Antiracist Assessment of Healthcare Educational Materials

Introduction

In this article, researchers Wyatt and Randall argue that anti-bias checklists (checklists for assessing bias in educational content) can identify biased, harmful aspects of educational curricula. However, despite providing these identifications, these assessments fail to create systemic change or improve the experience of Black, Indigenous and students of color inside and outside of the classroom.

The authors propose ‘justice-oriented approaches’ as an alternative to anti-bias checklists in order to  “center the needs of marginalized populations in all educational decision-making.” The article outlines how educators can implement antiracist strategies in their curriculum assessments, through this tool, in order to create a more just and inclusive educational experience for all students. Their study relates specifically to curricula in healthcare education with direct implications for other related fields.

Tasha R. Wyatt is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University (USU)’s Center for Health Professions Education (CHPE). Wyatt’s research focuses on how larger systems of power and oppression shape the identities of medical professionals. Jennifer Randall is a Professor of Psychometrics and Test Development at the University of Michigan’s Marsal Family School of Education. Her work seeks to interrupt racist logic in assessment through justice-oriented practices that are antiracist.

Methods and Findings

Wyatt and Randall introduce and expound upon an alternative to anti-bias checklists for curriculum assessment—a justice-oriented approach.. The table below summarizes their comparison of the two mechanisms, as interpreted by an educator, and how they differ in their evaluation of a given curriculum:

The authors also discuss how a justice-oriented approach incorporates two critical gaps in traditional healthcare education:

Critical consciousness: This skill Wyatt and Randall argue, “equips individuals to question how power and privilege are maintained in society with the end goal of achieving liberation.” They emphasize that educators must have frequent and challenging conversations about their own biases, and also underscore through their findings how integral this type of discussion is in achieving a justice-oriented approach.

Addressing whiteness: As the authors indicate, “given that, historically, medicine has been largely a white profession, witness is embedded throughout all aspects of medical training and practice, even though it goes unrecognized.” Justice-oriented approaches to healthcare curricula encourage educators to reflect on this power dynamic and seek to incorporate an antiracist lens to discussions of race and privilege.

Conclusions

The authors argue that meaningful change in the healthcare profession will not occur until the focus moves beyond surface-level issues, like simply ensuring the inclusion of diverse representation (such as Black men or elderly women in illustrations and questions). Instead, they emphasize the need for a deeper, more contextual approach to topics like race, disability, and gender. This research emphasizes the pivotal role that healthcare educators can play in addressing systemic biases in the healthcare field as a whole. Ultimately, healthcare educators are essential in advancing equity in their field by applying a justice-oriented approach to their teaching content, educational materials, classroom discussions, and student evaluations.

How Leaders Can Dismantle Systemic Racism in Medicine

Introduction

The article acknowledges the history of racism in medicine, including how medicine centers and normalizes white dominance over people of color in our society. The authors argue that medical doctors, educators, and other leaders must recognize this inevitable truth to actively engage in making organized medicine antiracist.

David A. Acosta is the Chief Diversity Officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges. He is a family medicine physician with a long career in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) leadership. David J. Skorton is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. He is a cardiologist who has served as the President of the University of Iowa and Cornell University. Skorton was previously Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. One of the priorities throughout his career has been and continues to be diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is one of the key priorities. 

Methods and Findings

This article is a literature review, compiling findings and perspectives on racism, health disparities, and the need for institutional change.  The authors provide an overview of existing knowledge and recommendations based on prior studies and theoretical insights.

This piece outlines four strategies that organized medicine should employ to address racism in their field: 

• Understand, Acknowledge, and Reconcile Medicine’s Racist Past: Medical leaders should hold personal accountability in recognizing implicit and explicit biases that uphold both racial inequalities and inequities, and simultaneously “acknowledge the truth of each organization’s racist past.”. 
• Create and Commit to a Shared Vision for Becoming Equitable, Inclusive, and Anti-Racist Institutions, Organizations, and Societies: Medical organizations should collectively partner to align their visions for racial justice.
• Focus on Building Racial Healing, Trustworthiness, and Relationships with Those Communities that Our Systems Have Impacted the Most: Healthcare providers and institutions should identify aspects of their organizations that perpetuate systemic racism and dismantle policies that discriminate, and introduce policies that address prior discrimination and advance equity.
• Emphasize Transformative Change with Systems-Based Solutions that Impact Multiple Systems
  • Leadership: Organized medicine should elevate strong leaders who prioritize racial justice.
  • Investment: Organized medicine should invest financially and via human capital in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, diverse leadership, and data collection efforts to promote and advance racial justice.
  • Accountability: Organized medicine should promote transparency and adopt a Continuous Equity Improvement Model to “[…] collectively design, standardize, and share racial equity and racial justice metrics to assess the effectiveness of interventions implemented, performance trends, and anticipated outcomes.”

Conclusions

The authors end their piece with a resolute call to action: “It is time to be bold, courageous, and take the lead to invoke transformative change utilizing systems-based solutions that will permanently dismantle systemic racism in medical education and health care once and for all.” Strong leadership is critical to exposing racism in healthcare organizations and to implementing antiracist policies and programs in those organizations meaningfully.

Impacts of Cultural Competence Training for White Students

Introduction

This article describes a study that assessed the effectiveness of an online training on cultural competency taken by white students at a predominantly white university. There are three dimensions to cultural competence:

1. Awareness: An understanding of attitudes and beliefs towards and among racial and cultural groups. 
2. Knowledge: An understanding of perspectives and values held by various racial and cultural groups.
3. Skills: A cultivation of communication skills that are culturally appropriate and sensitive. 

This study assessed improvement in participants’ cultural competence along with racial colorblindness, white privilege, and skill employment before and after cultural competence training implementation. The authors argue that reductions in belief in colorblind attitudes can improve white individuals’ empathy and awareness of prejudice. Relatedly, they argue that awareness of white privilege can help white people “improve their understanding of their own biases as well as appreciate the viewpoints and experiences of people of color […].”

The authors suggest that the positive outcomes from cultural competence training can benefit college campuses by bolstering skills and awareness among the white student population that enable them to recognize their privilege, better understand the perspectives and experiences of people of color, and even act to address prejudices and inequities on campus and in the world. 

Nyx Robey was a graduate research assistant in the Department of Psychological Sciences at William & Mary. She now works in public sector consulting. Cheryl Dickter is a Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at William & Mary. Her research focuses on using social cognitive approaches to examine how individuals perceive members of different social groups.

Methods and Findings

This study was conducted at a predominantly white liberal arts university in the mid-Atlantic United States. 73 self-identified white students in an Introduction to Psychology course participated in the study. Of these individuals, 63 identified as female, nine as male, and one as transgender. The students completed a four-hour online course, which was spread over four weeks. The study authors modified an existing training that focused on key elements of cultural competence and skill building. The training was modified to focus solely on race (the original training also focused on religion and gender), and the training was transitioned to an online model to increase accessibility.

The authors assessed the impact of the training on the following outcomes:

1. Cultural Competence (four components):
   1. An individual’s own awareness (e.g., “My culture has an impact on the way I see the world.”) 
      • Study Result: Improvement in self awareness. (A higher reported level of agreement with the above statement.)
   2. An individual’s awareness of others (e.g., “I refrain from using certain words and phrases that I know may be offensive.”)
      • Study Result: No improvement in awareness of others.
   3. An individual’s development and use of knowledge (e.g., “I am familiar with important customs of a cultural group other than my own”)
      • Study Result: Improvement in knowledge. (A higher reported level of agreement with the above statement.)
   4. An individual’s proactive skills development (e.g., “I confront racist comments in public settings made by strangers.”)
      • Study Result: No improvement in proactive skills development.
2. Racial Colorblindness: An individual’s acknowledgment (or not acknowledgment) of differences between social groups and respecting group identities. (e.g., “Talking about racial issues causes unnecessary tension.”)
   • Study Result: Decrease in racial color blindness.
   • Study Result: Increase in acknowledgement of differences between social groups and respecting group identities.

3. White Privilege: An individual’s awareness of their own privileges and their attitudes surrounding white privilege. (e.g., “My skin color is an asset to me in my everyday life.”)
   • Study Result: Increase in self-reported recognition of white privilege.
   • Study Result: Notable increase in awareness regarding anticipated costs of confronting white privilege. (e.g., “If I were to speak up against White privilege, I would fear losing my friends.”)

4. Skill Employment: An individual’s employment of the skills taught by the received training. (Range of “explicitly chose not to use their skills when they could have” to “used all skills.”) These skills were the following: “(1) active listening to make space for others’ experiences, (2) asking questions to check hypotheses, (3) asking questions to understand others’ experiences and develop empathy, (4) calling out prejudice/discrimination, (5) acknowledging mistakes after someone calls you out, (6) owning your bias (calling yourself out).”
   • Study Result: The majority of participants self-reported that they used skills in their everyday life. However, there was no change in skill rating from before the training.

Conclusions

The authors explain that this study reveals important insights regarding cultural competence training that should be evaluated further. This study was conducted on a small, majority female sample size during the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. Given the unique conditions surrounding the pandemic, the study would benefit from replication in other university (and non-university) environments.

This study contributes to a larger body of research on campus climate and inclusion as it relates to racial diversity. Specifically, the authors highlight the training’s effect on increasing participants’ awareness of their white privilege; the authors did not anticipate the significant increase in both awareness of anticipated costs and subsequent remorse associated with their privilege. This finding is critical because it suggests that one should examine how these feelings may motivate white people to work towards antiracist efforts.

