Student Success Podcast: For Higher Ed Professionals

Inclusive Leadership with Dr. Bernardo Ferdman

• Al Solano • Episode 39

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:06:07

Learn the complex paradoxes of inclusion and discover strategies to navigate and address them effectively.

Continuous Learning Institute:
A resource hub for higher education professionals to support college student success. Subscribe for updates.

Student Success Podcast Homepage:
Access show notes, resources, & transcripts

AS

Welcome to the Student Success Podcast. I'm Al Solano, founder of the Continuous Learning Institute, or CLI, a higher education online resource focused on providing community, college and open access university educators with practical information on how to get results at their campus. As a resource within CLI, the Student Success Podcast is focused on just that the challenges, opportunities, failures and successes of practices intended to improve student success and equity. The goal is to leave you with thought-provoking ideas, nuts and bolts, information and or lessons learned from the field so you can consider how you might apply them to your institutional context. For today's podcast, it's a pleasure to have Bernardo Ferdinand. Bernardo has focused his career on supporting leaders and organizations and bringing inclusion to life. He's an internationally recognized expert and thought leader on inclusion, diversity and inclusive leadership, with over 39 years of experience in the US and around the world as an organization and leadership development consultant and executive coach. He is passionate about creating a more inclusive world where more people can be fully themselves and accomplish goals effectively, productively and authentically, and he works with leaders and employees to develop and implement effective ways of using everyone's talents and contributions and to build an inclusive behavior and multicultural competencies. He's principal at Ferdinand Consulting and he is a distinguished professor emeritus at the California School of Professional Psychology, where he taught for almost 25 years. Ronaldo has written extensively on inclusion and inclusive leadership and his most recent book is Inclusive Leadership Transforming Diverse Lives, workplaces and Societies.

AS

Welcome to the Student Success Podcast. Thank you. It's great to be here with you, al. Yes, thank you. So I'd like to start all podcast episodes asking guests if they wouldn't mind sharing something beyond work, something personal, a story, a hobby, a talent. Would you share something please?

Bernardo Ferdman

Sure, I could tell you a little bit about my background. I came to the United States from Argentina as a seven-year-old, so I like to joke that that's where I learned the Queens English. In Queens, new York. That's where I learned what it was to be a Latino. So I've been in all kinds of minorities. I'm Jewish, so in Queens, new York, you know that's where I learned what it was to be a Latino. So you know I've been in all kinds of minorities. I'm Jewish. So in Argentina we're in the minority, and then in New York, minority in two ways in the Jewish community and outside. Also, you know that experience of adapting to the country and to learning English and different customs has certainly affected my whole perspective and my approach to my work and even what I'm interested in.

Bernardo Ferdman

Later, when I was 11, we moved to Puerto Rico. More adaptation. You know a different kind of Spanish. I like to joke, I'm bilingual in two kinds of Spanish. You know, in Puerto Rico is where I learned to dance salsa and merengue at bar mitzvahs, um, and so people like that, uh joke, because I mean it's true, but it kind of um made me always aware of the, the diversity within groups as well as between groups and so that's really a theme in my work is is really to think about both.

Bernardo Ferdman

Anyway, what I've learned and later, you know, moving to a college, I went to princeton university.

Bernardo Ferdman

Sight unseen from puerto rico, from the island. I couldn't wait to get off the island and broaden my experiences. But you know, it was a different kind of adaptation to that kind of you know what I learned over time, after a lot of years of trying to assimilate and adapt and manage dealing with the differences, which is a good learning experience. But I learned that I could do better by just being myself, you know, by really trying to ground myself in what made me me think about my experiences and my perspectives and think about how to add them to the mix of whatever group or situation I'm in. But that's always the challenge, right Is how to balance both that adaptation that we must do, but also the ability to really think about who we are and what our strengths are. And when I think about education, you know what's it about, right, it's really to try to bring out the best in people but also support them in really doing their best in a society, in a community, in a context.

AS

Salsa and merengue in Bart Mitzvahs. That's such a beautiful sight.

Bernardo Ferdman

When I got married, I didn't think it was going to be a Jewish wedding if we didn't have salsa and merengue.

AS

Yeah. So we have a little bit of a shared experience, because I learned English also the Queen's English in New York City right, right Back in the 70s and 80s, which is a very interesting time to live there. Unfortunately, in society there tends to be a stigma toward community colleges that they are less than, or that they're not really college, or that that's the easy route for people who couldn't get into these elite universities, and nothing can be further from the truth. These are really precious institutions that open their arms to students from everywhere. It's open access, no matter what your background, disability, income, right. We're going to open our arms Now because they do that.

AS

It does make their mission, I think, extremely difficult, because they always have to up their game. They have to think about how can we continually improve our craft, how can we continually improve our services? Because we are serving the most vulnerable student populations out there in higher ed, and so the Student Success Podcast is to help all of those who work in community colleges and broad access institutions, to leave them with some nuts and bolts, information, tools, resources that could be about the campus, how to improve it or how to reflect on their leadership. To, you know, continually improve, right. So one of the things gosh many of the things I appreciate about your work I wanted to highlight you wrote a piece in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science on this paradox and I was wondering if you could break that down for us, what that is, and then later on we'll talk more about application, but for now can you kind of take us through that piece you wrote.

