April 28, 2025 • 18 mins
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) have become integral components of Canadian science funding. In this episode, we explore Pierre Poilievre's plan to strip funding from research programs that incorporate so-called "woke" policies like EDI. We examine how EDI policies are currently embedded in major grants from NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR, and more, and discuss what could be at stake for Canada's research innovation if these changes move forward.
Pierre Poilievre's proposal has sparked a broader debate within the Canadian academic and scientific communities. Many fear that removing EDI requirements could turn back progress made toward ensuring more inclusive and impactful research environments. We'll dive into what these policies actually achieve, why they were implemented, and the potential future of science in Canada.
Follow a career in conservation: https://www.conservation-careers.com/online-training/ Use the code SUFB to get 33% off courses and the careers program.
Do you want to join my Ocean Community?
Sign Up for Updates on the process: www.speakupforblue.com/oceanapp
Sign Up for Updates on the process: www.speakupforblue.com/oceanapp
Sign up for our Newsletter: http://www.speakupforblue.com/newsletter
Facebook Group: https://bit.ly/3NmYvsI
Connect with Speak Up For Blue:
Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf
Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue
Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc
YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:00:00):
This episode is a rant.
And it's a rant about defunding science
due to DEI programs.
We have a Canadian election going on,
a federal Canadian
election going on here in Canada.
And there's been talk
on the conservative side
about defunding programs
within Canadian context
(01:00:20):
like funding agencies that
have to do with DEI programs.
This is not good for science.
This is not good for
elevating communities
that need to be elevated
and making science better
here in Canada.
We're going to talk
about that on today's episode
of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast.
Let's start the show.
(01:00:44):
Hey everybody, welcome back
to another exciting episode
of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast.
I am your host, Andrew Lewin.
And this is the podcast where we find out
what's happening with the ocean,
how you can speak up for the ocean,
and what you can do to
live for a better ocean
by taking action.
Now in today's episode, we're going to be
talking about politics.
Politics and science to be specific,
and also looking at DEI programs.
(01:01:04):
This is not going to be
like a hugely political post,
but there is a Canadian
federal election that's going on.
And one of the parties, the
conservative party leader,
Pierre Poliev came out last week
talking about defunding science,
I guess projects and science grants
based on DEI initiatives.
This is scary to me because I don't know
(01:01:26):
if it's trying to end
quote unquote woke ism,
or if it's just trying to use that as an
excuse to defund science.
Either way, both is bad.
And we're going to talk
about why that's bad today.
And we're going to be talking about also
how Canada can separate itself
from our neighbors down south in terms of
their thought process.
(01:01:46):
I've always felt that Canada as a
Canadian growing up here in Canada,
we have really changed our tune in terms,
especially when it comes to human rights.
We voted on the approval and the
institution of marriage for LGBTQ plus
people a long time ago.
Unfortunately, that's come back and we
(01:02:06):
see a lot of hateful things
said against LGBTQ community.
We're also seeing, we've seen the
advancement of DEI
initiatives within this country,
although it's not perfect by any means,
but we've seen that advancement.
And now we're starting to see the talk of
woke ism and being woke and DEI all being
(01:02:26):
lumped in the middle as a bad thing,
you know, where it's which I find really
crazy because all it's trying to do is
put everybody on the same plane by
lifting up communities that haven't been
lifted up before or haven't had the
chance or the
opportunity to be lifted up before.
So it's it's putting everybody on a
similar plane by a similar plane by like
(01:02:48):
just basically lifting this up.
This episode is going
to be a bit of a rant.
It's not going to be edited.
I'm putting this out last minute.
I had an episode.
Truthfully, I had an episode already
planned about the U.S.
and their energy policy that's coming out
about rolling back, you know, policies
and regulations and laws so that they can
really put forward on drilling oil and
(01:03:09):
gas and lessening the green energy like
wind power offshore.
Not fun, but where you'll you'll hear
that on Wednesday because today I wanted
to talk about this dei initiative and
defunding science that have dei policies.
It within the federal government that
federal government kind of put together,
which is a lot of academic and a lot of
(01:03:30):
nonprofit organizations that are working
on not only oceans, but just nature in
general and wildlife biology and
conservation biology in general as law as
well as medical and all
social science and so forth.
