Chinyere Oparah provides innovative and politically-savvy strategies for academic deans and other leaders who are navigating the backlash against anti-racism and DEI.
How should academic deans and other academic leaders navigate the backlash against anti-racism, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)? Is it necessary or wise to continue to advocate and work for equity in this climate of scrutiny and silencing? And what are viable strategies at a time when senior academic leaders risk being pushed out of their roles if they attract the negative attention of rightwing pundits or lawmakers?
The 2024-25 academic year opened with more news of DEI positions eliminated or reassigned, programs closed or repurposed, diversity hiring initiatives prohibited and advocacy stifled. At the time of writing, the Chronicle of Higher Education had tracked changes at 205 institutions in 32 states. As Caroline Laguerre-Brown points out, these institutional changes–from stripping away the language of and commitment to DEI, to reallocating resources away from programs targeting BIPOC, LGBTQ and women students–undermine higher education’s ability to deliver equitable student success and to prepare students for a diverse and globally-connected world.
The University of North Carolina is instructive. The fall 2024 semester began with the elimination of 59 positions and the restructuring of 131. Staff at UNC’s 17 institutions were issued strict instructions about what is and is not permissible, including an edict prohibiting diversity training for hiring committees and appointments to committees on the basis of diversity expertise. The edict also mandated “institutional neutrality,” stating that the “actual work of the University must return to advancing the academic success of students with different backgrounds not different political causes.” Reducing DEI to a political cause willfully misrepresents the goal of this work, which is to improve the experience, sense of belonging, and holistic student success of underserved students. By prohibiting efforts to diversify the faculty in order to better match the student body, the edict severely restricts the ability of UNC’s deans to enrich academic departments and provide curricula that reflect the experiences and interests of diverse students.
What does this all mean for deans and other academic leaders? In my experience supporting deans as provost and vice president for academic affairs and as an executive coach, I have observed–broadly speaking–three types of leaders when it comes to DEI initiatives. The first is deeply passionate about expanding access to underrepresented students, and a core part of their “why” is to eliminate inequities in educational outcomes. Often but not always, these leaders come from racially minoritized and nontraditional backgrounds, and may be first in their family to attend college. They have experienced first-hand the sense of exclusion that many marginalized students feel, and how it can lead to disengagement and attrition. These leaders feel strongly that it is their responsibility to speak out against the assault on DEI, and they may worry about the implications for their students as well as for their own job security, particularly if they are in a state where DEI is being rolled back. For deans in this group, it is critical to avoid isolation, connect with like-minded academic leaders, and develop proactive strategies to resist silencing and self-censorship.
The second type of leader values DEI as part of a general belief in fairness. They are likely to be committed to the ideal of a transformative education for all students, with a focus on universal values and academic excellence. While generally supportive of those staff who are responsible for DEI efforts on campus–leaders of affinity centers for example–this leader is likely uncomfortable speaking out about equity issues themselves. In their eyes, the responsibility for student inclusion and belonging belongs with those better qualified to manage that difficult and controversial work. They may also feel reluctant to direct academic resources toward addressing educational equities in the context of fiscal challenges and multiple competing interests. Deans in this group would benefit from pursuing opportunities to strengthen their equity toolkit and gain confidence in taking steps to support underserved students. In the current climate, it is neither viable nor ethical to expect those with DEI related titles to carry the weight of defending services for underrepresented students, faculty and staff.
The third type of leader, while perhaps paying lip service to DEI, really views this work as a distraction from their more pressing work of growing enrollments, developing new academic programs and maintaining or attaining fiscal sustainability. They may view DEI as divisive and have a preference for “treating all students the same” so that underrepresented students are encouraged to fit in with their peers rather than spending time with others with backgrounds similar to theirs. Cutbacks to DEI may, in their view, be a justified reallocation of resources rather than an attack on BIPOC and other underrepresented students, faculty and staff. I encourage deans in this category to bring an attitude of inquiry and open-mindedness to the questions below, and to consider how leaving inequities in student belonging and success unchallenged undermines their goals as an academic leader.
While each academic leader reading this opinion piece will have a unique reaction to the anti-DEI backlash based on their background and point of view, each can benefit from a thoughtful engagement with the key concepts and questions that those committed to equitable student success are grappling with. The following areas for exploration draw on recent interventions such as those by AAUP and NADOHE as well as my own experience as an academic leader and executive coach. They are designed to prompt reflection, inquiry and action.
Student outcomes: DEI efforts emerged from the recognition, backed by data, that universities were ill-equipped to support and successfully educate students from underserved communities. Programs like cultural centers, affinity-based living learning communities and cohort programs for first gen students aim to create inclusive, supportive environments that are critical for fostering equity in academic and social experiences. Disaggregated student outcomes data are a powerful starting point for a conversation about the need for DEI initiatives and often demonstrate that fiscal sustainability is in fact hampered by the failure to graduate many of our underserved students. Focusing on academic outcomes ensures that the DEI imperative is rooted in the core mission of the university, and tied to fiscal thriving for these institutions
What does the data show about educational inequity in my school? What is the cost of attrition and inequitable outcomes? How does this differ by academic program or department? How are faculty taking ownership of these data? What targeted initiatives could address specific inequities?
Campus climate: A key way that DEI programs support student success is through creating a sense of belonging. Programs that include cohort-building, mentorship, and culturally relevant programming and clubs help students to feel seen, valued, and supported. These programs help to address common challenges in campus climate that lead to disengagement, isolation, mental health challenges, and attrition.
When was the last climate survey conducted in my school? What did it reveal? What changes and improvements did surveyed students ask for? What progress has been made toward implementing these?
Bias response: Another important role played by DEI staff is addressing incidents of bias and harm experienced by minoritized students, faculty, and staff. For example, harmful or insensitive comments made by an instructor can alienate students, create an environment that is not conducive to learning, and ultimately push students out.
How are allegations of racial, gender and religious bias dealt with in my school? Is there a restorative approach that can help to foster accountability, behavior change and mutual understanding? How satisfied are students and other stakeholders with these processes? If I don’t know, how can I find out?
Faculty hiring and development: Relationships with faculty are a formative aspect of the college experience, and the need for more faculty of color is one of the most frequent demands made by student affinity groups. Many institutions have invested in successful efforts to diversify faculty, however budgetary constraints may lead to precarity for recently hired faculty of color, who may lack the security of tenure. Diversity hiring clusters, training in how to spot implicit bias and equity chairs on search committees are all proven approaches for diversifying previously homogenous faculty. Similarly, mentoring programs, affinity retreats, and pretenure teaching releases can help to retain underrepresented faculty. Deans in states where targeted approaches are prohibited can nevertheless deploy a range of strategies to reach diverse potential candidates and diversify search pools. They can also provide all faculty with opportunities to learn about and practice inclusive pedagogies and to re-imagine and diversify curricula.
What are the trends and current demographics of the faculty in my school? What does disaggregated climate survey data say about racial and gender dynamics experienced by faculty? Which academic programs lack intellectual and instructional diversity? How can I partner with faculty to address these gaps?
Curriculum and pedagogy: While the curriculum is the faculty’s domain, deans can foster curricular and pedagogical transformation, ensuring that teaching practices support diverse learning styles, provide opportunities for community engagement, and allow students to find themselves reflected in the course content. They can also bring equity considerations into decisions about program prioritization, recognizing for example the pivotal role that ethnic studies, African American studies, women and gender studies, and other equity-oriented programs play in student inclusion, belonging, and success.
Do existing program review and assessment processes require an evaluation of diverse perspectives and inclusive pedagogical practices? What incentives can be provided to faculty to support the work of curricular transformation?
Advocacy and Self Management: In order to be effective in the work outlined above, academic deans would benefit from engaging in introspection and identifying areas for their own growth and development. Coaching circles and 1:1 executive coaching can be supportive spaces for deans to develop confidence in speaking out about DEI while also being strategic and savvy in navigating the polarized political context and scrutiny that equity-oriented leaders face. Advocacy includes building a circle of support and a power base, with allies who can be depended on to support the leader if they become targeted or subject to attempted sabotage.
What worries or limiting beliefs do I have about my ability to navigate DEI issues in my school and speak out about DEI concerns? How do I need to expand my toolkit and support system in order to lead effectively given these new pressures? Where can I go for professional development and strategic thought-partnership?
As colleges and universities face an enrollment cliff, fiscal challenges and increasingly polarized campus climates, the work of anti-racism, diversity, equity and inclusion is more critical than ever. In this climate of backlash however, deans need to be innovative, strategic and politically savvy in pursuing equity goals. It is my hope that a commitment to student success, and the belief that all students have the right to an inclusive, welcoming educational environment will inspire readers to continue–or perhaps begin–advancing an equity agenda. Even in states where DEI work is severely curtailed, academic leaders can pursue most if not all of the work outlined above under the rubric of student success, belonging and engagement. Now more than ever, comprehensive and disaggregated data on student learning outcomes, retention, and satisfaction with the curriculum, co-curriculum and climate are needed to provide clarity about what is needed in a specific school or college, and provide the rationale necessary for resource allocation. By making inequities visible and working with faculty and staff to design data-informed strategies to tackle them, deans can avoid political booby-traps and stand up for educational justice at a critical time.
Reprinted from The ACAD Leader, November 2024. For more information visit the American Conference of Academic Deans (ACAD). ACAD is an individual membership organization dedicated to the professional development of academic leaders. Recognizing that provosts, deans, and other academic administrators undertake academic leadership as their “second discipline,” ACAD’s mission is to assist these leaders as they advance in careers dedicated to the ideals of liberal education. ACAD facilitates professional networking across institutional types in order to promote collaboration, innovation, and effective practice.
About the Center for Liberated Leadership
The Center for Liberated Leadership connects and supports BIPOC, women, LGBTQ and equity-oriented leaders so that they can lead with authenticity, purpose and joy. Executive coaching helps leaders navigate complex contexts and relentless workloads. Sign up for a free consultation to learn more here.
Comments