In my ‘Topics: Queer Cultures’ class, taught by Steven Greenwood, we learned about the myth of progress. It’s the comforting notion that the quality of life for minorities increases with time, as society progresses towards a rational, equitable ideal. We are better than the barbarians of our past.
This myth has two ramifications, first dismissing the humanity of our predecessors and second placing undeserved faith into our present. In 1907, for example, a trans person in the United States could correct their passport’s gender marker easier than now.
McGill’s report on the 2020-2025 EDI Plan strictly adheres to a progress narrative. I don’t doubt that McGill’s Equity Office is full of devoted and underpaid staff. Their programming and initiatives should not go unappreciated. But by framing the report as a never-ending series of improvements, we alienate our marginalized readers. This is not the world they know, where around them, EDI programs are crashing to the ground, hate-motivated crimes are rising, and they’ve probably felt the personal effects of a conservative culture through increased microaggressions, exclusion, harassment, and discrimination. To its credit, the EDI Plan does make space for those affected by the war in Gaza (albeit obfuscated by McGill’s favourite use of the exoticizing phrase “crisis in the Middle East”). It would be nice to elaborate on the realities of other marginalized groups.
Stressing the urgency of equity initiatives while talking exclusively about improvements are goals in tension. The first page of the report reads, “As we continue to make advances as an institution on integrating the work of EDI into the everyday operations of the University […] we get closer to living up to our institutional mission and principles, that commit us to both academic rigour and inclusive excellence”. Apart from using a lot of words for a small amount of content, it’s disorienting to know McGill isn’t currently living up to these values, without knowing why not or how it can. The gap is mentioned throughout the report, often in a final sentence (“ much work remains to be done to embed equity, diversity, and inclusion into all areas and practices of the University” on page 1) but it’s unclear and disconcerting with its absence of specificity.
Statistics – or, more essentially, specificity – is another valuable tool for transparency. How many Indigenous students on nearby reserves, for example, will benefit from the tuition waiver? Dozens, or two? As a counterexample, the use of numbers is well applied during the section “Indigenous Pathways”, although the complete title – “Indigenous Pathways in Law Leads to Increase in Indigenous Students” – is a causal presumption.
As I’ve talked to McGill employees, with two or three thoughtful questions, they quickly divulge failings in the university’s operations. McGill shut down its subsidized parking for disabled staff, before backlash reversed the decision. Why weren’t the efforts of the union in this advocacy celebrated, and the cause of failure acknowledged? How are we supposed to feel supported when what we experience and what is recorded on paper reflect two different realities? We should be taking advantage of our talented, diverse staff by involving them in this process. Acknowledge their contribution by asking them what they think about their job, then put it in the report. If their complaints aren’t in line with McGill’s current EDI strategy, explain why.
A collaborative writing process will not only quickly correct the progress narrative myth, it will also highlight undervalued equity initiatives and provide more concrete and localized data. I was involved in an equity initiative. After sending a series of emails with intensity and frequency that bordered on vexatious, myself and a coworker got an invitation to the DPSLL’s office. After a tense conversation, the ad hoc committee on preferred names was created. I was pleased to see it mentioned in the report, but the description seemed a little off. It was included in the Wellness Hub section, but the Wellness Hub has been one of the slowest units to adapt to preferred names, and is still refusing to modify their doctor notes for vague legal reasons. As an EDIC member, and a Senate member, I was solicited for feedback, but not everyone has this privilege.
Equity at McGill requires a more balanced approach that simultaneously acknowledges our progress, our failings, and the context in which we live. It should celebrate the work of the Equity Office and hold the University accountable where there are gaps – gaps that the Equity Office is well poised to identify and articulate.