Introduction
This paper discusses and summarizes the article “Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies,” written by Susan Iverson in 2007. Iverson’s article explores US universities’ efforts to eliminate inequalities by examining the texts of 21 diversity action plans. She argues that universities’ intentions to change the unjust status quo could be implemented with good intentions. Still, these efforts can result in the construction of discursive effects that reinforce practices of exclusion. Although Iverson dives into quite a debatable terrain related to the nature of objectivity in students’ performance evaluation, her findings can help university policy-makers to reconsider their approach to the problem of inequality.
Reasons for Writing Article
The reason why this article was written seems to be related to the author’s personal commitment to minorities’ problems. Indeed, Susan Iverson devoted much effort to the discourse analysis of diversity action plans. For example, before publishing the article under discussion, she wrote an unpublished doctoral dissertation on the same topic (Iverson). Interestingly, the narrative of the article extremely resonates with the current time. The waves of Trumpism and white nationalism raised new questions and concerns about minority rights.
In the paper, the author used the framework of critical race theory. It guides the author in making arguments through the text and helps fulfill her intentions. Originating in the 1970s, critical race theory has become one of the most used and discussed theories in the modern academic community of social sciences. It poses reasonable questions to the dominant discourses which support bias toward minorities and “confirms that scholars and practitioners must listen to those who experience racism, sexism, and classism to counter the dominant discourses” (Iverson 588). Therefore, further in the article, the author comments and opposes many findings from diversity action plans through radical arguments of critical race theory.
Deceptive Representation of Minorities in Education
After the theory introduction, the author lists the discourses of universities’ diversity initiatives that do not help but only harm minority experiences. Discourse of access considers the existence of natural barriers for non-whites by creating a dichotomy between white insiders and minority outsiders (Iverson). Iverson indicates that “diversity policies use a majority (White and male) as the standard against which to measure minority progress and success” (p. 594). Discourse of disadvantage refers to universities’ attitudes towards minorities as deficient and risky of being victims of discrimination (Iverson). For example, concerning discrimination toward non-whites, universities tend not to address the source of the problem but to organize special services for help. Marketplace discourse means the commodification of diversity and equity as an integral part of a successful business (Iverson). Finally, the discourse of democracy treats the liberal legal ideology of universities’ staff as blind to skin color and race, which extensively misleads the issue (Iverson). All in all, Iverson brilliantly made a critical analysis of diversity action plans and came to the argument that universities’ diversity policies discursively put minorities in the inferior in relation to White students’ position.
Suggested Solutions
The article would be incomplete if the author did not offer alternative solutions. One of the main advantages of Iverson’s article is that she tries to suggest some tips that university policy-makers can use in their struggle for diversity. Iverson indicates that the well-structured diversity policies need to include the voice of the other side. Policy-makers need to “uncover counterstories” that will focus not on the deficiency of non-whites but the existence of white-privilige and implicit power in the hands of white officials (Iverson 604). Another piece of advice is to facilitate constructive dialogue, which will help to understand the real issues of minorities.
Conclusion
Through the framework of critical race theory, Iverson argued that US universities’ policies create false expectations and images that harm and do not help minorities in their struggle for justice. The author conducted a great amount of preliminary study to construct materials in such a great way as in the text. This article will help university policy-makers to modify their discourse to make their universities inclusive in practice.
Letter to the Editor
The traits of the discriminative nature of the modern university system in the United States have extensively diminished in modern times. However, Susan Iverson’s article “Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies” analyses more complex processes of discrimination and bias than basic ones. Iverson’s central claim is that US universities in their diversity action plans discursively support practices of exclusion and discrimination. Interestingly, this effect of exclusion is created unwillingly because the diversity policy-makers truly want to improve the current state of affairs.
The author used the critical race theory to justify the argument and analyzed 21 diversity action plans from universities from different states. Diversity action plans are the special documents in which universities describe their efforts to combat inequality and injustice. As a result of empirical study, Iverson found that the discourses of access, disadvantage, democracy, and marketplace distort the efforts to bring inclusivity. The reason is that these discourses reinforce the inferiority of minority groups and consider white men as an ideal type of student with whom non-white people need to be compared. To change the situation, Iverson suggests facilitating constructive dialogue and changing discourses to eliminate fallacies.
Work Cited
Iverson, Susan VanDeventer. “Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies.” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 5, 2007, pp. 586-611.