Promote Multiculturalism Instead of Colorblindness

In contrast to colorblindness, multiculturalism views racial, ethnic, and cultural differences as a strength. Embracing multiculturalism allows us to acknowledge and embrace the diversity, ideas, and struggles of all identities (Aragón et al., 2017). Multiculturalism recognizes that treating people equally may not be fair because all people are not the same (Knowles et al., 2009). Instructors can create more welcoming classrooms when they use multiculturalism to respect and value the diverse opinions and life-experiences of their students.

Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire.

When instructors promote and practice multiculturalism, it can cause underrepresented individuals to perceive less bias (Plaut et al., 2009) while also increasing their perseverance, ambition, and success (Walton et al., 2012; Walton & Cohen, 2007). Faculty who adopt a multicultural ideology use more inclusive and equitable teaching practices than those who subscribe to the colorblindness ideology. Furthermore, evidence suggests that faculty who adopt a multicultural ideology use more inclusive and equitable teaching practices than those who subscribe to the colorblindness ideology (Aragón et al., 2017). This makes sense because implementing inclusive teaching requires acknowledging differences. Multiculturalism can make underrepresented individuals feel more valued (Wolsko et al., 2006), but care must be taken to prevent those in the majority from feeling excluded (Plaut et al., 2011).  For more information please watch Colorblind Ideology Is a Form of Racism, The Risks of Color Blindness, and Race in the classroom: Seeing Color.

Recognize and Reduce Implicit Bias

The existence of implicit bias means that even well-intentioned people can have unconscious biases which can inadvertently lead to hurtful discriminatory behavior (Cole, 2018; Staats et al., 2017). The majority of White people believe they do not see race, treat everyone equally, and are in fact better-than-average at being racially unbiased, but it is clear from the data that this is far from true (Staats et al., 2017). The majority of White people believe they do not see race, treat everyone equally, and are in fact better-than-average at being racially unbiased, but it is clear from the data that this is far from true. Similarly, some people of color believe that as the victims of racism it is impossible for them to be biased or racist (Kendi, 2019). The truth is that implicit bias affects us all. The good news is that there are many steps that instructors can take to reduce their implicit biases. One of the first and most important steps is to become more aware of the implicit biases you hold. This is most easily accomplished by taking an Implicit Association Test (IAT, https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/); some have even suggested that IATs should be a mandatory part of faculty training (Killpack & Melón, 2016). These free online tests are publicly available and allow individuals to examine their own biases in a comfortable and private environment. The IATs are well validated and have been shown to provide an accurate assessment of the test-taker’s subconscious associations. It is not uncommon to feel nervous about taking an IAT or about feeling uncomfortable about the results. Once you have examined your own implicit biases you will be better equipped to be aware and mindful of these biases so that you can consciously and intentionally try to interrupt, mitigate, or prevent them.

Other techniques for reducing or preventing the effects of implicit biases include 1) acknowledging the role implicit bias has in preventing student success (Killpack & Melón, 2016), 2) using evidence-based decision making, 3) considering how implicit bias affects teaching practices and assessments (Killpack & Melón, 2016), 4) seeking positive exemplars and counter stereotypical examples that challenge biases and assumptions (Critcher & Risen, 2014; Lai et al., 2014), 5) being skeptical about decisions made during times of stress or high cognitive load, 6) taking notes about and reflecting on the decision making process, 7) reducing subjectivity and ambiguity by making class materials clear and standardized, 8) rejecting stereotypical associations (Johnson et al., 2018), 9) speaking up if you believe a policy or decision may lead to disparities, 10) engaging in real or imagined intergroup contact (e.g. meaningful work with individuals from diverse backgrounds and life experiences) (Pettigrew, 1997; Turner & Crisp, 2010), 11) considering the moral implications of your behavior and how these behaviors overtly display your intentions and values (van Nunspeet et al., 2015), 12) soliciting feedback from other instructors or students to determine whether your implicit biases are affecting your actions or behavior in the classroom, and 13) performing positive meditation about marginalized groups (Staats et al., 2017).  For more information please see the Kirwan Institute’s Implicit Bias Training Modules (http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/implicit-bias-training/).

Asset Mapping

Asset mapping can reduce task assignment bias and intellectual marginalization to create more equitable team dynamics (Stoddard & Pfeifer, 2018). This technique involves determining the strengths and resources of each member of the team as well as areas in which they want to build upon or grow. Tasks can then be assigned by linking them to a specific team member’s strengths and skills. In addition to reducing task assignment bias, asset mapping also helps students to build confidence, overcome stereotypes, and get to know each other.

Countering Microaggressions with Microaffirmations

The first step to stopping microaggressions is for faculty to be aware of how the language used in the classroom can have large impacts on students (Seidel et al., 2015). In addition to this ‘doing no harm’ strategy, instructors also have an opportunity to ‘do right’ by their students by using microaffirmations. Microaffirmations occur when the instructor uses positive language to increase inclusion, build relationships, and encourage students (Powell et al., 2013; Rowe, 2008; Seidel et al., 2015).  Instructors can give microaffirmations by listening carefully, being kind, and by subtly modulating the tone of their voice in ways that show genuine respect for students.Instructors can give microaffirmations by listening carefully, being kind, and by subtly modulating the tone of their voice in ways that show genuine respect for students and concern about their wellbeing (Asai, 2020; Estrada et al., 2019). Microaffirmations can lower stress, increase student persistence, and increase feelings of belonging (Estrada et al., 2019; Harrison & Tanner, 2018).

Even if faculty members avoid microaggressions and say microaffirmations, the question remains about what to do when microaggressions are committed by students. In these cases, faculty can choose to address the microaggression in several ways including a direct confrontation, a class discussion, and/or providing counter-examples (Boysen, 2012). No solution is perfect in every situation, but effective approaches include 1) acknowledging the microaggression to show you are aware of it and understand how it can be potentially harmful, 2) validating the negative feelings felt by students who are the target of the microaggression to show your support and to reduce their cognitive load (Gaztambide, 2012), 3) making it clear to students that microaggressions have no place in the classroom, 4) being available for affected students if they would like to talk more about what happened, and 5) meeting privately with the student(s) who initiated the microaggression so they will not feel isolated or resentful, and so that they can learn more about inclusivity in the classroom (Harrison & Tanner, 2018).

The Value Affirmation Intervention Combats Stereotype Threat

The value affirmation (VA) intervention reduces the achievement gap by nearly as much as converting a class to an active learning format, yet it only requires minimal student and instructor effort and can be accomplished in as little as 30 min of class time (either in person or online) (Jordt et al., 2017). It increases students’ feelings of belonging by bolstering their self-worth and integrity. It works by interrupting the recursive feedback loop that occurs when students perform poorly, get subsequently demotivated, and then perform even worse on future assessments (Cohen et al., 2009). Breaking this vicious cycle allows students to succeed (Cohen et al., 2009). The VA intervention involves instructors providing students with a list of 12 values; students then select and write about the 2-3 values that are most important to them, thereby positively reinforcing their values. Because instructors do not read student responses, this technique is quite feasible in classes with large numbers of students.

Although it was originally designed to combat stereotype threat (Cohen et al., 2006), the VA intervention has since been shown to reduce the gender gap (Miyake et al., 2010), social class achievement gap (between FG and CG students) (Harackiewicz et al., 2014), and racial achievement gap (Jordt et al., 2017). Although it was originally designed to combat stereotype threat, the VA intervention has since been shown to reduce the gender gap, social class achievement gap (between FG and CG students), and racial achievement gap. Cohen found that this intervention was able to reduce the Black/White student achievement gap by 40% and it boosted GPAs for at least two years (Cohen et al., 2006, 2009). When Jordt et al. used this technique, they reported that it boosted all student scores, but it gave a disproportionate boost to AHN students resulting in AHNs scoring an average of 4.2% higher on exams (Jordt et al., 2017). This intervention also significantly improved grades and retention for FG students, and it halved the FG/CG student achievement gap (Harackiewicz et al., 2014). In addition to boosting student performance, this technique also reduces stress (Creswell et al., 2005) and helps students become more resilient (Sherman & Cohen, 2006). FG students who received the VA intervention performed better in that class and subsequent classes, and exhibited an increased likelihood of taking a subsequent biology course when compared to FG students who were in the control group (Harackiewicz 2014).