Usher: Farewell Cakeism, Welcome Trade-offs, Effectiveness and Efficiencies

2026/01/21 Leave a comment

While focused on the education sector, applies more broadly as Carney’s Davos speech makes clear (with the hard trade-offs to come):

… But look, cakeism is everywhere. I mean, just look at the last federal election, where every party competed to cut taxes/increase spending in the midst of threats from the US that were going to slow economic growth and require increases in national security spending. Nary a trade-off in sight. Politicians in Canada and many other countries have come to the conclusion – perhaps erroneously, perhaps not – that voters simply dislike trade-offs so it’s better not to make any. Once upon a time – in the mid-late 1990s when we finally got our fiscal house in order – Canada was pretty good at thinking about trade-offs. But it’s basically all been downhill since the turn of the century.

Now, if you wanted to put the shoe on the other foot, you could say that all politics is a bit cakeist. After all, loads of people ask for government money to fund their favourite cause or institution and never think too hard about where the money is coming from. So is it cakeist to ask for more money for universities and student aid? Well, sort of. But one expects stakeholder groups to be cakeist/selfish – they are pushing their set of priorities, and it’s not really their job to think through trade-offs. It’s the job of governments. And increasingly over the past decade or two, governments just forgot how to do that and started saying yes to more and more people. 

But times are changing. Neither our federal nor our provincial governments are in particularly sound financial footing. Thanks to the Cheeto Chaos Agent in the White House, we are in for an extended period of economic dislocation and lowered growth prospects, not to mention a massive re-orientation of fiscal spending priorities to advantage national security. For the next half-decade at least, public resources are going to be much scarcer than they have been at any point before. We as a country, therefore, need to re-learn how to talk about trade-offs, and perhaps more importantly, how to talk in terms of efficiencies.

To take our own sector as an example: when asking the public for money, institutions are going to need to be a lot more explicit both about what immediate obvious benefits will accrue to the public or the government if the money arrives, as well as about immediate specific costs which will occur if the money does not arrive. That means “asks” are going to have to get a lot more specific: not “we would like $50 million please”, but “we would like $50 million please, which we will spend on X, Y and Z, and if we don’t get it we will need to cut A, B and C in order to fund these priorities, which means the community will lose L, M and N”. This may sound simple, but institutions going in this direction would be the biggest tonal shift in university government relations in my lifetime, because universities choke on the idea of doing less or being seen to do less. But this is what the language of trade-offs requires….

Source: Farewell Cakeism, Welcome Trade-offs, Effectiveness and Efficiencies

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

HESA: New Statscan Data on Students and Academic Staff

2025/12/09 Leave a comment

Of interest. College sector and business programs were the main abusers:

The student data is the slightly more interesting of the two, because it (finally) shows the system essentially at the height of the international student boom in the late fall of 2023 (Statscan student data is based on an October/November snapshot and therefore does not quite capture the full craziness of what went on in Ontario colleges, where most all international students were on an 8-month schedule with starts happening every four months and so therefore did not necessarily show up on Statscan scans). 

Unsurprisingly, total enrolments in Canadian postsecondary went up. A lot. 140,000 or so, which in absolute terms is the biggest single-year increase in post-secondary enrolments in Canadian history. But as figure 1 shows, that increase was a) highly concentrated in the college sector and b) largely due to international students.

Figure 1: Increase in Post-Secondary Enrolments by Sector and Source, Canada, 2023-24

Figure 2 breaks down the college increase by field of study.  Again, not a huge surprise: the biggest source of increase was business programs (cheap to deliver, required level of English not all that high); if anything, though I am surprised that so many programs saw an increase in enrolments: this result is actually substantially less business-centric than I would have expected.

Figure 2: Increase in College Enrolments by Field of Study, 2023-24

Source: New Statscan Data on Students and Academic Staff

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

HESA: That Was The Quarter That Was, Winter 2025 [Trump administration]

2025/04/01 Leave a comment

ùMore on the impact of the Trump administration’s higher education policies:

…On top of this came attacks on institutional autonomy, which for the most part consisted of threats to defund any institution which continued activities deemed to be “DEI”, a term the Administration defined in terms so vague as to make it nearly impossible to comply. In the case of Columbia University, it also threatened to defund an institution due to its failure to combat “antisemitism”, which was an odd thing to demand given how many genuine antisemites seem to orbit the Trump regime (Columbia caved). And also there was the detention and potential deportation of hundreds of international students, mainly it seems for the crime of exercising free speech and freedom of assembly in such a way as to be critical of Israel. The cumulative impact of what has happened in US in the past seventy days will take years if not decades to reverse. Careers have been destroyed. Promising lines of research – such as those involving mRNA research – have simply been dropped. If one wanted to destroy America’s future prosperity and scientific pre-eminence, one could scarcely have done more than the Trump Administration has done. This will be to the good fortune of some individual institutions in other countries, but to the world as a whole – especially North America – the faltering of science and the economic progress that depends on it will lower economic growth potential for a decade or more to come.