Overall, the findings indicate promising results for cultural competence trainings on awareness and knowledge of white privilege and of attitudes associated with racial groups. They suggest that further iteration on these trainings will enable white students to address racial inequities in their lives.

A Framework for Organizational Diversity Management

Introduction

This article focuses on diversity management, which is an organizational process designed to promote diversity in the workplace. The authors introduce a framework that both outlines various approaches to diversity management and illustrates the relationship between those approaches and diversity outcomes in an organization.

Jesse E. Olsen is a Senior Lecturer of Management in the Department of Management and Marketing at the University of Melbourne and a Research Associate at the Centre for Asian Business and Economics. His research focuses on hobbies and work, improvisation in organizations, diversity and inclusion, international/cross-cultural management, and leadership. Luis L. Martins is a Professor and the Director of the Herb Kelleher Entrepreneurship Center at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business. His research focuses on the cognitive underpinnings of strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, organizational change, team dynamics, and work performance.

Methods and Findings

The authors analyzed existing research on diversity management to develop their framework regarding diversity management approaches. The first theme that emerged from this research is the importance of values in an organization’s approach to diversity management. There are three variations of values described by Olsen and Martins: instrumental, terminal, and both. Whether an organization holds instrumental values or terminal values (or both) will determine diversity outcomes for the organization. 

Values around Diversity Management and their Outcomes

• Instrumental Values: Guide behaviors related to diversity in order to achieve positive organizational outcomes (such as competitiveness, for a business).
  • Outcome: These values are shown to have a positive impact on culture and environment in the workplace for majority and minority group members because values of diversity are perceived as fair and reasonable. 
  • Outcome: They also help identify and manage potential negative effects of diversity, such as intergroup conflict, and leverage diversity for organizational objectives, leading to better performance outcomes.
• Terminal Values: Referring to valuing diversity for its own sake, without considerations for organizational outcomes.
  • Outcome: These values attract individuals who see diversity as inherently valuable but might be less effective in appealing to staff broadly.
• Dual Approach: Adopting both instrumental and terminal values.
  • Outcome: These values attract a wider range of individuals, enhancing overall workforce diversity. This dual approach is expected to result in more positive perceptions and greater attraction and retention of diverse staff.

Olsen and Martins also identify themes in diversity management approaches regarding  interactions among diverse groups within an organization, which are often referred to as ‘acculturation strategies.’ “Acculturation refers to the process through which cultural changes occur as a result of continuous contact between cultural groups.” These four acculturation strategies, like the value types described above, have related implications for diversity outcomes. 

Strategies for Acculturation and their Outcomes

1. Separation: Groups maintain their own cultures and minimize interaction.
   • Outcome: This strategy does not support a diverse workplace.
2. Marginalization: Groups maintain neither their own culture nor the dominant culture.
   • Outcome: This strategy does not support a diverse workplace.
3. Assimilation: Non-dominant groups conform to the dominant culture.
   • Outcome: This strategy may allow for diversity in recruitment to an organization, but ultimately staff of all backgrounds are influenced to abide by dominant norms, which is not supportive of diversity in the workplace.
4. Integration: Mutual cultural change, through which all groups retain significant aspects of their own cultures.
   • Outcome: This strategy has the greatest impact on diversity outcomes. Organizations with integration strategies have more diverse staff, facilitate creativity and collaboration in the workplace, and foster an inclusive environment.

The paper introduces a new framework for thinking about diversity management approaches by combining the three value types (terminal, instrumental, and dual) with the two acculturation strategies (assimilation and integration). The authors dismiss the separation and marginalization acculturation strategies since they do not seek to support diversity outcomes. This creates six distinct diversity management approaches.

Six Diversity Management Approaches

1. Terminal Assimilation: Prioritizes equal opportunities for minority groups but promotes assimilation into the dominant culture, which leads to potential barriers for minority advancement and limited organizational performance benefits from diversity.
2. Terminal Integration: Prioritizes diversity for its own sake, emphasizing equal consideration for all cultural groups without requiring assimilation into the dominant culture. Thus, this approach promotes equality and reduces barriers for minorities but does not fully leverage diversity for organizational performance benefits.
3. Instrumental Assimilation: Recognizes diversity for its ability to allow the organization to connect with diverse audiences but expects employees to conform to the dominant culture, thereby limiting the advancement of minorities and dampening the potential for creativity and enhanced decision-making.
4. Instrumental Integration: Values diversity for achieving organizational goals by encouraging members to draw on their cultural identities, enhancing creativity, decision making, problem solving, and flexibility, while fostering an inclusive climate and constructive exchange of ideas.
5. Dual-Value Assimilation: Views diversity as both an end state and a means to achieve business objectives, emphasizing equal opportunities and conformity to the dominant culture while leveraging diversity for marketing and customer service, balancing moral and business cases for diversity.
6. Dual-Value Integration: Values diversity both as a means to achieve organizational goals and as an end in itself, encouraging the expression of cultural identities among members and balancing business objectives with moral, legal, and social responsibilities.

