1. Employment Equity in Canadian
Universities: A Review of Key Factors
1042: Educational Leadership And Diversity
Kate Peters
12/18/2016

2. 1
Preamble
Tammy is a professor at a Canadian university in the women’s studies department of a faculty
of arts. She does not specialize in women’s studies, but there is no department of Indigenous
studies in her university. She was hired while completing her PhD and carried a full course load
while working on her thesis. She remembers those years as being difficult. Her children were
young and she was alone in the city. But she was grateful at the time to have the opportunity;
and proud to be one of the few Indigenous Canadian scholars teaching in universities. Her
memories of her tenure decision are particularly painful; her committee clearly felt that
Indigenous studies was not a legitimate discipline and intimated that she was a token hire.
Over her fifteen years at the university, she has found her work is becoming more difficult to
manage. She struggles to balance the demands of her community, her service work at the
university, and the increasing number of requests to collaborate on research projects where her
Indigenous perspective is required. She has always felt alone in her university, and in many
ways she was (she was one of only six faculty members when she began); but lately, the weight
of the struggle she feels to preserve her cultural identity and defend Indigenous knowledge and
perspectives to faculty and students has left her feeling like she should move on. She hasn’t
seen evidence of leadership or willingness to decolonize the university in her time in the
academy, in spite of employment equity policies which aim to remove barriers from Indigenous
employees. While discouraged, she also knows that she plays a vital role as an Indigenous
scholar, not only in contributing to societal change, but also to making universities more
welcoming of Aboriginal students. 1
1
This fictional depiction of an Indigenous Canadian faculty member is inspired by Frances Henry’s article
“Indigenous Faculty at Canadian Universities: Their Stories” (Henry, 2012) Henry points out that there are
only three universities with stand-alone departments or faculties for Indigenous or Native Studies. In
Canada, 1,000 First Nations, Metis or Inuit individuals have received a PhD according to Statistics
Canada and 600 of them are employed as teachers or faculty members by Canadian universities. Henry’s
article outlines the unique challenges that Indigenous faculty members face including discriminatory
policies, the difficulty in preserving their cultural identity, bias and stereotypes and the lack of recognition
for Indigenous Studies as an area of scholarship.

3. 2
Contents
Preamble ................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 3
Scope..................................................................................................................................... 3
Context and Definitions .......................................................................................................... 4
1) Institutional Barriers ............................................................................................................... 5
A) Making Equity Part of the Organisational Culture of the University............................... 5
a) Inclusive Climate.......................................................................................................... 5
b) Accountability............................................................................................................... 6
c) Shared Commitment to Equity and Diversity................................................................ 6
B) Strategic Human Resource Management .................................................................... 6
a) Diversity Targets.......................................................................................................... 7
b) Employment Equity Committees .................................................................................. 7
c) Diversity Planning Processes....................................................................................... 7
C) Policies on Recruitment, Selection and Retention........................................................ 8
a) Recruitment ................................................................................................................. 8
b) Selection...................................................................................................................... 9
c) Retention and Progression........................................................................................... 9
Conclusion: Institutional Barriers ...........................................................................................10
2) Individual & Personal Barriers...............................................................................................11
A) Resistance to Employment Equity...............................................................................11
a) Denial or Disbelief of Systemic Discrimination ............................................................11
b) Recognition of Individual Privilege ..............................................................................11
c) Controversy Over Policies Which Promote Equity.......................................................12
B) Transformative Leadership .........................................................................................13
a) Focus on Equity..........................................................................................................13
b) Creating New Knowledge Frameworks .......................................................................13
c) Demonstrate Courage and Activism............................................................................14
Conclusion: Individual & Personal Barriers ............................................................................14
Conclusion................................................................................................................................16
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................18

4. 3
Introduction
Since the 1980s, most higher education institutions in Canada have put in place
employment equity policies and have made progress in providing more equitable, diverse and
inclusive environments to learn and work in. However, they are criticised for their lack of
diversity, for inequitable policies and processes, and for not creating inclusive climates. Given
that a policy framework for employment equity is present in Canadian universities, why has
there not been more progress to date?
Scope
This paper will explore the key factors which influence the implementation of
employment equity policies in Canadian universities. There is not an extensive body of research
on employment equity policy in Canadian universities; however, there is more research on
personal experiences of exclusion in Canadian universities which was useful in understanding
how policies have been implemented. In addition, research on human resource management,
American diversity initiatives and transformative leadership were helpful.
A number of factors emerged in the literature, which are grouped in two sections in this
paper: institutional or systemic factors, and individual or personal factors. Identifying, defining
and understanding these factors will constitute one of the fundamental steps in the process of
removing barriers to employment equity in Canadian universities.
To begin, systemic or institutional factors will be considered including organisational
culture, strategic human resource management practice, and finally policies on recruitment,
selection and progression; after, individual or personal barriers including resistance and the
impact of leadership will be explored.
This approach will show that there is a multitude of factors which influence employment
equity in Canadian universities and whose importance will vary depending on the specific
institutional and personal context. The document will not provide an in-depth analysis of any one
factor; instead, the high-level overview provided will demonstrate that there is no “silver-bullet”
solution to improving employment equity, “instead varying degrees of successful advocacy,
education, activism and argument regarding the understanding of systemic oppression and its
manifestations at the level of the workplace tend to surround effective employment equity policy”
(Bakan & Kobayashi, 2000).

