$182,000 salary for “anti-racism and cultural diversity officer” at U of T

The human rights industry is booming, which means those with social justice in their hearts and dollar signs in their eyes are set.

Canada’s largest postsecondary institution, the University of Toronto, is hiring an “anti-racism and cultural diversity officer.”

The successful candidate will work “to ensure that every member of the University community is afforded the right to study and work in an environment free of biases based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship or creed.”

Though religion isn’t included in the list, the new officer must have a “thorough understanding of issues related to race, culture, faith, spirituality, equity and diversity.”

The position has a salary range of $109,555 to $182,591, and, of course, requires working under the vice-president of equity, which is totally an executive-level position.

It may seem like a punchline, but these positions are growing increasingly powerful in a climate where anti-racism and cultural diversity are valued above academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Indeed, the University of Toronto job posting says this officer will be involved in drafting the school’s policies and practices surrounding “anti-racism, cultural diversity, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.”

The winning contender might even get to help bully pro-life students, as I wrote today happened at the University of the Fraser Valley.

(And of course priority is given to candidates who can check off as many boxes as possible in the “Diversity Survey” part of the application.)

This comes just a few weeks after the new Ontario government instituted a requirement for schools like University of Toronto to develop and implement free speech policies by January.

Perhaps then the taxpayers will be able to save the $182,000.

If you’re interested, or just want to have a laugh, the job posting is here.

Anti-Racism and Cultural Diversity Officer

Description:

The Anti-Racism and Cultural Diversity Officer serves the three campuses of the University of Toronto and works to ensure that every member of the University community is afforded the right to study and work in an environment free of biases based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship or creed.

Reporting directly to the Vice-President, Human Resources and Equity and with a thorough understanding of issues related to race, culture, faith, spirituality, equity and diversity, the Anti-Racism Officer works to promote inclusion within the University’s learning, living and working environments

Duties include:

Develops initiatives and collaborates on activities and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and inclusion across the three campuses of the University of Toronto;
Works closely with the Special Advisor on Equity Issues and within the broader equity team to provide advice and make recommendations to University decision-makers, senior administrators and others in leadership roles on matters of policy and practice concerning anti-racism, cultural diversity, freedom of speech and freedom of expression for students, staff and faculty;
Works at the strategic level to promote inclusion within the University’s learning, living and working environments; works closely with the University’s Student Life and Human Resources leadership and portfolios.

In consultation with and guided by the Workplace Investigations Office, may conduct fact finding and/or investigations, recommends additional sources of assistance and resolution for complainants and respondents, provides mediation, information and expert advice.

The Anti-Racism Officer develops and leads related professional development and educational initiatives for all levels of the University community;

Develops standardized processes and guidelines for complaint management and resolution.

Qualifications:

(MINIMUM)

Education:
Graduate degree or an equivalent combination of education and experience.

Experience:
Professional experience in and understanding of complex issues related to equity and diversity as they relate to the student experience and the workplace. A thorough understanding of anti-racism and cultural diversity frameworks essential. Experience working within a post-secondary context or similarly complex organization is highly desirable as is an understanding of issues of faith within a broader anti-racism and cultural diversity strategy. Familiarity with the University environment strongly preferred. Understanding of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code required. Experience working with students and an appreciation for the diverse backgrounds and experiences of the University’s student body.

Skills:
Excellent interpersonal, communication, facilitation and mediation skills; commitment to, and knowledge of issues dealing with discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship and creed. Experience advising on and conducting investigations; experience developing and providing professional development and education.

Other:
Ability to engage with various stakeholders and members of the University community and connect and build rapport with student groups; ability to work within a team; research skills; project management and resource development skills; ability to operate at the strategic, policy and operational levels; highly developed leadership skills; highly developed organizational and program development skills.

Commitment and sensitivity to matters related to the student experience, educational opportunity and employment within a broader anti-racism and cultural diversity strategy; demonstrated analytical ability and ability to use initiative and good judgment in decision making. Willingness to work outside of normal working hours.