Conclusions

The authors do not provide recommendations on which approach(es) an organization should pursue to advance diversity. Rather, they explain that their framework can be used as a tool to understand and analyze different organizational approaches in diversity management, which balance the inherent value of diversity and its utility for organizational performance. The authors argue that different approaches may be best suited to different organizational contexts, and this warrants further research. They encourage researchers to test and leverage this framework to improve organizations’ diversity management approaches.

An Assessment of Philanthropic Responses to the Black Lives Matter Movement

Introduction

This article examines how philanthropic foundations responded in the months following the 2020 killing of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests through a Critical Race Theory (CRT) lens. The findings provide perspective on a select group of  foundations’ communications on racial equity amidst recent BLM events along with their purported commitments to anti-racism. The authors argue that philanthropic foundations play a critical role in advancing racial equity in society. Therefore, it is critical to understand how their statements reflect or fall short of perpetuating actual antiracist discourse. 

Seoeun Jung is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Nebraska, Omaha’s School of Public Administration. Her research focuses on nonprofit and strategic management, nonprofit leadership, collaborative governance, digital technology, and social justice. Angela Eikenberry is a Professor at the University of Nebraska, Omaha’s School of Public Administration. Her research focuses on the social, economic and political roles philanthropy, voluntary associations, and nonprofit organizations play in democratic governance. Kathryn Webb Farly was an Associate Professor in the Department of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University; she is now a Budget Officer at the Federal Transit Administration. Lastly, Lori Brainard is a Professor at George Washington University’s Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration. Her research focuses on how ordinary people, nonprofit and grassroots advocacy organizations, and government agencies use the internet to activate and mobilize for change and to disseminate information.

Methods and Findings

The authors conducted a qualitative analysis of 60 foundations’ official statements released in response to the killing of George Flyod and the BLM movement. The analysis included statements from family, community, and corporate foundations, including 20 from each category as described below. 

Foundation Categories

• Family foundations are “independent charitable foundations, funded principally by the personal gift of an individual donor, family business or family member(s).”
• Community foundations “raise funds from the public and make grants primarily within a targeted or defined geographic area.”
• Corporate foundations are “established and funded by the corporate sector.”

The authors’ findings indicated that the language of foundations’ communications conveyed both racist and anti-racist messaging. Racist messages from the foundations included assimilationist and non-racist sub-themes.The authors explain that assimilationist messages are racist because they insinuate that “a certain racial group is culturally or behaviorally inferior and supports programs to develop the racial group.” Non-racist messaging seeks to disassociate an organization from racism through dismissing or ignoring the realities of racism in society, yet, ultimately uphold racism. Despite some foundations conveying racist messages, none overtly shared racist sentiments regarding George Floyd’s death or the BLM protests. Anti-racist statements “discussed institutional racism and the killing of Black Americans due to police brutality and the criminal justice system.”

Corporate foundations tended to share more racist messages, while family and community foundations shared more anti-racist messages. One corporate racist statement included an implication that Black communities needed their own organization’s support to succeed: “It is important that we connect Black business owners to insights, mentorship and resources during this time of crisis to help them not just survive, but to position them for life beyond the crisis […].” Anti-racist statements acknowledged the existence and prevalence of racism. This took a variety of forms, including this one from a family foundation: “The calls for justice that we see today are not new, but we can use this moment to reassess these structures of inequality, redistribute resources to where they are needed most, reform the institutions that have perpetuated racism, and repair our trust in each other. Black lives matter and we must continue to speak up for equality.”

Foundations responded to racial inequality by making commitments, primarily focusing on financial support, organizational redesign, and direct engagement with the Black community. Additionally, some foundations vowed to prioritize racial equity in their grant-making strategies. A smaller number of foundations committed to engaging directly with the Black community through initiatives like recruitment and mentorship programs.

In the authors’ analysis, 118 corporate foundation statements were identified as having racist statements while 83 statements were identified as anti-racist. Family foundations had 160 statements identified as anti-racist and 138 statements identified as racist; community foundations had 134 anti-racist statements and 126 racist statements.

The research detailed in this article did not analyze the follow through of these organizations through their actions and sentiments over time. This work solely focused on the content of the statements made by organizations.

Conclusions

The findings from this study highlight the content of philanthropic communications on racial equity, and their initial impact on the landscape of racial equity institutional; work in the United States. Racist communications and messages from philanthropic foundations subtly convey Black communities’ inferiority and perpetuate the idea that they need guidance from foundations, while also diverting attention from the realities of perpetual systemic racism. Anti-racist messages denounce institutional racism and police brutality, and promote efforts to address systemic racism. 

