What do you think?
Rate this book
The Equity Myth: Racialization and Indigeneity at Canadian Universities
The university is often regarded as a bastion of liberal democracy where equity and diversity are promoted and racism doesn’t exist. In reality, the university still excludes many people and is a site of racialization that is subtle, complex, and sophisticated. While some studies do point to the persistence of systemic barriers to equity in higher education, in-depth analyses of racism, racialization, and Indigeneity in the academy are more notable for excluding racialized and Indigenous professors.
This book is the first comprehensive, data-based study of racialized and Indigenous faculty members’ experiences in Canadian universities. Challenging the myth of equity in higher education, it brings together leading scholars who scrutinize what universities have done and question the effectiveness of their equity programs. They draw on a rich body of survey data, interviews, and analysis of universities’ stated policies to examine the experiences of racialized faculty members across Canada who – despite diversity initiatives in their respective institutions – have yet to see meaningful changes in everyday working conditions. They also make important recommendations as to how universities can address racialization and fulfill the promise of equity in higher education.
This book is the first comprehensive, data-based study of racialized and Indigenous faculty members’ experiences in Canadian universities. Challenging the myth of equity in higher education, it brings together leading scholars who scrutinize what universities have done and question the effectiveness of their equity programs. They draw on a rich body of survey data, interviews, and analysis of universities’ stated policies to examine the experiences of racialized faculty members across Canada who – despite diversity initiatives in their respective institutions – have yet to see meaningful changes in everyday working conditions. They also make important recommendations as to how universities can address racialization and fulfill the promise of equity in higher education.
388 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 22, 2017
11 people are currently reading
247 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 12, 2021
This book made me think for a very long time. It was both painful to read and very eye-opening. There have been many discussions on lack of female representation in universities at a professor level, but very rarely have I ever heard discussions on racial representation. This made me curious as to whether some of this was true in my own life, so I looked through the the courses I had taken in undergrad and realized that most of the courses were taught by white males. About 10 were taught by white female professors, 5 male professors of color, and no women of color. It wasn’t until I had taken a course after graduation that I even encountered one female lecturer that was not white. I happen to have a liberal arts major, which in this book has pointed out is even less diverse than the sciences. Anyways, I’m not sure where I’m going with this, except to say that it was very painful to read this book, but it also made me feel less crazy for having had experiences in university courses where I felt as if we were missing whole gaps of understanding when it came to history and cultural differences.
January 30, 2022
I wanted to like Equity Myth. I wanted to get excited by the writers' official uncovering of what many people already feel: that universities' claims of equity are about as true as saying that tuition is free.
Let's get the critiques out of the way so that we can talk about the important facts presented within.
Equity Myth, despite an intriguing title and seemingly forward-thinking intentions to put a studied collection of perspectives forward in order to challenge the neoliberal facade of EDI that universities are hiding behind, suffers from weak editing, momentum loss due to repetition, and academic presumptousness.
The beginning is fraught with highly problematic research methods, the middle is drawn out and painfully repetitive, and the end is embarrassingly brief and suffers from ungrounded platitudes.
First, the problematic research methods.
Most glaringly, in the earliest stages of the book, the writers admit that in order to assess diversity of faculty members when they visited university websites, and guessed people's ethnicity based on photos, and in the case of no photos, their names and areas of study...
Yikes. This kicks off as a study just begging to be criticized.
(Thankfully, the researchers move onto more ethical and acceptable research methods for the remainder of the book, namely actually talking to people.)
On page 82, there is a ridiculously vacuous claim that universities "need more racialized professors who teach English, history, and philosophy," when all three of those are typically tremendously Western European and colonial, so unless those desired racialized instructors wish to tow the line and teach from those perspectives, of course they won't be hired.
Then there's the problem of repetition. Phrases such as, "Even when social minorities make it past the barriers designed to keep them out, they still must overcome the social barriers designed to keep them down" are used so often that the bulk of the book loses its momentum because what should be powerful quotes, spoken first person by the writers' interviewees, start to become washed out. It even took me out of the book; I wondered, could it be that the book's chapters are meant to stand alone?
Finally, for a book on equity, it's shocking when the writers limit gender to binary: "his or her expertise"... "He or she would not be reduced..."
There is a lot to forgive the writers, but let's not let these detract from the many important points and first person accounts that make up the middle 80% of the book.
Now for the observations.
Yes, as I mentioned, the main points may get lost due to over-repetition, but once extracted and distilled, they are pivotal.
If there's one quote that sums it up, it's this: "Under neoliberalism, the most important measure of the effectiveness of equity policies is not their ability to address racism and other forms of inequities but rather the extent to which the presence of these mechanisms leads to the perception that universities are efficient, competitive, and leaders."