There are, broadly, three aspects to the whole US story. The first is one of anti-scientism, a broad disdain for the idea that anyone other than those in power are permitted to say what the truth is. This is most obvious when looking at the policies of the Department of Health and the NIH around the non-promotion of vaccines, but it permeates the administration generally. There are no other parts of the world – for the moment – where we see anything similar. But the other two aspects her – attacks on institutional autonomy and academic freedom on the one hand, and reductions in the financial capabilities of universities on the other, do have echoes elsewhere.

With respect to state controls over institutional autonomy and academic freedom, the most obvious parallel case to the United States over the past three months is Georgia, where the controversial pro-Russian government sees universities as a centre of dissent and wishes to increase supervision over them and thereby limit autonomy.  India and Pakistan have also seen flare-ups over the past few months with respect to autonomy – mainly but not exclusively relating to government use of the power to name vice-chancellors – but this is less a “new shift” than the latest incidents in a long-running battle.


The other issue, of course, is overall university funding. The United States is certainly unique in the extent to which scientific research budgets are under attack. And it is unique in the sense that it seems to be the only country where individual institutions are being singled out for specific funding reductions in the manner of Columbia University. But it is not unique in the sense that universities are feeling the need for quick retrenchment.There two closest parallels are Argentina and the Netherlands. In the former, President Milei’s inflation-busting program involves reducing government spending to well below the rate of price growth. By some accounts, real transfers to universities are now down about 30% on last year, which has led to a series of strikes. In the latter, the still new-ish coalition government, elected in 2024, is still enacting both a series of cuts to university finances and imposing restrictions on teaching programs in English, which has the effect of reducing universities’ international student fee income. This too, is leading to strike action.

Among OECD countries, universities in France, already struggling to deal with last year’s reductions in funding, got hit with a new round of compressions in the February budget, and most are looking at deficits both this year and next. The anglosphere trio of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia are also facing continuing struggles from the loss of international students stemming from a combination of tighter visa restrictions, reduced demand and greater international competition, but unlike the other examples cited, these financial challenges in the short-term stem from a loss of market income, not government income….

Source: That Was The Quarter That Was, Winter 2025

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

HESA: EDI and the Measurement of Merit

2025/03/26 Leave a comment

Good primer on EDI/DEI considerations:

…Now it is not obvious (to me at least) that the overall results of such a system are any worse than the overall results of the current system. You gain a little bit of equity in one direction and (perhaps) lose it in another. But there are winners and losers when switching from one system to another and the losers tend to scream louder than the winners.

In an ideal world, of course, one would be able to measure everyone individually by distance travelled, without the use of proxies. That way, “elites” from disadvantaged groups would not be unduly rewarded, and financially disadvantaged whites’ underprivileged position would be recognized. There would still be screaming, of course—people who were in danger of losing their position of privilege would still claim that a context-free, single-point-in-time definition of merit is “better” and “more objective” than a context-dependent one (this is more or less the position taken by the Students for Fair Admissions in the Harvard admissions case decided by the US Supreme Court in 2023). But it would have fewer drawbacks than other schemes which measure disadvantage via proxies.

Why don’t we do that? Well, I would argue it is for two reasons. The first is simply that using proxies to measure disadvantage is a whole heck of a lot cheaper than measuring it at an individual level. With proxies, you can reduce disadvantage to a set of categories that can be indicated by a tick in a box, something that reduces complexity and obviates the need to treat each case individually.

But the second and probably more important reason is that distance travelled is not an entirely straightforward and measurable proposition. It is by no means impossible to create methodologies to look for it: the Loran Scholarships and McGill’s McCall-MacBain scholarships both train assessors to look for precisely this (which is a very good reason why the former is so good at picking future Rhodes Scholars). But the problem is that there is no hard-and-fast algorithm here. You have to put selectors in a position where they can exercise judgment. And frankly, in an increasingly low-trust society, that’s hard to do (Phillip K. Howard’s Everyday Freedom: Designing the Framework for a Flourishing Society is very good on the unfree consequences of depriving administrators of the ability to exercise judgement).

