1 Introduction

A not uncommon occurrence within academic walls: the (usually) older white male scholar who makes an “off color” comment, or interjects a racist, sexist, classist, etc. remark into an otherwise innocuous academic presentation. Of course, for the minority targets of such opinions, these comments are not simply “off color,” but rather a real aggression directed at them. Perhaps even more indicative of the lack of inclusivity and diversity in academic spaces is the fact that such toxic comments are intended as “jokes” directed at a presumed like-minded audience, the perpetrator unaware that within the room are individuals whose identities are indeed abused by such “jokes.”

This was the experience of the three authors of the present article at a conference at our beloved undergraduate alma mater. In this essay, we leave the details of the not uncommon “occurrence” purposefully vague, with a shared conviction that to retell the “incident” in question would only serve to center the perpetrator yet again. To dissect the blatant personal and systemic sexism that such incidents reveal is work that has already been masterfully done by other individuals.¹

Instead, we three current and former graduate students focus on what we accomplished in a workshop that we organized and delivered in response to such abuse of power: the labor we invested, the lessons we learned, and our hopes for greater inclusivity in those disciplines that study the pre-modern world.

In response to the inciting conference, we were approached by our trusted former undergraduate advisor to build and lead a subsequent workshop that would address, dissect and teach undergraduates about the challenges facing minority groups within graduate studies.² Though feeling out of our depth, we accepted the offer because we felt that by holding our own workshop to address sexism—as well as discrimination against other marginalized intersecting identities—we would transform the “incident” into a meaningful learning opportunity in which workshop participants productively worked toward greater inclusivity. Ambitions notwithstanding, we also took on this responsibility to engage with inequality in academia because we felt an obligation to not let this “incident” go unaddressed.

The workshop into which we invested four months of planning was titled: “Equity in Academia: Gender and Intersecting Identities in Graduate School, Research, and Beyond.” We aimed to accomplish three things: discuss different power dynamics in academia; collectively develop a toolkit for recognizing bias; and end with a roundtable discussion with trusted faculty about their own graduate school experiences, and how, as professors, they incorporate diversity and inclusion into both their research and teaching. The workshop aimed not only to share information about biases in the academic world, but also to collectively develop and explore tools so that we can all be active bystanders with the capacity to recognize and respond to witnessed bias, as well as be aware of potentially enacting bias ourselves. Rather than dictate information in a top-down approach, we wanted to practice more active pedagogy by incorporating a combination of content delivery, small-group discussion, collective information sharing and large-group discussion.

That said, none of us had prior experience leading workshops of this scope, and a major concern was how to put this event together responsibly. Our backgrounds are in medieval history, a notoriously white and cis-male field. As we began to plan the workshop, we soon had to confront the fact that all of our mentors in the field, and therefore the people we felt comfortable asking to participate in our faculty panel discussion without monetary compensation, were white. We felt that it was irresponsible to host a workshop on equity, diversity and bias in academia with an entirely white faculty panel. However, asking scholars of color to contribute uncompensated labor for the benefit of our workshop would also be irresponsible and tokenizing. In this, we were encountering firsthand the results of gatekeeping academic hiring practices that have historically excluded scholars of color from medieval and other pre-modern fields.

In an attempt to counterbalance the racial homogeneity of the faculty panel, we sought to include resources throughout the workshop that centered different identities and perspectives in terms of race, academic position and research focus. We also addressed directly the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the workshop at the beginning of the day’s programming. In keeping with the collaborative environment of the day, we asked participants to reflect on what we could have done differently, and how they might approach this situation if they ever find themselves in a similar one. For those of us in academia with racial privilege, it is imperative to seek out solutions that invite and include diverse perspectives into the conversation.

2 The Workshop

Our workshop ran for one full day, and the audience included primarily pre-modern studies undergraduate students and faculty members. Because the workshop was open to all undergraduates, however, we worked to design sessions that would be widely applicable outside the study of the pre-modern world, be it in other graduate fields or other workplaces. In taking this conceptual approach, we designed the workshop in such a way that the key takeaways could be learned and then abstracted into lessons relevant to nearly any circumstance of implicit or explicit bias. Below is a discussion of the two main sessions that we hosted, followed by a description of the faculty panel that followed these sessions. In the appendices, we supply a full program schedule as well as activities and discussion questions referred to below and used throughout the workshop. Our hope is that such appendices will further illuminate the nuts and bolts of the day’s programming, and may serve as a tool or reference for any other graduate students planning a similar workshop.

