 My name is Rita Chin and I am one of the associate deans at Rackham and I have the privilege of leading our faculty allies program. So our third workshop is really seeking to help all of us think about how to engage in racialized change in our graduate programs and in the academy more generally. And I'm really pleased that we have a very interesting speaker to help us think about this kind of racialized change work in Heather McCambley, who is an assistant professor of critical higher education policy at the University of Pittsburgh. She uses qualitative and quantitative methods to study the role of organizations in reproducing or producing systemic racial inequalities. And she does this work with a commitment to producing knowledge that can help us collectively build alternative pathways to just futures for underrepresented students and institutions. So her various lines of work include racial justice centered research on critical quantitative method methodologies faculty hiring post federal post secondary policy and politics and private philanthropy. So I'm really pleased to be able to welcome Heather to Rackham virtually today. And, you know, thank you for for being here and for sharing your work and your expertise with us. Thanks so much Rita and thank you also to Kristen for all of her work and helping to make this event happen. And to other folks at Rackham for welcoming me here I'm so happy to be in community with you all. So let me go ahead and get my screen sharing going when we like here. All right. She says loading. I don't want that. So I'm getting my technology which was working a minute ago to work the way I wanted to. As Rita said, I am an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh. I have been doing work in higher education thinking about issues of racial equity since I think before I even finished undergrad but then I also did spend 10 years. Working in at the institution level doing racial diversity and equity work starting in Oregon going to the state level and have worked at a number of federal and national initiatives over time all before I decided that I was a little bit stuck around. Why with all of the racial equity initiatives that we're doing does it seem that everything is more the same than not and so I kind of went back to graduate school with questions in my mind about what makes change work what makes change stick. And that's kind of the driving force underlying my work. And it's a really interesting time right to be thinking about that particular topic it's an interesting climate to come together as allies for racial justice or equity whatever language we may use. My mind when I work in higher education is both ubiquitous and highly contested, and perhaps more contested than it has been in the last 50 years. So I want to also just acknowledge that even as we face kind of incredible challenges we're really working and dedicated to more just futures in the academy. And we have to continue to envision how do we expand and reckon with the futures we want and we would imagine. And poverty affected students and otherwise minoritize people's in our places in spaces. So something that I'd like to do is just to kind of be in community for a moment and get a sense of all of your voices without necessarily having time to talk kind of one on one. I want to have you participate in a waterfall activity I don't know if you've ever done one of those on zoom. So make pull up your chat box for me really quick. And we're going to do two brief waterfalls and what that means is I'm going to give you a prompt or a question. And I want you to type up your response. But don't hit enter until I give the go ahead and it's kind of a nice way to see all at once our commonalities differences across the group in terms of responses. And so feel free to be candid. So the first question I want to ask this group, just to get us warmed up is type in a word or phrase that describes the first thing that comes to mind when you see a new DEI initiative announced. Okay, everybody. Few seconds. Oh, it's okay is that it always happens to at least one person right. All right, so I'll count down from five a word or phrase comes to mind when you see a new DEI initiative. 4321 and waterfall cautiously optimistic. Excitement what is this one exasperation hopeful ish. Good opportunity for mentee service curiosity. Is this one going to work. Yep. So I think this is a nice capture of kind of a range of responses we can have and I hear this a lot and as I said it kind of drives one area of my work which is even in excitement, kind of noticing. Is this one going to work is this one going to stick the exasperation can often come from another one but did we finish the last one. Did the last one stick around right, and that type of questioning. Those thoughts and words for our second one I want you to think about a current initiative or goal. It can be in your department, your school just for you within your lab, but something that you care about as a faculty ally. So again, type, type it up. Hold it for a few seconds. I'll let you know when to go. A DEI initiatives that you care about right now as a faculty ally. All right, Stephen you'll kick us off so for three, two, one, go. All right, see grad students, visibility, diversifying our faculty racially recruitment mentorship training hiring read is all about our this this ally group. This is a doctorate program faculty diversity, reaching out reaching out to LGBTQIA students community building. Beautiful. Okay, so that is that gets us started. Let's see, because I want you to now take that area that you're thinking about caring about right now and just take a moment to make sure that you're holding in your mind as I go through this presentation about this particular initiative or goal, kind of what it is, what you see as the goals, who is or needs to be involved. And how you know how you're going to know if it's successful. And those questions will be up on the screen in just a moment. So come back to your individual example at the end and my hope is that this holding this in your mind will increase your opportunity as I walk through the framework that I'm going to share with you today to draw some connections about what these things I've been talking about and helping other people apply out in the world. What, what, you know, one or two things could you grab from it and apply, you know, to this project or initiative that you really care about. So we'll come back to that at the end and try to formulate some takeaways. So with that, feel free to keep taking any notes down to yourself that you want to, but in the interest of time I'll go ahead and keep going so thank