White privilege,Black resilience: Women of color leading the academy

Introduction

“Usually when people talk about the ‘strength’ of a black woman … they ignore the reality that to be strong in the face of oppression is not the same as overcoming oppression, that endurance is not to be confused with transformation.”

The recent Black Lives Matter protests in response to police violence have not only revived conversations about anti-Blackness writ large in America, but also in the workplace, including higher education. No one appreciates the urgency of “now” more than Black, indigenous, immigrant, and refugee women, whose suffering from both misogyny and xenophobia have increased under the current political and racial climate. Leadership in colleges and universities takes place within an academic cultural context that is unlike that of other organizations, and where women and people of color were denied access until the mid to the late 19th century. Community colleges, the largest subset of higher education in America, have long been regarded as places that are welcoming to women, that served the majority of women students, and boasted higher percentages of women faculty administrators and presidents than any other higher education institutional types (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Community colleges have a higher percentage of women presidents (36%) than all colleges and universities (30%), and a slightly higher percentage of women of color hold presidential positions at community colleges (7%) than at all institution types combined (5%) (AACC, 2018; Gagliardi et al., 2017). These numbers reflect the slow and meandering advancement of women in presidential positions and the diversity therein, but these numbers are drastically unbalanced when compared to the overall community college student composition.

However, the numbers do not tell the whole story. Scholars have affirmed that women have achieved student population equity within higher education, often outnumbering men across college campuses (AACC, 2018). Considering the evolution of higher education when women were once not allowed to attend colleges, much progress has been made regarding gendered access. Yet, the ranks of faculty and institutional leadership have not achieved parity with the diversification of the student population. In order to achieve true parity in community college leadership positions, a variety of approaches to leaders and leadership must be welcomed and cultivated. As a black woman leader in higher education, I understand and am aware of the racial and gender inequities that have impacted my career path into middle management. As presidents are the most visible leaders within the hierarchal system of community colleges, I endeavored to glean insight from women of color at this level on their experiences with race and leadership in academia. Using narrative inquiry and a semi-structured protocol, I interviewed current and recent past community college women presidents of color and engaged in a discourse on their lived experiences as women of color leading community colleges. Their chosen pseudonyms are Anne Marie, Brenda, Yvette, and Valarie. Because of the racial history in America, these women have demonstrated resilience in the face of adversity and have learned to survive and thrive on their leadership journeys. Their struggles helped form their equity-minded leadership, which ultimately led them to transform their institution, their community, and their students’ success.

The gendered leadership effect

Community colleges are often referred to as democratic institutions where all are welcome, and a key focus of their institutional mission is equity (AACC, 2018). More than half (56%) of community college students are women, and community colleges serve nearly half of all undergraduate students belonging to racial and ethnically minoritized groups across all institution types (AACC, 2018). Just as community colleges aim to provide equitable educational opportunities for students, they should also provide equitable opportunities for and expectations of who can lead. Townsend and Twombly (2007) found limited evidence that institutional leaders intentionally worked to make colleges welcoming to women. Eddy and other scholars clarified that women are often hesitant to consider moving up the leadership ladder in community colleges (Eddy and Cox, 2008; Eddy and Ward, 2017; Garza Mitchell and Eddy, 2008), and despite the growing numbers of women in leadership positions, there is still inequity when it comes to gender representation (Martin and O’Meara, 2017).

The gendered stereotypical expectations of a heteronormative white male leader are still pervasive and dominant. The conversations about community college leadership have changed slightly over time but reflect that of higher education leadership in general, which still largely favors masculine behaviors and the individual leader. The positional expectations of the president conjure an ideal leader with a work/life balance system that makes it possible for long work hours—this ideal is typically a man with a wife at home (Acker, 2012; Williams, 2005). These unspoken expectations, racialized narratives, and perceived stereotypes are simultaneously akin to historical and current instruments of domination, and inequality within social class, wealth, and opportunities have been a source of intergenerational trauma. Shirley Chisholm, in her 1968 US House of Representatives campaign, offered a solution to gender inequity, “if they do not give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair,” (Chisholm, 1968). Chisholm, in her historic win, became the first black female elected to the US Congress.

Gender and racial biases that permeate the leadership echelons of higher education create challenges and resistance for women who move up and into leadership positions. The resistance faced by women, particularly women of color, undoubtedly contributes to women deciding not to move into higher level positions and thus, reinforces outdated models of who fits the academic leadership profile. White men and white women, who benefit from overt and systemic privilege, do not face the same quantity or type of challenges as women of color. For women of color that do advance up the academic career ladder to presidencies, such as the women of color who participated in this research, Anne Marie, Brenda, Yvette, and Valarie, their lived experiences and individual stories reveal their own interpretation of events and bring context to the gendered nature and expectations of presidential positions in the community college.

