There is no
doubt that Vancouverites have a lot to celebrate. Tourism
brochures describe our city as clean and safe, a paradise of
mountains and oceans, a highly multi-cultural nirvana with many
interesting and diverse neighbourhoods.
Of course,
being as we are on the "Left Coast", we are always a bit
ahead of the pack. At the close of the 2006 winter Olympics, our
mayor, Sam Sullivan, was the first quadriplegic in history to
accept an Olympic flag. And this month, we have two more firsts to
celebrate. Jim Chu, the new chief of police for the City of
Vancouver is the first Chinese-Canadian to become the head of a
police force in Canada. Meanwhile, in West Vancouver, Kash
(Kashmir) Heed, has just become the first Indo-Canadian to be
appointed to the same position in that district.
As a human
rights practitioner, these appointments are a cause for
celebration. They demonstrate that our system is working. Human
rights laws in Canada are intended to ensure that the every
citizen in Canada has equality of opportunity, the ability to
participate fully in Canadian society without discrimination. Our
system is designed to ensure that employers focus on
qualifications, rather than on personal characteristics like sex
or race, when awarding jobs.
A Vancouver
Sun article announcing Jim Chu’s appointment referred to the
fact that City Council had been looking for a candidate that would
satisfy its "desire for diversity." 1 Uh Oh.
There it is. That diversity word. We all know what that means.
When employers say they want to satisfy a desire for diversity it
means that the one who can check the box will get the job. Which
box? The box that gets checked if one is a member of a
"traditionally disadvantaged" group, which really means
anyone other than a white male.
In Canada
our human rights framework is set up in large part to address a
historical power imbalance. Our interpretive lens is the
traditional North American win/lose paradigm. The winners are the
group who traditionally enjoyed an advantage with respect to
access to opportunity and privilege. We all know who that group
is: white men. Historically, in almost every profession, every job
that bestowed power, prestige and privilege was exclusively filled
by white men.
However,
where there are winners, there must be losers. If white men are
the winners (referred to as "the traditionally advantaged
group" in human rights speak), the losers must be those
individuals belonging to a "traditionally disadvantaged
group". In Canada, we have, in fact, identified four of these
groups: women, members of visible minorities, disabled persons and
aboriginals.
Looking
through the win/lose lens, the intention is to turn those losers
into winners. However, that is not supposed to happen by giving
them any advantage relative to the traditionally advantaged group.
Human rights laws are simply supposed to level the playing field
and make sure everyone has fair access to a piece of the power and
privilege pie.
What I have
noticed, however, is that whenever anyone non-white or female is
awarded a coveted position, the subtext is always that they got it
because they can check that box. Regardless of their
qualifications and/or abilities, there is always that underlying
suggestion that they really got it because of their personal
characteristics like race or gender.
When the CBC
broke the story about Jim Chu’s appointment, they included a
quote from Rick Lam, of the Chinatown Revitalization Committee.
Mr. Lam described Jim Chu’s appointment to chief of police as
" very positive for the community, not just because he's
Chinese. I mean, I think he got the job on his abilities,…"
2 I have to say I did a double take when I read that
quote. "I think he got the job on his abilities?"
It was a clear articulation of that sub-text, plainly visible for
all to see in black and white. The suggestion, or implication, was
that it was a distinct possibility that Mr. Chu could have gotten
the job because he is Chinese. Because he is Chinese, he can check
that box, the diversity box, the member of a disadvantaged group
box. The box that white guys can never check.
What really
bothers me is that you never hear these types of comments when we
uphold the status quo. When a white man gets the job, the sub-text
is that he got the job because of his qualifications, and because
he deserved it. It’s as if in these cases, personal
characteristics like race and sex are not a factor. This is
patently untrue.
Realistically,
we don’t hear those comments because it has always been a given
that the white guy is going to get the job. As Yasmin Jiwani
recently wrote in a Vancouver Sun Issues & Ideas article,
"Anglo culture is dominant and taken for granted". 3
When Jim Chu and Kash Heed started in the Vancouver Police
department in 1979 they were each the third member of their
particular ethnic group on the force. We are only just getting to
the point where we have individuals like Jim Chu and Kash Heed who
can apply for the positions of power and privilege in the police
force. We now have talented, dedicated, well-educated,
accomplished, experienced and qualified individuals that also
happen to be members of a "traditionally disadvantaged
group". And yet, simply because they are not white, the
sub-text which consistently arises when they are the successful
incumbent is that they don’t really deserve the job, and they
weren’t really the best candidate. They really only got it
because they can check that box.
