highly polarizing public statements that had sparked the controversy, but he defended Prof. Attaran’s right to free expression.

Prof. Attaran on Thursday said Mr. Bastarache did not reach out to him for input.

But he said he was alarmed by one statement in the report.

Mr. Bastarache writes that several people consulted for the report argued that bilingualism should be considered a fundamental value of the university. The report says attacks on the university’s “linguistic makeup or the moral value of its Francophone or Anglophone components cannot, under current circumstances, be protected by freedom of expression.”

Prof. Attaran called that notion shocking.

“To somehow say that freedom of expression does not include offering a negative comment on the linguistic makeup [of the university], or moral value of these languages. This is grotesque. This is anti-intellectual,” he said.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-university-of-ottawa-must-protect-academic-freedom-says-report/

McWhorter: Abandoning complexity, abstraction and forgiveness is unenlightened

Another good nuanced discussion:

The University of Chicago’s Dorian Abbot is a climate scientist with some vital observations about the sustainability of life on other planets. He planned to share them at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in its esteemed annual Carlson Lecture. But Abbot has also advocated race-neutral university admissions policies, including co-writing an essay in Newsweek arguing that race-conscious admissions criteria (as well as admission preferences for children of alumni and for athletes) should end.

Abbot’s invitation drew opposition from some students and faculty, and this year’s Carlson Lecture was subsequently canceled. In response, Prof. Robert George, who leads Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, invited Abbot to speak at Princeton. But M.I.T.’s message had already been sent and seems hard to misinterpret: Abbot was not suitable for general consumption.

I’m less concerned with the particulars of Abbot’s case here than how it demonstrates our broader context these days. I refer to a new version of enlightenment; one that rejects basic tenets of the Enlightenment, as exemplified by Prof. Phoebe Cohen, chair of geosciences at Williams College, who downplayed Abbot’s apparent disinvitation with the observation, as reported by The New York Times, that “this idea of intellectual debate and rigor as the pinnacle of intellectualism” — the idea, presumably, that the widest possible range of perspectives should be heard and scrutinized — “comes from a world in which white men dominated.”

A major problem with this new mood, this dis-enlightenment, in which Abbot is denied a prominent forum seemingly because his views on racial preferences don’t suit a certain orthodoxy, is that it demands that we settle for the elementary in favor of the enlightened. Among the ultra-woke there seems to be a contingent that considers its unquestioning ostracizations as the actualization of higher wisdom, even though its ideology, generally, is strikingly simplistic. This contingent indeed encourages us to think — about thinking less.

For example, affirmative action and its justifications are a complex subject that has challenged generations of thinkers. A Gallup survey conducted in late 2018 found that 61 percent of Americans generally favored race-based affirmative action. But in a survey taken a few weeks later, Pew Research found that 73 percent opposed using race as a factor in university admissions. In a Supreme Court decision in 2003 allowing a race-conscious admissions program, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor surmised that 25 years hence, racial preferences in admissions would no longer be necessary — which would mean we have only seven years to go.

Clearly some cogitation is in order. Yet it appears that Abbot was barred from a more august podium out of an assumption that his views on racial preferences are beyond debate. Even though he was to speak on an unrelated topic. This “deplatforming” — if we must — was, in a word, simplistic.

Simplistic, too: Cohen points to a time when white men, exclusively, were in charge. Yes, but the obvious response is: “Does that automatically mean that their take on intellectual debate and rigor was wrong?” The implication that the questions Abbot raised are morally out of bounds forbids basic curiosity and rational calculation and stands athwart the very purpose of the small-L liberal education that universities are supposed to provide.

Another sign of this dis-enlightenment: the modern fashion that treats stereotyping as sophisticated analysis. We’re told much about a vague monolith of white people ever ready to circle the wagons and defend white interests. Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling “White Fragility” is Exhibit A of this trope, and her latest book, “Nice Racism,” includes a chapter titled “Why It’s OK to Generalize About White People.” But the existence of racism does not, as DiAngelo suggests, make it valid to propose that there is a kind of undifferentiated body of white people with indistinguishable interests.

White America consists of myriad groups and individuals, whose actions and non-actions, intentional and not, have a vast range of effects whose totality challenges all thinking observers. Writers like DiAngelo, who wield enormous influence in our current discourse, encourage the assumption that white people act as a self-preservationist amalgam. This notion of a pale-faced single organism stomping around the world is a cartoon, yet smart people hold this cartoon up as an enlightened way of thinking, and it has caught on.

I also suspect I am hardly alone, when hearing the term “systemic racism,” in quietly wondering how useful it is to use the same word, racism, for both explicit bigotry and inequality, even if the latter is according to race. In his similarly best-selling “How to Be an Antiracist,” the Boston University professor Ibram Kendi begins by defining a “racist” as “one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea.” He then defines an “antiracist” as “one who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.”

His simplistic definitions declare a dichotomy between racism and antiracism with naught in between — quite a blunt instrument to apply to something as complex as the sociology and history of race in our nation. The looming implication that a system, a society, can be racist is not accidental: It tempts, in anthropomorphizing the complexities of race-based inequalities, how they emerge, and what to do about them.

A symptom of these less-reflective, too-reflexive approaches is the zeal for banishing apostates so common today, when it is accepted as appropriate and cutting-edge to tell those who dissent from the woke take on race to hit the road. Abbot was but one example, prevented from speaking to a broad audience at a university on a topic that has nothing to do with racial preferences, as if his opinions about racial preferences irrevocably taint his climate science work. As if his views on racial preferences themselves are unworthy of reasoned discussion.

Consider, also, cases in which some obviously non-malicious breach of woke liturgy results in some degree of shunning: The week before last, you’ll recall, I wrote about the University of Michigan professor Bright Sheng. We are back to the age of Galileo’s inquisitors.

This treatment of different opinions and approaches as heresies is one of many signs that a new religion is afoot. (And hoping you, dear reader, don’t mind a shameless plug, I’ll add that this also happens to be the main theme of my new book, “Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.”)

I’m not kidding about religion. The Emory University philosophy professor Robert McCauley, for example, teaches that religion tends to anthropomorphize. He sees a major difference between religious belief and science as the tendency for the former to attribute agency and intentionality to things we may not be able to explain. I’m thinking of how one might say that a guardian angel facilitated good fortune, or even how a natural disaster may be seen as an “act of God.” In the new woke religion, society is described as “racist,” a term originally applied to people.

Note also the eerie parallel between the conceptions of original sin and white privilege as unremovable stains about which one is to maintain a lifelong concern and guilt. Religions don’t always have gods, but they usually need sins, which in the new religion is the whiteness that supposedly bestrides everything in our lives.

There is a pitchfork aspect to how this way of thinking is penetrating our institutions of enlightenment. With an unreachable pitilessness, a catechism couched in an elaborate jargon is being imposed almost as if sacred: privilege, decentering, hegemony, antiracism. Nonbelievers, sometimes even agnostics, are cast out, leaving a cowed polity pretending to agree. This is a regrettable kind of religion, aiming to run the state. That’s not how this American experiment was supposed to go.

The only thing that will turn back this tide is a critical mass willing to insist on complexity, abstraction and forgiveness. As a Black man, I am especially appalled by the implication that to insist on these three things in thinking about race issues is somehow anti-Black.

Source: https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?productCode=JM&te=1&nl=john-mcwhorter&emc=edit_jm_20211107&uri=nyt://newsletter/951bc369-d8f2-53fe-b1cd-e670e698c1da

May: What are we losing with the elimination of our digital government minister?

Good discussion of some of the deeper issues and considerations, none of which are easy to address or resolve:

The Trudeau government’s decision to drop a digital government minister from the cabinet lineup comes when many argue just about everything on its agenda requires some kind of digital transformation to fix or implement.

Digital technology is central to tackling any policy issue whether it’s fighting the rest of the pandemic and rebuilding a shaken economy, climate change, child care, housing and Indigenous services. Digital tools are used to gather and mine data to develop policies, implement them and deliver services Canadians can use.

In fact, FWD50, an Ottawa conference of the world’s leading digital experts is virtually meeting this week to discuss using technology “to make society better for all.” They argue technology is policy. Can’t have one without the other.

The pandemic that forced thousands of bureaucrats to work remotely created a level of basic digital literacy so quickly that the Treasury Board is now rethinking policies around the future of work and modernizing technology.

So why is the government separating them with two ministers, one responsible for policy and the other in charge of technology?

Joyce Murray, Canada’s fourth digital government minister, was shuffled to Fisheries and Oceans with no one appointed to replace her. Her job appears to have been carved up between Treasury Board President Mona Fortier and Public Services and Procurement Minister Filomena Tassi.

The loss of digital cabinet clout is being criticized as a significant setback. It takes away much-needed political leadership, a single voice at the cabinet table and a focus to navigate a responsibility that is already fractured among too many players.

“We’re now living in a world where every policy issue is a digital issue,” said Ryan Androsoff, director of digital leadership programs at the Institute in Governance.

“Government can have the greatest policy ideas in the world, but if they can’t execute on them, it gets them nowhere,” he said. “Today, good delivery and execution inevitably means digital. It’s tough to imagine any area of government activity that won’t have some kind of technological underpinning to how policy is delivered and implemented.”

The decision came out of the blue for the technology industry, setting off concerns that the government is backing off from its digital strategy as progress toward a co-ordinated approach was being made. The government spends more than $7 billion a year on technology.

“A digital minister at least brought it to the forefront,” said Michele Lajeunesse, senior vice-president of government relations and policy at industry association TECHNATION.

“It showed government recognized a need to focus on its digital transformation… and I would say it progressed somewhat. The fear is this is taking a potentially major step back, and if the decision is to split it between TBS and PSPC (Public Services and Procurement Canada) will we be better off? We don’t think so.”

It also comes when the world is scrambling for tech talent in the face of a global shortage.

Countries like the U.S. and U.K. are bolstering the role of tech to better manage remote work, attract more tech workers and make sure citizens have easy online access to government services.

The head of the U.S. General Services Administration recently summed up the shift: “It’s super clear that bad delivery sinks good policy. To be able to deliver anything, we have to have the tech talent in the room at the beginning of the discussion, not bolted on at the end.”

Digital experts boil digital transformation down to technology, data, process and organizational change – and people with the skills in each are the lynchpins to make it work.

Murray, who was also the first standalone digital minister, launched a digital strategy with four overarching goals that the government isn’t close to achieving:

  • Modernize the way government replaces, builds and manages IT systems;
  • Provide services to people when and where they need them;
  • Co-ordinate the approach to digital operations;
  • Transform the way public servants work.

From the start, however, many argued the kind of big, transformational change that digital can bring requires a fundamental rethinking of the government’s rules and policies underpinning how public servants work – from human resources, staffing and hiring to budgeting and procurement.

Former treasury board president Scott Brison was the first to throw the spotlight on digital in the aftermath of the disastrous Phoenix pay system, which brought urgency to changing the way government does business and provides service to Canadians.

He successfully pressed to have digital minister included in his title, pitching a digital strategy as a way to improve the lives of Canadians and restore the trust and confidence they have lost in all governments.

But the success of the digital minister has been much debated.

Amanda Clarke, a digital and public management expert and associate professor at Carleton University, said the job had little clout, no effective carrot-and-stick to force change. The minister didn’t control contracting decisions on major modernization projects. And most of the powers to push needed reforms rest with Treasury Board.

“I don’t actually think it’s a strategic loss for the bigger movement,” said Clarke.

As digital minister, Murray had some key pieces of the government machinery. The biggest was Shared Services Canada, the giant IT agency that operates with a $2-billion budget and more than 7,000 employees.

The long-troubled agency redeemed itself with an almost overnight rollout of equipment, network access and digital tools so public servants could work remotely during the pandemic. It is being folded into PSPC, which some worry could shift its focus to procurement and compliance rather advancing the digital strategy.

