Symbols contested: An analysis of how symbols advance and hinder diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Abstract

The role that symbols play in facilitating or hindering institutional transformation efforts on campuses is underexplored. Through this embedded, multiple case study, we examine interview data from 52 participants at four private postsecondary institutions to investigate how power dynamics influence symbols to advance or hinder these institutional agents' work in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The findings highlight the contested nature of symbols and symbolic acts, which include (a) a disproportionate emphasis on positional leaders as symbols of opportunity, (b) complicating the idea of diversity centers as symbols of commitment, and (c) struggles to engage frameworks and strategic plans as symbols of shared vision and ownership. Specifically, we attend to how power dynamics may play a role in who/what becomes a symbol, and how symbols are interpreted in contradictory ways by different campus constituents, which have implications for how institutions can unite campus efforts toward DEI. Together, these findings present the tensions that universities must contend with as they use symbols to encourage a collective effort to advance DEI.

“Whenever I see those little rainbow stickers, I know that there is a place you can go”: Visibility and sense of belonging for queer and/or trans community college students.

“…They posit the importance of institutions to contend with what symbols communicate about who they value, who belongs, and what is communicated in terms of DEI commitments. These studies postulate that physical artifacts within higher education systems must (re)create physical and symbolic spaces to understand how such structures communicate belongingness (Alcantar et al, 2022(Alcantar et al, , 2020Yi et al, 2022).…”

“…Physical artifacts refer to those objects we as people create, place cultural significance, and position within educational contexts that communicate and signal messages of campus value and worth (Banning and Bartels, 1997; Banning et al, 2008). Most recently, Yi et al (2022) analyzed how symbols promoted or hindered diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education. They posit the importance of institutions to contend with what symbols communicate about who they value, who belongs, and what is communicated in terms of DEI commitments.…”

“We’re Not Going to Overcome Institutional Bias by Doing Nothing”: Latinx/a/o Student Affairs Professionals as Advocates for Equity

“…There are four tenets that guide Ray's [16] theory: a) "racialized organizations enhance or diminish the agency of racial groups; b) racialized organizations legitimate the unequal distribution of resources; c) Whiteness is a credential; and d) the decoupling of formal rules from organizational practice is often racialized" (p. 23). Ray's theory has been applied to two higher education studies focusing on midlevel administrators that helped illuminate how we view private universities as racialized organizations [10,14].…”

“…Participants also noted that racially and ethnically minoritized professionals who adhered to white norms were more likely to have access to institutional resources, noting that whiteness was a credential for accessing power and status [10]. Yi et al [14] drew from symbolic frames in organizational theory to understand how symbols of diversity, equity, and inclusion at four private universities "reinforce [d] whiteness" despite being touted as central to institutional transformation (p. 2). They determined that "obtaining access to power shape[d] the agency of individuals within the organization to influence their environment" [14] (p. 3).…”

“…The purpose of this manuscript is to uncover how 19 Latinx/a/o mid-level student affairs administrators at 16 predominantly white private four-year universities negotiated organizational barriers and supports to advocate for equity on their campuses. Although scholars have analyzed the experiences of Latinx/a/o college students and racially and ethnically minoritized administrators at private universities [13,14], to our knowledge, there are no studies that have specifically focused on the experiences of Latinx/a/o administrators working at private universities. The ethos of tradition at private colleges lends to organizational structures that are steeped in obscure decision-making processes and unwritten rules designed to exclude racially and ethnically minoritized students, faculty, and administrators [15].…”