National Post
· collected 2026-09-13 · by Special to National Post
analysis
Last week, a report by Macdonald-Laurier Institute senior fellow Eric Kaufmann and co-authors detailed the high cost of the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) quota system in academia.
asserted
report → detail → academia
They showed that the prestigious Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program — a $300 million annual federal expenditure to keep research talent in the country — has sacrificed excellence in pursuit of diversity.
asserted
program → show → diversity
Specifically, the discriminatory recruitment of Black, Indigenous, and female CRCs diminished research productivity: these “equity-deserving” groups were 10 to 15 per cent less productive than whites, Asians and males after controlling for career length and discipline.
asserted
groups → diminish → length
They estimated that EDI discrimination costs the CRC program about $36 million every year — amounting to a 12 per cent tax to support a policy that slows science.
asserted
that → estimate → science
Yet discrimination persists despite every CRC “equity target” having been met or exceeded.
asserted
target → persist → ?
For example, the 2029 quota for non-whites (the “racialized” category) is set at 22 per cent.
asserted
quota → set → cent
That target was surpassed long ago, and the proportion of non-white chair holders now stands at 34 per cent.
asserted
proportion → surpass → cent
Another study published last week found little reliable evidence for EDI quotas.
asserted
study → publish → quotas
This comprehensive analysis by Concordia University’s Zachary Patterson and co-authors concluded that, while science can benefit from interdisciplinarity, there is “little empirical evidence that diversity, as defined narrowly by demographic or identity diversity, improves scientific output and impact.
asserted
diversity → conclude → output
While discriminatory quotas capture public attention — they’re highly visible, morally dubious and easily measurable — other, more insidious, costs of EDI are less appreciated.
asserted
costs → capture → EDI
Foremost among them is compelled political speech.
asserted
speech → compel → them
That’s no exaggeration: scientists must personally express support for EDI to qualify for many federal research grants.
asserted
scientists → ’ → grants
Venturing even into classically liberal territory risks rejection.
asserted
Venturing → venture → rejection
I speak from experience.
asserted
I → speak → experience
In 2025, my Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) was not renewed despite receiving high scores on the scientific components of my application.
asserted
Grant → renew → application
The key problem was that I failed to “describe an approach to recruit diverse (Highly Qualified Personnel) and provide an inclusive training environment.”
asserted
I → fail → environment
Some of my colleagues defend EDI requirements as little more than a reasonable request for a management philosophy.
asserted
Some → defend → philosophy
Accordingly, I gave NSERC the benefit of the doubt and wrote my application under this milder reading, which allowed me to comply without pretending to believe things I do not.
asserted
I → give → things
While making clear I objected to discriminatory EDI quotas, I proposed an intellectually open lab that welcomes people of diverse political views.
asserted
that → make → views
I reasoned that science best flourishes when we recruit from the widest possible swathe of society, including the many Canadians who oppose EDI.
asserted
who → reason → EDI
It didn’t work.
asserted
It → work → ?
That’s because in EDI-speak, “diverse” means non-white, women and “2SLGBTQIA+”, while an “inclusive” environment protects progressive sensibilities from offence.
asserted
environment → ’ → offence
A colour-blind lab that welcomes EDI-skeptics fails on both counts.
asserted
that → welcome → counts
The safest path to a research grant is to signal ideological compliance.
asserted
path → signal → compliance
It is unwise to distance yourself from the aspects of EDI you find objectionable.
asserted
you → distance → EDI
A senior university administrator told me as much.
asserted
administrator → tell → much
I need not sincerely agree with EDI, I was told, but I should allow NSERC reviewers to think otherwise.
asserted
reviewers → need → EDI
It is considered pragmatic — responsible, even — to keep one’s lab running, to keep training students and advancing science.
asserted
It → consider → science
But this quiet compliance, where the gate is wide and the way is easy, leads scientists further astray: EDI culture is now normalizing deception.
asserted
culture → lead → deception
I recently attended a workshop on the EDI sections of research grants.
asserted
I → attend → grants
I asked how to handle the large body of empirical evidence against EDI versus the weak and discredited studies in favour of it.
asserted
I → ask → it
We were reminded that, as scientists, we are good at finding statistics to please reviewers.
asserted
we → remind → reviewers
Nobody else in the room seemed bothered.
asserted
Nobody → seem → room
I turned back to my table, and, looking over my laptop, asked the person across from me if they thought this was okay.
asserted
this → turn → me
“Look,” they said, “every country has an ideology.
asserted
country → look → ideology
Canada has chosen this one.
asserted
Canada → choose → one
We just have to live with it.”
asserted
We → have → it
Canada may well have chosen an ideology.
uncertain
Canada → choose → ideology
What it should not do is make federal science funding depend on pretending the evidence agrees.
asserted
evidence → make → What
