Your title is no exception: the racial constraints of African-American Chief Diversity Officers

ABSTRACT

The Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) position has a unique responsibility to drive diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts across college campuses, however, it does not award individuals serving in these roles an exemption from racial ostracism. In this study, the author investigates how anti-blackness prevents African-American CDOs from fulfilling the most crucial function of the position – coalition building – which is the principal driver of social movement and change in higher education. Findings revealed anti-blackness to produce racial constraints that force African-American CDOs to deprioritize strategic imperatives and instead redistribute time, effort, and focus toward addressing the racialization of their identities. Racial constraints were found to be race-based limitations that inhibit effectiveness of the CDO role and situate African-American CDOs to suffer through the exact same experiences they are hired to fix.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education administration
• Chief Diversity Officers
• African-American adminstrators
• anti-blackness
• post-racial narratives
• PWI

View correction statement:

Correction

Introduction

In 2019, Western Illinois University forced the resignation of its first African-American president, Dr. Jack Thomas, following recurrent budget cuts, layoffs, and declining enrollment. Institutional risks such as these are pressing concerns for any governing body and president, however, a public records request obtained by the Chronicle of Higher Education revealed that Thomas’s removal may have been driven by a fear much more sinister (Stripling 2019). Records demonstrate that trustees, faculty, staff, and stakeholders were more troubled by a diverse campus than possible financial exigency as many voiced distress over how ‘too much’ racial variance was negatively impacting the university’s public image. One trustee of the university wrote, ‘In our opinion, ethnicity of our university has become an issue that no one seems to want to talk about’ (Stripling 2019), which suggests the Euro-American¹ community’s fear of a tarnished ‘white’ reputation had a stronger influence on his removal as president than notions of ineffective leadership.

Thomas’s circumstances prefigure that having an authentic commitment to diversity and inclusion may eventually find its way on a list of unvarying barriers faced by African-American administrators in higher education, right alongside racism, prejudice, discrimination, microaggressions, isolation, tokenism, lack of support and mentorship, and unrealistic role expectations (DeCuir-Gunby et al. 2019; Gardner, Barrett, and Pearson 2014; Guillory 2001; Holmes 2004; Jackson 2001; Patitu and Hinton 2003; Rolle, Davies, and Banning 2000; Scott 2016; Turner and Grauerholz 2017; Watson 2001; Wolfe and Dilworth 2015). Even more troublesome, African-American administrators who dare to engage in the exteriorization of such a commitment just might experience an involuntary exit analogous to that of Dr. Jack Thomas.

Certainly, it is hypocritical for predominantly white institutions to demand African-American administrators operate within a space that does not accept leadership outside of ‘white’ American standards of education yet pretentiously boast ethnic studies programs, cultural centers, and diversity and inclusivity statements (Ahmed 2009, 2012; Gusa 2010; Patton 2016). Duplicity around racial equality places these administrators in compromising situations due to both subjugation of their racial identity and the promotion of white supremacy, which, in turn, adversely impacts their performance and contributes to unnecessary amounts of race-related stress (Feagin and McKinney 2003; Klonoff and Landrine 1999; Museus, Ledesma, and Parker 2015; Sanders Thompson 1996; Smith, Yosso, and Solórzano 2011; Williams and Mohammed 2009). This is especially true for African-American administrators serving in Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) positions where they are tasked with upholding diversity, equity, and inclusion as vital aspects of an institution’s mission and culture.

Considering growing popularity of the CDO role in concert with higher education’s obvious lack of social progress and change (Bradley et al. 2018; Byrd 2022; Embrick, Brunsma, and Thomas 2016; Patton et al. 2019), it warrants an increased urgency to empirically understand the experiences of CDOs as well as pertinent factors that may disrupt success of their roles. Thusly, from a macro-level, this article explores how race impacts effectiveness of the CDO position at predominantly white institutions and specifically investigates the role’s most critical function – coalition building – which relies heavily on the cultivation of positive interpersonal relationships to amass influence, power, and resources around a specific goal or purpose. Coalition is the principal driver of social movement and progress, so both building and employing it significantly influences a CDO’s capability to drive institutional change in higher education.

This phenomenological study was centered in an anti-black framework to gain a rich and robust understanding of race and its effect on the CDO role. It draws on 12 interviews with African-American CDOs to examine how anti-blackness hinders their ability to build coalition around a predominantly white institution’s diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment. Presented findings not only impart a voice to African-American CDOs but further challenges predominantly white institutions’ intentions for an executive-level position they inaugurated to provide strategic leadership and function as the ‘face’ of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (Wilson 2013).

Emergence of the Chief Diversity Officer

Earlier renditions of the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) existed on college campuses prior to the late 1990s, however, these positions were primarily structured to be directors of cultural centers or ethnic studies programs, not elevated administrative roles (Roosevelt 1969). It was the landmark case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and even more so Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), that established diversity as a compelling state interest and highlighted its importance for obtaining a high-quality educational experience (Edwards 2004). Both cases further exemplified a slight transition towards racial equality in higher education and incited renewed interest in an elevated position that could focalize diversity related needs and goals.

Moreover, Euro-American presidents quickly recognized that disregarded or mishandled race-related challenges could devastate the image and viability of their institutions, but they did not perceive themselves competent enough to take on these issues alone (Rhoads 2000; Tienda 2013; Williams and Clowney 2007). In consequence, a unique administrative role emerged as ‘a popular solution for many institutions to promote and coordinate diversity on college campuses’ (Wilson 2013, 435). Today, in stark contrast to its earlier antecedents, a CDO position typically has a formal administrative title such as vice president, vice provost, and vice chancellor to coordinate strategy and efforts that align with educational and institutional goals (Williams and Wade-Golden 2006; Wilson 2013). The role is generally expected to operate as the primary agent of social and institutional change in higher education.

