Current federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) criteria for post-secondary research funding are fundamentally incompatible with high-quality university education, argues Jack Mintz. He contends that provinces, which regulate and largely finance universities, must intervene to stop these practices to fulfill their educational responsibilities.
Federal DEI Targets and Their Impact
Under the federal DEI criteria for prestigious Canada Research Chair (CRC) applications, institutions accepting agency funding must make concerted efforts to meet equity and diversity targets and provide a supportive and inclusive workplace. The equity targets for 2029 include 50.9 percent for gender, 22 percent for racialized minorities, 7.5 percent for disabled candidates, and 4.9 percent for Indigenous candidates, though some candidates may fall into multiple categories. Mintz asserts that the message is clear: white males need not apply.
When Ottawa's granting councils secretariat placed Memorial University on a consequence list for failing to meet equity targets, the university faced a difficult choice: comply with federal equity targets to receive funding or maintain merit-based hiring and forgo the money. This dilemma highlights the pressure on institutions to prioritize DEI over merit.
Reverse Discrimination Concerns
Mintz argues that federal research funding distorts post-secondary hiring by favoring designated marginalized groups, amounting to reverse discrimination that discourages or even bans white males from applying. He emphasizes that lack of bias demands fair consideration for all, not just for some. Without merit-based hiring, many highly qualified academics from targeted groups who would have succeeded without preferential treatment may be unfairly accused of being undeserving.
Systemic bias can affect many groups, not just officially designated ones. Committees might be biased against academics not educated at Ivy League universities, from unfriendly countries like Russia, or with certain political leanings. Since the October 7, 2023 attacks, harassment of Jews has become common in academia, as noted in a recent study in the Canadian Journal of Higher Education. However, DEI rules do not protect Jewish individuals, which itself constitutes discrimination. Some Jewish students applying to medical schools have been advised to remove any references to Israel or Jewish communal life from their biographies.
University Responses and Provincial Role
When the University of Alberta voted to eliminate DEI that focuses on some but not all systematic bias, its governing board faced the same dilemma as Memorial University: the possible loss of federal research funding. The university decided to proceed despite the cost, believing its efforts to promote access, community, and belonging are a better way to eliminate barriers and promote inclusiveness.
Mintz, who served as vice-president and chair of Ottawa's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) from 2012 to 2018, witnessed the introduction of DEI targets in assessing grant applications in 2016. He warned that targets would become quotas, which has now happened. Given his own Jewish background, he was sensitive to university hiring and admissions quotas applied to Jews in the 1950s after the Holocaust, and he fears a recurrence.
SSHRC's DEI statistics for 2024 show that 61.1 percent of grants went to women, 24.7 percent to visible minorities, 14.9 percent to disabled people, and 4.2 percent to Indigenous candidates. In contrast, only 24.8 percent went to men, well below their share of the professoriate. Mintz argues that SSHRC has gone overboard to support designated groups, partly to compensate for lower equity-based awards in natural sciences and engineering research, where 39 percent went to women, 26 percent to visible minorities, 4.5 percent to disabled, and one percent to Indigenous candidates.
