Discrimination is Now Legal at Ontario Universities
Discover more from Karlstack
Discrimination is Now Legal at Ontario Universities
Ontario is what America would be like if America didn't have a constitution
In 2020, McMaster University announced they were hiring a “Black faculty cohort:”
McMaster’s economics department then advertised this job on the American Economic Association (AEA) job board, spawning this EJMR thread:
EJMR bros maintained that this job posting was against the AEA rules because the AEA Code of Professional Conduct states that the AEA “seeks to create a professional environment with equal opportunity and fair treatment for all economists, regardless of age, sex, gender identity and expression, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, health condition, marital status, parental status, genetic information, political affiliation, professional status, or personal connections.”
Someone from EJMR then complained to the AEA resulting in the job posting being taken down. EJMR celebrated in a 5-page thread called I got it taken down:
Fast forward to August 2022, and another such job posting has popped up in Canada, this time by the University of Guelph physics department:
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/search-job/?job_id=58317
This posting for a Canada Research Chair Tier 1 in Experimental Physics explicitly states that, “Candidates must be from one or more of the following equity-seeking groups to apply: women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and racialized groups.”
This caused a minor uproar on Twitter 2 weeks ago, but beyond these few tweets, this minor outrage went nowhere.
Discrimination Laws in Canada
The first thing I did was reach out to Guelph University — but they ignored me.
I then reached out to several employment lawyers. Five of them answered me.
Unfortunately I don’t think this will be a story that I want to participate in from a branding exercise for my business. Accordingly please attribute the following comment anonymously. I think an interesting arguments can be made that this policy is actually transphobic as only women can apply.
— Anonymous lawyer #1
Ha. Fair enough. I wouldn’t want to risk the reputation of my business on a non-politically-correct opinion either.
I am curious, though, if this lawyer’s “transphobic” argument actually holds any water, or if he is just trolling. Let’s take another look at the wording in the job posting: “Candidates must be from one or more of the following equity-seeking groups to apply: women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and racialized groups.”
According to Guelph, then, if you are a CIS female you are entitled to affirmative action, but if that same CIS female gets a buzzcut and chops off her boobs and changes her name to “George,” all of a sudden “George” is not entitled to affirmative action?
Likewise if you are a CIS man, Guelph University says you are not entitled to affirmative action. But if you are a CIS man who develops a crossdressing fetish and chops his dick off and changes his name to “Samantha,” that magically entitles him to affirmative action?
Why does “Samantha” get a special leg up, but “George” doesn’t?
I am not even trying to be glib (okay maybe a little). I am genuinely trying to understand how affirmative action works in Canada — none of this makes sense to me, it is very confusing.
Just like we can’t be sure what constitutes a woman, I am also confused as to what constitutes an “indigenous people.” For example, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren was the recipient of affirmative action at Harvard Law School because she is 1/1024th Cherokee. Would this one drop of Cherokee blood qualify her for affirmative action at Guelph? If not — what exactly is driving the different policies between Guelph and Harvard? Why does one school comply with the “one drop rule,” while the other doesn’t?
After “woman” and “indigenous” we now have to define “racialized groups.” Apparently the Employment Equity Act defines racialized minorities as “persons, other than Aboriginal Peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.” This is based in the concept that race is a social construct.
Are Jewish people white, then? It could be argued either way. I wonder which way the University of Guelph argues it.
Again — I am not trying to be glib. I am very, very confused as to who qualifies as white, who qualifies as a “racialized group,” who qualifies as a woman, and who qualifies as indigenous.
The second lawyer I reached out to said this:
[Guelph] have blatantly admitted they are not seeking the most qualified and effective applicant but rather are making a decision focusing on external physical appearance. The (likely white, older, male) administrators are hoping for a big diversity pat on the back. The department will suffer, the students will suffer, the more suitable applicants rejected over appearance will suffer, the people funding the university will suffer. Canada already lags in innovation and R&D. Departments selecting for and funding innovation and research regardless of physical appearance will outcompete, and the image-focused departments will wonder why they underachieve and dwindle.
— Anonymous lawyer #2
Based.
Here is where it gets interesting: lawyer #3 and lawyer #4 directly contradict one another. They can’t both be right. One of them has to be wrong. By determining which one of them is wrong, we can get to the truth of the matter, and finally figure out if Guelph’s job posting is legal.
It is entirely illegal. They are trying to promote employment equity but trampling on basic human rights law in the process in their attempts to virtue signal. Someone has a very good human rights claim against them and should make it.
— Anonymous lawyer #3
This job posting does not strike me as illegal or unusual. Section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code allows for special programs where they are designed to relieve hardship, economic disadvantage, or unequal opportunities. The job posting appears to be specifically targeting historically disadvantaged groups which is consistent with that provision.
— Anonymous lawyer #4
Let’s start with lawyer #4’s statement that “Section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code allows for special programs.” On the face of it, the Section 14 carveout for special programs seems pretty clear:
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/your-guide-special-programs-and-human-rights-code
I know that typically when there is a local law that permits racial discrimination, such as Section 14, in the US, they go to the Constitution to override it. So I checked the The Constitution of Canada, and lo and behold the The Constitution of Canada enshrines the right to affirmative action in section 15(2).
So… our constitutions says that everyone is entitled to equal treatment… unless the Liberal government decides to institute a program that precludes equal treatment. Got it.
This constitutional clause dictates that a brown woman is entitled to affirmative action because she is “disadvantaged” due to her race and sex. I could not disagree more strongly. I don’t think that brown skin nor a vagina constitutes a disadvantage when it comes to being a physics professor… but I guess the University of Guelph disagrees? Soft bigotry of low expectations.
There are high IQ brown women out there who do great work who don't need affirmative action to advance their careers, but their accomplishments are now forever tainted and they will forever be lumped in with all the affirmative action charity cases. I feel sad for them.
I would further argue that not only is this clause enshrining racial and gender discrimination, it is enshrining political discrimination, because only leftists/progressives/marxists accept working in workplaces that embrace this kind of racist and sexist discrimination.
In any case, it seems like lawyer #4 is right. Section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code allows for special programs, and Section 15(2) the Canadian Constitution, in turn, allows for Section 14. Therefore Guelph’s job posting is legal.
Not so fast! I went back to lawyer #3 and he dropped a bombshell: he argues that an individual job posting does not constitute a special program. If that is the case, then lawyer #4 is either disingenuous and trying to pass off this individual posting as a special program, or uninformed as to what constitutes a special program.
Furthermore, Reddit user Sultans_Of_Swingg pointed out to me that according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission section on Job Advertisements:
“Advertisements for jobs should not refer, directly or indirectly, to prohibited grounds of discrimination. For example, an ad that says “We prefer hiring younger people” is not allowed.”
Additionally, according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission section on Employment Agencies:
“An employer cannot use an employment agency to hire people based on preferences related to race, sex, disability or the other Code grounds. For example, a company cannot ask an agency to send only “persons of European background” to fill a receptionist position. However, an employer can express preference based on genuine job requirements, such as the requirement to speak French for a bilingual position.”
So based on that, Guelph’s hiring process would seem to violate the Human Rights Commission and is illegal. They cannot simply prohibit or exclude members of a certain race/gender/etc. from applying - despite what the current social justice paradigm seems to promote.
Of course lawyer #4 would then counter-argue that this job posting does constitute a special program because it is a “Canada Research Chair”, which is a special program by the federal government who are setting the stipulations, rather than University of Guelph itself. The special program status of these Canada Research Chairs, lawyer #4 would argue, is outlines in a 2019 Addendum to the 2006 Canadian Human Rights Settlement Agreement.
Lawyers #4 would further argue that far from being illegal, affirmative action is now required by Canadian law:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/17a15
https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-2/bill-67
https://www.ontario.ca/page/anti-racism-directorate
My takeaway here is that the Guelph job posting is probably legal… but might not be?
I honestly don’t know. Once we start getting into the legal weeds — contradictory addendums, provisions, clauses — I am out of my depth. So many contradictions.
Mostly what I learned from this adventure is that employment law is annoying and stupid, and employment lawyers could spend weeks, months or years arguing in circles over the definition of a ”special program.”
To me, the most damning piece of evidence is that no other school is doing this. If this job posting is 100% legal, then, why is nobody else doing it? Purely out of social convention? Why is Guelph the only school to buck social convention? Are they just brave, woke trailblazers?
I looked long and hard but couldn’t find any of Guelph’s peer schools posting any jobs that explicitly forbid white men from applying. Some people have told me these ads are “common” but I haven’t been able to find any other examples beyond McMaster + Guelph. If you know of any other posts like this, please drop a link in the comment section:
Here is my initial reaction. I find the trend an alarming attack on the principles of merit and equality (rightly understood). Until very recently, I would not have been reticent at all about stating, clearly and unequivocally, that to entirely exclude an identifiable category of otherwise qualified candidates (able-bodied white males) from any consideration whatsoever a breach of the human rights legislation, and an affront to the previously unquestioned constitutional principle of "equality before and under the law", and the right to be free from discrimination based on race, colour, creed, sex, or religion.
This said, I have noticed a disturbing trend in the last few years of an illiberal political ideology infiltrating and poisoning not only our political institutions, but academia, journalism, and more recently even law. I have always had the highest respect for the courts, and always considered the courts to be the unshakeable bastions of reason, precedent, and the rule of law. Sadly, even my confidence in the judiciary's power to curb this insidious ideology has begun to waver (although I have not entirely abandoned my faith in the institution as yet).
You might also find this article helpful:
— Anonymous lawyer #5
So is this job posting legal or not? Well.. I don’t really know. I am left more confused about Canadian affirmative action laws than before I started looking into it. I conclude that the legality of this job posting needs to be resolved in court, not in a blog post.
Let’s solve this question in court, then.
An Open Plea for One Single Honest Physics Professor
All it takes is one brave professor to stand up and cause a fuss, as was the case when I wrote this first open plea:
This open plea article resulted in a complainant coming forward and a probe being launched into a Harvard polisci professor:
I know for a fact that there are hundreds of tenured Physics professors reading this article right now. If you are a white guy with a PhD in physics, I would encourage you to apply to this job at Guelph:
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/search-job/?job_id=58317
If you know any white male physics PhDs who might be interested in filing this complaint, please share this article with them:
If you email me, chrisbrunet@protonmail.com, I can put you in touch with a Canadian employment lawyer who can help you file a human rights complaint. Or you can just file the complaint on your own, if you can figure out how to navigate the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
The Last Word
In addition to reaching out to lawyers, I reached out to the top physics departments in Canada. 8 professors answered me. I will give them the last word.
It is very discouraging to observe fellow academics, self-proclaimed pioneers of logic and critical thought, submit to an emotional, cult-like hysteria when confrontment with the logical inconsistencies and hypocrisies associated with the EDI agenda. The self-proclaimed heroes of "women", "non-binary people", "non-whites", etc., are themselves unable to define these terms without contradicting themselves. They are not able to answer why academic positions, open only to people of a certain race and sex, are not racist and sexist.
— Anonymous female STEM professor
Please do NOT use my real name.
If we continue down this road, we risk jeopardizing the quality our science departments.
Thanks for drawing attention to this issue.
— Anonymous physics professor
In a field that has historically been dominated by old white men, physics, the University of Guelph is trying to rectify that and make their physics department a more equitable environment by increasing diversity.
— Anonymous physics professor
If I had a son who wanted to go into academia, I would attempt to dissuade him.
— Anonymous physics professor
This is a sensible and wise policy. Many aspects of academia - from faculty hiring to awarding of research grants - are rife with implicit and explicit bias when it comes to evaluation of merit. It is only through proactive steps such as better education about our biases as well as targeted hiring processes that we will ultimately make progress in addressing it.
— Anonymous physics professor
The Canadian physics community, and, by extension, the field of physics, is not representative of the Canadian population in terms of gender and ethnicity. Early in my career I naively thought that meritocracy was the major factor in hiring, and that things would equilibrate over time. Now, after more than 40 years as a professor, I have seen only a little progress in this regard. The nudge of equity programs will bring in excellent new hires, who also will encourage a more diverse group of physics students. I commend the University of Guelph and others for diversity hiring programs, as it will ultimately bring more outstanding minds to advance the field.
— Anonymous physics professor
Probably one of the things to comment on with respect to the legal aspects of these matters is that there are two relevant pieces of Canadian law that, from a normal person’s point of view, contradict each other on these matters. The first is the canadian human rights act, and the second is this employment equity act (note the “equity”). The former would make blatant discrimination in hiring illegal, while the latter requires it to achieve the correct distribution of employees.
In the States, wording like that in the advert you mention would be (AFAIK) flatly ruled out by the Civil Rights Act, as there is no American counterpart to the “Employment Equity Act,” although of course people in University settings have ways to get around that.
— Anonymous physics professor
One thing you should understand is that in many of these cases, the hand of the University is being forced by the federal funding agencies. Universities that have been deemed noncompliant in EDI hiring are obliged to make hires under these conditions in order to get federal funding.
You might be able to find independent confirmation on the internet, since the tri-agencies have some public sites where universities are rated as to their level of EDI compliance. I think the policy is even stated there, that in case of low ratings, they are obliged to advertise new federally funded chairs in this narrow way. This happened to Laval U. in Quebec, where it is more challenging to find EDI candidates who are also willing and able to work in a francophone environment. I think there are a number of universities in the same situation.
You should understand that there are now a lot of administrators with big careers and salaries to match, in the universities and the federal government, who are benefiting from the EDI business. They are not going to say anything to you that makes themselves look bad.
— Anonymous physics professor
When a choice is made from the designated groups, there will be no way of knowing if indeed the best candidate has been found. While it is essential to attract more physicists from populations who have been shockingly discriminated against by a patriarchal society, the universities should not be distracted from their primary goals by attempts to right society’s ills. There are other ways of working towards this goal: an open competition in which preference is given to the many equally well-qualified candidates from these groups; increased funding and educational support at all levels of education for the socially disadvantaged; increased political action by academics and the academy, etc. Unfortunately, the CRC’s well-meaning requirements will provide fuel for white supremacists and those who would attempt to destroy our democracy, the fear of whose baleful influence may have contributed to the surprising preponderance of anonymous responses among those I have seen so far.
— Anonymous physics professor
We are appalled and alarmed by the signs of cancel culture in our universities. It threatens the main pillar of academic endeavour – the principle of academic excellence, free of politics and ideological doctrines. Being born and raised in the Former Soviet Union, we still remember the devastating consequences of discrimination and cancel culture to the human rights and the society at large. As Canadian citizens, we are genuinely concerned about this happening in our country.
— Valery Milner, Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, UBC
— Marina Milner-Bolotin, Professor, Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, UBC
Discrimination is Now Legal at Ontario Universities
So three based physics profs, two who prefer to give you a “value-neutral” observation of what is driving this in order to CYA, and three idiotic bootlickers. WTF “sensible and wise policy”?! Typical unthinking Canadian squish. How embarrassing for xer. Also that 3:5 ratio of based to idiots or cowards does not spell good things for the Canadian academy in the future. I wound say thank God I got out of Canada, except that I landed in a state that is just as bad.
Frustrating to see the pervasive entrenchment of such illogical and poisonous ideology across almost all institutions of society. It might be a slow march, but the conclusions reached down this road or the pendulum swing back before reaching the end, both scare me. Articles like this can be depressing, but then I remember how feckless and unimpressive the lead proponents of woke progressive totalitarianism are and that most of the mindless NPCs will just fall in line once the tide eventually changes.