The @globeandmail published this editorial which argues that it is “unjust” to “discriminate” against non minorities who apply for jobs in academia by prioritizing diverse candidates.
I am uniquely qualified to rebuke the false claims made in this article as I, with @allison_brown99 and @sufranceschet recently published a peer reviewed article in @bmj_latest about merit and quotas that is evidence-based (2/n) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33903170/
For example, arguing that we need to pick “the best candidate for the job” ignores the value of building the best team - which will have diverse lived experiences and strengths - would you bet on a hockey team with the five best goalies in the NHL to win the Stanley Cup? (3/n)
Secondly, looking for “the best” candidate ignores the extensive literature that documents bias and discrimination in hiring in academia. This evidence includes randomized trials btw.
Finally, the author states that quotas are “insulting” - whereas evidence from Norway, where quotas for corporate boards were implemented over 19 years ago - shows that they are viewed favourably by men and women.
Anyways, if you want more information on the effectiveness and potential design of quotas in academia, please read our BMJ Analysis. Because we researched our opinion, and I cannot say the same about the conjecture and anecdotes in the @globeandmail article.