Hamilton city council has committed to taking an equity and inclusion lens to municipal decisions going forward.
Two weeks ago, Mayor Fred Eisenberger brought a motion to city council to implement a new equity, diversity and inclusion lens into city policies.
The motion passed unanimously and calls for a report to be brought forward on how to introduce an EDI lens to all city initiatives.
Attached to the motion was a draft version of an equity, diversity and inclusion handbook.
The motion also includes an allocation of $5,000 for city council to hold an EDI summit.
The new lens builds on the recommendations highlighted in Hamilton’s equity and inclusion policy implemented in 2010.
Ward 1 councillor Maureen Wilson said an EDI lens will require the city to be more specific and concrete when it incorporates equity and inclusion into different policies.
According to Wilson, it is not about quotas and targets, but about a shift in decision-making that will require city council to include the perspectives of all communities.
The EDI lens will first be applied to issues concerning housing and homelessness.
However, Wilson sees potential for it to affect how the city envisions issues like transit, helping to consider the ways that different communities, like women or bikers, get around in Hamilton.
Eisenberger’s motion followed debate at city councillor over the city manager search committee and interview process, which some individuals, including Wilson and Ward 3 councillor Nrinder Nann, criticized for not taking a diverse and inclusive approach.
Denise Christopherson, the CEO of the YWCA Hamilton and chair of the status of women committee, has called for city council to adopt an EDI framework for years.
Christopherson said she is encouraged by the support for the motion at city council and appreciative of the efforts of Wilson and Nann in pushing this forward.
“It’s been in the works for a long time,” Christopherson said. “To develop a framework, this is going to be a multi-year work project that hopefully gets ingrained in everything they do at city hall. So when they're putting forward a proposal, it’s about, have they gone through the lens of inclusion? Who have they consulted with?”
The YWCA Hamilton currently runs multiple programs providing housing for non-binary people and women without places to stay.
Christopherson is hopeful that the new lens will result in more funding for programs like these.
“I like to say that the city should have a hand in all marginalized communities,” Christopherson said. “Hopefully we see more investment in those necessary programs.”
Community organizer Sophie Geffros is also optimistic about the new lens and what it could mean for current city council issues.
“I’m cautiously excited about it, because it signals to me that the city is at least beginning to acknowledge that designing a city around the needs of straight, white, middle class, able bodied men is not just ineffective but can be actively harmful for its marginalized citizens,” Geffros said.
As the city still awaits a report on how the lens will be implemented, activists and supporters of the motion are hopeful about the many policy areas a city-wide EDI framework could effect change in.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
McMaster University is currently taking its second employment equity census to evaluate the diversity of McMaster’s staff and faculty.
The voluntary census is open to all McMaster employees and identifies the representation of five target groups: women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples and LGBTQA2S+ employees.
The census comes three years after the first census, which was taken in 2016 and produced the first employment equity report and led to the development of McMaster’s employment equity framework.
According to the report from the 2016 census, 43.07 per cent of all McMaster staff and faculty participated. Of that 43 per cent, only 2.12 per cent across the institution self-identified as part of the LGBTQA2S+ community.
In a number of high participation-rates groups, less than two per cent per cent identified as Aboriginal, 10.18 per cent indicated they were members of visible minority groups and less than four per cent indicated that they had a disability.
61.93 per cent identified as women.
According to the report, the representation of women was above representation in the overall Canadian labour force statistics, while internal representation of Indigenous individuals and individuals with disabilities fell below them.
The visible minority representation was far below external representation.
One recommendation from the first census was that McMaster form an employment equity implementation team to promote the employment equity framework.
Since 2017, May-Marie Duwai-Sowa, the university’s employment equity specialist, has been working closely with Arig al Shaibah, the associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion), to improve McMaster’s employment equity.
According to Duwai-Sowa, over a thousand faculty members, chairs and directors have undergone training for equitable hiring and recruitment practices. The EEIT will also run Indigenous cultural competency training for many McMaster employees on March 8.
One pilot project that has been implemented by the EEIT is a self-ID survey for interviews within certain faculties, where applicants were asked to identify their background.
“If you have candidates from diverse backgrounds that meet the requirements, there should be no reason why they should not make your long or short list,” Duwai-Sowa said. “The focus is still obviously hiring excellent candidates that meet the bar of excellence and meet the requirements that are in the posting.”
Duwai-Sowa also pointed to McMaster’s efforts to reach applicants from different backgrounds. For example, McMaster is ensuring its jobs are posted on Indigenous Link, a website to help Indigenous communities find employment.
“It is really about making sure our workforce is diverse now so we are meeting the needs of our students because our student population is also diverse,” Duwai-Sowa said.
