The following resource seeks to address perceived challenges presented by equity, diversity and inclusion efforts by sharing an alternative perspective through the lens of opportunities presented.
Associated with this resource, read a reflection by the Associate Vice-President, Equity and Inclusion, The future of EDI: A critical moment for higher education, published in March 2025.
Perceived challenge: EDI uses intrusive and ineffective policy interventions to address an overblown “so-called” problem of systemic inequity. EDI ignores the possibility that some groups may not be willing or able to meet the requirements for admission or employment in higher education.
Opportunities presented: Talent exists within every social and cultural group.
There is a large body of research that demonstrates persistent and profound educational and employment barriers in higher education. This research examines how implicit biases and systemic inequities operate in admissions and hiring processes and practices. EDI principles promote inclusive excellence practices that focus on mitigating, if not eliminating, biases and barriers to identifying excellent qualifications. Inclusive excellence practices allow universities to identify and remove the biases and barriers imbedded in systems due to unequal societal structures and relations of power rather than perpetuating prejudicial deficit framing and victim blaming of underrepresented groups in higher education.
Perceived challenge: EDI promotes admissions and hiring based on social identity rather than on merit. If we treat everyone equally, the best qualified will rise to the surface.
Opportunities presented: Systemic biases and barriers in admissions and hiring have prevented particular groups from fair educational and employment opportunities.
EDI principles applied to admissions and hiring practices forefront excellence. Selection committees work to mitigate biases and remove barriers to give all qualified and competitive applicants a fair shot regardless of their social circumstances. EDI promotes inclusive excellence which invites critical analysis of indicators of excellence, moving beyond traditional biased indicators of merit. See the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) initiative, for example.
Perceived challenge: EDI approaches make issues bigger than they really are, given that incidents of discrimination are isolated and aberrant, and true prejudice is only displayed by a few “bad actors”.
Opportunities presented: We all hold conscious and unconscious biases. Studies have shown that well-meaning people can–despite their deeply held egalitarian values–unintentionally act on cultural biases, leading to differential treatment across social groupings.
Differential treatment of social groups, regardless of intent, is the definition of discrimination. In fact, there are three forms of discrimination: direct, indirect, and systemic. The latter two are often unintentional and perpetuated through subtle socialization. The EIO aims to first resolve concerns of discrimination through informal non-adversarial means (for example, education, information sharing, mediation, restorative practice, etc.). Over 90 per cent of concerns raised are resolved informally with the consent of all parties.
Perceived challenge: EDI programming focuses on group identities and rights at the expense of individual freedoms, including free speech and academic freedom.
Opportunities presented: There is a false binary created between individual and group rights. Human rights and fundamental freedoms are both individual and group rights.
EDI principles and inclusive excellence practices support a view towards balancing and reconciling the complexity of rights at play. The bar for limiting freedom of expression and academic freedom is very high, reserved only in cases of discriminatory behaviours or hate speech. Otherwise, all programming aims to promote respect, access, equity, and inclusion, while preserving, fundamental and academic freedoms.
Perceived challenge: EDI undermines democratic principles.
Opportunities presented: EDI principles and inclusive excellence practices value and promote inclusive models of collegial and shared governance, where all members of the university community can more fully participate in decision-making processes.
Perceived challenge: EDI uses practices that discriminate against white, able-bodied, cis-gender, straight men.
Opportunities presented: EDI principles and inclusive excellence practices foreground qualifications not identities.
They promote cognizance of the ways that social groups may have experienced inequities, and promote the identification and removal of biases and barriers to fair opportunities. Where there is evidence of profound and persistent disadvantage to certain groups, human rights laws permit the introduction of special programs that are restricted to members of disadvantaged groups to promote substantive equality (or equity). These designated special programs are only legally permissible if they specifically address the inequity and receive approval from British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner.
Perceived challenge: EDI focuses and amplifies our social differences, creating conflict, division and disharmony.
Opportunities presented: Being cognizant of differences is not the same as focusing on differences.
While it may seem counter-intuitive, studies show that being cognizant of cultural and social group differences, while also reflecting on how we may hold biases towards those differences, is the first necessary step in mitigating inequities. Studies also show that while diversity can bring natural intergroup discomfort, those tensions–if well understood and facilitated–can, in fact, lead to “contestation of different ideas, more creativity, and superior solutions to problems”. Heterogeneity, therefore, does not necessarily lead to less cohesion or more destructive and dysfunctional conflict.