Troubling Diversity: An Intersectional Analysis of Diversity Action Plans at U.S. Flagship Universities

• In Event: 25.039 - Critical Explorations of the Discourses Shaping "Diversity Work" at Historically and Predominantly White Public Institutions

Abstract

Public flagship universities play a unique role in the democratization of education in the United States. Despite the fact that they have been “charged with special responsibilities for producing the future political, business and civic leaders of their respective states” (Gerald & Haycock, 2006, p. 3), research indicates that in the neoliberal, globalized era there has been a “turning away” (p. 3) from racial minorities and low-income students, in favor of investing financial resources in the “more affluent and less racially and ethnically diverse” (p. 5). More recent research from Jaquette, Curs, and Posselt (2016) indicates that this turn has both continued and accelerated in recent years, and demonstrates that these institutions may have shifted their organizational values “away from the public good emphasis on access and toward the self-interested emphases of academic profile and revenue generation” (p. 33).
Despite this apparent shift, however, public flagship institutions maintain a highly visible commitment to the creation and publication of diversity-related policy documents and initiatives (Chang, 2005). A search of nearly any college or university website reveals efforts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, often codified in an action plan. These action plans, which this paper collectively refers to as “diversity action plans,” serve as a primary means by which universities profess their commitment to a (more) inclusive and equitable climate for all members of the campus community (Iverson, 2012).
This paper presents findings from a policy discourse analysis of 22 diversity action plans issued at 22 U.S. flagship universities from 2006 to 2016 using an Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) lens. This analytic approach (Hankivsky, 2012) is guided by an intersectionality perspective that human lives cannot be reduced to singular and distinct categories (Crenshaw, 1991; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). IBPA also gives explicit attention to power in policy and the ways in which power “operates at discursive and structural levels to exclude particular knowledges and experiences” (Hankivsky et al., 2012, p. 35).
Analysis revealed images of minoritized persons confronting numerous challenges in gaining access to higher education, and to programs and services within education, due to limited resources (money, academic preparation, etc.). A dominant discourse of access, visible in three strands – entrée, representation, and affirmation – gives rise to images of diverse persons as the outsider. Policies also emphasize inclusive excellence. A marketplace discourse was dominant, producing images of minoritized individuals as objects possessing (economic) value that will contribute to the institution’s ability to maintain or gain a competitive edge and achieve prominence in the academic marketplace. These findings resonate with Iverson’s work (2007, 2008, 2012); yet, another finding --a discourse of equity -- was also visible in assertions of a moral imperative for justice and fairness. This holds potential as a counter-narrative to the dominant discourses that produce minoritized persons as outsiders and commodities.

Author

• Susan V. Iverson, Manhattanville College