22.sept-Diversity, Diversity Work & Intersectionality

Do we really want to talk about diversity?

• The changing world and power
  The world is changing, but the face of power is not changing at the same pace.

• Example: gender and corporate power
  In the US, there are still more men named John leading major companies than women leading major companies.

• “Happy diversity” (Ahmed et al., 2006)
  “Happy diversity” is based on the dominant group's tolerance of certain narrow and acceptable forms of difference.

• Main question about diversity
  How do we move from talking about diversity to actually making diversity happen?

Diversity work

• Diversity work is learning about techniques of power in order to transform institutional norms, or trying to exist in a world that does not accommodate you

• Diversity work is not one specific activity. It can mean trying to change an institution, but also simply existing in an institution that was not designed for you.

Aim of Ahmed's article

• The article investigates the politics of documentation, using interviews with diversity and equal opportunities officers from 10 UK universities.

• The UK Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) made promoting race equality a positive legal duty.

• Public bodies had to create a race equality policy and action plan.

Documents and diversity work

• Writing documents showing a commitment to race equality became a central part of equality work.

• Instead of assuming documents do what they say, Ahmed asks us to follow the documents and examine what happens to them in practice.

• Main question: doing the document vs. doing the doing
  How are policies translated into action? What is the relationship between “doing the document” and “doing the doing”?

• Another question about documents
  What do these documents actually do within organizations?

How documents are produced

What happens after documents are written?

• The documents were produced by individuals working under extreme pressure.

• Who was responsible for writing them?
  Universities sometimes appointed a new race equality officer, while others added the task to an existing equal opportunities officer.

• The work could involve one person or a group, raising questions about who is actually responsible for diversity work.

• Ahmed asks what happens to documents once they have been produced and where they circulate within the organization.

• The organization may publish and communicate the document as a way of raising awareness.

• Problem with measuring success through citation
  If success is judged by how much a document is cited, the document may appear successful while actually concealing its failure to create change

Documents as performance

• Documents can become forms of institutional performance.

• Universities use documents to perform an image of themselves as progressive and committed to equality.

• Documents can also show that the university is “doing well” according to organizational measures.

• A university can appear successful because it has produced the right documents, even if little changes in practice

Bureaucratisation of diversity

• The Race Relations Amendment Act encouraged diversity and equality work to become increasingly auditable.

• An audit can show whether an organization has completed certain processes.

• An audit cannot really show whether the organization has changed its culture.

• Organizations can become focused on proving that they have followed the correct procedures, rather than changing inequality in practice

Diversity as a marketing term

Why is “diversity” appealing?

• The term allows universities to present themselves as happy and welcoming places where differences are celebrated.

• Universities can use diversity to create an image of themselves as inclusive, progressive and welcoming.

• Universities may present themselves as having moved beyond racism, as if different racial groups have “integrated” into one new hybrid identity.

• The term can change the appearance of an organization without challenging its underlying culture.

• Adding “diversity” to a mission statement does not necessarily change anything. It may simply express the existing mission in different terms.

“Doing the document rather than doing the doing”

• Organizations can become more focused on producing policies and documents than on actually changing organizational practices.

• Documents as statements of commitment
  Documents can function as statements showing that an organization is committed to equality or anti-racism.

Anti-racism and organizational pride

• The university can present itself as opposed to racism, rather than recognizing that racism can still exist within the university.

• A university can say it is committed to anti-racism while failing to recognize racism as an ongoing reality.

• An organization may use its commitment to anti-racism as evidence that racism cannot be a problem within the organization.

• Seeing itself as good at communication and care can prevent an organization from recognizing racism and complaints about racism.

• Pride in being a caring and responsive organization can make it harder for critical messages and complaints to get through.

• Anti-racism can become a form of organizational pride, where saying “we are anti-racist” becomes more important than addressing racism.

• An organization can claim that it listens to complaints while its self-image actually prevents it from hearing those complaints.

Politics of feeling good

• A managerial focus on diversity can hide continuing systematic inequalities within organizations.

• Diversity work can become a form of image management, where organizations try to create the “right” image and correct the “wrong” one.

