You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
A University of Toronto Scarborough posting for an Assistant Professor in Computational Biology and Data Science looks like a standard academic hire. It isn’t. It is a restricted competition tied to a Canada Research Chair (CRC) nomination.
The posting requires applicants to self-identify as a member of one or more “designated groups” in their cover letter, namely women or gender minorities, racialized persons, Indigenous Peoples, or persons with disabilities. If you do not fit one of those categories, you are not eligible to apply. That is not an inference. It is in the posting.
That one detail captures the reality of modern equity administration in Canadian universities: what is framed as “removing barriers” often functions, in practice, as category-based exclusion.
This is not a rogue department. It is a federal program mechanism.
The university did not invent this framework on its own. The hiring restriction is attached to the Canada Research Chairs program, a federal initiative that allocates prestige and funding to institutions under defined rules. One major rule-set is the CRC equity framework, which includes population-based targets for the four designated groups. The program’s stated targets to be reached by the end of 2029 are: 50.9% women and gender equity-seeking groups, 22% racialized persons, 4.9% Indigenous Peoples, and 7.5% persons with disabilities.
Again, these are not vibes. They are published benchmarks tied to institutional plans and program governance.
The key point is the enforcement logic. Under the CRC’s settlement and enforcement framework, institutions that miss interim targets can face consequences that shape nominations and recruitment practices. In plain terms: the program can push institutions toward restricted competitions where eligibility is limited to designated groups.
So when you see a posting that excludes broad classes of Canadians from applying, it is not a one-off. It is a downstream product of rules that tie federal research prestige to demographic targets.
The problem is the normalization of identity gates
Defenders will say this is equity. They will argue that special measures are justified to counter historical bias and structural disadvantage. That is the argument, and it deserves to be stated fairly.
But there is a moral and civic cost to the method. When eligibility is restricted by identity categories, the institution is no longer selecting among all qualified candidates. It is selecting among those who clear an identity threshold first. That is not “equal opportunity.” It is a gate that sorts people before their work is even evaluated.
If you want a simple test for whether this is principled, reverse the identity labels. A posting that said “whites only” or “men only” would be condemned instantly, for good reason. You do not escape discrimination by flipping who benefits. You normalize discrimination by making it administratively routine.
A better standard
If Canada wants fairness in academic hiring, the standard should be straightforward: open eligibility, transparent criteria, and selection based on demonstrated excellence. If there are pipeline problems, fix the pipeline. Broaden recruitment, strengthen mentorship, reduce opaque networking advantages, and enforce accountable evaluation.
Do not solve bias by writing exclusions into job postings, then congratulating yourself for it. That approach trains young researchers to see institutions as political allocation machines rather than merit-seeking communities. And once that belief sets in, you do not get trust back easily.
References
1) U of T Scarborough job posting (Assistant Professor – Computational Biology and Data Science)
https://jobs.utoronto.ca/job/Scarborough-Assistant-Professor-Computational-Biology-and-Data-Science-ON/599939517/
2) Canada Research Chairs: “Establishing equity targets for 2021 to 2029”
https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/equity-equite/targets-cibles-eng.aspx
3) CRC Program representation statistics (lists the population-based targets and deadline)
https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/about_us-a_notre_sujet/statistics-statistiques-eng.aspx
4) CRC: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion requirements and practices (overview, settlement context)
https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/equity-equite/index-eng.aspx
5) CRC: 2021 Canadian Human Rights Settlement Agreement page (program framing and enforcement context)
https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/equity-equite/2021_settlement-reglement-eng.aspx
6) House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research, Meeting No. 2 (witness panel includes Steven Pinker and Azim Shariff)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/SRSR/meeting-2/evidence
A divorce lawyer is a relationship mechanic.
Wedding planners see shiny new cars. Divorce lawyers see the breakdowns—where things start to strain, where small ignored problems become system failures, where “it happened so suddenly” is almost never true.
In a recent conversation, divorce lawyer James Sexton (25+ years in the trenches) kept returning to one blunt idea:
Most marriages don’t end in a single explosion. They end by dehydration.
People stop paying attention. They stop doing what made their partner feel seen. Resentment piles up quietly. Then one day it looks “sudden,” but it wasn’t. It was slow… then all at once.
So the goal isn’t grand romance. It’s maintenance. And maintenance is unsexy—right up until it saves you.
Here are ten lessons worth stealing.
