To this point, we've been talking about leaders and leadership, and some of the challenges related to moving forward an agenda for diversity, equity, and inclusion. And while understanding why this is difficult is important, we wouldn't be doing you much justice if we didn't offer you some tools to help advance this work in your own roles as leaders. There are many definitions of leadership, but almost every one involves action. A response at some point based on a leaders influence over the group or the organization in which she or he is present. Something we've learned about this, most recently, is that the approaches that we've been using, particularly in the academy, to spark action, to inspire commitment, has been based on a rather linear, rational view of how awareness and understanding immediately translates into the desired level of action. But as we've learned, people understand even the same facts in different ways. They see things differently and it translates to different desired ends. And so some of these tools are to help the leader make that difficult transition from understanding to commitment and action. Now, one framework that we've adopted that is borrowed from studies of history, political science, and communication sciences, suggest that there are different frameworks in which diversity is discussed, understood by people, not only within the academy, not only through our scholarship, but perhaps more importantly, in public and political discourse. These frameworks can be used by leaders as they listen, but, also, as they articulate what it is they envision for an institution's transformation. Now, you'll see that the way that this model has been arranged has a certain historical relevance. And it's based, loosely, on the experiences of the Civil Rights Movements in the United States, which began with a moral and philosophical argument, often led by church leaders, translated in the 1970s to legal and political guidance. Then, in the late 1980s and 90s, became an economic and competitive discussion. The need to broaden and educate our workforce in ways that were more inclusive. And then, when the University of Michigan was carrying its cases on behalf of American higher education to the US Supreme Court at the very end of the 20th century. The arguments were posed as educational and mission related, that students learned more, differently, and acquired greater capacity for critical thinking when they learn together, in diverse classrooms and on diverse campuses. And most recently, a framework has emerged that is more constituency driven. And, in fact, this reflects the changes in our understanding of diversity. To move beyond race, and gender, and to include citizenship, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, ability. And each of these frames overlaps and that's a key point. One frame is not retired in the favor of another. They're all operating together, sometimes in the same paragraph, or the same speech, or the same comment made by an individual. It's also important to recognize that for each frame, a counter frame has emerged. So that a moral argument in favor of diversity is now frequently matched by an argument on moral grounds, or on legal or economic grounds that takes an individual to the opposite conclusion. You'll recognize that these frames are part of our understanding of the interplay between text, context, and subtext. And we borrow this model from another branch of scientific inquiry, often represented in feminist pedagogy, but also in our examination of narratives. In English literature, for instance. We recognized that what is said in a text is important and can sometimes be interpreted quite literally. But whether it's the Constitution of the United States, or a letter from a Birmingham jail, or something shouted in a crowd, the context for where a statement is uttered and the multiple subtext that equip with meaning, are equally important. Something that I've learned recently and found fascinating, is the notion of parallax. And this comes out of experiences that are quite relevant to our recent political environment. Many Americans say that they recognize that there's a challenge of inequity in our society. And they believe that American society should provide for greater opportunities to bridge those gaps. And they point to higher education as a important institution that is capable of bridging the polarization that occurs in terms of economic and social status. But here's where the idea of parallax comes in, and it's drawn largely from studies in experimental psychology. And that is, we see things differently depending on our point of view. Well, that doesn't sound very controversial, does it? We have two eyes, our brain has adapted through our evolution of binocular vision to create a picture, even though our eyes are separated somewhat. But think of the distance increasing, think of two different people standing at two different points and looking at items that may seem to align for an individual who is observing them from point a. How much different are they from someone at point b? And let's substitute that idea of alignment, for fairness, for equity, for justice. One person sees American society as perfectly aligned in that regard. Whereas, someone looking at it from point b sees it quite differently. And here's what's really interesting in that regard. We also sense movement and velocity differently based on where we stand, and our experience of movement, and our relationship to the object we're observing. Now, this is an evolutionary must. If we were unable to anticipate where an object would be a second or a minute later, we wouldn't be able to predict the migrations of herds or catch a softball. But what we do, is we replace the momentary place and time with the anticipated place and time. How does this get back to issues of diversity and equity? Well, for some of us, depending where we stand and what we observe and what we think about recent motion towards a point of alignment, we may over anticipate the level of equity in an institution, or in a society. And in doing so, we draw conclusions about what has happened, what is happening, and what needs to happen next. All of this takes place in the context of multiple levels of awareness. Most of what we process of course, we understand as individuals. But we also, are focused on the communities, the neighborhoods, the families, the groups, and the institutions of which we are a part. And higher education education leaders have a special relationship, to be aware of the institution and its relative standing within its system and within the larger society. Much of what we talk about when we think through inclusion, diversity and equity has to do with the boundary points between individuals and institution, or the institution and society. And so, these multiple levels, they're not concentric. Each of them affects the other. Just as an individual can have an impact on the whole society, society has an impact on the institution, and on the individual. And the system shapes, parameters for all of them. These tools can be very useful in the leadership process. They actually offer a way for leaders to recognize the problems that they encounter. They're helpful for understanding what is being put forth by followers, by constituencies, by pressures from the environment. They're equally valuable when the leader is in a position of needing to articulate to groups, a vision for the kind of transformed institutional, culture and structure, transformed societies that we all hope for and anticipate. Knowledge, courage, and tools are all needed to deliver on the leadership challenge, and you'll see these tools come into play in the succeeding weeks of this course.