Overall Rating Gold
Overall Score 67.46
Liaison Brandon Raco
Submission Date Sept. 2, 2020

STARS v2.2

University of Guelph
PA-6: Assessing Diversity and Equity

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 1.00 / 1.00
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Has the institution engaged in a structured assessment process during the previous three years to improve diversity, equity and inclusion on campus?:

A brief description of the assessment process and the framework, scorecard(s) and/or tool(s) used:

Inclusion Framework
In the 2011/12 academic year, the Institute on Governance (IOG) was invited to undertake an operational review of the University of Guelph’s Human Rights and Equity Office (HREO) now called the Office of Diversity and Human Rights (DHR) within the context of its mandate, role, goals, and policies at that time. Twenty-six recommendations resulted. As part of this review process, the IOG used an on-line survey instrument to obtain insight from University of Guelph students, staff and faculty, as well as conducting in-depth interviews. In 2015/16 academic year, the Office of Student Affairs in partnership with DHR engaged with black students on campus through on-line survey and focus groups and obtained specific feedback which has been included in the document “Supporting the Needs of Black Students at the University of Guelph (2016).” As well, during the process of community consultations that was used to inform the development of the University of Guelph Strategic Framework: Our Path Forward (2016), feedback and commentary collected from students, faculty and staff on the themes of inclusion and diversity was reviewed by the core contributors for use in the development of the Inclusion Framework. Collectively, these various consultations, recommendations, and comments, as well as the consideration of best practices, and the review of relevant literature, have resulted in the final version of the Inclusion Framework for the University of Guelph. This consultation with equity-seeking groups formed the basis for the formation of the formal governance structure articulated above in PA5. Each of the committees included in the governance structure oversees, evaluates, assesses, and recommends improvements to continue improving each of the substantive areas of the framework.

Employment Equity and inclusion Assessment
In 2002, the University of Guelph undertook an employment systems review. The ESR consultation included a range of respondents from various University constituencies and involved 80 individual interviews and 13 focus groups. The approximate breakdown of those included in the consultation is as follows: 33 senior administrators, 11 Human Resources and Diversity and Human Rights (then Human Rights and Equity Office) staff, 30 faculty members, 12 representatives of employee groups; 14 members of the Employment Equity Committee and 20 staff from satellite colleges. Of these, 100 were women, eight were Indigenous peoples, 28 were visible minorities, 16 were persons with a disability, and six were LGBTQ2IA+. Confidentiality was guaranteed to those who participated in the consultation process. From that initial systems review, the University of Guelph put in place a specific Employment Equity Plan for each of the four designated groups. These employment equity plans were in place for the 2008-2012 period.

In 2014, DHR began administering the Diversity Matters Census, an assessment tool to gauge the status of employment equity across all staff and faculty groups. The assessment included a survey asking staff and faculty to anonymously self-identify the equity-seeking groups they personally identified with. It also asked stakeholders to identify any challenges they experienced with regard to equity and inclusion. The survey thus included both qualitative and quantitative metrics. This survey informed the creation of the Employment Equity Goals for the institution from 2017-2021. In response to data from the Diversity Matters Census (2014 onward), consultations through the Inclusion Framework (2017), and previous employment systems reviews (as listed above), the institution set forth a number of employment equity goals for the 2017-21 period. These goals were articulated across a number of different categories including: Attitudes and Culture; Recruitment, Selection, Hiring, and Retention; Promotion Systems; Training and Development; Reasonable Accommodation; and Accountability and Monitoring. The Diversity Matters survey was continually administered during that period to inform the understanding of how well the institution was performing against the Employment Equity Goals.

The Diversity Matters Census was initially conducted between November 10 and December 31, 2014. A total of 2,520 employees participated which is 82% of eligible employees. This return rate exceeded the minimum expected rate of 80% as defined by the Federal Contractors Program (FCP). With such a high rate of return, the results provide a clear snapshot in time and a valid picture of the makeup of our community. Eligible employees include Regular Full Time, Temporary Full Time, Sessionals, and Post-Doctoral Fellows. Employment gaps are not based on the total number of employees but are based on the eligible number of people who completed the Census and the way they chose to self-identify. This data was then compared to the 2011 Statistics Canada availability data. In the first Diversity Matter Survey report, the institution compared the number of faculty members in each designated group to the 2011 Statistics Canada data for the comparator group.

