The author is a professor of literature in Montreal, editor-in-chief of the journal Argument and essayist. He notably published These words that think for us (Liber, 2017) and The prose of Alain Grandbois. Where to read and reread The Travels of Marco Polo (Note bene, 2019).
Since last year, the Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ) have changed the criteria they use to assess scholarship applications submitted by students embarking on a master’s or doctorate. Until then, the criteria taken into account by the granting agency were essentially criteria of excellence: academic background, grades obtained, prizes and awards. To these first criteria were added others, intended to assess the value of the research project presented: originality and relevance, methodology, etc. All of these criteria therefore tended to assess the qualities of the researcher and of the research project for which he was requesting support from the FRQ.
However, since the spring of 2021, another series of criteria have been added to these elements, brought together under the heading “social mobilization”. However, these refer more to a political evaluation of the various projects than to an evaluation of their quality. It is a question in particular of “capacity of commitment” and “consideration of the objectives of sustainable development of the United Nations, including equity, diversity and inclusion”.
When applying for a grant, candidates must therefore explain how their research project constitutes “citizen participation” and contributes in one way or another to this “social mobilization” which aims to achieve “sustainable development” or “inclusion”.
These new criteria raise fears that the FRQ will confuse scientific research with activism. The explanatory document that accompanies the statement of these new criteria also seems to confirm such a fear since, as examples of research projects that would satisfy them, it lists: “Effects of pollution on health”, “Empowerment Aboriginal women”, or “Affordable housing and mental health”. Apart from these “social” or “ecological” subjects, in themselves perfectly commendable, we understand that it will obviously be more difficult for researchers who are studying astronomical phenomena, quantum physics or the history of philosophy to justify such a contribution to sustainable development.
Thus, only one example of literature search is given in the above-mentioned explanatory document; it is “Literary life in Quebec”, a theme that would correspond to “Sustainable Development Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities”. We also learn that we owe this somewhat far-fetched correspondence to the sole fact that the FRQ on their own accord “broadened the scope” of this SDG 11 “by integrating the intangible heritage into it, relying on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention”.
We are relieved to know that, thanks to this sleight of hand, it will still be possible, in Quebec, to support research on Quebec art, literature or history.
But what about those relating to the philosophy of Aristotle, French literature? We can guess without too much difficulty the kind of intellectual contortions to which we will force certain researchers who will be summoned to establish a link between their research subject and one or other of the UN SDGs. Unless in order to meet the requirements of SDG 5 (Gender inequalities) or 10 (Reduced inequalities), they are all forced to redirect their research towards homophobia in Aristotle or the sexism of the classics – subjects in them themselves relevant, except to become a new kind of moral obligation.
Moreover, these criteria concern not only the research projects for which financial support is requested, but the applicant himself, who must explain how he puts “his thought, his word and his action at the service of a collective cause “. He is therefore required to prove not only that he is able to produce quality research, but also how “progressive” he is.
Because here again, the examples given by the FRQ confirm a very oriented conception of what their leaders consider to be a laudable and legitimate “commitment”. It reads as follows: “You are part of a group or committee that aims to promote equity, diversity and inclusion”; “You produce podcasts to encourage healthy lifestyles”; or even “You participate in the cleaning of the banks”. The goal is clear: it is for the candidates to show their credentials. To show that they share the ideals of contemporary “progressivism” in order to avoid the slipping in among them of an ugly climatosceptic, an odious reactionary, or else one of those “strong spirits” refractory to any political ideology, especially if that it is imposed.
But is it really up to a granting agency that has public funds to impose its ideological preferences? Above all, isn’t it intolerable for such a public body to arrogate to itself the right to judge the private lives and opinions of people who seek its help? Because the choice to participate in the activities of a charitable organization like that of committing to any cause whatsoever is indeed a matter of individual freedom.
The FRQ should only have to judge the research projects submitted to them, and in no case the “commitment” of the people who submit them. Their function is to select future researchers and not model citizens.