Abstract
In this critical qualitative study, we draw on interviews with sitting Presidents of Color in one state to explore the racialized dimensions of the college and university presidential search and appointment process. Informed by Ray’s racialized organization tenets of whiteness as a credential and racialized agency, our findings show that participants felt hyper-scrutinized and judged against white, masculine standards, norms, and expectations and had to endure explicit and implicit undermining of their potential for campus leadership. Our findings provide practice implications and recommendations for making presidential searches and appointments in higher education more racially equitable and inclusive.
Keywords
Whiteness functions as a social position and an ideology, enabling white 1 individuals to structure inclusion and exclusion based on racial identities (Gusa, 2010; C. I. Harris, 1993; J. C. Harris, 2019). In processes like academic hiring, whiteness allows those in power—often white men—to maintain racial inequities by favoring candidates who conform to white, masculine heteronormativity (Carbado, 2013; C. I. Harris, 1993; Liera & Hernandez, 2021; Ray, 2022). This influence is often subtle, shaping criteria for evaluating merit (e.g., earned doctoral degree) and fit (e.g., “presidential” look and sound) (Liera & Ching, 2020; Wingfield & Chavez, 2020). Although seemingly race-neutral and objective, research shows that these criteria often align with the credentials and experiences of white men, making them more likely to be seen as “qualified,” and thus, the “right” choice (Liera & Hernandez, 2021; Posselt et al., 2020; White-Lewis, 2020).
Building on these insights, we examined how whiteness influences the hiring of college and university presidents. We focused on whiteness because efforts to diversify higher education leadership have not reduced the dominance of white men as presidents (Cohen & March, 1974; Melidona et al., 2023). Despite increasing racial diversity, progress has been slow: in 1986, less than 10 percent of presidents were People of Color (Gagliardi et al., 2017); today, this figure remains under 30 percent (Melidona et al., 2023). We argue that whiteness drives exclusion and hinders progress, leading to the reality that a President of Color is often the first and only one in an institution’s history (Bensimon & Associates, 2022b; Jung, 2023). Our focus on whiteness also addresses the problematic expectation that Candidates of Color must conform to white norms to be considered. This “white way” of hiring can dehumanize Candidates of Color, pressuring them to downplay their racial identities, histories, and commitments to racial equity. This dynamic constrains the hiring of Black, Indigenous, Latina/x/o, Asian, and Pacific Islander leaders who are capable of fulfilling presidential duties and advancing racial equity on campuses.
Our paper draws on interviews with 20 sitting Presidents of Color from public higher education institutions in one state, conducted as part of a larger case study on racialization in presidential searches. Racially marginalized individuals are often more attuned to how racism, including whiteness, manifests in American society (e.g., Du Bois, 2008; C. I. Harris, 1993) and within universities (e.g., J. C. Harris, 2019; Stewart, 2019). Therefore, the perspectives of Presidents of Color were crucial for understanding whiteness in presidential hiring. Our research questions were:
How do Presidents of Color describe whiteness in the presidential search and appointment process?
How do Presidents of Color respond to whiteness in the presidential search and appointment process?
Supported by Ray’s (2019) theory of racialized organizations—specifically, whiteness as a credential and racialized agency tenets—we found that participants’ hiring chances depended on showcasing the whiteness of their degrees, professional experiences, appearance, and behavior; withstanding search committees’ hyper-scrutiny even when their qualifications surpassed what the job description outlined; and wrestling with the psychological and existential burdens before, during, and after they become presidents. We offer recommendations for how presidential selection and appointment can become more equitable and inclusive, especially during this pivotal era in higher education with increasing presidential turnover, calls for racial justice, and anti-DEI legislation.
Academic Hiring in Racialized Organizations
In this section, we present our study’s theoretical and empirical background. Using Ray’s (2019) theory of racialized organizations as our analytical framework, alongside scholarship on racial diversity and equity in academic hiring (Liera & Ching, 2020), we argue that (1) academic hiring, including presidential hiring, is a racially unequal structure with racialized outcomes, and (2) whiteness is a cause of racialization in presidential search and appointment within postsecondary institutions.
Ray (2019, 2022; Ray & Purifoy, 2019) asserted that racism, racial hierarchies, and inequality are perpetuated by organizational processes (e.g., hiring) and mechanisms (e.g., evaluation criteria) that link micro-level racial biases and macro-level racial ideologies (e.g., whiteness) to the meso-level distribution of scarce organizational resources (e.g., leadership positions). Research has consistently found that academic hiring is a process through which racialization occurs in colleges and universities, often favoring white individuals—mainly white men—over People of Color (Gause, 2021; Liera & Ching, 2020; Liera & Hernandez, 2021; Rivera, 2017; Turner, 2021; Villarreal, 2022; White-Lewis, 2020).
Early studies showed that individual racial schemas, such as implicit bias, stereotyping, and preferences, influence candidate evaluations, particularly within search committees predominantly composed of white individuals (Konrad & Pfeffer, 1991; Turner, 2002). For example, these committees tend to undervalue racially marginalized candidates due to limited appreciation of their experiences, expertise, and leadership styles (Turner, 2002; Turner et al., 1999). Persistent stereotypes in academic hiring processes are that Candidates of Color are less qualified or that the pipeline of marginalized academics is inadequate (Smith et al., 1996, 2004).
