(Version française disponible ici.)
This summer, protest encampments stood beside convocation halls on university campuses across Canada. The ceremonies went ahead – quietly and apprehensively – as staff, students and security navigated escalating tensions fuelled by events in the Middle East.
Antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate surged across the country as healthy dialogue collapsed into noise.
Speech increasingly has been weaponized or silenced. Echo chambers further amplify and distort division, as efforts to foster dialogue find little success.
Universities are meant to be commons – places that turn difference into opportunities for discovery. What the current climate demonstrates is that this does not happen all by itself – we need processes to measure whether we are successfully working to understand each other.
Lots of things get measured: research output, graduation rates and new patents.
But currently we don’t have the tools to adequately assess whether we’re sharing, listening and solving problems together, especially when we don’t agree. It has become clear that no one is systematically stewarding, upholding and renewing our ability to host difference to build richer understanding and collective resilience.
Why pluralism, anyway?
The root issue is pretty straightforward.
Trust is thin. Dialogue is brittle. In an increasingly complex world, we’re paying for years of neglecting the structures and processes that allow us to work through differences productively rather than let them divide us.
This is not a ‘nice to have.’
Scientific and social breakthroughs require new ideas that come at the nexus of differing academic disciplines, geographies, identities, sectors, industries and worldviews.
Pluralism is not the same as diversity.
It’s not a buzzword or a brand refresh for EDI. Pluralism is a civic muscle. Its power lies in helping us live and create together by seeing one another honestly, without the pretense of forced agreement.
Pluralism is what happens when disagreement avoids disrespect. When objection continues the conversation rather than ending it. When belonging is not based on ideological alignment, but rather on a shared commitment to the idea that everyone, regardless of background or belief, is invited to shape our shared spaces.
Measuring pluralism
A pluralism monitor for universities assesses and strengthens relationships across our wide array of differences based on our sector, disciplines, or community. It is inspired by the Global Centre for Pluralism Monitor, which assesses the state of pluralism in a country.
It measures through surveys, interviews, focus groups and analysis of documents.
This is not a ranking system. It is not to force compliance.
It is a multidimensional tool – grounded in local contexts – comprising a report alongside joint actions to make sense of the findings and bring them to life into consensual action. It is co-developed and co-owned by the university along with local communities.
The point is to shine a light on how we manage our relationships – and pair it with action-oriented facilitated dialogue to strengthen understanding through disagreement.
The tool works best when campus leaders share their experiences, lessons, and successes with other participating campuses locally and globally.
How? By identifying patterns and blind spots and offering takeaways based on both failures and success stories to inform learning and innovation in other contexts.
Pluralism in higher education
The monitor isn’t about perfection. It’s about reflection – and action. The pluralism monitor tracks five core dimensions in life on campus:
1. Commitments
What do institutions say they stand for? Do their policies, mission statements and strategic plans signal a genuine commitment to pluralism, empathy, and relational accountability?
2. Practices
Are we walking the talk? Are systems in place to resolve conflict, surface dissent and repair trust? Can students, faculty and staff express themselves without feeling fearful of blowback or being cancelled?
3. Leadership
How are leaders renewing the commons? Leadership includes executives, deans, student governments, student-run newspapers, alumni, staff, communications teams, union leaders and faculty councils.
4. Access and outcomes
Who is ultimately shaping the institution? Who has voice, access and opportunity? Do leaders consider the impact of their decisions on relationships across these groups? Do they systematically require insights from different disciplines, sectors and communities?
5. Relationships and belonging
Is trust being built between people who may or may not know one another? Do we lean into hard conversations while ensuring they are, above all, constructive? Can we disagree and still stay in community? Are there silos or brewing conflicts that can be bridged before a flood?
From measurement to action
The data generated and shared is only one half the story. What then?
Metrics are then transformed into meaningful actions:
- Sensemaking dialogues – Assessing pluralism can all feel pretty abstract – which is why facilitated dialogues are crucial to help communities make meaning of the assessments together. It clarifies and textures the data and breathes life into the report.
- Co-creation sprints – The next step is to host focused working groups to improve key areas. This might include the use of reflection tools and foresight labs to craft new policies and processes that help participants and groups understand each other and find creative, long-term solutions.
Above all, these efforts must remain collaborative and non-punitive. The goal isn’t to name and shame – it’s to see and strengthen.
Now more than ever
Pluralism unlocks our capacity to tackle big, complex problems together across sectors, identities, disciplines and ideologies. It drives systems to produce next generation talent with the dispositions to solve next-generation problems.
Universities become not just knowledge producers but enviable examples of institutions’ ability to build trust without hiding who you are.
A pluralism monitor can’t solve every issue or conflict. Nothing can.
But it can contribute to a more constructive, open-minded campus culture that takes fundamentally opposed perspectives and uses them to fuel innovation, collaboration and creativity instead of vitriol.
This article is part of a series on inclusive governance. Read more here.
