EduArts

In exploring approaches to addressing racism in education, I’ve engaged with positionality, and intersectionality, the latter as theorised by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Crenshaw’s framework encourages us to understand how multiple aspects of identity interact to shape individual experiences of oppression, rather than treating issues like race or gender as separate and isolated factors. This is crucial in educational institutions, where structures often treat students and staff as if they each fit into a single box. 

Bradbury’s (2020) critique of Baseline Assessment policy in England reveals how education systems that appear race-neutral in fact reinforce white, monolingual norms. EAL (English as an Additional Language) children are assessed in English at age 4–5, disadvantaging many racialised and bilingual students. Drawing on Critical Race Theory, Bradbury shows how concepts like interest convergence and colourblindness expose the systemic biases embedded in so-called “neutral” policies. These issues can’t be understood through race alone, intersectionality helps us see how language, ethnicity, and class converge to label children as “low ability” early on, shaping their future trajectories.

This need to interrogate structural inequality is echoed in the Channel 4 video The School That Tried to End Racism, which highlights white privilege as the experience of living without experiencing racism. The experiment illustrates how discussions of equality often overlook the different starting points people have, aligning closely with intersectional thinking and the need to recognise varied experiences.

In Garrett’s (2024) work on racialised PhD students, these themes appear again. Drawing on Bhopal and Pitkin’s (2020) concept of the ‘triple burden’ Garrett highlights how race, gender, and class intersect to compound exclusion. Lander and Santoro (2017) describe the hypervisibility and invisibility that racialised academics often face, a contradiction I’ve witnessed in my own institution. Sadiq’s (2023) TEDx talk reinforces this, critiquing mainstream DEI training for oversimplifying identity and advocating for more localised, psychologically safe approaches. Together, these texts demonstrate that intersectionality is not optional, it is essential for truly understanding and addressing systemic racism in education. While critics of Advance HE (e.g., Orr, 2022) question the evidence base for institutional diversity reforms, Crenshaw reminds us that the absence of statistical proof does not equal the absence of racism. Structural issues often manifest through everyday microaggressions, exclusions, and barriers that are difficult to quantify, but profoundly real to those experiencing them. 

In my own academic context, I reflect on NSS data showing improved satisfaction among BAME students, though small awarding and support gaps persist. These numbers do not tell the full story. Understanding them through an intersectional lens helps identify which groups are still excluded, whose voices are missing, and what institutional changes might ensure equitable belonging. 

Addressing racism in education must go beyond superficial inclusion efforts. It requires a structural, intersectional approach that examines who policies benefit, who they harm, and how identity factors compound over time. Crenshaw’s theory provides a vital lens for educators, researchers, and institutions to interrogate policies and practices that appear neutral but reproduce systemic inequity. True anti-racism is not checklist-driven, it is transformative, localised, and deeply reflective of lived realities. 

In my own UK-based academic context, I’ve seen awarding gaps between white and racialised students persist, particularly for Black and EAL students. While metrics like NSS (The National Student Survey) show modest progress, they don’t capture how students navigate cultural alienation, implicit bias, or a lack of belonging nor do they reflect the emotional labour. Awarding gaps persist, particularly for Black and EAL students. While metrics like the NSS suggest modest progress, they fail to capture the deeper realities of cultural alienation, implicit bias, and emotional labour. The heatmap below visualises a related pattern: racialised students and staff are often highly visible in institutional narratives, yet remain excluded from the spaces where real decisions are made. Drawing on intersectionality and Critical Race Theory, it highlights the disconnect between symbolic inclusion and structural power a gap that continues to shape educational inequality.

1. Visibility (e.g., being seen or showcased):

Literature and my own experience suggest racialised individuals are highly visible in:

• Marketing/prospectuses (e.g., diversity brochures)
• DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) panels or training
• Student-facing spaces like open days or recruitment

2. Influence (e.g., decision-making, shaping policy):

However, these same groups are often underrepresented in roles that carry structural power, like:

• Curriculum design committees
• Senior leadership
• Research funding decisions or strategy

This disconnect is backed by Critical Race Theory concepts like:

• Tokenism: being included symbolically but excluded from decision-making.
• Interest convergence: institutions acting only when it suits dominant group interests

This conceptual heatmap illustrates the disconnect between visibility and influence for racialised individuals in UK educational institutions. Informed by Garrett’s (2024) work on hypervisibility and invisibility, and Lander and Santoro’s (2017) observations on the performative nature of diversity, the map highlights how racialised academics and students are often highly visible in symbolic spaces, such as marketing materials, DEI panels, and student-facing events, yet remain underrepresented in the structural arenas where real decisions are made, such as curriculum design, leadership roles, and policy-making. In my own academic context, I’ve witnessed this pattern play out: where lived experience is mined for optics but sidelined in strategy. This tool invites readers to question not just who is present, but who holds influence, and what a truly inclusive educational structure would look like.

Together, these texts call for anti-racism that is structural, not symbolic. They highlight three recurring themes: 

1. Intersectional exclusion – where race, gender, class, and language interact to deepen marginalisation. 

2. Institutional self-preservation – how policies and initiatives often protect the status quo. 

3. The need for epistemic justice – recognising and valuing the knowledge and lived experience of minoritised groups. 

If we are to be serious about anti-racism, we must listen differently, teach differently, and lead differently. This means resisting one-size-fits-all solutions, diversifying who gets to shape the curriculum and policy, and making discomfort part of the work. As Crenshaw (2016) argues “If we aren’t intersectional, some of us, the most vulnerable, are going to fall through the cracks.” 

Bibliography

Bhopal, K. and Pitkin, C. (2020) ‘Racialized minority women’s experiences of the “triple burden” of oppression resulting from their classed, gendered, and ethnic identities’, Gender and Education, 32(6), pp. 709–726. 

Bradbury, A. (2020) ‘A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp. 241–260. Available at: [Reading_Blog Task 3 Folder] (Accessed: 5 June 2025). 

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167. 

Crenshaw, K. (2016) The Urgency of Intersectionality [Video]. TED Conferences. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/kimberle_crenshaw_the_urgency_of_intersectionality (Accessed: 11 June 2025). 

Garrett, R. (2024) ‘Racism shapes careers: career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp. 1–15. Available at: [Reading_Blog Task 3 Folder] (Accessed: 7 June 2025). 

Lander, V. and Santoro, N. (2017) ‘The hypervisibility and invisibility of racialized academics in higher education’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(3), pp. 300–314. 

Office for Students (no date) National Student Survey data [Online]. Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/national-student-survey-data/ (Accessed: 11 June 2025).

Orr, J. (2022) ‘Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke’, The Telegraph [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU (Accessed: 3 June 2025). 

Sadiq, A. (2023) ‘Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right’, TEDx [Online]. YouTube. 2 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw (Accessed: 6 June 2025). 

The School That Tried to End Racism (2020) Channel 4 documentary [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg (Accessed: 4 June 2025). 

Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality explains how identity factors such as faith, race, gender, and socio-economic status interact to shape experiences of discrimination. She argues that focusing on a single identity fails to capture the complexity of overlapping marginalisation. Building on Crenshaw’s work, later scholars introduced the concept of intersectional invisibility, where individuals with multiple marginalised identities are overlooked by systems intended to address discrimination.

Reki (2023) expands on Crenshaw’s theory by examining how religious identity intersects with other categories to create epistemic injustice, where individuals’ knowledge is dismissed or devalued due to prejudice. Using an intersectional lens, Reki shows how religious minorities face compounded marginalisation at the intersections of faith, race, gender, and class. This reinforces Crenshaw’s call to address multiple identity factors and deepen understanding of how religious identity shapes experiences of discrimination and invisibility. Kwame Anthony Appiah (2014), in Is Religion Good or Bad? touches on epistemic injustice as he reflects on how post-19th-century Europe saw a shift where “you could do all sorts of serious things… even philosophy” without religious constraint. However, as Appiah notes, “in large areas of the globe this separation between religion and science has not happened yet.” This shows that faith continues to shape intellectual and cultural life in many parts of the world. Crenshaw’s framework is useful here in revealing how religious belief, geography, and cultural background intersect with identity, influencing how individuals are perceived and treated. Due to the difference in culture and how the connection between science and faith has developed many are prone to situations of epistemic injustice due to stereotyping those with religious beliefs.