5. 4
Context and Definitions
The term “employment equity” was coined by Judge Rosalie Abella in her report from the
Royal Commission of Inquiry on Equality of Employment (Abella, 1984). The federal
Employment Equity Act was based on the report’s findings and was passed in 19862
. Equity3
is
not the same as formal equality which presumes equivalency between individuals.
Employment equity recognizes the differences faced by individuals and seeks to ensure
equitable outcomes. With regards to policy, processes will seek to even the playing field
and promote fairness while recognizing that full equality is not possible.
In employment equity policy, diversity4
refers to designated groups defined by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provincial Human Rights legislation.5
Universities will
often enshrine their list of designated or target groups in policies.
2
The Act defined four designated groups who "are inherently unable to achieve equality on their own, (...)
the obstacles in their way are so formidable and self-perpetuating that they cannot be overcome without
intervention" (The Employment Equity Act, 2014). The Act requires employers to go beyond equal
opportunity for members of designated groups and to put in place proactive measures to eliminate
barriers against them. The Act seeks to support equality in employment which is defined as proportional
representation of groups in the workforce. Specifically, Section 2 of the EEA states:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied
employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to
correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples,
persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that
employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special
measures and the accommodation of differences (The Employment Equity Act, 2014).
3
The Canadian Association of University Teacher (CAUT) provides a definition of equity in their
overarching policies:
The goal of equity is to achieve inclusiveness and social and economic justice through recognition,
respect, numerical representation, accountability, responsibility and the development of balanced, healthy
and harmonious working environments (The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), 2011)
4
Diversity was defined by the University of British Columbia as “differences in how people see,
categorize, understand, and go about improving the world.” (Page, 2007)
5
The groups generally include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual
orientation, gender expression, gender identity, marital status, family status, disability and a conviction for
which you have been granted a pardon.

6. 5
1) Institutional Barriers
Universities have always had a reputation for advancing liberal values in society;
however, they are not exempt from the issues of exclusion that are still prevalent in Canada
(Smith, 1993). Legislation has sought to counter inequality and universities are often covered by
both federal and provincial legislation for employment equity (Bakan & Kobayashi, 2000). They
may also be subject to the Federal Contractors Program, a further institutional pressure to
implement employment equity policies (Osbourne, 2012). However, research shows that
institutions will either do the minimum required by legislation to comply, or take a strategic
approach to dealing with employment equity (Oliver, 1991) (Oliver, 1997).
When a university makes a strategic commitment to equity, it typically can be seen in the
creation of an inclusive culture, the use of strategic human resource management approaches
to manage diversity goals, and in policies developed through a diversity lens. I will be discussing
those three factors, starting with the importance of a culture of inclusiveness.
A) Making Equity Part of the Organisational Culture of the University
Any discussion on the impact of organisational culture on equity in universities should
start with the recognition that there is a structural issue which drives academic culture and that a
“fundamental structural change for a deeply flawed system, notwithstanding educators and
administrators ‘good intentions,’ is required” (Dei, 2016). Some facets of an inclusive
organisation culture will be examined, such as inclusive climate, accountability structures and a
shared commitment to equity.
a) Inclusive Climate
Many universities may have adopted statements on equity or included the term equity in
their mission, vision or value statements (Charvat, 2009). An inclusive organisational culture
does not necessarily follow, however. Inclusivity “works with an understanding of multiplicity of
views, ideas, knowledge and practice” (Dei, 2016). The absence of these factors can be a
formidable barrier to implementing employment equity policy (Kobayashi, 2002). Inclusive
climates are best measured by underrepresented faculty such as racialized or Indigenous
persons (Spafford, Nygaard, Gregor, & Boyd, 2006). Climate surveys, when implemented
carefully, can provide a sense of whether employees feel that they work in an equitable
environment (Brink & LeMaster, 2013).
Institutional commitments to equity must be coupled with recognition of historic and
contemporary inequities which have been mispresented, denied and left unaddressed

