Diversity is a pretty word. A band-aid word. A word meant to be helpful, hopeful in the face of words like ‘intolerance’ or ‘bigotry.’ It is also, unfortunately, a word that rings hollow to many educators entangled in an endless web of guidelines, permissions, and considerations. This is not to say, however, that inclusive pedagogy has not been introduced to students in the past, with varying levels of success.  

The Dilemma of ‘Diversity’ in Pedagogy

Jessica Edwards in Inclusive Practices in the Technical Communication Classroom, outlines a study done with 15 professors and students from various disciplines wherein Edwards discusses the definition and pedagogy of diversity. The professors discuss a variety of methods, such as connection to the material via personal experience and utilizing technology to research concepts. Edwards noted that while there were many methodologies suggested and discussed during this focus group, “flexibility is also important when thinking about teaching students to advocate for themselves and others.” Above all, the need for “candid discussions about race, diversity, and difference” was greatly emphasized by the study. 

Here’s where it gets sticky. ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ are verbal signifiers in themselves, often – as Cathryn Bailey from the AAUP (American Society of University Professors) in her article How Diversity Rhetoric Obscures Structural Inequities in Higher Education writes– “pretty words [that] may be meant more to assuage and keep the institutional machinery chugging along than to catalyze real change.” It’s remarkably simple to suggest diverse pedagogy methodologies, and exceptionally difficult to implement substantive approaches beyond surface-level strategies like ‘acknowledging classroom diversity’ and ‘talking about diverse subjects.’

For example, educators may wish to discuss the systems of power that birthed our rhetorical models; this would require acknowledging the whiteness, the maleness, and the cis-heteronormativity of professional language. But this might make students feel uncomfortable and estranged. There may be a barrage of emails fired off in all directions. And in a day and age where a petition can mean the end of a tenured professor’s career (which the petition did itself not ask for nor did those who signed the petition expect, according to reports), what could happen to educators lower down in the academic ranks? 

Thus, educators are snared within the very system they wish to dismantle. How does one talk about the elephant in the room if the elephant will stomp you to bits if you do?

Understanding the Scope 

There is no easy answer, no quick solution. Universities could create an academic environment that supports diversity, rather than a hostile landscape wherein “professors of color, especially women of color, have left their universities, citing racism as a primary motivator,” as cited by Matias et al in their article “Universities Say They Want More Diverse Faculties. So Why Is Academia Still So White?” Universities could adequately support their students of color, who “report higher rates of loneliness and emotional stress, anxiety, depression, and hopelessness.” that may impact their schoolwork, as cited by Eugene Beresin M.D., M.A. in Psychology Today. Universities could implement true, inclusive, systemic change that emphasizes objective education. This is, however, highly unlikely without consistent lobbying by academics, educators, and students.

Diversity should not just be a pretty word- it should be a difficult, necessary conversation that is had in the service of widening our perspectives and changing our futures for the better. Until we can have that conversation openly in classrooms, we should try not to surrender to cynicism and frustration. If you can’t be direct, use the rhetorical tools you were given to create what discourse you can around subjects of race, gender, and difference because the only other option is complicity.