Context for inclusion

Introduction to paradoxes of inclusion

Bernardo Ferdman

Sure, I mean, the article is about what I call the paradoxes of inclusion, the kind of both ends that are an inherent part of inclusion. But I want to comment on a couple of things you said, if that's okay, about community colleges, just to put it in context in terms of my connection to it. I have so much respect for what community colleges do, but I understand some of the biases that are out there. I think I could have shared them at one point. There's a challenge because we boost up these elite institutions right as if somehow they're the definer of everything. And through my experience over time I came to sort of question that you know, at Albany University of Albany, you know they had more access than, let's say, some of the Ivy League schools, the Ivy League schools. And then later I had the opportunity to work with some community colleges, particularly through the Santa Ana Partnership in Santa Ana, california, when they were funded by the Lumina Foundation as part of the Latino Student Success Initiative, and that exposure, that experience really gave me a huge amount of respect. Also, my sister teaches at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, you know, for many years. So I can't say I have an intimate knowledge of all the details, but through the years in high school, all the biases that you talked about were there, right, but for a lot of kids it's you know. I mean, I'm in California where community colleges are huge and really, really important and really are doing a great job, and so there's so many challenges there. So the paradoxes of inclusion, I think, might help to think about some of these. I haven't thought about it as much in terms of inclusion in education specifically. It's really thinking about inclusion in the sense of how do we create spaces where everyone, across identities, can feel valued, safe, able to be ourselves, able to speak up and contribute, able to feel that we are an inherent part of the group without having to compromise or hide or subsume valued identities. And is that true not just for me, but is it true for other people like me? So I may be fine, I may be doing okay personally, but if other Latinos, other Jews, other people of my identities are not feeling that, I don't think I can say I have as much experience of inclusion as if other people in my group have that experience as well. So that's just a basis for where I'm coming from, for what inclusion is. Of course, equity is part of it as well. I think equity and social justice are fundamental parts of fostering inclusion, and, of course, it has to be in the context of diversity. Inclusion without diversity is not very meaningful, right? But it does give us a sense of what inclusion might be. And then how do we spread it to people across differences? Okay, so that's the context. Is that clear enough? Yes, thank you.

Bernardo Ferdman

When I think about the dynamics of inclusion and the experience of what's going on with it and how it's defined, I see a lot of tensions and the experience of how do we, what's going on with it and how it's defined. I see a lot of tensions in the country. People are pulling in different directions. It's especially evident now, but I think it's been evident over time in universities. Should we allow people to say whatever they want or should we channel that? You know trigger warnings. You know what do we do. Is that okay or not? You know how do we create access for people with particular disabilities? Right, if you have visual, auditory, neurodiversity, how do we address that? Do we, you know, does majority rule, or do we make it about the one person that needs a particular accommodation or a different need? It is a lot of tensions involved in fairness.

Bernardo Ferdman

So many years ago I thought about the tensions in fairness and so then I applied that lens to thinking about inclusion. So in that context, what's a paradox? A paradox is when you have a situation, a person or thing that combines contradictory elements or qualities. So think about yin and yang. Right, the idea is that yin and yang is an inherent part of every person, these opposing masculine and feminine poles or styles or perspectives. Right, that idea is how paradox works. And part of the dynamics of paradoxes are that when something is paradoxical, if you pull in one direction, if a particular side of that is highlighted, the other side will sort of take on strength as well, and then that can create some polarization. It can pull in opposite directions more easily.

AS

Make sense, yeah, and maybe could you provide an example of that let's go back to the idea of fairness, right?

Bernardo Ferdman

let's go back to the idea of fairness, right? And the paradox of fairness with regard to whether we pay attention to people as individuals or people as members of groups, right? So we want to create equity in education, or in organizations or in society. What are we looking at? How do we do we treat each person solely as an individual or do we treat them as a member of a group? The challenge is that both are a true part of what people need and experience. So I had this is way back in the 80s.

Bernardo Ferdman

I was working on my dissertation and interviewing Latino leaders in an organization, or Hispanics as they referred to themselves there. At the time, there was the leader of the Hispanic managers group in the organization and he was very involved. Obviously, he was trying to promote a Hispanic voice and the presence and the role. But when he was chosen to be in a photo a promotional photo for the company he thought it was based on his individual achievements and when he thought about it later, he said oh wow, I was chosen because I'm Hispanic. He was really disappointed. So there's kind of an irony there, because on the one hand, he's fighting for Hispanics. On the other hand, he didn't like that. That identity was what he felt was the primary basis for being chosen to be in the photo. So it's almost like he split off the two things.

Bernardo Ferdman

So part of the challenge was how do you hold both of those together? I can understand the disappointment if that's the only reason he was picked right, because he has so much more about him that is important His achievements, his approach to work, all these things but he's the same person who told me that I don't feel the same at work than outside. I can't talk to people about the things that matter to me. So his experience of being Hispanic was really important to him and it mattered in his experience. So a paradoxical frame helps us see this inherent tension in these things and helps us think about well, how are we going to manage it? We can't manage it by choosing one or the other side. Both of those were important to him, even though they felt like they were intentional the individual frame or perspective and the group perspective. He wanted to be treated as an individual, which he deserved, and he wanted his group identity to be noticed, addressed and honored.

AS

Yeah, no, that is a very interesting dynamic. Please continue.

Bernardo Ferdman

Yeah, sure. So let me explain the paradoxes I identified. There's three of them that I discuss in that article you mentioned. I'll name them quickly and then we can go through each one.

Bernardo Ferdman

So there's a paradox of self-expression and identity, which has to do with who am I, how much and what ways can I express that in a group or organization or community setting? Do I need to change somehow to belong and be part of the group, or do I need to stay the same and let it just be me, without changing, for that to be an inclusive experience? The second paradox is about boundaries and norms. What holds us together? What def our container? Who defines it? How flexible or rigid are our norms and our bonds to each other? And so inclusion could be thought about in terms of stable and well-defined boundaries and norms, not changing, or in terms of shifting and open norms that are changed to adapt to new people, or changes in the people or the membership, and so that's another tension or paradox of inclusion.

Bernardo Ferdman

The third one is about safety and comfort. It's about how much freedom or action and what range of expression do we have. How much? What demands can we make of each other? What responsibilities do we have towards each other. How can we be safe as we interact with each other? And so is inclusion about more individual and collective comfort, or is it about expanding our comfort zones and our options and responses? And so those seem to be an inherent tension, even though they're two sides of the same inclusion coin. Would you like to? Shall we delve in to each one in more detail?

AS

Yeah, let's delve in a little bit and then we'll talk more. I'm already. My wheels are turning and, within the context of what I see at these institutions and the leadership challenges that they have, the dynamics policies so much. These institutions are such dynamic places and at the same time, they're also inherently here's a paradox for you they're very dynamic, fluid places, but inherently very institutionally conservative. So how does that play out? A lot of my work is helping campuses to continually improve and to be very productive in their teamwork, having solid outcomes that they're looking at and moving forward with.

AS

I use a lot of project management tools. We want to move forward, we want to change, we want to continually improve the student experience and we want to be more intentional about the equity piece. At the same time, the system is set up almost to fail. There's what I have what I call my three-month rule, bernardo, which states that the typical campus only has really three months in a year to get major priority work done, especially because we need faculty. So summer forget about it. Everybody's gone. All September, start of the semester is too busy. October maybe October is okay, but that tends to be a month with a lot of conferences. November, december, holidays, forget about it and you know meetings get canceled all the time and people are out. Yeah, they're too busy. January we're gone again. February that tends to be all right. Uh, some depending on the campus, but it's kind of started this new semester so it's so busy yeah.

Bernardo Ferdman

So there's a certain rhythm, there's a certain uh routine that people um, follow and depend on and, uh, and there's certain dynamics and forces that make it hard to change, and sometimes for good reason, right, because we know that faculty can. Often, you know, there's a lot of contingent faculty and staff. There's a lot, I mean, it's a real thankless job in many cases, right, without enough power. At the same time, faculty have a lot to say. They really care about education and what's happening, right, but the system, but there's again, I'm not the world's expert on this, but there's a certain untenable aspect of the whole the way the system is set up.

Bernardo Ferdman

There's the challenges of getting funding. There's the demands from external forces, right, particularly around these issues around. Are we really going to include everyone, truly? There's all the backlash against college degrees and all of that, right, in a good way. We really want opportunity for everyone, right?

Bernardo Ferdman

So community causes on the one hand, from what I see here, from my vantage point here, on the one hand they want to offer four-year degrees here in California, some of them and on the other hand, they want to do much more vocational stuff, things that are, you know, short term, that get people right into the workforce they have to partner with, with um workplaces right, and businesses and so on. On the other hand, they're supposedly designed to create social change. So how do you create social change if you're sitting with the, the organizations that are keeping things the same, keeping the hierarchies, keeping certain people in their place? You know giving them. You know maybe they're decent jobs but they're certainly not going to get rich on. You know labor type jobs. You know the people who come out of these programs. Right, hopefully they could have a nice lifestyle.

Bernardo Ferdman

But you know this supposed American dream. You know the whole Horatio Alger story. It supposed American dream. You know the whole Horatio Alger story. It doesn't quite work that way. Right, social classes are stronger in the US, based on data I've heard about than in many other countries. The other interesting thing about education is that we say it's the key to opportunity right. But another lens on education says that, to the extent that it reproduces the social class structure, it's doing its job.

AS

Yeah, there's that argument, and to go back for a moment about that paradox is so not only is it very difficult to get things done, but then it only takes a few, a few, who don't want change to ensure that it doesn't happen. They can sit in the right committees, slow things down, it only, yeah. So it could be very difficult, and then the whole committee structure is inherently dysfunctional. Back to your paradoxes, then. If you can dig a little deeper into each, because I think where I want to go with this is because you work with organizations and I want you to kind of put yourself in the mindset of like, okay, let's say you're, you're, uh, working with a group of community college or broad access institution leaders, and by leaders.

Paradox in higher education

AS

I mean, and this is the thing, I think this is the beauty of these institutions, that you don't always necessarily need a title to have influence. So, whether it's a cross-functional team that's looking at, we really got to. They have a particular outcome in mind for students. Let's say it's to close equity gaps. Let's say, federally designated Hispanic serving institution, and we see a 20, 30 point gap between certain group of students and Latinos, and we got to do something about that completion gap, for example. Right so, but there are some cultural dynamics, there's some like the paradoxes that you started to talk about, like how did they begin to use your framework to kind of navigate right these very difficult changes that they're trying to implement?

Bernardo Ferdman

Well, thanks for the examples. Maybe you could help me. Maybe together we can think about some of the applications implications. But those are some good examples, you know. For example, thinking about the inclusion of Latinos in community college spaces and serving them better. That's something I did have experience with, worked on some of those issues. I also did some consulting with the National College Attainment Network on their own DEI initiatives.

Bernardo Ferdman

Anyway, the first paradox of self-expression identity. You can look at inclusion in two different ways. On the one hand, inclusion means that we can all belong and be the same right, have the same degree of membership and value, right, If you're a college student, whatever your identity is, so we all share that identity, for example. So that's a kind of inclusion. We want the same rights, we all want to be able to be a representative of the organization. So that's one way in which inclusion is about being I don't mean the same, identical, but I mean being similar. In that sense, right. But on the other hand, inclusion is grounded in distinctiveness and uniqueness, not just in belonging and absorption. Inclusion means we can all belong and be different. That's another way to think about inclusion. Then those two things kind of oppose each other, right? How does that play out? Right, there's manifestations of the paradox, and people emphasize one or the other side. So on the one hand, some people might think something like, or say to each other if I can just learn the rules for success, I'll be fully accepted, right. So then you have, in the examples you gave, you might have you know the, the, the EOP program or programs that help people adapt to college and learn the rules. Or you know the English remediation classes or math remediation classes, right, and some of those things make sense. You need to know how to do writing, how to do math to succeed in certain courses, right. So that's the part around really helping people adapt. But other people might say the opposite, like, if I want to be fully authentic to who I am, so I'm not going to ever do things their way, right. And then you have extremes of that that say that in my view, that trying to write grammatically is white supremacy. Right, to me that's an extreme position. I don't. I would argue that you can use a position of grammar rules as a form of white supremacy, but writing grammatically by itself is not inherently supremacist in my view, okay. But so it's a both end right again. So I think when you get to the extremes that you know, you see the how this paradox manifests. Right, because one side triggers the other side. When you're still polarizing, it's not helpful.

Bernardo Ferdman

So, for example, people talk about why are they asking for special rules or special treatments? We should treat everybody the way we want to be treated. Right, we know how it works. Let's just do it that way. Why are we going to have special programs for these groups? That's not fair. Just do it that way. Why are we going to have special programs for these groups? That's not fair. But that's not acknowledging the history and the reasons for the disparities.

