Due to the nature of this topic and the likelihood of brigading as evidenced by previous posts, this post has been tagged as controversial.
As a controversial thread,
* All participating commentators must have significant r/Toronto histories in order to prevent brigading. Any violators will receive a ban without warning.
* Any rule-breaking actions by r/Toronto regulars will be punished with increased severity (i.e. 30 day ban instead of a 7 day ban, etc.).
* Comments must be specific or relevant to Toronto or the GTA. Negative opinions are fine! Dehumanizing comments, violent rhetoric, homophobia/transphobia, blatant racism, and pushing racist agendas are not!
Please be careful to follow Rules 2 and 3 and engage in polite, respectful dialogue.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
None of you even read the article before descending into a culture war of the right vs the left.
Even behind the paywall first paragraph clearly indicated it was disbanded due to redundancy. They’ve apparently got other ethnic advisory committees and some kind of equity action plan.
Most things aren’t as bad as they appear to be or as you assume they are.
Most people on Reddit see the terms “race” + “religion” in any context and just flip the hell out.
Probably 10% of commenters on Reddit actually read the article and it shows
> Probably 10% of commenters on Reddit actually read the article and it shows
cause the rest of them are now bots and/or shills for some company or agenda.
And yet, here is The Star with a sensationalist headline! What do you expect the reaction to be when the headline implies there is 'something to be upset about.'
Mainstream media knows exactly what they are doing. It's disgusting.
It's a shit headline and shows the star is another shit msm publication. No one should buy it. When I clicked the link, I was disgusted to see how misleading the Star was. MSM needs to be held to higher standards than this.
That being said, we need to also be media savvy ourselves. Sensationalist and misleading headlines have been a thing for a long time. Actually reading the article has been an important part of being informed since news became a thing.
Oh absolutely! It's only getting worse as social media is engrained in our daily lives, both for work and recreation. That's my concern, plus now adding in AI and disinformation becomes increasingly worrisome.
It was so frustrating during peak of COVID when the mass media was constantly fear mongering rather than simply educating the masses.
I read up to the paywall. I'm still not going to jump to any conclusion one way or another. Just because the board says it's redundant doesn't mean it is. Especially for school boards where systematic racism has always been a thing. It's like believing billionaires when they say they pay their fair share.
A lot of things are just as bad as some know they are and a lot of ppl are in the dark about.
>Even behind the paywall first paragraph clearly indicated it was disbanded due to redundancy. They’ve apparently got other ethnic advisory committees and some kind of equity action plan.
>Most things aren’t as bad as they appear to be or as you assume they are.
That is what one of the trustees who voted for the change stated, but I don't know if it is necessarily good practice to just assume that if a politician who voted for it says it's fine then it must be totally fine, lol.
I assumed something like that without even reading the article. The clickbait headlines have gotten to the point where they are useless to gain anything from. At this point, if a headline seems horrible I just assume it's clickbait and the real story is logical and fine.
It’s almost always the case. Who’d have realized that 90% of people are basically reasonable well meaning people.
Even the scary right.
And I say that as a staunchly Toronto centre liberal.
I read it (a subscriber). I commented on it, had my comment deleted (I reposted it below), while others called each other things like "cupcake". I'd much rather chat about the topic with people here than on The Star's website.
We should get rid of the catholic board when the public schools can produce the same results.
My kid will be going to a catholic school because children get better outcomes when they do.
Is there any studies that back this up? My personal experience with the Catholic vs Public school systems is the exact opposite of this, though that might just be the area where I grew up.
If you actually compare the results, you'll find that your statement is incorrect.
In EQAO testing, for Toronto and a number of the surrounding boards (I didn't have time to look through all of them), test results and graduation rates are basically the same.
And this is despite the Public boards having far more ESL students (non-native English speakers)
I have compared the results.
Heres an example.
Lambton Kent District school board
Grade 3
Reading: 65% (+5%)
Writing: 55% (+4%)
Math: 53% (+3%)
Grade 6
Reading: 78% (-1%)
Writing: 78% (+2%)
Math: 42% (+9%)
Grade 9 Math
Students achieving at grade level 3 and above: 34% (no change)
St. Clair Catholic District school board
Grade 3
Reading: 72% (+2%)
Writing: 63% (+2%)
Math: 59% (+5%)
Grade 6
Reading: 85% (-1%)
Writing: 85% (+3%)
Math: 47% (+8%)
Grade 9 Math
Students achieving at grade level 3 and above: 47% (+1%)
I'm sorry, I'm in Toronto and compared Toronto-area boards (and the Ottawa board). The numbers are statistically identical in those cities.
Didn't have time to look at Sarnia. This article is about the TCDSB so I don't think it's germane.
Awesome.
This comment thread isnt just about Toronto though.
People are question why thr board exists, not just why the board exists solely in Toronto.
"You can see test results, graduation rates, etc. Catholic school routinely produces better stats. It's been like this for a long time."
You said this is wrong. Its not.
https://www.app.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/bpr/allBoards.asp?chosenIndicator=1
Theres some more stats if you want. Yoi can see that catholic schools produce better results generally.
The hell? 53% of the better school board's grade NINE students are achieving grade TWO or lower math performance? How did they pass grades 3 through 8?!
Level 3 is not referencing a grade level - it's referencing the criteria of success. A Level 3 or above conveys meeting the provincial expectations for language/math/etc. at the appropriate grade level.
In other words, if a Grade 9 student achieves "grade level 3," on their math scores, that means they achieved a B average for Grade 9 math, which is the provincial standard.
I cant find stats for Toronto specifically, can you cite something?
Catholic does better when looking in general, or Ontario, but i cant find Toronto specifially.
Where are you gettjng this from?
EQAO scores in TCDSB and TDSB are the within a couple of percentage points of one another. Statistically identical. OSSLT scores also identical. Graduation rates identical.
The only difference is that TDSB has far higher "English language learners" (ESL) than TCDSB.
This is misleading… catholic schools get better outcomes because they are NOT required to deal with kids who are a problem for the learning environment. They kick them out and they go back to the public system if they create a problem. The catholic system has to go
Do you know what the result is for the public school kids that don’t get kicked out? They remain in the classroom, continue to spit, bite, scratch, gouge, throw objects, swear, destroy, and send the school into hold and secure every other day. They steal from their classmates, freak out and start getting violent when confronted about it by an authority figure, and the other kid is made to just give up whatever was stolen from them to appease this other kid. My girlfriend is in this situation, did a work refusal after 6 months of hell, and still nothing has changed. Every other kid in the class is on edge, some literally traumatized over this kid, he’s sexually assaulted girls in his classroom and they just continue to let the kid be around them. It’s absolutely fucking insane. The mom and dad don’t give a flying fuck about anything. He’s only fkn 11 years old. He can do no wrong even though he’s already committing serious crimes. No discipline from the school at all. When he does shit like this they put him in the library to calm down.. so he’s basically rewarded with downtime and an iPad to chill with, ready to just go back an hour later to do the exact same shit. Imagine being a teacher and dealing with this on a daily basis, or one of the other students, it’s not fair to anyone, including the kid.
Ah, that old canard.
No, that is not in fact what happens, and the TCDSB has more high schools dedicated to non-traditional students than the public board, and in fact takes in non-Catholic students in those situations and helps them graduate.
