Facebook Keeps Data Secret, Letting Conservative Bias Claims Persist

2020/10/06 Leave a comment

Of note given complaints by conservatives:

Sen. Roger Wicker hit a familiar note when he announced on Thursday that the Commerce Committee was issuing subpoenas to force the testimony of Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and other tech leaders.

Tech platforms like Facebook, the Mississippi Republican said, “disproportionately suppress and censor conservative views online.”

When top tech bosses were summoned to Capitol Hill in July for a hearing on the industry’s immense power, Republican Congressman Jim Jordan made an even blunter accusation.

“I’ll just cut to the chase, Big Tech is out to get conservatives,” Jordan said. “That’s not a hunch. That’s not a suspicion. That’s a fact.”

But the facts to support that case have been hard to find. NPR called up half a dozen technology experts, including data scientists who have special access to Facebook’s internal metrics. The consensus: There is no statistical evidence to support the argument that Facebook does not give conservative views a fair shake.

Let’s step back for a moment.

When Republicans claim Facebook is “biased,” they often collapse two distinct complaints into one. First, that the social network deliberately scrubs right-leaning content from its site. There is no proof to back this up. Secondly, Republicans suggest that conservative news and perspectives are being throttled by Facebook, that the social network is preventing the content from finding a large audience. That claim is not only unproven, but publicly available data on Facebook shows the exact opposite to be true: conservative news regularly ranks among some of the popular content on the site.

Now, there are some complex layers to this, but former Facebook employees and data experts say the conservative bias argument would be easier to talk about — and easier to debunk — if Facebook was more transparent.

The social network keeps secret some of the most basic data points, like what news stories are the most viewed on Facebook on any given day, leaving data scientists, journalists and the general public in the dark about what people are actually seeing on their News Feeds.

There are other sources of data, but they offer just a tiny window into the sprawling universe of nearly 3 billion users. Facebook is quick to point out that the public metrics available are of limited use, yet it does so without offering a real solution, which would be opening up some of its more comprehensive analytics for public scrutiny.

Until they do, there’s little to counter rumors about what thrives and dies on Facebook and how the platform is shaping political discourse.

“It’s kind of a purgatory of their own making,” said Kathy Qian, a data scientist who co-founded Code for Democracy.

What the available data reveals about possible bias

Perhaps the most often-cited data point on what is popular on Facebook is a tracking tool called CrowdTangle, a startup that Facebook acquired in 2016.

New York Times journalist Kevin Roose has created a Twitter account where he posts the top ten most-engaging posts based on CrowdTangle data. These lists are dominated mostly by conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino and Fox News. They resemble a “parallel media universe that left-of-center Facebook users may never encounter,” Roose writes.

Yet these lists are like looking at Facebook through a soda straw, says researchers like MIT’s Jennifer Allen, who used to work at Facebook and now studies how people consume news on social media. CrowdTangle, Allen says, does not provide the whole story.

That’s because CrowdTangle only captures engagement — likes, shares, comments and other reactions — from public pages. But just because a post provokes lots of reactions does not mean it reaches many users. The data does not show how many people clicked on a link, or what the overall reach of the post was. And much of what people see on Facebook is from their friends, not public pages.

“You see these crazy numbers on CrowdTangle, but you don’t see how many people are engaging with this compared with the rest of the platform,” Allen said.

Another point researchers raise: All engagement is not created equal.

Users could “hate-like” a post, or click like as a way of bookmarking, or leave another reaction expressing disgust, not support. Take, for example, the laughing-face emoji.

“It could mean, ‘I agree with this’ or ‘This is so hilarious untrue,'” said data scientist Qian. “It’s just hard to know what people actually mean by those reactions.”

It’s also hard to tell whether people or automated bots are generating all the likes, comments and shares. Former Facebook research scientist Solomon Messing conducted a study of Twitter in 2018 finding hat bots were likely responsible for 66% of link shares on the platform. The tactic is employed on Facebook, too.

“What Facebook calls ‘inauthentic behavior’ and other borderline scam-like activity are unfortunately common and you can buy fake engagement easily on a number of websites,” Messing said.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College, is also wary about drawing any big conclusions from CrowdTangle.

“You can’t judge anything about American movies by looking at the top ten box films hits of all time,” Nyhan said. “That’s not a great way of understanding what people are actually watching. There’s the same risk here.”

‘Concerned about being seen as on the side of liberals’

Experts agree that a much better measure would be a by-the-numbers rundown of what posts are reaching the most people. So why doesn’t Facebook reveal that data?

In a Twitter thread back in July, John Hegeman, the head of Facebook’s NewsFeed, offered one sample of such a list, saying it is “not as partisan” as lists compiled with CrowdTangle data suggest.

But when asked why Facebook doesn’t share that broader data with the public, Hegeman did not reply.

It could be, some experts say, that Facebook fears that data will be used as ammunition against the company at a time when Congress and the Trump administration are threatening to rein in the power of Big Tech.

“They are incredibly concerned about being seen as on the side of liberals. That is against the profit motive of their business,” Dartmouth’s Nyhan said of Facebook executives. “I don’t see any reason to see that they have a secret, hidden liberal agenda, but they are just so unwilling to be transparent.”

Facebook has been more forthcoming with some academic researchers looking at how social media affects elections and democracy. In April 2019, it announced a partnership that would give 60 scholars access to more data, including the background and political affiliation of people who are engaging content.

One of those researchers is University of Pennsylvania data scientist Duncan Watts.

“Mostly it’s mainstream content,” he said of the most viewed and clicked on posts. “If anything, there is a bias in favor of conservative content.”

While Facebook posts from national television networks and major newspapers get the most clicks, partisan outlets like the Daily Wire and Brietbart routinely show up in top spots, too.

