The mission of universities has always been the passing on and expansion of human knowledge, which has made universities contribute much to the historic growth in Canadian and world income.
This
traditional mission is now threatened by policies designed and enforced by many
employees that were recently hired by Canadian universities to work in offices called
by different monikers “Equity and Inclusion” (EI) at the University
of British Columbia,
“People, Equity, and Inclusion” (PEI) at Simon
Fraser University, “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” (EDI) at the University of Calgary, and “Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion” (DEI), which is the term used at most universities around the world, and is used in this study. A
critical analysis of DEI calls the workers in these offices “Diversicrats”.
The
Mission of DEI Offices
The mission of DEI offices described
on the website of the University of British Columbia: “We are working to build a community in
which human rights are respected, and equity and inclusion are embedded in all
areas of academic, work and campus life.” The mission of EDI offices in other
Canadian universities are very similar.
The key
words in these mission statements are defined by the University of Toronto, which
is also typical of those found in other universities:
“Equity is the promotion of fairness and justice for
each individual that considers historical, social, systemic, and structural
issues that impact experience and individual needs.
Diversity is a measure of representation within a
community or population that includes identity, background, lived experience,
culture, and many more.
Inclusion is the creation of an environment where
everyone shares a sense of belonging, is treated with respect, and is able to
fully participate.”
The Size of DEI Offices
Simon Fraser University (SFU) in
2022-23 had 32,000 undergraduate students, 5,736
graduate students, 1,039
faculty, and 2,604 non-academic staff. MacLean’s
Magazine has for several years named SFU the best comprehensive university of
Canada. The number of
employees working in its DEI office of should be a reasonably good sample of
all Canadian universities.
The DEI
office at SFU numbered 26 employees in 2012 and grew 140 percent to 62 in 2022.
During this same decade, the number of
students was unchanged, and all non-academic staff increased by 23 percent. The
DEI employment constitutes a small percentage of all non-academic staff, but
its extra-ordinary rate of growth suggests that the university considers its
mission to be an important priority and that more rapid growth can be expected
to take place in the future. It is also noteworthy that SFU’s DEI employment is
high relative to that in the United States, where it would be in 10th
place among 64 ranked universities.
The salaries
paid to DEI employees in Canada is not known, but US universities pay their DEI employees on average
more than tenured professors. Since labor markets in Canada and the United
States are highly integrated, it seems reasonable to assume that the salaries
in Canadian DEI offices are higher than those of tenured professors.
The
History and Woke University Policies
Canadian activists from the political left have long been
urging the adoption of a woke policy agenda, which in the extreme envisions the
creation of a society operated by experts and politicians according to socialist
principles. In such a society, the incomes of individuals would no longer be
determined in markets and by competition.
These
activists believe that one important policy needed to equalize incomes is correcting
the harm done to individuals who are the victims of personal and systemic
discrimination in the workplace and other aspects of life. These activists are
dissatisfied with the success of past economic and social policies that have dealt
with many of the problems attributed to discrimination.
For them it is
not enough that progressive income taxes and social benefit programs have made
incomes more equal and increased their security; that laws have reduced systemic
discrimination in many areas of human endeavor: voting rights were extended to
women, natives, blacks, and immigrants; human rights protect members of the LGBT+
and asylum seekers.
Women now are the majority among university
students - in Canada in 2021
the ratio of women to men was 1,219 over 952 (thousand). In medical schools women
were 58 percent
of students on average and an extreme 74 percent in Laval University. Thirty percent of members of the 44th Canadian Parliament and in 2019 19.2 percent of members of
Canadian corporate boards were women.
Race is no barriers to participation in sports: African Americans constitute
the majority of players in North America’s top professional sports leagues: basketball
(72.3%) and football (58%). baseball leagues There are now Canadian soccer and ice
hockey leagues for men and women.
To speed up
this process of reducing discrimination, woke activists have successfully advocated
the use of university admission quotas for minorities. These quotas lead to the
admission of students who otherwise do not qualify based on their high-school
grades, scores on standardized admissions tests, athletic records, and public
service. Quotas are believed to benefit minorities because university education
paves the way to higher incomes and leadership positions in private and public
institutions. According to Margaret Wente “At
Canadian Universities, Race and Gender Quotas Have Become a Way of Life”.