The study authors emphasized the need for critical analysis and accountability for promised actions of foundations in order to ensure their effectiveness in combatting systemic racism. The article provides an important baseline of data on the commitments and intentions of an array of philanthropic actors. Further research on the follow through and impact of these commitments, would benefit the field and offer a more robust analysis of the tangible impact of these foundations on moving money and power, rather than mere statements and pretext.

Defining Structural Racism and Considerations for Public Health Research

Introduction

Recent incidents of police brutality against Black Americans sparked heightened awareness of systemic racism in the United States, leading to discussions about racism’s pervasive presence in society, including within public health structures. This awareness has also translated to increased attention and funding for research on structural racism’s effect on health. However, there is inconsistency in defining and measuring the concept of structural racism, potentially hindering efforts to address health inequities effectively. This article by Lorraine T. Dean and Roland J. Thorpe, Jr. aims to precisely define the concept of structural racism in American society. The authors argue that clear definitions of structural racism are crucial for conducting quality research and devising effective strategies to dismantle it.

Lorriane T. Dean is an Associate Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Dean is a social epidemiologist whose research focuses on how individual- and neighborhood-level social and economic factors contribute to health disparities and health outcomes for those managing chronic disease. Roland J. Thorpe, Jr. is also affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; he is a Professor and Co-Director of several programs, including the Health Equity and Social Justice Concentration of the DrPH Program. Dr. Thorpe is a gerontologist and social epidemiologist whose research focuses on minority aging, men’s health, and place-based disparities.

Methods and Findings

In this article, Dean and Thorpe illustrate the meaning of structural racism, and they contextualize its use (or lack thereof) within the field of public health research. 

What Structural Racism Is Not

The concept of structural racism has been absent from public health research, primarily because it has been conflated with institutional racism. These two concepts are not the same. Institutional racism is racism that is embedded in its institutions, such as bodies that make up and oversee government, economy, and culture.

In the next section of the article, the authors distinguish structural racism from institutional racism.

What Structural Racism Is

Dean and Thorpe conclude that,“structural racism represents the totality of ways in which multiple systems and institutions interact to assert racist policies, practices, and beliefs about people in a racialized group.”

Structural racism includes all of the following concepts of racism:

• Institutional Racism (Defined in “What Structural Racism is Not”): Racism within a particular type of institution.
• Systemic Racism: A term used to describe the existence of racialized systems of power within society.
• Racial Discrimination: Action that stems from racist beliefs.
• Cultural Racism: Reflects the ideologies and societal norms about a particular racial/ethnic group.

The authors explain that all of these concepts interact to influence peoples’ health.

Measurement of Structural Racism

In research, when considering the impact of structural racism, it is imperative to know how to measure it. Thus far in the field of public health research, measurement of structural racism has varied widely, and again, has often been misconstrued with institutionalized racism.

In order to accurately represent structural racism, researchers must assess the interactive effects across multiple institutions and domains such as education, employment, housing, criminal justice, and healthcare. The authors recommend using index measures to capture these interactive effects. Then, researchers can identify associations between a given index measure and health outcomes like infant mortality and cardiovascular health. 

Effective considerations for measuring structural racism also include examining measures over time and in different geographical contexts.

Conclusions

Dean and Thorpe emphasize that researchers should state in their work the levels and type of racism being assessed, and whether or not they are being measured. If researchers assess structural racism, they should adopt a multidimensional measure in order to capture the multidimensional nature of structural racism in American society. These frameworks will enable researchers to conduct more accurate and impactful, antiracist work.

A Framework to Assess Equity in Policymaking

Introduction

This article introduces a framework called the Policy Equity Assessment that was designed for policy analysts and researchers to assess a policy’s or program’s ability to reduce inequities. This framework couples policy analysis approaches with rigorous equity-focused research methods. This combination allows for a more comprehensive equity analysis compared to other research methods. This article demonstrates how to apply the assessment, highlights new findings, and provides recommendations for future analyses to fill evidence gaps.

The article focuses on use of this assessment in the context of child health equity. Despite increases in racial and ethnic diversity in the United States, wide inequities persist in social determinants of child health and health care access, which lead to harmful and costly racial/ethnic gaps in child health and developmental outcomes. The authors encourage the use of their framework to develop policies that reduce this disparity. 

Pamela K. Joshi is a Senior Research Scientist and the Associate Director of the Institute on Children, Youth and Families at Brandeis University. Joshi’s work focuses on conducting research and evaluating public policies relating to family and children’s health in diverse populations.

Methods and Findings

The Policy Analysis Framework encompasses three stages and focuses on general policy assessment questions. Each stage addresses a core equity question:

1. “What is the policy designed to do?” 

The Logic Stage evaluates whether the goals of a particular policy recognize and acknowledge unfair differences between different racial and ethnic groups. The main goal of this stage is to determine if services are specifically designed to tackle these differences, and if that equity goal is mentioned directly or indirectly. This requires a detailed examination of legislation and rule changes over time.

