Challenging the dominant narratives: faculty members’ perceptions of administrators’ responses to Critical Race Theory bans

• Date: 28 February 2024
• Pages: 459-480
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2023-0040
• Published date: 28 February 2024
• Author: Kaleb L. Briscoe,Veronica A. Jones

Challenging the dominant

narratives: faculty members’

perceptions of administrators’

responses to Critical Race

Theory bans

Kaleb L. Briscoe

University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, and

Veronica A. Jones

University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose –Legislators continue to label Critical Race Theory (CRT) and other race-based concepts as divisive.

Nevertheless, CRT, at its core, is committed to radical transformation and addressing issues of race and racism

to understand how People of Color are oppressed.Through rhetoric and legislative bans, this current anti-CRT

movement uses race-neutral policies and practices to limit and eliminate CRT scholars, especially faculty

members, from teaching and researching critical pedagogies and other race-based topics.

Design/methodology/approach –Through semi-structured interviews using Critical Race Methodology

(CRM), the authors sought to understand how 40 faculty members challenged the dominant narratives

presented by administrators through their responses to CRT bans. Additionally, this work aimed to examine

how administrators’responses complicate how faculty make sense of CRT bans.

Findings –Findings describe three major themes: (1) how administrators failed to respond to CRT bans,

which to faculty indicated their desire to present a neutral stance as the middle ground between faculty and

legislators; (2) the type of rhetoric administrators engaged in exemplified authoritarian approaches that upheld

status quo narratives about diversity, exposing their inability to stand against oppressive dominant narratives;

and (3) institutional leaders’refusal to address the true threats that faculty members faced reinforced the

racialized harm that individuals engaging in CRT work must navigate individually.

Originality/value–This study is oneof the few that provideempiricaldata on thiscurrent anti-CRTmovement,

including problematizing the CRT bans, and how it affects campus constituents such as faculty members.

Keywords Qualitative, Faculty, Critical, Administrators, Critical Race Theory, Critical pedagogies

Paper type Research paper

In the current sociopolitical context, legislators across the nation are attempting to label

Critical Race Theory (CRT) and other race-conscious concepts within the curriculum as

divisive. After former President Trump’s executive order in 2020 attempting to ban diversity-

related training, the theory became a buzzword in the political sphere, with conservative

groups depicting CRT as a racially prejudiced ideology. Such rhetoric resulted in efforts by

legislators in over 44 states to ban CRT by name or implicitly, as race-based discussions in

educational classrooms and training (Schwartz, 2023). Across these state bills, legislators are

seeking to discredit certain “controversial”concepts, connecting CRT with educational

practices that could cause students to feel ashamed or responsible for histories of racism

based on their race (Bauer-Wolf, 2022). Such attempts point to the fears of those in power that

Challenging

the dominant

narratives

459

The research reported in the manuscript was made possible (in part) by a grant from the Spencer

Foundation (#202200214). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the views of the Spencer Foundation.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 28 January 2023

Revised 5 October 2023

Accepted 4 November 2023

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 43 No. 3, 2024

pp. 459-480

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-01-2023-0040

the dominance of whiteness within the educational system is being threatened. Indeed,

legislators through their rhetoric seek to minimize the effects of racism and oppression that

People of Color experience (Gillborn, 2016;Leonardo, 2009). Despite these false narratives,

CRT serves as a theoretical and methodological framework that allows scholars to challenge

racist structures and understand how racism is engrained into the fabric of American society

(Bell, 1992,1995;Matsuda, 1991).

Ladson-Billings and Tate’s (1995) work first described how CRT points to the systems of

inequities and the role of race and racism in education. CRT in education, more broadly, “seeks to

identify, analyze and form structural and cultural aspects of education that maintain subordinate

and dominant racial positions in and outside of the classroom”(Sol

orzano and Yosso, 2016,

p. 128). Ultimately, without the advancement of critiques about racism and racial injustice

through the use of CRT, we cannot eliminate forms of oppression and subordination, especially

within education (Matsuda, 1991;Sol

orzano and Yosso, 2016). CRT, at its core, embodies a

commitment to both a radical critique and radical transformation of the law, which situates CRT

scholars within a shared commitment to centering raceto understand the oppression of People of

Color (Bell, 2016;Calmore, 1991;Crenshaw et al., 1995). This advocacy on behalf of minoritized

communities has again put CRT scholars such as faculty members into the spotlight, with the

current political movement having tangible consequences on their lived experiences. As a

consequenceofanti-CRTlegislation,instatessuchasFlorida,professorshavehadtheircourses

canceled due to growing fears about the possible backlash of offering courses centered on race

(Caputo and Finn, 2022). Therefore, faculty members must contend with larger legislative

attempts to control their use of critical pedagogy while attending to various campus racial

climates at their respective institutions that may either prohibit or enhance their work.

While this is not the first-time faculty members have had to navigate political issues

(Haynes et al., 2020;Tuitt et al., 2018), the complicated nature of these current CRT bans has

caused unusual opposition to how they maneuver in the academy. Additionally,

administrators [1] that facul ty interact with are position ed to offer some level of

reassurance that they will be supported in the face of hostility and backlash for their

scholarship. Despite this positioning, administrators’responses might be possibly influenced

by external legislative pressures of state legislators and other constituents. Therefore, we

seek to center the voices of CRT scholars as faculty members who must navigate the

legislative bans in their state and responses of administrators within their institution. The

following research questions guided this study’s purpose:

(1) How do faculty members challenge the dominant narratives presented by

administrators through their responses to CRT bans?

(2) In what ways do administrators’responses complicate how faculty make sense of

CRT bans?

To better understand the positioning of faculty members, we hope to utilize their experiences

with administrators as a “call to context”to bring their social and experiential knowledge as

faculty to the forefront (Delgado, 1995). Ultimately, the reactions, rhetoric and decisions of

administrators affect the ability of faculty to effectively enact commitments to social

transformation. Therefore, this study serves as a significant contribution in highlighting the

counterstories of faculty engaged in CRT work, who can speak to the dominant narratives

held by administrators that they must navigate in addition to state legislative bans.

Teaching as a political act: faculty members use of critical pedagogies

Teaching is a political act, and classrooms are often political spaces where faculty discuss social

and political issues (Danowitz and Tuitt, 2011;Fobes and Kaufman, 2008;Giroux and Giroux,

EDI

43,3

460