• Diversity can become a “politics of feeling good”, where people feel less threatened because they believe the problem has already been solved.

• Everything can look positive and progressive while actual inequalities remain unaddressed.

• A key part of diversity work is taking complaints and experiences of inequality seriously, rather than allowing organizational self-image to dismiss them.

Two major paradigms of diversity

• Diversity is traditionally approached through two main paradigms:

1. Essentializing sameness

2. Essentializing difference

• Both approaches essentialize people in different ways.

First paradigm: Essentializing sameness / colour-blindness

• This approach focuses on discrimination but tries to solve inequality by treating everyone the same.

• Colour-blind approaches attempt to ignore racial difference and emphasize equal treatment.

1. Example: “We hire based on merit, not race.”

• Everyone should have equal opportunity if they are qualified.

• Critical diversity view
  This can ignore structural barriers affecting access to education, mentorship, networks and perceptions of competence.

• Problem with “merit”
  “Merit” can be measured through standards that are already biased, such as elite education or ideas of professionalism coded as whitenes

2. Example: “We don't collect racial data.”

• Everyone is treated the same.

• Critical diversity view
  Without data, it is difficult to identify disparities or hold the organization accountable.

• What can be hidden without data?
  Patterns such as underrepresentation, wage gaps and higher turnover among racialized groups can remain invisible.

3. Example: “We celebrate all cultures equally.”

• Create inclusion through sameness.

• Critical diversity view
  This can erase the specific experiences and needs of marginalized groups.

• What can this approach avoid?
  It can avoid difficult discussions about unequal histories, racism and specific forms of exclusion.

Second paradigm: Essentializing difference

• This approach celebrates differences but can treat groups as if they have fixed and distinct characteristics.

• Organizations may include diversity because it helps them reach diverse clients and customers.

• Problem with this approach
  Difference is included but can remain marginalized, because it mainly serves marketing and promotion.

• Example
  Ethnic marketing uses cultural or ethnic differences to target specific customers.

Essentializing difference means:

• Assuming people from a group are all the same.

• Treating identities as if they have a single core essence.

• Ignoring internal diversity and complexity.

• Ignoring how identities intersect.

Examples of essentializing difference

1. Stereotyping as inclusion

• “Let's have a Black speaker talk about social justice because they have lived experience.”

• This assumes that Black people automatically have expertise or the same views about racism.

• Identity becomes a symbolic checkbox rather than recognizing the individual person's expertise.

2. Tokenism in representation

• “We need a woman on this panel to bring a different perspective.”

• This assumes that women share one perspective.

• Differences in class, race, politics, profession and personal experience.

3. Expecting cultural spokespeople

• “Can you explain how your people feel about this issue?”

• The individual is treated as a representative of an entire group.

• Individual agency and differences within the group are erased.

4. Celebrating difference without complexity

• “We value Asian values of hard work and respect.”

• This reduces a large and diverse group to a few supposed characteristics.

• It can avoid difficult discussions about anti-Asian racism and colonial histories.

Essentializing is a problem because it can:

• Reinforce stereotypes, even when they appear positive.

• Hide power relations and systemic inequalities.

• Prevent solidarity and intersectional understanding.

• Make structural problems harder to address because identity becomes symbolic rather than political.

Third paradigm: Diversity as a process

This approach sees diversity as ongoing learning and work to understand and overcome exclusion.

Diversity is treated as a challenge for the organization as a whole, rather than something marginalized people must adapt to.

Instead of neutralizing differences, it creates space for differences to actually make a difference.

Organizations need to unmask and question the explicit and implicit norms underlying organizational practices.

“Way to go” – inclusive diversity

• An inclusive approach organizes diversity so that differences are not neutralized but actually make a difference.

• Organizations should actively engage with sources of exclusion.

• Organizations should examine how language, meanings and dominant ideas shape power.

• Organizations should question the preference for treating everyone the same.

Critical diversity

• Critical diversity encourages:

  • Seeing identity as fluid, intersectional and shaped by context.

  • Inviting people because of their expertise and experience, not simply their identity label.

