The University Grants Commission (UGC) has notified the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025 for public comments and suggestions. This move comes in response to the Supreme Court’s directive in January 2025, which mandated the formulation of new regulations within six weeks to address caste-based discrimination and prevent student suicides in higher education institutions. The UGC asserts that the draft regulations aim to promote equity, inclusion, and non-discrimination, ensuring a safe and inclusive environment for students, faculty, and staff by prohibiting discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
While this is a commendable step, it raises an important question: are these measures sufficient to eliminate discrimination in higher education? In the digital age, discrimination has taken new forms, extending beyond traditional settings. One such example is university and college websites, which subtly affect faculty and students by reinforcing biases and exclusionary practices.
University and college websites serve as the digital face of institutions, offering essential information on academic programmes, faculty, etc. among others. Ideally, they should function as inclusive and transparent platforms that provide equal representation to all members of the academic community.
However, in practice, a majority of them often reinforce existing hierarchies and deepen institutional inequities. Among the most significant disparities are the unequal treatment of faculty and inaccessibility for persons with disabilities
Marginalisation of faculty
A vast majority of Indian university and college websites reflect and reinforce systemic inequities in the treatment of faculty based on their employment status, with permanent faculty receiving significantly more visibility and recognition than their non-permanent counterparts. Private institutions are generally better in not explicitly differentiating faculty on their websites. However, many of them do not list all their faculty members on their websites, often omitting some entirely
One glaring disparity is evident in the presentation of faculty profiles. Permanent faculty members are typically showcased with detailed biographies, comprehensive lists of achievements, and professional photographs, which enhance their professional standing. In contrast, contract, guest, and adjunct faculty often have minimal or incomplete profiles, sometimes lacking even basic elements like photographs. This discrepancy not only diminishes the perceived value of non-permanent faculty but also perpetuates a narrative that their contributions are less significant.
Moreover, the way designations and titles are displayed further exacerbates this divide. While acting vice-chancellors are frequently listed without any indication of their temporary status, contract faculty are explicitly labeled as “on contract,” creating a hierarchical distinction that undermines their professional credibility and institutional belonging.
Non-permanent faculty in many institutions,especially,public institutions face critical challenges in accessing institutional resources. Many contract faculty members do not get official institute email addresses. This creates big problems for their professional communication.
Such exclusion is not just about an email address. It clearly shows how institutions undervalue contract faculty’s contributions. The email system becomes a marker of professional recognition. By denying basic communication tools, institutions send a strong message about their workforce hierarchy.
In recent years, some institutions, particularly private institutions, have begun using website engagement metrics as a method of evaluating faculty performance. These metrics include tracking website visits to faculty profiles, counting page access frequency, and measuring the average duration visitors spend for reading faculty information. While seemingly objective, such indicators inherently disadvantage non-permanent faculty and create an unequal assessment framework. These flawed metrics systematically marginalises non-permanent faculty by evaluating their professional worth through an inherently biased digital lens that fails to capture the complexity of academic work.
Another issue is the accessibility of college and university websites for people with disabilities, which remains a significant yet often overlooked concern. The vast majority of institutions across the country are failing to meet fundamental digital accessibility standards, thereby excluding some of their most vulnerable stakeholders.
Digital accessibility for individuals with disabilities
College and university websites across the country are failing their most vulnerable stakeholders by neglecting fundamental digital accessibility standards. A simple analysis reveals that the majority of institutional websites creates significant barriers for people with disabilities. Despite the availability of cost-effective technological solutions, most college and university websites remain inaccessible, preventing individuals with diverse needs from accessing essential academic information and resources.
The disregard of Indian institutions for globally recognized standards for digital inclusivity, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), reflects a deeper institutional failure to support students with disabilities. The neglect of basic digital accessibility by institutions actively perpetuates a culture of exclusion. Such practices fundamentally challenge the proclaimed commitments to equity and inclusivity in higher education.
To address this gap, higher educational institutions must prioritise digital accessibility to ensure that all stakeholders can effectively engage with online resources. Web design should accommodate diverse needs by incorporating screen reader compatibility, adequate colour contrast, and intuitive keyboard navigation. Video content must include closed captioning and transcripts to support students who are deaf or hard of hearing and website interfaces should use clear language and logical structures to assist students with cognitive differences.
A call for change
As academic engagement increasingly shifts to digital landscapes, the imperative for holistic and inclusive web design has become paramount. Yet, regulatory mechanisms, exemplified by the recent draft UGC draft Regulations, persistently struggle to address systemic discrimination beyond conventional paradigms. They remain constrained by obsolete operational paradigms that prove inadequate for navigating modern technological landscapes. This has resulted in a significant gap in recognising and tackling new, subtle forms of discrimination within the academic spaces. This has serious consequences for students and faculty. A failure to recognise and prevent these issues weakens the principles of equity and inclusion.
Achieving true equity and inclusion in higher education requires a proactive commitment to digital accessibility. A standardised, nationwide approach led by the UGC can ensure that accessibility is not an afterthought but a fundamental aspect of digital infrastructure. Therefore, expanding the scope of the draft UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025, to include clear mandates on digital accessibility will be a crucial step toward fostering an inclusive academic environment.
(Eldho Mathews is a Programme Officer (Internationalisation) at the Kerala State Higher Education Council. He is also a member of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education, Department of Educational Policy and Leadership, State University of New York at Albany)
Published – March 12, 2025 07:41 pm IST