A Call to Abolish DEI from Canadian Federal Research Funding
A policy brief submitted to the Canadian Parliament's Standing Committee on Science and Research.
This policy brief was submitted on May 24th, 2024, and was published online June 5th. It was then picked up by journalist Jamie Sarkonak and published in the National Post on June 12th. Since publication we have been contacted by academics asking to have their names added. We will continually update the list of signatories here. If you wish to be included please email your name and affiliation to laurierhxa@gmail.com or ghorsman@wlu.ca.
Standing Committee on Science and Research
Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Email: SRSR@parl.qc.ca
May 24, 2024
Submission to the Standing Committee on Science and Research
Re: Study on the distribution of federal government funding among Canada’s post-secondary institutions.
RECOMMENDATION: Costly and inequitable Tri-Council EDI policies should be abolished.
Dear Members of the Standing Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this brief. In contrast to the other submissions to the committee – twenty to date – ours represents the views not of an institution or collective thereof, but rather the views of several individual researchers. While some may view this as a weakness, we hope most will see it simply as an act of conscience from academics no longer able to remain silent.
Many agree with us – including senior, tenured faculty – but will not speak publicly for fear of repercussions. Specifically, they are scared even to question Tri-Council policies relating to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). As we will outline in this brief, these policies disproportionately punish small institutions, are not supported by evidence, employ flawed metrics with no end goal, and are unpopular with the public who funds the research. That researchers are fearful of publicly speaking out against these policies reinforces our recommendation to abolish them altogether.
Note too that many similar legislative bodies are abandoning EDI. For example, MIT recently dropped EDI statements in faculty job applications,[1] and several US states – after discovering EDI measures lack empirical support – have shuttered EDI programs at their public universities.[2] More broadly, even US elite opinion is beginning to turn against EDI as exemplified by the recent Editorial Board Opinion from the Washington Post.[3]
EDI IS COSTLY AND PUNISHES SMALLER INSTITUTIONS
Many of the briefs submitted to this committee lament low funding levels or inequitable distribution of federal research funding among institutions. While these arguments may have merit, we particularly agree with the sentiment expressed by other submissions regarding the costs of Tri-Council EDI policies. For example, the ACCRU submission states that overhead costs “continue to increase with new compliance requirements announced by the Tri-agencies such as for EDI,” and disproportionately burden smaller institutions.[4] The brief from University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières also notes the unfavourable regulatory burden on small and medium-sized institutions, but also remarks that these costs extend beyond overhead because “researchers are investing significant energy into looking at EDI and implementing measures that promote inclusion.”[5] In summary, EDI policies are costly to institutions and individual researchers.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT EDI BENEFITS RESEARCH?
The recent push for EDI has had a dramatic, albeit largely silent, impact on academic inquiry and social cohesion at our academic institutions. Although these costly bureaucratic interventions are couched in lofty language, many concrete policies are discriminatory and counter-productive. For example, Laurier University aimed to hire six black and six indigenous faculty, but each position excluded the other ethnicity.[6] One of these positions – for an indigenous scientist – was granted to the home department of one of the authors of this brief (Horsman). During the process, an informal outside inquiry made on behalf of a promising black candidate had to be rebuffed because black people were ineligible. This open racial discrimination in the name of fighting systemic racism is one concrete example of negative impacts of EDI.[7] Canada’s most prominent academic freedom organization, The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, has documented dozens of other cases of academic job postings that specifically discriminate against individuals with particular immutable characteristics.[8]
Such disturbing accounts prompted us to weigh these costs against the purported benefits of EDI. However, upon reviewing the research literature on EDI, one of us (Haskell) found that there is no evidence that EDI reduces bias or alters behaviour. In fact, EDI interventions have been shown to do harm by increasing prejudice and activating bigotry.[9]
Since its publication in February, Haskell’s research report showing EDI measures have no positive effect has been corroborated by other research. In March of this year a comprehensive analysis of EDI research conducted by the Inclusion at Work Panel of the UK government determined that “[c]ausality between interventions and outcomes is often near impossible to discern... Definitive claims of ‘what works’ can be misleading or inconclusive. Results in one context cannot necessarily be replicated.”[10]
March also saw the debunking of some of the most influential studies claiming racial and gender diversity leads to greater profits and better decision making for corporations. Researchers publishing in the peer-reviewed Econ Journal Watch showed that the series of pro-EDI studies, commissioned by the McKinsey Company, were methodologically flawed and non-replicable.[11]
These findings motivated us to review how the Tri-Council agencies have arrived at their EDI policy. The Tri-Agency Statement on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) confidently asserts that “Achieving a more equitable, diverse and inclusive Canadian research enterprise is essential to creating the excellent, innovative and impactful research necessary to advance knowledge and understanding, and to respond to local, national and global challenges.”[12] Variations on this axiomatic statement are replicated by individual agencies, but supporting evidence is not provided. For example, the NSERC Guide for Applicants states: “The Evidence is clear. Equity, diversity, and inclusion strengthen the scientific and engineering communities and the quality, social relevance and impact of research.”[13] Unfortunately, citations for such statements – to the extent that they exist at all – only link to other Tri-Council web pages that do not appear to address the foundational claim that EDI improves research.[14]
We are concerned that the Tri-council agencies have provided insufficient evidence that EDI improves research outcomes, and therefore cannot justify their EDI policies.