you for what you shared so far and as you all know presenting while you're on zoom it can be hard to see the chat, but I welcome you to chat with each other dropping comments. And if anybody wants to unmute and just pause to ask a question I will I would welcome that. And we'll try to, you know, sometimes it's hard to hear over yourself talking but I'll be paying attention. So a quick overview of the time that we have together. So I'm going to give you an overview of a framework I've developed and applied focused on how we create meaningful rather than performative change with regard to racial equity in our work. So when we think of similar things when we think of kind of other minoritized identities, and hopefully you'll you'll kind of see why as we go through why I would say that. As I go I'm going to offer exemplars to ground the ideas in practice relevant the level of departments of programs, and I'm happy to take questions as I go. I'm going to move to small group workshopping time right at the near the end and come back to kind of close out and collect our distributed wisdom and ways to move forward. So by way of an introduction to this work. I really designed my research program around the underlying question by what mechanisms does racial injustice or white supremacy as a structured set of processes and outcomes that reproduced over time. What mechanisms are those processes weekend or replaced. So there's abundant empirical evidence locating higher education policies and organizations as sites that routinely reproduce racial inequities across different levels. For example, undergraduate experiences faculty hiring which we've heard about graduate admissions which we've heard about, or even all the way to you know state funding formulas. In a context flush with the projects, but frustratingly little measurable change researchers and practitioners alike are often need to ask, how can we design for and differentiate between DEI work that erodes racialization and organizations and policy and DEI work that kind of acts as a window dressing on the status quo. So put another way, we all know at this point the equity initiatives in higher ed are and have been under varied names kind of plentiful, and yet we also sometimes bring a healthy dose of skepticism of their likely success, born out of years of seeing only one of many such initiatives produce the results we might want. So we word this focus on hope, rather than skepticism, right, we can ask what do we know about the conditions that make equitable change as systemic as the causes of educational inequity. So one of the foundational frameworks I build on for asking and answering these questions is an aligned with Victor raised theory of racialized organizations, he's a sociologist. We can identify higher education as a collection of racialized organizations. What does that mean. So in this theory, it's organizations rather than individual acts of bias that routinely privilege one racial group over another. We can identify such organizations by looking at the normed and accepted ways that they deliver unequal resources and privilege to dominant groups, and the way that that's institution that institutionalized outcome, you know is is there and and the core tenants of this theory or as I think about them modes of reproduction, right routinely create inequities so in this theory and we won't stick in this jargon very long we're going to really move over to thinking about practice but the differentiation between white and non white organizations processes is one way that we kind of legitimate unequal resource distribution so think about the fact that MSIs and HBC use right are labeled and distinguished in particular ways from normative organizations which we could also think of as white organizations and the ways that they are differentially treated kind of in the ecology of higher ed. So we can see that whiteness is used as a credential or call towards legitimacy in various processes. And we'll tap on some examples of that shortly. And the racialized decoupling of formal rules in ways that benefit white groups at the expense of minoritized communities. The framework is a useful lens for coming to spot and understand how racial equity is so persistent. It's not necessarily intended to help us find our way out of those conditions. So to find our way toward more equitable kind of organizing and practice, we have to think and identify what are the practices, the beliefs that we hold the routine that we enact. And we have to think about those practices which automatically that consistently reproduce these inequities that we notice without intervention. Right. So by intervention I mean no one has to go out of their way or express bias beliefs for this process of inequity to continue. So I'll give you an example that I think about often. There was a great deal of attention lately and think it was a write up in science, the New York Times, other places about how racially inequitable the distribution of NSF and NIH grants are in terms of the types of institutions and the types of PIs that receive funding. And we all on this, this call know that has huge implications for what types of labs are funded and well resourced who gets trained, etc. Certainly NSF reviewers which many of us are or have been are not routinely looking at the race of the PIs, or the racialized categorization of the organizations that these PIs are located in, and making decisions from a place of individual racial animus right, but this is often how we are taught to think about racism. Instead, there are routine practices norms and criteria that maintain these racialized outcomes. For example, PIs institutions with more robust infrastructure in terms of lab equipment grant support and baseline graduate student funding are far more likely to have this space and capacity to put forward grant proposals that are both feasible and competitive under current NSF and NIH standards. This type of infrastructure is also concentrated at predominantly white and wealthy institutions, which is how we kind of get into an ongoing cycle of an equitable distribution, even if reviewers and the funding agencies have the best of intentions. So I'll discuss more of these modes of reproduction and examples throughout my description of the framework. But I wonder if you can notice for a moment, what is the mode of reproduction that the DEI initiative that you care about or that you're thinking about. What's that the mode of reproduction kind of driving that inequity that's been on your mind. What is it the initiative is trying to target and how clear does that feel to you, but also how clear do you feel that is to