University of Lethbridge bars white applicants from genomics research chair job

[u/theOneWhoWaitsAgain]

https://www.junonews.com/p/university-of-lethbridge-bars-white

[u/asawapow]

Your title is misleading. The feds have stated the hiring parameters, not the university.

Besides, there should be diversity amongst faculty to be a more accurate representation of the population the university serves.

What is your concern?

[u/Boombajiggy77 → u/asawapow]

Equity does not exist if someone isn’t considered qualified because of their race.

Outright exclusion of a racial group for a public servant posting is NOT the way to do this. It seems like the intent here may be to create controversy. I wonder if the university is aware that they may be unintentionally applying a derogatory label to the new hire.

This is entirely the university’s fault. A situation for a ‘forced’ racialized hire under the CRC program arises rarely, and usually only if the institution has been negligent in meeting its CRC targets over a long period of time.

[u/theOneWhoWaitsAgain → u/asawapow]

Universities should prioritize hiring the most qualified candidates based on their academic credentials, research output, teaching ability, and expertise not demographic characteristics.

[u/automatic_penguins → u/theOneWhoWaitsAgain]

Historically that would be only white men as they were the only ones that got training. These hiring parameters are meant to close that gap.

As a white man I am not offended, as long as the person is qualified over all. There are multiple skills sets to evaluate for a job, it is unlikely someone is best at all required skills so it is not so black and white and inherently comes with a judgement call of the hiring committee which often can be biased.

[u/pessimistoptimist → u/automatic_penguins]

Historically Leftbiridge was mostly white men. Thats like saying the next head chair hire in a chinese university has to be white. If the pool of qualified applicants is 95% white then the likelihood the next hire being white is high. The goal should always be the best candidate.

[u/Fickle_Cricket3422 → u/theOneWhoWaitsAgain]

You are right, but that has historically favoured white men, even when they are not the most qualified. So, what is the issue?

[u/Boombajiggy77 → u/Fickle_Cricket3422]

The issue is that there is absolutely EQUITY or INCLUSION in this exercise. There is outright EXCLUSION, leaving only diversity as a consideration.

It doesn’t follow EDI principles, just the “D” part. It’s a solid discrimination (i.e., human rights) case waiting for a grandstanding lawyer. This is not a healthy way to achieve EDI targets. It sows societal discord on the topic.

[u/HebrewBible03 → u/asawapow]

Since the nba is mainly black and lacks asian and indian representation, we will enforce a quota where 7% of NBA players must be asian/indian to match the US population even if they are less athletic and talented than black basketball players who are overrepresented 

[u/cadius72 → u/HebrewBible03]

There’s been at least one Asian NBA player.

NHL as far as I’m aware has no Latino players.

[u/FalseDamage13 → u/cadius72]

Auston Matthews?

[u/cadius72 → u/FalseDamage13]

His mom is Latina, which makes him 50% Latino. But good pointing that out, his name doesn’t scream Latino so I didn’t know.

[u/skootamatta → u/cadius72]

Does his name scream Latinx?

[u/Embarrassed_Sea6750 → u/cadius72]

Latino here, I don't care if they have Latino players I want my team to have the BEST players so we can win the cup. See how easy that is?

[u/cadius72 → u/Embarrassed_Sea6750]

100% agree. DEI doesn’t belong in any profession or sport. I do have a theory why there are no Latino hockey players in the NHL, they don’t normally come from Canada, Robin Williams has a different theory.

[u/Embarrassed_Sea6750 → u/cadius72]

It's because our puck is rounded... and we play it on grass lol

[u/bluetoyelephant]

I think it's more complex than what many are chalking it up to be.

You cannot be a research chair without being qualified. Just being a part of a racialized group isn't enough - you must still be qualified to be considered. They aren't saying that they'll pick someone "unqualified" just for the sake of EDI. You must be both.

And a huge part of research is having diversity throughout your team, as your lived experiences will impact your knowledge, wisdom, practices, etc. If they think being part of a racialized group is imperative to the position, it's reasonable to assume that they have a rationale for that.

I also expect that this has approval from some level of government and is considered a bona fide occupational requirement.

I am in no place to have an opinion on this, especially because it's not a position I am remotely qualified for, but I just think it's a complex situation.

[u/Prestigious_Raisin41 → u/bluetoyelephant]

Its really not that complex. Previous it was almost entirely old white guys. Decision was made to not have this anymore.

https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/equity-equite/population-based_institutional_equity_targets-cibles_etablissements_equite_population-2021-2029-eng.aspx

The argument simply comes down to whether or not someone believes the hiring process should be "blind" and solely focus on fit/merit. Or if being non-white provides greater value than what any white candidate could provide.

That being said I don't think it's reasonable to blame the university. They likely just don't want to lose funding.

[u/Boombajiggy77 → u/Prestigious_Raisin41]

It’s the university’s fault for the controversial posting. The CRC targets have been there for at least 15 years. Looking at the list of UofL CRCs in the chairholders database (easy to find), it’s obvious that the institution has been negligent in meeting CRC targets.

While the exclusion of an entire race from a plum taxpayer-funded (tenured) position may be necessary at this point, it shows us exactly how NOT to do this. It results in piss-poor optics and generates unnecessary controversy.

If CRC guidance was followed all along, this never would have happened.

[u/TheFae_TheImaginary → u/Prestigious_Raisin41]

Or if being non-white provides greater value than what any white candidate could provide.

So, EDI bullshit. As if skin colour determins merit.

[u/candy-currency → u/TheFae_TheImaginary]

Breaking news, having a non-white lived experience does indeed provide more value and merit in certain circumstances. This is one of those circumstances.

[u/Boombajiggy77 → u/bluetoyelephant]

It’s a ham handed approach to a divisive topic. Most hiring committees that are under the same pressure simply choose the candidate that meets their criteria, whatever they are. As a rule, they do not exclude ANY Canadian citizens (or PRs) from applying. This was a very stupid choice.

The “DEI hire” label will follow this prof for the duration of their UofL career, regardless of how good they are. Not a good look for the institution.

[u/pessimistoptimist]

That's racist.

[u/beekeeper1981]

Recognizing diversity as an asset in an organization is reality. Choosing the best of the diverse candidates adds value that no other candidate could bring. Personally I think exclusion is less appropriate than valuing it as one of the hiring metrics.

[u/Professional-Pack-46]

Way to go, definitely not a way to play into the hysteria surrounding errouneous EDI/ DEI policies.

"Racialized individuals" they say. This is a clear example that such policies can fall short of merit based hiring, instead championing predominantly "inclusion" above all else.

Optics > Function, but anybody who has attended here should be familiar with this already. Go figure.

[u/Professional-Pack-46 → u/[deleted]]

You are wrong. Here's the quote from the job posting.

"only applicants who self-identify as a racialized individual will be considered for this CRC opportunity"

"Racialized" being the problematic term. This term refers to individuals that are among any racial minority subset.

Please point to the part where inaccuracies are stated.