Building the Anti-Racist University

Shirley Anne Tate, Paul Bagguley

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429814464
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

In the new arena for anti-racist work in which we find ourselves, the neo-liberal, 'post-race' university, this interdisciplinary collection demonstrates common global political concerns about racism in Higher Education. It highlights a range of issues regarding students, academic staff and knowledge systems, and all of the contributions seek to challenge the complacency of the 'post-race' present that is dominant in North-West Europe and North America, Brazil's mythical 'racial democracy' and South Africa's post-apartheid 'rainbow nation'.

The collection makes clear that we are not yet past the need for anti-racist institutional action because of the continuing impact of coloniality on and in these nations.

Chapter 7 of this book is freely available as a downloadable Open Access PDF at http://www.taylorfrancis.com under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

Race, racialization and Indigeneity in Canadian universities

Frances Henry, Enakshi Dua, Audrey Kobayashi, Carl James, Peter Li, Howard Ramos and Malinda S. Smith

ABSTRACT
This article is based on data from a four-year national study of racialization and Indigeneity at Canadian universities. Its main conclusion is that whether one examines representation in terms of numbers of racialized and Indigenous faculty members and their positioning within the system, their earned income as compared to white faculty, their daily life experiences within the university as workplace, or interactions with colleagues and students, the results are more or less the same. Racialized and Indigenous faculty and the disciplines or areas of their expertise are, on the whole, low in numbers and even lower in terms of power, prestige, and influence within the University.

Introduction

Over the past several decades, Canada has become increasingly ethnically and racially diverse and the Canadian Indigenous population has grown significantly, yet racialized and Indigenous peoples are underrepresented in major institutions. A significant body of research and scholarship on equity and diversity in higher education has documented the persistence of systemic barriers and implicit biases faced by members of equity seeking groups – women, racialized minorities, Aboriginal¹ peoples, and persons with disabilities (Carty 1991; Mukherjee 1994; Monture-Angus 1995, 1998; Razack 1998; Dua and Lawrence 2000; Prentice 2000; Dua 2009; Henry and Tator 2009; Smith 2010). Despite the expanding research on equity and higher education, analyses of racism, racialization, and Indigeneity in the academy are notable by their absence. No major scholarly body – whether representing universities, presidents, deans, or university teachers – has given priority to the implications of the cultural heterogeneity in higher education, and none has undertaken a study of the status and everyday lived experiences of racialized scholars and scholarship in the academy. Despite many efforts, which most often amount to no more than well-worded mission statements and cosmetic changes, inequality, indifference, and reliance on outmoded conservative traditions characterize the modern neoliberal university.

Using data from our recent nationwide study Race, Racialization and the University which foregrounds racism as a critical variable shaping peoples’ lives and experiences, we examine what universities have done, and question the effectiveness of their equity programs. We also set out the experiences of racialized faculty members across Canada for whom strong claims of equal opportunity have not really changed their everyday working conditions.

Methodology

We employed a multileveled and mixed methods approach – census data (statistical analysis using Public Use Micro Files as well as Research Data Center original data), surveys, interviews, textural, and policy analyses. Our methodology utilized the strength of qualitative and quantitative approaches. To gain an overall picture of the university faculty population as well as their earnings, a questionnaire survey administered in eight universities,² and interviews with 89 racialized and Indigenous faculty, equity directors, and administrators were conducted in 12 universities selected on the basis of size, region, and interest in the subject matter. Interviewees were secured through personal contacts and snowballing techniques increased our sample size. Interviews were guided by pre-constructed questions and conducted informally ensuring confidentiality. Faculty members were generally eager to speak of their experiences; for many, this was cathartic since they rarely discussed racism.

Going beyond a focus on numerical representation meant looking at everyday experiences with racism, the ways in which institutions create an understanding of equity, and the effectiveness of the mechanisms to address inequities. Therefore, we examine the multiple and interrelated ways in which racialization and racism take place by analyzing data on: (1) representation relating to hiring, tenure and promotion practices, and the attitudes and practices of administrators responsible for equity policy and practice; (2) institutional/organizational culture that generates barriers to access and equity; (3) mechanisms for inclusion, noting what universities have put in place to ensure inclusion; and (4) discourses in terms of the social construction of knowledge about equity, diversity, inclusion, and exclusion and how these have been used by the academy to inform its practices.

This study is the first national study to address the status of racialized and Indigenous scholars in Canadian universities. Until this point, the Canadian literature had focussed on either case studies of one university or experiential analyses written by Indigenous and racialized faculty. As important as these studies have been in highlighting patterns of racism, a national picture was missing and, in fact, no such study seemed to exist in the international context. We supplemented our national analysis with more detailed study of a sample of 12 Canadian universities which represents a diversity of regions and institutions. As a result of its scope, this study has gathered extensive data in order to make as accurate as possible an assessment of the position of racialized minorities within Canadian universities.

