Uncovering How Racism Shapes Educational Institutions

Introduction

In this article, Professors Woulfin and Yurkofsky argue that frameworks guiding schools are not neutral; rather, they are influenced by dominant racial structures that uphold whiteness and ignore systemic racism. Therefore, the concept of racialized institutional logic is introduced to explain how racism shapes educational organizations. This article builds upon Victor Ray’s theory of racialized organizations. It combines insights from critical race theory and institutional theory to show how policies and practices maintain racial inequities in schools.

Their work addresses a significant gap in organizational and educational research. While research frequently documents racial disparities in education, few studies explain how deep institutional ideas and structures reproduce inequality over time. By showing how racial ideologies are embedded in institutional logics, the authors offer a tool for understanding why educational reforms often fall short and how dismantling racial inequities may require more fundamental change.

The authors of this study are Sarah L. Woulfin, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies educational leadership and policy implementation, and Maxwell M. Yurkofsky, an assistant professor at Radford University who focuses on continuous improvement and educational equity.

Methods and Findings

The authors use a conceptual approach, combining insights from research on racism, education, and organizational behavior, to build a new framework. They argue that the basic ideas shaping how schools operate, such as definitions of academic achievement, expectations around parental involvement, and preferred instructional approaches, are not neutral. Instead, these ideas are influenced by racial beliefs that favor whiteness and ignore or hide the presence of racism. They describe these patterns as part of what they call racialized institutional logics, meaning that entrenched racial structures shape the ways schools make decisions and organize their work.

Evidence presented shows that racism influences not only individuals but also the rules, policies, and goals of major institutions like markets, governments, and professions. In turn, schools borrow from these major institutions and perpetuate these racial patterns, even when reforms claim to promote fairness. For example, the use of test-based accountability systems rooted in market logics can incentivize practices like racialized triage, where educators focus on students nearest to proficiency cutoffs rather than rethinking instruction to support all students equitably. Because ideas that align with dominant racial views are more common and seen as more credible, educators often rely on them without questioning whether they reinforce inequity. This helps explain why reforms framed as neutral or fair often fail to reduce inequities; they remain rooted in dominant racial logics that go unexamined.

The authors also describe alternative ways of thinking shaped by movements for racial justice and argue that educators and leaders can strengthen these alternatives by making them part of everyday practice in schools. Examples include social justice-oriented approaches to instructional leadership, culturally sustaining pedagogies, and participatory decision-making practices that elevate marginalized voices.  

Through their framework, Woulfin and Yurkofsky argue that equity depends on changing the ideas that steer routine practice, not merely adjusting surface rules. They translate that insight into a concrete playbook for policymakers and school leaders: 

• First, scrutinize every statute, regulation, and guidance document to spot hidden racial cues, then rewrite language in plain racial equity terms.
• Second, broaden accountability so success measures include culturally responsive teaching, student voice, and family trust as well as achievement data. 
• Third, fund professional learning and shape performance rubrics around culturally sustaining pedagogy and social justice leadership until these approaches are standard rather than optional. 
• Fourth, create decision processes that grant real authority to students, families, and educators who have been marginalized. 
• Fifth, provide protected time, coaching, and resources so school teams can redesign data meetings, discipline reviews, and family conferences in ways that surface and challenge racial assumptions. 

By following these steps, policy writers can move schools closer to equitable outcomes while staying true to the article’s core insight that ideas, not only resources, shape educational justice.

Conclusions

Recommendations provided by the authors emphasize the need for researchers, policymakers, and school leaders to address the deep racial structures that guide educational practices. They advocate for amplifying ideas that center racial justice and moving beyond reforms that only target surface-level change.

In their conclusions, Woulfin and Yurkofsky reiterate that institutional logics are shaped by dominant racial frames that uphold whiteness. Recognizing and disrupting these logics are presented as necessary for dismantling racial inequities in education. Therefore, regarding interventions, the research calls for a shift of attention from individual actions to the broader structures that sustain inequality.

Lastly, the authors propose a framework for identifying and challenging the racialized ideas embedded within the educational system, a critical contribution to antiracist practice. Their approach emphasizes structural change over temporary or surface-level adjustments. Policy implications include the need to target not only educational outcomes but also the underlying racialized beliefs and structures that shape those outcomes.

Antiracist Interventions for Departments of Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology

This article outlines evidence-based interventions for addressing systemic racism in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology departments through changes to teaching, research, and institutional structures.

Introduction

This article argues that ecology, evolution, and conservation biology (EECB) departments must move beyond diversity and inclusion efforts to actively implement antiracist practices. They introduce a framework for departments to combat systemic racism that focuses on teaching, research groups, and departmental structures. Their approach links historical patterns of exclusion with current inequities and offers concrete, evidence-based solutions to help institutions move toward sustainable change.

Persistent racial and ethnic inequities across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields underscore the urgency of this study, and these issues are especially pronounced in EECB. Although many departments express commitments to diversity, few have addressed the historic and structural barriers that continue to marginalize Black, Indigenous, and people of color. This article provides a guide for translating antiracist commitments into academic practices by linking historical context, systemic patterns, and targeted interventions.

