The Flimsy Nature of Inclusion at Montreal Pride

August 4, 2025 in Canada, Politics, Queer Bullshit | Tags: Diversity, Inclusion, Montreal, Moral Absolutism, Pride Parade | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

“A celebration of diversity that silences certain voices… is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective.”

The Montreal Pride Parade’s decision to exclude Jewish organizations like Ga’ava and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) reveals the brittle nature of contemporary inclusion. Organizers explained that the festival’s board had “made the decision to deny participation in the Pride Parade to organizations spreading hateful discourse”—widely interpreted as targeting groups perceived to hold Zionist views amid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (National Post). Yet this rationale exposes a contradiction: a celebration of diversity that silences certain voices based on political affiliation is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective. True inclusion doesn’t retreat under pressure or disqualify those with unpopular views; it endures in the face of discomfort. By barring these organizations, Montreal Pride signals that its version of inclusion functions not as a principle, but as a privilege granted only to those aligned with a narrow ideological consensus.

Considering the Organizers’ Perspective

It’s worth acknowledging why the organizers might have made this decision. They could argue that pro-Israel groups might provoke protests or distress among participants, given the polarized nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, without specific, credible threats, this rationale appears more like a preemptive strike against ideological discomfort than a genuine safety measure. Pride has weathered controversy before—its history is one of defiance in the face of societal pushback. To retreat now suggests a prioritization of ideological purity over inclusivity.

Safety as a Pretext for Exclusion

Invoking “physical and mental safety” may appear commendable, but applying it to justify excluding Ga’ava—a Montreal-based LGBTQ+ Jewish organization—and CIJA appears unfounded in concrete threats. Ga’ava’s president characterized the exclusion as “based on flimsy, politically motivated reasons decided behind closed doors under pressure from groups that hate Jews, deny Israel’s existence, and whose members celebrated the atrocities of October 7, 2023” (i24NEWS). Who gets to determine what’s safe? In this case, the organizers prioritized avoiding discomfort among critics of Zionist expression over the dignity of those excluded. This risks prioritizing ideological comfort over genuine safety concerns.

According to CIJA’s director of strategic communications, Julien Corona, the decision represents “a dark day for the LGBTQ+ movement here in Quebec but also in all of Canada” (National Post).

The Perils of Moral Absolutism

Montreal Pride’s actions illustrate how moral certainty, when unchecked, can corrupt even the most noble ideals. By conflating the participation of Jewish organizations with “hateful discourse,” organizers implicitly deemed dissenting political views as unacceptable, suggesting their perspective is immune from challenge (i24NEWS). But in reducing disagreement to danger, they betray their own professed values of inclusion and pluralism. What remains is not a broad tent of solidarity, but a gated enclave of ideological approval.

This episode fits into a broader pattern: similar exclusions have occurred in other Pride contexts—Toronto, Chicago, Washington DC—involving Jewish symbols or groups linked to Israel/Palestine debates (Wikipedia). By excluding Ga’ava and CIJA, Montreal Pride reinforces a troubling trend: replacing complexity of identity with a simplistic tribal test.

Moreover, this isn’t the first time a social movement has been fractured by ideological litmus tests. The feminist movement, for example, has seen bitter divisions over issues like sex work and transgender rights, with some factions excluding others based on perceived ideological impurity. Similarly, the civil rights movement grappled with tensions between integrationist and separatist ideologies. In each case, moral certainty led to splintering rather than solidarity. Montreal Pride risks a similar fate if it continues down this path.

A Forward-Looking Conclusion

If Pride movements hope to sustain moral legitimacy and relevance, they must resist equating disagreement with harm. Exclusion based on political affiliation not only wounds the excluded but weakens the movement itself. Pride must recommit to its radical roots—embracing all marginalized voices, even those that spark debate—or risk losing its soul. The true test of inclusion isn’t welcoming those who agree with us; it’s extending that welcome to those who challenge us. Only then can Pride fulfill its promise as a beacon of diversity and defiance.

