The Hidden Cost of DEI in Canadian Academia

When Rob Breakenridge sat down with University of Buckingham professor Eric Kaufmann, the conversation quickly turned to a finding that many would rather not hear: the push for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is not just a cultural shift, it may be a trade‑off against research excellence.

Kaufmann, who also serves as a senior fellow at the Macdonald‑Laurier Institute, has just released a paper titled “The Equity‑Excellence Trade‑Off: A Study of EDI in the Canada Research Chairs Program.” In plain English, the study compares the citation impact of chairs whose holders were appointed under DEI‑friendly criteria with those selected on traditional merit‑based grounds.

What the numbers show is unsettling. Across the board, the groups that benefited most from the new DEI‑focused hiring rules tended to produce research that was cited less often, and in some cases far less, than their peers. It isn’t a tiny dip; in several disciplines the gap was enough to shift whole departments down the rankings.

“It’s not that diverse scholars can’t do great work,” Kaufmann says, his tone measured but firm. “The problem is that the policy incentives have tilted hiring toward a set of criteria that, while well‑meaning, do not align with the metrics we use to gauge scholarly influence.”

The study also flags a growing phenomenon that the professor calls “scholarly activism.” In the social sciences and humanities especially, researchers are increasingly judged on how loudly they champion particular social agendas, rather than on the rigor or originality of their methodology. This, Kaufmann warns, risks turning universities into echo chambers rather than engines of critical inquiry.

What does this mean for policymakers? Kaufmann suggests a recalibration: keep the admirable goal of a more inclusive academy, but pair it with safeguards that preserve merit‑based assessment. He proposes transparent benchmarks, periodic reviews of impact metrics, and a modest ceiling on the proportion of appointments that can be justified solely on DEI grounds.

Critics of the study have already cried foul, accusing Kaufmann of “misrepresenting” the benefits of inclusion. Yet the data, he argues, speak for themselves. The conversation, then, should move beyond slogans and focus on how to achieve both equity and excellence without sacrificing one on the altar of the other.

For readers who want the full picture, the video interview with Breakenridge is available on the National Post site. It’s a dense, sometimes uncomfortable, look at a policy experiment that is still unfolding across North America’s research institutions.