In Islam, Women and Sport, Jawad (2022) explores how faith and gender affect Muslim women’s participation in sport, stating their “invisibility in major sporting competitions” results from “social, political, economic, and educational” factors. Western sports culture often conflicts with Islamic values regarding women’s bodies, as many sports require “specific types of sports equipment and outfits that lead to high visibility of women’s bodies” and take place in mixed-sex settings. This tension increases where “the wearing of hijab is not allowed in some secular states and some international sports governing bodies” (Jawad, 2022). Intersectionality reveals how such policies are based on single-axis thinking that ignores the interaction of gender and religion. Jawad (2022) also notes that in some cultures, “sport related activities can be seen as low-status pursuits” or “a luxury activity,” highlighting how socio-economic status intersects with religious and cultural identity to limit access.

Simran Jeet Singh (2016), in Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in the Classroom, describes how people are judged “simply because of how they look or what they believe” and how society often denies this reality. He warns against painting communities “with a single brush stroke,” stressing the diversity within them. Singh’s experiences of discrimination based on visible identity markers demonstrate the intersection of faith and race. His advocacy for challenging stereotypes through “conversation and empathy” echoes Crenshaw’s call to recognise that identity categories interact rather than exist in isolation.

According to UAL’s 2024 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion report, 60 percent of students declare no religion or belief, 29 percent identify with a religion, and 11 percent prefer not to say. While this suggests a largely secular body, the religious third includes diverse groups such as Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists. This diversity highlights the need for an intersectional approach, as students’ experiences are shaped not only by gender, race, or class but also by religious identity. Faith can influence expectations around clothing, schedules, and social inclusion. Crenshaw (1989) notes that those with intersecting identities often face invisibility and unmet needs. More detailed data on religion, gender, socio-economic status, and class, interpreted through intersectionality, would improve understanding of how economic hardship and faith-based exclusion overlap to impact educational outcomes. Without this insight, inclusion efforts risk reinforcing dominant norms.

In my teaching context at UAL, these insights resonate strongly. Students from diverse faith backgrounds often encounter barriers arising from the intersection of faith, gender, and other identity factors. For example, some students may need time for prayer or may prefer gender-segregated spaces for certain activities. These are not merely isolated accommodations. They reflect the complex ways students’ identities shape their experiences of inclusion or exclusion. Crenshaw’s (1989) theory encourages us to move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches and to examine how institutional policies and cultural assumptions may unintentionally privilege dominant norms. Without an intersectional approach, students with multiple marginalised identities may experience institutional invisibility. Recognising and addressing these overlapping dynamics is essential for creating an educational environment where all students feel seen, supported, and valued.

Bibliography

Appiah, K.A., 2014. Is religion good or bad? (This is a trick question). [YouTube] 16 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2et2KO8gcY [Accessed 26 April 2025]. 

Crenshaw, K., 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp.139–167. 

Jawad, H., 2022. Islam, Women and Sport: The Case of Visible Muslim Women. [online] Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/09/islam-women-and-sport-the-case-of-visible-muslim-women/ [Accessed 19 April 2025]. 

Purdie-Vaughns, V. and Eibach, R.P., 2008. Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), pp.377–391. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4 [Accessed 17 April 2025]. 

Reki, J., 2023. Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account. Hypatia, 38, pp.779–800. Available through academic databases and Moodle [Accessed 30 April 2025]. 

Trinity University, 2016. Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in the Classroom. [YouTube] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAOKTo_DOk [Accessed 22 April 2025]. 

University of the Arts London, 2024. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Data Report 2024. [pdf] Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/472836/UAL-EDI-data-report-2024-PDFA.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2025]. 

Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality helps us understand how identities like race, gender, and disability interact to create unique and intensified forms of oppression. Crenshaw (1990) explains that individuals at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities don’t just face additive discrimination, but distinct forms that often go unseen. Crenshaw (1990) mentions that existing frameworks fail to recognize the experiences of those who are multiply marginalized. 