1) Pay attention like it’s alive
The fastest route to divorce isn’t one dramatic betrayal. It’s the belief that “we’re married now, so we’re good.”
Marriage isn’t a trophy you put on a shelf. It’s a living thing. If you stop tending it, it doesn’t stay “fine.” It withers.
Try this: do one small “I see you” action every day—thank you, a compliment, a quick note, a small touch, a check-in.
2) Keep doing the “dating behaviors”
Early on, you pursued. You were curious. You made effort. You were interested—and interesting.
Then life arrives: work, kids, exhaustion, routines. Couples treat courtship like a one-time entrance fee instead of the ongoing engine of closeness.
The boring truth is also the saving truth:
the behaviors that “won” your partner are the behaviors that keep your partner.
Try this: once a week, do something you would’ve done when you were trying to impress them—plan something, initiate, make it clear they’re still chosen.
3) Break the spiral before it becomes your normal
A lot of unhappy marriages get stuck in loops that feel logical from the inside:
- “You don’t want me.”
- “I don’t want you because you don’t seem to like me.”
- “I don’t seem to like you because we’re never close.”
- “We’re never close because life is chaos.”
Eventually you land in the worst place: both people feel justified, and both feel lonely.
The key insight: spirals can be reversed with the same simplicity that created them.
Not by “winning” an argument, but by shifting the emotional direction.
Try this: be the first person to do the generous thing—kindness, help, warmth—before you feel like you’ve “earned” it.
4) Talk when it’s smoke, not fire (“hit send now”)
A common divorce pattern is small grievances saved up until they become ammunition. Then one day you’re fighting about something ridiculous… and suddenly it’s about ten years of unresolved hurt.
Sexton’s advice is to speak early—before the issue becomes a story you tell yourself.
It doesn’t have to be a confrontation. It can be a calm check-in.
Try this:
“Small thing: when you said X, it sat weird with me. I might be misreading it, but I wanted to check.”
5) Frame complaints as longing, not prosecution
The same concern can either invite closeness or trigger defense.
- “We never have sex.”
vs - “I miss feeling close to you.”
One is a charge sheet. The other is a bid for connection.
People can fight accusations. It’s harder to fight honest longing.
Try this: translate “you never” into “I miss…” and “I want…”
6) Praise isn’t fluff—it’s preventative medicine
Many people treat compliments as optional. Then they wonder why warmth dries up.
Appreciation is not a “nice extra.” It’s lubrication for the whole machine. It’s how you stay emotionally fed in the middle of real life.
Try this: one specific compliment per day. Not “you’re great,” but:
“I loved how you handled that.”
“You looked amazing today.”
“I felt proud standing beside you.”
7) Treat money secrecy as a real betrayal
Sexton emphasizes that “financial betrayal” ends a lot of marriages: hidden debt, secret spending, stability that turns out to be a house of cards.
It’s not the dollars that destroy trust. It’s the deception—the feeling that you were not a teammate.
Try this: make money boring and routine: a monthly check-in on spending, debts, goals, and anxieties. No drama. Just truth.
8) Expect stress gates—and navigate them together
Relationships strain at predictable transition points:
- a new baby
- kids becoming less dependent
- career shifts
- bodies aging
- midlife “is this it?” questions
- empty nest
The failure mode is drift: two people building separate lives under one roof.
Try this: name the transition out loud:
“We’re entering a new phase. How do we protect us inside it?”
9) Social media can quietly poison gratitude
Sexton’s line is memorable: social media is often “everyone’s greatest hits while you live your gag reel.”
If you scroll passively, you absorb the message that everyone else’s life is easier, sexier, more exciting—and that your relationship is uniquely flawed.
This isn’t moral panic. It’s attention economics: what you stare at trains your desires and your dissatisfaction.
Try this: curate aggressively. Feed the content that strengthens your bond. Starve the content that erodes it. If you can’t do that, limit the exposure.
10) The hard thing and the right thing are usually the same
When people drift toward cheating or quitting, the clean move is not secrecy. It’s honesty while there’s still time.
Something like:
“We’re far apart. I’m lonely. I’m tempted. Can we fix this—together?”
That conversation is terrifying. It is also the one that keeps your integrity intact—and often saves the marriage before it crosses lines you can’t uncross.
Try this: don’t romanticize “the drift.” Name it early.
