Article content
Last week, a report by Macdonald-Laurier Institute senior fellow Eric Kaufmann and co-authors detailed the high cost of the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) quota system in academia. They showed that the prestigious Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program — a $300 million annual federal expenditure to keep research talent in the country — has sacrificed excellence in pursuit of diversity.
Sign In or Create an Account
or View more offersArticle content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Specifically, the discriminatory recruitment of Black, Indigenous, and female CRCs diminished research productivity: these “equity-deserving” groups were 10 to 15 per cent less productive than whites, Asians and males after controlling for career length and discipline. They estimated that EDI discrimination costs the CRC program about $36 million every year — amounting to a 12 per cent tax to support a policy that slows science.
Article content
Recommended Videos
We apologize, but this video has failed to load.Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.We apologize, but this video has failed to load.Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.Article contentArticle content
Yet discrimination persists despite every CRC “equity target” having been met or exceeded. For example, the 2029 quota for non-whites (the “racialized” category) is set at 22 per cent. That target was surpassed long ago, and the proportion of non-white chair holders now stands at 34 per cent.
Article content
Another study published last week found little reliable evidence for EDI quotas. This comprehensive analysis by Concordia University’s Zachary Patterson and co-authors concluded that, while science can benefit from interdisciplinarity, there is “little empirical evidence that diversity, as defined narrowly by demographic or identity diversity, improves scientific output and impact.”
Article content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
While discriminatory quotas capture public attention — they’re highly visible, morally dubious and easily measurable — other, more insidious, costs of EDI are less appreciated. Foremost among them is compelled political speech.
Article content
That’s no exaggeration: scientists must personally express support for EDI to qualify for many federal research grants. Venturing even into classically liberal territory risks rejection.
Article content
I speak from experience. In 2025, my Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) was not renewed despite receiving high scores on the scientific components of my application. The key problem was that I failed to “describe an approach to recruit diverse (Highly Qualified Personnel) and provide an inclusive training environment.”
Article content
Some of my colleagues defend EDI requirements as little more than a reasonable request for a management philosophy. Accordingly, I gave NSERC the benefit of the doubt and wrote my application under this milder reading, which allowed me to comply without pretending to believe things I do not. While making clear I objected to discriminatory EDI quotas, I proposed an intellectually open lab that welcomes people of diverse political views. I reasoned that science best flourishes when we recruit from the widest possible swathe of society, including the many Canadians who oppose EDI.