others. So in my work, I use the phrase or construct racialized change work to try to discuss and empirically describe projects that are best aligned to target and then weaken or eliminate these types of racialized modes of reproduction. So by definition, racialized change work refers to purposive action that organizations take to build new equitable organizational arrangements or tear down old inequitable ones. So more specifically, racialized change work is the focused attention on dismantling racialized organizations and the routines within them that magnify the agency of dominant groups at the expense of minorities groups. So specifically, our CW helps us think about three primary components of change. And again, I'm not asking you to read all this, just kind of a reference point. So as a construct, it helps us kind of think about the conditions under which racialized change work is likely to be initiated. How attempts at racialized change work either maintain or weaken racialization and the mechanisms by which this work has material and lasting impacts. So for example, in a recent piece from Liada and Hernandez in the review of higher education. We saw a really interesting vivid example of racialized organizational practice in routines involving faculty hiring processes. So for example, the routine scrutiny placed on candidates of color based on skepticism of the relative quality of their PhD institutions, or the rigor of their research and the application of activist labels to candidates of color that discredited their scholarly contributions. So racialized change work in this domain then might look like strategic action to permanently invalidate these types of routines and introduce new ones in their place. So I'll now break down while offering exemplars the three components of RCW, how it spreads, how it sticks, and how it has impact as tools for you to think in new ways, I hope about your own work. So first, we can ask under what conditions is racialized change work most likely to be initiated. So this first category is based on extensive research about where deep intentional institutional change tends to come from, which indicates the actors who have direct experience with the contradictions of an inequitable status quo will notice and act on the need for change. So the key point here is about connections, which can and does take many measurable forms so you know it is often about representation, right representation and faculty among students among staff. Right, it can take the form of other means of connectedness and accountability to however. So when we think about who will be accountable to and on a regular basis, kind of in communication with that could surface contradictions in our practice that we don't see right ways that inequity is being operationalized and routinely carried out that might not be obvious right without that meaningful representation and types of connections. And it's also about depths of connection right so having representation on a committee right having tokenizing right somebody who has a particular, you know typical presentation doesn't mean that folks in our departments with minor kinds experiences or identities have equitable power and voice. Right, so there's representation but there's also depth. So we can think about faculty hiring committees as a prime example. We know from extensive research that networks criteria and in group thinking have led faculty hiring as a process to be highly reproductive right we're recreating what's already in place in in many cases. So if we think about this tenant that deeper connections to minoritized communities will create more opportunities for racialized change work. Then we can enumerate multiple ways that such connections could be built in to the organization of our work. So certainly representation or membership within the committee. This often is the go to, and sometimes it's used as a cure all type of solution, but for many reasons it's insufficient on its own. So deeper connection can also mean power and connections in process. So who has formal power to question criteria and routines. How are opportunities to hear from minoritized communities about the process and criteria built into the work. And of course connections can also ask, who are we accountable to, and for what with regard to our processes with regard to our outcomes. So from this perspective, while we typically think about the endpoint, right outcomes as our only kind of outcome which would be the demographics of faculty hires. But also think about measuring qualitatively and quantitatively organizational shifts along the way that we can racialization in terms of measures and representations engagement with routines that create power among minoritized groups and engagement with routine communications or accountability to and with minoritized groups within our communities. So starting to design markers for racialized change projects that will de institutionalize and equitable systems and processes. Right, we need to understand under what conditions mechanisms of racialization are weekend. How would we know. So first, drawing from a research base kind of at the intersection of race and sociology and organizational change. We found that given the routine and race evasive ways that an equity is reproduced in the academy. So explicitly anti racist campaigns or commitments, that is initiatives that explicitly target racialized outcomes and processes, rather than a rising ties lift all boats approach is more effective into pursuit of racially just outcomes. So taking a race conscious approach is important and valuable in the initiation of a racialized change work project right, because this, the, the way that racism currently operates in organizations. As I kind of referred to at the beginning is not a matter of individual open racial animus it's a matter of routine, right and often completely race evasive routine that nonetheless creates racialized outcomes. So one and anti racist, rather than raise neutral project. And second, we have to be willing to act on these commitments, which sounds, this might sound self evidence self evident is of course, however, for many in the academy, the status quo, we've been socialized in ways it's long been naturalized. So that is, that's the nature of hegemony, right and that's the kind of environment that we work in. We take for granted values and criteria of things like fairness or excellence or best practice as universally self evident. But what about when those universal goods aren't so universally good for all. And what if they perpetuate racialized outcomes. They crop up, for example, in the backlash many equity initiatives face regarding fears that they will quote lower quality standards, right. So this comes up around issues of admissions this has come up a lot around affirmative action. And we have to ask then are these standards objectively about quality, or are these standards sometimes about maintaining the status quo. So put this into action. We see this type of tension come up often in initiatives like broadening participation in stem. So here I'm using the stem or NSF kind of term of art broadening participation specifically. We currently do admissions produces routinely racialized outcomes and is often considered in isolation. So, for example, when we talk about increasing the admission of graduate students of color. We often get caught up on the application pools being too small. At the same time we rarely in the same conversation, think about things like our undergraduate pedagogy and what it would take to shift pedagogy in ways that systemically changes the pipeline we're faced with every year when we go into the graduate student admissions process. So in terms of change in the present. This also requires reevaluating our decision making criteria. And this is where we inevitably inevitably bump up against racialized conceptions of excellence or appropriate preparation. Right so starting from this anti racist stance. Right, years and years of work, just within the NSF on broadening participation has demonstrated that a race neutral approach does not close what we often refer to as equity gaps right we can increase certain types of participation overall right and increase participation and stem. But when we don't target mechanisms racialization, the gap between Latin and just indigenous and black students when compared to other groups which is not my favorite way to do things but it's an option. Most typically stays the same and sometimes gets worse. So if we commit to that anti racist kind of lens on the work. And we also have to reevaluate what our criteria or conceptions are that guide how we make admissions decisions, which is often extremely uncomfortable. So again going to measures what does it look like to find to understand change of course our endpoint measure enrollment numbers looking at the demographics of our enrollments. But this is also a much broader overhaul right over time that requires specific anti racist commitments that are vertically adopted. So by that I mean, it's not only at the point of admissions in a given year, but a review of like I had referred to before undergrad undergraduate pedagogy but also outreach graduate advising pedagogical design in graduate programs and support services. And as well as material and permanent changes to our decision making criteria that produce racialized results. So while we could initiate kind of a temporary program that could do a whole, a whole lot of kind of recruitment, bring a more diverse pool in a given year. It, a systemic kind of racialized change. Well, well, very likely require not only a permanent change in our current admissions kind of criteria and decision making, but also forethought about what it means. So that's one of the reasons of how we train undergraduates as part of this ecosystem of creating graduate students, and also the what types of supports and community, the graduate students we admit need and deserve. So if we're targeting a diverse student body. What does it look like to also target a healthy, a healthy and well supported graduate student body. And that brings me to kind of our final question and set of tenants that we have to ask. So if we have taken up and designed a meaningful change initiative. How do we make sure that it actually has the desired impact. So what if it just becomes a policy on the books, but not in practice, right, which we see fairly often. Just research indicates that the way actors make sense of the need for new approaches or policies dictates whether and to what extent changes are enacted. So in other words, folks need to believe that the changes either or both important or unavoidable. And when it comes to issues of anti racism, as we have seen backlash and a sense of not belonging in anti racist work can really get in the way of progress. So we can expect kind of meaningful implementation when intentional sense giving occurs in an organization that helps folks across the organization feel a sense of responsibility and agency in this work. Right, so this can't just be someone else's job. It can't be ceremonial. So in one of some of my ongoing research looking across a number of higher education organizations that have launched particular types of racial equity initiatives. One of the big differentiating differentiating factors that I've seen between organizations have made significant progress in the shift of their organizational culture. And those have been kind of treading water. Is this experience of feeling this, I don't know if this will sound easily accessible but feeling enrolled in the work. So the organizations that have made the most progress have had a lot of meaning making occur among participants to find, even for folks who are brand new to thinking about racial equity and who, you know, hold white or white appearing identities to feel enrolled and included as actors who have a job to do within the larger organization. So in organizations and departments in context where folks really see the enactment of the work as the job of either one identified, let's say, chief diversity officer, or director of diversity within a school, or who see anti racist work as being honestly the work of the people of color in the department, which happens, feeling like that, you know, I don't know I don't have the expertise I'm just going to stay out of it. Those are the places where, even when formal policies might be adopted that show promise for advancing kind of equity in a space. It can really kind of get stalled out because there's no distributed leadership and distributed sense of care and responsibility. So, second, there is a lot of rhetoric out there about data driven decision making in higher education, right, data driven decision making will be the key to all kinds of things. And one of those tends to include racial equity so there's been a big drive in higher education over the last decade plus to use data in new ways and specifically disaggregated data to understand and target racial inequities. However, I'm sure you've heard and probably said this right, they don't drive on their own and data can be used for many purposes and many directions. So, for example, in my work in the work of others, we've seen you know a college that decides it's going to make changes to increase its four year