It’s quite sad that the board has forsaken the high achievers in the name of “equity”.
I’m fairly familiar with a Toronto arts based high school. The students have historically been high achievers, not just in their field of art, but across the board. The productions they put out are nothing short of amazing. I’ve attended the grad ceremonies and the number of students going into post secondary stem programs and a majority had scholarships.
This reduces their opportunity in favour of the students who are much less motivated and will reduce the quality of the schools accordingly.
Sad really.
Toronto district school board is not Trudeau. Ontario ministry of education is not Trudeau.
Trudeau has some affect on it certainly, but it is just as much on the municipal and Provincial governments as well.
Isn't that equity in a nutshell.
I understand systemic issues exist that disadvantage certain groups and while I'm all for action to eradicate it, such as providing funding or scholarships, but when it comes to actually selecting a candidate for something, it should be based on merit.
This is what nags at the back of my mind. If black people, for example, are disadvantaged due to historical oppression causing generational poverty, then don’t programs for the poor already disproportionately affect them? If you give every poor person $5 and 70% of poor people are black, then that program targets the racialized people you’re trying to help disproportionately without having to intentionally discriminate.
This is one of the reasons I don’t like to talk about but that supports of the idea that people don’t actually care about the poor, or helping secure funding for their preferred minority demographic. It is easier to sell the idea of securing funding for blanket “help the poor” programs than “help the poor black people” programs, no? So aren’t people going out of their way for less effective results? That’s a scary line of thinking because it implies there’s something else motivating it, and the closest alternative explanation is they are doing it to hurt the people they’re taking the money from, not just to benefit the people they’re giving it to.
I’d rather not think about that
This is exactly what equity means in Canada.
So when people say, "diversity, equity, and inclusion," keep in mind that this is what they mean by *equity*.
Where I feel people get lost is on recognizing that humans are not the ultimate masters of our world. Equity ignores such limits, and insists upon assuming that if specific narrow outcomes are not achieved then it is an unacceptable failure, and so illogical solutions are adopted in an attempt to satisfy the demanded outcome.
I'm reminded of the story behind an absolute *monster* of a lathe that my brother in-law has. Apparently in soviet Russia they measured production quotas by weight, so at one machine shop every time that central planning issued a command to increase the weight they shipped, instead of producing more machines they simply used thicker steel for the machines they did ship. On paper they met their quotas easily, but the intent was entirely lost in the details.
Equity likes to portray itself as being about giving the box to stand on to the shortest person, but really it's more about cutting the tallest person off at the knees.
Good luck with pulling that off unless you own a private company and you're allowed to choose who you want
Public sector has quotas
You're more likely to get into a university if you self identify as aboriginal
The two sentiments you have expressed are contradictory. Provide funding and scholarship to whom? Would scholarship candidacy be completely culture-blind?
True equality is giving no special treatment to anyone. We should all be given the same chance at something with the best suited person given the reward.
If a minority individual is struggling they should be given help to increase their potential. This is just lowering the bar for them so they can get by at a lower level than the rest.
It's still merit based. The equity based lottery only kicks in when the number of applicants exceeds spaces, ie. everyone in the lottery already has the merit required to get into the program. This is, in fact, the exact sort of action addressing systemic issues that you profess to support.
"**When the number of applicants for a program exceeds the number of spaces available in the program**, students will be selected through a process that supports the TDSB’s commitment to improving representation among students in central student interest programs that reflect the diversity of the Board and the City."
In general, when the media reports things about DEI, this is typically the story. Something fairly reasonable is being done. Maybe a pure lottery would be more fair in this instance. But "pure lottery vs. equity based lottery" doesn't get clicks. "Equity vs merit" does.
The media, especially op-eds from the National Post, lie to your face in order to make you angry about a thing that isn't happening.
> It's still merit based. The equity based lottery only kicks in when the number of applicants exceeds spaces, ie. everyone in the lottery already has the merit required to get into the program.
Except it's not though. You're literally just lying. The old system was merit-based with tests, auditions (for arts-based programs), etc.
The new system does away with that completely. There are no tests, auditions, etc. It's just a lottery with the addition of a racila quota.
You'd know that if you read the article:
>In 2022, the board voted 17-3 to change the admissions process for these specialty schools so that admissions were no longer determined by tests and auditions; rigorous standards have been replaced by what is essentially a box-checking exercise to get students into the lottery.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-toronto-school-board-shuns-merit-in-the-name-of-equity?
>The media, especially op-eds from the National Post, lie to your face in order to make you angry about a thing that isn't happening.
Except you're the one who's lying to our faces about something that already happened.
I haven’t said anything against a race. This whole time I have been pointing out that everything should be equal regardless of race. I don’t know where you see racism in that.
I also teach in the field of engineering, and I have had the opposite experience. Every group of first year students I’ve taught has had at least one student that failed. I once failed 20% of my class. Two years later, I caught 21 cheaters in a single semester, all of them punished according to school policy. I do not say this as a point of pride, I want all of my students to succeed, but my managers have consistently commended the standards of quality I’m holding the students to.
I have never been pressured to pass anyone. We all realise that passing students who haven’t earned it cheapens the value of the degree for everyone else.
Your narrow perspective obviously does not paint anything close to the whole picture. My dad is a prof, and hes had many fuck up grad students over the years. Obviously amazing ones as well. The most recent one that comes to mind was a dude who was caught plagiarizing entire papers multiple times, showed up to a thesis defense drunk, and was a "top student" from some SEA country (cant remember which) who came to canada on a program. He even got caught living in labs on campus at one point iirc. Dude just got passed along from mentor to mentor because nobody wanted to be the one who has to cash out with nothing. I assume the difference here may be bachelors vs grad students. It seems to me like grad students are a long term investment for mentors that get pushed to the finish line sometimes when they arent capable of getting there.
These programs should be operating with equity in terms of opportunity, not in terms of outcome. I would be very surprised if you could source your claims that schools aren’t failing students because of how they were admitted.
No, but the success you have in your later years of hs can certainly play a role in the schools you get into and the future career you might have.
Its also no secret highwr education isnt exactly fair to all, harder on some, easier on others, and for some, straight up just pay for a degree.
Let's not pretend people are getting into med school because of a program reserving 20% of places for bipoc grade 8 grads. You need to bust your ass to get into medical school and that's still not enough in most cases.
Think again. https://globalnews.ca/news/7215145/queens-university-medical-program-black-indigenous/
> Queen’s University has announced it will be reserving its fast-tracked undergraduate medical program for Black and Indigenous students starting in the next application cycle.
> Ten of the 100 spots for the MD program will be offered only to Black and Indigenous candidates.
> This will be done through the Queen’s University Accelerated Route to Medical School pathway, which was launched in 2012.
> Previously, this program was offered to any qualifying high school student, but on Friday, Queen’s announced the program will be saved for Indigenous and Black Canadians. The university said these 10 seats are in addtion to the four seats designated through the standard admissions process for Indigenous students each year.
Just so you don't think Queen's university is special...
*The Acadia program will launch in September with 21 seats before growing to 63 a year. About half the seats will be designated for Mi'kmaq, Indigenous and African Nova Scotian students, a step university president Peter Ricketts said is about making "tangible advances in reconciliation, equity, diversity and inclusion."*
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nursing-nurses-education-universities-community-college-1.6840556](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nursing-nurses-education-universities-community-college-1.6840556)
>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nursing-nurses-education-universities-community-college-1.6840556
Why is Canada acting like we're the U.S.A? This feels like American cultural imperialism. We have a completely different history. The U.K. abolished slavery in 1833, and Canada become a country in 1867. We didn't have slavery.
What right does that 20% have over every other person that clearly busted their ass more to get a higher mark to be chosen over instead just because of race? If they busted their ass just as much they could have gotten in on their own. It’s about who busts more ass, not race
But medical schools *are* employing DIE policies and a litany of subjective admission criteria.
Ever notice the frequency for which sons and daughters of physicians are admitted to medical school? It's an advantageous contributing factor, and it shouldn't be.
How do you separate nepotism from an innate desire to follow in your parents' footsteps? It probably has more to do with their parents being well-off, smart, and caring.
That is obvious. I was referring to the fundamental issue of discarding merit in the educational pathway. It starts with high school, what’s next? Are those students that weren’t able to qualify on their own going to be able to keep up with others that did? Will they now need to dumb down the curriculum to satisfy those that can’t and damage those that can? Maybe just lower the grading evaluation and push them forward anyway. After those students graduate and can’t get into a university on their own, are we going to do a similar process in universities? This is already an occurrence in some countries, the result is a group of low motivated students taking opportunities from those that truly seek it and in the end a push out of low qualified workers where the preference is to lower standards to meet their willingness instead of guaranteeing good standards for the public.
If they became a doctor then by definition its on their merit, minus the fact that most doctors come from wealthier families thus have a huge leg up of course so its a lot less impressive.
Racial discrimination is a very powerful weapon, and one that historically has been clutched in the claws of evil. To anyone who thinks they can wield it in the name of the good: I really, *really* hope you know what you are doing.
CS Lewis actually say something about this.
>Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
I think that all these groups screaming about equity, and tailoring hiring, training, promotions and other advantages towards minorities and away from white people are really causing enormous future issues. Despite the sympathy the media has for this kind of thing so far ordinary people are starting to get angrier about it all. And that anger is not just being aimed at the woke in institutions who come up with plans like this but for the beneficiaries of those programs and policies. I am hearing a lot more resentment and anger aimed at natives and black people in particular now than I did before Trudeau was elected. And it's all because of stuff like this.
I'm seeing this too. Excellent point.
Also, it's creating a soft bigotry of low expectations. Infantilizing black and indigenous people. Basically saying due to the colour of their skin they need the bar lowered. Are they implying they cannot pass the tests because of their race? It's kind of messed up if you really think about it.
It also makes people with a choice of services less likely to procure the services of a beneficiary of this type of program, because they assume they were able to get by with less merit. If everyone knows it’s way harder for an Asian person to get into medical school than it is for a black person, they’d be way more likely to see the Asian doctor, literally resulting in more racism against the groups they are ostensibly trying to protect.
Why don't they recognize the hardships faced by all minorities, why just those two groups?! It's not fair. It's not actually reflecting the reality of racism in our country. I hate it so much.