This is a
fundamentally disrespectful and discriminatory sub-text. Taken to
the extreme, one can really appreciate the inherent contradiction
and falsehood it is based upon. Only white men get jobs based upon
qualifications while everyone else gets the job because they can
check that box. Only white men are qualified and everyone else isn’t.
Ethnicity and gender are a factor in hiring except when it comes
to white men. It all sounds pretty ridiculous to me. The reality
is that ethnicity and gender have historically always influenced
hiring decisions and it is important that we understand and
acknowledge that fact.
In April
2007, when both Jim Chu and Kash Heed were vying for the top job
at the City of Vancouver, Rattan Mall, editor of the Indo-Canadian
voice, wrote "It's not, 'Choose him just because he's a
brown guy.' What we're saying is if you have the caliber, you
should not be denied the position because you don't happen to be a
white person."4 Mr. Mall neatly
summarized the intention of our human rights framework. It is
about ensuring everyone gets equality of opportunity and equality
of outcome without the disadvantage that discrimination has
historically created. It is important to realize that not being
denied the position because you are not a white person does not
necessarily translate into you get the position because you are
not a white person. The sub-text is too simplistic and is untrue.
What is
true, however, is that in today’s multi-cultural and diverse
society, being able to check that box is becoming a business
advantage in workplaces across North America. And that fact can be
downright scary when you perceive someone else’s advantage to be
your disadvantage. I believe that part of the problem is our
win/lose paradigm. While white men may be identified in human
rights law as the traditionally advantaged group, there are lots
of white men these days who are feeling like they are now on the
losing end of the equation. Because they can’t check that box,
they are now feeling disadvantaged relative to those that can.
They are feeling like the losers, and let’s face it, no one
wants to be the loser.
This
win/lose perspective encourages fear, mistrust and prejudice.
Rather than fostering acceptance and inclusion, it is creating a
new verse in the us and them song. "They" want what we’ve
got, and they are getting it because they can check that box. Just
what we need; another reason to focus on our differences and
encourage those differences to foster resentment and hatred.
If we wish
to create the respectful and inclusive society envisaged by our
legislative framework, it is crucial to acknowledge and address
the fear and uncertainty that the inability to check that box has
created. We need to talk about what it really means when an
organization states, as they did at the City of Vancouver, that
they have a "desire for diversity".
According to
Ron Owens, vice president of diversity and inclusion for TMP
Worldwide, "Diversity is not about color—that’s one thing
that we’ve got to get through to everybody. It’s not
affirmative action either, and it’s not about quotas,…
Diversity and inclusion is the lifeblood of organizations today.
Diversity drives innovation, … and revenue." 5 "Diversity
is not about how you look, or where you come from, What it is
about—and what should matter to organizations—is how managers
and employees think and how their opinions impact their ability to
get along with, influence and work with those around them."6
In his book
Diversity at Work: The Business Case for Equity, Trevor Wilson
describes the essential elements of a diversity strategy for
business. He explains that a diversity strategy is not simply
based on the numerical representation of an internal work force
reflecting the external available work force. He writes that a
diversity strategy must be linked to a business objective, not
only to the social and moral purpose of correcting past
injustices. It cannot result in preferential treatment for some
groups. It must be inclusive of all employees, and it must protect
the merit principle to avoid tokenism and reverse discrimination. 7
Ellis Pines,
Mr. Owen’s colleague at TMP Worldwide, added this comment:
"In the future, the minority will be the majority. Throw out
everything you know, because the world is going to be
different." 5
In the City
of Vancouver, the future, as Ellis Pines describes it, is already
upon us. In today’s multi-cultural and global marketplace,
embracing diversity translates into business opportunities that
will ensure all employees will be members of an advantaged group.
It’s time we realize that we all benefit when we adjust our
perspective and shift from a win/lose human rights paradigm to a
win/win paradigm. Let’s start to focus on the "i" in
diversity – the individual and who he or she is, as opposed to
the group that an individual identifies with and whether or not he
or she can check that box. When individuals are respected and
appreciated for who they truly are, when all of us have the
opportunity to bring the best of ourselves, our personal
characteristics and our qualifications, to our workplaces, both
employees and employers are the winners. The ‘check that box’
sub-text keeps us on the road to discrimination and prejudice, and
we must be headed in the opposite direction if we are to survive
and prosper in today’s global business environment.
