< Back Linked-In Article | Race & gender equity in construction can address labour shortages & improve the sector's reputation Kareem Sadiq Previous Next

< Back Entrepreneurship Following Targeted Workplace Harassment: Navigating Professional Banishment, Illness, and Financial Destruction to Launch a Business Previous Next

< Back Why the Clerk’s call to action on antiracism, equity, and inclusion in the public service will fail without racial equity at all levels. Kareem Sadiq Previous Next

< Back What's Happened Since 2023? We're Finally Ready to Launch - Read What Our President and CEO Went Through to Get Here Jun 1, 2024 Entrepreneurship Following Targeted Workplace Harassment: Navigating Professional Banishment, Illness, and Financial Destruction to Launch a Business The journey of entrepreneurship is often romanticized, depicted as a path paved with determination, innovation, and success. However, the reality for many aspiring nonwhite entrepreneurs is far more complicated, and includes challenges that extend beyond mere market dynamics. For people like Kareem Sadiq (President and CEO of EQiSpace) who stood-up to targeted racism and workplace harassment, the barriers to starting a business are deep, and require some examination of the relationship between professional adversity and entrepreneurial ambition. Read more about the barriers Kareem faced getting to this point over on Linked In . And stay tuned for more articles and analysis as EQiSpace gets up and running. in earnest. Previous Next

