Units in orgs are going to be asked to establish goals related to "diversity and inclusion," and I am really struggling with some basic matters. I'm trying to write through them, but here are some questions. First, do leaders understand that inequity is /1

literally baked into the bureaucracy or do we need to spend time interrogating those systems of power? Can people meaningfully create "diversity goals" without the ability to articulate the ways in which the org is gendered and racialized? And if they don't already know that /2

who is going to teach them (convince them, really)? This is, to me, a level-one matter. For example, if I need an act of Congress to convince you that it's inappropriate to hold a meeting in a space that is explicitly hostile to my LGBTQ colleagues, you are not even at level 1./3

(And I know that's not about race, but the dynamic is consistent.) More questions: How will the lofty ideals of "racial justice" translate into an interrogation of the decisions that are made on the ground? For example, in 20 years over 5 colleges, I have heard the same /4

sorts of things: In advising, "I deal with the student, not the parents or family because it is my job to make the student independent." Cultural competence, number one, but secondly, it further perpetuates the idea of achievement as based in individual merit as opposed to /5

communal & structural matters; thus, when someone isn't successful, it's an "individual problem" as opposed to a problem rooted in system and structure. This is the "baked-in" nature of inequity in the bureaucracy: Prioritizing individual (more specifically, "default human" - /6

- white, male, hetero) achievement, hierarchical, rational, efficient. *When really* what we need for substantive & sustainable change is community, compassion, individualized consideration....all of which are directly at odds with the bureaucracy.
/7

After 20 years I (and you, too) can name examples of how HE perpetuates inequity in its daily decision making in ALL corners of the org, top to bottom. So I guess my driving question here is how are we going to make this translation from lofty philosophical perspectives about /8

the value of diversity & inclusion when it requires also addressing the baked-in nature of these matters? Can people conceptualize the relationship between the baked-in elements and the daily decisions? Or the baked-in elements and strategic plans?
/9

And am I wrong about the whole thing? Is the bureaucracy "neutral" in the way we treat it as "neutral"? And if you think that, why?

I don't grapple with these matters as a mid-level leader, tbh. I know what to do to handle it in my own area. But I'm curious if people are /10

equipped for taking an approach that interrogates what is baked in as opposed to just addressing the results of the recipe, on the org level. And how would we know? /end