Why Social Justice Scares Institutions of Higher Education

I so often hear from colleagues that social justice education today is just the new politically correct word for diversity education or multiculturalism. Contrary to being a new movement, social justice has been in existence as a political agenda for several decades, in some cases for several centuries. In my mind, the social justice educational paradigm differs from typical diversity or multicultural educational interventions in that it examines and acknowledges that impact of institutional and historical systems of power and privilege on individual identity, as well as interpersonal and inter-organizational relationships. So whereas diversity/multicultural initiatives celebrate difference and encourages individuals to expose themselves to, be familiar with, and/or recognize the benefits to a community or a work team of different experiences, perspectives and cultures, it also posits all forms of difference as being “equal” to each other. In contrast, social justice strategies consider how some differences have given unearned, sometimes unfair, and almost always invisible advantages to members of some social groups to the detriment of others.

At one institution at which I served, when I first introduced the concept of creating a new student affairs unit that would have the words “social justice” in its name, I had faculty and administrative colleagues tell me that the name was “too vague” and didn’t convey the “right image” for the campus – it was too “radical” they cautioned. (Of course I thought to myself sarcastically that certainly the terms “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are crystal clear and precise in definition.). When I started to describe the functions of this new unit as providing education for all students – majority and minority - about the impact of institutional power and group-derived privileges on individual identity, as well as advocating for institutional policies which are more inclusive and equitable, I was told that “policy development” is the function of faculty shared governance and education about US institutions is “best done by the history department.” I was asked repeatedly, “Why can’t you just make sure that this unit provides more academic support services for students of color, because they are the ones who really need the help?” When I proposed that the office might address issues of inclusion in a manner which better acknowledges the intersectionality of our identities across gender, race, class, disability, sexual orientation, etc. rather than just focusing on race/ethnicity and asking students to “pick” one of their identities for support, one colleague remarked to me, “The women’s movement is not needed here – there are more women administrators on this campus than anywhere else I have ever worked!”

Clearly, diversity/multiculturalism approaches are ideal for most institutions of higher education to support. Supporting this type of work allows IHE’s to appear to be forward-thinking on the “diversity” agenda without truly having to invest any time, energy or resources into fundamental change and self-inquiry. Historically underrepresented students – whoever they might happen to be defined as within the particular institutional context – are publicly and vocally touted as being desirable and welcomed. Further, it is understood that since the campus IS, after all, embracing diversity, any student who falls by the wayside and doesn’t “make it academically” must somehow have been personally deficient in their academic capacity and couldn’t have been “saved” anyway. Campuses with a strong diversity/multiculturalism emphasis ask, “How many of our students are members of [insert your minority group of inquiry here]?” and use the response as a way to measure their success in achieving diversity. On campuses that embrace diversity, there is still an implicit “we,” and “they” are welcome as long as “they” adapt to what “we” have already created and established as the norms, the rules, the “right way” for doing things and deciding things.

In my own observations from 15 plus years as a higher education professional, most colleges and universities have a vested interest in discouraging genuine social justice interventions. It requires us to shift how things have “always been done” and to really examine existing policies and practices with regard to how they may inherently privilege some individuals while disadvantaging others – even when we believe wholeheartedly that we are being “fair” and “objective” and that our intentions are just and ethical. When a student does not “make it academically” we would consider how a lifetime of experience within the US education system may have contributed to that outcome and assume shared responsibility for how the system has failed this individual. A campus with a strong social justice emphasis asks, “Who is not represented here on our campus and why not?” and “Of those students who are not retained or do not graduate, why and what is our responsibility to change the conditions at our institution to maximize success?” Success in achieving social justice becomes measured not by one number but rather from an entire constellation of qualitative and quantitative measures that capture institutional climate, individual experience and the viability of relationships and teams. A campus that would constantly adapt to accommodate a bigger and broader “we,” continuously resist boundaries between “we” and “they,” and unwaveringly act to transform how “we” communicate, think, create, innovate, respond, resolve, judge and evaluate would be a truly remarkable place to work, learn and live indeed.
________________________________________________________________________
Luoluo Hong, PhD, MPH, served from 1992-2007 in a variety of administrative roles in student affairs (including senior student affairs officer) at four different institutions. She is currently Associate Professor of Women’s Studies at Arizona State University.