A simple weekly ritual (10 minutes)
If you want one habit instead of ten ideas, steal this:
- One appreciation: “This week I felt loved when you…”
- One repair: “This week I felt a sting when…”
- One desire: “This week I’d love more…”
- One plan: “This week, let’s protect time for us on…”
Short. Regular. Honest.
The quiet thesis
Most marriages don’t die from one villainous act. They die from inattention + unspoken resentment + unmanaged transition—and then, eventually, the predictable betrayals that follow disconnection.
The fix is not constant fireworks.
It’s steady proof—small, consistent proof—that your partner is still chosen.
Water the plant. Before it looks dead.
The UK’s immigration argument increasingly sounds like destiny rather than policy. People don’t just disagree about numbers; they disagree about whether the state can still enforce boundaries, integrate newcomers into a shared civic order, and speak plainly about what’s happening. When those basic functions look weak or evasive, the vacuum gets filled with bigger stories—decline, betrayal, “takeover,” inevitability.
A sober view starts with what can be verified quickly.
What the numbers say
Recent UK migration trends are not a one-way escalator. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates long-term net migration at 204,000 in the year ending June 2025, down from 649,000 the year before. In the same release, ONS estimates long-term immigration at 898,000 and emigration at 693,000.
That decline doesn’t instantly relieve pressure on housing, schools, or services—those systems lag. But it does mean any serious argument has to acknowledge that inflows can change materially under policy and economic conditions.
At the same time, irregular Channel crossings remain the public symbol of “rules don’t work,” regardless of their share of total immigration. Home Office statistics report 46,000 detected arrivals via illegal routes in the year ending December 2025, including 41,000 small-boat arrivals. Politics runs on salience: one visible failure can outweigh many invisible successes.
The asylum system itself is measurable. In the year ending December 2025 the Home Office reports 101,000 asylum claims, 135,000 initial decisions, a 42% grant rate, and 64,000 people awaiting an initial decision at end-December—along with large numbers receiving asylum support, including hotel use. Whatever your values, those are not vibes; they are levers.
Why the argument stays hot even when net migration falls
The debate persists because it is not only about totals. It is about legitimacy: can the state say, credibly, we know who is coming, under what rules, and we can enforce outcomes?
Legitimacy gets harder when estimates change and messaging sounds like PR. The House of Commons Library notes revisions that lowered the estimated net migration figure for the year ending December 2024 (revised to 345,000 from a previously published 431,000). Revisions happen in good faith in statistical work. The political problem is how they land: when people already suspect evasiveness, revisions are read as concealment.
A skeptic will object that “competence” isn’t merely a technical problem; it’s a political one. The worry is not that the state lacks spreadsheets, but that it lacks will: that enforcement is endlessly promised and rarely delivered, and that the system is managed as public relations rather than rule-of-law administration. That objection can’t be waved away. It’s precisely why visible targets, transparent reporting, and demonstrable closure matter: they are the only antidote to the suspicion that the system is performative.
In that atmosphere, administrative failure is quickly translated into moral narrative: the public stops arguing about systems and starts arguing about betrayal.
A necessary constraint: Britain is not a “monolith” story
If you want a steelmanable argument, you have to keep two truths in view.
First, the UK has genuine capacity and integration questions. Second, collective suspicion is both wrong and self-defeating.
A useful demographic anchor: in the 2021 Census for England and Wales, 6.5% of the population (3.9 million) identified as Muslim, up from 4.9% in 2011. That is a significant minority, not a majority—nor a single political bloc. Treating millions of people as a unified will is rhetorical convenience, not analysis.
And the cost of careless rhetoric is not theoretical. A Commons committee report cites 4,478 hate crimes against Muslims in England and Wales in the year ending March 2025. When systems feel out of control, scapegoating rises. Competence is therefore not just technocratic; it’s preventative.
None of this requires pretending integration is automatic. Some communities integrate faster than others; neighbourhood concentration, school pressures, and public-order flashpoints are real issues in parts of the country. The serious question is not whether problems exist, but whether the UK can measure them honestly—language attainment, employment, educational outcomes, and crime (victimization and offending) by clear categories—and then enforce civic norms consistently without collapsing into group blame.
The real lesson: competence drains the market for fate stories
The UK does not need prophecy. It needs closure—visible, lawful closure.
That means:
- Fast, transparent processing of asylum claims and appeals, with published targets and plain reporting. (Throughput has already moved; durability is the test.)