7. 6
(Kobayashi, 2002). Recognition, through financial compensation for example, is rare; but there
may be a willingness to 'celebrate' cultures rather than right past wrongs (James, 2009).
b) Accountability
To make equity part of the organisational culture, there must be institutional
accountability (Evaluation Directorate, Strategic Policy and Research Branch, 2012).
Accountability can take the form of individual responsibility for equity targets, institutional
impetus for personal development and training on equity, and even recognition or celebration of
work in social justice within the institution (James, 2009). Lack of accountability can be an issue
when no recognition in the form of merit or performance evaluations exists for equity work (Iyer
& Nakota, 2013).
Accountability structures which aim to advance employment equity must be carefully
implemented and managed as they can become barriers in their own right. For example, Maria
Maritimianakis questions the focus on benchmarks and not personal experiences in measuring
cultural change at the University of Toronto (Martimianakis, 2008).
c) Shared Commitment to Equity and Diversity
The complexity of universities makes it hard to centralize and implement employment
equity policies. When diversity or equity plans are developed centrally with strategic objectives
for the institution, “(f)aculty, chairs, and deans are unlikely to feel ownership over goals and
processes into which they have had little input and which seem poorly aligned with the specific
conditions and challenges present in their units” (University Leadership Council, 2008).
In institutions where power and responsibility has been given to deans and chairs to
implement employment equity policies, progress has been made. For example, the Faculty of
Science at UBC made progress in addressing issues identified in a 2007 report including
diversity, workload, professional–personal life balance, career progress, and equitable,
transparent and effective policies (Faculty of Science, UBC, 2013). They attribute their progress
to the empowerment of departments to enact change coupled with strong support from the
Office of the Dean.
B) Strategic Human Resource Management
Diversity can be seen as a problem to be solved to comply with legislation or a core
value and advantage to be leveraged (Konrad, Yang, & Maurer, 2016). In strategic human
resource management circles, when an institution seeks to create alignment between
employment equity goals and business goals it is known as the “business case for diversity”

8. 7
(Vican & Pernell-Gallagher, 2013). Some human resources planning mechanisms can be used
to implement employment equity including diversity targets, employment equity committees and
diversity planning processes.
a) Diversity Targets
Targets for representation of designated groups are known as affirmative action in the
United States and sometimes referred to as proactive measures in universities in Canada. They
are not the same as quotas, which some universities will use as well. Research shows mixed
results for the efficacy of proactive measures like targets. A literature review on affirmative
action programs for women found evidence of progress, but most studies are pessimistic about
their impact in countries as diverse as Australia, Finland, South Africa and the European Union
(Carvalho, White, & Machado-Taylor, 2013).
Targets have not improved representation of Indigenous faculty in Canada in spite of the
Federal Contractor Program which requires them. In 2012, 0.9% of total faculty in Canada were
Indigenous compared to 3.8% of the Canadian population (Henry, 2012). Targets may fail
because of denial about equity issues, a preference for individualism over collectivism,
traditional views on gender roles and/or lack of knowledge about power and privilege (Carvalho,
White, & Machado-Taylor, 2013).
Employment equity policies unaccompanied by diversity objectives have been found to
be less effective. In fact, only two Canadian universities have specific policies for Aboriginal or
visible minority employment equity with targets (Dua, 2009).
b) Employment Equity Committees
Due to the complexity of equity issues, drawing from diverse perspectives can be useful.
The presence of an internal equity and diversity committee is a positive indicator for
employment equity (Konrad, Yang, & Maurer, 2016). There is criticism for some of these
groups being symbolic but largely ineffectual because the “have meetings every three years” or
enact change slowly, if at all (Tator & Henry, 2012). It appears that the best are “driven from the
‘top’ and run from the ‘sides and bottom’” (Foo & Fong, 2009).
c) Diversity Planning Processes
Using strategic human resource management to plan and implement equity and diversity
policy has been shown to be effective. In a review of faculty recruitment practices in the United
States, a 2008 report found diversity planning processes, while costly and labour intensive to

9. 8
implement, had a more positive impact than monitoring of recruitment processes (University
Leadership Council, 2008).
Queen’s University makes use of an online tool to support diversity planning: the
Diversity and Equity Assessment and Planning Tool allows faculties and departments to audit
their representation of minority groups in staff and students and to develop action plans which
are tracked online (Kerr, 2015).
C) Policies on Recruitment, Selection and Retention
University employment policies cover recruitment, selection, retention and progression in
a complex and often unionized environment. All these policies can add barriers to
disadvantaged groups if not developed and implemented through an equity lens. Universities
who have been successful at improving employment equity focus on recruitment (University
Leadership Council, 2008); however, retention and progression policies developed through an
equity lens will help to ensure the efforts to attract diverse candidates has a lasting impact.
a) Recruitment
Increasingly, careful monitoring of the applicant pool is used to benchmark and evaluate
the efficacy of recruitment procedures on representation of designated groups. Candidates are
asked to self-declare minority status upon application and applicant data is tracked. Research
shows this supports recruitment of designated groups (University Leadership Council, 2008);
however, several researchers question the validity of data given that the applicant may chose
not to self-declare (James, 2009). Further, the experience and impact on individuals who do
declare a minority status has not been examined (Martimianakis, 2008).
Review of position descriptions can also help. McGill analyzed tenure track positions
which lack representation from designated groups and found the rigorous academic
requirements can be a barrier to certain groups. They intend to build a critical mass of doctoral
level students from designated groups by ensuring an inclusive learning environment for them
(McGill Human Resources, 2010).
The use of recruitment materials to attract diverse candidates is commonly used in the
private sector; however, their use in academic recruitment is limited. While using glossy images
of visible minorities in promotional materials has been criticised (Brayboy, 2003), there is
evidence that including information on employment equity policies such as work-life balance and
partner opportunities programs can be effective. For example, women are more attracted to