“That should be so marginal that it has no relevance at all,” Watts said of the right-wing content. “The fact that it is showing up at all is troubling.”

‘More false and misleading content on the right’

Accusations from Trump and other Republicans in Washington that Facebook is a biased referee of its content tend to flare up when the social network takes action against a conservative-leaning posts that violate its policies.

Researchers say there is a reason why most of the high-profile examples of content warnings and removals target conservative content.

“That is a result of there just being more false and misleading content on the right,” said researcher Allen. “There are bad actors on the left, but the ecosystem on the right is just much more mature and popular.”

Facebook’s algorithms could also be helping more people see right-wing content that’s meant to evoke passionate reactions, she added.

Because of the sheer amount of envelope-pushing conservative content, some of it veering into the realm of conspiracy theories, the moderation from Facebook is also greater.

Or as Nyhan put it: “When reality is asymmetric, enforcement may be asymmetric. That doesn’t necessarily indicate a bias.”

The attacks on Facebook over perceived prejudice against conservatives has helped fuel the push in Congress and the White House to reform Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, which allows platforms to avoid lawsuits over what users post and gives tech companies the freedom to police its sites as the companies see fit.

Joe Osborne, a Facebook spokesman, in a statement said the social network’s content moderation policies are applied fairly across the board.

“While many Republicans think we should do one thing, many Democrats think we should do the exact opposite. We’ve faced criticism from Republicans for being biased against conservatives and Democrats for not taking more steps to restrict the exact same content. Our job is to create one consistent set of rules that applies equally to everyone.”

Osborne confirmed that Facebook is exploring ways to make more data available in the platform’s public tools, but he declined to elaborate.

Watts, University of Pennsylvania data scientist who studies social media, said Facebook is sensitive to Republican criticism, but no matter what decision they make, the attacks will continue.

“Facebook could end up responding in a way to accommodate the right, but the right will never be appeased,” Watts said. “So it’s this constant pressure of ‘you have to give us more, you have to give us more,'” he said. “And it creates a situation where there’s no way to win arguments based on evidence, because they can just say, ‘Well, I don’t trust you.'”

Source: Facebook Keeps Data Secret, Letting Conservative Bias Claims Persist

Filed under Social Media Tagged with , , ,

Is the US the next big market for outbound students?

2020/10/05 Leave a comment

While Canadian study permit data to date does not show a significant increase, web data on “Get your study permit” shows an increase as seen in the chart below:

Looking at Canadian study permit data, no major difference between the There may be some major shifts under way in international student mobility patterns. The current upheavals in the United States higher education landscape appear to be driving greater numbers of US students to consider full degrees abroad. 

US universities and colleges were on the ropes prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with many institutions already facing shrinking enrolments, budget crunches and stagnating public funding. Add COVID-19 to the mix and the challenges only get worse for US higher education. The cracks in the system are growing into chasms and the landscape may be forever changed. 

From reassurance to panic

Over the past few years an energetic debate has emerged among educational leaders regarding the tenuous nature of US higher education. The range of opinions fall along two extremes: reassurance and panic. 

On the reassurance end, some are arguing for maintaining the status quo, offering polite mollifications that enrolment fluctuations and changes in disciplinary offerings are perfectly normal and there will be hardly any permanent disruption to higher education as we have known it. 

On the panic end, some are questioning the long-term viability of ‘bricks and mortar’ institutions and are calling for a broad rethinking of US higher education. 

Indeed, these are challenging times for higher education in the US and pressure to act is growing. Already this year, a number of institutions have closed, including Urbana University, MacMurray College, Robert Morris University, Concordia University Portland and Marlboro College, and more are expected. 

Further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic, some observers predict that between 10% and 20% of the more than 4,000 institutions in the US may close or merge in the near future and many more may be facing insolvency. 

Already, international students have begun to turn away from the US. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), the number of new international students choosing to study in the US has been declining since 2015-16. Unfriendly national rhetoric, frequent and punishing shifts in immigration policy and fears for safety and security in the US, along with increasing international competition, are channelling student flows away from the US, particularly to the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. 

A future recruitment market?

Not surprisingly, it appears that a growing number of US students are beginning to show greater interest in pursuing study outside of the country. And why not? US students and their families are under tremendous strain. The rising cost of education and student debt, increasing scrutiny about the time needed to complete a bachelor’s degree and the ever-shifting nature of industry-driven qualifications combine to create a sense of considerable uncertainty for US students. 

Moreover, the country’s chaotic response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the questionable promise of residential instruction going forward are awakening in students the need to consider other viable alternatives. 

Dissatisfaction with racial justice and a generally increased awareness of the importance of global engagement are among other reasons pushing students to consider foreign study. The obvious question is not if, but when the US will become a robust market for recruiting prospective degree-seeking students. 

Heading abroad

According to IIE, about 340,000 US students studied abroad in 2017/18 as part of their respective home university degree studies. Compared to China and India, both countries that account for the largest proportion of degree-seeking international students, there has been little attention given to international degree-seeking mobility among US students. Because each country collects data differently, it has been challenging to ascertain an accurate and consistent accounting of US students seeking full degrees abroad. 

According to UNESCO, about 86,500 US students were studying abroad in 2017, which is about 15% higher than what was reported just five years earlier. In 2013, IIE conducted a comprehensive survey on US students enrolled in degree-seeking programmes abroad and reported that there were more than 46,500 students. 

Through its Project Atlas initiative, IIE has continued observing degree-seeking enrolments and in 2018 tallied more than 53,000 students from the relatively few countries that reported such enrolments. Still, IIE observes steady year-on-year increases, especially among graduate students pursuing degrees in specialised STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) fields. 

The majority of US students abroad in 2018 were studying in Anglophone countries, of which the UK (16,805) and Canada (13,035) were the top hosting countries, followed by France (6,264) Germany (4,242), China (3,333), Australia (2,875), New Zealand (2,405), Spain (2,030), Denmark (1,248) and Japan (757). 

Despite the lack of reliable data, various advisory organisations are emerging with hopes of capitalising on student interest by building the case for why and how US students should pursue full degrees abroad. 

Study.EU is one such organisation that provides an extensive online database with information on English-taught degree programmes throughout Europe. According to Study.EU, US students make up the second-largest group of users on the website, after Indian students. This continues in spite of a long list of closed borders for US citizens in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The factors encouraging US students abroad

Affordable Degrees Abroad is another organisation that appeals to prospective US students by emphasising the relative affordability and high academic quality of international degrees. Affordable Degrees Abroad has identified several factors that appear to be driving US students to consider full degrees abroad. 

1. Affordability. Affordability is a significant factor for US students. Compared to the US, many international institutions are considerably more affordable, with a significant number under US$17,000 a year. Some institutions charge under $3,000 a year which is practically free by US standards. US students may even use US federal financial aid at more than 400 international institutions. 

2. High-quality education. In the past the perceived educational quality of international degrees was questioned by some US parents, students or employers who were not familiar with global education. With the increasing popularity of global university rankings and other indicators of institutional reputation and prestige, uncertainty is being replaced with admiration and respect. 

3. Timespan to degree completion. Many degrees abroad are shorter. For example, some undergraduate degrees abroad can be completed in three years and graduate degrees in one to two years. Shorter time to degree completion further bolsters the case for affordability. 

4. Language of instruction. The number of English-taught degrees has grown dramatically around the world, even in countries where English may not be the primary language. For example, Germany now offers more than 1,600 programmes taught in English.

5. Career readiness. As international business and global operations have increased so, too, have demands for employees with international savvy. Earning a foreign degree, while once perceived by some US employers with suspicion, can be an asset today. Additionally, many countries have attractive post-study work visas that allow for students to gain valuable work experience before returning. 

6. Health, safety and security. The US response to the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed something that was present all along: it can be safer to live in another country with less crime, fewer gun deaths and stronger public health systems than in the US. A growing refrain is: “I want to send my kid somewhere that is handling COVID better.”

7. Racial injustice and inequality. The growing Black Lives Matter movement against racial disparities and injustice in the US has elevated a critical conversation. The legacy of racial inequalities, harsh political rhetoric and violence has left many students of colour, in particular black students, wary. For some, the promise of studying abroad in a more accepting and welcoming environment is attractive.

8. Political instability. The growth of nationalism and isolationist rhetoric, coupled with the anxieties of the current US election season, have created tensions and unease across the US. For some students, pursuing an international degree can be a way to achieve a solid education in a less fractured country. 

The right message and the right strategy

There are challenges, of course, that discourage US students from pursuing full degrees abroad, notwithstanding language and cultural issues. Of particular importance is ensuring that US students are prepared for the level of independence needed to succeed. US institutions generally have more robust campus and student service infrastructures compared to international institutions. Students must be prepared to navigate different cultural and academic systems. 

Although the US has largely been viewed by international recruiters as a non-degree market for outbound mobility, things may be changing. International institutions seeking to increase and further diversify international student enrolment, particularly from North America, might want to reassess the US market and begin positioning themselves accordingly. 

Although the sheer size, scope and complexity of the US education system can be daunting, those institutions with a compelling message, a clear value proposition and an informed strategy will likely find greater receptivity among US students than ever before. 

Dr Anthony C Ogden is managing partner of Gateway International Group, a global organisation seeking to accelerate international learning and engagement by assisting institutions and organisations around the world to succeed in a new era of higher education. For more information, click here. Denise Cope is president of Affordable Degrees Abroad through which she offers guidance to US students seeking affordable undergraduate or graduate degree options abroad. She also helps international universities formulate strategies for the US student market. For more information, click here.

Source: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post-nl.php?story=20201002154520979

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

COVID-19 has hardened Canadian views on immigration

2020/10/05 Leave a comment

One poll, by a market research firm that does not have a track record on measuring attitudes towards immigration without any information or their methodology:

With an aging and slow-growing population, Canada depends on immigration for economic and demographic growth. 

But the COVID-19 pandemic has effectively closed our borders and virtually halted the entry of immigrants.

Troubling new evidence about Canadian attitudes, shaped by the pandemic, suggests that even when borders finally reopen and the economic rebuilding begins, immigrants may no longer be as welcome as they have been in the past.

Outside Canada, the far right has stoked anti-immigrant rhetoric, and Canada is not immune to racism against immigrants.

Despite Canadians’ historical openness to newcomers, there are calls here at home for reducing the number of immigrants allowed to enter, and there is growing discrimination against immigrants, particularly people from Asia. 

Permanent damage?

Could pandemic fears permanently harden Canadian attitudes toward immigration, and generate pressure to reduce the number of yearly arrivals?

With concerns that the pandemic has made Canadians less open to immigration, researchers at McMaster University worked with Dynata Research to conduct a national survey in early August. The survey, which has yet to be published, asked 1,000 Canadians aged 25 and over about their attitudes toward immigration and their experiences during the pandemic.

The results raise questions about when, how and even whether Canada should be willing to reopen its borders to immigrants after the pandemic has been controlled.

Canadians ranked COVID-19 as the No. 1 problem currently facing the country. This was ranked far ahead of the economy and health care, which were ranked second and third, respectively. Crime, the environment, poverty, unemployment and other issues ranked much lower.

Amid growing levels of immigration into the country before the pandemic (more than 300,000 in 2019), about six in 10 Canadians had been comfortable with the number of immigrants entering the country. 

In fact, most respondents said they felt immigration has made Canada a better place. Slightly more than 50 per cent of respondents also said immigration has a positive impact on the economy and Canada’s cultural and social life. A large majority also felt that immigrants were welcomed into their communities.