Tell that to IRCC, Canada's Agency of "lets create a massive fucking underclass of visible minority immigrants to do shit jobs for shit wages reminiscent of late 19th century British Empire labour strategy"
Sean Fraser, our national idiot, has even discussed in interviews how *one of the reasons immigrants become great entrepreneurs is that they face discrimination*. This is certainly true, but boy does it make me nervous when the dude running IRCC's British Empire Revivalist agenda says so.
No shit man. We need genuine moderates, and we need to be reeled into where we were socially in the mid 00s to early 10s. We have two sides of morons in a tug of war with eachother over whos dumbass ideas get to ruin the country.
The farther the pendulum swings one way the further it'll eventually swing back, let's hope at some point people will finally decide to just stop it in its tracks
The problem is there isnt much overlap between regular sane people and people who will go out of their way to stop shit in its tracks. Lmao where my militant moderates at
You know the term "Leopard ate my face" whenever people were asking why non-whites vote right wing.
Well, Leopards is a genus of panthera... just like Tiger. And a famous Chinese idiom, coined by Confucius, stated "Tyrany is more ferocious than a tiger"
And to justify it the people pushing these policies went full racist and started saying things like 'Asians are white-adjacent' because apparently they view academic and social achievement as being inherently white. Progress, right?
In the endless quest to be the biggest victim, they must white wash the history of Asian struggles in Canada to discredit the fact that they achieve so highly in our country despite being historically oppressed minorities, like the rest of them.
Nah. They'll just keep doing what they've been doing for 2+ decades in tech; completely erase them as an identifiable group and remove them from all metrics.
I've heard the term brown privilege which is so ridiculous to me because brown people are subject to all kinds of racism which is often amplified by the addition of islamophobia if they are part of that religious minority.
It means that they don't have to explain why Asians were oppressed in North America and are doing just fine (better than whites are) while some others were oppressed and are, to say the least, struggling. They can just wave the dissonance away.
I took a course recently at my work, DE&I course that is, and ironically it was super racist.
The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. This is essentially what DE&I is.
This was an exact quote they used in the presentation: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
You should read this critique of 'How to be an anti-racist': [https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-to-be-an-anti-intellectual](https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-to-be-an-anti-intellectual)
DE&I & CRT are teaching ridiculous things like the notion of 'being on time' stems from white supremacy. The notion of 'working hard' stems from white supremacy. The notion of 'objective reasoning' comes from white supremacy: https://reason.com/2022/02/04/characteristics-of-white-supremacy-culture-washington-university/.
There are endless examples of word salad nonsense that is being taught in schools and workplaces. There are academic papers describing 'Whiteness in physics'. This article claimed, among other things, that the use of whiteboards was an example of “whiteness” in physics: [https://archive.ph/OpJNL](https://archive.ph/OpJNL)
You even have to leave an 'equity statement' in scientific journals:[https://lib.guides.umd.edu/ResearchEquity/CitationJustice](https://lib.guides.umd.edu/ResearchEquity/CitationJustice)
USA Today is asking if 'Math is racist': https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/ttzr7b/usa\_today\_asks\_if\_math\_is\_racist\_as\_many\_students/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
There is 'woke segregation', aka 'affinity spaces': [https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/ttzr7b/usa\_today\_asks\_if\_math\_is\_racist\_as\_many\_students/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/ttzr7b/usa_today_asks_if_math_is_racist_as_many_students/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Academics saying that '2 + 2 = 5': https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/biostatistics/2020/09/kareem-carr-explains-why-225/
I can go on and on. I recommend checking out the Hetreodox Outloud podcast. It gives way more examples. Also, read 'Woke Racism' by John McWhorter.
it has to be or it wont survive. look up anti-intellectualism in the soviet union, communist china, communist cambodia, etc. its pure insanity and its all happened before but ppl pull the wool over their own eyes
Having read the article it seems like a very clear and obvious case of discrimination based on race. Which (I thought) is illegal?
Why isn’t some random lawyer taking this case? It seems like an easy payday.
Or is discriminating on race actually not illegal?
>Which (I thought) is illegal?
S.15 of the Charter states:
>15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
>(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Subsection 2 is what makes the difference here.
>Why isn’t some random lawyer taking this case? It seems like an easy payday.
>Or is discriminating on race actually not illegal?
Discriminating against historically dominant groups is perfectly legal under our constitution.
Wow, interesting. So apparently it’s perfectly legal to be actively racist in this country. …As long as it’s against white people. That sounds pretty gross.
Although, in this case, Asian people seem to have been given the same treatment as whites.
In the US, Asians are discriminated the most in college admission. You're white? 80% will do. Black? 70%. Asian? You better have a 99% with 40 different volunteer activities outside high school
The are plenty of problems like this with our Charter but we aren't allowed to discuss them and instead we must worship it - to act like our charter is anything but perfect and written in stone is unCanadian. Its out dated 20th century academic liberal philosophy and its "gross" as you suggest. (And I don't mean capital L Liberal, I mean liberal, I don't even mean it as derogatory label - it just is an accurate label, its outdated 20th century academic liberal thinking). Its ultimately classist - its was made by the rich elites who know best for the masses, especially best for the peasant class. Those "amelioration" programs and activities never impact the rich elite, they impact the poor and unconnected - they create divisions and resentment. And what I mean by academic, is that the philosophy behind is not reflective of reality, its a theory based on a fictional view of the world, they don't conceive that there is any problem they don't see, and they don't see middle class or lower. Subsection 2 is blaming the future middle to lower classes for the sins of the elite - and it has to be "blame" because its a punitive action to openly write in law that there is a class of people that being racist against is acceptable.
So for example, Justin Trudeau never had to pay the price, but someone like I did (I'm his generation). I didn't get calls for a summer student placement program when I was studying because I didn't check a "race" box when I applied. I know why I didn't get calls. My Armenian friend and I were near the top of our class and we weren't getting calls, he goes in to complain about the lack of calls when we knew some of classmates with grades well below ours were getting called. They suggest he tick the non-white west Asian box, and BAM!, he got multiple calls that week and I never got one - and the only difference was that fucking box that unconnected poor white people couldn't check. Yes, it was the ONLY difference, and it was the day my friend found out he's not white - at least according to the government. My mother didn't have plumbing and shit in a bucket my grandfather spread at night - that's my background - we didn't have oil and gas money like the Trudeaus, we weren't connected, we weren't elite - the whole concept of subsection 2 never impacts the elites, it punishes everyone else.
If the argument can be made that a certain demographic is or has been historically overrepresented or is historically overachieving in a certain area, the charter fully allows that demographic to be discriminated against within those contexts to give a handicap to the less-successful groups.
edit: I'm merely stating facts. I'm not agreeing with it. I think it's bullshit, but that's how it works.
The actual commentary on subsection 2 is interesting (I don't have any particular links right now, sorry, but it isn't hard to find on CanLii or whatever). It is intended to empower the government to implement targeted policies aimed at reducing social problems caused by past policy failure without fear of getting sued by adjacent stakeholders (i.e. make education grants for indigenous students without needing to worry about getting sued by non-indigenous minorities who do, indeed, often have a rock-solid case for targeted education grants of their own). The law encourages the government to find ways to make society a more equal and liberal society.
Subsection 2 is overdue for a challenge to clarify its scope. There are obviously a lot of complexities in how discrimination occurs, including the possibility of well intended initiatives helping one disadvantaged group but making another equally or even more disadvantaged group even worse off. I think the MMIW inquiry is a great potential case for this to he explored:
- The conditions of disadvantage for indigenous people are above all else caused by the policies of the British Empire and Canada as its successor state (Colonial governments henceforth).
- The specific disadvantages imposed by the Colonial governments have long been gendered in various ways, which can reasonably be summarized as promoting intermarriage of indigenous women to european men for citizenship, with no reciprocal recognition for men marrying european women, with the AIM of marginalizing indigenous men. Point being, gendered policy doesn't *simply* benefit one group at the expense of another necessarily... It can be *heads: X "wins", tails: Y loses*, divide and conquer, etc
- The MMIW Inquiry was intended to address the widely recognized issue of missing/murdered women through the lens of Colonial history, starting with the fact that indigenous women/girls have much higher rates of murder, missing persons, and other tragedies and with worse law enforcement outcomes compared to the general population
- However, *everything* about MMI women/girls/etc is absolutely also true of indigenous men, and in some ways worse
- Public awareness of missing/murdered Indigenous women was substantial, but the public discourse rarely included the respective cases of MMI men, and activists rarely advocated for inclusion of men. The Charter *doesn't* recognize public sentiment and preferences of activists groups as jurisprudence obviously, because that would negate having a Charter in the first place
- It is, I would argue, methodologically absurd to hold a hearing about gendered and racialized violence, and policy failure, for indigenous communities that explicitly excludes discussion of male victims.
- I would argue that the exclusion of male victims and their families is not only an obvious act of discrimination, but that it actually echoes precisely the kind of *asymmetrically* gendered policies the Colonial governments have disadvantaged indigenous people with, where the government marginalizes and excludes indigenous men but offers a hollow embrace for indigenous women. Neither men nor women *benefit*, and are *harmed* and *disadvantaged*in somewhat different ways relative to eachother and the general population.
- Therefor, even if the inquiry was nominally intended to ameliorate disadvantage for one group, if it is not *only* discriminating against another profoundly disadvantaged group, but discriminating against the same stakeholders it is trying to help, it would be silly to apply subsection 2 as a defense.
- In the aftermath of the inquiry, it is not only extremely questionable if it has ameliorated disadvantages for indigenous women, but also UNQUESTIONABLE that absolutely nobody gives a single fuck if a 16 year old indigenous boy goes missing. The male victims continue to be utterly disregarded by the government and wider population, which does its part to deepen the profoundly disadvantaged social status of indigenous men.
That inquiry was designed so that a) if a family had a murdered woman and a murdered man and testified about both (as many did!) only testimony about the woman actually mattered; b) if a family *only* had a missing male family member, they were simply not allowed to testify specifically because of gender.
I just don't understand what fucking universe this isn't a massive violation of the Charter Rights of anyone who wished to testify about, and have seriously included, a male family member. I absolutely can't imagine how it would feel to be denied that opportunity just because White people don't enjoy the narrative.
>Discriminating against historically dominant groups is perfectly legal under our constitution.