White privilege is the fencepost for gatekeepers

White privilege continues to be the gatekeeper for the community college presidency, whereby underrepresented women who travel a traditional route similar to that of their white male and female counterparts still encounter challenges, obstacles, and outright discrimination. According to Anne Marie, “as a president, you need credibility, with a PhD in an academic field and an understanding of the life of a faculty member and experience being part of the academy.” Even with the academic qualifications and prior leadership experiences, we have all been passed over for often less qualified and inexperienced candidates. The role of white privilege is reaffirmed each time you are overlooked for a white male or female. To overcome this, diverse and representative leadership has to be a conscious effort on the institution’s part if the growth of diverse leaders is the goal. The same is true to grow women leaders and imperative to grow women of color into leaders.

Women of color leaders acknowledged that racial microaggressions were more prevalent in their experiences in higher education than overt racism. They encountered these microaggressions more so once they entered the administrative ranks, and the occurrences were pervasive across the various institutions and the various leadership levels in which they have worked. The examples of microaggressions shared by Anne Marie, Valarie, Brenda, and Yvette highlight the passive and aggressive racial encounters along their career paths. Valarie shared, “Being a black woman, you are faced with racism and misogyny on the job.” These encounters included being assumed to be someone’s assistant as opposed to the leader, being questioned about one’s work even though professional credentials match or surpass the naysayer. Brenda related her experiences of being “belittled” and “questioned in meetings in front of everyone.” She shared other instances where “others in management went behind my back to my boss and questioned my reports, only for those same individuals to be proven wrong. There’s never an apology, just an “ah, okay, I see” response. I have dealt with racist and inappropriate/unprofessional and womanizing comments directed toward myself and others.” In summary, racial microaggressions are not foreign to women of color nor are they restricted to the workplace (King, 1991; Sue et al., 2007). Because these types of slights are considered commonplace, many women of color are adept at dealing with them. The aggressors were both within and outside ethnic minoritized groups, although most encounters were with white males. The manifestation of these aggressions reminds us all of the roles that privilege, race, and gender have played and continue to play within our larger society and higher education overall.

Systemic barriers imposed by white privilege

It is not only the personal slights that attempt to thwart the leadership journeys of women of color. Organizational culture, structure, and governance also present impediments to advancement based upon race and gender. As women of color in higher education leadership positions, we offer the following recommendations for removing barriers to career advancement: representative leadership, succession management, and mentoring. There is a lack of ethnic and gender representation at all levels of higher education leadership, particularly at executive level and in board membership. Valarie reflects on receiving a list from hiring panels of recommended finalists for faculty positions that lacked ethnic and gender diversity that were ultimately rejected with instructions for the committee to cast a wider and more diverse net. Recurring incidences like Valarie described undermine any expressed commitment to diversity. Brenda shares from her experience that “like faculty select like faculty,” meaning that if the majority of the existing professoriate are white males, so probably will be the newly recruited professors, chairs, or deans. Women leaders of color must assert themselves proactively in the selection process for hiring panels. Such a fervent stance does not serve to undermine hiring committees, but rather empowers them to expand their search for the highest quality of representative candidates.

Amidst the Black Lives Matter movement, a number of corporate CEOs and other leaders spanning media, tech, creative spaces, beauty industries, and politics resigned from their positions, with many asking for their successors to be people of color. While these actions attempt to minimize the racial imbalance in leadership representation, higher education institutions have not used such mechanisms to address inequities in their own leadership diversity. The benefits and consequences to internal or external succession planning must be considered in the context of the institutional composition if diversity is truly an aspiration. Effective succession management strategies are essential to the sustainability of the community college leadership. As a result, we see a dire need for gender- and ethnic-specific professional development opportunities.

The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) outlined core competencies for community college leaders in their article titled Competencies for Community College Leaders, originally published in 2005 and last revised in 2018. These competencies were born out of the understanding that “the development and availability of well-prepared leaders is vital to the continued success of community colleges and their students” (AACC, 2005: 1). The six core competencies outlined in 2005 (organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism) for successful leadership have evolved to 11 focus areas in 2018: organizational culture, governance/institutional policy/legislation, student success, institutional leadership, institutional infrastructure, information/analytics, advocacy/mobilizing/motivating others, fundraising/relationship cultivation, communication, collaboration, and personal traits/abilities. The AACC recommended that the “leadership gap can be addressed through a variety of strategies such as college grow your own programs, AACC council and university programs, residential institutes, coaching/mentoring, and online/blended approaches” (AACC, 2005: 2).

As for creating and fostering an organizational culture that supports and promotes aspiring talent and boosts the sustainability of an organization, Yvette offered some concrete suggestions such as formal and informal mentoring networks, valuing a collegial environment in which people genuinely like each other and are not afraid to take risks, offering structured professional development opportunities for leadership, and establishing and maintaining cultural fluency. The alchemy of these components strengthens the organization for all people, not just for people of color. Brenda explains that “perhaps the most sensitive of issues for female leaders is advocating for oneself when it comes to appropriate compensation. Some women hinder themselves professionally by being timid in advocating for themselves, especially when it comes to executive level position compensation.” The pay disparity does little to cultivate leadership within the organization, and thus, must be central to all succession planning conversations.

Women of color leaders, frustrated at the lack of opportunities to advance within their own organizations, may feel compelled to seek advancement opportunities elsewhere. While this does not necessarily mean that a lack of internal promotional opportunities denotes a lack of sustainable leadership strategies, or that leaders of color are not identified as “leadership material” as often as their white male colleagues, we often do not see a lack of said opportunities for our white counterparts, male or female. White privilege has a built-in mentoring network that people of color cannot access. Add to that the ol’ boys club, and women of color have an added layer of privilege to overcome. The invitations to golf and other social network outings do not come automatically for women of color. Hence, mentoring opportunities occur with explicit solicitations of others to serve as mentors rather than being something that is offered.

For many of us, we stand out as the “only” woman or person of color in the room, which brings the burden of feeling invisible and unheard due to others’ perceptions of our gender and ethnicity. We often seek places of solace and unspoken understanding among other women who either served as executive leaders themselves or recognized their latent talent for leadership at pivotal points in their careers. While influential mentors can come from various backgrounds, there is a unanimous affinity for having a female of color to provide both professional guidance and emotional support on your leadership journey. Nevertheless, we must build up our allies to impart incremental institutional and structural changes for justice.

Finding a way out of no way

“Tremendous amounts of talent are being lost to our society just because that talent wears a skirt” (Chisholm and Lynch, 2010: 92). The oppressive nature of white privilege manifests itself in the forms of microaggressions, limited access to mentoring networks, and systemic bias in gendered organizations. Current research and the experiences of Black, indigenous, and people of color have shown us that the most effective way to achieve a diverse hiring committee: a diverse composition of finalists for top leadership positions, and an unbiased hiring process is to acknowledge white male privilege and mitigate the legacy of racism and sexism historically embedded in all institutions of higher education. The benefits of Black female leaders are that they help create an anti-racist organization by looking at the systemic challenges in addressing bias, prejudices, and privilege to level the playing field and shift the influential power and decision-making structure of the institution. Brenda feels well positioned to advocate for changes that affect people who look like her because she can relate. She now has power and authority to make change happen, particularly for women and people of color. “I feel a part of a larger community that is working for a change that none of us can achieve alone.” Diversity promotes opportunity for equity as an emergent change agent in the structuring of higher education, while leadership promotes practices that identify diversity as a nested context for achieving an equitable balance in the social relationship between higher education and society (Aguirre and Martinez, 2006).

Conclusion

While there is no prescription for the ultimate inclusive and representative sustainable leadership plan in higher education, parallels can be drawn from the corporate sector’s succession planning and adapted to higher education to ensure inclusion of and support to female leaders of color. To start, the organization requires strong and engaged governing board members who are continually exposed to a diverse representation within multiple levels of executive leadership positions such as vice presidents and vice chancellors. This will introduce a level of talent to the board that traditionally they would not encounter. As institutions of higher education work to develop a culture of succession management, the organization should engage in a constant and deliberate identification of internal talent, with a comparison to comparable talent external to the organization. Identification and encouragement of next generation presidents/chancellors is essential as the demographic makeup of the higher education student population continues to diversify. Furthermore, it legitimizes the succession management process by removing personal biases and vested interest from the talent management process. Organizations striving for diverse and representative leadership have to instill these components in all facets of the organization, most notably human resources and those involved in the recruitment of new talent. Candidates from diverse backgrounds are especially keen to improve the organizational culture of higher education institutions as their success depends on their ability to thrive in any given environment—including gendered organizations and systemic oppression.