Despite such an expectation, only a sparse amount of research exists on the CDO. Literature principally addresses the position’s organizational structure, prioritizations, responsibilities, and directly acknowledges that the position has no power or authority outside of its own formal office, department, or division (Hurtado et al. 2008; Patton et al. 2019; Williams and Wade-Golden 2006). In addition, there exists no credible quantitative research on the overall impact CDOs have had on college campuses throughout the decades, so it remains uncertain whether these roles actually produce change. Contention continues to rise regarding the need for CDOs since evidence of their impact remains to be seen, but many argue them a necessity for higher education and believe the roles are essential for providing strategic direction, building partnerships, aligning goals, and streamlining diversity efforts (Harvey 2014; Leon 2014; Pittard 2010; Williams and Wade-Golden 2013). Irrespective of evidence to support the intended impact of these positions, by 2016, more than two-thirds of all universities had appointed a CDO (Bradley et al. 2018).

The African-American Chief Diversity Officer

Ninety-eight percent of all CDOs in higher education are employed by predominantly white institutions, and of this population, it is estimated that over fifty-nine percent are African-American (Coopwood and Lewis 2017; Jaschik 2008; Williams and Wade-Golden 2007). Despite such prevalence, there have been no focused investigations into African-American CDO experiences to better understand the social and organizational factors impacting their work, hence, a lack of empirical pursuit cannot be overstated. A paucity of research exists on CDOs generally so it is expectable that an even smaller amount would include the experiences of African-American CDOs.

Coopwood and Lewis (2017) and Nixon (2017) partly investigate the lived experiences of African-American CDOs but it is done through a multicultural paradigm which tends to conflate, minimize, and/or completely erase African-Americans’ unique historical position, challenges, and experiences. Even so, these studies afford considerable indication to race having an adverse effect on African-American CDOs’ success. If explored further, it could offer riveting insight into the position’s average tenure (2.5–3 years) and turnover rate as anti-black racism is firmly documented to be the primary reason African-American administrators depart their roles in higher education (DeCuir-Gunby et al. 2019; Holmes 2004; Holmes et al. 2000; Patitu and Hinton 2003; Watson 2001). There is substantive need to understand the contemporary experiences of African-American CDOs as well as how race, specifically anti-blackness, impacts the effectiveness of their positions. Both of which this article aims to interrogate.

Conceptual framework

Wilderson (2016) accurately addresses the rigidity of anti-blackness when he notes that just as there was no life for the ‘black slave’ there would never be a place for the African-American. Anti-blackness² is defined in this study as the irreconcilability between the African-American and slaveness which eliminates their right to authentically exist within the United States and socially abolishes the freedom to both define and govern one’s own racial identity (Dumas 2016). Without European settlers first institutionalizing the African identity as ‘slave’, they would have been unable to define and upraise a ‘White’ racial identity as it solely exists on the conceptualization that the African is nonhuman and belonging in a state of servitude (Harris 1993; Leonardo 2009). To put more plainly, the racial classification ‘White’ does not denote a common kinship or geographical origin. It simply means to not be African or of African descent (i.e. ‘Black’). Thusly, dehumanization of the African historically, and the African-American contemporarily, innately functions to underpin Euro-American culture, subjectivity, and privilege in the United States (Wilderson 2010).

This is to say that predominantly white institutions are naturally constructed to align with the social hierarchy of the United States, so much so that anti-blackness is invariably well documented to be the antagonism that informs their purpose, structure, decision-making processes, culture, climate, and norms (Dancy, Edwards, and Davis 2018; Dumas 2014; Dumas and Ross 2016, 2016; Ray 2019; SiggelKow 1991). Euro-Americans’ collective racial identity at these institutions intrinsically operates on the rationalization that the African-American is of low status, and consequently, should be restricted to low-level or subservient roles. This further explains why decades of research reflect a deep-seated devotion to the restriction and exclusion of African-American administrators at any and all levels of the academy (Dancy, Edwards, and Davis 2018; DeCuir-Gunby et al. 2019; Johnson 1969; Wolfe and Dilworth 2015).

The racially homogenic nature of predominantly white institutions have established a sociopolitical context where anti-blackness prohibits the advancement of racial equality on their campuses, leaving African-American CDOs to relentlessly fight against the very same institution that claims it values their presence (Clay 2019; Dancy, Edwards, and Davis 2018; Dumas 2016; Harris 1993; Seamster and Ray 2018). This poses a notable issue as African-American CDOs’ success is entirely dependent upon the cultivation of relationships and leads to the article’s thesis that a predominantly white institution’s anti-black ethos negatively affects African-American CDOs’ ability to build coalition in their roles. Therefore, positioning the study through an anti-black framework was imperative for establishing social context around African-American CDOs’ capability to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at predominantly white institutions.

Methodology

Phenomenology is a qualitative research approach that provides insight into a groups’ lived experiences around a particular concept or phenomenon (Creswell 2013). The approach aimed to make sense of African-American CDOs’ experience with anti-blackness, including their associated emotions, in order to obtain a shared meaning and greater understanding of how it impacts effectiveness of their roles (McMillan and Schumacher 2010; Patton 2016).