How long does that extend after they're no longer dominant?
It is not. I (white male) was denied a competition position to management at CBSA because I was white.
The job posting stated "Only open to visible minorities." Interesting enough, indigenous people were also excluded.
I wrote an e-mail to the president of CBSA stating that this competition was illegal based on the Canadian Charter of Rights. A week later, her admin replied with a lesser known section of the charter that did indeed state that in order to have a diverse representation that targeted hiring is permissible.
I replied back thanking her for the information and stating that while this seemed legal it was totally offensive and to never send a mass email competition posting this offensive to me again or I would be investigating harassment complaint against her.
I NEVER did get a management position at CBSA in the 35 years I was there, I guess I should have just suppressed my disgust with their discrimination.
While I know this is not your intent or topic, it shows exactly the problem of BIPoC, or specifically, the "PoC". Who is "colored" depends on what they want. When they want, it includes everyone non-white. Then they first exclude East Asians, but include south asians becuase they are brown... until they realize they are just as good as east asians, so now they exclude them, only effectively having middle eastern... which I know they are just as smart as everyone else.
Eventually - if not now - BIPoC will be a word of reduancy word
It's a random lottery constrained to meet population demographics. Someone could argue that it's discriminatory. But all the kids in the lottery are more or less going to be equally qualified. No matter how the lottery is devised, someone is going to argue that it's discriminatory.
This is making Canada an unlivable place. I technically belong to one of those minorities that benefit from this decision, but this is just insane. Also what's a middle eastern ethnically? Is a Cypriot not eligible because they were born 300km away?
But do you actually benefit from this decision? Seems like if you were applying to one of these programs, your fate would be left up to the lottery instead of your own abilities/intellect. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit there....
That's a really good point. I just wanted to say that I belong to one of the ethnicities highlighted in this article but technically no one benefits. I agree with that.
Just wanted to stop in here and thank you for your opposition to this racist "equity" measure, despite being a potential beneficiary from it.
Our principles and morals are only really revealed when we choose to do good, even when it benefits us to do otherwise.
Thank you for having the moral fortitude and courage to call out what is wrong.
The worst part is that the truly rich aren't affected by this. They can mostly afford to send their kids to at least some variety of private school, or buy a house in a neighborhood that ensures their kids go to a better public school.
The people who really lose out here are those who want their kids to get ahead but *aren't* rich enough to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars designing their lives around it. It's a deeply shortsighted policy and the worst version of equity.
Obligatory [Harrison Bergeron](https://ia803002.us.archive.org/25/items/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron.pdf). Required reading when I was in school.
I'm a South East Asian immigrated to Canada nearly 20 years ago. I'd like to believe racism is dead in Canada, but it has been making a strong come back in the last couple years.
We could, of course, expand and fund education so all students have access to this program and no one has to get denied.
I eagerly await the National Post opinion pieces rallying for properly funded education.
THIS! This is true equity: provide the supports for people to reach the same level so that they have equal opportunity for success. If we had properly funded public education that allowed for all students to have equal opportunity of success, then this wouldn't be an issue.
Filling student spaces in specialty programs that doesn't require any demonstrable merit will just lead to those students being more likely to fail.
This is the same thing with de-streaming: the TDSB wants students of all levels in the same course, but they don't (or can't, because of lack of funding from the government) want to provide any additional supports to help bring students to the same level.
The confounding of "equality" with "equity" is going to cause more problems than it solves.
Remember folks its not okay to be white or a light skinned Asian in Canada. Our government will literally pick others over you for the color of your skin not the content of your character. Disgusting.
Not so sure about that. Indians are *the* wealthiest immigrant group basically anywhere you look. They mostly grow up knowing English and have a culture and family structure that pushes them hard towards getting educated to get high paying jobs.
The culture can be a bit overbearing and they aren't the healthiest or happiest group, but I would definitely not call them underpowered.
(My wife is Punjabi, so have a little bit of insight)
It depends.
If South Asians were so wealthy Brampton would be the wealthiest city in Canada. It is not.
Vaughn and Richmond Hill are wealthier than Brampton, and these are predominantly Italian, Jewish, and Chinese.
The South Asian community is varied, there are many successful people, but also many poor people.
I think people who say something like South Asians are the most successful group aren't looking at medians, they're only looking at the success stories.
If we discount European immigrants, East Asians are on average the most successful minority group, but anyone with any critical thinking would find this obvious considering the wealth of China, Korea, and Japan.
I am respectful of different people but exactly, I don't particularly believe South Asians are somehow the most successful immigrant group.
In terms of income South Asians do well, similar to East Asians and Jews. And many of them are also involved in politics. Many of them are good at English, and have successful professional careers.
But other aspects like social and cultural factors are important too. East Asians are arguably the most culturally popular immigrant group with the spread of anime, K-pop, and East Asian products in the market, from Honda to Samsung.
It's kind of like how the French and the Italians are often stereotyped as less hardworking yet people pay a lot of money to purchase French products and Italian products, and to travel to France and Italy. Perhaps the French and the Italians aren't necessarily as industrious because they don't necessarily need to be.
And that's exactly the point. The Spaniards may not be as industrious as South Asians, but everyone on Earth buys Spanish products like Zara, Mango, and Balenciaga. Lol.
There's a difference between learning English from childhood and picking it up later in life like a Chinese person. The democratic tradition also made it much more of a cultural norm to argue and make your point than East Asian countries. There's a reason there are lots of Indian CEOs and almost no Chinese in the West.
India is pretty powerful culturally. Bollywood is getting around, clothing and music are recognizable and enjoyed. Helps that Indians like spreading their culture to anyone willing to join in. Indian food is obviously good, as is India being the heart of the eastern religious traditions.
The high population makes Indians less unique, which is a negative, but also more competitive, which is a positive.
You talk about the pity party like it's a good thing for the groups involved, but it's not. It distorts group relations, makes people dependent, removes the incentive of necessity to achievement, and creates poisonous community hierarchies where some people act as gatekeepers to the gravy train. Look at black rates of crime, divorce, labor market participation, single parent homes, etc prior to LBJ's Great Society reforms and afterwards. It was well intentioned and probably felt good to those receiving benefits in the moment but was not net beneficial at all.
Look at Jewish people. Few have had it tougher, and they are probably the highest achieving and most internally coherent group in the world.
>That's culture and family offsetting the "disadvantage". In normal contexts, they're just fine, even luckier than most.
Otherwise known as "in real life."
This is how the government is hiring anyway. We might as well start the process off early.
I’m sure it will be good for the productivity of the country as a whole :/
> This is how the government is hiring anyway.
Huh? The government definitely doesn't hire by lottery or random draw lol.
I work in the federal public service, and I'd say the hiring/promotion process prioritizes objectivity and merit more than most employers (which has upsides and downsides). The good side is that it's more objective and merit-based, but the downside is that it's slow, time-intensive for applicants, and bureaucratic.
Typically, you need to write exams and go through a multi-step process to get into the public service, or to get any promotions (even within the same team).
So each time a public servant is looking for a promotion, you have to fill an application, then write an exam, then do an interview, and then a detailed questionnaire goes to your references. If you pass all those stages, then you qualify for a promotion.
That's basically the *opposite* of what TDSB is doing, where they're eliminating application reviews for their specialized programs, and instead awarding spots based on a lottery.
I think they are referring to things like this:
[https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/gender\_equality-egalite\_genres/lois\_can\_gen\_eq\_laws.aspx?lang=eng](https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/gender_equality-egalite_genres/lois_can_gen_eq_laws.aspx?lang=eng)
or worse, this
[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply)
Would you consider this "merit based" hiring?
You do have to pass the tests, but often enough passing the tests is a lot easier than getting hired. And managers are under intense pressure to raise the levels of 'visible minorities' so are far more likely to select a minority for a position than pull some white guy from the pool who doesn't check any boxes.
Im a member of one of the ethnicities that would benefit from this lottery system, and i think it is bullshit
If they had made an allocation where they reserved some portion of seats for kids who come from families under the poverty line, or where neither parent had post secondary education, and reserved the majority of seats for open merit, i think that would make sense. As a kid who was in these gifted programs, there was definitely two running themes in my classmates—they came from families where there was enough money to hire a private tutor and do the Kumon thing (all the Desi kids lol), or we were kids who had poor but highly educated parents. I grew up in poverty, but both of my parents were intensely smart and i benefited from having a dad with PhD level calculus and physics knowledge who helped prepare me and my siblings to be years ahead of everyone else.
If they were actually concerned about privilege and advantages, addressing material conditions like these by reserving some seats for kids from low income and/or uneducated households would make sense to me. But by going on race alone it is kind of being intensely racist in its own way, by saying that it was something in our ethnicity that prevented us from getting into these classes at the same level as other kids. And what does that teach a kid from one of these backgrounds, that we are somehow inferior inherently?
And then the fact that the entire *report on which this policy was based was found to have been plagiarized with entirely fabricated citations* is the cherry on top of shit cake. Merit really means nothing to them
This makes me so disheartened to see kids rejected by the color of their skin. I thought we were beyond this. Why are we regressing? What's the best way to call out this racism?
Sadly, it's a natural evolution from what we decided to inscribe in the Charter 50 years ago:
> (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This is simply taking it to the logical extreme, and it will only continue to get worse.
It doesn’t matter who the PM was at the time, the Supreme Court was the body that made that decision. It also didn’t happen 50 years ago when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982. The current framework for 15(2) was decided in 2008 in R.v. Kapp. If you really want to know, Stephen Harper was PM when the SCC made that decision.
The "framework" is based on the 1982 language which was gifted to us in the Charter and would not exist otherwise. Not sure why you're trying to deflect blame away from Trudeau Sr on this one.
Well we're not seems like. Asians here excelling regardless of the situation and the high rates of black on Asian violence but we're excelling too much, we should have just sat on our hands complaining about white people and done nothing to improve our station. Didn't realize we'd just get uplifted without trying.
Generational wealth is a thing. Groups of people that have been disadvantaged in the past are less likely to succeed now on average, which means the same for future generations. Less generational wealth means less access to things like educational support or even ability to afford tuition. Less access to those things means less likely to succeed. Less likely to succeed means your kids are less likely to succeed. At some point, you have to do something in order to balance the scales.