One key recommendation from the 2016 report yet to be implemented is a systems-wide review of current hiring and retention practices and policies. This is expected to begin soon and be released by the end of 2019.
Noticeably absent from both the 2016 report and the upcoming 2019 employment census is race-specific data.
Many major Canadian universities still do not collect data on the race of their faculty and students.
“We are currently working on incorporating disaggregate breakdowns of radicalized groups and Indigenous peoples for both the employee census, applicant self- ID survey and student self ID survey, which is planned to be initiated this fall,” said Duwai-Sowa.
The equity and inclusion team is hoping to release the results of this year’s employment census in the upcoming fall.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Following recent snowstorms that deposited as much as 40 cm onto Hamilton streets, some Hamilton residents are using social media to bring attention to the issue of snow-covered residential sidewalks.
Currently, residents are expected to clear snow from their sidewalks within 24 hours of a “snow event.” If residents fail to comply, the city will issue a 24-hour “Notice to Comply,” followed by possible inspection and a contracting fee for the homeowner.
However, residents say both residential and city sidewalks are still not being cleared, either by residents or by the city.
The Disability Justice Network of Ontario has encouraged residents to participate in the “Snow and Tell” campaign by tweeting out pictures of snow or ice-covered roads and sidewalks using the hashtag #AODAfail, referring to the Accessibility for Ontarians for Disabilities Act.
https://twitter.com/VicBick/status/1087879002092646401
McMaster student and local community organizer Sophie Geffros supports the campaigns and says it a serious issue of accessibility and justice.
Geffros uses a wheelchair and knows how especially difficult it can be for those who use mobility devices to navigate through snow-covered streets.
“It's people who use mobility devices. It's people with strollers. And it's older folks. People end up on the street. If you go on any street after a major storm, you'll see people in wheelchairs and with buggies on the street with cars because the sidewalks just aren't clear,” Geffros said.
https://twitter.com/sgeffros/status/1087384392866123778
Snow-covered sidewalks also affect the ability for people, especially those who use mobility devices, to access public transit.
“Even when snow has been cleared, often times when it gets cleared, it gets piled on curb cuts and piled near bus stops and all these places that are that are vital to people with disabilities,” Geffros said.
https://twitter.com/craig_burley/status/1088798476081741824
Geffros sees the need for clearing sidewalks as non-negotiable.
“By treating our sidewalk network as not a network but hundreds of individual tiny chunks of sidewalk, it means that if there's a breakdown at any point in that network, I can't get around,” Geffros said. “If every single sidewalk on my street is shoveled but one isn't, I can't use that entire sidewalk. We need to think of it as a vital service in the same way that we think of road snow clearance as a vital service.”
Public awareness about the issue may push city council.
Some councillors have expressed support for a city-run snow clearing service, including Ward 1 councillor Maureen Wilson and Ward 3 councillor Nrinder Nann.
I just don’t find it all that complicated. Cities are for people. It is in our best interest, financial and otherwise, to plow sidewalks. It’s also a matter of justice. I await the city manager’s report and ensuing debate
— Maureen Wilson (She / Her) (@ward1wilson) January 29, 2019
A city council report issued in 2014 stated that a 34 dollar annual increase in tax for each homeowner would be enough to fund sidewalk snow-clearing.
Recently, Wilson requested the city council to issue a new report on the potential costs of funding snow-clearing service.
Geffros sees potential for the current discourse to open up to further discussions on other issues of accessibility and social justice.
Hamilton’s operating budget will likely be finalized around April. Until then, Geffros and other Hamilton residents will continue to speak out on the issue.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Donna Nadeem
On Jan. 22, Arig al Shaibah, the associate vice-president (Equity and Inclusion) with the McMaster equity and inclusion office, held an event in the Mills Library Connections Centre centered around McMaster’s “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Framework and Strategy.”
During her term, al Shaibah plans to engage with local and historically underrepresented and marginalized communities to understand and learn about their challenges.
She hopes this awareness will enable her to build strong ideas and strategies to advance the equity and inclusion goals at McMaster.
The event begin with al Shaibah’s presentation on McMaster’s EDI framework and strategy.
McMaster’s EDI framework is broken down into four pillars: institutional commitment and capacity, educational content and context, interactional capabilities and climate and compositional diversity and community engagement.
The first pillar aims to “mobilize McMaster’s commitment and capacity to advance inclusive excellence by establishing and resourcing structures, systems, policies and processes that facilitate equity, diversity and inclusion leadership, governance and accountability.”
