Universities at a political crossroads

2025 is on track to become a watershed year in Canadian political history as international upheaval and domestic challenges reshape our political landscape. Against a background of U.S. President Trump’s threats to our economy and sovereignty, Mark Carney has reignited Liberal prospects after what had seemed an assured election victory for Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Amidst the turmoil, Canadian universities find themselves in a state of great uncertainty, exacerbated by the tighter cap on international student study permits. As universities have increasingly relied on international student tuition to fund their programs, repercussions are taking a toll not only on the country’s economy but also on its reputation as a preferred destination for higher education.

In the wake of growing financial challenges and the rise of conservative voices questioning equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) policies, the role of higher education institutions in society is facing increased scrutiny. Yet in the current election campaign the parties seem to be placing these issues on the back burner. Will the plight of universities figure in this election, or will they remain at the margins of political debate as their future becomes less certain than ever?

A pivotal time for EDI

A conservative riptide emanating mainly from the United States but also from some Canadian provinces is being noticed by university administrations. EDI initiatives and associated funding are particularly under fire. The University of Alberta, for example, has moved away from the language of EDI in favour of a new framework emphasizing access, community and belonging. This announcement echoes skeptical arguments that claim universities’ EDI policies and investments are ideological in nature.

Yves Gingras, professor of history and sociology of science at the Université du Québec à Montréal, is among the vocal critics of EDI policies. He argues that these initiatives are built on shifting sands and serve an ideology rather than a true academic objective. “EDI advocates are ideologues,” he says. “They can never clearly define what it means.” He argues that diversity policies constitute bureaucratic interference in university research, a domain that he believes should be defined solely by academic excellence. “If someone asked me how my work on the Renaissance contributed to sustainable development goals, I would find that absurd,” he says. “Now they want to add EDI. What is EDI in this context?”

In contrast, others within the academy see EDI initiatives as essential to the democratic role universities play in society. Marc Spooner, a professor in the faculty of education at the University of Regina, warns against mounting resistance to EDI policies. “It’s easy for someone to say they don’t like EDI,” he says, “but once you explain what it means — equity, diversity, and inclusion — its rejection becomes much harder to justify.” For Dr. Spooner, rejecting EDI is no minor matter: it’s part of a broader trend rejecting the social sciences and humanities, and the sciences more generally. He remembers when Stephen Harper’s Conservative government did away with the mandatory long-form census — a crucial tool for public research and planning. “His willingness to get rid of the long-form census showed a real contempt for data, evidence, and science in general.” Today, he observes a similar tendency in Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party, which has floated the idea of introducing “free speech guardians” to monitor campuses — an initiative Dr. Spooner finds dangerously interventionist.

Four decades of federal investments in research and innovation

1982: Founding of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)
Despite being founded two years before Brian Mulroney took office, CIFAR received support from his government to advance cutting-edge interdisciplinary research in Canada.
2000: Creation of the Canada Research Chairs Program
In 2000, the Chrétien government created this program with $900 million in funding to establish 2,000 research chairs by 2004–05. The program’s goal is to attract and retain world-class researchers in Canadian universities.

The attacks are not solely on EDI initiatives, he adds, but on the democratic role universities play in society. Fields such as postcolonial studies, gender studies, and equity and diversity programs have become prime targets for conservatives. “Attacking these disciplines threatens our peaceful coexistence and our ability to understand each other.”

Dr. Spooner is concerned that Canada will follow the United States in politicizing higher education, which has led to budget cuts and control of universities by an increasingly authoritarian Trump administration. “University boards have been politicized,” he says, “and university presidents are becoming increasingly politicized. Yet it is crucial that universities remain independent institutions to successfully play a critical role in society.”

A distinct Canadian context

Alex Usher, president of Higher Education Strategy Associates, posits that critics of EDI initiatives are unlikely to follow the same path in Canada as they did in the United States. “Some think Trump’s approach in the U.S. will push the Canadian right to adopt similar policies, but I think that’s completely misguided,” he says. Rather, opponents to EDI initiatives will find it more difficult to achieve radical ends in Canada than they do in the United States, where the EDI debate has evolved.

“Trump has made it impossible to presume any good faith among opponents to EDI initiatives,” notes Mr. Usher. “It has become starkly apparent that many critics of EDI in the United States aren’t just opposed to diversity initiatives — they’re opposed to civil rights. There is no presumption of good faith in these debates.”

In Canada, however, Mr. Usher believes arguments will remain moderate. “I don’t think we’ll see much action against EDI in Canada,” he asserts. However, he notes that some critics, particularly in Alberta, are basing their critique of EDI policies on a more subtle rejection of national issues, especially as they relate to residential schools.

Mr. Usher points out an interesting paradox in how EDI policies are managed in Alberta: “The provincial government campaigned openly against EDI. It’s difficult for a university to hold out against that. I think the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta are trying to present this as a simple change of tack without giving the impression of total capitulation.” Though he finds validity in criticism of EDI initiatives, he recognizes the value of diversity in recruitment. On the other hand, inclusion initiatives can sometimes slow down decision-making in establishments already perceived as sluggish. “You can be for EDI or against it,” he says, “but it’s a matter of give and take.”

