A new report reveals the depths of Ottawa’s DEI disaster

For a decade, the case for equity, diversity, and inclusion (DEI) in Canadian universities has rested on an article of faith: diversify who holds the chair, and the research gets stronger. A new Macdonald-Laurier Institute report, the first of its kind, tested that faith against the actual publication record of every Canada Research Chair (CRC) holder in the country. What it found is not simply that DEI carries a cost, but rather that Ottawa’s flagship research program—with a mission of making Canada one of the world’s top countries in research and development by attracting and retaining world-class researchers—has quietly redefined the idea of excellence altogether.
This “equity-excellence” trade-off, as the report puts it, is not only discriminating against some scholars simply on the basis of their race or gender, but it is also costing tens of millions of dollars per year and harming Canada’s overall ability to compete on the global stage.
Eric Kaufmann, Leif Rasmussen, and Jonah Davids pulled the h-index (the standard measure combining a scholar’s output with how often it’s cited) for every chair holder on the federal government’s own database, then checked it against race and sex, controlling for career length, discipline, tier, and funding council. The higher the h-index, the better.
Black and Indigenous chairs average an h-index of 18. Women average 28. White and Asian men average 38. East and Southeast Asian scholars scored 36, which rules out the easy objection that this is just racism against non-white academics generally. It isn’t. It’s what happens when race and sex replace merit as the most desirable qualification, and it’s eroding the quality of higher education.
A new report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute reveals that Ottawa’s focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Canadian universities is coming at the expense of its core mission. The report analyzes the publication records of Canada Research Chair (CRC) holders, showing that DEI initiatives favour lower-performing scholars based on race and gender, costing the system tens of millions annually. It highlights a significant increase in DEI language in research descriptions and a demographic shift in appointments, raising concerns about the long-term impact on Canada’s competitiveness in global research and development.
Ask about this article — or anything in Canadian politics, economics, and public policy — powered by The Hub’s 5,000-article archive and deep area expertise.
Comments (0)

Facts Only

* A Macdonald-Laurier Institute report tested the publication records of Canada Research Chair (CRC) holders in Canada.
* The analysis compared h-index scores against race and sex, controlling for career length, discipline, tier, and funding council.
* Black and Indigenous chairs averaged an h-index of 18.
* Women averaged an h-index of 28.
* White and Asian men averaged an h-index of 38.
* East and Southeast Asian scholars scored an h-index of 36.
* The report suggests that DEI initiatives favor lower-performing scholars based on race and gender.
* This situation is associated with costs of tens of millions of dollars annually.

Executive Summary

A new report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute examined the publication records of Canada Research Chair (CRC) holders to assess the relationship between diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and research excellence in Canadian universities. The analysis focused on the h-index, a measure of scholarly output and citation impact, across different demographic groups. The findings indicate that Black and Indigenous chairs averaged an h-index of 18, women averaged 28, and white and Asian men averaged 38. This data suggests that diversity metrics, when applied to research appointments, correlate with differential publication records. The report concludes that the focus on DEI in Canadian universities appears to favor lower-performing scholars based on race and gender, contributing to a cost of tens of millions of dollars annually and potentially undermining the goal of attracting world-class researchers.

Full Take

The narrative presents a tension between an aspirational organizational goal (attracting world-class researchers) and the execution of stated values (DEI), suggesting that institutional priorities can lead to unintended structural consequences that undermine core missions. The observation that demographic variables correlate with publication metrics, even when controlling for traditional academic factors, raises fundamental questions about what constitutes merit in the context of elite research funding and prestige. The implication is not merely a cost-benefit issue but a potential systemic recalibration where equity goals inadvertently act as a filter against established metrics of excellence, thereby affecting Canada’s global competitive standing. This pattern echoes historical struggles where identity politics, when prioritized over objective measures, reshape institutional hierarchies. The next critical step involves examining whether the mechanisms put in place to measure and promote DEI are themselves subject to this same differential impact, and what alternative metrics could restore integrity to the pursuit of research excellence. What specific policy levers should be adjusted to ensure that diversity efforts genuinely enhance, rather than detract from, the quality and quantity of high-impact research output?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The text presents an argument based on analyzed statistical data regarding research leadership demographics, framed as a critique of institutional priorities.

Signals Detected

Moderate sentence length variance; uses strong argumentative framing typical of policy journalism.

Clear, focused argument; the flow is logical from premise (DEI as faith) to evidence (h-index data) to conclusion (cost to competitiveness).

Uses specific named metrics (h-index, CRC) and names the source institution; implies research methodology without providing full details.

Claims about the data analysis and the overall implication are complex enough that easy fabrication is less likely than for simple factual assertions.

Human Indicators

The piece employs a specific argumentative structure common in policy-focused journalism, moving from an initial premise to data presentation and concluding with an implication. The language blends academic concepts (h-index) with policy concerns effectively.