There's a lot of science that gets funded
through these programs, but we need to
talk about today because the party that
could be as like the party in power for
(01:03:51):
Canada is the conservative party is
putting together this.
They've proposed this plan to defund
science based on whether that
program has a dei initiative.
Essentially, that's
essentially what they want to do.
One of the things that they want to do
and it's not the I hate to say it, but
it's not the biggest issue that's in the
(01:04:11):
the overall issues like the economy,
tariffs, sovereignty of Canada, you know,
the fact that we want our independence on
oil and gas that we're not
just selling it to the US.
There's a lot of stuff that's happening
in Canada and this as well as the
environment unfortunately does not get
the attention that it deserves.
It may not be what everybody wants to
(01:04:32):
talk about or vote on when
we're looking at this election.
However, this is important to me is
important to the people who are in Canada
who listen to this podcast and I want to
make it clear about what they want to do
what the conservative party have proposed
to do because I feel like today is the
day, you know, where
it's the last day to vote.
(01:04:52):
You know, you got to put in your vote.
Everybody go vote doesn't matter who you
vote for, but everybody go vote.
But understand what this party wants to
do to our scientific grant and funding
agencies and what it's going to limit and
how bad that's going to be.
So first off, you know, Pierre Poliev,
who's the leader of the Canadian
Conservative Party, has led, has pledged
(01:05:13):
to eliminate what he terms as woke
ideology from the federal research
funding, particularly targeting policies
related to equity, diversity and
inclusion, EDI or DEI as many people
refer to in science and academia.
So this stance has raised concerns among
academic institutions and researchers who
emphasize the importance of DEI in
(01:05:34):
fostering inclusion and innovative
research environments.
So this is what's essentially happened in
the past before the initiatives happen.
There is a big push and a lot of demand
for making sure that granting agencies
and funding agencies from the federal
government would disperse the money
(01:05:55):
equally through like a DEI initiatives,
essentially making sure that the money
went to a diverse, make sure that it was
equal and there was equity in the
distribution of the funds as well as it
makes sure it's inclusive to everybody.
So it's not just people who look like me
who are getting these funds, which was
happening, whether we like it or not,
(01:06:16):
that was happening back in the 70s, 80s,
probably even before that 70, 90s, 2000s.
It's still probably happening today.
And so what the federal government did
was put in these DEI initiatives so that
programs that were applying this, so
whether it be academic or whether it be
nonprofit or any kind of non governmental
organizations, if they wanted to get
access to this funding, they had to prove
(01:06:37):
that they're following DEI policies.
So that they had DEI policies that they
would follow and they had to prove that
they were doing this.
Now, this doesn't mean that only grants
went to minorities or people of color or
people in sort of marginalized
communities, whether it be gender
communities or whether it be cultural
communities or race communities.
It didn't it didn't matter is everybody
(01:06:57):
was on the same playing field, right?
And even though, you know, the science
was still great and everything was great.
They wanted to make sure that it was
still on the same playing field.
And that's great. It
really worked out great.
So essentially what happened is the
federal grants incorporating DEI
policies, they had several major funding
(01:07:18):
programs administered by Canada's
tri-agency, which is comprising of NSERC,
SHRC, which is social sciences and NSERC
is natural sciences.
And then there's CIHR, which to be
honest, I'm not too sure what it was, but
I think it has to do more with health, I
think is more where it comes from.
But then they had to have integrated DEI
considerations into their frameworks.
(01:07:39):
They had to have equity, diversity and
inclusion, institutional
capacity building grant.
So that was one of the grants.
They aims to identify and eliminate
systemic barriers that impede the career
advancement of
underrepresented groups in academia.
New Frontiers Research Fund and FRF
requires applicants to demonstrate a
commitment to DEI in their research
(01:08:00):
practice and team compositions.
Canada's excellence research here.
So these are research chairs that are
like heads of departments, essentially
looking at in academia.
And this is NSERC and I think two more,
two more different ones.
I can't remember now, but mandates
institutions to maintain up to date
(01:08:22):
equity plans and promote diversity in
research leadership.
And then the Vanier Canada Graduate
Scholarships and Banting Postdoctoral
Fellowships include DEI considerations in
their selection criteria
to attract diverse talent.
So these programs reflect a broader
governmental commitment to fostering
inclusive research environments that
leverage diverse perspectives to enhance
(01:08:44):
scientific inquiry and innovation.