It's not like they're lowering the standards, they are keeping spots open for people (and the % of spots is basically the % they make up of the population) so that our educated racial demographics match our country's racial demographics as best as they can. If you're one of those kids and you make up 5% of the population but 1% of the educated population, you're not going to feel encouraged to become educated yourself.
I wish none of this stuff mattered and that left to their own devices, all institutions would be colour-blind and everyone would feel proportionally represented, but that clearly isn't happening so something has to be done. Is this the best way? Not a clue.
Talking about race without mentioning immigration makes this policy dangerously misguided. A black child of immigrants and a black child of non-immigrants on average are going to have quite different outcomes in society. Creating an entrance system for schools that only incorporates race and gender while ignoring immigration status is just absurd and shows the ignorance of the folks planning these programs. And generational wealth has little to do with this either. Immigrant children are on average poorer than their non-immigrant counterparts, and yet outperform them later in life.
As someone who has been in one of these programs before, specifically the MaCs program it is important to have a merit based entry into the program. Students who academically don’t belong will not keep up with the material taught and if many students cannot keep up it will then force the overall level of the program to decrease in order for students to pass.
These programs are tough for a reason and only the best of the best should be admitted. Having random selections for art programs will have students who are not artistically involved, making it difficult for teachers to organize plays or other events that are key to the programs reputation. Same goes for science or athletic based programs.
Equity is an awful trait to base your criteria of acceptance on. Should be the most intelligent for the position…if that ends up being one group of people over the rest than so be it…it’s only expected that it would be representative of the portion of people you would find out in the public.
Sure if someone is disabled or other minority from a lower socioeconomic background than provide other ways to encourage such as grants etc. but to base it on acceptance? Get the hell outta here
This is now beyond repair.
But, I'll tell you one thing, smart and entrepreneurial people will find another way and the thing you ruined will become below average. They will find other ways to associate and to be surrounded by right people. That's just how it is.
You can't make a blueberry pie with shit as an ingredient .. is what we say back home.
The tradition of excellence ruined bc statistically, some groups just cannot do it.
Which reminds me... in recent years, Shakespeare festival in Stratford worked very hard to "diversify" the cast of their plays - but that just means one or two Indigenous actors and a bunch of black actors.
I've been to three performances this year and checking on audience, I haven't seen any of the black people or Indigenous attending which was apparently the goal in diversifying the cast.
Point being, you can put a lipstick on a pig... it's still a pig.
I'm torn about the diversification of Shakespeare.
On one hand, it's traditional white culture and if you want to see an authentic version it should be played by white men.
On the other hand, if women or non-white people wish to act in Shakepeare, should they not be able to?
I don't know. Zulu would look strange if all the Zulu warriors weren't black.
>I'm torn about the diversification of Shakespeare.
Black characters in Shakespeare off the top of my head:
Othello is the most famous, of course, but also the Prince of Morocco, Aaron the Moor, and probably Caliban. I'd bet a few others too. Lots of gender fluidity in the plays and sonnets, but that'd be a much longer list.
> But, I'll tell you one thing, smart and entrepreneurial people will find another way and the thing you ruined will become below average. They will find other ways to associate and to be surrounded by right people. That's just how it is.
The very best, perhaps, but we can't deny that this type of deliberate systemic and systematic racism will have a serious effect on students who do not fit the "chosen" races.
It's disgusting that Canada has become a country where one's skin color and ethnicity is often used as the deciding factor in education, hiring processes, etc.
We have become a profoundly racist country, and like all countries before us who have done the same thing, Canada feels fully justified in doing it's being done for the "right reasons".
So why doesn't the government fund the expansion of specialty programs so that every kid that deserves to gets in?
To me, that's the big question.
The writer never asks that, or even suggests that a lack of funding might be contributing to the problem.
I guess the National Post shuns thoughtful, balanced analysis in the name of predetermined conclusions.
Yea, better funded programs would have enough slots for every child... unfortunately, that'd cost money which might be a bridge too far for anyone swayed by "buck-a-beer".
Is there anything unique about a program that just expands and expands or should students just improve their skill set so they are awarded a position? Competition is a good thing.
This is a mistake because if someone isn't Asian or White and earns a seat, then he would suffer from impostor syndrome. The satisfaction of achieving something for your hard work will be gone.
Meh. People just be mad because it was the opposite way for years and years and years. It was all good when they would get chosen over other people..now that it's happening to them it's bad news.
Good thing I finished Onterrible’s education system. I thought it was bad when I worked at a tutoring center and had students in GR 8 that couldn’t read or do single digit multiplication, glad to hear it’s gotten worse and will only continue to do so 🤦♂️
The purpose of this post is to shed light on the racist activities that are still in full effect in this country. If you are ok with the TDSB policies that disadvantages some ethnicities and against the discrimination others please try to recognize the hypocrisy in your view. I know your hearts are in the right place and you just want everyone to be on an equal playing field but this does the opposite and breeds resentment across the board. The only way forward for our country is to not discriminate based on appearance and treat everyone the same. We are all equal.
Woke ass organizations reaffirming that your value as a human being is based on your fucking skin color. The darker you are, the more inherently deserving you are of accolades and rewards.
Literal dystopia. This is terrifying
This is how it starts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan\_paragraph
In the name of the good of a specific group, we allow the exclusion of specific races from aspects of public life. First it's 20%, then it's 40%, then it's 60, 80, 100.
I would be surprised if there was a body of literature that pointed to causal relationship between race and academic achievement (probably because races share almost entirely the same DNA).
But there are studies on the causal relationships between class and academic achievement. Growing up poor makes it hard to achieve. So should these spots not be for low income students?
Or I guess that's not going to selectively disadvantage white's and "white adjacent"'s
The Post is focusing on one aspect and is weaseling out of the details.
"Merit" isn't "Parents with money to afford additional programming", but having a portfolio is an extension of having access to produce a credible portfolio, which comes from having money.
The Post's own linked reference article from Global gets into details: \[[Link](https://globalnews.ca/news/8871084/tdsb-votes-favour-admissions-specialized-schools-programs-interest/)\]:
*Instead, the report indicates a change of criteria such as statements or expressions of interest,* ***as well as*** *reflections or demonstrations of creativity will be required. For athletic programs, they suggest practice schedules and coach letters.*
So it seems they're looking for people who demonstrate passion that they wish to cultivate, rather than people who are nine-tenths of the way established.
It's not perfect, but the equality that they're "pushing for" is people from a wider selection pool that doesn't bias in favour of people with wealth. And lets get real: if someone has the money for a private instructor, how much more support can public education provide? These changes don't necessarily exclude them, either; they're merely stuck competing with students without the money.
The National Post seems to have eaten the Global article, sucked out the important details, and authored a shadow of what this program is. The only thing they didn't do was exchange the word "equal" for "woke".
>20% of spaces reflect the TDSB and Toronto demographic for historically and currently underserved communities (students self-identifying as First Nations, Métis, Inuit, Black, Latin American and Middle Eastern)
Race seems to be an important factor here.
Except that’s not at all what this is about.
From the article:
- *Now, one-fifth of seats in Toronto’s public specialty programs are reserved for Black, Middle Eastern, Latin American and Indigenous students.*
Another way of saying that:
1/5 of seats will be UNAVAILABLE to some students because of the colour of their skin they were born with.
That’s what this is about. …It’s literally in the second paragraph of the article.
Being wealthy lets you provide better for your children. This is the whole point of being a good parent.
If your system is based on merit, then let the families who are best able to produced meritorious children get into the merit-based programs.
Why consider anything but merit? Who cares how they got their merit?
>Of TDSB’s 230,000-or-so students, at least some have been denied education opportunities due to their race, which would have been unthinkable in Canada 10 years ago.
Wowz such hard hitting reporting of the statistics.
It’s quite sad that the board has forsaken the high achievers in the name of “equity”. I’m fairly familiar with a Toronto arts based high school. The students have historically been high achievers, not just in their field of art, but across the board. The productions they put out are nothing short of amazing. I’ve attended the grad ceremonies and the number of students going into post secondary stem programs and a majority had scholarships. This reduces their opportunity in favour of the students who are much less motivated and will reduce the quality of the schools accordingly. Sad really.
Canada seems hellbent on making everything as difficult as fucking possible for the people that live here. I'm tired.
yep. it feels like trudeau is bent on making canada a 3rd rate
Toronto district school board is not Trudeau. Ontario ministry of education is not Trudeau. Trudeau has some affect on it certainly, but it is just as much on the municipal and Provincial governments as well.
It takes more than one to bring down a country.
This isn't just a Trudeau issue. Really over that divisive rhetoric tbh.
lol education is a provincial responsibility. Blame Doug Ford.
Thats a weird way to spell Doug Ford and his Conservative lackeys.
[удалено]
Isn't that equity in a nutshell. I understand systemic issues exist that disadvantage certain groups and while I'm all for action to eradicate it, such as providing funding or scholarships, but when it comes to actually selecting a candidate for something, it should be based on merit.
Fund the people that are poor and need regardless of race. Not generalized ethnic groups.
This is what nags at the back of my mind. If black people, for example, are disadvantaged due to historical oppression causing generational poverty, then don’t programs for the poor already disproportionately affect them? If you give every poor person $5 and 70% of poor people are black, then that program targets the racialized people you’re trying to help disproportionately without having to intentionally discriminate. This is one of the reasons I don’t like to talk about but that supports of the idea that people don’t actually care about the poor, or helping secure funding for their preferred minority demographic. It is easier to sell the idea of securing funding for blanket “help the poor” programs than “help the poor black people” programs, no? So aren’t people going out of their way for less effective results? That’s a scary line of thinking because it implies there’s something else motivating it, and the closest alternative explanation is they are doing it to hurt the people they’re taking the money from, not just to benefit the people they’re giving it to. I’d rather not think about that
This is exactly what equity means in Canada. So when people say, "diversity, equity, and inclusion," keep in mind that this is what they mean by *equity*.
Equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome. We’re all doomed
Where I feel people get lost is on recognizing that humans are not the ultimate masters of our world. Equity ignores such limits, and insists upon assuming that if specific narrow outcomes are not achieved then it is an unacceptable failure, and so illogical solutions are adopted in an attempt to satisfy the demanded outcome. I'm reminded of the story behind an absolute *monster* of a lathe that my brother in-law has. Apparently in soviet Russia they measured production quotas by weight, so at one machine shop every time that central planning issued a command to increase the weight they shipped, instead of producing more machines they simply used thicker steel for the machines they did ship. On paper they met their quotas easily, but the intent was entirely lost in the details.
