As it turns out, the Canadian political leader with a “hidden agenda” is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, not Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer.
Because while Trudeau was boasting about his “sunny ways” of governing, and falsely accusing Scheer of being sympathetic to white supremacists, the Liberal government he presided over was, in the unforgettable words of Marie Henein — Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s lawyer — attempting to put a finger on the scales of justice.
Not once, but twice — that we know of — as the SNC-Lavalin scandal demonstrated the same thing.
That is, a prime minister and a prime minister’s office was either unfamiliar with, or uncaring about, such fundamental legal concepts as prosecutorial independence and the timely disclosure of relevant evidence to the accused in a criminal trial.
While we may never know the full story — with the Liberals using their majority to shut down a parliamentary or public inquiry into the Norman case, just as they shut down the parliamentary inquiry into Lavscam prematurely — we know enough to know this.
That honourable Liberal politicians like Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, and an honourable public servant like Mark Norman, ended up on the Trudeau government’s enemies list, not for having done anything wrong — they were trying to do something right — but for failing to do what the Trudeau government wanted.
It may not have risen in either case to obstruction of justice — Wilson-Raybould herself testified she didn’t think Trudeau and Co. crossed that red line in Lavscam.
But what it has done is to offend the sense of right and wrong of fair-minded Canadians, as indicated by polls showing Trudeau’s credibility has been severely damaged, along with that of the Liberal party, ironically from self-inflicted wounds.
What it means is that the coming federal election on Oct. 21 is going to be, as Trudeau predicted, one of the dirtiest in Canadian political history.
Except much of that dirt will be coming from Trudeau and his party, who, having falsely accused Scheer of being a white supremacist sympathizer, have now supplemented that attack by suggesting, with zero evidence, that Scheer wants to bring back anti-abortion laws.
Similar to the Liberal attack on Stephen Harper when he was running for prime minister, whom the Liberals falsely accused, as the historical record now shows, of having a hidden agenda to outlaw both abortions and same-sex marriages.
Such tactics are standard operating procedure for the Liberals, who routinely accuse their political opponents of not just being wrong, but of being immoral, on issues ranging from immigration and refugee law to their opposition to the Liberals’ “Islamophobia” motion.
To be clear and despite the current polls, none of this means Trudeau and the Liberals are a lock to lose on Oct. 21.
If a week is a lifetime in politics, five months is an eternity, and one should never underestimate the ability of the federal Liberals to set the agenda in an election campaign.
Particularly given Canada’s relatively strong economy on their watch — regardless of whether one believes that was the result of or despite their policies.
What has changed is that Trudeau will never again be viewed by Canadians as the innocent, happy, warrior-prince he was in the 2015 federal election campaign, when he told Liberals that Conservatives were not their enemies but their neighbours.
Now, the Conservatives are the enemy, so buckle up, because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
The Left is every day becoming more openly authoritarian in Canada and in other democracies, and its attacks on our freedoms are intensifying. -censorship online -enforced speech -control of the press -climate alarmism -gun control -diversity cult -mass immigration -globalism
Justin Trudeau’s appallingly dishonest speech to NYU
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, second from right, receives an honorary degree from New York University President Andrew D. Hamilton at the university commencement ceremony on May 16 in New York City. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
As is common among sheltered men of extreme privilege, when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attempts to share relatable thoughts on modern life, his words tend to expose a speaker who has no actual familiarity with social trends but has clearly been briefed to their existence. The commencement speech he delivered Wednesday at New York University is a classic study of an obliviously cloistered poseur trying desperately to feign compliance with current fashions. A belabored reference to Pokémon Go was the least of it.
Trudeau — or whatever team of speechwriters and handlers who do the heavy thinking on his behalf — seems broadly aware that North America is mired in a state of intense sociopolitical polarization, and that amid all this shouting and anger, it is the role of great minds to reassert the case for virtues of free speech and intellectual diversity.
Such was the tone Trudeau’s NYU speech correspondingly struck, with tender protestations to “let yourself be vulnerable to another point of view” accompanied by rote denunciations of accompanying sins. One must not “cocoon ourselves in an ideological, social or intellectual bubble,” he implored, or “engage only with people with whom we already agree,” but instead “fight our tribal mind-set” and the dreaded “identity politics.”
