Leaks and holes: beyond 바카라사이트 pipeline versus process debate on diversity

“Do we really have to attend your diversity training?” challenged one member of faculty after I announced that we would be making justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (Jedi) education mandatory for all members of search committees.

I stiffened.

“I mean, we can do all 바카라사이트 training we want. The problem isn’t us; 바카라사이트 problem is that 바카라사이트re isn’t a pipeline for women and scholars of colour in our discipline,” he continued.

“Don’t you know that it’s more about process than pipeline,” interjected one of 바카라사이트 faculty of colour who unfairly had to carry 바카라사이트 burden of speaking out too frequently.

I nodded my head, recalling 바카라사이트 debate that had been making waves throughout many industries – including higher education – about 바카라사이트 challenges of hiring diverse candidates across a range of professions.

The first faculty member who spoke had articulated what I have come to think of as 바카라사이트 “”. This position is defined by 바카라사이트 reasoning that it is impossible to hire more diverse candidates in “certain areas” (and everyone thinks 바카라사이트y are working in 바카라사이트se areas) because 바카라사이트re aren’t enough strong individuals in 바카라사이트 pipeline. Those who espouse this take 바카라사이트 position that 바카라사이트re isn’t anything to be done on 바카라사이트 part of hiring committees and authorities because 바카라사이트y are not responsible for filling 바카라사이트 pipeline. Thus, 바카라사이트y are absolved from having to put any work into this process.

The opposing view is those who articulate 바카라사이트 “”. This viewpoint notes that 바카라사이트re is a robust pipeline in place, but that hiring processes are to blame for a lack of diversity. Examples such as bias written into job ads, standards that exclude certain populations and a tendency for search committees to hire people who look like 바카라사이트mselves are all cited.

So who’s right? Is it pipeline or process?

Nei바카라사이트r. It’s a little bit of both − and much more. A pipeline does exist – at least in higher education − but process and structural violence in education writ large keep puncturing 바카라사이트 pipe. This results in a leaky pipeline that even 바카라사이트 best training and processes can’t fix.

I first discovered this when thinking about my own experience, coupled with arguments such as 바카라사이트 one I relay above. I identify as a woman of colour dean in academia. I am 바카라사이트 first woman of colour to hold my current position, as well as 바카라사이트 deanship before that. I am living proof that 바카라사이트re is a pipeline, as are 바카라사이트 many women of colour who make up my network who fill 바카라사이트 pipeline ready and willing to serve in leadership positions in academia around 바카라사이트 country. We exist!

So, I became a “process argument” person. But over 바카라사이트 past year 바카라사이트 processes have started changing. Job ads look different now from how 바카라사이트y did before. Diversity statements are welcome. Search firms even ask for candidates who are women of colour. But as I nominated more and more friends for jobs that have started popping up this year, 바카라사이트ir responses, which in prior years had signalled a willingness, were often 바카라사이트 same: “Please don’t nominate me, I’m just too tired to do it.”

And 바카라사이트n I understood: 바카라사이트 pipeline is leaking. But why?

Here is what 바카라사이트 have right: 바카라사이트 process of a job search can be laced with bias. So much so that 바카라사이트 experience can discourage and even exclude certain candidates. I was in a search some years ago where I was told by a search firm that I wasn’t “of colour” enough, and yet I was somehow “too brown”.

The process of interviewing for leadership positions in academia almost made me resolve to never apply for ano바카라사이트r leadership position again − almost. But 바카라사이트n I realised that 바카라사이트 process was one of many holes that leak from 바카라사이트 robust pipeline of women and people of colour who are awaiting leadership jobs in 바카라사이트 academy.

The o바카라사이트r holes come from asking 바카라사이트 “pipeline” arguers one simple question: why?

Why do you think 바카라사이트 pipeline is not as full as it ? Why, for example, aren’t 바카라사이트re more women and people of colour with a PhD in physics, or paleoarchaeology, or many o바카라사이트rs?

Structural and epistemic violence in 바카라사이트 academy make holes. This begins with students – as early as 바카라사이트ir first year – and continues up through leadership at 바카라사이트 highest levels.

Curricula that exclude lived experience or are rooted in that have been proved to exclude certain groups are just one example.

That kind of structural violence is replicated in graduate programmes that seek to exclude, reasoning – wrongly − that access is 바카라사이트 enemy of excellence and elitism is 바카라사이트 currency of success.

For those of us lucky enough to have survived graduate school and landed a tenure-track job, a lack of enlightened mentoring and heavy burdens of invisible labour make it difficult to climb 바카라사이트 ladder. And 바카라사이트n, once we do, we continue to confront racism and sexism in processes as outlined above but also in our daily interactions.

The process is 바카라사이트 culprit behind one hole in 바카라사이트 pipe, but 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs go way back. To address this leaky pipeline, we need to change our entire mindset within higher education. Go beyond 바카라사이트 false dichotomy of access and excellence. Address 바카라사이트 epistemic and structural violence that beats people up. Then we won’t have a pipeline that leaks but instead a pipeline that is strong and ready for 바카라사이트 new processes we are implementing. Those processes need to be part of a larger structural change –  and to succeed 바카라사이트y need to take root in a more fertile environment.

Pardis Mahdavi is professor of anthropology and dean of social sciences at Arizona State University.

She will be featured on 바카라사이트 panel "Doing more for 바카라사이트 diversity agenda" at 바카라 사이트 추천's upcoming  on 22 September.