This isn’t plug and play: intersectionality,Indigeneity,and EDID work

Abstract

For some, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Decolonization (EDID) work is new, and they are working to catch up. For others, attention to EDID work occurring is because of the many years of labour involved, and it is not a new area or vocation. Much like Indigenization, which is being treated as plug and play when it is its own discipline, EDID is developing in a similar fashion. EDID committees are becoming part of administrative work within institutions, just as Indigenization and reconciliation committees did a few short years ago in many spaces. Institutions must populate these communities, and with their creation, conversations are developing surrounding questions of who is qualified to work in the area? This article explores some of the nuanced differences to consider when working with EDID and Indigenization space. This discussion means to serve as a contribution to the broader discussion taking place.

Introduction

During a guest lecture I delivered on Indigenous policy and change, the conversation turned to who should be occupying spaces for creating change. This conversation is meaningful because while one group should not presume to speak for others, those with the lived experience of working in equity spaces often have the burden of an extra workload. The resulting extra workload is not always recognizable work like extra committee work. Sometimes the extra work is the exhaustion of explaining colonization and colonial effects, for example. There are dialogues on how universities and institutions should include principles of inclusion, consider reconciliation, and implement policies responding to Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action. Problematic is the language and how these institutions understand their role in ideas of reconciliation.

Western disciplines segregate, classify, and measure; meanwhile, the change required to be equitable means venturing into intersectional space that collides with traditionally segregated disciplines and institutions supported by their disciplines and scholarship. The following discussion does not answer who should be involved in Indigenization or Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Decolonization (EDID) work. Still, it explores considerations that illustrate the depth and cannot be plug and play because it is not window dressing when authentically addressing the issues. The metaphors of plug and play, or add and stir, comes to mind in this work because many institutions assume hiring Indigenous Peoples creates Indigenization; transforming space to include Indigenous ways of knowing (Tuck, 2018, as cited in Fiola & MacKinnon, 2020). However, considering how reconciliation means a change in relationships the actions often do not match the words (Grafton & Melancon, 2020). As a concept in Canada, reconciliation speaks directly to creating respectful Indigenous–non-Indigenous relationships; decolonization functions in intersectional space where decolonization changes structures and practices to displace colonialism. As Grafton and Melancon (2020) point out, decolonization can be an Indigenous or non-Indigenous peoples’ activity as it can be a non-Indigenous structural change that decentres colonization. Intersectionality as a concept functions as a lens to incorporate varying aspects of lived experience and interactions of the resulting knowledge.

While there is overlap in EDID work in that there is the decentering of power structures, there are calls to stop conflating Indigenization with EDI work (Raffoul et al., 2022). Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Decolonization work does not address the specific needs and history of Indigenous Peoples, just as Critical Race Theory (CRT) does not address the legal and political experiences of Indigenous communities because of the role of colonization (Brayboy, 2005). The reason why Indigenization is different from EDID work is because of lived experience. While many people were marginalized in the colonization project by western European powers, in discussing decolonization work in Canada, there is a special status reserved for Indigenous peoples for two legal reasons that stem from being original inhabitants of the land. First, some populations were brought to North America against their will and were not willing immigrants, but that does not mean they sit in the same category as Indigenous peoples for rights and recognition—inherent rights tied to the land and original law (Kymlicka, 1995). This distinction leads to the second point on why there is special standing; Indigenous peoples are the only constitutionally recognized people in Canada, and they are regulated through legislation in some cases, first through the British North America Act 1867 in Section 91(24), followed by the Canada Act 1982 in Section 35, with the additional protection of the Royal Proclamation 1763, colloquially known as the Indian Magna Carta, in Section 25, respectively (Miller, 2013).

Why do conversations of institutional change for EDID and Indigenization matter? Because if we are not having discussions of creating institutional space beyond putting bodies in seats, we cannot make equitable and decolonizing space, or have meaningful Indigenization. Some lessons can be drawn between EDID work and Indigenization while honouring the distinctness of Indigenous Peoples on Turtle Island, also known as North America. Meaningful change requires acknowledging equity work is not Indigenization work. Indigenous decolonization is about creating space, which naturally is more equitable, decentring the western institutional barriers meant to keep many out, not just Indigenous Peoples. Importantly, when discussing barriers, the work must not privilege one subgroup over another, as can often happen, and why the two processes should happen separately (Strolovtich, 2006).

My positionality

As an Indigenous scholar trained in Indigenous Studies within western academic institutions, it was common for people to make misguided statements about my education. Questions posed ran along the lines of “what are you going to do with that?” or “is that even a real degree?” Existing within a marginalized discipline in a pre-TRC era, it was clear that my education was not taken seriously at times. Had I let western academic standards determine the worth of my academic discipline, I would have chosen differently. Instead, I followed my father’s advice, “Do what fits you, do what you love and find a way for it to support you.” My mother’s side is Métis (one of three groups of Indigenous peoples constitutionally recognized by the Canadian state, of mixed ancestry and connected to historic communities), and I’m a citizen of Métis Nation of Ontario with experience in political and policy roles at Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, and my father’s side is Mi’kmaq (a First Nation in Eastern Canada, belonging to one of the three constitutionally recognized Indigenous groups of people in Canada). I also have settler ancestors on both sides. As a scholar, I sit in meetings and work in institutions that worked hard to keep me, and others like me, on the outside. In those spaces, I cross boundaries and I make space for change. Part of my credibility in EDID and Indigenization work is my intersectionality as an academic with lived experience, and my existence as a political demographic. These intersections are essential and speak to several of the considerations I raise.

Why do I call myself a political demographic? Because every action I do is measured as a statistic because I exist as a person constitutionally recognized. As Maaka and Fleras (2005) illustrated, Indigenous populations are measured and tracked in a way that compares the lived experiences of Indigenous Peoples in the Canadian geopolitical colonial boundaries to non-Indigenous populations. Outside of academic scholarship, this very fact exists in the Canadian Aboriginal Peoples Survey carried out by Statistics Canada (Government of Canada & Statistics Canada, 2023). Today, statistically, I intersect in many categories, mainly as one that defies odds—and it is for this reason when I enter institutional spaces, I am invited for my perspective. I introduce myself as a unicorn; I am an Indigenous woman educated in western and Indigenous knowledge systems and governance, and then I provide my background. I have worked in Métis governance structures and western educational structures, was elected in Métis governance, and now make up part of a very small statistical identity of being a female Indigenous PhD holder with a tenure-track position in the academy. The experience and skills also mean there is an array of reasons I get asked to work in the EDID space, such as lived experience, education, or work experience. With some clarity of who should be in EDID decision-making spaces, I inevitably make up one of the desired experiences needed to sit at that table.

Extra labour and why it matters

Before embarking on who should be sitting at EDID decision-making tables, I need to define how that work contributes to extra labour burdens on those working in these spaces and explore the distinctions between Indigenization and EDID work. Maaka and Fleras (2005) noted that Canada was going through a transformational change at the start of the 21st century and there was an uptick in Indigenization in institutions such as universities following the TRC (Raffoul et al., 2022). Extra labour is required when there is a serious and authentic commitment to Indigenization because it is not plug and play or add and stir. It is a serious commitment to a new social contract, and it must begin at any institution’s ground level (Maaka & Fleras, 2005). Such development requires co-production, which creates work and extra work in most cases (Walker & Belanger, 2013). The extra work is often done by few equity hires, which establishes the reason for equity hires in an organization: to increase diversity. The people who worked hard to create space for themselves are also working to create space for others.

The labour in institutions

Indigenization

The TRC was the impetus for large-scale discussion of institutional change in Canada. This is not to say that large-scale change occurred because of the growing discussion. Arguably, it is too soon to tell; social change does not happen quickly. The Commission, which resulted from a class-action law settlement, released findings from the inquiry regarding Canadian Indian Residential Schools in June 2015 (Government of Canada, n.d.). More extensive discussions started, and senior administrative positions for Indigenous colleagues developed in public institutions, including universities. As Staples et al. (2021) identified, several institutions took up the task following the release of the 13 principals by Universities Canada regarding Indigenous education. Staples et al.’s (2021) discussion and follow-up on the topic found that Universities Canada ran a follow-up survey in 2017 indicating that 70% of Canadian Universities were working on change. While there were calls for institutional change before the TRC, a coordinated effort appears to have culminated behind the position taken at Universities Canada.

Universities respond to calls for Indigenization through various capacities; leadership role creation, programme development like Indigenous Studies programme development, and curriculum support strategies, to name a few avenues. There are common threads when exploring Indigenization plans at different universities, but each institution works with local understandings of processes and relationships. Research by Raffoul et al. (2022) on Indigenization on university campuses involved an environmental scan of educational developers at Canadian institutions. They found that while there was a widespread commitment to advancing Indigenization agendas, often, this space was under-resourced. Aside from extra labour in equity and Indigenization, this research highlights the under-resourcing that speaks to a bigger problem: colonial society is willing to support work as long as it does not take too much effort or cost too much. Lavallee (2020) reflects on the words of Maria Campbell and Brenda MacDougall, which pointed to expressions of effort, which involve hanging a few paintings while pushing workloads with limited budgets onto a few key people and expecting change.

In recent years, Canadian universities created Indigenous leadership positions as they work to align with Indigenization commitments. Evidence of the growth exists in the National Indigenous University Senior Leaders’ Association, an organization that connects over four dozen Indigenous people working in university leadership roles. Universities actively engaged in Indigenization conversations beginning in 2015 when a National Forum was held at the University of Saskatchewan. The forum discussed how universities could respond to calls to action and the Universities Canada’s 13 Principles mentioned above (University of Saskatchewan, 2016). Since this national forum, universities across Canada have added Indigenous senior leadership roles, but what is important to examine is what is happening around these new positions? Questions need to be asked, such as how are they supported? Are there proper resources in place? Is all the work falling on one person? Without appropriate resources and support, people are set up for failure, burnout, and no meaningful change occurs.

Indigenization is not an easy task, nor does it come quickly. It cannot be add and stir as Indigenous knowledge; ways of doing and knowing are, in fact, a discipline and epistemology. Some people position Indigenous Studies as an academic discipline, a subset of another discipline, such as anthropology, sociology, or history. This classification results from trying to order one knowledge system within another, upholding colonial structures with uneven recognition of knowledge systems. Indigenous knowledge is intersectional, as it cannot be easily compartmentalized into one aspect of life. From a theoretical perspective, some situate Indigenous Studies work within CRT (Delgado et al., 2017). The problem with this positioning is that CRT centres racism without accounting for colonialism, whereas Tribal CRT centres colonialism while acknowledging racism (Brayboy, 2005). The colonial experience makes the Indigenous position different from other equity spaces and why Indigenization is distinct from equity; there are different starting positions. Indigenous positions of sovereignty and self-determination are the result of dispossession from the land legally by the Crown while remaining on that same land.

Bridging

Indigenous positions are based on distinction, and inclusion and embracing diversity are other means of addressing marginalization; both are positions related to decentralizing power structures that marginalize groups. The colonial project by European powers used skin colour as a measure of personhood and, therefore, power (Strobel, 2008). The diversity within the colonial project means various groups play a role in decolonization and why there is some overlap between EDID work and Indigenization. Indigenous Peoples on Turtle Island work to return to pre-colonial levels of sovereignty and power; this is not about inclusion in the dominant society per se (Grafton & Melancon, 2020). While the colonial project was built on stolen land, it was done with stolen labour (Henderson, 2021). There are different lived experiences of colonization. Embracing the constitutional distinctiveness of Indigenous peoples by creating Indigenous space with decentring colonial power and changing institutional structures dismantles the same oppressive structure EDID work addresses.

The labour of decolonization also needs to happen in several arenas while other groups work on themselves. For example, decolonization in Indigenous communities does not need interference from non-Indigenous players. Those non-Indigenous peoples need to be doing work in their own space that creates room and power-sharing with Indigenous Peoples and other historically marginalized groups in appropriate ways based on colonial history because Indigenization is not about equity or equality. Creating space for others marginalized by colonial structures is a spillover effect, not a goal in Indigenization because Indigenous Peoples come from a different legal position. Being equal to those that do not have special constitutional distinction was never a goal, illustrated in the constitutional discussions around the 1982 patriation (Major, 2022).

EDID and collisions in Indigenization

Shifting now to EDID work happening in Canadian universities, there has been an uptick in this work since the increased attention through the #BlackLivesMatter movement that began in 2013 as a response to the acquittal of the person accused of murdering Trayvon Martin (Howard University School of Law, 2023). In recent years, the news highlighted more injustices, with an increase in action noted in print news and other forms of media reporting. The year 2016 marked a significant year in momentum in the #BlackLivesMatter movement, despite decades of work in minority rights. Just as advocacy of Indigenization is not new, neither are arguments put forth regarding EDID rights and responsibilities by advocates who have long worked in the area, studied in the area, and lived in the area of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. With increased work in the area, Canadian universities have increased resources, such as salaries and offices.

As recommended in other research, Indigenization holds a special place that some may say is othering but acknowledges Indigenous Peoples’ distinctness in inherent Indigenous Law and Canadian Law. Just as Universities Canada advocated and tracked Indigenization in the institutions, they do the same for universities working on EDID. Universities Canada offers comprehensive data when exploring EDID work, the least of which are resources and toolkits for institutions and tracking of progress made within institutions (Universities Canada, 2022). When looking at the resources offered by this organization, you see that most activities have happened since 2016 and are continually updated (Universities Canada, 2019). When the organization launched a national survey and reported in 2019, universities’ advancements were statistically in line with what universities did with Indigenization (Universities Canada, 2019). In both cases, engagement was over 70%. This number should not be celebrated as it means not all institutions are creating equity, which is only a start. Meaningful change takes years but must begin with conversations surrounding goals.

Gaudry and Lorenz (2018) documented three types of Indigenization and institutional change: Indigenous inclusion, Reconciliation Indigenization, and Decolonization Indigenization. One way to conceptualize this is a sliding scale, with the measure being the degree of difference to the institution. For Indigenous inclusion, there are targeted hires and means of including voices by creating new administrative positions. The depth of the change then comes with approaches, where reconciliation creates a more inclusive space to maintain old institutional structures. This approach provides the opportunity for internal exclusions. According to Rollo (2014), internal exclusions happen where “the voices of the marginalized are admitted into decision-making contexts that are hostile or indifferent” (p. 227). When the decolonizing approach to Indigenization happens at institutions, structures change to ensure Indigenous voices are not lost. While reconciliation Indigenization starts conversations based first on Indigenous inclusion, arguably, it is not real change beyond the conversation if the institution does not change structurally. Indigenization is unique, and as such, the decolonizing approaches may not apply to EDID space the same way required for Indigenous Peoples because of the different foundations previously discussed. However, there are elements of voice and real inclusion from which we can glean knowledge.

In research conducted by Tamtik and Guenter (2019), at least within the U15 universities in Canada, EDID work is a priority policy area. Their work found concentrations of attention within the institutions and how they are making moves to create change. Their findings produced similar results to Gaudry and Lorenz’s (2018) work. There are degrees of change; however, in this research, the degree of change was measured by how “radical” a university would be in its redistribution of resources (Tamtik & Guenter, 2019, p. 51). A fundamental shift has a power share with Indigenous Peoples in the decolonization setting discussed above. In the EDID scenario, it’s moving beyond proverbial lip services to proper resource initiatives that can lead to substantial institutional change. And in both scenarios, it moves beyond the artificial inclusions to being part of real decision-making and part of the root of the power on which institutions sit.

The evidentiary need for direction on the topic followed anti-black racism events. The need culminated in approving an advisory committee on EDID for the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, which resulted in a report Igniting the Change (2021). When creating the advisory board, adding the second D as part of the work involved broadening the scope for the intersectionality of discrimination (Smith et al., 2021). Their mandate included the following:

2.1. The Advisory Committee’s mandate is to advise the Board on (1) strategies to support EDID in Congress and other Federation events, and (2) specific actions the Federation and its members can take, in the short, medium, or longer term, to:

2.2. Support equitable and inclusive access and participation for its members to Federation activities.

2.3. Support decolonization and reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and collaborate to increase opportunities for Indigenous students, scholars, and communities.

2.4. Support critical conversations about colonialism and anti-Black racism, including an intersectional lens that makes visible the impact of multiple forms of systemic discrimination. (Smith et al., 2021, pp. 20–21)

Notably, the distinction of Indigenous Peoples from the rest of the EDID work illustrates the uniqueness of this conversation in making space in university institutions. The voices that were part of this work are essential in the conversation moving forward as the work is conducted by People whose careers involved work in intersectionality.

It is not just at university institutions through administrations or the Federations for Humanities and Social Sciences that developments of EDID are happening in academic disciplines. Professional organizations such as the Canadian Society of Immunology began their conference with EDI workshops in 2021 (Tejeira et al., 2022). The value discussed in the workshop was facilitating much-needed conversations with hopes of “structural and behavioral changes, actions, and accountability in EDI matters” (Tejeira et al., 2022, p. 165). How institutions are shifting to anti-black racism and EDID work, be it disciplines, supporting organizations, or the university institutions themselves, is clear there is a shift in direction, and everyone is at different places in their journey (Tamtik & Guenter, 2019; Tejeira et al., 2022). While Indigenization and creating space in EDID differ for distinct reasons, intersections and conversations are happening that engage both spaces.