Works Cited

Amador, Marisela. “Montreal Pride excludes Jewish LGBTQ+ group, citing ‘hateful discourse’.” CTV News, July 31, 2025. Link
Corona, Julien. Quoted in “‘A dark day for the LGBTQ movement’: Montreal Pride Parade organizers bar Jewish groups from march.” National Post, August 1, 2025. Link
“Montreal’s Pride Parade bans 2 Jewish groups.” i24NEWS, July 31, 2025. Link
“Pride parade.” Wikipedia. Link

The DWR Sunday Religious Disservice – The Stoic Hammer

August 3, 2025 in Religion | Tags: Effort, Stoicism, WIll | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

It is Will that makes the world turn.

Hosting the Canadian Free Speech Union’s Open Letter – Cancellation of a Christian Musician

August 2, 2025 in Canada, Politics | Tags: Hosting the Canadian Free Speech Union's Open Letter - Cancellation of a Christian Musician | by The Arbourist | 8 comments

I am writing this open letter to you in my capacity as Executive Director of the Free Speech Union of Canada. The FSUC is a non-partisan, mass-membership, non-profit organisation that defends the expressive rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely.

It was disappointing to see Parks Canada cancel the upcoming performance by Christian musician Sean Feucht, and for other municipalities to follow suit. This appears to be based solely on the fact that some members of the community do not like this performer’s views. According to CBC, “Feucht, who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. congress as a Republican in 2020, is also a missionary and an author who has spoken out against the 2SLGBTQ+ community, abortion rights and critical race theory on his website.” There were also references to him being part of the “MAGA” movement.

The FSUC does not endorse the views of Mr. Feucht, nor do we advocate for particular points of view. We do believe strongly that, unless laws are being broken (as opposed to some people claiming to be offended), it is not for public venues to decide which views people are allowed to hear.

His cancellation by your various institutions appears to have been the result of public pressure from a group of “concerned citizens” who have forgotten that they live in a country that is founded on liberal principles, such as freedom of expression. Parks Canada’s immediate caving to this pressure has only emboldened the mob, which has now successfully brought pressure to bear on the municipalities of Charlottetown, Moncton and Quebec City.

Citizens of a free society, as Canada is, have a right to hear as much as the speaker has the right to express. Are we so censorious and fragile in this country that we cannot tolerate someone with non-progressive views expressing themselves to those who want to hear them? Why should those who enjoy his concerts not be able to attend? Surely, the answer to the “concerned citizens” who were up in arms about this was to say, “If you don’t like what he says, don’t buy a ticket.”

Liberal Member of Parliament Shannon Miedema, who initially applied pressure to Parks Canada, wrote, according to CBC, that, “I have the utmost respect for the value of free speech, I do not believe this event aligns with Parks Canada’s core values of respect for people, equity, diversity and inclusion, or integrity.”

Once again, we see free speech (paid an Orwellian form of lip-service here) trumped by some vague conflict with “equity, diversity and inclusion.” Trotting out this formulaic refrain suggests that only “progressive” expression will be tolerated at government venues, which is an arbitrary limit on free speech. Public entities have an obligation to uphold the constitutional right to freedom of expression generally—for all Canadians—which is a central tenet of a free and democratic society.

Perhaps you do not appreciate the heritage and importance of freedom of expression. As our Supreme Court of Canada articulated, “Freedom of expression is not, however, a creature of the Charter. It is one of the fundamental concepts that has formed the basis for the historical development of the political, social and educational institutions of western society. Representative democracy, as we know it today, which is in great part the product of free expression and discussion of varying ideas, depends upon its maintenance and protection.”1

And some years later, the Supreme Court elaborated that freedom of expression “was entrenched in our Constitution […] so as to ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful, or contrary to the mainstream.”2 The Charter describes this protection as fundamental “because in a free and democratic society” such as Canada, “we prize a diversity of ideas and opinions for their inherent value both to the community and individual.”3

Some people are not going to like that. These individuals disparage dialogue and the principle of challenging ideas with better ideas—not with force or censorship. They will shout down and censor speakers, and even threaten protests, destruction and violence to prevent the constitutional right of others to listen and engage in the marketplace of ideas. You do not have to give in to them, and you should not do so.