< Back White Saviours, Unicorns, and Erasure Kareem Sadiq May 23, 2023 Why the Clerk’s call to action on antiracism, equity, and inclusion in the public service will fail without racial equity at all levels. In Canada, decades of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies – dating back to the 1980s – have been unable to build and shape a public service that is demographically representative of Canadians. On May 9, 2023, Janice Charette, the Clerk of Canada’s Public Service, issued a “Call to Action forward direction message to deputies,” with respect to the Call to Action on Antiracism, Equity, and Inclusion in the Public Service , launched in 2021. Without senior management accountability for the impact of racial harassment on former public servants, the elimination of toxic public service work culture, and a commitment to racial equity at all levels, the Clerk’s call to action, along with the recent direction to deputy ministers (DMs), will fail. In the forward direction message, the Clerk states that transformational change is required to fully realize the call to action on antiracism. Yet in a tacit concession that a transformational vision cannot be achieved, the Clerk identifies “a small list” of six actions that DMs must implement immediately: Direct each EX to sponsor two or more non-white employees for leadership roles; Personally endorse at least one non-white recruitment campaign; Give language training to non-white employees ready for advancement; Embed anti-racism work in business and mental health action plans; Avoid holding meetings / events during significant religious and cultural periods; and Invest in employee resources and ensure that employees’ voices are heard. In addition, the Clerk provides the DMs with a set of four instructions that they must act on: · Set goals; · Measure progress; · Establish consequential accountability; & · Employ drivers of success. I’m a former public servant with 14 years’ service who was expelled from the Government of Canada for standing-up to racial harassment, and I have disappointing news for non-white public servants. If you understand how racism and organizational cronyism work hand in glove in the public service, then you understand that no substantive action will be taken. The goals – which remain undefined – will not be achieved. Here’s why. Nothing new: same actions, instructions, and goals – but no outcomes – since the 1980s In the first instance, there is nothing new, and certainly nothing transformational. The actions and instructions are recycled from decades of failure under the Employment Equity Act , introduced in the mid-1980s. A Google search by competent analysts will find that iterations of each action, instruction, or goal identified on May 9, 2023 have been proposed before. And each promised action, instruction, policy, or goal – whether proposed in 1986 or in 2023 – has produced the same outcome: nothing. In 2021, after four decades of DEI, Canada’s largest “visible minority” groups remained under-represented in Canada’s public service (note the significant 54% gap in South Asian representation, relative to their population). After 40 years of DEI, racial equity goals were never established An analysis of federal employment equity goal and objective setting policy directives – from the 1980s to date – reveals the complete absence of specific objectives and measurable goals. Under the guise of merit, and to maintain white-centred organizational cronyism, management resisted racial equity by raising the spectre of “quotas,” instilling the racist fear that unqualified non-white people would take the jobs of qualified white public servants. As noted in Harvey & Blakely, 1993 “A persistent problem in employment equity has centered on a lack of consensus between policy-makers, employers and workers on…goals and timetables that are perceived by all parties as reasonable and possible.” Racism underpinned the lack of consensus in 1993, and it underpins the approach adopted by the Clerk in 2023. Since my expulsion from the public service in 2018, a myriad of lawsuits , whistleblowers and investigations have laid bare the deeply-seated racism, harassment and cronyism – at the highest levels – impacting IRCC , Global Affairs , the RCMP , DND and many other federal departments and agencies. The problem is so acute, that in the House of Commons, MPs and Committees are conducting their own investigations into racial harassment in the public service. At the same time that the House investigates public service racism, the government maintains an initiative called the 50-30 Challenge , which, unlike rudderless public sector employment equity objectives, challenges Canadian employers to achieve two organizational goals: 50% gender parity and 30% non-white and 2SLGBTQ+ representation. Given the clear evidence of systemic racism and harassment in Canada’s public service, and the government’s own challenge to Canadian workplaces to set clear equity goals, it is disappointing that the Clerk did not seize the opportunity to take bold, innovative action, and set specific, measurable racial equity goals for the entire public service. Instead, the Clerk opted to repackage 40 years of status-quo DEI. White saviours, unicorns, and erasure The Clerk had an opportunity to demonstrate real leadership on racial equity, but abdicated it by downloading actions and