Making teaching more inclusive and equitable

Sound clip: You’re listening to a Times Higher Education podcast.

Sara Custer: Hello, and welcome to the Times Higher Education podcast. Inequalities existed on university campuses well before the pandemic, but the shift to online and remote learning has exacerbated the issues that were already there and revealed new ones, particularly around race, socioeconomic background and neurodiversity. I’m Sara Custer, the associate editor for curation here at THE, and I recently caught up with four people involved in diversity, equity and inclusion work on campuses in the US and the UK to talk with me about what’s working and what isn’t in DEI efforts, including the diversity statement all academics in the U.S. have to write to get a job. We talk about what myths they’d like to bust about DEI work and tips they’d give universities and faculty to promote collective responsibility to tackle inequities in higher education as we work our way out of the pandemic. Here they are.

Sara Custer: Thanks everyone for joining me today. We have with us today Dr. Tazin Daniels, who is an educational developer, speaker and consultant and coach who specializes in equitable and inclusive teaching practices in online and face-to-face courses. Currently, she works as an assistant director at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching at the University of Michigan and is a digital equity expert with the Every Learner Everywhere network. We also have Dr. Amanda Irvin, who is a senior director, who is the senior director of faculty programs and services at the Center for Teaching and Learning at Columbia University. She develops and facilitates professional development programs for instructors at Columbia, and she specializes in feminist pedagogy, collaborative learning and active learning. Jumping across the Atlantic, we have Dr. Jason Arday, who is an associate professor in sociology at Durham University in the Department of Sociology and the deputy executive dean for people and culture in the Faculty of Social Science and Health. He is a visiting research fellow at the Ohio State University in the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. And Jason holds visiting professorships at Coventry University, London Metropolitan University and Nelson Mandela University. And then Dr. Chiara Horlin is a lecturer in psychology at the University of Glasgow. Her research involves understanding the lived experience of autistic adults and their families. In 2020, she co-founded the university’s Neurodiversity Network to provide awareness, representation and promote inclusion of neurodiversity in higher education. Welcome, everyone. Great. Thank you very much. We’ve got some really unique perspectives here, spanning oceans, spanning continents, spanning experiences. There’s so much to talk about when we’re talking about diversity, equity and inclusion. So I want to spend our time today really talking about some of the practical aspects of what university campuses can work on and how the work of diversity, inclusion and equity can really be at the forefront as universities are looking to rebuild after the pandemic. I know that I’ve done everyone’s kind of official professional bios and introductions, but I also want to hear in your own words, just kind of tell us a bit about the work that you’re doing on campuses right now, especially now we are recording this beginning of June 2021. Tell us a little bit about the work that you’re doing. Chiara, over to you first.

Chiara Horlin: Hi, thank you for having me. The predominant experience that I have in research has been in autism, but over the past four years or so, that has expanded to the neurodiversity umbrella, more generally speaking, with some invested self-interest of being a late-diagnosed woman with ADHD. That has really translated to the higher education kind of context specifically. And how I’m really interested in how we can support students and staff within the university in working and living and learning better. And a lot of that is obviously tied in with the wonderful bureaucracies of working in higher education as well and improving curriculums and things like that. So a personal and a professional motivation there for sure.

Sara Custer: Interesting. I’m sure we’ll kind of get back on that personal motivation for this work with some other speakers. Jason, over to you.

Jason Arday: Hi, thank you, Sara. Thank you so much for having me here. And it’s great to be here with everyone. I mean, a lot of my work has kind of, I guess, focused on, you know, race and racism within the academy. I guess specifically, you know, the impact of whiteness upon that and its centrality and how it kind of, I guess, undermines the kind of egalitarian society that we would all want, particularly in higher education and beyond. And a lot of stuff that I’ve also done more recently has been around the mental health of Black and ethnic minority people in education. So that’s kind of my work is right now. And just feel very fortunate to be here with some fantastic colleagues to, I guess, chew the fat about these intersectional issues.

Sara Custer: Plenty of fat to chew, Jason, definitely. And I definitely want to get on the mental health aspect of this as well, especially for academics of color, because that is a huge issue, definitely. Amanda, you next, please.

Amanda Irvin: Yeah, thank you, Sara. I’m delighted to be here with all of you. Right now, the majority of the work that I’m doing with my colleagues in the Center for Teaching and Learning is around, we have this massive transition to emergency remote online teaching. And so holding on to the affordances of that and the challenges of that and having really frank discussions with ourselves and with our colleagues about the issues around diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging that were brought to bear by that move. Lots of, there was definitely increased accessibility for students in an online or remote learning capacity. And so holding on to that. And then also thinking through as we return or hopefully return to more in-person teaching and learning, how do we not let go of it and hold on to some of those things?

Sara Custer: Yeah. And that kind of the lessons learned and kind of making sure that we go forward with that, I think, is definitely a discussion that I’ve heard a lot of times, but one that we should continue to have. I think. Tazin, tell us a bit about your own work and your own words, please.