Bernardo Ferdman

And then other people might say if you become like us, you're going to lose your distinctive as special ed. We don't want women who act like men, or Latinos who are just like Anglos. Right, and that can come from anyone. Oh, you should maintain the difference. So a student or a person or an employee who wants to be whoever they are, maybe a person from a Latino background who doesn't speak Spanish, are we going to look down on them or assume that they're not Latino enough? That's not fair or appropriate either. Right, and that's not inclusion.

Bernardo Ferdman

So how do we honor the range of ways in which people manifest and think about their own identities and cultures. And someone says don't be a vendido, don't be a sellout. Be true to who you are, to your people. So is going to college a sellout? No, I don't think so. So that's the manifestation, right? And then you know, why do we need you know? On the one hand, why should we treat different groups differently? On the other hand, without unique programs or opportunities for different groups, nothing's going to change. So, anyway, those are the manifestations. So then the challenge is how do you manage that? Do you want to get into how you address the particular paradoxes?

AS

Yes, that would be great. Yeah, I'll chime in a little bit because I have a couple examples, but please, please, go ahead.

Bernardo Ferdman

Sure. So yeah, because it's one thing to think about it. The other thing is what do we do about it? Right, but I think the first step is to be aware of this tension. Right, when we see ourselves or our groups highlighting one particular position and moving in that direction, it's important to think about, well, what would the opposite side be, and is that reasonable? Also, and under what conditions is that true? So the first step is to avoid polarizing between the two sides.

Bernardo Ferdman

So, for example, understanding that identity with the collective can allow for distinctiveness and affirming uniqueness can strengthen a sense of authentic belonging. In other words, I can. So, for example, using the examples we gave, if you affirm people's Latino identity in the context of college, they would be stronger, more strongly connected to the larger college community, and there's evidence, there's research that suggests that that's the case. When we allow for and foster subgroup identity, it actually enhances the connection to the whole identity. It actually enhances the connection to the whole. You can think about it in terms of people's connection to their particular major or department, right For faculty or for students or staff. I belong to this department. It doesn't mean that I don't belong to the larger college. Of course I do. In fact, my connection to the college is stronger because I have a strong identity in that unit. Well, I think it's the same for other kinds of identities and there's evidence to support that, and so that's one way to think about is to avoid polarization and recognizing that quote-unquote special interests and affinity groups serve the whole by strengthening the parts.

Bernardo Ferdman

So the other part is to understand that we're all joined together in our difference and uniqueness. It's not that everyone is different and unique and that's what makes us similar and connected, and so really owning that difference as part of our connection to me and equalizing it right, not saying that you know, when people use the word diverse to you know, diverse person I really have a visceral reaction because there's no such thing as a diverse person. Diversity is a quality of the group and we can all contribute to it, and so diverse person is a euphemism for people who have been marginalized or different than the dominant group. So we really have to think about our assumptions when we use certain terms, really have to think about our assumptions when we use certain terms and when we think about collective identity, like the history of a school or a department or a particular organization. We want multifaceted accounts of that collective identity that apply to everyone, but also recognizing and addressing specific histories, needs, aspirations. How do we not make it all bland that there's no identity at all, but how do we make sure that it resonates and connects to all the different threads that make the tapestry of the particular group or institution? And finally, I think we have to understand, to accept, to embrace intergroup processes and perspectives. We are not just individuals interacting. We have particular group identities and our interactions are part of the larger relationships between groups and we have to understand that, even while we emphasize individuality.

Bernardo Ferdman

So earlier we talked about my own experience as an immigrant, as a Latino, as a Jew, but those things combine in a particular way. I'm also a man, I'm married, I'm cisgender, I'm heterosexual, I'm now considered a senior citizen. It's a whole identity as well as a life transition. But I'm level in the sense that each of those threads connects to larger inner group processes and dynamics and I have to be aware of that. When I interact with someone, they're seeing a man with a particular size, with a particular color, with a particular way of speaking, and so they're not just interacting with Bernardo, you know. They're interacting with all those identities and I'm interacting with theirs. So, if I'm in a, in a, in a in, you know, I meet a student at a school, you know, and they see a professor, you know. If I'm a professor and you know, I want to just deal with me as an individual, well, we still have our roles and our ways of being, so we really have to hold both of those, and that's part of the way of dealing with this paradox.

AS

There is so much there. Yeah, we only did one of the paradoxes.

First paradox and addressing triggering terminology

AS

There is so much there. So I'm a very practical person. I consider myself a coach with colleges. I help them through productive struggle, but I'm so practical in getting results. I want to see improved outcomes for students, especially for those who are most vulnerable. And when there's equity gaps, I really not have a lot of success in actually closing. And because I'm practical and because what I like to say in my work is that there are, we use equity because in higher meaning that, especially when it comes to racial equity, that they're like you know, I don't know, I'm kind of against the fence really need to do it this way, really help these marginalized, when we should be helping all.

AS

And then you have your green lighters right, these people, they embrace it, they try to do equity intentionality. And then you have your red right. And a lot of my work is turning those yellow lighters to green. And it's not through lecture, it's not through insulting them, but I actually through the work, I help them think about why it's important to be more intentional about the equity piece.

AS

Sometimes I move the red to green, not a lot, but what's happened in the last few years is that I've seen some yellow lighters stay at yellow or actually move to red, because terms like white supremacy, I think, have become and colonialism have become kind of abused and watered down. I'll give you an example. I've seen this a few times and I'm like, oh wow, so complaining that to come to a meeting on time and to have a structured agenda is colonialism, right? So at what point is someone using colonialism or white supremacy for something that they personally don't like, right, right? And so what happens over time? Is it? It? It really? And don't get me started on some of the consultants they bring over from uh, and, and how they just yeah, insult, without even providing any kind of tools and resources to you know, improve themselves.

AS

they just throw these words and, um, people are supposed to turn from yellow to green by being called names and not given tools to change. So I wanted to highlight that a little bit because you had mentioned that as well, and that could be a wrench in the work, right, when we have this paradox, when people are abusing a particular terminology. Have you seen that outside of education particular terminology.

Bernardo Ferdman

Have you seen that outside of education, I think? Look, I think there's people who are great at doing certain things and some who are more challenged in every field, right, I mean, I think there's going to be a range and how that gets perceived and experienced is going to be different for different people. I think there's a. In my view, there's a real history of racism and racial oppression in the United States and, to some degree, around the world, noticing, addressing it. We have to find ways to do that. The enslavement of people and the aftermath of that, the continued exclusion of people of African descent and others, people of color in the US. So there's a lot of data about that, right, that doesn't always apply in every individual case, right, but there's a certain group reality. Now, if somebody is using certain terms on me in a way that I don't find helpful, like you know, because I wanted to have an agenda or beyond, you know, have the meeting at the time that we scheduled and blamed, you know, tells me I'm being colonialist and I'm a. You know that's challenging, but understanding where that's coming from and the motivation and the feelings involved to me, that's part. But understanding where that's coming from and the motivation and the feelings involved. To me, that's part of creating a space for inclusion and dialogue. Right, we have to be able to hear each other, otherwise we just move into extremism. If I just shut that person down, I'm just doing to them some of the very same.

Bernardo Ferdman

Whatever you want to call those dynamics, right, I don't believe in shaming and blaming and creating inclusion and trying to foster conversations and fostering equity. I think we have to find some mutual benefit. Also, right, equity is not about taking from, you know, just simply redistributing. Right, it's something that's going to help everyone. The lack of equity hurts even the beneficiaries. In fact, psychologically, people are motivated to create equity. Right, we do it sometimes in some cognitive ways. Right, we rationalize why we deserve more than others, but most people are not saying that everybody should be paid exactly the same.

Bernardo Ferdman

They think even in a workplace in the United States, most people are probably okay with different salaries for different kinds of jobs. So the question is how does that work? How do you allow for inequality? That's fair. Inequality is treating everybody exactly the same, but if you have a college degree or if you have certain skills, you figure. Well, you should let people do certain jobs compared to the people that don't have the skill. So we have to break it down and have those conversations.

Bernardo Ferdman

And if we just get into this, back and forth about this is right, this is wrong, and we don't try to have a conversation, I don't think it's going to work. So I get your discomfort. But if you just completely exclude someone, because I want to know what's at the root of it, is that issue of time being used to continue to oppress people? Right, because we know that there's certain associations people have about cultures and people that are related to things like that. So I think we have to soften our approach and also and I think on every side right. In other words, I agree with you that using certain terms can be a bludgeon, right, it can really be a way to shut down conversation and learn it. But understanding where it comes from and understanding that there really was a certain dominance of some cultures over others historically and currently, that's something to think about and unpack right, and then we can talk about. Where does it manifest? How does it play out in our lives? I may not have the intentions of imposing certain things on people, but I do.

Bernardo Ferdman

I was a psychology professor, but I felt like an English professor sometimes and I can't tell you what a burden was lifted for me when I finally stopped trying to correct pronoun usage in papers, in student papers, when they would use they as a plural pronoun, as a singular pronoun, and I constantly would be fixing it and I get. Not only did I give up, I realized I was wrong, you know, also, I was always trying to correct everyone's spelling and I would use it as a as a, you know, indicator of other things when somebody was misspelling or making mistakes. And then I read Gabriel Garcia Marquez's autobiography and he said that you know, the Nobel prize winner from Columbia, and I loved his books, you know, always and and he said that he couldn't have survived without a copy editor because he couldn't spell at all. He was terrible Speller, I guess I don't know if he was dyslexic or what, but he couldn't spell. And he's an amazing journalist, amazing writer, brilliant, incredible mind writing. I always admired it and loved it.

Bernardo Ferdman

It also helped me realize wait, why have I been so? I've been biased. I have to really think differently, you know, and it's hard for me, I have to admit. But it helped me realize my own participation in framing, you know, interpreting certain things that people did in a broader way than was justified, connects to group things like neurodiversity or dyslexia, or even just the opportunities people have, right. So you know, somebody writes gonna instead of going to does their idea get invalidated? And so that's something I had to work on. If I were to teach in a community college I'm sure I'd have to, you know, deal with my princeton and other you know, cool kind of inspired kinds of wiring I wish people would have those conversations that you're talking about, because but here's the thing but I don't know the, the people who receive that perpetuating colonialism.

AS

They don't ask because they know better. They know that if they ask, it's just to go down a rabbit hole of potentially even more lecture and shaming, right? So what I've seen, because I've worked with so many colleges, right, and so many teams, is that when they are told that and the agenda is about equity, by the way, it's not about suppression, it's not about keeping the right. The agenda is actually about how we're going to improve and we want to start on time, right? So the content of it isn't the issue. It's just the fact that we're coming on time and that there's an agenda, right. And so what happens is that these people who say that you know you're just a colonial, then what happens is that they shut down One. You know you're just a colonial, then what happens is that they shut down.

The second paradox, boundaries and norms

Bernardo Ferdman

One of the questions is do we frame these as positive conversations about how can we do better and what does better look like, depending on where we stand and what our experience is? And so we could critique that particular person, but we could also think about who is deciding what the approach is going to be, and are we willing to have a more difficult in a sense, um, but ultimately better approach that's more strategic? That's not just about checking the box or training or saying we had this thing, you know, do we think about, do do we create an inclusive process for fostering inclusion and equity? Right, I believe that we have to create it here and now, that we have to be experiencing as part of the process, in other words, just doing a one lecture that says this is the truth and that's it and there's no dialogue. To me, that's not inclusion. So, aside from what the teacher is saying, we need a framework, a model, a perspective on what inclusion is. Now. Do we have to consider historical intergroup relations and patterns? Probably, but at what point in the process do we use that to make people feel bad or like they have nothing to say? I don't think that's. Personally, that's not what I do and what I think works. I don't think that's personally. That's not what I do and what I think works. But maybe that's getting us into the next paradox.

Bernardo Ferdman

If you want Boundaries and norms, right it's about. On the one hand, inclusion means that we need stable and well-defined norms. Right, it's only possible to have inclusion when we have boundaries, norms that are clear Processes for regulating entry and interaction. For example, how do we talk to each other? Right, we don't want all hell to break loose. We want to have ways to everybody's voice, to be there. We want to have some norms and values. So, in universities or organizations where you have values of inclusion, you also have ways to regulate speech. Not to regulate it in a bad way, but to say you know, we want to have free speech right, but we also don't want to hurt each other, right. If the speech results in people feeling like they're less than or don't belong, or stereotyped or harassed, we want to do something about that, right, and I know there's debates about where that line is. But the point is we need some kind of um regulation of some sort. Right? If teachers bully students, obviously that's not okay, right? So we need some norms. Right, we need some we need to know, like okay, you shouldn't misgender your students, for example, if you want to be trans inclusive in an order in a school or organization. So those are just some examples of why it's necessary we need it.