undefined goals to line departments and agencies. Worse, the Clerk delegated the management of these directives to the same DMs and executives who actively destroyed the careers of countless non-white public servants, and expelled them from the public service. The Clerk is calling on senior managers with a long history of racial redlining and harassment to reinvent themselves as white saviours. On the basis of goal setting exercises and outcomes from 40 years of government DEI, there is scant evidence to suggest they will succeed. As part of the small list of actions, the Clerk directs executives to mentor at least two promising non-white public servants for leadership roles. Having witnessed such programs come and go over 14 years in government, a key observation is that they rarely operate on merit. Non-white mentorship programs are often run informally, and are usually reserved for unicorns – high functioning employees who obey their bosses without question, and who do anything to get ahead. As a recent report demonstrates, the promising non-white leaders selected for these positions are often willing participants in racial harassment and the maintenance of racial inequity. Another item on the Clerk’s small list of actions is “investing in employee resources and giving employees a voice.” Be wary. I recall routine messages from HR encouraging non-white public servants facing racial harassment to speak to a manager, union, or employee assistance program (EAP). These directives are dangerous. They aren’t designed to support public servants or centre their voices. They’re about erasure. Government antiracism campaigns are designed to identify, blacklist, silence, purge, and erase non-white public servants who stand-up and speak-out. The litany of public disclosures by former public servants who begged management for help with racial harassment, but were ignored, provides the evidentiary basis. I’m one of them. Attracting and retaining a racially and demographically representative public service requires accountability, change, and measurable equity outcomes If the Clerk is genuine about advancing racial equity, and “building a strong public service that is set-up to deliver for Canadians,” then get serious about accountability, transformational culture change, and equity at all levels. A central problem with the Clerk’s antiracism action plan is the complete lack of accountability for racial harassment, discrimination, and professional redlining. Erasing the history of racial harassment in the public service demonstrates a lack of transparency and accountability that renders senior managers unwilling or unable to learn from past mistakes and effect real change. Acknowledgement and accountability are essential components of restorative justice, and ignoring racial harassment in the public service erodes trust among public servants, stakeholders, Canadians, and international partners. A key element surrounding antiracism accountability is data. Learning from past mistakes means understanding the scope and magnitude of the damage done to purged public servants. When I was forced out of government in 2018, my then-MP (Ottawa Centre) assisted with my EI claim and investigation. It was approved on the basis of “voluntary separation owing to discrimination and harassment.” This begs a few numbers questions. How many other public servants went on EI after being forced out of government? How many took medical leave? Impact on staff turnover? Costs to Canadian taxpayers? What are the health, financial, social and reputational harms and costs to these former public servants? If Ottawa area MPs are assisting purged non-white public servants with EI claims, then what do they know about the degree of systemic racism in the public service and what, if anything, are they doing about it? Taking responsibility is key to transformational culture change. Building a racially equitable public service requires a fundamental shift in culture, norms, and practices, where accountability for racial harassment and toxic work environments, coupled with concrete action, create awareness, understanding, and safer spaces for open dialogue on eliminating racial inequities. The Clerk must take bold action and establish measurable racial equity outcomes in the public service. The Clerk would be wise to take a page out of the 50-30 challenge. Specifically, commit to 30% non-white representation at all seniority levels, and ensure that underrepresented racial groups reflect their share of the Canadian population. But don’t stop at racial equity; the Clerk can adopt outcome-oriented approaches that establish age, gender, and ability goals to ensure a truly representative public service. Finally, it is clear that the Clerk needs better advice on advancing racial equity in the public service. The executives responsible for four decades of racial redlining, harassment, and failed DEI cannot deliver. The talented former public servants expelled for standing-up to racism can. To effect real change, the Clerk needs to enlist the former public servants whose careers were destroyed by racial harassment, demonstrate accountability, stop erasing their experiences, and acknowledge the harm done. We have the bold, innovative, and workable ideas to build racial, gender, age, and ability equity in Canada’s public service. The Clerk’s management team does not. Previous Next