A checkered Liberal legacy

The heated debate over EDI policies is hardly the only transformation universities have undergone during the Trudeau government. For almost a decade, the Liberal Party has shown strong support for scientific research and higher education by increasing budgets for granting agencies and creating the position of chief science advisor. But these advances have been matched by more controversial decisions, including recent restrictions on international students. What will be the legacy of the Trudeau government, now in the rearview mirror, on the university sector?

2008: Launch of the Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government established this program to attract world-renowned researchers to Canada by awarding substantial funding to establish innovative research programs.
2017: Creation of the post of Chief Science Advisor of Canada
Justin Trudeau’s Liberals created this office to provide the government with independent advice on science issues and to ensure that scientific knowledge helps shape public policy.

Mr. Usher notes that while the government has announced significant investments in research, much of this funding remains hypothetical: 88 per cent of the promised injection would not materialize until after the next election.

“It may happen,” he admits, but cautions that it all depends on the next government. A continued Liberal government could release the funds, but a Conservative victory may put these commitments in jeopardy.

To Mr. Usher, this is emblematic of the Liberal higher education legacy as a whole: innovative ideas, but inconsistent implementation.

This lack of follow-through is not limited to research. In 2019, Ottawa had announced an ambitious plan to encourage continuing education with tax incentives. “They forgot about this completely,” says Mr. Usher. No assessment, adjustment or mention of the plan appeared in subsequent budgets.

Similar improvisation also seems evident in the recent changes to international student policy. Mr. Usher acknowledges that abusive practices by certain private institutions forced the government to act. “Was it a smart move? I would give it a B-.” He is especially critical of the poor planning and rushed decision-making, which seemed to take place “by scribbling notes on cocktail napkins.” What’s worse, he adds, is that the more universities voiced their concerns, the more the government believed it was on the right track.

International students in the crosshairs

Dr. Spooner highlights the Trudeau government’s considerable improvements to the university sector. In his view, the Liberal government sent a clear message about the importance of science, expertise and university scholarship to Canadian society.

However, he is critical of how the government has managed higher education, particularly regarding international students. He feels the government has presented international students as a problem rather than an asset. “These funding cuts have sent the message that these young minds, full of new ideas and perspectives, are not welcome.”

This complex issue has been approached hastily, misguidedly and without adequate collaboration with academia, says Dr. Spooner. While progress has been made, the potential for positive outcomes has been hindered by a lack of dialogue with institutions.

Federal neglect, provincial interference

Daniel Béland, a political sociologist and professor at McGill University, argues that Justin Trudeau’s record with higher education depends on which years are being examined. “From 2015 to today — that’s a long interval full of important decisions,” he says, “but if we focus on the period since 2021, it’s a different story.”

Dr. Béland, who serves as director of McGill’s Institute for the Study of Canada, says it’s important to bear in mind the structure of Canada’s higher education system. Universities are mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government does provide financial support, especially for research. It also controls certain policies that influence education, including immigration. He notes that the federal government raised the cap for international students just after the pandemic but lowered the immigration cap shortly thereafter, with renewed attention given to international student numbers.

He questions what motivated these policies: “Was it a matter of pure politics? Was it anticipating the election? A combination of both?” He also suggests that, though the main contributor to the housing crisis has been the lack of new housing construction, immigration has been used as a scapegoat. “International students, who are only temporarily present and do not vote, made easy targets,” says Dr. Béland.

However, he acknowledges that some institutions — mainly private colleges in Ontario — were abusing the system in pursuit of financial gain. “But the measures taken also punish public universities and create serious financial problems for them.” Dr. Béland wonders whether a Conservative government might have followed the same track given similar positions expressed by certain Tories. In his view, the Trudeau government’s higher education record varies depending on one’s perspective.

On March 23, while addressing journalists to announce the dissolution of Parliament and the start of the election campaign, Mark Carney confirmed that if elected, his government would maintain immigration quotas, including the cap on study permits for international students, until the housing crisis is resolved.

Universities off the radar

Dr. Béland is worried about the future of universities. He suspects that matters of research and university funding will be placed on the back burner, especially as international issues like “the Trump situation in the United States” take the spotlight.

Also of concern is the growing interference of provincial governments in higher education. In Alberta and Quebec, for example, EDI policies are being increasingly called into question. Dr. Béland believes that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has “a similar ideological influence as the American Republican Party.” This influence could draw more and more scrutiny to academia as right-wing governments seek to limit what they perceive as “militant and excessive” left-wing influence in universities.

Dr. Béland recommends universities organize and lobby to defend their independence and protect their academic values in the face of these growing political pressures.

Higher education, though indispensable, is obviously not a political priority. It seems to Dr. Béland that politicians lack interest in academia, especially since the Trudeau government took its controversial stance on international students. Even as the Trudeau administration increased financial support for universities, it normalized a more political approach to education. “Universities and professors are certainly concerned about it, but it’s not a leading issue.”

In the current economic and geopolitical climate, universities will be challenged to uphold their value despite their enormous contributions to democracy and society. Now more than ever, it is crucial to resist efforts to undermine them and to reaffirm their importance in this election.