The second pillar seeks to strengthen academic programs, practices and scholarships to ensure they “demonstrate relevance… to diverse local, regional, national and global communities.”
The third pillar focuses on improving the McMaster community’s ability to foster a culture of inclusion and an environment where members feel “a sense of dignity and belonging.”
The fourth pillar aims to engage marginalized communities on campus, enhance employment equity, and improve student access and success amongst historically underrepresented students and community members.
“Not everyone here feels included, so even among our diverse [community population], some of us may feel included and others not, in part because of inequities that exist,” said al Shaibah.
Al Shaibah explained an action plan that would help facilitate the development of the EDI plan.
Some of the points included developing goals across the institution and faculties and integrating the EDI into academic programs and self-reported student experiences, strengthening complaint resolution from harassment and discrimination complaints and increasing training for McMaster community members and committees.
Throughout the presentation, al Shaibah spoke in abstract terms, not outlining specific initiatives that the university will undertake take to improve student access and success amongst marginalized students and training for McMaster community members.
After the presentation, the floor was open for students to express concerns and feedback.
Students asked for more clarity about McMaster’s plans to meet the objectives stipulated in the EDI.
Even after students pressed further, Shaibah still failed to clarify what in particular she would do to work to combat the problems she raised.
One student expressed concern over the fact that his friend who is of Indigenous descent was not able to obtain a Teaching Assistant position for an Indigenous course while a student who was not of Indigenous heritage successfully secured the position.
Al Shaibah responded that if the candidates’ qualifications were equal, the Indigenous students’ application should have been prioritized.
Students also asked about whether other universities have implemented this EDI framework and whether it has been successful for them.
Al Shaibah said that some schools have explored strategies similar to this, but have not pursued an ‘across the board’ strategy that applied to faculties across the entire institution.
In addition, students asked how they could get involved with the implementation of the strategy.
According to Al Shaibah, McMaster students can promote the EDI framework through clubs and the McMaster Students Union. Students can also contact McMaster’s equity and inclusion office at equity@mcmaster.ca.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
As much as inclusion and diversity have become buzzwords in elections and values upheld by student unions, measures to implement equitable services and plans are often met with resistance.
Recently, the University of Toronto Student Union (UTSU) introduced an Equity Plan which, if fully implemented, will remove representation for most colleges and faculty programs and add ten constituency directors. These directors will represent indigenous students, LGBTQ students, racialized students, women, athletes, international students, mature students, students with disabilities, first years, and commuters.
Although the UTSU’s plan is in its beginning stages and has not yet passed at their Annual General Meeting, it has already become a controversial topic at U of T and beyond.
In an article in the National Post, post-secondary education commentator Robyn Urback condemned the UTSU’s plan for all the wrong reasons. She called it “harrowingly stupid,” and aimed to expose the plan for what she thinks it truly is: an attack on white men. Urback’s article has unfortunately served as a reference point for many U of T undergrads and others who are outraged by this plan. It’s been cited in comments in U of T’s student newspaper The Varsity and other social media platforms as an acceptable rationale for why UTSU’s plan is so “stupid.”
Yet, Urback is missing the point, as are many of those disagreeing with UTSU’s plan. While there are many things to criticize about this Equity Plan, none of these criticisms will be taken seriously if they continue attacking “equity” instead of the “plan.”
The UTSU’s plan is clearly a decision based on inclusion and the desire to give marginalized communities on campus a voice. Since representation of minorities and democratic bodies elected by the majority don’t always go hand in hand, introducing ideas that aim to better represent marginalized groups is an incredibly difficult task.
This attempt to introduce something new and unheard of before in student governments should be criticized constructively and given credit for its radical effort. The exclusion of marginalized identities from student government is undoubtedly an important issue in post-secondary representation.
Can the UTSU’s plan fix this systemic problem? I don’t think so. But I think the UTSU’s board understands the level of reform that needs to take place in student unions.
The plan will certainly increase descriptive representation on student council, making marginalized identities visible, yet it will encourage a culture of placing the responsibility of meeting minority needs to minority members. It limits representation as something that can be achieved only by those whose experiences are identical to their constituents. This assumption of similarity is extremely flawed, given that our reliance on democratic systems is based on our belief that our representatives are capable of addressing our needs regardless of differences.
Instead of emphasizing the idea that women, LGBTQA+ individuals, racialized or disabled students are present in all faculties, across the entire campus and catering to their needs is only the just and equitable thing to do, it will instead encourage the idea that placing one queer, or disabled, or indigenous student on a governing body to represent their communities will create larger cultural impacts. Sure, that one director for racialized students might offer some insight on a policy, but are the creators of this plan hoping that somehow the one voice in the assembly will be more than that? Will it cause an increase in the number of racialized directors elected for other positions on the assembly, for president?