The authors include Melissa R. Cronin, Suzanne H. Alonzo, Stephanie K. Adamczak, D. Nevé Baker, Roxanne S. Beltran, Abraham L. Borker, Arina B. Favilla, Remy Gatins, Laura C. Goetz, Nicole Hack, Julia G. Harenčár, Elizabeth A. Howard, Matthew C. Kustra, Rossana Maguiña, Lourdes Martinez-Estevez, Rita S. Mehta, Ingrid M. Parker, Kyle Reid, May B. Roberts, Sabrina B. Shirazi, Theresa-Anne M. Tatom-Naecker, Kelley M. Voss, Ellen Willis-Norton, Bee Vadakan, Ana M. Valenzuela-Toro, and Erika S. Zavaleta. All authors were affiliated with the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz at the time of publication.

Methods and Findings

Historical legacies of racism in EECB are described as shaping patterns of exclusion today. The authors explain that early scientific practices helped normalize racial hierarchies and the marginalization of non-Western knowledge. Some examples include human classification systems in taxonomy and extractive fieldwork conducted in colonized regions. These foundations continue to influence the field today through professional norms, including whose expertise is considered credible, what counts as legitimate knowledge, and which communities are included in research and leadership.

To confront these structural inequities, the authors propose antiracist interventions across three academic spaces: classrooms, laboratories, and departments. Each intervention is evidence-based and cites past studies, existing literature, and/or historical analysis.

Effective Interventions in Teaching:

• Including diversity statements on course syllabi;
• Explicitly discussing departmental antiracist values on the first day of class;
• Providing protocols for anonymous reporting of hate or bias;
• Acknowledging the value of diversifying STEM;
• Avoiding lecture-only courses with high-stakes exams, which disproportionately exclude students of color from STEM;
• Embracing ‘cohesive learning communities and active learning’, where students can interact with each other instead of only learning from lecture;
• Including antiracist elements in the curricula, ensuring it reflects the field’s histories of racism, colonialism, and displacement in connection with immediate societal issues today; and
• Highlighting past and present work by scientists of color.

Effective Interventions in Laboratories and Research Groups:

• Focusing on prospective student potential as well as past achievement when recruiting;
• Openly discussing and committing to promote antiracism;
• Establishing a code of conduct outlining community norms;
• Growing a diverse network of mentors for laboratory members at various professional levels; and
• Developing equitable practices for data collection, research, and publication (see original article for specific recommendations).

Effective Interventions in Departments

• Outlining a clear statement on equity, including a community commitment and concrete actions;
• Fostering community growth through, for example, hosting forums, providing trainings on bystander interventions, or creating systems to report bias;
• Ensuring social events are open to professionals of all levels;
• Sparking discussions about race in academia;
• Offering well-designed, evidence-based interactive trainings on professional skills;
• Committing to antiracism in hiring and promotion processes (see original article for specific recommendations);
• Showcasing the work of scientists of color in seminars or reading groups; and
• Creating peer-to-peer mentoring systems.

Sustained change, according to the authors, requires both continuous evaluation and collective commitment. They emphasize that reimagining everyday practices and broader institutional structures is necessary to dismantle the systemic barriers that persist in EECB fields.

See the original article for additional interventions within and beyond the department.

Conclusions

Departments in EECB are encouraged to adopt structural, curriculum, and cultural changes to address systemic racism across classrooms, laboratories, and broader settings.

Isolated diversity initiatives are not sufficient to address inequities. Meaningful change requires acknowledging how historical exclusion shapes present academic practices and reworking the structures that sustain racial disparities.

By offering a detailed set of interventions, the article contributes to the field of antiracist practice. Policy implications include the need for universities to recognize and reward antiracist work across teaching, research, and service, and to provide material support for sustained structural change. Recommendations aim to increase representation while changing the conditions that have historically excluded Black, Indigenous, and other people of color from leadership roles in science.

Strategies and Insights from UC Berkeley’s Public Health Initiative

Introduction

The University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health (BPH) is leading an effort to embed antiracist principles into its institutional framework. Through the Anti-Racist Community for Justice and Social Transformative Change (ARC4JSTC) initiative, BPH is addressing systemic racism as both a public health and academic crisis.

This article describes how the initiative redefines its culture, practices, and outcomes and underscores the university’s commitment to equity and inclusion. By tackling racism at its roots, BPH aims to dismantle barriers that have long contributed to disparities in health and education.

The authors include Amani M. Allen, PhD, an Associate Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health; Ché Abram, MBA, Chief of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging at UC Berkeley; Navya Pothamsetty, a biostatistics consultant at Kaiser Permanente and formerly affiliated with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health; Andrea Jacobo, MPH, a Health Equity Researcher at the University of Tennessee and formerly affiliated with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health; Leanna Lewis, MSW, an Assistant Clinical Professor of Health Sciences; Sai Ramya Maddali, MPH, a Postdoctoral Scholar at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health; Michelle Azurin, MPH, a Business Project Manager at Jaswal Dream Builder and formerly affiliated with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health; Emily Chow, an affiliate of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health; Michael Sholinbeck, MLIS, the Public Health Librarian at UC Berkeley; and Abby Rincón, an educational consultant and formerly Chief of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.

Methods and Findings

Guided by a steering committee
The ARC4JSTC initiative began with an inclusive coalition-building process to ensure representation across students, faculty, staff, and community members. A steering committee guided the effort, emphasizing shared decision-making and community ownership. This diverse group worked collaboratively to define a vision and set guiding principles centered on cultural humility, structural accountability, and collective responsibility. This initial phase laid the foundation for a coordinated effort that avoided duplication of work while fostering trust and alignment among stakeholders.