Bernardo Ferdman

Also for inclusion, you need to define a safe container. What is it that you're including people into? If it's like totally fuzzy and we don't know what the space, organization or unit is, what does inclusion even mean? And also, we should have norms of inclusion that are consistent and passed on, that help us understand what is like when you think about civil society, right? I mean, I think about the US constitution, I think about laws and regulations, right? Otherwise, there's anarchy and I'm not sure that's a way to have inclusion under anarchy. So that's one side, but the other side says, okay, inclusion.

Bernardo Ferdman

For inclusion, we need to have boundaries and norms that are shifting and open. We can only have inclusion when we re-examine and co-construct our norms and boundaries in light of who the current members are and what the current conditions are and who our prospective members are. We also need a permeable, flexible container for inclusion. We need to be able to add other people, to create more difference and notice the difference, and we need to change the norms of inclusion as members and needs change. So back to this example we were using, which I don't know how far I can go, but this idea of timeliness, for example.

Bernardo Ferdman

What does that mean? What flexibility do we have for different people? I mean, I think about the rules around handing a paper in on time. Well, what kind of flexibility is there? Right, if you have students that are going through food insecurity or sleeping in their car or have other home challenges? Right? Or taking care of their parents who don't speak English, or something like that, and helping them navigate the social, you know, whatever. Can I be flexible as a professor or as an institution? You know, probably I should be if I want to be more equitable and more inclusive, right? On the other hand, if you just say whatever, whatever, is that really the kind of institution or situation you want to have? Probably not. So how do you negotiate that, together with the voice from the people who are affected, right?

Bernardo Ferdman

So that's, I think, moving in the direction of thinking about how you manage the paradox. It's a both-and, so you have to both recognize and own it, right? We have internal ambivalence about boundaries and norms, even individually, right? On the one hand, we need that structure and that predictability, on the other hand, many of us might chafe at certain restrictions. So back to your example about complaining about timeliness and so on on and agendas. Then the question is probably an underlying question, like who defines the agenda? Right, it's not. Maybe that's a way to to protest against the idea that, um, we can say, you know, when people say in a conversation, well, for the sake of time, let's move on. What are we suppressing, right? So I'm trying to see the, the, you know, the commitment, the need that's underneath this thing. That feels wrong, right?

AS

yeah, and really quickly, just to let you know, because I work about 60 percent.

AS

Almost 70 percent of my work is with faculty.

AS

Um, we have moved from because there's some really bad antiquated practices where faculty were literally closing their doors to the classroom when they started right, and this is a community of students who work three jobs single mom, single parents, right, and so that's extreme. And so we worked a lot on syllabi and policies and how we can be more flexible. But there's different levels of flexibility and what we found in doing this work the last few years is that when we go too far into flexibility, students are telling us I need a little bit of accountability, I need a little bit of structure. So there's this middle ground and it varies by faculty, but at the end of the day, they're handling more, they're more flexible and they're handling more on a case by case basis, right, there's kind of some middle ground. So I just wanted to mention that because it's been a learning experience for faculty to move away from such a strict way to too too much flexibility, which students were saying wait a second. Right, so they're learning how to kind of that middle ground.

Bernardo Ferdman

Yeah, and it's challenging. It's hard sometimes to have this both end of these two opposites. Sometimes it's a way to deal with anxiety and with insecurity when you say this is the rule, take it or leave it. Too bad, but then it's not going to be helpful for some of these challenges of inclusion and equity. So it's just, you know. No, I make no exceptions for anything. Well, are you sure that you would never want an exception for something? What if one of your family members dies and you can't go teach that day? Do you really want to do that to yourself? So you know, part of the challenge is finding where is that space for some learning and dialogue and flexibility, but also, as you pointed out, what are the needs for structure and boundaries? And I think part of that is to co-construct right, to co-construct the norms and processes for inclusion with clear parameters and hold each other accountable. Instead of just assuming that my movie of the rules is your movie it's, let's talk about it and make sure that we agree and then remind ourselves.

Bernardo Ferdman

You know, when I taught a course on diversity for many, many years, we used to co-create the norms for the semester. One of them was always confidentiality and it's interesting or others like that. It's interesting because what the norms did, it's not that people would never break them, but it created a collective space, a collective opportunity to talk about what people might have perceived as possible violations. It wasn't just like, oh, I just want to bring this up as an individual. It's a collective need and imperative to have that conversation and we would make space for that in each session is to remind ourselves of what the norms were and allow for anyone to say what else do I need today? So it's really a human process of checking in around the process. Other ways to manage this paradox is to engage across differences in the spirit of learning and possibility that we should expect to engage across different approaches for engaging across differences. People have different views about these things, about the need for flexibility versus structure.

Bernardo Ferdman

We have to understand that inclusion implies both loosening boundaries and, at the same time, enhancing them. Inclusion implies both loosening boundaries and, at the same time, enhancing them Right. If for new and different people to feel included, the overall category has to be clear but at the same time, has to be redefined. Like what's an American? When my kids, who are all born in the US, say you know, they refer to Americans, as you know. They refer to Anglos as Americans. I say no, you're American, right, because American is everyone, right, american can be all these different. So what's a college student? I think we need to broaden some of these ideas.

Bernardo Ferdman

And also, inclusion doesn't mean the absence of limits or that anything goes, or that you can question every possible thing, right? So we still have to understand what are those boundaries? What do we mean by inclusion in this particular time with this particular group? We also have to create and use rules for dissent and rule breaking. What are the rules for rule breaking? Which is kind of paradoxical in itself. And we have to have a collective definition of the boundary of the unit, of the unit of the collective, based on shared values but also holds space for divergent values. So in a university or a college, a learning space I think that's particularly important, right? What is the collective value? But understand that some people may not share it in the same way or mean the same thing about it.