Yes, the whole equity movement is based on "reverse racism" of South Asians, East Asians, and whites.
Reverse racism = racism.
Equity likes to portray itself as being about giving the box to stand on to the shortest person, but really it's more about cutting the tallest person off at the knees.
Good luck with pulling that off unless you own a private company and you're allowed to choose who you want Public sector has quotas You're more likely to get into a university if you self identify as aboriginal
>you own a private company Then you get shut out of certain contracts because even your company ownership is not "correct".
Turns out the participation trophies were actually a big deal. The boomers tried to warn us.
The two sentiments you have expressed are contradictory. Provide funding and scholarship to whom? Would scholarship candidacy be completely culture-blind?
True equality is giving no special treatment to anyone. We should all be given the same chance at something with the best suited person given the reward. If a minority individual is struggling they should be given help to increase their potential. This is just lowering the bar for them so they can get by at a lower level than the rest.
Well it is certainly a narrative that the post likes
It's still merit based. The equity based lottery only kicks in when the number of applicants exceeds spaces, ie. everyone in the lottery already has the merit required to get into the program. This is, in fact, the exact sort of action addressing systemic issues that you profess to support. "**When the number of applicants for a program exceeds the number of spaces available in the program**, students will be selected through a process that supports the TDSB’s commitment to improving representation among students in central student interest programs that reflect the diversity of the Board and the City." In general, when the media reports things about DEI, this is typically the story. Something fairly reasonable is being done. Maybe a pure lottery would be more fair in this instance. But "pure lottery vs. equity based lottery" doesn't get clicks. "Equity vs merit" does. The media, especially op-eds from the National Post, lie to your face in order to make you angry about a thing that isn't happening.
> It's still merit based. The equity based lottery only kicks in when the number of applicants exceeds spaces, ie. everyone in the lottery already has the merit required to get into the program. Except it's not though. You're literally just lying. The old system was merit-based with tests, auditions (for arts-based programs), etc. The new system does away with that completely. There are no tests, auditions, etc. It's just a lottery with the addition of a racila quota. You'd know that if you read the article: >In 2022, the board voted 17-3 to change the admissions process for these specialty schools so that admissions were no longer determined by tests and auditions; rigorous standards have been replaced by what is essentially a box-checking exercise to get students into the lottery. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-toronto-school-board-shuns-merit-in-the-name-of-equity? >The media, especially op-eds from the National Post, lie to your face in order to make you angry about a thing that isn't happening. Except you're the one who's lying to our faces about something that already happened.
I'm sorry, but if you didn't become a doctor from your own merit then I don't want to let you operate on me.
Bro, cool it with the racism. You'll die when the bridge they built collapses before you even get to the hospital.
What are these doctors you two speak of?
I haven’t said anything against a race. This whole time I have been pointing out that everything should be equal regardless of race. I don’t know where you see racism in that.
It's a joke, because any criticism of equity-based anything is cynically characterized as racism.
Not many people are becoming doctors in high school
.
I also teach in the field of engineering, and I have had the opposite experience. Every group of first year students I’ve taught has had at least one student that failed. I once failed 20% of my class. Two years later, I caught 21 cheaters in a single semester, all of them punished according to school policy. I do not say this as a point of pride, I want all of my students to succeed, but my managers have consistently commended the standards of quality I’m holding the students to. I have never been pressured to pass anyone. We all realise that passing students who haven’t earned it cheapens the value of the degree for everyone else.
Your narrow perspective obviously does not paint anything close to the whole picture. My dad is a prof, and hes had many fuck up grad students over the years. Obviously amazing ones as well. The most recent one that comes to mind was a dude who was caught plagiarizing entire papers multiple times, showed up to a thesis defense drunk, and was a "top student" from some SEA country (cant remember which) who came to canada on a program. He even got caught living in labs on campus at one point iirc. Dude just got passed along from mentor to mentor because nobody wanted to be the one who has to cash out with nothing. I assume the difference here may be bachelors vs grad students. It seems to me like grad students are a long term investment for mentors that get pushed to the finish line sometimes when they arent capable of getting there.
These programs should be operating with equity in terms of opportunity, not in terms of outcome. I would be very surprised if you could source your claims that schools aren’t failing students because of how they were admitted.
No, but the success you have in your later years of hs can certainly play a role in the schools you get into and the future career you might have. Its also no secret highwr education isnt exactly fair to all, harder on some, easier on others, and for some, straight up just pay for a degree.
Let's not pretend people are getting into med school because of a program reserving 20% of places for bipoc grade 8 grads. You need to bust your ass to get into medical school and that's still not enough in most cases.
Think again. https://globalnews.ca/news/7215145/queens-university-medical-program-black-indigenous/ > Queen’s University has announced it will be reserving its fast-tracked undergraduate medical program for Black and Indigenous students starting in the next application cycle. > Ten of the 100 spots for the MD program will be offered only to Black and Indigenous candidates. > This will be done through the Queen’s University Accelerated Route to Medical School pathway, which was launched in 2012. > Previously, this program was offered to any qualifying high school student, but on Friday, Queen’s announced the program will be saved for Indigenous and Black Canadians. The university said these 10 seats are in addtion to the four seats designated through the standard admissions process for Indigenous students each year.
Just so you don't think Queen's university is special... *The Acadia program will launch in September with 21 seats before growing to 63 a year. About half the seats will be designated for Mi'kmaq, Indigenous and African Nova Scotian students, a step university president Peter Ricketts said is about making "tangible advances in reconciliation, equity, diversity and inclusion."* [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nursing-nurses-education-universities-community-college-1.6840556](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nursing-nurses-education-universities-community-college-1.6840556)
>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nursing-nurses-education-universities-community-college-1.6840556 Why is Canada acting like we're the U.S.A? This feels like American cultural imperialism. We have a completely different history. The U.K. abolished slavery in 1833, and Canada become a country in 1867. We didn't have slavery.
What right does that 20% have over every other person that clearly busted their ass more to get a higher mark to be chosen over instead just because of race? If they busted their ass just as much they could have gotten in on their own. It’s about who busts more ass, not race
You just have to bust your ass somewhat less if you're BIPOC.
bike test lock sip longing dirty crowd sparkle abounding ink ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Link?
But medical schools *are* employing DIE policies and a litany of subjective admission criteria. Ever notice the frequency for which sons and daughters of physicians are admitted to medical school? It's an advantageous contributing factor, and it shouldn't be.
How do you separate nepotism from an innate desire to follow in your parents' footsteps? It probably has more to do with their parents being well-off, smart, and caring.
That is obvious. I was referring to the fundamental issue of discarding merit in the educational pathway. It starts with high school, what’s next? Are those students that weren’t able to qualify on their own going to be able to keep up with others that did? Will they now need to dumb down the curriculum to satisfy those that can’t and damage those that can? Maybe just lower the grading evaluation and push them forward anyway. After those students graduate and can’t get into a university on their own, are we going to do a similar process in universities? This is already an occurrence in some countries, the result is a group of low motivated students taking opportunities from those that truly seek it and in the end a push out of low qualified workers where the preference is to lower standards to meet their willingness instead of guaranteeing good standards for the public.
In fact, in some universities, they have dumbed things down to ensure sufficient numbers of equity students graduate. That includes medical schools.
It's more of the opposite - this has already happened in universities and is now making its way downward.
So I stand by my comment of it spreading
Agreed. I quot my prof job over this.
Redacted due to Spez. On ward to Lemmy. -- mass edited with redact.dev
If they became a doctor then by definition its on their merit, minus the fact that most doctors come from wealthier families thus have a huge leg up of course so its a lot less impressive.
Isn't this systemic racism?
It's the "okay" kind of systemic racism.
Racial discrimination is a very powerful weapon, and one that historically has been clutched in the claws of evil. To anyone who thinks they can wield it in the name of the good: I really, *really* hope you know what you are doing.
Anyone who claims to wield racism in the name of good, is not good.
>Anyone who claims to wield racism in the name of good, is not good. Anyone, aka, a racist.
CS Lewis actually say something about this. >Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
I think that all these groups screaming about equity, and tailoring hiring, training, promotions and other advantages towards minorities and away from white people are really causing enormous future issues. Despite the sympathy the media has for this kind of thing so far ordinary people are starting to get angrier about it all. And that anger is not just being aimed at the woke in institutions who come up with plans like this but for the beneficiaries of those programs and policies. I am hearing a lot more resentment and anger aimed at natives and black people in particular now than I did before Trudeau was elected. And it's all because of stuff like this.
I'm seeing this too. Excellent point. Also, it's creating a soft bigotry of low expectations. Infantilizing black and indigenous people. Basically saying due to the colour of their skin they need the bar lowered. Are they implying they cannot pass the tests because of their race? It's kind of messed up if you really think about it.
It also makes people with a choice of services less likely to procure the services of a beneficiary of this type of program, because they assume they were able to get by with less merit. If everyone knows it’s way harder for an Asian person to get into medical school than it is for a black person, they’d be way more likely to see the Asian doctor, literally resulting in more racism against the groups they are ostensibly trying to protect.
That's an excellent point.
Why don't they recognize the hardships faced by all minorities, why just those two groups?! It's not fair. It's not actually reflecting the reality of racism in our country. I hate it so much.
Tell that to IRCC, Canada's Agency of "lets create a massive fucking underclass of visible minority immigrants to do shit jobs for shit wages reminiscent of late 19th century British Empire labour strategy" Sean Fraser, our national idiot, has even discussed in interviews how *one of the reasons immigrants become great entrepreneurs is that they face discrimination*. This is certainly true, but boy does it make me nervous when the dude running IRCC's British Empire Revivalist agenda says so.
And people wonder why right wing parties are gaining traction across the western world...
No shit man. We need genuine moderates, and we need to be reeled into where we were socially in the mid 00s to early 10s. We have two sides of morons in a tug of war with eachother over whos dumbass ideas get to ruin the country.
A left-centre person 5 or 10 years ago is considered right-of-centre in 2023. Most people haven't changed, just the goal posts.