To be sure, these are good sentiments. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever that Trudeau takes them seriously in the context where his opinions most matter: his performance as Canada’s ruler.
In his political capacity, a consistent hallmark of Trudeau’s partisan rhetoric has been the portrayal of absolutely all dissent toward his party, administration and agenda as frivolous and darkly motivated. His 2014 memoir was striking in how deeply incurious it seemed about conservative philosophy, defining the motives of his opponents with one-dimensional slanders about “dividing Canadians” and seeking “power for its own sake.” More recently, he declared before a crowd of partisan supporters that the agenda of the Conservative Party could be summarized in its entirety as “the politics of fear and division.”
“If anything,” he added, “they’ve been emboldened by successful campaigns elsewhere in the world to divide people against one another,” an allusion to global populism that’s hardly brimming with intellectual charity.
There’s almost nothing about Trudeau’s political career, in fact, that suggests he’s ever had even slightest interest in “discovering that someone you vehemently disagree with might have a point,” as he extolled NYU’s grads to do.
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) on May 17 slammed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for refusing to give President Trump’s tax returns to Congress. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
Indeed, Trudeau’s speech comes at a particularly ironic time, given he has spent much of the spring embroiled in scandal surrounding his government’s so-called values test for summer job grant applicants, a policy quite explicitly cooked up to cripple the philosophical effectiveness of Canada’s anti-abortion movement.
For years, Canadian pro-life youth groups have made use of Ottawa’s summer jobs fund to finance their activism — activism, it should be noted, that exists for no other purpose than to start conversations and change minds. Yet because Trudeau has insisted Canada’s abortion debate is closed, it was announced that there was to be no further subsidizing of such dialogue on his watch. A checkbox was added to grant forms asking if applicants agreed with “reproductive rights” — such as, as the grant overview says, “the right to access safe and legal abortions” — and if not ticked, there would be no funding.
This wide net ended up catching all manner of faith-based organizations, and rejected applications have soared in the aftermath. But it was the logical consequence of a prime minister who constantly insists there exists no conceivable motive for opposing abortion beyond “restricting women’s rights,” even citing the logic as rationale for an across-the-board ban on pro-life candidates in his party. In his NYU speech, the prime minister happily cited the “pro-choice” community as an example of a close-minded tribe without any apparent irony.
No less hypocritical was his government’s infamous Bill C-16, the legislation that helped make Jordan Peterson into a global celebrity. Though framed as merely extending legal protections to the transgender community, the effort strengthened the most regressive anti-free-speech sections of the Canadian Criminal Code that make it a crime to communicate public “statements” or create “any writing, sign or visible representation” that, in Ottawa’s eyes, “promotes hatred against any identifiable group.”
The debate over transgender accommodation and acceptance is incredibly live at the moment, featuring people of good faith arguing a variety of perspectives. It is perhaps our most pressing modern example of a situation in which “reaching out to people whose beliefs and values differ from your own” will help “find that common ground,” as Trudeau cajoled NYU students. Faced with that reality in his professional capacity, the prime minister elected to use his control of the Canadian state to help preemptively criminalize one side of the conversation.
I do not begrudge Trudeau for building a brand as the world’s “woke boyfriend,” as Anthony L. Fisher at Reason so memorably put it. Empathy and tolerance are traits that come to him naturally, and there is perhaps some use, if only as a calibration point, for a world leader who places these values at the blind forefront of his politics.
But please, please spare us the reign of Trudeau the intellectual scold. Open-mindedness would have to search pretty hard to find a less credible champion.
A Jewish woman in her 60’s who is the wife of a senior leader of the local Helsingborg’s Jewish community–and its secretary–was randomly stabbed 9 times by a Muslim man who is “known to police”. Yet investigators are not treating the incident as a hate crime. That is absurd. “Israel’s Foreign Ministry said the stabbing appeared to have been anti-Semitic in nature. A leading rabbi echoed this sentiment.”
The rise of violent anti-semitism is so bad in Sweden that many Jews in that country have moved to Israel for sanctuary, ever since the flood of Muslim migrants have entered Sweden. Swedish authorities shield them from public scrutiny and criticism, so the problem escalates.