10. 9
universities which claim to support recruitment of women (Timmers, Willemsen, & Tidjens,
2010).
b) Selection
Selection processes for academic roles often rely on the opinions of selection
committees and colleagues and can lead to diverse candidates being rejected based on bias
and stereotypes (Nakhaie, 2004). Inclusion of women on selection committees has been shown
to be effective in increasing the selection of women (Van der Brink, Brouns, & Waslander,
2006), as has the use of structured interviews led by diverse individuals (Timmers, Willemsen, &
Tidjens, 2010). However, even when these diverse perspectives are present, there still needs to
be meaningful conversations about race and oppressed groups (James, 2009). All candidates
should be asked to speak to their experience managing student diversity and engagement with
diverse faculty. The use of diversity statements is becoming more common and sends a strong
signal to all candidates about the university’s policies on equity (Golash-Boza, 2016).
Selection committees asked or even trained to make conscious efforts to avoid bias may
not be successful. Research in the area of gender bias claims that “conscious, structured,
institutional efforts to counteract unconscious and unintentional biases” must be built into
university selection processes (Savonick & Davidson, 2015). Bill Thomas, CEO of KPMG
Canada, advised university presidents that favour must be given to women in hiring when
candidates are closely ranked: “(…)at KPMG, the tie will always go to the female candidate. If
you’re not prepared to step up [and implement this in your university] then you’ll never make a
difference” (Chiose, 2016).
Identification of non-traditional qualifying experiences such as alternative forms of
scholarship and community engagement during the selection process has been found to be rare
in Canadian universities (Tator & Henry, 2012). The University of Toronto identified this as a
priority in their diversity plan (University of Toronto, 2006) but there is little evidence this has
been put into practice (Martimianakis, 2008). Some universities also have policies which give
priority to the minority candidate when two candidates have equivalent competencies. But this is
difficult to put into practice as equivalency is hard to measure (Dua, 2009).
c) Retention and Progression
An emphasis on Western research practices, disciplines and even pedagogy can be a
barrier to progression for faculty whose work does not conform to dominant curriculum (Dei,
2016). This can lead to lower course load as “hiring drives curriculum, curriculum drives the

11. 10
hiring” (Tator & Henry, 2012). In addition, minority faculty members often find themselves doing
disproportionately more of the “housekeeping” work of the university described as “low-visibility,
low-power, low-reward, and labor-intensive” service work (Valian, 2005).
Progression for Aboriginal faculty members is particularly inequitable (Tator & Henry,
2009). Eurocentric forms of scholarship, the pressure to publish in peer-reviewed journals and
lack of recognition for community engagement can negatively impact careers of Indigenous
members of the academy (Mihesuah & Wilson, 2004). The unique role of Indigenous academics
in Canada is not recognized or respected. This role, part teacher in the academy, part engaged
scholar in the community, constitutes an area of contention for them and is not conducive to
career progression (Alfred, 2007).
While the choice for academics to have children is a dilemma for men and women alike,
research shows that women’s careers are more adversely impacted by family obligations.
Some policies, such as stopping the tenure clock, work to counteract the impact of taking time
out for a parental leave, but they are not widely adopted and utilization rates are low (Bassett,
2005).
Conclusion: Institutional Barriers
Organisational culture, strategic human resource management, and policies on
recruitment, selection and progression can all help or hinder the employment equity efforts of a
Canadian university. Research shows that fundamental structural changes such as policy
revisions or centralized diversity planning can be made to help remove barriers. However, as I
will discuss in the next section, there is also an overarching issue of systemic exclusion which
will require deep commitments from not only central administration, but every member of the
university community.

12. 11
2) Individual & Personal Barriers
Research shows that there is predictability in reactions to discussions on employment
equity in Canadian universities; denial, deflection, guilt and overall, a difficulty debating equity
are commonly observed (Eisenkraft, 2010). Leaders looking to advance the work of equity in
universities must be prepared to deal with resistance from colleagues and faculty members
(Gavino & Eber, 2010) some key factors in individual resistance will be discussed. In literature
on employment equity, leadership is raised time and time again as a key factor in making
change so a few key aspects of transformative leadership will be examined. The factors
identified in this section cannot be completely separated from institutional or systemic
influences, but both resistance and transformative leadership are more meaningfully analysed at
the individual level.
A) Resistance to Employment Equity
Employment equity policies can be resisted through denial and by subverting their
implementation (Bagihole, 2002 as cited in (Johnson, Warr, Hegarty, & Guillemin, 2015). This
resistance may be compounded by a Canadian phenomenon where the belief in “race
neutrality” and “race manners” which assume “polite Canadians do not tell their ugly stories of
racism, particularly to strangers" leads to a "white washing" of discussion and even policies
(Smith, 1993).
a) Denial or Disbelief of Systemic Discrimination
Denial and disbelief about discrimination is well-documented in literature on racism,
sexism and homophobia. The Canadian university, known as a vehicle for Canadian liberal
values, presents a difficult context for discussions on inequity which conflict with national beliefs
about the success of diversity and multiculturalism (Bannerji, 1997). Individuals may resist
seeing cases of exclusion as evidence of systemic issues (Tator & Henry, 2012), or, in what
Tator and Henry refer to as “democratic racism”, those same issues may be overshadowed by
the dominant belief in the liberal values of the institution (Tator & Henry, 1994). Denial can
prevent action even when there is pressure for change, for example at Queen’s University,
where recommendations from a report on racism from 2004 have yet to be implemented (Henry,
2004).
b) Recognition of Individual Privilege
Lack of recognition for individual privilege can hinder employment equity. The process
involved in examining one’s privilege has been considered in critical race theory and women’s

