Introduction
One of the most pressing concerns about Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives in contemporary universities is that they increasingly operate as dogma rather than dialogue. Policies are rolled out with sweeping moral authority, but dissenting perspectives—even when grounded in research and delivered respectfully—are unwelcome. This contradiction is on full display in the case of Dr. David Millard Haskell’s application for the EDI Faculty Colleague position at Wilfrid Laurier University’s Brantford campus.
Dr. Haskell, a professor of digital media and journalism, was the sole applicant for the position. His candidacy was backed by national and international experience, including published research on EDI practices, keynote talks, media appearances, and policy consultations. His application did not offer the usual affirmations of EDI orthodoxy; instead, it proposed that Laurier expand its commitment to inclusion by creating space for dissenting views—particularly those skeptical of the unintended consequences of current EDI frameworks.
Despite his qualifications and his status as the only applicant, Dr. Haskell’s candidacy was rejected. As the letter from the Provost explains, the faculty union (WLUFA) declined to recommend him, and without that endorsement, the university could not proceed. No reason for the rejection was given.
This episode raises serious questions:
Can a university claim to support diversity and inclusion if it systematically excludes those who question prevailing EDI narratives?
Is EDI meant to be a field of inquiry, subject to critical engagement like any other, or is it now an ideological litmus test?
What message does this send to faculty and students who believe inclusion should also mean intellectual pluralism?
Below, we publish Dr. Haskell’s full application statement, followed by the university’s rejection letter. Readers can judge for themselves whether Laurier’s commitment to inclusion includes the inclusion of critics.
Statement of Interest for Position of EDI Colleague – Brantford
Applicant: David Millard Haskell
EDI expertise
In 2024, my research survey (published by the Aristotle Foundation) on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion rose to national and international prominence. After feature articles about it appeared in the National Post (front page) and Toronto Sun, the 130+ papers of the Post chain ran those articles. Major US Magazines like Forbes discussed it. I was an invited keynote at a national conference on DEI at McGill University. Along with Dr. Geoff Horsman and a few other academics, I was asked for my expert opinion by members of Parliament, which included submitting a brief to the Standing Committee on Science and Research. Legislators in Missouri and others used my original report to support policy change. I was invited to write follow-up commentaries by international publications like Epoch Times (#3 conservative news site in the US) and Quillette Magazine.
Motivation
A university should embrace open debate and discussion of ideas from all points of view. As J.S. Mill noted, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” Too often, EDI is presented as received wisdom that does not tolerate dissent. When people are discouraged from challenging an idea, it eventually loses legitimacy as it becomes understood as authoritarian dogma.
A recent Economist/YouGov poll found 45% in favour of ending EDI in schools and government, yet this substantial proportion of opponents are given no representation in EDI policy or decision-making. This is not inclusive, and it is not sustainable.
To truly advance equity, diversity, and inclusion—as they are understood in terms of classical liberalism, not social justice—EDI policies must be subjected to intense disputation and scrutiny. For example, recent rigorous research showed that EDI led to “amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice.” As a vocal critic of EDI and a leading public intellectual on the topic, I am well-positioned to work towards making Laurier a truly inclusive institution, where dissenting views are tolerated and where an intellectually vibrant culture can once again flourish.
Ideas for Activities
Research shows that ideologically uniform groups tend to arrive at group consensus positions that are more extreme than most members of the group. To combat extremism arising from this phenomenon called group polarization, we must take extraordinary measures to hear dissenting views. To this end, we urgently need a discussion series highlighting viewpoints opposed to the official EDI positions at Laurier. Speakers articulating dissenting views will challenge us to uncover blindspots, which will give EDI advocates the space to extend grace to dissenters. This will benefit everyone; dissenters may have their minds changed while EDI advocates grow confident in hearing dissenting views. In other cases, EDI advocates may be persuaded to revise misinformed policy positions.
Specific topics to explore include:
- Under what circumstances is it permissible to exclude people from employment based on skin colour (e.g. as happened in the Inclusive Excellence hiring initiative)?
- When is it acceptable to target an ethnic group for exclusion (e.g. ‘Decentring Whiteness’, as described in Laurier’s EDI Strategic Plan)?
- How do we improve public transparency and hold people accountable to taxpayers and those harmed by discriminatory EDI policies?
Rejection Letter
From: x
Sent: July 28, 2025 12:23 PM
To: David Haskell
Cc: x
Subject: EDI Faculty Colleague
Dear Dr. Haskell,
The Equity Diversity and Inclusion Faculty Colleague (EDIFC) positions are filled through nominations from the full-time faculty and librarians to WLUFA. WLUFA then recommends one candidate from Kitchener/Waterloo and one from Brantford to the University. The University makes the appointment.
WLUFA has advised that you were sole applicant for the EDI Faculty Colleague (Brantford). The WLUFA Executive Committee reviewed and discussed your application at a meeting on June 19. After due consideration, the Executive Committee voted against recommending you for this role.
As we have not received a recommendation from WLUFA we are not able to make this appointment.
Best wishes,
x
Provost & VP: Academic
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
This example demonstrates not only why DEI should be made illegal...but every academic hired under DEI criteria has suspect credentials and should have to re-compete for their job with a massive assist given to those from groups discriminated against by DEI policies to compensate for the past abuses on behalf of members of "under" merited groups.
This is IN NO WAY a defense of EDI/DEI, but if I am the chair of a gene therapy department and I want to hire a gene therapist, I would not be too keen on an applicant who works on small molecule therapeutics who thinks gene therapy is a bad approach, no matter how awesome their credentials. This is not a perfect analogy, as both gene therapy and small molecule therapeutics are legitimate fields of study, with rigorous scholarly standards and a long list of deliverables, whereas, to answer the question you posed, it's difficult to make that claim about EDI. It is advocacy, with preferred conclusions, backed up by some pretty weak scholarship.
Haskell's statement is really compelling, and his work seems extremely important. And it is of zero interest to an EDI department and everyone knows it and knows why.
I guess, to make my analogy a little better, if I am a gene therapist and I want to promote the idea that gene therapy is the best way to treat certain diseases, I'm not interested in someone who thinks other approaches are superior. On the other hand, if I am running a department that is interested in understanding and addressing, say, musculoskeletal disease (that is, solving a defined problem), I actually do want to have the best people and the greatest diversity of approaches, and that would make internal disagreement both inevitable and welcome.
Which is to the point you are making. I don't know what a "faculty colleague" position entails, though it does sound vaguely scholarly. But it is clear that E, D, and I mean something very specific and narrow, and only those who have internalized those narrow, specific definitions are welcome, and only if their methodological approach and assumptions are aligned with the "correct" conclusions.
Also, telling Haskell that he was the sole candidate is super fun, given that it is probably unnecessary (unless there is some Canadian transparency law?), and really drives home the point "We'd rather have no one than even consider you".