Tazin Daniels: Oh, thanks, Sara. Good to meet everyone and be on the call today. So my background and training is as an anthropologist. And I, like Amanda, work at a Center for Research on Learning and Teaching at the University of Michigan. And so similarly, I spent a lot of time the last year really focused on getting instructors online. I was doing online work before it was a trendy necessity for about 10 years. And so really a lot of my focus lately has been around digital equity, which is part of the work that I do with the Gates Foundation. I also do a lot of work around inclusive, equity-minded teaching, especially more and more into anti-racist teaching, which there are some very distinct differences between those kinds of pedagogical practices that would be interesting to dive into. I also have been thinking a lot about the professional development of educational developers who are doing this work. We are a very underrepresented field, especially when it comes to POC, people from the LGBTQ community, people with different accessibility needs. And so, really, who are the folks who are supporting instructors, who are the folks who are supporting students? So, really understanding how to best prepare people for the changing educational landscape.

Sara Custer: I’d like us all to talk about some of the myths I think that come around this when we’re talking about diversity work. It can often be a box-ticking exercise or maybe even a trendy thing, decolonization, just slapping that on university strategy because it’s like, oh, we’re doing some work here, but what is that actually doing? So, let’s talk a little bit about maybe a myth that we should bust in this conversation. Jason, do you want to start with that one?

Jason Arday: Yeah, I guess so. I mean, I think there’s a lot of franchise words that get kind of banded around. I think intersectionality is one. I think, you know, it’s fair to say that that has actually deviated from its original mission in terms of what Kimberlé Crenshaw set out. I think it’s become this umbrella term, very similar to inclusion. And I think, you know, we need to be kind of really vigilant to that because I think within that, it’s meant that women of colour, particularly Black women, are having those experiences kind of subverted and becoming more generalised. And in becoming more generalised, it becomes more palatable for everyone to be able to kind of, I guess, find, not find something, but that there’s this kind of idea that, you know, we’re all suffering the same. And I think there’s a lot of evidence to contrary to just that we’re not. And I think, you know, decolonizing is kind of, again, it’s moved away from its, you know, its mantra, which is really to challenge our kind of our selective amnesia with the past and what we choose to funnel as, you know, as knowledge, what we choose to kind of encapsulate as knowledge. And it doesn’t really, that knowledge doesn’t really deviate from a Eurocentric, a white Eurocentric lens. So I think there’s been a lot of kind of terms that have been coerced into and kind of commercialized and packaged really nicely for marketization. But I guess it’s kind of how do we keep those kind of things true to their original aim whilst incorporating modernized contexts across the intersection. And I think that’s very different to the coercion of it and it being kind of manipulated for particular types of gain, which I think is worrying when we kind of stray from the mission of what something’s original aim is.

Sara Custer: Yeah, definitely. And it seems like it loses the nuance of everyone’s specific challenges whenever we’re talking about intersectionality across the board. Amanda, what about you? What is one myth that you’d like to bust in this conversation?

Amanda Irvin: Yeah, thank you. You know, I was thinking about the myths that seem so pervasive around these questions of diversity and equity and inclusion. And I started thinking in our Center for Teaching and Learning, we talk a lot about dead ideas in higher education. And there’s a connection, I swear, but I started thinking about myths in terms of dead ideas essentially as something that we continue to believe or we continue to perpetuate because it serves us in some way, even though it doesn’t really bear out. So, for example, one myth or dead idea that I was thinking about is that the role of in higher education, in institutions of higher education, particularly, of increasing or appreciating or cultivating diversity so that we have a rich intellectual and fruitful, enriching learning community, that it falls to one office or one individual. And I see that replicated over and over again in different institutions. And even in talking with, and this is not necessarily just at my home institution, but largely with instructors or students, that it is someone else’s work to do, that the, oh, we have an office for that. And it speaks to maybe how these initiatives of diversity, equity and inclusion at the institutional level end up obscuring the actual work that needs to be done. And I know others have written and talked about this quite extensively. Sara Ahmed comes to mind immediately, but I think about that a lot and whose responsibility is it? And how are we sort of perpetuating this and to what end? So it is something that I think about a lot and encourage our teaching and learning community to think about as well.

Sara Custer: Good. Tazin, I’m going to bring you in here because I’m interested to hear your response after that.

Tazin Daniels: Yeah, I’m glad I’m going after Amanda because I think what Amanda’s highlighting for me is a tension I often grapple with, which is, yes, like I know we’ll talk more about whose responsibility DEI work is. And I think part of the issue is that I want it to be everyone’s work, but I don’t think everybody is ready to do that work yet because it requires a lot of self-work and identity work. And so a lot of times I see folks in my field and adjacent fields who feel like, well, I’m a good person. I’m not racist. And so therefore, you know, and I attended a DEI workshop, therefore, I must be qualified as a DEI expert. And in fact, there are a lot of ways that you can unintentionally participate in malpractice and perpetuate stereotypes or commit microaggressions in your own workshops. And so I think there is something to be said about really recognizing and acknowledging expertise in the field and letting those folks take the leadership roles, but also not absolving other folks who really should be becoming experts in this, or at least having a foundational understanding because DEI issues are not like an extra specific type of issue. For me, social identity is central to a lot of things. A lot of folks will come in to talk to me about student evaluations or peer review assignments. And in fact, social identity is very central to whatever kind of conflict or issue is happening there. So yeah, I just wanted to highlight for me that is a big tension and potentially a myth that I would like to see unpacked a bit more.