However, developments in the United States raise questions about the
future of quotas in Canada: The California system of universities was forced to end the use of
admissions quotas after a majority of voters in a public referendum prohibited its
use. Harvard faces litigation that has reached
the US Supreme Court because of arguments made by Chinese American parents, who
claim that the use of quotas prevents their children from getting admitted when
otherwise their superior academic record would have qualified them.
The threat
to the future use of admissions quotas in the United States and Canada is
serious because the California plebiscite and the Harvard lawsuit have revealed
two fundamental issues associated with their use.
First, quotas
challenge an important feature of market economies, the use of merit in rewarding
individuals’ record of performance. Asra Naomi argues that quotas have resulted
in a “war on merit”.
Replacing
merit as the determinant of income and status with other criteria not only
diminishes economic efficiency and incentives to work and invest, more
importantly, it provides politicians and their technical adviser with the right
to reward individuals who they believe deserve them. This practice is welcome
by the recipients of benefits and resented by those who are forced to pay for
them. Its growing use explains the increase in political and social divisions
in Canada that is deplored by many. The war on merit caused by DEI policies only
increases this division.
The second
fundamental problem with quotas emerged from the arguments about their use at
Harvard, which ironically legitimatizes discrimination against one minority – Asian
youth with high academic qualifications - when it is aimed at the elimination
of discrimination against all minorities.
Bruce Pardy, executive director of Rights
Probe and
professor of law at Queen’s University wrote: “Preferential measures,
distinguishing between people by their colour, lineage, gender and sexuality,
are becoming the order of the day. It is time to say the other quiet part out
loud: Canadians have not agreed to be treated unequally.” He laments that
Canadian courts have decided that the principle of equality of opportunity can
be replaced by policies that create equality of outcomes if they lead to the
elimination of existing discrimination.
It remains
to be seen how the US Supreme Court deals with the Harvard case. In a case
involving similar issues, the Canadian Supreme Court has decided that violation
of the human right of patients in need of medical care can be violated if doing
so advances the public good provided by universal, free health care provided by
the government. Is discrimination applied to high academic achievers
justifiable under human rights laws if it benefits minorities scarred by the
effects of past discrimination?
DEI Goals
and Policies
The activists’
push for the use of DEI policies may be seen to be a reaction to the problems
encountered by the users of quotas and because they can be used to provide
benefits for minority students that admission quotas can not.
The mission
statement of the University of Toronto’s DEI offices presented above shows that
the use of quotas is not mentioned. Instead, they outline a number of goals to
be pursued, all of which represent almost universally accepted Canadian cultural
and ethical values that are favored particularly by intellectual elites working
in Canadian universities.
However, the
DEI offices do not list the policies needed to achieve these goals. This means
that they cannot be challenged legally like quotas. Yet, of necessity, actual policies
to reach these goals are enacted by DEI offices and it is these actual policies
that affect the mission of universities. Examples of these policies are listed
below and allow insights into their effect on traditional university policies
and institutions. Some of them describe conditions in the United States, which
are likely to exist in Canada but have thus far escaped media and public
attention.
-
Substantial
financial resources are used to staff, house and operate the DEI offices, which
otherwise would have gone to universities’ teaching, research, and student
services.
-
Professors
are required to provide the DEI offices with information the preparation of
which uses much time and energy, which are taken away from their traditional
teaching and research responsibilities. For example, annual reports covering professors’
publications, teaching evaluations, attendance at conferences and public service,
at SFU now require the inclusion of an essay describing how the professor has
been “relating to students” and plans to do so in the future. The writing of
this essay is difficult and time consuming, because the DEI office does not
provide clear information on how to relate to students in practice and because
the failure to provide the proper information can have serious consequences.
The following reports what
happened to a professor in the United States who failed to meet DEI standards:
“Not playing along with the DEI protocols
can end an academic career. For example, when Gordon Klein, a UCLA accounting
lecturer, dismissed a request to grade black students more leniently in 2020,
the school’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion office intervened to have him put on leave and banned from campus. A counter-protest soon reversed
that. However, when Klein also declined to write a DEI statement explaining how
his work helped “underrepresented and underserved populations,” he was denied a
standard merit raise, despite excellent teaching evaluations. (He is suing for
defamation and other alleged harms.) “
No such events have been reported in Canada, which does not mean that
they do not happen since they tend to take place without publicity to protect
personal privacy.