So here's the thing.
When you look at science, when you look
at nature, and I've said this a number of
times, diversity matters, right?
The fact that if you have a diverse
environment, I'd say a marine habitat, if
it was diverse, if it had coral reefs, it
had seagrasses, if it had mangroves, it
made it a stronger environment because
(01:09:05):
all those habitats contribute to not only
diversity of species by having a habitat
that can house all these types of diverse
species, but it also like if one of those
species is gone of the
same like functional group.
So say they're like reef builders, then
you know that there's if there's multiple
species within that same functional
group, you know, if one species is
(01:09:26):
extirpated, so is gone from that area for
whatever reason, there are others that
can do still the same function.
Right. But if you only had one species in
that functional group, and that species
disappears from that habitat, then that
function is gone. And that could affect
the entire dynamic of the marine habitat.
So diversity in nature is important,
you're looking even from genetic
diversity, if you have a species that's
(01:09:48):
in that's endangered, and you have you
preserve a number of the different
genetics of the diversity of genetics, so
a number of different genetic makeup, you
know that if you ever have to repopulate
that population, you know that if you
have a diverse set of genes in each
species or each population, then that
diversity will will survive longer
(01:10:09):
because just the process of natural science,
just the process of natural selection,
one particular set of genes could survive
better than another particular set of
genes. And so having those sets of genes
work together and be able to say which of
the populations are going to survive
based on a genetic diversity, that's
really important. So we have proof that
(01:10:29):
genetic diversity, just diversity in
general, from a species, from a genetic
level, from a species level, from a
habitat level, from an ecosystem level,
makes the environment stronger.
It makes it stronger. So remember that.
Now when you're talking about a team, a
team makes it stronger, like if diversity
makes and inclusion, making sure
(01:10:49):
everybody's included, make sure that
everything is stronger. Take football, I
love football, draft is on as I'm
recording this, it's great to see all
these different positions really matter.
If you have a strong O line, an offensive
line, your offense is going to be great.
If you have great receivers, your offense
(01:11:11):
is going to be great. If you and your
quarterback is going to be great because
you have a great offensive line. They
allow for the quarterback to have the
time to decide which
receiver to throw to.
If you don't have a good offensive line,
defensive lines comes in, they sack the
quarterback, you can't throw, you don't
have, you basically have a crappy
offense. You don't want a crappy offense.
But having each or one of those groups be
(01:11:34):
good or be solid, right? And having a
diverse set of good, strong positions and
positional groups, you are
going to have a better team.
But if you don't have those strong
positional groups or you're missing a
positional group, you're not very good.
Case in point, a couple years ago, my San
Francisco 49ers were in the NFC
(01:11:55):
Championship playing the Philadelphia
Eagles. The winner goes on to play Kansas
City Chiefs for the second time in a row
for the Niners. Niners had
just gotten to the Super Bowl.
Okay, so now they're going against a
great team. They're a great team. They
lose their quarterback in the first
quarter, second quarter. Lose him. He
can't throw anymore. He can only run. And
(01:12:17):
even then, he's hurting. His arm is UCL
is basically torn. Can't throw far, can't
throw it all. They don't have another
quarterback because all their
quarterback's got to do.
One more quarterback, he goes in, he gets
a concussion, he's out of the game. They
don't have any more quarterbacks. They
have to use their running back as a
quarterback. And all they do is run the
ball. They can't run and throw because
they don't have the quarterback. They're
losing that diversity.
(01:12:37):
Right? They lost that positional group
that actually makes it matter. I'm taking
this analogy way too far. Draft is on
really hot in my head. But you get the
point. The point is that diversity,
making sure that everybody's included,
making sure that everything
is like the equity is there.
Everybody's on the same page. You get a
stronger team. You get a stronger science
(01:13:00):
team. You get a stronger lab. You get
stronger policies and journal articles
and everything. You're getting people,
especially when you look at culture and
you look at gender, you're getting people
from looking at different sides.
And especially when you're looking at
conservation and science, you have to
have people with different perspectives.
It challenges the sciences more. And
having those different perspectives,
(01:13:21):
those diverse perspectives, you end up
having better science because of it.
