I'm very much in favour of the approach I've outlined, the affirmative action that's been advocated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions case, which, let's not forget, was brought principally because Asian Americans were being discriminated against. Let's remember that the flip side.... Really, “affirmative action” is a euphemism for discrimination against certain groups: Asians, whites and males, essentially. There's also discrimination against conservatives, but that's not happening through affirmative action. What I would say is to look at that decision, which has been supported not just by a majority of white Americans, but by a majority of Hispanic Americans, Black Americans and Asian Americans. This is a consensus value.
There have been a number of referendums in California to try to reintroduce affirmative action because it's been repealed by popular initiative. However, every time they try it, it's always voted down, because the public does not want racial preferences in the allocation, whether it be university places at Harvard or whether it be research grants. That's against the values.
I mentioned that, in the Canadian survey, 59% want a colour-blind approach, while only 29% want a colour-conscious approach. Yet, what is the approach that's being pursued? It's a colour-conscious approach in the tri-council. I think it is out of step with public opinion. They may be able to get away with it for a little longer, but ultimately I don't think this is going to do the research body any good.