She oversaw the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), which provides direction to departments on information management and technology. She also had the Canadian Digital Services, the U.S.-inspired swat team of tech geeks to tackle IT problems and harness digital to help departments design and build better services.

But there is a constellation of all the other departments and agencies, each of which had their own CIOs who report to their deputy ministers. Several executives from technology firms admit they didn’t even bother with the digital minister and went directly to departments where decisions are made on what to systems to upgrade or buy.

The government has yet to explain the rationale for dropping the cabinet post and the fate of digital strategy is expected to be answered in the ministers’ mandate letters. In a statement, Shared Services Canada said its mandate to accelerate digital transformation and build a more open, people-centric and resilient digital government will continue under PSPC.

Digital transformation requires leadership

Androsoff argues it’s political leadership, not bureaucrats, that has to drive changes in governance and accountability to make such sweeping changes happen.

“I think there has to be a recognition that… the governance structure we have for digital right now is not set up to deliver on results,” he said. “If the government is serious about trying to really change how government works for the digital era, it has to do some real thinking around how to put in place the type of authorities and decision-making structures that’s going to actually let change happen.”

But that takes time, and Clarke argues the talent crisis is the most urgent problem, and some changes could be made during the typical two-year governing window of a minority government.

Some of these reforms could dovetail with the Treasury Board’s planning for the future of work as pandemic restrictions are lifted and public servants can return to in-office work.

The government is widely expected to move to a hybrid workforce – a mix of employees working in office and remotely – to attract and retain talent, which could force a rethink of the hiring and classification policies.

That resonates with former privy council clerk Michael Wernick, who as Canada’s top bureaucrat pushed for a top-to-bottom structural reform – delayering, fewer levels of executives and a massive overhaul of its human resources regime, including reducing the 670 occupational groups and 80,000 rules that affect public servants’ pay.

The limits of the killer app

Wernick argues the government has made improvements to public-facing online services but can’t go much further without a deeper overhaul of back-end systems and how government works.

“The fork-in-the-road question is: are you going to continue to look for cool apps and outward-facing things we can do? Or are you going to deal with some of the deep structural issues in the public service?” he said.

Under the hood of some of those online services and apps are old mainframes and technology, some on the verge of collapse. And under that are the lumbering operational processes and procedures created by outdated rules and policies.

Right off the bat, Clarke argues the government needs new job titles and descriptions so departments can hire and develop the kind of in-house skills needed and wean off the IT consultants it spends billions of dollars on.

Job classifications for IT workers were written before the internet, and jobs like product managers and user-experience specialists didn’t exist. Job listings that describe positions designed for another era – which also scream a dated organization – hold no attraction for tech job seekers. They won’t apply.

“A lot of the problems we see with technology today in government are a people problem. When you don’t have people on staff who know how to design modern services, projects will fail,” said Clarke. “They also have to know how to be smart shoppers when it comes time to select partners and to procure new solutions.”

A multi-disciplinary team working on a new policy, for example, used to be not able to bring in IT workers to help figure out how to deliver the program to users because of an old rule that required IT workers to report only to CIOs. This also forced the team to recruit consultants from outside to advise them. That rule was changed, but the practice is still deeply rooted in departments.

And then there’s the months it takes to fill a job, which sends managers to the private sector, which can fill openings with consultants within days.

“This is how the rigidity of the classification becomes antithetical to good policy work,” said Clarke. “One of the best practices in modern digital government is bringing in experts around technology and implementation early in the policy design process so that you kind of set up the project for success.”

But Clarke said the government also has to get a handle on its over-reliance on outsourcing, which has hollowed out the skills of in-house IT staff. The government should track who gets contracts, how competitive they are and potential conflicts of interest. She said it’s shocking how many companies that worked on bungled or failed projects are then hired back to fix them.

The unions have fought IT contracting as too expensive, locking in the government to specific vendors and atrophying skills among in-house technical workers. A 2020 report found spending on IT consulting more than doubled between 2011 and 2018, when it hit $1.3 billion.