Profs tell BC student discussing abortion in class is “hateful” and “unsafe”

University of the Fraser Valley teaching graduate Valerie Flokstra (Supplied)

Discussing abortion is “hateful” and threatens classroom “safety,” according to comments contained in leaked audio of a meeting between a former University of the Fraser Valley graduate student and two of her professors.

Valerie Flokstra, a recent graduate of UFV’s teacher education program, was summoned into a meeting with a professor and her department’s head in December after citing a medical statistic related to abortion during a classroom discussion.

Students were told premature births were contributing to increased autism diagnoses. Flokstra questioned whether high abortion rates in Canada could be playing a role, citing studies showing a link between abortion and later premature births.

Asking that made the classroom an unsafe space, the 22-year old was told.

Flokstra covertly recorded the hour-long meeting with Prof. Nancy Norman, in whose class the incident took place, and Prof. Vandy Britton, the head of the teacher education department. Fearing academic reprisal, she waited until after graduation to share the audio. She now works as a teacher at a British Columbia private school.

Though Flokstra is pro-life, she said her question stemmed from a place of academic inquiry, rather than promotion of an agenda, acknowledging she learns through questioning and challenging her own assumptions and those of others.

The professors never disputed the facts Flokstra cited, instead taking issue with how they are uncomfortable or triggering for students to hear.

When Flokstra said in the recording she was embracing “critical thinking,” Britton said that’s not a priority for the program, which, according to its website “focuses on social justice and inclusion.”

“It’s not critical thinking. It’s critical mindedness, which is different,” she said. “Okay, so, critical mindedness is about being open to other people’s ideas too, and hearing what they say and not always filtering it through your lens.”

Flokstra told me she has never raised abortion in the class before; her professors gave no indication in the recording that this incident was part of a pattern.

Even so, the professors first accused her of “derailing” the classroom discussion, before shifting their objection to the impact her observation may have had on students’ “feelings.”

Flokstra questioned whether the classroom is about “feeling safe at all times, or if it’s about learning.”

“I’m just going to speak hypothetically,” Britton responded. “If I’d had an abortion for whatever reason, and then someone said to me, ‘You’re going to give birth to a kid with autism because of that,’ how would that make me feel, and how would that possibly help me with my learning?”

Flokstra said it’s only through free speech and open inquiry that students are able to learn.

“It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and sharing ideas,” Britton said. “It’s skill level. That you create an environment in a classroom, where— no matter what age of people that considers the needs of people. If I came in and didn’t let you say what you believe, I’m shutting you down.”

However, moments earlier Britton said instead of participating in class discussions, Flokstra should just write down her thoughts for herself.

“Because that’s a great way for you to learn,” Britton told her.

The conversation got emotional when Flokstra brought up an incident she had two months earlier with another professor, Awneet Sivia, of which Britton was aware.

In October, 2017, Flokstra was called into a meeting with Sivia after expressing discomfort with an in-class role-playing assignment that featured a scenario with a same-sex couple.

Flokstra cried as she recounted being told by Sivia to “put my Christian identity aside and put my teacher identity on top of that.”

Though this specific allegation cannot be independently verified, Flokstra did provide an email exchange with Sivia referencing the incident. In the emails, Flokstra says she will participate in all scenarios moving forward, understanding their value to her learning, even when she’s uncomfortable.

She also asked Sivia to put her concerns in writing to better help her understand the professor’s expectations.

Sivia refused, saying no written notes were necessary because she was, at that point, satisfied that Flokstra is working “towards being a socially just, inclusive teacher and modeling the (social justice) program value.”

Britton said she would take issue with abortion being raised from either a pro-life or pro-choice perspective, but at one point initiates a debate about abortion with Flokstra, before catching herself and getting back on topic.

At a particularly tense moment in the meeting, Britton likens discussing abortion to allowing a hate group on campus.

“It’s not freedom of speech per se,” she said. “We still consider people’s feelings and we don’t just say whatever. Otherwise— That’s why we don’t have the KKK having a club on campus. That’s not freedom of speech. That’s hate, right? So we don’t put forward ideas that are intentionally or not, that are hateful. And I think sometimes abortion is one of those contentious issues that can make someone feel that they feel threatened on both sides.”