EDI IS SELF-PERPETUATING, HAS NO END GOAL, AND USES FLAWED METRICS
New EDI policies need dedicated bureaucracies to manage and enforce compliance. Careers depend upon the continued existence and expansion of bureaucratic fiefdoms. It is, therefore, not surprising that, under questioning before this committee, SSHRC president Dr. Ted Hewitt did not appear to have given any thought to how and when EDI requirements might end.[15] As MP Rempel-Garner pointed out, many of the race- and sex-based quotas for Canada Research Chairs (CRCs) have been nearly achieved or even – in the case of “racialized individuals” – surpassed.[16]
As observed recently in the National Post, “[t]he man in charge of administering the quotas can’t apply the brakes, and the university staff who are happy to soak up the identity-tied funds will insist that discrimination for a good cause isn’t discrimination at all. If diversity, equity and inclusion has an off button, it is incredibly hard to find.”[17]
Apart from the fact that race- and sex-based quotas are highly divisive and unpopular (vide infra), the metrics used to set these quotas are flawed. A standard requirement for a faculty position is a PhD or similar doctoral-level degree. However, Tri-Council targets are based on group representation in the general population instead of those holding PhDs.16 As far as we know, the Tri-Councils do not publish statistics on the number of PhDs by race or sex. If the Tri-Councils and universities continue to enforce sex- and race-based quotas without regard for the composition of the pipeline, we risk overproducing PhDs belonging to groups facing legislatively limited prospects for employment and funding. Therefore, if the Tri-Councils insist on continuing EDI quotas, these quotas should reflect the population of qualified Canadians rather than the general population.
THE PUBLIC DISLIKES EDI
Finally, we are concerned that EDI requirements politicize federal research funding, and in so doing weaken its credibility with the taxpaying public. For example, public trust in science has declined as EDI requirements have increased.[18] Moreover, political scientist Eric Kaufmann has documented how the Canadian public disagrees with EDI measures. For instance, 70% of Canadians prefer colour-blind approaches over the colour-conscious approaches of EDI.[19]
In addition, the public is becoming aware that researchers must make written statements agreeing with EDI to access research funding. This places principled researchers who hold classically liberal values – such as race neutral evaluation of individuals based on merit – in a difficult predicament: they either must lie to receive funding, or act based on conscience and forego research funding. As one of us (Horsman) asked in a recent op-ed, “how much confidence can we have in a research ecosystem that incentivizes betraying oneself?”[20]
RECOMMENDATION
Considering (i) the significant costs of EDI, (ii) weak evidence for any benefits combined with known harms, (iii) that EDI uses flawed metrics with no end goal and will likely only expand, and (iv) diminishing public trust due to EDI policies like racial discrimination, we recommend abolishing EDI from the Tri-Council agencies.
Sincerely,
Geoff Horsman, PhD
Associate Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University
David Haskell, PhD
Associate Professor of Digital Media & Journalism, and Religion & Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University
Zachary Patterson, PhD
Professor, Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering, Concordia University
Stephen Lupker, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Western University
Lawrence M. Krauss, PhD
President, The Origins Project Foundation
Foundation Professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, retired
Kirsten Kramar, PhD
Mount Royal University
Stephen Quilley, PhD
Associate Professor of Social and Environmental Innovation, University of Waterloo
Scott Davies, PhD
Professor of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, University of Toronto
Edward Vrscay, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo
Martin Drapeau, PhD
Professor of Counselling Psychology and Psychiatry, McGill University
Frances Widdowson, PhD
Political Science professor
Brian F. Smith, PhD
Professor of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University
Christopher Dummitt, PhD
Professor of Canadian Studies, Trent University
Altay Coskun, PhD
Professor of Classical Studies, University of Waterloo
Ron Thomson, PhD
Professor and Chair of Applied Linguistics, Brock University
Chet Robie, PhD
Professor of Organizational Behaviour & Human Resource Management, Wilfrid Laurier University
Mark Collard, PhD
Canada Research Chair in Human Evolutionary Studies and Professor of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University
Janice Fiamengo, PhD
Professor of English, University of Ottawa, retired
Philip Carl Salzman, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, McGill University
Laurence Klotz, CM, MD, FRCSC
Professor of Surgery, University of Toronto
Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research
Chair, Council for Academic Freedom at University of Toronto (CAFUT)
Member, Order of Canada
Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Brad Fedy, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo
Scott Smith, PhD
Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University
Henry Wolkowicz, PhD
Professor of Combinatorics and Optimization, University of Waterloo
Gail S. K. Wolkowicz, PhD
Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, McMaster University
François Charbonneau, PhD
Professeur agrégé, École d’études politiques, Université d’Ottawa
Rima Azar, PhD
Associate Professor of Health Psychology, Mount Allison University
Douglas W. Allen, PhD
Burnaby Mountain Professor, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University
Rachel Altman, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University
Alexandra Lysova, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University
Richard Frank, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University
John Craig, PhD
Professor, Department of History, Simon Fraser University
Dennis Sandgathe, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University
Mike Hart, PhD
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University
William McNally, PhD
Professor of Finance, Wilfrid Laurier University
Yannick Lacroix, PhD
professeur de philosophie, Collège de Maisonneuve
Julie Guyot, PhD
Professor of History, Cégep Édouard-Montpetit
Leigh Revers, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Chemical & Physical Sciences, Institute of Management for Innovation, University of Toronto
Rob Whitley, PhD
Associate Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University
François Caron, PhD
Professor of Chemistry, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston
Emeritus Professor, Laurentian University
Michael Pavlin, PhD
Professor of Operations Management, Wilfrid Laurier University
Davide Spinello, PhD
Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa
Jonathan Farrar, PhD
Professor of Accounting, Wilfrid Laurier University
Robert Thomas, MA, MLIS
Social Sciences Librarian, University of Regina
President, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
Andrew Irvine, PhD
Professor of Economics, Philosophy and Political Sciences, University of British Columbia
Annett Körner, PhD
Associate Professor of Counselling Psychology and Oncology, McGill University
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/05/08/mit-stops-asking-faculty-applicants-diversity-statements
[2] https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/three-more-states-drop-dei-programs-at-their-public-universities/
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/19/universities-dei-academic-freedom/
[4] https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/SRSR/Brief/BR13062472/br-external/AllianceofCanadianComprehensiveResearchUniversities-e.pdf
[5] https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/SRSR/Brief/BR13062477/br-external/UniverityofQuebecatTrois-Rivieres-067-240429-023-e.pdf
[6] https://www.wlu.ca/news/news-releases/2021/may/laurier-to-hire-more-indigenous-and-black-faculty-members-through-inclusive-excellence-initiative.html
[7] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-why-canadian-universities-are-refusing-to-hire-able-bodied-white-males
[8] https://safs.ca/archives-2022-2023/
[9] https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary/
[10] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusion-at-work-panel-report-on-improving-workplace-diversity-and-inclusion/report-on-the-inclusion-at-work-panels-recommendations-for-improving-diversity-and-inclusion-di-practice-in-the-workplace
[11] https://econjwatch.org/articles/mckinsey-s-diversity-matters-delivers-wins-results-revisited
[12] https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/InterAgency-Interorganismes/EDI-EDI/index_eng.asp
[13] https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/EDI/Guide_for_Applicants_EN.pdf
[14] https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/InterAgency-Interorganismes/EDI-EDI/Resources_Ressources_eng.asp
[15] https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20240502/-1/41510 (starting at 13:06:00)
[16] https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/about_us-a_notre_sujet/statistics-statistiques-eng.aspx
[17] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-no-off-ramp-to-diversity-quotas-federal-research-executive-says
[18] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poll-finds-canadians-have-high-trust-in-scientists-declining/
[19] https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/politics-of-culture-wars-canada/
[20] https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/horsman-scientists-and-engineers-to-public-save-us-from-ourselves