Rarely have the media been so interested in the university. This obsession is expressed in catastrophic news reports and opinion pieces that consistently present “diversity and inclusion” as a threat to academic excellence. In the name of meritocracy, these controversies justify inequalities on campuses and harm the development of quality teaching and research.
In recent weeks, there have been concerns that the Fonds de recherche du Québec is asking candidates for doctoral scholarships to reflect on the issue of diversity in their project (but this is not conditional on the granting of a scholarship). ). It was also deplored that the new president of Harvard University, political scientist Claudine Gay, was chosen – it is said – because she is African-American of Haitian origin, while her academic record would not be up to par. for this position (consisting mainly of ceremonial and representational tasks to raise money).
Finally, Minister Pascale Déry, in a letter published in the To have towrote to university directors to warn them that the diversity and inclusion requirement of the federal research chair program would threaten excellence (this minister of higher education holds a master’s degree in political science from UQAM , which is very good, but no doctorate, which did not prevent her from defending so well, as spokesperson for Air Canada, the president Michael Rousseau, unilingual Anglophone: excellence, she knows that , and she will not let futile identity issues threaten her…).
Always the same rhetoric
It should be noted that we worry less when jobs are of little interest to white men, such as agricultural workers or beneficiary attendants, which can be left to migrant populations. But for prestigious positions, it is repeated that white men are necessarily competent, even if it is rarely said explicitly, while the “others” are necessarily selected as a “minority”, but without skills, which is said explicitly. .
We were served this thesis in 2006, when the law required that there be at least 40% women on the boards of directors of state-owned companies (Hydro-Québec, Société des alcools, Caisse de dépôt et placement, etc.). What a controversy!
This fable unfortunately prevents us from considering some important facts about university life and the importance of diversity on campus.
First, the university responds to various social missions, in addition to the search for the famous truth. The public network of Quebec universities, for example, was founded in 1968 to promote the development of certain regions and access to university for Francophones from modest backgrounds. Concretely, the university is also a tool for social advancement and trains the executives called upon to manage the institutions of society.
Moreover, selection biases for scholarships and professorships have been analyzed for a long time. Studies show that a man’s candidacy is more generously assessed than a woman’s, not to mention racist biases — see, among others, “Does gender bias still affect women in science? », in Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews (2019) and “How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars…”, in Sex Roles (2020).
Forgetting about diversity can also limit our knowledge and lead to errors, as can sexist and racist biases, including in “hard” sciences — see, among others, “Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations…”, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2016). Conversely, diversity tends to foster innovations in research and teaching — see, among others, “Making genderdiversity work for scientific discovery and innovation”, in Nature Human Behavior (2018).
Finally, competition is very strong for scholarships and positions, not to mention chairs. The nominations today are much more impressive than 20 years ago. It is commonplace to be hired after completing one or even two postdoctoral internships, in addition to the doctorate. Young colleagues often impose a work overload on themselves, which can even increase if you are a member of a “minority” (institutional expectations of representation, etc.). You must therefore be competent, even excellent, whatever your identity.
Fallaciously opposing excellence and diversity therefore appears to be a political maneuver to agitate public opinion and discredit the solutions put forward to reduce inequalities and exclusion. These controversies actually harm the development of knowledge and the quality and scope of university activities.