-The three poles are defining racism; defending victims; and developing accountability.
Let's face it – higher education is still confronted with perpetual structural racism. Black populations have been systematically excluded from attaining higher education since the 20th century, with multiple universities only paying lip service to this crisis. Similarly, during World War II, many Japanese students were denied education, with leaders acknowledging and correcting this wrong much later. Currently, "Chinese-looking" Asian students endure COVID-19-inspired racism, with many institutions not speaking up against it, resulting in millions of students and their parents worrying for their lives and safety while pursuing studies in their preferred destinations.
We must remember that racism manifests itself systemically, i.e., through "racism-by-design," through clever and elaborate institutional mechanisms built over centuries to deny minority groups a chance for upward mobility through higher education systems. This has been achieved by "redlining" (systematic exclusions) in admissions, tuition and scholarships, and human resources on college campuses. Further, "reactionary racism", with roots in the quiet hate of societies but initially triggered by an event (Pearl Harbor for the Japanese, COVID-19 for Asians, or "suspected counterfeit $20 bill" in the case of George Floyd) has manifested physically through assaults and abuses suffered by Asians and Blacks. In the US, such atrocities have grown exponentially in the past two years.
Therefore, fighting racism demands confrontation at all levels on college campuses by uprooting racist institutional designs inherent in campus-wide admissions systems, recruitment, scholarships, cultures, and histories. The branches of racism's physical manifestations must be cut through policies designed to identify, isolate, punish quickly, or re-educate the racists among us. Educational institutions and leaders must be judged by their words, actions and results on these levels.
We propose a 3D-R systemic framework to facilitate higher education institutions (HEIs) addressing systemic racism. We look into the latest trends in frontier HEIs to explore how other universities can learn or unlearn from them. Leaders using our framework must ask three key questions: First, how can HEIs understand perpetuating systemic racism which has evaded HEIs and societies for centuries? Second, how can they support affected communities? Third, what is missing in the key conversations surrounding systemic racism and associated hate in HEIs?
1. Define and understand racism
To effectively solve racism, universities need to invest resources to define and understand the depth and scope of the unpleasant experiences that Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) students endure. Student organizations' voices may be instrumental in understanding racism on campus. For instance, at MIT, minority students proposed adequate instruments for facilitating minority groups. Moreover, organizations such as the Asian American and Pacific Islander Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School, have platforms to engage in meaningful discussions about minority challenges and the value of diversity among university communities.
Further, HEIs need to understand racism using data-driven methods, which are critical to identifying racial “climates” in institutions and community sentiments. To illustrate, Stanford committed to conducting regular surveys to track the current racial climate among its stakeholders; its Office of Faculty Development, Diversity, and Engagement publishes annual reports of faculty demographics to scrutinize such progress. Similarly, the University of Ottawa launched the Campus Climate Survey on Diversity and Inclusion to identify more inclusive policies to promote diversity.
Finally, institutions must conduct vanguard research to identify new approaches in the systematic battle against racism. The Harvard Initiative for Institutional Anti-racism and Accountability (IARA) cultivates cutting-edge solutions for advancing its existing policies, discovering innovative ways to diversify their community, and promoting anti-racist culture and policies. Another exemplary case is the Center for Racial Justice at Stanford Law School, which connects law students and community leaders to conduct research on societal injustices.
Support in the form of community education may conquer the root of racism, requiring educating people to eradicate their hate. To this end, approaches may vary: First, interactive and engaging sessions, such as at MIT, could be employed. Second, more specific and professional long-term courses such as KCL Diversity Matters Training developed for their staff members can be introduced. Third, community-oriented educational opportunities, such as listening sessions at Stanford that aim to hear and share real stories connected with racial climate on campus and Town Halls addressing anti-Black racism at uOttawa, could be initiated.
Furthermore, convenient and victim-friendly reporting mechanisms and policies should be introduced. According to the Tackling Racial Harassment: Universities Challenged report, numerous students and staff did not report racial harassment citing a lack of confidence in whether the case would be considered, or fear of retaliation. To this end, at MIT victims can abstain from participating in investigation processes if they so prefer. Moreover, they can report from anonymous email addresses. The MIT Non-Retaliation Policy further defends victims from adverse implications for reporting.
Lastly, high-level institutional investment efforts are crucial for sustaining introduced mechanisms. At KCL, the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion programme (EDI) has grown rapidly with extensive funding over the last six years. Currently, all KCL's faculties have embedded EDI expertise, with the programme enjoying influential university-wide leadership. Additionally, KCL and the ICL have jointly devised the Race Equality Charter, which provides a framework for institutions to work jointly and reflect on barriers that BAME staff members and students face on campuses. Internal advisory groups, such as Imperial As One at the ICL comprising BME staff, can aid in examining policies and promptly report about issues to the highest level.
3. Develop institutional accountability and periodical reviews
Despite talking about racism for decades, BAME are still underrepresented in HEIs. For instance, KCL’s EDI 2019–2020 report, though designed for the UK, paints a general representative picture on under-representation in this area. BAME staff has moderately increased from 20% to 24% since 2014; however, the under-representation of BAME teaching and research workforce has remained, with significantly less representation in senior positions: 8% appointed as professors vs. 25% as researchers. In the same vein, though the situation with undergraduate students seems to have improved with 33-34% BAME students enrolled over the last two years, the percentage of postgraduate students (16%) falls short of the expected benchmark.
A similar trend with graduate/postgraduate BAME students and senior staff is observed in the Stanford IDEAL Dashboards. The figures show that universities' strategies are sufficient for undergraduate level students or junior level staff and faculty. However, these instruments do not target graduate and postgraduate student groups and more senior-level faculty.
To improve the situation, HEIs need to commit more strongly to diversity at higher echelons of the institutions. A diversity barometer can track such progress and hold university leadership accountable. This will, most certainly, not be enough. University leaders should consider establishing institutional mechanisms to hold themselves and their establishments accountable. And should be augmented with periodical reviews on racial improvement progress.