< Back Building Better: How Race and Gender Equity Can Transform the Construction Sector Kareem Sadiq Oct 16, 2023 Linked-In Article | Race & gender equity in construction can address labour shortages & improve the sector's reputation Please access this article on Linked-In . Previous Next

< Back Equity speaks directly to demographic representation Kareem Sadiq Previous Next

< Back The private, public and NGO sectors often determine workplace equity objectives using Workforce Availability (WFA) projections derived from broader Labour Market Availability (LMA) statistics. EQiSpace believes that workplace equity benchmarks on race, gender, and ability representation should reflect the total population, and not WFA or LMA projections. Kareem Sadiq Previous Next

< Back Decades of corporate gender, race, and minority equity programs have failed to close global pay and representation gaps. Empower change for women and underrepresented groups, and accelerate the adoption of Green Building processes, by building equitable construction projects and skilled trades training programs from the ground-up. EQiSpace can help make it happen. Kareem Sadiq Previous Next

< Back Time to Move Beyond “Social Inclusion” & Advocate for Equity Kareem Sadiq Jun 7, 2023 Equity speaks directly to demographic representation Recently, a Linked-In post from Canada came across my feed that spoke to the virtues of conducting “social inclusion audits” to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion goals with respect to race, gender, age and ability representation in the workplace. I was horrified. It is stunning that in Canada 2023, the watered-down term “social inclusion audits” is employed when the concept of equity audits has been around for decades. Equity speaks directly to demographic representation. Modern usage of the term “social inclusion” emerged in the 1970s and dovetailed with European welfare expansion, which sought to include people excluded from social insurance systems. [1] However the concept of social inclusion is ill-define d [2] , white-centred, and fails to address the unique historical and systemic disadvantages faced by excluded groups. It’s time to move beyond social inclusion, and advocate for equity instead. Considering the context of racial equity, here are a few reasons why the concept of social inclusion is deeply problematic. Assimilationist Social inclusion emphasizes assimilati on [3] i nto existing, white dominated societal structures, norms, and institutions, which often perpetuate systemic racism. By expecting racialized groups to conform to white norms, social inclusion fails to challenge and dismantle the systems that maintain racial inequities. Tokenism and Superficial Diversity Social inclusion initiatives focus on achieving surface-level diversity without addressing underlying power dynamics and structural inequalities. This approach results in tokenism [4] , where a few individuals from racialized groups are included, but the broader systemic barriers and inequities remain intact. Wealth, Wage and Quality of Life Gaps Social inclusion fails to address structural economic racial disparities. The concept does not tackle wealth gaps and unequal access to quality education, healthcare, housing, and employment opportunities that disproportionately affect racialized people. Without addressing these material inequities, social inclusion initiatives are ineffective. Centers Whiteness The concept of social inclusion assumes that the dominant white culture is the norm and sets the standards for inclusion . [5] As such, the approach prioritizes assimilation into white cultural norms, values, and institutions. Social inclusion ignores the diverse cultural practices, languages, and ways of being that exist within racialized communities. By failing to recognize and respect different cultural perspectives, social inclusion reinforces the dominance of whiteness, and perpetuates a white-centric worldview that marginalizes and sidelines the experiences, cultures, and needs of non-white people. Social inclusion is a one-size-fits-all approach that is ill-suited to addressing the complex reality and needs of racially diverse populations. No Intersectionality Social inclusion overlooks the intersection of race with gender, class, sexuality and ability. By failing to recognize and address the unique experiences of individuals who face multiple forms of marginalization, social inclusion initiatives reinforce the dominance of whiteness and perpetuate further exclusion. Limited Perspectives and Decision-Making Power The concept of social inclusion lacks meaningful representation and decision-making power for racialized people. Without authentic engagement and leadership from non-white communities, initiatives risk being shaped and controlled by white perspectives and interests. This further marginalizes people and perpetuates white dominance in shaping inclusion strategies. Time to Move Beyond Social Inclusion To advance racial, gender, age, and ability representation, it is essential to move beyond the limitations of “social inclusion” and adopt a more comprehensive and intersectional approach grounded in equity . An intersectional approach must address the root causes of systemic discrimination and racism, dismantle oppressive structures, and actively promote racial justice. It must centre the experiences, voices, and needs of marginalized and racialized racial groups, challenge white supremacy and decades of workplace racial redlining, and promote redistributive justice to ensure equitable access to resources and opportunities. ---------------------------------------------------- [ 1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322160853_Social_Inclusion_Origins_concepts_and_key_themes [2] https://www.cmi.no/file/589.pdf [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10203991/ [4 https://business.vanderbilt.edu/news/2018/02/26/tokenism-in-the-workplace/ [5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/02/15/why-dei-and-anti-racism-work-needs-to-decenter-whiteness/?sh=2dabcf965886 Previous Next

< Back There’s no consensus on collective racial terms; let nonwhite people use the terminology they are most comfortable with - and don't shame them for it Kareem Sadiq Previous Next

