Students rally against changes to CSA’s employment policy
by Nicole Elsasser
At the Central Students Association’s (CSA) board meeting on Jan. 27, a new change to the CSA’s equitable employment policy was purposed and approved by board members.
The change eliminates the provision in the hiring process that gives an advantage to students who identify as being part of a marginalized group in the event that two candidates for a job fall within five per cent of each other with respect to merit.
The previous equitable employment policy required applicants seeking marginalized status to fill out a confidential form indicating which of the following groups they identify with: woman, aboriginal person, racialized person, queer person, international student, and/or person with a disability.
The new policy does not factor a person’s marginalized status into the hiring process, but rather tracks whether marginalized persons are applying for jobs with the CSA for statistical purposes.
Josh Gaber, the CSA’s human resources & operations commissioner, had a large hand in coming up with the new equitable employment policy and considers it to be progressive.
“The CSA has been approached numerous times…that our so-called practices for employment equity are actually inequitable,” said Gaber. “These practices create two negative side effects. Firstly, using this practice actually takes away jobs from people who demonstrate that they are more qualified for a position. Secondly, and more importantly, they reinforce the stereotype that people who identify with a marginalized group require a leg-up [in the] employment world…as a student who identifies in one of these groups, I find such a system offensive.”
After hearing of these changes to the equitable employment policy, a large group of interested students came to the board meeting to speak out against such changes. One of these students was Melissa Bryan, a second-year Sociology student at the U of G, who didn’t take issue with the specific changes to the policy, but rather the haste with which she felt the decision was made.
“[The CSA] is taking away part of affirmative action, which at first I thought was okay until I realized that no research [seemed to have] been done on it to see whether it was working or not,” said Bryan. “I wanted to know why they decided to make that change and there was no straight answer which is why I opposed it.”
Bryan’s concern also stems from the fact that affirmative action is a program put in place in Canada by the government and perhaps should remain in the CSA’s hiring process.
“[Affirmative action] is a public system,” said Bryan. “I feel like if something like this is going to be changed [and] that our school prides itself in hiring equally among the races and diverse groups…do we even have the right to be taking programs like this away at a government funded school like this? Especially in a place like Guelph that isn’t as diverse as Toronto.”
Despite the concerns expressed by students, Gaber feels that this change shouldn’t present any negative consequences for marginalized students interested in employment with the CSA.
“If anything, this will encourage our organization to evaluate the barriers we have for people who identify within these groups,” said Gaber. “Our former practice acted simply as a smokescreen for what the real issues are within our hiring process, our staff environment, and the CSA as a whole.”