Thank you.
This year, my long-held NSERC discovery grant was not renewed—not for any scientific reason, but for a political one. Specifically, I was unable to profess sufficiently enthusiastic support for the official state ideology of equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, which one now must do to receive tri-council funding. Essentially, scientists must say how they will recruit diverse people and identify and address systemic barriers to inclusion.
I attempted to meet these requirements by arguing that, because EDI requires racial discrimination and speech restrictions—policies opposed by most Canadians—EDI is itself a barrier to inclusion. To overcome this barrier, I proposed ensuring that EDI critics feel included and that we prioritize a culture of free speech and viewpoint diversity, without which science simply cannot flourish.
The NSERC evaluation committee obviously did not buy my interpretation of EDI. Unhelpfully, my rejection was accompanied by only the vague scolding that I did not, “describe an approach to recruit a diverse HQP and provide an inclusive training environment.” While friendly enough, NSERC program officers couldn't tell me what this meant. Luckily, a senior administrator at my university, who speaks tri-council, could decipher this message. He relayed to me that, while I don't have to sincerely support EDI, I most certainly must give the impression that I do. “Just say what needs to be said and get your money.”
To attract a diverse array of candidates, for example, I was told it's not enough to assume that those interested in my work will seek me out with a simple email. Instead, I must boldly proclaim my commitment to finding diversity at intersectional sanctuaries, like the campus rainbow centre. This is puzzling advice, not least because, of those struggling to find people on the Internet, it seems unlikely that foremost among them are members of the gay community.
Now, senior administrators are very attuned to the linguistic practices surrounding the acquisition of public funds, so this advice rings broadly true. The tri-council aims to tell us what to think and what to say. For skeptics, let me quote from the EDI best practices guide. It says that systemic barriers may be unseen to those who do not experience them, but nonetheless “[a]ll individuals must recognize that systemic barriers exist”.
It would be charitable to describe this as pseudo-science. Reputable scientists require experimental results to be universally observable and replicable by people of other languages and cultures centuries into the future. Claiming that knowledge is invisible to some people—based on skin colour for example—is anti-science. In other words, the government requires scientists to affirm the existence of phenomena that are not empirically verifiable. To invoke Paul McCartney, it's beginning to feel like we're Back in the U.S.S.R.
How has this nonsense so completely permeated Canada's research ecosystem? Well, after a few cancellations, people fall in line. Fear leads to self-censorship, and open, vigorous debate fizzles out.
I've tried to discuss EDI on campus a few times, with the following results. First, I was told, by two different administrators on two separate occasions, that EDI is not debatable. Second, I was kindly advised to stop talking about EDI because I have a family. I should think about my kids, I was told. It made me wonder, do I work for a public university or Tony Soprano? To summarize, tri-council EDI requirements are compelled political speech, and we find ourselves here because many have allowed themselves to be silenced.
I will leave you with two broad recommendations that I believe are critical for restoring the integrity of science. The first is corrective; the second is preventative. As a corrective measure, depoliticize science funding. This includes, among other things, removing EDI requirements. As a preventative measure, entrench a culture of free speech, which is the best defence against bad ideas.
All recent manias, from gender medicine to EDI, could have been avoided had they been openly debated from the start. I propose an office of devil's advocacy to fund evidence-based arguments against emerging scientific fads. This builds in viewpoint diversity and ensures that counterpoints are officially aired. Everyone benefits as ideas are defended, sharpened and refined.
I'm happy to expand on any of these points during questions. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be heard.
Thank you.