“Big projects are still business as usual. They’re still massive and they still involve these classic players who have their fingers all over every digital failure and yet keep getting hired by government to lead digital projects,” said Clarke. “It’s absolutely baffling.”

Source: https://irpp.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f538f283d07ef7057a628bed8&id=1261e9c10f&e=86cabdc518

USA: The crisis in black university enrolment and graduation

Of note. Curious to know if there is disaggregated data for Canadian university admissions and enrolment to see whether different minority groups have been affected differently post-COVID:

Like so much else related to the COVID pandemic, the disruptions caused to important high school events such as university open houses and access to guidance counsellors has hit African American students thinking of going to college or university especially hard. 

The school shutdowns meant that these students, often the first in their families to even consider going on to higher education, had to fill out unfamiliar forms on kitchen tables. Sometimes, as was the case for those applying to Old Dominion University (ODU) in Virginia, they had the aid of online tutorials or Zoom sessions. Then there was the financial aid process and its complicated forms.

“These students don’t know what they don’t know,” says Dr Don Stansberry, vice president for student engagement and enrollment services at ODU. “This is true for many students, but it is disproportionately true for our black and African American students. 

“I think this is indicative across most college campuses, you see [this year] a drop off in the number of black and African American applicants and their numbers in this year’s intake because they didn’t follow through with the rest of the process, such as financial aid.”

Overall, there were 603,000 fewer students enrolled in colleges and universities in the spring of 2021 as compared with 2020, a decline of 3.5%. Figures released by the Virginia-based National Student Clearinghouse Research Center in early October showed that since the start of the pandemic the numbers of black freshmen have declined by 22.3%, while the overall drop was 12.3%.

Historic under-representation

Even before the COVID-caused decline in blacks going on to higher education grabbed headlines, they were faring poorly in relation to college and university. 

Prior to COVID, 55% of college and university students were white, while blacks made up 9.6% of the students in higher education, almost 4% less than their numbers in the general population. 

In the decade after 2011, the percentage of blacks in the student population declined by almost 11%, reversing a trend that had begun in 1976, which saw the percentage of black students in college and university rise by just under 40%. Over the six years ending in 2017, 55% of blacks dropped out of college as against 33% of whites.

At public colleges and universities, the figures are even more dire. According to a paper prepared by Olivia Sanchez and Meredith Kolodner for the New York-based Hechinger Report, released in early October, at public colleges and universities, a white student is 2.5 times more likely to graduate than a black peer.

Taking account of both public and private colleges and universities, according to figures from the National Center for Education Statistics, in the last cohort to graduate before COVID, 61.3% of white males graduated as compared with almost 35% of black males; the figures for women were 67.3% to 44.8%.

There are a number of reasons for this gap. One of the most often cited is college readiness. A disproportionate number of black students attend under-resourced and poorly equipped high schools that leave them underprepared in reading, writing and maths. 

In 2016, the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington DC, reported that more than half (56%) of blacks are placed in remediation classes in contrast to 35% of whites. Citing a number of different studies, CAP says fewer than 10% of students in remedial programmes graduate in the six-year window that is used to define successful completion of four-year degrees.

It is certain that few students placed in remedial courses know of the 2009 study by the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, “Referral, enrolment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges”, that shows that students who were placed directly into regular college courses stood a better chance of graduating than did those placed in remedial courses. 

Yet, they don’t have to. For, as any professor who has ever taught students who have been in remedial courses, being in them has a negative impact on a student’s academic self-perception.

When I asked Dr Wil Del Pilar, the Education Trust’s vice-president of higher education, about how these courses impacted black students in particular, he said: “You took this course in high school. Now all of a sudden you take a math or English placement test, and it places you, say, three levels below the courses you are getting college credit for. This has a significant impact on academic self-perception and self-efficacy.” 

Since taking remedial instead of credit-bearing courses takes extra time and delays a student’s graduation – in addition to making the student ask the self-defeating question, “Am I ever going to complete this credential or degree?” – it creates a financial crisis that is disproportionately experienced by black students, Del Pilar says.

The financial crisis arises from the fact that, while remedial classes do not count as credit hours (course time toward graduation), there is no reduction in tuition fees. 

In other words, a student who is taking three hours of remedial English and three of maths pays the same tuition fees as a student who is taking a full 16-hour load even though the student in remedial courses is taking only 10 credit hours. 

To accumulate the 120-130 credits that most colleges and universities require for graduation, students who take remedial courses either have to take courses during the summer to make up for the missing credits or have to stay in school an extra semester or more. 

In either case, the student has to pay extra tuition fees (and often room and board costs). As well, the student who goes to summer school or stays for extra semesters forfeits a certain amount of income. These extra semesters are one of the reasons blacks graduate on average with US$25,000 more debt than white students.

According to Del Pilar, neither Pell Grants (a federal grant given to the most financially disadvantaged students) nor most other financial aid programmes are geared to students who spend extra semesters in college or university.

“You end up using your eligibility on these courses that don’t earn you credits toward your degree. So, when you get towards the end of your course, your credential or degree, you run out of eligibility for Pell Grants or other types of aid.”

Though it is not directly related to these students’ college or university career, Del Pilar emphasised to me, it is important to understand that America’s racial wealth gap means that more black students live on a financial knife edge than do white students. A US$800 car repair bill, for example, could be too much, causing a student to drop out of school and lose eligibility for aid.

Alienation on campus

As do many Latinx and other minority students, African American students can find being on campus an alienating experience that differs from what their white peers feel. 

While formal segregation is outlawed, de facto segregation exists in many parts of the country; instead of there being separate schools for blacks and whites, housing patterns separate the races and, thus, most district schools, for example. 

Accordingly, a large proportion of blacks attend majority black schools. Save for the historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) like Howard University in Washington DC and inner-city public universities in places like Newark, New Jersey, New York City and Chicago, most African Americans who go to college find themselves a member of a minority community on campus and, thus, find themselves in a more alienating environment than white freshmen do.  

At the University of San Francisco, for example, 349 of the school’s full-time enrolment of 1,738 is black. 

Even though he chose ODU because he wanted to go to a school that was not majority black, as was his high school in Highland Springs, a small town (population 16,500) that is 73% black, Montae Taylor, who graduated in 2018, told University World News that despite being friends with a number of international students, he still found the school alienating.

In part this was because Taylor and many of his black classmates were the first persons in their families to go to college. The pride they felt was in tension with the fact that their families did not understand how much work is required to succeed in university. Students who are the first in their family to go to a higher education institution commonly report that their families tell them, “If you’re in class only 16 hours a week, then you can get a job and work a full week.” 

“Nobody in our families had been this far in education before. They really don’t understand the work requirement that we’re under or anything of that nature. So, it’s hard to find somebody [in our families] that can really push you and motivate you to excel academically,” says Taylor.

In part, Taylor also felt alienated in class, a condition he told me was shared by his black peers. 

Unlike his white classmates, Taylor and the others in his pre-law courses had trouble negotiating and understanding the texts they were given to read in class. He watched as his white classmates “could just sit there and read a passage one time and right then and there they understood exactly what it meant, exactly what the person was getting at”.

As Taylor spoke, I couldn’t help thinking back on my 30 years of teaching English at college and university, and being impressed with his and the other students’ self-analysis. 

On their own, Taylor and his black classmates realised that to bridge the gap of understanding, they had to engage the texts differently. They had to take account of (what phenomenological psychologists call) their “horizon of expectations”, formed by the totality of their lived experience as young black men in America. 

Then, rather than try to bracket that experience, as if it did not exist, they judge the distance between it and what they had been told in class and knew of the white authors, before engaging in an iterative process that brought them to an understanding of the texts.

“We had to read it, talk about it to each other and have a little debate about it for us to come to a full and complete understanding because we might be looking at it from our point of view, which is a black man’s point of view,” says Taylor, who is now a businessman in Texas and Virginia, and was state president of Virginia’s Youth and College Division of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

In 2018, Taylor was one of the key student organisers in establishing a chapter of Brother to Brother at ODU. It differs from other clubs and honour societies on campus that helped students attach to the university. 

