Belonging Among Black Women DEI Leaders Post the 2020 Social Justice Movement

Abstract

This convergent mixed-methods study explores the lived experiences of Black women DEI leaders at predominantly white institutions within the context of an increasingly contentious national discourse surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education. Conducted prior to the 2024 election, a period marked by escalating resistance to DEI efforts, this research explores how America’s racial reckoning influenced institutional DEI initiatives and shaped the realities of those leading this work. Data were collected through a climate survey of 20 DEI administrators and semi-structured interviews with three senior-level Black women DEI leaders. The survey findings suggest that institutional commitments to DEI were largely reactive, emerging as crisis responses to national calls for racial justice. These efforts resulted in the short-term elevation of Black women into leadership roles, often without sustained structural support. The interview data revealed that Black women senior DEI leaders routinely encounter discrimination, marginalization, and the paradox of hypervisibility and invisibility within their roles. This study concludes with implications and suggestions for institutional policy and structural reform aimed at fostering more equitable and sustainable DEI leadership environments.

1. Introduction

The dominant American narrative suggests that we live and thrive in a post-racial society. This belief underpins the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to ban race-conscious admissions in higher education, a ruling that was further amplified by the February 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Yet, amid starkly divided public perceptions of racial equity, this raises a deeper, more pressing question: have we ever truly lived in a post-racial society, one that genuinely nurtures inclusion? How can this be the case when diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is being deliberately framed as a tool for promoting an unfair advantage, rather than equity? Within the context of higher education, this contradiction becomes even more striking. As B. C. Williams et al. (2021) observe, “campus DEI efforts are so easily removed and divorced from their intent of racial equity as an effort to counter the legacy of racial privilege” (p. 18). If DEI can be so readily dismantled or distorted, to what extent has the academy ever embodied the principles of a truly post-racial society?

Against the current backdrop of anti-DEI tension and higher education’s attempts to continue its pursuit of inclusive excellence, progress in sustainable DEI integration into higher education policy and practice is being stifled and stopped. Some scholars have categorized higher education’s DEI efforts as institutional rhetoric with a false promise of diversity and inclusion (D. Williams, 2013; B. C. Williams et al., 2021). What we have witnessed, particularly since 2020, is a demonstration of many higher education institutions utilizing diversity, equity, and inclusion as a crisis management strategy as opposed to an institutional success strategy.

2020 sparked a renewed racial reckoning, a social justice movement that catalyzed the reform of the organizational culture, structure, and systems of higher education, requiring a more accessible, equitable, and diverse academy (Banks, 2022). The widespread societal pressure of this historical social justice movement evoked the expected diversity crisis reactions among higher education institutions within the United States. This reaction resulted in many institutions publishing solidarity statements, developing DEI initiatives, hiring or appointing Black faculty and staff to visibly diversify the academy, and integrating DEI into institutional missions (Watson, 2024; Whitford, 2021).

Prior to the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the American higher education system was an exclusionary institution, designed primarily to educate white, affluent men for roles of leadership and societal influence (A. M. Allen & Stewart, 2022; Karabel, 2005). Diversity, equity, and inclusion were neither foundational principles nor guiding priorities. Instead, the system was built on and sustained by sexist and racist policies that systematically denied women and people of color access to opportunity, advancement, and positions of power within the academy (Meikle, 2020; Parker, 2015). These structural inequities did not disappear with time, they persist today, most visibly in the composition of senior leadership across higher education. As of 2023, Black women accounted for just 5.4% of all university presidents, compared to the 26.6% for white women, which underscores the enduring underrepresentation and marginalization of Black women in the highest echelons of academic leadership (American Council on Education [ACE], 2023).

So, why is DEI under attack and vulnerable to elimination in higher education if gender and racial disparities in leadership continue to persist? From the perspective of DEI practitioners, questions emerge that are critical to understanding what drives the persistent lack of representation in academic leadership. Also, is the rhetoric of DEI, often condemned for being unfair, simultaneously undermined by a lack of institutional commitment? More pointedly, is DEI having any tangible impact on the lived experiences of Black women in the academy?

Data were collected in 2024, prior to the U.S. presidential election and during a period in which the future of DEI in higher education faced mounting political threats. The purpose of this study was to examine how America’s racial reckoning served as a catalyst for DEI efforts at PWIs, particularly from the perspective of those most affected by structural inequity. Specifically, the research explored how Black women DEI administrators and senior DEI leaders perceive and navigate their professional trajectories within an increasingly anti-DEI climate. The guiding research question was: Have Black women DEI leaders navigating career progression in a PWI, post the social movement for racial justice, experienced an increased sense of belonging?

Grounded in an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach and supported by a convergent mixed-methods design, this study integrates survey data with rich, qualitative interviews to explore both institutional patterns and lived experiences. The research was informed by a comprehensive review of the literature and guided by the theoretical frameworks of intersectionality, critical race theory (CRT), stereotype threat, and belonging. A phenomenological lens was employed to elicit deep, first-person insights into the realities of Black women leaders in DEI, as they reflect on systemic barriers, institutional commitment, and their own sense of belonging within higher education. This article presents their narratives, highlighting persistent structural challenges to career advancement and the fragility of institutional DEI commitments amid ongoing sociopolitical unrest.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

Black Women in Higher Education Leadership

Within recent years, there has been a considerable focus on the expansion of a diverse workforce and representation within higher education. As a result, institutions of higher education have implemented initiatives to increase the number of women in higher education leadership positions. While there is evidence of a general surge in Black representation in higher education, recruitment and retention efforts continue to fail to create a critical mass of Black women who serve in leadership roles at colleges and universities (American Council on Education [ACE], 2023).

Research confirms that there is a palpable disparity in the representation of Black women in senior leadership roles in higher education (Chance, 2022; Coker et al., 2018; Henry & Glenn, 2009; Hernandez, 2022; Warren-Gordon & Mayes, 2017). The inability to recruit and retain Black women administrators is not the result of a lack of leadership desire or pursuit within the demographic. According to Hewlett and Green (2015), in general, Black women are close to three times more likely than other demographics of women to pursue and aspire to leadership positions.

Researchers suggest that the social interactions and the adversity to leadership advancement experienced by Black women is the residual effect of a white male-dominated leadership precedence that continues to permeate higher education culture. As recently as 2020, women of color holding leadership positions within higher education accounted for 13% of all newly hired president positions between June 2020 and November 2021 (Lederman, 2022). Chance (2022) describes the lack of upward mobility for Black women in PWIs as a low, “concrete ceiling” (p. 47). Chance further explains that this concept of the Black woman’s concrete ceiling is a metaphor for limiting upward career mobility and hindering Black women’s ability to coexist in an organization, which depicts that Black women are underrepresented and face adversity in seeking or being in senior-levels of leadership in higher education.

Detailing this disparity, Cook (2012) published a compelling essay on the lived experiences of Black women in higher education that centered an upper-level Black woman administrator. Cook revealed how white colleagues primarily identified the administrator as African American first and foremost and only secondarily as a woman, underscoring the complex intersections of race and gender that uniquely shape the experiences of Black women in leadership. She further detailed structural and cultural barriers within the academy that are specific to Black women yet remain underexplored in the scholarly literature. This gap is especially pronounced when examining Black women in DEI leadership roles, where research remains scarce. Razzante (2018) investigated the “dual positionality of privilege and marginalization” among administrators of color, individuals who, while tasked with advancing institutional equity, must simultaneously navigate their own marginalization within predominantly white academic spaces (p. 340). The literature consistently reinforces that the underrepresentation of women of color in leadership is not coincidental but rather a product of the historically exclusionary structures embedded within PWIs (Chance, 2022; D. Davis & Maldonado, 2015).

2.2. Senior Diversity Leadership

The role of the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) became more prominent during the civil rights era and nationalist social movement and is a role that often, but not primarily, held by a person of color (Ogbat, 2005). Prior to its more recent popularity, many diversity leadership roles in education systems were aligned with functions related to affirmative action, multicultural student affairs, and student success when PWIs were being integrated and experienced an uptick in Black student enrollment (D. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). D. Williams (2013) explains that the role of the CDO should span across all functions and boundaries of the institution, and that they should be a collaborative and influential thought leader. Regrettably, these scholars also suggest that the institutional authority and necessary influence of the CDO is regularly limited. These leaders are often positioned as symbols of diversity without the formal ability or power to hold the institution accountable for its diversity initiatives (D. Williams, 2013; D. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007).

