The diversity-focused culture of Canadian universities is prompting Canadian researchers to leave the country, a parliamentary committee heard Wednesday.
Researchers want to “pursue their research free of identity markers,” said Gad Saad, a marketing professor and evolutionary psychologist at Concordia University in Montreal.
Saad is one of them. He is spending this academic year as a visiting scholar at the University of Mississippi’s Declaration of Independence Center for the Study of American Freedom.
Saad was not the only Canadian researcher who spoke to the committee from another country.
“If you create a hostile environment for certain beliefs, such as conservativism, then you are going to essentially force those people not to go down the academic pathway,” said Eric Kaufmann, a Canadian professor at the University of Buckingham in the U.K.
Research shows most Canadian professors identify as being left-leaning politically, he says. Voters for progressive parties are also more likely to support diversity policies than conservative voters, he said.
The meeting was the latest to examine how federal research funding criteria impacts the quality of research in Canada. As in previous meetings, much of the discussion focused on whether diversity quotas for researchers are helpful or harmful.
While many sharply criticized diversity quotas, others said scientific research benefits when academics are from different genders and races.
“We know that our viewpoints and the research questions we ask are influenced by our personal experiences and background,” Tamil Kendall, director of the Partnership for Women’s Health Research Canada, a network of researchers focused on women’s health.
‘A feature not a bug’
The federal government spends about $4.5 billion each year funding research projects across Canada. Many of the organizations that administer this funding require certain numbers of researchers to be women, racialized, Indigenous, LGBTQ or people with disabilities.
Some research funding applications ask about how the proposed research will challenge white privilege or views of masculinity, Dave Snow, a political science professor at the University of Guelph who has studied diversity requirements in research funding told the committee.
In its most “mild” form, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are about encouraging different perspectives, said Snow. He supports this. But a lot of the diversity initiatives for research funding are “activist,” he said, and “used to advance the particular political agenda of social justice activists.”
“The vague and shifting definition of [diversity, equity and inclusion] is a feature not a bug,” he said.
“It enables researchers and granting agencies to hide behind mild [DEI] language while using taxpayer dollars to advance activist [DEI] research agendas.”
Many university job postings restrict positions to only female or LGBTQ candidates or racialized candidates, said Saad. One project at Concordia is focused on “decolonizing light.”
But scientific facts do not change based on the scientist’s gender or race, he said.
“The reason why I love science is because when I do my science, I’m trying to discover something interesting about the world,” he said. “That phenomenon that I’m studying exists independently of my identity.”
Saad has not applied for federal research funding since 2018 because grants require applicants to write statements about supporting diversity, he told the committee.
Students need to be exposed to a variety of perspectives, he said.
“In the activist social sciences, you are more likely to run into a unicorn than into a Republican or conservative sociologist,” he said.
“You are more likely to run into a horse that has wings than to run into a Republican psychologist. There are very good ideas on the left. There are very good ideas on the right. Our students would benefit from hearing the totality of ideas.”
‘An issue of exclusion’
Others argued that research must consider diverse perspectives to be helpful.
This is particularly true in medical research, where a historic reliance on studying white people has led to a lack of knowledge about genetic mutations found in racialized people, says Imogen Coe, a chemistry and biology professor at Toronto Metropolitan University.
“Excluding diversity in research design and practice disadvantages individuals, compromises safety and lowers the overall quality of the outputs,” she said.
Nadia Hasan, a professor of gender, sexuality and women’s studies at York University, said diversity quotas are necessary because women and racialized researchers often have a hard time getting funding.
“We’re trying to address an issue of exclusion here,” she said, adding that she opposes “tokenism” and “performative” policies.
However, those who critiqued diversity mandates were also concerned about inequalities faced by disadvantaged communities.
“Whenever we see that there are truly systemic barriers to entry for any group, then we need to eradicate those,” Saad said.
Snow, from the University of Guelph, says laws governing funding bodies need to be changed to include a line committing the organizations to political and ideological neutrality.
“I oppose all ideologically based grant funding, whether that’s in a progressive or conservative direction,” he said.
“If the government wants to fund activism, it can fund activism. It shouldn’t be doing it through its research granting agencies.”
The committee will hear from federal research funders next week. After its study, the committee will write a report with recommendations to the government about how to improve federal funding criteria.
Why call it “conservatism”, when the real name for it is misogyny, bigotry, patriarchy. Using a name like ‘conservatism’ disguises the oppressive nature of it.
Believing in meritocracy and not caring what genitals exist in someone’s pants or what hue someone’s skin happens to be is not misogyny, bigotry, or patriarchy. Your a prime example to make the case for why we need viewpoint diversity otherwise we will be misleading entire generations to believe that conservative values equate to hatred. Liberalism does not equate to communist authoritarianism and conservatism does not equate to discriminatory authoritarianism.
*you’re