DIVERSITY AND COMPETENCY AREN’T THE SAME THING
Skills aren’t determined by gender, colour or minority status, Steven Fletcher says.
What does a picture of a group of people tell us?
Often, in the media and in the general public, a photo is used to demonstrate diversity. People may look at the colour of the skin, hair colour, eye colour, age, gender, size of the people in the picture and assume that the group is diverse and therefore qualified.
In elections, political parties use the appearance of diversity to suggest competency. This diversity “picture” seems to be strongest on the left of the political spectrum in Canada, but it certainly has infiltrated all parties. However, judging competency based on appearance is really quite ridiculous.
The diversity “picture” championed by the left assumes a monolithic view of visible minorities.
The electorate should not vote based on appearance of diversity, but on the diversity of the competency of the candidate. We should look to the diversity of skill sets when voting.
Skill sets cannot be determined by gender, skin colour or any of the other stereotypical characteristics that too many people associate with diversity. The assumptions people make about other people they do not know are usually wrong. A photo tells us nothing about an individual’s ability to represent any of us.
Diversity needs to include people who have education, experience and knowledge that best allow for good public policy development and implementation. It can also include life experience.
There are not enough engineers, accountants, tradespeople, medical professionals and numerous other skill sets in any party. Parliament is weaker as a result. In fact, there are probably too many lawyers and liberal arts graduates taking up space.
At present, the diversity test seems to be a binary choice between male/female ratios or visible minorities. But visible minorities and gender are not homogeneous in their views.
Just because someone is purple doesn’t mean they represent all the purple people.
When I first entered politics, it was assumed that I was an NDP supporter and sometimes a Liberal. This assumption arose because I happen to be a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the neck down.
It is true that for a lot of good reasons many of the activists in the disabled community are left-of-centre. It was striking how common this assumption was made when I first started door-knocking for the federal election in 2004.
People also assume that because someone is in a wheelchair, it affects the hearing and cognitive functions of that individual. People sometimes raise their voice when explaining something.
Another misconception is on the cognitive side. I recall a radio interview on the main station in Winnipeg, CJOB, when the announcer asked me on live radio, “Why would anyone vote for you over the star Liberal candidate, especially given your condition?” My reply was, “I believe the constituents would rather have an MP that was paralyzed from the neck down than the neck up.” I wasn’t applying to be the quarterback of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers; I was applying for a position that I was qualified to perform. Half a dozen stereotypes were blown out of the water in that radio interview.
I was recently in a “higher learning” program for executives for corporations. In the program, we were shown a photo of an example of what the program called “a model of a corporate board.” The class was asked to comment, and most of the class responded robotically and positively toward the photo. Not me.
The photo provides no information; it simply allows people to impose their own biases and stereotypes onto the images without merit.
A recent example in Manitoba is when the largest Crown corporation in the province, Manitoba Hydro, saw an entire board resign en masse. They did this on principle, due to government interference. The replacement board of political appointees certainly appeared to be photographically politically correct.
But in an unusual demonstration of self-awareness, these political appointees demanded the government add members, because the board as appointed did not have the skill sets to fulfil its responsibilities.
The government was caught out by its own appointees in its misguided attempt to be politically correct.
In 2011, a federal NDP candidate was elected and became famous because she hadn’t actually done much campaigning. She spent a part of the election in Las Vegas, worked as a waitress at a bar and was a single mother. This MP was mocked from all sides.
It was my impression, which is shared by many others, that she is one of the most effective and talented MPs for the NDP, or any party, for that matter. The diversity she brought was in her different life experience and work ethic.
Recently, a Liberal MP was whining about the MP workload. Good grief.
I worked underground in the mining industry. That was hard work: dangerous, long hours and no breaks. Perhaps, a few hardrock miners should go to Parliament to demonstrate work ethic.
The political establishment in Canada is collectively responsible for reinforcing stereotypes for political gain — gaming Canadians to put appearance ahead of the competency of the candidates.
The political party space-takers are denying many more qualified people the opportunity to run for Parliament.
The foremost criteria must be competency, always. Competency may include diversity, but diversity does not guarantee competency.
Hopefully, in this election Canadian people will vote for the person rather than the party. In exchange, whoever becomes an MP must represent the people, not the party. Can you imagine? Hon. Steven Fletcher was a cabinet minister in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. He was elected four times as an MP and is currently an MLA in Manitoba. He is a professional engineer (P.Eng.), has an MBA and has the Institute of Corporate Directors Designation (ICD.D), from the University of Toronto Business School. He is running for the People’s Party of Canada in the federal election.
Skill sets cannot be determined by gender, skin colour or other stereotypical characteristics.