As Diversity Hiring Comes Under Scrutiny in US, Canada Should Follow Suit

Commentary

America First Legal is running lawsuit commercials. But the Washington, D.C., firm is not targeting dangerous medicine or defective automobiles. It is suing companies that engage in race-based or diversity hiring. Their ad says: “If you or your loved one were denied a job, raise, promotion or professional opportunity as a result of diversity quotas, equity mandates, affirmative action or other racial preferences, we want to hear from you.”

The Washington Post reports that other law firms are running similar advertisements. Another ad says, “If you’ve been treated differently because of your race, contact us.” The Post reports there are over 100 lawsuits plus more “in the pipeline.” Some cases have won damages of tens of millions of dollars, reports the Wall Street Journal.

This cascade of litigation stems from the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case called Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. In that case, the court struck down certain diversity or affirmative action programs. The programs were struck down because they could not survive a “daunting two-step examination” called strict scrutiny. In discussing affirmative action, the court said, “It should be obvious that every racial classification helps, in a narrow sense, some races and hurts others.” The court noted there are “secondary effects on members of other races.” The court went on to say, “These policies appear to be leading to a world in which everyone is defined by their skin color, demanding ever increasing entitlements and preferences on that basis.”

Because of this court decision, diversity hiring in the United States is being scrutinized under a microscope. In Canada, meanwhile, diversity hiring is running on rocket fuel.

In his article “Now Hiring by Skin Colour!“ Prof. Ted Morton reports on a Canadian university which is hiring 45 professors who all must come from ”equity deserving groups.“ The university’s job postings hold nothing back. One states that the position is “only open to qualified women candidates,” a second is “only open to qualified Black scholars,” while a third is “only open to qualified Indigenous scholars.”

The National Post reports the same occurrence at another Canadian university: tenured computer science positions open only to “individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, gender fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit,” and another open only to persons “who self-identify as a member of a racialized minority.”

It is not hard to find further examples. A statement by a Canadian bank says the institution is committed to “hire goals for Black and Indigenous talent.” A news release by a Canadian media conglomerate says the company is “promoting BIPOC hiring in media industry.” And the National Post reports that the federal government intends to “Mandate reverse discrimination with job quotas for black, LGBT people.” Across the country, certain employers are throwing qualified resumes in the garbage because of the sex or skin colour of the applicants.

Curious in all this is the proactive role by human rights commissions in some of Canada’s biggest provinces. Typically, these institutions would handle complaints from qualified job applicants who were rejected because of their skin colour or sex. Instead though, they are encouraging businesses to hire faces and bodies that will “mirror the make up of the population“ of their province. This means correct proportions of non-white, indigenous, female, and so on. These regulated human menus are called ”special programs,” and these programs, blessed by the commissions, are the new vogue in Canadian human rights.

And then there’s Ottawa. Even those who support quotas and diversity hiring might be speechless trying to explain the federal civil service. In the government’s 2021–22 Employment Equity report, the Treasury Board president lays out uncanny data about its diversity action.

In particular, the report shows that 56 percent of employees are women in a workplace availability of 53.3 percent, 5.2 percent of employees are indigenous in a workplace availability of 3.8 percent, and 20.2 percent of employees are visible minorities in a workforce availability of 17.2 percent. And added to that, 53.2 percent of executive positions are women in a workforce availability of 48.2 percent, and 14.0 percent of executive positions are a visible minority in a workforce availability of 11.2 percent.

Therefore, Ottawa’s diversity hiring has expanded beyond a rational destination. These numbers suggest the civil service has devolved into a place of overboard diversity and overkill quotas.

Diversity hiring is also dogged by the question of lowered competence in skilled jobs. For example, a May 2024 article in Publica reports the following: “Almost half of UCLA medical students fail basic competency tests, Professors say aggressive DEI policies are to blame.” And Elon Musk recently raised this issue on X, stating, “Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening.” Pundits might ask, how could it be otherwise?

In recent months, some businesses have rolled back their diversity programs. The Daily Telegraph reports that Meta, Tesla, and X have cut back their DEI team by 50 percent or more. The Telegraph also reports that Zoom “dismantled its DEI team” and that Microsoft “sacked” its diversity staff. But no one can say yet if such a shift will happen in Canada.

In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about a future world where individuals “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Then along came diversity hiring. And so in many parts of Canada, 61 years later, King’s idea is nothing but a dream.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Source link