From Critical Mass to Inclusive Excellence: Interest Convergence in Higher Education Diversity Initiatives

• In Event: From the Façade of Diversity to the Dream of Transformation: Critiquing and Transforming Higher Education

Abstract

Diversity and Inclusivity programs have flourished partly in response to the steady dismantling of affirmative action. Yet, in the midst of seemingly growing diversity and inclusivity programming in higher education, we see Black student-led protests in response and we see youtube videos of white fraternities singing songs about lynching and using racial epithets on bus along with other whiteness and racism unchecked (Cabrera, Franklin, & Watson, 2016)? If diversity programming is growing, why then do we still see the same racism on campuses?

Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart (2017) offers a response, suggesting that historically white institutions (HWIs) continue to operate under a “politics of appeasement” rather than investing in transformative solutions. Cabrera et al (2017) agree, suggesting that leadership at HWIs are disingenuous in their claims of a zero-tolerance policy in regard to racism. They argue instead that there is simply a zero-tolerance policy for racist incidents that attract negative publicity to the institution. Given this, our conundrum of more diversity programming and less transformation makes sense.

Scholars have begun to look at and critique diversity programming, beginning with the mother-policy, Affirmative Action. Dorsey & Chambers (2014) have shown that affirmative action as an exemplar of what they term CDR or the trajectory of interest convergence, interest divergence, and imperial reclamation. Interest Convergence was coined by Bell (1980) and describes programs and policies developed to provide access to benefits for people of color only when whites can benefit as much or more. The concept of imperial reclamation refers to the period where any benefits accessed by people of color during the period of interest convergence are seized by whites in retribution. Additionally, Dorsey and Chambers suggested that affirmative action exemplifies whiteness as property (Harris, 1993). Iverson (2008) found using a critical discourse analysis of college and university diversity plans, themes of interest convergence and commodification of students of color.

Returning to Stewart (2017), ze suggests that institutions of higher education instead of focusing on diversity and inclusivity should instead focus on equity and justice to move from their politics of appeasement to transformation. As a step toward transformation, in this critical theoretical paper, I demonstrate what whiteness looks like on campus using Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS). I show how whiteness, in particular, is working (Yoon, 2012) and what it looks like in the classroom, in institutional marketing, and even in diversity rhetoric to promote appeasement and deny transformation at every turn, particularly as white interests diverge from the interests of people of color, and whites seek imperial reclamation (Dorsey & Chambers, 2014). I position my analysis on Stewart’s (2017) juxtaposition between diversity and inclusivity and equity and justice and make recommendations for how colleges and universities might begin to adjust their policies, programming, and curricula to move toward transformation.

Author

• Naomi Nishi, University of Colorado - Denver