Appraising the Decision-Making Process Concerning COVID-19 Policy in Postsecondary Education in Canada: A Critical Scoping Review

Background: When the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, unprecedented policy responses ensued in higher education, with Canadian post-secondary institutions (PSIs) rapidly adopting radical measures, including campus closures, masking requirements, and vaccine mandates. These policies were widely justified as evidence-based, ethical, and legal. Methods and data: This critical scoping review examined the COVID-19 policy responses at five Ontario PSIs. Using Carol Bacchi’s "What’s the Problem Represented to Be?" approach, we explored how problems were framed, decisions made, and ethical principles invoked. Data included publicly available policy documents, union statements, and legal decisions. Findings: PSIs portrayed the problem as a deadly, “equal opportunity” virus demanding maximum compliance with public health directives, particularly vaccination. This framing dominated governance practices, often sidelining collegial decision-making in favour of executive authority and ad hoc committees. Claims of a scientific consensus were central to policy justification, despite initial and growing evidence – such as low infection fatality rates among young adults, the strength of natural immunity, the failure of vaccines to stop transmission, and reports of vaccine-related adverse events – challenging that framing. Equity, diversity, and inclusivity were frequently invoked to support these policies, yet the same measures often excluded individuals with diverse needs and applied exemptions inconsistently. Conclusions: The COVID-19 response in Canadian PSIs reflected not a true consensus but an illusion of consensus, produced through the foreclosure of debate and suppression of dissent — patterns at odds with the normative values of higher education.