Sara Custer: Definitely. And I think that’s one of the issues that Chiara had mentioned as well, is just how personal this work is, not only from the people who are bringing it to the forefront and becoming experts on it, but then also the people who do need to do their own work in order to really become allies in that work or take on some of the responsibility, which makes it all the more difficult, I’m sure. Chiara, what about you? What myth would you like to bust?

Chiara Horlin: The first one that really came to mind for me was about visibility and recognition. And one of the things that can really infuriate neurodivergent people is hearing, but you don’t look like you have autism or you have ADHD. And it really ties into a lot of the biases and prejudices that we get, or we see in terms of this implied student or prototypical student and the consequences that that can have for curriculum, for regulations, for accommodations and those kinds of things as well. So yeah, it’s that there are some very visible identities and that there are also some very non-visible identities that can have a huge impact on people’s experiences as well.

Sara Custer: Yeah. And I think that also kind of speaks to my next question, which was just kind of like, how do we, how should we start talking about this work? We’ve talked about anti-racism in the classroom. Chiara’s talking about neurodiversity. We know there are lots of things around gender. Jason, to a point that you were making earlier about intersectionality and how that sometimes becomes a blanket term, and it really kind of doesn’t take into account the nuances of everybody’s own issue. So, what is the best way that we should be talking about this? And should there be some kind of universal established definition of DEI work? Or is it just something that we constantly have to be kind of having at the center and recognizing and understanding that it’s kind of a moving, evolving thing? Tazin, what do you think about that?

Tazin Daniels: I mean, in several different instances, we’ve already started touching on definitions, I think, especially building on what Jason was saying. Definitions have a lot of power, right? Who are the ones who come up with definitions? And I think we’re especially seeing this in the U.S. right now with this attack on critical race theory. I’d be very interested to hear from my colleagues overseas, like what that conversation is looking like over there. But yeah, thumbs up from Jason. Tell me everything. Are we the only ones? No, of course not. But I think that, you know, there is a lot of power to it. I think for me, especially when, you know, and I’ll share this. When Sara first reached out to me about a podcast on diversity, I was like, oh, diversity, like, can we talk about equity? Can we talk about anti-racism? But I realized that why I’ve been drawn to some of these other terms is because a term like diversity really erases the power dynamic, right? It erases the historical context. It’s to a lot of folks, it’s just about being counting or, you know, or reaching certain statistics for representation, whatever that looks like, but it doesn’t take into account the differential power that folks have. And so for me, I think even when I talk about equity, I feel better about that term because it brings those power dynamics in. But I also have been really deliberate about naming what type of equity. Am I talking about racial equity? Am I talking about gender equity? Am I talking about a combination of different things? Because all of us are coming in with our own personal histories and personal investments. And so I think the more deliberate we can be about our language, the better. But I also just want to keep in the back of my mind that language does have a lot of power and definitions have a lot of power. And so if I want something to come across in a particular way, I have to use a lot of, you know, deliberate language to be able to get that across.

Sara Custer: Amanda, I saw you were nodding your head quite a bit there. Do you want to come in?

Amanda Irvin: Sure. Yeah, I was just thinking and reflecting a lot on what Tazin was saying about the metrics of diversity. And I, you know, when we think about definitions, a thousand percent I agree. Like there is a lot of power in the definition, in the language that we use as we make these definitions and as we use such intentional language to talk about these issues, because I really appreciated, you know, racial equity or gender equity. And I feel like at a very broad level, when institutions of higher education put out these or publish this very highly polished and considered language, it then for years, the impact of that language can go on. It becomes the barometer by which we measure what speakers do we bring in, what funded projects do we promote? There’s such longevity to this carefully considered language. And then, and I wonder just who’s at the table at institutions, right, when these things are crafted. And I wish that that, and you know, and I don’t know for many of the institutions that I have been a part of or have relationships with, much of that language predated me and the colleagues that I work alongside of. And so it’s hard to know. I have my suspicions about who was at the table when those things were created, but I would like to see a broader access to those types of conversations. And I’m very hopeful that we are moving in that direction.

Sara Custer: Sure. I mean, just based on historically who has led institutions of higher education, I’m sure we can all guess who was making those decisions about the definition. Jason, I’m interested to hear your thoughts. As a UK academic, is it similar for you and just talking about definitions and how we, if that even is helpful when we’re all kind of talking about the same thing, but also respecting all the challenges and individuality of it as well?

Jason Arday: Yeah, I think there’s some great points that everyone’s made. And Tazin made a really good point about kind of the use of CRT and I guess it’s kind of language that we’re using. I mean, what’s really interesting is that in terms of all these kind of intersectional inequalities, it’s really hard to kind of trace the contours of these kind of inequalities because I guess the one thing they’re able to do is stay abreast of every intervention we put in place to try and arrest them. And it makes it very difficult because it’s about who is doing the arresting and in some ways who is doing the perpetrating and who is facilitating that. And very rarely are the perpetrators and facilitators of these inequitable practices, you know, kind of, I don’t know, brought to or arrested from what they’re doing or very rarely are they held accountable. And that’s always quite a difficult thing. And, you know, when we think about, you know, Tazin spoke about some of the issues around CRT in the US and the kind of dialogue that situates at the moment, it’s very similar across the pond. Like, you know, we had Kemi Badenoch, who is a Tory MP and a Black woman. So I guess that’s where the shock may come. And that’s not to say that, you know, just because someone is a particular colour, they can’t have a particular disposition on something. But as a Black woman, to say that, you know, CRT is divisive and that it’s not a feasible instrument to dissect or examine race. You know, I think it’s quite short-sighted and doesn’t take into consideration how many other people in the UK and global context experience race. I mean, I think there’s a naivety there that I think is kind of intertwined with, you know, without me being cynical, political ambition. Because I think most, you know, most Black people would be able to see the benefit of CRT as a storytelling lens to talk about their experiences in the same way that we use, you know, queer studies or how we use gender studies or how we use, you know, disability studies, you know, or the medical or social model to kind of explain some of the contexts around disability or other intersections. So we have these kind of instruments as a tool for people to express their lived experiences of residing within the intersection. And I think it’s really important that we don’t stifle those instruments and we don’t blunt them through political discourse and identity politics. And we really try and sharpen them through engaging more and more people in this type of education and work and ensuring that the right people, as Tazin said, are in the right positions to disseminate that knowledge and to engage people in that learning.

Sara Custer: Yeah. And I think that really hits on another big point, which is we’re having this conversation in our nice little bubble on Zoom and our podcast, but obviously it exists in a political sphere, right? And especially this topic about anti-racism education is political and it’s caught up in the culture wars that are playing out on our campuses, right? So it’s almost impossible. You can’t separate the two, which just adds another layer of difficulty around the work that I’m sure everybody is doing. Chiara, what about you? I feel like neurodiversity is something that perhaps isn’t brought up as much whenever we’re talking about DEI work. Perhaps it’s kind of a newer concept, even though it’s always been there. How do you feel that the definitions and kind of the way that we’re talking about this and perhaps ableism on university campuses? Is that helpful or how should we approach the vocabulary around this?

Chiara Horlin: Yeah, for sure. I think one of the things that has really impressed me with this kind of neurodiversity revolution that’s happened over the last couple of years is that autistic people or ADHD people are leading from the front in terms of language. This language is evolving on a daily or weekly basis sometimes, but those conversations are happening within the community. And that’s feeding into concepts like participatory research and co-collaboration of curriculum that really need to happen. And the people leading from the front need to be the people that it’s relevant to. And that’s something that is inherently tied with language and how we talk about people. But I think that that positioning of the most important people in this conversation is really vital.

Sara Custer: Let’s talk a little bit about kind of moving on to some of the practicalities of this. And without incriminating yourselves too much or your institution, I do want to know what you guys think is working in terms of the DEI work, perhaps on your campuses or just in general in your respective higher education sectors, and what isn’t working and perhaps why isn’t it working? Amanda, do you want to start on that one?

Amanda Irvin: I would be delighted to start. Thank you so much for that excellent question, Sara. Yeah, I think some things that I see as really successful is great institutional support from higher administration. So when I say that, what I mean is, you know, seed funding, grants, lots of financial opportunities, lots of really wonderful offices, in addition to that, doing work in terms of hiring, diversity, retention, recruiting of diverse faculty, students. This is all extraordinary. And I’m delighted to be at a place that places such emphasis on this type of work. I think what can be frustrating for a lot of folks is that, especially in an institution like I’m at, that is so large, it is so large and decentralized. And there’s what that means then is that there is really excellent work that is happening in these pockets. And it can be very hard for colleagues to know what’s going on in the law school versus at the medical center versus in the school of social work. And those examples come to mind because I know that there’s really fantastic work happening in all of those places, and everyone there could benefit from knowing what the other is doing. And there are certainly efforts to make those connections, but I would love to see something like where I’m positioned at the Center for Teaching and Learning. Like we try very hard to act as a hub. Our scope is facilitating learning experience for students, right? Supporting instructors in the work of diversity, equity and inclusion and belonging to the benefit of Columbia learners. And so we try to connect in those ways, but it would be really wonderful to have other offices who I know are striving towards these moves of helping folks connect the work because I would hate for us to be reinventing the wheel over and over or replicating our efforts, which, quite honestly, not to take us too far away, is not always a bad thing. Like sometimes we all try the same thing and we get it right in different ways. And so then we can learn from each other. But I do think that it’s nice to know that other people are doing similar work. One, it helps you not feel so alone if you are feeling alone. Two, it can help people really come together and collaborate and make this work to the point we were talking about earlier, like the longevity of this work. It can certainly increase the more people who are sort of banded together behind it. So I would love to see more of that, quite honestly.

Sara Custer: And it also takes it out of the DEI office or the chair of that or whatever, and it spreads the responsibility across the campus. Chiara, tell us what’s perhaps working and what isn’t working at Glasgow.

Chiara Horlin: Well, our approach to spreading awareness and recognition for neurodiversity has been incredibly well received. And that kind of high-level support has been so, so encouraging. But I think the implementation of those kinds of things and what that would mean in the day-to-day practicalities of the institution is a very different thing. And we’re getting a lot of really great high-level support. But to implement the things that we want to implement or we need to implement takes time and it takes money and it takes resources. And I think that is kind of the pinching point for all institutions. And this is still fairly new in terms of the conversation globally in higher education. And I think that that’s going to be the real tell because to increase the flexibility and accessibility of coursework and materials and to co-collaborate on curriculum will take time, effort and money. That we’re already stretched post-pandemic. Things are already challenging. So that would take a dedicated commitment that I would really, really love to see. And I take Amanda’s point of like the cross-institutional and intra-institutional conversations about this and sharing best practice are so so vital for this as well.

Sara Custer: Tazin, what about you? What’s working? What isn’t?

Tazin Daniels: Yeah, thanks, Sara. So, similar to Amanda, I’m at a very large institution. I’m at a public institution. And a lot of these things are relative. I have to remind myself of that. So, I’ll start with the positives, which is that the University of Michigan does have a chief diversity officer. I know that is not common for all schools and colleges. We actually, when I started at the university five years ago, was the first year of our five-year DEI strategic plan, where we had a website and we had a whole list of actions that we’re going to take, right? So, including climate surveys with students, staff and faculty, and the establishment of requirements around DEI officers in every unit on campus, and also like requirements around tracking, tracking of activities that would promote DEI goals across campus. And so, now we are just wrapping up that five years. And one of the things that I would like to see kind of shift in the next five years, because we are planning to roll out the next five years, that was something we’re waiting to see, right? Is it worth, as Chiara was saying, the investment and putting all the money and energy towards it, is a real kind of like hard look as to whether or not this is working, right? So having assessment of this be more than just, oh, we attended three DEI workshops to, hey, what were our actual goals for this? If our goal was to build a more inclusive community, what are the metrics of inclusion? Are we looking at your retention rates? Are we looking at like metrics of climate? Are we looking at promotion within your centers and within your departments? What are the experiences of faculty and staff and students of color? And so, yeah, that’s something that I definitely would want to see some improvements around is like some real accountability. I think another area too is again, recognizing, you know, I’m going to keep bringing this back to power, but there are certain things that you can move and change, right? If there are positions open, you create positions, you can recruit different students and staff and faculty, but those folks who are actually in positions of power, what are the incentives for them to become DEI experts, right? How are the ways that we’re holding our leadership accountable? And I don’t have a 10-point plan for how to do that. I don’t think that they’ve asked me yet. But that’s an area in which I would like to see some real critical thinking because we do have some really great leaders on campus who are doing the work, who come to all the workshops, who really want this to be a part of their identity as leaders. And so I think there’s a lot to learn from those folks. And so I look forward to seeing a critical mass in that area.

Sara Custer: Yeah, really, really interesting. And especially about metrics and incentive structures that could be put in place to really facilitate more work in this. We’ll get to those tips soon, but I’m curious to hear from Jason, who specifically works with institutions in the US, an institution in South Africa, clearly in the UK. Tell us a bit about what you’ve seen this working and what isn’t working.

Jason Arday: Yeah, I guess, I mean, if I take Ohio State as an example, and I know they’re kind of neighboring enemies of Michigan, because my problem with Michigan. I mean, what I would say is a thing that completely blew me away when I first went in 2015, I think it was, was that they had an office for diversity and inclusion. That’s what it’s called, so office at ODI. And it was really empowering to see not only a lot of the work that they do within the institution, but how that resonated and kind of had teeth within the community. So that was kind of a really significant thing in terms of mobilizing, Black, Latinx and other Indigenous communities. And I thought that was a really powerful thing that we didn’t really have across the pond in the UK. And also, similarly, in South Africa, it was the same. There was a real onus and emphasis. And I know there’s a completely different political context there, but there was a real onus on mobilizing the trauma of the past and kind of mapping that within EDI practices and practices that really look to promote the human rights and equality rights of Black Indigenous South Africans. And then I guess when I kind of take that back to, I guess, the UK, it’s kind of, you know, the cogs of change are quite slow. I mean, I still think there’s this huge disconnect in the UK, and it happens in other parts of the world as well. But I can speak mainly to the UK because I reside here in terms of labour, the lack of support and this idea that, you know, when we engage Black and minority, I think, people in these endeavours, it’s for their own good. You know, it’s, you know, it’s a development opportunity. And, you know, without a lack of support, fiscal resource and collective endeavour, it’s really kind of setting Black and ethnic minority people up for individual failure and then mapping that against really ignorant racial descriptions and tropes around Black and ethnic minorities inability to lead. But you can’t lead without infrastructure. And so a lot of that kind of labor is still not kind of, there’s still not a collective responsibility for that. You know, there’s still this idea that racism is a problem to be solved by ethnic minority people. You know, and I’m yet to meet an ethnic minority person who is asked to engage in racism or who’s asked to, you know, live through racist experiences. It happens by proxy and, you know, it happens by default. You know, your skin colour means you’re going to experience that in some way, shape or form. In the same way across the intersection that, you know, as a woman, you know, you will experience sexism in some way, shape or form. You know, as someone from LGBTQ plus member from the community, you will experience, you know, some sort of transphobia, homophobia. You know, you will experience these things. You don’t ask to experience them, but by proxy of being part of that intersect, you will. So it’s really thinking about across the intersection and that kind of scope of diversity, where the labor and the burden falls onto, and really moving away from what I call this kind of hierarchy of intersectionality. So, I think there’s certain intersections that we prioritise more than others, and I think they’re all of equal importance. And I think it’s important that we don’t forget that, because I think we’re being pulled into this narrative of someone more important than others. And historically, what that has meant is that race is always at the bottom of that priority.

