UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position | Hacker News Reader

UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

cs.ubc.ca

112 pointsapsec112107 comments

> In accordance with UBC’s CRC Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Action Plan, and pursuant to Section 42 of the BC Human Rights code, the selection will be restricted to members of the following designated groups: persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, women and gender minorities (transgender, gender-fluid, nonbinary and Two-Spirit people), and racialized minorities. Applicants to CRC positions are asked to complete this equity survey as part of the application, and candidates from these groups must self-identify as belonging to one or more of the designated equity groups to be considered for the position. Because the search is limited to those self-identifying as members of designated equity groups, candidates must also provide their name to be considered.

Oh my god this is nuts

This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal.

I understand that in some countries with a long history of racial segregation there still is a culture of casual (or even subconscious) racism when considering new hires or university applicants. It's unspoken but very real and unless you've been an immigrant or minority you don't get to see the full extend of it.

But (and it's a big but) you don't solve this problem with more racism. I see headlines about US universities rejecting applicants because of their race or skin colour and how they "already have enough of them". That is crazy. Imagine how unfair it is to be rejected on that basis.

It's hard to tackle conspiring racists as a legislator. That's why all these weird half-measures came to be. But there are better ways. Standardized tests as the main or only criteria for university entry. Effective committees that oversee hiring choices and seek for evidence of racism and favoritism in the choices made by companies.

But when you impose objective criteria you risk hurting the wealthy and well-connected. So it's "better" to just shove a few more minorities on the list and make it look right without it actually being fair.

Another serious side-effect of this is that it breeds racism and resentment.

> This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal.

This problem arises because the people putting these policies into place (or their constituents, whatever) are trying to redefine the meaning of "fair".

Your definition of "fair" (and mine, and most peoples, and the sane one, and the original one before it was hijacked) is "equal treatment". Their definition of "fair" is "equal amounts of assets" - equity. Put another way, these laws are driven by people who think that it's unfair for different people to have different amounts of money.

You can probably guess which ideology this comes from.

Anyway, given that definition of "unfair", it's natural to define "racism" to mean "unequal outcomes" (different amounts of money) instead of the original "unequal treatment". From their perspective, the action mentioned in the article decreases racism.

Much like the old kind of racism needed also some whites to stand up and say "we do not want to benefit from this poisonous system, it is repulsive and we reject it", this new kind of racism will only end when at least some people who are intended to benefit from it start organizing and saying aloud "not in my name, I do not want to be treated like this".

Individuals do that already (like Sowell or Ayaan Hirsi Ali), but their total numbers haven't yet crossed a critical threshold, so they can be ignored. So far.

One must point out it's also likely to foment the classic flavor of racism. If you're there and succeeding as a cisgender white man, you might be inclined to think you're superior to the people eligible for various kinds of assistance, whether any individual actually needed/used it or not. You could carry that sense of superiority or that feeling of resentment the rest of your life.

Just to be clear, they seem to be only excluding able-bodied cisgender white men. Which is not to say it's a great policy, but in the interests of precision:

It seems like UBC is purposely trying to avoid clarity.

Section 42:

Special programs 42 (1)It is not discrimination or a contravention of this Code to plan, advertise, adopt or implement an employment equity program that

(a)has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and

(b)achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve that objective.

(2)[Repealed 2002-62-23.]

(3)On application by any person, with or without notice to any other person, the commissioner may approve any program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.

(4)Any program or activity approved under subsection (3) is not in contravention of this Code.

If you have to stipulate in a legal statute that something is not discrimination, then it's highly probable that that sentence in that statute is the only thing that makes it not discrimination.

Someone ignoring that sentence, but otherwise applying sound reasoning, will come to the conclusion that it's discrimination.

For instance, if the criminal code said that "a person commits an offense if they thumb their nose at a passing police cruiser", then that would be the one and only sentence which makes that a crime. It could not be deduced from anywhere else.

Actually we in Germany ( and I heard similar things about the Netherlands [1] ) have quite a few funding tracks that require gender equity for newly created professorships. In the final consequence many openings need to be restricted to only women so this opening is actually more open. Often the story has a recent prequel in which not enough women could be hired (the reason can be manifold and at least some of them are a result of systematic yet often not immediate discrimination)

[1] https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/ex...

