.png)
The Simardone Show
Critical analysis of geopolitics, culture, society, and global affairs
The Simardone Show
Is DEI White Supremacist? | With Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode , I sit down with Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui for a wide-ranging conversation about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Palestine advocacy, decolonization, and the future of anti-racist movements.
We begin by discussing what DEI originally meant, how it evolved, and why many critics argue it has been co-opted by governments, corporations, and institutions. Dr. Ghaffar-Siddiqui shares her own experience of working in a university DEI office and the controversy surrounding her resignation after advocating for Palestinian rights.
The conversation explores whether DEI can still serve as a meaningful tool for social justice or whether it has become primarily a reformist framework that reinforces existing power structures. We also compare DEI with more radical traditions of political organizing, including decolonization, abolitionist politics, and Black nationalist movements that sought to build independent institutions rather than reform existing ones.
Finally, we discuss the distinction between equity and equality, as well as the meaning of the term "Jewish supremacy" as Dr. Ghaffar-Siddiqui uses it, addressing one of the most debated aspects of her work.
Topics include:
What is DEI?
How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion became institutionalized
Palestine activism and academic freedom
Free speech on university campuses
Equity vs. equality
Decolonization and abolition
Black nationalism and parallel institutions
Corporate DEI and institutional reform
Anti-racism and social justice
The debate over "Jewish supremacy"
Israel-Palestine and contemporary political discourse
If you enjoyed this conversation, please like, subscribe, and leave a comment. What role, if any, should DEI play in advancing social justice today? Can institutions be reformed, or are more transformative approaches necessary?
Welcome to the Simmerdoni Show. I'm your host, Aidan Simmerdoni. The past decade has witnessed a resurgence of racial justice initiatives in light of the Black Lives Matter and Land Black movements. But rather than advanced justice, corporations and institutions have turned diversity, equity, and inclusion into free advertisement and even a tool of white supremacy. Offensive products like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Batman were removed, but police budgets continued to increase, and corporations continue to work with Israel. And in the case of my guest, Dr. Sabrina Gafar Siddiqui, her advocacy for Palestine even got her removed from the DEI industry. Dr. Gafar Siddiqui is the co-author of the recently published book DEI Undone: The Rise, Fall and Rebirth of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. I'm joined by her today to discuss her journey and more. Dr. Gafar Sidiki, welcome to the show.
SPEAKER_01Hi, Aiden. Thank you so much for having me.
SPEAKER_00We're going to have a blast today, but my first question is going to be what is DEI and how did it get co-opted?
SPEAKER_01So, you know, you've read the book, so now you know the history of, you know, its foundational roots and how it was co-opted. So, I mean, in a nutshell, I would say that DEI is simply an accurate acronym. It's diversity, equity, inclusion. And it was created, I would say, as a means to turn the work that we were already doing, that was anti-racism work and justice work, you know, equity work, into something that could be placed within institutions. So it could be institutionalized and it could be corporatized. So diversity, equity, inclusion, I guess the noble intentions behind it were to, you know, turn equity work into something that could be placed within all organizations and institutions and incorporated into the way businesses and institutions like universities can function in a way that can make them accessible and equitable to people from all backgrounds and people who are equity denied. But as you would have read in the book, uh, you know, the messaging which came from the roots of powerful movements like the Black Liberation Movement, uh, women's rights movement, disability movement, you know, from powerful movements like that, it ended up getting co-opted. And uh, you know, who were the beneficiaries, the greatest beneficiaries of the DEI movement? This is quiz.
SPEAKER_00Sorry, I had myself muted. It wasn't a white woman, actually. Yeah, it was white woman. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01White woman ended up being uh the people who benefited the most from DEI.
SPEAKER_00Which is ironic because you see these um people in the United States, especially, but to Canada too. I mean, our own Jordan Peterson, for instance, uh, he's very much against this uh whole DEI thing. They treat it as if I know the whole boardrooms could be filled with black and brown people. But as my problem always with some things along DEI and quotas, it's actually been less like it goes too far, but actually the opposite. It almost doesn't go far enough. And as you're saying, unfortunately, the people who have benefited the most is white women, being, you know, it's almost like maintaining white supremacy while to a certain extent expanding just only along gender, right?
SPEAKER_01And you know, in some ways, you know, these kind of shorthand acronyms and departments that are created in honor of these acronyms end up being there simply to pacify people into accepting crumbs at the expense of real liberation and freedom and equity for all people. Um and you know, part of those crumbs are um allowing certain people who have that proximity to power and whiteness, in this case, white women, um, for them to be given the positions, right? Because it's still it still benefits those in power. Um to have to have a white woman in the boardroom is um safer for them than having a very you know revolutionary black woman in power or a brown woman or someone who um stands by principles that are very liberatory. So it's you know it's a cooptation, but then it's a way to pacify the masses as well.
SPEAKER_00And you know this firsthand because I want you to explain to listeners, so obviously have read the book, but listeners who haven't, so you used to be in the DEI industry, and ironically enough, you actually lost your job for your Palestine advocacy. Can you explain what happened?
