Diversity and the Economic Summit

Just a thought about today's Economic Summit. I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that it's very positive to see Hamilton's movers and shakers collaborating about the city's future.

However, it's hard not to notice the lack of diversity among the panelists. The one female representative, Jeanne Mell, was from Pensylvania. There was not one local woman or person of colour included on any panel.

My colleague Meredith MacLeod wrote a story in today's paper that mentioned how the Economic Summit events "have largely been about talk." I don't pretend to have all the answers here, but perhaps turning that talk into action may involve a broader cross-section of the community.

Thoughts?

Comments

[Tom Robertson]

I don't see Bob Young's demands fitting in with any of these visions in Meredith's report.

[Markalanwhittle]

Just another hot-air convention, the rubber never hits the road. Yawn.

[Mike Russell]

My question would be, did any women or minorities want to attend. I am sure the summit was open to anyone willing to pay the fee.

Why is it, that because special interest groups choose not to attend, it is implied that the summit is somehow tainted or less than legitimate. If they want their voices heard it's up to them to make the effort to attend.

[Emma]

Mike - just to clarify, I was talking about the panelists that were invited to speak, not the attendees.

[Mike Russell]

Thanks for the clarification Emma.

You might want to ask the question to the organizers of the event. Maybe they did ask people from those groups to act as panelists. Not everyone who is asked is going to accept.

It's also a matter of who has the expertise that they are seeking from a panelist. I don't think they are intentionally excluding anyone from those groups.

[JT]

Women and racialized people (and gays and the disabled and ...) don't belong to "special interest groups" simply because they're not white wealthy men, so I think it's disingenuous to refer to them in that way. They are just people -- people who are often excluded (intentionally or not) from decision making, policy making, employment, positions of power, etc. We need to overcome this tremendously problematic paradigm. It's instructive to remember that the majority of Canadians belong to one of these "special interests" and these "summits" have the biggest impact on communities who are generally absent from the discussion. This is clearly a problem.

If anything, business owners and "civic leaders" who were actively courted to attend Monday's event are much more likely to represent "special interest groups" and we need to start re-framing this discussion so that we don't blame those who are absent for their absence.

Even if the reason is the cost of the event, that is still a reason to critically examine whether all members in our community have a strong voice in these kinds of discussions.

The "expertise" of women and immigrants is constantly undervalued, and therefore, they are not viewed as "experts" at all. I think the dynamic of pushing the responsibility onto women and racialized minorities to ensure they pay fees to be part of these events is a very problematic position to take. So many voices are not part of the conversation.

[Michelle Hruschka]

I agree with JT, there are so many voices that are not part of this conversation.

The only special interest groups are those with the dollars who are protecting their turf, which often overrides what is best for all community members.