Edit: added link

And this is how we ended up with the MAGA crowd, IMHO.

Telling white males they're inherently bad and nothing they can do to change that and that society that they still have a significant amount of control over despises them...

Who's telling them they are inherently bad?

It's a good question. The best message here might be "we've made the decision to prioritize fighting marginalization and we think this is the most effective way to do it -- nothing personal white guys". But it's a delicate message to send, and some people will never accept this as an appropriate way to hire: "why do I have to be completely shut out to make inclusion possible?"

UBC? I mean they're saying it would be bad for straight white men to get a tenure-track position. There's no difference between that and "we think you're bad and don't want you".

I don't see that they're saying that. I think they're saying it's very important for UBC to get some marginalized people into these positions, so they're making space for such a person. It doesn't mean white men are bad. (And technically, FWIW, the passage doesn't explicitly count sexual orientation as a dimension of marginalization.)

By definition it does mean that - they have identified a problem (something bad; too many white men) and a solution (a way to make things better; get rid of them).

Clearly it's painful to accept this, but banning people from positions on the basis of their race or gender is racism, hateful and always has been. Whatever their motivations are or are claimed to be is irrelevant. The claim that it isn't racism if it's against "powerful" people i.e. whites is a lie.

Again with the application of systemic change at the individual level. You hate to see it.

If I wanted to solve the problem (assuming it were perceived as such, due to males not getting the opportunity to be a nurse where they otherwise would want to) of nursing being predominantly a female profession, which option do I choose:

- investigate whether there are institutional (hiring bias, biased availability etc), cultural (nursing treated as "for girls"), or systemic (nursing careers primarily promoted in female-coded environments) reasons why males are seeing reduced opportunity to access nursing as a career

- just put up a sign saying "hiring male nurses", completely ignoring the raised concern about lack of opportunity to look good to a particular twisted perspective on systemic issues

It bothers me every time I see it. Even without the immorality of excluding people based on immutable features.

How is this not discrimination of protected classes, and therefore illegal?

Because this is in Canada, where they aren't bound by US Supreme Court decisions? Also I don't think straight white cis-male is a protected class in any case.

Is a gay black trans-woman part of a protected class?

> Also I don't think straight white cis-male is a protected class in any case.

A disabled "straight white cis-male" isn't a protected class in USA? Stop being racist.

We live in crazy times where some form of casual racism is acceptable, because the people who are racist claim they are "anti-racists". You can't be anti-racist if you say racist things, no matter what race is the target.

The first line of the Canadian Human Right Act is:

For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. (Emphasis mine)

Straight, white, cis-male seems to fall under a lot of protected classes.

>I don't think straight white cis-male is a protected class in any case

FYI, in the case of protected classes, it covers all people. For instance, if race is a protected class, that doesn't apply to some races, it applies to race in general. In other words, you can't discriminate based on race, regardless of the race being discriminated against.

That's how it works in the US, and I know this is Canada but your comment seemed to imply protected class was something else "in any case".

The position is for a job posting for a public university in Canada. The laws are very different than in the U.S. The Employment Equity Acts of 1986 and 1995 actually require these kinds of recruitments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada)

Edit: APPARENTLY NOT, SEE COMMENTS BELOW, VIDEO IS MISLEADINGLY CUT!

Canadian government doesn't care about the legality of breaking human rights.

Here is Trudeau saying:

> "Regardless of the fact that we are attacking your fundamental rights or limiting your fundamental rights the charter says that is wrong, we’re still gonna go ahead and do it."

https://twitter.com/apexworldnews/status/1473254056550449160

That's...wildly out of context.

Trudeau is criticizing the existence of the notwithstanding clause and it's invocation by the Quebec government to the effect that clip has him describing, not endorsing that behavior.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/justin-trudeau-shares-father-s-d...

Interesting, I didn't realize that. Thanks.

When first watching this, it was very believable, exactly because of Canada's recent behaviour regarding discrimination and lockdowns.

The way in which that video is clipped and the idea that you could listen to that and think he is saying those as a real statement and not as a scenario, are both scary to me.

This is disinformation.

I think people should be treated based on the content of their character and not by the colour of their skin.

Going from the code:

> Special programs 42

> (1)It is not discrimination or a contravention of this Code to plan, advertise, adopt or implement an employment equity program that

> (a)has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and

> (b)achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve that objective.

> (2)[Repealed 2002-62-23.]

> (3)On application by any person, with or without notice to any other person, the commissioner may approve any program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.

> (4)Any program or activity approved under subsection (3) is not in contravention of this Code.

It's fair to assume they have a representation gap that they need to ameliorate among their current tenured quantum researchers, hence the hiring restriction.

No comments on whether or not that's "right" or "wrong," but that's the inference.

I’m not sure normalising employers ability to specify the acceptable set of races of applicants is such a good idea.

It's fine. I'll just put down I'm gender fluid, and I'll just always turn up to work as a guy. If anyone questions it I'll claim I change at night in the privacy of my own home.

Meanwhile UBC to international students:

In Christmas holidays we close the dorms. Oh? Oh what's that? You don't have a place to stay? Well. Too fucking bad. Go find an extremely expensive hotel.

Oh what's that? The hotels are charging 500/night? Well. Sucks to be you then? Maybe fly back home during the holidays.

Oh but wait, you're worried about covid? Well. that really sucks doesn't it. So sad.

This news literally feels like someone is trying to actively make the situation so stupid that other diversification efforts are also put on pause.

I wonder.

Can this position go to a person of East Asian descent?

So that is to say, in the geographical area of UBC, the demographics being what they are, does that count as a "racialized minority"?

Or, never mind that, how about in consideration of the existing high representation of that group in STEM fields?

If they mean "non-white OK", they should write that, otherwise someone of East Asian descent has no idea whether to bother applying.

> Can this position go to a person of East Asian descent?

Sure, women can apply and get the role, I'm almost certain an east (or maybe south?) asian female will get this position given the demographics of talent available in that field.

Of course, I'm referring to a person who is not eligible in the other minority categories; someone who can only play the race card.

I do not intend to pose a puzzle question in which a logical short-cut provides a correct answer based on nothing but the syntax of the question and trivial surrounding information.

The question was "Can this position go to someone of East Asian descent?" and the answer is "yes, it most probably will." I'm guessing you meant "heterosexual male of East Asian descent"? Because, I'm guessing that category is excluded along with "white heterosexual males."

Is this clunky? Yes. Is there a better way of doing it? Maybe. Is it an explicitly biased policy? Yes.

However, correcting a biased system requires that there is a period with enforced change bias to correct the existing bias. This is because there are many ways previous explicitly biased policies entrench that bias even if the current environment is no longer explicitly biased.

Even if we were to assume that everyone is suddenly 0% biased on anything, a lack of explicit corrective actions will necessarily be long and dragged out continuing to harm the classes that are no longer explicitly discriminated against.

So given we know that hiring biases do still exist, and we know that many groups are underrepresented due to historical biases we end up stuck trying to fix a complex problem with very clunky binary tools.

As a very simple example: imagine you have a job where the starting rate for one group is $2 and for the other group it’s $1. Everything else is fair people get raises at the same rate (eg 10% or something). Then one day the law says “no, that’s bullshit”, and now everyone’s starting rate is $2. At this point all the people who were already employed are still earning half as much as their colleagues, despite the policies now being completely “fair”. If you just leave things as they are, eventually things will end up equal across both groups, but you have a potentially multiple generation latency. You could tried to correct the incomes, but that looks like discrimination: “we’re doubling the income of everyone in group B, group A is explicitly excluded”. The thing is in this case, even with this biased 2x income, the disadvantaged group is still worse off, due to the years of unfair compensation. If you try to correct for that you end up with another super biased behaviour.

What we’re seeing is an attempt to correct historical biases, and any such correction is necessarily biased, because otherwise even a perfectly unbiased continues to harm historical victims.

> However, correcting a biased system requires that there is a period with enforced change bias to correct the existing bias.

I guess all my calculus and systems theory textbooks were wrong, then.

Seriously, though, there are myriad problems with this premise:

a) It implicitly assumes that the system itself is biased instead of its inputs. b) It assumes that the system isn't already being corrected based on the first- or second-derivative on the inputs. c) Feedback loops (enforced change bias) can result in nasty exponential on oscillational responses.