Racially biased evaluations affect hiring outcomes. Labor market field experiments have shown that decision-makers favor white-sounding names and view white candidates as more meritorious, deserving, and suitable than similarly or more qualified Candidates of Color (Beattie et al., 2013; Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Gaddis, 2014). Additionally, decision-makers may negatively evaluate Candidates of Color from less selective institutions, particularly if their scholarly contributions, professional experiences, or physical appearance do not align with established field and organizational norms (Tuitt et al., 2007).
While studies on racial schemas clarified how decision-making and evaluation contribute to racialized hiring outcomes (Gonzales et al., 2024; Liera & Hernandez, 2021; White-Lewis, 2020), researchers have also documented the persistence of racial and gender stereotyping when Candidates of Color have similar credentials and professional experiences as their white counterparts, leading to their exclusion from serious consideration (Burmicky, 2022; Gause, 2021; Turner, 2007). Seeking answers, researchers have investigated how macro-level racial ideologies, particularly whiteness, influence micro-level racial schemas and the likelihood that white candidates advance in the hiring process (Liera & Ching, 2020). This work supports Ray’s (2019) concept that whiteness functions as a valued credential in racialized organizations, providing access to resources, legitimizing racial hierarchies, and enhancing white agency.
Whiteness impacts academic hiring through ostensibly objective, race-neutral criteria of “merit” (i.e., qualifications) and “fit” (i.e., suitability) that shape candidate evaluations (Burmicky, 2022; Liera & Ching, 2020; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017; White-Lewis, 2020). Assuming merit and fit are race-neutral ignores how whiteness underlies these criteria, often favoring candidates who (a) studied and worked at elite, predominantly white institutions; (b) produce research grounded in positivistic, Eurocentric epistemologies published in “top-tier” journals; (c) share racial and gender identities with decision-makers; (d) conform to the appearance, speech, and behavior typical of predominantly white faculty and leaders; and (e) prioritize individual over collective leadership styles (Gause, 2021; Liera & Ching, 2020; Liera & Hernandez, 2021; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017).
Scholars who view merit and fit as racialized criteria have documented how traditional, white-centric hiring priorities limit opportunities for People of Color even before an academic search begins (White-Lewis, 2021). They have shown how racialized criteria impact which candidates advance from the initial to the semi-finalist and finalist pools (Culpepper et al., 2023; O’Meara et al., 2023; Posselt, 2016). They have documented the tendency of white-dominant search committees to (a) evaluate merit and fit based on candidates’ proximity to members’ professional and personal profiles; (b) give white candidates the benefit of the doubt, valuing and trusting their whiteness while scrutinizing Candidates of Color unfairly, regardless of their credentials and experiences (Bensimon & Associates, 2022b; Liera & Hernandez, 2021; White-Lewis, 2020); and (c) signal their preferences for merit and fit, which can influence how candidates present themselves and their social identities (Rodgers & Liera, 2023). For instance, they might expect Candidates of Color to frame their “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) qualifications and experiences in ways that appeal to white audiences (Rodgers & Liera, 2023).
Researchers have found that Presidents of Color are aware of the racialized expectations and preferences in the selection and appointment process and the impact of not aligning with white merit and fit criteria (Bensimon & Associates, 2022b; Burmicky, 2022; Hines, 2021; Muñoz, 2009; Oikelome, 2017). For instance, Women of Color presidents have noted that race-gender bias undermines their chances and that they face inappropriate, sexist questions and critiques of their demeanor and voice for not sounding “presidential” (Oikelome, 2017; Turner, 2007). Presidents of Color have reported adapting to search committees’ white merit and fit expectations by downplaying their racial identities and conforming to white norms (Burmicky, 2022; Gause, 2021; Hines, 2023; Turner, 2007). For example, Latino presidents in Burmicky’s (2022) study navigated the pressure to conform to white norms, altering their appearance to “look more presidential” and limiting their use of Spanish despite the benefits of bilingualism for the organization.
In a racialized selection and appointment process, Candidates of Color can only partially present their qualifications, assets, and approach to presidential leadership. According to Ray (2019), such experiences of racialized agency are common in racialized organizations, as People of Color are often constrained in their actions, self-expression, and future prospects. Racialized agency in presidential hiring begins before a search starts. Traditionally, presidents advance through the academic ranks, from faculty to leadership roles like department chair, dean, and provost (Birnbaum & Umbach, 2001; Cohen & March, 1974). Hiring discrimination throughout this hierarchy (Burmicky, 2022; Danowitz Sagaria, 2002) has resulted in white men predominantly filling these roles (Melidona et al., 2023), while People of Color, particularly Women of Color, are less likely to follow the traditional path to a presidency (Oikelome, 2017). Those with presidential ambitions might pursue “non-academic” leadership paths, but their legitimacy can be scrutinized due to perceived gaps in academic leadership experience.
In summary, research shows that racial schemas and ideologies contribute to racialized hiring outcomes, slow progress in diversifying the presidency (Melidona et al., 2023), and reinforce the association of the “presidential” role with white men and white, masculine heteronormativity (Bensimon & Associates, 2022b; Garza Mitchell & Garcia, 2020). Whiteness limits the ability of People of Color to compete for scarce positions like college presidencies and to pursue the hiring process in authentic and identity-affirming ways. Building on this research and Ray’s (2019) tenets of whiteness as a credential and racialized agency, we examined how Presidents of Color navigated white credentialing and search committee scrutiny during the hiring process and how they addressed the constraints of whiteness to express their humanity and gain recognition from decision-makers.
