| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 66.76 |
| Liaison | Eric Meliton |
| Submission Date | Jan. 16, 2019 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Wilfrid Laurier University
PA-5: Assessing Diversity and Equity
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.63 / 1.00 |
Tameera
Mohamed Education and Inclusion Coordinator Diversity and Equity Office |
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:
The assessment process used in the annual employment equity report is based on the Federal Contractor’s Program requirements for a workforce analysis. This includes comparing our representation rates from the designated groups to those of the national, provincial and local comparator groups to determine if have any areas of under-representation. Comparator groups are chosen based on the Employment Equity Occupational Groups, as described by the Federal Contractors Program and Employment Equity Act.
Does the assessment process address campus climate by engaging stakeholders to assess the attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of faculty, staff, administrators and students, including the experiences of underrepresented groups?:
Does the assessment process address student outcomes related to diversity, equity and success (e.g. graduation/success and retention rates for underrepresented groups)?:
Does the assessment process address employee outcomes related to diversity and equity (e.g. pay and retention rates for underrepresented groups)?:
A brief description of the most recent assessment findings and how the results are used in shaping policy, programs and initiatives:
Representation Highlights
The following section provides a summary of Laurier’s overall representation of the designated groups and persons who identify as LGBTQ2S+.
Women
• Women continue to make up a large part of Laurier’s workforce, representing 61.7% of Laurier employees. Laurier continues to experience a higher representation of women amongst staff (69.3%) when compared to the academic cohort (45.2%).
Indigenous Peoples
• Overall, 1.5% of Laurier’s employees identify as Indigenous Peoples. Amongst staff, Laurier’s representation is slightly above the external availability at 1.6% compared to 1.3%. However, Laurier’s gap continues amongst the academic cohort (1.3% at Laurier compared to 2.1% external availability).
• Although the gap is not present amongst staff, it is important to note that Laurier’s representation has significantly decreased since 2010.
• There are ongoing historical and growing issues amongst Indigenous communities and the Canadian government, who initiates census data collection. This contextual background is important to keep in mind when conducting any type of gap analysis, and may result in organizations feeling they have created an inclusive environment for Indigenous Peoples, when in fact they may have done very little.
Persons with Disabilities
• Overall, Laurier’s internal workforce reflects an underrepresentation in persons with disabilities (3.6% compared to 4.9% external availability). Among faculty, Laurier is slightly below the external availability (3.6% compared to 3.8%).
• Persons with disabilities have been underrepresented since 2011 at Laurier amongst staff and this continues to be the case (3.6% compared to the external pool of 4.9%).
Racialized Persons
• Laurier continues to reflect an underrepresentation of racialized employees overall (8.8% compared to 14.6% external availability).
• 13.7% of faculty self-identified as racialized compared to 19.9% of the external pool. This gap is even larger amongst staff, where only 6.6% of Laurier staff identified as a racialized compared to 14.6% of the external pool.
LGBTQ2S+ Persons
• As those who identify as LGBTQ2S+ are not considered a designated group under the Federal Contractors Program and data on sexual orientation is not included in the 2006 or 2011 Canadian Census, it is difficult to compare the internal and external workforces.
• The 2014 Canadian Community Health Survey was the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation. Of Canadians between the ages 18-59, 1.7%
identified as “homosexual” (gay or lesbian) and 1.3% identified as bisexual.
16 This is not a comprehensive analysis, as the survey is not inclusive of all identities within the LGBTQ2S+ community.
• However, Laurier has been collecting this data internally since 2005.
• Laurier has consistently seen an increase in the number of staff and faculty identifying as LGBTQ2S+ overall with 3.8% of the Laurier workforce identifying as LGBTQ2S+ in 2017 (compared to 2.8% in 2005).
• More employees in academia identify as LGBTQ2S+ (5.0%) compared to non-academic staff (3.2%).
How results are used: some examples
Because of the long term lack of process in addressing the representation gap of racialized academics, Laurier and its Faculty Association created a one year bilateral equity in hiring and promotions committee. The goal of the committee is to expand the provisions of fairness and equity in appointments under Articles 13, 14 and 22 of the Full-Time Faculty and Librarian Agreement. The current equity language speaks mainly about gender representation gaps; the intention is to broaden the language to include intentional ways to remove barriers for those from other designated groups. In addition, for all staff hiring, applicants are asked to complete a voluntary applicant equity survey. This voluntary survey allows Human Resources to gather equity related data from applicants to help measure success in attracting and hiring employees from underrepresented groups. This data is also used to track applicants as they move through the recruitment process, identify trends and opportunities for outreach to diverse communities and assess our hiring processes to ensure we achieve increased inclusion. Through 2017, all senior search committees were required to complete employment equity programming prior to starting the recruitment process. Similarly, all Chairs of a Department Appointment and Promotions Committee for faculty hiring and promotions was required to participate in employment equity training to ensure equity in the faculty recruitment and promotion process. In 2017, the Diversity and Equity Office piloted the Diversity and Equity Assessment Planning (DEAP) Tool with the Faculty of Education. The DEAP Tool is an initiative developed by Queen’s University aimed at fostering equity, diversity and inclusion. It is designed to assist units to better understand their environment and climate as it relates to equity, diversity and inclusion. The DEAP Tool is a diagnostic tool for units to understand the demographic profile of their staff and to assess how inclusive the unit is. It provides an opportunity to reflect on areas in need of improvement and develop an action plan and timeline to enhance inclusion. The Tool is also designed to complement other administrative responsibilities such as strategic planning, the Cyclical Review Process and the hiring and appointment process. Currently, there are two versions of the DEAP Tool available: Academic and Administrative DEAP. Academic DEAP is designed for academic units and Administrative DEAP is available to non-academic departments.
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:
Presented to the Board of Governors and the Executive Leadership Team and posted as a new article on the Intranet (Connect)
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:
The website URL where the report or summary is publicly posted:
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about 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 or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.