What the University of Alberta is proposing is straightforward. It plans to remove language that encourages hiring committees to favour candidates from certain identity groups when candidates are said to be equally qualified.
The University of Alberta (U of A)has decided to remove race-based preferences from its hiring policy and place greater emphasis on merit, qualifications, and open competition.
That decision has triggered a threat from controversial University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran, who claims the move is unlawful and could cost the university federal funding.
In 2020 during the pandemic, Attaran tweeted that Alberta should not receive federal field hospitals because individual Albertans refused masks and lockdowns, prompting strong backlash and comments that his views were cruel and inflammatory.
Attaran also filed a private criminal prosecution against Ontario Premier Doug Ford alleging quarantine breaches. He also made a series of strongly worded statements about Quebec, including claims that the province and its government were racist, that it tolerated systemic racism, and that its policies reflected white supremacy.
He has been criticized in the past for extreme social media posts, including a tweet reportedly saying he’d “like to see the Secret Service fail again” regarding Trump and Netanyahu meetings, which was described as advocating harm against world leaders.
He was also in the news for a 2022 incident where he was accused of publicly shaming an unmasked flight attendant, used profanity about Americans (although he was born in America), and called for banning an airline for allegedly not enforcing mask mandates.
In a 2015 opinion column, Attaran accused the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) of being “cowardly and stupid” for allowing
physicians to conscientiously refuse to participate in assisted suicide or euthanasia cases, calling opponents “bigots.”
In a letter sent to U of A president Bill Flanagan and later shared publicly, Attaran called the policy change “deplorable” and warned that he would pursue action to have the university defunded. He wrote:
“The University is a recipient of Canada Research Chairs. Under a legal settlement that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and I reached with the federal government in 2021 and which has since been made an order of the Federal Court, the University must employ EDI criteria when hiring its Chairs. Failure to do so will lead to the University losing its federal funding—deservedly.”
Attaran also accused the university of bowing to political pressure, writing:
“You are pandering to the lowest common denominator, or should one say the greatest bigot denominator, of the Danielle Smith government.”
He concluded by putting the university “on notice” and saying he would alert federal officials to monitor Alberta’s actions closely.The language is forceful. The legal footing is not.
The university says it wants to move away from a framework that has become divisive and instead focus on access, community, and belonging — while making hiring decisions based on merit.
That is a policy choice universities are allowed to make.
Much of Attaran’s argument relies on the Canada Research Chairs program, which is widely misunderstood. The program is a federal initiative that provides funding for a limited number of prestigious research positions.
Most professors are not Canada Research Chairs. Most hiring decisions at a university have nothing to do with the program at all.
Universities that participate in the program must meet certain federal conditions when appointing people to those specific chair positions. Those conditions include having plans to address representation and reporting on outcomes.
They apply only to the Canada Research Chairs program — not to every faculty hire, not to general recruitment policies, and not to how universities structure their overall approach to hiring.
Changing a university-wide hiring policy does not automatically violate the terms of the program, nor does it trigger the loss of federal funding.
Even in cases where a university falls out of compliance, the consequences are limited to that specific program.It is also inaccurate to suggest that removing DEI hiring language violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter protects people from discrimination. It does not require employers — including universities — to use identity-based preferences to fill open job positions. Hiring based on qualifications, experience, and ability is not discrimination. Treating applicants equally under clear standards is not unconstitutional.
The University of Alberta’s policy change does not prevent anyone from applying for a job. It does not exclude any group. It simply removes guidance that places identity ahead of merit when making hiring decisions.
In his letter, Attaran argues that excellence cannot exist without identity-based hiring. He wrote:
“A worthwhile university… draws on all the best brains society has to offer, including those in black, brown, female, Indigenous, or disabled bodies.”
Few people would disagree that talent exists across every background. The disagreement is over how hiring decisions should be made. Alberta’s answer is that the best way to respect talent is to judge candidates on their work, not their identity.
Attaran is a well-known academic who often speaks forcefully on public issues. That is his right. But strong language does not turn a policy disagreement into a legal violation. Threats of defunding and accusations of bigotry do not clarify the law. They inflame the debate.
Universities should be places where ideas are tested through evidence and reason.
Alberta’s decision to step back from race-based hiring preferences may be controversial to some, but it signals a shift toward policies that prioritize equal treatment for all applicants.