Critical Race Theory: intersections and discussions

Why are we talking about what is happening in these spaces? Because we need to talk about who is taking up the work in these spaces. There are debates on what makes one qualify, especially as institutions grapple with voice; for example: who speaks? Returning to the report and recommendations of Igniting the Change, scholars who work in knowledge translation and intersectionality formed the committee in a way that supported all aspects of diversity. Racial profiling was the principal reason for the committee’s formation, and because of the nature of the issue attention, it was essential to have experts in the field in place (Smith et al., 2021). The experts have lived experience and think and work critically on the issue professionally.

People are working in institutional space, applying critical inquiry or approaches to social action to create equitable space and change (Collins, 2019). People trained in this space hold a skill set, approaching problems from a different angle, some might say a barrier-informed approach. In reality, it is a way to reconsider policy approaches and administrative cultures in institutions that reposition power, beginning by examining assumptions made in social action in a way that considers how actions create barriers (Collins, 2019). As discussed by Collins (2019), “critical social theory is (also) a particular kind of knowledge because it focuses on the social world . . . . Focus[ing] on social inequity” (p. 18). The fact that this social framework works with intersectionality brings applicability across disciplines while maintaining a common thread of approaches to situations with understanding the context of asymmetrical power.

For this article, the debate surrounding CRT and its applicability in the context of race as a social construct is not the focus. Tribal CRT lays the foundations for the unique Indigenous experience when considering interactions with power structures erected through colonization (Brayboy, 2005). CRT, as a theory in scholarship in intersectionality, focuses on under-represented populations or equity-deserving populations, such as Latin Studies, Black Studies, Gender Studies, and even Indigenous Studies (Delgado et al., 2017). This article uses the understanding of CRT for its intersectional lens based on power while encouraging a shift language to Critical Social Theory (CST) as described by Hill Collins (2019). This expanded concept encapsulates a larger collective of resistance knowledge with histories of political activism and a deeper breadth of intersectionality in equity spaces (Collins, 2019). Because inclusivity is about the social constructs of race, referring to the examination theory in the concept of CST, it is more reflective of the growth of the applicability within fields. The intersectionality of this theory, according to Hill Collins (2019), demonstrates how it works within broader epistemological frameworks. I challenge those carrying the labour in equity work to consider this work by Hill Collins (2019) and move the language to CST with a broader understanding of different people face different barriers in institutional structures.

Inarguably, Indigenous-western institutional relations are different from other equity spaces for the abovementioned reasons, such as holding special constitutional spaces or having distinct colonial histories. However, working within the understanding of this intersectionality and how intersectionality works across disciplines can assist in creating equity space as the understanding addresses barriers in place (Collins, 2019). In Canada at a Crossroads (2020), Denis draws distinctions between CRT and Indigenous theorizing while being mindful that group theory can explain part of the social actions, including colonization, that accounts for the asymmetry of power. Colonialism is an added layer that creates an additional intersection (Denis, 2020). While the point made here is not to debate but to remind those engaged in conversations about who works in equity spaces and what equity spaces are. The fact is that decolonizing and Indigenizing institutional space is distinct and cannot be replaced with EDID work; work in the two areas should both be happening.

Lived experiences intersections

Working in Indigenization and EDID is not just plug and play; skills, training, and knowledge are learned to be considered an expert in the field. The work exists within a praxis of theories, frameworks, and methods approaches. As someone trained in western policy systems and institutions, and Indigenous knowledge and pedagogies and epistemologies, intersectionality acts as a bridge and a way to advance equity. This conceptualization is part of how institutions should position people to create authentic change and equitable and decolonizing space. As work in this space increases, it speaks to how academic disciplines need to consider how they respond in developing these spaces and experts within their fields; encourage cross-disciplinary study; and experience when designing a learning journey. What this looked like for me, academically, was being educated in multiple disciplines. Also, it meant taking my western education that intersects with decolonizing education to work as a practitioner within Indigenous policy development by working as a policy analyst at a Métis political organization.

But wait, there’s more. What about the lived experience?

