THE UNIVERSITY’S REVISED SUPPORT MODEL AND PEDAGOGY TOOLKIT AIM TO BUILD MORE ACCESSIBLE CLASSROOMS, THOUGH QUESTIONS REMAIN ABOUT TRAINING, CONSISTENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
The University of Ottawa is approaching the midpoint of its 2023-2027 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Action Plan for Research, a framework designed to address systemic inequities in who conducts, leads and benefits from research on campus. But two years in, the gap between the plan’s stated commitments and the realities in classrooms, labs and student services is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
The action plan outlines institutional commitments to dismantle barriers affecting women, Indigenous peoples, racialized groups, persons with disabilities and LGBTQIS+ researchers. It pledges better data collection, training for faculty, improved accessibility in research environments and strengthened accountability structures.
Tech support: a “streamlined” system still struggling with basics
One of the clearest examples of uneven implementation is the university’s new educational technology support model, introduced to centralize troubleshooting and ensure faster responses in classrooms. The model shifts responsibilities across the Teaching and Learning Support Service (TLSS), Information Technology staff and faculty-level support teams.
However, the system still suffers from slow response times, unclear points of contact and uneven training across faculties. When Brightspace malfunctions or quizzes fail to load, instructors often cannot resolve the issue themselves, leaving a lot of time wasted waiting for an IT specialist to help. Some classrooms lack accessible backup formats when tech fails — meaning students with accommodations can lose access entirely. Teaching assistants (TAs)need to learn tools like Respondus and virtual lab software on their own time.
The university maintains the new support model will streamline issues, instead, the transition has revealed under-staffing, poor communication and littler student involvement in reporting accessibility barriers.
Inclusive pedagogy: rich language, weak enforcement
The TLSS’s inclusive pedagogy guide prompts flexible assessments, transparent communication and diverse teaching approaches.
But the biggest challenge is the lack of enforcement.
The guide is entirely optional, meaning professors can choose to ignore it. And many do. Without incentives, institutional accountability, or consistent training across faculties, uptake may differ widely from one department to another.
The guide encourages varied assignment formats so students with different learning styles aren’t penalized. But most courses continue relying on high-stakes, single-format exams, often worth the majority of the course’s final grade.
There is also the issue of whether instructors will receive the time and support needed to implement these recommendations, as adapting assessments or creating accessible materials requires significant labour — something many contract instructors and TAs are already stretched thin on.
Terms like “diverse learning needs” and “decolonizing teaching” remain broad in the guide. Without specificity, the risk is performative policy rather than material change. It offers no benchmarks, instructors receive no examples, no required training and no accountability mechanisms. As a result, many syllabi still rely heavily on Eurocentric, canonical texts without meaningful change.
Although the plan identifies underrepresentation in STEM and leadership roles, U of O has not released updated disaggregated data since the plan’s launch.
The university’s 2021 institutional-level EDI progress report reveals that some steps have been taken — but also underscores how far there is still to go. According to the report, representation among research-chair holders was still far below target: of 56 active chairs, only 16 were women (versus a goal of 18), and visible minorities remained underrepresented. The report also identified major structural barriers at the time: a lack of awareness and training around equity and inclusion, insufficient access to resources and no standardized data-collection processes to monitor progress.
While the institution committed to preferential recruitment, bias-training for selection committees, and the creation of an internal database to track demographics, many of these measures remain partial — and their long-term effectiveness is unclear as the progress has not been updated since.
A step forward but the gaps are still visible
While U of O’s recent announcements show a willingness to frame inclusion as a priority, the practical effects of these initiatives are still unclear. The new tech-support model promises efficiency but must overcome past issues. And the new inclusive-pedagogy guide offers valuable tools, though its impact depends on how — and whether instructors adopt them.
For now students will be watching closely whether these efforts lead to real, sustained changes in the classroom and across the campus community.
