Higher education institutions must move beyond isolated equity initiatives and address the cultural dynamics that allow racial disparities in degree outcomes to persist, a recent analysis argues. The authors propose shifting from a culture of public censure — or “calling-out” — to an intentional, accountability-oriented practice of “calling-in” that encourages constructive dialogue and collective reflection.
Awarding gaps remain despite targeted interventions
Universities have introduced a range of targeted measures intended to reduce racial inequalities in degree results. These include curriculum reform, inclusive assessment practices, recruitment efforts that use positive action, and antiracism toolkits. Yet the disparity between the proportions of white and racially minoritised students awarded First and Upper Second class (2:1) honours endures.
The analysis notes a notable example: the degree-awarding gap between Black and white students stood at 21.6 percentage points in 2022–23. The authors point to externally set targets — such as a regulator’s aim to eliminate awarding gaps by 2030 — which compress the time available for meaningful reform.
| Measure | Detail |
|---|---|
| Awarding gap (Black vs white) | 21.6% (2022–23) |
| Target to eliminate gaps | 2030 |
From calling-out to calling-in
According to the analysis, while “calling-out” can be a necessary response to entrenched injustice, it often leads to defensive reactions and a fear of reputational harm that constrains honest institutional self-examination. Instead, the authors recommend “calling-in” — framed as an intentional, relational practice that invites accountability through care, dialogue and collective learning.
“Calling-in” is presented as an intentional invitation, a strategic orientation to a courageous accountability dialogue that is grounded in care, relationality, and the possibility for transformation.
The authors argue that race operates as “sticky knowledge” — deeply held social assumptions that shape decisions and reproduce inequalities — and that tackling this requires historical consciousness and the willingness to unlearn entrenched practices.
What the analysis recommends for universities
The proposals focus on changing the institutional environment in which equity measures operate, not only the measures themselves. Key recommendations include:
- Prioritising structured, mediated conversations within institutions that encourage honesty without public shaming.
- Embedding historical and contextual understanding of racial dynamics into staff development, curriculum design and assessment practices.
- Designing equity interventions with realistic resourcing and evaluation timeframes so that change is measurable and sustainable.
The authors caution that targets alone are insufficient. With less than a decade — and in some accounts fewer than four years — to meet certain regulator deadlines, they call for radical and resourced institutional change rather than piecemeal adjustments carried out amid tightening budgets and heavier teaching loads.
Implications for South African higher education
While the analysis draws on data and regulatory timetables outside South Africa, its core message about institutional culture, accountability and the limits of technical fixes is instructive for local universities. South African institutions continue to wrestle with transformation, curriculum relevance and inequality of outcomes following schooling disparities. The call for relational, well-resourced change programmes — rather than short-term compliance measures — speaks directly to challenges faced by our universities as they seek to broaden opportunity while maintaining academic standards.
Achieving equitable degree outcomes requires both concrete policy measures and deliberate work to shift day-to-day institutional practices. If higher education is to meet its social mandate, leaders and staff must create spaces where difficult conversations about race, history and institutional practice are supported, sustained and linked to measurable change.