< Back Collective Racial Terminology in Canada, the United States and Britain: Towards Consensus? Kareem Sadiq Aug 18, 2023 There’s no consensus on collective racial terms; let nonwhite people use the terminology they are most comfortable with - and don't shame them for it The terminology used to collectively describe nonwhite people in majority white countries has generated significant debate on social media. There is currently no consensus surrounding the use of collective racial terms such as nonwhite, people of colour (PoC), Black, Indigenous, people of colour (BIPoC), racialized, Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME — a common collective term used in Britain), and global majority — a collective racial term currently being adopted by some academics, non-governmental organizations and racial equity advocates in the UK and North America. At the same time, there is a social and professional need to understand how preferred terms are used and evolve over time, to acknowledge racial differences in large multiracial societies and avoid stigmatizing language. Research and analysis on the use of collective racial terminology in majority white countries is sparse, one exception being the work of Peter Aspinall, a professor at the University of Kent who conducted a 2020 review of the use of specific and collective racial terms in Britain. Drawing on Aspinall and other sources, and with the intent of generating further discussion, what follows is a brief, non-exhaustive review of five common collective racial terms used in Canada, the United States and Britain. Nonwhite Widely used for its brevity and convenience, the collective racial term nonwhite is viewed by some as archaic, and is criticized for centering and identifying something that it is lacking in a minority — whiteness — from the majority in predominantly white countries. “‘Non-white’ defines the ethnic minority population in negative terms—by what it is not—and as a residual population. Further, it sets ‘white’ as the standard, making it openly ethnocentric, and reinforces ‘the myth of homogeneity’ of the white group, excluding from the term white minority ethnic groups.” Others believe the term “nonwhite” is useful because it forces white people beyond their comfort zone to view themselves in racial terms. It is also analytically helpful when comparing data on racial equity gaps in majority white countries, where there are significant wage, wealth and representation disparities between people who are white and people who are not white. For the record, I purposefully use nonwhite when speaking to racial wage and representation gaps, precisely because of the white and nonwhite racial dynamic. Incidentally, I used the term ‘nonwhite’ in a 2022 Twitter post, and was politely shamed for doing so…more on that later. PoC and BIPoC The term people of colour is preferred by some racial justice advocates because it is a politically useful term that does not centre whiteness, and provides a unifying frame of reference with respect to racial inequity. The term is partly criticized for echoing the archaic term “colored,” and for having painful connections to slavery and segregation in the American South. But PoC is primarily criticized for erasing key differences — for example the unique social and economic impacts of anti-Black and anti-Indigenous racism — between racial groups. The term Black, Indigenous, and people of colour is similarly criticized as being a simplistic extension of PoC. In a critique of the term BIPoC, Toronto Star journalist Shree Paradkar states: “It’s true that some people are simply anxious to keep up with the terminology to signal support for anti-racism, but when they do so without paying attention to the nuance of those terms, and flatten our identities and conflate the unique struggles of different groups, they replicate the problem the terminology is trying to eradicate. I am done. Bye, bye BIPOC.” Aspinall concurs with these assessments, noting that “these terms suggest that minority ethnic groups are a unified group characterized by homogeneity.” Racialized The term racialized has gained traction in Canada, especially in public service circles, where it is embraced for representing people who have gone through racialization “the processes by which societies construct races as real, different and unequal in ways that matter to economic, political, and social life.” For some, the term resonates because it describes their experiences with race and racism in majority white countries. However, the term has also been critiqued for excluding white people as racialized, and for normalizing whiteness through the conflation of all non-white groups. “it is through the conferring of privilege and disadvantage based on race which determines if Canada — as a nation and state — is racist. Therefore, “racialized” people are not — and cannot be — exclusively non-white people because they experience racial discrimination; whiteness and the privileges afforded to it are also racialized. Limiting “racialized” exclusively to the experiences of non-white communities ignores redressing the material disadvantages non-white communities experience due to their racialization.” Similar to PoC and BIPoC, the term racialized is critiqued for flattening identities and “moving people away from who they are.” BAME In the early 2000s, the term Black, Asian, and minority ethnic was introduced as a collective racial term in the UK. It was seldom used until 2015, but ballooned in use in 2020 as a shorthand to describe Black and Asian groups at greater risk to COVID-19. Aspinall’s analysis of the UK Hansard (proceedings of the UK Parliament) shows that BAME was first used in 2004, and appears 333 times between 2004 and 2020. Usage of the term was sporadic until 2015, with BAME peaking at 88 mentions in Hansard in 2020. Similar to collective racial terms used in Canada and the US, BAME is criticized for