Geoff Horsman: How Canada’s federal research grants have normalized deceit - National Post
A visitor views a digital representation of the human genome August 15, 2001 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Photo by Mario Tama/Getty ImagesArticle contentLast 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.
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.
The National Post newsletter that doesn’t hold back, giving readers the unvarnished truth on media, politics and culture.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Right? will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
