We live in very jarring times for those pursuing equity in higher education. On the one hand, there is now more visceral awareness among some white people (as well as some people of color) of antiblack racism due to the visible murder of black men and women during the pandemic when there was a slowing down and time to reflect. The protests across the country, the growth of Black Lives Matter, and demands for changes in policing during 2020–2022 marked a time period of rapid and pronounced progress, building on other recent movements such as the “We are the 99%” movement of 2011.
And, on the other hand, we have many other white people (as well as some people of color) that are denying the fact that racism exists anymore, if they admit it ever did. These same individuals proclaim that speaking about race is divisive and assert that racism, if it ever existed, has been largely eradicated in education due to interventions such as affirmative action in admissions, Pell grants, cultural centers, ethnic studies, and college access programs. And of course, we see these beliefs manifesting in the recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of race in admissions, the critical race theory bans, and the legislation to eradicate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and budgets.
However, focusing on racism at a certain point in time hides the systemic issues that face institutional leaders. There is a long history of higher education institutions being created for and serving exclusively white and wealthy males—over 1,000 years in Europe and 400 years in the United States. There has only been 40 years of attention to dismantling this system coming out of the civil rights and feminist movements, and during that same time period there was a 15-year protracted conservative backlash against such efforts in the 1980s and early 1990s, led by figures like Dinesh D’Souzsa and William Bennett. The reason why minority-serving institutions exist in this country is based on a legacy of predominantly white campuses discriminating against and excluding communities of color from higher education. There has not been enough attention to how higher education institutions have been bastions of oppression based on racism and other -isms. Further, educational interventions do not address the many social and political systems that discriminated against Black Americans, from segregation and redlining to a general lack of access and opportunity to jobs, housing, and loans. While slavery was eradicated in 1865, discrimination never ended—the history of Jim Crow laws and segregation is typically left unaddressed in terms of its impact on Black Americans.
Leaders in higher education at all levels and in all units need to begin to provide this more detailed historical arc as they explain why the work is not just far from done but has hardly started. Our attention to the current moment sometimes gets in the way with not enough grounding in this history and the ongoing white resistance. Why are we not calling the current political environment for what it is—a whitelash akin to Jim Crow–era legislation? Leaders in higher education cannot allow this rhetoric—that racism is no longer an issue—continue to be dominant in the ways it has in 2023. There is always a backlash when progress has been made. Leaders interested in social progress and in protecting the public good of higher education need to mount a collective, coordinated, and strategic movement that supports the eradication of racism and antiblackness. And we need to join with other social and political groups in our communities.
In this issue, we highlight several articles focused on changing the narrative, and framing and understanding the current landscape. Iftikar and Nguyen provide an overview of the landmark Supreme Court case on affirmative action in admissions in their article “SFFA v. Harvard: Understanding and Contextualizing the Decision and Its Impact.” They help campus leaders understand what can be done within the current legal environment to continue to support students of color. Cherwitz’s article explores increasing diversity in the absence of affirmative action, providing alternative approaches that many campuses are currently exploring and offering a model for the type of efforts campuses can and should pursue in the coming years. We will continue to highlight such approaches for campus leaders in upcoming editions.
In terms of a new way to frame DEI work, Imad provides a reflection on the impacts of racial trauma on individuals to more deeply understand the betrayal and lack of trust that historically marginalized groups experience as a result of racism and why such damage does not go away quickly. Smith’s article focuses on how higher education leaders need to reframe DEI as an essential dimension of institutional capacity like technology and as central to higher education’s mission of learning, student success, research, and community engagement. Saltmarsh, Eatman, and Mills’ article builds on Smith’s new framing and provides a compelling new narrative for higher education leaders, offering campuses ways to reflect on their complicitness with slavery and to provide reparations to communities/individuals harmed.
While the current targets have been focused on race and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and intersex individuals, particularly in terms of gender identity, the attacks on abortion that discriminate against women may also be pushed more directly in years to come, and areas like Title IX may be altered/repealed. The lack of support for student debt relief is an assault on the poor. And progress related to disabilities is likely also another target, as it is expensive for campuses to comply with the Americans With Disability Act and many campuses remain uncompliant. So while we have highlighted the campaign against racial issues, all historically marginalized groups are being affected by this larger trend, making solidarity all the more important. And there is an urgency to this: with another election coming up, the need to speak out is incredibly important. Change will be profiling efforts to support voting, community engagement, and DEI efforts in the coming year as a way to support leaders in the effort to resist and combat the current whitelash.