SPEAKER_01Mm-hmm. And I'm, you know, I want to first off say that I'm so happy that you're calling it an industry and not a field, because in the book we call it an industry and not a field for a reason. Um, you know, when when when they like to talk about DEI, they call it a field, a field of work and research. And, you know, that gives it credibility and importance. But what it does is it strips it of its capitalistic nature, right? How corporatized it is. And I always call it an industry so that I can uh bring attention to the fact that DEI still serves the main goals of capitalism. Um, so let's make this place diverse, let's make this place look like we have inclusion and equity so that we can make more money, so that people can like us and they can think that we're a good business, that we're a good institution. Um, so in that vein, I was tokenized and bought into a very senior role at Sheridan College. Um, you know, I was a professor of sociology and criminology for for almost five years at Sheridan College, and I was, you know, offered a role as a senior advisor for diversity, equity, inclusion, which is more of an administrative role for the college. Um, and you know, administration really all that means is that it's how do you help the business, um, which brings attention to the fact that colleges and higher education institutions ultimately are businesses. Uh, you know, they're not places that are noble purveyors of, you know, justice and education, although that's what you'd think and hope for. You know, the bottom line at the end of the day is money, right? So, anyway, I was bought into this role, senior advisor DEI. I was actually hired because of my public profile. Um, and I say this because even during my interview and after, when I was hired, they said that they were very uh impressed by my public advocacy, my social media uh presence, and you know, my years of advocating for justice, um, all kinds of advocacy. You know, I was very loud uh post-George Floyd, especially pre-George Floyd, obviously, because I've been doing this social justice work for a lot longer than um, you know, hashtag started. Um, but, you know, even when the world started to pay more attention uh to these atrocities, um, you know, my voice was out there alongside other people who were advocating for justice for black people, marginalized people, equity-denied people. Um, and I was told that that was a huge reason why they um wanted me to represent Sheridan and to be this, you know, uh face of Sheridan. So I was hired, bought in, you know, I was a superstar. I they literally wrote articles about me. I was featured in the uh, you know, the magazine of the college and um kind of like you know, you were an asset in a way.
SPEAKER_00You're an asset, yeah, something to use and uh looking back, maybe something to use and to help sell the institution, right?
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. Like to have a brown Muslim racialized woman um to be in this role who and and I have to say, you know, it is really important to note that the way I look, the way I sound, uh upon first glance, I am, you know, the colonizer's first choice in terms of doesn't wear a hijab, you know, looks like us, sounds like us, has an English accent, she's gonna be like us, she's gonna think like us, she is civilized, she is modern, right? And you know, I often say to people that especially post 9-11, there's been this like a push towards these diametrically opposite uh representations of Muslims, where you have the oppressed uh Muslim woman and the violent uh Muslim man and these are practicing Muslims, and then you've got the cool, funny, uh modern, progressive Muslims who are presented as having rejected their faith. So these two opposite representations are shown to us, like in film and TV. If you if you even think about you know popular characters in TV shows, right? Like you'll have either someone who is a practicing Muslim and she wears a hijab and she's somewhat submissive seeming and quiet, or you'll have a Muslim woman who is wild and she's rejected her faith, you know, and she is modern and western, right? Western. So these two representations are really pushed. But most Muslims are somewhere in the middle there, right? In that big gray area who are practicing but may not look the way that you know the oppressed woman is presented, right? And someone who someone who just goes against all the tropes and the stereotypes that are out there, right? So in many ways, I knew and I felt that you know, my the way I present myself was um something that they felt could be an asset for their organization because I might represent their values more, right? And whatever their values mean, but that's what they felt. So they put me in that role. Um but you know, I am a practicing Muslim woman and I am a strong advocate for the right of women to wear hijab or to wear niqab or for a woman to either be veiled or be unveiled. You know, it is a right that any woman has and should have, right? So even if I don't wear hijab, these are these are rights that I advocate for. Um, so going against that stereotype and those tropes, you know, I was uh I was placed in this role and I continued my advocacy. I continued speaking about the things that I've always spoken about, and Palestine was a huge, you know, topic that I have spoken about for 15 years. All through my PhD, post-PHD, you know, I have been a strong advocate for the liberation of Palestine. And October 7th happened, I continued doing the same advocacy I've always done. But now all of a sudden I wasn't a superstar. You know, I was I became a liability and not an asset because the Zionist complaints just were flowing in. And even though my advocacy is bulletproof in the sense that I am not anti-Semitic, you know, I am uh not um saying things that are targeting um protected categories, but you know, protected identities. And let me just explain what I mean by that, which you as a lawyer already know. Um political ideologies and political groups are not protected uh identities, so you know, you can't claim that someone who calls you a bad name because you're a democrat is targeting your protected identity category. That's a political ideology. You can, if someone targets you as a Hindu, Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, a disabled person, like there are protected categories, identity categories, but Zionism is not. And this is where you see that conflation constantly happening between between Judaism and Zionism.
SPEAKER_00Which by the way, I would say that's that self is actually anti-Jewish because I've said this so many times online. If you're associating Judaism, like Zionists do this, they always associate Judaism with a genocile state. I'm like, that is actually more anti-Jewish than saying, for those of us who are anti-Zionists, we say, no, no, no, this is not Judaism, this is an ideology, but please continue. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. That's that's exactly right. You know, there is this constant conflation happening between Judaism and Zionism, which then makes anyone who is anti-Zionist automatically anti-Jewish in their eyes and in their argument. So I was accused of those things, but you know, there were multiple investigations that were started. And every single time an investigation started, they found that I was not, in fact, anti-Semitic, that, you know, my words were not targeting Jews in particular, but the Zionist state of Israel and the actions of a nation state and a military um supported by you know that nation state's ideology. Um and even though I was cleared, what happened was you know, they just I became a liability because there were too many complaints coming in and I was bringing too much negative attention to the college. And I was removed from my role. Uh not the DEI role, but my role as a professor, because the DEI role I actually resigned from. Um, and the reason why I resigned from that role was because, you know, the constant investigations became a form of psychological violence that, you know, France Fanon speaks about, that you know, racialized people are put through this form of psychological violence, um, where we are surveilled and policed and targeted, um, accused of things that, you know, we we haven't done, but the actual investigation and the accusation in itself becomes a form of violence. Um, so even though I was cleared, um I was experiencing such a toxic work environment and I was being targeted by so many people within the institution that I felt like resigning from that role would be an act of um protest against the DEI industry because I found you know the DEI feel, the people who I was working with to be so backbone, you know, like they lacking any courage and conviction, um, alignment with the principles they claim to purport, you know, like we spent so many years and months discussing uh justice and equity and courage, and we must have difficult, uncomfortable conversations. Uh we have to, you know, in order to do this work, we must have uh we must talk about sticky topics, but then all of a sudden Palestine became the topic, and it was too political, too sticky, too foreign. Ukraine is not too foreign, but Palestine.
