麻豆AV

After gathering information and analyzing the data in comparison to relevant articles on JEDI issues in higher education and other organizations, PMJ has identi铿乪d several areas of concern and opportunities for growth for the Equity Infrastructure. 麻豆AV has substantial structures, resources, and efforts making outstanding progress towards its equity and justice efforts; the institution has a solid foundation and many committed individuals and groups. The following areas named are not necessarily de铿乧its, but could be focused on to move the institution to the next level. Those concerns and opportunities include A) JEDI Vision for the Institution; B) Focus of JEDI Efforts; C) Infrastructure to Support the CDO; D), Structure on Accountability; E) Communication; and F), Capacity Building.

JEDI Vision for the Institution

Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) have become increasingly important considerations for educational institutions, and especially 麻豆AV. Recognizing the signi铿乧ance of these principles, 麻豆AV has expressed an on-going commitment to fostering a JEDI-focused environment. Moreover, 麻豆AV recognizes it is essential to assess the effectiveness of this vision and evaluate the extent to which it is being implemented. This section of the report examines the limited clarity with the JEDI vision at 麻豆AV, highlighting stakeholders' uncertainty regarding the vision and goals, a lack of clarity regarding actionable steps, and the resulting perception of performative actions.

Vision and Goals: Some stakeholders, including faculty, staff, and students, have expressed a sense of uncertainty regarding the JEDI vision and goals at 麻豆AV. Despite the institution's efforts to communicate its commitment to JEDI principles, there remains some lack of clarity surrounding what the vision entails and the speci铿乧 goals it seeks to achieve. This uncertainty has led to some feeling frustrated and confused among stakeholders eager to understand the direction of 麻豆AV's JEDI initiatives. With limited clearly articulating the vision and goals, it becomes challenging for stakeholders to align their efforts and contribute meaningfully to the institution's JEDI endeavors.

Knowledge of Actions Being Taken: Even among stakeholders who understand 麻豆AV's JEDI vision, there is often limited knowledge regarding what this vision looks like in action and what concrete steps are being taken to move the university closer to its JEDI goals. This limited knowledge can create a disconnect between the institution's stated commitments and the visible actions being undertaken to address JEDI concerns. Stakeholders have expressed a desire for transparency and regular updates on the progress made in implementing JEDI initiatives. Without this information, stakeholders struggle to gauge the effectiveness and impact of the actions taken, leading to further skepticism and doubt.

Perception of Actions: The combination of limited JEDI action and a lack of knowledge about ongoing initiatives has fueled a perception among a small group of stakeholders that the JEDI vision at 麻豆AV may be performative in nature. When stakeholders observe a gap between the institution's rhetoric and the tangible actions being implemented, they may question the authenticity of the JEDI commitments. The absence of visible progress and a clear roadmap for achieving JEDI goals can reinforce the perception that the institution's efforts are merely super铿乧ial and intended to appease external stakeholders rather than affecting meaningful change within the campus community.

JEDI Efforts

Across the country, many colleges and universities encounter dynamics where individuals and groups do the work aligned with the mission but are disjointed due to siloing. 麻豆AV leadership is aware of multiple groups committed to enacting JEDI on campus and the likelihood that these efforts are not being as strategic as they could be due to a lack of clarity about the scope of this work and where responsibilities lie in that regard. The positive note is that there are many groups doing meaningful JEDI work; however, with any large institution, coordinating many efforts creates challenges. This section of the report focuses on the many constituents that contribute to JEDI goals on campus, the challenge of collaboration and cohesiveness, and the possibility of duplication of efforts and missed collaborative opportunities.

The JEDI Team at 麻豆AV: The JEDI ecosystem is supported and held up by many individuals, groups, departments, and committees, all working towards 麻豆AV鈥檚 JEDI Goals. These groups include academic departments (e.g., Educational Opportunity Program - serving since 1968 - and the 麻豆AV Council of Ethnic Studies), administrative departments (e.g., the Equity and Compliance office), co-curricular programs (e.g., the Identity-Based Resource Centers), student-initiated programs (e.g., Asian American Student Pathways Project) and numerous individuals and committees working to address the disproportionate impact that is seen on campus for students and employees alike. Each of these is working in its lane toward 麻豆AV鈥檚 JEDI priorities; however, this spread often leads to limited collaboration opportunities and limited cohesive initiatives.

Duplication of Efforts: With such rich work being done across campus, the JEDI needs of the community being so great, and the ambiguity about the boundaries of responsibilities, some initiatives, activities, and programs may have the same mission (and indeed may have many of the same participants). There was an expressed need to evaluate the entire JEDI ecosystem for which initiatives exist, what their charge is, and assess their impact on the populations served (qualitatively and quantitatively). Additionally, stakeholders wanted to ensure that mapping the JEDI ecosystem did not hinder the creation of programs, initiatives, and activities that are essential to be created to support the needs of the campus. A clear institutional vision describing how each area connects to the larger strategy can help streamline efforts and increase collaborations where they may be missed.

Focus of JEDI Work

With a push toward using Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) as a framework and model for supporting campus climate and outcomes comes a need for an intersectional approach to what JEDI initiatives are and can look like. 麻豆AV鈥檚 鈥淩oad Map to the Future鈥� emphasizes the need to infuse JEDI in every campus area. This section focuses on the tensions and frustrations that arise for some within organizations when racial justice is seen as the sole focus of JEDI efforts, when speci铿乧 populations (e.g. the disabled community, undocumented community, LGBTQ+, etc.) are rarely discussed as parts of the JEDI strategy, and when there is a limited understanding of intersectional approaches to JEDI work in theory or practice.

JEDI as Racial Justice: Several stakeholders feel that 麻豆AV鈥檚 vision for JEDI has a narrow focus on racial justice, omitting the multitudes of ways that race and racism shape the experiences of multiple-marginalized people. Others feel that even that myopic view of JEDI as racial justice is not accurate enough because, at 麻豆AV, racial justice might be limited to Black and Latin茅 populations. Some felt that we treat Black and Latin茅 populations like monoliths, failing to see the nuances in experiences between Black American and Black International students or assuming all undocumented students are Latin茅.

鈥淲e鈥檙e Not Included in JEDI鈥�: Due to the strong focus on JEDI as racial justice (speci铿乧ally for Black and Latin茅 populations), some other communities shared they did not feel included in institutional efforts. Constituents shared that disabled, undocumented, veteran-serving, non-Christian religious, formerly incarcerated and justice-involved, and LGBTQ+ communities are not treated as a priority in JEDI conversations or activities. There is an opportunity to acknowledge how people whose identities put them at the intersections of oppression (e.g., a Vietnamese-American Deaf student) have unique experiences. An additional opportunity lies in laying out which groups are disproportionately impacted and are thus prioritized in JEDI initiatives. A broad focus and prioritization of communities is an on-going challenge for all organizations as the scope of efforts expand.

Intersectionality conceptually and practically: There was also a theme that intersectional approaches to JEDI work were not common across campus initiatives. While identity-based spaces are important to create and cultivate community, it is also imperative to account for and make room for how identity salience changes in different contexts. 麻豆AV鈥檚 JEDI leadership can provide training and development regarding how to think about intersectionality in the context of one鈥檚 work and how to use an intersectional framework practically within one鈥檚 work.

Infrastructure to Support the Chief Diversity O铿僣er

One signi铿乧ant challenge that has limited the effectiveness of the Chief Diversity Officer role at 麻豆AV is the infrastructure to support their responsibilities. This limited infrastructure has manifested in two primary areas: insufficient staffing to meet institutional goals and a disproportionate focus on compliance rather than strategic leadership.

Firstly, the CDO's office faces a staffing shortage, which impedes its ability to effectively carry out its responsibilities and meet institutional goals. The scope of the CDO's role is extensive, encompassing developing and implementing JEDI initiatives, fostering a welcoming campus climate, and addressing systemic barriers that impede marginalized groups' success. However, the limited number of staff members supporting the CDO hampers their capacity to ful铿乴l these obligations comprehensively.

Without an adequate team to provide the necessary support, the CDO is burdened with an overwhelming workload that prevents them from dedicating sufficient time and attention to each essential aspect of their role. This reduces the ability to develop innovative strategies, engage with stakeholders, and foster meaningful dialogue about diversity and inclusion across the university community. Consequently, the CDO's impact is diminished, hindering progress toward achieving a truly inclusive campus environment.

Secondly, the CDO's role has been disproportionately focused on compliance rather than strategic leadership. While ensuring compliance with diversity and inclusion policies is undoubtedly crucial, an excessive emphasis on this aspect detracts from the CDO's ability to lead and create a vision for the institution. Compliance measures often necessitate reactive, transactional approaches, leaving little room for the CDO to proactively drive long-term change and address systemic issues at their root.

By being primarily consumed with compliance-related tasks, such as policy review, reporting, and documentation, the CDO is denied the opportunity to invest in transformative initiatives that could signi铿乧antly impact the campus culture. This limitation undermines the potential of the CDO role. It perpetuates a cycle where diversity and inclusion efforts are primarily driven by a need to meet legal obligations rather than a genuine commitment to equity and social justice.

To address these infrastructure challenges, 麻豆AV must acknowledge the critical importance of adequately resourcing the Chief Diversity Officer's area. This includes allocating sufficient staffing levels to support the CDO's multifaceted responsibilities and ensuring that their workload allows for strategic leadership rather than being overwhelmed by compliance-related tasks. By providing the necessary resources, 麻豆AV can enable the CDO to operate effectively, fostering a more inclusive campus environment and facilitating meaningful progress toward equity and social justice.

Accountability Structure

In analyzing the current landscape of JEDI initiatives, it becomes evident that there are gaps in the existing systems of accountability. The absence of robust structures hampers the ability to hold various entities, groups, and individuals accountable for their actions or inactions regarding JEDI outcomes. This section will highlight the challenges arising from the limited structure on accountability and the unclear avenues for reporting bias in situations where it does not constitute a legal or policy violation.

One of the foremost concerns surrounding JEDI initiatives is the lack of established mechanisms to hold members accountable. While organizations and institutions may have policies and guidelines in place to promote JEDI principles, the absence of tangible consequences for noncompliance undermines the effectiveness of these efforts. Without clear systems to hold individuals, groups, and areas accountable, there is a risk that JEDI objectives may be neglected or overlooked altogether.

Moreover, the current understanding of where to report instances of bias remains ambiguous, particularly when they do not constitute explicit legal or policy violations. While legal and policy frameworks exist to address overt instances of discrimination, subtle biases, and systemic inequities that often go unaddressed, this creates a challenging environment for individuals who encounter such issues but are unsure of the appropriate channels to voice their concerns. The absence of clarity on reporting procedures may contribute to a culture of silence, preventing the identi铿乧ation and resolution of pervasive JEDI issues.

Another challenge is holding employees accountable for learning about JEDI and departments accountable for JEDI actions. Stakeholders named that there are no consequences when employees do not prioritize JEDI professional development. Additionally, some departments do not prioritize JEDI work, and there are no consequences for their lack of interest or commitment. A positive note is that there are many employees who highly value and do prioritize JEDI learning and development.

The goal of accountability is not to shame or blame individuals or departments but to demonstrate that the institution truly values and supports JEDI's work. By strengthening the structure of accountability, organizations and institutions can foster an environment that prioritizes JEDI outcomes and holds all stakeholders responsible for contributing to a more just, equitable, and inclusive society. This requires a collective commitment to establishing clear guidelines, implementing effective reporting mechanisms, and ensuring that consequences for noncompliance are proportionate and meaningful.

Communication

JEDI initiatives on campus have also had several communication challenges, which have been identi铿乪d that can hinder the effective implementation and understanding of these efforts. This section aims to shed light on two key challenges: the lack of awareness among stakeholders regarding JEDI activities and the limited trust some stakeholders have in senior administrators, emphasizing the need for increased transparency.

Firstly, stakeholders across campus have expressed uncertainty about the activities and efforts undertaken concerning JEDI work. This lack of awareness has created a disconnect and hindered collaboration among different groups. Stakeholders must comprehensively understand the ongoing initiatives, as this knowledge is crucial for fostering a sense of shared purpose and engagement. Without clear and consistent communication channels, stakeholders may not fully appreciate the progress being made or opportunities available to contribute to JEDI efforts. Consequently, this challenge could potentially limit the effectiveness and impact of the campus-wide JEDI initiatives. It is important to note that communication at a large institution is a common challenge; moreover, when communication regarding JEDI topics occurs it has an elevated level of sensitivity.

Secondly, it has been observed that some stakeholders have limited trust in senior administrators. This lack of trust can stem from various factors, including historical experiences, perceived hierarchical structures, or a lack of transparency in decision-making processes. Stakeholders who feel this way may question the authenticity and sincerity of the JEDI initiatives, perceiving them as super铿乧ial, performative, or lacking in substance. Distrust with senior administrators is unfortunately very common in organizations. To overcome this challenge, it is crucial to prioritize transparency in communication, ensuring that stakeholders are well-informed about the decision-making processes, progress, and challenges faced by the JEDI initiatives. This transparency can help build trust and demonstrate the commitment of senior administrators to address concerns, ultimately fostering greater engagement and participation from stakeholders.

Addressing these communication challenges requires a proactive and multifaceted approach. This collaborative approach can help bridge the communication gap and build a culture of trust, enabling the successful implementation and integration of JEDI principles across the campus community.

Capacity Building

Throughout the listening sessions, a common need stakeholders identi铿乪d was a lack of institutional structures that provided strategic and comprehensive JEDI training and development. Many groups and individuals desire to learn about JEDI topics and want to ensure their work centers on JEDI principles and actions; however, many do not feel like they have the knowledge or skills to do so. They noted some training, but it seems more one-off, disconnected, or not regularly offered. Others noted that some of the JEDI-focused offices provide training and development opportunities. Still, they cannot offer robust training programs for other employees. Some of the JEDI offices, programs, and departments charged with direct student support do not feel it is their role to educate the campus community about how to best serve the population they are charged with serving. Additionally, some offering training and development may not have the training or skills to deliver effective training.

Stakeholders also noted that there is a population of employees who do not participate in JEDI training, and there are no consequences if an individual or department does not prioritize or focus on JEDI work. Some are eager to learn how to be anti-racist and JEDI-focused; however, some may not feel it is a priority or even resist or obstruct it.

The areas of growth for 麻豆AV are understandable and manageable. There is consistent, meaningful ,and relevant JEDI work being done. Moreover, the institutional leadership is committed to on-going growth to JEDI work, and is eager to move 麻豆AV to the next step.