Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a conversation with Julia Denholm on the Illumination Podcast. To hear the full discussion, listen to the episode here.
Continuing education divisions sit at a pivotal intersection of access, workforce opportunity and lifelong learning. But as institutions articulate commitments to equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization and indigenization, the real challenge is transforming these commitments from statements of principle into the systems, practices and habits that define daily operations. According to a document from Nov 20, 2025, the path forward begins by understanding these values not as isolated goals, but as the foundation within which all other goals must be pursued.
This subtle shift—from treating equity initiatives as projects to recognizing them as non-negotiable commitments—offers a powerful reframing. It encourages institutions to move beyond performative action and toward integrated, structural change. When these commitments sit “above” all other objectives, they become the criteria through which program design, curriculum development, operations and even hiring decisions are interpreted.
One of the most meaningful insights shared in the transcript is that indigenization and decolonization are not boxes to check, nor can they be performed in isolation by settlers. Instead, institutions must embrace the principle of “nothing about us without us,” working directly with Indigenous experts and knowledge-holders to co-create learning experiences. Thought leadership in this area means recognizing that authentic partnership—not tokenization—is the only sustainable path.
A vivid example from the transcript demonstrates what this looks like in practice: a storytelling course shaped by two curriculum designers, each drawing on culturally grounded perspectives. The depth of the course emerged not because indigenization was retrofitted into the content, but because Indigenous expertise was centered from the beginning. This illustrates a central truth: embedding equity principles in curriculum does not require perfection or fearlessness—it requires collaboration with the people whose lived experiences inform the material.
Yet integrating these values also means accepting that learning is often uncomfortable. Many adult learners were educated in systems that intentionally omitted or distorted the histories and experiences of marginalized communities. When new learning challenges prior assumptions, discomfort is inevitable. But discomfort is not a barrier to belonging; it is often the catalyst for growth. As the transcript notes, the role of educators is to create spaces where learners can “sit in that discomfort,” ask questions, reflect, and step out temporarily when needed before returning to the dialogue.
This framing is especially relevant for CE units, which serve learners with diverse experiences, motivations, and goals. Not every course will center equity or reconciliation—some are purely technical or professional—but the division itself can model institutional integrity by ensuring its staff and subject matter experts “live what they teach.” As the transcript emphasizes, bringing lived experience—not just academic or professional expertise—enriches instruction and builds learner trust. This is particularly powerful in programs tied to storytelling, community engagement, leadership and public communication.
Continuing education is uniquely positioned to lead this work because of its inherent flexibility. CE divisions can pilot new admissions practices, remove unnecessary barriers, respond to community needs and evolve offerings quickly. As noted in the transcript, this adaptability makes CE a natural model for institutions seeking to expand access while fostering more inclusive learning environments. Leaders described reviewing admission requirements to ensure they are valid and necessary—not vestiges of tradition that create inequitable barriers.
Of course, the transcript also acknowledges the tension CE divisions face: they must sustain themselves financially while upholding commitments that may provoke political pushback. This reality requires courage, transparency and a willingness to push commitments “until we can’t”—expanding their depth and reach while remaining responsive to learner expectations and operational reality.
Ultimately, thought leadership in continuing education demands a posture of learning and unlearning, partnership and humility. It asks institutions to center community expertise, redesign systems around the needs of diverse learners and measure success not by where learners start, but by the opportunities they access when they leave. Through this lens, CE divisions are not simply revenue generators—they are engines of mobility, inclusion and transformation across higher education.
You Might Also Like
