Approaches to anti-racism in education vary widely, from interventions that centre discomfort and transformation to those that remain symbolic or contested. In reviewing the set resources, I am struck by the tension between meaningful anti-racist work and institutional tendencies to dilute, deflect or depoliticise it. Through the lens of my positionality, as one of two tutors of colour in a year group of 13 professionals, I reflect here on how these approaches deepen my understanding of racism in higher education and how we might begin to address it more meaningfully.
Akaal Sadiq’s TEDx talk (2023) offers a sharp critique of performative Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) work. Speaking as a former insider in corporate DEI, Sadiq calls out diversity as branding: short-lived, unmeasured, and more about optics than structural change. His argument that organisations often “overpromise and underdeliver” resonates with Ahmed’s (2012) concept of “non-performative” diversity, where policies signal inclusion without resulting in action. In my context, I have seen equity statements drafted while marking criteria and staff demographics remain unchanged.
Bradbury (2020) explores how education policy, framed as neutral, can entrench racism through colour-blind approaches. The analysis of bilingual assessment policy in England shows how racially minoritised learners are positioned through a deficit lens. This reflects Critical Race Theory’s premise that racism is embedded rather than exceptional (Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995). In design education, where dominant standards reflect Eurocentric norms, students are often assessed against unspoken criteria rooted in whiteness. Bradbury urges us to look beyond inclusion rhetoric and examine how power operates in curriculum and assessment design.
Garrett’s (2024) study of racialised PhD students further expands this analysis. Racial microaggressions, the burden of proving legitimacy, and underrepresentation at senior levels make many feel they don’t belong or can’t progress. Garrett’s work challenges the myth of meritocracy and reminds us that access alone is insufficient. Anti-racist practice must engage with representation, retention, and recognition. This is echoed in The Broken Pipeline report, which highlights how “fixed notions of ‘academic excellence’” and structural bias in supervisory models disproportionately disadvantage Black students (Williams et al., 2019, p. 4). Despite increasing undergraduate participation, Black students remain severely underrepresented in funded doctoral programmes; only 1.2% of UKRI-funded studentships were awarded to Black or Black Mixed students between 2016–2019. These figures expose how systemic inequalities persist beyond access, requiring proactive, structural interventions across the pipeline to academic careers.
The School That Tried to End Racism (Channel 4, 2020) offers a school-level intervention using racial affinity groups and structured exercises to make whiteness visible and discuss privilege. One strength of the programme is its use of physicality, which created embodied, visual representations of inequality and privilege. This helped pupils, especially white students, recognise racism as systemic rather than individual. What was particularly powerful, and saddening, was Michai and Farah’s realisation of how their ‘starting point’ in life differed from their peers, with Michai highlighting the emotional toll of racial inequality as he described feelings of loneliness and exclusion.
The programme shows that educational spaces can address race early, fostering discomfort and reflection as part of learning. Yet its limitations potentially lie in its temporality and lack of follow-through. While it raised awareness, the wider resources in this blog remind us that deeper structural change, such as curriculum reform or ongoing staff training, is essential. This reflects a broader risk: that one-off interventions may ease guilt without shifting institutional power. In higher education, it warns against relying solely on workshops instead of embedding anti-racism into pedagogy and policy.
The positionality of contributors shapes how their perspectives are constructed and received. Sadiq (2023), as a racialised practitioner within DEI, exposes how institutional promises fall short. Garrett (2024) and Bradbury (2020), grounded in Critical Race Theory, centre racialised learners’ voices and illustrate how racism operates as systemic conditions rather than isolated events. The Channel 4 educators use affective, experiential pedagogy to surface difficult truths.
By contrast, Revealed: The Charity Turning UK Universities Woke (Orr, 2022) critiques race equity initiatives in higher education, featuring voices such as Arif Ahmed and Dr Vincent Harinam, both men of colour, who argue that such work fosters division and undermines academic freedom. Their positionality complicates the narrative, as their perspectives are used to lend credibility to a broader backlash against anti-racism, framed and presented by a white male journalist, Orr. As Ahmed (2012) observes, institutions often legitimise dissenting voices of colour when they align with dominant ideologies, while marginalising those that call for structural change. In the video, Harinam cites formal complaints of racism to support his argument, without engaging with the complexities of lived experience or the systemic gaps in how data is reported and interpreted.
These positionalities matter in shaping arguments and in whose voices are legitimised. As one of two tutors of colour, I am continually aware of the representational and emotional labour of speaking about race in predominantly white academic spaces. As Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) argue, whiteness is maintained as the invisible norm, and disrupting it, through curriculum, critique, or voice, often carries a cost. My positionality informs how I teach, but also how I am perceived, sometimes as a “diverse voice,” other times as a proxy for institutional change.
Together, these resources reinforce that anti-racism cannot be reduced to representation or awareness alone. It must be structural, sustained, and relational. As Bhambra, Gebrial and Nişancıoğlu (2018) contend, addressing racism requires not just diversifying who is included but rethinking how knowledge is structured, assessed, and valued. In my context, this means interrogating the frameworks that shape design education: who they serve, who they silence, and how they can be reimagined. As educators, we are not simply diversifying content but redesigning the pedagogical and institutional conditions in which racial justice becomes possible.
References
Ahmed, S. (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press (Accessed 6 July 2025).
Bhambra, G.K., Gebrial, D. and Nişancıoğlu, K. (eds) (2018) Decolonising the University. London: Pluto Press (Accessed 6 July 2025).
Bradbury, A., 2020. A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp.241-260.
Channel 4. (2020) The School That Tried to End Racism. [Online}. Youtube. 30 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg (Accessed 13 June 2025).
Garrett, R. (2024). Racism shapes careers: career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp.1–15.
Ladson-Billings, G. and Tate, W.F. (1995) ‘Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education’, Teachers College Record, 97(1), pp. 47–68.
Orr, J. (2022) Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. The Telegraph [Online]. Youtube. 5 August. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU (Accessed 13 June 2025).
Sadiq, A. (2023) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right. TEDx [Online}. Youtube. 2 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw (Accessed 13 June 2025).
Williams, P., Bath, S., Arday, J. and Lewis, C. (2019) The Broken Pipeline: Barriers to Black PhD Students Accessing Research Council Funding. London: Leading Routes. Available at: https://leadingroutes.org/publications (Accessed 8 June 2025).
Kuljeet, I love your writer’s voice, which I recognise by now, a seemingly effortless discussion of all sorts. In this post, I’m especially impressed by how you weave reflection into your response, something I personally struggle with. You also pinpoint so well how bilingual learners are “positioned through a deficit lens”, something that is traditionally addressed by a “fixing” approach, not something that comes also with benefits. As a bilingual non-native english speaker, I can personally very much relate to her work. Reading your blog post before finishing mine also helped me to understand The Telegraph’s “investigation” much better and prompted further research. My understanding of cultural nuances is still not as good as I want it to be. Another aspect, that I think you have explained so well is how positionalities can be instrumentalised, here, in the case of Orr’s reportage. A very inspiring post, ending with calling to continually question how we as educators can rethink frameworks and pedagogy.
Thank you so much for this generous and thoughtful reflection Eva. I really appreciate you sharing your personal connection to the discussion on bilingualism. I’ve found that reframing bilingual learners away from a deficit perspective is a critical step in building more equitable learning environments, and it’s a conversation that still feels underdeveloped in some educational spaces. Your point about how positionality can be instrumentalised is so important – the Orr article, for me, really illustrated how lived experience can be selectively framed to support dominant narratives. I’m so glad the blog prompted you to explore the media piece further. That’s exactly the kind of shared inquiry I hoped might come out of this discussion. Thank you again for engaging so deeply.
Kuljeet, thank you for sharing your personal experience on this topic, especially with the idea of “overpromise and underdeliver” – seeing demographics remain unchanged in the teaching staff. You mention a lack of “follow through” with a lot of discussions and incentives and this resonates with me. We can rethink, adapt and diversify the sessions we deliver, but without (as you mention) structural, sustained, and relational change, localised efforts are not enough.
Thank you Ignacia, I really value your engagement and your honest response. It’s frustrating to witness how frequently ambition and rhetoric are not matched by meaningful, systemic change. I’ve often felt that while individual educators are trying to create inclusive learning moments, it’s difficult to sustain impact when the institutional structures remain unchanged. Like you, I believe that unless change is embedded relationally and structurally, across leadership, curriculum, recruitment and retention, we risk slipping into a cycle of short-lived initiatives. I hope we can continue these conversations as part of wider change efforts.
Kuljeet, this is a really insightful and articulate piece, highlighting how your personal lived experience and positionality supports your academic and personal views, and how they relate to the contributors and institutions discussed. I particularly liked what you had to say about awareness of the issues, and inclusion in policy, are not enough to sustain change and that improved follow through will be a key factor in driving deeper structural change and curriculum reform.
Thank you Julia, I really appreciate your acknowledgement of the way lived experience shaped my reflections. I’ve been thinking a lot about how personal positionality, while powerful, must be supported by collective, institutional accountability if we’re serious about antiracist practice. The distinction you’ve drawn between awareness and action is crucial. There’s a tendency to celebrate policy wins or awareness campaigns without ensuring that they translate into meaningful shifts in structure, culture or representation. I’m glad that came through, and I look forward to exploring how we can all contribute to that ‘follow through’ you’ve highlighted so well.