SPEAKER_00Like, right?
SPEAKER_01Exactly. So it just became I became a liability and I was removed from my role, um, which was my professor role.
SPEAKER_00And I think there's an there's a moment in the book you say that really also turned this, it was after October 7th. And you mentioned specifically, I think you did a land acknowledgement, and you also tied that to the ongoing dispossession of land of Palestinians, right?
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Um, you know, at the root of all the drama associated with me losing my job was actually a land acknowledgement. That's how it all started. Um, I was leading a webinar and we were talking about disability justice, and we had invited a um racialized Muslim disabled speaker. And my job was to give the land acknowledgement. And of course, this was post-October 7th, and we were seeing this mass bombing that was happening uh in Palestine in Raza. And, you know, by then thousands of people had been killed. And you know, it would have been a disservice and it would be a it would have been a betrayal to the spirit of a land acknowledgement for us to not acknowledge the ongoing and the present-day colonization and um harm towards Indigenous communities um while talking about the harm, the ongoing harm um, you know, of colonization here on this land. So the connection was made and I acknowledged the present-day live stream genocide. And um during the webinar, the you know, the comments section started to get spammed by uh some Zionist uh attendees. And I remember there was a Zionist woman um who who also happened to be very white, and she uh she she said in the comments, I promise you you will lose your job. It was like a threat that you know, like she was so confident that she was going to make sure that I am no longer in this position because of the audacity that I had to talk about um Israel in that way, um, and called me anti-Semitic for mentioning Israel and for mentioning um and and you know what she was upset about more than anything? The fact that I said Palestine before I said Israel, because I did acknowledge the deaths of Israelis.
SPEAKER_00Who we later learned were actually killed by Israel itself, by Israel, which no one talks about. And and sorry, I just want to interject because I think this is so important, and we're talking about the psychological aspects of it because you do feel like you lose your mind, right? But people really need to understand that we've now learned that on October 7th, the primary people who were murdered, the Israelis who were murdered, that was done by Israel itself. The general we have footage of the generals admitting this. It's not a conspiracy, it's from Israel itself. But I just wanted to emphasize that because people are still talking about October 7th. I'm like, oh, you mean what Israel did to its own people?
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. And then let's not forget that you know, the mass rape hoax and the beheaded babies hoax and this all fed into the atrocity propaganda that was used to then actively commit a genocide. Um, and as always, you know, the phantom harm and the phantom genocide of Jews is given more importance than the actual genocide of Muslims and Palestinians, Arabs, brown people, black people. This has been the case, you know, uh in the global south, and you know, the the harms associated to the imperialist wars that have been committed all over the global south. Um, you know, it's always the the the the life uh the safety and the dignity of uh white Europeans uh is of more importance and and has more value than the lives and The safety and the dignity of black and brown people. And I always use the word dignity, Aiden, because you know what I find with liberals, especially and and liberal Zionists, you know, who will be advocating for the end of the war and the end of the carnage and the bombs. You know, what they're essentially asking for the end of is the live streamed genocide that we are witnessing with our own eyes. But they're not advocating for the same people to be living with dignity and freedom and safety. Because, you know, the slow drip genocide was happening long before October 7th. You know, these people who were trapped in a concentration camp with no freedom of movement. And, you know, where simple human rights violations were taking place daily, where your water supply, your light, your electricity, like everything is controlled. Even the rain that falls is controlled by Israel. The water that you're allowed to drink is controlled by Israel. Like, how is that freedom in any way what's whatsoever, right?
SPEAKER_00And Israel themselves, and this is such a genocidal statement, before October 7th, they would always call it, and I kid you not, for Gaza, they used to call it mowing the lawn, which is such a disturbing statement. And the premise here is to keep the demographics so that the Muslim population, the Muslim Palestinian population doesn't grow so much. They would have to periodically go and bomb Gaza to keep the population low, low enough, which is so disturbing. This does go back, you know, going back to this whole thing with the land acknowledgements. I'm gonna say this is kind of why I hate land acknowledgements. I like land acknowledgements that do a good job of one, recognizing the ongoing dispossession, that talk about how treaties have been are being broken and what we need to do that. But land acknowledgements that only talk about colonization as a historical event, and then just saying, oh yeah, this used to be someone else's land, how nice we get to share it, we being settlers. Uh I think it just really goes into the irony of all of it. Because once you tied it to an ongoing dispossession, it was like, whoa, that's no, no, no, no, no. You know, nice statements are great, but actually wanting to do something and talk about this, what's going on right now.
SPEAKER_01And there's a also kind of like um, you know, when land acknowledgements strip um the history of the violence of colonization. So, you know, let's make the land acknowledgement so that we it shows that we're sorry and it shows that we are now committed to sharing this land and we're standing on land that's been stolen. But let's not talk about residential schools and the fact that literally a couple of years ago, you know, mass graves of children were discovered.
SPEAKER_00And even right now, there's also more children, indigenous children in the foster care system than there were actually children in the residential school system and they're subject to abuse also. So it's not going to be.
