If you sit down and learn why EDI is a thing, like the history of racism in Canada and why it isn’t enough to stop doing racism, EDI starts to make sense. If you don’t, then EDI can easily be seen like racism against white people. I wonder if there’s a more universalist way to achieve the goals EDI attempts to without that perception. Perhaps applying a wealth lens instead of historically disadvantaged groups? That should catch historically disadvantaged groups as the hisotical disadvantage usually resutls in the lack of wealth. It should also not appear to disadvantage any one group on the basis of inherent characteristics they can’t change. Might even get broad support as most people don’t have significant wealth and elevating them through hiring into such institutions could be perceived as an avenue for upwards mobility. Thoughts?
Yeah I think targeting income brackets is the way to go. It’s a more precise target. Because not everyone from a minority group is economically disenfranchised, though of course many are. So targeting income brackets would still have the effect of increasing diversity, but at the same time it would ensure that the individuals benefiting from these programs are those that need it most.
In addition to targeting, my concern is making such initiatives socially sustainable by defusing the backlash that tends to occur when minority groups get (deserved) advantage over the majority, along with the ease of weaponization of such backlash by political actors. It should be much more difficult to get people to sign up to “We shouldn’t be giving preference to poorer people for hiring!” than “We shouldn’t be giving preference to [insert visible minority] for hiring!” because most people do not feel very wealthy and thus the former slogan goes against their own (and their children’s) interest. And thus I think the majority would tend to willingly uphold such policies on the basis of their own self-interest, similar to how the vast majority of canucks support universal healthcare.
I agree with you completely
I know it’s Alberta but they really used the American term instead of the Canadian accessibility?
The term “EDI” has been used at UofT for at least a decade. Not sure when it was introduced and what the history of “DEI” is in the US.
Presumably that acronym was chosen to place equity as the first priority.
Yeah. The related term that describes who gets preference is “equity-deserving group(s).” It makes that pretty unambiguous, which is good.
Interesting.