The UTSU’s plan assumes that guaranteeing a seat at the table for these identities will solve complex problems of representation. We want our communities represented, but true success would mean achieving proportional representation in the current structure of student assemblies. It would mean members of marginalized communities being elected by students to represent them without the student union creating mandatory positions. This plan would not work towards breaking down barriers and prejudices that cause the underrepresentation of these groups in the first place.
It seems as though the UTSU forgot what the goal of their plan really is: to create a campus where equity is the norm and marginalized identities no longer have to be referred to as marginalized. By restructuring their student union assembly to have boxes for these marginalized identities, the UTSU will be building a system that secures representation but ignores the deeper problems they are trying to address.
Jyssika Russell, running on a platform of equity and accessibility, is advocating for an inclusion council in the MSU.
She suggests expanding the existing roundtable to include the core of the organization and the president of the MSU. “We need to have direction. We need to have campaigns and student feedback,” said Russell.
Aside from stating that there needs to be a more long-term vision for the service, Russell’s hopes do not differ greatly from how Diversity Services already aims to function.
One of Russell’s chief platform points is improving the emergency fund. The fund is already available through the office of student Financial Aid and Scholarships, but according to Russell is not well advertised and rarely offered.
Russell’s goal is to make the funds more readily available to students - even those who are not eligible for OSAP - and to ensure that these loans are interest free.
The University, however, would still be the only organization with the authority to determine student need for this money. Russell would not ensure the completion of this emergency fund if the University were to put an end to her effort.
Russell plans to use the MSU surplus to fund these loans, though the organization is ill-equipped to deal with financial responsibility of this scale.
“It’s the most advocacy-based idea and the MSU doesn’t specifically focus on finances yet so there is a lot more research that needs to happen,” said Russell about the emergency fund.
She continued, “We will need direct collaboration with the university and when it comes to money people are cautious.”
Another of Russell’s platform points is MSU-provided busses to and from Art Crawl and other local events.
“I am aware that the HSR goes there, but I want to make local events known to people,” said Russell.
The busses would be used for first year students who may not be comfortable taking the HSR or CAs who want to take student groups.
“Even if I don’t win, I still want to work with the MSU to achieve my goals. I’m not running just to be President, I’m running to get these policies in place,” said Russell, who has been working in the MSU for two years as coordinator of the Queer Student Community Centre.
She continued, “I want to make sure I share that I’m all about inclusivity, and meeting students’ personal needs versus simply wants.”
Campaign catchphrase: Diversity, inclusion and equity
Year/Program: Fourth-year biology
Most ambitious platform point: Emergency Fund
Would vote for: Israa Ali, because she embodies the right characteristics and has similar points to Russell.
Point she’s critical of: Brodka's Freedom Credit. “I like the idea, I just don’t think it will work in practice."
McMaster complies with provincial regulations regarding accessibility, but can the institution address what accessibility means for different students and foster a culture of accessibility across the university?
Ramps, braille design and test accommodation are just some of the ways campuses strive to be more accessible to students with disabilities. But is the University doing enough to understand the many facets of accessibility and the issues that come along with aiming for a completely accessible campus?
The McMaster Accessibility Forum, which will be held on Nov. 15, aims to address issues concerning accessibility on campus. This will be the second such forum held, where organizers hope to compile a list of student concerns to bring to different bodies across the University.
Removing barriers of all kinds
Mainstream definitions of accessibility typically conjure images of physical barriers or buildings with highly accessible design features such as ramps or wheelchair lifts. Removing physical barriers and creating a more physically accessible environment has been an institutional priority for many years.
Tim Nolan, Manager of Disability Services, mentioned that McMaster overall has been steadily improving physical accessibility and conducting building wide accessibility audits for years.
Nolan noted that new technology can be extremely helpful in diminishing physical barriers. He gave the example of Urban Braille Design, which uses texture contrast in paving sidewalks to give visual orientation to those who are blind and visually impaired. This technology has just been installed in new sidewalks in front of the McMaster Museum of Art.
However, Nolan also noted that when some technologies are developed, “accessibility is not always a forefront.” And while new buildings should comply with Built Environmental Standards according to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act (AODA), navigating campus is not always the easiest task.
Meghan Hines, a fourth year Commerce student and one of the organizers of the forum, remarked how for a first-year student with a physical disability it can be cumbersome to initially get around campus.
Hines, a student with a physical disability herself, noted that the wheelchair lift in MUSC requires a special pass to use, which discourages more students from using it and therefore negates its main purpose.