SPEAKER_01And I always say, I always say that the residential school has been replaced by children's aid society. Um, and the fact that, you know, CAS has gone completely untouched and uncriticized, you know, like we hear of these complaints every now and then towards CAS, but you know, has there ever been a mass, you know, government-funded investigation into the violence experienced by indigenous children, uh racialized children, black children within the foster care system and CAS? Um, because enough stories have come out that would beg an investigation to look deeper, to dig deeper. And this is, again, like you said, this is all part of the ongoing dispossession, the ongoing harms and violence, you know, and also the criminal justice system and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. And then the same criminal justice system stats are used to justify policing and surveillance of these communities because it's like a never-ending cycle of violence and a self-perpetuating, uh, self-fulfilling prophecy where they overpolice and surveil and are harsher on people from indigenous communities. So you see an overrepresentation of them within prisons, men and women. And then those stats are used to say, see, this is a problem, a cultural problem with these people. And and we need more police, and we need to fund the police even more, so that we can police these people even more, because look how many of them are in the criminal justice system. So this violence is showing to not end, right? It's never-ending violence. So, how can we talk about um colonialism and the harms of colonialism in the past if it's ongoing? Um, so you know, and I had always made my land acknowledgments uh personal, and I had always shown stats and talked about present-day uh harms and violence of colonialism, which is why it made sense for me to connect it to Palestine and what we had we had been witnessing firsthand in that moment. Um, but it was not appreciated and it caused uh a massive backlash and complaints coming in, um, which then led to the toxic work environment. Because even though initially I was told you didn't do anything wrong, everything's fine, but because there were so many complaints coming in now, allies even in the department, um, felt like there was too much heat on them. And this is where, you know, there's a part in the book that I talk about the limits of allyship and how um, you know, even with the Black Lives Matter movement, there were so many moments where there was betrayal from allies, um, where, you know, it was always at the point of personal risk where that allyship ends. Individual personal risk.
SPEAKER_00No, I'm just laughing. And so, you know, for viewers who who are people who are listening and not on YouTube, I'm laughing because October after October 7th, we just it was a litmus test. Uh, there were so many people who now looking back, I would say were pretending to be progressive, but as soon as they had to take an unpopular position, a position that would risk their job, they all did not show up. They all bought into the atrocity propaganda. I remember after October 7th, even being told, people would tell me I was a bad feminist because of the mass rapes that occurred that didn't actually occur. And although I would say on the positive end, what was interesting, Sabrina, after October 7th, there was also a lot of people who spoke out who I just it's not that I didn't expect them to speak out, but it was just uh you get to see who, you know, to put in uh certain terms, who was real, who was who was uh who was actually genuine and who was not genuine with these kinds of things.
SPEAKER_01Well, because you know, what was revealed was how many people use DEI, DEI language to further their own careers. So they were opportunists and careerists, and they purported to care about black lives and Muslims, and they talk about Islamophobia. Um but when it came to Muslims being targeted and killed en masse, you know, that's where their that was the limit. That was the limit of their allyship, because now there's a risk that they were gonna upset people in positions of power within the institutions.
SPEAKER_00Let alone letting Muslims resist, right? Because apparently the only way you can resist is by being dead, it seems, if you're Palestinian, right? It's we definitely saw that limit for sure. What's interesting though is so in your book, and having read the whole thing, yet so there's these serious limits with DEI, but you don't actually advocate getting rid of DEI necessarily. I just want to ask why is that? Why not just move to a different frame that is liberatory if DEI can be co-opted and has all these limits to it? Why is DEI worth, at least to a certain extent, preserving, reshaping, etc.
SPEAKER_01So I will use another example to kind of answer this question. Um, and there are two answers to this question. So, firstly, you know, I really don't like the term Islamophobia. I've spoken about this before as well. You know, there's anti-Semitism, there's anti-racism, or like, you know, there's if we compare if we compare Islamophobia to anti-Semitism, uh anti-Semitism really takes a stronger stance and it shows the active nature of hate. Uh, whereas with Islamophobia, the term kind of suggests that there's a legitimate fear that people uh have t towards Muslims because there might be some legitimate reason behind it, right?
SPEAKER_00It almost sounds like psychological too, like arachnophobia, like being scared of spiders. Well, you know, they're not actually that bad. But we we get why you might be scared.
SPEAKER_01And it kind of makes them seem like victims, actually, right? Like they're victims of their own hate. Um, you know, whatever they feel, this this fear that they feel towards Muslims, it's not their fault. It's just out of their control because there are like, you know, subconscious reasons or legitimate reasons why they may uh not like Muslims or fear Muslims. But with anti-Semitism, it's so clear, like it's so clear that this is a anti taking an actively anti-stance towards a group that ironically, uh Semitics are not Jews only, but people who belong to the Semitic languages of that region. So Palestinians are Semitic people. So anti-Semitism includes Palestinians, actually, people of that region, people who speak those Semitic languages. Um, so you know, the term is obviously like uh problematic in so many ways, but nevertheless co-opted and used by um and and weaponized by Zionists, right? Um so I don't really like the term Islamophobia, but there are critics and there are people who have been doing this work for decades now who say that Islamophobia still holds um importance because it's been used and uh theorized and and you know it it works for what it's trying to do, right? Like what's will that will there ever be a word that's perfect, right? That incorporates everything. So let's just work with Islamophobia and then add to it. So I often will say Islamophobia is the context within which people function, like the back background, they are we are living in a time where the fear of Muslims is is uh promoted and perpetuated in film and TV and media and social media. So we've got this climate of Islamophobia, it's a theoretical thing. And then anti-Muslim hate is the active uh hatred. So when you see someone walk into a mosque and uh shoot people, they had Islamophobia around them that made them think this way, but then it was an anti-Muslim sentiment that made them actively go out there and and harm people and shoot people. So, you know, the the point is that you know, do we completely uh throw Islamophobia as a term in the in the garbage if you know it has some issues, or do we just kind of add on to it and and because it exists and it works in many ways academically and in terms of praxis, you know. I feel the same way about DEI that for decades now it has worked in terms of it working within institutions and getting attention and garnering some uh you know effort and you know interest from people in positions of power, right? It has made a space for itself, DEI. So is it better then to not just trash it all together but add on to it and just kind of build on it and build from it and also expose how it has its faults and failures? Just like we can expose how Islamophobia has its faults and failures, but in order to strengthen the argument, we can add other terms and say that there are layers and there are stages. Islamophobia is one stage, and then you get to anti-Muslim hate and anti-Muslim violence. Um, so can we talk about DEI as one stage of work and then decolonization and indigenization as another stage of that work? So that's one of my answers to this question. The other answer, the more honest answer, is that you know, this book is co-authored with Ardovan is Adarad, my my co-author. And of the two of us, I'm the radical one. I'm the smash the system, it's all fucked, there's no point type of person. Um, and he's the uh, you know, he's the the dreamer or you know, the the person who has hope, you know, and brings that hope. So when we were writing this book, I actually wanted to end it at, you know, the failure, like the the rise and the fall of DEI, right? And the rebirth wasn't really part of the question, but um Artivan wanted you know our work to incorporate this idea of growth and uh and renewal and how to move forward. And um ultimately, you know, I am someone who believes in community, and my answer to to most of these issues is the redistribution of power and wealth and resources. So the things that have been taken away from these communities that are uh marginalized and and equity denied, you know, we need to give those back, we need to give power back. So, you know, when you say land back, really what it is is uh giving sovereignty and power uh back to communities who have been stripped of that. And so the the rebirth of DEI and the third chapter you know that you're referring to talks about DEI being decolonized and how we need to take this idea of DEI, which was a noble idea, but you know, born of its radical roots in the Black Liberation Movement and the Me Too movement and all these um you know struggles of people in those communities, and we need to now decolonize and continue the work that was being done before DEI was an acronym, right? So so that that that's that's my honest answer that you know I I I was a smash the system person, but I've I realized that you know, once you smash it, you need to rebuild.