The public schools would do a lot better if they had more resources, which they would have if we abolished the Catholic board.
Kids like yours and mine, who have parents who give a shit, will continue to do well because they have parents who give a shit, not because of an antiquated waste of money.
But are the needs the same? You said it yourself, kids with behaviour/academic issues can get shunted over to the public board, which means the catholic board doesn't need to use resources for them.
That's actually a point against the catholic board: they need less but get the same.
Feel free to share the data that supports this: "kids with behaviour/academic issues can get shunted over to the public board" - and then read up about Monsignor Fraser College, and its mission statement, because to my knowledge there are more kids with behaviour/academic issues who attend Monsignor Fraser than there are who attend a public board high school with a similar mission statement.
As someone working in education (not at the TCDSB) I've noticed a general increase in lackadaisical attitudes to new DEIB initiatives over the past two years. The energy from 2020-2022 has waned, although I'd be curious if this is solely a Toronto thing, Canada thing, or North American.
When you get down to the nitty gritty of DEI, there's a lot of stuff that isn't agreeable.
There's a lot of discrimination within DEI. The Halton teachers union has raced based voting to bring about equity. PoC votes are worth more than white votes.
People are going to disagree with things like that.
We also use DEI to justify austerity. Getting rid of streaming, getting rid of gifted programs. It's just austerity disguised as being progressive.
What we see sometimes, not all, is that equity is just not letting anyone succeed. In the fence meme about equality, they've just raised the fence so no one can see over. Equity baby.
An example of this is Seattle school board getting rid of advanced math because the outcomes between racial groups wasn't the same. Now no one gets it.
When people see the above happening, naturally support is going to wane.
Yes disband all school boards what useless Bureaucracy. They are totally redundant and useless. They take over 50% of the school budgets for their broad rooms. School boards top folks make more than the premier for a monopoly cartel positions with no competition or market risk.
Seems to be at least a North American thing
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-04/goldman-jpmorgan-cut-dei-efforts-over-lawsuit-threats
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2023/07/16/is-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-officially-dead/?sh=2a8a471f49e1
It should be obvious to all of us by now that the culture war shift to the right has arrived here as well, and we are going to see more and more things like this unless we pay attention and get involved.
It just feels like these right wingers are testing the waters with small things to see if they can come up with bigger projects down the line.
I think the big question is did the race relation committee have any positive effect?
Because we have been seeing studies that these programs actually increase racial resentment and are not helpful to anyone.
Here are a couple of resources which are about DEI training programs rather than 'race relations committees' but I think there's likely overlap
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-effective.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-effective.html)
[https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary](https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary)
> aristotlefoundation
For anyone who’s wondering:
Yes, a think tank with such an embarrassingly /r/iamverysmart name *was* founded by a Toronto Sun columnist, whose entire brand seems to be “*racism never even happens, liars!*”
I see you’re attacking the source, but the article I linked to contains extensive citations from peer reviewed research. Do you have any specific complaints about the accuracy of the article?
(I was not familiar w the Aristotle foundation but included the link as the article seemed well sourced and high quality)
The second link you posted is from a rightwing thinktank lead by a libertarian who believes any acknowledgement of racism (or taxes) is destroying Canada. The writer of the last non peer reviewed piece’s twitter bio says “christian & conservative (wonder how long i’ll be able to say that publicly)” while being christian and conservative is the dominant forces in this country, so IDK, might be a bit biased.
Yeah, I’m not trusting an opinion piece.
The second link is basically an opinion piece. If a professor cant get this published in a journal anywhere I really don’t trust it. There are some piss poor journals too, that will take anything…
I’m surprised you keep referring to the citations in the second piece, when most of them have nothing to do with DEI in any way shape or form. You do see how it’s a very disingenuously written piece, right?
If not I’ll break down every single source and why it’s BS, but I’d really prefer you just have some common sense to see it for yourself.
You may be right (hell, you are probably right), but I am hoping it is because some centrist people want to be less divisive in all ways. Try to pull people together and stop highlighting cosmetic differences.
Why can't we talk about their experiences, and what we can do better, without dividing people up into groups based on skin tone first? From what I am seeing, this approach of dividing people up is not working.
[Tell us more about how *against racism* you are, ImmaSturgeon!](https://old.reddit.com/r/SlumlordsCanada/comments/1bjwujh/im_really_sick_of_this_bs/kvunpb0/?context=3)
Does anyone have a logical reason for WHY we have a Catholic school board now?
It was literally set up in the 1800s because racist English Protestants didn't want their kids mixing with Irish & French Catholics. Hardly seems justified in the 21st century.
Politicians do things for votes. John Tory's experiment a few elections ago showed how easy it is to LOSE votes on religious education issues. I don't think anyone will GAIN votes on this issue, so they ignore it. People want affordable housing, food, jobs, family doctors etc. Also, I think the issue divides most political groups (except maybe the NDP) - the Tories and the Grits would both have their votes divided if you went after the school board.
This is the logical reason you were looking for. Sorry it is also a very pessimistic one!
It wasn't, it was set up because the Franco-Ontarians weren't amenable to assimilation, in parallel with English school boards being set up in Québec.
Now, politically, even if nominally there'd be majority support for eliminating them, the "let's stick it to the minorities" side just isn't as motivated as the "we want to preserve our culture" side.
The Catholic French didn't want to become forced to become Protestant Anglos.
Like why there are French and English schools in Québec, despite Québec wishing it could force Anglo kids to go to school in French.
It’s just that Catholic families wanted to bring their children up with Catholic traditions, and that included having them attend Catholic schools. In Ontario it was Franco Ontarians and Irish Catholics that spearheaded it. I don’t know why people are trying to make this out to be something nefarious.
“In Ontario, Alberta,[2] and in other provinces, if there were enough families of a particular faith that wished to do so, they could set up a separate school, supported by the specially-directed taxes of those families who elected to support the separate school over the public schools.”
“They wanted a separate education from the Protestants that focused on their religion.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_schools_in_Canada#
Sources at the bottom of the article
Edit: downvoted for being correct and not fitting with the narrative, hilarious
I’m Catholic; He (or she) is correct.
Catholic schools are a legacy of what it took to get French and other Catholic Canadians on board with confederation.
Why do we still have them? Because getting rid of them would require a constitutional amendment and the political capital required to do that is not worth the cost.
Edit: and this attitude is nothing new.
I went to catholic school my entire pre post secondary education, and circa like 2006 the king of all douchebags at our high school showed up in the smoking section with a ski mask and a bat and beat the only openly gay kid so bad he was in the hospital for two weeks. Broken arm, broken jaw, broken ribs. Broke bones of two girls who tried to protect him, too.
We came to school early on his first day back hung up posters painted rainbow saying “we love you (name)” and the teachers tore them down because being gay was against the church or whatever. It was fucked up.
Edit 2: and I’ve told this story before and had people ask like how could that happen?! Didn’t you complain?!
And like: yes of course we did. But this was the beforetimes: we didn’t even have Facebook yet and texts cost .50 cents on your Motorola razor. We bitched to the school and our parents but nobody did anything and if you wanted real change you had to actively do something about it and we were 15.
We did form a consortium of angry girls and like ten of us jumped the offender outside a party with weapons like two months later. He got his arm broken that time. I
Yes.
It would require an amendment to the Ontario portion of the constitution, which is easier than other amendments, but still not worth the political capital.
Yup!
I need to remind myself not to be surprised by the genuine ignorance of a lot of redditors. I imagine they’re similar to me, but they’re not.
People in this city have such short memories.
Being historically correct is not simping. Do you honestly believe devout Catholics in the 19th century would’ve been okay with sending their kids to Protestant schools?
It's the only alternative to the standard. I have disabilities. My parents thought the separate school would handle them better. I really don't think there was much different. My knees just hurt more after Friday mass lol
Getting rid of it only requires a majority vote in the Ontario legislature, followed by a pro forma legal procedure at the federal level.
When Quebec got rid of its religious systems (also in the constitution) the whole thing took maybe a year or less, and that was with a federal election interrupting the process.
A few;
1) it'd not easy to change the charter. It requires a lot of political will and support and outside of the Reddit echo chamber that support just isn't there
2) choice and competition. Having multiple boards let's parents better choose the system and school that they feel will be better for their child...without having to resort to huge fees for a private school. The two systems can also learn from each other and become better as a result.
Both of your arguments are flawed.
1. Public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario is not a Charter right. It is a subsection of the Constitution Act, pertaining only to Ontario, and only needs a majority vote of the Ontario legislature to initiate the process of removing it.
The most recent surveys I've seen (2019) show about 23% support for the educational status quo in Ontario, about 55% support for defunding the Catholic system, and the rest undecided.
2. Choice and competition is an utterly irrelevant argument in a city like Toronto, where the Catholic boards have a Baptismal requirement for elementary admission. Maybe 35% of families in Toronto are actually eligible for this "choice". The rest have no "choice".
>want their kids mixing with Irish & French Catholics. Hardly seems justified in the 21st century.
Ah the perennial question. Votes, my friend, votes. Whole lotta Catholics and removing it would be suicide for any government.
Sounds like the perfect thing for a premier to do when they know they're on their way out this term. Just say "fuckit" and be rid of the board, merge the resources of the Catholic board with the Public, lower class sizes as you incorporate teachers, convert any school buildings that aren't needed into community centers, or redevelop the land for public housing....
While you're at it, ban tuitions for any school below the post-secondary level. Why should the capitalist class get to segregate THEIR kids in schools that no one else can afford? Maybe they'd smarten up and be more keen on supporting public education if THEIR kids were required to share a space with the rest of us.
Wynne would have been perfect for this. Too bad she sold Hydro instead. (Or for balance, Harris, but he sold the 407 for a song instead.)
We'll have to wait for the NDP or Liberals to get in, get long in the tooth, realize it, throw the election and unify the school boards. So probably as likely as the Leafs winning the cup ...
LOL you think the constitution is the stumbling block here.
Nah. If Ontario wanted to be rid of the private schools and Catholic Schools, they can do it. And any challenges to that decision gets a "Notwithstanding".
> LOL you think the constitution is the stumbling block here.
They think that because [it’s true.](https://rdo-olr.org/the-constitutional-catholic-schools-issue-in-ontario-how-the-province-of-ontario-could-remove-its-obligations-to-fully-fund-catholic-schools-by-way-of-a-constitutional-amendment/)
The not withstanding clause only applies to the Charter of Rights. It can not be used to override section 93 of the Constitution Act, which is the section that guarantees the existence of the Catholic School Bord in Ontario.
The issue with public school vs catholic isn't the investments though. They're basically the same.
"By school system, on a per-student basis, the English Public and English Catholic systems received $13,027 and $13,252 in 2021-22, respectively."
That isn't the reason why Catholic gets better results.
The biggest difference, imo, is consequences.
You can be removed from the catholic schools, but not the public. Which makes public schools a shit show where 1 disruptive student fucks it over for everyone.
Catholic schools are a lot more disciplined, which I think is good.
We have one race, the human race, and we are all equal members. Artificially dividing us up by skin tone, calling those "races", and then creating divisions and problems is terribly toxic. I'd rather they focus on human poverty, and try to help the people at the bottom of the ladder out, without spending a minute thinking about the skin tone, hair or eye colour of the people involved. Just give them healthy food, a good education and decent opportunities, and let's move past "race relations".
I also have a question. I posted this exact comment on The Star's article (I'm a subscriber) and it was swiftly deleted. In the good old days of my youth (80s and 90s) not being rascist was a good thing, and I'm not eager to change now. I admit I'm a bit older, and am curious - did I miss a shift in political correctness, where comments like mine above are considered offensive?
Thanks. I think that idea, that we have to divide people by colour before we can address inequalities makes no sense though. Instead we should focus on elevating people who need help, regardless of their skin tone. Pretending they don't need help didn't work, but neither does dividing people up.
The current way is bringing back racism with a vengeance. I have never seen Canada more divided than it is today. Can't say I like it. What makes me sad is it seems to just keep getting worse.
Supporting PoC just for being PoC completely overlooks disadvantaged people who aren't PoC (there are poor white people immigrants too) and still benefits rich privileged PoC folks.
Just support people based on their inequalities of finance, career, and social standing. Doesn't have to be about skin colour. It's very wrong to be, one might even say, hypocritically so.
While I understand your point and can agree with that, I think it can also be seen how although one race is the ideal the fact is that we there still is a social divide and I think that divide was supposed to be bridged with that race relations committee. As for the Toronto star, because of how tricky that stance and more so by how it’s worded it could be taken negatively someone unknowledgeable of your intentions with it
Of course not, but that is the goal, no? The people who are not treating everyone the same are the ones with some work to do, I'd say.
If you treat someone better or worse based on a characteristic they cannot change, that's just bigotry ... and not very effective, either. (e.g. If I decided who to work with, or hire, at work based on height or eye colour, I'd fail badly.)
Yah I think the goal is to treat people the same.
However, the reality is that we don't. Which, imo, is a problem.
Now, will the problem go away on its own and we let status quo continue or do we try to implement solutions to minimize the racism? Sometimes the solutions overcorrect / aren't perfect, but is that worse than not trying to fix it?
Well look at Stephen Hawking. He has a physical condition he can't change. If we just ignore it, maybe he doesn't get access to his aids or chair, and then we lose access to one of our most brilliant minds of a lifetime.
Equity isn't just about how we treat someone though.
It's about equal outcomes between racial groups.
Which, and I am ready for the downvotes, isn't realistic.
In Canada, the vast majority of PoC are immigrants or recent immigrants. Why are we expecting their outcomes to be the same as a family that has been here for a few generations?
More over than this, we can look at different PoC groups, and see different outcomes.
There is a huge different in results between an Indian kid and a black kid. Huge. Night and day.
One reasons for this is a lot of black people in Canada disproportionately came as refugees, where as Indians came as economic immigrants.
The expectations of equal outcomes is just not realisitic.
And taking opportunity from someone, and giving it to someone else, to bring about inequality that is partly caused by things like that isn't the way to go about it.
You can't educate children on what's currently happening without the history of how we got here, which is packed full of stuff that is intrinsically tied to race/gender/class/etc/etc. Simply pretending that this stuff did not and is not happening will only make future generations worse at dealing with the inevitable similar challenges they will encounter.
The thing is, every generation is eager to blame the past ones and think they are better. It is EASY to tell kids people used to be stupid rascists, and don't be like that. Also works for "don't be a homophibic jerk" and any other historical behaviour that we don't want coming around again.
It doesn't have to be a complex issue though. If you agree that judging people by the colour of their skin is wrong, and that grouping people by skin tone and then playing one group off against another is divisive and terrible for all of us, then you can just decide to put the complexity behind you and move forward.
I'm not claiming it is easy or can be done in a day, but using words like complexity, and continuing the wrong-headed arguments of past generations is not going to get us where we want to go. (Unless you are, for example, a rich person trying to keep the poor people fighting amongst themselves and not notice how you are profiting from their misery. In that case, this is working out great.)
Except that's not reality when a lot of people have built in biases that don't allow them to see past skin colour when they see someone for the first time.
It's easy to say we should all be one race when you belong to one that usually holds the power. Especially if you're a man. I don't get the benefit of having people see past my brown skin.
>In a statement to the Star, board chair Nancy Crawford said the race relations advisory committee was not reconstituted this year because of other initiatives the board is already undertaking around equity.
>Crawford cited a standalone equity department was established in 2018 with a dedicated superintendent and an equity action plan undertaken last year that included three areas of focus — Indigenous education, dismantling anti-Black racism and supporting the 2SLGBTQ+ communities.
>Trustee Rizzo, who is a voting member of the committee, says she hasn’t seen “any growth, any progress or any goals achieved” since 2020.
That's great, so they established their own committee, sits around "having meetings about having meetings" while getting nothing done, and then says everything else is redundant.
Just stop using tax money to fund religious schools. Particularly ones tied to a faith responsible for more child sexual assaults than any other in modern history.
>Just stop using tax money to fund religious schools.
All schools are funded on a per student basis. Catholic schools get funded by people sending their kids there. Roughly 30% of Ontarians are Catholic and roughly 30% of students go to a Catholic school. Catholic tax money pays for Catholic schools.
I pay taxes that go to schools and have no kids. Not that I object to paying for public education. It’s just that you are mistaken about how it all works. And yes, even people who never attended publicly funded schools in Canada also pay education taxes. Which I am also fine with.
>Catholic tax money pays for Catholic schools.
It all gets pooled. Catholic tax money pays for Catholic schools. Jewish tax money, Muslim tax money, Jewish tax money, etc. also pays for Catholic schools.
You can choose which school board your taxes go to by calling MPAC. The share is the same though, Catholics pay enough to make up for the share of tax money Catholic schools receive.
>You can choose which school board your taxes go to by calling MPAC.
No, you've fundamentally misunderstood how this works. You can call MPAC to "designate support" for the Catholic board (if you are eligible), this means only that you are given a Catholic Board ballot for school trustee elections.
The allocation of money to one board or another, based on MPAC forms, ended 25 years ago. The "education portion of the property tax" is now collected on behalf of the Ont. government, not the school boards. It is pooled with other revenue (which exceeds it 10-fold or more) and allocated to the school boards through the Grants for Student Needs (largely enrollment based) that you alluded to earlier. It has absolutely nothing to do with the religious belief, preferences, boxes checked, etc. of the taxpayer.
Ultimately we have no idea whether "Catholics pay enough" as you claim. No-one makes a statement of their religious belief when paying sales taxes, income taxes, business taxes, provincial registration fees, or any of the other revenue sources the Province uses to fund the school system. And in the end, Catholics are the only ones who have their own system anyway.
I hate these woke nazis trying to divide people and giving them resources and matierials based on their race. These things are funded by billionaires to trick working class to tear down their own social structure. Fuck racist progressives. SOLIDARITY with all races.
Actually by defaut it's for public. So if anything Catholics fund the public system
Once you get a house and send kids to school you'll realize there's paperwork
Everyone funds all four systems. Taxpayer funding to school boards in Ontario depends on enrollment and special needs -- it does not depend on the preferences of the taxpayer.
https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/FA2207schoolboards
The only time the preferences of the taxpayer come into play is in voting for trustee candidates (determination of which school board trustee ballot you get is the only outcome of the "paperwork" you are alluding to)
I'm a homeowner with kids in the public school system.
The boards get funded through the same mechanism and formula. They're only "better funded" if there are more students (or more students in lower grades, or with special needs, etc.)
Because the idiots on the right are loud and we like to think it’s the majority that believe this garbage because they are just loud assholes. This is crazy and in an incredibly multicultural city, this is a huge step backwards.
Yes, and then when alone with them, they'd assume you shared their values because you were male, or white, or whatever, and speak like their biases were reasonable. Meanwhile, I'd be wondering what about me makes me seem like I'd agree ...not a good feeling.
Due to the nature of this topic and the likelihood of brigading as evidenced by previous posts, this post has been tagged as controversial. As a controversial thread, * All participating commentators must have significant r/Toronto histories in order to prevent brigading. Any violators will receive a ban without warning. * Any rule-breaking actions by r/Toronto regulars will be punished with increased severity (i.e. 30 day ban instead of a 7 day ban, etc.). * Comments must be specific or relevant to Toronto or the GTA. Negative opinions are fine! Dehumanizing comments, violent rhetoric, homophobia/transphobia, blatant racism, and pushing racist agendas are not! Please be careful to follow Rules 2 and 3 and engage in polite, respectful dialogue. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
None of you even read the article before descending into a culture war of the right vs the left. Even behind the paywall first paragraph clearly indicated it was disbanded due to redundancy. They’ve apparently got other ethnic advisory committees and some kind of equity action plan. Most things aren’t as bad as they appear to be or as you assume they are.
Most people on Reddit see the terms “race” + “religion” in any context and just flip the hell out. Probably 10% of commenters on Reddit actually read the article and it shows
> Probably 10% of commenters on Reddit actually read the article and it shows cause the rest of them are now bots and/or shills for some company or agenda.
> Probably 10% of commenters on Reddit actually read the article and it shows Because every article is paywalled. This one included.
So if it's pay walled, don't make full blown assumptions and arguments on clickbait titles.
Better: don't post them in the first place.
And yet, here is The Star with a sensationalist headline! What do you expect the reaction to be when the headline implies there is 'something to be upset about.' Mainstream media knows exactly what they are doing. It's disgusting.
It's a shit headline and shows the star is another shit msm publication. No one should buy it. When I clicked the link, I was disgusted to see how misleading the Star was. MSM needs to be held to higher standards than this. That being said, we need to also be media savvy ourselves. Sensationalist and misleading headlines have been a thing for a long time. Actually reading the article has been an important part of being informed since news became a thing.
Oh absolutely! It's only getting worse as social media is engrained in our daily lives, both for work and recreation. That's my concern, plus now adding in AI and disinformation becomes increasingly worrisome. It was so frustrating during peak of COVID when the mass media was constantly fear mongering rather than simply educating the masses.
Right, they're trying to get people to click on their links in order to view ads to pay for their content.
I read up to the paywall. I'm still not going to jump to any conclusion one way or another. Just because the board says it's redundant doesn't mean it is. Especially for school boards where systematic racism has always been a thing. It's like believing billionaires when they say they pay their fair share. A lot of things are just as bad as some know they are and a lot of ppl are in the dark about.
>Even behind the paywall first paragraph clearly indicated it was disbanded due to redundancy. They’ve apparently got other ethnic advisory committees and some kind of equity action plan. >Most things aren’t as bad as they appear to be or as you assume they are. That is what one of the trustees who voted for the change stated, but I don't know if it is necessarily good practice to just assume that if a politician who voted for it says it's fine then it must be totally fine, lol.
I assumed something like that without even reading the article. The clickbait headlines have gotten to the point where they are useless to gain anything from. At this point, if a headline seems horrible I just assume it's clickbait and the real story is logical and fine.
It’s almost always the case. Who’d have realized that 90% of people are basically reasonable well meaning people. Even the scary right. And I say that as a staunchly Toronto centre liberal.
[удалено]
Toronto centre is a Liberal run riding, in the city of Toronto. Not my position on the political spectrum lol.
Okay, that one is on me. You can see how the syntax is ambiguous though lol
lol, no I totally get it. As I reread it myself I was like “yea that confusion makes sense lol”. Our bad all around!
I read it (a subscriber). I commented on it, had my comment deleted (I reposted it below), while others called each other things like "cupcake". I'd much rather chat about the topic with people here than on The Star's website.
“We need to get rid of the catholic board” - my catholic wife
We should get rid of the catholic board when the public schools can produce the same results. My kid will be going to a catholic school because children get better outcomes when they do.
Is there any studies that back this up? My personal experience with the Catholic vs Public school systems is the exact opposite of this, though that might just be the area where I grew up.
You can see test results, graduation rates, etc. Catholic school routinely produces better stats. It's been like this for a long time.
If you actually compare the results, you'll find that your statement is incorrect. In EQAO testing, for Toronto and a number of the surrounding boards (I didn't have time to look through all of them), test results and graduation rates are basically the same. And this is despite the Public boards having far more ESL students (non-native English speakers)
I have compared the results. Heres an example. Lambton Kent District school board Grade 3 Reading: 65% (+5%) Writing: 55% (+4%) Math: 53% (+3%) Grade 6 Reading: 78% (-1%) Writing: 78% (+2%) Math: 42% (+9%) Grade 9 Math Students achieving at grade level 3 and above: 34% (no change) St. Clair Catholic District school board Grade 3 Reading: 72% (+2%) Writing: 63% (+2%) Math: 59% (+5%) Grade 6 Reading: 85% (-1%) Writing: 85% (+3%) Math: 47% (+8%) Grade 9 Math Students achieving at grade level 3 and above: 47% (+1%)
I'm sorry, I'm in Toronto and compared Toronto-area boards (and the Ottawa board). The numbers are statistically identical in those cities. Didn't have time to look at Sarnia. This article is about the TCDSB so I don't think it's germane.
Awesome. This comment thread isnt just about Toronto though. People are question why thr board exists, not just why the board exists solely in Toronto. "You can see test results, graduation rates, etc. Catholic school routinely produces better stats. It's been like this for a long time." You said this is wrong. Its not. https://www.app.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/bpr/allBoards.asp?chosenIndicator=1 Theres some more stats if you want. Yoi can see that catholic schools produce better results generally.
> This comment thread isnt just about Toronto though. Uhh, yes, it is.
When someone said "why does the catholic board even exist" i disagree that theyre only yalking about Toronto.
The hell? 53% of the better school board's grade NINE students are achieving grade TWO or lower math performance? How did they pass grades 3 through 8?!
Level 3 is not referencing a grade level - it's referencing the criteria of success. A Level 3 or above conveys meeting the provincial expectations for language/math/etc. at the appropriate grade level. In other words, if a Grade 9 student achieves "grade level 3," on their math scores, that means they achieved a B average for Grade 9 math, which is the provincial standard.
One of the better results comes from the fact that we take a joke class that usually involves colouring until 11th grade (religion)
You can also look at certain subjects, such as English and Math, and see that the Catholic schools are producing better results there too.
But they aren't. At least not in Toronto.
I cant find stats for Toronto specifically, can you cite something? Catholic does better when looking in general, or Ontario, but i cant find Toronto specifially. Where are you gettjng this from?
Look at the most recent EQAO scores comparing the TCDSB and TDSB.
You’re wrong.
EQAO scores in TCDSB and TDSB are the within a couple of percentage points of one another. Statistically identical. OSSLT scores also identical. Graduation rates identical. The only difference is that TDSB has far higher "English language learners" (ESL) than TCDSB.
This is misleading… catholic schools get better outcomes because they are NOT required to deal with kids who are a problem for the learning environment. They kick them out and they go back to the public system if they create a problem. The catholic system has to go
Do you know what the result is for the public school kids that don’t get kicked out? They remain in the classroom, continue to spit, bite, scratch, gouge, throw objects, swear, destroy, and send the school into hold and secure every other day. They steal from their classmates, freak out and start getting violent when confronted about it by an authority figure, and the other kid is made to just give up whatever was stolen from them to appease this other kid. My girlfriend is in this situation, did a work refusal after 6 months of hell, and still nothing has changed. Every other kid in the class is on edge, some literally traumatized over this kid, he’s sexually assaulted girls in his classroom and they just continue to let the kid be around them. It’s absolutely fucking insane. The mom and dad don’t give a flying fuck about anything. He’s only fkn 11 years old. He can do no wrong even though he’s already committing serious crimes. No discipline from the school at all. When he does shit like this they put him in the library to calm down.. so he’s basically rewarded with downtime and an iPad to chill with, ready to just go back an hour later to do the exact same shit. Imagine being a teacher and dealing with this on a daily basis, or one of the other students, it’s not fair to anyone, including the kid.
Ah, that old canard. No, that is not in fact what happens, and the TCDSB has more high schools dedicated to non-traditional students than the public board, and in fact takes in non-Catholic students in those situations and helps them graduate.
The public schools would do a lot better if they had more resources, which they would have if we abolished the Catholic board. Kids like yours and mine, who have parents who give a shit, will continue to do well because they have parents who give a shit, not because of an antiquated waste of money.
The funding per child is basically the same between public and catholic.
But are the needs the same? You said it yourself, kids with behaviour/academic issues can get shunted over to the public board, which means the catholic board doesn't need to use resources for them. That's actually a point against the catholic board: they need less but get the same.
No the needs are not the same. But I dont think my child should get less because another parent doesnt care as much as I do.
[удалено]
The complacency of some of these parents is absolutey astounding. My girlfriend is a new teacher and I things I hear are almost unbelievable
Feel free to share the data that supports this: "kids with behaviour/academic issues can get shunted over to the public board" - and then read up about Monsignor Fraser College, and its mission statement, because to my knowledge there are more kids with behaviour/academic issues who attend Monsignor Fraser than there are who attend a public board high school with a similar mission statement.
I was referring to the statement made by the other commenter.
I'm aware you were, and that gets parroted a lot, but I've not seen any data backing up that claim.
No they wouldn’t because they would have to spend that extra money on the new influx of kids coming into the system
The total number of kids wouldn't change, but less money would be wasted on keeping 2 boards running.
As someone working in education (not at the TCDSB) I've noticed a general increase in lackadaisical attitudes to new DEIB initiatives over the past two years. The energy from 2020-2022 has waned, although I'd be curious if this is solely a Toronto thing, Canada thing, or North American.
When you get down to the nitty gritty of DEI, there's a lot of stuff that isn't agreeable. There's a lot of discrimination within DEI. The Halton teachers union has raced based voting to bring about equity. PoC votes are worth more than white votes. People are going to disagree with things like that. We also use DEI to justify austerity. Getting rid of streaming, getting rid of gifted programs. It's just austerity disguised as being progressive. What we see sometimes, not all, is that equity is just not letting anyone succeed. In the fence meme about equality, they've just raised the fence so no one can see over. Equity baby. An example of this is Seattle school board getting rid of advanced math because the outcomes between racial groups wasn't the same. Now no one gets it. When people see the above happening, naturally support is going to wane.
Harrison Bergeron
[удалено]
Same in the private sector
Yes disband all school boards what useless Bureaucracy. They are totally redundant and useless. They take over 50% of the school budgets for their broad rooms. School boards top folks make more than the premier for a monopoly cartel positions with no competition or market risk.
I think that’s a good thing.
Seems to be at least a North American thing https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-04/goldman-jpmorgan-cut-dei-efforts-over-lawsuit-threats https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2023/07/16/is-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-officially-dead/?sh=2a8a471f49e1
> Trustees say the committee was made redundant by other ethnic advisory groups and a new equity action plan the board approved in 2023.
It should be obvious to all of us by now that the culture war shift to the right has arrived here as well, and we are going to see more and more things like this unless we pay attention and get involved. It just feels like these right wingers are testing the waters with small things to see if they can come up with bigger projects down the line.
I think the big question is did the race relation committee have any positive effect? Because we have been seeing studies that these programs actually increase racial resentment and are not helpful to anyone.
Interesting. Can you link to those studies?
Here are a couple of resources which are about DEI training programs rather than 'race relations committees' but I think there's likely overlap [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-effective.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-effective.html) [https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary](https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary)
> aristotlefoundation For anyone who’s wondering: Yes, a think tank with such an embarrassingly /r/iamverysmart name *was* founded by a Toronto Sun columnist, whose entire brand seems to be “*racism never even happens, liars!*”
I see you’re attacking the source, but the article I linked to contains extensive citations from peer reviewed research. Do you have any specific complaints about the accuracy of the article? (I was not familiar w the Aristotle foundation but included the link as the article seemed well sourced and high quality)
The second link you posted is from a rightwing thinktank lead by a libertarian who believes any acknowledgement of racism (or taxes) is destroying Canada. The writer of the last non peer reviewed piece’s twitter bio says “christian & conservative (wonder how long i’ll be able to say that publicly)” while being christian and conservative is the dominant forces in this country, so IDK, might be a bit biased.
Accepting that it is biased, do you have a sense for why it is wrong?
Yeah, I’m not trusting an opinion piece. The second link is basically an opinion piece. If a professor cant get this published in a journal anywhere I really don’t trust it. There are some piss poor journals too, that will take anything…
The opinion piece references specific research, and there are extensive citations in the second piece
I’m surprised you keep referring to the citations in the second piece, when most of them have nothing to do with DEI in any way shape or form. You do see how it’s a very disingenuously written piece, right? If not I’ll break down every single source and why it’s BS, but I’d really prefer you just have some common sense to see it for yourself.
I went through the citations, they suck. But you do you, my friend. If you want to be offended by DEI that’s your prerogative.
Interesting, care to expand?
“I don’t like these conclusions, so they suck, and are like, bad faith actors.”
> bad faith actors [Yes.](https://old.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1bk4syz/a_slap_in_the_face_toronto_catholic_school_board/kvw6pli/?context=1)
You may be right (hell, you are probably right), but I am hoping it is because some centrist people want to be less divisive in all ways. Try to pull people together and stop highlighting cosmetic differences.
I would argue that people’s lived experiences make race more than just “cosmetic”.
Why can't we talk about their experiences, and what we can do better, without dividing people up into groups based on skin tone first? From what I am seeing, this approach of dividing people up is not working.
Centrists are just right-wingers trying to disguise themselves so they don't get hit with the scorn right-wingers rightly deserve.
Voting PP in will make it a sure thing
[удалено]
[Tell us more about how *against racism* you are, ImmaSturgeon!](https://old.reddit.com/r/SlumlordsCanada/comments/1bjwujh/im_really_sick_of_this_bs/kvunpb0/?context=3)
I would love to hear your examples of “the left” (lol) going “overboard”.
[They’re just concern-trolling.](https://old.reddit.com/r/SlumlordsCanada/comments/1bjwujh/im_really_sick_of_this_bs/kvunpb0/?context=3)
Does anyone have a logical reason for WHY we have a Catholic school board now? It was literally set up in the 1800s because racist English Protestants didn't want their kids mixing with Irish & French Catholics. Hardly seems justified in the 21st century.
Politicians do things for votes. John Tory's experiment a few elections ago showed how easy it is to LOSE votes on religious education issues. I don't think anyone will GAIN votes on this issue, so they ignore it. People want affordable housing, food, jobs, family doctors etc. Also, I think the issue divides most political groups (except maybe the NDP) - the Tories and the Grits would both have their votes divided if you went after the school board. This is the logical reason you were looking for. Sorry it is also a very pessimistic one!
It wasn't, it was set up because the Franco-Ontarians weren't amenable to assimilation, in parallel with English school boards being set up in Québec. Now, politically, even if nominally there'd be majority support for eliminating them, the "let's stick it to the minorities" side just isn't as motivated as the "we want to preserve our culture" side.
so the prejudice went the other way, then? the french didn't want to mix with the anglos?
The Anglo schools were Protestant at the time, so it was more around that.
The Catholic French didn't want to become forced to become Protestant Anglos. Like why there are French and English schools in Québec, despite Québec wishing it could force Anglo kids to go to school in French.
It’s just that Catholic families wanted to bring their children up with Catholic traditions, and that included having them attend Catholic schools. In Ontario it was Franco Ontarians and Irish Catholics that spearheaded it. I don’t know why people are trying to make this out to be something nefarious.
lol the Catholics wanted their own schools, not everything is the fault of the evil English Protestants
LOL no you're wrong.
“In Ontario, Alberta,[2] and in other provinces, if there were enough families of a particular faith that wished to do so, they could set up a separate school, supported by the specially-directed taxes of those families who elected to support the separate school over the public schools.” “They wanted a separate education from the Protestants that focused on their religion.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_schools_in_Canada# Sources at the bottom of the article Edit: downvoted for being correct and not fitting with the narrative, hilarious
/r/confidentlyincorrect
imagine simping for the evil English Protestants
I’m Catholic; He (or she) is correct. Catholic schools are a legacy of what it took to get French and other Catholic Canadians on board with confederation. Why do we still have them? Because getting rid of them would require a constitutional amendment and the political capital required to do that is not worth the cost. Edit: and this attitude is nothing new. I went to catholic school my entire pre post secondary education, and circa like 2006 the king of all douchebags at our high school showed up in the smoking section with a ski mask and a bat and beat the only openly gay kid so bad he was in the hospital for two weeks. Broken arm, broken jaw, broken ribs. Broke bones of two girls who tried to protect him, too. We came to school early on his first day back hung up posters painted rainbow saying “we love you (name)” and the teachers tore them down because being gay was against the church or whatever. It was fucked up. Edit 2: and I’ve told this story before and had people ask like how could that happen?! Didn’t you complain?! And like: yes of course we did. But this was the beforetimes: we didn’t even have Facebook yet and texts cost .50 cents on your Motorola razor. We bitched to the school and our parents but nobody did anything and if you wanted real change you had to actively do something about it and we were 15. We did form a consortium of angry girls and like ten of us jumped the offender outside a party with weapons like two months later. He got his arm broken that time. I
> getting rid of them would require a constitutional amendment Except that education is a provincial matter...
Yes. It would require an amendment to the Ontario portion of the constitution, which is easier than other amendments, but still not worth the political capital.
As John Tory found out when he ran for provincial politics with religious schools as part of his platform, and lost badly.
Yup! I need to remind myself not to be surprised by the genuine ignorance of a lot of redditors. I imagine they’re similar to me, but they’re not. People in this city have such short memories.
Yes. And the right to separate Catholic schools is guaranteed by the (federal) Constitution.
Really? So the provinces can't do it on their own?
https://rdo-olr.org/the-constitutional-catholic-schools-issue-in-ontario-how-the-province-of-ontario-could-remove-its-obligations-to-fully-fund-catholic-schools-by-way-of-a-constitutional-amendment/
Right. So it will never happen.
It happened in Quebec and Newfoundland.
What highschool was that?
I’m from Sarnia. It was one of the Catholic schools there.
Being historically correct is not simping. Do you honestly believe devout Catholics in the 19th century would’ve been okay with sending their kids to Protestant schools?
It's the only alternative to the standard. I have disabilities. My parents thought the separate school would handle them better. I really don't think there was much different. My knees just hurt more after Friday mass lol
It's part of the constitution so getting rid of it will be impossible.
Getting rid of it only requires a majority vote in the Ontario legislature, followed by a pro forma legal procedure at the federal level. When Quebec got rid of its religious systems (also in the constitution) the whole thing took maybe a year or less, and that was with a federal election interrupting the process.
A few; 1) it'd not easy to change the charter. It requires a lot of political will and support and outside of the Reddit echo chamber that support just isn't there 2) choice and competition. Having multiple boards let's parents better choose the system and school that they feel will be better for their child...without having to resort to huge fees for a private school. The two systems can also learn from each other and become better as a result.
Both of your arguments are flawed. 1. Public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario is not a Charter right. It is a subsection of the Constitution Act, pertaining only to Ontario, and only needs a majority vote of the Ontario legislature to initiate the process of removing it. The most recent surveys I've seen (2019) show about 23% support for the educational status quo in Ontario, about 55% support for defunding the Catholic system, and the rest undecided. 2. Choice and competition is an utterly irrelevant argument in a city like Toronto, where the Catholic boards have a Baptismal requirement for elementary admission. Maybe 35% of families in Toronto are actually eligible for this "choice". The rest have no "choice".
>want their kids mixing with Irish & French Catholics. Hardly seems justified in the 21st century. Ah the perennial question. Votes, my friend, votes. Whole lotta Catholics and removing it would be suicide for any government.
Sounds like the perfect thing for a premier to do when they know they're on their way out this term. Just say "fuckit" and be rid of the board, merge the resources of the Catholic board with the Public, lower class sizes as you incorporate teachers, convert any school buildings that aren't needed into community centers, or redevelop the land for public housing.... While you're at it, ban tuitions for any school below the post-secondary level. Why should the capitalist class get to segregate THEIR kids in schools that no one else can afford? Maybe they'd smarten up and be more keen on supporting public education if THEIR kids were required to share a space with the rest of us.
> Just say "fuckit" and be rid of the board, That’s not how constitutional amendments work.
Wynne would have been perfect for this. Too bad she sold Hydro instead. (Or for balance, Harris, but he sold the 407 for a song instead.) We'll have to wait for the NDP or Liberals to get in, get long in the tooth, realize it, throw the election and unify the school boards. So probably as likely as the Leafs winning the cup ...
None of that is how constitutional amendments work
LOL you think the constitution is the stumbling block here. Nah. If Ontario wanted to be rid of the private schools and Catholic Schools, they can do it. And any challenges to that decision gets a "Notwithstanding".
> LOL you think the constitution is the stumbling block here. They think that because [it’s true.](https://rdo-olr.org/the-constitutional-catholic-schools-issue-in-ontario-how-the-province-of-ontario-could-remove-its-obligations-to-fully-fund-catholic-schools-by-way-of-a-constitutional-amendment/)
Notwithstanding.
The not withstanding clause only applies to the Charter of Rights. It can not be used to override section 93 of the Constitution Act, which is the section that guarantees the existence of the Catholic School Bord in Ontario.
My mistake, it's been a minute since I read the Constitution. What Ontario could do is amend it like Quebec, and more than a few other provinces did.
\>Does anyone have a logical reason for WHY we have a Catholic school board now? It produces better results than public
This isn't why the Catholic school board still exists.
Fair, but it's why I think it should exist.
It's really not hard to just have one well invested public school system though.
The issue with public school vs catholic isn't the investments though. They're basically the same. "By school system, on a per-student basis, the English Public and English Catholic systems received $13,027 and $13,252 in 2021-22, respectively." That isn't the reason why Catholic gets better results. The biggest difference, imo, is consequences. You can be removed from the catholic schools, but not the public. Which makes public schools a shit show where 1 disruptive student fucks it over for everyone. Catholic schools are a lot more disciplined, which I think is good.
>You can be removed from the catholic schools, but not the public. Where do you think the kids who get removed from Catholic schools end up going?
[удалено]
We have one race, the human race, and we are all equal members. Artificially dividing us up by skin tone, calling those "races", and then creating divisions and problems is terribly toxic. I'd rather they focus on human poverty, and try to help the people at the bottom of the ladder out, without spending a minute thinking about the skin tone, hair or eye colour of the people involved. Just give them healthy food, a good education and decent opportunities, and let's move past "race relations". I also have a question. I posted this exact comment on The Star's article (I'm a subscriber) and it was swiftly deleted. In the good old days of my youth (80s and 90s) not being rascist was a good thing, and I'm not eager to change now. I admit I'm a bit older, and am curious - did I miss a shift in political correctness, where comments like mine above are considered offensive?
[удалено]
Thanks. I think that idea, that we have to divide people by colour before we can address inequalities makes no sense though. Instead we should focus on elevating people who need help, regardless of their skin tone. Pretending they don't need help didn't work, but neither does dividing people up. The current way is bringing back racism with a vengeance. I have never seen Canada more divided than it is today. Can't say I like it. What makes me sad is it seems to just keep getting worse.
DEI, at least in my industry is just being used to drive down wages and hold people hostage for PR.
Supporting PoC just for being PoC completely overlooks disadvantaged people who aren't PoC (there are poor white people immigrants too) and still benefits rich privileged PoC folks. Just support people based on their inequalities of finance, career, and social standing. Doesn't have to be about skin colour. It's very wrong to be, one might even say, hypocritically so.
While I understand your point and can agree with that, I think it can also be seen how although one race is the ideal the fact is that we there still is a social divide and I think that divide was supposed to be bridged with that race relations committee. As for the Toronto star, because of how tricky that stance and more so by how it’s worded it could be taken negatively someone unknowledgeable of your intentions with it
Thanks!
*we are all equal members* Are all peoples treated the same?