It's not just from one culture, one
gender. It's from everything. So having
that different group, yes, you may get
challenged at certain times, but having
all those different groups, the
challenging makes it better. Science
criticisms are what makes things better
in science. It's what
science is rooted on.
(01:13:42):
And so if you have a team, right, from
different cultures, different
backgrounds, working together, the
science becomes better. It's just how it
happens. So taking away DEI initiatives
just because of the word DEI or quote
unquote woke ideologies takes away the
strength of the science.
And it goes back 10, 20, 30, 40 years to
(01:14:06):
a time where people who give out the
grants can show their biases towards
people who look like me because they
think that, you know, people like me only
have the education, only have the ability
to go forth, which is not true.
There are so many other people. If you
look at any university, especially now in
Canada, it is so diverse. There are so
many people who are brilliant, who are
(01:14:27):
intelligent, who are hardworking, who are
ready to do conservation, whether it be
in the marine realm
or the wildlife realm.
And they are great scientists and they're
going to be great scientists, but they
can't be great scientists if they don't
get the same opportunity
as people who look like me.
That's really what it comes down to. So
having a platform, a political platform
where the conservative party who have a
(01:14:49):
chance of getting into power, all the
polls say suggests
otherwise, but you never know.
It's going to be a close race. Say that,
hey, you know what? Like, we're just
going to take this DEI initiative away.
We're going to go back to what we were
doing before because we
did it better. Now we didn't.
There's no suggestion that we did things
better back then when
we didn't have the ideas.
(01:15:09):
But making sure that funding is canceled
for any DNI initiatives could also cancel
funding for science in general. We know
the conservatives are anti climate
change. We know that they tend
to be anti environment anyway.
So it's not going to go towards like
encircles those natural science types of
of funding programs or social science
(01:15:31):
where you have to include a lot of
different groups, local groups,
indigenous groups in this
process for conservation.
Who knows better than to take care of
North America than
Canada than indigenous people.
Right. And so, but if we take it away
where we're not making sure that each
team in each institution or each
nonprofit organization or whoever's
(01:15:52):
getting that recipient of
that of that money that funding.
Now we have nothing, right? We start to
lose those groups. They're not included
in those groups. And we start getting
back into parachute science. We start
getting back into more
selfish science and it's not good.
Collaboration is key. DIs part of that.
Whether you want to call it D I or not,
you still have to do it. And there's
(01:16:12):
still an opportunity to do that for every
institution. Right. To say, you know
what, we're just going to continue our
programs. We just may
name it something different.
But we're going to continue our programs,
but it takes away from people who may
have some opportunity. And that's what I
want to talk about today. So here's
what's going to happen. Essentially, the
implications of this proposal is that
peer poly has proposal to eliminate
funding tied to any kind of quote unquote
(01:16:33):
woke policies has sparked debate within the academic community.
Critics are quit critics argue that such
a move could undermine efforts to address
historical inequities in academia and
diminish the quality of and relevant of
Canadian research at the global stage.
Supporters, however, contend that
research funding should be allocated
based solely on scientific merit without
(01:16:55):
considerations of identity politics.
Here's the problem with that. We tried to
do that before and it didn't work.
We tried to do that before and we saw
biases. Hence why we put in these D I
policies. That's why we're putting it in.
It wasn't working like that before.
Everybody's like, well, should be on
scientific merit. Yes, it should be.
But when you look at the recipients back
(01:17:16):
in the day, we're starting to, we started
to see the biases. It was all white
people, white men. We know this is a
problem. We knew this is a problem. We
did studies on this. And now you're just
taking it away because people are sick of
hearing about welcome D.
I guess who's sick about it. Yes, guess
the people who are sick about it. It
drives me nuts to see this. And yes, I
agree that some policies go way too far
(01:17:38):
to the other extreme. We need to find in
the middle, but it's should still be on
scientific merit, but making sure that
everybody's included.
Part of the D.I. Make sure it's diverse.
Make sure it works. Make sure you're
getting different perspectives. Make sure
that teams are built based on diversity,
equity and inclusion.
That's all I have to say today. And so
(01:18:00):
take that in mind if that's something
that's important to you when you actually
go and vote today for my
Canadian audience here.
Because I think it's important. I'd love
to hear your thoughts. Let me know in the
comments below if you're watching this on
YouTube or hit me up on Instagram at how
to protect the ocean. That's
at how to protect the ocean.
Just DM me or if you want to email me, go
to speak up for blue dot com. Hit the
(01:18:21):
contact page that goes right to fill out
the form that goes right into my inbox.
Good luck with the voting. I hope a
certain party wins. I'm not going to tell
you who you can kind of tell.
But regardless, you know, go vote
exercise your vote to win and let's just
keep making sure that science is funded
for everybody, not just for one
particular person or identity.
(01:18:43):
Thank you so much for joining me on
today's episode of the how to protect the
ocean podcast. I'm your host, Angelou and
have a great day. We'll talk to you next
time and happy conservation.
This episode is a rant.
And it's a rant about defunding science
due to DEI programs.
We have a Canadian election going on,
a federal Canadian
election going on here in Canada.
And there's been talk
on the conservative side
about defunding programs
within Canadian context
(01:00:20):
like funding agencies that
have to do with DEI programs.
This is not good for science.
This is not good for
elevating communities
that need to be elevated
and making science better
here in Canada.
We're going to talk
about that on today's episode
of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast.
Let's start the show.
(01:00:44):
Hey everybody, welcome back
to another exciting episode
of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast.
I am your host, Andrew Lewin.
And this is the podcast where we find out
what's happening with the ocean,
how you can speak up for the ocean,
and what you can do to
live for a better ocean
by taking action.
Now in today's episode, we're going to be
talking about politics.
Politics and science to be specific,
and also looking at DEI programs.
(01:01:04):
This is not going to be
like a hugely political post,
but there is a Canadian
federal election that's going on.
And one of the parties, the
conservative party leader,
Pierre Poliev came out last week
talking about defunding science,
I guess projects and science grants
based on DEI initiatives.
This is scary to me because I don't know
(01:01:26):
if it's trying to end
quote unquote woke ism,
or if it's just trying to use that as an
excuse to defund science.
Either way, both is bad.
And we're going to talk
about why that's bad today.
And we're going to be talking about also
how Canada can separate itself
from our neighbors down south in terms of
their thought process.
(01:01:46):
I've always felt that Canada as a
Canadian growing up here in Canada,
we have really changed our tune in terms,
especially when it comes to human rights.
We voted on the approval and the
institution of marriage for LGBTQ plus
people a long time ago.
Unfortunately, that's come back and we
(01:02:06):
see a lot of hateful things
said against LGBTQ community.
We're also seeing, we've seen the
advancement of DEI
initiatives within this country,
although it's not perfect by any means,
but we've seen that advancement.
And now we're starting to see the talk of
woke ism and being woke and DEI all being
(01:02:26):
lumped in the middle as a bad thing,
you know, where it's which I find really
crazy because all it's trying to do is
put everybody on the same plane by
lifting up communities that haven't been
lifted up before or haven't had the
chance or the
opportunity to be lifted up before.
So it's it's putting everybody on a
similar plane by a similar plane by like
(01:02:48):
just basically lifting this up.
This episode is going
to be a bit of a rant.
It's not going to be edited.
I'm putting this out last minute.
I had an episode.
Truthfully, I had an episode already
planned about the U.S.
and their energy policy that's coming out
about rolling back, you know, policies
and regulations and laws so that they can
really put forward on drilling oil and
(01:03:09):
gas and lessening the green energy like
wind power offshore.
Not fun, but where you'll you'll hear
that on Wednesday because today I wanted
to talk about this dei initiative and
defunding science that have dei policies.
It within the federal government that
federal government kind of put together,
which is a lot of academic and a lot of
(01:03:30):
nonprofit organizations that are working
on not only oceans, but just nature in
general and wildlife biology and
conservation biology in general as law as
well as medical and all
social science and so forth.
There's a lot of science that gets funded
through these programs, but we need to
talk about today because the party that
could be as like the party in power for
(01:03:51):
Canada is the conservative party is
putting together this.
They've proposed this plan to defund
science based on whether that
program has a dei initiative.
Essentially, that's
essentially what they want to do.
One of the things that they want to do
and it's not the I hate to say it, but
it's not the biggest issue that's in the
(01:04:11):
the overall issues like the economy,
tariffs, sovereignty of Canada, you know,
the fact that we want our independence on
oil and gas that we're not
just selling it to the US.
There's a lot of stuff that's happening
in Canada and this as well as the
environment unfortunately does not get
the attention that it deserves.
It may not be what everybody wants to
(01:04:32):
talk about or vote on when
we're looking at this election.
However, this is important to me is
important to the people who are in Canada
who listen to this podcast and I want to
make it clear about what they want to do
what the conservative party have proposed
to do because I feel like today is the
day, you know, where
it's the last day to vote.
(01:04:52):
You know, you got to put in your vote.
Everybody go vote doesn't matter who you
vote for, but everybody go vote.
But understand what this party wants to
do to our scientific grant and funding
agencies and what it's going to limit and
how bad that's going to be.
So first off, you know, Pierre Poliev,
who's the leader of the Canadian
Conservative Party, has led, has pledged
(01:05:13):
to eliminate what he terms as woke
ideology from the federal research
funding, particularly targeting policies
related to equity, diversity and
inclusion, EDI or DEI as many people
refer to in science and academia.
So this stance has raised concerns among
academic institutions and researchers who
emphasize the importance of DEI in
(01:05:34):
fostering inclusion and innovative
research environments.
So this is what's essentially happened in
the past before the initiatives happen.
There is a big push and a lot of demand
for making sure that granting agencies
and funding agencies from the federal
government would disperse the money
(01:05:55):
equally through like a DEI initiatives,
essentially making sure that the money
went to a diverse, make sure that it was
equal and there was equity in the
distribution of the funds as well as it
makes sure it's inclusive to everybody.
So it's not just people who look like me
who are getting these funds, which was
happening, whether we like it or not,
(01:06:16):
that was happening back in the 70s, 80s,
probably even before that 70, 90s, 2000s.
It's still probably happening today.
And so what the federal government did
was put in these DEI initiatives so that
programs that were applying this, so
whether it be academic or whether it be
nonprofit or any kind of non governmental
organizations, if they wanted to get
access to this funding, they had to prove
(01:06:37):
that they're following DEI policies.
So that they had DEI policies that they
would follow and they had to prove that
they were doing this.
Now, this doesn't mean that only grants
went to minorities or people of color or
people in sort of marginalized
communities, whether it be gender
communities or whether it be cultural
communities or race communities.
It didn't it didn't matter is everybody
(01:06:57):
was on the same playing field, right?
And even though, you know, the science
was still great and everything was great.
They wanted to make sure that it was
still on the same playing field.
And that's great. It
really worked out great.
So essentially what happened is the
federal grants incorporating DEI
policies, they had several major funding
(01:07:18):
programs administered by Canada's
tri-agency, which is comprising of NSERC,
SHRC, which is social sciences and NSERC
is natural sciences.
And then there's CIHR, which to be
honest, I'm not too sure what it was, but
I think it has to do more with health, I
think is more where it comes from.
But then they had to have integrated DEI
considerations into their frameworks.
(01:07:39):
They had to have equity, diversity and
inclusion, institutional
capacity building grant.
So that was one of the grants.
They aims to identify and eliminate
systemic barriers that impede the career
advancement of
underrepresented groups in academia.
New Frontiers Research Fund and FRF
requires applicants to demonstrate a
commitment to DEI in their research
(01:08:00):
practice and team compositions.
Canada's excellence research here.
So these are research chairs that are
like heads of departments, essentially
looking at in academia.
And this is NSERC and I think two more,
two more different ones.
I can't remember now, but mandates
institutions to maintain up to date
(01:08:22):
equity plans and promote diversity in
research leadership.
And then the Vanier Canada Graduate
Scholarships and Banting Postdoctoral
Fellowships include DEI considerations in
their selection criteria
to attract diverse talent.
So these programs reflect a broader
governmental commitment to fostering
inclusive research environments that
leverage diverse perspectives to enhance
(01:08:44):
scientific inquiry and innovation.
So here's the thing.
When you look at science, when you look
at nature, and I've said this a number of
times, diversity matters, right?
The fact that if you have a diverse
environment, I'd say a marine habitat, if
it was diverse, if it had coral reefs, it
had seagrasses, if it had mangroves, it
made it a stronger environment because
(01:09:05):
all those habitats contribute to not only
diversity of species by having a habitat
that can house all these types of diverse
species, but it also like if one of those
species is gone of the
same like functional group.
