Purpose: Legislators continue to label Critical Race Theory (CRT) and other race-based concepts as divisive. Nevertheless, CRT, at its core, is committed to radical transformation and addressing issues of race and racism to understand how People of Color are oppressed. Through rhetoric and legislative bans, this current anti-CRT movement uses race-neutral policies and practices to limit and eliminate CRT scholars, especially faculty members, from teaching and researching critical pedagogies and other race-based topics.Design/methodology/approach: Through semi-structured interviews using Critical Race Methodology (CRM), the authors sought to understand how 40 faculty members challenged the dominant narratives presented by administrators through their responses to CRT bans. Additionally, this work aimed to examine how administrators’ responses complicate how faculty make sense of CRT bans.Findings: Findings describe three major themes: (1) how administrators failed to respond to CRT bans, which to faculty indicated their desire to present a neutral stance as the middle ground between faculty and legislators; (2) the type of rhetoric administrators engaged in exemplified authoritarian approaches that upheld status quo narratives about diversity, exposing their inability to stand against oppressive dominant narratives; and (3) institutional leaders’ refusal to address the true threats that faculty members faced reinforced the racialized harm that individuals engaging in CRT work must navigate individually.Originality/value: This study is one of the few that provide empirical data on this current anti-CRT movement, including problematizing the CRT bans, and how it affects campus constituents such as faculty members.

The anti-critical race theory movement has caused educators strife and fear nationally. In these current socio-political times, faculty are navigating unprecedented experiences of racism as they teach and research critical race theory. Through our work, we examined 40 faculty experiences challenging legislation at a national, state, and institutional level. We present recommendations for practice and policy that resist the surveillance experienced during this socio-political backlash.

Community College Men of Color Initiatives (CCMCIs) are increasingly popular strategies utilized to promote retention and completion among Men of Color (MOC). CCMCI directors offer a unique positionality in understanding how their identities, institutional contexts, and power dynamics affect their design of programs and participating students. Using a critical phenomenological approach, the authors of this study explore the lived experiences of CCMCI directors in conceptualizing, implementing, and assessing these initiatives.

Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) increasingly provide educational opportunities for underrepresented groups such as Latinx students; however, their categorization as minority-serving institutions is a function of their enrollment data rather than an explicit commitment to serving specific cultural needs. The authors of this study add to the literature on HSIs by further recognizing the need for community colleges to delve further into the different experiences of Latino males based on the intersection of race and gender. This study as part of the Texas Education Consortium for Male Students of Color explored how HSI community college might express a commitment to serving Latino males through the design and implementation of programming. The authors utilized a framework including concepts of HSI organizational identity, norms of racism in higher education, and gendered racism to conceptualize a Latino male-serving organizational identity. Findings revealed that colleges should go beyond Latino male outcomes to create a culture of commitment embedded throughout the college and not just isolated to men of color programming. This research has implications for the significant role that HSI community colleges can take in becoming leaders in serving Latino males through a purposeful and intentional commitment.