Using data to inform strategy
BPH conducted comprehensive data collection in the second phase to inform its strategies and priorities. Surveys, focus groups, and climate assessments highlighted critical areas for growth, including the need for improved racial literacy, bystander intervention skills, and faculty confidence in adopting antiracist pedagogy. The data revealed persistent disparities in the experiences of students, staff, and faculty from underrepresented groups, reinforcing the urgency of systemic change. These findings also informed the design of targeted initiatives to address the identified gaps.

Focusing on key programs
Implementation of the ARC4JSTC included several key programs aimed at fostering antiracist practices across the institution. Faculty participated in an Antiracist Pedagogy Leadership Academy, which equipped them with tools to create more inclusive classroom environments. The initiative also facilitated the creation of a new graduate course focused on racial justice in public health, which provided students with frameworks to address systemic inequities. Workforce training sessions and community-building activities helped staff develop the skills and motivation needed to contribute to the initiative’s goals. While these efforts yielded significant progress, challenges, like resistance to change and workload burdens on participants, highlighted the complexity of achieving institutional transformation.

Conclusions

The ARC4JSTC initiative demonstrates how a data-informed, collaborative approach can drive meaningful change in addressing systemic racism within academic institutions. BPH has made substantial strides toward becoming an antiracist institution by prioritizing structural transformation and embedding equity into its core practices. Given the initiative’s successes, other higher education and public health programs can learn from ARC4JSTC’s work in faculty development, curriculum redesign, and community engagement. Nonetheless, sustaining progress will require continued commitment, resources, and accountability from institutional leadership and stakeholders.

Challenges, such as resistance to change and workload burdens, must be addressed proactively to ensure the long-term success of these efforts. As BPH continues to refine its strategies and build on its accomplishments, the ARC4JSTC initiative exemplifies how institutions can lead the way in fostering justice, equity, and inclusion in education.

Beyond Compliance: Integrating DEI into the Heart of the Organization

Introduction

Many business leaders understand that diversity, equity, and inclusion are essential for their organizations. Yet, some DEI efforts fall short of their desired results. While well-intentioned, these efforts can be limited in scope, lack clear direction, and need more integration into an organization’s culture. This disconnect can leave leaders weary and uncertain while their organizations fail to address systemic inequities effectively.

Traditional approaches to DEI, such as diversity training and grievance systems, focus primarily on compliance and mitigating bias. While these efforts are essential, they sometimes lack the transformative potential needed to embed DEI ​​fully into an organization. To address this gap, the authors propose the Values/Principles Model, a framework that moves beyond single, discrete interventions. The model prioritizes four values – representation, participation, application, and appreciation – paired with seven guiding principles. It aims to provide a pathway for achieving meaningful and sustainable DEI integration.

Anselm Beach, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equity and Inclusion at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Albert H. Segars, the PNC Distinguished Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Kenan-Flagler Business School, authored this article.

Methods and Findings

This multi-year field study tracked at 17 organizations recognized for their DEI effectiveness by Glassdoor, Forbes, and Fortune informed the Values/Principles Model (VPM). These organizations were selected for their innovative and impactful DEI initiatives, as identified by their leadership in fostering equitable and inclusive workplaces.

Through interviews with 55 executives, 33 middle managers, and 73 team members, the authors identified the model’s core values – representation, participation, application, and appreciation – along with seven guiding principles that enable the realization of these values. These principles include:

• building a moral case for DEI;
  
• encouraging willful interrogation of inequities;
  
• developing new mental models;
  
• adopting entrepreneurial leadership;
  
• ensuring accountability;
  
• being ambitious in DEI efforts; and
  
• expanding the boundary to include external knowledge and collaboration.

The findings were validated by surveys of 350 employees and additional feedback from general managers across 113 Fortune 250 companies. The research revealed a clear link between adherence to the VPM values and improved workplace satisfaction — a key metric for assessing organizational health.

Findings

Their findings demonstrated that achieving all four values simultaneously led to the highest employee satisfaction and engagement. Organizations that focused disproportionately on one value at the expense of the others saw diminished outcomes. For example, efforts to increase representation without fostering genuine participation or appreciation often led to superficial changes that failed to create meaningful inclusion. On the other hand, organizations that integrated all four values experienced deeper cultural alignment and operational effectiveness.

Examples: VPM Values in Action

Companies like Disney and Google underscored the transformative potential of the model. Disney’s inclusive brainstorming processes empowered diverse voices and resulted in improved accessibility for park guests with disabilities. Disney Imagineers used informal gatherings like poster sessions, museum tours, and park visits to discuss ideas, encouraging open collaboration and ensuring every participant, regardless of their role, had the opportunity to share input and contribute creatively. Similarly, Google’s commitment to inclusive design in machine learning engendered empathy and cultural responsiveness, setting a new standard for how technology serves global communities. Google’s inclusive design in machine learning involves training algorithms to recognize diverse features, such as skin tones, body types, and cultural attire, ensuring their tools and platforms accurately represent and serve users from all backgrounds.

In addition, the Mayo Clinic improved healthcare delivery in underserved communities by engaging directly with patients in familiar settings and using digital platforms for better communication. Marvel Comics demonstrated how thoughtful representation can transform storytelling, creating new opportunities by introducing diverse characters with rich backstories.

Conclusions

The Values/Principles Model offers a roadmap for organizations seeking to advance DEI in a meaningful and sustainable way. By simultaneously focusing on representation, participation, application, and appreciation, the model ensures that DEI efforts go beyond surface-level gestures and become integral to organizational identity and success. Its guiding principles provide the tools for leaders to reimagine and rebuild systems, enabling equitable practices and fostering an inclusive culture.

