fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

NAVARRO-GÉNIE: The University of Calgary’s “systemic racism” admission is virtue-signalling at its worst

Navarro-Génie writes about the University of Calgary’s self-flagellating virtue signalling.

mm

Published

on

The University of Calgary (UC) has admitted to being a systemically racist institution against blacks, indigenous people and other people of colour. The revelation by its Senior Leaders University Team has hardly received any attention. The shocking admission was made on June 24, which coincidentally is the unofficial discovery of this country, when John Cabot landed in Newfoundland in 1497. 

Only three weeks earlier on June 1, the University tweeted a statement denouncing racism and offering support “in these difficult times.” It was retweeted 168 times and received 559 likes (July 14).

Spearheaded in the Department of Psychology, a group from the academic grievance industry reacted to the tweet a week later, charging the university with racism in an “Open Letter”. It is an adapted form letter circulated on other Canadian campuses.

The open letter initially acknowledges efforts at the UC to create an environment of inclusion, and welcomes the new “equity, diversity and inclusion” Komissar this coming August. But it’s not enough. The open letter claims that the UC is systemically racist and has “longstanding, underlying and systemic racism” problems. 

Claiming something does not make it so, however. A skeptical approach to these claims is necessary because the letter indiscriminately casts dispersions of racism on an entire community of scholars and workers. Equally important, a minimum standard of evidence is required in any academic setting. 

The letter says the UC is “the home of racist…sentiment.” If per chance it is, presenting evidence renders the greater service to alumni and donors, to this city and province. 

Alas, beside conjecture, the freest form of association and a cartoonish intellectual attitude, the letter presented no case of systemic racism on the university’s campuses. None. There was racism in “Alberta in the early 20th century,” it reads. There surely was, but does it link to the UC today? “Researchers have shown…racism within schools is among the main reasons for the academic failure of Black students,” they say, without establishing relevance to the UC from school research.  

In a blanket smear, the letter claims that “Students, teachers and administrative staff” can be racist. But saying that there may be racist people on campus doesn’t demonstrate that it is institutional? 

In all, not one example of a person subjected to such reprobate institutional behaviour at UC is offered. The letter even fails to summon the intellectual entrepreneurship to demonstrate how minorities might be underrepresented on campus. 

Similarly, the letter does not define “systemic racism.” This absence of a clear standard illustrates the failure of social justice warrior and the grievance-studies sub-cultures in universities more vividly than rhetoric could. Strong argument based on carefully marshalled evidence has always been a hallmark of scholarly excellence.

In the absence of any evidence, the signatories leapt to the undemonstrated conclusion that “there is need to address longstanding, underlying and systemic racism in our own university.” 

Judging by what follows the racism charges, the letter’s signatories want the UC to become a factory of social justice activists “equipped to advocate.” The adapted document offers a litany of requests to correct undemonstrated problems, including a condemnation of police brutality, “more faculty and staff of colour,” and less rigor in admissions. 

The requests betray an ideological desire to transform the university into a political tool. They want to radicalise the teaching and research, in the name of “protect[ing] the public from structural and research racism, bias and discrimination.” They want “permanently [to] abolish the unsafe practices currently being used to educate community leaders and researchers” without even showing anecdotal evidence of abuse. 

Short of saying the current academic offerings promote racism, they want “programming and curricula…to provide in-depth instruction [not education] on structural racism, oppression and marginalisation, and decolonisation…to provide people with the tools to combat racism.” 

The most radical indoctrinating request wants race at the center of all things and “adopt identity-conscious policies and practices.” Put differently, the UC should become the training ground for a new race-conscious activist who, in radical opposition to the accomplishments of the last 60 years, will judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

In response, the Senior Leadership University Team admits that the institution has a “crisis of systemic racism.” The response never says whether the university may be a racist emporium for its hiring practices, for failing non-white students or because qualified minority students are being denied entry into programs or the right to graduate? Albertans need substantive answers.

Meaningless politically-correct self-flagellation is one thing. But when the top thee UC administrators openly admit systemic racist practices, they also stain Calgary and this province. 

Marco Navarro-Génie is a Columnist for the Western Standard, President of the Haultain Research Institute, and a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Marco Navarro-Génie is a Columnist for the Western Standard, President of the Haultain Research Institute, and a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Opinion

BARNES: Time to replace the RCMP with an Alberta force

Drew Barnes writes that Alberta should immediately begin the process of creating its own police force.

mm

Published

on

Guest opinion column from Drew Barnes, MLA

In the Fair Deal Panel report, it was recommended that Alberta create its own police force. It is what we heard loud and clear from Albertans across the province. It is imperative, now more than ever with the overreaching policies of Ottawa, that we have control over policing in our own land. Premier Kenney – in the government’s response – has committed to conducting a further analysis of the panel recommendation to move to an Alberta Provincial Police. This analysis will support why we should have our own police force that is overseen by a directly elected Alberta Chief of Police. An Alberta Provincial Police force is a constitutional right that we have, and it should be exercised. 

Historically, Alberta had its own police force from 1917 to 1932. During that period, Alberta saw an increase in arrest rate and conviction, and a decrease in movement into Alberta by those with criminal intent. The reason for this increase has been attributed to the institutional difference in focus and priorities of a national vs an Alberta entity. 

This history serves to underscore why we need a police force that is familiar with the Alberta experience. One of the issues the RCMP have that makes it difficult for them to effectively police the province is the constant in-and-out of its members in communities, which nullifies the benefits that come with being familiar with an area and its particular challenges. An officer raised in Jasper, Ontario will be less familiar with the issues and concerns of Jasper, Alberta, than an Albertan. While some RCMP recruits may be from Alberta and may land a position in Alberta, that is too often not how it works. The lack of familiarity with community, and short-term posting protocol of the RCMP is an ongoing, acknowledged hinderance, for both the officers and the community.

The costs to operate the RCMP increase at a higher rate than provincially run police forces. A study comparing these costs found that over the span of eight years, the cost of operating RCMP detachments rose an average of $44.50 per capita. The costs for the Ontario Provincial Police force rose only $37.10 per capita on average during the same period.

We can cancel the contract with the federal government and the RCMP with two years notice. Providing notice that we will cancel the contract can take place as early as March 31, 2021. This would allow us to terminate the contract as of March 31, 2023 at no cost. Within that two-year gap, we can work out the details, such as settling accounts over buildings and equipment, which the current contract provides a road map for.

As a province, we even have a basic template in place that make this easier. The Alberta Sheriffs already perform many police duties in our province with 950 sworn members and 16 stations. We would simply need to look at expanding them into the areas that presently utilize RCMP service. 

The RCMP is a proud and iconic symbol of Canada, made up of proud, hardworking members from across Canada, however, it is time for Alberta to consider taking back it’s policing, to create local ownership, accountability, and to hire Albertans to police Alberta. Albertans should determine their own policing priorities based on their particular needs. It is time to bring back the Alberta Provincial Police.

Drew Barnes is the UCP MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat

Continue Reading

Opinion

GEROW: Canada is a freer country than most, but still not free

Darcy Gerow writes that while Canada scores well on the Human Freedom Index, many important freedoms are still denied Canadians.

mm

Published

on

A Canadian, in North Vietnam, asks if they can drink their beer outside the hotel on the street, the host says: “Of course you can, it’s a free country”.

It’s a bad joke, and like all bad jokes we need an explanation.

Every year, The Human Freedom Index ranks 162 countries from most free, to least. Canada has consistently held a high ranking on the list and is apparently the 4thfreest country in the world as of 2019 despite the enduring threat of violence for drinking beer in the street. Vietnam ranked 117 on the HFI, barely out outside of the least free quartile. 

The Human Freedom Index – published by The Fraser Institute, The Cato Institute and the Fredrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom – is well written and its methodology is well explained. At over 400 pages it’s an easy and interesting read.

However, Canadians who hold liberty as paramount have a hard time reconciling the fact that something as simple as drinking a beer on the street is not permissible in a place which is among the top 1 per cent of most free nations, while it is permissible under a flag bearing the hammer and sickle in countries that rank barely outside the bottom quartile of least free countries.  And beer drinking is the least of their concerns. 

Guns? They’re not on the list. Nor is there an indicator for self defense and the definition of property rights is too vague to assume it extends to firearms. 

What about heavy taxation? The Fraser Institute also released studies in 2019 that show how the average Canadian family will pay 44.7 per cent of its income in taxes, an amount considered oppressive by any humane standard. This is acknowledged in the HFI under the “top marginal tax rate” portion in the economic freedom group of indicators. Canada scores a 5 out of 10, or roughly the same as the average Canadian family’s net revenue. But the top marginal tax rate only makes up approximately 2.5 per cent of the total HFI score.

In the personal freedom group, women’s safety and security receives a score of 10/10. Which seems high for a country that has been globally lambasted for its record on missing and murdered indigenous women. Disappearance is measured in a category with conflict and terrorism and receives a 10/10 also. So, something doesn’t add up. Is the data incomplete? Or are facts being sensationalized? 