Becks-Moody (2004) supports this by arguing that people of color in administration or leadership roles within the academy typically are the representatives for matters dealing with diversity and not organizational strategy. Becks-Moody’s study approached the exploration and examination of 10 African American women senior administrator’s experiences in higher education through the theoretical framework of Black feminist thought. Not surprisingly, study’s findings revealed that “challenges, such as racism and sexism, are a part of these women’s personal and professional lives, regardless of their positions in higher education” (Becks-Moody, 2004, p. 273).

2.2.1. Black Women’s Psychological Well-Being

Black women in leadership roles at PWIs often carry a profound emotional and psychological burden as they navigate environments steeped in systemic inequity. This toll is not isolated, it is rooted in what Chinn et al. (2021) describe as weathering, a process of accelerated health decline influenced by chronic stressors, including those tied to race and gender. Originally theorized by Geronimus et al. (2006), weathering underscores how psychological strain, particularly among Black women, is not just a mental health concern but a physiological one that is deeply intertwined with aging and long-term health outcomes.

Chinn et al. (2021) further argue that racism and gender discrimination have profound impacts on the well-being of Black women, shaping both their daily experiences and their broader life trajectories. Similarly, Quaye et al. (2020) describe the cumulative effects of racial battle fatigue, the emotional, psychological, and physiological stress response triggered by sustained exposure to racism. First coined by W. A. Smith et al. (2007), racial battle fatigue captures the exhaustion that results from constantly navigating racial microaggressions, exclusion, and institutional bias.

These experiences are not abstract. Within the context of this study, Black women DEI leaders spoke to the ways in which their daily work, while rooted in advancing inclusion, also exposes them to environments where they must continually define, defend, and legitimize their professional identity (Harris, 2007). Although such ostracism is not exclusive to Black women, its intersectional nature, often racialized, gendered, and professional, creates uniquely taxing conditions that compromise individuals’ psychological well-being. This study amplifies those narratives, situating the emotional labor of Black women DEI leaders within the broader structural forces that shape leadership in the academy.

2.2.2. Conceptual Framework

To understand the social interactions and power relations that create the phenomenon and discrimination experienced at the intersection of the multiple marginalized identities of the Black woman, a conceptual framework was developed that is inclusive of intersectionality, stereotype threat, critical race theory and belonging.

2.2.3. Intersectionality

Delgado and Stefancic (2023) describe intersectionality as “the examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation and how their combination play out in various settings” (p. 59). Crenshaw (1991) described intersectionality as a theoretical framework that focused on the “intersectional location of women of color and their marginalization within the dominant resistance discourse” in relation to violence “perpetrated by men against women” (p. 1243). Within this study, intersectionality was used to understand how multiple attributes, such as race, gender, and environment, impact Black women DEI administrators’ experiences at PWIs. Using intersectionality as a method of investigation allowed for an intentional examination of how the environment of a PWI influences organizational system interactions for Black women. Caiola et al. (2014) explains that “intersectionality is a way of understanding social location in terms of the way systems of race, social class, and gender overlap with no one social category taking primacy” (p. 289). However, the independent application of intersectionality limits the investigation to only the experiences of Black women DEI administrators, and it is used herein as solely an explanatory analytical tool.

2.2.4. Stereotype Threat

Steele and Aronson (1995) uses the term stereotype threat to explain the situation where members of a marginalized group believe they are at risk of affirming stereotypes (often negative) specific to their identity. In a study of over 300 Black women in America between the ages of 18 and 88, research revealed that the effects of negative stereotypes had been experienced by 80% of Black women (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2003). Davies et al. (2005) explain that “when negative stereotypes targeting a social identity provide a framework for interpreting behavior in a given domain, the risk of being judged by, or treated in terms of, those negative stereotypes can evoke a disruptive state among stigmatized individuals”, which results in stereotype threat (p. 277).

The phenomenon of stereotype threat has been widely recognized as a valuable framework for understanding the psychological effects of identity-based assumptions. Particularly, it reveals how negative stereotypes about race can impair the intellectual performance in Black students when their racial identity is made salient (Steele & Aronson, 1995). However, stereotype threat extends beyond the classroom. It can also illuminate the professional experiences of Black women DEI leaders, who often operate under the persistent perception that they must disprove assumptions of incompetence based on both race and gender.

Gamble and Turner (2015) found that Black women administrators in higher education experience stereotype threat in ways that undermine their performance and sense of security in leadership roles. To combat this, many report feeling compelled to overcompensate by representing their racial and gender identity in an “ultra-positive” manner (p. 48). While stereotype threat is not exclusive to Black women, its impact is uniquely compounded by the intersectional disadvantage they face when occupying leadership positions where both their authority and competence are frequently questioned.

This study engages stereotype threat as a conceptual lens to better understand the emotional labor, psychological vigilance, and professional overperformance that emerged in participants’ narratives. Black women DEI leaders described feeling a constant need to validate their presence, prove their worth, and exceed expectations in environments where their leadership was often scrutinized more harshly than their peers. These experiences, rooted in stereotype threat, reveal how systemic bias continues to shape leadership dynamics within PWIs.

2.2.5. Critical Race Theory

Within the context of the inclusion of race and privilege, critical race theory (CRT) was utilized as an additional theory to examine how normed microaggressive behaviors, centralized around race and gender, influenced the Black women’s DEI leadership journey in higher education. Yosso et al. (2004) explain that CRT “starts from the premise that race and racism are central, endemic, permanent, and a fundamental part of defining and explaining how U.S. society functions” (p. 4). This study specifically engaged the CRT tenets of interest convergence, permanence of racism, and anti-essentialism to frame and analyze the experiences of Black women DEI leaders at PWIs.

Bell (1995) offers the concept of interest convergence, framing it within the influence of the basic rights of minorities on the convergence of the self-interest of white people. This tenet is often framed under the construct that “because racism advances the interests of both white elites and working-class whites, large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2023, p. 9). Similarly, the idea of the permanence of racism, as explained by Bell (1992), argues that racism exists, in American society, within all its systems, enabling a white supremacist society. The tenet of the permanence of racism is also referred to as systemic racism, or, as Delgado and Stefancic (2023) frame it, “racism is ordinary, normal science, the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country” (p. 8). Finally, the tenet of anti-essentialism, which reflects a similar ideology to intersectionality, confers that individuals hold unique overlapping and at times conflicting identities.

2.2.6. Belonging

As a theoretical framework, belonging is an emerging construct in educational and psychological research (K. A. Allen et al., 2021). The concept is rooted in foundational theories of human motivation and attachment, including Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy of needs, which identifies belonging as a fundamental psychological requirement, and Bowlby’s (1973) attachment theory, which frames belonging as both a biological and emotional necessity shaped by early social bonds. The construct gained further traction through the work of Baumeister and Leary (1995), who proposed the “belongingness hypothesis,” asserting that “a need to belong, that is, a need to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of interpersonal relationships, is innately prepared (and hence nearly universal) among human beings” (p. 499). Unlike Maslow and Bowlby, Baumeister and Leary conceptualized belonging not only as a motivational force or social product, but as a universal and indispensable human need. They emphasized that individuals are driven to maintain both the quantity and quality of their social connections in order to avoid the adverse psychological and emotional consequences of exclusion and social deprivation.

Within the present study, belonging is seen as being influenced by organizational culture and defined as an internalized circumstance that sits at the intersection of being influential, valued, respected, and affirmed. This definition coincides with a sense of belonging which is “the subjective feeling of deep connection with social groups, physical places, and individual and collective experiences” as a direct result of the interactions within an organization that hinder, advance, or stall perceptions and feelings of belongingness (K. A. Allen et al., 2021, p. 87). A recent study by Chance (2021) reveals how belonging, and the lack thereof, creates spaces of ostracization that lead to resiliency development for Black women leaders in the academy. Through phenomenological analysis, Chance explored the leadership trajectories of nine Black women senior leaders. Chance (2021) argues that a lack of a sense of belonging was a daily pain point for these Black women leaders and a hurdle that they strategically used as a springboard to assist in building their capacity for resilience to thrive in leadership spaces where they felt othered.

Together, the frameworks of intersectionality, stereotype threat, CRT, and belonging provide a multidimensional lens that can be used to interrogate the complex social inequities, gendered biases, and sociopolitical forces embedded within PWIs. These frameworks illuminate how institutional and societal power structures shape the professional experiences, leadership trajectories, and perceived legitimacy of Black women DEI administrators. They also help uncover the extent to which these leaders are either supported or marginalized in their pursuit of inclusion and how such dynamics ultimately enhance or hinder their sense of belonging within the academy.

2.2.7. Study Design

Informed by the literature review and conceptual framework, this study examined the complex social inequities, nuanced gender biases, and sociopolitical landscapes of PWIs to better understand how institutional and societal power dynamics shape the experiences of Black women DEI administrators (Hall, 2024). The research question guiding this study was: Have Black women DEI leaders navigating career progression in a PWI, post the social movement for racial justice, experienced an increased sense of belonging?

This study was designed to capture both macro-level institutional patterns and micro-level personal narratives, offering a holistic understanding of the systemic and emotional dimensions of DEI leadership in higher education. This study employed a convergent mixed-methods design informed by phenomenological inquiry, which allowed for both breadth and depth in examining the lived experiences of Black women DEI leaders at PWIs. As described by J. Creswell (2009), phenomenology is a qualitative approach that seeks to uncover the “essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants” (p. 13). While this study incorporates quantitative data through survey responses to capture broader institutional patterns, the qualitative component, particularly the in-depth interviews, was grounded in phenomenological theory to explore participants’ meaning-making processes and subjective experience.

This study followed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design (J. W. Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed independently but integrated during interpretation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. The quantitative component, a scaled and open-response climate survey, offered institutional-level insights into the structural conditions surrounding DEI work, while the qualitative component, guided by interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), provided rich, in-depth exploration of select participants’ lived experiences as Black women DEI leaders at PWIs.

IPA, as developed by J. L. Smith et al. (2021), emphasizes the double hermeneutic process wherein participants make meaning of their experiences, and researchers, in turn, interpret those meanings. This approach allowed for a nuanced examination of how participants internalize, navigate, and respond to institutional climates shaped by racialized and gendered dynamics.

For the interviews, a phenomenological approach provided a critical interpretive foundation for understanding how participants make meaning of their social and professional realities. As Neubauer et al. (2019) explain, phenomenology offers a powerful mode of inquiry by centering lived experience as a primary source of knowledge. Rather than treating experience solely as narrative, this framework positions it as a pathway to uncovering deeper truths embedded in the everyday. Hopkins et al. (2016) similarly emphasize that phenomenology is “the study of experience” (p. 2), with a focus not only on what is experienced but also on how those experiences are subjectively interpreted.

In alignment with Eberle’s (2014) assertion that phenomenological inquiry often begins with the researcher’s own lived experience, this study is also shaped by the positionality of the lead author, a Black woman DEI administrator within a PWI. This reflexive stance is consistent with the interpretive nature of phenomenology, which views the researcher as a co-constructor of meaning. Through this integration of phenomenological theory within a mixed-methods framework, this study captures both the structural contours of DEI leadership as revealed through survey data and deeply personal, embodied experiences of navigating contested academic spaces, as illuminated through qualitative interpretation.

2.2.8. Data Collection

This study utilized two forms of data collection: (1) a survey instrument, the climate survey, consisting of Likert-scale and open-ended items, to gather broader perceptions and trends among 20 DEI administrators, and (2) in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 3 individuals to elicit rich, introspective accounts of their leadership journeys. While both datasets were collected and analyzed independently, they were integrated during interpretation to triangulate findings and reveal areas of convergence and divergence.

Data collection was conducted by the lead author. A four-phased data collection process was designed to support data triangulation and provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study: (1) participant recruitment, (2) distribution of a climate survey, (3) semi-structured interviews, and (4) the lead author’s personal reflections and narratives throughout the research process.

The first phase was participant recruitment. Study eligibility criteria included self-identifying as a Black woman, holding a DEI administrative position, and having professional experience at a predominantly white institution (PWI). Information about this study was distributed to targeted groups of Black women higher education DEI professionals and senior DEI leaders working in states without DEI legislative bans as of October 2024. Information was sent to approximately 45 higher education DEI leaders at different institutions who potentially met these criteria via email and professional networking groups (e.g., LinkedIn pages). These distinct criteria contributed to the purposeful sample size. Ultimately, 23 expressed interest and 20 completed the survey.

Participant recruitment was conducted over a 14-day period, which was strategically timed to be in the weeks leading up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. This brief recruitment window was intentional, with the aim of capturing participants’ experiences during a highly charged sociopolitical moment when national discourse surrounding DEI was especially salient. As scholars have noted, collecting data during election cycles presents both opportunities and challenges, as participants may be more attuned to political dynamics that shape their institutional environments, while also experiencing heightened sensitivities around disclosure and institutional critique (J. M. Davis & Wilfahrt, 2025). The timing of recruitment was therefore both methodologically purposeful and ethically sensitive to the realities of participants navigating public-facing DEI roles during a volatile period.

Ensuring participant confidentiality was a central ethical consideration, particularly given the visibility of many DEI leaders within their institutions. To protect identities, numbers were assigned to survey respondents, pseudonyms were assigned for interviewees, and all identifying details in participant profiles were masked or generalized (Baez, 2002; Sieber, 1992).

The climate survey consisted of 34 questions that captured the following information: (1) demographic information (race, gender, educational background, professional experiences), (2) perceptions of institutional commitment to DEI presently and immediately post the murder of George Floyd, (3) opportunity for career advancement, and (4) experiences of race and gender discrimination. A total of 20 participants completed the climate survey.

The interview phase of this study enabled an in-depth exploration of the lived experiences of highly experienced, senior-level Black women serving in DEI leadership roles at PWIs. As such, building from the survey data, the semi-structured interview protocol was designed to elicit participants’ nuanced reflections on their professional trajectories and positionality within environments that are often resistant to DEI efforts.

From the 20 survey respondents, 3 individuals with more senior experience in DEI work (based upon their seniority and years of experience) were contacted and invited to participate in an interview with the lead author. Each interview question was intentionally framed to assess participants’ sense of belonging while navigating their careers as Black women DEI leaders in predominantly white academic institutions. The questions prompted participants to reflect on campus DEI initiatives, perceptions of career advancement, encounters with racism and/or sexism, and the ways in which these experiences shaped or challenged their sense of inclusion and legitimacy in leadership roles.

Interviews were conducted via the Zoom video conferencing platform and scheduled for 60–90 min; however, due to time constraints, no session exceeded 60 min. Each interview generated over 65 pages of transcribed data, which affirmed the strength of semi-structured interviewing as a method for uncovering meaning-making processes and complex emotional and professional experiences (Seidman, 2019; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed using Zoom’s transcription function, which allowed for thorough analysis and preservation of participant voice and nuance.

During the fourth phase, self-reflective data obtained through personal journaling of the lead author’s lived experience provided the opportunity to reflect on the understanding of the cultural and social phenomena from a personal account (Cooper & Lilyea, 2022). The two authors met frequently to discuss the data collection and analysis process.

2.3. Data Analysis

2.3.1. Quantitative Data

Climate survey data related to perceptions of institutional DEI progress, participant’s career progression, and experiences of race and gender bias were analyzed for this study. Frequency counts of Likert scale responses were captured, in which the participants’ responses for each question were added to identify the highest frequency of a particular response.

2.3.2. Qualitative Data

Open-ended responses in the climate survey were analyzed in alignment with the conceptual framework (Cooksey, 2020). Thus, open-ended responses were treated as sources of qualitative data and analyzed following Immanuel Kant’s four-tiered coding process (Hahn, 2008). This approach was also used to analyze the interview data.

The first coding tier was an inductive coding approach. The inductive coding was facilitated using wordcounter.ai, an online word frequency counter tool to identify “key words” by the frequency with which each showed up in the data. Key words that aligned with the scope of the research were isolated using the program and exported into an excel worksheet. Example key words included “dismiss, microaggression, racism, and sexism”. Tier one of the initial coding transitioned into focused coding, in which the data were scrutinized using the coding scheme to develop specific code descriptions or categories to refine the code and scrutinize data on group participant narratives. This process moved the data from coded content broken down by key word to grouped descriptions or narratives. Using the research question and conceptual framework, the researcher combined related key words into codes. For example, dismiss, microaggression, racism, and sexism became the code “interactions with others”.

This process led to the third and fourth tier of the coding process where the themes and subthemes from the grouped narratives were developed and the data were interpreted using the conceptual framework of this study: intersectionality, stereotype threat, CRT, and belonging (Hahn, 2008). “Interactions with others” was defined as “references to microaggressions, racism, and or sexism experienced from others related to their professional role within a PWI.” Once the codes were identified and defined via this process, they were used to create a codebook to help with organization.

2.4. Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness refers to the rigor and credibility with which data are collected, interpreted, and presented. As Gunawan (2015) notes, “a study is trustworthy if and only if the reader of the research report judges it to be so,” and the use of triangulation is essential to reducing the effects of researcher bias (p. 10). To address potential concerns regarding trustworthiness, particularly in relation to this study’s purposeful sample size of 20 participants, multiple strategies were employed to ensure methodological rigor and enhance the credibility of the findings.

For the quantitative data, descriptive statistics were calculated for each Likert-scale item in the climate survey. All responses were independently reviewed and verified for accuracy by a member of the dissertation committee, which ensured consistency in data coding and analysis. For the qualitative data collected via open-ended survey responses and semi-structured interviews, three interrelated strategies were used to suspend researcher bias and center the voices of participants: reflexive journaling, data triangulation, and the development of rich, contextualized descriptions.

Reflexivity was a central component of the analytic process. As Hopkins et al. (2016) explain, “all researchers come to their work with assumptions and beliefs … about what a meaningful representation of that phenomenon looks like” (p. 21). The lead author, a Black cisgender woman and senior DEI administrator at a PWI, holds a professional identity closely aligned with those of the study participants. This positionality was both a strength which allowed for culturally competent engagement and an acknowledged source of potential bias. To address this, the lead researcher engaged in ongoing reflexive journaling, documenting assumptions, emotional responses, and positional influences throughout this study. These reflections were also discussed collaboratively with the second author, a Black cisgender woman and associate professor member with over 20 years of academic experience. This process extended beyond traditional “bracketing” by enabling deeper critical self-awareness and allowing the lead author to more fully engage with the participants’ experiences (Hopkins et al., 2016, p. 24).

Data triangulation further strengthened this study’s trustworthiness. By utilizing both a climate survey and semi-structured interviews, this study captured a layered understanding of participant experiences. Similar questions were posed across both instruments, which allowed for the comparison, validation, and contextualization of responses. This cross-verification approach enhances internal validity, particularly in studies with smaller sample sizes, by demonstrating the convergence of findings across multiple data sources.

Lastly, the use of thick, rich description supported the credibility and potential transferability of the findings. Quotes from participants were integrated directly into the analysis, and interpretations were contextualized using relevant demographic and professional background information. As Johnson et al. (2020) explain, such detailed portrayals “contribute to the credibility of the results and the reader’s determination of transfer to their and other contexts” (p. 145).

While the sample size (N = 20) is consistent with recommendations for qualitative inquiry (J. W. Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Polkinghorne, 1989), the diversity of perspectives, methodological triangulation, and depth of engagement with participant narratives all contribute to a rigorous and trustworthy representation of the phenomenon under investigation.

2.5. Limitations

As with any study, this research is subject to limitations. First, while this study offers important insights into the lived experiences of Black women DEI leaders at PWIs, it provides only limited exploration of the institutional power structures that shape and sustain those experiences. By centering participant narratives, this study prioritizes the perceptions and meaning-making of marginalized individuals but does not fully interrogate the interlocking systems of institutional power that reinforce exclusion, inequity, and resistance to DEI within the academy.

As Nunez (2014) notes, some applications of intersectionality tend to emphasize individual identity and experiences with social inequality, often at the expense of examining how structural systems actively reproduce those inequalities. Similarly, Walby et al. (2012) critique this imbalance, observing that intersectionality research has “often focused on the actions of the disadvantaged groups,” thereby overlooking the ways in which privileged groups wield and maintain institutional power (p. 230). In this study, that limitation is reflected in the lack of direct analysis of dominant institutional actors, policies, and decision-making structures that shape the climate in which Black women lead DEI work.

While this study makes a significant contribution by amplifying the voices of Black women leaders, it stops short of fully analyzing how systems of power and privilege operate within PWIs to shape the very conditions being described. Future research could expand this focus by incorporating institutional ethnography, policy analysis, or critical discourse analysis to illuminate the systemic mechanisms behind these lived experiences.

The data for this study were collected in Fall 2024, weeks before the presidential election. The sociopolitical climate regarding DEI in higher education at the time of data collection and the narrow window of recruitment may have competed with the willingness or opportunities for potential participants to engage. While Black women DEI leaders may have been interested in this topic, there may have been too much risk involved with participating in a research study on this topic.

While the findings presented here are based on a relatively small sample of 20 participants, this reflects the broader reality that the pool of Black women in senior DEI leadership roles within higher education remains modest nationwide. National data reinforce this underrepresentation, underscoring the significance of amplifying the voices of those who do occupy these critical yet precarious positions. A 2022 McKinsey & Company report found that, while the number of DEI roles surged in response to the 2020 racial justice movement, many of these roles lacked structural support, and Black women were often placed in highly visible but undervalued positions. Notably, 63% of DEI leadership roles are held by white women, with Black women and other women of color being significantly underrepresented (McKinsey & Company, 2022).

3. Findings

The findings of this study provide information about the perceptions of belonging of Black women DEI leaders post the 2020 racial reckoning (Hall, 2024).

3.1. Climate Survey

Twenty Black women completed the climate survey, including individuals who were DEI Vice Presidents, Assistant Vice Presidents, Provosts, Chancellors, or Chief Diversity Officers. Among those who completed the survey, 100% (N = 20) had earned at least a master’s degree and 40% (N = 8) had earned a terminal degree. Eighty percent (N = 16) of the respondents had been working within a PWI setting for at least five years.

The data collected through the climate survey were subjected to frequency counts, in which the participants’ responses for each question were added to identify the highest frequency of a particular response, to understand the relevance of the lived experience or perceptions of the participants. This was most important for understanding how often or regularly instances of discrimination and perceptions were being experienced by respondents in relation to their role and career progression.

3.1.1. Climate Survey: Perceptions of Institutional Commitment to DEI

This section of this study explored the participants’ perceptions of their institutions’ commitment to DEI efforts in post America’s racial reckoning. The purpose of these questions was to examine how institutional DEI initiatives were experienced by Black women leaders and whether those efforts influenced their perceptions of representation and the sustainability of DEI work aimed at increasing leadership diversity. While this study’s sample size is modest, the findings offer relevant and meaningful insights from an underrepresented and often overlooked population, Black women in DEI leadership, whose experiences are critical to understanding the realities of equity work within PWIs.

Among the respondents, 90% (N = 18) perceived their institutions as demonstrating some level of commitment to DEI (

Table 1. Perceptions of institutional DEI commitment and response to the racial reckoning.

Institutional Commitment to DEI	N	%
Not Committed	2	10%
Somewhat Committed	8	40%
Committed	8	40%
Very Committed	2	10%
Total	20	100%

). Notably, 40% (N = 8) reported that this commitment was evident prior to the national racial reckoning in 2020, while another 40% (N = 8) perceived their institution’s DEI commitment as reactive, emerging primarily in response to that moment of heightened national awareness (

Table 2. Perceptions of institutional DEI implementation.