So say they're like reef builders, then
you know that there's if there's multiple
species within that same functional
group, you know, if one species is
(01:09:26):
extirpated, so is gone from that area for
whatever reason, there are others that
can do still the same function.
Right. But if you only had one species in
that functional group, and that species
disappears from that habitat, then that
function is gone. And that could affect
the entire dynamic of the marine habitat.
So diversity in nature is important,
you're looking even from genetic
diversity, if you have a species that's
(01:09:48):
in that's endangered, and you have you
preserve a number of the different
genetics of the diversity of genetics, so
a number of different genetic makeup, you
know that if you ever have to repopulate
that population, you know that if you
have a diverse set of genes in each
species or each population, then that
diversity will will survive longer
(01:10:09):
because just the process of natural science,
just the process of natural selection,
one particular set of genes could survive
better than another particular set of
genes. And so having those sets of genes
work together and be able to say which of
the populations are going to survive
based on a genetic diversity, that's
really important. So we have proof that
(01:10:29):
genetic diversity, just diversity in
general, from a species, from a genetic
level, from a species level, from a
habitat level, from an ecosystem level,
makes the environment stronger.
It makes it stronger. So remember that.
Now when you're talking about a team, a
team makes it stronger, like if diversity
makes and inclusion, making sure
(01:10:49):
everybody's included, make sure that
everything is stronger. Take football, I
love football, draft is on as I'm
recording this, it's great to see all
these different positions really matter.
If you have a strong O line, an offensive
line, your offense is going to be great.
If you have great receivers, your offense
(01:11:11):
is going to be great. If you and your
quarterback is going to be great because
you have a great offensive line. They
allow for the quarterback to have the
time to decide which
receiver to throw to.
If you don't have a good offensive line,
defensive lines comes in, they sack the
quarterback, you can't throw, you don't
have, you basically have a crappy
offense. You don't want a crappy offense.
But having each or one of those groups be
(01:11:34):
good or be solid, right? And having a
diverse set of good, strong positions and
positional groups, you are
going to have a better team.
But if you don't have those strong
positional groups or you're missing a
positional group, you're not very good.
Case in point, a couple years ago, my San
Francisco 49ers were in the NFC
(01:11:55):
Championship playing the Philadelphia
Eagles. The winner goes on to play Kansas
City Chiefs for the second time in a row
for the Niners. Niners had
just gotten to the Super Bowl.
Okay, so now they're going against a
great team. They're a great team. They
lose their quarterback in the first
quarter, second quarter. Lose him. He
can't throw anymore. He can only run. And
(01:12:17):
even then, he's hurting. His arm is UCL
is basically torn. Can't throw far, can't
throw it all. They don't have another
quarterback because all their
quarterback's got to do.
One more quarterback, he goes in, he gets
a concussion, he's out of the game. They
don't have any more quarterbacks. They
have to use their running back as a
quarterback. And all they do is run the
ball. They can't run and throw because
they don't have the quarterback. They're
losing that diversity.
(01:12:37):
Right? They lost that positional group
that actually makes it matter. I'm taking
this analogy way too far. Draft is on
really hot in my head. But you get the
point. The point is that diversity,
making sure that everybody's included,
making sure that everything
is like the equity is there.
Everybody's on the same page. You get a
stronger team. You get a stronger science
(01:13:00):
team. You get a stronger lab. You get
stronger policies and journal articles
and everything. You're getting people,
especially when you look at culture and
you look at gender, you're getting people
from looking at different sides.
And especially when you're looking at
conservation and science, you have to
have people with different perspectives.
It challenges the sciences more. And
having those different perspectives,
(01:13:21):
those diverse perspectives, you end up
having better science because of it.
It's not just from one culture, one
gender. It's from everything. So having
that different group, yes, you may get
challenged at certain times, but having
all those different groups, the
challenging makes it better. Science
criticisms are what makes things better
in science. It's what
science is rooted on.
(01:13:42):
And so if you have a team, right, from
different cultures, different
backgrounds, working together, the
science becomes better. It's just how it
happens. So taking away DEI initiatives
just because of the word DEI or quote
unquote woke ideologies takes away the
strength of the science.
And it goes back 10, 20, 30, 40 years to
(01:14:06):
a time where people who give out the
grants can show their biases towards
people who look like me because they
think that, you know, people like me only
have the education, only have the ability
to go forth, which is not true.
