This post is an information dump. See my Notice, here.

The following is one of myriad posts sitting in my draft file. I never did listen to these podcasts. This draft is dated — 2022. So I’ve checked the links provided to ensure they are still active.

Here’s the connection between the ‘Brave Spaces’ Podcast Series and Canadian Universities:

The Foundation would like to sincerely thank the sponsors of the “Brave Spaces: Diversity” series: the University of Ottawa, York University and the University of Calgary. 

And,

The Podcast series is hosted by Dr. Margarida Garcia, 2004 Scholar and Chair of the Foundation’s Advisory Committee on Diversity. 

During these conversations, at times uncomfortable but nevertheless necessary, Dr. Garcia explores with the Scholars, Fellows and Mentors of the Foundation’s Diversity Committee the possible blind spots and unintended consequences of EDI (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion) while trying to present a plurality of perspectives … at the risk of taking the listener out of his or her comfort zone. 

Dr. Margarida Garcia is a professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa.

I’m going to be blunt here. Uncomfortable/comfort zone/discomfort-talk is ubiquitous in EDI discourse. It sounds so stupid. It’s this cringey New-Age-Valley-Girl — or Zoolander — language that’s uncomfortable, not a discussion of diversity and inclusion.

Here’s some advice. Lose the bafflegab. You could have just put a period after “plurality of perspectives” (and try saying instead: different points of view). And you can axe, “… at the risk of ….”

Get rid of “at times uncomfortable….” Say instead, “During these conversations Dr. Garcia explores….” Honestly, you don’t sound insightful. You sound stupid.

I’m willing to bet a lot of so-called pushback will dissipate if you stop talking in this bafflegab.

Now that I have that off my chest, the following entry is dated and rough. But it might be useful to some researcher.

I have not yet listened to this podcast.

But I’d like to hear the answers to the following question embedded in its introduction on the website. Re: 

"What are the implications for democracy and academic freedom of making certain topics of discussion taboo?"

Is what is meant by this question “the implications for democracy and academic freedom”? Or is it the “implications for democracy” and the “implications for academic freedom”? Will the speakers disambiguate?

And I’m also interested to hear whether a coherent discussion about EDI takes place or whether the podcast delivers more of the following bafflegab:

Through a plurality of perspectives, this Podcast promotes dialogue beyond differences and brings an authentic debate of ideas rooted in academic openness and critical thinking. 
  • What is meant by a “plurality of perspectives?”
  • What is it to “promote dialogue beyond differences”?
  • What is meant by “an authentic debate of ideas rooted in academic openness and critical thinking”? What is the force of the word authentic? Is it the debate or the ideas that are “rooted in….”? Does academic openness include debating the aforementioned taboo topics of discussion?