Five years after George Floyd’s murder, Black scholars in Canada warn that equity commitments are eroding under political and cultural pressure.
Five years ago, on May 25, 2020, Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in the United States and set off international protests against anti-Black racism and police violence. This was supposed to be a turning point in the fight against racism.
Institutional leaders across Canada pledged to address anti-Black racism. It began with statements of solidarity that morphed into task forces, initiatives and strategic plans which permeated almost every sector and level of government.
The federal government has since committed $45 million to an anti-racism strategy, which promises to focus on how anti-Black racism and the unequal treatment of Black people is ingrained in our society. As well, nearly 50 universities and colleges have committed to promoting the academic flourishing of Black students, staff and faculty by signing what’s known as the Scarborough Charter.
And yet, as hostility against equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) gains momentum and spreads across Canada — and as a full-blown EDI-backlash is dismantling civil rights throughout the U.S. — Black Canadian scholars are growing increasingly fearful that these minimal commitments are being abandoned.
The electoral platform of the Conservative Party of Canada was rife with dog-whistle rhetoric about “ending wokeism” and even though the party ultimately did not form government, the constituency for a return to explicit and continual institutional discrimination is growing by the day.
Moreover, the return of Parliament may mean a resumption of hearings in the House of Commons about the criteria for awarding federal funding for research excellence in Canada.
The hearings have largely focused on claims by university faculty called as witnesses that the criteria related to research funding for social and natural sciences, humanities, engineering and health are unfair as they seek to address extensive inequities in funding competitions.
Multiple witnesses, without concrete evidence, accused recent EDI initiatives meant to support women, racialized minorities and other equity-seeking groups of lowering standards of research. The hearings gave voice to easily debunked, yet often-heard rhetoric pitting diversity and research excellence against each other.
These arguments suggest that an emphasis on equity “divert(s) attention” from the quality of projects or equates EDI considerations to a “religion” where being a white man is an original sin. The orientation of the new government towards economic priorities may mean that committees and hearings such as these veer even further away from equity-oriented work.
Responses to anti-Black racism reaffirmed
The need for institutional responses in Canada to specifically address anti-Black racism is not new, but has been re-established within the last five years.
A 2023 report, based on a review chaired by McGill University professor Adelle Blackett, concluded that enduring barriers facing Black workers in hiring, advancement and retention make it timely for a special employment equity group for them — separate and distinct from other visible minorities. Similarly, an advisory committee of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) determined that the rate at which Black researchers apply to and are awarded funding is lower than any other visible minority census group. The agency subsequently developed a plan to ensure fair access to research support.
Anti-racism and EDI not the same thing
Anti-racism and EDI are not synonymous. In many ways “equity, diversity and inclusion” is language that moves the conversation further away from anti-racism. The broad scale appeal of EDI rests largely in its ambiguity.
It can refer to efforts to combat racism and support strategies aimed at attracting and retaining equity-seeking groups in institutions from which they (we) have been historically excluded. But it can also be used to refer to more banal celebrations of difference that require no institutional shifts in the status quo.
The language also tends to stick to particular bodies that scholar Sara Ahmed describes as “embodying diversity.” Consequently, Black and other racialized scholars are seen as the personification of diversity and pejoratively deemed to be “diversity hires.” In this way, both diversity and scholars come under attack.
McGill professor Debra Thompson wrote recently that Canada is neither immune to the EDI-backlash nor the concept’s paradox: EDI becomes a façade designed to appease non-whites with the promise of safety and mobility, but simultaneously creates antagonism against them from those who believe their power is being removed.
History of EDI
Based on tenets arising from human and civil rights movements following the Second World War, EDI must be viewed as just one part of the ongoing policy struggle between upholding and challenging an unequal racial order.
The proliferation of EDI may be newish, but managing difference has been a perennial feature of this country. Notwithstanding colonial attempts to erase Indigenous Peoples since the 15th century, the roots of what might be termed ‘appeasement EDI’ in Canada, arguably began with the Treaty of Paris in 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774.
Nation building in the 19th century relied on using non-whites as temporary foreign workers — for example, Chinese labourers to build the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Early- to mid-20th century pro-white immigration policies formalized who should be Canadian (the ‘I’ in EDI). Contemporary “anti-racist” or “non-racist” EDI projects began in 1962 with the official deracialization of Canadian immigration policy.
Canada’s federal shift towards a more equitable diversity is reflected in key milestones, including Canada’s official multiculturalism policy in 1971, the 1976 Immigration Act , the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 1984 Abella Commission on employment equity and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988.
These policy accomplishments have been undercut by significant concessions to dominant ideological backlash. For, as professors Abigail Bakan and Audrey Kobayashi write, Canada’s experience with employment equity shows that efforts to be more inclusive often face resistance from people who want to keep things the way they are. What we are left with are EDI initiatives that appease by providing an appearance of progress without addressing systemic or structural inequities.
It is precisely the above context that makes many of the submissions to the hearings on research funding criteria so damning. They offer a pretext for a future government to quietly wind down true equity efforts to satisfy the vocal majority. We are rapidly transitioning from appeasement EDI to appeasing those that would rob future generations of the opportunity to challenge anti-Black racism.
What should be done
Placating the anti-equity backlash has left Canada unable to achieve or sustain the goal of employment equity. The federal government and its institutional post-secondary partners should instead commit to following more transformative paths laid out by Black scholars. These recommendations include:
- Redressing anti-Black racism and supporting Black inclusion in universities and colleges by following actions set out in the Scarborough Charter.
- Advancing equitable participation of Black researchers by upholding the SSHRC’s action plan.
- Heeding Blackett’s call to meaningfully pursue equity by affirming the quasi-constitutional status of employment equity legislation. This would include focusing attention on removing barriers for Black workers.
Much Black effort has gone into showing us what policies and actions are needed to address anti-Black racism. The question is do Canadian institutions have the moral fortitude to follow through in the face of mounting anti-EDI backlash?
Contributing Authors: Written in collaboration with the Black Canadian Studies Association executive including Sarah George, Stephanie Latty, Janelle Joseph, Nadiya Nur Ali, Ornella Nzindukiyimana, and Danielle Taylor.
This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