Institution Created DEI Initiatives in Response to Racial Reckoning (RR)	N	%
I’m Not Sure	1	5%
Developed & Implemented After RR	8	40%
Developed & Implement Prior to RR	8	40%
Developed Prior to RR Implement After RR	3	15%
Total	20	100%

).

Table 3. Perceptions of institutional DEI appointments and response to the racial reckoning.

Institutional Appointment/Hire Still Holds Leadership Role	N	%
I’m Not Sure	5	33.3%
Yes	2	13.3%
No	8	53.3%
Total	15	99.9%

illustrates that 53.3% of the respondents (N = 8) reported that the DEI leader appointed in 2020 no longer holds the position as of October 2024, and an additional 33.3% (N = 5) were unsure of the leader’s current status.

3.1.2. Interpretation of Survey Data

The presented data suggest that DEI administrative roles became more visible in the period between 2020 and 2024. The respondents’ varying knowledge of the present status of individuals in those roles reflects a pattern of reactive rather than proactive institutional engagement. These findings align with D. Williams’ (2013) diversity crisis response model, which suggests that DEI efforts initiated in response to social or political crisis often lack strategic integration, which results in initiatives that are symbolic and unsustainable. The perception of commitment may appear relatively consistent among respondents. However, the timing and intent behind DEI implementation significantly affect both trust in leadership and the sustainability of these efforts.

3.1.3. Climate Survey: Open-Ended Questions

Analysis of the respondents’ responses to open-ended questions in the climate survey revealed one primary theme: “Where Do I Belong? Perceptions of Climate”, and three sub-themes: Institutional Culture and Norms; Code Switching a Necessity for Survival; and Frustration and Exhaustion

3.1.4. Where Do I Belong? Perceptions of Climate

This theme captured participants’ collective sense of navigating institutional belonging and exclusion as Black women DEI leaders within predominantly white institutions. Belonging is widely recognized as a basic and universal human need, yet research consistently shows that meeting this need is less accessible for individuals who have been historically marginalized, including racial and gender minorities (K. A. Allen et al., 2021). This central theme of belonging emerged as a pervasive thread that was interwoven across the survey completers’ written responses. The survey respondents, all Black women DEI leaders at PWIs, frequently described navigating professional environments where their sense of belonging was compromised by perceptions of loneliness, inferiority, and exclusion.

This theme was most clearly articulated in responses to the question, “To what extent do you feel you must counter bias or stereotype affirmation?” However, sentiments related to belonging surfaced throughout the responses to multiple open-ended questions. For example, respondents described often having to prove themselves despite years of experience or their institutional title:

Respondent 2: “I am constantly having to answer for my work, prove the effectiveness (which should be the standard for all), add credentials (currently completing a PhD just to increase pay and access) and defend the work I was hired to do. Mind you, my role is an Assistant Vice President in the DEI field.”

Respondent 4: “Often, I have to validate myself in meetings demonstrating my value to the conversation.”

Respondent 9: “Perception of my capabilities. I am often regulated by others to conversations they assign based on limited perceptions of my scope work. This comes at the cost to me of educating colleagues constantly regarding the applicability and reach of DEI work into areas that colleagues may or may not be experts at—i.e., employment matters, procurement, Veteran affairs, etc.”

Participants described the emotional labor of forging belonging for themselves while simultaneously working to create inclusive environments for others (often students). These dual burdens highlight a profound contradiction: the expectation to lead systemic change through belonging while occupying spaces that remain systemically unwelcoming.

3.2. It’s Baked in: Institutional Culture and Norms

This theme highlights text in which respondents reflected on the deeply embedded nature of exclusionary practices and unspoken expectations that shape institutional climate. Although this study did not set out to analyze institutional culture explicitly, it quickly became evident that the culture of PWIs profoundly shapes participants’ experiences. The participants consistently referenced navigating deeply entrenched norms and structures that undermine their authority and marginalize their contributions. Cook (2012) and Nunez (2014) both highlight how systemic racism and sexism manifest through institutional cultures, which aligns with CRT tenets such as interest convergence and the permanence of racism. These themes were evident in written responses describing extreme scrutiny, muzzled contributions, and microaggressive institutional disregard.

Respondent 2: “Access to decision-making tables/conversations, lack of resources (human and financial), pay. Out of all AVPs, I have one of the longest tenures at the university, more direct reports than most, longest tenure in my subject area, and the greatest reach in terms of campus and community impact. Yet, I am the lowest paid AVP and one of 2 Black women.”

Respondent 1: “There are no barriers for our white male deans. They are the end all be all on the team … if I advocate for change … I’m met with resistance … but if the white male deans advocate for the same requests I made—it’s then approved and changed.”

Respondent 3: “The institution knew my extensive experience … yet they have put multiple barriers in place … two white colleagues with less experience were recently promoted … I was asked to wait before announcing [my promotion] and not to put the new title in my signature block yet.”

3.3. Code-Switching as a Necessity for Survival

This theme described respondents’ interactions with others in academia. Particularly highlighting the adaptive but psychologically taxing strategies that are employed to navigate racialized and gendered academic spaces. Several participants wrote about experiences of self-censorship, constant performance, and hypervigilance in interactions with colleagues.

Respondent 15: “Being excellent—always; watching what I say—always.”

Respondent 19: “I have to combat biases and false stereotypes daily that have saturated the minds of people from different cultures and backgrounds.”

Respondent 11: “I am often accused of being mean when I am direct … I tend to stick to written email for that reason so that I have proof of the conversation.”

These strategies reflect the phenomenon of stereotype threat (Davies et al., 2005) and the pressure Black women face to avoid being perceived as the “angry Black woman” (Chance, 2021).

3.4. The Struggle Is Real: Frustration and Exhaustion All at the Same Time

Written responses that reflected this theme revealed the emotional toll, burnout, and fatigue associated with sustaining DEI leadership under conditions of resistance and institutional performativity. Participants described feelings of exhaustion and frustration rooted in the dissonance between their qualifications and the institutional resistance they encounter. This aligns with research on DEI fatigue (J. L. Smith et al., 2021) and racial battle fatigue (Quaye et al., 2020; W. A. Smith et al., 2007), highlighting the emotional and physical toll of DEI work under hostile or indifferent conditions.

Respondent 19: “My performance outcomes have to be above and beyond my peers and counterparts.”

Respondent 5: “People expecting an inordinate amount of work from me, having to prove my experience in everyday interactions.”

Respondent 7: “Depending solely on other leaders … to communicate the importance of DEI messaging (even when I write the template on their behalf).”

Respondent 18: “White males … feel confident to try for raises, promotions … while women of color … are discouraged from calling attention to themselves.”

Respondent 3: “Now that DEI is under siege nationally, I am fighting every day to validate my work and presence.”

Despite this fatigue, participants also described leveraging allyship and donor support as survival strategies. These networks, while limited, were often the difference between stagnation and advancement.

Respondent 3: “I was hired after a donor funded the work after George Floyd’s murder … I fully believe he is the reason my position continues to thrive.”

These findings from the climate survey underscore the compounding weight of exclusion, expectation, and resistance that Black women face as DEI leaders in PWIs. While the reported trends are based on a relatively small sample of 20 participants, it is important to acknowledge how few Black women serve in DEI leadership roles within higher education. National data reinforce this underrepresentation, underscoring the significance of amplifying the voices of those who do occupy these critical yet often precarious positions. Phenomenological interviews with senior DEI leaders were conducted to gain insights into the lived experiences of these professionals.

4. Participant Interviews

Participant interviews were undertaken to further contextualize the findings from the climate survey and deepen the understanding of Black women’s experiences in senior DEI leadership, and these took the form of semi-structured interviews which were conducted with a select group of participants who hold C-suite level DEI positions. These interviews served as illustrative examples of the lived experiences of professionals in these roles, offering rich, narrative-driven accounts that illuminate how institutional culture, identity negotiation, and systemic inequities are navigated at the highest levels of leadership within predominantly white institutions (PWIs).