And so here’s the thing: if you don’t want to measure disadvantage individually because you are too cheap to do so, and/or you can’t allow people freedom of judgement in assessing disadvantage for the purpose of measuring distance travelled, then what you’re left with as options are measurement by proxy, or settling for a definition of merit that unabashedly favours the members of the lucky sperm club. There is not really a fourth option.

Source: EDI and the Measurement of Merit

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with

HESA: The Future of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Canadian Higher Education

2025/03/19 Leave a comment

Interesting and likely realistic take:

…There are, furthermore, two big differences between Canada and the US with respect to EDI that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that EDI in Canada had very little to do with the composition of the student body; unlike the US, students from racialized backgrounds are substantially over-represented (as compared to the general population) in the student body up here. This is not to say that students from all racialized backgrounds are over-represented, but more are than are not (see back here for more on this). As a result, EDI in Canada tends to be much more about representation at the staff level, and specifically—given the politics of the institution—about academic staff. And to the extent that diversity in hiring, pay and promotion is at the heart of Canadian EDI efforts, current practice in academia is not all that far off the standard in the Canadian private sector, where diversity initiatives have been the norm for quite some time. This is why there aren’t that many Boards of Governors, even in Conservative places like Alberta, that have really blinked at EDI hiring initiatives.

The second is that the prominent presence of Indigenous peoples and the legacy of Truth and Reconciliation add a complicating layer to the whole issue. Indigenous peoples are generally not included in most EDI processes because it is recognized that, for historical and Treaty reasons, they absolutely should not be lumped in with other under-represented groups in terms of process, even if both are deserving of and would benefit from greater efforts at inclusion. Having two separate processes is complicated and can at a superficial level look a bit wasteful and politically complicated, but at the end of the day, that complication works in favour of EDI, institutionally speaking. No one—and I mean no one—is going to try and reverse Indigenization initiatives at Canadian universities. And because at least some of the aims of EDI & Indigenization are parallel (ish), going after one but not the other is hard to justify. 

So, given all of that, what is the future of EDI in Canada? Well, it depends a bit on which part of EDI we are talking about. I don’t think we are going to reverse course on equity in hiring. Cluster hires will probably continue for a little while yet for the simple reason that alternatives simply have not been very effective at moving the needle on racial equity (we’ve been doing that with female profs for about 40 years now, and while we are getting closer to parity, it has taken an unconscionable amount of time to get there). Neither do I think many institutions are going to change tack in terms of trying to create more welcoming environments: in an era of tight budgets, universities and colleges are going to do all they can to be seen as good employers on non-financial stuff.

Where I suspect we will see change will be in the tendency to add staff positions for the specific purpose of addressing issues of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. This is a place where a larger set of suspicions both in government and the professoriate about “bureaucratization” and “administrative bloat” will be decisive. This won’t necessarily reduce the amount of work to be done, so it probably will mean that more of it is done off the side of someone’s desk. I also suspect that institutions will look less favourably on equity groups’ requests for separate university events (e.g. Lavender Graduation ceremonies). 

Will this result in a tamping down of the (muted) culture wars in Canadian higher education? No. Some people will remain opposed to things like land acknowledgements, and the aging white guy irritation with Canadian history departments being insufficiently “positive” about Canada (meaning, in practice, centering narratives on any groups other than white settlers) isn’t going to go away either. Culture wars never end. Friction will continue.

And so too, broadly, will EDI. Words and tactics might soften or change, and a variety of other institutional challenges (mainly but not exclusively financial) may mean that the issue will never again be quite as central to university policy as it was in 2020 and 2021. But we’re not headed in the same direction as the US.

Source: The Future of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Canadian Higher Education

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

HESA: Nobody is Coming to Save Us, But

2025/03/18 Leave a comment

Sensible and ambitious, with potential medium and long-term benefits:

…Now, there just happens to be one kind of change that is suddenly going very cheap, and that is the ability to add top-class academic talent. The carnage down south, with the National Institutes of Health NIH being at least partially dismantled and entire universities being threatened with loss of hundreds of millions of dollars unless they submit to an unspecified number of random administrative fiats from the trump administration, is about to start hemorrhaging talent. It’s not just foreign scholars who are going to leave; top American talent is suddenly footloose, too, because it has become apparent that the damage being done to American science is unlikely to be fully reversible. And even if it could be reversed, you’d never be more than 4 years away from another group of anti-Enlightenment jackals coming and taking another wrecking ball to the whole system. The age of American Science is over, and it’s not coming back any time soon. The opportunity exists, therefore, for ambitious universities to scoop up a fair bit of top new talent.