The study utilized a phenomenological design to examine how anti-blackness hindered African-American CDOs’ ability to build coalition around a predominantly white institution’s diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment. Coalition building, as previously mentioned, relies heavily on the cultivation of positive interpersonal relationships to amass influence, power, and resources around a specific goal or purpose. It is the principal driver of social movement and progress, which makes it an essential function of the CDO role. With this, the study addressed the following three research questions:

1. In what ways does race interfere with the CDO position’s functionality, particularly through its essential requirement to coalition build?

2. How does anti-blackness impact the effectiveness of African-American CDOs at predominantly white institutions?

3. Is there a discrepancy between predominantly white institutions’ stated commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion and the lived experiences of African-American CDOs?

Sampling method

Purposive sampling allowed for focus on specific characteristics relevant to the research questions such as administrative position, racial identity, and institution type. Since Eurocentric empirical realities remain standard for explaining the lives of African-American people, purposive sampling allowed for an in-depth examination of race and its effect on the CDO role (Stanfield 2016). The method also provided a platform for African-American CDO experiences to be authentically heard and acknowledged.

Sampling required that participants 1) identify as African-American, 2) hold an executive-level CDO position directly reporting to the president, and 3) be employed at a four-year predominantly white institution, public or private. With assistance from the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE), a long-list of potential participants was constructed. Each participant from the list received an email briefly describing the study’s purpose and asking their level of interest in participation. Following this, a short-list was created and phone conversation scheduled with each participant to describe the study in greater detail as well as discuss confidentiality. All were later scheduled for interview.

The final sample consisted of 12 African-American CDOs, six women and six men. Participants were employed at four-year predominantly white institutions, 10 public and two private. Represented institutions were in every region of the United States: West (3), Midwest (3), South (3), and Northeast (3). Eight public institutions held Research I classifications while two held classifications of Research II. Both private institutions offered a focused liberal arts education. A larger representation of private institutions was desired but many African-American CDOs voiced hesitancy to participate citing rising criticism of the role. Table 1 displays demographic information about participants.

Table 1. Demographics.

Participant	HigherEd Background	Education Level	CDO Career (yrs.)
Denise	Faculty	Ph.D.	6.5
Naveah	Faculty	Ph.D.	1.0
Lee	Professional Staff	Master’s	4.0
Antonia	Administrator	Master’s	7.0
William	Professional Staff	Ph.D.	5.0
Percy	Professional Staff	Ph.D.	2.0
Obasi	Faculty	Ph.D.	3.0
Zaire	Administrator	Ph.D.	2.5
Hommon	Faculty	Ph.D.	11.0
Michelle	Faculty	Ed.D.	1.0
Cameron	Professional Staff	Master’s	12.0
Abenaa	Administrator	Ph.D.	5.0

Data collection and confidentiality

Data was collected via virtual interviews lasting between 90–120 minutes. To protect confidentiality, participants’ names were replaced with an alias, institutional names and locations were removed and only identified by institution type, and the title ‘Chief Diversity Officer’ was used for all participants regardless of their formal titles. Participants were asked identical questions during interview such as:

• Why did you decide to take on the position of Chief Diversity Officer?

• When was the first time you noticed your race could negatively impact your work as a CDO?

• What racial barriers have you faced in your position while attempting to build coalition and establish positive interpersonal relationships across campus?

• Is there a discrepancy between the rhetoric of your institution’s diversity statement and the reality of your lived experience as a CDO?

Data analysis

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim while handwritten notes assisted in identifying key patterns and themes. Each participant’s audio, transcript, and respective notes were reviewed and further analysed to generate codes. Anti-blackness was the lens through which data analysis occurred providing a context for participants state of living at predominantly white institutions and further identifying the racial barriers they experience (Dancy, Edwards, and Davis 2018; Dumas 2016; Dumas and Ross 2016; Harris 1993; SiggelKow 1991). Emotional reactions also became aspects of data and can be seen as descriptive qualifiers to some participants’ narratives. Codes were then organized, sorted, and labelled to reveal two themes – Inter-racial and Intra-racial Constraints.

Positionality statement

The author is a scholar-practitioner and holds a doctoral degree with expertise in administrative leadership, organizational theory, organization development, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The author is also African-American, born and raised in the South, and so shares ancestral history with study participants as to African enslavement, genocide, oppression, and exclusion in the United States. Because of this, the author recognizes participants may have received their presence to be congenial in nature, which is favorable, as it facilitates an environment where participants can be honest and transparent. Even so, in light of intersectionality, the contemporary experiences of African-Americans is diverse. It would have been unethical for the author to either approach or analyse the study with a predisposition that assumed to know participants’ lived experiences. The author was cognizant never to interpose their own racial experiences, assumptions, and opinions onto participants’ experiences as African-American administrators in higher education.

Findings

Participants accepted the CDO position for various reasons. Half undertook the role because they were passionate about social change and believed CDOs could be transformative for higher education. The other half, mainly from faculty backgrounds, were generally disinterested. Instead, they were recruited by an executive-level leader who convinced them to take on the challenge of an administrative position. Whatever participants’ motivations, they immediately realized within the first day to month of starting that their race would interfere with success of the CDO role. Data analysis revealed the causal source to be racial constraints.

Racial Constraints

Racial constraints were found to be race-based limitations that inhibit effectiveness of the CDO role in driving social change and were established by anti-black tenets guiding how the university should be represented, governed, and generally managed. Racial constraints differed from barriers in that they were ubiquitous and insurmountable, thus, participants could only try to compensate for imposed limitations. What this means, is that in order for African-American CDOs to attempt to build coalition around a predominantly white institution’s diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment, they had to divert time and resources away from strategic imperatives and initiatives to addressing the institution’s racialization of their identities. The process of compensating for racial constraints occurred largely at the expense of both social progress and African-American CDOs’ psychological and emotional health.

Analysis further revealed that African-American CDOs encounter two types of racial constraints, Inter-racial (between racial groups) and Intra-racial (within the same racial group), that adversely impact their ability to build coalition and advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at predominantly white institutions.

Inter-racial constraints

Eleven of twelve participants experienced inter-racial constraints while attempting to build coalition and foster positive relationships in their role. Inter-racial constraints were established by institutional members’³ shared anti-black values and expectations for administrative leadership, and so manifested through avoidant behavior and active disengagement with African-American CDOs and their respective efforts. Racial limitations were principally upheld by Euro-American administrators, faculty, and staff but other marginalized groups also underpinned the institution’s anti-black ethos. This caused participants to defer strategic change and instead waste disproportionate amounts of time aiding members in overcoming antiblackness around what their racial identity represented as a leader. Disaggregation revealed inter-racial constraints to be 1) administrative repudiation, 2) structural alienation, 3) spatial illegitimacy, 4) emotional fixity, and 5) racial distrust.

I spend an inordinate amount of time helping other people get over what they think they know about me in order for me to do my job. It is an energy zapper, very boring, and a waste of my time. (Zaire, participant)

Administrative repudiation

Participants found their racial identities to be in opposition of a predominantly white institutions’ preference for administrative structure as anti-black assumptions about their hire aided in reinforcing their inferiority and undesirability as administrators. For instance, many shared overhearing conversations among the administrative ranks where they were described as an affirmative action hire. Others met situations that conveyed their presence to be exclusively due to race or because decision-makers needed to ethnically diversify university leadership. In view of this, participants felt that senior and executive-level colleagues’ contempt for their presence was the primary impetus of maladaptive behaviors and disengagement with their roles, in addition to a technical understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion not being a ‘real’ administrative function.

Nevertheless, out of fear of forgoing potential support for diversity-related imperatives, African-American CDOs redistributed time, energy, and strategic efforts toward dispelling anti-black beliefs regarding their administrative skills and abilities. As a result, many felt constricted with no leniency to make mistakes as an executive leader. Denise compared this to being suffocated and downheartedly shared, ‘I was very cautious about everything. I didn’t want them to say, “Well, we hired Denise and that didn’t work out, so no more of them [African-Americans]”. I felt like for a long time I didn’t exhale. I was holding my breath for a long time…’

Another participant, Hommon, described experiencing the same constricting environment as Denise and many others. He further explained that throughout his tenure as a CDO he had yet to gain racial acceptance among the ranks, which was also an experience shared by majority of CDOs in the study. Hommon testified,

We go from place to place to place looking for something. Looking to be accepted. Always having to prove you deserve to be there as an administrator. But unfortunately, it doesn’t look any different. I don’t care where you’re at or whether your school is incredibly liberal. You still have to carry that burden. We get upset and move to the next institution to figure it out. Well, the grass wasn’t really greener on the other side because it’s the same way at this place.

Given that, having to compensate for administrative repudiation was largely a personal burden for African-American CDOs to which they generally characterized their roles as being ‘so very hazardous for your health’. They reported experiencing imposter syndrome, psychological abuse, emotional trauma, mental and physical exhaustion, isolation, depression, and burnout. Some further recounted having health complications as a result, to which one participant disclosed,

For seven years I carried the burden of anti-black racism with me as a CDO. You constantly worry if you are good enough. If you are really supposed to be there. When is somebody going to tap you on the shoulder and say, ‘We’ve made a mistake. You shouldn’t have been in this room’. I’m about 65 pounds heavier with health issues. That’s time I’ll never get back. Honestly, Doctor Koffi, I’m angry at the job because I feel like it stole time from me… I have an 18-year-old daughter and 21-year-old son. They’re both fantastic, but I wasn’t as good a parent as I could have been because I wore that.

Structural alienation

Participants shared that institutional members were often hesitant, or blatantly refused, to capitalize on their robust knowledge and experience with higher education operations; and generally treated them as lacking intellect beyond diversity-related issues. This produced structural alienation where anti-blackness positioned African-American CDOs’ intellectual capacity as menial and undesirable for institutional processes and administrative decision-making. Consequently, participants experienced frequent exclusion from conversations that involved notable areas of their institutions namely Academic Affairs, Marketing & Communications, Admissions, and STEM. One participant bitterly provided an example of the exclusionary behavior she encounters because of structural alienation,

I woke up to an article in the local newspaper talking about how much our university hated students of color majoring in STEM. I asked why I wasn’t brought in on this as a CDO and was told that because the issue was STEM related, they felt it was out of my league. They completely overlooked the fact that my degrees are in STEM. Even with a Ph.D., those Neanderthals still assumed I was incapable of knowing science. You can’t convince me it wasn’t because of my race. There’s no other way to conceptualize their behavior.

Most participants felt their knowledge, skills, and experiences were completely invalidated as an executive-level administrator which they noticed often led to underutilization and/or misuse of their positions. To be specific, a participant gave an example of how his institution uses him as a ‘janitor’ for overlooked racial incidents on campus. He shared,

A housing issue escalated to the point that a national human rights organization got involved. Immediately the President called me. That was the first time I had ever heard of the incident. He said, ‘Well, you got to fix it. There are some non-white folks involved there. That’s your job’. So yes, we’ve always been the janitor and that’s been true, certainly, for African-Americans throughout history. We’ve always been expected to clean up the mess. Being a CDO is no different.

African-American CDOs were forced to compensate for structural alienation by redistributing time and energy towards proving their intellectual ability so they could potentially gain access to important conversations and decision-making processes. They found structural alienation to be commonplace at their institutions and so characterized their roles as ‘isolating’ and ‘very lonely’.

Moreover, participants detailed that their institutions generally posited them as ‘the diversity person’ and further described how the identifier led to the untimely demise of professional opportunities if they later decided on a different administrative focus. Offering insight, Denise recalled a warning she received from a mentor prior to accepting the CDO position. She stated, ‘A mentor warned me about taking the position because I would get pigeon-holed as a “diversity person”, and that would limit my future professional opportunities. Thank God I was a Dean before taking the position. If I were only in Student Affairs then I’d be limited in what I could do afterwards’. Many participants shared having received similar warnings as Denise and disclosed they either feared seeing, or had already witnessed, other African-American CDOs alienated and underutilized as a result of anti-blackness regarding their intellectual capabilities.

Spatial illegitimacy

When trying to build coalition with institutional members, participants encountered environments that treated them as if they were unwelcome, threatening, or a distraction. This was often characterized by racially encrypted discussions challenging their professionalism as administrative leaders. For example, Nevaeh described how institutional members’ uneasiness with her protective crochet hairstyle led to her having to defend it via a public presentation. She shared,

As a CDO, I had to justify my hair in a presentation once. I had to say, ‘Let’s address the elephant in the room, what you’re seeing … ’ and if they had questions about it to let me know. Finally, I asked them not to touch it. And they tried… They tried to grab my hair! It was surreal! I mean, it was everything I had read about in terms of African-American women, their hair, and white peoples’ reaction to our natural hair. How uncomfortable it is for them and how troubling it is.

Another participant, Michelle, had similar sentiments and expressed how she yearned to be accepted as both an African-American woman and executive leader. She said, ‘I’m credentialed but I also want to honor how my hair looks, the lipstick I wear, the jewelry I wear, the clothes and colors I wear. I want to be able to honestly say, “I no longer need to conform to this standard of beauty in order to be received or accepted!” But this is not the case’. Melancholy arose in Michelle’s voice as she continued to share how her institution’s Eurocentric understanding of professionalism monopolized both her racial identity and individuality,

No jeans. I wouldn’t wear jeans to the office. I’ve tried. There’s been more than a couple of times where I had them on and never gotten out the door. I want to believe that they [Euro-Americans] wouldn’t care. My colleagues will show up in raggedy jeans and I’ll have on my skirt, dress pants, or whatever. I just don’t get that privilege. There’s a different racial perception there.

Given this, the domination of African-American CDOs professional image forced them to compensate for spatial illegitimacy through personal means and finances such as distributing monies toward Eurocentric clothing styles or altering their natural bodies. To illustrate this, Percy shared that he has spent thousands of dollars on clothing to stay, as he calls it, ‘suited and booted’,

I stay suited and booted, I do. I stay suited and booted. They’re going to see this suit, this tie, my shoes, my watch, and extend me some courtesy and understanding. My appearance lets people see me as nonthreatening, as somebody they could reasonably trust to be okay or do things the right way. I keep my shoes shining. I keep my watch and things nicely done up. I usually keep my hair lined up and cut real nice. I have to take a lot of pride in my appearance because it sends a message.

William had a relative experience as Percy, but further shared how illegitimacy forced him to have a shaved head for much of his career; something he was not delighted about. William said,

Early in my career as a CDO, I realized your physical appearance affects potentially the opportunities you get - what committees you get invited to serve on, etc. I used to have hair. I used to have dreads but people would always have comments that revolved around this idea of, ‘Are dreads professional?’ It doesn’t matter what you say or that you’re wearing a suit, but if you have dreads, it automatically makes you a rapper or something… I realized then that it is easier to shave it off. It’s easier because there’s no subjectivity to a shaved head.

Spatial illegitimacy chastised participants’ physical existence at predominantly white institutions. It also factored into deciding what spaces they were allowed into notably administrative meetings, committees, alumni events, and donor relations. Participants disclosed experiencing illegitimacy throughout their careers and emphasized that if they did not conform to institutional expectations regarding racial presentation, they were rewarded with avoidance and disengagement.

Emotional fixity

Participants shared that institutional members generally viewed them through a lens of fixity where anti-blackness racially ascribed them to have low emotional intelligence. For example, participants recounted frequent interactions posting them as ‘angry’, ‘aggressive’, ‘too emotional’, or ‘having an attitude’ when simply advocating for the institution’s diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment. William reflected on a time an administrative colleague consistently complimented his lack of anger as if it was an unusual characteristic for an African-American. He contemplated,

I wonder what would have happened if I had said something they perceived to be angry? I would not have made the progress I made because there’s an emotional element they’re reacting to. Again, you’ll hear this type of thing over, and over, and over… There’s just a definite lack of objectivity in how they [Euro-Americans] work with us. They have no frame of reference for how to interact with an African-American professional or any other demographic.

Similarly, Lee shared a time when an administrative colleague regularly avoided him for upholding his role’s responsibility to address discriminatory practices in hiring,

The Vice President was always wanting to violate federal policy, so I’d be calling out the search processes. She said it was hard to work with me because she felt I got so angry and hostile. I asked, ‘Have I ever raised my voice at you?’ She responded, no, never. So I asked her another question, ‘Have I ever cursed at you?’ And again, she responded, no. I was a bit challenged by that because I hear white men curse at her all the time and she’d never once described them as hostile. So certainly, it is all about race.

Emotional fixity caused participants to experience conflict when trying to communicate with institutional members about diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. This often resulted in avoidance, disengagement, or exclusion from important conversations and decisions that would greatly benefit from the input of a CDO.

Further, African-American CDOs compensated for emotional fixity by ensuring Euro-Americans remained emotionally stable and balanced during any conversation involving diversity, equity, and inclusion. Participants shared this meant having a heightened awareness of their body language and word choice. It also meant they sometimes remained silent in situations that required a strong advocacy for change. Hommon explained how he tries to safeguard Euro-American colleagues’ emotions during administrative meetings. He stated,

When another person passionately makes a point, they’re just passionate. But when I’m passionately making a point, I’m angry and intimidating. When I’m passionate about something, I tend to lean forward. I started noticing in meetings that my white colleagues would pull back from the table. Almost as if I was attacking them. So, now I make a conscious effort to sit up straight and not lean forward when I’m talking about something. However, I soon noticed that my white colleagues would lean forward while they were passionately making a point and the response they’d get was, ‘Oh, we can feel how much you care. You are so passionate about your work!’

Relatedly, Cameron described, with frustration, how he ensures Euro-Americans’ emotional stability, even when confronted with bigotry and a blatant ignorance of racism,

I really want to say, ‘You stupid ass motherfucker!’ But instead I’m like, ‘Can you help me understand that?’ A lot of the time I respond, ‘To be clear’. As opposed to what I really want to say, which is, ‘Stupid ass. What the fuck don’t you get that the student was called a nigger? I want to know what part of that is not radiating with you that this is not what we want at our institution?’ The answer I usually get from them [Euro-Americans] is, ‘Well, I’m sure there has to be more explanation if we could put aside the emotions’. Fuck you son of a bitches! There’s no putting aside the emotional!

Compensating for fixity caused participants to experience persistent emotional stress and trauma. Still, they knew both acceptance and engagement from institutional members was critical for their roles, so it generally outweighed their personal needs. Due to considerable levels of emotional exhaustion and abuse, many participants disclosed frequently using accrued sick or vacation pay to either self-care or receive therapy.

Racial distrust

Participants shared that they were accused, illimitably, by institutional members of possessing a ‘hidden racial agenda’ to elevate themselves and the African-American community. They characterized racial distrust as the most pervasive inter-racial constraint as heighten skepticism of their racial intentions largely prevented them from addressing inequitable practices at their institutions. William explained, ‘There’s always a perception of your work as being self-advocacy. That the real reason you want to do a salary equity study for people of color is because it’s a back doorway for you to get a raise’.

Racial distrust was generally exerted by Euro-Americans, but other marginalized groups’ social position and proximity to whiteness also caused them to be skeptical of African-American CDOs. Participants described experiencing regular resistance from marginalized groups who often accused them of caring more for ‘their own’ than others. For instance, Abenaa shared the challenges she has faced with the Latinx community around their racial distrust for her as an CDO, ‘The Latinx community accuses me constantly of favoring black people. They think that because I’m black I pay more attention to them, and that’s not true’. Another participant shared why distrust was an expectation when trying to work with the LGBTQ community at her institution. She said,

The LGBTQ community pushes these generalities about African-Americans being homophobic or heterosexist so the assumption to that, of course, is that I must be too. Somehow they [LGBTQ] have landed on African-Americans not liking gay people but they ignore all other instances where people are excluded from their communities because of sexual identity or orientation. That bothers me, but I’ve come to expect it.

Cameron shared his positionality with racial distrust and the LGBTQ community. He somewhat sadly described being overtly ignored throughout his career as a CDO,

As a gay man, people perceive me to be African-American and male first. The LGBTQ in higher education is white. I can say whatever needs to be said, and be supportive as I want to be, but it doesn’t translate until it’s repeated by a white person – usually a gay male, Butch lesbian, or lesbian with spiky hair. My heart and being are in all these issues but I get no credit.

He continued,

I’m not sitting with an 18-year-old student to talk about their coming out story because I think ‘coming out’ is a very white process. Until I believe they [LGBTQ] want to hear how African-American people have to navigate these spaces with their families … yeah, we both got kicked out of the house but I’m getting my ass beat all the way down the street by my neighbors. Everyone. It’s always been that way. I’ve never been ‘black’ enough. I’ve never been ‘straight’ enough. I’ve never been ‘gay’ enough. I’ve never been enough of one thing.

Furthermore, participants conveyed that Euro-American and other marginalized groups’ skepticism of their racial intentions was a major hindrance to coalition building and addressing inequitable practices across campus. They also noticed how racial distrust caused institutional members to be resentful and/or resistant to supporting the needs of African-American students, faculty, and staff. When attempting to address racialized attacks against the African-American community at his institution, Lee shared his experience with resistance,

It was very easy for me to get a person to focus on Latinx, LGBT affairs, and other groups because people didn’t see those as my identity. But when it came time for me to advocate for a focus on the African-American experience, it was like asking people to grow a second head. And for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why! I was making the same compelling data-driven argument but I wasn’t getting any movement on it. Then one day it just dawned on me… Oh … they’re not moving on this because I’m black.

African-American CDOs compensated for racial distrust by engaging in efforts that would hopefully build trust with institutional members in addition to reiterating that their roles prioritize all marginalized groups and identities. Despite this, participants shared that their efforts were generally unsuccessful, making racial distrust a perpetual hindrance to their work. Neveah perfectly summarized the frustration and wasted time administrative repudiation, structural alienation, spatial illegitimacy, emotional fixity, and racial distrust bring to African-American CDOs,

I would love for people to just focus on the work, but they don’t want to do the work if they don’t like me. I have to spend time developing positive relationships with all these people just so they’re inclined to want to engage in meaningful change. The thing that bothers me … Why can’t you be committed to these issues? Why do you have to like me to be able to support this work?

Intra-racial constraints

All participants experienced intra-racial conflict with the African-American community at their institution. They detailed receiving heavy amounts of criticism and pressure from African-American faculty, staff, and students, and recounted they were often called ‘Uncle Toms’, ‘Coons’, ‘Sell outs’, ‘Traitors’, and ‘Oreos’ because peers did not feel they were tough enough on Euro-American administrators to bring about social and institutional change. To illustrate, Percy highlighted a recent conversation he had with a colleague, he shared, ‘I had one African-American colleague tell me that it disturbed him to see me sitting so close to the President. Absolutely. He requested that I make the President feel uncomfortable, antagonize him. I can’t accomplish anything like that’.

Similarly, Hommon described the pressure he encounters from the African-American community at his institution,

When I walk through the student union and see a group of African-American students yelling, ‘Nigga! Nigga! Nigga! Nigga!’, zero tolerance means I have to kick them out too, right? And that’s when they argue, ‘Well, we have a right to say it’. No, if we set that as a standard at the institution, nobody gets to say it. That’s where the African-American faculty, staff, and alumni come telling me, ‘Well man, you’re just not getting it’. No, I’m getting it! That’s the problem!

Considering the inter-racial constraints African-American CDOs are limited by a daily basis, participants unanimously characterized the intra-racial attacks they receive as ‘hurtful’, ‘painful’, and a ‘stab in the heart’. When asked why they felt much criticism arose from African-American peers, nine participants credited jealousy and competition, while three believed it to be the African-American community’s desire for social change. Zaire provided her perspective on the jealousy theory,

Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God! I do think there is a belief that the only reason you got hired is because of race. So if you’re African-American, I’m African-American, and that means I can do what you do. Survey says no. Survey says absolutely no.

On the other hand, Obasi shared his perspective on the theory of competition,

The most frustrating thing for me is people trying to compete with you when that shouldn’t be the motivation. Or people trying to do your work because they think there’s something sexy about working with underrepresented groups. I have several that I know compete with me, but I won’t compete with them because to me that’s lowering the bar. So, is it because I’m black? Is it because I’m male? The saga never ends. Some people who look like me say I’m not extreme enough.

Regardless of where participants stood on the source of intra-racial conflict, compensation occurred by trying to balance needs of the African-American community with the racial distrust of institutional members. African-American CDOs disclosed that this placed them in compromising positions where their decisions and efforts could risk being perceived as either a ‘race traitor’ by the African-American community or a ‘black supremacist’ by institutional members.

From the mouths of African-American CDOs

Overall, eleven of twelve participants stated there was always a discrepancy between their institution’s diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment and their lived experiences as African-American CDOs. When asked if a discrepancy existed between the rhetoric of her institution’s diversity statement and the reality of her lived experience as a CDO, Nevaeh responded, ‘Yes, yes, there is a discrepancy. Next question’. Cameron more forcefully echoed the same sentiment answering, ‘Any CDO that says their DEI mission and values are consistent with the actions of the university, I would say you’re a big fat liar’. Abenaa also acknowledged a discrepancy, however, she pondered further as to how an African-American CDO could not experience a predominantly white institution’s anti-black environment. She stated,

People have the nerve to say ‘No?’ How can any African-American CDO say there’s no discrepancy between their lived experience and the actions of the institution? Unless your institution was in all its practices fully representative of the people you serve. And that every student could articulate that their experience had been inclusive at all levels, I don’t know how you can say that. The entire higher education industry was built and is predicated on white supremacy. It’s the foundation of the United States.

On the other hand, when asked if there was a discrepancy between his institution’s commitment to diversity and his lived experience as an African-American CDO, Obasi was the only participant who did not respond definitively. Instead, he described his institution as ‘as close to a utopia as you can get’ and further shared,

My institution is not as good as we think we are, but we’re not as bad as we think we are either. I would say you can choose any institution in America, not many can compete with us in the D&I space. We are far from what we want to be. I’m critical of the institution but not so critical to the point that I don’t think we can do better.

Even so, the majority of participants rebuked any CDO who dared to argue that such a discrepancy was non-existent and further criticised them for 1) not being honest about the challenges around racism and the nature of the work, 2) spreading false narratives of progress by claiming there to be little or no barriers around diversity, equity, and inclusion, and 3) publicly presenting their institutions as ‘colorblind’ and less problematic than they really are. Participants asserted that CDOs add to the illusion of social progress by being dishonest and silent about the racial challenges they face. Lee expressed how sad and frustrating it is for him to see African-American CDOs hide their pain and struggles out of fear of being perceived as weak in their roles. He said,

I never understand this. It tends to bother me when I go to some of these national meetings where diversity officers are acting like things are great. I hear these folks talk loudly about their institutions and they don’t really have any power. Like, why would you call me asking to help strategize about getting resources? I mean, come on! I don’t believe that gets us anywhere. Just be real about the struggles and challenges. I think we do a disservice because we’re not transparent.

In the end, all participants shared in belief that the CDO position has been ‘glamourized’ and ‘over-exaggerated’ by higher education. Antonia provided a warning of just how marginalizing and lonely the role really is when she said, ‘I’m always amazed when people tell me that they want to be a CDO. I always respond, really? Be careful’. Participants also shared that much of higher education sees very little of their struggle and remains completely unaware of the anti-black racism, emotional trauma, psychological abuse, and exhaustion they experience at predominantly white institutions. And despite the racial constraints that limit them, African-American CDOs remain driven not by the illusion of a moral and just campus, but by their passion, love, and dedication to social change and equality. In unison with his fellow CDOs, Percy concluded, ‘I think a lot of us CDOs are so passionate about equity, diversity, and inclusion that we’d be willing to do the work for free. No lie, I would do this work for free. But they pay us to put up with all the racism and bullshit’.

Discussion

It is firmly established that anti-blackness is at the core of predominantly white institutions’ operations (Dancy, Edwards, and Davis 2018; Dumas 2014, 2016; Dumas and Ross 2016; Ray 2019), for that reason, this article examined how it hindered African-American CDOs’ ability to build coalition around a predominantly white institution’s diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment. Findings communicate an unsavoury realization regarding diversity and inclusion in higher education, which is that anti-black racism restricts the social receptibility of African-American CDOs. This poses an immense issue considering the CDO position has no legitimate power to enforce anything independently (Hurtado et al. 2008; Patton et al. 2019; Williams and Wade-Golden 2006) and must rely entirely on institutional members’ power and authority (individually and collectively) to enable social progress. Because of this, the role primarily functions through coalition building which relies heavily on the cultivation of interpersonal relationships to amass influence, power, and resources around a specific goal or purpose. The ability of CDOs to both build and employ coalition significantly influences their capability to drive social and institutional change in higher education.

With this, African-American CDOs’ roles naturally require substantial amounts of social interaction in order to establish relationships that actively support an institution’s diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment. However, the racial homogeneity of a predominantly white institution imposes an anti-black ethos that centers race as the primary social construct through which interactions with African-American CDOs occur. Resultantly, racial constraints emerge, causing African-American CDOs to encounter difficulty building coalition with administrative colleagues and the larger campus community. These constraints impede African-American CDOs’ strategic leadership by forcing them to divert time and resources away from strategic imperatives and toward addressing the institution’s racialization of their identities, which, in turn, adversely impacts effectiveness of the position to drive social and institutional change. To that end, progress remains stagnant while African-American CDOs are forced to live through the exact same discriminatory experiences they are hired to fix.

Anchoring Dumas and Ross (2016), Harris (1993), and Ray (2019), racial constraints ostracise African-American CDOs in order to reinforce Euro-Americans as the racial preference for administrative leadership so that ‘white’ cultural frameworks remain instinctual throughout decision-making processes, practices, and professional standards. When legitimate power remains in the hands of the racial majority, it allows them to operate in ways that demonstrate racial commitment to various constituencies whose support is imperative for the longevity of the organization, such as Euro-American legislatures, donors, alumni, and community members (Dumas 2014; Dumas and Ross 2016; Harris 1993; Haynes and Bazner 2019; Leonardo 2009; Leong 2013; Ray 2019). Ensuring African-American CDOs exist at the periphery of administrative leadership preserves the status quo at the highest levels of decision-making. This fundamentally forfeits the CDO position’s organizational purpose and further invalidates any commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In concluding, if social progress remains stagnant in higher education, even with an upsurge in CDO roles within the last two decades, predominantly white institutions deserve heightened magnification for the substantial role they play in stativity. Post racial narratives, as driven by Euro-Americans, may argue that emergence of the CDO position has indeed resulted in racial equality – it has increased opportunity for African-Americans to serve as executive-level administrators in higher education. Nonetheless, the illusion of progress in one area has only brought about a more subtle discriminatory practice in another as can be seen by race’s ability to negate the CDO position’s effectiveness (Bell 1992). Institutional stakeholders must have the courage to critically analyse a predominantly white institution’s words, actions, and outcomes concomitantly. If stakeholders remain unassertive, anti-black narratives will criticize CDOs and blame diversity, equity, and inclusion offices for lack of change, but never the institutions themselves.

Institutions chew us up and spit us out, and they know it. But nobody ever stops to ask, ‘What are universities doing to these people?’ No, their narrative is that we just couldn’t cut it. (Cameron, participant)

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to the participants of the study. Words cannot convey the level of gratitude the author has for participants’ vulnerability to share their struggles, tears, hopes, humour, and honesty. Their contributions to both social science and organizational research is invaluable, but this comes only second to their dedication for social justice and change. Thank you for entrusting the author with your voice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2023.2281118)

Notes

1. The racial classification of ‘White’ is not utilized in this article as it is a fabricated and oppressive social construct used entirely for invalidation of the African and ‘does not describe a group with a sense of common experiences or kinship outside of acts of colonization and terror’ (Dumas 2016, 13; Roediger 1994). Instead, the racial classification Euro-American is utilized to both identify and acknowledge those born in America whose bulk ancestry traces to one or more countries in Europe. The identifier ‘White’ is solely used in this article to reference a sociopolitical disposition characterized by intellectual arrogance, academic gatekeeping, manipulation, oppression, and racism.

2. Anti-Blackness is an umbrella term used to describe the discriminatory experiences of various African diasporic populations. The study focused on a specific subset of the diaspora – African-Americans. The term Anti-Blackness is only used to reference and describe the African-American experience in the United States and is not meant to general all populations of the African diaspora.

3. Institutional members were identified by participants as trustees, presidents, vice-presidents, chancellors, deans, department chairs, faculty, staff, and students. Racial composition included Euro-Americans (majority) and others with marginalized identities.