The personal freedom category is split into two sub-groups. The first is legal protection and security, to which the two former indicators belong. The second is specific personal freedoms, such as movement, religion, association, etc. It is a fine line when it comes to balancing these ideas as legal protection and security are generally considered a prerequisite for maintaining specific personal freedoms.

Yet when protecting those freedoms, the state has a tendency for its hand to grow heavy and its will to grow strong, such as imposing restrictions on free speech hidden behind the guise “hate” laws. The HFI does not have a provision for over-protection and it doesn’t appear to measure free speech specifically, although it is inherent in measurements of religious freedom, association and expression.

The thing to keep in mind is that The Human Freedom Index measures one country against 161 other countries. It is comparing relative freedom and only from data which is comparable from one country to another. There is no agorism yard stick. So Canada is freer than most other countries, and still not actually free.

The metrics and analysis in the HFI should be taken with a grain of salt, but let’s not discount the value of the index. It’s a gold mine for free market policy wonks. Income per capita in the top 25% of the freest countries is 3 times that of the average lower 75%. Even allowing a heavy contingency for improper weighting of indicators, minor data faults and loose interpretations of freedom, it is a very impressive statistic in defense of free markets and personal liberty.

In measuring up the Human Freedom Index, we should consider the words of Rousseau.

“Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.”

Darcy Gerow is a columnist for the Western Standard and the former Deputy Leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Continue Reading

Opinion

MORGAN: Injunction against inquiry shows anti-oil groups have something to hide

Cory Morgan writes that the 11th hour injunction by EcoJustice shows that the group has reason to fear the report’s release.

mm

Published

on

Alberta’s resource sector has been besieged by an organized campaign to shut it down for well over a decade and that campaign is working. Well organized protests backed by slick advertising campaigns have created the illusion that there is a strong base of support for an anti-energy movement in Alberta. Court challenges to energy projects seem endless and activist groups seem to just spring up like daisies to file them. Letter writing campaigns target investors and insurance companies demanding that they divest from Alberta energy projects, and it is working.

While political parties have had their means of fundraising and expenditures greatly limited in the last few years, activist groups appear to have no controls and their resources appear to be bottomless.

It is not beyond reason for Albertans to ask where the money is coming from for all of these campaigns against our core industries. It is well beyond reason to believe that the funding for these initiatives is coming from Albertans. We have a segment of the population who are inclined to self-loathing flagellation who would indeed would donate to such initiatives, but their numbers are low and tend to be folks working as artists and baristas. Where is the big money coming from?

Vivian Krause did some fantastic investigative work on tracking where the funding for the anti-energy movement in Western Canada was coming from. Krause made many clear and stark connections between foreign funders and domestic activist groups which usually used Tides as an intermediary for the dispersal of the funds. The organized and hysteric reaction of the anti-energy set to Krause tells one that she was clearly on the right track. They try to dismiss Krause as a conspiracy theorists but the connections are simply too clear to deny.

The Kenney government formed The Public inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns in July of 2019 and tasked them with answering the questions many Albertans have about the real source of funding for these activist groups. The inquiry should be producing some results soon and this appears to be making some environmentalists very uncomfortable.

Ecojustice is an activist law firm that is opposed to energy development in Alberta and they have just filed for an injunction to get the courts to stop the inquiry and block the release of it’s work.

This of course simply begs the question, what have they got to hide?

What could the inquiry be finding in order to trigger such an anti-democratic and desperate court action from an activist firm?

If there is nothing to be seen as the anti-energy groups claim, then why aren’t they looking forward to the inquiry releasing a big nothing-burger in a report? It would give the anti-energy set a fantastic “I told you so” opportunity and would allow them to easily dismiss any more claims of foreign funding being used to target Alberta’s industries.

The left in Alberta loves to claim a love of fiscal transparency and accountability, but they turn a blind eye when it comes to applying those principles to their pet activist groups.

Many of the groups who are working to shut down Alberta’s energy sector have charitable status. As we are seeing with WE, that is hardly a guarantee that these groups are principled or spending money with the interests of citizens in mind. The public has a keen eye for accountability among charities right now and it sure would be nice to see organizations cleared in this inquiry.

The attempt by Ecojustice to shut down the inquiry at the 11th hour demonstrates just how important this inquiry really is. Something stinks and it appears that Public inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns chaired by Steve Allan is getting close to the bottom of it.

Let’s hope that the Court of Queen’s bench tosses the application for an injunction into the trash where it belongs. We need to see what these groups are trying so desperately to hide.

Cory Morgan and a columnist for the Western Standard and a business owner in Priddis, Alberta

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.