The three interviewees were purposefully selected from the eligible survey respondents based on their roles as seasoned senior DEI leaders. Their extensive professional experiences, institutional contexts, and perspectives on navigating race and gender in the academy provide a critical lens through which to interpret and validate the data. A brief participant profile precedes each participant to provide context and insight into that individual’s leadership trajectory and institutional positioning.

4.1. Dr. H. Tubman, Vice Provost for Diversity

“Our history is our history, and our history is sexist and racist. So, when we come as women of color, we might change some things, but other things are just too deeply embedded in the sexist and racist ideologies of what these institutions thought and continue to think about us.”

Dr. H. Tubman is a Black woman senior DEI leader and currently serves in the role as Vice Provost for Diversity at a prominent PWI within the southern region of the country. She has over 25 years of experience in higher education and has held multiple senior leadership roles within her tenure in the academy. She holds a PhD in Educational Policy Studies and sits on the President’s cabinet, charged with overseeing, assessing, and directing the DEI strategy of the institution.

4.2. Dr. S. Truth, Associate Vice Provost for DEIB

“For me, it had to be a conscious decision about why this work is so important. I believe that what I can contribute in the broader space, beyond what I’m being paid to do, is important enough and that is why I choose to do it. I had to do that because I was feeling frustrated and after I made that conscious decision, it freed me from my frustration.”

Dr. S. Truth is a Black woman senior DEI leader who currently serves as the Associate Vice Provost for DEIB at a prestigious PWI within the western region of the country. She holds a PhD in the STEM field and is a well accomplished and strategic higher education DEI practitioner and leader. Dr. Truth has over 30 years of experience in the academy and prides herself on the legacy of quality and efficiency that she has created within the institution in which she works.

4.3. Dr. R. Parks, Chief Inclusion Officer

“Equity Officers, Chief Diversity Officers and these other people come into positions and are just symbols, and I’ve never been one to hold my tongue. It’s just not gonna happen. I could try, but my spirit won’t allow it. There’s just no sense of belonging for the people that create sense of belonging. You almost must create your own sense of belonging, or create your own belonging in pockets, in the places that you’re going to feel like you have it. I’m intentional.”

Dr. R. Parks is a Black woman senior leader, established author, speaker, and consultant who currently serves as the Chief Inclusion Officer for a large medical college on the eastern coast of the country. Dr. Parks is not new to the field of anti-racism and has over 12 years of anti-racism professional experience within academia. She holds a PhD in Educational Policy Studies and a portfolio of DEI leadership that expands beyond the academy.

4.4. Findings from Phenomenological Interviews

The interviews allowed participants to share their perspectives through a vulnerable method of storytelling. Each of the three interviews offered an individualized account of the interviewees’ resiliency and determination in navigating their career progression, managing occurrences of microaggressions, and shifting through PWI organizational norms to find their own identity. Thematic analysis generated two themes: (1) Don’t “Dis” Me: Discrimination, Disrespect and Disregard and (2) Is it Just Me?: Hypervisibility and Invisibility.

4.5. Don’t “Dis” Me: Discrimination, Disrespect and Disregard

The interview protocol opened with the participants sharing their experiences navigating their careers in the academy as Black women DEI leaders within a PWI. Participants described experiences in which their transition into DEI leadership led them to experience “a unique and extreme type of scrutiny” in which they encountered “new forms of barriers” and “discrimination”. Participants also described the dismissive nature of their work: participants talked about frequently having to use data to substantiate their purpose and work. If their efforts were not rooted in explanatory research, initiatives were often disregarded as not critical to institutional success. Participants observed non-Black colleagues navigate the institutional culture with greater ease, without the hypervigilance of assessing space for racial and cultural bias.

Dr. H. Tubman shared her experience navigating disregard and disrespect during her transition into DEI leadership:

I was told don’t go into a DEI office by my non-Black mentors and peers. Specifically, I was told to stay clear of DEI, to simply do the work, don’t go into a DEI office. I didn’t know what to do with that information. After moving into leadership, and even more so into the DEI leadership space I faced a unique and extreme type of scrutiny and new forms of barriers. Once I became the Chief Diversity Officer, wow! It was night and day. Now my work is criticized through this narrative and lens that has persisted, that the office is spending too much money, we don’t have data, we don’t have evidence that we are making inroads or impact. I never could imagine that after 30 years in my career that I would feel that there is less value of my work today than it was 10 years ago. It has been disappointing and devastating in many ways.

Dr. S. Truth offered a similar sentiment of navigating her work through interactions with college colleagues:

The period where I’ve had the most trouble navigating my career has been the last 4 months, and oh, 12 days. My 1st year, I went to a Faculty Senate subcommittee meeting and a DEI question came up in the meeting that no one was answering that I knew the answer to. So, I answered it, and then I got called into my boss’s office two days later because someone had reported to them that I had spoken without being given permission to speak. After that point I was like look, no matter what I know until they direct a question my way, I will just stay quiet. I will stay quiet even if they’re going at a totally wrong path. I know my place. If they invite me to give input, I would be glad to give it. If they don’t, I’m gonna let them go down the rabbit hole. It’s a sense of a kind of leveling in your mind that you know—yes, their opinion matters more. My job is to make them think it was their idea. As a DEI leader, I’m constantly trying to help everybody who walks in this office not make assumptions about who I am and not ask me for a cup of coffee. Not because there is anything wrong with asking for a cup of coffee, but because most assume that it’s my job to get them a cup of coffee.

While Dr. S. Truth’s experience was described as being more intrusive than that of Dr. H. Tubman, the theme of being subjected to a “dis” as an ongoing experience within a DEI leadership role remained consistent. Dr. R. Parks shared a circumstance that was directly related to how her DEI leadership role has pushed her further to margins of belonging and made her more suspectable to discrimination, disrespect, and disregard.

Being in leadership in the DEI space has not increased my sense of belonging. I am the only one in multiple rooms. I sit in the C-suite. Not only did I come into like a whole culture shock of the world of academic medicine, the hierarchy is like really interesting. Because the world of medicine itself, and medical education they just have, like unspoken, unwritten rules. In terms of like hierarchy, who do you listen to? I’m a disrupter and it’s not like people are not unaware of that. However, I’m able to do it in a real Claire Huxtable kind of way. She’s my alter ego. So, it’s done in a way that typically is [well] received. But it was a culture shock for me because they were not used to disruptors. They were not used to having pushback on things that someone from a particular level in the organization was doing or saying so, if I would lean into someone and say, “I wonder if we could like think about that differently” in front of these other C-suite members. It didn’t really rub them the right way.

While the specific manifestations of discrimination, disrespect, and disregard varied among the participants, each of the Black women DEI leaders who was interviewed emphasized the central roles of resilience and a deep-seated commitment to advancing equity as driving forces behind their persistence. Despite navigating institutional environments where their leadership was routinely scrutinized and often devalued, these women consistently demonstrated exceptional resilience and professional fortitude. A salient theme that emerged across all interviews was their sustained perseverance in the face of what many described, either explicitly or through nuanced reflection, as systemic dismissal and marginalization.

These patterns of marginalization are emblematic of misogynoir, which Bailey and Trudy (2018) define as the “anti-Black racist misogyny that Black women experience” (p. 762). While misogyny is not exclusive to Black women in academia, misogynoir uniquely targets Black women by positioning their identities at the intersection of racialized and gendered oppression. The lived experiences of participants in this study reflect this phenomenon through their accounts of hyper-surveillance, institutional scrutiny for “sitting too close” to the work of equity, and the repeated minimization of their professional contributions to institutional success. These narratives suggest the normalization of misogynoir within institutional cultures, often unacknowledged or unnamed, where systemic patterns of devaluation are embedded in everyday organizational practices and responses to Black women’s leadership.

Showunmi (2023) highlights that Black women in academia often face a “double disadvantage” rooted in the simultaneous effects of racism and sexism. However, the narratives from this study’s participants indicate a “triple threat” for Black women in DEI leadership roles. Not only are they navigating racial and gender marginalization, but they are also engaged in labor that is itself devalued, misunderstood, or politically contested within predominantly white institutions. This compounding effect results in a distinctive form of professional vulnerability that renders their leadership both essential and precarious.

Additionally, consistent with the responses to the climate survey, interview participants recounted that white male colleagues were often encouraged to act as bold disruptors and were often praised for asserting authority and initiating change. In contrast, their own leadership, even when grounded in institutional improvement, was often dismissed or resisted. As one respondent shared:

“There are no barriers for our white male deans. They are the end all be all on the team. What they say goes. If I advocate for change … I’m met with resistance … but if the white male deans advocate for the same requests I made—it’s then approved and changed.”

These findings echo those of Erete et al. (2021), who documented the increasing hostility and pushback that Black women often experience after ascending to leadership roles. While such patterns may be common among Black women in higher education, the data from this study suggest that these dynamics are especially acute for those situated at the intersection of DEI leadership and misogynoir vulnerability. The institutional response to their leadership influence and their work is often shaped not only by what they do, but by who they are and what their identity represents within systems that are historically resistant to sustainable equity work and change.

4.6. Is It Just Me? Hypervisibility and Invisibility

The second theme that emerged from the participant interviews centers on the paradoxical dynamic of hyper-visibility and invisibility experienced by Black women in DEI leadership roles. While participants were routinely positioned as institutional representatives for marginalized communities, particularly during moments of crisis, they simultaneously described being excluded from strategic decision-making. This duality underscores a recurring pattern in which their presence was sought after for performative inclusion, yet their expertise was overlooked when it came to shaping policy and driving systemic change. As the theme suggests, this resulted in a persistent tension of being hyper-visible as symbols of diversity, yet invisible as substantive thought leaders within the academy.

This was experienced by Dr. H. Tubman in a dynamic way where she discusses how her voice has been positioned to be hyper-visible yet invisible through the perception of a lack of neutrality from her work:

For a moment there I thought we had really entered a transformative time. I mean it. I saw white colleagues wearing Black Lives Matter T-shirts. I saw students of all backgrounds and communities of people of all backgrounds saying, “we must address racism.” I never saw so many requests for racial equity training in my career. There was a moment when I was hopeful. But then the conservative wave swept the nation and now my [university] President tells me I’m supportive of the work you’re doing and how we’re investing money. But some decision makers just don’t get it. People think I’m too close to the subject matter. They see me as biased and not neutral. I’m going to be frank. That was part of the reason for my exit at [my former University]. We were already moving to neutrality and this idea that we want diversity perspectives, but not diversity leadership.

Dr. H. Tubman continued to share how there was a perception that she lacked objectivity which minimized her voice in spaces where she could incite institutional change:

My career has probably been hindered at times because my colleagues don’t view me as being a neutral leader because of the work I do. So, I feel often that I can say something when it comes to organizational change strategy, and it is not received. But if my white counterpart in Student Life says the very same thing it is received differently. So, I think there are clearly instances when I’m overlooked, but I would say that’s mainly with those who are in opposition to the work. I have to constantly speak the language that would be heard by those that would dismiss my voice. I think it’s because of being a woman and being a woman of color. It’s clearly gendered in many ways, but it’s also racial. If I speak with passion, I’m the mad Black woman. It’s walking into a room and knowing where all the troupes are and where all the stereotypes are and knowing for some my voice is not the right messenger because they can’t get over that I’m a Black woman. I find that I have to do a lot of code switching. I would not have survived as VP if I didn’t at times know that I have to speak in certain ways and try to be calculated just to be heard. I [also] have to think if I’m code switching, is there something lost in that and am I compromising too much?

Dr. S. Truth also shared how she navigates spaces where hypervisibility makes her a target while invisibility makes her vulnerable within her sphere of influence:

I’ve always fought for everything I have, and the right to have my say and to do what I felt was most important, and the University that I have worked with, and been here for [over 20] years. Recently my office was moved into a new division and that move stole my autonomy. The fact that at this point in my career that happened to me in spite of my excellence and in spite of my track record was disturbing. I had never bothered to be calculated prior this, but now I must be. In [over 20] years, the DEI space has been my biggest procession trauma. I literally have PTSD. In the last four months, my salary has been impacted, my team was taken, my budget is less, and my office was moved. Even though I am in a leadership position, I still have to navigate systems that have been designed to oppress.

Similarly, Dr. R. Parks’ experience with hypervisibility and visibility was ingrained in how others perceived her and how she chose to move beyond perception to be effective in her work at a PWI:

You’ll probably echo this. Say, like, it’s exhausting but like it’s not just exhausting to do the work, but it’s exhausting to be hyperconscious of yourself. Like always assessing before you walk into the room. This is how I might have to code switch to get through to this person. Or this is how this individual might perceive me. The faculty are going to perceive me another way. In the beginning it took a toll, because I was being dismissed. The imposter syndrome took a toll on me within the first 2 years of my role. Do I belong here? What are these white folks talking about? I don’t fit in. Now, I no longer worry too much about how you perceive me. I’m no longer worrying about code switching. I come as I am. I’m wearing my heart and my thoughts and whatever on my sleeve in the most professional way possible. But I do also minimize the way in which I show up in spaces because I no longer cater to how you perceive me, and I’m choosing to accept that. But in the first 2 years I was really concerned about perception, how are they looking at me, how visible am I? How is this coming off? And this kind of hypervigilance of how am I being perceived or not being perceived. Do I look right? Are they thinking I’m ghetto and Black? These were all of the things that came to my mind.

5. Discussion

This study contributes a critical and timely perspective on the lived experiences of Black women in DEI and senior leadership roles at PWIs, particularly in the context of institutional responses to the 2020 racial reckoning. The findings reflect the complexity of navigating institutional diversity efforts that, while publicly espoused, often lack the structural depth necessary for sustainable transformation that nurtures campus belonging for these DEI practitioners. Purposeful in size, the sample of 20 participants yields profound insight, validated by national data, that underscores both the marginalization and resilience of Black women in these roles.

Importantly, recent research from McKinsey and Company (2022) substantiates the claim that Black women remain significantly underrepresented in senior leadership roles, including DEI-specific positions, and often report hostile organizational climates, barriers to advancement, and exclusion from decision-making spaces. Thus, the number of participants in this study, while limited, reflects a meaningful subset of a systematically marginalized population, which renders their voices both critically relevant and reflective of broader structural patterns.

5.1. Critical Analysis of Findings

The data in Table 2 reveal that 55% of the PWIs represented in this study implemented DEI initiatives after the national racial reckoning in 2020, which reflects a pattern of reactive rather than proactive institutional engagement. These findings align with D. Williams’ (2013) diversity crisis response model, which suggests that DEI efforts that are initiated in response to social or political crisis often lack strategic integration, which results in initiatives that are symbolic and unsustainable. The perception of commitment may appear relatively consistent among respondents. However, the timing and intent behind DEI implementation significantly affect both trust in leadership and the sustainability of these efforts.

Anchored in the conceptual frameworks of intersectionality, CRT, stereotype threat, and belonging, the findings of this study reveal how institutional practices and sociocultural norms converge to shape the lived realities of Black women DEI leaders in higher education. The CRT tenet of interest convergence (Bell, 1992) is evident in participants’ perceptions that their appointments were often reactionary, being rooted in the institution’s desire to project social responsibility following national unrest rather than a genuine commitment to equity. Over half of the respondents reported that the DEI leadership role for which a Black woman was hired at their institution no longer exists or is now vacant. This is an alarming trend that mirrors D. Williams’ (2013) critique of diversity crisis response models, where institutions react symbolically rather than structurally to a diversity crisis.

The permanence of racism, another CRT tenet, is reflected in participants’ normalization of exclusionary practices. Each of the respondents explicitly stated that they encountered racism; many shared deeply entrenched narratives of institutional neglect, microaggressions, and resistance to their leadership. This tacit acceptance of racism within the academy aligns with Delgado and Stefancic’s (2023) assertion that racism is “systemic, normalized, and enduring.”

Simultaneously, the tenets of anti-essentialism and intersectionality illustrate the complexity of the participants’ identities and how overlapping forms of discrimination compound their experiences. Participants described their leadership being questioned, their work being minimized, and their presence being perceived as symbolic rather than strategic, all of which align with the phenomenon of misogynoir (Bailey & Trudy, 2018), or the unique form of racialized sexism faced by Black women. This intersectional burden contributes to a persistent struggle for validation and leadership legitimacy, even in roles that are specifically designed to advance equity.

Moreover, the salience of stereotype threat was evident in participant experiences. The weight of stereotype threat emerged vividly in participants’ accounts of self-regulation. They described paralyzing anxiety and relentless pressure to disprove racial stereotypes, which often undermined their performance. Many resorted to code-switching, suppressing their assertiveness, and avoiding conflict, even when advocating for equity, in a strategic effort to sidestep the persistent and dehumanizing “angry Black woman” trope. One participant explained:

“I am often accused of being mean when I am direct in my approach … I tend to stick to written email… so that I have proof of the conversation.”

(Respondent 11)

These performative adjustments and the performance of emotional labor to manage institutional perception are not only professionally taxing but psychologically damaging, contributing to racial battle fatigue, a lack of belonging, and diversity fatigue (W. A. Smith et al., 2007; J. L. Smith et al., 2021).

5.2. Institutional Culture and Psychological Well-Being

Thematic analysis reveals that exclusion from institutional culture and decision-making is more than an issue of symbolic recognition, it significantly affects psychological well-being. Participants described consistent experiences of erasure, surveillance, and resistance in response to their DEI efforts, despite their credentials, strategic vision, and leadership acumen. Gusa’s (2010) concept of white institutional presence (WIP) aptly contextualizes this dynamic, whereby white cultural norms and values remain embedded within institutional policies, practices, and expectations, often operating invisibly to undermine the success of administrators of color.

While these women were tasked with advancing institutional inclusion, they themselves were largely excluded from decision-making processes that affect their roles and identities. This paradox is aptly illustrated in one participant’s statement:

“Out of all AVPs, I have one of the longest tenures… and the greatest reach … Yet, I am the lowest paid AVP and one of 2 Black women.”

(Respondent 2)

Such reflections underscore a deeply embedded contradiction, where DEI leaders are often expected to engineer institutional inclusion while operating within structures that exclude them. This contradiction not only undermines the integrity of DEI efforts but also erodes the psychological well-being of those charged with leading them.

Despite the growing body of literature on the mental health impacts of systemic racism and exclusion in higher education, there is a paucity of research focused specifically on Black women in DEI leadership. The findings of this study point to a troubling pattern of normalization, where psychological distress, isolation, and burnout are perceived by participants as the cost of doing this work. In one particularly stark example, a participant responded to a survey item with, “I’m too tired to answer this question, instances are pervasive”, a statement that encapsulates the emotional exhaustion experienced by many.

6. Implications

The implications of these findings are clear and demonstrate that exclusionary institutional cultures not only hinder the effectiveness of DEI efforts but also compromise the well-being of the very leaders tasked with enacting equity and inclusion. Additionally, the findings of this study hold significant implications for institutional policy, leadership development, and future research related to equity, inclusion, and the retention of Black women in DEI leadership roles at PWIs. As acknowledged, although the sample size was modest, the experiences shared were robust and bring light to narratives that offer critical insight into the lived experiences of those charged with leading institutional transformation from within historically exclusive structures.

6.1. Institutional Commitment and Leadership Accountability

First, this study underscores the need for institutions to distinguish between symbolic DEI efforts and authentic, sustainable structural change. The tendency to appoint DEI leaders, particularly Black women, as a reactionary measure to public crises rather than as part of a long-term strategic vision contributes to attrition, burnout, and organizational cynicism. Institutions must move beyond the performative by embedding DEI leadership into their core governance structures, providing them with direct access to executive leadership, clearly defined authority, and sustained financial and human resources.

Additionally, institutions should implement rigorous accountability mechanisms that assess not only campus inclusion and belonging programming, but also the institution’s climate for inclusion at the leadership level. Leadership evaluations should include metrics that assess the support and advancement of underrepresented leaders, including Black women DEI administrators.

6.2. Centering Belonging and Psychological Safety in Leadership Development

Second, this study highlights the necessity of fostering institutional cultures that support the psychological safety, authenticity, and well-being of Black women equity leaders at PWIs. Participants described persistent experiences of code-switching, stereotype threat, and institutional surveillance, all of which suggest that their presence in leadership is often tolerated but not empowered.

Institutions must reimagine leadership development frameworks to explicitly address how systemic bias and gendered racism manifest within the academy. This includes the integration of anti-racist leadership training, trauma-informed supervisory models, and mentorship programs that support the specific needs of Black women professionals. Creating structures for culturally responsive leadership support not only benefits individual leaders but also enhances the overall effectiveness of DEI efforts.

6.3. Policy and Infrastructure Reform

The findings of this study also call for a critical review of institutional policies and infrastructure that shape the working conditions of DEI leaders. As respondents reported, the structural misalignment between DEI goals and institutional priorities often undermines the very work they are tasked with leading. Institutions must assess and revise their operational models, job descriptions, reporting lines, and reward systems to reflect the complexity and institutional value of DEI leadership.

Moreover, recruitment, promotion, and retention practices must be reviewed for bias. Equity audits can be used to identify systemic barriers, and promotion policies should be restructured to account for the invisible labor and emotional labor often disproportionately carried out by women of color in the DEI space.

6.4. Implications for Research and Data-Driven Decision Making

Finally, this study affirms the importance of elevating qualitative, narrative-driven research in understanding the nuanced realities of equity leadership. Traditional metrics often fail to capture the psychological, emotional, and social toll of navigating spaces rooted in exclusion. Institutions should incorporate mixed-methods assessment strategies into their DEI evaluation processes and recognize that data on representation must be complemented by data on climate, culture, and lived experience.

The findings of this study suggest an urgent need for expanded scholarship that examines the intersections of race, gender, organizational power, and mental health for DEI leaders. Future research should explore longitudinal studies of DEI professionals’ career trajectories, including factors influencing their retention, advancement, sense of belonging, and well-being.

7. Conclusions

This convergent mixed-methods study examined how America’s 2020 racial reckoning influenced DEI efforts at PWIs and shaped perceptions of belonging among Black women in senior DEI leadership. Specifically, this study explored the lived experiences of Black women navigating DEI roles during the intensifying anti-DEI sociopolitical climate leading up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The findings of this study revealed a recurring theme of emotional labor, diminished psychological well-being, and institutional exclusion being experienced by participants. While these women were appointed to advance institutional equity and belonging, many reported feeling marginalized, scrutinized, and unsupported in their roles. Several respondents described navigating environments where belonging was not experienced but expected to be manufactured for others, which illustrates a paradox that is unique to their positions. These experiences align with K. A. Allen et al.’s (2021) argument that feelings of belonging are especially elusive for historically excluded groups within dominant cultural settings.

This study also found that many DEI roles were created in direct response to the national racial reckoning yet lacked strategic integration into institutional infrastructure. As demonstrated in participant responses and supported by national-level data (e.g., Bunn, 2023), the sustainability of such roles was precarious. Over 50% of participants indicated that the Black women initially hired to lead DEI initiatives at their institutions were no longer in those roles by the time of this study. These findings affirm the CRT tenets of interest convergence and permanence of racism, suggesting that DEI initiatives may be embraced only when aligned with institutional self-interest and are otherwise abandoned when perceived as politically or culturally inconvenient (Delgado & Stefancic, 2023).

Lastly, this study advances the discourse on misogynoir, the distinctly racialized form of misogyny directed at Black women (Bailey & Trudy, 2018), by documenting how exclusionary practices, challenges to authority, and institutional gaslighting permeate spaces that rarely acknowledge these dynamics. Building on Showunmi’s (2023) account of the dual burdens of racism and sexism, our findings identify a third axis of marginalization: the precarious positionality of Black women in DEI leadership. We theorize this “triple threat” as the intersection of race, gender, and the politicized nature of equity work, a convergence that renders Black women leaders simultaneously hyper-visible and suspect within their own institutions, and which thereby constrains their capacity to enact the very transformative agendas which they were hired to execute.