A Call for Culturally Responsive Transformational Leadership in College Sport: An Anti-ism Approach for Achieving Equity and Inclusion

Abstract

A longstanding fact in college sports in the United States (U.S.) is the reality that inequities, inequalities, and discrimination have been major issues preventing institutions from fostering harmonious diversity and inclusion. Several reasons for these persistent outcomes include the prevalence of implicit bias, homologous reproduction, hegemonic, and toxic masculinity/patriarchy, colorblind racism, and abstract liberalism to name a few. In addition, multi-level factors (macro-, meso-, and micro-) also influence the existence and salience of negative organizational cultures and climates particularly for groups that are underrepresented and marginalized in society. Despite the fact several leadership styles have been enacted and numerous policy reforms have been adopted over the years, inequities in representation, occupational mobility, position retention, and quality of experiences persist along racial and gender lines. As a result, the purpose of this manuscript is to offer innovative transformational leadership approaches that incorporate anti-racism, anti-sexism, and culturally responsive stances toward achieving true equity and inclusiveness in sport. Using interdisciplinary theories such as the anti-racism framework and culturally responsive leadership, this manuscript presents a paradigm shift for college sport leadership with the intent of cultivating paramount experiences for people across diverse backgrounds.

A Conceptual Model of the Emergence of Diversity and Inclusion Officers in Division I Collegiate Athletics

“…For example, as the United States (U.S.) continues to grapple with major social movements, such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter (#BLM), these efforts have shaped public discourse on gender and racial inequities in society (Black Lives Matter, n.d; Me Too Movement, n.d.). Consequently, these social movements are relevant to intercollegiate athletics, as gender and racial inequity is commonplace in big-time college sport in the U.S. (Cooper et al, 2020). A recent and novel solution to address gender and racial diversity in collegiate sport is the creation of the Athletic Diversity and Inclusion Officer (ADIO) position.…”

“…"Legitimacy" is a foundational concept of organizational institutionalism and is understood as processes, norms, and structures that validate the existence of institutions and support their longevity (Greenwood et al, 2017;Suchman, 1995). Thus, if collegiate sport continues to have its legitimacy questioned, it highlights how this institution fails to be in congruence with higher education and espoused NCAA logics of equality (Cooper et al, 2020). These realities create tension and pressure that calls for a reimagination (i.e., different from previous reform efforts) of the collegiate sport field.…”

“…Challenges to position diversity and inclusion in athletic departments' organizational culture, structures, and hiring practices are evident in sport management literature. Scholars have addressed issues of racial diversity in intercollegiate athletics (Cooper et al, 2020;Steward & Cunningham, 2015;Walker & Melton, 2015), issues of gender inequity and leadership ascension of female intercollegiate sport administrators (Burton, 2015;Darvin & Sagas, 2017;Hancock & Hums, 2016;Katz et al, 2018;McDowell & Carter-Francique, 2017;Smith et al, 2020), the importance of creating and sustaining inclusive sport organizations (Cunningham, 2008;DeSensi, 1995;Fink & Pastore, 1999;Singer & Cunningham, 2018), and the experiences of LGBTQ collegiate sport administrators (Borland & Bruening, 2010;Walker & Melton, 2015).…”

“…To fully comprehend issues of racial and gender inclusion in regard to leadership positions, as of May 2021, only five women lead Power-5 athletic departments, i.e., five of the 65 wealthiest athletics departments in the NCAA are led by three White women and two Black women (Lewis, 2020;Phillips, 2021). The descriptive and empirical data on race and gender in intercollegiate sport leadership is the byproduct of institutional racism (Cooper et al, 2017;Cooper et al, 2020) and gender biases informed by patriarchy and sexism (Burton, 2015;Walker & Sartore-Baldwin, 2013). Bimper and Harrison (2017) posited that issues of inequity, specifically racial inequity, remain invisible due to colorblind attitudes embedded in collegiate sport leadership and organizational cultures.…”

“…The sociocultural and sociopolitical issues these movements address is directly related to literature that captures inequities extant in collegiate sport. Consequently, the premises of #MeToo, #BLM, and the unethical practices of contemporary high-profile collegiate sport scandals highlight how macro-level sociological issues manifest in collegiate athletic departments regarding gender (Burton, 2015;Hoffman, 2010;Sartore & Cunningham, 2007), race (Bimper & Harrison, 2017;Cooper et al, 2020;Singer, 2019), and paradoxical ideologies associated with the exploitative collegiate sport model (Sack, 2009;Southall & Nagel, 2008;Southall & Staurowsky, 2013;van Rheenen, 2013). Although intercollegiate sport scholarship has examined racial inequity, gender inequity, and paradoxical ideologies of collegiate sport before these sociological influences (or institutional shocks), the adoption of ADIOs during this juncture is noteworthy, given these positions emerged during a juncture of prominent social, cultural, and political shifts in the 21 st century.…”