  • Understanding difference as relational and political.

  • Avoiding treating diversity as something to simply consume, manage or celebrate superficially.

• Critical diversity goes beyond simply counting representation and examines power, systemic inequalities and structural barriers

1. Focus on power and inequality

•   It interrogates who benefits and who is marginalized in current systems and asks how dominant norms (e.g., whiteness, patriarchy, heteronormativity) are maintained.

2. Goes beyond numbers

• Traditional diversity effortpeople of color). Critical diversity asks why certain groups are underrepresented or excluded, and what systemic changes are needed to challenge that.

3. Intersectionality

• Intersectionality examines how overlapping identities such as race, gender, class and disability shape experiences of oppression and privilege.

4. Challenges “business case” thinking

• Instead of just framing diversity as good for profits or innovation (common in corporate DEI), critical diversity questions the ethics and motivations behind those approaches.

5. Social justice

• The aim is not just inclusion but equity and transformation — changing s might focus on increasing representation (e.g., hiring more women or institutions to be more just, not just more diverse.

Example of a critical diversity approach

Example: hiring more women in leadership

A critical diversity approach asks:

• Why were women excluded before?

• Are all women benefiting equally, such as women of colour and white women?

• Is the workplace culture still shaped by masculine norms?

Intersectionality

• Intersectionality is a lens for researching and understanding the world.

• It makes us ask: Who is visible? Who is absent? How are people made invisible?

• It is oriented toward social injustice and transformation.

• Important concepts include inclusion, exclusion, power, marginalization, privilege, oppression, discrimination, unmarked, hegemonic, naturalization, positionality and reflexivity.

Intersectionality according to Crenshaw

• Crenshaw focuses on the simultaneity of different forms of oppression.

• Race, class and gender can intersect and shape each other.

• Looking at gender separately from race can produce a different interpretation of people's experiences.

Patricia Hill Collins – Matrix of Domination

What is the Matrix of Domination?
It shows how oppression operates through different but connected domains.

What is intersectionality NOT?

• It is not counting how many identities a person has.

• It is not simply about individual identity.

• It is not about putting people into boxes.

Structural domain

• Organizes oppression through laws, policies, schools and institutions that implement them.

Disciplinary domain

• Administers and manages oppression through bureaucracies and hierarchies that implement and enforce laws and policies.

Hegemonic domain

• Circulates oppressive ideas through culture, media and dominant beliefs.

Interpersonal domain

• Concerns individual experiences and interactions of oppression

Characteristics of intersectionality

It is a lens through which we research and see the world.

t asks: Who is visible? Who is absent? Who is included or excluded, how, when and under what circumstances?

It is research oriented toward social justice and transformation.

Whiteness as the academy’s orientation

The university as a racialised and gendered institution

• Universities are historically organized around a white male norm.

•   This norm is the foundation of various organisations meaning that it is woven into how an organisation's processes, practices and actions run

• An inequality regime is the way organizational practices can reproduce divisions based on race, gender, class and other differences.

Who can draw the university's boundaries?

• Who is 'in' and 'out' of the university involves practices of boundary work

• Boundary work is a process in which power is used to construct a distinction between the Self and the Other.

• Of what is or is not academic! Or who is or is not a legitimate academic

• This can result in symbolic boundaries i.e. separating people into different groups to create feelings of sameness and difference (e.g., everyday cloning, racism and so on) and social boundaries to fix people into these groups and constrain their opportunities (e.g., withholding contracts, promotions or access)

1) Doing the document rather than doing the doing

a. Ahmed points out a new politics of documentation where diversity and equality are used as measures of institutional performance. How does this focus on documentation potentially mask the persistence of institutional racism within universities/organizations?

Ahmed argues that universities can become more focused on producing documents about equality than on actually changing the organization. After the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, universities had to show their commitment to race equality through policies, action plans and other documents. This created a situation where writing the policy could become a major part of the equality work. Ahmed calls this “doing the document rather than doing the doing.”The problem is that documents can make an organization look as if it is already dealing with racism. A university can have a race-equality policy, diversity targets and action plans without changing the experiences of racialized staff or students. The documents can therefore hide the gap between what the organization says and what actually happens.This makes institutional racism less visible because people can point to the documents as proof of progress instead of examining everyday practices. Ahmed therefore argues that we need to look at what documents actually do within organizations, rather than assuming that having them means real change has happened.

b. How can statements of commitment to diversity and race equality actually function as "a form of organizational pride" rather than genuine commitments to change?