-
One
important goal of DEI offices is to ensure that minority students remain
enrolled and meet graduation requirements. For this reason, DEI asks professors
to protect these students from emotional harm that could be caused by some course
contents and lead them to leave the university. For example, professors would be encouraged
not to discuss the economics of slave ownership in the past in the United
States presented in a book authored by Nobel laureate Robert
Fogel and Stanley Engerman, which suggests that maltreatment of slaves
affecting their health and life expectancy leads to the owners’ loss of capital
and therefore was less widespread than is widely believed.
The background of minority
students can easily cause them to be emotionally upset by the discussion of
this and other subjects. As a result, to avoid conflict with DEI officials, some
professors modify course contents significantly and neglect covering knowledge that
they consider to be on the cutting edge of their speciality.
- The website of Carnegie Mellon University presents information about its DEI
policies, which avoids the words admission quotas. Instead, it states that the
university:
“actively
cultivates a strong, diverse and inclusive community while offering
resources to enhance an inclusive and transformative student
experience in dimensions such as access, success, campus
climate and intergroup dialogue…Additionally, the Center supports and connects
historically underrepresented students…in a setting where students’ differences
and talents are appreciated and reinforced.” (Bolding supplied).
The bolded words suggest
that the university’s admission procedures favor minorities just like quotas
but in words that will make it much more difficult for opponents of
preferential treatment of minorities to launch a lawsuit like that facing
Harvard University.
-
DEI
criteria are used in the hiring decisions for faculty and researchers in
addition to traditional indicators of their academic qualifications. An article
from The Economist reports on the disturbing consequences
of this practice:
“In 2018 Berkeley launched a “cluster search” for five faculty
to teach biological sciences. From 894 applications, it created a longlist
based on diversity statements alone, eliminating 680 candidates without
examining their research or other credentials.”
“Research sponsored by the US Department of Energy will
require all grant applications to submit plans on “promoting inclusive and
equitable research”” and that “Since 2021 the brain Initiative at
the National Institutes of Health has required prospective grantees to file a plan
for enhancing diverse perspectives. Teams with investigators from diverse
backgrounds receive precedence.”
-
The
effect the use of DEI criteria has on the choice and design of research
proposals submitted to the National Institute of Health is reported in a study which “finds
that many of the scientists whose grants were criticized now engage in
self-censorship. About half of the sample said that they now remove potentially
controversial words from their grant and a quarter reported eliminating entire
topics from their research agendas.”
It is not likely that the world will ever know how many
potential Nobel laureates were prevented from working in the world’s most
favorable research environments at Berkeley and the National Institutes of
Health and instead worked at less well-endowed universities and research
organizations. Nor will it be known how many research projects were modified to
meet DEI criteria and thus no longer meet the researchers’ views on
scientifically optimal design.
-
DEI
inspired policies have changed practices and institutions of universities that
have existed for very long times.
·
At SFU student surveys of professors’ teaching
performance traditionally were designed by a committee of professors and
administered by them or non-academic staff. Such surveys now are designed and
administered by DEI staff. According to information from a SFU professor, the survey
questions no longer focus on the professors’ teaching skills and the quality of
required readings but on the professor’s adherence to DEI mandated policies.
·
Admission to medical schools traditionally went to
students with superior academic qualifications. Now, “Medical
Schools Look for Activists, Not Healers”.
·
The lesson, “Sex and Gender Primer”
for the Human Structure course at the Indiana University School
of Medicine School laments that “most textbooks present sex as binary” and endorses
“person-first language” such as “people with cervixes” rather than “women,” and
“anatomy-based language,” such as “the testes produce sperm” rather than “the
male gonad produces sperm.”
·
Graduates
from the Columbia
School of Medicine
in 2015 were required to take an oath, which includes this passage:
§ “We enter the profession of medicine with appreciation for the
opportunity to build on the scientific and humanistic achievements of the past.