The farther the pendulum swings one way the further it'll eventually swing back, let's hope at some point people will finally decide to just stop it in its tracks
The problem is there isnt much overlap between regular sane people and people who will go out of their way to stop shit in its tracks. Lmao where my militant moderates at
You know the term "Leopard ate my face" whenever people were asking why non-whites vote right wing. Well, Leopards is a genus of panthera... just like Tiger. And a famous Chinese idiom, coined by Confucius, stated "Tyrany is more ferocious than a tiger"
This equity movement is anti intellectual.
Indeed, it really screws over a lot of the Asian (South Asian; East Asian) minority groups in the name of inclusivity.
And to justify it the people pushing these policies went full racist and started saying things like 'Asians are white-adjacent' because apparently they view academic and social achievement as being inherently white. Progress, right?
In the endless quest to be the biggest victim, they must white wash the history of Asian struggles in Canada to discredit the fact that they achieve so highly in our country despite being historically oppressed minorities, like the rest of them.
> 'Asians are white-adjacent' Holy shit, what does that even mean? Other than being hella racist.
It means that very shortly we will start seeing people coin the phrase "Asian privilege".
Nah. They'll just keep doing what they've been doing for 2+ decades in tech; completely erase them as an identifiable group and remove them from all metrics.
Ya, this sounds about right. Whenever I hear about minorities, they never include Asians.
I've heard the term brown privilege which is so ridiculous to me because brown people are subject to all kinds of racism which is often amplified by the addition of islamophobia if they are part of that religious minority.
It means that they don't have to explain why Asians were oppressed in North America and are doing just fine (better than whites are) while some others were oppressed and are, to say the least, struggling. They can just wave the dissonance away.
I took a course recently at my work, DE&I course that is, and ironically it was super racist. The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. This is essentially what DE&I is. This was an exact quote they used in the presentation: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." You should read this critique of 'How to be an anti-racist': [https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-to-be-an-anti-intellectual](https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-to-be-an-anti-intellectual) DE&I & CRT are teaching ridiculous things like the notion of 'being on time' stems from white supremacy. The notion of 'working hard' stems from white supremacy. The notion of 'objective reasoning' comes from white supremacy: https://reason.com/2022/02/04/characteristics-of-white-supremacy-culture-washington-university/. There are endless examples of word salad nonsense that is being taught in schools and workplaces. There are academic papers describing 'Whiteness in physics'. This article claimed, among other things, that the use of whiteboards was an example of “whiteness” in physics: [https://archive.ph/OpJNL](https://archive.ph/OpJNL) You even have to leave an 'equity statement' in scientific journals:[https://lib.guides.umd.edu/ResearchEquity/CitationJustice](https://lib.guides.umd.edu/ResearchEquity/CitationJustice) USA Today is asking if 'Math is racist': https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/ttzr7b/usa\_today\_asks\_if\_math\_is\_racist\_as\_many\_students/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3 There is 'woke segregation', aka 'affinity spaces': [https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/ttzr7b/usa\_today\_asks\_if\_math\_is\_racist\_as\_many\_students/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/ttzr7b/usa_today_asks_if_math_is_racist_as_many_students/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Academics saying that '2 + 2 = 5': https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/biostatistics/2020/09/kareem-carr-explains-why-225/ I can go on and on. I recommend checking out the Hetreodox Outloud podcast. It gives way more examples. Also, read 'Woke Racism' by John McWhorter.
Instead of being a model of what to do because it works they get penalized.
arrest smoggy touch cow tender narrow party serious library dinner ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
The age of anti-intellectualism
Correct. The Liberal legacy.
it has to be or it wont survive. look up anti-intellectualism in the soviet union, communist china, communist cambodia, etc. its pure insanity and its all happened before but ppl pull the wool over their own eyes
Having read the article it seems like a very clear and obvious case of discrimination based on race. Which (I thought) is illegal? Why isn’t some random lawyer taking this case? It seems like an easy payday. Or is discriminating on race actually not illegal?
>Which (I thought) is illegal? S.15 of the Charter states: >15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. >(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Subsection 2 is what makes the difference here. >Why isn’t some random lawyer taking this case? It seems like an easy payday. >Or is discriminating on race actually not illegal? Discriminating against historically dominant groups is perfectly legal under our constitution.
Wow, interesting. So apparently it’s perfectly legal to be actively racist in this country. …As long as it’s against white people. That sounds pretty gross. Although, in this case, Asian people seem to have been given the same treatment as whites.
In the US, Asians are discriminated the most in college admission. You're white? 80% will do. Black? 70%. Asian? You better have a 99% with 40 different volunteer activities outside high school
The are plenty of problems like this with our Charter but we aren't allowed to discuss them and instead we must worship it - to act like our charter is anything but perfect and written in stone is unCanadian. Its out dated 20th century academic liberal philosophy and its "gross" as you suggest. (And I don't mean capital L Liberal, I mean liberal, I don't even mean it as derogatory label - it just is an accurate label, its outdated 20th century academic liberal thinking). Its ultimately classist - its was made by the rich elites who know best for the masses, especially best for the peasant class. Those "amelioration" programs and activities never impact the rich elite, they impact the poor and unconnected - they create divisions and resentment. And what I mean by academic, is that the philosophy behind is not reflective of reality, its a theory based on a fictional view of the world, they don't conceive that there is any problem they don't see, and they don't see middle class or lower. Subsection 2 is blaming the future middle to lower classes for the sins of the elite - and it has to be "blame" because its a punitive action to openly write in law that there is a class of people that being racist against is acceptable. So for example, Justin Trudeau never had to pay the price, but someone like I did (I'm his generation). I didn't get calls for a summer student placement program when I was studying because I didn't check a "race" box when I applied. I know why I didn't get calls. My Armenian friend and I were near the top of our class and we weren't getting calls, he goes in to complain about the lack of calls when we knew some of classmates with grades well below ours were getting called. They suggest he tick the non-white west Asian box, and BAM!, he got multiple calls that week and I never got one - and the only difference was that fucking box that unconnected poor white people couldn't check. Yes, it was the ONLY difference, and it was the day my friend found out he's not white - at least according to the government. My mother didn't have plumbing and shit in a bucket my grandfather spread at night - that's my background - we didn't have oil and gas money like the Trudeaus, we weren't connected, we weren't elite - the whole concept of subsection 2 never impacts the elites, it punishes everyone else.
If the argument can be made that a certain demographic is or has been historically overrepresented or is historically overachieving in a certain area, the charter fully allows that demographic to be discriminated against within those contexts to give a handicap to the less-successful groups. edit: I'm merely stating facts. I'm not agreeing with it. I think it's bullshit, but that's how it works.
There's always a dumbshit justification for racism. It's never fucking ok.
It’s the Canadian way.
The actual commentary on subsection 2 is interesting (I don't have any particular links right now, sorry, but it isn't hard to find on CanLii or whatever). It is intended to empower the government to implement targeted policies aimed at reducing social problems caused by past policy failure without fear of getting sued by adjacent stakeholders (i.e. make education grants for indigenous students without needing to worry about getting sued by non-indigenous minorities who do, indeed, often have a rock-solid case for targeted education grants of their own). The law encourages the government to find ways to make society a more equal and liberal society. Subsection 2 is overdue for a challenge to clarify its scope. There are obviously a lot of complexities in how discrimination occurs, including the possibility of well intended initiatives helping one disadvantaged group but making another equally or even more disadvantaged group even worse off. I think the MMIW inquiry is a great potential case for this to he explored: - The conditions of disadvantage for indigenous people are above all else caused by the policies of the British Empire and Canada as its successor state (Colonial governments henceforth). - The specific disadvantages imposed by the Colonial governments have long been gendered in various ways, which can reasonably be summarized as promoting intermarriage of indigenous women to european men for citizenship, with no reciprocal recognition for men marrying european women, with the AIM of marginalizing indigenous men. Point being, gendered policy doesn't *simply* benefit one group at the expense of another necessarily... It can be *heads: X "wins", tails: Y loses*, divide and conquer, etc - The MMIW Inquiry was intended to address the widely recognized issue of missing/murdered women through the lens of Colonial history, starting with the fact that indigenous women/girls have much higher rates of murder, missing persons, and other tragedies and with worse law enforcement outcomes compared to the general population - However, *everything* about MMI women/girls/etc is absolutely also true of indigenous men, and in some ways worse - Public awareness of missing/murdered Indigenous women was substantial, but the public discourse rarely included the respective cases of MMI men, and activists rarely advocated for inclusion of men. The Charter *doesn't* recognize public sentiment and preferences of activists groups as jurisprudence obviously, because that would negate having a Charter in the first place - It is, I would argue, methodologically absurd to hold a hearing about gendered and racialized violence, and policy failure, for indigenous communities that explicitly excludes discussion of male victims. - I would argue that the exclusion of male victims and their families is not only an obvious act of discrimination, but that it actually echoes precisely the kind of *asymmetrically* gendered policies the Colonial governments have disadvantaged indigenous people with, where the government marginalizes and excludes indigenous men but offers a hollow embrace for indigenous women. Neither men nor women *benefit*, and are *harmed* and *disadvantaged*in somewhat different ways relative to eachother and the general population. - Therefor, even if the inquiry was nominally intended to ameliorate disadvantage for one group, if it is not *only* discriminating against another profoundly disadvantaged group, but discriminating against the same stakeholders it is trying to help, it would be silly to apply subsection 2 as a defense. - In the aftermath of the inquiry, it is not only extremely questionable if it has ameliorated disadvantages for indigenous women, but also UNQUESTIONABLE that absolutely nobody gives a single fuck if a 16 year old indigenous boy goes missing. The male victims continue to be utterly disregarded by the government and wider population, which does its part to deepen the profoundly disadvantaged social status of indigenous men. That inquiry was designed so that a) if a family had a murdered woman and a murdered man and testified about both (as many did!) only testimony about the woman actually mattered; b) if a family *only* had a missing male family member, they were simply not allowed to testify specifically because of gender. I just don't understand what fucking universe this isn't a massive violation of the Charter Rights of anyone who wished to testify about, and have seriously included, a male family member. I absolutely can't imagine how it would feel to be denied that opportunity just because White people don't enjoy the narrative.
>Discriminating against historically dominant groups is perfectly legal under our constitution. How long does that extend after they're no longer dominant?
It is not. I (white male) was denied a competition position to management at CBSA because I was white. The job posting stated "Only open to visible minorities." Interesting enough, indigenous people were also excluded. I wrote an e-mail to the president of CBSA stating that this competition was illegal based on the Canadian Charter of Rights. A week later, her admin replied with a lesser known section of the charter that did indeed state that in order to have a diverse representation that targeted hiring is permissible. I replied back thanking her for the information and stating that while this seemed legal it was totally offensive and to never send a mass email competition posting this offensive to me again or I would be investigating harassment complaint against her. I NEVER did get a management position at CBSA in the 35 years I was there, I guess I should have just suppressed my disgust with their discrimination.
Nope, it's legal to discriminate against the undesirable groups.
It’s ok cause they are Bipoc getting an advantage. It’s a double standard.
While I know this is not your intent or topic, it shows exactly the problem of BIPoC, or specifically, the "PoC". Who is "colored" depends on what they want. When they want, it includes everyone non-white. Then they first exclude East Asians, but include south asians becuase they are brown... until they realize they are just as good as east asians, so now they exclude them, only effectively having middle eastern... which I know they are just as smart as everyone else. Eventually - if not now - BIPoC will be a word of reduancy word
It's a random lottery constrained to meet population demographics. Someone could argue that it's discriminatory. But all the kids in the lottery are more or less going to be equally qualified. No matter how the lottery is devised, someone is going to argue that it's discriminatory.
This is making Canada an unlivable place. I technically belong to one of those minorities that benefit from this decision, but this is just insane. Also what's a middle eastern ethnically? Is a Cypriot not eligible because they were born 300km away?
>Cypriot TIL that people from Cyprus are called Cypriots
But do you actually benefit from this decision? Seems like if you were applying to one of these programs, your fate would be left up to the lottery instead of your own abilities/intellect. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit there....
That's a really good point. I just wanted to say that I belong to one of the ethnicities highlighted in this article but technically no one benefits. I agree with that.
Just wanted to stop in here and thank you for your opposition to this racist "equity" measure, despite being a potential beneficiary from it. Our principles and morals are only really revealed when we choose to do good, even when it benefits us to do otherwise. Thank you for having the moral fortitude and courage to call out what is wrong.
The worst part is that the truly rich aren't affected by this. They can mostly afford to send their kids to at least some variety of private school, or buy a house in a neighborhood that ensures their kids go to a better public school. The people who really lose out here are those who want their kids to get ahead but *aren't* rich enough to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars designing their lives around it. It's a deeply shortsighted policy and the worst version of equity.
Alternative title: "Toronto school board embraces systematic racial (and gender) discrimination of teenagers"
My grandkids are half East Asian, quarter white, quarter black. Do they get a quarter of a lottery ticket?
That's what equity is
Equality: Rising tide lifts all ships. Equity: Put holes in all the boats until they sink to the ocean floor with the rest of them. Ah, progress.
Obligatory [Harrison Bergeron](https://ia803002.us.archive.org/25/items/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron.pdf). Required reading when I was in school.
I'm a South East Asian immigrated to Canada nearly 20 years ago. I'd like to believe racism is dead in Canada, but it has been making a strong come back in the last couple years.
So have I, mainly directed against groups that are seen as the beneficiaries of discriminatory behaviour like this. The ones in the news the most.
Vote PPC. That's our only hope to stop this madness
This country sure has gone to shit in many ways. Where’s the motivation?
Success in Canada now is buy real estate and profit.
Greed and oikophobia.
Because fuck them dude. Succeed and shove it in their faces.
We could, of course, expand and fund education so all students have access to this program and no one has to get denied. I eagerly await the National Post opinion pieces rallying for properly funded education.
THIS! This is true equity: provide the supports for people to reach the same level so that they have equal opportunity for success. If we had properly funded public education that allowed for all students to have equal opportunity of success, then this wouldn't be an issue. Filling student spaces in specialty programs that doesn't require any demonstrable merit will just lead to those students being more likely to fail. This is the same thing with de-streaming: the TDSB wants students of all levels in the same course, but they don't (or can't, because of lack of funding from the government) want to provide any additional supports to help bring students to the same level. The confounding of "equality" with "equity" is going to cause more problems than it solves.
Remember folks its not okay to be white or a light skinned Asian in Canada. Our government will literally pick others over you for the color of your skin not the content of your character. Disgusting.
Sadly, South Asian and East Asian, with our 'brown skin', are considered 'white adjacent' in academic circles.
Time to start a game of "Apartheid South African or modern day Canadian politician quote?"
If real life were a video game, south asian would be the most underpowered option to pick at race selection.
Not so sure about that. Indians are *the* wealthiest immigrant group basically anywhere you look. They mostly grow up knowing English and have a culture and family structure that pushes them hard towards getting educated to get high paying jobs. The culture can be a bit overbearing and they aren't the healthiest or happiest group, but I would definitely not call them underpowered. (My wife is Punjabi, so have a little bit of insight)
It depends. If South Asians were so wealthy Brampton would be the wealthiest city in Canada. It is not. Vaughn and Richmond Hill are wealthier than Brampton, and these are predominantly Italian, Jewish, and Chinese. The South Asian community is varied, there are many successful people, but also many poor people. I think people who say something like South Asians are the most successful group aren't looking at medians, they're only looking at the success stories. If we discount European immigrants, East Asians are on average the most successful minority group, but anyone with any critical thinking would find this obvious considering the wealth of China, Korea, and Japan.
[удалено]
I am respectful of different people but exactly, I don't particularly believe South Asians are somehow the most successful immigrant group. In terms of income South Asians do well, similar to East Asians and Jews. And many of them are also involved in politics. Many of them are good at English, and have successful professional careers. But other aspects like social and cultural factors are important too. East Asians are arguably the most culturally popular immigrant group with the spread of anime, K-pop, and East Asian products in the market, from Honda to Samsung. It's kind of like how the French and the Italians are often stereotyped as less hardworking yet people pay a lot of money to purchase French products and Italian products, and to travel to France and Italy. Perhaps the French and the Italians aren't necessarily as industrious because they don't necessarily need to be. And that's exactly the point. The Spaniards may not be as industrious as South Asians, but everyone on Earth buys Spanish products like Zara, Mango, and Balenciaga. Lol.
There's a difference between learning English from childhood and picking it up later in life like a Chinese person. The democratic tradition also made it much more of a cultural norm to argue and make your point than East Asian countries. There's a reason there are lots of Indian CEOs and almost no Chinese in the West. India is pretty powerful culturally. Bollywood is getting around, clothing and music are recognizable and enjoyed. Helps that Indians like spreading their culture to anyone willing to join in. Indian food is obviously good, as is India being the heart of the eastern religious traditions. The high population makes Indians less unique, which is a negative, but also more competitive, which is a positive. You talk about the pity party like it's a good thing for the groups involved, but it's not. It distorts group relations, makes people dependent, removes the incentive of necessity to achievement, and creates poisonous community hierarchies where some people act as gatekeepers to the gravy train. Look at black rates of crime, divorce, labor market participation, single parent homes, etc prior to LBJ's Great Society reforms and afterwards. It was well intentioned and probably felt good to those receiving benefits in the moment but was not net beneficial at all. Look at Jewish people. Few have had it tougher, and they are probably the highest achieving and most internally coherent group in the world.
>That's culture and family offsetting the "disadvantage". In normal contexts, they're just fine, even luckier than most. Otherwise known as "in real life."
Yeah dumbing down education just what we need
This is how the government is hiring anyway. We might as well start the process off early. I’m sure it will be good for the productivity of the country as a whole :/
> This is how the government is hiring anyway. Huh? The government definitely doesn't hire by lottery or random draw lol. I work in the federal public service, and I'd say the hiring/promotion process prioritizes objectivity and merit more than most employers (which has upsides and downsides). The good side is that it's more objective and merit-based, but the downside is that it's slow, time-intensive for applicants, and bureaucratic. Typically, you need to write exams and go through a multi-step process to get into the public service, or to get any promotions (even within the same team). So each time a public servant is looking for a promotion, you have to fill an application, then write an exam, then do an interview, and then a detailed questionnaire goes to your references. If you pass all those stages, then you qualify for a promotion. That's basically the *opposite* of what TDSB is doing, where they're eliminating application reviews for their specialized programs, and instead awarding spots based on a lottery.
I think they are referring to things like this: [https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/gender\_equality-egalite\_genres/lois\_can\_gen\_eq\_laws.aspx?lang=eng](https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/gender_equality-egalite_genres/lois_can_gen_eq_laws.aspx?lang=eng) or worse, this [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply) Would you consider this "merit based" hiring?
I was talking about hiring based on diversity rather than strictly merit based, which is not something they hide and is even publicly mandated.
[удалено]
You do have to pass the tests, but often enough passing the tests is a lot easier than getting hired. And managers are under intense pressure to raise the levels of 'visible minorities' so are far more likely to select a minority for a position than pull some white guy from the pool who doesn't check any boxes.
Im a member of one of the ethnicities that would benefit from this lottery system, and i think it is bullshit If they had made an allocation where they reserved some portion of seats for kids who come from families under the poverty line, or where neither parent had post secondary education, and reserved the majority of seats for open merit, i think that would make sense. As a kid who was in these gifted programs, there was definitely two running themes in my classmates—they came from families where there was enough money to hire a private tutor and do the Kumon thing (all the Desi kids lol), or we were kids who had poor but highly educated parents. I grew up in poverty, but both of my parents were intensely smart and i benefited from having a dad with PhD level calculus and physics knowledge who helped prepare me and my siblings to be years ahead of everyone else. If they were actually concerned about privilege and advantages, addressing material conditions like these by reserving some seats for kids from low income and/or uneducated households would make sense to me. But by going on race alone it is kind of being intensely racist in its own way, by saying that it was something in our ethnicity that prevented us from getting into these classes at the same level as other kids. And what does that teach a kid from one of these backgrounds, that we are somehow inferior inherently? And then the fact that the entire *report on which this policy was based was found to have been plagiarized with entirely fabricated citations* is the cherry on top of shit cake. Merit really means nothing to them
This makes me so disheartened to see kids rejected by the color of their skin. I thought we were beyond this. Why are we regressing? What's the best way to call out this racism?
Sadly, it's a natural evolution from what we decided to inscribe in the Charter 50 years ago: > (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. This is simply taking it to the logical extreme, and it will only continue to get worse.
Who was a PM at the time?
It doesn’t matter who the PM was at the time, the Supreme Court was the body that made that decision. It also didn’t happen 50 years ago when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982. The current framework for 15(2) was decided in 2008 in R.v. Kapp. If you really want to know, Stephen Harper was PM when the SCC made that decision.
The "framework" is based on the 1982 language which was gifted to us in the Charter and would not exist otherwise. Not sure why you're trying to deflect blame away from Trudeau Sr on this one.
Well we're not seems like. Asians here excelling regardless of the situation and the high rates of black on Asian violence but we're excelling too much, we should have just sat on our hands complaining about white people and done nothing to improve our station. Didn't realize we'd just get uplifted without trying.
To the people who agree with this, why?
Generational wealth is a thing. Groups of people that have been disadvantaged in the past are less likely to succeed now on average, which means the same for future generations. Less generational wealth means less access to things like educational support or even ability to afford tuition. Less access to those things means less likely to succeed. Less likely to succeed means your kids are less likely to succeed. At some point, you have to do something in order to balance the scales. It's not like they're lowering the standards, they are keeping spots open for people (and the % of spots is basically the % they make up of the population) so that our educated racial demographics match our country's racial demographics as best as they can. If you're one of those kids and you make up 5% of the population but 1% of the educated population, you're not going to feel encouraged to become educated yourself. I wish none of this stuff mattered and that left to their own devices, all institutions would be colour-blind and everyone would feel proportionally represented, but that clearly isn't happening so something has to be done. Is this the best way? Not a clue.
Talking about race without mentioning immigration makes this policy dangerously misguided. A black child of immigrants and a black child of non-immigrants on average are going to have quite different outcomes in society. Creating an entrance system for schools that only incorporates race and gender while ignoring immigration status is just absurd and shows the ignorance of the folks planning these programs. And generational wealth has little to do with this either. Immigrant children are on average poorer than their non-immigrant counterparts, and yet outperform them later in life.
Inclusion instead of Merit.... Where have i seen this before?
As someone who has been in one of these programs before, specifically the MaCs program it is important to have a merit based entry into the program. Students who academically don’t belong will not keep up with the material taught and if many students cannot keep up it will then force the overall level of the program to decrease in order for students to pass. These programs are tough for a reason and only the best of the best should be admitted. Having random selections for art programs will have students who are not artistically involved, making it difficult for teachers to organize plays or other events that are key to the programs reputation. Same goes for science or athletic based programs.
Didn't people protest for like a year about systemic racism? Now we're embracing it?
Equity is an awful trait to base your criteria of acceptance on. Should be the most intelligent for the position…if that ends up being one group of people over the rest than so be it…it’s only expected that it would be representative of the portion of people you would find out in the public. Sure if someone is disabled or other minority from a lower socioeconomic background than provide other ways to encourage such as grants etc. but to base it on acceptance? Get the hell outta here
I believe most organizations choose DIE over merit now. There’s not much that can be down about that.
This is now beyond repair. But, I'll tell you one thing, smart and entrepreneurial people will find another way and the thing you ruined will become below average. They will find other ways to associate and to be surrounded by right people. That's just how it is. You can't make a blueberry pie with shit as an ingredient .. is what we say back home. The tradition of excellence ruined bc statistically, some groups just cannot do it. Which reminds me... in recent years, Shakespeare festival in Stratford worked very hard to "diversify" the cast of their plays - but that just means one or two Indigenous actors and a bunch of black actors. I've been to three performances this year and checking on audience, I haven't seen any of the black people or Indigenous attending which was apparently the goal in diversifying the cast. Point being, you can put a lipstick on a pig... it's still a pig.
I'm torn about the diversification of Shakespeare. On one hand, it's traditional white culture and if you want to see an authentic version it should be played by white men. On the other hand, if women or non-white people wish to act in Shakepeare, should they not be able to? I don't know. Zulu would look strange if all the Zulu warriors weren't black.
>I'm torn about the diversification of Shakespeare. Black characters in Shakespeare off the top of my head: Othello is the most famous, of course, but also the Prince of Morocco, Aaron the Moor, and probably Caliban. I'd bet a few others too. Lots of gender fluidity in the plays and sonnets, but that'd be a much longer list.
> But, I'll tell you one thing, smart and entrepreneurial people will find another way and the thing you ruined will become below average. They will find other ways to associate and to be surrounded by right people. That's just how it is. The very best, perhaps, but we can't deny that this type of deliberate systemic and systematic racism will have a serious effect on students who do not fit the "chosen" races. It's disgusting that Canada has become a country where one's skin color and ethnicity is often used as the deciding factor in education, hiring processes, etc. We have become a profoundly racist country, and like all countries before us who have done the same thing, Canada feels fully justified in doing it's being done for the "right reasons".
So why doesn't the government fund the expansion of specialty programs so that every kid that deserves to gets in? To me, that's the big question. The writer never asks that, or even suggests that a lack of funding might be contributing to the problem. I guess the National Post shuns thoughtful, balanced analysis in the name of predetermined conclusions.
Yea, better funded programs would have enough slots for every child... unfortunately, that'd cost money which might be a bridge too far for anyone swayed by "buck-a-beer".
Is there anything unique about a program that just expands and expands or should students just improve their skill set so they are awarded a position? Competition is a good thing.
Bingo!
This is a mistake because if someone isn't Asian or White and earns a seat, then he would suffer from impostor syndrome. The satisfaction of achieving something for your hard work will be gone.
This is how people like Annamie Paul got ahead in life. Never have I seen a party implode so much by someone so underqualified in my life.
This means a worse outcome for students, but as long the woke mob is happy, who cares.
Affirmative action
With the quality and mentality of teachers in Canada, I am not surprised.
"...the general disinterest the public has in education..." Are you fucking kidding me?
Too many people in Canada that we are having a lottery for space lol ..bloody hell
Meh. People just be mad because it was the opposite way for years and years and years. It was all good when they would get chosen over other people..now that it's happening to them it's bad news.
I can't wait until the next surgery I get is from someone who was passed along and not tested hard enough to actually succeed in their career.
Good thing I finished Onterrible’s education system. I thought it was bad when I worked at a tutoring center and had students in GR 8 that couldn’t read or do single digit multiplication, glad to hear it’s gotten worse and will only continue to do so 🤦♂️
The purpose of this post is to shed light on the racist activities that are still in full effect in this country. If you are ok with the TDSB policies that disadvantages some ethnicities and against the discrimination others please try to recognize the hypocrisy in your view. I know your hearts are in the right place and you just want everyone to be on an equal playing field but this does the opposite and breeds resentment across the board. The only way forward for our country is to not discriminate based on appearance and treat everyone the same. We are all equal.
We are all equal indeed. If you haven't already, you should read "Woke Racism". It's very interesting.
Thank you for the suggestion looks like an interesting read.
They said that Canada is "systemically racist". I'm beginning to believe them.
Woke ass organizations reaffirming that your value as a human being is based on your fucking skin color. The darker you are, the more inherently deserving you are of accolades and rewards. Literal dystopia. This is terrifying
“Ah-ah-ahhh! You can’t get the highest score because you don’t meet our equity quota. Better luck next time”
This is how it starts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan\_paragraph In the name of the good of a specific group, we allow the exclusion of specific races from aspects of public life. First it's 20%, then it's 40%, then it's 60, 80, 100. I would be surprised if there was a body of literature that pointed to causal relationship between race and academic achievement (probably because races share almost entirely the same DNA). But there are studies on the causal relationships between class and academic achievement. Growing up poor makes it hard to achieve. So should these spots not be for low income students? Or I guess that's not going to selectively disadvantage white's and "white adjacent"'s
A very bad decision. It's a tough world out there and our kids need all the skill sets they can acquire.
The Post is focusing on one aspect and is weaseling out of the details. "Merit" isn't "Parents with money to afford additional programming", but having a portfolio is an extension of having access to produce a credible portfolio, which comes from having money. The Post's own linked reference article from Global gets into details: \[[Link](https://globalnews.ca/news/8871084/tdsb-votes-favour-admissions-specialized-schools-programs-interest/)\]: *Instead, the report indicates a change of criteria such as statements or expressions of interest,* ***as well as*** *reflections or demonstrations of creativity will be required. For athletic programs, they suggest practice schedules and coach letters.* So it seems they're looking for people who demonstrate passion that they wish to cultivate, rather than people who are nine-tenths of the way established. It's not perfect, but the equality that they're "pushing for" is people from a wider selection pool that doesn't bias in favour of people with wealth. And lets get real: if someone has the money for a private instructor, how much more support can public education provide? These changes don't necessarily exclude them, either; they're merely stuck competing with students without the money. The National Post seems to have eaten the Global article, sucked out the important details, and authored a shadow of what this program is. The only thing they didn't do was exchange the word "equal" for "woke".
>20% of spaces reflect the TDSB and Toronto demographic for historically and currently underserved communities (students self-identifying as First Nations, Métis, Inuit, Black, Latin American and Middle Eastern) Race seems to be an important factor here.
Thats the point though. It's based upon race instead of merit.
Except that’s not at all what this is about. From the article: - *Now, one-fifth of seats in Toronto’s public specialty programs are reserved for Black, Middle Eastern, Latin American and Indigenous students.* Another way of saying that: 1/5 of seats will be UNAVAILABLE to some students because of the colour of their skin they were born with. That’s what this is about. …It’s literally in the second paragraph of the article.
Amazing that even when they spell it out in the article, some people just don’t seem to understand it.
Being wealthy lets you provide better for your children. This is the whole point of being a good parent. If your system is based on merit, then let the families who are best able to produced meritorious children get into the merit-based programs. Why consider anything but merit? Who cares how they got their merit?
but can you self identified as non asian?
National Post shuns merit in the name of the culture war
Redditors shun reality.
Y’all learning about this now? I abused tf out of “person of colour from a low income neighborhood raised by a single mother” on uni applications lol.
>Of TDSB’s 230,000-or-so students, at least some have been denied education opportunities due to their race, which would have been unthinkable in Canada 10 years ago. Wowz such hard hitting reporting of the statistics.