Donald Trump’s authoritarian regime did not take long to impose 1984-style thought policing and overt censorship on scientists and government agencies, forcing the removal of what amounts to thousands of reports, documents, and web pages that make reference to anything that might speak to or inform issues of diversity, racism, inclusion, etc.
I am regularly part of CIHR grant applications and one of the biggest problems in medicine is figuring out where the structural barriers are to better health care for certain demographic groups and how to fix those barriers.
And even after they are taught about this, it’s often a mystery to the highly educated wealthy powerful scientists, who, due to simple seniority, usually run the studies, get the awards.
So having co-researchers who are also diverse people with lived experience in the subject can radically change how a study is designed, the questions asked, the ways we recruit, the conclusions reached.
Some groups are obvious, like indigenous folks and immigrants, but there are other groups, like people who grew up in poverty, (turns out growing up and getting money is not the automatic easy fix) or people with mental illness…or women of every income and education level, who get abused and isolated by terrible men and can’t leave.
Because Canadians in some identifiable groups like those ones, get sicker more often or are disabled earlier, or die earlier. We know this for a fact, because we track injuries and death rates and causes and that more people in these groups end up in ERs, beaten, dying, murdered.
The barriers harm our economy—it is a literal waste of human potential that leads to lower incomes and lower GDP.
I can make 100 moral ethical arguments for DEI in research and social services and health, but just in case no one cares about those, fixing systemic barriers to better health for diverse groups saves lives and saves money.
And those barriers happen all the way across the lifespan and across the spectrum of education, work, home, government in rural Canada and urban and suburban….
DEI in research (all kinds of research) saves lives and money.
When discussing the merits/faults of DEI, it is crucial to keep balance in mind. Whose agenda (pro- or anti-DEI) promotes more censorship, causes/ignores more social ills, and is more destructive as a whole? I agree with Prof. Macfarlane here. All things considered, the anti-DEI crowd is far worse than the pro-DEI side. The anti-DEI crowd won't even debate or weigh the relative pros/cons of DEI. They just want it erased as a subject. “While I am sometimes troubled by the more illiberal conceptualizations of DEI, looking around North America today the anti-DEI side of things is far, far more troubling. It is a movement of people who either deny the discrimination, hate, and exclusion endemic to society and our institutions, or who are simply fine with it.”
Thank God, Trump has returned America to merit-based promotions and job hires! Enough of this woke nonsense. Like Trump, I believe that a Fox news presenter with a history of alcohol abuse MERITS being made Secretary of Defense, in charge of the planet's largest and most lethal armed forces. Do you know how hard it is to say "Azerbaijan" after a quart of bourbon??! Enough with DEI hires. From now on, only DUI hires!!!
Of course it is, a hierarchy of merit is the very basis of our western society. This corruption, there are exceptions, but in general terms, merit is the basis for advancement in all areas of society. Free people always choose the most capable provider of services that they can.
I am regularly part of CIHR grant applications and one of the biggest problems in medicine is figuring out where the structural barriers are to better health care for certain demographic groups and how to fix those barriers.
And even after they are taught about this, it’s often a mystery to the highly educated wealthy powerful scientists, who, due to simple seniority, usually run the studies, get the awards.
So having co-researchers who are also diverse people with lived experience in the subject can radically change how a study is designed, the questions asked, the ways we recruit, the conclusions reached.
Some groups are obvious, like indigenous folks and immigrants, but there are other groups, like people who grew up in poverty, (turns out growing up and getting money is not the automatic easy fix) or people with mental illness…or women of every income and education level, who get abused and isolated by terrible men and can’t leave.
Because Canadians in some identifiable groups like those ones, get sicker more often or are disabled earlier, or die earlier. We know this for a fact, because we track injuries and death rates and causes and that more people in these groups end up in ERs, beaten, dying, murdered.
The barriers harm our economy—it is a literal waste of human potential that leads to lower incomes and lower GDP.
I can make 100 moral ethical arguments for DEI in research and social services and health, but just in case no one cares about those, fixing systemic barriers to better health for diverse groups saves lives and saves money.
And those barriers happen all the way across the lifespan and across the spectrum of education, work, home, government in rural Canada and urban and suburban….
DEI in research (all kinds of research) saves lives and money.
Thx Emmett. Nice to read clear writing about a topic that is used for polarization. And few even recognize it
When discussing the merits/faults of DEI, it is crucial to keep balance in mind. Whose agenda (pro- or anti-DEI) promotes more censorship, causes/ignores more social ills, and is more destructive as a whole? I agree with Prof. Macfarlane here. All things considered, the anti-DEI crowd is far worse than the pro-DEI side. The anti-DEI crowd won't even debate or weigh the relative pros/cons of DEI. They just want it erased as a subject. “While I am sometimes troubled by the more illiberal conceptualizations of DEI, looking around North America today the anti-DEI side of things is far, far more troubling. It is a movement of people who either deny the discrimination, hate, and exclusion endemic to society and our institutions, or who are simply fine with it.”
Thank God, Trump has returned America to merit-based promotions and job hires! Enough of this woke nonsense. Like Trump, I believe that a Fox news presenter with a history of alcohol abuse MERITS being made Secretary of Defense, in charge of the planet's largest and most lethal armed forces. Do you know how hard it is to say "Azerbaijan" after a quart of bourbon??! Enough with DEI hires. From now on, only DUI hires!!!
Of course it is, a hierarchy of merit is the very basis of our western society. This corruption, there are exceptions, but in general terms, merit is the basis for advancement in all areas of society. Free people always choose the most capable provider of services that they can.