Ever since the surge of Muslim migrants into Europe, the incidents of violent anti-semitism have noticeably risen, a fact acknowledged even by the globalist German leader Angela Merkel.
The policy divided refugee claimants into different categories, depending on where they were from.
Arwen~ What is very encouraging are all the negative comments on left leaning MSM articles towards Trudeau and cabal’s treachery towards Canadians.People are waking up and they are ticked! Comment posted…spot on!
“Liberals do not govern, they just hang onto power by any means necessary, vote buying with our own money is their most common scheme but pandering to immigrants is another They don’t care about our country, our security or how deeply in debt they plunge us, as long as they can hold onto power…that’s a fact and that’s the chaos of every liberal and ndp regime”
The policy divided refugee claimants into different categories, depending on where they were from.
OTTAWA — Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen is doing away with a policy implemented under the Harper government that aimed to tackle a large backlog of refugee claims by limiting rights for asylum-seekers from certain “safe” countries — a policy Hussen says created inequity in Canada’s asylum system.
The policy divided refugee claimants into different categories, depending on where they were from. The Conservatives enacted it in 2012 as a way to deter “abuse” of Canada’s refugee system by people who come from countries that “do not normally produce refugees and respect human rights and offer state protection.”
Asylum-seekers from a list of 42 countries deemed safe — such as the United States and most of Europe— they were put through an expedited claims process. They were subject to a six-month bar on work permits and had limited access to the federal health program for refugees. If their asylum claims were rejected, they could not appeal the decision to the refugee appeal division, as is the case for claimants from countries that aren’t on the list.
The premise was that people from those countries were less likely to be genuine victims of persecution.
Removing all countries from list
Hussen announced Friday that Canada is removing all countries from the “designated country of origin” (DCO) list.
“The designated-country-of-origin policy not only failed to improve the efficiency of the asylum system, it compromised the principle that all people should be treated equally, regardless of nationality,” Hussen said in a statement. “The elimination of this policy is another step to restore fairness to the system to allow Canada to continue to offer protection to the world’s most vulnerable.”
(The “safe country” policy is distinct from the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States, which generally requires would-be refugees to apply in whichever of the two countries they reach first.)
Violate Charter rights
Several Federal Court decisions have ruled elements of the DCO policy violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It was implemented as part of an overhaul of the refugee system aimed at tackling serious case backlogs and long wait times. But Immigration and Refugee Board struggled with the two-tier approach that included unworkable timelines for hearing cases, and appeals and backlogs continued to grow.
The elimination of this policy is another step to restore fairness to the system to allow Canada to continue to offer protection to the world’s most vulnerable.Ahmed Hussen
During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to eliminate the policy as part of an overhaul of the way asylum claims are handled, but it was delayed in part because government wanted to await the outcome of an independent review of the refugee system. That review was completed last year and included 64 recommendations for improvements, including eliminating legislated processing times for certain claims.
Meanwhile, backlogs of refugee claims in Canada have continued to grow, thanks to a tripling of new claims filed over the last four years, according to Statistics Canada.
New figures released Friday show that in 2015, the year the year the Trudeau Liberals were elected, there were about 16,000 asylum seekers who made claims in Canada.
Two years later, in 2017, there were more than 50,000 claims. Last year there were 55,000 claimants, showing the pace of growth had slowed, but the total is well above the previous peak for claimants a decade earlier.
Something changed in Ontario this month. Most people didn’t notice. It happened at the Law Society of Ontario, a body that few realize even exists. The society had in 2017 started compelling lawyers and paralegals to state their adherence to the dogma of substantive equality, diversity and inclusion in order to be in compliance with requirements for their licence. Such pledges have become commonplace — even university applications now require a diversity statement — and getting rid of them is unheard of. Once social-justice ideology takes hold of an institution there is little to be done. But in a stunning vote by its members, the LSO’s compulsory equality/diversity/inclusion statement was rejected. In today’s cultural landscape it is a small but impossible victory.
