#diversity work

[lehighu]

Sara Ahmed is a feminist writer and independent scholar. She visited Lehigh to present a lecture "Complaint as Diversity Work" as part of the Humanities Center Gender, Justice and Power series.

[fem2110winter2018-blog]

In my previous post I suggested that making a complaint can be a form of diversity work. You might have to complain in order to progress within an organisation. When a complaint is necessary in ord…

Being a feminist killjoy in many cases means taking on diversity work. Diversity work means being a feminist killjoy and killing the joy of white supremacy. Here, Sara Ahmed discusses this work.

[making-the-familiar-strange]

An Office of “Academic Hustlers for Social Justice”-- This is OADI

Photo credit: Beloit College Archives

Built in 1858, South College is one of the oldest buildings on campus. Originally home to a preparatory school, then a chapel and student center, it now houses the Office of Academic Diversity and Inclusiveness (OADI). OADI describes itself as “Academic Hustlers for Social Justice”, and its work as an office focuses on serving minority populations (first generation, low income, and racial minorities) and raising awareness and activism. 

OADI did not grow out of a specific incident, but rather a schoolwide effort over many years. The 2015 Hate Crime (see this post on our blog) spurred more support for OADI and its programs. 

OADI’s programs focus on minority work in the sciences and STEM fields and include the McNair Scholars, part of a nationwide program since 1996; Student Engagement and Leadership (SEL); Wisconsin Alliance for Minority Participation at Beloit College (WiscAMP), member of Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) since 2004; and the Mellon Graduate School Exploration Program.  

OADI also runs peer support groups; a panel series, #GetWoke; mentoring programs; and academic coaching. 

For more information, go inside South College and give OADI staff a visit!  You can also visit the department website. 

[sapanaas]

Diversity work becomes about generating the ‘right image,’ and correcting the wrong one.  I was quite interested that they were shocked by this image, given what I knew of the staffing profile of this university. What organizes this shock is the presumption that the perception is problem: that the perception is wrong. According to this logic, people have the ‘wrong perception’ when they see the organization as white, elite, male, old-fashioned. In other words, what is behind the shock is a belief that that the organization does not have these qualities: that whiteness is ‘in the image’ rather than ‘in the organization’ as an effect of what it does. Note the phrase ‘issues of perception’ again suggests that perception is the issue. Diversity becomes about changing perceptions of whiteness rather than changing the whiteness of organizations.  I think the final comment ‘there are issues of perception amongst certain communities, which are stopping them from reaching us’ is particularly suggestive. The implication is thus that the institution does not reach such communities – that it does not include them – because they perceive the institution as excluding them. The problem of whiteness is implicitly described here not so much as an institutional problem but as a problem with those who are not included by it.

What we have here from my data are two contrasting accounts: in one, the perception is accepted as true and the demand is for self-modification; in the other, the perception is taken as false and the demand is for a new image. How can we account for this difference? We need to show how these perceptions have quite different social careers. That is a difference that matters. In both cases, whether or not it is the perception that becomes the problem is a way of distributing the problem. Whether or not a perception is of a problem, a perception is about making some and not others into the problem. I have learnt so much from how the language of inclusion and repair make those who are to be included into the problem. And once the ‘to be included’ or ‘not yet included’ are the problem, then those already given place by the institution, and even the institution itself, can maintain themselves not only as not the problem, but also as the solution to the problem.

The Problem of Perception

[radtransfem]

... But rather than suggesting knowledge leads (or should lead) to transformation, I offered a reversal that in my view preserves the point or aim of the argument: transformation, as a form of practical labour, leads to knowledge. The very labour of transforming institutions, or at least aiming for transformation, is how we learn about institutions as formations. It is not simply that diversity workers are philosophers- in the sense of being reflexive- in their attitude toward institutions (though they can be). It is not simply that they become conscious of what recedes from view. Rather diversity workers acquire a critical orientation to institutions in the very process of coming up against them. They become conscious of “the brick wall,” as that which keeps its place even when an official commitment to diversity has been given. It is only the practical labour of “coming up against” the institution that allows this wall to become apparent.

Sara Ahmed, Practical Phenomenology

[postspecificpost]

Wall Work

I haven't engaged within an academic economy institution in a while, but I am in and out of the art economy institution. Sometimes based on what I'm reading, I can't tell which is what anymore.

I was recently thinking about walls. Non-bearing walls that only stand up to hold itself in place. I was trying to think through the idea of people who only stand up for themselves or exist only to advance themselves. They are non-bearing walls and they are in the way. However, by making itself a wall, probably vertical, they are the ones who receive far too much attention.

The metaphor of walls started off the morning in the Orozco Room where an intimate long table discussion on The Labours of Diversity occurred. Featuring a peer-led long table where participants including Sara Ahmed and a host of culturally diverse faculty and students discussed institutionalization, privilege, access, and whiteness, the discussion circled around the knowledge (and discomfort) one accrues through the institutionalization of their bodies.

The discussion hovered at the surface, at the "How and Why do I have to do perform for the institution?" level. These discussions are negated in my mind by the fact that institutions and professionalization are inherently xenophobic. Institutions are non-bearing walls that only hold themselves up. We perform for the institution when we want in, but this complicity was left unsaid.

I am a cynic though. I have a feeling that identity politics (ie. exposing the problem of privilege, access, whiteness) is now organized by the institution economy in order to control dissent and reinforce the institution. It's not a major group show until at least one of the artists boycotts or protests. Disruption is marketing and that marketing is not about any root causes outside of the art economy anymore.

At this point, I do think martyring ourselves against the base of any non-bearing walls is only perpetuating the wall's self-importance. Anything that activates the institution's self defense to reinforce its own position will be double-edged. If challenged, the institution has the power to create a diversity committee, and they will retain the power to keep it precarious and vulnerable. To fight for change from that position is not a fight at all. I am not saying we should not do the work, but I just don't think we should expect a non-bearing wall to do anything but hold itself up.

[processedlives]

Whiteness and the General Will: Diversity Work as Willful Work

A lecture of Sara Ahmed, followed by a conversation between Ulrika Dahl and Sara Ahmed