Academics on the Front Line: Navigating EDI Demands Without Training or Protection

In recent years, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policies have become central pillars of university governance, influencing everything from curriculum design to hiring practices. Their intent, to promote fairness, accessibility and belonging, is both noble and necessary.

However, the implementation of these policies often places untrained individuals, particularly academics, in complex, high stakes situations for which they are not adequately equipped.

At their core, academics are researchers and educators. Their professional training typically focuses on disciplinary expertise, critical thinking and pedagogy.

What is often missing from this preparation is the ability to manage the ethical, social and cultural dilemmas that arise from EDI related concerns. Increasingly, academics are expected to interpret and respond to sensitive student requests involving perceived discrimination, language preferences, cultural sensitivities or accessibility needs, often without clear institutional frameworks, training or support.

While universities may offer EDI policies and occasional workshops, these are rarely sufficient. Academics frequently encounter situations where they must make judgement calls without clear guidance. One particularly sensitive and recurring challenge involves student complaints about tutors with non native accents. For instance, some students may request to be moved into a class led by someone who is a native English speaker or who "speaks without an accent".

This tension was evident in a recent case where a student complained that she could not understand the lead academic due to their accent. In response, the faculty suggested sending a senior academic to assess the staff member’s spoken English. Although the matter was ultimately resolved, accommodating such requests can set a dangerous precedent.

Agreeing to a preference for a "native English speaker" risks undermining the very diversity that universities claim to champion. It sends the implicit message that cultural and linguistic differences are obstacles rather than strengths. Such responses may unintentionally reinforce exclusionary attitudes among students while simultaneously devaluing the contributions of international staff.

This places academics in a double bind: they are tasked with meeting individual student needs while also upholding broader values of inclusion, fairness and respect for colleagues. Yet the tools to navigate this balance are often vague, inconsistent or entirely absent. Academics are left to decide whether a request reflects a legitimate need or crosses into discriminatory territory, without training, legal insight or a clear escalation pathway.

Even when situations are resolved constructively, the burden of judgement lies heavily on academics. Many staff members are deeply committed to inclusive teaching and want to act in the best interests of all students. Yet they are also acutely aware that a misstep, no matter how well intentioned, could result in complaints, reputational damage or formal investigation. In a climate where student feedback significantly influences performance evaluations and career progression, staff often feel compelled to accommodate any request labelled as EDI related, even when it contradicts institutional values or disrupts team dynamics.

This fear is exacerbated by the lack of institutional protection. When contentious EDI cases arise, academics often feel isolated and unsupported. University responses tend to prioritise risk management and student satisfaction, leaving staff uncertain whether their decisions will be backed by leadership. This imbalance erodes trust, damages morale and creates a chilling effect where staff are reluctant to engage meaningfully with EDI issues, or respond in overly rigid ways for self protection.

To move forward, universities must acknowledge that EDI is not simply a policy. It is a practice that demands structural support, professional development and space for judgement. Academics cannot be left to shoulder this responsibility alone.

Institutions need to invest in trained EDI advisers, clear escalation procedures and realistic, scenario based training that reflects the challenges staff actually face. Crucially, staff must feel empowered to ask difficult questions or raise concerns about problematic requests without fear of reprisal.

If the higher education sector is truly committed to inclusion, it must extend that commitment to its staff. Academics cannot meaningfully uphold EDI values if they are untrained, unsupported and fearful.

EDI can and should be transformative, but only if those tasked with enacting it are equipped to do so with clarity, confidence and care!