But a deeper dive into the numbers reveals clear signs of strain and discomfort over immigration, particularly looking ahead to when Canada emerges from the pandemic. For instance, more than half of respondents felt immigrants were not adopting Canadian values, and 46 per cent felt immigrants posed a risk to Canada’s social-welfare system.

More negative

While the majority felt their attitudes toward immigration had not changed since the pandemic started, some 20 per cent of Canadians said they have developed a more negative attitude toward it.

Perhaps most revealing is the respondents’ answers when asked if immigration levels should be increased after the pandemic to make up for the immigrants who could not make it to Canada during the lockdown.

Only a small proportion of respondents indicated that immigration numbers should be increased. A majority of respondents felt the number of immigrants should actually be reduced because of the impacts of COVID-19. Looking farther ahead, only 22 per cent of Canadian respondents felt immigration would be an important part of Canada’s economic recovery.

Racism and discrimination toward racial minorities was also acknowledged, with one in 10 respondents reporting an experience of racism or discrimination since the pandemic started. Most respondents also felt that such incidents had increased since March 2020.

Lukewarm about immigration

Overall, the survey results suggest that Canadians may be less keen on immigration now than in the past.

More appear to be taking the view that closing the borders and limiting access would protect both the economy and the health of Canadians. But the nation’s economy and its reputation for welcoming newcomers would be at risk if these emerging attitudes take hold.

Canada still needs immigrants to help rebuild the economy, fill job vacancies and broaden the tax base. Despite the strain COVID-19 has placed on Canadian society, it’s imperative that Canada continues to be open to immigration. 

Doing so means that its economy, population and labour force are ready for the post-pandemic world. Turning away immigrants after the pandemic would not just hurt the people hoping to make a new start in Canada, it would hurt the people who are already here.

Source: https://theconversationcanada.cmail20.com/t/r-l-juaudly-kyldjlthkt-b/

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Ahead of November election, growing numbers of Jews consider leaving US

2020/10/05 Leave a comment

Of note even if anecdotal. Interest and intention are of course different from action:

By 11:42 a.m. on the morning after US President Donald Trump refused to condemn white supremacists during the presidential debate, Heather Segal had received four inquiries from Americans interested in moving to Canada. Two of them were Jewish.

Segal, an immigration lawyer in Toronto, knows there’s always a spike in inquiries during US election years. But in her 25 years of experience, it’s never been as big as it is now.

Source: Ahead of November election, growing numbers of Jews consider leaving US

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Salman Rushdie demands apology from Yusuf Islam after he ‘supported the fatwa’ against the author

2020/10/05 Leave a comment

Of note (I was posted to the Canadian Embassy in Tehran at the time, so this brings back vivid memories):

The then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, despite being no fan of Rushdie’s Left-leaning politics, staunchly defended him: ‘Whether or not we have any sympathy with Rushdie’s views is not the point.

‘We must react strongly to any state murder-hunt made against one of our citizens.’

The fatwa has never been lifted. Rushdie now lives at a secret location in New York City.

Unfortunately, despite her £400,000 a year from the BBC, Lauren Laverne in her Desert Island Discs interview failed to probe Islam on the life sentence Rushdie has endured as a result of the fatwa — she was anything but ‘sharp-toothed’.

She chose not to ask why he had repeatedly appeared to support the death sentence of a British author — or how he believed he had been ‘framed’. So what did Islam say or not say? Did he call for the violent death of a respected writer — or was it, as he claims, all a misunderstanding?

The controversy began in the late 1980s, when the fervour surrounding the fatwa was at its most poisonous and potent.

Soon after Rushdie published The Satanic Verses it was condemned as ‘blasphemous’ by Ayatollah Khomeini.

He and other Islamic fundamentalists were enraged by the book’s supposed mocking of the prophet Abraham and claims that Rushdie had allegedly cast doubt upon the divinity of the Koran.

In February 1989, Khomeini went on Iranian state radio to call for Rushdie’s murder — and for good measure his publishers’, too.

‘I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses . . along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death.

‘I call on all valiant Muslims, wherever they may be in the world, to kill them without delay . . . and whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah willing.’

Days later, the man who had once called himself Cat Stevens gave a talk at Kingston Polytechnic (now Kingston University) in London. Asked about the fatwa, he said: ‘He [Rushdie] must be killed. The Koran carries the death sentence.

‘If someone defames the prophet, then he must die.’

Islam subsequently clarified that he was not condoning the killing of Rushdie but simply stating that, in the Koran, blasphemy is punishable by death.

Later, he said: ‘My only crime was, I suppose, in being honest. I stood up and expressed my belief and I am in no way apologising for it.’

He went on to outline these ‘beliefs’ in richer detail elsewhere.

A few months after the fatwa was declared, Islam appeared on a late-night Granada TV talk show, The Hypotheticals, presented by the respected human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, who had represented Rushdie in a blasphemy case brought in London by a group of Muslim barristers.

Robertson asked Islam to imagine he was in a restaurant and recognised Salman Rushdie at the next table. What might he do?

Robertson asked: ‘You don’t think that this man deserves to die?’

Islam: ‘Yes, yes.’

Robertson: ‘You have a duty to be his executioner?’

Islam: ‘No, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act — perhaps, yes.’

Robertson was visibly taken aback. He later questioned Islam about an imaginary protest at which an effigy of Rushdie was to be burned.

He asked: ‘Would you be part of that protest, Yusuf Islam? Would you go to a demonstration where you knew that an effigy was going to be burned?’

Without a pause, Islam replied: ‘I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.’

He went on to say that if Mr Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help: ‘I might ring someone who might do more damage to him than he would like. I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.’

