(IN)EQUITY

If anyone thinks that Acadia’s workplace is equitable, they’re mistaken. There is not current data available on issues such as hiring, pay, and promotion. This is a concern given that recent studies in the USA indicate that there are striking inequities between men and women on major American campuses. We do have Dianne Looker and Margaret Conrad’s The Marginal Minority, a report on equity at Acadia over a decade ago indicating that women and men were in no way on an equitable footing.

Without current statistics it is difficult to speak about trends, but obviously the goal of full-time equity within the faculty has not been attained. The Committee on the Status of Women is attempting to up-date our statistics, an important part of its recommendations to the union on future negotiations of the collective agreement. A member of the committee, Andrea Schwenke Wyile says that the present collective agreement hardly raises the issue of equity - “if it’s there it’s hidden”. Somewhere in the existing agreement the old affirmative action clause is buried, but that only underlines the marginalization of the issue.

Talking to Jennifer Chisholm at the Women’s Center in the Student Union led to a discussion of the prevalent “hush-hush” culture on equity issues generally. This accounts for the furor surrounding the recent selection of John Smith as equity officer.

For some, John Smith is the problem. Like those few allegations that appeared in the Athenaeum claiming that he encouraged women not to report sexual assaults while he was a security officer on campus. These are no more than allegations and have been denied by John Smith. Yet the controversy is significant for the issue it highlights, rather than the merits of the case against Smith.

For others, the hire is the problem. As John Smith is happy to admit, he was not the first choice of the hiring committee. Yet, some are disappointed that an office responsible for handling a vital issue to faculty, staff, and students was not awarded to a first-class candidate (John Smith acknowledges that such is the case) or to a woman or other member of a visible or invisible minority. Might we assume that this reflects complacency on the part of the university and the persistence of the hush-hush culture?

In the present circumstances those seeking to improve equity standards on campus do not have an experienced partner in the Equity Office, someone with experience in defining collective agreements or engaging in the sort of activism necessary to make the issue of equity more relevant to all. Kenneth Moore at Acadia Pride says he would like to see the Equity Office bigger, more visible, but at the same time more accessible, more confidential. In the absence of such an office the Women’s Center and Pride are the first choice of those with issues to discuss. The centers, including the Wong International Center, are left providing advice to students in cases of harassment. They have the university’s moral support. These organizations do excellent work (look forward to forums coordinated between the Equity Office and the centers). Yet, each organization is aware that in actual cases of harassment they can only act as a first step in a process. The Equity Office is the logical next step. Be warned, in the absence of an effective Equity Office with the full support of university, faculty, staff, and students, those in need will end up frustrated, disappointed, and feeling that the university has let them down.

The recent furor over the appointment of John Smith to the Equity Office has made the issue of equity more visible. Shattering the hush-hush culture is a beginning. But for some the perception persists that equity has been – intentionally or inadvertently – devalued by the university.

Jamie Whidden

Table of Contents