The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research’s recent recommendations on EDI are flawed, argue Lorry-Ann Austin (Thompson Rivers University) and Alana Hoare (TRU). Austin and Hoare write that the recommendations rest on a flawed assumption that research excellence and social conditions can be separated, when in reality universities are not neutral meritocracies, as various factors influence educational achievement. The authors highlight several contradictions in the Standing Committee’s recommendations, such as an endorsing the removal of EDI from funding decisions while noting flaws in the traditional ways of measuring merit and excellence which use a single characteristic. “Rather than lowering standards, EDI asks universities to broaden their understanding of where excellence can be found and how it can flourish,” conclude the authors.
