Stephen Downes

I'm often critical of Alex Usher but there's a lot to like in this article on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in academia. What he explicitly recognizes here is that "our definition of merit, which disproportionately rewards people of certain backgrounds, is a deficient one." Where I would push back is twofold: first, he argues that EDI addresses this deficiency "by proxy" and that it's employed only because it's cheaper and easier than assessing each person individually. Not exactly. EDI addresses the "immutable factors" of race, gender, etc. because there are systemic barriers based precisely on such immutable factors. If the sign says "no girls" you're not responding "by proxy" by removing the sign; you're directly addressing a cause. Second, there seems to be a 'zero sum' assumption in the article that suggests some sort competition (and hence, measurement of merit and disadvantage is necessary). Maybe it's not 100% inescapable, but in a world of abundance (as Dave Cormier would say) we can certainly open up learning to far far more people than we do today. Image: McMaster's EDI Action Plan.