2. “Is the policy implementing services and distributing benefits as intended?”

The Capacity Stage examines a policy’s ability to provide sufficient quality and intensity of services to all those who are eligible for and could benefit from the policy. This stage focuses on equitable distribution, determining if a policy can reduce disparities in distribution of benefits among different racial and ethnic groups. For example, by looking at the policy capacity in this stage, the early childhood program Head Start assessed that while its eligibility criteria primarily targets low-income children, it has finite capacity to serve that population because limited funding restricts the number of available program slots.

3. “Is the policy effective for the defined target population?”

The Research Evidence Stage looks at research evidence “to determine what works, for whom, and under what conditions, as well as whether policies reduce racial/ethnic inequities in outcomes.” It can be broken down into three crucial inquiries determining: 1) whether a policy is effective in improving outcomes for specific racial or ethnic groups, 2) whether any analyses have been done to measure the differences in health outcomes between different racial and ethnic groups, and 3) how the delivery of services, the resources available for the program, and the quality of a program might differ depending on the race or ethnicity of the participants. 

The authors demonstrate how the Policy Equity Assessment can be applied by working through key examples in early childhood education, parental employment, and housing—specifically Head Start, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Section 8 housing program. Through these examples, the authors illustrate the importance of collecting and reporting information by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other relevant characteristics.

Conclusions

The Policy Equity Assessment offers practical benefits for policymakers interested in improving racial and ethnic equity. By assessing equity at all stages of a policy, interested stakeholders can  identify areas for equity-focused analysis and advocate for the collection of new data to inform policymaking. Additionally, the framework provides a comprehensive understanding of how program effectiveness and resources can differ by race and ethnicity. By doing so, the framework also helps highlight the unmet needs of specific marginalized subgroups.

Recommendations from the authors to address equity disparities in policymaking include:

• Social programs should systematically collect and report information by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, nativity, and other characteristics.
• Organizations should create capacity indicators, such as population eligibility, enrollment, funding, services, and quality by race/ethnicity; the authors advocate that these indicators should be included as measures in program evaluation and impact analyses.
• Federal and state agencies should establish funding streams for programs that demonstrate evidence of reducing inequities in outcomes or services for marginalized  groups.

Overall, the Policy Equity Assessment serves as a valuable tool for enhancing the evaluation and monitoring of policies, aiming to improve outcomes for all children and families, especially those from historically marginalized groups.

Incorporating Student Identities and Racial Awareness into Teaching Practices

DEFINITIONS

• Culturally Relevant Teaching: “Teaching that draws on the cultural backgrounds and knowledge of students as assets in the classroom.” Culturally relevant teaching prioritizes three approaches:
  • High Expectations: Teachers provide a rigorous curriculum for students in a respectful classroom environment.
  • Cultural Competence: Teachers encourage students to learn about one another’s respective communities, family lives, and cultures.
  • Critical Consciousness: Teachers address social justice and racial equity in the classroom and engage students on these issues.

• School Racial Socialization: “Messages to students encouraging positive racial attitudes and understanding the role of race and culture in society.”

Introduction

Education scholars propose that culturally relevant teaching is beneficial to student learning and development. Academic research has shown that students have better academic outcomes and are more engaged in their communities when teachers incorporate race and social justice concepts into their curricula. The research that provided the groundwork for these findings regarding culturally relevant teaching is mostly based on case studies and qualitative analysis. This work by Byrd aims to introduce an empirically strong study into the research field. Byrd’s study compares classrooms that use more culturally relevant teaching with those that do not by looking at students’ academic outcomes and racial attitudes.

Christy M. Byrd is an Associate Professor at North Carolina State University. Her research focuses on adolescents’ perceptions of school climate for diversity. Byrd’s research also examines the motivational factors that promote student engagement in diversity workshops, courses, and programs.

Methods and Findings

315 sixth- to 12th- grade students from across the United States participated in this quantitative study. 62% of study participants identified as female and 38% identified as male. (Non-binary was not listed as an option.) The study population’s racial/ethnic breakdown is 25% white, 25% Latinx, 25% Black, and 25% Asian. 

The study participants completed a survey that included questions about their academic outcomes, sense of belonging at school, racial identity and affiliation, and awareness of racial issues. The following findings emerged based on the statistical analysis of survey results:

Incorporation of real life examples into curricula (“constructivist teaching”) showed a statistically significant association with: 

1) greater interest in school,

2) greater sense of belonging at school, and

3) greater comfort with people from other backgrounds.

Promotion of racial equity and social justice in the classroom (“critical consciousness”) showed a statistically significant association with:

1) student exploration of one’s own ethnic-racial identity,

2) greater commitment to one’s identity, 

3) greater racism awareness,

4) a decreased sense of belonging at school, and 

5) greater comfort with people from other backgrounds.