Student Assessments
The University participates in and administers a number of surveys to assess the student experience with regard to equity, diversity, and inclusion:
• The National Survey of Student Engagement asks students to identify challenges that they might be experiencing (e.g., caregiving or childcare responsibilities in addition to studies) and asks students to identify any equity-seeking groups that they consider themselves to be part of
• The National College Health Assessment asks students to identify aspects of their health that might be affecting their studies including mental health, sexual health, and sexual violence
• The Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey assesses how students from various equity-seeking groups experience sexual violence
• Surveys on the LGBTQ2IA+ student experience, aiming to assess how students of varying gender and sexual diversity experience systemic, individual, or interpersonal barriers on campus

Does the assessment process address campus climate by engaging stakeholders to assess the attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of employees and students, including the experiences of underrepresented groups?:

Does the assessment process address student outcomes related to diversity, equity and success?:

Does the assessment process address employee outcomes related to diversity and equity?:

A brief description of the most recent assessment findings and how the results are used in shaping policy, programs, and initiatives:

Results of Employment Equity Assessments
In the first administration of the Diversity Matters Census, the institution identified a gap of 100 positions for female faculty, 11 positions for Indigenous peoples, 85 positions for visible minorities, and no gap for persons with disabilities. By 2019, at the time of the progress update to the Employment Equity Committee, the survey data indicated an increase of 156 women-identified faculty members, 6 Indigenous-identified faculty members, and 54 racialized faculty members. The data also suggested that 30 additional faculty members now identify as having a disability. Thus, the progress report found no gap for women-identified faculty members or persons with disabilities. However, a gap remained for racialized and Indigenous faculty members.

Qualitative Data
The Employment Equity Committee also undertook an analysis of qualitative data to identify systemic barriers to recruitment, selection, and advancement for equity-seeking groups on campus. The qualitative data was drawn from the Diversity Matters Census. Many employees from equity-seeking groups identified biases and barriers to advancement. Persons with disabilities expressed that academic cultures tend to perpetuate ableist attitudes, and some noted that they were fearful of disclosing a disability for fear of bias that might accompany future performance reviews. Racialized employees expressed concerns about fairness in the hiring process, suggesting that they experienced bias in being overlooked for promotion, difficulties in moving from contract to permanent work, and a lack of representation by diverse senior leaders. Women-identified faculty noted difficulty in securing tenure-track or senior positions despite necessary performance history, skills, and education. This was driven in part by a perception that some departments continue to operate as “old boys” clubs. Some respondents noted that they were not able to achieve their full potential and productivity, due to microaggressions or other prejudices at work. Some respondents with disabilities identified ableist comments about leaves due to disability and questions about medical documentation. Some LGBTQ2IA+ respondents noted that they were not able to bring their “whole selves” to work. Some racialized respondents spoke to unconscious bias, microaggressions, and racist remarks due to their skin colour, or a misperception of ability based on accent or other racial/ethnic markers. Women experienced other microaggressions, especially with regard to accomplishments not being taken as seriously or having voices be diminished next to male peers. Some respondents noted that family status and caregiving responsibilities were barriers to advancement, inclusion, and retention. They indicated that sharing about caregiving responsibilities might prompt exclusion or stereotyping of ability by their peers. Some respondents spoke to hiring committees questioning caregiving responsibilities would detract from their ability to perform faculty obligations.

Results from Employment Equity Assessments
In response to data from the Diversity Matters Census and consultations through the Inclusion Framework, the institution set forth a number of employment equity goals for the 2017-21 period. These goals were articulated across a number of different categories including: Attitudes and Culture; Recruitment, Selection, Hiring, and Retention; Promotion Systems; Training and Development; Reasonable Accommodation; and Accountability and Monitoring. These goals are attached for reference.

Results for Students in Equity-Seeking Groups
In the University's inclusion governance structure, students are represented on various committees and provide perspectives from equity-seeking groups. The work of the Inclusive University Committee directly affects and considers the student experience and student perspectives are crucial to the success of these committees. For example, the data from the Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey helps to inform the work of the Human Rights Advisory Group, assisting the Committee in understanding how students from various equity-seeking groups are experiencing sexual violence. The results of that survey are linked below. Other surveys mentioned above are also linked below.

Are the results of the most recent structured diversity and equity assessment shared with the campus community?:

A brief description of how the assessment results are shared with the campus community:

Results of the assessment are posted on the Diversity and Human Rights website. Regular updates are also provided to the Employment Equity Committee, which meets on a regular basis throughout the academic year.

Are the results (or a summary of the results) of the most recent structured diversity and equity assessment publicly posted?:

The diversity and equity assessment report or summary (upload):
Website URL where the diversity and equity assessment report or summary is publicly posted:
Website URL where information about the institution’s diversity and equity assessment efforts is available:

Additional documentation to support the submission:

The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution and complete the Data Inquiry Form.