Sivia and Britton did not directly respond to my inquiries, but University of the Fraser Valley communications director Dave Pinton provided a statement.

“The UFV Teacher Education Department, the Teacher Education Program, and UFV are deeply committed to respecting freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and to upholding an overall policy of inclusion,” he said in an email. “It would be a breach of confidentiality to comment on any situation involving a particular student. To comment on specifics would constitute a breach of privacy under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”

The UFV teacher education website promises to equip each graduate “to become an agent in the changing landscape of 21st century education,” in particular citing “core courses in social justice, special education, Indigenous education, second language instruction, and reflective practice.”

Flokstra’s ordeal has numerous similarities to what former Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd experienced last year. In fact, Flokstra credits Shepherd’s ordeal with motivating her to record the meeting in the first place.

Much like with Shepherd, Flokstra’s professors attempt to couch offensive recommendations with an “I’m on your side” attitude, using social justice as a trump card over academic inquiry. Just as Shepherd’s professors compared Jordan Peterson to Adolf Hitler, Flokstra was told discussing abortion is like a UFV KKK club.

It’s this attitude, particularly in the teacher education program, that Flokstra said she wanted to challenge by releasing the audio.

When freedom of speech is hindered, so too is learning.

Andrew Lawton is a fellow at the True North Initiative.

The dangers of compelled speech

Earlier this summer, the Rights and Freedoms Institute hosted a great forum on compelled speech, sparked by the first anniversary of the passage of Bill C-16, better known as the bill extending legal protections to varying gender identities, and, critics point out, their pronouns.

I wrote about the forum and the broader themes of compelled speech in my column this month for The Interim. You can read the full column here, though an excerpt is below.

This summer marks one year since the implementation of Bill C-16, the legislation that catapulted Professor Jordan Peterson to fame and galvanized a much-needed discussion about freedom of expression in Canada.

Though we have yet to see the first public prosecution under the bill, its free speech implications are still very much alive.

The bill updated the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to add “gender identity or expression” as protected areas when it comes to hate crimes and purported human rights violations falling under federal jurisdiction.

These protections already existed in Ontario’s Human Rights code, which served as the basis for the federal legislation. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is clear that “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” is discrimination.

It was rather suspect that federal lawmakers were so vague about what they hoped to accomplish with C-16 when introducing and passing it. The Human Rights Code already protected against discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and religion, among other identifiers. But these areas are far less subjective and, dare I say, fluid, than gender is.

Take a look at your Facebook account if you want an illustration of how absurd this can get. Facebook offers 71 options for gender, ranging from agender to transfeminine and beyond. Even the most well-meaning progressive will fall short trying to keep track of them all, let alone remembering which pronouns are which.

It isn’t just about him and her. Made-up words like zim and xir, which were once confined to university campuses, now have the protection of the law.

Acadia faculty union signed agreement with university to gag Rick Mehta

A new development in the case of Rick Mehta’s firing casts doubt on whether he can expect much support from his union in the forthcoming arbitration.

Mehta, a former tenured psychology professor at Acadia University, was fired at the end of August after a months-long investigation that invited crowdsourced complaints about Mehta’s conduct inside and outside of the classroom.

Even after the school commissioned two reports, there has been no formal finding of harassment or discrimination against Mehta. This is why Mehta wants the reports made public, which the school will not allow.

Because Mehta was a unionized faculty member, it’s the union’s responsibility to defend him. Though based on a “process agreement” between Mehta, the school, and the Acadia University Faculty Association, it’s clear this isn’t happening.

The document, published for the first time here, is supposed to be an agreement to the process by which Mehta will be disciplined. It was signed on August 1, 30 days before he was terminated.

The agreement says “the specific information contained or referred to in the MacKay Report and the Hooper Report could potentially form the basis of discipline of the Grievor (Mehta).”

It also says the “Parties to this Agreement have agreed to expedite all issues relating to the Grievor in accordance with this Agreement on a without prejudice and precedent basis.”

Except Mehta refused to sign it. And despite him urging his union to do the same, his supposed representative signed it anyway.

Mehta’s union entered into the agreement that ultimately led to his dismissal without his authorization or consent.

“The union’s lawyer spent two hours trying to convince me to sign it—and then the union’s president signed it anyway after I had refused,” Mehta told me in an interview.

Had he signed it, it would have been bound to a clause saying he’s “not permitted to distribute the confidential information related to the complaint…. This includes, but is not limited to, posting information on social media or providing any information to the media generally or any third parties.”

It also would have barred Mehta from even commenting on the case in media reports.

In effect, Mehta’s union has endorsed the same gag order and lack of transparency that the university itself has attempted to impose on him.

Why this is so concerning is that it essentially leaves Mehta without representation, and thus without viable recourse. He complained to Nova Scotia’s labour board under Duty to Fair Representation provisions, but was told this week that unions have the authority to make decisions in spite of the disagreement of the member impacted by the decision.

In the eyes of Nova Scotia’s labour laws, the union is representing Mehta fairly because it is taking the case to arbitration.

In the September 11 phone call from the labour board, he was told his complaint was unlikely to go anywhere because his union is representing him—even if that representation is only on paper.

Full “process” agreement between Acadia University, Rick Mehta, and the Acadia faculty association. If it does not appear below, you can read it here.

“Process Agreement&quo… by on Scribd

Pro-free speech professor Rick Mehta fired by Acadia University

Update: I’ve launched a petition to Acadia University demanding it release the reports it’s using to justify Rick Mehta’s firing. Please sign and share it here.

Acadia University psychology professor Rick Mehta has been fired six months after the school launched an investigation over allegedly “racist and transphobic” comments. The school said it was legally obligated to investigate in order to provide an environment free from harassment and discrimination.

A brief statement from Acadia University confirmed Mehta’s dismissal this week.

“We can confirm that Dr. Rick Mehta, a professor in Acadia University’s Department of Psychology, has been dismissed by the University. As this is a personnel matter, the University will provide no additional comments or respond to requests for further details,” an unnamed school spokesperson said in a Facebook message.

According to Mehta, the firing came from Acadia president Peter Ricketts, citing issues that “were wide ranging and include failure to fulfill academic responsibilities, unprofessional conduct, breach of privacy, and harassment and intimidation of students and other members of the University community.”

Mehta says his letter from Ricketts speaks only in generalities and does not lay out specific examples of misconduct. The termination was based on two reports commissioned by the school—one by law professor Wayne MacKay, and the other by Dean of Science Jeff Hooper.

Mehta says he’s unable to have copies of these unless he agrees “to be broadly gagged,” a claim Acadia would not comment on.

Mehta insists people would see his termination to be unjustified were they to read the reports, which he wants made public.

In the meantime, Mehta’s union has filed for arbitration to fight the firing.

It’s difficult to speak to the university’s investigation process when so much of it was done in backrooms. However, Mehta was subjected to an orchestrated social media campaign encouraging students to speak out against him, regardless of their experiences.

As of this point, his termination appears to be more about his political views than his teaching.

I’ve met Mehta on a couple of occasions through the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, in which we are both members. As a vocal proponent of academic freedom and free speech, Mehta has challenged conventional left-wing orthodoxy, a rarity from an academic in the social sciences field.

There’s been no formal finding of any harassment or discrimination by Mehta. And the only questioning of his credentials and teaching has come from those who merely disagreed with his positions on several issues.

“The students have not expressed in writing the precise details of the racist and transphobic comments, but it is clear from their interactions with me that they are extremely disturbed by your comments, some to the point of not going to class,” said Mehta’s department head, Rob Raeside, in a letter that Mehta himself shared publicly back in February.

Mehta’s firing is the culmination of an ideological witch hunt rather than any genuine wrongdoing. Especially taking into account how the initial investigation materialized mere weeks after Mehta started challenging Acadia’s “decolonization initiatives.” It came days after he critiqued the role of feminism in one of his first year courses.

As I wrote about earlier, academic freedom now has protection under the law in Ontario. In Nova Scotia, Mehta and his colleagues are not so fortunate.