Sara Custer: Do you think that hierarchy is there because of perhaps discomfort if we’re talking about power structures? Perhaps it’s easier to do a box-ticking exercise if we, for example, focus our EDI efforts on class or gender?

Jason Arday: Yeah, I think so, because I think it goes into that narrative of everyone being able to identify, right? I think if you use a construct, not a construct, but if you use an intersect like gender, for example, everyone can align to that. But actually, you know, what women are benefiting from gender equality. You know, because I could make an argument. I mean, the irony isn’t lost that I’m a male here, but I think there’s the caveat would be that I’m a Black male and I experience male patriarchy, albeit in an unfair but in a very different way to how a white middle class male will experience it. But you know, I wouldn’t say that white working class women benefit equally from gender inequality. I wouldn’t say that Black and ethnic minority women benefit, you know, are have been great benefactors from gender equality. So it’s kind of looking at that and seeing actually, well, who is benefiting from it? You know, so I think there are those kind of considerations to have because I think we can all find that area of comfortability where we go down to okay, class, but what does class do? You know, in many respects, a lot of people consider themselves to be working class. But once we put white working class, it does tend to whiteness again. So it’s thinking about a way to make sure that those dialogues are not competing. They don’t need to be, they’re separate entities. But when we talk about certain dialogues, we always make them competing. So if we talk about the gender inequality that women face, there’ll always be some guy who will turn around and say, yeah, but what about men? We’ve got it really tough at the moment. You know, there’s always, it doesn’t need to be competing. I never, I never understand why these things can’t just stand alone. Why do they need to be competing? So if we talk about Black Lives Matter, why do we then need to say all lives matter? I don’t, of course, all lives matter. No one’s disputing. The point is that Black lives historically have not mattered as much as all lives. That is why. So, um, the competing thing I never got, but I, I think that’s, you know, we need to kind of be working in a more cohesive way, because at the moment it’s always this idea of twitching fingers instead of a kind of collective fist. And I think that’s the only way we’re going to really penetrate, you know, the intersectional inequality that we all face in some way, shape or form.

Sara Custer: Moving on to to one effort that I know that universities have turned to, um, to try to combat this or I guess tackle it, confront it, talk about it. And it’s the diversity statement that every single academic is required to write whenever they’re applying for a job at any institution. I know this is very much a US thing. I think it’s less prominent in the UK. So Chiara and Jason, I’ll forgive you if you don’t have as much expertise about this. I am interested to hear from Amanda and Tazin if this is an effective way of doing this. Amanda?

Amanda Irvin: You know, I’ve been thinking about this question a lot. I have to be completely honest with you, Sara. I don’t know. I do know, of course, that it’s quite common to ask job candidates to write a diversity statement when they’re on the job market. I have written one myself. I’ve also written them, I’ll add, as part of annual reviews. So like in teaching portfolios or annual review narratives, though that practice has differed between institutions, but it seems like for the purposes of this conversation, it’s very like when you’re applying for a job, you write a diversity statement. The generic qualifications for those diversity statements are kind of, in my experience, all over the map. If you ask five different people, what should my diversity statement be like? You get five different answers. So, I do think that, as someone whose disciplinary training is in English, and I love the written word as a way of writing yourself into knowing, I do think that authoring and writing a statement like this is quite valuable. What I can’t speak to, however, is how they’re used by committees. You know, this is sort of like behind the curtain of a search committee. When you’re an applicant, you don’t really know what’s going on on the other side. And so, how that is used as one piece of a larger package or a larger portfolio that one puts together on the academic job market, you don’t know. I’m assuming that it varies widely by institution. But what I am most curious about is what happens after. So, you write one to get this job. Let’s assume that you’re a successful job candidate and that you are now in a position at that institution. Does it ever come back out again? Do maybe junior faculty get together and talk about the diversity statements that they submitted as part of their candidacy, maybe as like a first-year faculty reflection. Now that I’m saying this, I’m like, oh, these are really good ideas. But I do wonder, like, what happens to that? Does anyone ever ask to see it again? And my suspicion is the answer varies widely by department, it varies widely by institution. I think I’ve made that caveat at least seven times so far today. But I guess my question is: yes, I think it’s valuable in terms of an exercise that one will go through as a reflective or reflexive practice. But then where does it go after that? And does anyone ever ask to see it again?

Sara Custer: Yeah, it’s like, where is that accountability if people are going to? And I know that, because Tazin has told me that she’s done workshops on these diversity statements. So if there’s so much work going into them and so much thought behind them, where actually is all that effort going in? Well, like you said, some institutions probably take it further than others. Tazin, are they working? Is it an effective tool in the EDI work?

Tazin Daniels: Yeah, I’m just smiling because, you know, the diversity statement workshop is a fairly new one at Michigan because, you know, I grew up in Southern California. So in the UC and the Cal State system, they’ve been requiring diversity statements for a very long time. And I think it’s really been the last five to 10 years that you’ve seen much more standardization along with teaching philosophy or statement of teaching philosophy or research statement. And I think, Amanda, I’ll build on what you’re saying that for me, it is a lot more about the process of writing the document than the product. Because we know with any of those kinds of documents, again, like certain people have access to resources to help them craft the perfect document. And that’s something that I know at Michigan we’ve been thinking very deeply about. One of my good colleagues, Dr. Deborah Willis, she works at the graduate school. And this was part of her work was to do some research to find out what are universities looking for when they ask for a diversity statement. Can we create a rubric for these things? And some of the pushback that, and she shared with me, and I’ve also, I completely understand this, that she got from students who are actively doing diversity work anyway, are like, okay, well, finally, like we’re getting recognized for this great work that we’ve been committed to like our whole academic careers. And now someone can just take a workshop and write the same kind of a statement. And so that really like sat in my heart for a long time. So when I run the diversity statement workshop, I am very real to the point where if folks are like, well, I don’t have anything to write. And I say, wow, what a revelation that you don’t have anything to write. Perhaps this is a call to action, right? And so, and also balancing that with, you know, most of us have been graduate students, PhD students, right, on this call. And so, we know that that fear that comes with, oh, it’s this document is the only thing that stands in the way of me getting that job. And I just want to put that into context with, yes, I can understand how you feel shortchanged because you weren’t prepared to be able to write this document your whole career. And that’s a very sad thing. But at the same time, I think that’s a call to action, not just to yourself, but also to departments. How are you really encouraging students to centralize diversity, equity and inclusion in their research agendas, in their service work, in their teaching philosophies? So, DEI should not just be relegated to one document. Those commitments should be present and pervasive in all of the documents that you’re submitting. And frankly, and I’ll be real right now: if it’s not, if that’s an area which you know you need to grow in, or perhaps you don’t see as much value in, I tell them, I said, don’t lie on your documents. Maybe reconsider whether that’s the university for you. Because if they’re telling you that DEI is a priority for them and their faculty, and that’s a qualification you don’t have, then maybe that’s not the right fit for you right now. And so, for me, I think, again, there are many, many factors to consider beyond just the document itself. One last thing I’ll say, Sara, is that and this is something that we talk about in the teaching philosophy too, but I think it’s even more true in the diversity statement: is the sense of authenticity that needs to be felt in that. And so anybody can write a diversity statement. Some folks will write, and I’ve read these statements before. Oh, yes, I had a Korean neighbor, and that, you know, that let me tell you about this great interaction I had with them to people who literally dedicate their entire research trajectory to studying, you know, race and racism. And all of those could be worthy statements to go through the process of writing through, but a search committee should be able to see the difference. And I’m right there with you, Amanda. I’m curious to see how that continues beyond that. But, but yeah, so I’ll leave it there for diversity statements.

Sara Custer: Thanks very much. I do want to give Jason and Chiara just an opportunity to come in if there is anything similar that exists for UK in the UK job market or if you’ve had any sort of experience with that and had an opinion to share.

Chiara Horlin: I mean, we obviously do the teaching philosophy kind of statements, but I’m really interested in this idea of there being a diversity aspect for that, particularly for within the UK, people that are focused within a teaching track, a dedicated teaching track pathway, for sure.

Jason Arday: Yeah, I was going to say, Sara, there isn’t really anything in the UK. I mean, what there is is this kind of blanket statement that’s used at the end of job applications now. We welcome applications from underrepresented groups, particularly Black and ethnic minority, who are underrepresented within our institution. That’s kind of the blanket statement everyone uses now. And, you know, apart from equal opportunities monitoring forms that you normally submit upon applying for a job, you’re not really asked to kind of speak about EDI issues unless it’s an EDI-specific post, which obviously, again, is a way of subverting the issue. And it’s because it’s kind of tricky for those who benefit from a lack of EDI to want to deal with. So, you know, it’s not on a blind spot, consciously or unconsciously.

Sara Custer: We’ve just got a couple of minutes left, and I want to give everyone an opportunity to talk about just some kind of tips that you would give universities as they’re supporting faculty out of the pandemic, or perhaps faculty as they’re looking at a room full of diverse students. And as the pandemic has shown us, all of the inequalities that have been revealed in the past year. Chiara, let’s start with you.

Chiara Horlin: I think I’ve had a really unique kind of privilege over the past year of having this experience in neurodiversity, but I also work with online distance learners as well. And I think this has been such an important year for teaching staff that may not have worked online before to really understand the pressures and the barriers and the limitations that learners can experience if they are online, whether that is just general accessibility, technology, digital equity or just community, having that sense of community and well-being with other students. So I think the biggest things for me would be asking students what they need and actually listening when they tell you what they need. And then kind of having that self-reflection and self-awareness continuously, because one of the things that’s come out of some of the research that we do within the Neurodiversity Network has been that even in the presence of self-reflection and positive engagement with diverse student groups, there is still a dissonance between thought and action. And we’ve still had staff members that have been very open and willing to adapt and support students, but even within their own kind of interviews, there is a dissonance between what that is going to result in in terms of actioning the curriculum and changing the curriculum to support everybody as much as possible. So, self-awareness, self-reflection, those are very easy to say and less easy to do, but asking and listening would be my biggest tips.