There are so many other people. If you
look at any university, especially now in
Canada, it is so diverse. There are so
many people who are brilliant, who are
(01:14:27):
intelligent, who are hardworking, who are
ready to do conservation, whether it be
in the marine realm
or the wildlife realm.
And they are great scientists and they're
going to be great scientists, but they
can't be great scientists if they don't
get the same opportunity
as people who look like me.
That's really what it comes down to. So
having a platform, a political platform
where the conservative party who have a
(01:14:49):
chance of getting into power, all the
polls say suggests
otherwise, but you never know.
It's going to be a close race. Say that,
hey, you know what? Like, we're just
going to take this DEI initiative away.
We're going to go back to what we were
doing before because we
did it better. Now we didn't.
There's no suggestion that we did things
better back then when
we didn't have the ideas.
(01:15:09):
But making sure that funding is canceled
for any DNI initiatives could also cancel
funding for science in general. We know
the conservatives are anti climate
change. We know that they tend
to be anti environment anyway.
So it's not going to go towards like
encircles those natural science types of
of funding programs or social science
(01:15:31):
where you have to include a lot of
different groups, local groups,
indigenous groups in this
process for conservation.
Who knows better than to take care of
North America than
Canada than indigenous people.
Right. And so, but if we take it away
where we're not making sure that each
team in each institution or each
nonprofit organization or whoever's
(01:15:52):
getting that recipient of
that of that money that funding.
Now we have nothing, right? We start to
lose those groups. They're not included
in those groups. And we start getting
back into parachute science. We start
getting back into more
selfish science and it's not good.
Collaboration is key. DIs part of that.
Whether you want to call it D I or not,
you still have to do it. And there's
(01:16:12):
still an opportunity to do that for every
institution. Right. To say, you know
what, we're just going to continue our
programs. We just may
name it something different.
But we're going to continue our programs,
but it takes away from people who may
have some opportunity. And that's what I
want to talk about today. So here's
what's going to happen. Essentially, the
implications of this proposal is that
peer poly has proposal to eliminate
funding tied to any kind of quote unquote
(01:16:33):
woke policies has sparked debate within the academic community.
Critics are quit critics argue that such
a move could undermine efforts to address
historical inequities in academia and
diminish the quality of and relevant of
Canadian research at the global stage.
Supporters, however, contend that
research funding should be allocated
based solely on scientific merit without
(01:16:55):
considerations of identity politics.
Here's the problem with that. We tried to
do that before and it didn't work.
We tried to do that before and we saw
biases. Hence why we put in these D I
policies. That's why we're putting it in.
It wasn't working like that before.
Everybody's like, well, should be on
scientific merit. Yes, it should be.
But when you look at the recipients back
(01:17:16):
in the day, we're starting to, we started
to see the biases. It was all white
people, white men. We know this is a
problem. We knew this is a problem. We
did studies on this. And now you're just
taking it away because people are sick of
hearing about welcome D.
I guess who's sick about it. Yes, guess
the people who are sick about it. It
drives me nuts to see this. And yes, I
agree that some policies go way too far
(01:17:38):
to the other extreme. We need to find in
the middle, but it's should still be on
scientific merit, but making sure that
everybody's included.
Part of the D.I. Make sure it's diverse.
Make sure it works. Make sure you're
getting different perspectives. Make sure
that teams are built based on diversity,
equity and inclusion.
That's all I have to say today. And so
(01:18:00):
take that in mind if that's something
that's important to you when you actually
go and vote today for my
Canadian audience here.
Because I think it's important. I'd love
to hear your thoughts. Let me know in the
comments below if you're watching this on
YouTube or hit me up on Instagram at how
to protect the ocean. That's
at how to protect the ocean.
Just DM me or if you want to email me, go
to speak up for blue dot com. Hit the
(01:18:21):
contact page that goes right to fill out
the form that goes right into my inbox.
Good luck with the voting. I hope a
certain party wins. I'm not going to tell
you who you can kind of tell.
But regardless, you know, go vote
exercise your vote to win and let's just
keep making sure that science is funded
for everybody, not just for one
particular person or identity.
(01:18:43):
Thank you so much for joining me on
today's episode of the how to protect the
ocean podcast. I'm your host, Angelou and
have a great day. We'll talk to you next
time and happy conservation.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.