We also recognize the acts and systems of oppression effected in the name of
medicine. We take this oath of service to begin building a future grounded in
truth, restoration, and equity to fulfill medicine’s capacity to
liberate. I make this pledge to myself, my classmates and future
colleagues, and the individuals and communities I will serve.
·
Victor David Hanson writes: “Our elite universities are now fully woke. Almost
weekly, an embarrassing story further erodes their credibility and reputation.
o Ridiculous lists of taboo words are issued on woke
campuses, barring incendiary words such as “American” and “immigrant.”
o Bragging of segregated dorms, graduations, and safe spaces
recalls Jim Crow, not woke racial utopias.
o Grades and standards are deemed counterrevolutionary, even as
incompetent graduates increasingly fail to impress employers.
Policy
Implications
The mission
of DEI offices in Canadian universities is to eliminate the injustices faced by
Canadians who are members of identifiable minorities suffering from the effects
of social and economic discrimination. The elimination of such discrimination is
a goal, which is widely supported by Canadians. However, these DEI goals can be
reached only by the creation and implementation of policies, which will have many
unintended, costly consequences.
The fact
that DEI policies bring both benefits and costs implies the need for a
benefit/cost analysis. Depending on the results of such calculations, the DEI
policies should be terminated or continued.
Unfortunately,
such calculations are virtually impossible since the values of the benefits and
costs cannot be estimated objectively. This problem exists for most government
policies, which is solved, albeit imperfectly through public discussions that reveal
Canadians’ views on the benefits and costs of these policies. In the light of
these discussions, political parties promise to adopt or reject the contentious
policies. The outcome of elections brings to power the political party that has
adopted a platform most favored by the majority. Such a process involving
public discussions and political parties taking positions is needed to deal
with the problems caused by DEI policies.
The outcome of public and political debates over DEI and other woke
policies is very uncertain. Canadian university faculties, the legacy media, many
politicians, lawyers, and civil servants favor them. The number of conservative
politicians, academics, and the media opposing them is likely to be much
smaller, though they might find many supporters among the silent majority.
Unfortunately, it is possible that the debates will never take
place because in recent times, such debates have been opposed effectively by
woke organizations of minorities, media, and politicians who discredited or
“cancelled” individuals defending views they do not like. The freedoms and
prosperity of all Canadians will suffer.
I any public and political debates about the merit of DEI policies
in Canadian universities it would be useful to consider the arguments that have
been made in the United States, which have persuaded legislators to act.
According to
one publication:
”state
lawmakers are proposing bills to limit diversity, equity, and inclusion
programs at state-funded institutions. The bills could impact a wide range of
initiatives, from defunding DEI offices and officers to removing diversity
statements from hiring practices. More than 20 states in the U.S. have either
proposed anti-DEI bills or could be in the process of drafting them.”
The headline
in another publication reads:
“Diversity
Statements Are Getting Cut From These Universities’ Hiring Practices”
A map in the first publication shows the states in which legislation in May 2023 has or is closed to being passed. These states have Republican governors and cover the center of the United States. No coastal states other than Florida have initiated such legislation. Most of them have Democratic governors.
Relevant to discussions about the merit of DEI policies is the fact that they have recently been used in the US military to influence promotion and that in reaction, on May 16, 2023 a large number of retired generals and other high-ranking officers of the US armed forces sent to US Congressional Committees a signed letter in which they demanded an end to the use of DEI policies in the US military. The letter contains these sentences.
DEI is dividing…our
military and society…Under the guise of DEI, some people are selected for
career enhancing opportunities and advancement based on preferences given to
identity groups based on race, gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation,
etc. .. To achieve equal outcomes using identity
group characteristics, standards must be lowered to accommodate the desired
equity outcomes. Lower standards reduce performance where even slight
differences in capability impact readiness and can determine war fighting
mission success or failure.
Meritocracy
is essential for winning. In professional sports…the best players are fielded
to win, no matter their skin color. If meritocracy is used in sports where the
consequence of losing a game is minor, why is it not essential in the military
where the worst-case consequences of losing a major war are unimaginable…
Meritocracy wins games and it wins wars!
.jpg)