Equity policies are performative. The lack of authentic intentions and the absence of actual support means that universities' "diversity frameworks... tend to... celebrate diversity rather than deal with inequity," and "policies are not implemented... The environment is don't rock the boat."
In other words, universities' "anti-racism efforts are at best stalled and at worst receding in a climate of neoliberal managerialism, where audits, accountability, austerity measures, and public relations feel-good tactics have outpaced dedication to equity, fairness, inclusiveness, and human rights."
So, while universities fight to "out EDI" each other, what's actually happening behind the closed doors of academic leadership? Equity Myth proves over and over, with examples from academics across the country, that universities "powerfully resist any but the most cosmetic changes to core culture."
On page 153, it's stated that, "Equity cannot become practice without a fundamental change in the culture of the system."
So what needs to actually happen in order for equity to move from a performative myth to an authentic practice?
At various times throughout the book, "the climate" is mentioned: "today's universities, with their mandated austerity, faculty downsizing, and curriculum designed to fit labor market needs, has contributed to making faculty members feel anxious and demoralized." So true, so sad.
For example, you can hire more Black scholars but if the climate continues to suck, you've done nothing.
A desire is needed from universities to ACTUALLY change. Instead, all they want are to accrue labels to make them sound and look good. Much like a scholar's quest to add more letters after their name (MA, PhD, etc), but then abandoning their research altogether, universities want to be associated with EDI without doing the work.
Nor perhaps there is any intention for true equity intiatives? Neoliberalist reasons are to protect the university, not people. "Initiatives not only obscure the ongoing racism in higher education but also help perpetuate the neoliberal university."
The book's conclusion is shockingly short; the writers sound as exhausted and defeated as the reader is at this point. To cover up the exhaustion, the writers rush through a series of terribly simplified suggestions in italics, with a few accompanying sentences for each. It all comes off as terribly naive when the first 300 pages are filled with levels and complexities of issues that can't be wrapped up by a few broad suggestions.
In conclusion, I'd love to see a condensed and focused version of this book, presented as a short PDF, organized with a designer's eye, sent to every university official who calls themselves a "leader." People are seeing through the veneer of the equity myth, this book is proof of that. Despite the world around it changing dramatically, the university is a stubborn dinosaur, holding on to its out of date, entitled, exclusionist ways. Perhaps there's a few people out there who could bravely begin changing the culture of the system. Or perhaps it is not exactly a dinosaur but an old dog who doesn't want to learn any new tricks, so it all needs to fully crumble and die, and authenticity can only come to be with totally new ways of teaching and learning.
Let's get the critiques out of the way so that we can talk about the important facts presented within.
Equity Myth, despite an intriguing title and seemingly forward-thinking intentions to put a studied collection of perspectives forward in order to challenge the neoliberal facade of EDI that universities are hiding behind, suffers from weak editing, momentum loss due to repetition, and academic presumptousness.
The beginning is fraught with highly problematic research methods, the middle is drawn out and painfully repetitive, and the end is embarrassingly brief and suffers from ungrounded platitudes.
First, the problematic research methods.
Most glaringly, in the earliest stages of the book, the writers admit that in order to assess diversity of faculty members when they visited university websites, and guessed people's ethnicity based on photos, and in the case of no photos, their names and areas of study...
Yikes. This kicks off as a study just begging to be criticized.
(Thankfully, the researchers move onto more ethical and acceptable research methods for the remainder of the book, namely actually talking to people.)
On page 82, there is a ridiculously vacuous claim that universities "need more racialized professors who teach English, history, and philosophy," when all three of those are typically tremendously Western European and colonial, so unless those desired racialized instructors wish to tow the line and teach from those perspectives, of course they won't be hired.
Then there's the problem of repetition. Phrases such as, "Even when social minorities make it past the barriers designed to keep them out, they still must overcome the social barriers designed to keep them down" are used so often that the bulk of the book loses its momentum because what should be powerful quotes, spoken first person by the writers' interviewees, start to become washed out. It even took me out of the book; I wondered, could it be that the book's chapters are meant to stand alone?
Finally, for a book on equity, it's shocking when the writers limit gender to binary: "his or her expertise"... "He or she would not be reduced..."
There is a lot to forgive the writers, but let's not let these detract from the many important points and first person accounts that make up the middle 80% of the book.
Now for the observations.
Yes, as I mentioned, the main points may get lost due to over-repetition, but once extracted and distilled, they are pivotal.
If there's one quote that sums it up, it's this: "Under neoliberalism, the most important measure of the effectiveness of equity policies is not their ability to address racism and other forms of inequities but rather the extent to which the presence of these mechanisms leads to the perception that universities are efficient, competitive, and leaders."
Equity policies are performative. The lack of authentic intentions and the absence of actual support means that universities' "diversity frameworks... tend to... celebrate diversity rather than deal with inequity," and "policies are not implemented... The environment is don't rock the boat."
In other words, universities' "anti-racism efforts are at best stalled and at worst receding in a climate of neoliberal managerialism, where audits, accountability, austerity measures, and public relations feel-good tactics have outpaced dedication to equity, fairness, inclusiveness, and human rights."
So, while universities fight to "out EDI" each other, what's actually happening behind the closed doors of academic leadership? Equity Myth proves over and over, with examples from academics across the country, that universities "powerfully resist any but the most cosmetic changes to core culture."
On page 153, it's stated that, "Equity cannot become practice without a fundamental change in the culture of the system."
So what needs to actually happen in order for equity to move from a performative myth to an authentic practice?
At various times throughout the book, "the climate" is mentioned: "today's universities, with their mandated austerity, faculty downsizing, and curriculum designed to fit labor market needs, has contributed to making faculty members feel anxious and demoralized." So true, so sad.
For example, you can hire more Black scholars but if the climate continues to suck, you've done nothing.
A desire is needed from universities to ACTUALLY change. Instead, all they want are to accrue labels to make them sound and look good. Much like a scholar's quest to add more letters after their name (MA, PhD, etc), but then abandoning their research altogether, universities want to be associated with EDI without doing the work.
Nor perhaps there is any intention for true equity intiatives? Neoliberalist reasons are to protect the university, not people. "Initiatives not only obscure the ongoing racism in higher education but also help perpetuate the neoliberal university."
The book's conclusion is shockingly short; the writers sound as exhausted and defeated as the reader is at this point. To cover up the exhaustion, the writers rush through a series of terribly simplified suggestions in italics, with a few accompanying sentences for each. It all comes off as terribly naive when the first 300 pages are filled with levels and complexities of issues that can't be wrapped up by a few broad suggestions.
In conclusion, I'd love to see a condensed and focused version of this book, presented as a short PDF, organized with a designer's eye, sent to every university official who calls themselves a "leader." People are seeing through the veneer of the equity myth, this book is proof of that. Despite the world around it changing dramatically, the university is a stubborn dinosaur, holding on to its out of date, entitled, exclusionist ways. Perhaps there's a few people out there who could bravely begin changing the culture of the system. Or perhaps it is not exactly a dinosaur but an old dog who doesn't want to learn any new tricks, so it all needs to fully crumble and die, and authenticity can only come to be with totally new ways of teaching and learning.
February 25, 2024
This topic came to my attention in a tenure and promotion workshop where discussion around “non-traditional” research was brought up in relation to racialized faculty. This book was recommended in several workshops I’ve attended since and I thought it particularly relevant as it is situated in a Canadian context.
The writing is far more academic than I was expecting, so it took some remembering how to read through research and summarized findings. But the facts are incredibly interesting and speak towards the experiences many racialized faculty have shared with me. I think it’s a shame that numbers and percentages rank higher in importance than lived and shared experience from individuals, but given the system we are in, this data is incredibly important and relevant.
I share similar concerns as other readers about some of the data collection methods, but the overall picture is clear and corroborated with what I have witnessed (albeit somewhat of an outsider to academia).
The writing is far more academic than I was expecting, so it took some remembering how to read through research and summarized findings. But the facts are incredibly interesting and speak towards the experiences many racialized faculty have shared with me. I think it’s a shame that numbers and percentages rank higher in importance than lived and shared experience from individuals, but given the system we are in, this data is incredibly important and relevant.
I share similar concerns as other readers about some of the data collection methods, but the overall picture is clear and corroborated with what I have witnessed (albeit somewhat of an outsider to academia).
Read
June 22, 2021Excuse me while I — AHHHHH! Highly recommended for anyone living/working/attending Canadian academia.
Also, unsurprising but always discomfiting that “in the social sciences and arts disciplines that deal with issues of social justice, immigration, anti-racism theory, and decolonization,” faculty is predominantly white (p. 304). The writers include concrete steps for improving the experiences of racialized and Indigenous academics, but it’s been four years, so let’s see.
Also, unsurprising but always discomfiting that “in the social sciences and arts disciplines that deal with issues of social justice, immigration, anti-racism theory, and decolonization,” faculty is predominantly white (p. 304). The writers include concrete steps for improving the experiences of racialized and Indigenous academics, but it’s been four years, so let’s see.
February 24, 2020
Difficult read for those who are not academic experts in the field of race relations, but I appreciate the extensive analysis and insight.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews