Since at least Confederation, Canada’s universities have held a venerable role in promoting higher education and the development of new knowledge. They have provided this country and the world with countless scientific discoveries and innovations and provided insight that informed national discussions and debates on issues of paramount importance to Canadians.
Increasingly, however, the research for which our institutions of higher learning are best known has come under fire, from all sides of the political spectrum. Without question, our experience with COVID-19 led to a broad questioning of the value and trust in science. At the same time, much bigger battles have been brewing.
In the interest of social justice and fairness, many researchers and policymakers have worked diligently to develop policies and guidelines to ensure that research can benefit from the inclusion of divergent views and perspectives, in fact contending that excellence in research depends on this.
For others, particularly on the political right, research funding in Canada and elsewhere has been decried as increasingly ideological. To illustrate the latter perspective, one need look no further than the pages of this newspaper. Recent National Post articles or commentary have directlychallenged critiques of western science as illegitimate, and humanist research as not real science. Others have lamented the persecution of right-leaning professors, and the imposition of a research monoculture that demands adherence to externally imposed rules presumably enforcing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) on science.
The solutions applied to manage this increased polarization are equally alarming, from both ends of the political spectrum: on the one hand, increasing calls for cancellation of presentations and whole events on the basis of their alleged offensive character or because they may lead to violent protest; on the other, demands to defund research that is not based on “pure” excellence, to eliminate “wokeism” and to ban forced imposition of EDI guidelines and requirements.
All such remedies are antithetical to one of the cornerstones of scholarly life — academic freedom. This freedom is a privilege not to be taken lightly. It does not imply a licence to demean, harass or belittle the ideas of others. Nor does it allow for scholars to escape the penalty of law when free expression crosses the line into harmful or criminal behaviour. Simply put, within institutions of higher learning, academic freedom guarantees the right of scholars to freely criticize the policies and practices of societal institutions, without fear of harassment or reprisal by the government and, especially, the institutions that employ them.
The effects of polarizing opinions that have gripped society and, increasingly, our universities will not be resolved by limiting, channelling or recalibrating discourse to suit particular ideologies of the left or right, but instead by renewed emphasis on their complete opposite: the affirmation and support of academic freedom on our university campuses. Only in this way can institutions provide the one unique space in our society that allows for a full and respectful airing of views and perspectives on all issues — including those that are deemed controversial or even offensive — as part of an effort to bring knowledge to bear completely and openly on the improvement of human society.
At the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), we have for over four decades supported research that represents the views and perspectives of all researchers — and Canadians. Yes, we fund research on issues related to sexual orientation, social injustice and underrepresentation in society; we are also the primary funder of research in Canada on entrepreneurship and productivity. In fact, topics related to business, management and economics — including labour markets, supply chains and international trade, for example — are among the top disciplines receiving SSHRC research funding each year.
We support research on cultural expression of all kinds, gender, indigeneity and the impact of colonialism — past and present — in Canada and abroad. This includes much research on the social and cultural bases of social conflict and war, and how these may be attenuated. And yes, research we have funded has been critical of the actions of nation-states in global conflict zones such as the Middle East, or of groups that may support or oppose them, but we are also the main funders of research on antisemitism and racism of all kinds in Canadian society, as well as the strategies designed to combat these. In all these cases, funding decisions have been rendered in accordance with advice from recognized subject matter experts — not politicians or civil servants — helping to ensure objectivity and excellence in research design and impact.
However much we may disagree with the need for research, its objectives, its findings, or public and institutional policies concerning equity, it is essential that as a society we continue to support the widest possible array of investigation, its presentation and, perhaps most importantly, the critique and debate this engenders — all with the context of scholarly academic freedom and expert review. Not all research will produce impactful results or practical benefits. But only by exploring all sides of the issues and questions that confront us across a broad spectrum of interests can we best put knowledge to work for all Canadians.
As one recent National Post commentator noted, “While universities play an essential role in Canada’s intellectual and cultural life, the value that should be ascribed to that role is directly dependent on their ability to act in a manner that is conducive to the overall public good.” Without question, the protection and maintenance of academic freedom and research excellence is the cornerstone of that value.
National Post
Ted Hewitt is the president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.