We encountered some difficulties in measuring representation of racialized and Indigenous faculty, mainly due to lack of disaggregated data. Inter- and intra-group differences with respect to gender or other markers of difference were impossible to assess (Jayakumar et al. 2009). The lack of data affected both the quality of research findings and the conclusions that can be made. Difficult as it was to obtain good data on those employed within academic institutions, the data presented here are as significant for those whom they do not describe as they are for those described. The issue is not simply one of obtaining more data, but of asking who is included and why (Dua and Bhanji 2012). Notwithstanding differences in the ways in which the academic work force is categorized, it cannot be denied that under-representation occurs, that women are less represented than men, and that there are significant differences in the numbers and the patterns of representation of different racialized groups. Under-representation points to obdurate barriers to access and participation of racialized and Indigenous academics.

The context

From the perspective of racialized and Indigenous faculty members, we examine whether institutions seem ready to accommodate not only their presence but also their scholarship, pedagogy, service inclinations, and cultural and social capital shaped by their communities. We ask, what life is like for racialized and Indigenous faculty members in universities shaped by neoliberal individualism, merit, competition, and entrepreneurship (Kurasawa 2002; Luther, Whitmore, and Moreau 2003; Mahtani 2004; Newson 2012; Thornton 2012; Griffin, Bennett, and Harris 2013; Giroux 2014; James and Valluvan 2014).

Drawing on qualitative data of the experiences and perceptions of racialized and Indigenous faculty, we use the prisms of critical race theory (CRT) and whiteness, employment equity, and neoliberalism to examine how the social, political, and cultural climates of their institutions have enabled or limited their role as agents of change, and what their presence has meant in helping to advance equity in their universities. Scholars suggest that the seeming shift over the last four decades toward more accessible and inclusive universities corresponds to the neoliberal shift in society as a whole – which has operated not only to demoralize faculty members, but also to obfuscate the university’s shared responsibility (Kurasawa 2002; Luther, Whitmore, and Moreau 2003; Ahmed 2012; Newson 2012; Thornton 2012; Giroux 2014). In a context in which the ideologies of neoliberalism and whiteness structure the articulation and evaluation of merit, democracy, and diversity (in both membership and scholarship), racialized and Indigenous faculty members tend to experience work situations where they have limited control over their working conditions, institutional barriers to their scholarly potential and productivity, and challenges to their professional judgements and entitlements – factors that are typically associated with a precarious work situation (see Braedley and Luxton 2010; Thomas 2010; Law Commission of Ontario 2012).

Disciplines and the departments or programs that host them often function as gateways to the academy. They may open doors but they may also put up walls and police boundaries in ways that limit access and change and, thereby, conserve the prevailing order. In order to advance equity, diversity, and complexity in the university, more attention needs to be focused on disciplines as a unit of analysis and the ways they reflect and represent historical and social realities such as diversity and decolonization. Canadian society is undergoing a fundamental demographic transformation. Despite decades of talking about equity, diversity, and inclusion in society and the academy, this demographic transformation is not reflected in the academy and the absence is especially notable in the composition of faculty and leadership, which remain overwhelming white and primarily male. The invisibility of broader representation of diversity also remains evident despite almost three decades of self-studies, which until recently have narrowly focused on the status of women. Where disciplinary diversity is evident, in hiring or teaching and research, it is primarily in the area of women, gender, and sexuality studies. This means Indigenous and racially and ethnically diverse students in many social science and humanities disciplines, in particular, never or rarely experience someone like themselves as university professors, mentors, and leaders, and as researchers and knowledge producers.

In proceeding, we discuss how the tenets of neoliberalism and whiteness structure how universities respond to perceived needs for equity programs. We first examine the policies that frame ‘equity’ and ‘representation,’ noting the results of those programs in terms of measurable aspects, that is: increases/decreases in representation, and variation in salaries. We then address the precariousness of racialized and Indigenous faculty members’ work situation using their own assessments from surveys and in-depth interviews. We discuss their perceptions of and experiences in terms of how they are positioned in the university, and the extent to which the climate in which they work opens up or limits scholarly research, teaching, and service opportunities. Finally, we address the process of racialization itself, examining the ways in which everyday events in the university create racial difference and oppression. Three main concepts underlie our research: CRT and whiteness, employment equity, and neoliberalism.

CRT and whiteness

The project is informed by CRT (Crenshaw et al. 1995; Delgado and Stefancic 2012), including whiteness studies and intersectional thinking. Bell (1980) stressed that the systemic oppression of African Americans, and by extension Black and racialized people in many areas of the world, cannot be understood without reference to how capitalism, the free market economy, the political status quo, and other conservative institutions maintain white privilege. Institutions of white privilege must be acknowledged if the rights and interests of non-whites are to be fully recognized.

CRT scholars deconstruct the assumptions that, when posited as ‘universal,’ form the foundation for white privilege and power. CRT challenges antidiscrimination policies that do not take into account the linkages between race, class, and gender, which structure the everyday racialized experiences of Indigenous and racialized people as they engage with sectors and systems such as education and the media (Williams 1992; Ladson-Billings 1998; Dua and Lawrence 2000; Monture 2010). It also emphasizes the role that narrative and storytelling play in analyzing the nature, dynamics, and impact of racism. Victims’ stories help us to understand feelings, perceptions and experiences, interpret myths and misconceptions, deconstruct beliefs and common-sense understandings of race, and unpack the ahistorical and often decontextualized nature of law and other ‘science’ that renders mute the voices of the marginalized group members. The role of ‘voice’ is central to a critical race approach (Henry and Tator 2009; Smith 2010).

Whiteness Studies is closely aligned to CRT. It focuses on how white skin confers privilege systemically and structurally while excluding racialized people from the benefits of society. The category ‘white’ is socially constructed, and operates in relation to ‘whiteness,’ which ‘refers to a set of assumptions, beliefs, and practices that place the interests and perspectives of white people at the center of what is considered normal and everyday’ (Gillborn 2015, 278). Both whiteness and blackness are racialized. Whiteness studies racialize the white race and uncovers the ways in which white privilege is unconsciously acquired and exercised. White privilege is transnational and comes from the history of European imperial and colonial expansion and its continuing legacies globally. Some of the commonly held discourses labeled ‘discourses of domination’ by Henry and Tator (2009) include the myth of color-blindness, in which people are assumed not to recognize skin color as a racial differentiating trait in making decisions. Gotanda (1991; cited in Vaught 2011) criticizes the assumption that people do not ‘recognize’ constructs of race in making decisions and argues that such non-recognition ‘fosters the systematic denial of racial subordination and the psychological repression of an individual’s recognition of that subordination, thereby allowing such subordination to continue.’ In other words, non-recognition of race permits the continued opacity of white privilege and domination.

Another analytical concept that has relevance to the present study is ‘intersectionality,’ as there are many forms of inequality that interact with one another, and individuals and groups have multiple, interacting identities. Race intersects with gender, class, disability, and other social and demographic characteristics to shape social and economic experiences. The concept, originally proposed by legal scholar Crenshaw (2002), is one that ‘goes beyond conventional analysis in order to focus our attention on injuries we might otherwise not recognize ... to (1) analyze social problems more fully; (2) shape more effective interventions; and (3) promote more inclusive coalitional advocacy.’ In our research, we gave attention to gender and its intersectional relationship with differences in income, ethnicity, and daily lived experiences in the lives of racialized faculty. With respect to social class, Solomos has recently reiterated that class hierarchy is still fairly evident in the United Kingdom. The persistence of inequalities is primarily a function of the failure of the state to ease the erosion of the working class (BSC Conference 2015). Class and increasingly immigration have become substitutes for what he calls ‘color coded’ racism. These factors underlie the role of racism and become the major focus of government intervention.³

Along with other critical race scholars, we see that intersectionality has both an empirical and an activist component. It is a tool for analyzing related forms of oppression which aims to resist and challenge the status quo’s denial of equality. Yet it has become a mantra in some social science literature to the extent that single variable analysis is criticized for ignoring or paying less attention to multiple forms of oppression (Gillborn 2015). One of the founders of CRT, Richard Delgado, recently noted that intersectionality can be taken to such extremes that it becomes paralyzing, ‘because of the realization that whatever unit you choose to work with, someone may come along and point out that you forgot something’ (cited in Gillborn 2015, 279)

Gillborn (2015, 277) notes that

any attempt to place race and racism on the agenda, let alone at the center of debate, is deeply unpopular. In the academy, we are often told that we are being too crude and simplistic, that things are more complicated than that, that we’re being essentialist and missing the real problem – of social class.

While it is fruitless to contest the role of social class in any analysis, we need to guard against subsuming race and racism within a class analysis since the attitudes, perceptions, and stereotypes that underpin racism can be found at any class level. Indeed, we recognize that subtle and elusive forms of ‘othering,’ leading to discrimination and marginalization, are the twenty-first Century’s primary form of racism in many institutions and societies. This racism pervades all social institutions and social classes therefore focusing on racism in universities makes good empirical sense. Despite increasing diversity, including students who come fr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• 1. Race, Racialization and Indigeneity in Canadian Universities
• 2. What Style of Leadership is Best Suited to Direct Organizational Change to Fuel Institutional Diversity in Higher Education?
• 3. Building the Anti-Racist University, Action and New Agendas
• 4. Addressing Dualisms in Student Perceptions of a Historically White and Black University in South Africa
• 5. Higher Education, De-Centred Subjectivities and the Emergence of a Pedagogical Self Among Black and Muslim Students
• 6. Affirmative Action in Brazil and Building an Anti-Racist University
• 7. The Challenge of Creating a More Diverse Economics: Lessons from the UCR Minority Pipeline Project
• 8. Dealing with Difficult Conversations: Anti-Racism in Youth & Community Work Training
• 9. From Liverpool to New York City: Behind the Veil of a Black British Male Scholar inside Higher Education
• Index