Quebec institutions debate pulling Groulx’s name from public places
Late historian’s views threaten legacy
National Post (National Edition)
12 Dec 2024
MORGAN LOWRIE
A statue of John A. Macdonald toppled and decapitated by Montreal activists in 2020. Now, the legacy of late Quebec historian Lionel Groulx has come under fire over claims of racism and antisemitism.
• In 2020, Montreal activists yanked down and decapitated a statue of Canada’s first prime minister, in protest of Sir John A. Macdonald’s role as the architect of the residential school system.
Now, another largerthan-life historical figure is coming under scrutiny, as Quebec municipalities and institutions are mulling whether to pull the name of priest and historian Lionel Groulx from public places over views described as antisemitic and racist.
Earlier this year, a Quebec-based history organization that Groulx founded in 1946 decided to remove his name from its prestigious annual prize, following a consultation with its members in which about 60 per cent advocated for the change.
“Today, with the recognition of diversity and the necessary reversal of perspectives towards colonialism in Quebec, the name of Groulx can hardly act as a unifier,” read a line in the 24-page document released by the Institut d’histoire de l’Amerique française.
Thomas Wien, the institute’s president, said in an interview that Groulx was someone who was “eminently complex, and eminently fascinating.”
Groulx was born in 1878 near Montreal. He was a historian who helped professionalize the field, an intellectual and a Quebec nationalist figure who inspired pride. Born of modest means, he went on to become a priest, writer and thinker who penned the slogan “maitres chez nous” (“masters in our own house”) that later became a rallying cry of the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s.
However, he was also a conservative nationalist whose views were “tinted by racism and antisemitism,” including a belief that French-Canadian Catholics were a “chosen people” guided by divine providence, Wien said.
While the comparisons are inevitable, Wien maintains that Groulx and Macdonald have little in
WHAT WAS RECOGNIZED WITH THIS PRIZE WAS … THE PIONEER OF A DISCIPLINE.
common. While Canada’s first prime minister was a direct architect in the forced removal of Indigenous Peoples from their land and other atrocities, he said, Groulx was a historian whose legacy is more complex.
However, he noted that Groulx was a figure of controversy and criticism even when alive, suggesting he was not merely a product of his time whose views are being unfairly reinterpreted through a modern lens.
Renaming the prize, Wien said, doesn’t amount to denying history or “killing the father,” but rather an acknowledgment that his legacy is better kept alive in more nuanced forms, including a forthcoming page on the institute’s website.
Other historians disagree. “I can understand why English-Canadian historians have renamed the John A. Macdonald Prize,” wrote Eric Bedard, a historian who has studied Groulx. “It is difficult for me to explain that Quebec historians are imitating them for Lionel Groulx, since what was recognized with this prize was not his religious, social or political ideas, but the pioneer of a discipline.”
Of the 20 or so Quebec municipalities that are recorded as having places named after Groulx, only two — Gatineau in western Quebec and Ste-Julie, on Montreal’s South Shore — indicated that they intend to broach the subject of a possible renaming.
“The survey results point to some pushback on the issue of minority hiring in Canada and the United States,” said Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, in an email.
In fact, equity hiring is less popular in Canada than the United States. While only 28 per cent of Canadians support equity hiring, 36 per cent of Americans support affirmative action. Meanwhile, less than half (46 per cent) of Americans oppose it.
The polling comes as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), has come under increased scrutiny in the business and political world. Last month, Walmart scrapped its diversity program, making it the largest corporation to do so. (Others, such as Harley Davidson and John Deere, have also done so.) In the political realm, some political parties, including Alberta’s governing United Conservatives, have policies that explicitly endorse the elimination of DEI hiring within the public service and Crown corporations.
The Canadian federal government has specific equity targets in its hiring, a practice that has existed since the 1980s. The percentage of visible minorities hired by the federal government grew from just shy of 18 per cent to just shy of 27 per cent between 2016 and 2024. Jedwab said he decided to focus on employment equity because it’s “one of the key core elements” of what’s being talked about in the DEI conversation.
B
“It is important that our workforce reflect to the best extent it can our demographic reality,” said Jedwab in an interview.