Far from apologising for these comments, Islam later said that it was an example of ‘British dry humour’. He claimed that the recording had been edited to make it look very serious, with laughs and ‘balanced arguments’ removed, while ‘the most sensational quotes’ were included.

The novelist Fay Weldon also appeared on the programme. She said she was offended by Islam’s remarks, which it seemed to her incited violence.

This week I asked Mr Robertson, still a leading QC and now head of Doughty Street Chambers in London (where, among others, the barrister Amal Clooney practises), what he recalled of this extraordinary broadcast — and of Islam’s words.

Robertson told me: ‘At the time it was dramatic and seemed quite chilling — I don’t recall anyone thinking it was funny. I didn’t rehearse my questions but his answers surprised me so I came up with a scenario about the effigy to give him an opportunity to retract. He didn’t.

‘He may have been a bit disconcerted by the Hypotheticals format, which can cut to the truth better than a studio interview.

‘The programme showed that the fatwa was, and remains, an act of state terrorism.’

Islam abhors terrorism. He spoke out forcefully against the 9/11 attacks and has engaged in charity initiatives in areas blighted by Islamist fundamentalism. His philanthropic work is, he says, an echo of his faith. When he became a Muslim in the 1970s, he turned his back on secular music, saying it might ‘divert me from the true path’.

However, his back catalogue has made him a rich man and he has continued to release music — he was appearing on Desert Island Discs to promote his latest album.

Born in London (as Steven Georgiou, to a Greek Cypriot father and Swedish mother), he now lives in Dubai with his wife Fauzia Mubarak Ali, whom he married in 1979. They have four daughters and one son.

As well as Princess Cheyenne —real name Louise Wightman — Islam’s previous partners include the American singer Carly Simon and the actress Patti d’Arbanville.

Yusuf Islam, who was in London this week, did not want to talk to the Mail for this article.

He did, however, instruct his lawyers, to issue a statement: ‘Mr Islam stands by what he said on Desert Island Discs. Mr Islam . . . [believes that] people should abide by the law of the land, and not become involved in vigilantism of any kind. Mr Islam fully accepts that certain of the statements he made on Mr Robertson’s programme were naive. He sought to make light of certain questions by giving flippant answers which he has long since publicly made clear he regrets.

‘Regardless of the interpretation that was put on his statements in 1989, he does not support the fatwa, which he believes goes against the principles and system of law in Islam.’

Meanwhile, after all these years, Sir Salman Rushdie is still waiting for his apology.

In a TV interview in 2010, the writer said of Islam: ‘He’s not a good guy.

‘It may be that he once sang Peace Train. There was a point when I was a college student when I had a copy of [the album] Tea For The Tillerman. But he hasn’t been Cat Stevens for a long time.’

Source: Salman Rushdie demands apology from Yusuf Islam after he ‘supported the fatwa’ against the author

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Cross-country forum of professors, students aims to tackle anti-Black racism on campuses

2020/10/03 Leave a comment

Will be interesting to see what practical recommendations they come up with:

When Binta Sesay was accepted into the University of British Columbia, the international student was thrilled.

She didn’t think that being Black would play a major role in her life at university, but over the past few years at UBC’s Okanagan campus, Sesay said, she has been strongly affected by negative stereotypes and misconceptions of Black people and the racism she’s encountered.

From receiving little school support to mark Black History Month to a false accusation of theft against a Black students’ organization on which she served, Sesay said she has felt frustrated with anti-Black racism on campus.

“I’m so sick and tired of people … being ignorant of the Black experience or just choosing not to be educated about the Black experience, because if people say they don’t know what’s going on, then they choose not to know what’s going on,” the third-year international studies student said from Kelowna, B.C.

Sesay and hundreds of other Black students and faculty, along with community members, staff and senior administrators from more than 50 Canadian post-secondary institutions, are meeting virtually this week for a national forum on anti-Black racism and Black inclusion in higher education.

The cross-Canada forum comes after a summer that saw renewed attention on the Black Lives Matter movement and identifying anti-Black racism across many sectors of society, including academia.

“The university years are a huge part of a person’s life. Imagine if you go through university and your experiences are not good at all. It’s also going to affect your frame of reference when you go out into the world,” said Sesay, who is originally from Gambia but lived in Britain and Jerusalem before coming to Canada.

“It’s going to affect how you see the world. It’s going to affect how you interact with the world and it’s going to affect how you carry yourself as well.”

Organized by the University of Toronto, the two-day conference, which began Thursday, is expected to attract more than 3,000 participants. Nine different sessions tackle such topics as ensuring accessibility and success for Black students, staff and faculty; addressing the lack of Black representation in leadership and in the curriculum; mentoring and support networks; and collecting race-based data to combat inequities.

The goal is for a co-ordinating committee to turn these conversations into a charter of principles and actions that the participants can then adopt and employ as they address anti-Black racism on their own campuses.”We can do things individually, but it’ll be much … stronger if the whole ecosystem is working in tandem, where we are mutually reinforcing our individual commitments,” said co-organizer Wisdom Tettey, vice-president and principal of the University of Toronto’s Scarborough campus, in the city’s east end.

“How do we make sure that we create pathways for people to come into the institutions?… How do you create a sense of belonging? How do you make sure that support systems are responsive to their needs?”

Students, faculty speak out about racism

The police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May galvanized attempts on school campuses in North America and beyond to seek justice and address anti-Black racism. Students are shining a light on the racism they experience on campuses across the country, scholars have held protests against police brutality and alumni have called on their alma maters to address their racist legacies.

“There’s no unified policy across Canadian campuses to deal with racism, so [this conference] is a first step in actually getting universities together in one place,” said Toronto-based journalist and author Eternity Martis.

“Students have been demanding accountability, have been persistent in wanting something like this to happen.”