However, students with physical disabilities are just one group who require special attention, according to Ann Fudge Schormans, Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work and member of the Disability Action Group.
Fudge Schormans highlighted how issues surrounding students with learning disabilities or disabilities related to mental health issues often go unnoticed. She emphasized how this can be especially significant because of the high degree of stigma attributed to both types of disability.
While mental health awareness has been a major focus point of both University Administration and MSU strategy, it does not necessarily address mental health issues from a disability framework.
Alisa, a student and psychiatric survivor, emphasized how the current framework tends to promote an overtly medicalized view of mental health issues. She believes this leads to accommodations primarily being made for physical disabilities and then the same accommodations being uniformly applied to mental health cases.
“The issue stems from how we think about mental health in terms of thinking of it as solely a medical idea… The way Mac talks about mental health awareness obscures the fact that these people belong to an equity group which can be connected to others with different disabilities.”
Raihanna Hirji-Khalfan, an Accessibility Specialist with the Human Rights and Equity Services Office, also argued that equity for students with disabilities is a major issue, especially in regards to attitudinal biases.
“Attitudinal barriers are a huge issue. So trying to create a culture of accessibility is extremely important. You can’t necessarily eliminate all barriers but if there is a culture of accessibility it can limit or negate the effects of exclusion or barriers on campus.”
Slow change
Since AODA came into force in 2005, post-secondary institutions and other organizations have had to comply with various regulations, especially with regards to customer service. The goal is to ensure a fully-accessible Ontario by 2025. Tim Nolan asserted how important this timeline is, in order to provide an end-date for institutions to make themselves fully accessible.
According to the McMaster Accessibility Plan, the University has smaller milestones to comply with prior to the 2025 end goal. Online AODA training modules were some of the first measures that were undertaken by the University. Some education- based regulations must be complied with by Jan. 1 2013 and are extremely relevant to students and staff.
One specific regulation requires institutions to provide accessible educational materials such as textbooks, in a variety of formats. Another regulation mandates that educators receive adequate training in accessibility awareness.
But McMaster does not have standard training for instructors across faculties on disability awareness, beyond the limited AODA online modules.
Fudge Schormans explained that, “more could be done in terms of AODA compliance training, more than just the modules.” She suggested that a broader range of tools should be made available for instructors to increase the accessibility of the curriculum and lectures.
According to Nolan, the University will soon be rolling out a tool from the Council of Ontario Universities that should help improve instructional design.
Part of $700,000 in funding from TD Bank was allocated to make textbook and resource accessibility a more attainable goal and allowed a new staff position in Library Services. The TD Coordinator for Library Accessibility Services is responsible for working with students with disabilities and adaptive technologies.
However, students with disabilities and accessibility awareness are still not at the forefront of McMaster’s administrative strategy. As outlined in recent OUSA documents, it remains difficult for institutions to address the diverse array of needs of different disabilities, given the complex process and documentation required to receive government funding. Students like Meghan often pay out of their own pocket for special documentation or services.
Leaders in accessibility
While McMaster has long recognized the value of an accessible campus, even prior to AODA, some Ontario universities have excelled in addressing equity for students with disabilities.
York, Ryerson and Toronto all have programs in disability or equity studies, which create a higher degree of student awareness of accessibility issues. Guelph is recognized as a leader in the field as the host of an annual Accessibility Conference.
Some campuses, such as Brock, provide a higher degree of direct student support to students with disabilities, offering students with physical disabilities attendant care to help with their daily living. Other campuses offer students with disabilities their own spaces for peer support and student campaigns.
UOIT has an entire virtual unit dedicated to universal instructional design. McMaster’s School of Social Work has recently begun inviting students with intellectual disabilities to audit courses in order to open up otherwise unavailable opportunities for these students.
Fudge Schormans explained that faculty have remarked upon how all students have benefitted from this experience and introducing new teaching methods has created greater dialogue and diversity in the classroom.
The Accessibility Forum creates an open and inclusive atmosphere for students with disabilities to voice their concerns about how McMaster approaches the issue of accessibility. Katie, a student with a hearing disability, is planning on attending the forum but isn’t sure what will come out of it. “I think it’s hard to be fully accessible because everyone has such different issues,“ she said.
McMaster has set out to create an inclusive environment for students of all abilities, as mandated in the President’s Advisory Committee on Building an Inclusive Community (PACBIC). But in trying to create a culture of accessibility, students have argued that the institution must both address the group as whole while also avoiding the amalgamation of diverse accessibility needs into a homogenous category.
Students with disabilities are a group that strives to be more recognized, and fostering an accessible environment is just the first step towards recognizing this group’s needs.