Sara Custer: Thanks for that. Amanda, that chimes quite a bit with some of the pieces that you’ve written in terms of just constantly checking in with students, but I don’t want to take you asunder, so go ahead.

Amanda Irvin: No, no, I was thinking the same thing as I was listening to Chiara. My response was going to be wholeheartedly, talk to your students and trust their responses. I am a big advocate of transparency in teaching and learning. And so, talking to students about what they need, especially after the last year, trusting their responses and not making that a one-and-done sort of thing. And so, this is again echoing a lot of what Chiara said, but checking back in with them, checking in with them at the end of the semester, at the middle of the semester, and doing this in a variety of different ways. This can be a very low-stakes exercise in terms of collecting feedback from students, talking to them about their needs, talking to them about the resources that they have available, especially if not everyone can be on campus together. I think it is, again, to re-emphasize some former points: these are things that are easy but not simple, right? So, the execution might be, oh, we can simply ask them. It’s so easy, and yet some of the responses you get might be complicated. And we’re going to require that self-reflection that Chiara was talking about. And I think that is the only way to grow forward, especially as an individual instructor, but also in a learning community with your students. And that community is fostered immeasurably by an open exchange and a transparent relationship.

Sara Custer: Jason.

Jason Arday: Chiara and Amanda made some brilliant points. I mean the thing that I would say is that coming out of a pandemic and I guess going back into what is the real world, so to speak, whatever that means or a normal space, I think I would just invite people to engage in kind of invitation and belonging, you know, establishing this sense of hospitality where everybody feels a sense of belonging, you know, this sense of invitation where everybody, you know, despite their intersection, despite these intersections at play, you know, is invited to be there and really fostering belonging, you know, making people have this sense of belonging. And I think that’s the kind of most important thing. And it kind of chimes back with what Chiara said around, you know, listening, asking and listening. And I just think that we’re in a really important juncture right now, and we need to center the experience of people and ensure that we’re giving people the best opportunity to thrive and not survive. I think a lot of people at the moment are in a state of survival, and we need to move away from that because a lot of that state of survival comes from the fact that people are residing in inequitable spaces, which kind of are compounded by, I guess, people who don’t share the same semblance of equality that we all strive and yearn for. So, that’s ideally where we would like to be. And I have no reason to believe we won’t not be there. You know, I think when you’ve got collective hearts and minds, I think anything’s possible.

Sara Custer: Such an optimistic note. I love it, Jason. Thank you. Tazin, over to you.

Tazin Daniels: Yeah, thanks, everyone. Such great thoughts. And I think for me, it would probably be just a reminder that the pandemic not only exacerbated issues around inequity, but it unmasked them. There’s often an assumption that higher education is immune, right, from all of those horrible systems of oppression when, in fact, it is a product of those systems of oppression and power. And so, recognizing that, you know, it’s easy to look out into a sea of 400 students learning introduction to chemistry and assuming that they’re all the same, right? And then moving to the pandemic, realizing that each of these students have very different life circumstances and needs. And I think that we saw kind of an unprecedented move towards, as Amanda and Chiara had mentioned, like listening to students and engaging with student voices and really trusting them and relying on them. And I think, you know, when we talk about post-pandemic, I know a lot of folks have a challenge with that term because the impacts of the pandemic are going to be lasting throughout all of our lifetimes. What are those lessons, you know, around pedagogies of care, around trauma-informed pedagogy that we can use and will be just as powerful tools that we should have been using all along that now we actually have an ear for? So I definitely encourage folks to not just think also about what are the tips and tricks about how to do this, as Amanda was saying, like it’s not just about asking your students, it’s not that simple, but really developing that kind of equity mindset, a set of values that you can carry with you, ones that are centered on, you know, student well-being and learning outcomes that can help you continue to make those inclusive and equitable decisions in the future.

Sara Custer: Yeah, excellent. And I think that that’s a really good point to end on. It just kind of goes back to what Amanda was saying about even though you’re asking students, you need to be prepared for what they’re actually going to tell you and what sort of response that’s going to be and what that actually means because you just don’t quite know until you ask. Um, thank you so much, all of you, for joining me today. That was a really fascinating discussion. Um, there’s lots more to talk about, as there always is on this topic, but um, I really appreciate you all sharing your perspective. So, thank you very much.

Sara Custer: Huge thanks to Tazin Daniels, Amanda Irvin, Jason Arday and Chiara Horlin for their time to share their opinions and insights on the important work of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Sara Custer: If you want to find more practical resources about all aspects of online higher education, go to THE Campus at timeshighereducation.com/campus.

Sara Custer: Thanks for listening, and we’ll see you next time.

Sound clip: You’re listening to a Times Higher Education podcast.