A Critical Qualitative Approach
This study was part of a broader initiative to increase the racial diversity of college presidents and enhance racial equity in presidential search and appointment processes at public higher education institutions in one state. A grant from The College Futures Foundation supported our research activities. The grant invited Dr. Estela Bensimon, the project’s principal investigator, to study racialization in presidential search practices. We used a critical qualitative approach for the main study and the current analysis.
A critical qualitative perspective allowed us to question and challenge existing presidential hiring norms from a racial equity standpoint (Freire, 1970). It helped us understand participants’ experiences and identify ways to transform current practices equitably (Kincheloe, 2005). Critical qualitative research is based on several assumptions (Kincheloe et al., 2012), four of which were relevant to this study: power is socially and historically constructed; objectivity is a myth; privilege and oppression are pervasive; and race-neutral practices often perpetuate racial inequity. Our study addressed societal issues related to race, ethnicity, and gender (White, 2015), specifically the underrepresentation of Presidents of Color in higher education and their potential to advance equity for racially marginalized students and practitioners.
Group Positionality
Our research team comprises individuals with diverse racial identities and expertise: an Asian cisgender woman, a Black cisgender woman, a Latina cisgender woman, a Latino cisgender man, and a white cisgender woman. Our areas of specialization include higher education executive leadership, racialization in evaluation and decision-making processes, racial equity policy and reforms, and racial equity practices in philanthropy and campus settings. Our diverse racial identities and professional backgrounds shaped how we conceptualized and analyzed racialization in presidential hiring. We believe that our identities, shared racialized experiences in academia, and experience working with universities on racial equity in the state where the data was collected helped us build rapport with Presidents of Color during the interviews. Additionally, our understanding of racial inequity and efforts to promote racial equity in higher education informed our framing of interview questions and in-depth probing of participant responses. Our collective commitment to addressing racism and racialization in higher education also guided discussions about research design and interpretation of participant experiences.
Sampling
Our sampling strategy began with a background research phase in the fall of 2021. We created a database from publicly available sources detailing the characteristics of sitting presidents at public institutions in our focal state, including demographics, highest degree, discipline, and prior roles. We also collected information on institutional characteristics (e.g., student composition, Carnegie classification) and community characteristics (e.g., political orientation). Based on this research, we invited all presidents from the state’s research university and state university systems and a sample of community college presidents to participate. We used a maximum variation sampling strategy (Patton, 2002) to select community college presidents, considering factors like regional area, single versus multi-college district, student demographics, history of hiring racially marginalized presidents, and recent presidential hires. The president of The College Futures Foundation sent invitation letters on our behalf, highlighting our commitment to providing actionable recommendations for change to help build rapport with potential participants. Thirty-six presidents agreed to participate: 20 Presidents of Color and 16 white presidents. For this paper, we focused on the 20 Presidents of Color, which included 10 community college presidents and 10 research and state university presidents. Of these participants, eight identified as cisgender women.
Interviews
While we collected presidential job descriptions, CVs, and related data, the primary data for this paper came from semi-structured interviews. Our interview protocol, informed by scholarship on racial diversity and equity in academic hiring, included 19 questions organized into five areas: trajectory to the presidency; search process for their current role; reflections on race and gender in their search processes; perceptions of racialization in presidential hiring; and recommendations for improving the presidential search. We developed and refined the protocol iteratively, conducting a pilot test with a former college president from a public institution outside our focal state.
We conducted all interviews via Zoom in spring 2022. Each lasted at least 45 minutes. All except one interview was recorded with permission and professionally transcribed. Before each interview, we reviewed background information on participants from their CVs, presidential websites, job descriptions, campus context from our database, and institutional websites. Participants received the interview questions in advance to familiarize themselves with the interview scope. The interviews started with participants’ personal experiences and paths to the presidency before exploring issues related to racialization in their search and appointment processes.
Analysis
Analysis was iterative, involving continuous movement between raw data and interpretation across multiple rounds (Patton, 2002). We documented our analytical decisions and actions in a shared research log. During team meetings, we discussed initial impressions, resolved interpretive differences, explored concepts to deepen our understanding, and planned subsequent analytical steps. To start, each researcher reviewed the transcripts of their interviews, highlighting data related to participant experiences and perspectives on racial bias and racism in the hiring process. This inductive approach allowed us to examine data on racialization in presidential searches, integrating emerging ideas with evidence and theoretical insights (Charmaz, 2014). For example, we found that participants were explicitly and implicitly advised that their chances of selection depended on conforming to white norms. This finding reflects what Wingfield and Alston (2014) described as racial tasks, where People of Color are expected to reinforce whiteness in how they carry out their professional roles.
Next, we examined how Ray’s (2019) tenets of whiteness as a credential and racialized agency illuminated our participants’ experiences. Román formulated two analytic questions that aligned with our research objectives (Neumann & Pallas, 2015): “How do Presidents of Color perceive the value of their credentials?” and “In what ways do credentials associated with whiteness expand or restrict their agency?” To address the first question, we analyzed participant perceptions of the value of their credentials, such as educational degrees, and whether these were viewed as more or less valuable. For the second question, we explored how participants used their credentials to navigate the search process. We applied these questions to interviews conducted by another team member, providing fresh perspectives on the data. We documented findings in analytic memos.
