

This (skin color as a type of credential) is not a new phenomenon. Whiteness has been perceived as a credential for ever (see @victorerikray work, Collins, etc). But what happens when the skin color of racial minorities is perceived as a credential within an organization?
When we talk about DEI workers, we need to think about status, their position within an org. We can’t refer to DEI workers as a heterogeneous group. This is problematic. High-status workers, such as deans of DEI (who are given that title) do not do the same work as DEI officers.
The killing of George Floyd changed the nature of DEI expertise in the organization where I’m conducting work (see Eyal, my dissertation chair, to learn about expertise). I’m amazed that expertise scholars do not talk about the race of people. This is something I’m trying to do.
One of the biggest changes after George Floyd was killed is the pressure for the organization to legitimate their commitment to DEI work. And guess who are the most pressured and affected by these changes? Black workers.
Black workers are reporting stress and pressure to perform DEI work in a way that none of my participants who belong to other racial groups report. They have become what I called the diversity saviors of the organization, given gargantuan tasks that no worker should be given.
It gets worse for Black women who are DEI workers. They are asked to participate in things superficially. For example, they can’t sit in hiring committees but they are asked “can you give me the diversity question?” What should we be asking? This reminded of your post @tanyaboza
I’m still working on this project, but a theoretical paper that pushed me to do this is @AngelicaLeighOB and @ProfShimul paper on mega-threats. Let’s not forget that 2020 was a catalyst for organizations not just because of COVID but because of the murder of George Floyd too.