The BCTF’s Commitment to Solidarity begins, “We believe that union solidarity is based on the principle that all members are equal and deserve mutual respect.” What does that look like? Well, judging by a pair of recommendations coming forward to this year’s AGM. It means that 80% of our equal, respected membership will be eligible to run for 10, 11 or 12 positions on the 12-member executive. The remaining 20% of our equal, respected membership can, at best, occupy up to 3 positions. The distinction between the two group of members? One group are straight, white men. The other group is everyone else. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. – George Orwell Now setting aside the question of whether it is ever okay for an organization to require someone to reveal their sexuality (hard no!), does the BCTF have the right to discriminate against a fifth of its members? The BC Human Rights code suggests not. Section 14 states a trade union, employers' organization or occupational association must not discriminate against any person or member because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age. However some supporters of the recommendations have argued that there may be a way to circumvent this prohibition. There is an exemption for employers who wish to implement employment equity programs. Under the special program exemption, 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. I’m not a lawyer so I really don’t know whether this exemption applies to unions as well as employers or not. I am also uncertain whether the employment equity exemption has ever been used to ensure a 75% majority position in the leadership of an organization, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the BCTF was breaking new ground with these recommendations. Legality aside, however, they still doesn’t put our organization in a positive light. Impartiality is essential to our credibility as professionals. If the BCTF adopts resolutions seemingly biased against some men, parents might justifiably question whether this bias extends to teachers’ judgement of some boys. Indeed, there is no shortage of writers cherry picking statistics to make exactly this argument. But the recommendations raise other questions too. Is it really the position of the BCTF that there is nothing morally wrong with prejudice (literally to “pre-judge” someone based on characteristics such as race, gender or sexuality) and discrimination? That they have just been applied to the wrong people? Do teachers really view these ideas as “progressive”? What happened to the union that passed the resolution insisting “That the BCTF not maintain membership in any organization that limits membership by sex, race or creed”? (41.B.03). The members who put that policy in place were demanding that people be treated and evaluated as individuals not as symbolic representations of groups. That people "not be judged on the colour of their skin, but on content of their character". To me this is far more nuanced and sensible position than one that can’t a distinguish between male Serbian refugee (privileged) and the daughter of two university professors (disadvantaged). Thankfully, we have a system that can make these fine distinctions. It’s called liberal democracy and there are few better examples of it than at the BCTF AGM. We should not be attempting to limit it. “Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” – George Orwell Delegates, presumably for reasons like my own, after lengthy debate have rejected versions of these recommendations in past years. Those who support them see this as a rejection of equity and inclusion and have argued that these recommendations are necessary to “create space for voices that have traditionally been marginalized through racism, sexism and homophobia”.
I think this is a fair point, but it is also worth pointing out that presently ten out of twelve members of the executive are from equity seeking groups (as defined by the BC Human Rights Code). Barring any last-minute surprises, following these next elections, there will be a maximum of two and possibly only one member out of thirteen who doesn't come from an equity seeking group. And isn't representation achieved through an unfettered democratic process superior to one mandated by a bylaw? Whatever racism, sexism and homophobia exists within the union, it hasn’t prevented equity seeking members from finding success. I understand this is in large part due to the work of the advocates who have prioritized representation and spent a lot of time and energy into making sure that members from equity seeking groups had the support, skills and confidence to step forward and get involved in the leadership. This is the right way to bring about progress, by tearing down barriers, not by putting them up. For me, recommendations that compromise solidarity, introduce prejudice and discrimination and circumvent a free democratic process aren’t progressive, but I imagine there will be no shortage of people in Victoria ready to explain how and where I am mistaken. I can't wait!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |