Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
Higher education is at a pivotal moment, facing unprecedented challenges and opportunities as institutions navigate systemic racism, social justice imperatives, and the evolving landscape of globalization and digital transformation. This chapter explores the critical shift from performative commitments to actionable, mission-driven strategies in advancing racial equity within higher education. It examines how universities and colleges are confronting systemic racism, particularly in light of the racial reckoning sparked by recent social movements, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on marginalized communities, and the increasing calls for institutional accountability. This chapter will share a discussion on the structural and policy-driven approaches that institutions are adopting to dismantle entrenched barriers, including efforts in curriculum reform, faculty diversity, inclusive leadership, and student advocacy. Additionally, the chapter will analyze the role of digital learning and technology in expanding access to equitable education while addressing the risks of digital divides. Through case studies and empirical research, this chapter will provide insights into best practices and innovative models that are shaping the future of racial justice in higher education. Ultimately, it aims to serve as a resource for policymakers, educators, and institutional leaders striving to move from a mindset of inclusion to a sustained mission of transformative change.
Keywords
- higher education
- social justice
- racial equity
- digital transformation
- inclusive leadership
- curriculum reform
- systemic racism
1. Introduction
Higher education systems worldwide stand at a critical inflection point, confronting entrenched inequities that have been magnified by the intersecting forces of globalization, rapid technological transformation, and the revitalization of social movements demanding racial justice [1, 2, 3, 4]. These dynamics unfold against the backdrop of deeply rooted historical legacies: the residual structures of colonialism, segregation, and systemic discrimination continue to dictate who gains admission, who persists, and who ultimately thrives within university spaces. Such histories are not merely archival—they are actively inscribed into institutional policies, norms, and cultural practices that perpetuate exclusion under the guise of meritocracy and competitive excellence.
The destabilizing impacts of recent global crises, most notably the COVID-19 pandemic, have both exposed and exacerbated these pre-existing fissures. As universities shifted to remote learning and emergency operations, longstanding disparities in digital infrastructure, economic security, and social support networks rendered marginalized students disproportionately vulnerable to educational disruption [5, 6, 7]. The pandemic thus served not as an equalizer, but as a magnifying lens, intensifying gaps in access, achievement, and psychosocial well-being.
Comparative studies by UNESCO and the OECD illuminate how these patterns are globally pervasive yet locally inflected. Across diverse contexts, colonial legacies and rigid class stratifications have produced durable disparities in educational attainment, with elite institutions often serving as gatekeepers that reinforce social hierarchies rather than disrupt them [3, 4]. For instance, pathways into prestigious universities frequently favor students from socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds, whose access is buttressed by better-resourced primary and secondary schooling, extensive preparatory infrastructures, and familial social capital.
The concept of systemic racism in higher education therefore extends well beyond overt acts of discrimination; it encompasses the subtler, institutionalized mechanisms through which inequity is reproduced. These include admissions policies that privilege standardized metrics steeped in cultural bias, curricula that marginalize non-Western epistemologies, and campus climates that alienate students from underrepresented racial, ethnic, and rural backgrounds [5, 6, 7]. The UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Reports consistently highlight that such overlapping barriers—spanning inadequate schooling pipelines, exclusionary pedagogical frameworks, and insufficient academic or psychosocial support—collectively undermine the promise of higher education as a vehicle for social mobility.
This evolving landscape underscores the urgent necessity for mission-driven strategies that move beyond performative gestures toward equity. True transformation requires embedding principles of justice into the very core of higher education’s structural, curricular, and governance architectures. As universities globally navigate the intertwined pressures of demographic change, technological acceleration, and historical injustice, their legitimacy and future relevance will increasingly hinge on their capacity to dismantle systemic barriers and cultivate genuinely inclusive educational environments.
2. Historical barriers
In the United States, higher education evolved within systems built on slavery and segregation, which long excluded ethnic minorities. As an example, Black Americans and other marginalized groups — including those who are “first generation” college students — still lag considerably behind their counterparts in higher education access and completion [8]. Although landmark rulings and civil rights legislation opened doors, systemic disparities remain. Black male students, for example, continue to complete college at rates nearly 20% below national averages [9]. A qualitative study applying Harper’s anti-deficit framework revealed the centrality of family expectations, mentors, faith communities, athletics, and culturally affirming spaces in fostering persistence among Black male graduates. Yet these successes emerged against a backdrop of racism, microaggressions, and institutional neglect.
3. Comparative institutional approaches
The global imperative to dismantle systemic racism and advance social justice in higher education is evident across major international frameworks. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) commits states to ensuring “inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all,” explicitly targeting equal access to affordable, quality tertiary education [1]. UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Reports consistently emphasize that achieving these aspirations requires confronting entrenched racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities, which manifest differently across regional contexts [2].
OECD’s Education at a Glance series underscores persistent gaps in tertiary attainment and labor market integration for disadvantaged groups, revealing that first-generation and minority students often cluster in less prestigious institutions with lower completion rates [3, 4]. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these inequities, as remote learning disproportionately disadvantaged students lacking robust digital infrastructure and family academic capital, further entrenching existing divides [5].
At the regional level, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) operationalizes SDG 4 through the Bologna Process, integrating social dimension targets aimed at ensuring that student populations reflect societal diversity. The 2015 Yerevan Communiqué, for example, called for national policies that foster inclusion through funding mechanisms and targeted outreach [10, 11]. Ireland and Finland exemplify this approach by linking financial support and strategic planning to widening participation objectives.
National initiatives further illustrate the range of institutional responses. In the UK, the Office for Students (OfS) enforces Access and Participation Plans, embedding accountability for closing attainment gaps [12]. Brazil’s Quota Law mandates reserved seats in public universities for Afro-Brazilian, Indigenous, and low-income students, significantly increasing representation while also highlighting the need for comprehensive academic and social support [9]. In South Africa, equity weightings in post-apartheid funding formulas directly incentivize universities to enroll and graduate Black African students and women in historically underrepresented fields, framing demographic transformation as integral to resource allocation [13, 14].
These comparative landscapes reveal a growing global consensus: combating systemic inequities in higher education demands structural interventions tailored to regional and national realities. They also illustrate how globalization can simultaneously expand opportunities and intensify market pressures that prioritize institutional rankings over inclusive practices [15]. Latin America’s expansion of private higher education has broadened enrollment without fully addressing racial disparities [16], while Africa and South Asia continue to face stark gender and rural-urban divides in tertiary participation [6].
The pandemic starkly underscored these vulnerabilities, with over 1.6 billion learners affected by closures at its peak and widening gaps for students from marginalized backgrounds [3, 4]. Studies from the UK, Brazil, South Africa, and Australia documented parallel surges in mental health challenges among these groups [17].
Taken together, these patterns indicate that higher education’s promise as a vehicle for social mobility remains deeply constrained by systemic inequities. They underscore the urgency of moving beyond rhetorical commitments toward transformative policies and practices that can reconstruct higher education systems for genuine equity in the post-pandemic era [18].
4. From prescriptive to mission-driven equity
In response to global calls for racial justice, many universities issue statements on diversity and inclusion. Yet scholars argue these are often performative gestures without structural change [19]. Symbolic programming such as workshops or celebrations rarely disrupt entrenched norms or power structures [18]. As a result, marginalized students and staff continue to navigate environments that fail to match equity rhetoric in mission statements [20].
Mission-driven equity embeds social justice as a core value operationalized through measurable policies and accountability mechanisms [21]. This requires aligning budgets, governance, and accreditation with equity goals, examining admissions, hiring, curriculum, and campus safety for systemic barriers [22].
Globally, the UK Office for Students ties funding to university plans that close attainment gaps, producing benchmarks and public reporting [12]. In South Africa, post-apartheid funding weights reward institutions enrolling and graduating more Black African students and women in underrepresented fields [13]. Brazil’s quota laws have increased Afro-Brazilian and indigenous participation in elite universities, though debates continue around complementary support [9].
These cases show moving from performative to mission-driven equity shifts responsibility from individuals “overcoming” barriers to institutions dismantling them, reaffirming higher education’s role as an architect of a more just society [15].
5. Global policy shifts
The pursuit of equitable access to higher education and the dismantling of systemic racism have gained prominence as central objectives within global education policy discourse. Frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have catalyzed international commitments that place equity at the heart of educational development. Specifically, SDG 4 calls for “inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all,” underscoring that achieving universal participation requires confronting structural disadvantages faced by marginalized populations.
The UNESCO Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Reports have served as critical instruments in tracking country-level progress toward these objectives [1]. The 2020 GEM report highlights that despite expansions in tertiary enrollment globally, inequalities persist along lines of income, geography, ethnicity, and disability. For example, tertiary gross enrollment ratios exceed 70% in Europe and North America but remain below 10% in sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, within countries, marginalized ethnic groups and rural students consistently lag behind urban and majority populations.
The OECD’s Education at a Glance similarly reveals disparities in completion rates, labor market integration, and digital access, with socioeconomically disadvantaged students facing compounded barriers [2]. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated these divides, as remote learning favored those with stable internet, digital literacy, and supportive home environments—conditions unequally distributed both within and between countries [3, 4].
Regionally, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), through the Bologna Process, has sought to standardize degrees and promote mobility across 48 countries, but it also explicitly incorporates social dimension targets aimed at widening participation. The 2015 Yerevan Communiqué of EHEA ministers recognized that “the social dimension is essential to ensure that the student body entering, participating in, and completing higher education at all levels reflects the diversity of our populations” [10]. Countries like Finland and Ireland have implemented comprehensive access plans tied to these goals, using financial aid and targeted outreach to address participation gaps.
In the United Kingdom, equity has become institutionally regulated through the Office for Students (OfS), which requires universities to submit Access and Participation Plans detailing how they will close gaps in access, success, and progression for underrepresented groups [12]. The OfS has linked funding incentives and reputational assessments to these plans, creating a model of enforced accountability. While critiques remain about the depth of institutional change, this framework has produced public benchmarks and stimulated competitive efforts to demonstrate progress.
Brazil provides another instructive case with its federally mandated affirmative action policies. Since the 2012 Quota Law, public universities have been required to reserve substantial portions of seats for Afro-Brazilian and indigenous students as well as graduates from public secondary schools [9]. This has dramatically altered the demographic composition of elite campuses. However, debates continue around the need for complementary measures—such as tutoring and mentorship—to ensure that structural barriers within institutions do not undermine the intended equity gains.
In South Africa, post-apartheid higher education policy has explicitly linked funding to redress. The National Plan for Higher Education and subsequent frameworks incorporated equity weightings in funding formulas, allocating additional resources to universities based on their enrollment and graduation rates of Black African students and women in underrepresented fields [13, 14]. This acknowledges that overcoming historical injustices requires more than formal access; it demands the redistribution of financial support to institutions and students traditionally excluded from such benefits.
Together, these cases underscore a growing global recognition that dismantling entrenched inequities in higher education requires not only broad aspirational statements but also detailed, enforceable policies. They highlight how international frameworks like UNESCO SDG 4 have seeded commitments that take on distinctive forms in regional compacts and national legislation, adapting to local histories of exclusion while reinforcing a shared moral and developmental imperative.
6. Structural and policy approaches to dismantle barriers
6.1 Curriculum reform
Curriculum transformation lies at the heart of dismantling systemic racism and epistemic exclusion within higher education. Across global contexts, decolonization movements have sought to interrogate and disrupt Eurocentric canons, amplifying marginalized perspectives and knowledges [14]. In the United Kingdom, campaigns such as “Why Is My Curriculum White?” have compelled universities to systematically audit reading lists and learning outcomes, resulting in revisions that better reflect diverse intellectual traditions [23]. Similarly, South Africa’s #FeesMustFall protests underscored demands to embed African philosophies, literatures, and epistemologies into university syllabi, challenging lingering colonial curricula [24]. In Latin America, institutions have incorporated indigenous knowledge systems into academic programs to address region-specific socio-environmental challenges, while simultaneously validating non-Western epistemologies [6]. The European University Association has further urged embedding diversity and inclusion reviews into quality assurance mechanisms, ensuring that curricular transformation is not episodic but integral to academic standards and accreditation processes [19]. Such initiatives signal a paradigm shift where curriculum becomes a site for confronting historical inequities and fostering genuinely pluralistic scholarship.