Diversity hiring is the most unpopular among Canadians between the ages of 45 and 54, at 62 per cent, although it’s similarly unpopular across all age groups. Even among 18 to 24 year olds, 50 per cent oppose diversity hiring.
Men and women, at 57 per cent, equally oppose such policies. Typically, women hold more progressive views on social issues than do men. Some of the pushback, Jedwab said, may be coming from those who believe there is systemic racism in Canada but that diversity hiring initiatives aren’t doing enough to rectify inequalities and that the ultimate targets or objectives might be unclear.
“The risk is, if the objective is, it can’t be met, people begin to ask what’s the point in the first place? And that’s problematic, because the program is important,” Jedwab said.
There are, however, some regional differences. In Quebec, where the provincial government has attempted to stamp out religious dress and jewelry in some workplaces, the objection to equity hiring is most strongly held: Sixty-three per cent of Quebecers disagree with it. Quebec is followed by Alberta, where 58 per cent say background shouldn’t be a consideration in hiring, and British Columbia, where 57 per cent hold that view. Fifty-five per cent of Ontarians polled agree, as do 53 per cent of those in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Only in Atlantic Canada, where 50 per cent oppose diversity hiring, is there not an outright majority.
Article content
However, there are significant percentages of Canadians who say they don’t know the answer to the question. Nationally, 15 per cent of Canadians say they don’t know, a view that’s most likely in Ontario, where 19 per cent said they didn’t know the answer.
Immigrants are somewhat more likely than non-immigrants to support diversity hiring. Thirty-four per cent say it’s important to take background into consideration, compared to 26 per cent of non-immigrants. That said, a solid 50 per cent of immigrants still say that it should not be taken into consideration.
“There’s a hierarchy, a hierarchy of vulnerability, and some groups may feel that they don’t qualify,” said Jedwab. “There’s some confusion about who does and who doesn’t qualify in that hierarchy, which may also result in some support being diminished, because we’re also seeing that the support amongst minority groups themselves is not as high as we would have assumed.”
The polling did not specifically ask people why they object to equity hiring.
Freelance workers and the self employed, at 75 per cent, are most likely to oppose equity hiring, followed by full-time workers, at 58 per cent. Fifty-one per cent of part-time workers oppose equity hiring.
Article content
The polling sought responses from 1,539 people in Canada between Nov. 22 and Nov. 24 via an online panel. A margin of error cannot be associated with a non-probability sample in a panel survey for comparison purposes. However, a probability sample of 1,539 respondents would have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20. In the United States, Leger polled 1,009 people over the same time period, and that online survey has a probabilistic margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
The recent elections in East Germany reveal something far more profound than a shift in political allegiance – they signal the re-emergence of a deep-seated German spirit that refuses to bow to the decaying influence of Western liberalism. The success of the patriotic party AfD (Alternative for Germany) in the East is proof of the enduring divide between East and West Germany, a divide shaped by vastly different historical experiences and a clash of values.
East Germans have always been more conservative than their Western counterparts, and for good reason. After World War Two, West Germany was placed under the occupation of the Americans, who imposed their liberal ideology on the German people. Over the decades, this ideology has seeped into every corner of West German society, promoting concepts such as a nebulous “diversity,” multiculturalism, LGBT propaganda, and the insane trans cult. West Germany, inundated by American cultural imperialism, has lost touch with the very essence of what it means to be German, embracing ideologies that are alien to the German soul. It remains occupied in all but name, with numerous American military bases dotting its landscape – a constant reminder that it is not truly sovereign. West Germany’s blind loyalty to America has steered it towards a path of spiritual and cultural ruin.
In contrast, East Germany, under the German Democratic Republic (GDR), was part of the Soviet sphere of influence. Despite what many Western conservatives might believe, the Soviet Union was far from the “progressive” bastion it is often portrayed as. It re-criminalized homosexuality in 1934, dismissed modern art as decadent, and promoted traditional family values – everything that many genuine conservatives in the West today wish their societies would embrace once more. The GDR adopted many of these conservative principles, becoming the last truly German state – a state that preserved and revived the Prussian ideals of duty, discipline, and national pride. As a symbol of this continuity, the GDR re-erected the statue of the glorious populist leader Frederick the Great in East Berlin, reaffirming its connection to the Prussian legacy.
Sahra Wagenknecht and her movement, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), have emerged as key players in Germany’s struggle to resurrect its long-buried national identity. Wagenknecht, who has sharply criticized the liberal-left establishment for its role in destroying Germany’s cultural character, offers a ray of hope. Her movement combines leftist economic policies with culturally conservative positions, combined with staunch opposition to NATO meddling. Wagenknecht’s ideas are similar to those of Ernst Niekisch, the “National Bolshevik” thinker who believed that Germany should align with Russia rather than the liberal West. Niekisch, who was imprisoned by the Nazis for his beliefs and later liberated by the Red Army, understood that Germany’s future lay not in the West. It would be better off forging its own path alongside the East. Niekisch even argued that the GDR should officially rename itself to “Prussia.”
Yet, fear – deliberately cultivated by the dying liberal order – hinders the natural alliance between the AfD and BSW. Such an alliance could form because both parties share strong opposition to unrestricted immigration and skepticism towards Germany’s support for Ukraine and subservience to the American empire. Both also emphasize national sovereignty and protection of German interests, presenting themselves as defenders of traditional values in contrast to the liberal establishment. While the BSW leans more left economically, with calls for expanded social welfare, and the AfD favors limiting benefits, their shared stance on migration control and border security provides significant overlap that could bring them together politically.
The AfD has been relentlessly slandered as “right-wing extremist” by the mainstream media and political ruling class, portrayed as a threat to the very people it seeks to protect. This is a lie, a desperate attempt by a faltering regime to hold on to power. Wagenknecht and her supporters must see beyond this distortion and recognize that the AfD is not an enemy. Instead, it is a partner in the fight for Germany’s future. The unity of the AfD and BSW is not only politically necessary; it is a moral imperative.
The legacy of the GDR has been grossly mischaracterized, particularly by those in the West who interpret it through the lens of liberal ideology. The GDR was not the dystopian nightmare it is often portrayed as. Rather, it was a state that maintained the values that have always defined the German people. It placed the welfare of the people above all, creating a sense of community and purpose that the individualist West could never comprehend. The GDR’s rejection of Western decadence and embrace of socialist realism were not mere political moves but were significant cultural statements – an assertion of the enduring over the fleeting.
The GDR’s commitment to education, healthcare, and social cohesion was a continuation of the great Prussian tradition – a tradition that has always been the foundation of German culture. Unlike the West, which has been compromised by American influence and the mercantilist mentality of the British, the GDR remained faithful to itself, resisting the siren song of liberalism.
Germany’s future does not rest with the declining West but with the resilient and resurgent East. The recent electoral success of the AfD in Thuringia and Saxony is a political victory as well as a clear sign that the East is on the rise. However, this is not just a regional phenomenon; it is a national call to action. Germany must turn its gaze eastward, towards Russia, and away from the corrosive influence of America, which has led the West into moral and cultural decay. In doing so, it will fulfill the vision of Ernst Niekisch – a vision of a sovereign Germany, strong and allied with the East in pursuit of its own destiny.
If Germany is to reclaim its identity and future, unity is essential among those who oppose the liberal agenda. Together, the AfD and BSW can become a formidable force that will stand up for the German people and German ideals. The AfD is not the problem – it is the solution. It is the spearhead of a new Germany, one that will rise from the ashes of the old, stronger than ever before.
Discrimination has no place in our society, yet it appears to have been institutionalized in a troubling way at the University of Winnipeg (UW).
t
Recent reporting by True North has shed light on a disturbing practice by the University of Winnipeg Students’ Association (UWSA): the operation of a lounge since 2018 inside the Bulman Student Centre that explicitly excludes students based on their race.
Known as the BIPoC Lounge, this space is open only to students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as people of colour. Students who identify as white are not welcome. This is segregation, plain and simple, and it must not be tolerated in any form.
The Winnipeg Sun reached out to both the University of Winnipeg administration and the UWSA for comment.
In an emailed statement, the UW said, “The university leases this space to the UWSA, which is a separate organization. We can’t speak on behalf of the UWSA.”
The UWSA said, “[We] may respond at a later time.” Their reluctance to address this issue is as disappointing as it is telling.
The BIPoC Lounge is advertised as a “safe space” for racial minorities to “learn and heal through their understandings and experiences as BIPoC.”
Events hosted there, such as movie nights, study sessions, and book club meetings, are also restricted to students of colour. The lounge’s rules, posted prominently at its entrance, leave no room for ambiguity: students who do not meet the racial criteria are not allowed to enter. This exclusionary policy flies in the face of the values of equality and inclusivity that universities are supposed to uphold.
The University of Winnipeg’s own statistics highlight the rich diversity of its campus. As of 2019, 11.8% of the student population identified as Indigenous, while international students — hailing from countries such as India, Nigeria, and China — now make up 18% of the student body. This diversity should be celebrated and embraced by fostering spaces where all students can come together to share their experiences and perspectives. Instead, the BIPoC Lounge’s policy creates division, erecting walls between students rather than building bridges.
The Winnipeg Sun’s Daily Headline New
This practice raises serious questions about compliance with Manitoba’s Human Rights Code, which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, nationality, or ethnic origin, among other characteristics. The Code is clear: no one should be excluded from any public space or service because of race. By allowing the UWSA to operate a racially exclusive lounge on its premises, the University of Winnipeg is tacitly endorsing a policy that appears to violate the very principles of human rights.
Imagine for a moment if the situation were reversed. What if a lounge were established that explicitly barred students of colour? The outrage would be immediate and deafening, and rightly so. People would march in the streets, demanding accountability and justice. Yet in this instance, there has been a deafening silence from many quarters, including from those who claim to champion equality and social justice. This double standard is as troubling as the discriminatory policy itself.
Universities should be places where young minds are challenged to think critically and engage with ideas that differ from their own. They should not be places where segregation is normalized under the guise of creating “safe spaces.”
This is a massive step backward, not progress and it harkens to an era when people were divided and excluded based on the colour of their skin. It sows division and mistrust, undermining the very fabric of our society.
The silence from leadership on this issue is equally damning. Premier Wab Kinew, who often speaks about unity and reconciliation, has yet to address this matter. His inaction speaks volumes. Leaders are supposed to stand up for what is right, even when it is uncomfortable or politically inconvenient. By failing to condemn this policy, they are failing the very people they claim to represent.
The University of Winnipeg’s administration also bears responsibility. Their statement that they merely “lease” the space to the UWSA is a feeble attempt to absolve themselves of accountability. Universities have a duty to ensure that all activities conducted on their premises adhere to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Turning a blind eye to such practices is nothing short of complicity.
Where is the outrage? Where are the voices of Canadians who believe in fairness, equality, and justice for all? This is not just an issue for white students who are being excluded, it is an issue for everyone who believes in the principles of human rights. Discrimination in any form, against any group, is wrong. It is a stain on our collective conscience and an affront to the values that so many Canadians have fought and died to uphold.
Thousands of Canadians gave their lives in the fight against tyranny and oppression during the World Wars. They fought for a world where people would not be judged or excluded based on their race or ethnicity. To see such exclusion now being practised in our own country, under the banner of progressivism, is not only heartbreaking but also deeply shameful.
As Canadians, we must ask ourselves: how did we get here? How did we allow such blatant discrimination to take root in our institutions of higher learning? And more importantly, what are we going to do about it? It is not enough to shake our heads in disapproval or to post our frustrations on social media. We need action.
The Manitoba Human Rights Commission must investigate this matter to determine whether the UWSA’s policy violates the Human Rights Code. If it does, immediate steps must be taken to rectify the situation. The University of Winnipeg’s administration must also take a stand. It is not enough to pass the buck to the UWSA. They must assert their authority and ensure that all spaces on their campus are open to every student, regardless of race.
This issue is about more than just one lounge or one university. It is about the kind of society we want to build. Do we want a society where people are judged and divided based on the colour of their skin? Or do we want a society where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, and where diversity is celebrated as a strength rather than used as a tool for exclusion?
The answer should be clear. Discrimination has no place in Canada, in Manitoba, or at the University of Winnipeg. It is time for all of us to stand up and say so. Enough is enough.
— Kevin Klein is a former Tory cabinet minister, a former city councillor and President & CEO of Klein Group Ltd.