- A credible “no” alongside a humane “yes”—because if failed claims rarely produce timely outcomes, the public stops distinguishing between migration streams and everything becomes one undifferentiated panic.
- Clear public separation of migration categories (work, study, family, humanitarian, irregular entry), so “migration” stops being a fog-word that guarantees misunderstanding. Oxford’s Migration Observatory is a model of that clarity.
- An integration bargain that isn’t embarrassed of itself: language acquisition, equal protection under law, and consistent enforcement against coercive practices—paired with a refusal to treat entire communities as enemies.
When the state can do those things, public debate becomes governable again. When it cannot, the loudest narratives will always be the simplest: destiny, decline, takeover. Not because they are the best explanations, but because they match what people feel.
References
1) Office for National Statistics (ONS) — Long-term international migration, provisional: year ending June 2025
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2025
2) UK Home Office — Immigration system statistics, year ending December 2025: Summary of latest statistics
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2025/summary-of-latest-statistics
3) UK Home Office — Immigration system statistics, year ending December 2025: Illegal entry routes (detail page)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2025/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-via-illegal-entry-routes
4) UK Parliament — House of Commons Library: Recent updates to UK migration estimates (CBP-10446)
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10446/
5) Office for National Statistics (ONS) — Religion, England and Wales: Census 2021
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021
6) UK Parliament — Women and Equalities Committee report (PDF): Discrimination, harassment and abuse against Muslim women
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/51305/documents/285022/default/
7) Oxford Migration Observatory — Who migrates to the UK and why?
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/who-migrates-to-the-uk-and-why/
Paul Brandt is not a fringe troll with a microphone. He’s a mainstream Canadian artist with a public record of philanthropy, and he’s closely associated with “Not In My City,” a project focused on combating sexual exploitation and trafficking. So when he was slated to appear as a keynote speaker at Alberta’s North Central Teachers’ Convention and then disappeared from the final program, the obvious question is not “what did he tweet?” It’s simpler:
Who made that decision, and why won’t they say so plainly?
The reporting to date suggests Brandt was initially scheduled, then “not included in the final schedule,” with no substantive explanation offered beyond that. That’s not a scheduling explanation. That’s a refusal to explain.
And refusals matter, because when institutions won’t tell the truth in normal language, people assume the worst—and sometimes they’re right.
The Mechanism: Institutional Silence Creates Political Meaning
If you remove a speaker at the last minute and provide no reason, you create a vacuum. That vacuum fills with the most plausible theory available.
In this case, the most widely circulated theory is that Brandt’s public comments touching Alberta independence politics annoyed someone. Is that proven? No. It remains inference. But it is an inference made easier by the ATA ecosystem’s habits: highly political instincts, high message discipline, low transparency.
If the truth is mundane—contract issue, travel issue, logistical conflict—then say it. If the truth is “we didn’t want this topic,” then say that, too. Adults can handle disagreements. What they can’t handle is managerial fog deployed as reputational control.
Precision: Who Is “The ATA” Here?
One important correction: teachers’ conventions are not simply “the ATA” as a monolith. Convention programming is organized by convention associations and boards; the ATA is part of the structure, but local governance and planning matter.
That distinction doesn’t let anyone off the hook. It just tells us where accountability should point: the convention organizers and the ATA officials involved need to identify the decision-maker.
Not “we didn’t include him.”
Not “the schedule changed.”
Not “it was complicated.”
Name the person or committee. Publish the rationale. Own it.
The Drag Bingo Contrast (What We Can Prove, and What We Can’t)
Let’s also clean up another point, because credibility matters more than vibes.
There is evidence that at least one ATA local (Calgary Public Teachers, ATA Local 38) has promoted drag bingo events for teachers—adult social programming and fundraising, including a “Drag Bingo 2.0” event advertised for February 28, 2026 at Hudsons Canada’s Pub. Other posts and recaps indicate this has been a recurring event.
What that does not prove is “drag queen programming for children in classrooms.” If you want to make that claim, you need separate documentation. This piece doesn’t need it.
The point is narrower and stronger:
ATA-affiliated organizations are willing to put their name to drag entertainment for adults, as part of educator culture—and yet they won’t clearly explain why a speaker connected to anti-exploitation advocacy was removed from a major professional gathering.
That mismatch doesn’t prove bad intent. It proves something else: selective transparency. When the programming is ideologically safe, the institution is loud. When the programming might trigger internal conflict, the institution becomes a ghost.