The lived experiences of people like Ade Adepitan, Christine Sun Kim, and Chay Brown illustrate intersectional invisibility very well. Ade, as a Black paralympic athlete, experiences structural barriers that are shaped by both racism and ableism. He highlights how it’s not disability that limits people, but the inaccessible world around them. This idea is also echoed by the Social Model of Disability (UAL, 2024) and Crenshaw’s idea of “political intersectionality”, where individuals are often overlooked within both racial justice and disability movements. Political intersectionality, as Crenshaw (1990) explains, refers to how individuals who belong to more than one marginalized group can be excluded from political movements that focus on only one aspect of identity. Ade offers a compelling hypothetical example: he describes a situation where an individual, who is part of multiple marginalized groups, struggles to secure employment either due to an employer’s prejudice based on skin color or because the employer perceives accommodating a disability as too challenging. For such individuals, the risk of facing multiple layers of discrimination is imminent. Cases like these are incredibly difficult to prove. However, meaningful change can occur if society recognizes such actions as unacceptable and unethical. A shift in collective attitudes can lead to a more inclusive and progressive society.

Christine Sun Kim, a Deaf artist, exposes how public and artistic spaces often ignore Deaf culture. Her project Captioning the City (2021) challenges hearing-centered design, showing how Deaf people are excluded not just physically but culturally. Her work illustrates how people with multiple marginalized identities are made invisible by systems that only address one axis of identity, reinforcing Crenshaw’s point that movements become ineffective or incomplete if they ignore how different forms of discrimination combine in the lives of real people.

Chay Brown, a trans gay man who is also “not neurotypical”, draws attention to how even LGBTQ+ spaces can exclude and how ‘ignoring difference within groups contributes to tension among group’ (Crenshaw, 1990, p. 1242). Lack of sensory-friendly environments and step-free access highlight how some people are left behind when accessibility is seen in narrow terms. He calls for an inclusive design that reflects all aspects of identity, reinforcing Crenshaw’s point that social movements falter when they fail to address complexity (Crenshaw, 1990).  

A recurring theme across these narratives is how compounded identities often go unseen and how individuals must carry the emotional burden of advocating for their inclusion in systems not designed for them. This aligns with Crenshaw’s framing of compound discrimination, where intersecting oppressions do not simply add up, but interact in complex ways. Ade, Christine, and Chay each describe how they are forced to educate others, push for basic access, and persist in spaces that fail to recognize their full identities. Their discrimination is not just layered, but interwoven as Crenshaw (1990, p. 1245) mentions, forming unique experiences that are often invisible to those designing systems, spaces, or movements. 

The need for intersectional analysis is essential in understanding the limitations of UAL’s data. The data, as it stands, presents disability and ethnicity as separate categories, which doesn’t allow for a full understanding of the compounded challenges faced by students with intersecting marginalized identities. For example, according to UAL’s attainment profiles, while students with disabilities have a higher attainment rate than non-disabled students (84% vs. 80% in 2023/2024), this data overlooks the experiences of students who may be both disabled and from a racial or ethnic minority background. If we fail to consider the intersection of disability and ethnicity or other aspects, we risk missing the unique forms of oppression that affect students at these intersections, resulting in a false or incomplete understanding of the issue. 

Positionality also plays a critical role in how we interpret and act on this data. Our positionality shapes how we interpret data, make decisions, and implement change. As Bayeck (2022, p. 7) explains, “The connection of context, space, and identity influences positionality.” This highlights how our perspectives, shaped by where we stand and who we are, directly affect the conclusions we draw. Without an intersectional lens, any analysis of attainment data becomes superficial, merely ticking boxes rather than fostering meaningful change. Analyzing these factors separately risks perpetuating inequality, as it fails to address the full complexity of students’ lived experiences. By adopting an intersectional approach, we can better understand the true barriers students face and make informed decisions that lead to real, inclusive change at UAL. 

Bibliography

Adepitan, A., 2024. Ade Adepitan gives amazing explanation of systemic racism. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=KAsxndpgagU&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fmoodle.arts.ac.uk%2F&source_ve_path=MzY4NDIsMjM4NTE [Accessed 23 Apr. 2025].

Bayrer, R., 2022. Positionality: The interplay of space, context, and identity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, [online] Available at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=itls_facpub [Accessed 23 Apr. 2025].

Crenshaw, K., 1990. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241-1299. Available at: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/critique1313/files/2020/02/1229039.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr. 2025].

Kim, C.S., 2020. “Friends and Strangers”. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpRaEDlLsI [Accessed 23 Apr. 2025].

University of the Arts London (UAL), 2025. Attainment profiles for disability and ethnicity [online] Available at: https://dashboards.arts.ac.uk/dashboard/ActiveDashboards/DashboardPage.aspx?dashboardid=c04b6e35-6d26-4db8-9ea0-5e27d30e3402&dashcontextid=638684775887265547 [Accessed 23 Apr. 2025].

University of the Arts London (2022) The Social Model of Disability at UAL. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdnjmcrzgw [Accessed 19 April 2025].

Images

Baxter, L., 2021. Christine Sun Kim: Captioning The City. [Photograph] Available at: https://various-artists.com/christine-sun-kim/ [Accessed 23 Apr. 2025].

Bodea, A., 2025. Tapestry of Intersectionality [digital artwork]. London.

Bodea, A., 2025. Color Chips of Intersectionality [digital artwork]. London.

Introduction

Teaching digital design tools such as Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and CLO3D to business students at London College of Fashion has been both a challenge and a rewarding experience. When I first started, I assumed students would quickly see the value of these tools, but many arrived with little or no prior design experience. Initially, this made them hesitant and sometimes even resistant. However, as I refined my approach, I saw their engagement shift. Watching students go from uncertainty to confidence has pushed me to think more deeply about how I teach and how I can make digital tools accessible to everyone.

Why Digital Tools Matter in Fashion Business

I used to assume that because these students were studying fashion business, they would naturally see the relevance of digital tools. But that wasn’t always the case. Some students initially questioned why they needed to learn software like Photoshop or CLO3D when their focus was on business strategies. I’ve had to rethink how I communicate the importance of these tools—not just as creative platforms but as essential skills for marketing, branding, merchandising, and product development.

As Kolb (1984) suggests, “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” The more I align software training with real-world applications, the more students see the value in developing these skills. It’s been rewarding to see that shift in perspective.

Challenges and Adaptations

Every class brings challenges, and I’ve had to continuously adapt. Some key obstacles include:

• Lack of Prior Design Knowledge – Many students struggle with basic design principles. I’ve learned to break concepts down into small, digestible steps, reinforcing lessons with practical examples.
• Technical Complexity – Software like CLO3D can feel overwhelming. I now introduce essential tools first, allowing students time to explore before layering on advanced techniques. To help with this, I provide annotated guides that include step-by-step screenshots, labeled diagrams, and explanations of key features. These guides allow students to navigate the software independently and revisit instructions when needed. For example, in Photoshop, I highlight essential tools like layers and masks with arrows and notes, while in CLO3D, I illustrate garment construction steps with interface labels.
• Perceived Relevance – Some students question why they need these tools. I incorporate case studies from major fashion brands to demonstrate real-world applications, helping them connect digital skills to their future careers.

Teaching Strategies That Work

Looking back, I can see how my teaching has evolved. Strategies that have helped include:

• Scaffolding Learning (Vygotsky, 1978) – Structuring lessons so students build skills gradually has helped reduce frustration. “What a child can do today with assistance, she will be able to do by herself tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1978).
• Reducing Cognitive Overload (Sweller, 1988) – I simplify introductions, provide annotated guides, and use video tutorials. Dual coding (Paivio, 1986), pairing visuals with explanations, has significantly improved student comprehension.
• Hands-On Learning (Kolb, 1984) – Students learn best by doing. Incorporating industry-based projects, like digital product presentations or mock marketing campaigns, has enhanced engagement.

Looking Forward

Even with these improvements, I know there’s room to grow:

• Gamification – Interactive design challenges could make learning more dynamic.
• Industry Engagement – Bringing in guest speakers could reinforce real-world applications.
• Blended Learning Models – A mix of in-person lessons and online resources might better support diverse learning styles.

Final Thoughts

Teaching digital tools to business students has challenged me to become a more thoughtful educator. It’s not just about showing students how to use software, it’s about helping them see how these tools fit into their careers. While students may struggle at first, I’ve learned to see these moments as opportunities for reflection and growth. Watching students evolve from hesitant beginners to confident creators is the most fulfilling part of my work, and I’m excited to keep refining my approach.

Bibliography

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sweller, J. (1988). “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.