Charlottetown initially resisted the mob, stating on July 22 that “From a legal standpoint we are limited in restricting access to public spaces,” the statement on social media said. “The city wishes to be clear in its support of the 2SLGBTQ+ community. If there are any opinions or statements expressed by any performer to the contrary, they are not the views of the city.”

That was a reasonable statement.

That of Charlottetown MP Sean Casey was not: “While I fully respect the right to freedom of expression, I do not believe this event reflects the values of inclusivity and respect that define the City of Charlottetown or the Government of Canada,” Casey wrote in a Facebook post.

A day later, Charlottetown caved to the pressure as well. “After consultation with Charlottetown Police Services, the City of Charlottetown has notified the organizer… that their permit has been revoked due to evolving public safety and security concerns,” the city said in a news release Wednesday afternoon. “This review included a conversation with one of the counter event organizers, as well as a review of social media comments, some of which included threatening language and indications there could be damage to property and equipment.”

They do not say who is proposing to damage the equipment, but if it is the “hecklers” trying to shut down Feucht, the City should be thinking hard about the effects of giving in to the mob. All someone has to do is threaten violence, and they get their way.

Similarly, in Moncton, a permit was withdrawn, “due to evolving safety and security considerations, including confirmation of planned protests, the City has determined that the event poses potential risks to the safety and security of community members, event attendees, and organizers.”

An open letter from various LGBTQ groups (and others), alleged that, “Allowing a group that goes against all principles of diversity, equity and inclusion to perform in a public space, thus creating an atmosphere of fear for marginalized residents, is completely contradictory to the city’s Policy.” This prompted the City to backtrack on its permit, once again giving in to the heckler’s veto.

Most municipalities have hosted Pride events, which some citizens would find controversial, distasteful or offensive, and which sometimes results in displays of nudity or overt sexual behaviour. Yet these events proceed with a stamp of approval and even participation from city officials. Again, the FSUC takes no position on this, except to point out that double standards and arbitrariness are not appropriate in a society based on equal treatment under the law.

Not to be outdone, Quebec City cancelled a concert scheduled in its city yesterday: “The presence of a controversial artist was not mentioned when the contract was signed between ExpoCité and the promoter of the concert planned for the site this Friday,” said François Moisan, Quebec City’s director of public relations.

With upcoming concert dates across the country, it would be a good time to remind the remaining municipalities on the tour of their Charter obligations and the foundational principles that make Canada a free and democratic society. This letter will be posted on our website and social media accounts. Should any of your institutions care to respond, we will post your response. We do hope you will reflect on this letter and take our comments in the spirit in which they are intended. We all want to live in the best country Canada can be, but ushering in authoritarianism and censorship, while crushing our fundamental freedoms, is not the best path forward for anyone.

Sincerely,

Lisa Bildy, JD, BA

Executive Director

The Free Speech Union of Canada

1 RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 573, at para. 12 https://canlii.ca/t/1ftpc

2 Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927 at 968. [Emphasis added].

3 Ibid. [Emphasis added].

The DWR Baroque Choral Interlude – Domine Deus – Vivaldi RV 588

August 1, 2025 in Music | Tags: The DWR Baroque Choral Interlude - Domine Deus - Vivaldi RV 588 | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

This is the tenor aria from Vivaldi’s RV 588, sometimes referred to as the “Little Gloria”. It also happens to be a piece that I’m learning. :)

The Domine Deus tenor aria from Antonio Vivaldi’s Gloria, RV 588, composed likely in the 1710s–1720s for Venice’s Ospedale della Pietà, is a concise yet poignant sacred piece that marries devotional intensity with Baroque expressiveness. Sung by a tenor, accompanied by strings and continuo, it sets the text “Domine Deus, Rex coelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens” with a lyrical melody that balances solemn reverence and subtle virtuosity, its restrained ornamentation amplifying the text’s spiritual weight. The strings’ rhythmic vitality and dynamic interplay create a conversational texture, while the continuo provides harmonic depth, crafting an intimate, prayerful dialogue that lasts under four minutes. Though less celebrated than its RV 589 counterpart, this aria’s clarity and emotional directness exemplify Vivaldi’s genius in humanizing sacred music for liturgical performance.

