YUFA

External

   Home

   Feedback

   Archive

6-8 May 2008, Ottawa, ON

by Eve Haque, YUFA Co-Chair Race Equity Caucus

6 Jun 08 – The conference began with an opening speech by Senator Donald H. Oliver who is Canada’s first black senator. The Senator has been involved in many race and diversity issues including spear-heading the Conference Board of Canada’s study on visible minorities in the Canadian Labour Market. The Senator began the substantive portion of his talk by outlining the myths of racism in Canada. One of the first of these myths he outlined was that Canada was a tolerant society. The second myth was that racism doesn’t exist in Canada anymore. The third myth, and the one he spent the most time discussing, was that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed in Canada despite his or her racial background. Some of the examples he used to explode these myths included the absence of Canada’s history of slavery from school curricula and textbooks. He also drew extensively upon his own family’s history to challenge these myths about racism in Canada today. He spoke about the fact that the last segregated school in Ontario closed in 1965 which was not that long ago. He also talked about how black Nova Scotians were denied burial in some Nova Scotia cemeteries up till 1968. He stated that even today, non-white Canadians don’t feel at home in Canadian society. He spoke about the fact that the media representation of Black people still focused on sports, music and welfare.

He also drew upon statistics from the Conference Board of Canada’s report to outline how visible minority communities were increasingly marginalized – even in generations subsequent to those that immigrated – from the labour market. The Conference Board found that visible minorities earned 11% less for work of equal value than their white counterparts in 1991 and that this gap had INCREASED to 14.5% in 2005. Also, the Senator cited studies which showed that Black men had a wage disadvantage of 24% (South Asians close behind at 21%) compared to white Canadian-born men. For example, studies showed that for every 3 job prospects whites had, black men had only one. Also, most discrimination was experienced in the workplace or while seeking employment. Studies from as recently as May 2005 showed that race and immigration status affects employment opportunities – there were double digit income gaps and higher rates of unemployment for racialized groups. This was what he called “the phenomenon of the glass ceiling and the sticky floor”. One important fact that he mentioned was that even the federal public service has had a DECREASE in its hiring and promotion of visible minorities in the last few years, from 9.8% to 8.7% in 2006/7, even though visible minorities were more than 16 % of the total Canadian population. He noted that in the executive category of the Public Service, there are virtually no visible minorities. Therefore, even as the educational attainment of visible minorities is at an all time high, their labour force mobility is declining. He emphasized that if even the federal government is not providing leadership in the area of job market integration for visible minorities, then it is no surprise that visible minorities are a group that is not faring well in the larger labour market compared to white Canadians. The Senator felt that these employment and wage inequities still continue because they have never gone to court. Although the Senator’s talk made it clear that he felt issues of representation were central to combating racism, he did provide important information that made it clear that racism and discrimination, particularly in the area of employment, is a continued, lived reality for visible minorities in Canada.

In terms of universities, he outlined how under-representation still continues both in terms of staff and faculty representation. This under-representation is particularly acute at the university governance boards and senior administration levels. The Senator spoke about the fact that universities should collect data on racist incidents; for example, there have been 20 so far this year at Ryerson. He also cited the importance of the CFS report on the needs and experiences of Muslim students on Canadian campuses. In the wake of the report on the case of Dr. Chun (to be discussed further below), suggestions to address these inequities included ensuring that there was anti-racism content in the undergrad curricula, mentoring for faculty and students of colour, and increase in the hiring of faculty of colour, the development and implementation of accountability and reporting measures and high profile events such as lecture series on topics related to anti-racism in order to underscore universities’ commitment to these issues.

The next session was an overview of policy guidelines on racial discrimination by Maria Williams, a policy analyst from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). In this presentation, Williams outlined the OHRC, the policy framework for racism and race discrimination and gave an overview of the complaint, investigation and resolution process. She ended by going through the guidelines for developing policies and procedures for dealing with human rights complaints. Some issues that were of particular interest were that there are at least 15 grounds of discrimination and that the key social areas of interaction covered by the policy include employment, housing, services and vocational and professional associations. Also important – the Commission has a policy position on poisoned work environment. A key element of the presentation was how racial discrimination is defined. Since there is no one fixed definition, Canadian case law is used to distinguish what kinds of behaviour comprises racial discrimination. As well, intersecting and ‘overlapping’ grounds of discrimination were discussed as the Commission must consider these issues as well. Although there is no single definition of racial discrimination, Williams did outline some of the common types of discrimination that come before the OHRC. These include stereotyping, both overt and subtle forms of racial discrimination – key here is that comments about race need not be present in cases of subtle racial discrimination – rather differential treatment, for example, can be cases of subtle racial discrimination. Also important, intent is not necessary; rather, the issue is whether there is a discriminatory outcome. As well, racial harassment is another form of racial discrimination and in this case, racist comments need not be directed against individuals alone, but could also be, for example, about turbans, food, etc. The most critical portion of the policy deals with systemic racial discrimination and the OHRC has a clear definition of this: “systemic discrimination consists of patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the social or administrative structures of an organization, and which create or perpetuate a position of relative disadvantage for racialized persons”. Williams noted that systemic discrimination is a major barrier for racialized persons and can overlap with other forms and grounds of discrimination, and that historical grounds is also a factor in systemic discrimination.

