The 5 R’s of the Architecture of Inclusion

Structural inequality has captured the attention of academics, policymakers, and activists. This structural reorientation is occurring at a time of judicial retrenchment and political backlash against affirmative action. These developments have placed in sharp relief the mismatch between structural diagnoses and the dominant legal frameworks for addressing inequality. Scholars, policymakers, and activists are faced with the pressing question of what to do now. They share a need for new frameworks and strategies, growing out of a better understanding of institutional and cultural change.

The 5 R's are a rubric for developing the Architecture of Inclusion and sustaining efforts to address structural inequality:

1. Realization of full institutional citizenship. “Institutional citizenship” offers a frame for integrating anti-discrimination goals into a broader, affirmative vision of inclusive institutions.  It is about creating the conditions enabling people of all races and genders to realize their capabilities as they understand them and participate fully in the life of the institution.  This goal requires a critical assessment of the barriers to full participation at the various institutional locations that shape inclusion and advancement. 
  
2. Responsibility. Universities bear the responsibility for advancing institutional citizenship, both in determining its membership and in defining its research and teaching agenda.  Responsibility requires tangible commitments to enabling the participation of underserved communities, especially in tough economic times, and being held accountable for outcomes relating to their access and success.
3. Relationships.  Opportunity networks, partnerships, and collaborations are crucial strategies for enabling institutional citizenship.  These relationships must be designed to be mutual so that they create opportunity cascades, connect diversity to solving complex problems, and leverage resources among individuals, groups, and institutions.
4. Roles. Institutional change requires transformational leadership that operates at key locations where formative decisions occur, is diffused throughout an institution, and is continually regenerated.  “Organizational catalysts” have emerged as a pivotal role in enabling institutional transformation.  These are people with social capital and legitimacy, who bring information and activism to the points where they can influence practice.  They are situated at the nodal points of multiple networks, systems and levels. They develop and use information and networks to mobilize power and change. 
5. Reflection.

    Systemic change requires ongoing analysis and reflection to define what an inclusive institutional looks like, and to identify the underlying patterns or causes of under-participation, and the possible leverage points and strategies for mobilizing change.  It also includes identifying indicators of transformation and change, to monitor progress and create accountability for taking action.