Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Black Higher Education Administrators: Reflections on Illusions of Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, universities and colleges in Canada have increasingly styled themselves as being deeply invested in addressing anti-Black racism, coloniality, and histories of exclusion. To address these long-standing grievances, academic institutions have ramped up and mass-promoted the implementation of equity-focused initiatives such as equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) offices; executive-level EDI positions; race-based data collection; EDI working groups; subcommittees and councils; anti-racism charters; statements of solidarity; and EDI training and workshops. In this article, the author argues that these efforts have done nothing to meaningfully address entrenched inequities present at every level of academic institutions. Of particular focus is the role of the Black administrator, who, the author argues, is hired to nullify dissent within the institution while manufacturing optics of diversity and progress. Drawing on the author’s own experience as a former college dean, this article first provides examples of how these strategies amount to a nullification of dissent. The author argues that universities and colleges have become sophisticated in stifling legitimate challenges to hierarchies of power through incorporating and co-opting calls for change. The author shows how such practices not only undermine radical demands for change but also provide ways for institutions to maintain their racial capitalist, neoliberal objectives. In thinking about what may yet be possible in “another university,” the author reviews a set of principles derived from Black radical tradition and Black queer feminist theory, which point to ways in which we may move toward an alternative learning commons or what others refer to as the “off-university” or the “undercommons.” Extending on the concepts of the “Black test” and an “ethics of care,” the author suggests some fundamental criteria for moving toward transformed academic institutions while also addressing ways in which we can rethink notions of Black leadership that are too often deployed to frustrate calls for change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".