As the final post in this three-part reflection, I turn to race — perhaps the most visible and yet persistently misunderstood axis of structural inequality within higher education. Rather than approach this through anecdote, I focus here on a critical engagement with the literature and media provided, to question the institutional narratives around diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Crenshaw’s (1989) framework of intersectionality continues to offer a vital lens. Both Bradbury (2020) and Garrett (2024) extend this by showing how race, when compounded with other social markers like language or educational capital, is not only a source of individual struggle but a systemic fault line. Bradbury reveals how UK assessment policy constructs bilingual learners through deficit logics, recoding language richness as a liability. This is not merely an educational gap — it is a form of epistemic violence.
Garrett (2024) deepens this critique, tracing how racialised minority PhD students internalise structural limitations that reshape their imagined futures. The very notion of “career potential” becomes racially coded. This isn’t about overt racism, but about the subtle architecture of higher education, which rewards conformity to white, middle-class ideals while claiming inclusivity. In short, meritocracy is only as fair as the norms it privileges.
The TEDx talk by Sadiq (2023) gestures toward a hopeful DEI practice but risks staying at surface level — focusing on representation without redistribution. In contrast, the Channel 4 clip The School That Tried to End Racism promotes a pedagogy of dialogue but reinforces racism as interpersonal. The most reactionary of the set, Orr’s (2022) video for The Telegraph frames racial equity as ideological overreach, positioning white neutrality as the threatened norm. These pieces, when read together, expose a central tension: the institutional desire to appear inclusive without unsettling the very structures that perpetuate inequality.
At UAL and similar institutions, we often discuss “race” in terms of presence — who is in the room — rather than power. Yet as the texts reveal, inclusion is not a numbers game. Without addressing the embedded values that shape whose work is seen as legitimate
Reflecting on this three-part series, I’ve realised the core demand running through each post is a call for structural honesty — the courage to see where power lives, even in the soft language of inclusion. Race is not just a topic to include in our teaching; it is a system we are all entangled in. It shapes access, opportunity, and voice. As educators, we are not exempt from this — and must learn to name it, navigate it, and challenge it with care.
References
Bradbury, A. (2020). ‘A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp. 241–260.
Channel 4. (2020). The School That Tried to End Racism. [Video Clip].
Crenshaw, K. (1989). ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167.
Garrett, R. (2024). ‘Racism shapes careers: Career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp. 2–11.
Orr, J. (2022). Revealed: The Charity Turning UK Universities Woke. [Telegraph Video].
Sadiq, A. (2023). Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: Learning How to Get It Right. [TEDx Video].
3 replies on “Race, Power and the Illusion of Inclusion: A Critical Reading of Diversity Discourse in HE”
This was an interesting read Elisenda, I particularly enjoyed the framing of bilingual students as having linguistic ‘richness’. It brought to mind Ana’s intervention proposal, and the inherant predjudice in structures of academia that require a particular style of writing, which might be akin to a third language for those that are already writing in a second.
I agree that this is a call for reflection on the structure that we’re in. Thanks for bringing in the critique of meritocracy, the structures of academia and meritocracy are deeply entangled. It challenges me to consider how terms like “excellence” and “potential” are assessed in my own teaching, and whether these standards have invisibly privileged middle-class norms.
I agree that this is a call for reflection on the structure that we’re in. Thanks for bringing in the critique of meritocracy, the structures of academia and meritocracy are deeply entangled. It challenges me to consider how terms like “excellence” and “potential” are assessed in my own teaching, and whether these standards have invisibly privileged middle-class norms.