Hello everyone,
This month, I’m turning over my column to APSA’s member services officer, Aicha Etrew. Aicha writes about equity issues at SFU.
Take care and see you next month,
Andrew
–
Equity Practice at SFU
In recent years, SFU has tried to broaden equity policy and principles at SFU. In 2021, SFU created the Equity Compass process and transitioned its Human Resources department into the People, Equity and Inclusion department under the leadership of the Vice-President, People, Equity and Inclusion. While GP 19 (“Employment Equity”) came into force in November 1989 and was last revised in July 1992, the University is now reviewing the policy with a clear aim to revise it.
The expectation that the University has created is that it is ready to “walk the talk”. But does unveiling bold equity policies, often filled with promises to “eliminate barriers,” “foster inclusion,” and advance fairness, match our lived experiences of inequities in the workplace? In a September 2024 email to the community, President Johnson reaffirmed SFU’s commitment to embed equity and belonging in every decision and action, highlighting the collective responsibility to create a culture of inclusive excellence where all feel welcome, safe, accepted and appreciated. Unfortunately, I have witnessed the strict implementation of institutional regulations with no apparent regard for the consideration of equity principles. I am not saying that rules should not be followed: to embrace equity, however, is to understand that exceptions need to be made to support marginalized groups in the workplace.
I have also witnessed frustration regarding the lack of consistency in the operationalization of the GP 19 Employment Equity Policy. This has included even an understanding of the meaning of employment equity and its application or relevance to the university workplace environment and culture. It’s also unclear who is responsible for ensuring equity policy is implemented fairly. In one instance, I was told that if I thought that there was a problem with how GP 19 was applied, I should file a Human Rights complaint under GP 18.
Often, we run the danger of lumping equity together with terms like “equality,” “human rights,” or “diversity.” But equity is more than just treating everyone the same or having a diversified workforce. Diversity does not imply equity: equity is about recognizing that not everyone starts from the same place — workplaces need policy mechanisms to close those gaps. Institutions such as SFU need to make this distinction clear.
We also don’t want equity to become a mere buzzword; it loses its power, and when those interpreting the policy do not have a shared understanding of its meaning, decisions can be made sometimes with good intentions that reinforce rather than remove systemic barriers. Several of APSA’s AD 10 policies, for example, require managerial discretion to operationalize policy terms for employees. While managerial discretion is there as a check and balance to meet operational demands, when it fails to take into account equity principles in exercising this responsibility, it can itself become a barrier and further entrench systemic issues.
The Missing Link
A fundamental challenge in the operationalization of equity at SFU is the general lack of accountability at the unit or departmental level. Certainly, the University collates aggregate data on the workforce and tracks representation broadly, but what happens in the individual departments where the actual hiring, promotion, and conflict resolution decisions take place?
Without transparency and accountability at this level, it is hard to know whether equity is truly being factored into decision-making at SFU across the different levels of power. Are hiring panels trained on recognizing bias? Are decisions about different types of employee leaves, for example, being made fairly and revisited regularly, or are they left unchecked?
While institutional messaging highlights empowerment and listening, the structures and practices many employees encounter can be disempowering. The challenge is not necessarily in the intent but in an apparent disconnect between high-level commitments and actual implementation. Practically, it seems that policies are being implemented in silos, and the employment equity policy is seemingly treated as an add-on rather than a framework governing all institutional operations. Employment equity can only be achieved if approached from a holistic lens. Equity principles should be embedded into decision-making processes, including hiring, promotion, position classifications, rates of pay, extended leaves, or employee benefits. This is a two-pronged approach — bottom-up and top-down.