Scholars Teaching, Researching, and Consulting in DEI: Applying Lessons Learned

• In Event: Navigating the Politics of Retrenchment in Higher Education: Four Senior Scholars Reflect B(l)ack

Abstract

In the second reflection, the presenter, who is a teacher, researcher, and consultant of DEI, advocates for the usefulness of the work of DEI-focused scholars, practitioners, and consultants, while making an argument for refocusing on the core issues of white supremacy, settler colonialism, and white rage (Anderson, 2016), as well as their multiple and interlocking manifestations. Crenshaw (1988) pushed back on Critical legal scholars for lambasting the rights-rhetoric that drove much of the anti-discrimination legal fight during the Civil Rights Era. She noted that “it would be absurd to suggest that no benefits came from these formal reforms” (p. 1378). She also acknowledged the dilemma that confronted Black Americans in that period: “liberal reform both transforms and legitimates” (p. 1370). Much has been written about the insufficiencies and even relative failures of DEI in higher education to produce sustainable, transformative change (Ahmed, 2012; Dumas & ross, 2016; Patton et al., 2019; Stewart, 2018). However, to avoid absurdity, we must also admit that benefits have come from the DEI in higher education movement. Understanding those benefits–and how those benefits are now at risk–requires understanding the “institutional logic” of higher education. According to Crenshaw (1988), “People can only demand change in ways that reflect the logic of the institutions that they are challenging,” and further that demands that fail to “reinforce the dominant ideology will probably be ineffective” (p. 1367). What then is the “institutional logic” of higher education? Meritocracy and the open and free exchange of ideas (pluralism) are the logics that are currently being bandied about in the public discourse to justify the rolling back of gains brought by DEI initiatives. Did DEI initiatives sufficiently engage the institutional logic of higher education? Or, perhaps more troubling, did DEI so legitimate the institution that it could say it no longer needed DEI? This parallels the arguments made by neoconservatives that Crenshaw (1988) pointed out early in her argument. As the presenter observes the current state of reality, they consider their long career in DEI work as professional staff, student worker, faculty, and independent consultant. Based on those experiences, the presenter will share the following lessons learned: 1) Nothing is guaranteed so it is wise to develop alternative strategies and pathways for doing the work. 2) Learning the language of the institution–its logic–is essential to unworking it. 3) Stay focused on the focus–oppression, power, and privilege are the problems that must be confronted.

Author

• Darin M. L. Stewart, University of Denver