Provision of opportunities to learn about one’s own cultural in the classroom (“cultural socialization”) showed a statistically significant association with:

1) student exploration of one’s own ethnic-racial identity and

2) greater commitment to one’s identity.

Encouragement of friendships and interactions with students of other races (“cultural competence”) showed a statistically significant association with:

1) lower racism awareness and

2) greater sense of belonging at school.

Conclusions

The findings from this study underscore the importance of engaging teaching methods that center student identity. Discussion of racial equity through real-life examples promotes greater student engagement with academic learning and personal exploration of identity. Culturally relevant teaching strategies also increase feelings of belonging at school and greater comfort among students of different ethnic-racial backgrounds. Lastly, study findings also show that awareness of racism can decrease when teachers neglect to “balance celebrations of diversity with discussions of historical and contemporary racism.” 

The author shared recommendations for teachers based on the study findings:

• Get to know your students’ cultural and ethnic-racial backgrounds and use that information to personalize curricula. 
• Teach students about cultural diversity, even if the teacher’s class has limited racial/ethnic diversity
• Encourage appreciation for diversity among students as young as preschool age. Teachers should include discussions of current racial inequities and antiracism in their curriculum.

Cultivating Diversity Learnings through Multi-Identity Group Interactions

Introduction

This conceptual paper by Fujimoto and Härtel provides an overview of the shortcomings of traditional diversity training and proposes a set of criteria that allow for true diversity learning in the workplace. These criteria make up a framework devised by the authors that aims to allow staff of all backgrounds (both personal and professional) to meaningfully participate in discussions about organizational diversity in a group setting. 

Yuka Fujimoto is a Professor of Management and Associate Dean for Research and Postgraduate Studies at Sunway University. Her research focuses on the role of inclusion and diversity in fostering inclusive workplaces and society. Charmine Härtel is a Professor of Management at Monash University. Her research emphases are: 1) inclusive employment and entrepreneurship and 2) emotions and wellbeing at work.

Methods and Findings

The authors outlined the following shortcomings of diversity training that they sought to address through their alternate diversity framework:

1. Group composition: Traditional diversity  training programs “do not promote crosscutting participation by those in the different hierarchical statuses, roles, and social groups, therefore potentially attracting only certain employees who are already open and inclusive of different employees.”
2. Design: Traditional diversity training programs do not provide employees opportunities to engage in participatory learning with other people.
3. Content: Traditional diversity training programs emphasize differences between social groups and may reinforce biases as a result.
4. Evaluation: Traditional diversity training programs do not evaluate changes in how employees’ work relationships improve (or worsen) as a result of diversity initiatives.

Next, the authors lay out steps to implement an organizational diversity learning approach. This type of approach enables staff to make organizational decisions while gleaning learnings about diversity through group interactions. The authors provide guidance for these group interactions in three contexts: preparing for a group interaction, the conditions set during group interactions, and evaluating group interactions after they are complete. Within each of these three phases, an organization should enforce a set of conditions to enhance participant learning regarding behavior, cognition, and attitude. Behavioral learning is “different social groups learning the utility of an equal opportunity to develop and utilize multiple perspectives;” cognitive learning is “different social groups learning to obtain multiple perspectives and rethinking their own perspectives;” and attitudinal learning is “different social groups learning to enhance appreciation of different perspectives.”

Preparing for Group Interactions

• Behavior: Create intentionally diverse teams across both demographics and organization hierarchies. This promotes interaction across social categories, such as race and gender, and work categories, such as job function and status.
• Cognition: Teams should be “briefed about specific organizational goal(s) and be encouraged to exchange perspectives and knowledge with one another to achieve those goal(s).” Emphasis on organizational goals will shift focus from personal identities to the organization’s identity.
• Attitude: A culture of “psychological safety” should be cultivated by letting participants know that they provide input anonymously. This encourages participants to be honest, and reduces bias towards the shared perspectives.

Conditions during Group Interactions

• Behavior: A facilitator should moderate communication in meetings to ensure that participants are taking equal turns speaking and listening.
• Cognition: A facilitator should moderate discussion around multiple perspectives and ask participants to identify “similarities, differences, and cross-connections” between contributions.
• Attitude: A facilitator should clarify that personal stories and experiences may be shared if a participant wishes to do so, to deepen the group’s learning.

Evaluation after Group Interactions

• Behavior: “The behavioral learning of participants may be assessed, for example, by anonymous self-reported and third party questionnaires that indicate the extent to which different perspectives were shared and the joint decision-making processes took place in each team.”
• Cognition: A survey may also assess participant’s knowledge and understanding of the diversity of perspectives on issues within their team.
• Attitude: Lastly, a survey may include questions that assess participants’ attitudes towards the group interaction experience. These questions are subjective, and ask participants to share their feelings and perspectives.

