Quebec Professor Takes Aim at DEI Criteria in Federal Research Funding

The West Block of Parliament Hill is seen through the window of the Sir John A. Macdonald building in Ottawa on May 11, 2022. The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick

An associate professor in Quebec is raising concerns to members of Parliament about the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) criteria used to determine who qualifies for research funding.

In a submission to the Commons science committee, Maryse Beaumier of the University of Quebec in Rimouski told MPs that DEI practices in federal research funding agencies are compromising funding decisions, which are being influenced by “criteria unrelated to science, excellence, and merit.”

She said researchers applying for funding are asked to answer questions such as about their sexual orientation.

“Questioning a researcher about their sexual orientation (an actual occurrence) has no place in research, nor does questioning whether they are Indigenous, have physical limitations, etc.,” Beaumier wrote in the brief, which was first obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter.

Instead, “objectivity and respect for scientific criteria must be guiding principles for funding,” she said.

‘Re-evaluate Eligibility Thresholds’

The brief was submitted at the request of Bloc Québécois MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, one of the two vice-chairs of the science committee. The brief was dated Jan. 10 but was only released by the committee on July 14.

The request for submissions was part of a study that the committee was conducting during the last session of Parliament on “the impact that the various criteria for awarding federal funding have on research excellence in Canada.” The committee adopted a motion to conduct the study on Oct. 31, 2024, and 23 witnesses from universities, research institutions, and advocacy groups testified before the committee between November and December.

In total, the committee held five hearings and received 11 witness briefs in November and December 2024—with Beaumier’s not included in that count, since her brief was not submitted until January. Opinions were divided, with some briefs expressing support for DEI criteria and others opposing.

The Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities, one of the groups that submitted a brief in 2024 supporting DEI requirements, said in its submission that while “merit-based evaluation of research proposals remains essential,” it also recommends, among several proposals, to re-evaluating eligibility thresholds for funding programs to ensure fair access for “new/emerging priorities” such as DEI.

“By taking such steps, the government can create a more equitable and robust Canadian research landscape, fostering innovation, talent development, and societal benefits across the country,” it wrote.

‘Viewpoint Diversity’

Christopher Dummitt, a professor of Canadian studies at Trent University, differed in his view. In his brief submitted last December, he said federal research funding agencies now require institutions of higher education to have “a variety of diversity mandates,” ranging from “assessment criteria to diversity statements,” but a concern is that none of those programs “deals with viewpoint diversity.”

He cited recent surveys of professors’ political beliefs indicating that 88 percent of professors identified as being on the left. This impairs expert peer review, which he said is a key structure of truth-seeking in higher education.

Moreover, “The absence of viewpoint diversity makes it even less likely that those few scholars who disagree with the majority feel able to offer full-throated critiques.”

“The initiatives are meant to increase the ratio of Indigenous and Black scholars. But, in practice, the funding and hiring criteria tend to link these identity goals with ideological criteria,” Dummitt wrote.

In a related study, the science committee published a report last December stating that “around $4.5 billion” of federal funding is distributed among Canada’s post-secondary institutions yearly. The report said most of this funding is awarded through competitions run by three granting agencies: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as well as through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI).

A report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute says DEI has “taken root” at those three granting agencies, adding that they have a combined budget of $3.95 billion.

“Rather than prioritizing research excellence, they are too often promoting and even rewarding political activism,” said the think tank report published in February this year.

‘Second Nature’

The Canada Research Coordinating Committee, which advances federal research priorities and the coordination of the policies and programs of Canada’s three research funding agencies and the CFI, says on its website that the three agencies will nurture a “more equitable, diverse, inclusive and accessible research ecosystem in Canada through the Tri-Agency Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Action Plan.”

“In order to achieve world-class research, we must address systemic barriers that limit the full participation of all talented individuals,” the action plan said. “Moreover, we must create a culture where embedding equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) considerations into all aspects of research is second nature.”

In her Jan. 10 submission, Beaumier said MPs should be “examining the importance of adapting EDI policies.”

“Funding should be awarded to the best researcher with the most relevant and important research for advancing knowledge and adding value to society,” she wrote, noting that she is “increasingly disillusioned about the conditions for good research” as she progressed through her career.

“It is regrettable that criteria unrelated to science, excellence and merit are influencing funding decisions,” she added.

“With regard to EDI policies, I share the same view as many of my colleagues who have significant concerns about how Canadian organizations are implementing them.”

Chandra Philip contributed to this report.