Beyond the binary: reclaiming equity and inclusion in higher education

The last several weeks have been a whirlwind of emotion, confusion and overwhelming for many of us working in and leading equity portfolios in Canadian higher education. The unprecedented flood of executive orders issued by the U.S. Republican administration within their first days in office – orders which not only deem equity initiatives in higher education illegal but also wield state power to strip vulnerable communities of their rights, have left us as the U.S.’s closest neighbour, feeling uncertain. Declarations by some leaders here in Canada about the need to curb the rise of the “woke” agenda have amplified that uncertainty.  

While the Republican administration’s actions may appear haphazard, political analysts suggest they are part of a coordinated strategy called flooding the zone. This strategy focuses on overwhelming, distracting and destabilizing the public with constant information and controversies. Beyond overwhelm, the approach can also breed collective fear and futility amidst such crushing and seemingly incontestable authority.  

Given this moment is daunting, it’s easy to see how those leading equity portfolios in Canadian higher education might default to the binary of flight or fight.  Quietly retreating on commitments, downsizing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) portfolios or renaming them using neutral language are among many possible flight responses. Several hasty fight responses are also possible, and in enacting them, there is a risk of unintentionally reproducing the divisive and harmful behaviours of the day. Whatever our choices, fear-based decisions are unlikely to reflect the best of our hearts and minds. We would like to offer some possibilities for responding to this challenging moment that transcends the flight/fight binary. 

Defining EDI on our own terms  

A simple first step is to reclaim the narrative about EDI. Over the past few years, damaging narratives about EDI have gathered pace, shaping public opinion. Critiques focus broadly on accusations of divisive identity politics that lower standards and upend meritocracy. Ironically, one of EDI’s key assumptions is that identities are neither inherently good nor bad. Instead, it argues that all identities are of equal value and deserve respect and dignity. As a framework, EDI is attuned to the reality that historically constructed hierarchies of power continue to influence the distribution of societal resources and that systems like healthcare and education have a pivotal role in sustaining or disrupting social inequality. Recognizing the humanity and inherent rights of all is not, as EDI detractors insist, some radical doctrine. It is a legal requirement and should be the minimum expectation within all organizations, irrespective of political headwinds.  

One of the silver linings in the current moment is that many practitioners have started to articulate in a much more focused way what EDI work is and, crucially, what it is not. For example, discerning that removing systemic barriers and mitigating bias, supports rather than undermines a merit-based system is crucial. So, too, is pointing to evidence that providing equitable access to resources and opportunities enriches and expands excellence within the academy. There is both a need and an opportunity for all leaders to develop the competence to respond to critiques of EDI in evidence-based ways that correct misperceptions, an example of which is the assertion that EDI seeks to disenfranchise the dominant group.    

Examining our practices   

Although personal reflection is a cornerstone of social justice work, the reality of managing busy portfolios with limited resources often leaves little time to step back and meaningfully assess the impact of our efforts. We argue that the current turbulence offers an opportunity to pause long enough to reflect, reshape and rethink how we approach equity work within our institutions. This is not merely a reaction to the present moment but a recommitment to ensuring our efforts’ maximum impact and sustainability. Among the topics we are currently considering is whether the theoretical frameworks and pedagogical approaches we tend to rely on continue to be effective, and if not, how they might be expanded or reimagined. We also question how to balance the need to advocate for a greater diversity of thought, experiences and backgrounds in academia while heeding the African American scholar Ruha Benjamin’s warning that “Black faces in high places won’t save us” if we do not work towards building just systems.  We are reflecting as well on the impact of shifting equity work from loosely formed, bottom-up cross-campus coalitions to formally staffed offices embedded within university leadership structures. What have we gained (and possibly lost) because of this transition, and how can we integrate the best of both approaches? While we do not claim to have all the answers to these complex and nuanced questions, we believe the field would be strengthened by collectively reckoning with them.  

Building strong collectives  

History offers lessons and frameworks for achieving systemic reform in higher education. In 1918, the Queen’s University senate voted to prohibit Black students from enrolling in its medical school. Several other medical schools in the country also excluded Black students or imposed restrictions on their admission for varying periods. Only through the collective efforts of Black faculty, staff and students in partnership with local Black communities and allies, do we now see medical schools that increasingly reflect the communities we serve. 

As recently as the 1960s, young people with disabilities were excluded from education and sequestered away. Disability rights community-based organizations joined forces with parents and institutional allies to demand better support for students with disabilities, leading to policy reform. Today, disability rights are not only an expectation; they are a legal requirement.   

Collectives have also been at the forefront of advancing women’s rights in Canadian higher education since the 1970s, successfully lobbying for gender equity policies, spearheading awareness campaigns, and providing support networks for women in academia. While more progress is still needed, each movement has secured lasting change, reinforcing the power of collective action that connects communities with campuses.   

The most successful collectives embrace differences and multiple truths while anchoring themselves in shared values. They develop mechanisms to resolve conflicts centred on connection, solidarity and radical care, pre-empting the interpersonal disputes that too often derail movements.  

Building successful collectives in the present moment requires actively preventing the structured siloing of EDI work that often occurs within institutions. How can we intentionally come together and examine where we currently stand and how to uphold the essential work of EDI in education and beyond? 

While the current moment threatens to immobilize us, it can equally inspire collective action   focused on protecting and honouring each other’s rights and humanity.