But wait a minute, you say. Talent requires salaries, and salaries are under pressure, and Big Philanthropy doesn’t cover that. Well, actually, it can, but only if you package it and structure it correctly.

It would indeed be hard for a university to get a philanthropist to pick up the tab in order to grab a new talent across a range of disciplines. There’s nothing “new” about hiring additional profs to plug holes or provide upgrades to an institution’s existing staff. But some philanthropists probably could be persuaded to cover the costs if a university presented a structured package of targeted hires. That is, a set of hires that built on a set of existing strengths and moved the institution closer to world-class status in a specific discipline (e.g., Hegelian Philosophy, Dentistry) or cluster of related disciplines (Human and Animal Health/Vaccines, Water protection, etc.). 

Basically what you would want to do is create a package that encompassed: i) a half-dozen or so fully-funded named chairs, some of which could go to existing staff, others to new star hires, which would mean no net charges to the operating budget ii) money for whatever new space, laboratory or otherwise, was required to house these new scholars and their work, iii) funding for a reasonable number of graduate students, iv) at least some funds for ongoing innovative activities and v) some kind of collective identity. Wrap the whole thing in a bow, name it the [Philanthropist name here] Centre for [Discipline/Grand Challenge name here], hire ambitiously from across the United States to create a cluster of excellence on a level that can really make a mark on a global scale. Normally, this kind of thing would not be possible. But with chaos south of the border, I think right now, it is. And it could be game-changing for a few universities if they could pull it off….

Source: Nobody is Coming to Save Us, But

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

HESA: How We Choose to Respond to Crises

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Some good questions where universities and academics should make a contribution regarding current and future challenges, some driven by Trump, some long-term. Surprising no immigration questions (e.g., how to manage population demographics without relying solely on immigration, how do we come up with a balanced immigration policy that incorporates pressures on housing, healthcare and infrastructure):

…The first and most important way that could happen? By putting the collective brainpower of Canadian academia to work on very specific problems that our governments—with their brutally short-term focus—cannot hope to answer quickly. Imagine if all Canadian universities got together right now and said: we are putting our best minds together for the next 12 weeks (which is about how long it will take for an election to occur, assuming the Liberals lose a confidence vote in late March) and we’re going to answer the following questions about the future of Canada.

  • What does a post-NATO foreign policy look like. Who are our allies now?
  • What does an independent defense policy look like now? What can we learn from, say, Finland’s posture with the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s? Is universal national service an option?
  • How can Canada improve the status of its domestic knowledge-based industries? How do we make “smart” pay?
  • What would it take for Canadian businesses to genuinely pivot to new markets? What are the barriers and how can they be overcome?
  • More generally, how do we once again generate economic growth?
  • How can we best balance the protection of our democracy with the maintenance of norms of free speech?

It’s obvious the country needs answers to all of these hard questions. It’s equally obvious that the country’s universities are collectively the largest source of expertise to answer them. So let’s do it, now. Get a couple of hundred of the best minds in the country, relieve them of whatever other duties they have for the next few weeks and put together a lightning Royal Commission the likes of which we’ve never seen. It would be tough to organize, but who knows? It might remind people that universities are worth funding (Lord knows nothing else seems to be working on that score).
 

  •  But I think universities will also need to go further. They will also need to look critically at whether what universities currently do is aligned with the new priorities. So maybe a second group of top minds could answer questions such as:
  • What would be the impact on national productivity if we re-shaped the bachelor’s degree to be default three years instead of four?
  • Would we be more growth-oriented if we had more bachelor’s graduates, or fewer? What about graduate degrees?
  • How would postsecondary education change if we introduced a form of national service?
  • What role could business faculties play in promoting trade diversity? Would requiring students to take more foreign language courses help?
  • How might more specialist outfits like Citizen Lab contribute to Canadian domestic and foreign policy?

I suspect many will recoil from even posing such questions. Sacred cows, etc. But we have to. We can either, as a sector, act to protect and improve the state we have, or we can leave it easier prey to the bullies, liars, and thieves that are currently assaulting democracies around the globe. Those are the choices.

Canada made difficult choices and took bold action thirty years ago. I am certain we can do it again. But the country—and the higher education sector—first has to take the threat seriously. Will we?

