“What If Your Research Is the Problem?” Repressive Legalism and Scholarly Resistance

• In Event: Race and Diversity in Higher Education after Trump 2.0: Perspective from Four Books

Abstract

Objectives: In 1903, DuBois asked Black Americans: “how does it feel to be a problem?” Over a century later, I faced a related query: “what if your research is a problem?” My book on DEI was published shortly after a statewide ban on university DEI offices and programs (Sikes, 2024). Even with a “carve-out” for academic work, holding a senior leadership role as a DEI researcher created a fraught context for promoting my scholarship. In this presentation, I examine tensions among scholarly, personal, and institutional voice within a politically hostile climate marked by threats to academic freedom. Robert Nash’s framing of scholarly personal narrative (SPN) is relevant today, as many of us “have had to suppress [our] strong, distinct voices along with [our] anger, for years in the academy” (2004, p. 2). As I will discuss in my presentation, speaking scholarly truths today requires courage, caution, and strategy.

Frameworks: I embrace the framework of repressive legalism, “the interpretation and application of legal norms and other facets of the legal environment in a manner that suppresses, or holds back, other possible actions” (Garces et al., 2021). This reflects the legislative environment in my state, where I am a senior administrator and professor at a public university. I also draw from Givens' (2024) concept of "fugitive pedagogies," which describes how Black educators inspired and supported their students in the Jim Crow era. I utilize this framing to describe the approach that current DEI practitioners are using as they work to resist in resistance to state-sanctioned suppression.

Methods/Data sources/evidence: I utilize SPN and phenomenological qualitative research to share wisdom gained from three decades of DEI experiences in educational leadership, equity-focused program development, and developmental relationships ranging from coaching to mentoring. These narratives are undergirded by thematic analysis of interviews, case studies, and institutional responses to equity-related crises. Sources include institutional climate assessment tools, DEI-related curricula and policy documents, and the robust literature on equity efforts at traditionally White institutions expanding and enhancing equity and inclusion.

Results: I conclude that creating more equitable college campuses is a complex and shared task shouldered by all in the university community, and not only DEI officers. Structured inventions—campus cultural orientations, faculty/staff professional development, and equitable, inclusive frameworks toward institutional transformation advance campus climes. Developmental relationships serve a critical role (mentoring, role modeling, and coaching) for historically marginalized students accessing hidden educational pathways. I interrogate the cultural tax on persons who participate in DEI. Without restorative, sustaining approaches that promote well-being and challenge injustice, disillusionment and erasure of these essential institutional leaders is likely.

Significance: In this presentation, I intend to advance DEI discourse through the introduction of restorative resistance, a praxis-oriented framework centering practitioner wisdom and experience as critical tools in the creation of supportive campus communities. With this work equitably distributed and recognized, restorative resistance provides a transferable framing for other institutional contexts where advancing equity and democracy is a central feature.

Author

• Richard J. Reddick, University of Texas at Austin