Imagine perfectly meticulous plans that draw a sustainable and equitable edifice, but which remain at the foundations and are never built. This has often been the case with equality policy: a magnificent drawing of a building that is never finished, especially in the scientific and academic fields. Now, as the European Commission launches the new Equality Strategy 2026-2030, we are at a decisive moment.
As the League of European Research Universities (LERU), of which the UB is a member, points out, equality policies have been mistakenly viewed as a women's demand. The new strategy must convincingly demonstrate that what is crucial for some women—such as work-life balance, the fight against gender-based violence, or equal pay—benefits society as a whole. It's about building a history of collective progress.
Equality between women and men is a fundamental right of the European Union, and that is why the principle is enshrined in the Treaty on European Union. The challenge, however, is to transform this vision into concrete actions. At a time of political unrest, the Commission must courageously reaffirm that equality, diversity, and inclusion are fundamental and non-negotiable values of the EU. Any backtracking in this area would be a betrayal of the founding principles.
This is where the higher education sector can be a strategic ally. Universities are not mere spectators of this process. They are drivers of change: they train future generations, generate knowledge with their research, and are laboratories where equality policies can be tested and evaluated. European projects such as INSPIRE, led by the UOC and cited as an example by the Commission itself, show the way.
No strategy will be effective without rigorous accountability. What's the point of requiring institutions to implement equality plans if their quality, actual implementation, and impact are not monitored? The most subtle threat is the illusion of compliance. The Commission admits that, until now, little control has been given to the quality and actual impact of the plans. This is the risk of believing that by filling out a spreadsheet we have already built equality. The new strategy must be that of an architect who not only draws the plans, but also visits the construction site, touches the materials, and verifies that the walls can withstand the weight of reality.
It's necessary to ensure that the gender perspective isn't an "add-on" but a default requirement, like ethics or methodological rigor. Artificial intelligence research that doesn't question gender bias is simply bad science. Any innovation that doesn't consider half the population is a design failure.
In short, the 2026-2030 strategy should not invent new plans, but rather ensure that the scaffolding—equality plans and rigorous monitoring—is sufficiently solid for equality to become the permanent structure of the European edifice.