Williams went on to outline the grounds for a human rights complaint: differential treatment + grounds + social area. For example, a racist comment made on the street provides no basis for a complaint but a racist comment made at work does provide a basis for a complaint. Then, there is a complex complaint resolution process, which also has three main steps: the complaint, the investigation and the resolution.

The final part of the presentation dealt with the important issue of institutional and systemic discrimination, which I think is the most germane for YUFA. Williams began this discussion by stating that there is an expectation that the organization head will know what is going on i.e., that there is vicarious liability and organizational responsibility. In particular, policies, practices and decision making processes which are seemingly neutral may actually embed systemic discrimination. This emphasizes the need to consider inclusivity and ensure that no barriers exist in these areas. As well, an important related issue is that of organizational culture which often includes patterns of informal social behaviour and often reflect deeply held unconscious values and behavioural norms. Williams emphasized that in all these areas, there is a legal organizational responsibility to address these human rights concerns and there are three key considerations for identifying and assessing systemic discrimination within the organizational context. These include numerical data, organizational culture and policies, practices and decision-making processes. Most important here is the collection of numerical data as this is seen to be part of the duty to prevent Code violations and failure to collect data can foreclose a credible defense that there was no discrimination. I think that this is a key issue for the union and that data collection process that is underway through the Task Force on Inclusivity and Diversity needs to take these issues seriously as they design and implement the upcoming survey.

The next interesting session I attended was on Federal Contractors Program (FCP) Compliance Review. There were two main panelists including Rhys Phillips, who is a senior advisor from HRSDC and Michele Graham, who is a Compliance Review Officer at HRSDC.

After introductions, Rhys Phillips began the presentation by giving a brief overview of the Federal Contractors Program. Basically, any institution with more that 100 employees who hold contracts of more that $200,000 with the federal government must do this compliance review and follow-up (which is a coming second step). Phillips described this as federal intervention into provincial jurisdiction and if found not compliant, the federal government can’t cancel a contract but can decide that no more will be awarded.

Since 1995, there has been an amendment to the Employment Equity Act, namely that standards must be applied and even though the federal government itself has failed in the area of employment equity for visible minorities, it still is in the position to monitor related policies for contract holders. There are also more ‘how-to’ documents coming out in the Fall to help with the compliance review. The upcoming follow-up reviews will ask that institutions have a plan for equity in place and also show how and when they will implement it. These plans must show reasonable efforts and show that there is progressive movement on meeting hiring goals and closing gaps. This will be every three years. Also, compliance review will be moving to an online process (WEP 2000), and in 2009, there will be new availability of data from the 2006 census / PALS so institutions will have to redo workforce analyses.

The next speaker was Michele Graham and she began with the history of the Employment Equity Act which addresses the 4 designated groups (Women, DisAbled persons, Aboriginal Peoples and Visible Minorities). In 1984, the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment took place and out of this came the Employment Equity Act in 1986. In 1995, there was a new Employment Equity Act. The first step in implementing employment equity begins with data collection (self-identification surveys) and then does a comparison with Statistics Canada census data. Graham cautioned that Employment Equity is a blunt instrument that does not necessarily ensure true equity. Also, important to note is that the FCP does not deal with pay equity. Issues of pay equity, which is a better instrument for dealing with equity, are under labour policies and programs and, as such, fall under provincial legislation. The true issue in pay equity is “value”. However, she emphasized the importance of the Employment Systems Review (ESR) which covers nine areas and identifies barriers. After more presentation about the technicalities of the FCP compliance review (contact YUFA to see the CD that was provided), the floor was opened for discussion and some of the substantive issues around representation – particularly for visible minorities were raised by the audience. First, it was emphasized that visible minority data needs to be divided by discipline as aggregate data tends to hide the disciplines that are highly unrepresentative (especially in the Social Sciences and Humanities (10%) vs. Science and Engineering (40-60%)). There was mention of HRSDC’s graduate survey data – which produces data on earned doctorates – however, only the information / data on women is released, so it is not possible to compare for visible minorities. So, for example, although it would be instructive to see who is graduating with a doctorate in which discipline (especially by race / ethnicity) and then compare that with who actually gets jobs and in which disciplines, this is not possible as the National Graduate Survey data is not being used for this purpose (i.e., to show inequities and gaps in the academy’s hirings) but rather it has become a business tool (the NGS is selling data to the private sector for its own purposes). This important database of information on national graduates (which graduates are hounded to participate in) is not being used for public policy purposes; rather is has become another revenue-generating source for the government. Universities should push the government to release this data fully as this could be a valuable tool in helping to develop policies and targets for university hires across disciplines. Finally, an audience member working at a university in BC spoke about ‘special measures’ and how special measures can be required to be put into place (legally) in order to increase representation for particular groups. There is a measure for this in the Federal Human Rights Act, s. 15 also allows for this. The example he gave was a special measure to implement a mentorship program for women to increase their representation in certain areas / disciplines.