13. 12
studies. The difficulty individuals experience in “unpacking the backpack” of privileges they carry
everyday can be painful (McIntosh, 1990). This may be why work to counter exclusion is often
emotionally charged, difficult and deeply personal (Srivastava, 2006).
At the same time, there is a concentration of privilege in senior administrative roles in
Canadian universities which are occupied almost exclusively by white males (Smith &
Supernant, 2016). Their resistance may be stronger as “it is the prerogative of power to
reproduce itself” (Porter, 1965, cited in (Nakhaie, 2004)).
Education is one way to develop a critical awareness of privilege and can help to
overcome resistance to equity. When it works, education is framed as personal development
(Ruemper, 1994) and a clear link to performance is made. This should also include promotion of
employment equity policies by leaders as individual knowledge of these documents can help
promote inclusion (Carvalho, White, & Machado-Taylor, 2013).
c) Controversy Over Policies Which Promote Equity
Arguments against proactive equity measures in hiring, tenure, promotion and
curriculum can be made on “academic grounds” which sees a conflict between excellence and
diversity (Mercer, 2015). There may also be a belief that equity policies are unnecessary
because “how much more diverse than the surrounding community does the university need to
be?” (Pettigrew, 2010). Some research attributes this controversy to a lack of clarity over the
definition of equity and equality, as well as their goals and outcomes (Espinoza, 2007).
However, “equal treatment, equal results and individual recognition” are constants in the debate
over employment equity (Verbeek, 2011). This may help to explain why equity policy
discussions can provoke controversy as these three concepts are based on personal
experiences of academia, progression and recognition.
Political policy controversy cannot always be avoided using data and evidence to inform
dialogue. In Grundy and Smith’s analysis of the debate over the approval of the federal
employment equity policy from 1984 to 1995, they found that the use of statistical data to inform
public debate led to further controversy (Grundy & Smith, 2011). It is worth noting that lack of
data on equity is in itself an issue in Canadian universities (Canadian Association of University
Teachers, 2007).

14. 13
B) Transformative Leadership
There is a growing body of research on leadership for equity and inclusion in education
(Ryan, 2013). Transformative leadership is often cited, especially with regards to social justice
in schools, but it is also applicable to the university context. Transformative leadership is
particularly useful when discussing leadership and employment equity because it starts with
“[m]aterial realities [and] disparities outside the organization that impinge on the success of
individuals, groups, [and the] organization as a whole” and looks to foster “[d]eep [and] equitable
change in social conditions” (Shields, 2010). Transformative leaders will “focus on equity”,
create new “knowledge frameworks” and will demonstrate “moral courage and activism”
(Shields, 2010), as I will be discussing below.
a) Focus on Equity
There are a few examples of university leaders who make equity or inclusivity a focus of
their work. For example, a Canadian university president made equity a focus by including it as
a standing item on every executive meeting and making all vice-presidents accountable to
equity goals (Dua, 2009). But many senior administrators don’t devote energy to equity; 47
Provosts or Vice-Presidents from Portugal and Australia did not speak about equity until asked
in structured interviews, implying they did not see it as a priority or responsibility (Neale & White,
2014).
When senior leaders talk frequently about equity policies, it sets the tone for the
institution (Timmers, Willemsen, & Tidjens, 2010). Communications on equity should focus on
the “ideal state” or vision for the university, rather than process, to be effective. (Gavino & Eber,
2010)
b) Creating New Knowledge Frameworks
New knowledge networks will be created by a network of leaders who are critical of their
context, seek to transform social constructs and people, educate colleagues by encouraging
self-reflection and learning to take place, and are ethical in their desire to improve the moral
consciousness and democratic values of the institution (Foster, 1986). Further, inclusive leaders
build equitable relationships “that also transcend wider gender, race and class divisions” (Ryan,
2013).
Seeing diverse leaders is essential in encouraging the aspirations of future leaders. As
one racialized faculty member put it: “These things start at the top” (Tator & Henry, 2012).
Leaders also have an opportunity to select their team members based on their willingness to