And in the context of the code itself:

d) The code assumes the problem is systemic across all public departments and thus must apply to all of them; e) The code makes suitability to position (which is the point of hiring a professor) secondary to considerations irrelevant to the position. (Plain English: given two candidates, an old, experienced, non-racist white guy who tries to each and encourage all of his students vs. any candidate of one of the protected classes whose biases run toward their protected class, you must hire the biased candidate. And you can't tell if they are biased because the current environment enables that candidate to continue their bias in the current environment, which is to attempt to lift up those protected classes at any cost - if they exclude other protected classes or "white guys" it won't show up as a negative on the demographic statistics assembled.)

I agree there is a discrimination problem with certain people, but I don't think the solution is ever going to come from legislation like this. I think the solution has to be grass-roots and be done by gradually retiring out those with generational unconscious bias or by firing those that are outright discriminatory, and by gradually hiring in a younger generation that is (hopefully) less discriminatory.

That's a lot more work than making a half-assed law and winning votes because of that law, though.

How do you determine which ethnic groups have been historically disadvantaged and to what extent need correction?

Black: Yes

Native American: ?

Afghan: ?

Puerto Rican: ?

Hawaiian: ?

Japanese: ?

Jewish: ?

White: No

Or do you simply go until the diversity of the position/company matches the diversity of the general population?

Determining groups that have been historically disadvantaged is generally not difficult.

The part that is difficult is how you correct for that. There are many things you need to deal with. The most obvious ones being

* Fields having relatively small populations run into the standard low population vs. overall population statistics

* Fields that have historically restricted access to a group can legitimately point to a lack of "qualified" members in the restricted group

Neither has an easy solution. The only thing we know is that a failure to actively work on correcting the effect of historical discrimination extends the impact of that discrimination beyond the point when the discrimination "ended".

Like I said in the original post this particular example is clunky, but I also don't have any better ideas :-/

> Determining groups that have been historically disadvantaged is generally not difficult.

Want to elaborate on how to determine if an ethnic group is disadvantaged? I really do not see what the process would look like, that isn't just comparing population sizes.

Otherwise you get into these impossible questions of is anti-semitism worse than hate crimes against asians. Every ethnicity can point to a history of injustice against them. But if the ideas is to favor certain groups, that means there needs to be a way of choosing which are deserving and which are not.

The poster should revise their headline as it is inaccurate. A job posting that is aimed at female applicants (among other groups) is hardly "non-minority". It is definitely a diversity targeted policy.

It might be an honest mistake. The definition of “minority” is one of those things that is very fluid lately.

Do you get questioned on your self-expression of status?

If I were to express that my gender is non-binary, as I don't identify as any particular gender in the context of job interviews, would that be a problem?

> Do you get questioned on your self-expression of status?

I’ve started to apply for jobs in the Vancouver region again and there is a place for self-reporting your race, gender, sexuality, disability, and possibly other information. You can leave it blank or you can enter it in. Options for non-binary are present and so are is asexual, as an example.

I don’t know if this is representative of the market or not. I know my employer has asked everyone to update that information for all existing employees.

Canada is pretty diverse, but the diversity is localized in a handful of large metro areas from what I can see by going through the available census information.

I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question or not?

How is this not racial discrimination? If ‘positive racism’ is disallowed then surely outright discrimination shouldn’t be allowed either, right?

In this thread: A bunch of people from the U.S. not realizing that employment laws and norms are quite different in Canada, where this kind of "employment equity" (or what is called "affirmative action" in the U.S.) is required, especially for public institutions.

I guess it is always just sort of gross to view such blatant discrimination head-on regardless of where its happening. I suppose in the U.S. we just sort of brush this under the rug by allowing a hiring board to say it behind closed doors rather than making it public and in print.

Or you could be not realizing that people are uncomfortable with it regardless of those "laws and norms."

It's tempting to bring up something else more severe to prove the point: Should we be okay with what's happening with the Uyghurs in China because it's not happening here (wherever that is)? I would say no.

Asian Canadians are overwhelmingly the most over-represented group at UBC and due to this, minorities overall are hugely over-represented at UBC.

So do Asians count as White? Minority? Where do the Authorities say today?

In 2021, Asians are not Asian, but rather White Adjacent

So everyone except white, straight males then?

Codified racism, plain and simple.

Not racism because it doesn't apply to race minorities only, but also disabilities, sexual orientations, or simply women (which aren't even a minority), but I can still understand that some might find it disturbing.

So it’s not only racist

Being a racist has nothing to do with being a minority or not. Let’s not forget that. The typical expression is majority onto minority group, but that is not a requirement. I.e. if I move to China (or your country of choice) I can in fact be racist toward the majority Han Chinese people living there despite me being a white minority. Likewise they may persecute me for my race and that would also be racism.

I’d also argue the majority/minority thing is weakened in a global context. Why limit such things to the border of a county, city, or nation state?

You're correct, I should have said codified bigotry.

Majorly editorialized title for a link to the position posting. IIUC that's not OK by the site guidelines.

So does that change what the site says? Does that change the requirements for the position?

Well, since being a woman is also valid, the title talking about “minorities” is wrong.

Yes. Only straight, white males are explicitly verboten from applying.

And it’s ok to discriminate those, right? Right?

That does not matter in this discussion. The discussion is about the title, not whether discrimination is right nor not.

Glad this got flagged off. What a disaster this entire thread is.

I am happy to burn some karma calling out this behavior.

I hope someone sues them and wins. If anyone knows how to help make that happen do tell.

> Two-Spirit people

now this is new.

It really isn’t - it’s been a part of many Native (north&south) American cultures forever.

How do you prove this?

Nope. It's basically just a term used for trans/non-binary people in an indigenous community.

For example, We'wha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We'wha

The term "two spirit" is relatively new(1990s), but many tribes would have a term for basically "a man who lives as a woman" or vice versa.

The first documented evidence of it seems to go back 300 years, most likely it has existed hundreds, if not thousands, of years before that.

Narrator: it wasn't

Mildly new-ish, coined in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit

My first reaction was, "This is fucking ridiculous!"

But after looking at their complete jobs page, it seems like this requirement of being from one of the designated groups may be coming from the source which funds the Canada Research Chair?

(see the PDF they link on their job description: https://academic.ubc.ca/sites/vpa.ubc.ca/files/documents/EDI...)

If so, then I don't really see a problem with it. It seems like it is a measure on the part of the government of Canada to increase diversity in technical academia.

I think specifying the race of applicants for positions is bad

One might even call it … racism?

First of all, they do not only whitelist/blacklist by race. They also whitelist/blacklist by other characteristics (gender, sexual preferences).

It seems as if the Canada Research Chair is funded by the national government of Canada specifically to increase diversity in Canadian academia. It just so happens that UBC is hosting one position for quantum computing. Presumably there are other Canada Research Chairs available at other universities. Presumably, the government of Canada also offers funding for positions that does not discriminate based on the designations that this particular funding does discriminate on.

Maybe the overall allocation of national funds to academic positions is not as biased as we may think just by looking at this job posting.

All I'm saying is, if the source of the funding is the national government, then a knee-jerk reaction against UBC is irrational without because it doesn't take into account the national effects of higher education funding by the Canadian government.

(Also, how is this different from any number of fellowships offered in the US higher education system to women and minorities?)

Any other examples of discrimination are also bad. How is this hard dude.

I have worked in academia as a minority. To do so is to face constant exposure to discrimination on almost every front.

Honestly, I believe the entire concept of higher education needs a radical change and that projects like Khan Academy will lead the way.

Within the context of academia, though, I don't have any particular problem with small changes applied at a national level to try and address the systemic discrimination that the majority of people in the system are blind to.

I dont think discrimination solves discrimination

What do you think solves discrimination?

Does the OP need to have such answers ready?

If someone observes that healing crystals and prayers do not cure cancer, should they be required to provide a perfect cure for cancer before the healing crystal and prayer practice is discontinued?

I happen to agree with the OP. Discrimination to solve discrimination is rather similar to "war to end all wars". And as for your question, I don't think that wars, discrimination etc. can be ultimately solved; they aren't mathematical tasks but results of innate human flaws, so fundamentally unsolvable unless you redesign humans, which has always been a failure. But they or their consequences can be mitigated, much like we managed to mitigate many other human flaws.

I would rather ask the opposite side for some reasons why they think that an end of discrimination will be achieved by lifting the categories of race or gender to a legally critical concept.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com