graduation rates in a major for students of color specifically and for kind of the community respectively, they might take this idea of being data driven and look at disaggregated data about student outcomes by various identity groups. They might even, you know, create large kind of community listening sessions using disaggregated data to try to target change in a department or school. Data showing inequities can be used right in many ways, including to argue a case for less access to college to avoid the quote unquote high risk students. So these are, you know, these are ways of thinking about what disaggregated data show us that come up all the time in racial equity change initiatives. Or, of course data could be used to make a case for institutional change or pedagogical change in key courses. Right so it can really go either way it can reify existing negative stereotypes about students and guide us to make decisions in that way. Or it can push us to reflect differently on internal organizational practices and make changes that we might not have otherwise. So into this end, the outcome here will look like a shift in material resources which can mean dollars, voice agency to make decisions among and to minoritize communities, and I'll speak to this in the context of the next example. So let's say, for instance, we are a math department, looking at our student outcomes and noticing a significant failure to serve Latin and indigenous students to completion, and in particular, early courses in the program. So what would it take to achieve that change what would it take to introduce something like culturally responsive pedagogy. So first, an equity first mentality across decision makers and faculty. Right, it would be easy to use data to reason that students should just receive remediation before they're allowed into a major. Because that effectively do this creates increased burden and decreases resources and agency among minoritized students. Right, so we know that cool that cooling out occurs when we move one group of students into a remediation sequence, rather than admitting them directly into a particular and desired program. So the first mindset is going to use an equitable outcomes to not only identify change, because that would be a form of change, but identify change that does not create new pockets of an equity. In this case, a form of tracking. This might mean significant pedagogical and support change in key courses, which would avoid the elongation of pathways and expense, right, but that costs students money. And that's for students associated with remediation focus solutions. And again, this means routinely using resources, even when limited because they always are to remedy systemic inequities, rather than focusing on changing the student. Right, so in this instance thinking about advancing culturally responsive responsive pedagogy in the classroom, rather than, you know, moving to remediation or just not changing. The measure that we always go to would be college completion, right. But we have a lot of steps along the way to get to moving the needle, as we always say, on college completion as an outcome and it's useful here as in the other cases to think about what are milestones we can think about along the way. Right, so, as I alluded to before, you know, a distributed sense of responsibility for equitable outcomes. Even like culturally responsive pedagogy would require a lot of faculty, a lot of staff, many actors to take equitable responsibility for a change, right. It's really different than introducing, you know, a new parking lot for remediation for students, which could be somebody else's job. It's not going to work with something like introducing a more responsive pedagogy into a number of key courses. We also have, you know, learn and apply the use of evidence to change institutions that students. We also think about how initiatives like this would shift resources, even when limited to minoritized communities. Okay, so in just a few moments, I want to pause and have some time for just open Q&A to clarify anything that came up. And then we will move into, I want to transition us after that into small groups just to think through the initiative that you have been holding in mind. But first, I do want to speak to something to look out for or be attuned to in this work. So talking about racialized change work, right, the goal of it is to tear down racialized, a racialized mode of reproduction or more than one. But it's not always a one directional process. And we actually see patterns where with one kind of mode of reproduction is torn down or weakened. A new one often crops up in its place, right, so race and racism are often fluid like that. And in the example I just gave, right, moving students into remedial programming has often for the purpose of increasing access is a really common type of mechanism. Where we really have now we're maybe admitting more students of color, right, we have a new type of pathway so that's great we have weekend one mode of reproduction which is complete lack of access, but we also created a new way of racializing and cooling out the educational process for some students more than others. This happens to in faculty hiring. So think, for example, of the many kind of race and equity cluster hires that have occurred in recent years, especially since 2020. Okay, great. We're diversifying the Academy, but what happens after folks are hired. Are they facing extra racialized labor within their department. Are they equitably supported through tenure. Are there commitments to justice, which we valued in their scholarship enough to have a cluster hire, for example, equally valued in the tenure process. One thing that's, you know, sneaky and insidious and definitely happening is our folks treated by colleagues as being lesser, because they're because they're perceived as a diversity hire. And of course, as I started this presentation with or if you're in Florida is the work you do now outlawed. We're not right now in this space in that context, but it is something to kind of think through, which is it's helpful to keep in mind the way that racialization is fluid and can shift from one mechanism to another. And so the ways that we kind of work in groups to, you know, we can racialization just keeping an eye on. Is there unintentionally kind of a new mode of reproduction we're putting into place. And that can happen intentionally and unintentionally, depending on the context, and it's useful to surface here. So with, I want to just pause I'm going to stop the share for a moment so I can see everybody. So before we move into some small groups and I'll give a prompt for