Journal of Diversity and Equity in Educational Development

This piece introduces the second issue of the Journal of Diversity and Equity in Educational Development (JDEED). The editors reflect on the normalization of institutional and political pressures that have reshaped the work of educational developers and argue that diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) and antiracism remain foundational to educational development practice. Positioning JDEED as a scholarly space for critical reflection, lived experience, creative inquiry, and empirical research, we reaffirm the importance of naming and advancing DEI and antiracism within the field. We conclude by introducing the contributions in this issue, which collectively explore topics such as faculty learning, pedagogical transformation, community, leadership, and institutional approaches to fostering more equitable teaching and learning environments.

Introductory STEM courses often produce persistent gaps in student outcomes, particularly for students from marginalized backgrounds. This article describes the STEM Equity Learning Community (SELC) Project, a year-long professional development experience that brought together instructors, students, institutional researchers, and staff to examine equity in STEM courses. Using disaggregated course-level data—including the Systemic Advantage Index and grade anomaly reports—teams identified long-standing patterns of inequity and explored how structural factors, rather than student deficits, shape academic outcomes. The STEM Equity Learning Community (SELC) Project created a supportive environment for instructors to reflect on their practices, confront deficit-based assumptions, and collaborate across roles to develop equity-minded teaching strategies. By connecting data analysis with facilitated reflection, participants built a shared sense of responsibility for change and a deeper understanding of how systemic barriers impact student success. As institutions work to address equity gaps in STEM, the [STEM Equity Learning Community (SELC) Project represents a promising, scalable model for supporting inclusive teaching through sustained, cross-role collaboration.

Transfer students represent a significant and growing proportion of university populations and bring with them a wide range of experiences and identities. Recognizing the diversity within the transfer student population can help instructors to better understand the complexity of student backgrounds and the wide range of factors that impact learning and success. This article offers reflections on the integrative practice of centering transfer students in educational development programs as an accessible way to engage instructors in issues of equity, intersectionality, and inclusive teaching. We offer examples and practical approaches for using transfer student experiences as a conceptual lens in educational development, highlighting the important role that educational developers can play in shaping who is valued and supported on our campuses. By addressing the specific needs, challenges, and assets of transfer students, particularly those from community colleges, educational developers can create opportunities for instructors to reflect on diverse student experiences and move beyond deficit-based assumptions. This approach not only benefits transfer students but can also make classrooms more inclusive and equitable for all students.

In this reflective piece, we describe how we made meaning following a community read of students' perspectives on inclusive teaching practices. Designed to engage instructors in critical reflection on their teaching across the four lenses described by Brookfield (1995), the initiative supported our ongoing instructional journeys. We include our individual and collective reflections as well as recommendations to highlight our new understandings.  

Higher education is facing unprecedented instability, marked by declining enrollment, political attacks on institutional values, and a surge of legislation aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While some recent legal decisions offer limited relief, widespread pre‑emptive compliance has already eroded DEI structures and displaced professionals committed to this work, leaving underrepresented students without essential support. This article reflects on these national shifts through the work of the Washington Center for Improving Undergraduate Education, a small public‑service center dedicated to equity‑driven educational development. In the wake of the 2025 executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, the Center’s free virtual workshops, such as “Rhetorical Grammar: Anti-racist Approaches to College Writing," have drawn educators from across the country seeking community and refuge. Their participation demonstrates the resilience of practitioners who continue to build coalitions and sustain inclusive teaching despite increasingly hostile conditions.

In this conversation, three directors of Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) reflect on how shifting political pressures and institutional responses are reshaping diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work in higher education. While formal structures, language, and participation have changed, the core pedagogical commitments to inclusive teaching persist. The discussion highlights the evolving leadership role of CTLs and their leaders in navigating institutional ambiguity, supporting faculty, and sustaining equity-focused practices during times of constraint.

This study explores the impact of a Redesign Your Course for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion professional development cohort. Participants enrolled in this cohort in the summer term, then implemented their redesigned course in the following fall term. Participants completed periodic reflections and participated in a focus group after teaching their redesigned course. Through collaborative autoethnography, participants analyzed their reflections and a transcript of their focus group, identifying themes across their experiences. Participants reported changes to their redesigned courses as well as to non-redesigned courses. Implications of these findings are discussed.