EDI AS A FORM OF INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVISM: CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES’ FIGHT AGAINST RACIAL INEQUALITY

Abstract

Can university EDI offices actually reduce racial inequalities? Should we consider their efforts on social change to be activism? The question of eradicating inequalities has been at the centre of socio-political issues in our society in the last few decades. Universities have made commitments to eradicate - or at least reduce - inequalities as they project an image of progressiveness and inclusion. Accordingly, Canadian universities have promoted their EDI (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) initiatives more rigorously, especially in the wake of the proliferation of protest actions in support of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and #StopAsianHate. As universities began to show support for these social movements by providing official statements to the public, their efforts were construed as activist by right-wing pundits, while being regarded as largely symbolic and ineffective by scholars. Using insights from social movement theory and the sociology of education, I examine the possibilities and constraints of EDI offices in top English-speaking Canadian universities. In this case study of institutional approaches to racial inequality, I conduct in-depth interviews with seven of the top EDI officers in Canada and examine statements published by university officials to consider the social change goals and actions of U15 universities. I have three main findings. First, EDI leaders in Canadian universities cannot necessarily be considered social movement activists, but rather are best described as institutional mediators in advancing social issues toward social changes within institutions. Second, when universities make public statements about racial inequalities, and even when they make commitments to produce social change, their actions and claims fall short of activism, refraining from using the motivational framing of a call to action. Finally, I find that while adding resources to EDI offices does increase universities’ bureaucratic capacity to address racism, this institutional opportunity for social change does not translate into action on all anti-racism issues. Specifically, Canadian universities have been much more vocal and active in responding to demands of the Black Lives Matter movement than to the demands of the #StopAsianHate movement. I argue that the EDI practices of Canadian universities should not be considered a form of institutional activism, as I identify gaps between the institutionalized promotion of social issues and what would be considered a social movement agenda. This research contributes to the sociology of education literature, supporting its skeptical view about the effectiveness of EDI efforts within universities, while providing original insights on how universities’ EDI practices fall short of their stated goals in reducing racial inequality. In addition, it makes contributions to social movements theory’s understanding of organizational activism, expanding its understanding on the constraints on social change within organizations, impacting not only the outcomes of efforts to reduce inequality, but also the goals envisioned by EDI officers in the first place and restricting claims-making rhetoric. Overall, this research reflects that barriers embedded within universities based on institutional and cultural values are still main forces in delaying and hindering more progressive social change.