Source: How We Choose to Respond to Crises

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

HESA: Taking Donald Trump Seriously and What it Means for Canadian Higher Education

2025/01/29 Leave a comment

The article on Indian H1-B workers and family concerns regarding their children born in the USA could provide an example of a Canadian advantage along with a more accessible immigration system but uncertain:

…It would of course be nice if we could run the clock back to 2017. Back then, we talked bravely about how Canada might benefit from Trump, what with all the people clamoring to get out because of racism, interference in science, etc. There was, in short, an upside to chaos south of the border. But none of that is going to happen this time. The combination of an underpowered economy, overheated housing markets, and a general disinterest in funding science and education mean that there is little public license to seek a rise in immigration even for the most highly skilled. This is the price we pay for our generalized political complacency: when lemons strike, we can’t make lemonade.

That said, there should be opportunities, mainly research-based, in the maelstrom of change to come. The question is: which universities will be nimble enough to take advantage of them?

Source: Taking Donald Trump Seriously and What it Means for Canadian Higher Education

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

HESA: Credulous Nonsense on Colleges from the CBC

2025/01/09 Leave a comment

Good analysis and critique. Shameful that the CBC declined to interview Usher as part of their reporting:

…So why did the CBC react as if it did?

This was the question I asked them when a CBC producer tried to get me to comment on the story on December 27th. Why would you do a story on so little evidence? I said I didn’t think the evidence merited a story but agreed to speak to them if they wanted someone to explain exactly why the evidence was so thin. You will no doubt be shocked to learn that CBC then declined to interview me.

Upon reading the story, it’s not hard to understand why. With zero evidence, they got a bunch of experts to repeat talking points about the awfulness of student visas that they’ve been repeating for months now.

Raj Sharma, a Calgary-based immigration lawyer, told said “If the allegations are true, it reveals shocking gaps in our integrity protocols.… This is deeply, deeply concerning and problematic,” adding that the allegations suggest “wide-scale human smuggling.”

(The “if” in that sentence is doing a hell of a lot of work – AU)

Kelly Sundberg, a former Canada Border Services Agency officer who is a professor of criminology at Mount Royal University, said the system has no oversight and is “being exploited” by transnational criminals. “This type of fraud, of gaming our immigration system has been going on for quite some time actually,” he said, noting that the volume of those potentially involved “is staggering.”

Ken Zaifman, a Winnipeg-based immigration lawyer, says that from his experience, the responsibility of oversight should lie with the educational institutions, but that they did not do so because “they were addicted to international students to fund their programs.”

Ok, so, these comments about fraud and oversight are worth examining. I’m trying to imagine how either the government of Canada or an educational institution could legitimately “prevent fraud” or “exercise oversight” in a case like this one. Are colleges and universities supposed to be like the pre-cogs in the movie Minority Report, able to spot criminals before they commit a crime? I mean, there is a case to be made that in the past Canada made such cross-border runs more tempting by allowing students’ entire families to join them in Canada while studying (as was the case in the Dingucha affair), but that loophole was largely closed ten months ago when the feds basically stopped giving open work permits to partners of students unless they were enrolled in a graduate degree.

Anyways, this is where we are now: our national broadcaster sees no problem running evidence-free stories simply as a platform to beat up on public colleges because that’s a great way to get clicks. Crappy journalism? Sure. But it’s also evidence of the disdain with which Canadian PSE institutions are now viewed by the broader public: CBC wouldn’t run such a thin story unless it thought the target was “soft.” And there’s no solution to our funding woes until this gets sorted out.

Source: HESA: Credulous Nonsense on Colleges from the CBC

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

DEI commentaries, emboldened by Trump and Poilievre

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Seems like the discourse South of the border on DEI has emboldened right leaning media in Canada, with three articles in the National Post over the last week or so. Most of these ignore the necessity to improve representation and assume that “old stock” backgrounds are inherently stronger than other backgrounds. However, there are legitimate concerns regarding viewpoint diversity.

Starting with the overly partisan, Terry Newman: Poilievre’s plan to ‘defund’ woke antisemitism can’t come soon enough:

This week marks the 10th Christmas Canadians have endured under Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government — 10 years of our Dec. 25th-born prime minister acting as if he’s our very own personal Jesus, without the humility, common sense, or moral clarity his birthday might suggest. From the get-go, Trudeau’s been a means to an end for Liberal party power — a famous name, flowing hair, a convenient professionally-good-looking object many lonely Canadian wives cast their adoring gazes upon — but otherwise, intellectually and morally vacuous. Thankfully, there is a solution. Pierre Poilievre will bring the common sense and moral clarity Canada so desperately needs.

On Christmas eve, Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Opposition, tweeted out a promise to Canadians and we should hold him to it: “I will defund wokism and fight antisemitism. And stand with our friends in Israel against terror.” It included a link to a statement from a telephone interview he gave last week to the Winnipeg Jewish Review.

An even sharper ideological focus can be found in Leigh Revers: Universities better get prepared for Poilievre’s anti-woke agenda, almost pathological in his salivating over the “Mump administration” crusade against DEI:

Pull the other one. Recent propaganda sheets such as The Bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and Academic Matters, the journal of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, which purport to represent professors like myself, are awash with racist DEI and tout a slavish fealty to obsessive and damaging social justice ideology. If you belong to the editorial team of either of these absurd political pamphlets, please drop me from your mailing list.

There is hope for students. Jordan Peterson has lately launched his academy, which, though limited to the social sciences so far, has breached the universities’ monopoly and comes at a bargain price. And the content is excellent, featuring such stellar authorities as Andrew Roberts, James Orr, John Vervaeke, Eric Kaufmann and a host of others. I’ve signed up.

Time is running out for legacy universities across Canada. I have a fancy next year we will see the same wave of comedy meltdowns that followed Trump’s re-election, just this time by an army of capitulating academics. “We didn’t mean to indoctrinate you with our untested ideology — Please give us more money.” Clink-clink. Too bad. It’s not in the cards.

Lastly, a more evidence-based approach to criticizing left-wing predominance at universities, Stéphane Sérafin: Defunding threats will not be enough to rid universities of systemic wokeism, who however cites the flawed survey and analysis of Dummitt, The Viewpoint Diversity Crisis at Canadian Universities (see following note):

Students have also suffered as a result of the ideological monoculture that now reigns on most university campuses. During the “great awokening” of 2020-2021, many students who refused to conform were subjected to attacks from their classmates and even formal disciplinary proceedings, as was the case with a student at my own faculty who dared to make Facebook posts mocking the Canadian federal public service’s affirmative action-style hiring policies.

Still more concerning incidents took place over the past year that appear to confirm the confluence between wokeism and antisemitism that Poilievre referenced. According to reports, Jewish students at multiple universities were subject to harassment on campus, their only apparent crime being that they were cast as members of an “oppressor” group and thus held to be personally complicit in “genocide” under the prevailing “woke” intersectional framework.

So, while some hold out hope that Canadian universities can bring themselves back in line with prevailing public opinion, there are significant reasons to doubt that this is possible, at least in the short term. This is highly unfortunate, given that it could cause them to lose funding.

While universities play an essential role in Canada’s intellectual and cultural life, the value that should be ascribed to that role is directly dependant on their ability to act in a manner that is conducive to the overall public good. We can hope against all hope that Canada’s universities will get their houses in order, but we should not be surprised if they face a reckoning instead.

HESA valid critique of the Dummitt/MLI study:

Look, this is a bad study, full stop.  The methodology and question design are so obviously terrible that it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that its main purpose was to confirm the authors’ biases, and clearly whatever editorial/peer review process the Macdonald Laurier Institute uses to oversee these publications needs major work.  But if a result is significant enough, even a bad methodology can find it: might this be such a case?

Maybe.  Part of the problem is that this paper spends a lot of effort conflating “viewpoint diversity” with “party identification diversity”, which is absurd.  I mean, there are countries which allocate academic places based on party identity, but I doubt that those are places where many Canadian academics would want to teach.  Further, on the specific issues where people apparently feel they have a need to “not share their opinions” on issues concerning race and gender, there are in addition to a censorious left a lot of bad faith right-wing concern trolls too, which kind of tempers my ability to share the authors concern that this is a necessarily “bad thing”.  And finally, this idea that the notion of being an academic means you should be able to say whatever you want without possibility of facing criticism or social ostracism – which I think is implicitly what the authors are suggesting – is a rather significant widening of the concept of academic freedom that wouldn’t find universal acceptance.

I think the most you can say about these issues really is first that viewpoint diversity should be a concern of every department, but that to reduce it to “party identification” diversification or some notion of both-sidesism (anti-vaxxers in virology departments, anyone?) should be seen for the grotesquerie that it is.  Second, yes, society (not just universities) is more polarized around issues like gender and race and finding acceptable and constructive common language in which to talk about these concepts is difficult, but, my dudes, banging on about why someone who happens to have a teaching position is absolved from the hard work of finding that language because of some abstract notion of academic freedom is not helpful. 

Source: Viewpoint Diversity




Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts