Gender Work Organization - 2022 - Alexander - Feminized Anti Blackness in The Professoriate

Received: 22 November 2021 Accepted: 9 December 2021
DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12798
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Feminized anti-Blackness in the professoriate
e alexander
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Abstract
Correspondence This exploratory study seeks to establish an understanding
e alexander, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
of relationships between Black and white femme faculty
Kansas, USA.
Email: ea.20212@gmail.com (BFF and WFF, respectively) in academic work units, as reifi-
cations of anti-Blackness in the academy. The study corpus,
or body of work that was analyzed, consists of stories from
BFF about interactions and experiences with WFF that have
been published in anthologies about womxn in higher edu-
cation; Black Critical Race Theory and the “mammy” trope
supported analysis as the conceptual frameworks. Findings
indicate that WFF rejected BFF as professional equals who
are deserving of full access to and participation in academ-
ia. They also suggested that WFF undermined BFF through
white-only alliances, and sometimes appealed to white mas-
culine superiors to sabotage BFF colleagues in support of
their own success. The study has implications for expanding
scholarly discourses about workplace interactions and har-
assment, exercises of power, and professional relationships
in the academy.
KEYWORDS
critical race theory, faculty, higher education, intersectionality,
misogynoir
1 | INTRODUCTION
This literature review briefs relationships between Black and white womxn(hoods), institutional cultures, and white-
ness as property. Examining narratives of Black and white womxnhood contextualizes their social positions in aca-
demia; examining institutional cultures provides environmental and behavioral contexts for interactions between
Black femme faculty (BFF) and white1 femme2 faculty (WFF).
Gender Work Organ. 2022;29:723–738. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gwao © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 723
14680432, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12798 by University Of Liverpool, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
724 ALEXANDER
1.1 | Complicating womxnhood and clarifying “intersectionality”
White womxn in the west exist as both an oppressed group based on gender, and as an oppressor group based on
race. Frances Kendall (2006) calls attention to the power and resources to which they have access because of prox-
imity to white mxn through shared race and personal relationships. She also asserts that white womxn gain social
privileges at the expense of people of Color. A contemporary example of doing so is their (mis)appropriation of in-
tersectionality. Intersectionality is a framework from Critical Legal Studies that was originally created to capture the
compounding systems of oppression that Black womxn experience in American society based on their race, gender,
class, and sexual and other identities. Excluding groups of people from discussions of intersectionality that impacts
them is called “intersectional failure” (Collins, 1997; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991, 2015a, 2015b). A pervasive way that
intersectional failures occur in scholarship is by stripping the framework of its very core: the premise of people facing
multiple and simultaneous forms of oppression because of the identities they have in relation to societal power struc-
tures. As a response to common misappropriations of the framework: “intersectional” examination cannot exist about
(a) phenomena, processes, or conditions that—on their own—are power-neutral; (b) persons from privileged groups
(e.g., mxn, even if phenomena of study in relation to them are connoted negatively); or (c) compared groups that are
oppressed in one aspect of who they are, as distinct from each other.
Bearing these corrections in mind: white womxn certainly experience sexism based on gender, but not intersec-
tionality. In fact, their (mis)appropriation of “intersectionality” illustrates an instance wherein white womxn abuse
their racial privilege to steal intellectual property about and from Black womxn as their own and for their own gains
(Alexander-Floyd, 2012; Bilge, 2013). Their stealing of knowledge often erases the multiple and simultaneous forms
of violence that Black womxn suffer, which yielded intersectionality as a framework in the first place (Carasta-
this, 2014; Carbado et al., 2013; Harris & Patton, 2019). Yet, this stealing of ideas reflects what Cheryl Harris (1993)
calls “Whiteness as Property.” This sociohistorical structure of the American legal system has codified whiteness as
requisite for access to and ownership of property and its benefits; it has also codified whites' ability to dispossess
non-whites of access to and ownership of property and benefits, to materially maintain white supremacy over non-
whites. I argue that (mis)appropriating “intersectionality” dispossesses Black womxn of their intellectual property.
Despite white womxn's roles in dispossessing Black womxn and harming other people of Color, they have histor-
ically been characterized in the western ethos as normal, human, chaste, and in need of over-protection to preserve
their virtuosity (Craig, 2006; Gabriel, 2017; Hurtado, 1989; Kupenda, 2012). By contrast, Black womxn have been
characterized as immoral, animalistic, sexually deviant (Willingham, 2018), and therefore undeserving of privacy and
protection (Collins, 2000; Jordan, 1962; Kupenda, 2012). These characterizations have resulted in Black womxn's sys-
tematic physical, sexual, and emotional abuse throughout their time in the west (Baptist, 2001; Feimster, as cited in;
Patton & Njoku, 2019)—further dispossessions of their personhoods. Black womxn are also characterized as invading
white property, including the spaces of academia (Collins, 2000; Puwar, 2004). Such characterizations and portrayals
of Black womxn are examples of misogynoir (Bailey, 2014), or specific ways that anti-Blackness (Dumas, 2016) and
misogyny align to pathologize Black womxn in society.
1.2 | Misogynoir in the academy: A call for analysis
Modeled after Crenshaw et al.'s (2015) Say Her Name report, Patton and Njoku (2019) present a conceptual analysis
of Black womxn's experiences in higher education as institution-sanctioned violence. Their analysis borrows defini-
tions of state-sanctioned violence from Collins (1998), Crenshaw et al. (2015), and Méndez (2016), to frame this form
of intersectionality as using campus policies and practices to commit violence against Black womxn that causes them
epistemic, emotional, and mental damage (2019, p. 1167). Citing historical and contemporary instances of violence
against Black womxn both on campuses and in society broadly, they argue that the academy harbors a culture of vi-
olence against Black womxn—informed by its racist and white supremacist (Patton, 2016) nature—and therefore will
ALEXANDER 725
likely never protect or save them. With regards to misogynoir, Patton and Njoku also name campuses as extensions
of the state (2019). WFF's abilities to steal intersectionality from Black womxn and exclude them from analyses that
claims to engage the framework—while benefitting from its use—are example of institution-sanctioned violence and
Black womxn's lack of protection from it.
Because of intersectionality and misogynoir, BFF experience oppressions in the academy that impact both wom-
xn across races and people of Color cross genders; resulting, they suffer burdens of both larger groups. On average: (a)
femme faculty take on more teaching and service than do masculine faculty, and produce slightly less research than
do they (Jackson, 2004; Misra et al., 2011); (b) professionals of Color take on more responsibilities in teaching, men-
toring, and service than do white faculty (Allen et al., 2000; Astin et al., 1997; Villalpando & Delgado Bernal, 2002);
and (c) faculty of Color produce significantly less research than do white faculty faculty (Eagan & Garvey, 2015).
Stress caused by workplace discrimination holds more salience for professionals of Color and contributes to their
lower productivity (Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Smith et al., 2006), threatening their career advancement. Further: of the
studies that have been conducted with BFF, many report participants as feeling stressed, exhausted, overwhelmed,
and overtaxed (Arnold et al., 2016; Griffin et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2015; Patitu & Hinton, 2003).
One unattended group of contributors to negative outcomes for BFF is WFF. WFF have proximity to both white
mxn and BFF in postsecondary spaces through shared race and gender, respectively; and white mxn still dispro-
portionately hold senior positions in fields that are predominately feminine (Hartmann, 1987; Holvino, 2011; Ken-
dall, 2006; Reskin & Roos, 1987). It is possible that WFF cause as much harm to BFF as do white mxn through their
positional power–relative to people of Color, and through leveraging their access to white mxn (Acker, 2004; Amott &
Matthaei, 1991; Browne, 2000; Chamblee, 2012; Glenn, 2001; hooks, as cited in; Kupenda, 2012; St. Jean & Feagin;
as cited in; Kupenda, 2012). Peggy McIntosh (2012) characterizes positional differences between BFF and WFF in
academe:
When African American and White women work in higher education in the United States, we are
working in institutions which were built on the exclusion of all of us. But we were excluded to different
degrees, and those differences in degree persist…. Our different histories affect pay, promotion, press,
praise, prizes, publications and the power of tenure and job stability (p. 91).
There is also a growing body of empirical literature that focuses on experiences of BFF, and curated anthologies
wherein BFF share their stories of navigating power structures while working in the academy. The latter suggests
unique feminized ways in which white womxn enact violence against non-white womxn at intersections of racism,
sexism, classism, and other forms of oppression (e.g., Edwards et al., 2011; Holvino, 2011; Jones et al., 2015)—even
as both groups struggle against gendered oppression in the academic workplace. Still, there is a dearth of studies
that validate Black womxn's stories as units of analysis in empirical research. Research about BFF also does not im-
plicate WFF as contributors to their workplace challenges, despite BFF's own stories doing so. Regarding promotion,
tenure, personal needs, compensation, and socialization: scholarly discourses also still default womxnhood in aca-
demia to whiteness, or do not account for differentiated raced outcomes for womxn at all (e.g., Jackson, 2004; Misra
et al., 2011; Rosser, 2004)—further erasing intersectionality from academia's workplace dynamics.
Exploring interactions between BFF and WFF that reify hegemonic power structures allows institutions, schol-
ars, and victims of mistreatment to hold BFF's aggressors accountable for behaviors that have been normalized
through legacies of misogynoir and white supremacy. Here, it is important to reiterate that such violence perpetuates
(a) whiteness as property, (b) the protection of white womxn, and (c) the dehumanization of Black womxn. The study
responds to oversights in extant literature by centering BFF's voices, while implicating WFF's behaviors as pivotal in
BFF's outcomes in their organizations. The following questions guide this study:
1. How do race and gender impact how BFF experience relationships with WFF at work?
726 ALEXANDER
2. How do WFF create pathways for BFF wellness, professional development, advancement, access to influence,
and material gains in academia?
3. How do WFF undermine BFF wellness, professional development, advancement, access to influence, and material
gains in academia?
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
To support answering these questions, I conducted a content and second-order theoretical analysis of a study corpus
that treats accounts from curated anthologies as units of analysis.
2.1 | Conceptual frameworks
Two frameworks supported the study: Black Critical Race Theory (BlackCrit; Dumas & Ross, 2016) and the mammy
trope (Howard-Baptiste, 2014; Jewell, 1993; John, 1997). BlackCrit asserts that western epistemic rules used to de-
fine knowledge and humanness are implicated such that normality and acceptability are associated with whiteness,
and undesirability and incorrectness are associated with Blackness that needs western intervention for advancement
(Dumas, 2018; Tillis, 2018; Wynter, 2005). Dumas (2016) also asserts that Black people exist in antagonistic rela-
tionships with white conceptualizations of humanity, such that anti-Blackness is manifested as contempt for, and
acceptance of violence against, Black people. Table 1 presents tenets of BlackCrit that give attention to ways that
anti-Blackness is normalized, including Harris' Whiteness as Property. I also present my adaptations of these con-
cepts for this study.
TA B L E 1 Black Critical Race Theory concepts and adaptation
Concept Adaptation for study

anti-Blackness is endemic to—and central to how the world Anti-Blackness is central to the social, economic, historical,
makes sense of the social, economic, historical, and cultural and cultural dimensions of higher education. BFF in
dimensions of—human life. Anti-Blackness refers to the academe generally will have antagonistic relationships
broader antagonistic relationship between Blackness and on campus with regards to those dimensions. WFF
(the possibility of) humanity (as primarily conceptualized by will be culprits in BFF's relational dynamics, and their
white people; Dumas & Ross, 2016). relationships with BFF will be antagonistic.
Anti-Blackness serves to reinforce ideological and material WFF's treatment of BFF will reinforce ideological and
“infrastructures” of educational inequity—including material infrastructures on campuses, including in
maldistribution of resources (Dumas & Ross, 2016). the maldistribution of resources (i.e., project funding,
space, salaries).
Policies and everyday practices find logic in, and reproduce, BFF will continually suffer as a result (and part) of campus
Black suffering; Black people must then imagine their policies and practices. WFF will be culpable in both
futures against the devaluation of Black life (Dumas & this and campuses' devaluation of BFF. Despite this,
Ross, 2016). BFF must create their own futures in academe.
Blackness exists in tension with neoliberal multiculturalism, WFF will tell BFF: racism no longer exists in academe, and
where: (a) neoliberalism presumes that racism is no longer therefore cannot bar BFF from opportunities therein;
a barrier to opportunity; and (b) multiculturalism “explains therefore, BFF's lack of access to opportunities
away” the material conditions of Black people (Dumas & in academe must reflect their own personal
Ross, 2016). shortcomings, or be due to raceless sexism.
Whiteness as property: whiteness gives white scholars WFF will feel entitled to opportunities, advantages,
and communities a sense of entitlement to educational and spheres of influence and privilege on college
opportunities, privileged spaces, and structural advantages campuses—especially in comparison to BFF.
(Dumas, 2015; Harris, 1993; Leonardo, 2009).
ALEXANDER 727
John (1997) and Howard-Baptiste (2014) present frameworks of American antebellum power dynamics to ex-
plore BFF's social locations and interactions with whiteness as mammies within institutions of higher education.
These authors and Jewell (1993) characterize the mammy trope, with its origins in American chattel slavery, as imag-
ining Black womxn to be (a) loyal, (b) self-sacrificing, and (c) complacent in their roles as servants to the white people
who own them. John compares universities to plantations: both have power elites, and both present as self-reliant
while depending on the labor of the people they exploit to continue their operations. She also compares roles of BFF
to those of mammies: supporting the success of the academy's white power holders, while simultaneously stewarding
their own survival on their campuses without help.
From Jewell, John, and Howard-Baptiste, I synthesized the following notions to capture depictions of mammy
that inform analysis of BFF's interactions with white (femme) colleagues:
1. Loyal to white colleagues in support of their professional success–while neglecting or sacrificing one's own suc-
cess, and despite lack of loyalty from white colleagues in return;
2. Invisible with regards to (a) making colleagues aware of their professional needs and experiences, and (b) receiving
acknowledgment for contributions to their fields; and
3. Too unintelligent or incompetent to contribute to their fields in meaningful ways as leaders, decision-makers, or
producers of knowledge.
2.2 | Research methods
I used NVivo qualitative analytical software to create coding frames for content analysis, based on my conceptual
frameworks. Qualitative content analysis systematically describes the meaning of data by assigning data parts to
a coding framework (Schreier, 2014). Inclusion criteria for the study corpus were (a) stories from BFF, (b) about
interactions with WFF in academic settings or capacities. I collected data from five anthologies that were published
2000–2020 and that were electronically accessible to me (see Table A1 in Appendix)—all of which explore femme
professionals' experiences of working in the academy. I uploaded the sources to NVivo as a project and conducted
keyword searches for “white,” “Caucasian,” “woman,” “women,” “womxn,” “womyn,” and “female.” I read through the
hits and excluded those: (a) from people who were not BFF; (b) about white mxn's interactions with BFF unrelated to
WFF; and (c) that made multiple references to the same interaction with WFF (note: incidents that spanned multiple
days may have included more than one interaction). I re-read the remaining accounts and used NVivo's Annotations
feature to create codes for each interaction. This process yielded 72 qualifying units of analysis; they varied in length,
but majority were one to three paragraphs.
I also created two sets of coding frames in NVivo—one with the tenets from BlackCrit, and one with the asser-
tions of the mammy trope—as categories into which I coded data from the units of analysis. This process yielded a list
of interactions under each construct for understanding how BFF and WFF interacted throughout the corpus. I then
used NVivo's Coding Stripes feature to identify where theoretical concepts from the two coding frames overlapped.
“Second-order theoretical analysis is a process of constructing theoretical explanation through conversion of the
descriptive categories…to construct ‘low level theory’ that evolves from the study of a phenomenon in a particular
situational context…” (Shkedi, 2007, p. 627). The coded data and overlapping Coding Stripes supported my theory
building. I constructed the emerging theory through the cited literature, to understand BFF's interactions with WFF
in that specific context; the new theory is part of the study's discussion.
728 ALEXANDER
3 | RESULTS
All the theoretical concepts were represented in the study corpus, and many emerged concurrently. In descending
order, the frequency of each concept was: (a) reinforcing infrastructures (n = 38); (b) whiteness as property (n = 32); (c)
anti-Blackness (n = 27); (d) mammy as loyal (n = 24); (e) mammy as invisible (n = 22); (f) tension with multiculturalism
(n = 18); (g) mammy as unintelligent (n = 17); and (h) Black suffering (n = 15). I discuss concurrent constructs here, and
include accounts from the corpus (with pseudonyms) to illustrate their enactments.
3.1 | Content analysis framework one: Applying BlackCrit
WFF disregarded BFF at work in ways that protected and reinforced ideological infrastructures that presupposed
whiteness; doing so allowed them to raise concerns of sexism while not feeling obligated to also attend to concerns
of racism. Constructs of “reinforcing infrastructures” and “tension with multiculturalism” often arose concurrently:
WFF tried to convince BFF that the mistreatments they faced on campus were unrelated to race because sexism was
more prevalent than was racism in the academy (a possible intersectional failure).
A smiling, white female colleague invited herself to join me as I relaxed. She then incessantly urged
me to accept her theory that most of the situations I faced at her school were prompted by my gender
and not my race (Kichelle).
Yet: while making these appeals, WFF tried to (a) undermine BFF's reputations, advancement, images, and em-
ployment; (b) steal BFF's positions, job duties, and work ideas; and (c) prevent BFF from receiving accolades or ben-
efits for their work through leveraging their proximity to decision-makers.
…a White woman administrator finally convinced the White men we reported to that she, not I, should
be responsible for several areas and departments that reported directly to me (Ankh).
The same course leader who had tried to obstruct my first research application was again involved and
my Dean refused to sign my new application (Zena).
Under the guise of multiculturalism, WFF also sometimes enacted violence against BFF through other aspects of
their humanity if they felt that they could not do so based on race.
A few days after sharing the news of my pregnancy to my graduate school community, a white woman
faculty member shared an article with all graduate students through the departmental listserv. Though
it was common for faculty to share news about our field on the listserv, this particular article was
about how women graduate students who get pregnant are less likely to finish their graduate training
(Queenie).
These behaviors were practices of “whiteness as property,” and were very prevalent in the corpus. “Whiteness
as property” helped to ensure that BFF did not have academic advances, recognition, and esteemed duties. More-
over: “reinforcing infrastructures” often co-occurred with “whiteness as property” because practices of the latter
(e.g., undermining BFF's advancements) supported perpetuation of the former (e.g., a system wherein no or very
few BFF held esteemed positions in academia). While enacting this violence against BFF, WFF still felt entitled to be
received by BFF as superiors whose needs, emotions, knowledge, skills, gendered experiences, and comfort were to
take priority over those of BFF. WFF failed to recognize these sentiments as both white supremacist and anti-Black.
ALEXANDER 729
For example: “Calina” talked about the aftermath of an incident with a WFF colleague at an event that Calina was
facilitating, wherein the WFF interrupted people of Color who were sharing painful personal stories to tell her own
story. She became upset after Calina made her aware of her transgression –
…the White woman professor engaged numerous colleagues in discussion about how she was at-
tacked by the Asian American woman while two African American women did nothing to protect her.
She refused to acknowledge that she had actively dismissed the experience of [an] African American
student.
As authorities, WFF invited BFF into conversations only (sometimes) when topics pertained to race—dismissing
their womxnhood when discussions centered gender alone, and denying the possibility that concerns of gender could
also be concerns of race. “Danni” discusses how WFF simultaneously misappropriated intersectionality and commit-
ted intersectional failure.
A few months ago, two White female academics who were guest-editing the special issue of a journal
focused on gender and intersectionality asked if I would review an article on gender issues in Uganda.
My first feeling was that I had been asked as an afterthought, purely because of their likely inability
to relate to gender issues outside their own Eurocentred context, as opposed to the editors involving
women of color from the outset in the editorial process… But on reading the call for papers I became
incensed because, despite the inclusion of the term ‘intersectionality’, there was no reference to raced
and gendered experiences other than that of White women and the tokenistic theme “gender and
multiethnic families”.
Other times, WFF did not involve BFF in race-related decision-making at all–even where BFF had expertize or
authority.
…the director…assured me that [my failing] student's comments had “nothing to do with race.” More-
over, while she acknowledged that the student's educational background was “weak,” she told me
that—upon reviewing the student's paper—she would not have given her a failing grade. She then
informed me that she had advised the student that she could do an independent study with her during
the summer to make up the credits she was losing as a result of dropping my course (Fara).
These situations illustrate WFF practicing “whiteness as property” and “reinforcing infrastructures” concurrently:
academe's ideological infrastructure holds whites as its sole or primary experts such that expertize itself is proper-
tied, and WFF leverage this property to make decisions that reinforce said ideological infrastructure. When not in
positions of authority, WFF still practiced “whiteness as property” and “reinforcing infrastructures” concurrently by
communicating with leadership to undermine BFF's reputations, images, and labor in favor of their own–and in doing
so, making positive personality traits white properties, as well. Calina illustrates this behavior as she continues the
story about the WFF who interrupted her event.
In a series of emails to me, the other workshop coordinator and her dean, a White male, she expressed
her outrage…. Of course, she did not talk with me about the issue. She opted to disparage the work
of the workshop and the three women of Color she held responsible for an attack on her privilege…
we heard from the White woman faculty member in an email forwarded by her dean. She wanted to
know if she could be exempted from the training since our office had treated her so poorly in the past.
730 ALEXANDER
There were exactly two accounts in the corpus wherein BFF spoke about WFF leveraging their whiteness to
benefit BFF–both in hosting networking events for womxn of Color.
I have also been at institutions with white women presidents, one who sponsored informal gatherings
at her residence for women faculty of color to network and to provide input on how to make the cam-
pus culture more supportive of their needs. (Reina)
3.2 | Content analysis framework two: The mammy trope
BFF also discussed their interactions with WFF in ways that aligned with the conceptual framework of being treated
as mammy. Occurrences of mammy as both invisible and loyal often arose concurrently. WFF asked BFF to advocate
for gender justice in academia, while denying the role that racism had in BFF's struggles for equity therein. Most BFF
responded by calling attention to their needs for intersectional justice—which WFF many times ignored.
At one point during our conversation, she told me that we are all feminists in the academy, and when
I mentioned that it has been difficult to negotiate my identity as a black female in the classroom, she
downplayed our differences, saying it was also difficult when she was in front of the class (Jerri).
In addition to weaponizing emails to inform colleagues about BFF's behaviors that they disliked, WFF leveraged
their units' protocols, and access to influential spaces and people, to advocate for certain organizational outcomes–at
the expense of, or with disregard for, BFF.
I recall walking into the office of the president of my institution one August morning only to be told
that my position had been given to someone else. One of his newly hired white female administrators
stated matter-of-factly, “I'm going to say that you requested to be moved to another affiliated posi-
tion—off campus—and that it was a promotion” (Bali).
…these same [WFF] have consistently tried to interfere with my academic success inside and outside
the program and have even encouraged students to write negative evaluations… (Ysis).
Fewer co-occurrences of mammy as unintelligent and loyal emerged. However: they usually entailed WFF dis-
crediting BFF's intelligence while, again, encouraging them to support raceless organizational initiatives. BFF also
discussed WFF's tendencies to ask for their loyalty while being unwilling to support BFF by also championing inter-
sectional concerns that impacted them.
She said, “You are on your own; we white women can't help you with any of your problems with rac-
ism. But it is going to be fun to watch how it all turns out” (Uma).
[W]hen I talked to a very conservative white female, she angrily declared there were no gender or race
problems and that idea was definitely all in my mind. Months later, this same white female tried to get
me to be at the forefront of a gender battle (Idison).
WFF essentialized BFF in order to craft stories about them as either not competent or fitting enough to par-
ticipate in the academy's influential spheres–and expressed indignation or surprise when BFF took steps towards
success without their aid, consultation, or encouragement.
ALEXANDER 731
She and another white female faculty member were discussing my recent notification that my article
had been accepted. To my surprise, they revealed their amazement that I had been able to accomplish
such a feat (Rena).
3.3 | Bringing the frameworks together
Overlapping constructs between the two coding frames revealed several behavioral patterns of WFF that illuminate
how they regarded BFF in the academic workplace. In short: anti-Blackness characterized BFF's interactions with
WFF overall. WFF disregarded unique needs, experiences, and sociohistorical contexts of BFF in various situations,
making most of their interactions antagonistic or uneasy. They also acted as gatekeepers that denied BFF as (a) in-
tellectuals who were deserving of full access to and participation in their organizations, and (b) whole people whose
existences differed from yet were just as valid as their own. Most often, WFF practiced anti-Blackness by rendering
BFF as unintelligent and invisible; doing so aided them in “reinforcing infrastructures” that rely on Black suffering in
support of maintaining the academy as a white propertied space. When speaking to other white people, WFF discur-
sively characterized BFF as unintelligent and invisible to the degree that they were not even (cap)able of telling their
own stories of growth, action, interests, knowledge, goals, or needs. Despite their behaviors, WFF expected BFF's
loyalty in feminist efforts that ignored BFF's raced experiences.
4 | DISCUSSION THROUGH ANALYSIS
This section discusses analyses through a context-based theory, which responds to the study's literature review; it
then presents findings-based answers to the study questions.
4.1 | Theory: Responding to the literature
WFF capitalized on narratives of white and Black womxnhood to (a) gain favor in the academy by juxtaposing them-
selves to BFF, and (b) self-advocate for advancement by arguing BFF's relative lack of fitness for opportunities. These
behaviors emerged when weaponizing emails, leveraging organizational processes and access to decision-makers,
etc.—in response to BFF's behaviors that WFF considered “out of place” as non-white “others.” In these instances,
WFF almost never acknowledged their whiteness, but “othered” BFF for their Blackness.
“…a younger White woman with limited experience and expertize… outlined a plan that would ensure
[a BFF's] dismissal by making certain she did not receive necessary information to complete assign-
ments and eliminating direct contact with university personnel that relied upon her expertize… [as]
evidence of her poor performance…to begin the dismissal process (Sharon).
WFF were able to commit these offenses because BFF's womxnhoods were violated such that they were: (a) not
protected in their job duties, reputations, potential for advancement, etc., as were WFF; and (b) regarded as publicly
accessible yet disposable. BFF's lack of protection and regard was arguably punishment for their daring to “invade”
academia as a white property.
Unlike my White female junior peer who was up for reappointment, I was not protected against such
hostile attacks from my peers. She had the protection of leadership and other senior scholars, whereas
I didn't (Tran).
732 ALEXANDER
…a white Canadian female colleague characterizes my career path as “unique” and describes me to
others as someone who has “slipped through the cracks.” A senior white faculty member….proceeded
to tell her that when I graduated, many scholars in the United States were “salivating” at the prospect
of hiring me (Ginni).
According to the study corpus, WFF were perpetrators of institution-sanctioned violence against BFF in their
feminized workspaces. WFF's behaviors toward BFF allowed them, as gatekeepers with more access to influence
through white masculine powerholders, to maintain BFF's positions in their organizations as inferior. WFF were able
to do so for two reasons. First: as social intermediaries of their units, they held BFF as outsiders because of their
Blackness.
I particularly recall a junior White female peer sharing with me informally: stay away from publishing in
those Black journals, they are not on the list for regarded journal venues (Vonne).
How are you going to handle being Black when you have to decide between spending limited resourc-
es on minorities versus us (White women)? (Xiomi).
Second: WFF set the standard for how womxnhood should be performed in the academic workplace. Resulting,
BFF's ways of presenting themselves therein did not align with cultural expectations of womxnhood that were coded
as white—framing BFF as foils to WFF.
The sharply dressed young white woman with whom I had talked (who also had told me she had
started to wear more makeup and more feminine clothes as she approached her tenure review) told
me, “I know you wanted us to be more open and diverse in our hiring. Nevertheless, we will not be
extending an offer to the Jewish applicant. In our discussions about her, someone remarked that she
is like a Jewish you” (Wendy).
While raising concerns about sexism in the academy, WFF understood and leveraged their relatively favorable
social positions toward achieving their own goals. In doing so, they also signaled to BFF that none of their accom-
plishments or affiliations would ever grant them full membership to their units: WFF often insulted BFF's knowledge,
skills, research, and chosen professional affiliations. Based on study accounts, WFF also leveraged narratives of Black
and white womxnhood at the expense of BFF: (a) they did not see BFF as womxn, and thus were not invested in their
success; and (b) BFF had to combat oppression from WFF, reminiscent of Black womxn's historical abuses, as a part
of their efforts toward intersectional liberation at work.
[A]t times when they could use their privilege in causes affecting people of Color, they choose to
remain silent or fail to act. They often do not advocate for people of Color either individually or col-
lectively if their engaging in advocacy brings them into conflict with their White male counterparts or
superiors (Aya).
Anti-Blackness has made all these transgressions by WFF against BFF acceptable in the academy, because they
reinforce ideological and material infrastructures that maintain power and capital among whites while positioning
Blacks as their social, intellectual, and cultural inferiors.
She went on to tell me that I should be more like Lulu. Lulu had been her black nanny and later her
maid for many years, and she was the best Christian the woman had ever met. My white female ac-
quaintance wondered aloud why I could not be just like Lulu for her (Breeona).
ALEXANDER 733
4.2 | Answering the study questions
The study findings suggest that race impacts how BFF experience relationships with WFF more than does gender
in the academic workplace: it compels WFF to continuously undermine BFF's wellness, development, advancement,
access, and material gains, and makes them feel no obligation to create pathways for BFF (with few exceptions). WFF
do not view BFF as gender peers because they view BFF's Blackness as negating their womxnhood. To this point,
WFF's behaviors toward BFF–interpreted through BlackCrit and the mammy trope–are practices of anti-Blackness
and misogynoir. The study corpus suggests that WFF do not honor the intersectional experiences and needs of BFF.
WFF's blatant disregard for intersectionality when discussing gender discrimination, and their incessant attempts to
minimize BFF's contributions and needs while claiming to have feminist politics, also suggest that they dehumanize
and erase womxn in academic workplaces who are not white.
5 | CONCLUSION
This study offers a contribution to empirical research, and implications for organizational practice, by interrogating
feminized anti-Blackness in academia that reifies centuries-old narratives about Black and white womxnhood. Fur-
ther, it contributes to scholarship by uplifting Black womxn's stories as valid sources of expertize on the topic. In
doing so: the study suggests that WFF understand the privileges that whiteness grants them in their organizations,
and are unwilling to leverage or sacrifice those privileges to stand in solidarity with BFF.
WFF in the corpus chose race solidarity with each other and white mxn over gender solidarity with all womxn.
Simultaneously, they expected BFF to act in ways that maintained a white supremacist social order amongst womxn
in their academic organizations–such that BFF were never more favored, informed, or accomplished than were they.
WFF's behaviors betrayed their rhetoric of feminist solidarity, and blatantly indicated that their gender justice agenda
was not intersectional. Their behaviors also betrayed their historical western characterization as being virtuous. Last,
the study suggests that WFF cause just as much–if not more–harm to BFF than do white mxn (St. Jean & Feagin, as
cited in Kupenda, 2012). In closing, I offer suggestions for research and praxes to disrupt feminized white supremacy
in academic organizations.
5.1 | Feminizing the study of organizational power
American postsecondary education, like other western institutions of power, has historically been masculine and
white. As a result, the study of its organizations has been based on frameworks that privilege western masculine
conceptualizations of work relationships, authority, management, power, culture, socialization, and operations. While
feminist scholars (e.g., Allan et al., 2010) have used critical frames to examine institutions, more intersectional re-
search is needed on ways that feminine leadership impacts operations. “Feminine” is distinct from “feminist”: while
feminist frames seek to interrogate and reallocate power in terms of gender, they have historically done so in a
raceless fashion–as discussed in the study corpus–which erased white womxn's violence toward non-white people
while presuming middle-class status and heteronormativity (Bell & Klein, 1996; Delphy, 1984; hooks, 1984; Mohan-
ty, 1998). Therefore, feminist frames alone cannot capture nuances of power if not engaged from perspectives that
allow for deeper examination of power structures–especially where all parties under scrutiny are femme and diverse
in other social markers (Acker, 2004; Butler, 1990; Holvino, 2011).
An exemplary frame for more nuanced organizational exploration is Black Feminist Standpoint Theory (BFST;
Collins, 1997, 2000). BFST centers poor and sometimes illiterate Black womxn, to produce knowledge about them
and the lives of others with relatively more social power. It advances Feminist Standpoint Epistemology (FSE), which
borrows Hegel's master/slave dialectic to argue that (white middle-class) womxn produce more advanced knowledge
734 ALEXANDER
about reality than do (white middle-class) mxn (Harding, 1986, 1992). Hegel held that slaves' knowledge of reality is
more advanced than that of masters because they must understand both masters' worlds and their own to survive.
FSE applies this concept through a (raceless, heteronormative, and elitist) gendered lens, where mxn are the (higher)
social elites. BFST makes these ideas intersectional through lenses of race, gender, and class, where those who are
not poor Black womxn are social elites relative to them. This framework has many analogs that can also advance or-
ganizational scholarship, including: Borderlands Theory (Anzaldúa, 1999), Indigenous Feminist Theory (Snyder, 2014),
Quare studies (Johnson, 2001), and Postcolonial Feminism (Spivak, 1985, 1987).
5.2 | Complicating narratives of discrimination
Because academia has historically been masculine and white, scholarship about it has also primarily explored discrim-
ination through dichotomies of the powerful and the powerless. Doing so erases exercises of power wherein people
are conditionally, contextually, and/or simultaneously oppressive and oppressed based on their varying social iden-
tities. Giving attention to more nuanced relationships in academic organizations can reveal truths about ways that
historically marginalized groups are implicated in practices of white supremacy, misogyny, elitism, and other forms
of violence that impact the lives of more vulnerable groups in campus workplaces. More intersectional examinations
of adverse behaviors in the academy—through the recommended frameworks and others—might also support the
dismantling of ideas that are taken for granted, like white womxn's inabilities to cause harm toward others within
sociohistorical narratives of white womxnhood. Related, there is a need to center collegians with multiple minoritized
identities who both harm and are harmed by other minoritized peoples in the diversifying academic workplace. Such
studies could seek to understand power and discrimination in relation to professionalization, relationship-building,
and hierarchy.
5.3 | Implications for praxis
The study findings, accounts from BFF, and research recommendations are also calls to action for organizations
across industries. Those that value their health, including through diversification and inclusion, must interrogate
their participation in feminized forms of oppression. Like empirical studies, organizational efforts should include
factfinding and assessments to understand how members operationalize relationship-building, workplace culture,
and exercises of authority, management, power, and influence. They must also include opportunities for members to
share their experiences of discrimination at work.
Further: praxis will not be fully actualized unless organizations use factfinding and assessment to liberate their
behavioral norms, policies, and structures of power in ways that dismantle all forms of oppression to include femi-
nized ones. To support movement toward such praxis, organizations should take on this work while centering mem-
bers who suffer multiple and simultaneous oppressions–in design and implementation of factfinding and assessment,
and in crafting interventions to respond to discovered oppressions. The recommended frameworks that might inform
more nuanced organizational scholarship can also support praxis of this nature.
ACKNOWLE DG ME NT
To all Black womxn in the academy who have ever been made to feel as though they were/are not enough–when
they were/are, in fact, phenomenal.
CO N FLI CT OF I NTE RE ST
I have no conflict of interests to disclose.
ALEXANDER 735
DATA AVAI LABI LI TY STATE M E N T

The data that supports this study is derived from previously published anthologies, as personal narratives.
O RC ID
e alexander https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5528-7983
EN D NOTE S
1
As part of my epistemic and existential disruption of white and western supremacy: I normalize both capitalizing names
and descriptions that have historically been positioned as inferior, and lowercasing names and descriptors have historically
been positioned as superior.
2
As part of my epistemic and existential disruption of cisgender heteronormativity in the west: I normalize uses of “mas-
culine” and “femme” or “feminine” rather than “male” and “female.” I also normalize uses of “mxn” and “womxn” to include
trans* and nonbinary individuals whose lives shift along the masculinity-femininity spectrum.
R EF ERE NCE S
Acker, J. (2004). Gender, capitalism and globalization. Critical Sociology, 30(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916304
322981668
Alexander-Floyd, N. G. (2012). Disappearing acts: Reclaiming intersectionality in the social sciences in a post-black feminist
era. Feminist Formations, 24(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2012.0003
Allan, E., Iverson, S., & Ropers-Huilman, B. (2010). Reconstructing policy in higher education: Feminist poststructural perspec-
tives. Routledge.
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., Guillory, E. A., Suh, S. A., & Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). The Black academic: Faculty status
among African Americans in U.S. higher education. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 112–127. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/2696268
Amott, T. L., & Matthaei, J. E. (1991). Race, gender and work: A multicultural economic history of women in the United States (Vol.
52, pp. 738–739). South End Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700011736
Anzaldúa, G. (1999). Borderlands/la frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed.). Aunt Lute Books.
Arnold, N. W., Crawford, E. R., & Khalifa, M. (2016). Psychological heuristics and faculty of color: Racial battle fatigue and ten-
ure/promotion. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(6), 890–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.11780891
Astin, H. S., Antonio, A. A., Cress, C. M., & Astin, A. W. (1997). Race and ethnicity in the American professorate, 1995–1996.
Higher Education Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles.
Bailey, M. (2014). More on the origin of misogynoir. http://moyazb.tumblr.com/post/84048113369/more-on-the-origin-
of-misogynoir
Baptist, E. E. (2001). “Cuffy,” “fancy maids,” and “one-eyed men”: Rape, commodification, and the domestic slave trade in the
United States. The American Historical Review, 106, 1619–1650. https://doi.org/10.2307/2692741
Bell, D., & Klein, R. (1996). Beware: Radical feminists speak, read, write, organise, enjoy life, and never forget. In D. Bell &
R. Klein (Eds.), Radically speaking: Feminism reclaimed (pp. xvii–xxx). Zed Books.
Bilge, S. (2013). Intersectionality undone: Saving intersectionality from feminist intersectionality studies. Du Bois Review:
Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000283
Browne I. (Ed.). (2000). Latinos and African American women at work: Race, gender and economic inequality. Russell Sage
Foundation.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Carastathis, A. (2014). The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory. Philosophy Compass, 9(5), 304–314. https://doi.
org/10.1111/phc3.12129
Carbado, D., Crenshaw, K., Mays, V., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois
Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000349
Chamblee, M. T. (2012). On becoming allies: Opportunities and challenges in creating alliances between white women and
women of color in the academy. In K. Dace (Ed.), Unlikely allies in the academy: Women of color and white women in con-
versation (pp. 54–64). Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Where’s the power?
Signs, 22, 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/495162
Collins, P. H. (1998). The tie that binds: Race, gender and US violence. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21, 917–938.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (10th Anniversary ed.).
Routledge.
736 ALEXANDER
Craig, M. L. (2006). Race, beauty, and the tangled knot of a guilty pleasure. Feminist Theory, 7(2), 159–177. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1464700106064414
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, fem-
inist theory, and antiracist politics (Vol. 139, pp. 139–167). University of Chicago Legal Forum. https://chicagounbound.
uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law
Review, 43(6), 1241–1300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Crenshaw, K. (2015a). Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced and underprotected. African American Policy Forum. https://
www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/BlackGirlsMatter_Report.pdf
Crenshaw, K. (2015b). Why intersectionality can’t wait. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/?utm_term=.de62210acffb
Crenshaw, K., Ritchie, A. J., Anspach, R., Gilmer, R., & Harris, L. (2015). Say Her Name: Resisting police brutality against black
women. African American Policy Forum. http://aapf.org/sayhernamereport
Delphy, C. (1984). Close to home: A materialist analysis of women’s oppression.
Dumas, M. J. (2015). Contesting white accumulation: Toward a materialist anti-racist analysis of school desegregation. In
K. L. Bowman (Ed.), The pursuit of racial and ethnic equality in American public schools: Mendez, Brown, and beyond (pp.
291–313). Michigan State University.
Dumas, M. J. (2016). Against the dark: Antiblackness in education policy and discourse. Theory into Practice, 55(1), 11–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1116852
Dumas, M. J. (2018). Beginning and ending with black suffering: A meditation on and against racial justice in education. In
E. Tuck & K. W. Yang (Eds.), Toward what justice? Describing diverse dreams of justice in education (pp. 29–45). https://
ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu
Dumas, M. J., & Ross, K. M. (2016). “Be real black for me”: Imagining BlackCrit in education. Urban Education, 51(4), 415–442.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916628611
Eagan, M. K., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with faculty productivity. The Journal
of Higher Education, 86(6), 923–954. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0034
Edwards, N. N., Beverly, M. G., & Alexander-Snow, M. (2011). Troubling success: Interviews with Black female faculty. Florida
Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 5(1), 14–27. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ961223.pdf
Gabriel, D. (2017). Overcoming objectification and dehumanization in academia. In D. Gabriel & S. A. Tate (Eds.), Inside the
ivory tower: Narratives of women of colour surviving and thriving in British academia (pp. 25–38). UCL Institute of Education
Press.
Glenn, E. N. (2001). Gender, race, and the organization of reproductive labor. In R. Baldoz, C. Koeber, & P. Kraft (Eds.), The
critical study of work (pp. 71–82). Temple University Press.
Griffin, K. A., Bennett, J. C., & Harris, J. (2013). Marginalizing merit? Gender differences in black faculty discourses on ten-
ure, advancement, and professional success. The Review of Higher Education, 36, 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1353/
rhe.2013.0040
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Open University Press.
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity? The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–470.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/i23736991
Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707–1791. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341787
Harris, J. C., & Patton, L. D. (2019). Un/doing intersectionality through higher education research. The Journal of Higher Edu-
cation, 90(3), 347–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1536936
Hartmann, H. I. (1987). Internal labor markets and gender: A case study of promotion. In C. Brown & J. A. Peckman (Eds.),
Gender in the workplace (pp. 59–105). Brookings Institute.
Holvino, E. (2011). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organ-
ization, 17(3), 248–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00400.x
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory from margin to center. South End Press.
Howard-Baptiste, S. D. (2014). Artic space, lonely place: “Mammy moments” in higher education. Urban Review, 46, 764–782.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0298-1
Hurtado, A. (1989). Relating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordination of white women and women of color.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 833–855. https://doi.org/10.2307/3174686
Jackson, J. (2004). The story is not in the numbers: Academic socialization and diversifying the faculty. National Women’s
Studies Association Journal, 16(1), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/4317040
Jewell, S. (1993). From mammy to Miss American and beyond: Cultural images and the shaping of U.S. social policy. Routledge.
John, B. M. (1997). The African American female ontology: Implications for academe. In L. Benjamin (Ed.), Black women in the
academy (pp. 53–64). University of Florida Press.
Johnson, E. P. (2001). “Quare” studies, or (almost) everything I know about queer studies I learned from my grandmother. Text
and Performance Quarterly, 21(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10462930128119
ALEXANDER 737
Jones, B., Hwang, E., & Bastamante, R. M. (2015). African American female professors’ strategies for successful attainment of
tenure and promotion at predominately white institutions: It can happen. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 10(2),
133–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197915583934
Jordan, W. D. (1962). American chiaroscuro: The status and definition of mulattoes in the British colonies. William and Mary
Quarterly, 19(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/1921922
Kendall, F. (2006). Understanding white privilege: Creating pathways to authentic relationships across race. Routledge.
Kupenda, A. M. (2012). Facing down the spooks. In G. Gutiérrez y Muhs, Y. Niemann, C. González, & A. Harris (Eds.), Presumed
incompetent: The intersections of race and class for women in academia (pp. 20–28). Utah State University Press.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness and education. Routledge.
McIntosh, P. (2012). Too much history between us. In K. Dace (Ed.), Unlikely allies in the academy: Women of color and white
women in conversation (pp. 91–100). Routledge.
Méndez, X. (2016). Which black lives matter? Gender, state-sanctioned violence, and “my brother’s keeper. Radical History
Review, 126, 96–105.
Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe Online, 97(1),
22–26. https://www.aaup.org/article/ivory-ceiling-service-work#.X2CI_4spDb0
Mohanty, C. (1988). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 30, 61–88. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1395054
Patitu, C. L., & Hinton, K. G. (2003). The experiences of African American women faculty and administrators in higher educa-
tion: Has anything changed? New Directions for Student Services, 104, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.109
Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban Education,
51(3), 315–342.
Patton, L. D., & Njoku, N. R. (2019). Theorizing black women’s experiences with institution-sanctioned violence: A #Black-
LivesMatter imperative toward black liberation on campus. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(9),
1162–1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1645908
Puwar, N. (2004). Space invaders: Race, gender and bodies out of place.
Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. A. (1987). Status hierarchies and sex segregation. In C. Bose & G. Spitze (Eds.), Ingredients for women’s
employment policy (pp. 3–21). State University of New York Press.
Rosser, V. J. (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in
Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/40197294
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–
183). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Shkedi, A. (2007). Second-order theoretical analysis: A method for constructing theoretical explanation. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(5), 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839042000253630
Smith, W. A., Yosso, T. J., & Solórzano, D. G. (2006). Challenging racial battle fatigue on historically white campuses: A critical
race examination of race-related stress. In C. A. Stanley (Ed.), Faculty of color: Teaching in predominately White colleges and
universities (pp. 299–327). Anker Publishing.
Snyder, E. (2014). Indigenous feminist legal theory. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes Et Droit, 26(2),
365–401. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.26.2.07
Spivak, G. C. (1985). Three women’s texts and a critique of imperialism. Critical Inquiry, 12(1), 242–261. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1343469
Spivak, G. C. (1987). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics. Methuen.
Tillis, G. E. (2018). Antiblackness, black suffering, and the future of first-year seminars at historically black colleges and uni-
versities. The Journal of Negro Education, 87(3), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.87.3.0311
Villalpando, O., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). A critical race theory analysis of barriers that impede the success of faculty of
color. In W. A. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education: Continuing challeng-
es for the twenty-first century (pp. 243–269). State University of New York Press.
Willingham, B. C. (2018). Black women and state-sanctioned violence: A history of victimization and exclusion. Canadian
Review of American Studies, 48, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.3138/cras.2017.018
Wynter, S. (2005). On how we mistook the map for the territory, and re-imprisoned ourselves in our unbearable wrongness
of being, of Desetre. In L. Gordon & J. A. Gordon (Eds.), Not only the master’s tools: African American studies in theory and
practice (pp. 107–169). Routledge.
738 ALEXANDER
AUT HOR BI OGRAPHY
e alexander is an assistant professor at the University of Kansas. Centering womxn and queer people of Color,
and treating academia as a site and practice of neocolonial power: their scholarship focuses on college campuses
as social environments, service providers, workplaces, and presumed mechanisms for social mobility.
How to cite this article: alexander, e. (2022). Feminized anti-Blackness in the professoriate. Gender, Work &
Organization, 29(3), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12798
AP P ENDI X
TA B L E A 1 Selected anthologies for analysis
Citation Voices represented

Dace, K. L. (ed.). (2012). Unlikely Allies in the academy: Women of color and white women in Womxn of Color;
conversation. Routledge. white womxn
Gabriel, D., & Tate, S. A. (eds.). (2017). Inside the ivory tower: narratives of women of color surviving Womxn of Color
and thriving in British academia. UCL Institute of education press.
Gutiérrez, Y. M. G., Niemann, Y. F., & González, C. G. (eds.). (2012). Presumed incompetent: the Womxn of Color;
intersections of race and class for women in academia. Utah state university press. white womxn
Santamaría, L. J., Jean-Marie, G., & Grant, C. M. (eds.). (2014). Cross-cultural women scholars in Womxn of Color
academe: intergenerational voice (Ser. Routledge research in gender and society). Taylor and
Francis.
Whitaker, M., & Grollman, E. A. (eds.). (2018). Counternarratives from women of color academics: Womxn of Color
bravery, vulnerability, and resistance (Ser. Routledge research in higher education). Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group.

Gender Work Organization - 2022 - Alexander - Feminized Anti Blackness in The Professoriate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Gender Work Organization - 2022 - Alexander - Feminized Anti Blackness in The Professoriate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender Work Organization - 2022 - Alexander - Feminized Anti Blackness in The Professoriate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 22 November 2021 Accepted: 9 December 2021

Feminized anti-Blackness in the professoriate

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

1.1 | Complicating womxnhood and clarifying “intersectionality”

1.2 | Misogynoir in the academy: A call for analysis

2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 | Conceptual frameworks

TA B L E 1 Black Critical Race Theory concepts and adaptation

Concept Adaptation for study

2.2 | Research methods

3.1 | Content analysis framework one: Applying BlackCrit

3.2 | Content analysis framework two: The mammy trope

3.3 | Bringing the frameworks together

4 | DISCUSSION THROUGH ANALYSIS

4.1 | Theory: Responding to the literature

4.2 | Answering the study questions

5.1 | Feminizing the study of organizational power

5.2 | Complicating narratives of discrimination

5.3 | Implications for praxis

DATA AVAI LABI LI TY STATE M E N T

AUT HOR BI OGRAPHY

Citation Voices represented

You might also like