University Boards, Politicians, University Administrators often are representatives of the power class, the elite.
Mostly White men and women sitting in positions of power determine, constrain, and actively shape the discursive structures in Universities (at most of the Universities that count in the neocolonial rankings, located in the North). The occasional person of color brings diversity to the administration, and yet is often structured to perform within the hegemonic norms of Whiteness. As Universities perform their everyday functions within these structures of Whiteness, they generate ongoing public relations around multiculturalism, positioning themselves to a global market of key stakeholders, including students. Diversity sells, as long as it is managed with a cultivated strategic image.
Embedded within structures of Whiteness, Universities reproduce norms that keep intact White power and privilege. Mostly determined by power brokers embedded in the ideology of Whiteness, the nature of discourse that circulates in Universities keeps White supremacy alive.
Calls to dialogue and conversation are often embedded within these norms of Whiteness, rife with "communicative inversions" (Dutta, 2011). Dialogue on one hand is deployed to give the semblance of balance to make room for White supremacist articulations; on the other hand, dialogue is used as a tool to shut down voices drawing attention to racism, apartheid, and colonialism.
The language of balance is embedded within structures of White privilege, emerging as an invitation to racist speech that fundamentally devalues the right to life and dignity of communities of color and colonized peoples that are the usual targets of racist White supremacist hate speech. Inviting a Lauren Southern or a Richard Spencer on campus on the pretext of balance makes room for, feeds, and catalyzes racist ontology, giving power to racist formations and enabling the performance of racist action.
Anti-racist activism organized by communities of color, colonized peoples, and victims of targeted attacks is framed as extremism, terrorism, or take this, as racist.
On one hand, University administrators refer to free speech to invite White supremacists and make room for them on University campuses. On the other hand, they are quick to label anti-racist interventions as extremist, or support the agenda of White supremacists that target anti-racist academic-activists on University campuses. Consider for instance the targeting of Steven Salaita and Marc Lamont Hill by Zionists, marking as extremist their anti-racist, anti-apartheid, and anti-colonial articulations. Using the language of civility, which itself is shaped by norms of Whiteness, anti-racist speech was labelled as uncivil, extremist, and ironically, racist.
The multicultural posturing of Universities is juxtaposed in the backdrop of the promotion and protection of White supremacy on University campuses. University administrators, trustees, and boards often deploy the language of balance to enable White supremacist speech. In doing so, Universities keep White supremacy alive, making visible the hypocrisy of the multicultural University. #hypocriticaluniversities