One of the most powerful and instructive presentations was given by Constance Backhouse as part of the Legal Issues Panel. Backhouse spoke about her findings as one of the people involved in the inquiry into the case of Professor Chun at the University of Toronto. She called her talk: Lessons Learned from the Chun Inquiry. This was a case of racial discrimination and racial harassment which spanned two decades from 1985-2005. Professor Chun, who had a distinguished educational background, was a hired on contract as an Assistant Professor in the Dept. of Physics at UT and during his time there, he supervised students, brought in a lot of research funding and applied unsuccessfully for four tenure stream positions in the dept. between 1987 and 1992. This is an academic unit that had never had a non-white faculty member. An internal university inquiry decided that Chun had been exploited and then the dept. terminated him in 1994. When Dr. Chun decided to file a complaint of discrimination, he was accused of playing the ‘race-card’ and was accused of being psychotic. As well, the then-Vice Provost of the university reported him to the Children’s Aid Society, and members of the Physics dept. engaged in a vicious process of harassment against Dr. Chun as they continued to make vociferous expressions of self righteous indignation (these were all detailed in the talk – and presumably in the inquiries – they were too horrifying for me to record and detail here but they speak loudly to this incredible case of racial discrimination on a university campus).

Backhouse stated that the inquiry learned four main things from this inquiry:

1. there is a reluctance to complain about racial discrimination,

2. racism is kept invisible,

3. there is a severe cost to those who complain, and

4. this is a wider problem at universities.

The inquiry also found how hard it is to label racist treatment for what it is and how hard this is resisted institutionally and personally. The silencing of racism means that all complaints seem exceptional and that mark the complainant as angry and irrational. The question arises: how can we fix it, if we can’t name it? She emphasized that the invisibility of racism is magnified in university settings. There is little understanding of the systemic / pervasive nature of racism and universities are, at all levels, pervaded with a sense that they operate fairly. The naming of racism also provokes a hyperdefensive response. The lesson that is projected is that a complainant can’t win and that naming of racism is unspeakable. This was the lesson that was given to the rest of the academy in Canada. There was profound and devastating personal cost in this case, both to Dr. Chun and to his colleagues.

Backhouse ended her talk by asking how we can move from the individual to the larger setting in addressing racism. She emphasized that representation must change. There must be changes to the context – this requires research and teaching about anti-racism and anti-discrimination. Backhouse stated that universities should actually be at the forefront of the production of new knowledge and implementation in this area and not stuck in a reactionary mode. The case of Dr. Chun is a warning that we cannot be smug and complacent about our progress on issues of racial discrimination at universities (as the events on university campuses this past year have also decisively shown); rather, I believe that the four findings of the inquiry that Backhouse detailed are pervasive on all campuses and must be addressed.

The next speaker was Darren Power, who practices employment and labour law. He spoke about discrimination, harassment and bullying – in particular, he focused on harassment and hatespeech on the Web 2.0. His focus was social networking sites such as Facebook, etc. He outlined that there is an increasing concern about content and that online hatespeech / harassment is constantly coming up against issues of free speech and privacy. He stated that although these are new arenas for criminal speech and activity, the same tools from the Criminal Code are still being applied. Thus, jurisdictional and logistical constraints were limiting the application of the Criminal Code in cases of online harassment and hatespeech. (There was also a roundtable the previous evening where people shared their stories about online hate / harassment problems in the university setting).

The final speaker in the panel was Ravi Malhotra, who spoke about a case of student accommodation (Brown vs. Trebas – a private educational institution). Although the larger issue of student accommodation was interesting, it had limited relevance for the university context.

In the Q and A part of this panel, the audience asked about some of the pressing issues that could prevent cases such as that of Dr. Chun from happening again. Backhouse emphasized that faculty hirings are key and that abstract disciplinary specific issues are often the spectres used to prevent equitable hiring practices. Excellence is constantly positioned against merit, even when the case can be clearly made that excellence is not an issue (such as in the case of Dr. Chun). Backhouse stated that the problem begins with the fact that university faculty members are unrepresentative of the population at large and that the biggest shifts around equity happen when there is someone in a position of leadership (Dean, Chair, President) who is committed to making significant changes. There was emphasis on the fact that, even with the best of policies in place, progress can stall unless there is someone in a position of authority / power who can push for progressive changes. Therefore, who is appointed as Dean / Chair is crucial – we should be looking to see that there is a proven track record on equity in this area.

Another good panel at the conference was the one on Race, Curriculum / Pedagogy with Dr. Frances Henry, Prof. Daniel Yon and Dr. Camille Hernandez-Ramdwar. Henry began by taking about the role of whiteness in the academy. She stated that there had been a failure of policies and programs to address everyday racism even though there were common barriers for racialized and Aboriginal faculty. She underlined that university administrations do not understand that there needs to be a fundamental change in values and norms. The university is seen as a site of liberal ideology, so racism is seen to be the work of a few bad apples and not a systemic issue. There is continued under-representation of racialized and Aboriginal faculty – especially as compared to the student body and most especially in the Social Sciences and Humanities (less than 11% faculty of colour). As well, Law, Business and Medicine are largely white and male, especially further up the administrative ladder. The curricula for most programs are Eurocentric and these curricula are given more resources and more status, especially with respect to Tenure and Promotion. Area studies is seen as not mainstream and marginal to the ‘main curriculum’. Research and publication is still the main criteria for tenure and promotion and this has a tendency to go against faculty of colour which has a significant impact on career mobility and aspirations. An important document to read in this regard is the Queen’s Henry Report – one of the findings is that over half of white faculty found tenure and promotion to be an equitable process whereas only one-third of faculty of colour did. Expectations and demands are greater on faculty of colour; for example, students of colour and mainstream students want their expertise and committees want their representation – faculty of colour are overworked and therefore have less time for research etc. This has an impact on their career mobility. Faculty of colour have more stress, ill-health and depression. There is a marked lack of support from Chairs, Deans which creates isolation and hostility. White students also challenge anti-racist pedagogy – it is hard to teach about racism, which is a burden that falls most often on faculty of colour. Complaints about racism are met with the “political correctness” (‘oh, you’re forcing us to be politically correct’) and “reverse discrimination” discourse. How to counter all this? There are many strategies needed. Administration, professors, students must move beyond ideological liberalism and push for concrete social transformation.

Professor Daniel Yon was the next speaker and he spoke about some of the theoretical complexities about racism in the academy. In particular, he talked about the complexity of fixing race (it is overdetermined from the outside e.g., skin colour and also from within) which does not map onto scientific notions of race. He spoke about the constraints of identity categories and yet the potential of these categories to facilitate mobilization and change. This was an important addition to the discussions about race and racism, which were the focus of the conference.

The final speaker, Hernandez-Ramdwar, spoke specifically about Caribbean students in the academy. She spoke about the assumptions that discrimination against students of colour will lessen in the second generation and she outlined some of her research into the lives of Caribbean students. First, she noted the financial burden of higher education for this group of students, particularly those from single-headed households. The issue of academic racism was also raised as well as tensions between different groups of students of colour. She noted the lack of diversity in the faculty and in particular in administration – particularly higher levels of administration. Students and faculty of colour experience racism both in and out of classrooms. She concluded that although the participation of Caribbean students in higher education had increased, there has been no decrease in racism and that structural and systemic racism takes an increasing physical and emotional toll. Therefore, she also emphasized that issues of representation were critical and that change needs to begin with administration i.e., there needs to be a will and culture of change regarding equity issues with leadership from the top.

On the last day, a much anticipated panel and session on Human Rights and Anti-Racism work by Tina Lopes was held. Tina Lopes began by outlining many of the basic issues around discrimination that had been raised and then tied everything together to show how systemic racism was the support structure for visible discrimination which we often understood to be individual racist behaviours. She talked about the powerful unexamined ideas that underpin systemic discrimination such as ‘core curricula’, employment processes and services. She outlined how these all have an impact on benefiting white people. She talked about the experiences of racialized students and faculty and how these manifest in daily experiences and concrete issues such as excessive workloads. She also outlined how simple remedies, such as training, are to a large extent useless and cosmetic. Rather, she suggested remedies such as umbrella policies, which would openly address what is at stake and for whom – examples she used included changing ‘diversity’ policies to explicitly ‘anti-oppression’ policies. This was a well attended session and explained the basics of how systemic oppressions operate within institutions.

Another panel I attended was on Accommodating Employees with DisAbilities. This panel was concerned with best practices and related issues and challenges. There was more discussion on this panel with both panelists and audience members talking about the institutional difficulties they had encountered accommodating faculty disabilities. Some of the common challenges were around confidentiality, having administration (Chairs, Deans) not take faculty accommodations and disabilities seriously. The importance of having good policies in place, as well as good advocates within the University structure was emphasized. The implications of faculty disabilities for tenure and promotion is also discussed.

Other Delegates from this Conference:
Didi Khayatt, YUFA Equity Officer's Report