erasing important social and economic differences between racial groups. In the UK, BAME has also been criticized for excluding white ethnic minorities and for being confusing to many; for example, user testing and research on the use of terminology suggests that the term BAME scores low indices of recognition in Britain. Global Majority Global majority is a collective racial term that describes people of African, Asian, Latin American, and Arab descent who together comprise the vast majority of the world’s population (approximately 80%). The term reflects the statistical fact that whiteness is not the global norm, “has the power to disrupt and reframe conversations on race… and moves racialized people from the centre to the margins” It also reflects demographic change in majority white countries; for example, statistics suggest that in 2036, Canada will be “as brown as it is white.” The term ‘global majority’ was coined between 2003 and 2011 as a response to confusing pan-ethnic identities that construct “the identity of racialized people in relation to the dominant white population.” Since 2020, the term has gained prominence in some academic circles , but has not been widely adopted by large public or private institutions, or the public at large. Global majority may accurately describe global demographics, including demographic changes in majority white countries. However, a key limitation of the term is that it does not accurately reflect white and nonwhite power dynamics in these countries, nor the social and economic reality for nonwhite people, who experience acute wealth and representation gaps relative to their white counterparts. Racial Terminology as a Form of Representation In his review of collective and specific racial terms, Aspinall employs a theoretical framework that conceives of racial terminology as a form of representation. The central premise is that racial terminology evolves over time owing to demographic and social change. “Like identity itself, ethnic/racial terminology changes over time in response to shifting preferences in the wider society, the changing composition of the population, and changing patterns of racialization.” Changes in the use of collective racial terminology are reflected in interactions between social categorizers —social influencers, large institutions and public agencies, and group identifiers — those whom the label describes. A key issue with collective racial terminology is that it can be coopted and normalized by large, influential public and private institutions or social media influencers. In addition, the use of collective racial terms embody “pan-ethnicities” not specific to particular ethnic groups, which may produce social distance between groups where the collective term or identity does not relate to lived experience. “The difficulty with this collective terminology is that it tends to be developed—and subsequently popularized and sustained—by observers, such as government bodies, public and statutory agencies, and the media. It is not the outcome of a discursive and interactive process involving its developers and the people the terminology describes.” A 2022 Twitter exchange between myself and a University of Toronto professor illustrates nicely the power dynamic between social categorizers and group identifiers (emphasis added below). Professor: Because someone is Black, Brown, from global majority communities does not mean they are automatically antiracist. As the late Steve Biko said “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”. KS: During my time in the Cdn public service, the number of oppressed minds who took down nonwhite public servants for their white masters was stunning. It’s an environment of highly internalized racism, which white execs actively foster. It’s how they roll. Professor :: Please do not refer to Black, Brown, Indigenous, people from global majority communities as non-white. Time to change that language. KS: It’s not the best collective term & I understand that. I use “nonwhite” because it aptly describes the dynamic behind racial wage & representation gaps in majority white countries. Time to change #RacialEquity outcomes for the better. I have approximately 150 followers on Twitter. The University of Toronto professor has over 8000 followers. That exchange constitutes an excellent example of the power that social categorizer influencers from large public agencies can exercise over less powerful group identifiers with respect to the adoption and use of collective racial terms. It’s also a form of social media shaming, polite as the tweet might seem. Just saying. No Consensus on Collective Racial Terms Based on research to date, it’s clear that consensus on collective terms isn’t on the horizon anytime soon. Aspinall concludes his review by advising “When there is a need to identify the constituent groups in collective terms, the use of accurate description to delineate these population groups is recommended.” A tension persists in this advice owing to the analytical disconnect between the use of collective and specific terms, however the concept of “walking and chewing gum at the same time” may apply. For example, racial equity advocates can use and further the discussion of collective racial terminology for building inter-group allyship and enhancing racial outcomes, and at the same time, use specific racial terms when addressing unique forms of racism and their differential social and economic impacts. My personal view is that collective terms should never be used in place of specificity; if I’m addressing an issue related to anti-Black, anti-Muslim, or anti-Indigenous racism, I’ll name it as such. And given that there’s no consensus on collective racial terms, perhaps we can let nonwhite people in (still) majority white countries employ the terminology that they are most comfortable using, without being shamed. Citations avlialble on request. Previous Next