To craft our findings, we first organized data under the following codes in a matrix: educational credentials and training; leadership experience; social identities (e.g., race, class, gender, age); aesthetics and appearance; diversity, equity, and inclusion work; access to networking; knowledge about the search process; reputation; and organizational fit and need. A column for “disconfirming evidence” captured data that diverged from emerging patterns. After discussing patterns, Román used the matrix to identify relationships between the codes. Román and Cheryl drafted the findings. Team feedback and input from peers not involved in the study provided additional insights and refined our findings.
Trustworthiness
In team meetings, we challenged each other’s assumptions by playing “devil’s advocate,” which helped us address and incorporate disconfirming evidence. We also applied our analytic questions to interviews conducted by another researcher, cross-checking interpretations from a subset of data with the broader dataset (Patton, 2002). As part of the larger study, we presented early findings to an advisory group of Presidents of Color convened by the funding organization. Their feedback validated our interpretations, refined theme development, and ensured participant confidentiality.
Limitations
Although we aimed to recruit all Presidents of Color at public research universities in our focal state, not all participated, and we interviewed only a subset of community college Presidents of Color. We also only conducted this study within one state, so we have no point of comparison and cannot generalize the findings. These limitations of our sample mean this study is exploratory, not comprehensive. Additionally, the interviews were retrospective, and memories can smooth over nuances over time. Recalling specific details, therefore, may have been challenging, especially for participants who have held positions for an extended period. To address this limitation, we asked presidents to reflect on their recent experiences with presidential search committees. At the same time, we consistently heard messages from our participants that the issues of today, precisely the anti-DEI rhetoric, have been plaguing presidential search processes for many years.
“A Sophistication about How to Exclude”
A Black participant (woman) described racism in the presidential search and appointment process: “People are sophisticated not to say, ‘I don’t want no Black folks.’ . . . [I]t’s not openly discriminatory . . .”; rather, “there’s a sophistication about how to exclude” (emphasis added). Our participants’ experiences reveal how whiteness subtly shapes the “sophisticated” exclusionary practices and can compel Candidates of Color to conform to white norms and expectations to enhance their chances of becoming college presidents. First, we illustrate how the prototypical image of college presidents as white, masculine, and heteronormative leaders establishes implicit selection standards. Next, we examine participants’ racialized agency as they navigated the (in)visible racial barriers in presidential hiring. We show that participants had to (a) demonstrate their “white credentials,” including markers of merit (e.g., educational degrees, professional experiences, and career trajectories) and fit (e.g., appearance, speech, and behavior), and (b) manage the dual pressure of emphasizing their white credentials while downplaying their racial/ethnic and gender identities to endure the hyper-scrutiny of their potential, competence, and suitability for campus leadership. Finally, we illustrate how conforming to the “white way” of presidential hiring did not shield participants from the psychological and existential burdens that undermined their legitimacy and constrained how they could lead.
A Tacit Presence: The Prototypical Image of the American College President
Few participants reported overt racial discrimination during their search and appointment processes. However, all recounted experiences where multiple stakeholders—including search committees, search firm representatives, and mentors—expected them to conform to the prototypical image of an American college president; failure to do so lowered their chances of selection. Participants were well aware of the prototypical image. An Asian participant (man) noted that the “traditional president is basically a white male,” while a Black participant (man) remarked that “traditional notions of success” exemplify “traditional Western notions of character.” According to a Latino participant, a college president’s “natural profile” is an academic who holds a terminal degree, achieved tenure, and ascended the ranks of academic leadership. Participants also discussed a college president’s expected appearance and behavior, with the same Asian participant quoted above emphasizing that presidential hopefuls “have to at least look the part to be able to play the part.”
A recurring theme was how the prototypical image tacitly operated as a standard against which participants’ candidacy was measured before and during the hiring process. One Latino participant noted that the prototypical image, combined with the scarcity of Presidents of Color, discourages People of Color from considering the presidency. The image “is one of the biggest obstacles that stops People of Color wanting to become presidents,” having been “reinforced over a long period of time of seeing people over and over and over and over, that looked a certain way.” With few Presidents of Color, historically and currently, he explained that it has been hard to disrupt the white man image of college presidents and “very difficult for other People of Color to see themselves in positions of power and say, ‘I wanna become a President just like she is.’” His observation underscored the racialized impact of the prototypical image and the barriers People of Color face even before the formal hiring process begins.
According to participants, the racialized impact intensified once the process was underway. Their progression through increasingly intense evaluation stages depended not only on whether and how they met the qualifications listed in the job call; instead, their likelihood of selection hinged on white credentialing, specifically, whether, how, and to what extent their profile look, mannerisms, and leadership qualities mimicked those of the white men who have disproportionately populated the presidency.
White Credentialing of Educational Degrees and Professional Trajectories
Most participants fit aspects of the “natural profile” of a college president. Like the majority of presidents nationwide (Melidona et al., 2023), they held terminal degrees in their fields and progressed through academic leadership ranks. They tended not to question why their degrees, movement up the academic affairs hierarchy, and sometimes, previous experience as a president were deemed essential for leading a college. A Latino participant conveyed that moving from faculty member to dean and vice president meant he “had a pretty good grounding to get [to the presidency].”
One Woman of Color participant said, however, that expecting candidates to hold a doctorate, even when the job description states it is preferred, not required, can have racialized effects. She suggested that when Candidates of Color do not have a doctorate, search committees adjust their evaluation standards, using the absence of this credential to exclude them from consideration: I think what the committee fails to realize is you don’t require it, so why has that become the propensity or the lens by which you scrutinize candidates? It gives latitude that when you have a Person of Color. . . [they] can use that as a way to screen or shift perspectives about that candidate . . . [to] only make it a requirement when it comes to other attributes of the candidate that you don’t prefer.
She added that Women of Color candidates who have not completed their doctoral programs are particularly vulnerable to search committees’ preferential whims for white, masculine, heteronormativity. They are “scrutinized a little bit differently, and those things bleed into post-interview and on the job if you’re afforded the opportunity.” From this participant’s perspective, search committees may use the lack of a degree—despite it not being a job requirement—to undermine a Candidate of Color’s chances because Presidents of Color do not have the benefit of whiteness as a credential.
Where Presidents of Color were credentialed also mattered. As candidates, participants felt they needed not only the right qualifications but also the right qualifications from the right places to be hired. They sensed that search committees valued degrees in prestigious disciplinary fields (i.e., STEM) from elite universities, which are structures that have systematically excluded People of Color (Posselt, 2016). This preference arises partially from the outsized role faculty members on a search committee can play in vetting candidates and their preference for candidates whose backgrounds mirror theirs. A Latino participant said, “[F]aculty committees are very parochial. What I mean by this is that they’re looking at: Did you go to a particular university, and do you have this particular background? So they’re checking off their list.” Given that most faculty are white, especially among tenured and full professors (Hussar et al., 2020) who are more likely to serve on presidential search committees, Candidates of Color are likely judged by faculty members whose “list” reflects the backgrounds of white academic candidates. A Black participant (woman) believed that her bachelor’s, two master’s, and doctoral degrees from highly selective universities were necessary to “compete with [the] blondes and white guys.” Despite enjoying her education, she felt that with these credentials, she could not be legitimately passed over for white candidates.
I am convinced in my heart of hearts, if my resume didn’t look the way that it looked—there’s no way you can tell me no, and if you do, you better have damned good reasons—I don’t think I would be sitting here right now. It was not about my capacity; it [was] more about those documents. I know that. And it’s only because those outweigh some of the other characteristics or things that some of my competition brings to the table.
Even as degrees from elite universities helped this president in the selection and appointment process, she believed she had to be overqualified on credentials that mattered to the search committee just to be on a level playing field with white candidates.
Several participants suggested that searching for candidates with the “natural profile” systematically disadvantages Candidates of Color; no matter their credentials and professional path, whiteness remains the most valued credential. A Latino participant noted that academia “is still very much a white system.” With three-quarters of faculty identifying as white, opportunities for racially marginalized individuals to “go through [the traditional academic] ranks” are limited. Despite calls for greater racial/ethnic diversity in presidencies, he observed insufficient efforts to “buil[d] a bench” and “a pipeline for individuals [of Color] to go above and then become a college president.” In a “white system,” supposedly objective, race-neutral credentials like a terminal degree and academic leadership roles shape who can seriously compete for a presidency.
Participants whose professional pathways veered from “the natural profile” found that search committees heavily scrutinized their leadership preparation. For example, a Latino participant with experience in higher education administration and public service recalled questions that were “somewhat personal, like, ‘You’ve only been in administration five years, what makes you think you have the ability to do this job?’” He commented, “Could you see that as a legitimate question?” He was criticized for not serving as vice president and was told, “I needed more time. I needed to be a vice president.” This criticism felt particularly unjust given his extensive public service leadership experience, which he believed bestowed valuable skills for the role, such as working with multiple constituencies. With a search committee that could delegitimize his qualifications and exclude him based on his “non-traditional” pathway, he swallowed the unfair evaluation and focused on how his educational and public service leadership experience prepared him for the presidency. Another Latino participant with a self-described “non-traditional” presidential background in human resources and operations roles understood that he was at a “disadvantage” when “compared to somebody that had 15 years as an instructor, dean.” He countered search committees’ racialized evaluation by focusing on “why I would be the right person given that I have conflict resolution, I have collaboration, I have all these other components that are so important for a leader to have.”
Both Latino participants found their professional experience undervalued by their respective predominantly white search committees because they did not have membership in the old boys’ club. Both had to exert additional labor to legitimize their candidacy for presidential positions. In sum, Presidents of Color with “non-traditional” backgrounds must strategically highlight their leadership experiences and skills to buffer search committees’ negative evaluations and prove they are as qualified as candidates with the “natural profile” and possess whiteness as a credential.
White Credentialing and Self-Presentation
White credentialing extended to participants’ self-presentation. They understood that the prototypical image equated to looking, sounding, and acting like a white man. From their experiences in the presidential hiring process, they concluded that Black candidates cannot be perceived as “too Black” (Black man), Chicano candidates as “super Chicano” (Latino), and Candidates of Color as “too youthful” (Asian woman) or “too nice” (Latino). They received messages suggesting their chances of selection depended on downplaying overt markers of their racial-gender identities and adopting markers of white identity. For example, a mentor told a Black participant (woman): “Make sure you wear your grey suit and make sure you wear your pearls,” because she knew some things about the college and maybe some of the committee members . . . that might be a package they were looking for, and so I did. I put on my pearl earrings and my pearl necklace and I typically keep my hair in twists and braids, and I took those out for the interview.
The mentor’s advice could be construed as pragmatic, aimed at helping the participant appear “presidential” in white ways and in line with search committee expectations. Yet, this advice tells Black women and Women of Color generally that if they appear too ethnic and not white enough, the committee could see them as not presidential. It tells them they cannot present their authentic selves but must perform versions of themselves that are comfortable to the white imagination.
Participants sensed that search committees’ perceptions of their appearance and demeanor shaped evaluations of their leadership competency and ability. An Asian American participant (woman) recalled being asked questions implying that someone who looks like her might not understand leadership responsibilities.
I get asked questions in interviews like, “Well, have you ever fired anybody?” And I’m thinking, “Why are they asking me that?” If I was six feet tall and I had a big, deep, husky voice, and I was really big, do you think they would ask me, “Have I fired anybody?” So, what are they trying to get at?
To her, these questions exposed the committee’s assumption that a president should look and act in white, masculine, and heteronormative ways. A Black participant (woman) observed that there is always a “palpable” association between the appearance of Women of Color candidates and their competency. Thus, they have to show up looking a certain way in order to reinforce what our competency is. So me showing up to an interview with my braids right now would have implications for how people receive the information that I’ve provided in my application materials, and certainly the information that I convey in an interview verbally.
While serving on search committees, another Black participant (woman) recalled how committee members “discounted” Asian and Pacific Islander candidates “if they had a heavy accent.” Even if their responses “were right on target,” search committees judged them as “less qualified” because of their accents.
These examples illustrate how search committees deploy racialized and gendered evaluations of whether Candidates of Color can “play the part” based on whether they “look the part.” Participants had little room for error in their appearance, communication style, and actions; if they did not meet white, masculine, heteronormative standards, they may not have advanced in the hiring process. In contrast, some participants observed that white candidates faced different hiring conditions. Reflecting on her experiences as a search committee member, a Black participant (woman) shared: White guys come in and just say nothing for an hour-and-a-half, and people would give ’em fives. I’m like, “What are you?” And they can’t articulate back to you what exactly the person said . . . [other than] “We liked them.”
No President of Color we interviewed said that search committees just “liked them.”
Our findings suggest that the prototypical image of a college president makes it easier for white candidates (primarily white men) and more difficult for Candidates of Color to achieve. Even with white credentials, participants faced uncertainty in their appointments. Facing racially sophisticated exclusionary practices, they had to invest more time, effort, and energy than white candidates to prove their credentials were as good or better. Next, we describe the racially inequitable psychological and existential burdens that our participants experienced before, during, and after the hiring process. We show how, facing racist threats to their belonging and worthiness for the role, the prototypical image constrained participants from leading on their own terms and in critically race-conscious ways.
“Do I Belong Here Based on My Race?”
Our participants navigated multiple, often conflicting cultural worlds during the presidential search and appointment process. They needed to embody white, masculine, heteronormative traits to be considered plausible candidates. Simultaneously, they had to suppress overt markers of their marginalized racial/ethnic and gender identities. As a result, some said that aspiring Presidents of Color face additional psychological and existential burdens relative to their white counterparts. Invoking Du Bois (2008), a Black participant (man), asserted that People of Color need to be comfortable in a state of “double consciousness,” balancing their performance of the prototypical presidential image with their authentic racial selves. As an example, he explained that Black candidates need “to decide whether or not [their] posture and kind of character can be in [presidential] spaces” and to confront the “double-consciousness [of] not being as Black as you could be.” They have to be “acceptable for what the establishment says is okay” while not “be[ing] so far on that side that you lose your sense of cultural integrity.”
Participants also noted that People of Color face racist perceptions about their legitimacy as academic leaders and presidential candidates. A common stereotype not faced by white men is being perceived as an affirmative action hire. Despite affirmative action’s role in expanding racial and gender diversity in higher education, “affirmative action hire” has been used to undermine the qualifications of racial and gender-marginalized candidates. This was the case with a Latino participant whose colleagues attributed his success solely to affirmative action.
I realized what that person meant. And I thought to myself, I’m not . . . This is not an affirmative action hire whatsoever. I’m being hired because I’ve done this job and I’ve done it well. I’ve reached, I’ve worked at this college with five presidents before me, and I can tell you that I’ve earned my role. . . . [S]omebody else said to me, in a different context, you’ve gone through these very quickly. You’ve gone from dean. And I was like, I was a dean for nine years. I didn’t go through anything very quickly.
Racist stereotypes like “affirmative action hire” negate the leadership qualifications and experience of Candidates of Color, leading them to second-guess their worthiness for the presidency, even after getting the job. For example, another Latino president shared his internal questioning: “Do I belong here based on my race? I’m a young, Latinx, immigrant, right? . . . Am I good enough to be in this job? Am I worthy of the job? Should they have hired somebody else?” He explained that these questions are things that you live with, I would say, and it’s to be seen or felt your whole life. You question yourself sometimes, because, again, you’re getting darts from everywhere, you’re getting comments sometimes that people make about you, and they put doubts in your mind about whether or not you’re good enough, and those things affect you, they affect whether or not you apply for a job, they affect whether or not you stay in a job, and ultimately they affect the numbers.
A third Latino participant reflected, “[The] idea of looking presidential, sooner or later, gets to you. It gets to you because you’re not modeling yourself after the norm or people’s mental image of what a president should look like.”
Besides creating undue psychological burdens, the threat of racist stereotypes and perceptions reinforces the notion that People of Color must work harder than white people to be seen as legitimate leaders. The Latino participant who questioned, “Do I belong here based on my race?” added: I always feel like there’s two things that come to mind for me. One is that I do believe [People of Color] have to work harder than our white counterparts. We can be just as good and have the same profile, but there’s still the stigma that is attached to us, this stereotype that I think we have to overcome as People of Color.
Moreover, this threat can push People of Color to downplay their racial identities as leaders. In a Black participant’s (man) words, “Leaders of Color have to make choices about where they’ll put their energy that [white people] don’t have to make.” He chose this in a prior role, deciding he “wasn’t going to be the Black dean.” The need to make this choice suggests that whiteness constrains how Presidents of Color can present themselves. Ultimately, they face inequitable divisions of labor and harm as compared to white people whose agency benefits from the white way of hiring presidents.
Lessons from the White Way of Hiring Presidents
Many higher education leaders and associations are concerned about the lack of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the presidential pipeline and criticize the exclusionary mechanisms in the selection and appointment process that hinder marginalized leaders from reaching executive roles (Selingo et al., 2017). However, whiteness is rarely identified as a factor driving racial exclusion. By applying Ray’s (2019) concepts of whiteness as a credential and racialized agency, we analyzed interviews with 20 sitting Presidents of Color (at the time of our data collection) to reveal the “white way” of hiring presidents. This approach legitimizes an unequal playing field for Candidates of Color, formalizes search committees’ racialized evaluation of merit and fit, compels Candidates of Color to conform to white standards, and requires them to exert additional effort to secure a presidency compared to their white counterparts.
Our analysis aligns with existing research on how People of Color navigate academic search processes (Burmicky, 2022; Gause, 2021; Turner, 2007) and underscores how high-status positions expose them to structural and organizational racism (e.g., Wingfield & Chavez, 2020). We also highlight a paradox for Leaders of Color: while qualified to identify and challenge whiteness, they often must adopt practices that normalize whiteness to attain and retain high-status positions (Shah et al., 2023; Wingfield & Alston, 2014).
Based on our findings, we propose four lessons about the white way of hiring presidents to advance racial equity in the search and appointment processes. First, a racialized organizations approach revealed how the prototypical presidential image—rooted in the belief that white, masculine, heteronormative males are natural leaders—shapes the criteria for presidential leadership. This schema influences how People of Color should prepare for and approach the hiring process. Whiteness as a credential legitimizes this racial schema, institutionalizing who is deemed fit to be president, regardless of credentials, qualifications, and experience. Our participants had to strategically align their merit and fit with this prototypical image to succeed.
Second, search committees and other stakeholders can apply rules that disadvantage Candidates of Color. Some participants observed that search committees selectively applied criteria, resulting in racially adverse effects. For example, despite exceeding listed job qualifications, Candidates of Color faced increased scrutiny regarding their competency and legitimacy for presidential leadership. One participant noted that search committees adjusted evaluation standards to exclude Women of Color when a doctoral degree was preferred. This aligns with research showing that predominantly white reviewers devalue racial identities and experiences that deviate from white norms (Culpepper et al., 2023; Liera & Hernandez, 2021; White-Lewis, 2020).
Third, the white racial structure of the search and appointment process limits the agency of People of Color seeking a college presidency. Unlike white men, who generally face fewer constraints, People of Color often navigate the process with a double consciousness to address challenges to their qualifications and legitimacy. They face constant pressure (from multiple sources) to conform to white, masculine, and heteronormative expectations, leaving little margin for error in demonstrating their merit and fit. They invest significant effort to prove their qualifications, often exceeding what is required of their white counterparts. For instance, one participant pursued multiple degrees from elite institutions to “compete with [the] blondes and white guys.” Others had to validate non-traditional leadership experiences as valuable for the presidency. Participants also noted that Candidates of Color could be negatively evaluated based on appearance or accented English. Our participants’ experiences echo research on Black women (Commodore, 2019), Women of Color (Turner, 2007), Latinos (Burmicky, 2022), Latinas (Muñoz, 2009), and Latinx executive leaders (Ortega et al., 2024), showing that Candidates of Color often downplay their racial and ethnic identities to fit the prototypical presidential image. This constraint limits their ability to fully showcase their unique qualifications and leadership approaches. Although they exercised agency to secure their roles, this agency was racialized, as their success depended on aligning with prevailing presidential norms. This racialized agency, which entails minimizing emotions and social identities, normalizes the harm that whiteness inflicts on Leaders of Color and the communities they serve (Shah et al., 2023).
Fourth, the white way of presidential hiring can continue to undermine a Candidate of Color even after their appointment. Racist stereotypes, such as being labeled an “affirmative action hire,” can delegitimize their worth, competency, and experience by implying their appointment was based on race, not merit. Notably, affirmative action has long been outlawed in the state where our study took place, making such claims illegitimate and racist. Yet, these stereotypes can persist, causing Presidents of Color to doubt their achievements and reinforcing the status quo of white, masculine, heteronormative leadership. These racist generalizations and misconceptions can also cause Presidents of Color to be viewed and assessed in unfair ways.
