Thank you for inviting me to speak today.
As mentioned, my name is Nadia Hasan, and I'm an assistant professor of gender, sexuality and women's studies. I'm also the director of the Islamophobia research hub at York University in Toronto. I have nearly 20 years of experience working at the intersection of academic and community-based research through non-profit organizations and post-secondary institutions.
Today I want to talk about two things, first, the importance of funding research that deepens our understanding of, and helps us combat, racism, hate and discrimination in all its forms, and second, how federal funding can strengthen meaningful partnerships with community.
We're having this conversation in a troubling global context. In the United States, the targeting of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives has brought with it a dismantling of academic freedom itself. This has led to restrictions so sweeping that terms such as climate, woman, peanut allergies and safe drinking water have made their way onto banned words lists in federal agencies, according to outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post and PEN America, which also report that this has already resulted in failed or rescinded research grants.
This type of political censorship undermines democracy, limits innovation and stifles critical scholarship. It is a cautionary tale for Canada and a reminder that our federal agencies, as well as this committee, must resist these chilling trends.
Let me begin with my first point, why Canada must continue to fund research that addresses racism and discrimination. The evidence is strong that diversity in research ecosystems results in more innovation and better research impact. For example, research on Black maternal health, an area that has been long ignored in the research community, uncovered systemic inequities that led to new initiatives reducing infant and maternal mortality. Indigenous-led scholarship has revealed how the devastating impacts of colonial violence, including language loss and cultural erasure, have implications for health and safety while pushing institutions towards truth-telling and action. These examples, however incomplete, show how rigorous research does more than describe problems. It has saved lives, changed systems and built paths to justice.
This work is not easy, and at times it requires courage, though it should not have to. Consider the recent stabbing of a gender studies professor and students during a lecture at the University of Waterloo. The attacker admitted to deliberately targeting the class and, in his manifesto, expressed support for the gunman who livestreamed the killing of 51 people at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. He also referenced a massacre of 69 young people in Norway carried out in the name of xenophobic and Islamophobic ideologies.
In this climate, professors in gender studies and related fields all over Canada increasingly fear for their safety. Many, including me, are now advised to avoid publicly posting our office or classroom locations and to implement safety plans and training. This is not a healthy environment for fostering intellectual curiosity, open debate or the free exchange of ideas.
In my own work at the Islamophobic research hub, I strive to create methodologies that empower impacted communities. For instance, we're working with policy-makers, labour organizers and service providers in Muslim communities to study systemic barriers to the economic integration of Muslims in Canada. We're also examining the impacts of Islamophobic violence, such as the fatal attack on the Afzaal family in London, Ontario, and the Quebec City mosque shooting, on the mental health and identity of young Muslims. These projects centre community-based knowledge where lived experiences become a foundation for evidence-based change.
However, this kind of research is not easy to sustain under current tri-council funding structures.
This leads me to my second point Federal funding must be structured in ways that make community-academic partnerships more accessible, efficient and sustainable.
Community partnerships are heavily encouraged, but the support mechanisms are often inadequate. As someone who has been both a community partner and now a university researcher, I have seen both sides of this struggle. For example, with community partners, I co-wrote a 53-page SSHRC application for a $23,000 Connections grant to focus on the experiences of Muslim women accessing shelters. We did not receive the grant, but what stayed with me was the enormous uncompensated labour I had to request from partners already overstretched in underfunded women's shelters.
While SSHRC now allows salary research allowances for community partners, streamlining the application and modernizing its outdated portal are crucial to fostering meaningful partnerships.
The bottom line is this: Canada should fund good research. It should enable partnerships and reduce barriers. It should do so without bias or political interference. At a time when academic freedom is under threat elsewhere, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to strengthen it here.
Thank you.