He fundamentally disagrees with the morality of the EDI agenda, and especially the part about increasing representation of certain groups through hiring decisions. Because he would not submit to the woke EDI requirements he lost the grants. Or he could have just rolled over and submitted to their EDI requirements even if he morally disagrees with them.
The prof never mentioned anything about quotas. He said he hires on merit and not based on identity.
Ok - I retract anything about quotas... you're right that isn't stated. I'll stick to the implication that someone is not hiring based on merit.
If he fundamentally disagrees with the agenda and refuses to submit anything to do with it then fine. Here we are. The Centrist has posted the NSERC response. Again, the article didn't quote the reason given... the implication throughout is that EDI is about the idea of merit being discarded.
I looked at section D of the best practices guide. There's nothing explicit in there about merit being discarded.
Here's from the best practices guide of EDI for the application:
https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/equity-equite/best_practices-pratiques_examplaires-eng.aspx#d"
Assess whether the pool of applicants is sufficiently diverse (the program’s equity target percentages that are principally based on the makeup of Canada’s population could be used as target percentages, i.e., 22% racialized minorities, 4.9% Indigenous Peoples, 50.9% women and 7.5% persons with disabilities). If the pool of applicants is not large or diverse enough, extend the application deadline, or review the job posting more critically for potential barriers and re-post it."
Why would this matter? Why would applicants need to match the general population numbers?
Ok - well by researching something and finding something interesting you have shown why you are a class above The Centrist.
Let's look at this. "Need to" isn't stated there. What it does say is you have to re-post if your first post returns a pool that isn't large or diverse enough. I suspect that they found in the past that there may be a barrier or something wrong with how it was posted.
I would say that reposting a job application to correct how it was done is innocuous however if they retracted the job or hired people who were unable to do the job then that would raise a concern.
So with this issue you have found I'm open to the idea that it could lead to poor hiring practices.
The Liberal government is filled with and led by socially far-left nutters that are using grant applications to ensure compliance of their social agenda and disincentivizing criticism of it by refusing grant money.
You're just parroting what the right-wing
****-disturber press squeals over and over. Given that the raised a giant stink like this over lack of training provisions, do you really think exclusionary practices would be ignored by them?
Part of EDI is what I agree with, that would be removing barriers for minority groups. Re: understanding people with different background or needs from your own or from what is usual. ie: Aboriginals may have different ways of communicating or understand nature. So lack of cultural awareness can create unconscious bias. Or ie: people with disabilities may have different working routines that you don't fully understand. These are all valid to recognize
Yes - you are starting to see that EDI promotes merit. The first female project managers in the company I worked for after graduation were simply the best project managers we had. So why did we have to accommodate them, curtail the old-boys behaviour ? Why did we ask each other why women didn't apply to work there ? There were lots of men who were "good enough" who wanted the job right ?
Explain this to The Centrist please.
The other part is that which I and professor disagree with, which is hiring practices that ensure "proper" representation and diversity so it more closely matches the general population and making hiring decisions which are at least in part based on a person's identity.
What's mind-boggling is that you continue to stand against something that hasn't been shown to be happening and proudly and defiantly so.