When I first met Lisa Bildy, I did not imagine that she could do the impossible. It was January 2018 and I was debating the law society’s social-justice diktat. The rule, adopted the previous year, required all licensees to “adopt and abide by a statement of principles” (“SOP”) that acknowledged their obligation “to promote equality, diversity and inclusion” in all of their affairs, both professionally and personally. After the debate a pleasant, articulate lawyer introduced herself. What can be done, she asked, to push back against compelled speech and authoritarianism at the Law Society of Ontario? This month, that same woman ousted the law society’s prevailing order and turned the self-regulatory body on its head.
Her first attempt failed. In the fall of 2017, shortly after the policy was announced, Bildy and a small group of other concerned lawyers in London, Ont., put up a website called “StopSOP” (“Stop the Statement of Principles”) to encourage lawyers to resist by refusing to adopt the sort of declaration the law society was trying to compel. Instead, 98 per cent complied — even though the society had said there would be no suspensions imposed the first year on those who refused. Still, any fear of losing one’s livelihood is a powerful deterrent.
Bildy and her small group of supporters were undeterred. Every four years the profession elects 40 lawyers and five paralegals as “benchers,” the quaint name for those who sit on the law society’s governing body. Winning candidates are typically high-profile lawyers with money and backing, or incumbents with name recognition. A year out from the election scheduled for spring 2019, with no money and few connections, Bildy led a decision to run a slate of candidates to repeal the SOP from the inside.
Who in their right mind would be a StopSOP candidate? In today’s highly charged environment, running against equality/diversity/inclusion initiatives risks personal and professional grief. The politically correct who promote tolerance and diversity are highly intolerant of dissent and diverse points of view. Yet, 22 courageous lawyers and one paralegal stepped forward. We warned them of what they already knew: backlash from social-justice activists would be vicious. And it was. Those of us publicly affiliated with StopSOP were called bigots, racists and Nazis. “If you are (against the SOP) then I humbly invite you to f*** yourself up the a**” said one lawyer in a social media post, “and stick your ‘compelled speech’ arguments there as well.” Yes, this — and worse — from lawyers.
Bildy ran the StopSOP campaign from her dining-room table on a shoestring budget, soliciting small donations from rank-and-file lawyers fed up with ideological regulators pushing them around. She co-ordinated mass emails and media hits, and when the lawyers on her team inevitably disagreed, she was able to herd the cats. She reined in her team members when some were tempted to engage in Twitter wars, insisting on the high road and ignoring the venom directed her way. Beneath the calm exterior was a fearless fighter made of steel. When the dust settled and the vote was announced on May 1, all of StopSOP’s lawyer candidates had won (including, remarkably, the top 10 spots in Toronto). Defeated incumbents and high-profile candidates were shocked.
We won 22 of 40 lawyer seats, which does not amount to an overall majority on the board once five paralegals and eight lay benchers are added in. Nothing is guaranteed, but turning the page at the law society is at least now a possibility. Our benchers are not a political party and do not agree on all issues, but they are of one mind that the SOP must be repealed. They also aim to rein in the Law Society of Ontario’s ever-expanding regulatory agenda, bureaucracy and budget, so large now that it now rivals that of the city of Oshawa, Ont.
One defeated incumbent observed that the election was “the first time in the history of the law society that you’ve seen a well-organized, obviously well-funded, group of individuals run as a slate on a single issue.” In truth, there was no well-funded electoral machine. We had Lisa Bildy, her computer, a dining-room table and a team with a conviction about what was right. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, there is no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn’t matter who gets the credit — but here’s to giving credit where credit is due.
Bruce Pardy is Professor of Law at Queen’s University, a member of the Law Society of Ontario and part of the StopSOP team.
University College, University of Toronto, Canada (via Wikipedia)
The Liberal government of Canada has formulated a new program to which all universities are expected to commit. It is called “Dimensions: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.” A “Charter” for “Dimensions” has been distributed to all university presidents, who are urged to sign, endorsing the program for their universities.
Minister for Science and Sport Kirsty Duncan launched this program, using the “independent” funding councils—The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), The National Science and Engineering Council (NSERC), and The Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)—as the conduit for “Dimensions” grants. This is not the first time that Minister Duncan has imposed “equity, diversity, and inclusion” conditions for grants; in 2017, new diversity criteria were enunciated for the Canada Research Chair grants.
