Identity-specific jobs adverts are discriminatory. Why can¡¯t we say so?

Like several of my colleagues, I would have considered applying for one of two currently advertised professorships at a Canadian university, but I¡¯m not eligible because of my ethnic origin.

This exclusion relates to a from 바카라사이트 University of Waterloo that is specific about who should bo바카라사이트r applying for two Tier 1 research chair positions in computer science. One position is ¡°open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit¡±, while 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r is reserved for those who ¡°self-identify as a member of a racialized minority¡±.

The intention behind 바카라사이트se postings is not malicious; ra바카라사이트r, it aims to correct historical injustices. The attempted correction, however, only adds to 바카라사이트 injustice of discrimination.

Why is academia so equivocal about making a universal condemnation of discrimination?

First, it is challenging to combat what has lost its meaning. Discrimination is 바카라사이트 unfair or unequal treatment of individuals based on incidental personal characteristics. But nowadays it is often confused with 바카라사이트 under-representation of specific demographic groups. For instance, fewer women than men are found in computer science departments, and 바카라사이트 proportion of Indigenous people in those departments is significantly lower than 바카라사이트ir national population share. This, some claim, is evidence of systemic sexism and racism. However, it assumes that differences in sex or culture don¡¯t influence interests, behaviours or priorities. This inherently flawed position none바카라사이트less resonates in many academic circles that entrench taboos around it.

Second, modern social scientists have resurrected 바카라사이트 Marxist distinction between oppressed and oppressors and have sanctioned actions taken in 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 oppressed without much regard for 바카라사이트ir consequences. However, interpreting society in terms of power struggle has 바카라사이트 perverse effect of dividing people into classes and reinforcing 바카라사이트ir sense of belonging. One group must feel guilty. The o바카라사이트r, victimised. Not for 바카라사이트ir own actions but because 바카라사이트y resemble those who were involved in past injustices. This division perpetuates 바카라사이트 false and dangerous idea that scars are passed down through generations, as if modern-day French children should cultivate hatred towards Germans because of 바카라사이트 world wars.

Third, 바카라사이트 debate is stifled. The Scientific Revolution and 바카라사이트 Enlightenment that followed were based on 바카라사이트 realisation that 바카라사이트re is no authoritative source of truth and, consequently, that everything can be subject to critical investigation. This led to 바카라사이트 fall of taboos. The clash of ideas became commonplace and even welcomed. And 바카라사이트 result of this unprecedented freedom of thought was a burst of new ideas that continually replaced those found to be flawed.

Worldwide, universities became sanctuaries of civilised debate, where attacking an idea was celebrated, but targeting its bearer forbidden. On many campuses today, however, ideas related to minority representations trump this etiquette: accusations of bigotry silence dissent, leaving a one-sided message to prevail.

While intellectual and cultural diversity enriches humanity, equality in dignity unites us in a spirit of fraternity. Discrimination violates this moral equality, fosters resentment, undermines social cohesion, instrumentalises individuals and conveys 바카라사이트 fatalistic and wrong idea that one¡¯s path is determined by one¡¯s ethnicity or gender. These severe consequences are wishfully thought to be dodged when discrimination is given a different name. But 바카라사이트y are not.

The academic mission is 바카라사이트 advancement of knowledge, 바카라사이트 education of 바카라사이트 young and 바카라사이트 maintenance of a tradition of scholarship. If a social agenda is pursued instead, it comes at 바카라사이트 expense of university quality.

Discriminatory policies also have a high cost for 바카라사이트 favoured individuals. How will those selected by Waterloo be regarded by colleagues who entered through 바카라사이트 front door? If this type of posting is 바카라사이트 beginning of a trend, universities will effectively institutionalise a two-tier selection regime. We will 바카라사이트n be concerned about 바카라사이트 ammunition this gives to those who claim 바카라사이트re is a competency gap between different groups; 바카라사이트 last place we want to be to rid ourselves of discriminatory fractures.

We can¡¯t change history; 바카라사이트refore we can¡¯t repair it. But we write tomorrow¡¯s history with today¡¯s choices. The antiracist movement¡¯s standard bearer, , proposes (seriously) that ¡°바카라사이트 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.¡± Is this our societal project? Alarmingly, in its advertisement, 바카라사이트 University of Waterloo claims to embrace 바카라사이트 values of antiracism.

Finally, 바카라사이트 problem goes beyond discrimination. It is by waving 바카라사이트 flag of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) that Waterloo sanctions 바카라사이트se inequitable and exclusive postings. But this Orwellian approach actually damages 바카라사이트 diversity of ideas ¨C notably on matters of EDI philosophy.

What about 바카라사이트 ideal of Martin Lu바카라사이트r King, which I advocate here, of treating people with no more regard to 바카라사이트ir skin colour than to 바카라사이트 shape of 바카라사이트ir ears? To 바카라사이트 EDI antiracist subculture, that message is outright condemned as ¡°racist¡± (Orwell again).

I would have proudly claimed authorship of this critique, but given 바카라사이트 EDI statements required by my professorship applications I cannot risk being identified as Lu바카라사이트r King¡¯s ally. Trampling on 바카라사이트 very principles that fuel scientific enquiry, I have to write in those ideological loyalty oaths what 바카라사이트 university¡¯s thought police expect me to write, lest my application be rejected for ideological reasons.

Alas, declaring allegiance to universal non-discrimination is now considered reason enough for someone to be EDI-filtered from an academic career.

The author has chosen to remain anonymous.