Few words in the current American lexicon are as ubiquitous and ostensibly uplifting as diversity. The actual meanings and functions of the term, however, are difficult to pinpoint. In this article we use in-depth interviews conducted in four major metropolitan areas to explore popular conceptions of diversity. Although most Americans respond positively at first, our interviews reveal that their actual understandings are undeveloped and often contradictory. We highlight tensions between idealized conceptions and complicated realities of difference in social life, as well as the challenge of balancing group-based commitments against traditional individualist values. Respondents, we find, define diversity in abstract, universal terms even though most of their concrete references and experiences involve interactions with racial others. Even the most articulate and politically engaged respondents find it difficult to talk about inequality in the context of a conversation focused on diversity. Informed by critical theory, we situate these findings in the context of unseen privileges and normative presumptions of whiteness in mainstream U.S. culture. We use these findings and interpretations to elaborate on theories of the intersection of racism and colorblindness in the new millennium.

Throughout the post-civil rights era, colleges and universities across the United States have periodically experienced explicitly racist incidents on their campuses. From the hurling of racial slurs at students of color, to the hanging of nooses on campus, to students donning Ku Klux Klan outfits or throwing "ghetto" parties that caricaturize communities of color, these incidents challenge the notion that modern racism has changed to a more subtle form, referred to as colorblind racism. We place these incidents within a broader context of race and institutions, suggesting a connection between overt racist expressions and the more covert elements of neoliberal color-blind racism. Through a critical discourse analysis of news stories about these incidents, the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the controlling legal cases involving racist expression on campuses, we suggest that explicitly racist incidents operate in tandem with neoliberal educational policies and color-blind racism to mark and reinscribe colleges and universities as white institutional spaces.

No abstract

This article identifies the dominant frame through which university administrators in the United States respond to racist incidents and analyzes that from using the lens of critical race theory (CRT). We argue that the stock response of college and university administrators, which calls for counterspeech as the only appropriate response to racist speech, fails to consider the harmful effects of racist speech on students, staff, and faculty of color. Furthermore, this abstract-liberalist, color-blind approach decontextualizes racist speech from the historical and contemporary reality of structural racism that informs the speech acts and symbols used in these displays. We further use the CRT approach by shifting the perspective from a unilateral focus on protecting the right to racist speech to explore what happens when analysts focus instead on protecting substantively equal access for community members of color. In so doing, we highlight the value of CRT for revealing how white racial framing obscures competing legal and policy norms.

Through a discourse analysis of three textual sources within elite law schools, we suggest that the white racial frame and the diversity construct are key mechanisms in the process of stalling racial reform by imposing tacit boundaries around the discourse surrounding progressive racial policies. We contend that this limits their effectiveness, resulting in the retrenchment of white racial privilege and power and that this happens without any explicit expression of racial animosity by whites participating in the discourse. To illustrate this process, we analyze the discourse concerning affirmative action, a policy designed to end racial discrimination in and redistribute resources related to employment and education. We focus on the institutional setting of elite law schools both because of its socializing influence on those who will make and interpret affirmative action law and because it represents an institution in which the policy may be utilized in student selection and faculty hiring.