The pressure continues through subsequent grant years. Minister Duncan says, “Our government is committed to promoting equity and diversity within research and to supporting the next generation of research leaders.” Ted Hewitt, president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and chair of the Canada Research Chairs Program Steering Committee assures us that they have “A strong action plan to address equity, diversity and inclusion.”
What is this “equity, diversity, and inclusion” in aid of? According to the Charter of the Dimensions program, the objective is “to foster increased research excellence, innovation and creativity within the post-secondary sector across all disciplines.” Who could object to “increased research excellence, innovation, and creativity,” which is the conventional and legitimate objective of research administrators? What is new here is the means by which these results would be allegedly brought about: “through increased equity, diversity and inclusion.”
According to the Charter, “The post-secondary research community has the greatest potential to thrive when members experience equitable, inclusive and unbiased systems and practices.” The NSERC press release announcing the Dimensions program claims that “Evidence clearly shows that increasing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research environments enhances excellence, innovation and creativity.” In fact, no such evidence is adduced or cited, and readers should be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. Without evidence, it would be prudent to assume that the asserted relationship is fabricated and imaginary.
What does “equity, diversity, and inclusion” mean in practice? It means that certain categories of people must favoured in academic competitions, while unfavoured categories of people must be excluded. The favoured must be put up for grants, or else the grants would not be forthcoming; conversely, unfavoured categories of people must be excluded from the competition, or else the grants would not be forthcoming.
How are favoured and unfavoured categories of people decided? According to the Charter:
To advance institutional equity, diversity and inclusion, specific, measurable and sustainable actions are needed to counter systemic barriers, explicit and unconscious biases, and inequities. This includes addressing obstacles faced by, but not limited to, women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, members of visible minority or racialized groups, and members of LGBTQ2+ communities.
The theory of “systemic barriers,” much loved by sociologists, attributes the different distributions of categories of people in society to prejudice and discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and ethnicity. A “social justice,” equitable, diverse, and inclusive distribution would be for each gender, race, and ethnic group to be represented in every department, faculty, and university, in every list of competition winners, in every new hire, according to its exact percentage in the general population.
This new criterion, “representation according to its exact percentage in the general population,” has been institutionalized without any consent of the general population, without any legislation, without any vote. It is an extreme version of “equality,” an equality of results, the concept of equality that is favoured by radical socialists and communists, and which was imposed in failed societies such as the USSR and Mao’s China. “Equality of results” is far from the liberal idea of “equality of opportunity,” in which occupational, monetary, and academic achievement results vary according to the motivation, preferences, abilities, and commitments of individuals.
The theory of “systemic barriers” assumes that there is no material difference among people in regard to motivation, preferences, abilities, and commitments, and that all differences in statistical representation are the result of prejudice and discrimination. This is clearly false. One kind of evidence is the impressive statistical overrepresentation in prestigious fields by members of unpopular minorities, such as African Americans in professional sports, and East Asians and Jews in academia and other professions, which clearly was not the result of prejudice and discrimination against whites, people of European descent, and Christians.
Another kind of evidence is the poor school performances of some minorities, at least partly due to cultural inclinations and social pathologies of crime and single parent families.
A third kind of evidence is the differential preferences of members of different categories. Despite the full court press on the part of universities and professional organizations to recruit females to science and engineering, they remain heavily “underrepresented,” in spite of discrimination in favour of females and against males. Where females are free to choose, they choose social sciences, social work, law, or medicine, anything but natural science or engineering. The is true not only in North America, but in the feminist countries of Sweden and Norway, where fewer females choose science and engineering than anywhere in the world.
A fourth kind of evidence is the poor results of decades of so-called “affirmative action,” discrimination in favour of “underrepresented” minorities. Not surprisingly, individuals from “underrepresented” minorities recruited with weak academic records, given special funding and provided with segregated “identity” housing, do poorly at university.
Thus, there are many factors that influence “underrepresentation” of certain categories of individuals that are not “systemic barriers” involving prejudice and discrimination.
Furthermore, if females are subject to “systemic barriers, explicit and unconscious biases, and inequities,” as the Charter claims, how can we explain that, according to StatsCan, “Women continue to outnumber men in most fields of study,” making up 56.2% of students, dominating in education, health, and related fields. Is it that females are discriminated against in funding? To take one important example, females account for 60% of the awardees in the Canada 150 Research Chairs Program. How can we explain why 56.2% female enrolment and 60% of female chairholders are not sufficient “equity, diversity, and inclusion,” requiring, according to the Dimensions program, even more places and benefits to females?
The frantic search for First Nations students to recruit and First Nations professors to hire is seen in universities all across Canada. The main problem is the paucity of candidates. My own department made offers to three First Nations individuals, but was rebuffed. Still, the search goes on, and posts designated for First Nations individuals are closed to others.
Along with all of the wonderful inclusion of females, people of colour, First Nations, LGBT+, Muslims, etc., there is a necessary corollary: exclusion of people in other categories. The exclusion of males in favour of females begins early, in schools now devoted to feminism that discriminate against males. Under the guise of “diversity,” females are favoured in university admission and funding, and also in hiring, even though they are already in a large majority. The few fields in which men are prevalent, science, math, and engineering, are now targeted for recruiting females to replace males. Will “diversity” be satisfied when universities are 70% female, 80% female, or when males are totally excluded?
“Inclusion” of First Nations individuals is fine, but when they are exclusively included, there is no room for others. For all of the student and faculty positions dedicated to First Nations, the following (and others) are excluded: Cambodian-Canadians, Vietnamese-Canadians, Mongolians, Koreans, Chinese, Fijians, Hawaiians, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisian-Canadians, Turks, Syrians, Arabians, Iranian-Canadians, Pakistanis, Malians, Nigerians, Kenyans, Congolese, South Africans, Greeks, Italian-Canadians, Germans, French, et al.; you get the picture. Inclusion for the favoured few means exclusion for the rest.
And what about those pesky overrepresented categories of people? To make room for the “underrepresented,” do we now put quotas limiting the number of people from overrepresented categories, the way Harvard has done with East Asian Americans? And as McGill and other institutions did in the past to keep out Jews?
The “equity, diversity, and inclusion” ideology, often labelled “social justice,” is based on a neo-Marxist analysis of society that posits class conflict between various census categories of individuals: females vs. males, people of colour vs. whites, LGBT+ vs. heterosexuals, Muslims vs. Christians and Jews, First Nations vs. colonial settlers, etc., in which females, people of colour, LGBT+, Muslims, and First Nations have been oppressed, exploited, and victimized respectively by males, whites, heteros, Christians and Jews, and colonial settlers throughout all of history. “Social justice” theory thus portrays “the oppressors” as evil and deserving to be overthrown and marginalized. “Social justice” discourse thus vilifies “toxic” males, “racist” whites, etc., and “social justice” policies are aimed at turning the oppression tables by replacing males with females, whites with non-whites, and so on. That is why a supermajority of females is still “equity,” and “diversity” is limited to preferred genders, races, sexualities, and ethnicities. And why the “dead white men” who created Western culture and built Western Civilization should, according to “social justice” advocates, be boycotted.
“Social justice” ideology is highly illiberal, in that it treats people not as individuals but as members of worldwide categories. In the name of “justice,” it treats all men as if they are the same, all whites as if they are the same, all “colonial settlers” as if they are the same, because, so the story goes, by means of their social structural position, they all have power and “privilege.” And all women, non-whites, and LGBT+ are the same, all victims! And although “social justice” claims that members of victim categories cannot be racists, sexist, or bigoted, because they have no power (sic), what is “social justice” but reverse racism, reverse sexism, and bigotry toward unfavoured categories of people?
If the goal of the government’s Dimensions program is “to foster increased research excellence, innovation and creativity,” is the best means really to pick people by their reproductive plumbing, skin colour, sexual preference, religion, and ethnicity? Should not research-related criteria be the basis of selecting students and professors? When I was admitting students and hiring professors, I was interested in their grades, test scores, letters of reference, publications, statements of research interest, and I always picked the best in academic merit, irrespective of their reproductive plumbing, skin colour, sexual preference, religion, and ethnicity. I would have felt it to be absolutely wrong, as well as counterproductive, if anyone had suggested it, to give any consideration to these non-academic, racial, gender, etc., factors.