The white way of presidential hiring creates a racialized reality where pursuing a presidency is a calculated risk for People of Color. A single deviation from white norms and expectations can determine whether a Candidate of Color becomes president. Even when adhering closely to the prototypical image, their legitimacy is precarious. Unlike white candidates, Candidates of Color must navigate scrutiny and delegitimization of their racial identities. Further, while presidential careers are demanding for all, Presidents of Color face the additional challenge of deciding whether they are willing to conform to white norms and potentially perpetuate racial inequities. This expectation to perform whiteness extends beyond the hiring process; Leaders of Color are also expected to uphold norms that idealize whiteness within their organizations (Wingfield & Alston, 2014), which can adversely affect their well-being. Nonetheless, Presidents of Color who are equity-minded and understand the complexities of achieving racial equity are better positioned to challenge whiteness in academia and transform campuses into more racially just institutions (Liera & Desir, 2023; McCambly & Colyvas, 2022). Research shows that People of Color have the dispositions, experiences, and knowledge necessary to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly in promoting racial equity (Gonzales, 2018; Liera & Dowd, 2019; Shah et al., 2023; Turner, 2007).
Toward Racial Equity in Presidential Search and Appointment
In closing, we offer recommendations to increase the chances that equity-minded Presidents of Color are hired, supported, and retained. We are invested in the outcome that though they might be the first chief executive officer of Color at their institution, they will not be the last. Our recommendations urge key stakeholders to disrupt whiteness and promote greater racial equity in the presidential search and appointment process. We hope that our recommendations will enable Candidates of Color to navigate the hiring process in authentic and identity-affirming ways. While recognizing that racial equity work that seeks to upend white routines, norms, and culture is often resisted by individuals within and outside an institution (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Liera, 2020; McNair et al., 2020), addressing this resistance is beyond our manuscript’s scope. We recommend McNair et al.’s (2020) book for practical strategies for overcoming such resistance.
First, we echo the call for administrators, faculty, and staff to engage in practitioner inquiry to reflect on their understanding of racial equity, their roles as advocates, the extent to which their practices perpetuate racial inequity, and the changes necessary to achieve racial equity (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Practitioner inquiry is a process whereby practitioners assume racial inequity is a solvable problem. To this end, they adjust their knowledge, beliefs, and practices through a cycle of critical reflection, data analysis, experimentation, and evaluation (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Through inquiry, practitioners can analyze which norms, policies, or practices reproduce racial inequities and identify areas requiring change. For example, stakeholders like search committee members and human resource professionals can undertake practitioner inquiry to examine whether past presidential hiring processes have been equitable. They can break down the search process into phases (e.g., recruitment efforts, application reviews, interviews) to identify where inequities were perpetuated (Liera, 2022). This practice has shown promise in helping administrators (Rall et al., 2022) and faculty (Chase et al., 2021; Ching, 2018) recognize and address racial inequities. For guidance on creating the organizational conditions to support practitioner inquiry for racial equity (see Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Ching, 2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Dowd & Liera, 2018).
Search committees should also implement equity checkpoints throughout the search process (Bensimon & Associates, 2022a; Liera & Hernandez, 2021; Posselt et al., 2020). These checkpoints could facilitate fairness and justice in evaluation and decision-making. One crucial checkpoint involves scrutinizing criteria for merit and fit to transform traditional biases that favor white men in the process. Committee members should discuss their implicit definitions of merit and fit, assessing whether they reflect white norms that advantage white candidates and disadvantage Candidates of Color. They should agree on equitable definitions and methods for evaluating merit and fit criteria in applications and interviews. Identifying and challenging biases in evaluating merit and fit is a practice developed by scholars across various fields (Liera & Ching, 2020; O’Meara et al., 2020; Onyeador et al., 2021).
Third, we recommend that all stakeholders lean into culturally sustaining governance and intentionally prioritize equity and justice in their decision-making (Rall et al., 2020). This means leveraging equity-centered mindsets, tools, and approaches to create and prioritize systems, structures, and policies that affirm those marginalized and activate resources to promote Presidents of Color’s inclusion and ultimate success (Rall et al., 2020). An intentional approach like this could take on different approaches at different institutions—equity-minded data use and inquiry, leadership programs to build up future Leaders of Color, equity advisors for search committees, and other avenues highlighting that equity and quality concerning campus leadership are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, future research should investigate the roles of search firm representatives, senior leadership, trustee boards, and mentors in interacting with aspiring Presidents of Color. Studies should explore how these interactions may reproduce or disrupt racial inequities through racial schemas and resource distribution. Future research should also examine sitting or outgoing presidents’ roles in implementing changes that may lead to more equitable searches. Additionally, research should account for sociopolitical contexts, such as anti-DEI legislation, and continue to examine how historical practices in presidential searches can be transformed to promote racial equity.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would also like to thank the Pennsylvania State University Mentoring Roundtable, where we received critical and constructive feedback during the early stages of the manuscript.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the College Futures Foundation, and the opinions stated in this paper are our own.
Open Practices Statement
The data and analysis files for this article can be found at: openicpsr-209702
Notes
Authors
ROMÁN LIERA is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Montclair State University. Email:
CHERYL D. CHING is an independent researcher. She previously served as an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Email:
RAQUEL RALL is an associate professor and associate dean of Strategic Initiatives at the University of California, Riverside. Email:
MEGAN M. CHASE, PhD, is a research and policy consultant specializing in health and wellness at Megan Chase Consulting, LLC. Email:
ESTELA M. BENSIMON is University Professor Emerita at the University of Southern California and the Founding Director of the Center for Urban Education. Email: