Dr. Sonia Giebel opened with a case study that drew public attention in the U.S.: the 2021 Rhodes Scholar controversy involving Mackenzie Fierceton from the University of Pennsylvania. Fierceton had self-identified as a first-generation, low-income, queer student, but media and institutional investigations later scrutinized the extent to which her personal story reflected that identity. According to Giebel, the controversy revealed the ambiguous and institutionally flexible nature of diversity categories—especially “first-generation”—which are often defined and interpreted inconsistently by universities.
This ambiguity, Giebel argued, is not accidental. Rather, it is built into institutional discourse, allowing definitions of diversity to expand or contract in response to organisational pressures. She posed a central question: is this ambiguity a source of strength—allowing for inclusivity—or a vulnerability that undermines transparency and accountability?Turning to broader patterns, Giebel noted that diversity in the U.S. is contested largely at the individual level, while in Germany, the contestation occurs at the organisational level. Germany’s diversity discourse is still in development, shaped in part by its aspiration for global prominence in higher education and by external pressures from the European Higher Education Area and the Bologna Process. Within this framework, diversity is expected to improve access and completion rates among underrepresented and vulnerable groups, though definitions of these terms vary by country.
One notable distinction is Germany’s prevailing focus on gender equality. Giebel explained that this reflects over 50 years of gender advocacy, though gender parity in higher education enrolment was only achieved recently. By contrast, diversity offices in German universities remain relatively underdeveloped and often meet resistance, due to concerns they might dilute existing efforts on gender equality or threaten prevailing notions of social cohesion.
She also linked the emergence of diversity discourse to global university rankings, such as ARWU and Times Higher Education. Germany’s lower rankings in the early 2000s led to the creation of the Excellence Initiative in 2006, which funded competitive research clusters and signalled a reorientation of national priorities toward global visibility. According to Giebel, this competition has spurred a symbolic or partial adoption of diversity language, often through mimetic emulation of Anglo-American institutions.
Through computational text analysis of diversity webpages from German Excellence Universities and top-ranked global institutions, Giebel identified stark contrasts. While U.S. and U.K. universities prominently featured terms like “race” and “LGBTQ,” German institutions referenced “family” more frequently—signalling national distinctiveness in how diversity is framed. This divergence suggests that although universities are subject to global pressures, diversity manifests in context-specific ways shaped by cultural and political environments.
Giebel’s second case focused on the changing landscape of diversity in the U.S., especially in light of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended the legality of race-based affirmative action. Her research—based on 75 interviews with multiracial families during the 2021–2022 college admissions cycle in the Bay Area—illustrated how applicants and their parents navigate the ambiguity of identity appraisal.
Through three family portraits, Giebel showcased differing perceptions of multiracial identity: as a liability (the Adamsons), as an asset (the Campbells), and as irrelevant (the Bakers). These accounts reflected broader tensions in the U.S. system, where opaque holistic review processes allow institutions to make diversity claims without disclosing how identity categories influence admissions decisions. She argued that such processes simultaneously produce and assign value to identities—making admissions a site of cultural appraisal as much as academic evaluation.
Giebel concluded that the ambiguity of diversity affords flexibility to institutions and individuals alike but also enables institutions to adopt diversity as a symbolic performance rather than a structural commitment. Diversity can be treated as a prestige marker—part of competitive branding—rather than as an educational good or a vehicle for justice.
Dr. David Johnson offered broader reflections on the political challenges facing diversity discourses, particularly in the context of rising right-wing populism in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. He cautioned that while diversity should be understood as a strength and a mechanism for redressing historical inequalities—especially in postcolonial contexts—it is increasingly being framed as a threat by populist movements.
Johnson noted that right-wing critiques often conflate budgetary pressures in higher education with attacks on diversity programs. He cited media narratives that link academic job losses to the proliferation of diversity roles, arguing that such framing is rarely accidental but part of a broader backlash against DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives.
He also called for a critical engagement with the benefits and risks of ambiguity in diversity discourse. While ambiguity allows for inclusive adaptation, it also leaves room for politically motivated reinterpretation. Johnson urged scholars and institutions to clarify the values underpinning diversity—whether as a commitment to justice, a tool for knowledge production, or a principle of community cohesion.
The seminar illuminated the tension between diversity’s adaptability and its susceptibility to instrumentalisation. In both Germany and the United States, diversity policies reflect not only internal values but also external pressures from global rankings, political climates, and institutional competition. As diversity becomes both a site of symbolic capital and contested meaning, the challenge lies in distinguishing between performative and substantive commitments—and in clarifying whether diversity remains a principle of justice, an educational asset, or simply a market strategy.
by Yangyang Zhao (ESC Research Assistant)
No comments:
Post a Comment