SPEAKER_00It's kind of like the way I see minimum wage. I know it's a funny example, but like for me, for instance, I think if you actually had strong enough union rights, there would be no necessity for minimum wage. There are actually some European countries and other places where union rights are so strong you don't need a minimum wage because the unions are able to essentially themselves set the floor. But I would never advocate for getting rid of minimum wage in North America because the second that happens, you're going to have hyper exploitation.
SPEAKER_01So because it's such a capitalist system exactly that that feeds off of the bottom, right? And so they they can't be left to their own devices.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And so I wonder if kind of like DEI does function a similar way. Like, yes, DEI, I'd say at best DEI is reformist. I don't, like, in my opinion, I don't see it as a revolutionary struggle. I think a revolutionary struggle would be decolonization and actually a degree of uh like separatism from below. You see how like the Black Panther Party, for instance, created their own parallel institutions. I, for instance, don't want the existing settler institutions to gobble up Indigenous people. If Indigenous people and their treaties require them to have institutions where they can govern that is something, and that's something they want. That's something we should respect. But if you get rid of DEI, then I just see effectively racial capitalism and emphasis on the racial part would just go into overdrive. And so is that a fair assessment of DEI?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean, I would say that, you know, like these names don't really matter in the end, right?
SPEAKER_00But the book's but the book's called DEI DEI undone.
SPEAKER_01So Undone, undone being like, you know, the word here. Um I really believe that, you know, I always have said this, that I was doing DEI work before it was an acronym.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_01Being a racialized person, being a racialized Muslim woman, my existence, you know, and my lived experience required me to confront, you know, the racial project and racism and uh har the harm that was constantly exacted on my communities, me as an individual, but also my communities. So this work I was doing um as an individual, uh operating within a society that's built on white supremacy, you know, I was always doing this work. I didn't need an acronym, you know, I didn't need DEI as an acronym to give value and credibility to what I was doing. I was talking about anti-racism and uh and you know, we could argue that the Black Panthers did did did they know anything about DEI? Like it was DEI. No, they didn't. No, and and they were doing amazing work. And and I'm so glad you mentioned, you know, building uh parallel systems and building power. And the fact that, you know, the way that they were presented to the world was, you know, them toting guns and being resistance fighters in a violent sense. But what they were actually doing was feeding the poor and building schools and education systems, right?
SPEAKER_00Because they spoke about how building power, what's essential and critical to build building power is education and not and and even in the I've I've read so many books on the Black Panther Party, but even for instance, healthcare, there was actually black doctors because white doctors couldn't be trusted. And what always makes me so mad is actually the part where the FBI starts to freak out about the Black Panther Party is the breakfast program when they start feeding black, brown, and even some poor white children. Then the FBI is like, oh, we need to go assassinate all the leaders because this is actually creating like a parallel society. And that kind of just goes to my point, like DEI, as I say, reformist, uh, DEI undone, of course. But I guess the part that I always find a little sticky is the eye, the inclusion part, because I do always fear inclusion can actually just be a path towards assimilation. Or thinking kind of to Malcolm X, like, sure, you may have black faces, black or brown faces in high places, but if the institution is fundamentally white supremacist, then does that actually change anything? And two examples one would be Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, both people who, at least by liberals, are touted for being showing. Progress in yet doing everything the United States has always done in terms of imperialism abroad and at home. The other example I would say is from my own personal experience as an immigration lawyer, when I'm facing a judge, when I'm facing a member of CBSA, which to non-Canadians, that's our version of ICE, it actually doesn't matter what the face is because the institution is so violent and white supremacist that even if you have a black woman as your judge, but they're adjudicating, you know, or they're part of an institution that's white supremacists, they are just going to mimic. Well, actually, the only reason they're they're there in the first place is because they share the same values. So I don't know, the include equity is great, uh, diversity is great. The inclusion part, though, I always worry is just a path towards assimilation or uh a way to make over institutions without change the makeup of institutions without actually changing their substance.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean, you're right. The inclusion part is where the identity politics came in, right? And where representation was co-opted, and where we found, and you know, like the example that I gave earlier on, that you know, we started to see more Muslims uh on screen, but was there truly uh, you know, a very honest, truthful representation of Muslims that showed the complexities and diversity of the different kinds of Muslims, or were we, you know, only shown tropes and stereotypes?
SPEAKER_00It was a minstrel show for Muslims, pretty much, you know, like yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, exactly. And this is where the whole identity politics comes in, where you know, you will then have, and and again, you cannot separate capitalism from any talk about you know uh racial justice because the people, the black and brown faces in high places are there as tools um of capitalism. They're there because they want to be beneficiaries in their proximity to whiteness, um, and they want to benefit from their class position. Um, and and that's why, you know, I always I always say this that people, you know, poor working class white people, um like you know, Flint, Michigan white people have more in common with the oppressed people who are in places like Palestine or what is that than than a than a one percent one percent a black uh man, right? Or an Arab. So you you know this is where like class plays such a massive part that the the socioeconomic class that you belong to will often dictate your position on the political spectrum, which is why you see so many rich Muslims having voted for Trump, right?
SPEAKER_00Or DJ Khaled saying nothing about Palestine, even though he's Palestinian, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. So, and this is not something new, you know. I'd love to say to you that this is a symptom of modern society and the social media, the selfish individualistic social media universe that we're in, that we're seeing all of this. I wish I could say that, but the truth is these people and these dynamics existed in all oppressed societies.
SPEAKER_00Well, in in colonialism, the the Spanish, the French, the English, the Portuguese, wherever they colonize, they would always pick out a couple indigenous people, whether in Africa or Turtle Island, to become the so-called representatives of the group, but that were co-opted, right? So you're right. This is actually not something new. It's actually, I'd say, always been parcel of colonialism and white supremacy, has been to choose a couple people who embody the values of European dominance.
SPEAKER_01It speaks to the complexity of human nature and psychology, right? And group psychology as well. That, you know, people are complex beings and there are power dynamics, and there is always going to be this uh kind of you know, uh kind of competitive nature within human beings to be the richest and be the strongest, and you know, it's the survival of the fittest, right? So you're gonna see this dynamic in all societies. Um but how we uh how we respond to these dynamics is what differentiates us from the animal kingdom to being human, you know, where are we going to just sit back and take part in this celebrity worship culture and status worship culture where we allow a few rich, famous people to be in control and to, you know, same girl their way, you know, up um at the expense and exploitation of you know the poor and the marginalized the exploitation of people who are being oppressed, right? Are we gonna allow that? Are we gonna allow ourselves to be pacified um by these crumbs that are thrown our way, which is through identity politics, right? We'll get uh someone like Barack Obama who is presented to us as our savior, a knight in shining armor. And I have to admit, I fell for it. I totally fell for it. And it wasn't until I think his uh uh policies in Libya and the destruction of that community and that country that really opened my eyes, you know, to how I mean, granted, I was young as well, you know, and I'd like to say that I'm older and wiser and more uh kind of attuned with how politics works now. But you know, what we saw the Democrats do under his reign at that time really should have opened our eyes to the Democrats and to to really the duopoly and how uh you know we are really talking about about power here. We're not we're talking about an empire that whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans, whether it's the Liberals or the Conservatives, if we're talking about Canada, you know, these are people in positions of power. They're upholding power, they have proximity to power, they benefit from power, and the empire is going to be held up by them and it will benefit them so they will allow themselves to be used as tokens.
SPEAKER_00As long as we allow them to, right? So, and I'm hoping for a future where that changes. Speaking of power, I want to touch on a topic from the book that I think I've seen in your other interviews apparently garnered the most controversy, although I think it's completely fine to talk about. Uh, this is regarding the term Jewish supremacy, which I think, in fairness, had you told me this 20 years ago, I'd be thinking, oh no, is this like some weird uh anti-Jewish conspiracy theory? But let's unpack it. What is what is Jewish supremacy?
SPEAKER_01I mean, the simplest way to understand it is to talk about it in you know um comparison to white supremacy. When we talk about white supremacy, what we're talking about is a society that benefits white people and it gives power to white people and is unfairly um exerting that power on those who are not white, right? So we're really talking about power here in a society that is built on white supremacy, power is granted to white people, and even those who are anti-racism, right? Even white people who are not racist and anti-racist, who actively fight racism, still benefit from their whiteness because whiteness is protected within that societal structure because whiteness has power. So a society that protects one group over other groups, right, is a supremacist society because it's saying that this group is supreme and better and has privilege, should be given privilege. Now, when you compare that to Jewish supremacy, and you know, I I would argue that even though Beit Salem, this human rights organization in Israel in 2021, um was one of the first to call Israel a Jewish supremacist nation state. Um, and then, you know, it's been um talked about many times since then and and before then as well, but they were one of the major groups to call Israel a Jewish supremacist state because of the apartheid and the unequal uh power dynamic there, where Jews have And quite literally, like it's in the law. Literally in the law. Jews can live in certain areas and Arabs can't. Jews have access to to wealth and resources that Arabs and Muslims and Palestinians can't. So, you know, there's a very literal system that favors Jews over everyone else, Jews over non-Jews, and that includes Christian Palestinians, right? Christian Arabs do not have the same access as Jewish people in that state. So this is a system that's quite literally, you know, apartheid and unequal. So, you know, the point I was trying to make is that uh we know that uh Israel is a Jewish supremacist society because uh there is this unequal power dynamic and there's a society that favors uh Jewish people over everyone else. And even if you are a a lovely human being who hates genocide and hates the killing of Palestinians, and you are a uh you know, an Israeli who doesn't want Palestinians murdered, you still benefit from being Jewish in that society.
SPEAKER_00Thank you. Yes, exactly. Continue, yes.
SPEAKER_01Your Jewishness protects you. So so if an if a Palestinian uh says uh free Palestine versus a Jewish person says free Palestine, if a Muslim Palestinian says free Palestine versus a Jewish, you are protected.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_01And you know, just recently, I think it was just a month ago, where the Knesset passed a law uh that would uh uh grant death to prisoners in Israeli prisons, only Palestinians. Yep, no one else. So that is quite literally a law that was just recently passed that favors Jews over non-Jews in terms of life and death.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. And it also extends, though, beyond Israel, because this is also wrapped up in white supremacy, because the majority of Jewish people are white. There are Ethiopian Jews, there are uh people of color who've converted to Judaism, but I think in Canada it's something like, according to our census, 95% of Jewish people do identify as white. And we, you know, there is privilege in that. And people might say, well, it's not quite like being Gentile or non-Jewish. And I'd say, sure, that's that's fair. I would kind of make a comparison, though, with like being Italian or Catholic or Irish in the early 1900s, like you're white, you might not be at the very top, but you still have that privilege. And the fact that, for instance, Judaism is even portrayed positively in media whereas Islam is not, the fact that, for instance, we all learned about the Holocaust, which is a really important thing and that actually motivates my own sense of justice as a kid, learning about the horrors and seeing something similar play out now. But even me, I didn't learn about, and this is something that's recently changedfully, but I didn't learn about, for instance, the residential school system in Canada and history classes, we didn't learn about the tens of millions of people who were murdered in the Congo by Belgium. So I think that all plays into Jewish supremacy as well. Would you agree with that?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, I was about to say that even though the term has been used expressly for, you know, Israel as a Jewish state, and Beitz Salem calls it a Jewish supremacist state, we are currently what's been revealed in the last three years is that we live in a society that favors Jewish lives, safety, dignity, over all other people. So the fact that laws are being passed in Canada to protect synagogues where you cannot protest in front of a synagogue that's selling that that's that's going against international law and participating in the selling of land illegally to settlers, right? In in Israel. So synagogues will um have real estate events, and it's only when a real estate event is taking place in a synagogue that there has been protests outside that synagogue. Protests that then have been called anti-Semitic, um, you know, anti-Jewish. So entire law, uh a law was just passed by Khan's government purely to protect synagogues. Now, how is this not a form of Jewish supremacy or showing us how we are operating within a system of Jewish supremacy where the lives and the safety and the dignity and the comfort of Jewish people is given more importance and value than anyone else.
SPEAKER_00No, I agree with that. And this is what also kind of drives me a little nuts because I've heard like some Jewish people say, Oh, I don't support Israel, but like also just because I'm Jewish, it's none my business. And it's the same way white people say, oh, like the Charlottesville rally from 10 years ago or a KKK rally, oh, that's not my business. It's like, well, it does represent, like, yes, Israel's not the same thing as being Jewish. We agree, as anti-Zionists, we agree with that. But the amount of money that's been put into the Israeli settler colony, and that comes through then eventually back to us through media representation and through the special laws you're talking about. It's like you are benefiting from this, even if you are not explicitly supportive of it. And so, like, just like I think white people have a special obligation to call out white supremacy, I do think also every Jewish person, even if they're not explicitly Zionist and have no connection to Israel, should be calling this out. And also, like, the reason why I have this in a show is because, like, as a white person, people are gonna be more likely to listen to me. I'm not a fan of that, but I'm gonna weaponize that privilege. And likewise, we should also, with the Palestine struggle, my main focus is always gonna be on Palestinians uplifting Palestinian voices. But you have to, if you're benefiting from something and you don't think it's a just system, you do have a special obligation to denounce it.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, absolutely. And the fact that, you know, and I've said this, that this is part of the colonial system that we live in, where, you know, a white person's opinion, even as a researcher, as a scholar, is given more importance than a racialized person. And we see that with stories that come out, you know, from Palestine. The fact that people don't consider the journalists in Gaza as credible uh sources of news, right? That even when someone turns around and says, send Western journalists into Palestine, you know, we don't actually need Western journalists to go in. We have journalists in Palestine and Gaza who are reporting. We just need you to protect them so that they aren't bombed and killed and murdered. So, you know, in that there is this colonial mindset where you know importance is given to the white uh European Western voice um in situations like this. And even, you know, when when you go to events or where there are uh you know new news stories that are pro-Palestine, let's say, and there are pro-Palestine Jewish voices, pro-Palestine anti-Zionist Jewish voices of white people, um you know, white people listen. The fact that they are more likely to listen to that than uh a Palestinian telling the story of their ancestors and their history and their own struggle and their own experience, you know, this in itself, it proves, you know, how colonial uh knowledge uh production and consumption and and translation and mobilization is, right? Where um you have people and they're doing a wonderful thing. Like you said, you know, when like even you in this position, you are using your privilege, you are using your white privilege to speak about issues that you have relative safety in doing so. And and that speaks to you know, the fact that you are operating still within a white supremacist system. And the fact that there are Jewish people who will speak about Palestine and advocate for Palestinians within relative safety speaks to the fact that they function within a Jewish supremacist system that grants safety and protection and value to Jewish voices and Jewish lives. And so this is where I'm getting to. Like once you start comparing, you know, the operating systems within which we are all functioning, white supremacy, Jewish supremacy, it starts to make sense. Like who holds power? Whose voice um is protected and safer, right? It proves who has that proximity to power.
SPEAKER_00No, that's that's also true. And and I like how also like the supremacy part always has to emphasize power over who, right? Because I think a lay listener, I don't agree with this, but a lay listener will be like, oh my god, Jewish supremacy, what? They're at the very top, they're controlling like other white people. It's like, no, no, no, this is part of white supremacy, and it's primarily about a system where there are benefits, and that this can be exercised against black and brown people, right? So, no, I think this is it's a very it's something that needs to come out. And it's it's too bad. It's always considered controversial, and that's just again trying to shut down, I think, discussion of who holds the power ultimately. So I guess my final question, uh No, I have a couple more. Give me a second. This is very good discussion. I was going to ask two more questions. So one's going to be about you talk about equity versus equality. And what is the difference between these two? And why is the difference matter?
SPEAKER_01So, you know, I feel like I'm going to have to give like a, you know, elementary school version lesson on this, um, because it's actually quite uh effective. But you know, the difference between equity and equality is simply that, you know, when you ask for equality, you want um the same for everyone, right? So you're saying that um if there's a a black person and a white person and um and and let's just say there's a black person and a white person, and you want them to have equal um access or um resources available to them, right? It sounds very fair in theory. Um if you are only looking at those two people without a historical context within which they live and which which they function, right? So the black person lives and works and operates within a system of white supremacy that has for generations taken from them and their ancestors and their communities. So they were at a disadvantage to begin with. The white person living within a system of white supremacy that has given a lot of extra resources, power, wealth to white people has for generations been operating within the system. Um so they've had access, you know, they that access hasn't been removed from them. So I guess the difference is, you know, are you looking at someone today without any other uh history or background? Or are you looking at these people as products as as uh uh you know, as people who are socialized within uh systems and histories? And equity would basically mean that that black person doesn't deserve the same, but more based on based on what has been taken from them.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_01And that might seem unfair at first because it's not equal, but now what you're doing is you're taking looking at it within a historical context. And you know, that is a very kind of like basic understanding of equity and equality that you know we shouldn't be advocating for people to have the same the same level of everything or the same amount of everything, that certain communities and certain groups actually have been denied access to resources and power and wealth. And so if you're gonna be fair, you need to now give them what was taken from them.
SPEAKER_00It recognizes the material historical conditions. And this is something I really this is why I asked this because I love this discussion, because I've actually said equality itself can be oppressive. If you say, I mean, even think about the fact that we're we all have different bodies, right? Like some person might be six foot five, another person might be a lot shorter. If you like, for instance, have a dinner and give everyone the same amount of food, some people are gonna be bloated and other people are gonna be still hungry, right? Giving everyone an equal amount. This is like talking about in even an ideal society where we don't have all these pattern balances, equality would like complete equality, like just standard everyone gets the same treatment would never ever work. Whereas recognizing the historical differences, the fact that like someone like me is gonna have just a much easier life. Like I'm actually literally not going to need as much because I've been not as materially deprived, recognizing those differences and meeting people where they are at as a result of their social position, that's equity, I guess, right?
SPEAKER_01And then equity, even though um it's rooted in this idea of justice, what I found in my work doing you know DEI work, that equity rarely ever included justice. So, you know, when we think about justice, when we think about social justice, you know, what what do you think about when you when I say the word justice, what comes to mind the first thing?
SPEAKER_00Oh, I don't know, uh getting rid of uh oppression, uh changing conditions so people aren't mistreated. That's why I think when I think of justice.
SPEAKER_01Right. And you probably think of justice in a global context, right? Absolutely, and not just right now here in my home or in my workplace. But when you think of equity, you it really does seem to apply only to the now and the here and your workplace or your institution or your organization. And and that's where I found uh the the limitations to equity, you know, when it comes to DEI work, because it was like they were interested in uh equity for their employees in their company, but not in uh justice uh for them, you know, it when it came to the statements that they were writing about Ukraine or about what happened on October 7th, right? So to be just to be just in that situation, you would recognize uh the histories of these people and you know uh the conditions uh within which they have lived, right? Um, not just here but globally. And you would acknowledge that. You would bear that in mind, right? And you would and work to change it, and work to change it, and work to change it and and care about uh justice for all, right? Right and and I just found in my DEI work that there was a lot of uh emphasis on equity, things being equitable for people, um, and it was always connected to like access and to you know um whether you know equitable distribution of of pay, let's say, or you know, equitable access within the building. And um it was material, but it was very confined to their responsibility only within that building and that space and that organization and that company.
SPEAKER_00Right. Very localized and also like oddly enough, meeting people where they're at and recognizing their deprivation without trying to resolve why that deprivation exists in the first place.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and like for example, if we even just take this conversation and connect it to Palestine and you know, post-October 7th, and and the kind of language that was being used for Palestinians. Um, you know, I don't know if you remember, but you know, when the protests were happening in Toronto and all over the country, there were politicians who would say uh things like, These are hate rallies, these are terrible rallies, these are terror rallies. Um and, you know, that was connected to, you know, the experience of these people. So for example, uh someone goes to work and yes, they have you know equitable access to washrooms and to the building, but but they've just heard people refer to them as terrorists and you know um people who they are connected to um being called terrorists, and and the uh protests that are advocating for their for them not to be bombed and persecuted, hate rallies. Now, you know, this is the reality within which these people are operating. That's their day-to-day, that's you know, the experience that they bring to work. And are we really taking all that? Are we you know when they say you can bring your whole self to work? Really?
SPEAKER_00Except for the Palestine part.
SPEAKER_01You really bring your whole self to work if you're Muslim and if you're racialized or if you're black, or you know, like can you really bring all of that to work? No, because if you do, then you'll be told that that is too political and too sticky a topic, and it's not something that we can talk about in the workplace. But but I mean, that's your lived reality, that's what you're experiencing outside and even within the workplace. These are the conversations that would be happening. But but you know, the fact that those conversations are shoved under the rug um is what makes those environments then feel oppressive and unjust, right? And that's where like equity and justice doesn't seem to be working together in in DEI departments or in institutions that seem to care about DEI.
SPEAKER_00No, there you have it. This is absolutely fascinating. Um, Dr. Gafar Sidiki, thank you so much for coming on the show. Uh, where can people find you?
SPEAKER_01Um, I'm on all the social media platforms, uh, as you know, Aidan. And you know, my I have my website, drsabrino.com, and my book, DEI Undone, uh, can be found on DEIundone.com. So you can purchase it there. And a lot of these topics that we uh discussed today are covered in the book. Uh so share some what what were your thoughts, Aidan, after reading the book? I'd love to.
SPEAKER_00It was great. It was really good. Um, I think it really brought together a lot of the skepticism I've had regarding some of these inclusive efforts that have been done over the last 10 years. Uh again, my criticism is always rooted in these more radical approaches, looking at decolonization and as I like to call separatism from below, so not segregation, but uh black and brown people who want to establish parallel institutions. Uh so for me, I think this book did so much work on that. But what was nice also was seeing, even as we discussed, even if DEI is just reformist, some of the ways that it can actually still be used to advocate for a more just world. So there was a lot. It's a fantastic book, and all listeners and everyone watching this should read it. I'll have a link in the show notes. So thank you.
SPEAKER_01Thank you. Thanks so much, Aiden.
SPEAKER_00All right. Well, everyone, thank you so much for uh listening and watching. I'll have another episode uh next week. You can tune in through YouTube or wherever you find your podcasts. Cheers.