Ahmed shows that statements such as “we are committed to diversity” can become a source of organizational pride. Instead of being treated as a promise that requires continuous work, the statement can become proof that the organization already sees itself as fair and inclusive.

 This becomes a problem when criticism of racism challenges this positive self-image. Ahmed describes “diversity proud” organizations that want to hear positive stories about their diversity work. Diversity workers who point out racism or inequality can then become seen as a problem because they do not support the organization’s positive image. They may be treated as a “bad object” for bringing uncomfortable issues into the discussion.

The commitment to diversity can therefore work backwards. Instead of creating pressure for change, it can make the organization feel that it is already doing enough. This can make it harder to recognize continuing racism. The organization becomes proud of its commitment to equality, while the actual problems remain.

c. Why is "diversity" a "cuddly concept," and what are the consequences

Ahmed calls diversity a “cuddly concept” because it makes difficult issues such as racism, inequality and exclusion sound more comfortable and positive. The word “diversity” often focuses on people being different and celebrating those differences. This sounds easier and nicer than directly talking about racism and unequal power.

The problem is that this positive language can make organizations feel good about themselves without examining whether racism is actually present. For example, a university can say “we celebrate diversity” and create an image of being inclusive, while students or staff may still experience racism or exclusion.

Diversity can therefore become part of what Ahmed calls a “politics of feeling good.” Instead of asking where racism happens and what needs to change, people can focus on how diverse and inclusive the organization already is.

As a result, racism can disappear from the conversation. The organization can celebrate diversity without seriously examining the inequalities that still exist.

2) Bureaucratization of diversity - Managerial focus on diversity

a. What are the consequences of making diversity auditable?

When diversity becomes auditable, organizations try to measure and prove their diversity work through policies, targets, reports, training and other documents. This makes diversity easier for managers to control because they can check whether certain tasks have been completed.

However, many important parts of equality are difficult to measure. A university can prove that it has a diversity policy, but this does not show whether people actually feel included, whether racism has decreased, or whether unequal power has changed.

This can create a “tick-box” approach. Organizations may focus on completing measurable tasks because these are easy to show as evidence of success. The danger is that documenting diversity becomes more important than actually creating change.

Ahmed's concern is that organizations can become better at proving that they are doing diversity work than at doing the work itself. Diversity then appears to be something that can be completed through a policy or target, even though race equality requires continuous attention and change.

b. Why is the managerial focus on diversity not about social justice but about a politics of feeling good?

The managerial approach can make diversity about showing that the organization is doing well rather than challenging social inequality. Universities can feel proud when they have diversity policies, targets and reports. This creates a “politics of feeling good”, where the organization feels progressive and inclusive without necessarily dealing with the harder problems of racism and inequality.

3) Moving beyond performative gestures

a. What are some specific examples of actions universities can take to move toward substantive change?

Ahmed mainly criticizes the focus on documentation rather than giving universities a simple checklist. However, her argument suggests that universities need to move from statements and documents toward actual changes in organizational practices.

For example, universities could examine where racial inequalities occur in hiring, promotion, pay, admissions, student experiences and access to opportunities. They could then identify specific problems and change the practices that create these inequalities.

Universities should also take complaints about racism seriously and listen to people who experience racism or exclusion. Responsibility for equality should not be left only to diversity workers. Staff and students should be able to share their experiences, and these experiences should be used to evaluate whether policies are actually working.

Most importantly, policies and targets should not be treated as the final goal. They should be a starting point for action. Documents can be useful when they help organizations identify the gap between what they say and what they actually do.

b. What can individuals within universities do for meaningful progress on issues of race and equality?

Ahmed shows that individuals, especially diversity and equality practitioners, can help identify the gap between an organization's words and its actions. They can use the university's own policies and commitments to challenge practices that do not match them.

Individuals can keep asking difficult questions instead of simply accepting the organization's positive image. They can listen to people who experience racism or exclusion, bring these experiences into discussions, and point out when the university's actions do not match its stated commitments.

This can be difficult because people who raise problems may be seen as making the organization look bad. Ahmed shows that diversity workers can face resistance when they do not provide the “happy stories” organizations want to hear.

However, talking about problems is important. If people only discuss what is going well, the organization may never recognize what still needs to change. Individuals can therefore help create meaningful progress by questioning, listening and making sure that commitments to equality are connected to actual action.

1) The article treats whiteness not as an attribute of individuals or a set of biases, but as an orientation. What does that conceptual shift make visible that "bias" cannot?

Treating whiteness as an orientation makes visible things that the idea of “bias” can miss. If we talk about bias, we usually look for an individual's prejudice or a particular unfair decision. The authors instead show that whiteness can be built into the normal way an organization works, even when individuals do not think of themselves as racist. Whiteness shapes what feels normal, professional, legitimate and familiar in academia. It influences who is automatically seen as belonging, whose knowledge is trusted, and whose behavior is seen as appropriate. This means that women of colour can experience doubt, questioning or discomfort even when nobody openly expresses a racist belief. Looking at orientation therefore shifts attention from “Who is biased?” to “What norms and practices make some people feel at home and others feel out of place?” It makes the everyday and structural side of racial inequality easier to see.

2) The stated contribution to boundary theory is that affect is what links symbolic, social, institutional and spatial boundaries. Reconstruct that argument

The authors argue that affect, or feelings and emotional reactions, connects different kinds of boundaries. Symbolic boundaries are ideas about who belongs and who does not. These ideas become social boundaries when they affect how people are treated, and institutional boundaries when they shape opportunities, careers and access to resources. They can also become spatial boundaries when certain people are made to feel that they do not belong in particular places. Affect connects all of these because boundaries are often maintained through feelings such as comfort, discomfort, suspicion, surprise or entitlement. For example, when a woman of colour enters an academic space and someone reacts with surprise or asks what she is doing there, this emotional reaction can communicate that she is seen as “out of place.” If these reactions happen repeatedly, they can influence her relationships, opportunities and sense of belonging. Affect therefore helps explain how small emotional reactions can become wider organizational patterns of exclusion.

3) Specify what distinct work epistemic evaluation, white incredulity and racial surveillance each perform.

The three practices do different types of boundary work. Epistemic evaluation involves questioning whether women of colour are knowledgeable or academically legitimate. They may have to prove their qualifications or knowledge more than white academics, especially when teaching or speaking about certain subjects. White incredulity is about surprise or disbelief when women of colour occupy positions that challenge expectations about who an academic is supposed to be. For example, someone may be surprised that a woman of colour has a PhD or holds a senior academic position. Racial surveillance goes further by monitoring and correcting women's presence and behavior. Women of colour may be questioned about why they are somewhere, watched more closely, or told that they are too loud or not professional enough. In simple terms: epistemic evaluation questions their knowledge, white incredulity questions their belonging, and racial surveillance controls their presence and behavior.

4) The discussion argues that these practices shift the work of boundary maintenance onto the very people the boundaries exclude. What exactly is being outsourced, and what does it cost?

The authors argue that these practices shift the work of maintaining the boundary onto the people who are excluded by it. Instead of the institution having to openly say “you do not belong,” women of colour are made to do the work themselves. They may have to prove their knowledge, explain their qualifications, change their behavior, control how they speak, dress or express themselves, and constantly monitor how they are perceived. This is the work that is effectively outsourced to them. The cost can be high. It requires extra emotional and physical effort and can create stress, exhaustion and a constant feeling of having to prove that they belong. It can also affect their careers when these experiences lead to poorer evaluations, fewer opportunities or weaker professional relationships. The important point is that the organization does not have to change its existing norms; the excluded person is expected to adapt instead. This allows the existing boundaries and whiteness of the institution to remain in place