Posted yesterday at 4:00 p.m.
Your editorial, which argues that the CAQ is undermining academic freedom with its program to support secularism, denounces a drift, but ignores the fact that the federal government is doing the same thing with larger funds. Aren’t there two weights, two measures?
There were many comments like this following our editorial published last week.
The question deserves to be explored.
The main complaints against federal funding relate to the “equity, diversity and inclusion action plan” created by the Liberals in 2017. It aims to tackle the under-representation of four groups – women , persons with disabilities, aboriginals and visible minorities – in research.
Today, any researcher who wants to obtain federal research funds must explain how he intends to achieve the “EDI criteria” (for equity, diversity and inclusion) in his team. Universities must also offer training and set targets in this regard.
Critics also target the Canada Research Chairs program, which also places great emphasis on “EDI criteria”. An example: last fall, Laval University announced a research chair position in French literature open only to women, aboriginals, people with disabilities or those belonging to visible minorities. The University was careful to specify that these criteria were not its own, but those of the federal government.
These initiatives obviously do not come out of nowhere. In 2002, two years after the launch of the Canada Research Chairs, we realized that barely 15% of them had been awarded to women.
In 2018, research from McGill University also showed that, with equal skills, Canadian women researchers are less likely to obtain funding than their male colleagues.
Virtually no one questions the desire to create an equitable research environment. The debate is whether the means are the right ones and whether they go too far. These controversies echo those that shake universities around what is called the “woke culture”.
Some scholars now claim that the famous EDI criteria are ideologically and interfere with their academic freedom. The hiring of students, for example, would no longer be based on merit, but on the basis of these criteria.
Many researchers have told us that they comply with the rules and write in their grant applications what the federal agencies want to find there. Those who defy this principle are, deliberately or not, playing with fire. This is the case of McGill chemistry professor Patanjali Kambhampati, who wrote that he wanted to hire his team members solely on the basis of their qualifications. Unsurprisingly, his scholarship application was denied.
Some researchers also feel that some research has become unaffordable. Those who would like to take a critical look at multiculturalism or systemic racism, for example, would no longer fit with the ideology in place. These allegations are difficult to substantiate, but they are troubling and must be examined.
Federally-funded research on Aboriginal peoples is also narrowly defined. It is specified that it must be carried out “by and with” the communities and that they must “participate in the interpretation of the data and the examination of the results of the research”. It goes very far. However, researchers who conduct research on Aboriginal people have told us that they find these guidelines justified and entirely possible to respect.
If true, the federal abuses are less obvious (some would say less clumsy) than that of the provincial program to support secularism. In this case, the applications were evaluated by civil servants and not peers, and the avowed objective was to “promote” a specific model of secularism (a verb that does not fit into the definition of a researcher’s tasks).
But these debates, we feel it, are far from over. Considering the biases of the past, it is normal that public funds come with certain obligations. On the other hand, it must be noted that the malaise in the universities is real.
In its report published last December, the Scientific and Technical Commission on Academic Freedom in Quebec wondered about “recent trends to add non-academic conditions to grant applications”.
The Commission does not make recommendations concerning the federal government because that goes beyond its mandate. But if Quebec adopts a law on academic freedom and the universities form committees on the issue, as recommended, this could help to highlight possible problems in the allocation of federal funds.
Anyway, let’s get to the bottom of things. Because all accusations of attacking academic freedom must be taken seriously.