6.2 Faculty diversity and inclusive hiring
The demographic composition of faculty profoundly influences campus climate, mentorship networks, and the intellectual framing of research agendas. OECD analyses indicate that underrepresented groups disproportionately occupy junior academic roles, with precipitous declines at senior and leadership levels [18]. Addressing this imbalance, the University of British Columbia in Canada has tied faculty funding streams to demonstrable success in equity-focused hiring, fostering accountability in departmental recruitment practices [20]. In the United States, cluster hiring initiatives have aimed to build critical masses of scholars specializing in race, equity, and social justice, thereby reshaping disciplinary landscapes and enhancing peer support for faculty of color [21]. However, the literature cautions that without robust retention policies, professional development pathways, and leadership pipelines, such interventions may yield only superficial diversity gains, failing to penetrate the structural logics of academia [25]. True inclusivity thus requires coupling hiring targets with long-term institutional commitments to mentorship, promotion equity, and leadership cultivation.
6.3 Inclusive leadership and governance
Institutional governance structures play a decisive role in embedding equity into the strategic fabric of higher education. Organizations like Advance HE in the UK and the European University Association have advocated incorporating diversity metrics into leadership evaluations, moving beyond rhetorical endorsements to enforceable performance standards [19, 23]. At the University of Cape Town, equity scorecards explicitly tie resource allocations and executive assessments to diversity benchmarks, ensuring that leadership accountability extends beyond symbolic gestures to material consequences [26]. Such practices illustrate how governance frameworks can operationalize commitments to transformation, compelling university executives to steward institutional cultures that prioritize justice and inclusivity as core strategic imperatives.
6.4 Student advocacy and engagement
Student activism has historically been a catalyst for equity-driven reforms in higher education, directly challenging institutional inertia. South Africa’s #FeesMustFall movement exemplifies this dynamic, confronting both the financial exclusion wrought by high tuition fees and the broader cultural alienation embedded in university spaces [24]. In Europe, the European University Association has championed initiatives that condition funding on intersectional equity audits, thereby institutionalizing student voices within regulatory processes [11, 19]. Latin American contexts reveal further innovations, where student coalitions and non-governmental organizations actively monitor, litigate, and enforce compliance with affirmative action mandates, embedding accountability within local educational ecosystems [6]. Collectively, these cases underscore the indispensable role of grassroots mobilization in translating abstract equity commitments into lived institutional priorities, thereby sustaining pressure for deep structural change.
7. Equity in digital transformation: Expanding access and digital divides
The rapid acceleration of digital learning has emerged as a paradoxical force in global higher education—simultaneously expanding access while entrenching structural exclusions. The OECD’s Education at a Glance underscores how online learning platforms, though broadening participation, largely benefit students already advantaged by stable digital infrastructures and substantial social capital [2]. Similarly, the World Bank’s analyses of pandemic-era learning losses highlight that the abrupt pivot to online modalities exacerbated existing disparities, disproportionately harming marginalized groups in the Global South who lack reliable internet connectivity, consistent electricity, and essential devices [3].
UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Reports reveal stark continental disparities: while over 95% of tertiary students in Europe report dependable broadband and device access, fewer than 30% in significant regions of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia can claim comparable resources [1]. Yet digital equity challenges extend beyond infrastructure. Latin American and African studies illustrate that many institutions merely transposed traditional lecture formats into virtual spaces without recalibrating pedagogies to accommodate first-generation, rural, or minority learners [6]. Such strategies often neglect the diverse learning contexts and cultural backgrounds of students, perpetuating epistemic exclusions under the guise of technological innovation [5].
Nonetheless, digital transformation harbors profound emancipatory potential if approached with intentional inclusivity. Brazil’s Universidade Aberta do Brasil employs blended learning models explicitly designed to reach geographically isolated communities, thereby democratizing access to higher education [8]. In South Africa, universities have brokered partnerships with mobile providers to subsidize data costs for low-income students, directly addressing one of the primary barriers to digital participation [14]. The United Kingdom’s widening participation frameworks increasingly incorporate proactive digital outreach, engaging underrepresented students well before formal enrollment to build aspirational pathways [12]. These cases collectively demonstrate that advancing equity through digital transformation requires deliberate investments in inclusive pedagogies, culturally responsive content, and supportive technological ecosystems [5]. Without such commitments, online education risks replicating and amplifying the very hierarchies it purports to dismantle.
8. Comparative case insights and best practices
A comparative examination of national policy landscapes illuminates diverse strategies for confronting systemic inequities in higher education. Brazil’s constitutional amendments and the Quota Law have significantly restructured university demographics, reserving substantial proportions of seats for Afro-Brazilian, Indigenous, and economically disadvantaged students. Complementary programs such as the National Student Assistance Program (PNAES) provide critical supports like housing and food stipends, recognizing that access entails more than admission alone [8, 9].
In the United Kingdom, regulatory frameworks link institutional funding to robust Access and Participation Plans, compelling universities to implement measurable strategies that address attainment disparities and broaden participation among underrepresented cohorts [12, 23]. South Africa’s unique intersection of policy and activism is exemplified by equity weightings in governmental funding formulas, which reward institutions based on the enrollment and graduation of Black African students and women in traditionally marginalized fields. These mechanisms are deeply intertwined with grassroots movements like #FeesMustFall, which foreground the inseparability of economic and cultural exclusions [14, 24].
Juxtaposing Global North and South experiences underscores that effective equity interventions often hinge on a dual strategy: formal policy architectures must be complemented by sustained grassroots mobilization that holds institutions accountable. The comparative data reveal that without active civil society engagement, policy instruments risk stagnating as technocratic exercises rather than driving substantive transformation [19]. These international cases thus offer instructive models for embedding equity as both a systemic obligation and a shared societal endeavor.
9. Moving from inclusion to transformative change
Achieving genuine equity in higher education necessitates a paradigmatic shift from merely expanding access to fundamentally restructuring power dynamics and institutional logics. This entails embedding equity as a core organizational mission, reflected explicitly in strategic plans, governance structures, and budgetary priorities [18]. Countries like the UK and South Africa exemplify how linking public funding to concrete equity outcomes can institutionalize accountability, ensuring that rhetorical commitments translate into enforceable mandates [12, 13].
Investments must also extend to curricular innovation that deconstructs hegemonic knowledge systems and validates diverse epistemologies, fostering inclusive intellectual ecosystems [17]. Equally critical is the deliberate cultivation of pathways for underrepresented groups into faculty ranks and leadership positions, addressing the persistent stratification that relegates marginalized scholars to peripheral roles [20]. In the realm of digital transformation, equity demands the creation of culturally affirming online environments that recognize and adapt to varied learner contexts, rather than imposing monolithic models that inadvertently privilege the already privileged [5].
By reframing equity from an individual challenge to navigate toward a collective, systemic obligation, higher education can transcend performative inclusion. This realignment positions universities not merely as sites of access but as engines of structural justice, capable of dismantling entrenched hierarchies and fostering genuinely transformative change.
10. Conclusions
This chapter has traced the enduring imprint of systemic racism and structural inequities across global higher education landscapes, from persistent enrollment gaps and epistemic exclusions to the stark digital divides exacerbated by technological shifts. Through comparative insights drawn from Brazil, South Africa, the UK, and international policy frameworks, it has highlighted both the entrenched challenges and the innovative pathways emerging to confront them.
The evidence affirms that equity in higher education cannot rest on aspirational rhetoric or fragmented initiatives. Instead, it demands mission-driven strategies that embed justice into the core operational, curricular, and governance architectures of institutions. As universities navigate the converging pressures of globalization, digital transformation, and historical legacies of exclusion, their legitimacy as engines of social mobility will increasingly hinge on their willingness to embrace accountability, cultivate inclusivity, and commit to collective transformation. Only through such integrative approaches can higher education fulfill its potential as a catalyst for a more just and equitable global society.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges Johnson C. Smith University for institutional support and the participants of foundational studies whose perspectives enriched this work.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.
UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education — A Tool on whose Terms? UNESCO; 2023. DOI: 10.54676/UZQV8501 - 2.
OECD. Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing; 2023. DOI: 10.1787/e13bef63-en - 3.
World Bank, UNESCO, & UNICEF. The State of the Global Education Crisis: A Path to Recovery. World Bank; 2021. DOI: 10.54675/JLUG7649 - 4.
OECD. Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. OECD Publishing; 2021. DOI: 10.1787/589b283f-en - 5.
Miao F, Hinostroza JE, Lee M, Isaacs S, Orr D, Senne F, et al. Guidelines for ICT in Education Policies and Masterplans. UNESCO; 2022. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380926 - 6.
Lustosa Rosario AC, Yaacov BB, Franco Segura C, Arias Ortiz E, Heredero E, Botero J, et al. Higher Education Digital Transformation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank; 2021. DOI: 10.18235/0003829 - 7.
Heleta S. Decolonisation of higher education: Dismantling epistemic violence and eurocentrism in South Africa. Transformation in Higher Education. 2016; 1 (1):1-8. DOI: 10.4102/the.v1i1.9 - 8.
Brazil Ministry of Education. Universidade Aberta do Brasil. Brazil Ministry of Education; 2022. Available from: https://portal.mec.gov.br/uab - 9.
Telles E, Paixão M. Affirmative action and higher education in Brazil. Daedalus. 2021; 150 (2):154-170. DOI: 10.1162/DAED_a_01820 - 10.
European Higher Education Area. Yerevan Communiqué. EHEA; 2015. Available from: https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf - 11.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Towards Equity and Inclusion in Higher Education in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union; 2022. Available from: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/towards-equity-and-inclusion-higher-education-europe - 12.
UK Office for Students. Access and Participation Plans. Office for Students; 2022. Available from: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/promoting-equal-opportunities/access-and-participation-plans/ - 13.
South Africa Department of Education. National Plan for Higher Education. Government Printer; 2001. Available from: https://www.gov.za/documents/national-plan-higher-education - 14.
Council on Higher Education. South African Higher Education Reviewed: Two Decades of Democracy. CHE; 2016. Available from: https://www.che.ac.za/publications/research/higher-education-and-social-transformation-south-africa-case-study - 15.
Altbach PG, Knight J. The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education. 2007; 11 (3-4):290-305. DOI: 10.1177/1028315307303542 - 16.
OECD et al. Latin American Economic Outlook 2020: Digital Transformation for Building Back Better. OECD; 2020. DOI: 10.1787/e6e864fb-en - 17.
Sium A, Desai C, Ritskes E. Towards the ‘tangible unknown’: Decolonization and the Indigenous future. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 2012; 1 (1):I-XVI. Available from:https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18638 - 18.
Turner CSV, Gonzalez JC, Wood JL. Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 2008; 1 (3):139-168. DOI: 10.1037/a0012837 - 19.
European University Association. Leadership and Organisation for Teaching and Learning at European Universities: Final Report from the LOTUS Project. EUA; 2022. Available from: https://www.eua.eu/publications/reports/leadership-and-organisation-for-teaching-and-learning-at-european-universities.html - 20.
UBC Equity & Inclusion Office. Annual Report 2021-2022. University of British Columbia; 2022. Available from: https://equity3.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2022/08/UBC_EIO_2021_Final.pdf - 21.
United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals: Goal 4 — Quality Education. United Nations; 2015. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4 - 22.
Marginson S. Higher Education and the Common Good. Melbourne University Publishing; 2016 - 23.
Advance HE. Equality Charters and Inclusive Governance. Advance HE; 2020. Available from: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters - 24.
Langa M, editor. #Hashtag: An Analysis of the #FeesMustFall Movement at South African Universities. Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation; 2017. Available from: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1446577/hashtag/2078346/ - 25.
Moody J. Faculty Diversity: Removing the Barriers. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2012 - 26.
University of Cape Town. Strategic Plan 2030: Vision 2030. University of Cape Town; 2021. Available from: https://www.uct.ac.za/main/strategic-planning/strategic-plan