Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to testify on this important topic.

I interpret the study as assessing whether particular subjective or ideological considerations are distorting the type of research being pursued and funded in Canada today.

I share my perspective as someone who has been a principal applicant, co-applicant or collaborator on several successful, and unsuccessful, SSHRC grants. In addition, I spent several years in administrative positions at the University of Saskatchewan in roles that could be described as DEI-focused with regard to indigenous education programs and initiatives.

As a senior fellow at a think tank rather as than a faculty member at a university, perhaps I can provide an outside observer's perspective on the ideological bias that has permeated our research systems, as someone who neither needs nor wants to conform to it anymore.

It has become the trend in recent years for research funding programs and faculty hiring processes to require applicants to describe their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, principles. As the SSHRC website states, DEI principles “must” be integrated into research design. This can occur in different ways, such as through intersectional analysis, gender-based analysis plus, anti-racist and anti-ableist approaches or disaggregated data collection.

The University Affairs website provides guidance to prospective academics on drafting DEI statements. It suggests, “If you're new to thinking about EDI, and haven't considered how multiple overlapping systems of privilege or oppression may shape your point of view, consider pursuing some training.” Furthermore, “If you've not engaged in anti-racist service or research, think deeply about why you haven't engaged in these activities, and what blind spots you may have because of your lack of engagement.”

I don't imagine many people are against diversity, inclusion and equity in principle. I personally am not. However, if I may quote Harvard Law School professor Randall L. Kennedy, “the diversity statement regime leans heavily and tendentiously towards varieties of academic leftism and implicitly discourages candidates who harbor ideologically conservative dispositions.”

As MLI senior fellow and associate professor of political science at the University of Guelph Dave Snow wrote in The Hub, there are currently several SSHRC funding streams that invite research that subscribes to a particular world view, to the exclusion of others. These include grants to study “shifting dynamics of privilege and marginalization” and the race, gender and diversity initiative.

I do not intend to make a straw man of the various research streams our agencies fund nor imply that good research is neither conducted nor supported. I do not intend to mock or undermine the objectives of inclusivity, diversity and equity. However, the phenomenon of DEI has, in my opinion and that of many others, gone too far in narrowing and directing the kind of research pursued in Canada, to the exclusion of many other worthy avenues of research.

My own think tank, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, has evaluated the ideological bias in Canadian universities. I know you've heard from Professor Dummitt. In a survey conducted by Leger, they found that 88% of professors identified as left-leaning, versus only 12% on the right. Clearly, that's not representative of the political leanings of the Canadian public. South of the border, this has led to push-back. Several prominent universities, including Harvard, MIT and, most recently, the University of Michigan, no longer require diversity statements for faculty members during hiring or promotion. Several right-leaning states have banned DEI programs at state-funded universities.

If I may conclude on a personal note, my own research has often focused on indigenous and northern development, human security and resource extraction. I have co-authored many op-eds and peer-reviewed papers and I have edited volumes with first nations, Métis and Inuit colleagues. Ostensibly, these are encouraged topics. However, I have often felt that the kinds of questions I'm interested in and the conclusions I draw do not fit into the conventional Canadian academic space. I think many people like me have been excluded or have elected to work in the private sector, consulting or think tank worlds because we do not feel at home in universities.

I think this self-selection will be demonstrated even more acutely among the emerging generation of Canadian scholars and that the problem will get worse before it gets better. I do not think sorting based on political ideology is desirable, and I do not think it lends itself to research excellence.

As our elected representatives, you play an important role in ensuring our federal research funding system reflects the aspirations and needs of our society and economy. I expect it would be difficult to explain and justify to many of your constituents the criteria by which some of our research funding is allocated. I hope your oversight can help recalibrate our research funding models to become more interested in outcomes and processes and to maintain a focus on the creation and dissemination of objective, falsifiable research knowledge.

Thank you for your attention.