Sustainable change requires lasting dedication, fresh ideas, and a shared effort across the company. Therefore, organizations that use the Values/Principles Model can tap into their team’s full abilities, spark greater creativity, and help build a fairer society. By choosing this model, businesses set themselves apart in DEI and create workplaces where everyone can succeed.

Uncovering Bias in Educational Data Through QuantCrit

Introduction

The s͏tudy examines ho͏w pr͏i͏ncip͏les ͏from a ͏critical the͏o͏re͏ti͏cal framew͏ork can ͏be͏ int͏egra͏ted with ͏q͏uantitative rese͏arch ͏m͏ethods ͏to ͏cha͏llenge tr͏adit͏i͏ona͏l norms i͏n ed͏ucational da͏ta analy͏sis.͏ It ͏focu͏s͏es on add͏ress͏i͏ng racial inequ͏ities in͏ education by investigating how͏ numbers, ͏which ͏are͏ ofte͏n perceive͏d as n͏eu͏tral, ca͏n instead͏ perpetu͏ate biases. Th͏e study revi͏ews͏ m͏ultiple empiri͏cal papers to ͏exa͏mine ͏how res͏earchers are i͏m͏plemen͏ting a race͏-͏conscious͏ cri͏tique o͏f quantit͏ative͏ m͏eth͏ods, exp͏loring the ͏li͏mi͏tat͏ions of estab͏lished͏ data categories, and interrogating the implic͏ations o͏f c͏e͏nt͏ering cer͏tai͏n racial groups in compariso͏n͏. This framework, called quantCrit (Quantitative Critical Race Theory), critiques the supposed neutrality of data, questions the objectivity of statistical methods, and examines how they can unintentionally reinforce racial biases.
͏
The significance of this research lie͏s i͏n i͏ts͏ ͏potential͏ to change the fiel͏d of͏ e͏ducati͏onal r͏esearc͏h as a whole by ensuring that qua͏ntitative data does not ͏obscure or reinforce sy͏ste͏m͏ic inequities. By͏ questioni͏n͏g the o͏bjecti͏ve nat͏ure͏ of numbers and statist͏ical methods͏, the͏ study pushes for a more͏ inclusive appro͏ach to a͏nalyzing educ͏a͏tiona͏l dispa͏riti͏es͏. The fr͏a͏mework ͏applied h͏ere͏ i͏s especially i͏mpo͏rtant in͏ li͏ght ͏of ͏its potential ͏to bolster more equitable pol͏icy͏ reforms, through the use of educational͏ r͏es͏ear͏ch more attuned ͏to th͏e ͏realities of racial and socia͏l ͏inequities.͏

This study was authored by Wendy Castillo, an assistant professor in Urban Education and Quantitative Methods at Montclair State University, and Nathan Babb, a lecturer in data analysis at The George Washington University.

Methods and Findings

The study utilizes a systematic literature review methodology, encompassing a range of empirical research published over twelve years. Key data sources were rigorously screened, leading to the selection of studies that explicitly employed quantCrit principles to provide a race-conscious critique of traditional quantitative methods. The authors analyzed how these papers addressed researcher positionality, the role of community engagement, and the challenges posed by conventional racial categorizations in the context of quantCrit.

Findings from the review revealed that many researchers are beginning to adopt innovative methods consistent with quantCrit, such as disaggregating data based on nuanced racial and social variables, engaging with affected communities, and using intersectional approaches to data analysis.Common themes across the studies included challenges in creating equitable data categories, the importance of addressing systemic racism through structural rather than individual lenses, and the persistent reliance on traditional quantitative methods that may inadvertently reinforce inequities. These findings highlight both progress and ongoing gaps in the field’s efforts to align with quantCrit principles.

However, the study found persistent challenges in fully enacting quantCrit principles. For example, many studies still default to centering white populations as the majority racial group in their comparative analyses, and only a fraction of the works reviewed acknowledge researcher bias through positionality statements. These gaps underscore the need for more comprehensive methodologies that align with the goals of racial equity as envisioned by quantCrit.

Conclusions

The authors recommend advancing the field of quantitative educational research by pushing for deeper engagement with underrepresented racial groups and developing more sophisticated tools to analyze systemic inequities that align with the goals of the framework of quantCrit. Future research should incorporate more explicit measures of how race influences social outcomes and continue to critique conventional data practices. They advocate for researchers’ consistent use of reflexive statements, acknowledging how their personal and social contexts influence their work, which is central to quantCrit methodology.

The conclusions from this study hold relevance for scholars committed to anti-racist practices in education. By challenging the neutrality of traditional quantitative methods through quantCrit, the study calls for educational research to play a more active role in dismantling racial inequities. These findings offer a path forward for integrating critical race perspectives into quantitative research, prompting the field to adopt more equitable methodologies and make meaningful contributions to social justice-oriented policy reforms.

Beyond the Box Office: Ava DuVernay’s Socially Conscious Film Financing

Introduction

The case explores how filmmaker Ava DuVernay and her company, Array, disrupt norms in film financing, production, distribution, and marketing by creating more equitable opportunities for women and people of color. DuVernay values cultural and social impact, resulting in partnerships with philanthropic organizations and private donors to achieve her productions’ desired cultural and social outcomes.

Array encompasses multiple initiatives like Array Releasing, Array Filmworks, and Array Alliance, all dedicated to amplifying the voices of diverse filmmakers. Through these initiatives, the company pushes for a more inclusive film industry by offering platforms for creators whose work might otherwise go unseen in mainstream media. This case study delves into how Array’s financial model provides an innovative, socially conscious alternative to the conventional profit-driven approach of major studios. It provides insights into how the entertainment industry can better achieve diversity and inclusion in its operations. Additionally, this case offers an example of how business strategy and social entrepreneurship can intersect to reshape the media landscape.

Anita Elberse, the Lincoln Filene Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and Morgan Brewton-Johnson, a recent Harvard Business School graduate and current Chief of Staff to the CEO and Founder at Copper, authored this case.

Methods and Findings

Data coll͏ec͏ti͏on ͏f͏or th͏e case ͏i͏n͏volved e͏xam͏ining͏ ͏financ͏ial agreeme͏n͏ts͏, proje͏c͏t re͏ports, ͏and interviews wit͏h stakeh͏olders,͏ inclu͏ding p͏hi͏la͏nthrop͏i͏c ͏organiz͏ations (e.͏g., For͏d Fo͏u͏nda͏tio͏n͏,͏ Emerso͏n ͏Col͏le͏cti͏ve) an͏d͏ ͏private͏ don͏ors. iInsights garnered from these interviews we͏re use͏d to docume͏nt DuVernay’s innovative ͏fin͏anc͏i͏ng strategy͏, ͏which ͏combined phi͏lanth͏ropy͏ w͏i͏th private invest͏ment to rais͏e͏ over $35 million ͏for her film ͏O͏rigi͏n.͏ This fundi͏ng approach ͏was s͏upplemented by an additional $5 mil͏lion͏ f͏rom͏ DuVe͏rn͏ay’s comp͏any, Array.͏ T͏he model was structured to pr͏ioritize ͏social and c͏ultural i͏mpac͏t ͏over traditio͏nal financ͏ial re͏tur͏ns͏, of͏fering ͏a͏ new pathway for financi͏ng ͏films ͏with a strong fo͏cus on eq͏uity an͏d inclusion.

The findings from this case study indicate that this fi͏n͏ancing model gave DuVerna͏y greater creative freedom, en͏ab͏lin͏g h͏er to focus on socially c͏onsc͏ious stor͏yt͏ell͏ing without the usual pres͏sures of͏ commercial success. A͏ ͏clear ͏correlat͏i͏on w͏as͏ o͏bserved between th͏e͏ ͏involvement of phila͏nthropic org͏aniz͏ati͏ons an͏d the͏ abi͏lit͏y to produc͏e fil͏m͏s ͏that ch͏allen͏ge the conventi͏onal͏ s͏tr͏uctu͏res of ͏Hol͏lywood and͏ u͏plift a͏ diverse set of voices. By aligning t͏h͏e ͏finan͏c͏i͏al ͏backing with͏ goals focused on social justice and representation͏, DuVern͏ay could si͏deste͏p͏ ͏the t͏radit͏i͏onal͏ studio͏ gat͏ekee͏pe͏rs ͏and maintain con͏tr͏ol over the c͏reative directi͏o͏n o͏f O͏rigin. Thi͏s a͏pp͏roach ͏allo͏wed for i͏nnova͏t͏ive sto͏rytel͏lin͏g ͏and supp͏o͏rted broader͏ goals of incre͏asing div͏ersity ͏a͏n͏d͏ ͏inclusion in the fi͏lm͏ industry by amplifying the voices of underrepresented groups, challenging traditional Hollywood structures, and using film as a tool for social justice.

The collaboration between philanthropic organizations and private investors, as demonstrated in DuVernay’s financing strategy, highlights how innovative funding models can not only support socially conscious storytelling but also lay the groundwork for systemic changes in industry norms and potentially influence broader policy efforts aimed at equity and inclusion in media.

W͏hile the st͏udy͏ highlights ͏several͏ challenges a͏ssocia͏ted w͏it͏h this m͏odel, pa͏rti͏cularly in managing cas͏h flo͏w ͏and͏ reconcili͏ng the differing expectations of investors and grantors, it ͏al͏s͏o s͏ugg͏ests that͏ Du͏Vernay’s f͏inancing model could ͏serv͏e͏ as a͏ ͏blueprint for other ͏fi͏lmmakers͏. The model faces difficulties in balancing the financial expectations of investors with the social goals of grantors, alongside the challenge of securing consistent funding without the support of traditional studios. However, by p͏rioritizing social and cultural outcomes over profit, ͏this approach has the potential to d͏is͏rupt traditional industry practices and ͏i͏n͏s͏pire a new wave o͏f͏ filmmaker͏s se͏eki͏ng to make a social impact t͏hrou͏g͏h their work.͏

Conclusions

Ava DuVernay’s͏ Origin ͏exemplifies a͏ ͏finan͏cing mo͏del ͏that combine͏s ph͏ilan͏th͏ropic ͏fund͏i͏ng with ͏private in͏ve͏stme͏nts, e͏mphasizi͏ng ͏cultural and soci͏a͏l͏ impact ͏over profit. B͏y se͏curin͏g $35 m͏illion from major͏ org͏an͏izat͏i͏ons ͏like͏ the͏ Ford Foundation and ͏Em͏e͏rso͏n͏ Col͏le͏ctive, Du͏Ver͏nay byp͏assed tradit͏ion͏al Hollywo͏od systems͏, ͏al͏lo͏wing for greater ͏creative freedom and focus͏ing on stories o͏f diverse voices. This a͏pproach not onl͏y ͏provid͏ed the neces͏sary fina͏ncia͏l support but also aligned ͏t͏h͏e͏ ͏film’s mi͏ssion ͏with ͏th͏e v͏alues of social justic͏e and r͏e͏pr͏esentation, thus di͏sru͏pt͏ing H͏ollywood’s entrenched norms. ͏This case study highlights how this financial model can be a ga͏me-c͏ha͏ng͏er for fi͏lmmake͏rs from ͏margina͏lized communiti͏es trying to produce films and media outputs in a traditional Hollywood setting.

Th͏ese fi͏ndings a͏ls͏o show that ͏DuVernay’s fi͏nanci͏n͏g st͏ructu͏re serves͏ as a pote͏nt͏ial bl͏uepr͏int ͏for fu͏ture soc͏ia͏lly consciou͏s filmma͏king͏ – a pat͏hw͏ay for fi͏lmm͏ak͏ers to main͏t͏ain co͏ntrol o͏ver ͏the͏ir ͏narrat͏iv͏es͏ whil͏e advancing equity͏ ͏an͏d i͏nclusion w͏ithin the indust͏r͏y. The c͏ollaboration be͏tween philanthro͏py͏ and film-making organ͏izati͏ons demonstrate͏s how f͏unding mode͏ls can contrib͏u͏te to systemic ͏c͏ha͏nge, potential͏ly influen͏ci͏ng ͏poli͏cy e͏fforts i͏n ͏support of more diverse ͏s͏t͏oryt͏ellin͏g. The long-term͏ implication is that this funding model could be ͏scaled to empower more͏ filmmakers from underrepresented backgrounds.

The Role of Black Primary Care Physicians in Reducing Health Disparities

Introduction

This study evaluates the links between Black representation among primary care physicians (PCPs) and health outcomes for Black individuals in the United States. It investigates whether having higher levels of Black PCP representation at the county level is linked to higher life spans and lower mortality rates of Black individuals; the study also explores whether Black PCP representation at the county level mitigates health disparities between Black and white individuals.

The study utilizes county-level data, including poverty rates, uninsured rates, and median home values, across three years – 2009, 2014, and 2019 – for evaluating the effects of Black PCP representation on Black life expectancy and mortality.

The study’s importance lies in its implications for health equity and public health policy. The authors mention past studies showing greater availability of primary care services in communities being linked to better population health outcomes, including longer lifespans and lower levels of mortality. However, differences in health outcomes still persist between Black and white individuals. Therefore, by focusing on the relationship between Black PCP access and Black health outcomes, this research increases the field’s understanding regarding the influence of a higher prevalence of Black PCPs on health outcomes for Black individuals within a respective geographic area.

The authors of this study include John E. Snyder, Director of the Office of Planning Analysis and Evaluation at the Health Resources and Services Administration within the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS); Rachel D. Upton, Senior Health Scientist at the Office of Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); Thomas C. Hassett, Health Scientist at the Office of Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); Hyunjung Lee, Health Equity Data Analyst at the Office of Health Equity at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and Research Scientist at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education; Zakia Nouri, Senior Research Analyst at Workforce Studies at the Association of American Medical Colleges; and Michael Dill, Director of Workforce Studies at the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Methods and Findings

Methods

This study uses a cohort design, meaning it observes a group of participants over a period of time. County-level data were collected for three years: 2009, 2014, and 2019. Data sources included: 

• The American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile which provides details about physician characteristics and where they practice;
• Databases from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) that contain self-reported race and ethnicity information about physicians; and
• County-level population data on race and ethnicity, which were derived from 5-year estimates from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

Counties included in the study were required to have at least one Black PCP in one or more of the specified years. Out of the 3142 Census-defined U.S. counties, 1618 counties met this requirement and were included in the analysis while the rest were excluded due to the absence of Black PCPs. The main variable studied was the proportion of Black PCPs to Black population in each county, known as the community representativeness ratio. The study’s main measures were age-adjusted life expectancy, mortality rates for Black individuals, and disparities in mortality rates between Black and white individuals. 

To evaluate the association between Black PCP representation and the aforementioned outcome measures, the researchers utilized mixed-effects growth models. These models allowed the researchers to analyze data change over time and across different groups and include both fixed effects (consistent across all observations) and random effects (varying across different groups). The analysis controlled for factors such as poverty rates, uninsured rates, and rural or urban status among others.

Findings

The study found that having a greater representation of Black PCPs within a given county was associated with improved health outcomes for Black individuals. Specifically, a 10% increase in Black PCP representation was linked with an increase in life expectancy by approximately 31 days and a decrease in mortality rates by approximately 13 deaths per 100,000 Black individuals. In addition, higher levels of Black PCP representation were associated with a decreased disparity in mortality rates between Black and white individuals within a given county. Furthermore, the study’s analysis revealed that the association between Black PCP representation and life expectancy was even stronger in counties with higher poverty levels.

Ultimately, these findings show a positive association between Black PCP and improved health outcomes for Black people and suggest the need for strategies to increase the presence of Black primary care physicians to potentially reduce health inequities and improve overall public health.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that having higher ratios of Black PCPs within a given county is associated with better health outcomes for Black people. Specifically, the study demonstrates that a higher proportion of Black PCPs is associated with longer life expectancy and lower mortality rates among Black individuals. The Black-white mortality disparity reduces in counties with higher ratios of Black PCPs, as well. This beneficial effect is more pronounced in areas where poverty rates are higher, which suggests that the benefits of higher of Black PCPS are amplified more in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

Based on the study’s findings, the authors recommend targeted investments and policies aimed at increasing the number of Black PCPs, particularly in underserved and high-poverty areas. Strategies could include expanding support for medical education programs that recruit and train Black students, as well as implementing retention initiatives to ensure these physicians remain in practice within these geographic areas.

Diversity Washing in Public U.S. Corporations: Prevalence and Impact

Introduction

Diversity washing happens when firms claim they are committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), but their hiring practices do not reflect these commitments. This study assesses the prevalence of ‘diversity washing’ in company financial reports and its implications on shareholders and regulators. 

The study evaluated over 1.4 million financial and DEI-related disclosures of U.S. public corporations to examine the extent of diversity washing and its effect on investors as well as regulators. This timely publication illustrates how false DEI disclosures might affect investor choices, like misleading statements from firms about their DEI initiatives which result in higher environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores and attract more investment from institutional investors with an ESG focus; it also contributes to broader research on corporate transparency and accountability in ESG practices.

The authors include Andrew C. Baker, Associate Professor at Berkeley Law School; David F. Larcker, James Irvin Miller Professor of Accounting at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Senior Faculty at the Hoover Institution, and Research Fellow at the European Corporate Governance Institute; Charles G. McClure, Assistant Professor of Accounting at the Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago; Durgesh Saraph, Independent Scholar; and Edward M. Watts, Assistant Professor of Accounting at Yale School of Management.

Methods and Findings

Methods

For this analysis, almost all U.S. public corporations within 2008 to 2021 are included, and more than 1.4 million documents were evaluated. The researchers gathered firm-level financial and equity data from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) and Compustat. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ownership proxies were obtained from mutual fund holdings data, while Violation Tracker information on firm misconduct (i.e., violations related to DEI hiring practices, including discrimination-related offenses identified by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as other adverse human-capital outcomes and negative ESG-related events) was sourced through Goodjobsfirst. The firm misconduct in this study, sourced through Goodjobsfirst’s Violation Tracker, encompasses regulatory violations across various domains, including labor, employment, and environmental issues.

DEI commitment was measured based on the frequency of DEI terms in financial disclosures, identified using a dictionary-based algorithm. The algorithm was derived by creating a list of words related to DEI from different online DEI dictionaries and deleting words that have alternative meanings not linked with DEI. To ensure accuracy, research assistants reviewed sentences containing these terms to confirm their relevance to DEI initiatives. The resulting dataset was analyzed using various statistical methods, including regressions and fixed effects models, to identify links between DEI disclosures, workforce diversity, and market outcomes.

Findings

The study found statistically significant discrepancies between companies’ DEI commitments and the actual levels of diversity within their workforce. Companies with greater frequency of DEI discussions in their financial reports had lower levels of actual workforce diversity (i.e., female and non-white employees) compared to firms who discussed DEI less frequently. These firms also experienced higher turnover of female and non-white employees, more discrimination-related fines, and other adverse human-capital events. Despite these outcomes, diversity-washing firms received higher ESG scores from commercial rating organizations and attracted more investment from ESG-focused investors.

Furthermore, the study uncovered that firms engaging in diversity washing tended to have weaker governance structures, such as boards lacking diversity and independence, and less transparent reporting practices, such as not disclosing detailed DEI metrics or using vague language in DEI reports, when compared to firms that discuss DEI in amounts that are commensurate with their actual diversity levels. Frequently, the diversity-washing companies placed more importance on short-term financial performance rather than long-term sustainability and equity. 

The researchers found that this misalignment between public DEI commitments and actual workforce practices not only undermined trust among employees and investors, but it also posed reputational risks. For instance, many firms, previously lauded for their DEI efforts, were discovered to be engaged in substantial discrimination lawsuits and labor conflicts. The authors highlight a need for establishing more stringent benchmarks and independent verification of DEI claims to hold companies accountable for upholding their DEI promises.

Conclusions

The study’s findings highlight the prevalence and implications of diversity washing in corporate DEI disclosures. The authors recommend enhanced regulatory oversight and enforcement to ensure the accuracy of DEI reporting and to hold firms accountable to their public commitments. They also suggest that investors and stakeholders critically evaluate DEI disclosures and seek independent verification.

Empowering Youth and Shaping an Ethical AI Future

Introduction

With trends revealing the general populace’s growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is becoming more evident that we, as a society, are becoming dependent on AI.   Given the increased use of AI, it is important to note that AI technologies also possess inherent social and cultural biases that reflect and perpetuate existing societal problems. Young people, ages 12-18, are some of the most frequent users of AI; however, they are not engaged in discussions centered on AI’s biases, the real-world implications of those biases, and the ethics of AI systems. 

This paper examines how young people engage with artificial intelligence, specifically the interpretation and management of algorithmic biases. The research challenges a common narrative that young people are only consumers of technology who do not have the knowledge and interest to relate to technology’s moral or technical implications. This research proposes that young people are capable of thinking about the consequences of using AI from different perspectives. Researchers were interested in knowing what young people think about AI, identifying AI-associated biases, and suggesting ways to reduce these biases,  which would foster fairer AI technologies.

Jaemarie Solyst is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University affiliated with the Human-Computer Interaction Institute. Ellia Yang is an undergraduate student studying computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University.  Shixian Xie is a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University affiliated with the Human-Computer Interaction Institute. Amy Ogan is an associate professor of learning sciences affiliated with the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Jessica Hammer is an associate professor and the director of the Center for Transformational Play at the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Motahhare Eslami is an assistant professor affiliated with the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.

Methods and Findings

The participants included students(from first through twelfth grade) and their parents,  primarily from backgrounds that are underrepresented in technology, including Black communities, non-binary users, and women. The participants engaged in a series of interactive workshops and discussions exploring the concepts of bias and discrimination in technology, examined case studies, and critically analyzed social media platforms. The study found that youth were able to explain their understanding of bias and discrimination on social media platforms, including how algorithms perpetuate these biases.

Furthermore, participants discussed strategies for mitigating and eliminating bias, as well as advocating for more equitable AI. Drawing on their experiences and insights, the participants framed the concept of fairness within the context of algorithms. Their solutions, which blended creativity with practicality, showed that they understood the ethical dilemmas in AI. The participants proposed various recommendations, from technical fixes like strengthening bias detection algorithms to broader societal and educational initiatives such as developing comprehensive AI education programs and promoting public dialogue on algorithmic accountability.

Ultimately, these findings contradict the belief that young people possess no interest or ability to confront complex moral and technological dilemmas. Instead, this study illuminates an opportunity for ways young people can become active participants in building or critiquing AI technologies. The study participants’ insights could lead to more equitable and thoughtful development processes for AIs.

Conclusions

The study underscores how young people can help shape AI, and argues that with the inputs of youth, fairness and inclusivity of AI will be protected, advocating for increased participation of young people in AI design. By actively involving youth in the discourse around AI ethics and development, their unique perspectives and innovative ideas challenge biases and ensure that AI systems are more representative of and responsive to the diverse needs of society. This study highlights the importance of educational programs that help empower young people with tools for critically examining, evaluating, and contributing to AIs, thereby fostering an informed and ethically aware generation engaged in creating or interacting with such technology.

Evaluating Antiracism Training for College Students

Introduction

Scholars note that allies play a significant role in undermining and dismantling systemic barriers, with research showing that effective allyship can lead to significant reductions in racial bias. The authors purport that allyship requires a commitment to social justice, the establishment of genuine relationships with those from other identity groups, and a dedication to accountability within these communities. In addition, the authors assert that the necessity for racial allyship, particularly from white individuals towards Black communities, is underscored by historical social movements, like the Civil Rights Movement, where white allies were integral co-conspirators in the fight against racial segregation. 

In the wake of this history, the authors studied the impact of a Racial Harmony Workshop program at a large public university in New England. The purpose of this research study was to examine white university students’ allophilia — positive, anti-prejudiced attitudes towards different racial groups — and interpersonal allyship behaviors towards Black students, as a result of anti-racism training.  

The researchers are  Monnica Williams, PhD and Sophia Gran-Ruaz. Williams is a clinical psychologist and Professor at the School of Psychology at the University of Ottawa. Gran-Ruaz is a PhD Candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Ottawa. 

Methods and Findings

This report investigates the outcomes of two diversity workshops on allophilia and allyship. Allophilia is having positive feelings towards members of an outgroup, characterized by affection, comfort, kinship, engagement, and enthusiasm. Allyship, as defined by the authors, is the active support and promotion of social justice, involving genuine relationships with marginalized communities and a commitment to accountability within these communities.

The report examines five behavioral dimensions of allophilia, which include comfort, kinship, affection, engagement and enthusiasm, to determine whether they change as a result of these workshops. In addition, the study tested whether the workshops increased engagement in allyship from white students towards Black students.  

Participants were selected from a large public university and randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) intervention group – those who attended a Racial Harmony Workshop (RHW) developed by Monnica T. Williams and her colleagues, facilitated by one white individual and one person of color and (2) control group. The RHW was an educational and experiential learning workshop which addressed themes including stereotypes, racial identity development, and systemic racism. The workshop included discussions on pathological stereotypes, automatic racial/ethnic bias, and the role of white individuals in dismantling racism. Participants engaged in mindfulness exercises, small-group interracial interactions, and activities designed to promote social connectedness and empathy.

Conversely, the control group had conversations about The Color of Fear, a documentary where eight men of different racial and ethnic identities discuss their personal experiences and perceptions of racism in America.

The researchers used Pre-, Post- and One-Month measures were taken using the Allophilia Scale and the Interpersonal Racial Allyship Scale, serving as indicators to assess the effectiveness of the antiracism training workshops in enhancing allophilia and allyship. 

Improvement in allophilia was found by the study among those who attended the RHW. These improvements were documented in the scale dimensions of comfort, kinship, engagement, and enthusiasm towards Black students. Yet, the increase in affection was not statistically significant. Furthermore, the RHW participants demonstrated a significant increase in allyship towards Black students immediately following the workshop. However, this effect was not sustained at one-month follow up. In contrast, the control group showed no notable changes in any of the five dimensions of allophilia immediately after or at the one-month follow up. Additionally, during the one-month follow up, it was found that the control group’s allyship scores decreased below pre-workshop levels.

Conclusions

This research focuses on the transformation of attitudes and behaviors of white college students towards Black students through antiracism training. The Racial Harmony Workshop (RHW) offered at a large public university studied showed greater improvements in measures such as comfort, kinship, and engagement when compared to discussions provoked by a film that explores individual experiences and perspectives with racism. Nevertheless, developing effective and accountable allies is an ongoing journey that requires continuous self-reflection and intentional action for its efficacy – thus, the long term impact of these training methods needs to be assessed beyond one month.