Those looking to find work at Canadian public universities based on their qualifications alone might be hard-pressed as a recent study found that 98% of job postings had diversity, equity and inclusion requirements.
Public universities now overwhelmingly mandate DEI policies for academic jobs across Canada.
The Aristotle Foundation, a think tank for public policy, released a study on Wednesday assessing discriminatory hiring practices among Canada’s public universities.
In seeking to fill academic vacancies, the study found that “all 10 Canadian public universities sampled—and all but 12 of the 489 job advertisements—employed DEI strategies.”
To get a metric on the prevalence of DEI practices in academic hiring, the foundation reviewed roughly 50 active academic job postings at each of the 10 public universities studied.
Public universities’ DEI-based hirings require that they either prioritize or restrict candidates based on their inherent traits or group identity.
In other words, these job postings don’t just encourage scholars from certain equity-seeking groups but mandate that specific groups are to be prioritized while others are outright excluded.
“Typically, DEI strategies rely on equity-based moral justifications or productivity-based rationalizations for diversity and inclusion,” reads the study. “Both approaches are increasingly coming under scrutiny as they often heighten discord among groups while privileging those already doing well (in their finances and/or career) within marginalized communities to the detriment of lower- and working-class individuals throughout society.”
Of the 10 universities sampled, all were obligated to implement some form of DEI requirement for hiring and were present in 477 of the 489 total job advertisements that were reviewed.
The study’s findings revealed that “98% of the academic postings directly or indirectly discriminated against candidates and/or threatened academic freedom.”
Every single job posting from the University of Toronto and 96% of Dalhousie’s mentioned or implied a candidate’s “contribution to DEI” being an asset.
McGill University and the University of Saskatchewan also required job applicants to complete a DEI survey.
Additionally, almost two-thirds of the University of British Columbia’s and 55% of the University of Manitoba’s job postings required candidates to submit an essay or statement on DEI.
“Interestingly, the institution most likely to exclude candidates outright was also the least likely to employ any DEI strategies. At UBC, nearly one out of every five academic job postings explicitly restricted the job to a particular race, ethnicity, group identity, or other inherent trait,” the study noted.
“However, it was also the university least likely to call for specific DEI strategies; they were absent from 12% of UBC’s postings.”
The foundation called the data “concerning” and a new form of “discrimination in the name of reversing past prejudices.”
The study cited a University of New Brunswick “Tier 1 NSERC Canada Research Chair in Quantum Sensors for Space” job offering posted in May 2023 and still active as of Jan. 25 2025 as the most egregious example of these discriminatory hiring practices.
“[O]nly applicants who self-identify as members of gender equity deserving groups (including cisgender women, transgender women, transgender men, two-spirit, and non-binary) and/or as racialized individuals will be considered for this opportunity,” reads the job posting.
“We encourage those with intersecting identities to apply (for example, women who identify as racialized individuals, Indigenous, and/or persons with disabilities).”
This wide array of applicable groups allows for any person imaginable to potentially research physics at the university with the exception white males.
“It is difficult to reconcile such clear discrimination with good intentions. But even if well-meaning, such discriminatory practices have great potential to dilute research and teaching quality, as applicants are chosen for surface-level traits divorced from merit,” reads the study.
“There is a high risk that the applicant pool will be narrowed to the point where some of the most capable and qualified are ineligible.”