15. 14
participate in a project to deconstruct barriers to equity and constantly pursue new frameworks
for inclusion (Shields, 2010).
Senior leaders have a powerful ability to inspire future leaders who can support new
knowledge frameworks by ”tapping on the shoulder” colleagues from underrepresented groups
or faculty who are advancing non-Eurocentric scholarship (Carvalho, White, & Machado-Taylor,
2013). However, selecting diverse individuals should not be used as a means to exert influence
or gain favour in certain groups (Kanter, as cited in (Carvalho, White, & Machado-Taylor, 2013).
Further, future leaders should be selected for their courage and record of activism as these
qualities will be necessary to bring about change in the face of resistance.
c) Demonstrate Courage and Activism
As Ryan puts it, “leadership and inclusion are not natural bedfellows” (Ryan, 2013).
Modelling inclusion in the hierarchal construct of university administration requires courage and
activism. This can mean having the courage to put the institution in the spotlight for historic
wrongs which the leader had no control over, but which continue to impact the institution.
President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manitoba David Barnard’s apology to the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the university’s role in the residential school system is
an example (The University of Manitoba, 2011).
Women in leadership roles can play an important role in advancing employment equity
policy. DiCroce calls for women presidents to lead structural changes in their organisations by
promoting employment equity policies (DiCroce, 1995). Just being a woman or visible minority
in a leadership role requires courage. Female leaders feel that they must work harder to prove
themselves, are unlikely to be given second chances, and are more likely to be appointed to
positions with a great risk of failure (“glass cliffs”) (Madden, 2001). In addition, feelings of
loneliness and alienation are the norm for women and visible minorities in Canadian universities
(Tator & Henry, 2012).
Conclusion: Individual & Personal Barriers
While it may be impossible to distinguish fully between systemic barriers and the
individuals who perpetuate them, an overview of individual resistance and the impact of
transformative leadership on employment equity shows some unique challenges: Denial is a
strong barrier which can lead to controversy in debating and implementing employment equity
policies; the research on employment equity is united in asserting that leadership is an essential

16. 15
element to implementation of policies while looking at traits of transformative leaders provides
some clues on effective behaviours to overcome barriers to employment equity.

17. 16
Conclusion
The fictional Tammy shows the multiple facets of inequity in Canadian universities. She
experiences institutional barriers such as policies and practices which limit her progression and
permit an inequitable workload. She experiences resistance to her presence and her work by
her colleagues, who deny the inequities of her situation and fail to recognize their own
privileges. Tammy doesn’t see any transformative leaders in her university who focus on equity
and aspire to deconstruct exclusive frameworks.
This paper has attempted to show the complexity of systemic barriers to employment
equity. Deconstructing them will require respectful, vigorous debate which is inclusive of
marginalized perspectives (James, 2009). However, constructive conversations on equity are
difficult to achieve. Since fostering critical conversations on race, power and white privilege
takes skill and expertise (Henze, Lucas, & Scott, 1998), they should be facilitated by skilled
professionals.
The pervasiveness of individual or personal resistance is no less difficult to tackle.
Education may help. Training on recognizing and avoiding reverse discrimination as well as
training on recognizing the discourse of denial and avoiding the discourse of political
correctness would be a good start (Tator & Henry, 2006). Astin and Astin’s research supports
the need to focus on individual or personal resources at the disposal of universities including
academic freedom, critical thinking and willingness to challenge, as well as the autonomy of
individuals (Hardy-Cox, 2014). To harness these resources, individuals need a baseline of
understanding of inequities within the institution.
When describing how to remove barriers to employment equity, Enakshi Dua states “the
crucial, though overlooked, challenge that we face is the question of how we are to facilitate
support [from senior administrators]” (Dua, 2009). Transformative leadership has been shown to
support equity in education by recognizing societal inequities and their impact on the
organisation, but also by creating a framework for individuals to support the implementation of
equity efforts.
There is no simple answer to the question of why employment equity has made such
slow progress in Canadian universities; the complexity of the institutions and number of people
involved, which is further influenced by the specific context, means that there are no silver bullet
solutions. “[E]quity initiatives are most likely to have effect with multiple strategies and a
combination of top down interventions by the state and organisational leadership together with

18. 17
bottom up activism by networks of practitioners and social movements” (Carvalho, White, &
Machado-Taylor, 2013). As equity and diversity are increasingly institutionalized as Vice-
Provost or Vice-President positions in Canadian universities (Gose, 2006), it will be essential
that they do not become “add-on” roles; rather, they will need to coordinate, synergize and
enhance institutional and individual efforts from across universities. Only then, will employment
equity become a reality for people like Tammy.

19. 18
Bibliography
Abella, R. (1984). Equality in Employment. Ottawa: Royal Commission Report .
Alfred, T. (2007). Indigenizing the Academy? An Argument Against. Academic Matters - Journal
of Higher Education, 20-23.
Bakan, A., & Kobayashi, A. (2000). Employment equity policy in Canada : an interprovincial
comparison. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada.
Bannerji, H. (1997). Geography Lessons: On being an insider/outsider to the Canadian nation.
In L. Roman, & L. Eyre, Dangerous territories: Struggles for difference and equality in
education (pp. 23-41).
Bassett, R. (2005). Parenting and Professing: Balancing Family Work with an Academic Career.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Brayboy, B. (2003). The Implementation of Diversity in Predominantly White Colleges and
Universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72-86.
Brink, T., & LeMaster, J. (2013). Diversity Climate Surveys: Measuring Diversity Climate and
Implementing Diversity Initiatives. Washington: Education Advisory Board.
Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2007). A Partial Picture: The representation of
equity-seeking groups in Canada's universities and colleges. Ottawa: Canadian
Association of University Teachers.
Canadian Federation of Student / Fédération canadienne des étudiantes et étudiants. (2007).
The Final Report of the Taskforce on Campus Racism. Toronto: Canadian Federation of
Students - Ontario.
Carvalho, T., White, K., & Machado-Taylor, L. (2013). Top university managers and affirmative
action. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 394-409.
Charvat, L. (2009). Exemplary Practices in Equity and Diversity Programming:A Report for the
Equity Office . University of British Columbia.
Chiose, S. (2016, April 28). More female leaders needed at Canadian universities, presidents
say. The Globe and Mail.
Dei, G. (2016). Decolonizing the University: The Challenges and Possibilities of Inclusive
Education. Socialist Studies, 23-61.
DiCroce, D. (1995). Women and the Community College Presidency: Challenges and
Possibilities. In B. Townsend, Gender and Power in the Community College. New
Directions for Community Colleges. (pp. 42-65). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

20. 19
Dieker, L., Wienke, W., Straub, C., & Finnegan, L. (2013). Reflections on Recruiting,
Supporting, Retaining, Graduating and Obtaining Employment for Doctoral Students
from Diverse Backgrounds. Teacher Education and Special Education, 147-160.
Dua, E. (2009). On the Effectiveness of Anti-Racist Policies in Canadian Uniersities: Issues of
Implementation of Policies by Senior Administration. In C. Tator, & F. Henry, Racism in
the Canadian University: Demanding Social Justice, Inclusion and Equity (pp. 160-190).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eisenkraft, H. (2010, October 12). Racism in the academy. University Affairs - Affaires
universitaires.
Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: a new model for analysis
of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4), 343-363.
Evaluation Directorate, Strategic Policy and Research Branch. (2012). Strategic evaluation of
the employment equity programs : final report. Gatineau, Quebec: Human Resources
and Skills Development Canada.
Faculty of Science, UBC. (2013). 2012/2013 Study of the Working Climate for Science Faculty
at the University of British Columbia (Vancouver Campus) – Conclusions and
Recommendations. Vancouver.
Foo, K., & Fong, N. (2009). Best Practices in Equity and Diversity: A Survey of Selected
Universities. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.
Gavino, M., & Eber, J. (2010). Celebrating our diversity: creating an inclusive climate in a US
university. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(4), 395-405.
Gose, B. (2006, September 29). The Rise of the Chief Diversity Officer. The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
Grundy, J., & Smith, M. (2011). Evidence and equity: Struggles over federal employment equity
policy in Canada 1984-95. Canadian Public Administration / Administration publique du
Canada, 335-357.
Hardy-Cox, D. (2014). Achieving Student Success: Effective Student Services in Canadian
Higher Education. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Henry, F. (2004). Systemic Racism Towards Faculty of Colour and Aboriginal Faculty at
Queen's University. Kingston: Queen's Senate Educational Equity Committee and
Suzanne Fortier, Vice-Principal Academic.
Henry, F. (2012). Indigenous Faculty at Canadian Universities: Their Stories. Canadian Ethnic
Studies, 101-132.

21. 20
Henze, R., Lucas, T., & Scott, B. (1998). Dancing with the Monster: Teachers Discuss Racism,
Power and White Privilege in Education. The Urban Review, 187-210.
Iyer, N., & Nakota, S. (2013, April). Implementing Inclusion: A Consultation on Organisational
Change to Support UBC's Commitments to Equity and Diversity. Vancouver.
James, C. (2009). 'It Will Happen Without Putting in Place Special Measures'. In C. Tator, & F.
Henry, Racism in the Canadian University: Demanding Social Justice, Inclusion and
Equityi (pp. 128-162). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kerr, M. (2015, April 6). New tool deepens pledge to equity, diversity. Queen's Gazette.
Kobayashi, A. (2002). Now You See Them: How You See Them: Women of Colour. Ivory
Towers Feminist Issues: Selected Papers from the WIN (pp. 44-54). Ottawa: Humanities
and Social Sciences Federation of Canada.
Konrad, A., Yang, Y., & Maurer, C. (2016). Antecedents and Outcomes of Diversity and Equality
Management Systems: An Integrated Institutional Agency and Strategic Human
Resource Management Approach. Human resource management, 83-107.
Madden, M. (2001). Four Gender Sterotypes of Leaders: Do they influence leadership in higher
education? Wagadu, 55-86.
Martimianakis, M. (2008). Reconciling Competitng Discourse. In A. Wagner, K. Acker, &
Mayuzumik, Whose University is it anyway? Power and Priviledge on Gendered Terrain
(pp. 44-74). Toronto: Sumach Press.
McGill Human Resources. (2010). FCP Compliance Review Short Term Action Plan Table.
Retrieved from McGill Human Resources - Employment Equity:
https://www.mcgill.ca/hr/workingmcgill/employment-equity/fcp-compliance-review-2010-
documents
McIntosh, P. (1990). White Priviledge: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Independent School,
31-36.
McMaster University. (2016, November 11). Daily News. Retrieved from McMaster University:
http://dailynews.mcmaster.ca/article/new-leadership-role-focused-on-equity-and-
fairness/
Mercer, M. (2015, April 20). In My Opinion. Retrieved from University Affairs/Affaires
universitaires: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/on-what-grounds-
should-academic-decisions-be-made/
Mihesuah, D., & Wilson, A. (2004). Indigenizing the academy : transforming scholarship and
empowering communities. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

22. 21
Nakhaie, M. (2004). Who Controls Canadian Universities? Ethnoracial Origins of Canadian
University Administrations: Faculty Perceptions of mistreatment. Canadian Ethnic
Studies, 92-110.
Neale, J., & White, K. (2014). Australasian university management, gender and life course
issues. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 384-395.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 145–179.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-
based views. Strategic Management Journal, 697–713.
Osbourne, J. (2012). Diversity, equity and the universities: the role of the Federal Contractor's
Program in Canada. British Journal of Canadian Studies, 25(2), 253-266.
Page, S. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups Firms,
Schools, and Societies . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pettigrew, T. (2010, July 26). Do universities need affirmative action? Macleans.
Porter, J. (1965). The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ruemper, W. (1994). Models for Change: Antiracist Education for Universities and Colleges.
Ottawa: Post-Secondary Anti-Harrassment and Discrimination Project Coordinating
Committee.
Ryan, J. (2013). Promoting Inclusive Leadership in Diverse Schools. In I. Bogotch, & C. Shields,
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Social (In)Justice (pp. 359-380). Dordrecht,
NL: Springer.
Savonick, D., & Davidson, C. (2015, January 26). Gender Bias in Academe: An annotated
Bibliography of Important Recent Studies. Retrieved from Humanities, Arts, Science, and
Technology Alliance and Collaboratory:
https://www.hastac.org/blogs/superadmin/2015/01/26/gender-bias-academe-annotated-
bibliography-important-recent-studies
Shields, C. (2010). Tranformative Leadership: Working for Equity in Diverse Contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 558-589.
Smith, M. (1993). "Race Matters" and "Race Manners". In J. Brodie, & L. Trimble, Reinventing
Canada: Politics of the 21st Century (pp. 108-130). Toronto: Pearson.
Smith, M., & Supernant, K. (2016). The Diversity Gap in Higher Education. University of Alberta:
Academic Women's Association.

23. 22
Spafford, M., Nygaard, V., Gregor, F., & Boyd, M. (2006). Navigating the different spaces:
Experiences of inclusion and isolation among racially minoritized Faculty in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(1), 1-27.
Srivastava, S. (2006). Tears, Fears and Careers: Anti-racism and Emotion in Social Movement
Organizations. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 55-90.
Tator, C., & Henry, F. (1994). The Ideology of Racism - 'Democratic' Racism. Canadian Ethnic
Studies/Etudes ethnique au Canada, 1-14.
Tator, C., & Henry, F. (2006). Racial Profiling: Challenging the Myth of a "Few Bad Apples".
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Tator, C., & Henry, F. (2009). Racism in the Canadian University: Demanding Social Justice,
Inclusion and Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Tator, C., & Henry, F. (2012). Interviews with Racialized Faculty Members in Canadian
Universities. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 44(2), 75-99.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). (2011, November). CAUT Policy -
Equity. Retrieved from CAUT: https://www.caut.ca/
The Employment Equity Act, S.C.1996 (c.44 11 01, 2014).
The University of Manitoba. (2011, October 27). University of Manitoba - About. Retrieved from
University of Manitoba: http://umanitoba.ca/about/media/StatementOfApology.pdf
Timmers, T., Willemsen, T., & Tidjens, K. (2010). Gender diversity policies in universities: a
multi-perspective framework of policy measures. Higher Education, 59(6), 719-735.
University Leadership Council. (2008). Breakthrough Advances in Faculty Diversity Lessons and
Innovative Practices from the Frontier. Washington: The Advisory Board Company.
University of Toronto Governing Council. (2006, December 14). Statement on Equity, Diversity
and Excellence. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from governingcouncil.utoronto.ca
Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia.
Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 198-213.
Van der Brink, M., Brouns, M., & Waslander, S. (2006). Does excellence have a gender?: A
nationalresearch study on recruitment and selection procedures for professional
appointments in the Netherlands. Employee Relations, 523–539.
Verbeek, S. (2011). Employment equity policy frames in the literature: ‘good practice’ vs. 'bad
idea'. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1942-1962.
Vican, S., & Pernell-Gallagher, K. (2013). Instantiation of institutional logics: The "business
case" for diversity and the prevalence of diversity mentoring practices. In M. Lounsbury,

24. 23
& E. Boxenbaum, Research in the sociology of organisations (pp. 233–273). Bradford,
England: Emerald.