The Real Issue Isn’t Paul Brandt. It’s Institutional Governance.
If you are a teacher paying dues, you should be furious—not necessarily because Brandt is the perfect keynote, but because your professional association is behaving like a risk-management shop instead of a member-serving institution.
Here are the questions that require answers:
- Who made the call to remove him from the program?
- What criterion was used—professional relevance, conduct, political sensitivity, “safety,” reputation risk?
- When was the decision made?
- Was Brandt given a reason, and is that reason publishable?
- Will the organizers commit to a transparency standard going forward?
If those questions can’t be answered, the institution has a bigger problem than one cancelled keynote. It has a legitimacy problem.
Because once you normalize silent removals, you don’t just manage controversy. You teach your own members that power flows upward, speech gets filtered, and you’re expected to smile.
Verdict
You can disagree about Alberta independence. You can dislike country music. You can even decide a trafficking-focused keynote doesn’t fit your convention theme. Fine. That’s politics.
But if you can’t say it openly—if your default mode is bland non-answers and managerial evasion—then you’re not leading educators. You’re managing a brand.
And Alberta parents are right to notice. When the people tasked with protecting children won’t speak plainly about their own choices, they don’t look principled. They look captured.
Albertans deserve better than that. And teachers do too.
Canada still runs a legal category of “Indian” through federal law. Not as history. As operating code. The Indian Act governs registration, band governance, and the reserve framework. Identity becomes partly administered by statute, not only lived in community. (laws-lois.justice.gc.ca) When a state maintains a separate legal lane for a class of people, it does more than recognize difference. It reproduces difference through process and permanence.
Get the timeline right because this is where critics go hunting. The Indian Act was assented to on April 12, 1876, as a consolidation of laws “respecting Indians.” (sac-isc.gc.ca) Consolidation is not an accident. It is a choice to centralize control, define membership, and keep Indigenous life routed through Ottawa’s legal plumbing. Once you do that, you create a stable incentive loop. Governments manage liability and jurisdiction. Communities defend the gateways through which rights, services, and recognition pass. The system is not neutral simply because it is administrative.
Martin Buber’s vocabulary helps name the moral move without turning this into a sermon. An I–It posture treats people as objects. They become cases, stakeholders, units, problems to be managed. An I–Thou posture treats them as subjects with agency and dignity. A system that sorts people into different legal kinds makes I–It governance easier. Bureaucratic proxies replace encounter. Resentment follows because the relationship becomes instrumental even when the language stays compassionate.
You can watch the machine work in Alberta right now. Elections Alberta issued a Notice of Initiative Petition in late January 2026 for a citizen initiative proposing an Alberta independence referendum question. (elections.ab.ca) First Nations responded with litigation arguing the province had constitutional duties to consult on the impacts of such a referendum and failed to do so. (globalnews.ca) Alberta’s population reached 5.0 million in Q4 2025. (economicdashboard.alberta.ca) That is a large public, a loud politics, and a long list of grievances looking for a target. In that environment, it becomes easy to blame “Indians” as a block instead of blaming the architecture that turns every dispute into a status-mediated struggle over courts, duties, and jurisdiction.
The safest conclusion is also the strongest. Treat this as structure, not as villains. There are Indigenous voices, including William Wuttunee, who argued decades ago that the reserve-dependency model traps people and that integration on Indigenous terms was a path out. (uofmpress.ca) You do not need to adopt his full program to accept the warning. As long as legal status remains the main conduit for dignity, power, and money, Canada will keep reproducing otherness by design. Too many institutions cannot cash their cheques any other way.
References
Source Speech (YouTube)
Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5) — Justice Laws (official text)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/
Indian Act, 1876 (“amend and consolidate…”) — SAC-ISC archival text
https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010252/1618940680392
Martin Buber (I–It / I–Thou) — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buber/
Elections Alberta — Notice of Initiative Petition issued (Jan 27, 2026)
New Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
Alberta separation petition legal challenge context — Global News (Jan 23, 2026)
3 Alberta First Nations say separation petition is unconstitutional
Alberta population (5.0M in Q4 2025) — Government of Alberta Economic Dashboard
https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/dashboard/population-quarterly/
William Wuttunee / Ruffled Feathers — University of Manitoba Press
https://uofmpress.ca/books/still-ruffling-feathers
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…