| Revision as of 16:00, 22 January 2006 edit70.25.91.244 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:31, 23 January 2006 edit undoRoytoubassi (talk | contribs)1 editNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The paragraph commenting on NRC's troubled past with one of his employee (including the external link) should be removed from the article for the following reasons: | The paragraph commenting on NRC's troubled past with one of his employee (including the external link) should be not removed from the article for the following reasons: | ||
| # The National Research Council Canada (NRC) is a large institution with over 4000 employees working in several buildings. |
# The National Research Council Canada (NRC) is a large institution with over 4000 employees working in several buildings. Such a vast government organization should maintain standards to treat each employee equally regardless of their race or background. The NRC should reflect Canada's values as being a cultural mosaic and not discriminate against any individuals. | ||
| # There are many personalities at the NRC who have shaped the institution's history, such as Nobel Prize laureate ]. Then, the many presidents who led NRC through the war and difficult economic times have also shaped NRC's history. The dispute of one employee is not as ] as these interesting facts. Dr. Grover's history should be limited to the article he has about himself. | |||
| # Based on the name of the author, the paragraph and the reference were added by one Dr. Grover's family member. It does not have ] but should instead be part of the ]'s page. | |||
| # The paragraph ends with "Complaints of racial discrimination are ongoing against the National Research Council". This means that employees of the NRC are, by law or recommendation of their employer, not allowed to discuss the conflict. In the event of a resolution of the case, the employees will not be allowed to speak up either, whichever way the decision goes. (This is the case for the first ruling: the NRC employees must agree with the ruling, whatever they think). These are unfair biases which are in favour of Dr. Grover against the NRC and should not be allowed. | |||
| # Because of all of the above, it seems that this was not written in good faith but more to publicize a dispute. This has no room in this Encyclopedia. | |||
| # The paragraph ends with "Complaints of racial discrimination are ongoing against the National Research Council". These are legitimate points in favour of Dr. Grover against the NRC and should be allowed. Racial discrimination from any government institute should not be acceptable and the NRC should be penalized for such actions. These actions define the NRC and this should be considered a big news story. | |||
| --] 20:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I |
I agree entirely. | ||
| #Hate to break it to you, but what happens to one employee in one building CAN BE news. ] was one employee in one building in Vancouver. ] is one employee in one building in Toronto. And ] is one employee in one building at NRC. Whether or not "other employees" are involved in news is irrelevant. Andy, you are undermining the scope of what is a very serious problem: | #Hate to break it to you, but what happens to one employee in one building CAN BE news. ] was one employee in one building in Vancouver. ] is one employee in one building in Toronto. And ] is one employee in one building at NRC. Whether or not "other employees" are involved in news is irrelevant. Andy, you are undermining the scope of what is a very serious problem: | ||
Revision as of 23:31, 23 January 2006
The paragraph commenting on NRC's troubled past with one of his employee (including the external link) should be not removed from the article for the following reasons:
- The National Research Council Canada (NRC) is a large institution with over 4000 employees working in several buildings. Such a vast government organization should maintain standards to treat each employee equally regardless of their race or background. The NRC should reflect Canada's values as being a cultural mosaic and not discriminate against any individuals.
- The paragraph ends with "Complaints of racial discrimination are ongoing against the National Research Council". These are legitimate points in favour of Dr. Grover against the NRC and should be allowed. Racial discrimination from any government institute should not be acceptable and the NRC should be penalized for such actions. These actions define the NRC and this should be considered a big news story.
Roytoubassi 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely.
- Hate to break it to you, but what happens to one employee in one building CAN BE news. Michael Smith was one employee in one building in Vancouver. Tak Mak is one employee in one building in Toronto. And Chander Grover is one employee in one building at NRC. Whether or not "other employees" are involved in news is irrelevant. Andy, you are undermining the scope of what is a very serious problem:
- The question that is fundamental is whether signficant human rights problems (a) occurred at NRC and (b) are significant enough to be on Misplaced Pages's page about NRC:
So, did significant racial discrimination occur at NRC?
(i) Since 1992, the Federal Court and its jurisdiction has issued a total of 4 decisions (Grover v. NRC -- 1992 accounting for one of them, also Liu v. NRC, Grover v. NRC -- 1994 and CHRC v. NRC -- 1996) condemning NRC of serious violations of human rights involving more than one employee (and more than one building, Andy).
(ii) Every president of NRC (with the exception of the current) since 1987 has participated at a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal regarding racial discrimination against an employee.
(iii) Every time NRC has been before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it has been found responsible of racial discrimination against employees. This is a systemic issue, and nothing has been done at this organization to fix the issue.
(iv) Senior management at NRC has been found responsible in the above cited court decisions of calculated strategies to undermine career progression of racialized employees -- i.e. systemic racism at the core. In Canada.
So, is it significant enough to be on Misplaced Pages's NRC page?
(i) Over 200 articles have been written in Canada's news media (National Post as recently as October 6, 2005, The Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, every major newspaper in a city greater than 300k), in international news media (Europe and Asia), and even in scientific periodicals including Nature) regarding NRC's track record of racial discrimination, with the Grover affair being the highlight.
(ii) A Canadian standing parliamentary committee in 1993 was convened wherein the then-president of NRC was questioned regarding the racial discrimination occurring against employees of NRC; the questions were based on the reports of the Grover case.
(iii) On November 5, 1997, the Chief Commissioner and General Counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The General Counsel called the Grover v. National Research Council case a landmark case and stated:
"On the tribunal side, the commission has been quite active. If you were to check in the Human Rights Reporter, you would find that the major race discrimination victories in Canada have been won by the Canadian commission, starting with a case that some of the senators may know of, Chander Grover vs. National Research Council which, at the time, was a landmark in establishing race discrimination."
(iv) MANY managers at NRC were referred under Section 59 of the Canadian Human Rights Act for criminal investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their actions in the Grover matter (see Grover v. NRC -- 1992 decision). Think about it -- in Canada, of all countries, members of management at a national agency were referred for investigation of criminal actions stemming from racial discrimination.
(v) The fact that complaints of racial discrimination are ongoing against NRC has been reported in press media (Ottawa Citizen, Oct 5, 2005; National Post Oct 6, 2005)
This isn't just a "dispute" of one employee and there is no undue weight NPOV bias as per the above. Andy is misinformed. It's not the "viewpoint" of just myself or the minority. It's fact with wide ranging interest. It's fact substantiated by multiple decisions in the highest courts in Canada, discussed in the parliament of Canada, and reported in media internationally for the past 15 years.
This has shaped NRC history for the past 15 years probably more so than anything. Repeated findings of racial discrimination today in a national agency of Canada are news. Big news.
I've met Gerhard Herzberg. He should probably be in this article also. But Chander Grover definitely should be. The NPOV flag should be lifted.
--Samir Grover 03:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It's been almost a month with no reply... will remove NPOV tag. -- Samir Grover 04:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a place to air controversial, individual disputes. A personal website is appropriate for such issues. Read official policy Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view
"Undue weight
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all".
Based on the number of postings, no one, other than Grover, considers this to be a significant viewpoint, or a prominent event in the nearly 100-year history of the NRC. If this was just one item in a huge entry, it would be fine, but since the NRC entry is brief, it is all out of proportion. 70.25.91.244 16:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)