“In this programme,” says Stansberry, “black and brown upperclassmen come together to support other black and brown males in their academic journey. They partner with our first-year students and help them navigate the college campus and their own journey.”

In addition to providing ODU’s black students with a place to gather and talk with people who look like them (something which became all the more important, Taylor said, after the election of Donald Trump as US president), Brother to Brother serves two other very important functions. 

According to Dr Johnny W Young, the associate vice president for student engagement and enrollment services at ODU, Brother to Brother provides a place where ODU’s black students can support each other and counteract the negative stereotypes about black men. 

One stereotype that is especially damaging for university students, Young says, is that back where the students come from, excelling academically is not necessarily a point of pride: “It’s sometimes seen, for lack of a better word, as ‘nerdy’.” Equally pernicious is the stereotype that black men are prone to violence and that where they live is violent.

Even if a student does not have direct experience with these stereotypes, they know the stereotypes from the media and, sometimes, from family stories. “Having those young men talk about things they face, that their fathers faced, that their brothers faced growing up as young men of colour,” says Young, “helps them deal with the stereotypes and reject those untrue narratives. Sharing stories can be a source of inspiration for these young men.”

Brother to Brother also serves as the base from which students form study groups. Further, the organisation acts as something of a coach. 

During the summer when Taylor was vice president of ODU chapter, they heard that a large number of black students had not completed the paperwork to return in September. Members of Brother to Brother called these students and asked if they needed help organising themselves for the upcoming school year. 

Taylor found that of the calls he made, around 85% of the students who originally said they were not coming back had changed their minds. 

“Sometimes it was as simple as helping them find the proper resources they needed that would make them feel supported in finishing the process of education,” he said.

In the last year before COVID, there were 194 students in the Brother to Brother programme; approximately one-third of ODU’s enrolment of 23,655 is black. 

According to Dr Young, the students in the Brother to Brother programme had on average a grade point average 1.5% higher than did similar students not engaged with the programme. 

Though ODU’s data does not support making predictive claims and recognising that the group is self-selected, Young was willing to hazard a few statements. 

“We think there are a couple of things going on. First, the Brothers appear to attract young men who want to be leaders, who want to excel. But we also see that some men join who perhaps needed that extra push. Being around young men who want to excel can make you want to do very well. That can rub off on them, for lack of a better word.”

To help all black students celebrate their identity and attach to the university, ODU sponsors an annual Sankofa Dinner. Sankofa comes from Akan Twi and Fante languages of Ghana and means ‘retrieve’ and is symbolised by a bird with its head turned backward; its feet face forward, and it carries a precious egg in its mouth. 

This year’s Sankofa event featured a seven-person panel of graduates among whom was Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Ernest, MD, who graduated in 1999. He was the first African American male to graduate from Eastern Virginia Medical School and is presently chief of urology and director of surgical simulation at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. 

Another panellist was Sade Seaborne, a 2010 graduate who has worked as a technical project lead for the Department of Justice and is now a product manager for the finance company Capital One.

“The attendees,” says Stansberry, “were all African American students but it was an event that was designed to be a chance for them to celebrate their own identity.” 

Other events, like homecoming, fulfil what Stansberry told me was the number one reason that students choose to come to ODU. “One of the things they are most proud of is the diversity we have on campus and the opportunities they have to interact with students that are different from themselves.”

Old Dominion University’s efforts to help black students attach to and thrive at the campus in a city, Norfolk – which is home to the largest naval base in the world and which, at the start of the Civil War, was in Confederate hands – have been successful. 

Whereas on average in public universities white students graduate at a rate 2.5 times that of black students, ODU, which is a public university, has bucked the trend: the graduation rate for African American students who started in 2015 is almost the same as the overall graduation rate. 

Forty-four percent of African American men graduated as against 45% of the school’s overall male population, while the percentage of African American women graduating was 1% less than the overall female rate of 52%.

Source: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post-nl.php?story=20211105110142162