that before we go anywhere. And I would be great just to check in and see via chat, or just unmute yourself out loud if there's any questions, confusions that I can speak to, before we have time to have some discussion. I think twice a hand sorry. So, I had a question about how your idea of moving from it, race neutral to anti racist might fit in the context of imposter syndrome. So the reason this comes up is for the past four or five years I teach at the law school, and a lot of my law students have now adopted the vocabulary of imposter syndrome, but there was a nice article in the Harvard business review a couple of years ago and then recently sort of mentioned in the New Yorker about how talking about imposter syndrome puts the onus particularly for women of color on themselves, and not at the system. And I wondered how you might guide me, or the rest of us in dealing with imposter syndrome or counseling folks who are working through it. Is it a helpful label. Is it just reproduce the racialized modes of production that you're talking about. How do we navigate that balance. Patrick that's such a good question that I hadn't thought about in that way. So thank you for bringing that up I think it's a really powerful example because it's. It's almost become a really nice kind of colloquial way that folks have picked up to take a systemic noticing which is there's groups of folks who don't feel like they belong. Right, let's just put it that's a simple way right they don't feel like they belong. And we're going to just really focus and think about the fact. What what it feels like and how it's enacted kind of bodily to be like oh I don't belong in this space. People are going to find me out that type of thing right. But what you're pointing out and I believe if I remember the New Yorker article is pointing out if not this New Yorker article it was maybe a response to it. Is that what's being experienced is actually not a syndrome it's a very real reaction to either a lifelong set of experiences or an institutional set of experiences that has delivered message after message that you in fact don't belong. And so one thing that in posture syndrome, because of the word syndrome, it's actually pathologizing something that's a very real and lucid reaction to messaging that we've received. So in terms of how do we think about systemic responses. I don't want to think about how is that showing up. So I would say thinking about in the case of imposter syndrome almost one of the most of reproduction we could play with right like in a small discussion would be where are where is it talked about where where is their silence right so thinking about what are the opportunities and mentorship relationships and, you know, classroom experiences that sort of thing to actually give voice, right to this idea that a lot of people are talking about this imposter syndrome. Here's a reframing right and then here's what we're what we're doing about it here's how we're asserting who belongs here and normalizing rather than pathologizing right that you feel this way. So it's something I want to think about of how do we embed that systemically but I think the flip of are we focusing on how somebody has doesn't have enough confidence because they feel like an imposter and we should tell them to be more confident, as opposed to really thinking like in our institution to convey that we understand that folks are coming for example I teach statistics let me give in in our school of education I teach statistics for quantitative research. I get a lot of students who come in with what we call some of us call math trauma. Right so I get a lot of women of color who come in who I mean their visceral reaction to like you have to be in the stats class to get your PhD is like all over their face and body when I first meet them. Right. And so I mean, I so I call attention to this thing I call math trauma. I personally share store a story about that experience that's not something everybody can do but it's a you know something I do. And then I actually speak to the series of experiences we know from researching exists that has led you to feel like you are math phobic because I will hear that oh no and you know I have this math phobia I'm terrible at it. And it is a patterned response right to a socialization process that everybody's been through. So, our first day conversation about I do I've done a waterfall activity. Describe your relationship to math today and I'll have people say the funniest things like oh we used to I used to hate it but now she and I kick it I've had other students say things. Like I run the other way as fast as I can and kind of normalizing a conversation of it's a relationship with math that you've had for a long time. And then normalizing anybody can become strong in the use of statistics right in this class here's how you know here's how we're going to normalize that if you get a first bad exam it doesn't mean that you're bad at statistics. Here's what it does mean right and really trying to structure out how in this particular classroom environment like we're rejecting the bad at math label, and we're thinking about it developmentally, and how we're going to improve along the way. That's one example of how I try to take it on in my space but I think it takes a lot of. Thank you, David for throwing another resource in here, I'm going to, and I see the quotes around imposter syndrome I think that's probably how I would type it to. So I think that's useful, but hopefully that gives you something to think to talk about a bit more but I think it's an excellent example of kind of flipping the script. Thank you and I think the, the language is a good place to focus the creators of the term in the original paper prefer imposter phenomenon or imposter feelings. So it's a disease that you brought on yourself it's more of the environment to your end. Yeah. Yeah, so it's a realistic response to pattern events. Any other questions comments. Before we move into small groups. Okay. So I believe Kristen's going to help out before we go. Sorry, I got excited about that question. Forgot to tell you what we're doing one second here. Okay. So in these. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. If I could, the article that I just sent addresses precisely what you were just speaking about it suggests that blame is effectively adopted by individuals and constitute groups adopted from the system it's installed in this system. And Mark Fisher relates it to really deeply in grown class issues. It's a very powerful article. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing that I'm going to grab that while, or I'll grab the link while you all are in small groups. And also glad to hear that this discussion aligned with it. I was able also to relate to it quick personal. Awesome. Thank you David for sharing that. Anybody else before I don't want to cut anybody off. Alright, so I have up on the screen what I'm hoping you can speak about in small groups. Before we actually go into the small groups I'm going to drop it into the chat that way it stays with you when you go into your separate rooms. I'd like you to share kind of the initial a little bit more information about that initial programmer policy you had in mind and how you were thinking about measuring its success. If there are any new ways, any ideas that struck you thinking about what it would take to advance the work, other ways you could think about kind of interim measures or steps to achieve the goal. And then there are some questions or concerns that are coming up for you and then just a chance to offer feedback and ideas about how you might shift or reimagine initiatives to bring about racialized change. And something again I'll drop this in the chat so you have it that I would love for you to do is I've created a padlet. And I'll look at how many groups we have at the end, but you can look at your group number and in this padlet they'll I already have some group numbers set up. So as you think about insights, new ideas, if you wouldn't mind just hitting respond on your kind of your group padlet box that you'll see. So we can kind of collect some insights across the groups to bring back. And if they're useful then we also have a place where they live there after. So I'm going to leave the screen for a moment so that I can actually grab this text and put it into the chat so that it goes with you. And then Kristen is going to send us into small groups and we will go for about 20 minutes. I'll check in with a few groups and we'll call you back earlier if you're wrapping up sooner so we can have a kind of large group closing. We'll set it as an image, but it looks like it's openable, you can open that, and then I will put this link here to the padlet. And sorry Heather did you say 20 minutes. Yeah, 20 minutes. I'll do a broadcast if I hop in and notice folks rather early sounds good. Maybe a hyper individualistic industry or area being in academia. So, I don't want to answer too broadly but one of the things, you know, if we were let's say if we're in a small working group thinking about a particular area of practice that we want to transform and we're thinking about in this particular way. There, we probably want to try to identify right if we think about X issue is being reproduced kind of automatically the XYZ routine, and usually part of this routine is that depending on who you get on this committee in this group. There's going to be wildly variable outcomes because if you happen to have two of our big instructors in the department, you know that, you know, this isn't going to go down in an equitable or transformative way. If you happen to get a group that's all on board and ready to make some certain types of changes right. So that's where we think about this like decoupling of, if it's all up to the luck of the draw of who participates then we are often going to have inconsistent results. So, at that point we'd be thinking about how do we set up checks and balances or processes, not that would say okay XYZ person can't participate, but how do we introduce certain types of routines that we that we think could help balance that out on an automatic level so it's not going to eliminate that's not the world we live in, but thinking about and sometimes you know, thinking about best examples on the spot, but one example that will often come up again. In either admissions or hiring processes will be particular checkpoints where there's certain types of data that we check in with right we review for just something very simple this is not transformative but we just go from our full candidate pool to our finalist pool in a way that you know at least our, our finalist pool is representative kind of racially of our candidate pool and that's something we have committed. That's what we're going to do we're going to check it, and we're going to revisit if needed. Again, this isn't the most kind of transformative routine, but if that is routine for every committee who does a particular type of hiring or admissions process, then it's not up to, you know, XYZ person to be like hey I don't think the pool is as diverse as it could be given who we had to choose from. It's, oh no this is the next step that we fulfill, and maybe we have one person assigned right who has the power to stop the group and say we haven't done that step every single time. There's much more like we can go a little deeper and push further with the example, but just thinking about what are those ways we build in routine structures that everyone just does we normalize it. It's not up for debate, it just becomes part of the way this is done in the department works. Right. And those are kind of those are the types of checks we can start to introduce and normalize and routinize. So that even the worst composition of a group in terms of interest and racial equity still has a higher floor than they would have. Does that make sense. Yeah, so that's how I would think about it and approach it kind of in a small working group. Thank you for that question. I think that's the instructors. It's a real tension. Other thoughts are problem solving or even just positive ideas that came out of your talk with your colleagues. Time has come for violent revolution. Sounds good to me playing of course, but the system continues to reproduce itself. Yeah. And there is such like there's such a massive capacity to do that. The policies are so broad and so spread over so many different institutions that any step forward feels nominal at best, and in a department such as his mind art history. There are long historical roots and discipline and extending out of issues related to class class interests. And that that tends to reproduce itself in various discourses within this department itself. And that's where we're changed could have compelled changes could have. I find that disturbing. I mean, I think that's what got me into this work. In fact, I started as an art history undergrad a billion years ago. And I loved it. I wanted to get my PhD in it. And there were certain things that made me feel like a student like me couldn't do that. And that is quite literally what launched me into wanting to pursue this type of line of work was disabled. But they say, you know, all these diversity things these initiatives they say they want folks like, you know, like other people. But it doesn't seem to be sticking so I do agree it is overwhelming on many days. But finding those small, you know, the best. We don't want to just demand incremental change we do want to demand much much more than that. So how do we, how do we strategically find ways to make these things stick is not an easy question. I wish I had the silver bullet but I have a few things that can be helpful at least. Oh, I see. Let's do about Sarah and then Patrick. So, yeah. Yeah, let's have first if you want to. Oh, sorry, I didn't see that. No, that's all right. I just sure. I was just going to raise another one where I don't think that we had a great solution but we were talking about faculty recruitment or faculty hiring and student admissions and thinking about the way in which. Many of the metrics that we use as currency in our field being like the number of papers and the number of grants and things like that is very closely tied to where you come from and what access you had and did you have enough money to work for free, you know and you have a lot of resources here in a research lab and so we were talking briefly about how you try and distinguish, you know, potential from privilege, and I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on that because I don't think we found a solution for how you do that well. So, I just want to emphasize that those types of criteria are exactly that, like you said the types of things we have to contend with to say, okay, so number of publications obviously at the surface is not a racialized or identity focused construct, but it correlates highly so if we're going to live in that reality. What is it that we can do about it and what types of changes need to occur to metrics so that's something we could do a deeper dive on but I am curious as anybody who wasn't in that small group have thoughts that they want to kind of put out there anything that you have tried in terms of pushing back on the way those criteria tend to operate. Yeah. I'm not sure as as a member of the I'm going to hear for the last couple of years I've often been baffled by just what it is that we can actually accomplish. And I don't think I'm alone in that. But I was wondering if one way here at least in this department, I don't know if this would echo any place else. If it might not fall on each of us in some way to bring newness to the department, not through ourselves but through say inviting people to speak to to present voices that to keep other voices to keep many voices in the within the scope as a constant flow of impelling disruptions. And I don't know I don't know how else you do that except by changing the languages of the discourse. To manage what it is that we that we're doing ourselves modeling. You know, because I think the system is just too big. In one way, we feel like imposters are like we own the place. I think the point about discourse is really valuable because I think the Sarah what you're talking about is the way that certain types of metrics get converted into a discourse of, you know, excellence and when we're looking over somebody's materials and taking a moment to what is the phrase it's making making the everyday strange again. And so really kind of questioning what on a CV or in somebody's repertoire is it that stands out as the thing that makes them excellent. Right, so there's a lot of things that show up that we don't we skim over on a CV that can express a whole lot of qualities that somebody would bring into our space that doesn't get converted into that type of discourse. Not because it can't right it's just this is how we've. This is the system we're inheriting. And so thinking about what are new ways that we could introduce different metrics that could outweigh, not outweigh but also way into these conversations. You know, our, again, we could pick this up but there's, there are experiments kind of out there in the field around. Okay, how would you operationalize wanting to see how somebody, how somebody's trajectory, you know, they have two publications, not eight, but like, how do we actually look at the quality of what they're producing and look at it in the context of their trajectory and also other contributions they've made to community and beyond as equally important to quality and excellence. So, I want to, I want to hear what Patrick was going to throw out there but it's something I'd be really happy to talk about more. Also, Sarah. So I know we're running out of time so I guess I could end with bright spots and two bright ideas that I was in the group with Zach and Belinda, and the bright spot was we were talking about peer tutoring. There's a way to get around this and Belinda said that she had a really successful program in public health that was somewhat dependent on funding so the bright idea was experiment what we've done at the law school because we had a funding issue is give people who want to be tutors credit instead of money. So it also frees up time in their schedule, and that was that we've seen a good effect there and Belinda had the suggestion of, if you're running into faculty resistance to having someone help out with a course. So you can pick who gets to teach the introductory courses and find faculty who are more open to having that kind of peer to peer stuff so it's stepping back at the faculty level and actually helping students belonging and interaction which I thought was really, really helpful. Yeah strategically placing faculty with particular commitments to student progress in key courses is is not a bad idea at all and could be really important to a lot of students. I realized that we thank you for sharing that I know we're a minute past. There's my email address, please feel free to follow up. I've really enjoyed this opportunity, and it looks like there's also a feedback form and definitely happy to hear that feedback to rack up and also if there's anything I should know I would love to hear it to so. Thank you all leave it to to read it or wrap us up there. Just to say thank you for giving us some time this afternoon. We really appreciate your presence here. I for one learned a ton from this opportunity to interact with Professor McCambley and we've got a final substantive workshop coming up, I believe in March mid March. And it will be our own Mallory Martin Ferguson who will be talking about and sort of leading us through exercises around how to have difficult conversations. So, with that I hope you have a good six weeks or so and hopefully we'll see you at the next workshop. Thank you again. Professor camley McCambley it's really been a pleasure having you with us today. Thank you. Bye everybody. Bye.