Societal Literacy – Is this Helping or Harming society?

July 31, 2025 in Culture, Education, Philosophy, Politics | Tags: Everyone gets to Participate, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch, No Final Say | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

Maintaining a liberal democratic society is a challenging but essential endeavor. Yet, many Western institutions of higher learning seem to have lost sight of what makes liberal democracy one of the most effective ways to organize a society. Academic discourse often emphasizes relentless criticism of Western culture, frequently drawing on Marxist or Marcusean frameworks that prioritize deconstructing its flaws.

Criticism is a vital component of any open society, but it cannot be the sole lens through which we view our cultural system. Moreover, this critique often targets only the West, while other cultures and societal systems are overlooked or excused, often due to perceived historical grievances like colonialism. Over time, academia and other cultural institutions—such as universities, media, and public policy circles—have developed an almost boundless capacity for self-criticism. What’s often missing is a balanced perspective: an acknowledgment of the West’s strengths, such as its unparalleled commitment to individual autonomy and freedom of thought.To address this imbalance, we need tools to evaluate whether societal critiques strengthen or undermine liberal democracy. Two principles from Jonathan Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors offer a powerful framework for this evaluation:

No one has the last say on anything (the principle of open-ended inquiry, where no authority can definitively settle a matter, and all claims are subject to challenge and revision).
No one gets to say who gets to speak (the principle of equal access to the marketplace of ideas, where everyone has the right to express their views without being silenced by authority).

When assessing an argument or movement, ask: Does it uphold these principles? For example, does a critique seek to shut down debate by declaring certain ideas off-limits, or does it invite open challenge? Does it exclude voices based on ideology, or does it allow all perspectives to compete in the marketplace of ideas? If the answer is no to either question, the argument may be more about unraveling the fabric of liberal society than improving it.

By applying Rauch’s principles, we can discern whether a critique is constructive or destructive. This approach not only protects the open inquiry that defines liberal democracy but also ensures that we celebrate its strengths while addressing its flaws.

—–

The book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch is available in various formats. You can find it through the following sources:

Publisher’s Website: The University of Chicago Press, which publishes the expanded edition (2013), provides details and purchasing options: University of Chicago Press – Kindly Inquisitors.
Amazon: Available in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook formats: Amazon – Kindly Inquisitors.

The Corrosive Onslaught of Gender Ideology on Children, Families, and Society

July 30, 2025 in Gender Issues, Politics, Social Science | Tags: and Society, Families, The Corrosive Onslaught of Gender Ideology on Children | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

Gender ideology, with its audacious claim that biological sex bows to subjective whim, is a wrecking ball smashing through truth, family, and society. It peddles a fiction: that countless individuals are born in the “wrong” bodies, requiring medical mutilation to “fix” what evolution perfected over millennia. When parents of dependent children are egged on to “transition,” the fallout is catastrophic—not just personal, but existential. This isn’t a debate; it’s a societal suicide pact demanding fierce, unflinching resistance.

Shattering Children’s Worlds

Children, fragile and tethered to parental stability, are shattered when a parent’s identity shift obliterates their world. Hormones, surgeries, or social reinventions don’t just alter a parent—they fracture the child’s sense of security. Clinical psychologist Dr. Erica Anderson, herself transgender, warns of a “social experiment with unknown outcomes” for these vulnerable kids (Anderson, 2021). A 2020 study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry confirms this, documenting spikes in anxiety, depression, and identity confusion among children of transitioning parents. Prioritizing an adult’s ideological fantasy over a child’s emotional bedrock isn’t progress—it’s betrayal, pure and simple.

Demolishing Family Bonds

Families, the crucible of human connection, disintegrate under this ideology’s corrosive weight. A parent’s transition often torches marriages—Brown and Marlowe’s 2020 study notes a 60% divorce rate in such cases, with spouses and children grappling with emotional wreckage (Journal of Family Social Work). The ideology’s fetish for individual affirmation over collective duty rips apart interdependence, leaving children caught in loyalty conflicts and spouses facing unrecognizable partners. This isn’t liberation; it’s a familial debacle—a slow-motion implosion of the bonds that sustain us.

Corroding Institutions

Society’s institutions—schools, hospitals, public health bodies—buckle as gender ideology infects them. The Cass Review (2024), a damning UK investigation, exposed the Tavistock Clinic’s gender-affirming protocols as ideologically driven, not evidence-based, jeopardizing patient safety. Similar scandals, like those involving NHS trusts prioritizing activist demands over clinical rigor. When medicine and education forsake reason for dogma, public trust corrodes. This isn’t inclusion—it’s a betrayal of the empirical foundations that anchor civilization.

Defying Biological Reality

Biologically, gender ideology is utter bollocks. Human sexual dimorphism, refined over millions of years, ensures survival through clear male and female roles. Claims of mass “body mismatches” are baseless—intersex conditions occur in under 0.5% of the population (Sax, 2002). If pervasive dysphoria were innate, humanity would have joined Neanderthals and Denisovans in the evolutionary dustbin. Yet, we’re told the most advanced species can’t navigate puberty without carving up healthy bodies? Absurd. This ideology spits on evolutionary resilience, peddling a delusion that demands surgical fixes for psychological distress. The stakes are existential: either we reclaim material reality, or we watch society unravel—child by child, family by family, institution by institution.

References

Anderson, E. (2021). We’re fast-tracking gender transition in kids—and it’s not going well. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-12/a-transgender-psychologist-reckons-with-how-to-support-a-new-generation-of-trans-teens
Brown, J., & Marlowe, J. (2020). Experiences of spouses and families following gender transition: A qualitative study. Journal of Family Social Work, 23(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2020.1718592
Cass Review. (2024). Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People: Final Report. NHS England. https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/final-report/
Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552139
Turban, J. L., et al. (2020). Psychological outcomes in children of transitioning parents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(8), 903–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13206

The Longhouse at Work: How Progressive Praxis Reshapes Workplace Dynamics

July 29, 2025 in Education, Politics | Tags: The Longhouse at Work: How Progressive Praxis Reshapes Workplace Dynamics | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

Abstract.
This essay extends Richard Hanania’s “longhouse” metaphor to critique how progressive ideological praxis transforms U.S. workplaces into emotionally homogenized spaces that prioritize conformity over competence. While ostensibly promoting inclusivity and emotional safety, these environments insidiously suppress dissent and erode meritocratic principles, risking innovation. Drawing on empirical examples and social science, it proposes actionable reforms to balance equity with truth-seeking rigor.

1. From Iroquois Communal Living to Corporate Surveillance

Richard Hanania’s “longhouse” metaphor likens modern workplaces to Iroquois communal dwellings, where constant group surveillance enforced social cohesion (Hanania, 2021; Soucek, 2022). Historically, longhouses lacked privacy, prioritizing collective norms over individual autonomy (Soucek, 2022). Today’s progressive workplaces mirror this dynamic, embedding rituals—diversity trainings, inclusivity pledges, and psychological cues—that enforce emotional alignment. This shift, cloaked in equity, supplants hierarchical, performance-driven models with collectivist frameworks, subordinating measurable outcomes to group harmony. This cultural pivot sets the stage for redefining performance itself.

2. Emotional Metrics Eclipse Measurable Outcomes

Progressive workplaces increasingly incorporate subjective metrics like “inclusivity” or “belonging” into performance evaluations, often overshadowing traditional key performance indicators (KPIs). For instance, Salesforce employs monthly diversity scorecards, compelling leaders to prioritize equity metrics alongside revenue goals (Salesforce, 2018). Similarly, Google, despite abandoning explicit diversity hiring targets in 2025, maintains internal programs that pressure employees to signal emotional compliance (Wakabayashi, 2025). Excellence, once tied to output, now hinges on performing group-approved values, eroding meritocracy’s foundation. Such practices risk diluting accountability, as emotional signaling supersedes tangible results.

3. Pathologizing Dissent as “Unsafe”

In longhouse-like workplaces, dissent—even constructive critique—is often branded “unsafe” or “disruptive,” stifling innovation. Social psychology research highlights that environments obsessed with emotional safety may suppress the creative friction essential for breakthroughs (Vedres & Vasarhelyi, 2022; Hofstra et al., 2019). Rather than explicit bans, dissent is insidiously chilled through peer pressure and social marginalization, replacing direct authority with diffuse, insidious control. Employees self-censor, fearing ostracism more than formal reprimand. This suppression paves the way for new hierarchies rooted in moral posturing.

4. Moral Hierarchies and Performative Capital

Masculine-coded traits—bluntness, decisive hierarchy, risk-taking—are recast as oppressive, while emotional labor and linguistic signaling become status markers. Individuals from “marginalized” identities are often elevated as moral authorities, their endorsement of symbolic rituals outweighing technical expertise (Salesforce, 2018; Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020). For instance, employees at tech firms report promotions tied to leading DEI initiatives, even absent technical contributions (Stovall, 2025). This inverts traditional authority, creating a moral ladder where fluency in approved language—diversity jargon, empathy displays—secures favor. Competence, once paramount, becomes secondary to performative harmony.

5. The Innovation-Meritocracy Trade-Off

While diversity can enhance creativity, empirical studies show benefits only emerge with inclusion and openness to dissent (Vedres & Vasarhelyi, 2022; Hofstra et al., 2019). Longhouse cultures, however, prioritize emotional self-monitoring over evaluative transparency, undermining these gains. For example, a 2022 study found teams with high psychological safety but low dissent produced fewer novel patents (Vedres & Vasarhelyi, 2022). Employees, wary of disrupting harmony, self-censor provocative ideas, stagnating innovation. The result is a workplace where consensus trumps truth, and performative rituals eclipse measurable impact, corroding the meritocratic ethos essential for progress.

Conclusion and Path Forward

The longhouse metaphor incisively reveals how progressive praxis, though well-intentioned, transforms workplaces into emotionally regulated arenas where dissent and competence are subordinated to conformity. This does not negate the value of equity but warns against its dominance over truth-seeking. To restore balance, workplaces must:

Distinguish ideological rituals from practical metrics, prioritizing transparent performance standards.
Track contributions from idea originators and dissenters, not just inclusivity scores, to ensure accountability.
Normalize respectful disagreement, ensuring dissent is not pathologized as unsafe.
By integrating emotional safety with rigorous meritocracy, workplaces can transcend the longhouse’s façade, fostering both unity and innovation. Failure to act risks perpetuating a culture where harmony is performed, but progress is sacrificed.

References
Hanania, R. (2021, November 15). The longhouse. Richard Hanania’s Newsletter. https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/the-longhouse

Hofstra, B., Kulkarni, V. V., Munoz-Najar Galvez, S., He, B., Jurafsky, D., & McFarland, D. A. (2019). The diversity-innovation paradox in science. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.02063

Pluckrose, H., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Cynical theories: How activist scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity—and why this harms everybody. Pitchstone Publishing.

Salesforce Office of Equality. (2018, October 23). How a diversity scorecard helps Salesforce keep equality top of mind. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-diversity-scorecard-helps-salesforce-keep-equality-salesforce

Soucek, B. (2022). Diversity statements. UC Davis Law Review, 55(4), 1989–2058. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/55-4_Soucek.pdf

Stovall, J. M. (2025). Tech’s DEI illusion. NeuroLeadership Institute. https://neuroleadership.com/your-brain-at-work/techs-dei-illusion

Vedres, B., & Vasarhelyi, O. (2022). Inclusion unlocks the creative potential of gender diversity in teams. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08505

Wakabayashi, D. (2025, February 10). Google kills diversity hiring targets. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-kills-diversity-hiring-targets-04433d7c

	The Arbourist on Emergencies Act, 2026 FCA 6: T…
	Steve Ruis on Emergencies Act, 2026 FCA 6: T…
	The Arbourist on Beautiful Trouble as a Public…
	Marengo on Beautiful Trouble as a Public…
	The Arbourist on The Escalation Loop Behind “IC…

Dead Wild Roses