In her recent memoir They Said This Would Be Fun, Martis revisits her undergraduate years at Western University in London, Ont., as a jumping-off point for exploring the reality and experiences of myriad young Black women on Canadian university campuses today. What she’s most interested in seeing from this week’s conference is what real-world actions and change will be enacted by the institutions participating.”Considering what’s been happening in the world with the renewed anti-Black racism movement, there’s been a lot of saving face,” Martis said.

“Schools have been doing town halls and putting reports together for a long time. I’m hoping at this time, it actually sticks, that there are some regulations around it.”

Dozens of Canadian post-secondary institutions are holding a two-day national dialogue on anti-Black racism in academic spaces and how to break down barriers. Barrington Walker, a professor of history at Wilfrid Laurier University, is addressing the group Thursday.  7:31

Conference co-organizer Tettey said it is critical that definitive commitments and mechanisms to hold institutions accountable come out of this week’s sessions — the first of what will be a series of national forums addressing equity and inclusion in Canadian post-secondary education.

School leaders have ‘obligations’

“We have to have some concrete actions, and we recognize that those actions will vary from institution to institution, because we’re all at different levels of progress,” he said.

“But there’s some broad kinds of actions that we can all identify as important … guidelines that we can pursue. It allows us to focus on particular areas where we’ve got challenges, where we’ve got barriers and say, ‘Let’s address these things together.'”It won’t be easy challenging the structures of post-secondary education, Tettey said, but he considers it an obligation for the sector’s leaders to have these tough conversations and make difficult decisions leading to fundamental change.

“People have had to fight for the rights and freedoms that we have. And we cannot renege on our obligations as this generation of educators [and tell] the next generation to do it. We need to do it now. And it’s imperative that we don’t waste any more time,” he said.

“If we are indeed a mature democracy or if we aspire to be one, one of the fundamental pieces of that is to have citizens who are treated equitably or seen as equals.”

Source: Cross-country forum of professors, students aims to tackle anti-Black racism on campuses

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , , , ,

Liberal, Conservative MPs join international task force to curb anti-Semitism online

2020/10/03 Leave a comment

Of note. Not an easy task and one that should aim to be also applicable to other forms of hate, whether anti-Black, anti-Muslim, anti-Indigenous, anti-LGBTQ or other minorities:

Two members of Parliament are joining forces with legislators in four other countries in an international effort to force web giants to curb the proliferation of anti-Semitic content online.

Liberal MP Anthony Housefather and Conservative MP Marty Morantz are part of a new task force that includes politicians from Australia, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

A report out of the U.K. this summer said online incidents of anti-Semitism were on the rise in that country, driven by conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Canada, advocacy group B’nai Brith has said anti-Semitic incidents are up overall, with an 11 per cent rise in online harassment that often advocates genocide.

But how different countries measure and define the problem is a barrier to convincing web companies to address it, said Housefather.

The point of the task force is to get like-minded countries to agree on how to define the problem, how to solve it, convince their respective legislatures to pass similar laws and then collectively pressure the companies to act, he said.

“If we can come up with something that’s common to everybody, it will make life much easier for the providers to co-operate with us,” he said.

The task force is getting underway just as the federal Liberals promised in last week’s throne speech to take more action to curb online hate as part an effort to address systemic racism.

Housefather said the task force’s initial work predates that pledge but he hopes it can support the government’s own efforts.

Social media companies have been under sustained pressure to do more to address online hate, and give users better tools for reporting instances of it.

Earlier this year, Twitter began flagging some tweets from U.S. President Donald Trump for violating its policies, saying they included threats of harm against an identifiable group.

But, both Housefather and Morantz said, Twitter does nothing when the Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei puts out tweets calling for the destruction of Israel or uses violent or potentially racist language to describe the state.

Twitter said earlier this year in response to criticism over that approach that Khamenei’s remarks amounted to “foreign policy sabre-rattling.”

Morantz said while the task force is focused on anti-Semitism, the work also applies more broadly.

“Hate against one group online is really a concern to all groups,” Morantz said.

“We need to emphasize that if we can’t protect one minority we can’t protect any of them.”

The Liberal government has repeatedly pledged to do more to combat hate speech online.

During the last election, they promised new regulations for social media platforms, including a requirement that they remove “illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties.”

Critics, including conservative media outlets like True North and The Rebel, have accused the Liberals of wanting to crack down on free speech.

Morantz said a distinction must be made between free speech and that which breaks existing criminal laws. The focus needs to be on the latter, he said.

In turn, he refused to comment on a fellow Tory MP who recently circulated a message on Twitter that was criticized for using an anti-Semitic trope.

In August, B.C. MP Kerry-Lynne Findlay share a video of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and liberal philanthropist George Soros, saying Canadians ought to be alarmed by their “closeness.”

Soros is often linked to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Findlay later took down the tweet and apologized for sharing content from what she described as a source that promotes “hateful conspiracy theories.”

Housefather was among those who spoke out about Findlay’s tweet. He said he accepts her apology, but the incident highlights the issue.

“People often innocently retweet something without understanding the implications of it,” he said.

What needs to happen is for social media platforms to step up and figure out a way the flag the content, he said.

“If the media platform lets them know that, they can make a conscious decision whether or not they want to retweet it, knowing that it’s been flagged as being anti-Semitic content or other types of racist, misogynistic, etc., content.”

Source: Liberal, Conservative MPs join international task force to curb anti-Semitism online

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

California Gov. Signs Law Requiring Corporations to Have Board Members From Racial or Sexual Minority Groups

2020/10/03 Leave a comment

Significant:

Hundreds of California-based corporations must have directors from racial or sexual minorities on their boards under a first-in-the-nation bill signed Wednesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The diversity legislation is similar to a 2018 measure that required boardrooms to have at least one female director by 2019. Like that measure, it could face court challenges from conservative groups who view it as a discriminatory quota.

Supporters evoked both the coronavirus pandemic that is disproportionately affecting minorities and weeks of unrest and calls for inclusion that followed the slaying of George Floyd in May in the custody of Minneapolis police.

After Floyd’s death, many corporations issued statements of support for diversity, but many haven’t followed through, said Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), who co-authored the bill.

“The new law represents a big step forward for racial equity,” Holden said. “While some corporations were already leading the way to combat implicit bias, now, all of California’s corporate boards will better reflect the diversity of our state. This is a win-win as ethnically diverse boards have shown to outperform those that lack diversity.”

By the end of 2021, the more than 660 public corporations with California headquarters must have at least one board director from an “underrepresented community,” according to the measure.

Those who qualify would self-identify as Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

The measure requires at least two such directors by the end of 2022 on boards with four to nine directors. Three directors are required for boards with nine or more directors. Firms that don’t comply would face fines of $100,00 for first violations and $300,000 for repeated violations.

At an online signing ceremony, Newsom said it was important for minorities to have a voice on the boards of powerful corporations.

“When we talk about racial justice, we talk about empowerment, we talk about power, and we need to talk about seats at the table,” Newsom said.

The legislation was part of a package of racial justice measures signed by Newsom before a midnight deadline. Others bar the use of peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors based on racial, religious or gender identity; allow judges to alter sentences that are believed to involve racial or ethnic discrimination; and set up a state task force to study the idea of reparations to African Americans for slavery.

The text of the corporate diversity bill cited the Latino Corporate Directors Association, which said 233 of 662 publicly traded companies headquartered in California had all-white boards as of this year. Nearly 90% didn’t have any Latino directors, although Latinos make up 39% of the state’s population. Only 16% had an African American board member.

The only official opponent in a legislative analysis was former California commissioner of corporations Keith Bishop. He objected that that bill, coupled with the existing diversity law, would make it more desirable for corporations to pick women who also are members of the underrepresented communities to simultaneously meet both sets of quotas, to the detriment of men or women who do not meet the qualifications in the new bill.

Source: California Gov. Signs Law Requiring Corporations to Have Board Members From Racial or Sexual Minority Groups

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Californians to vote on racial, gender preference programs

2020/10/03 Leave a comment

Will be interesting to see how the demographic shifts affect the vote:

A California with vastly different political preferences and demographics is voting on whether to allow affirmative action in public hiring, contracting and college admissions — nearly a quarter century after voters outlawed programs that give preference based on race and gender.

If approved, Proposition 16 would repeal a 1996 initiative that made it unlawful for California’s state and local governments to discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, ethnicity, national origin or sex. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, championed the measure as part of his conservative bid for the presidency.

The California of 2020 is less Republican and more diverse than it was 24 years ago, with Latinos making up 39% of the population in a state where no group holds a majority.

Still, the repeal might not have made the ballot if not for the Memorial Day police killing of George Floyd while handcuffed by police in Minneapolis. Voters’ decision will test support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat and chairwoman of the California Legislative Black Caucus, is the lead author of the legislation that put the question to voters, which required two-thirds support in both houses of the state Legislature.

“I think the death of George Floyd made racism very real for people; they could see it. And now what I was asking them to do was to act on it, stop telling me how horrible it is, stop telling me that you really didn’t know that, stop telling me that this is such a revelation for you,” Weber said.

She added: “Now the question becomes, what are you going to do about it?”

Early voting begins Monday for the Nov. 3 election.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long outlawed racial quotas, but it has ruled that universities may use tailored programs to promote diversity.

Last year, a federal judge in Boston rejected claims that Harvard’s admissions policies discriminated against Asian American applicants to keep their numbers artificially low. The plaintiff, the Students for Fair Admissions group, is appealing.

Supporters of Proposition 16 include U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, the Democratic nominee for U.S. , Black Lives Matter movement co-founders, professional sports teams and politically liberal groups of all types. They argue that some programs are needed to help level a systemically racist playing field. The campaign has raised $14 million, far more than the $1 million raised by opponents.

Opponents include Ward Connerly, an African American businessman and former University of California regent who pushed for the 1996 ban.

They say government should never discriminate by race or gender, and the only way to stop discrimination is to end it. Joining Connerly are more recent Chinese immigrants who say the United States shouldn’t play based on skin .

In 2014, activists scuttled an attempt to restore racial preferences in higher education and successfully voted out some Asian American legislators they called traitors to their race.

Assemblyman Evan Low, who is Chinese American, voted in June to put the issue before voters despite emails and phone calls running 37-to-1 against it. He rebuked proponents for failing to reach out to him and the broader Asian American community at a time when all minorities have reason to feel under attack.

“Yes, we have a moral compass, but we must have conversations, difficult ones, even with those communities in opposition, because we’re all in this together, right?” said Low, a Silicon Valley Democrat, in June.

Supporters say minority- and women-owned businesses have missed out on public contracting dollars. Because of the ban, culturally specific programs aimed at improving high school graduation rates for African American boys and Latinas were discontinued, deepening divides.

And while some Asian Americans are admitted to elite universities in large numbers, affirmative action proponents say they too hit a “bamboo ceiling” that prevents them from landing executive-level positions.

On the other side, Tom Campbell, a former dean of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, said the college recruited minority applicants through strong outreach to high school students in nearby Oakland.

The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow segregation laws exists, he said, but, “I just will not engage in this method of correcting that, because it is wrong to the individual kept out because of her or his race.”

Kali Fontanilla teaches English as a second language in Salinas, California and before that, tutored African American students. She identifies as Black and biracial, and said students of don’t need their standards lowered.

“That’s insulting to me to say that there’s certain groups that because of the of your skin you’re not meeting the standard, you can’t meet the standard (so) we’re going to help you, we’re going to give you this crutch to get in,” she said.

Higher education has long been a flash point in the debate and both sides point to admissions statistics at the University of California and its nine undergraduate campuses to make their case.

Opponents of affirmative action say Latinos have made significant progress without preferential treatment, making up 25% of undergraduates last year, double their share two decades ago.

Supporters of affirmative action note that Latinos make up more than half of California’s high school seniors, with a graduation rate above 80 .

The population of California has also changed dramatically since 1996. The numbers of Latino and Asian American residents — and voters — have grown, although likely voters are still disproportionately white. Democrats still make up nearly half of registered voters, but the percentage of Republicans in the state has dropped from 36% to 24%.

Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at UC Berkeley and the University of Southern California, noted that young white Californians also are much more liberal on issues of immigration, same-sex marriage and equity, having “grown up in much more diverse and multicultural environments than their parents and grandparents.”

But recent polls by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley showed the measure trailing. Last year, voters in Washington narrowly upheld that state’s ban.

Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal and Education Fund, said claims that a quarter of college students are Latino are “not something to be celebrated,” given that more than half of all public school students are Latino.

“That’s a disparity that needs to be aggressively addressed, and Proposition 16 would allow us to do that,” he said.

Source: Californians to vote on racial, gender preference programs

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Has Trump increased U.S. immigration to Canada?

2020/10/03 Leave a comment

Good analysis by Kareem El-Assal (spoiler, mainly US residents, not citizens, overall not much in percentage terms):

Each year, Canada targets roughly 60 per cent of its new permanent resident arrivals under economic class immigration programs. In addition, it welcomes just over 25 per cent under the family class, and the remaining 15 per cent on refugee and humanitarian grounds.

When we solely focus on immigrants arriving from the United States under the economic class, we see there has been an exponential increase since 2015.

One may think the purpose of looking at the 2015 to 2020 period is to assess the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump on immigration to Canada.

However, using 2015 as the reference period is useful because it marks the year Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) overhauled the way it manages economic class applications. That year, it introduced Express Entry to manage skilled worker applications in a more dynamic and quick fashion.

The number of immigrants coming to Canada from the U.S. under Express Entryhas risen by leaps and bounds. Upon Express Entry’s launch in 2015, only 600 U.S. residents obtained invitations to apply for permanent residence. Last year, this figure stood at over 10,000 people.

The big question is: How much of this is due to Trump?

Understanding U.S. immigration to Canada

It is important to make a distinction between U.S. citizens immigrating to Canada, and U.S. residents immigrating to Canada.

Most of those who move north as skilled workers are actually U.S. residents. They are individuals who lived in the U.S. for whatever reason, be it as workers or students, for example, and then decided that they wanted to pursue permanent residence in Canada.

The number of U.S. citizens arriving as economic class immigrants has also increased on an absolute basis since 2015. There were 4,800 individuals who did so in 2019 compared with 3,300 in 2015.

One may attribute this to Trump, however it would be a mistake to do so.

On a relative basis, U.S. citizens have comprised about 2 per cent of all new economic class immigrants welcomed by Canada since 2015.

The reason that more such U.S. citizens have come to Canada over this period is because Canada has increased its overall immigration levels from 272,000 in 2015 to 341,000 in 2019.

So, there has not been a “Trump bump” among U.S. citizens immigrating to Canada.

Now, what about U.S. residents immigrating to Canada?

“Trump Bump” is likely one factor for higher immigration among U.S. residents

IRCC’s Express Entry data shows that just over 10,000 individuals residing in the U.S. obtained permanent residence invitations in 2019. This figure was also 10,000 in 2018, but was 6,000 in 2017, and only 600 in 2015.

IRCC’s data suggests that roughly 85 per cent of these individuals were non-U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. upon the time of invitation. We presume this by subtracting the number of total invitations from the number of U.S. citizens who received invitations (about 10,200 total invitations subtracted by 1,600 U.S. citizens).

One explanation is that again, Canada’s overall immigration increased and IRCC has steadily processed more applications through Express Entry over this period. However, this cannot explain the nearly twenty-fold growth in U.S. residents succeeding under Express Entry.

There are other factors that we need to look at, and Trump is one of them.

In the absence of concrete evidence, we cannot assume a causal linkage between the Trump presidency and higher immigration from the U.S. However, it is highly probably that the immigration uncertainty in the U.S. has contributed to more residents in the U.S. moving to Canada.

It is important to remember, however, that while Trump may not have helped matters, uncertainty for immigrant hopefuls in the U.S. has existed for decades now. Although the U.S. has a population that is nine times bigger than Canada’s and a labour market that is eight times bigger, it welcomes about the same number of skilled immigrants each year as Canada.

This means there are simply not enough spots available for individuals looking to remain in the U.S. as permanent residents.

This issue long predates Trump and is one likely to linger following the November 3rd presidential election. Irrespective of who wins the election, the U.S. is unlikely to increase its permanent residence allocation to a level that would satisfy the demand of aspiring skilled workers and American employers. Come January 2021, the President and Congress will be laser-focused on America’s COVID-19 recovery.

On a practical level, it may prove difficult for U.S. politicians to explore welcoming more immigrants given the ongoing recession in the U.S. caused by the global coronavirus pandemic.

Hence, we can expect immigration among U.S. residents to remain strong in the coming years as such individuals move to Canada in pursuit of certainty.

Certainty is exactly what Canada offers the growing number of U.S. residents that have moved here since 2015. Canada has a stable immigration system with a growing level of permanent residence spots that successful candidates can secure in six months or less. This is a system that Canada put in place prior to Trump’s arrival, and will help it lure many more talented individuals from its southern neighbour well beyond the Trump presidency.

Source: Has Trump increased U.S. immigration to Canada?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →