And this is how we ended up with the MAGA crowd, IMHO.

Telling white males they're inherently bad and nothing they can do to change that and that society that they still have a significant amount of control over despises them...

Who's telling them they are inherently bad?

It's a good question. The best message here might be "we've made the decision to prioritize fighting marginalization and we think this is the most effective way to do it -- nothing personal white guys". But it's a delicate message to send, and some people will never accept this as an appropriate way to hire: "why do I have to be completely shut out to make inclusion possible?"

UBC? I mean they're saying it would be bad for straight white men to get a tenure-track position. There's no difference between that and "we think you're bad and don't want you".

I don't see that they're saying that. I think they're saying it's very important for UBC to get some marginalized people into these positions, so they're making space for such a person. It doesn't mean white men are bad. (And technically, FWIW, the passage doesn't explicitly count sexual orientation as a dimension of marginalization.)

By definition it does mean that - they have identified a problem (something bad; too many white men) and a solution (a way to make things better; get rid of them).

Clearly it's painful to accept this, but banning people from positions on the basis of their race or gender is racism, hateful and always has been. Whatever their motivations are or are claimed to be is irrelevant. The claim that it isn't racism if it's against "powerful" people i.e. whites is a lie.

Actually we in Germany ( and I heard similar things about the Netherlands [1] ) have quite a few funding tracks that require gender equity for newly created professorships. In the final consequence many openings need to be restricted to only women so this opening is actually more open. Often the story has a recent prequel in which not enough women could be hired (the reason can be manifold and at least some of them are a result of systematic yet often not immediate discrimination)

[1] https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/ex...

Edit: added link

Section 42:

Special programs 42 (1)It is not discrimination or a contravention of this Code to plan, advertise, adopt or implement an employment equity program that

(a)has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and

(b)achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve that objective.

(2)[Repealed 2002-62-23.]

(3)On application by any person, with or without notice to any other person, the commissioner may approve any program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.

(4)Any program or activity approved under subsection (3) is not in contravention of this Code.

If you have to stipulate in a legal statute that something is not discrimination, then it's highly probable that that sentence in that statute is the only thing that makes it not discrimination.

Someone ignoring that sentence, but otherwise applying sound reasoning, will come to the conclusion that it's discrimination.

For instance, if the criminal code said that "a person commits an offense if they thumb their nose at a passing police cruiser", then that would be the one and only sentence which makes that a crime. It could not be deduced from anywhere else.

It seems like UBC is purposely trying to avoid clarity.