We opened our workshop with a session called “Navigating Bias in the Academy.” This first session specifically focused on recognizing bias and abuse of power structures within academia. Since we all grow up with biases ingrained in us by our communities, families and cultures, it may seem like a simple task to identify such biases. Nonetheless, it is often difficult to recognize bias when it manifests as “small” incidents that we are accustomed to dismissing or normalizing. These incidents, however, play a large role in systemic discrimination, elevating traditional white male voices and mentalities while keeping people with marginalized backgrounds and perspectives from rising to positions of power and equality, particularly as graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and professors.

For example, as a graduate student, an individual has different roles and responsibilities daily. They might be a student, a teacher and a researcher; or an intern and a student; or a student who is also a full-time working professional. As they move throughout their day, a graduate student likely transitions among these different roles, beginning their day as a teacher, for instance, and ending it as a student attending class. One of the challenges of balancing these various roles is the unique position of power and authority that each entails. As they move between these spaces, a graduate student will take on different positions of power in their relationships with others, thereby changing how they experience potential issues of sexual harassment, racial bias, gender bias, etc. Our goal in this session was to discuss these shifting power dynamics with the undergraduates, and to share and brainstorm responses to bias. On a personal level, we each felt underprepared in this respect when we arrived at graduate school, so we focused on this important skill from the very start of the workshop.

In this first session on recognizing and responding to bias, we broke into small groups to brainstorm possible power dynamics and how graduate students with diverse identities fit into such dynamics. After a brainstorming session in groups, we wrote a list on the board of different kinds of power relationships. Here is a sampling of what we collected:

1. –Professor/student
2. –TA/student
3. –Upper level student/lower level student
4. –Older student/younger student
5. –Younger student/older student
6. –Tenured faculty/untenured faculty
7. –Supervisor/student
8. –Extrovert/introvert
9. –Hierarchy based on perceived prestige of undergraduate school
10. –Male/female/non-binary
11. –White/Black, Indigenous, Person of Color (BIPOC)
12. –Well-known research focus/niche research focus
13. –Local student/international student
14. –Neurodivergent/neurotypical
15. –Disabled/non-disabled

We talked openly about how to react when we find ourselves in abusive or subtly unhealthy dynamics within these power structures, particularly when the other person(s) involved do not perceive the bias at hand. Then, we shared three case studies focused on unhealthy dynamics within academia to dive deeper into recognizing bias within certain power structures and identifying possible responses, such as removal from the situation and self-recognition that the situation was not one’s own “fault” (see Appendix 1).

In summary, the exercise was designed to help both students and faculty members in attendance to recognize shifting vulnerabilities and privilege within these power structures, and to thereby develop an awareness not only to recognize when they are a recipient of bias, but also when they may be unwittingly perpetuating or enacting bias themselves. For those teaching, such an awareness can be particularly beneficial in moderating classroom participation in order to create a more equitable environment where diverse voices and perspectives feel welcome and encouraged.

Moving forward in the day, the second session of the workshop focused on resource-sharing and discussion for building more equitable academic spaces. We structured the information of this second half according to the three roles that the graduate might inhabit as discussed in the first half of the day: the student, the teacher and the scholar.

First, our discussion of the “graduate student” focused on formal and informal sources of support in the face of gender-based bias or assault. A campus officer from the Title IX Office—responsible for ensuring university compliance with US federal law that protects individuals from sex-based discrimination—presented information on the emotional and legal support available through the Title IX Office. During this section, we also acknowledged the potential barriers that students may face in accessing these resources. For example, graduate students may feel dissuaded from reporting acts of bias that involve their advisors or fellow graduate students out of fear of potential retaliation. With this in mind, we talked about some of the student-based campus resources that graduate students may be able to rely on while preserving anonymity, such as campus advocates for survivors of sexual assault, or a campus ombuds office. The undergraduates and early career scholars in the room expressed familiarity with these potential barriers and appreciated the open discussion of alternative avenues for support. While it was invigorating to brainstorm alternatives together, it also served as a stark reminder of how many students experience gender-based bias or assault before even completing their undergraduate degree, let alone embarking on further graduate study.

During the section on the “graduate teacher,” we emphasized ways of leading academic spaces that actively try not to marginalize students or fellow participants in the space. Since teaching is typically a requirement for graduate students in American PhD programs, we thought it important to give time for workshop participants to think about and work through the dynamics of leading a classroom. We turned to critical pedagogical resources available through Vanderbilt University’s Center for Teaching. We spent some time exploring Vanderbilt’s many pedagogical guides, such as “Teaching Race,” “Teaching beyond the Gender Binary in the University Classroom” and “Increasing Inclusivity in the Classroom” (Thurber, Harbin & Bandy, 2019; Harbin, 2016; Greer, 2014). Along with the undergraduates, we then collectively sought out resources for specifically forming more critical syllabi, paying attention to what and whom to include in the course content. Here, we turned to the websites of the Medievalists of Color and the Teaching Association for Medieval Studies (TEAMS) for their knowledge and inspiration (Hsy & Orlemanski, 2018; Robinson, 2018). In this part of the workshop, it was great to see how both undergraduates and more senior faculty members re-approached the classroom with new critical pedagogical ideas. As early and former graduate students with varying teaching experiences, it was powerful for us to witness how creating spaces for collective learning and discussion could benefit both students and advanced professors. While it is difficult to gauge any ripple effect from this specific workshop, for us it highlighted the importance of creating these spaces and opportunities as part of the work toward more equitable classrooms—a key component of a more equitable academic workplace.

In our final session on the “graduate scholar,” we shared and discussed resources for carrying out research in supposedly “niche” areas within pre-modern academia. These “niche” areas, such as disability, gender and race, can often be treated as peripheral to “real” pre-modern scholarship, making it harder for a scholar’s work to be taken seriously; in other words, academia can marginalize scholarship as well as scholars. For students contemplating further graduate study, we wanted to illustrate that finding the sources to pursue traditionally undervalued areas of scholarship is possible, and that communities within academia have, in many cases, already put in the labor of assembling online bibliographies or indices as starting points. We presented two such resources as examples: the Feminae Index, and the History of Disease, Disability and Medicine in Medieval Europe source database. We also shared tools from online community spaces and blogs (such as Sarah Ahmed’s Feminist Killjoys blog), as well as funding opportunities that specifically serve financially disadvantaged graduate scholars (such as those offered through Sportula).³ Based on participant engagement, it appeared that these resources were welcome news to many in the room, and we hope that they have been able to assist those undergraduates who have gone on to further graduate study.

Finally, we drew together our discussion of the graduate student, teacher and scholar with a close-reading of a Medium article written by Eugenia Zuroski (2018), associate professor of English at McMaster University: “Holding Patterns: On Academic Knowledge and Labor.” While not specifically aimed at pre-modern disciplines, Zuroski’s work dissects oppressive dynamics within academia and highlights the conditions necessary for building a more equitable academic space for students and scholars. We asked workshop participants to read this article individually and discuss it in small groups before moving into larger group discussions and engaging with reading questions designed to help unpack Zuroski’s work in light of the themes of the workshop (see Appendix 3). Here, we asked participants to engage with the written work of a scholar who has already devoted energy and time to the subject of equity and abuse in academia. Looking back, it would have been beneficial to have had more time to discuss Zuroski’s article, as it clearly resonated with many of the participants in the room, some of whom expressed excitement at reading a compelling summation of the very dynamics that they hitherto had trouble finding the words to describe.

To close the day-long workshop, we convened a faculty panel session of five of our mentors and colleagues and asked them to reflect on their positionality and experiences within academia (see Appendix 4). We asked them questions such as: When doing research or teaching, how do you think about your identity in relation to the subjects you research and the students you teach and mentor? How does an awareness of your positionality affect your work? How do you think about minority representation in your work, be it in articles, presentations or in the classroom? Through this conversation, we found that many of our mentors were familiar early on with the position we found ourselves in while planning and putting on this workshop: a sense of being unprepared and possibly unqualified, yet hopeful that our work would lead to change within academia.

One key take-away from the panel session was the pressure to maintain continuous passion for the discipline—in other words, the supposed distinction, lauded in academia, that jobs are not so much jobs, as they are labors of love. While enthusiasm for one’s job is not inherently problematic, it becomes burdensome when this expectation of unwavering passion excuses hardships and inequities that graduate students may be facing. This expectation of unfaltering passion is also troubling when it causes feelings of inadequacy or inability—imposter syndrome—in graduate students who aren’t as passionate as they “should” be. To combat this expectation, the five panelists recommended drawing clear boundaries between one’s work and one’s passions.

Another highlight from the discussion was a shared concern and frustration among the panelists that far too often the extra, “para-academic” work falls to persons (especially women) of color. While such work is necessary for the health of the academic workplace, this extra labor consequently keeps those individuals from the research and writing that moves their careers forward. For prospective graduate students, the panelists recommended that the students enter academia with a clear awareness of their personal willingness and capacity to perform extra labor.

This panel discussion was a great conclusion to the workshop because it further broke down barriers between faculty and students, both undergraduate and graduate, and gave the undergraduate students a window onto the upsides and downsides of an academic career. All too often, this kind of institutional knowledge goes unspoken, and the ropes must be relearned again and again as new faces enter the field. For students from minority backgrounds, the starting line at the beginning of the search for institutional knowledge may be even further back. The panelists were exceedingly open in sharing their own experiences, and we hope that the tips and tricks they shared to survive and thrive in academia can be passed on to incoming students, especially those of diverse identities.

3 Concluding Reflections

Reflecting on our experience of planning and leading this workshop, we are proud of the result that we achieved. We did our best to organize an event that reflected diversity without tokenizing; that provided resources without embracing solely a content-delivery format; and served as a meaningful experience that somehow moved beyond the ephemeral one-day workshop. The students and faculty who attended were committed to centering diverse thought and minimizing bias in the pre-modern academic field. The students who participated left with the skills to recognize and respond to different forms of bias, preparing them to enter graduate school better able to advocate for themselves and support their peers. Our panelist mentors (one of whom returned from research leave specifically for our workshop) generously engaged with our questions and were willing to share their personal experiences with the group. Above all, we were honored to go back to our alma mater to engage with both undergraduates and faculty and carve out a space for discussing diversity and inclusion in pre-modern disciplines.

This isn’t to say, however, that we don’t still wonder what constitutes the lasting impact of the workshop, or indeed perhaps of all one-day diversity training workshops. The audience was a self-selected group of students who wanted to spend a day (on a Saturday, no less) learning how to confront bias in academia. Nobody in the room was unaware of the issues of diversity and inclusion in academic spaces. After four months of work, countless hours of team planning, individual preparation, and plane rides across the state, it was hard not to wonder whether we invested too much labor for something relatively “small,” because meaningful, actualized diversity and inclusion work should not be assigned to just one day. Instead, this work should be modeled and discussed by the visible, secure figures of the department or university who commit to this work on a regular basis. This needs to be done in classrooms, during office hours and in administrative meetings, where identifying bias and creating more equitable contexts have the greatest possibility for effecting change.

In conclusion, we realize that possible participant responses, or key take-aways from the different program modules, might be missing. Thinking back on the workshop, we remember with certainty that many participants—undergraduates and faculty alike—offered critical, illuminating and self-reflective comments on these difficult topics of bias and abuse in academia. But what we, as the three current and former graduate students who organized, planned and led this event, remember, is the immense labor we invested, the stress and worry during the actual workshop, and the overwhelming relief when the day had successfully concluded. We realize now that we could not meaningfully join in the communal discussions because we were so focused on simply carrying out the logistics of the event. This is part of the reason why we include the four appendices that follow, to fill in the gaps where our collective memory is lacking.

Finally, if we’re truly honest in our reflections, our hopes for the realization of a more diverse and equitable academic world are slight and waning. It is possible, however, that such a negative outlook is in part a response to our current times in the US (early 2020), which are characterized by the coronavirus pandemic, institutional anti-Black racism and a tyrannical president. The current exceptional circumstances notwithstanding, it is disheartening to constantly witness the lack of diversity that predominates in academic spaces, and to observe that incidents of abuse continue to unfold (Cassens Weiss, 2020; Loupeda, 2020). Yet, ever hopeful, we hold on to the aspiration of an academic world free of bias and abuse. To arrive here will require that diversity training be seen not as peripheral, but rather as integral to the classroom, the university and the discipline(s). This means assigning credit (or other inducements) for diversity learning, and incorporating diversity and inclusivity work into everyday practices. This also requires that all levels of the academic world nurture greater humility: the humility to listen to the unique perspectives of diverse students and scholars; to self-interrogate; and to welcome changes in behavior that was never really okay, but rather more widely ignored and accepted in the academic spaces of previous times. Perhaps then we will make concrete steps toward ensuring a more just academia.

Publisher’s Note

The identity of one of the authors of this chapter has been anonymized. Brill is aware of the real identity of the author. The inclusion of anonymized chapters has been permitted by Brill in view of risks to the general security of the author.