With the development of EDID committees and boards, institutions look for people to populate these spaces. But what happens if you don’t employ someone with skillsets? How do you prevent tokenism by asking people to participate by being experts through lived experience alone? Suppose an organization or institution finds itself in a situation where no people can act in this capacity authentically. In that case, it means that equity hires are in order first. In thinking of beginning steps, starting with a hiring process is almost inevitable. This hiring process is not the answer to creating equity, as noted in the research conducted by Gaudry and Lorenz (2018); it can build reconciliation or decolonization and create equity. It is important to physically make space for others, just as important is the education journey of those with the power to make decisions about space. When leadership that does not confront racism as part of this effort, Campbell (2022) indicates this work then is supporting a recolonization project.

As part of the shift to Indigenization and EDID work in Canadian university institutions, it is important to discuss who should be working in these areas for two reasons; avoiding voice appropriation, with consideration of labour load, and what qualifies someone to work in this area? Because authenticity matters, tokenism must be prevented. Lived experience matters. It is very presumptuous to speak for someone else, especially when they do not share the lived experience with the person they presume to speak for. Within Indigenous policy in Canada, much has been done through top-down approaches by people who assumed they knew better. This treatment of Indigenous Peoples by institutions created distrust. Colonization created an asymmetry of power that, in some ways, is only understood through the lived experience and why Indigenous Peoples work to restore power in spaces rather than build equity (Major, 2022). When people with lived experience are hired to work in institutional spaces because they have the credentials to do the work, you better avoid voice appropriation. But when hiring people to work in these spaces, it is essential to consider the workload (Raffoul et al., 2022). This work should not be uncompensated extra labour. For example, the Windsor University Faculty Association (2021) has mechanisms to compensate for Indigenous and equity work in the 2021 contract. What qualifies someone to work in the area is multifaceted and not easily answered. Still, a dynamic approach should be taken when exploring who should be hired because lived experience directs the training and expertise one has. Some receive training through workshops and courses, while some knowledge cannot come from western knowledge translation methods. Training happens for Indigenous Peoples in the community, especially as the worldview learned from the community is foundational to changing institutional structures.

Conclusion

Questions begin with who should be working in this space, acknowledging that this space is not for everyone and that a combination of specializations and experience are a balance that requires further engagement. There is an increase in conversation in Indigenization and EDID, but that needs to translate into real change and equitable space, understanding that the hiring is just the beginning, and institutions need to understand the path they want to take and hire the people to fill those roles. The institutions need to address questions of what their goals are to know what is required for the journey, so it is not tokenism. What is lived experience and expertise will change, just as the language has changed and shifted and the work evolves. Questions will develop as institutions work on creating authentic equity space and Indigenization as we move past the first questions of who’s voice and labour. So, while we know there is extra labour created by engaging in Indigenization and EDID work, we need to talk about what is being done to compensate? What is being done to acknowledge the emotional burden involved in the work of equity and decolonization?

This discussion started with who I am through positionality and why I am exploring the topic of Indigenization and EDID work. Part of my positionality is the training and skill development in addition to lived experience. Work in the area is more than just adding to the current frameworks and templates; it is an actual change in how things are done. Institutions need to create space to make way for real change so that it is authentic and produces a fundamental shift in equity and decolonization. Illustrated through the scholarship of Tuck and Yang (2012), “decolonization is not a metaphor”, real work needs to happen that decentres settler perspectives (p. 2). This statement gets at the heart of CRT and CST and what needs to happen to create equity and space to restore the Indigenous position before contact and colonization. When working to decentre settler perspectives in Indigenization, space is created for equity. But, creating equity space does not mean creating decolonization and Indigenization space. That space is rooted in a uniqueness that involves decision-making power. It is important to remember this so that one does not think EDID work is sufficient to include decolonizing work; it is situated in different power structures.

The work falls to the Indigenous faculty because non-Indigenous colleagues rarely know how to advance or will stand aside, saying it is not their space to occupy. Indeed, it is not their space to occupy, but it does not mean it alleviates non-Indigenous people from work or responsibility. Supports must exist for decolonizing space. While financial requests are open to criticism, reparations come with financial and labour costs for creating institutional change that dismantles oppressive structures. Similarly, Gaudry and Lorenz (2018) note that while there was support for Indigenous inclusion and shifts to Indigenization, it became more discursive than substantive as the work unfolded. Is this because there is a lack of understanding of what real change means or looks like? Or are people scared to make a large-scale institutional change? What is preventing change from happening? These questions are intended to serve as part of the larger discussion.