Conclusions

This paper’s authors argue that their proposed practical framework is distinct from previous approaches to diversity initiatives because it enables organization members to alter their perceptions of and attitudes towards people from backgrounds different from their own. They also claim that this approach provides organizations with staff-driven strategies to promote diversity. The format and context of an organizational diversity learning approach provides a safe space for minority staff to share their perspectives. “Over time, an ongoing organizational learning framework may gradually reverse employees’ assumptions of incompatible or conflicting perspectives with other social groups, helping the employees to jointly produce novel ideas and better work decisions at the group and organizational levels.”

A Fully Inclusive Approach to Organizational Diversity

Introduction

In response to shifts in population demographics over the past several decades, American organizations have launched diversity initiatives to address their changing workforce. These diversity initiatives are not necessarily focused on their employees’ perspectives regarding how to approach diversity and have fallen short in their efforts. By analyzing existing approaches to diversity, this article promotes the necessity of framing multiculturalism as a positive organizational change that can benefit all employees. 

Flannery G. Stevens is an Assistant Professor of Management at Villanova University. Her research focuses on the sources and consequences of inequality in organizations. Victoria C. Plaut is a Professor of Law and Director of the Culture, Diversity & Intergroup Relations Lab at the University of California, Berkeley. Her primary research interests include inclusion and belonging in the workplace and educational settings. Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks is a Professor of Management and Organizations at the University of Michigan. His work focuses on how culture shapes behavior in the workplace.

Methods and Findings

Stevens, Plaut, and Sanchez-Burks analyze two primary approaches for framing diversity initiatives in the workplace: the colorblind approach and the multicultural approach. The authors summarize findings from previous research on these approaches and propose an alternative, more effective framework: all-inclusive multiculturalism (AIM). The authors introduce the AIM framework and lay out strategies for implementation.

• The Colorblind Approach: “The colorblind approach to organizational diversity […] focuses on ignoring cultural group identities or realigning them with an overarching identity.” Colorblind diversity initiatives are very popular in the United States as they prioritize the organization’s identity and de-emphasize individual differences. Since colorblindness discourages people from affiliating with their personal identity groups, racially minoritized employees feel excluded in the workplace. Additionally, research shows that these popularized colorblind approaches are associated with both racial bias and a potential culture of racism within organizations.
• The Multicultural Approach: “The multicultural approach to diversity emphasizes the benefits of a diverse workforce and explicitly recognizes employee differences as a source of strength.” Multicultural diversity initiatives celebrate employees’ backgrounds and seek to decrease bias in the workplace. However, these intentions and goals of multicultural approaches are often thwarted by nonminority staff, who can feel skeptical and resentful of multiculturalism because they feel that it “excludes nonminorities and threatens unity.”

Historically, the colorblind approach and the multicultural approach are not productive in promoting workplace diversity because both minority and non-minority employees do not embrace them. The authors argue that it is essential that diversity initiatives gain buy-in from all staff to be effective and sustainable.

• All-Inclusive Multiculturalism: “AIM acknowledges that the demographic groups to which people belong have important consequences for individuals, it also explicitly endorses this vision equally across members of all groups, including nonminorities.” All-Inclusive Multiculturalism emphasizes that diversity is inclusive of all employees, of all races. Previous research conducted by one of the authors found that nonminority college students quickly associated multiculturalism with exclusion, but did not associate AIM with exclusion. These research findings demonstrated that study participants perceived that white people were included in All-Inclusive Multiculturalism, but excluded by multicultural approaches like colorblindness. Therefore, AIM can be used in the workplace to “diminish perceptions of social exclusion” for minority and nonminority groups and instead celebrate individual and organizational identity. 

All-Inclusive Multiculturalism enables employees to incorporate their diverse backgrounds into their work. The AIM approach also promotes more open and comfortable communication among employees, strengthening their relationships.

• AIM Implementation Strategy 1, Communication and Language: The words that an organization selects for its diversity messaging impacts that organization’s perceived climate for inclusion. AIM-based language is inclusive and emphasizes that all employees are welcome to contribute to multicultural events and initiatives, not only minority employees. “For example, when asking for recipes for a multicultural picnic or cookbook, the invitation might mention interest in ‘family recipes from all employees’ rather than ‘ethnic recipes reflecting your heritage.’”
• AIM Implementation Strategy 2, Organizational Structures and Policies: Organizations should ensure that the teams leading diversity initiatives have diverse staff – including  minority and nonminority members. 

Conclusions

All-Inclusive Multiculturalism is a beneficial framework for organizations to approach diversity initiatives because it fosters positive connections between demographic groups, improves staff recruitment and retention, and contributes to the overall success of the organization. “In creating an all-inclusive, multicultural environment, organizations can create workplaces in which employees feel safe to innovate, knowing that their unique experiences and contributions are valued.” AIM approaches facilitate creating and developing positive relationships between and among demographic groups.