Bernardo Ferdman

The last thing I would say about this is that we have to work with those who are present. There's always this fear of the slippery slope, right, like you know. On the one hand, on this paradox. One side of the paradox is people might say it's a slippery slope. If we change our rules or open that conversation, we might as well just give it all up. But you know we have to work with who's there. But we also have to make space for newcomers and their possible dissent or discomfort or a need to change our assumptions. So you know, we're recording an audio podcast. You know how do we make it adaptable to someone who has a hearing disability? Right, maybe there's technology now that can help with that, obviously. But you know, that's just an example of how we have to think about accessibility in a way that makes sense, that's reasonable, that creates the broadest possible access, but that doesn't solve every possible puzzle right away, because then we'll get stuck and we won't do anything by the way I always have transcripts available.

Bernardo Ferdman

So yeah, there you go. Thank you, and I love that because you addressed it immediately. We didn't just leave it hanging right. We think about that. But the other side of that slip-free slope argument is we need to get everybody's input and consent before we act, or we might offend somebody. That's the other side of the paradox. It's focused on shifting and open boundaries. We're never ready to settle on anything because it's never going to be right or we didn't create the system. It's not ours or appropriate for us. Why should we follow their principles and practices for engagement? Well, okay, so what would you like to do? And somebody else might say what are they going to ask for next? Nothing's familiar anymore. I have to walk on eggshells all the time. Let's just follow the rules.

AS

These paradoxes. I think what you've done, in my view, is to give us some language to in a framework. I'm going to have it on the show notes. I'm going to have a picture of that diagram. It's another way to really think about the challenges. We kind of know this in our head a little bit. We experience it all the time. Especially, I see campus leaders dealing with these paradoxes, but you put them in words, you gave it language.

AS

And I'm wondering, bernardo, as we wrap up here, I'm just thinking out loud here. So would something practical be? Obviously it'd be great if they can have you come over and you can consult with them to break this down and help them apply this. But like me, I think you're kind of a one person show and so you can only get so many people that you can help.

AS

But for those that you can't reach something, at least that, the very least that they can do, can they take your, your paradox sheet and use it either as a self-reflecting kind of worksheet where they answer your questions for each of the paradoxes, and or do you feel like that's something that a team could use Like like an executive team at a college, or even I got to tell you some of the most dysfunctional, because I love faculty, I work with them all the time, but they're the even the ones who tell me oh shit, al our academic set of meetings are a hot mess, and I think they're dealing with a lot of these paradoxes that you're talking about right. So is it good to kind of use that in a team setting too? What's your guidance on using this, your framework, if you will?

Bernardo Ferdman

Well, I think you pointed to some of the ways I think. First of all, yes, I work on my own, but I also partner with other people, just to be clear about that?

AS

Oh, thank you for clarifying that.

The third paradox, safety and comfort

Bernardo Ferdman

Yeah. But I think the first step is to realize that sometimes, when we're experiencing a strong reaction, a strong perspective, a really strong stance, the leadership challenge or the challenge for all of us is to think about okay, what's the other side? And, if I let go a little bit of my certainty, is there some reason there? Is there some way in which that makes sense? And to what degree does my thinking about this actually trigger the other side to be even stronger? And that's a clue that maybe there's a kind of paradoxical relationship between these things. You know, we didn't get into the last point about safety and comfort, and just I'll use that as an example. Right, inclusion, on the one hand, is about making everyone comfortable. On the other hand, as my father used to say, stretching my arms to be, you know, comfortable, my zone of ease of stretching out ends at the other person's nose, right. So we have to adapt to each other. We have to leave our collective zones, right, we have to. Inclusion is about balancing both comfort and discomfort and making um discomfort more equitable. Right, some people are more used to adapting and being comfortable and others just do whatever they want. Well, you have to balance that of the different pieces. That's the first step. Right Is to not just get entrenched in our position in a way that actually makes the other side stronger. Right, if I do that, if I try to just eliminate the other side, the likelihood is that that's going to pop up even more strongly. Right, it's not going to make it go away. And so we have to look inside and look at our own ambivalence about some of these issues. How easily do we swing back and forth? That's just an awareness, but we can do that as a team. Also, we can bring in, before we settle on something, we can ask people like is there any other view here? And really honor that and work together to make better decisions and have a better perspective. Right, so that's the norms again, the processes that we follow that will allow us to hold the these seemingly opposing things as as part of the same phenomena, right?

Bernardo Ferdman

Um, that's just some examples. I know we don't have a lot of time, but maybe you can think of additional ones. But some of that might be systematically brought in right, like through through processes that are followed, like let's make sure to ask, you know, for someone to kick the tires on this idea, right? Or what are the unintended consequences of this position. Or if we're all falling into line so quickly, you can ask the question who's missing in this conversation? Or to rotate, you know, not to blame the person who brings up the opposing side, but just to see how that's really playing, doing something for the group, right? Instead of saying there's something wrong with that person, right?

Bernardo Ferdman

So, really, reframing is important, and that's where the leader, the person in authority, the chair or whatever can really make a difference in how they address these kinds of issues. Are they holding space for difference in both the process and the content? I think, ultimately, that's, for me, the bottom line, right? And then, of course, the specific attention to these paradoxes, but there may be other ones that people are experiencing, right? I don't think these are the only possible paradoxes.

AS

And by all means, Bernardo, if you want to continue with the last paradox, please, by all means. It's not like we have a set time, it's just yeah.

Bernardo Ferdman

Okay, I started to explain it, I think just again, just to think about it. On the one hand, you can believe that inclusion is possible only where everyone can be more at ease. We encourage everyone to be fully authentic and accept them as they are so they can be more fully comfortable with themselves. People say be your whole self. And that's the comfort side of the paradox. My way, I'm going to follow my way. So, to foster inclusion, no one should have to change. Everybody should just be able to just be. I should be comfortable being me. But the other side is that we have to adapt to each other, we have to leave our comfort zones, we have to expand our options. So inclusion is only possible when everybody's going to be more attentive, more sensitive, less focused on personal comfort and feeling at ease and more on. How do we do this together? When we mutually adapt and support each other and we learn new patterns that are better for a diverse collective right. Not assuming that everybody wants to learn, talk, interact the same way as me and that everyone needs to change if we're going to co-construct inclusion right. So how do we hold both of these right? Like? And if you think about the extremes, it's when somebody says I mentioned, when people say I feel like I have to walk on eggshells, like whatever I say, they get offended. That doesn't feel inclusive. I should say whatever I want. Isn't that free speech, right?

Bernardo Ferdman

But the other side is how do we create inclusion if we just leave things as we are as they are? We need to change, keep things fresh. Or on the other side, why can't we do things the way we're used to? We can't even have fun anymore. All these new rules like how do we move? But the other side is like, hey, we can't really do it the same way and expect that we're going to have equity and inclusion, because those things that you used to do keep people uncomfortable. You know, the locker room talk, the exclusion of people with disabilities, you know.

Bernardo Ferdman

Or people are saying things like why should we process and check in on everything? Why can't you just get to work? It's just a matter. Let's just be professional and be respectful. But on the other hand, the word professional is such a culturally loaded term. What does respect actually look like? How does it manifest?

Bernardo Ferdman

And then others might say on the other side, we can't get work done and collaborate until we spend time and effort figuring out how we're going to do it. How else are we going to deal with all these differences? I think that's a good idea, but when it gets to the extreme, all we're doing is spending time talking about how we're going to work, and then when are we going to get the work done? We have to find that balance. That doesn't resolve it right. It's holding these two things in tension.

Bernardo Ferdman

We're constantly kind of going back and forth, and so we have to understand and accept that comfort has limits and self-expression and self-determination have to happen in a collective context where we mutually understand and collaborate with each other. We have to engage in ongoing dialogue and learning and be willing to learn and learn new ways to do things and to engage each other. We have to engage in ongoing dialogue and learning and be willing to learn and learn new ways to do things and to engage with others. I have to honor what you want, how you want to be treated rather than how I want to treat, but I also you need to understand that I have certain history and pattern and experiences and give me time to learn right Instead of hitting me over the head with.

Bernardo Ferdman

Growth and learning are essential part of being human. So we're always growing and developing. So this idea of being your whole self, like what does that mean? Why not be your best self? Keep growing, keep developing, and education is about that.

Bernardo Ferdman

Right, we don't assume that people are fixed forever. We're assuming that people can develop. So if we're the educators, how are we developing? How are we developing our organization? And becoming more oneself requires growing and learning, especially from people who are different or we don't understand. So this idea of engaging across difference is not just important to hold diversity and for equity, it's important for everyone's learning. It benefits everybody is learning, it benefits everybody. And so, ultimately, we need to learn to be uncomfortable and to understand that those whom we don't understand are important in our own path and our collective work. Right, just being at ease all the time is not going to help us do our best. I mean, think about going to the gym, right? If I never strain my muscles a little bit, I'm not going to get stronger muscles, but if I strain them too much, obviously they could break. So where is that balance? It's different for each of us, different for each group, but the willingness to explore it to me, is one way to apply this paradox frame right.

AS

For me, the way I understand your, your meaningful work as a practitioner is, I'm seeing this as the first step is to be hyper aware of these paradoxes, just that self-awareness and that awareness that these are happening. But then don't just leave them in your head and say, oh well, that's just how it is. But the second thing is I think I can probably summarize it as empathy where we want to start to understand the other positions. We may not necessarily agree with them, but at least now we're getting it on the open, there's conversation at least no one's being shut down a there's a level of learning, understanding about these paradoxes, and so in a way, this is kind of like a culture culture barometer, if you will. But here's, at the end of the day, it it's.

AS

They're going to have to make decisions yeah based on these paradoxes, and that's the difficult part, right, and it's a process of learning. Now that I see this paradox, how do I actually address it? How do I bring people together to move forward in a very kind way, productive way, right? Yeah, I don't mean to reduce all your, reduce all your beautiful work into to me. That's how I interpret it, that's how I internalize it.

Bernardo Ferdman

Well, that makes sense to me, I think, yes, I think, just to reflect back, I think it's, you know, I don't know about being hyper, but certainly aware, I think, certainly understanding that polar tensions, polarization can sometimes be framed as two sides of the same coin and to the degree that we develop that perspective on these dynamics, that can help us bring those elements back together, part of making a unit whole is holding space and holding these contradictions as part of the group or the organization, understanding that if you just try to squelch one side or kick it, expel it, it's not going to resolve the issue at all, because it's inherent in whatever the issue that what we're trying to do.

Bernardo Ferdman

And so I think that's the broader paradoxical lens, right, and then I've applied that to specifically inclusion. You know, in thinking about these three dynamics that are particular to inclusion, but I think if you apply this more broadly, I think it can be really helpful when you think about what's the both end in the situation, the both end with two things that seem opposed to each other and feel contradictory and yet are two parts of the same phenomenon or situation or thing.

AS

And my last question, bernardo, is if people want to connect with you and they need your help, I can put your website there, but is there anything else they need to know about how to contact you and is there a process?

Bernardo Ferdman

to this. Yeah, well, I think I'm on LinkedIn. I'm easily found on LinkedIn. I'm also, like you mentioned, my website, ferventconsultingcom, and I have a contact form there, so it's pretty easy to reach me there, and otherwise people can look up, can probably find my email somewhere. But I think those two first ones are easy. I'd love to hear from your audience and see how they're thinking about these issues and how they're applying it. Community colleges, in particular, are so important, so I do hope that there's some nuggets that will be helpful in making them even stronger and better.

AS

Thank you so much for your meaningful work, bernardo. It's such a pleasure to talk with you, to learn from you. Thank you so much for participating in the Student Success Podcast.

Bernardo Ferdman

Thank you, thanks for this opportunity and thanks for your work, Al.

AS

Thank you for listening to the Student Success Podcast. Each episode has show notes which include helpful links and necessary follow-up information to help you get results, Please consider subscribing to the Continuous Learning Institute website. There are no advertisements. It's simply updates about articles, tools, resources, podcasts, etc. All tailored for you, the practitioner. Thank you.

Contributor

Al Solano

Host