Recent studies have highlighted issues of discrimination in various sectors in Canada. B.C. politicians described the provincial legislature as a “toxic” workplace plagued by discrimination. Similarly, the Canadian Human Rights Commission faced similar complaints about its own personnel. Additionally, a recent report from Statistics Canada indicated that one in five athletes and seven out of ten young Canadians have experienced discrimination and online hate, respectively.
Despite these reports, academic David Haskell suggests that Canada may not be as intolerant as these findings imply. Haskell, a professor at Wilfred Laurier University, argues that the pervasive focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) may be exaggerating instances of hate in Canada.
In a recent paper, Haskell discussed how DEI training might be influencing Canadians to perceive discrimination where it may not actually exist. When analyzing reports of discrimination, Haskell emphasizes the importance of examining the specifics of incidents labeled as “discriminatory.”
For instance, the StatCan report on discrimination in sports listed various types of discriminatory behaviors, including feeling uncomfortable, denied opportunities, and unfair penalties. However, the survey failed to clarify whether these denials were based on performance or discrimination.
Haskell also raises concerns about the subjective nature of identifying discrimination. He references psychologist Nick Haslam’s concept of “concept creep,” where the definition of discrimination has expanded to cover a broader range of issues. This broadening of definitions risks pathologizing everyday experiences and promoting a sense of victimhood, according to Haslam.
Additionally, Mark Lipton, a DEI specialist at Guelph University, acknowledges the challenges of determining discriminatory acts, especially regarding unconscious biases. Despite the difficulties in defining discrimination, Lipton advocates for addressing unconscious biases in a respectful manner.
Haskell and Lipton both highlight the subjective nature of identifying discrimination and the need for clear criteria to determine what constitutes discrimination. They point out the potential risks associated with subjective interpretations of hate and discrimination, particularly in the context of proposed legislation like the Online Harms Act.