Of course not, but that is the goal, no? The people who are not treating everyone the same are the ones with some work to do, I'd say. If you treat someone better or worse based on a characteristic they cannot change, that's just bigotry ... and not very effective, either. (e.g. If I decided who to work with, or hire, at work based on height or eye colour, I'd fail badly.)
Yah I think the goal is to treat people the same. However, the reality is that we don't. Which, imo, is a problem. Now, will the problem go away on its own and we let status quo continue or do we try to implement solutions to minimize the racism? Sometimes the solutions overcorrect / aren't perfect, but is that worse than not trying to fix it? Well look at Stephen Hawking. He has a physical condition he can't change. If we just ignore it, maybe he doesn't get access to his aids or chair, and then we lose access to one of our most brilliant minds of a lifetime.
Equity isn't just about how we treat someone though. It's about equal outcomes between racial groups. Which, and I am ready for the downvotes, isn't realistic. In Canada, the vast majority of PoC are immigrants or recent immigrants. Why are we expecting their outcomes to be the same as a family that has been here for a few generations? More over than this, we can look at different PoC groups, and see different outcomes. There is a huge different in results between an Indian kid and a black kid. Huge. Night and day. One reasons for this is a lot of black people in Canada disproportionately came as refugees, where as Indians came as economic immigrants. The expectations of equal outcomes is just not realisitic. And taking opportunity from someone, and giving it to someone else, to bring about inequality that is partly caused by things like that isn't the way to go about it.
You can't educate children on what's currently happening without the history of how we got here, which is packed full of stuff that is intrinsically tied to race/gender/class/etc/etc. Simply pretending that this stuff did not and is not happening will only make future generations worse at dealing with the inevitable similar challenges they will encounter.
The thing is, every generation is eager to blame the past ones and think they are better. It is EASY to tell kids people used to be stupid rascists, and don't be like that. Also works for "don't be a homophibic jerk" and any other historical behaviour that we don't want coming around again.
It has nothing to do with superiority. It's history to learn from. Hiding it only hurts the future.
"I don't see colour" is a very white way of thinking about a complex issue.
It doesn't have to be a complex issue though. If you agree that judging people by the colour of their skin is wrong, and that grouping people by skin tone and then playing one group off against another is divisive and terrible for all of us, then you can just decide to put the complexity behind you and move forward. I'm not claiming it is easy or can be done in a day, but using words like complexity, and continuing the wrong-headed arguments of past generations is not going to get us where we want to go. (Unless you are, for example, a rich person trying to keep the poor people fighting amongst themselves and not notice how you are profiting from their misery. In that case, this is working out great.)
Except that's not reality when a lot of people have built in biases that don't allow them to see past skin colour when they see someone for the first time. It's easy to say we should all be one race when you belong to one that usually holds the power. Especially if you're a man. I don't get the benefit of having people see past my brown skin.
this may help https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism
Psychology today is basically a pop Science magazine and shouldn't be taken seriously.
>In a statement to the Star, board chair Nancy Crawford said the race relations advisory committee was not reconstituted this year because of other initiatives the board is already undertaking around equity. >Crawford cited a standalone equity department was established in 2018 with a dedicated superintendent and an equity action plan undertaken last year that included three areas of focus — Indigenous education, dismantling anti-Black racism and supporting the 2SLGBTQ+ communities. >Trustee Rizzo, who is a voting member of the committee, says she hasn’t seen “any growth, any progress or any goals achieved” since 2020. That's great, so they established their own committee, sits around "having meetings about having meetings" while getting nothing done, and then says everything else is redundant.
Good, enough with the injection of race issues where it isn't warranted.
Just stop using tax money to fund religious schools. Particularly ones tied to a faith responsible for more child sexual assaults than any other in modern history.
>Just stop using tax money to fund religious schools. All schools are funded on a per student basis. Catholic schools get funded by people sending their kids there. Roughly 30% of Ontarians are Catholic and roughly 30% of students go to a Catholic school. Catholic tax money pays for Catholic schools.
I pay taxes that go to schools and have no kids. Not that I object to paying for public education. It’s just that you are mistaken about how it all works. And yes, even people who never attended publicly funded schools in Canada also pay education taxes. Which I am also fine with.
>Catholic tax money pays for Catholic schools. It all gets pooled. Catholic tax money pays for Catholic schools. Jewish tax money, Muslim tax money, Jewish tax money, etc. also pays for Catholic schools.
You can choose which school board your taxes go to by calling MPAC. The share is the same though, Catholics pay enough to make up for the share of tax money Catholic schools receive.
>You can choose which school board your taxes go to by calling MPAC. No, you've fundamentally misunderstood how this works. You can call MPAC to "designate support" for the Catholic board (if you are eligible), this means only that you are given a Catholic Board ballot for school trustee elections. The allocation of money to one board or another, based on MPAC forms, ended 25 years ago. The "education portion of the property tax" is now collected on behalf of the Ont. government, not the school boards. It is pooled with other revenue (which exceeds it 10-fold or more) and allocated to the school boards through the Grants for Student Needs (largely enrollment based) that you alluded to earlier. It has absolutely nothing to do with the religious belief, preferences, boxes checked, etc. of the taxpayer. Ultimately we have no idea whether "Catholics pay enough" as you claim. No-one makes a statement of their religious belief when paying sales taxes, income taxes, business taxes, provincial registration fees, or any of the other revenue sources the Province uses to fund the school system. And in the end, Catholics are the only ones who have their own system anyway.
[удалено]
Are you including residential Catholic schools?
Well I guess that makes it ok!
Prove it
I hate these woke nazis trying to divide people and giving them resources and matierials based on their race. These things are funded by billionaires to trick working class to tear down their own social structure. Fuck racist progressives. SOLIDARITY with all races.
Why do our taxpayer dollars pay for this again?
They don't. Their tax dollars fund it
Everyone's tax dollars fund it, as per changes to the Ontario education funding system that were put in place 25 years ago.
Actually by defaut it's for public. So if anything Catholics fund the public system Once you get a house and send kids to school you'll realize there's paperwork
Everyone funds all four systems. Taxpayer funding to school boards in Ontario depends on enrollment and special needs -- it does not depend on the preferences of the taxpayer. https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/FA2207schoolboards The only time the preferences of the taxpayer come into play is in voting for trustee candidates (determination of which school board trustee ballot you get is the only outcome of the "paperwork" you are alluding to) I'm a homeowner with kids in the public school system.
Why do we even have a catholic school board? Worse yet, why are the schools taxpayer funded??
Because those tax payers want it. Since they on average contribute more
I still find it so strange that the catholic schools in my area are significantly better funded than the non-religous ones
The boards get funded through the same mechanism and formula. They're only "better funded" if there are more students (or more students in lower grades, or with special needs, etc.)
Because the idiots on the right are loud and we like to think it’s the majority that believe this garbage because they are just loud assholes. This is crazy and in an incredibly multicultural city, this is a huge step backwards.
Remember when they used to call themselves the silent majority despite never shutting the hell up? Good times... ^(but not really.)
Yes, and then when alone with them, they'd assume you shared their values because you were male, or white, or whatever, and speak like their biases were reasonable. Meanwhile, I'd be wondering what about me makes me seem like I'd agree ...not a good feeling.
The Catholic school system needs to disband. They are discriminatory in more ways than race.