Abstract
In this essay, we discuss our experience as graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) in a first-year writing program with an explicitly anti-racist pedagogy. The growing literature on critical pedagogy focuses on the instructor-undergraduate student dynamic but does not address the necessary role of GTAs in implementing anti-racist pedagogy. We use feminist theory to contend that care is an inherent component of anti-racist pedagogy and that GTAs are integral actors in providing that care. We highlight the indispensable role of GTAs in navigating the complexities of larger classes as anti-racist pedagogy is scaled up beyond the individual classroom and instructor. We conclude by providing three possible solutions to address this challenge.
Introduction
This essay explores the challenges faced by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) in anti-racist pedagogy, emphasizing a critical oversight in the current discourse. While universities frequently implement new pedagogies, the focus of the majority of literature on decolonial, feminist, and anti-racist pedagogy primarily centers on the instructor of record/undergraduate student relationship. This leaves GTAs conspicuously absent from conversations about reshaping the broader pedagogical structure, revealing a significant gap that becomes increasingly pronounced at scale.
In smaller seminars, where one instructor oversees a limited number of students, the role of GTAs may be negligible. However, the necessity of addressing the involvement of GTAs becomes glaringly apparent in larger lectures where accommodating hundreds of students necessitates the collaboration of multiple GTAs. This essay spotlights the urgency of addressing this oversight as we scale up anti-racist pedagogy, acknowledging the indispensable role GTAs play in this process.
Two claims further enrich our discussion: First, care is an inherent component of anti-racist pedagogy. The commitment to fostering inclusivity and challenging systemic inequalities inherently involves a profound sense of care, both for the subject matter and the diverse perspectives within the learning community. Second, when contemplating the scale-up of anti-racist pedagogy, GTAs must care. The success of anti-racist pedagogy on a large scale hinges on the engagement and dedication of GTAs, who navigate the intricate dynamics of larger classes and contribute significantly to students’ learning experiences.
It is essential to recognize the dual imperative of acknowledging the role of GTAs in anti-racist pedagogy at scale and embracing the inherent care required for its effective implementation. This essay serves as a call to rectify the existing gap in the literature on GTAs in critical pedagogy and their invisibilized role in teaching using these pedagogies, and to propose an inclusive approach that ensures the meaningful participation of GTAs in anti-racist education.
Literature Review
In educational scholarship, anti-racist pedagogy has emerged as an approach to dismantling systemic inequalities within academia. Pioneering works such as Freire’s (1970) “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” laid the foundation for critical pedagogy, arguing that education is an inherently political act. The intersection of critical and anti-racist pedagogies challenges traditional teaching methods, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging and dismantling oppressive structures. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s (1997, 2021) concept of “color-blind racism” with its four pillars of abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism further informs anti-racist pedagogy by highlighting the need to contextualize implicit biases, problematize racialized outcomes and dismantle racial hierarchies within educational spaces. The literature on anti-racist pedagogy underscores the transformative potential of education when centered on equity, justice, and the active deconstruction of racialized power dynamics (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Freire 1970).
Turning to research on GTAs, much of the literature explores the challenges and dynamics of their roles within higher education. Research by Sue Ellen DeChenne, Larry G. Enochs, and Mark Needham (2012) examines the professional development of GTAs, shedding light on the need for comprehensive training programs that equip GTAs to navigate the complexities of teaching in diverse academic settings. Additionally, research by Erin A. Becker et al. (2017) and Star W. Lee (2019) explores the impact of training on GTAs’ teaching practices, emphasizing the importance of ongoing support and development opportunities.
While these studies contribute valuable insights into GTA experiences, there remains a significant gap in the literature concerning the integration of GTAs into the discourse surrounding anti-racist pedagogy. A study by Meredith Madden (2014), which highlights the empowering effects of granting autonomy to GTAs over course content and instructional delivery, is the only publication the authors found that engages specifically with GTAs in the context of critical pedagogy. The existing scholarship predominantly focuses on instructors, leaving GTAs at the periphery of discussions on transformative pedagogical practices. The complexities of implementing anti-racist pedagogy at scale, particularly within large lecture settings where GTAs often play a pivotal role, necessitate a deeper understanding of their experiences and challenges.
Moreover, a crucial element of the intersection between GTAs and critical pedagogies is care. While the literature mainly addresses the implementation of anti-racist pedagogy, the underlying theme of care remains implicit. Feminist scholars have long underscored the gendered and racialized disparities in care expectations within academia (Berheide, Carpenter, and Cotter 2022; Grummell, Devine, and Lynch 2009; Guarino and Borden 2017; Misra et al. 2021). Their work reveals a systemic undervaluation of care labor, particularly when performed by women and people of color. The gendered nature of care expectations becomes even more evident within the intersectional experiences of GTAs, where these expectations are often layered upon their existing research and personal responsibilities, further complicating their roles within the academic landscape.
bell hooks (1994) emphasizes the significance of caring as a revolutionary act within the educational context. In her seminal work, “Teaching to Transgress,” hooks argues that the act of caring disrupts traditional power dynamics in the classroom, creating a transformative space for dialogue and learning. This perspective adds depth to the understanding of care as an integral component of anti-racist pedagogy, with GTAs positioned as potential catalysts for change through their caring roles. The racialized dimension of care within academia is further explored by scholars like Joya Misra et al. (2021) who examine the ways in which caregiving responsibilities disproportionately affect faculty of color. Misra et al. explore the intersection of race and care, highlighting the additional challenges faced by individuals navigating both racialized expectations and caregiving responsibilities within academic spaces. Similarly, Vanessa S. Na et al. (2022) document how carework, particularly for staff of color, becomes integrated and additive to their responsibilities, perpetuating existing inequities. The institution, intentionally or inadvertently, operationalizes the concept of “care,” framing it within expectations that may inadvertently obscure underlying power dynamics and exploitative structures (Nadasen 2021:166).
Nel Noddings (2002) contributes to this literature by presenting an ethic of care that emphasizes the moral imperative of caring relationships within educational settings. While not explicitly focused on GTAs, Noddings’ framework provides a theoretical foundation for understanding care as a fundamental aspect of educational practices. This framework can be applied to the GTA role, emphasizing the ethical dimensions of their carework and its implications for fostering inclusive and equitable learning environments. María Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) further highlights the nature of care as an agentive and binding responsibility, stressing the caregiver’s role in identifying and meeting needs. Leaning into the philosophy of collective care, as advocated by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha (2018), emphasizes a communal approach to care that extends beyond individual efforts. This philosophy aligns with the shifting landscape of academia, urging a collaborative responsibility for care among all stakeholders, including GTAs. The collective care lens encourages an environment where care is distributed, acknowledged, and reciprocated, fostering a more supportive and inclusive academic community.
Our Experience
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we were employed as GTAs in a writing program at a prestigious R-1 university in southern California. We are two women sociology PhD students and as part of our graduate program requirement, we work as GTAs. We come to our GTA assignments from different positionalities. Matsuda Rivero is an Asian Latina while Webb is White. This period coincided with a significant change in the program’s pedagogy which was spurred in part as a direct response to the 2020 protests following George Floyd’s murder. The program, which had long been recognized for its commitment to social justice and activism, shifted from traditional quality-based grading to labor-based grading (LBG). This change aimed to create a more equitable and anti-racist learning environment for undergraduate students and was led by the writing program directors who were all instructors of record for the course.
The course program was made up of both large lectures, each accommodating approximately 300 students per academic quarter, alongside smaller, more intimate discussion sections capped at 14 students. The GTAs were responsible for grades and for leading the discussion sections, meaning we were responsible for practicing LBG in our grading and in the way we discussed the course content in the section.
LBG, as conceptualized by Asao B. Inoue (2019) and adopted by our program, assesses students based on their labor input rather than predetermined quality standards. This grading strategy gained momentum during the pandemic as a means of enacting anti-racist and critical pedagogy (Carillo 2021). In contrast to conventional grading practices, Inoue (2019) contends that traditional systems are inherently racist, perpetuating a structure that favors White supremacist standards. LBG challenges this by shifting the focus from predetermined quality standards to a nuanced assessment of students based on their labor input. It prompts educators to critically question the lens through which students are traditionally critiqued, emphasizing a more inclusive and equitable evaluation framework.
At the heart of LBG is the evaluation of students’ commitment to labor rather than a sole emphasis on output quality. This distinctive grading philosophy recognizes the inherent biases embedded in traditional grading practices and strives to challenge and overcome structural inequities. To enact LBG in our program we employed a labor chart—a practical tool designed to quantify students’ engagement. Only three grades were awarded per our LBG rubric: full credit, partial credit, and no credit. Full credit was only awarded to students who submitted the assignment on time and fulfilled all assignment requirements. Partial credit was awarded to students who submitted assignments on time but did not fulfill all requirements or submitted a complete assignment during the “48-hour late window.” Finally, no credit was awarded to students who did not submit the assignment at all or submitted an assignment past the “48-hour late window.” This quickly became a revealing instrument, shedding light on the challenges and expectations faced by both students and GTAs. The labor chart, while intended to measure engagement, inadvertently illuminated the need for clearer communication between instructors and GTAs, as well as more channels for GTAs to offer feedback on pedagogical design per their observations and experiences with students.
The labor chart, designed to credit students for increased labor, unintentionally overlooked the varied capacities of students to engage in such labor. This became evident in the case of students juggling caregiving responsibilities, employment, and athletic commitments, impeding their ability to dedicate time to assignments. Our program’s grading structure exhibited a tendency to unfairly categorize these students as contributing less labor, despite our firsthand knowledge of their hard work as their GTAs. This discrepancy between the aims of the labor chart and its actual function exposes a critical aspect of anti-racist pedagogy—it requires a nuanced understanding of students’ diverse circumstances and a recognition that each student’s capacity to engage in labor is uniquely shaped by their individual experiences.
GTAs, in their role as frontline facilitators of student interactions, found themselves grappling with carework in unforeseen ways. The program’s extension policy, outlined in the syllabus, presented challenges for students, particularly those facing unforeseen personal hurdles. In many instances, students requested extensions prior to assignment deadlines due to various time constraints. Students demonstrated a proactive approach to their learning; however, per the LBG grading structure, GTAs were instructed to advise students that the rubric had a designated “48-hour late window” during which time any assignments submitted would receive partial credit. Therefore, extensions could not be granted and students regardless of their labor would not be awarded full credit if they missed the submission window. GTAs, including the authors, were compelled to navigate an ethical dilemma—subverting the grading structure to accommodate students’ diverse needs. Both authors granted non-penalized extensions to students during their time employed as GTAs in the program. Examples included a student who requested an additional 24 hours beyond the late window due to having to attend a relative’s funeral, as well as granting an extension to a student hospitalized with an illness who asked to submit their assignment once they were discharged. These examples highlight the integral role GTAs play in carework, ensuring that anti-racist pedagogy is not only a concept but a lived experience for students facing unexpected challenges.
The challenges posed by the full, partial, and no credit grading structure further underscore the nuanced navigation required by GTAs within the anti-racist pedagogical framework. A fellow Asian woman GTA faced a student who submitted work advocating for problematic solutions to social justice problems. This student had a history of writing and submitting responses that were antithetical to the writing program’s emphasis on racial justice and activism. The student’s prior White man GTA evaluated the student rigidly through our LBG rubric, awarding the student full credit for their assignments and did not address the content produced by the student. Although he used LBG as intended the result was arguably not anti-racist. This put the Asian woman GTA in a challenging situation where—in recognition of the ethical complexities embedded in anti-racist pedagogy—she felt compelled to go beyond the required evaluation when some GTAs in her position would not. She shared her experience with the program directors and fellow GTAs and sought additional support. It was during this meeting that the student’s previous GTA shared he was aware of this student’s problematic views but felt that, because the student had met the laboring requirements, he had no choice but to give the student full credit. The Asian woman GTA practiced an additional level of care by bringing this student’s work to the attention of the directors and by including additional comments on the assignment, demonstrating the intricate balance GTAs must strike between adhering to the prescriptive syllabus and addressing the nuanced responses necessitated by anti-racist pedagogy.
We also had personal experiences navigating the carework dilemma. Matsuda Rivero found that the nature of the assignments brought up deeply personal dimensions for many students, prompting them to share poignant narratives tied to the course material and stirring her own encounters with racism and discrimination. Although Matsuda Rivero raised this concern with the instructors, their response—a suggestion of utilizing campus mental health services—seemed generic and inadequate for the emotional toll. Moreover, these services often involved prohibitively long wait times, rendering them practically unhelpful. Consequently, students sharing traumatic experiences of racism lacked immediate mental health support, and GTAs were unsupported in their role as de facto counselors. During discussion sections, Webb experienced one of the three common fears experienced by White educators who strive to integrate anti-racist praxis into their teaching identified by Shannon K. McManimon et al. (2018). She was afraid of “getting it wrong” as she knew engaging with these sensitive topics required immense care to avoid misrepresenting these histories but was unable to get support from the instructors about how to teach these histories as GTAs were not supposed to teach course content.
These examples collectively illuminate the multifaceted challenges GTAs encounter within the anti-racist pedagogical framework. The tension between adhering to a rigid syllabus and recognizing the need for nuanced responses underscores the indispensable role GTAs play in navigating the complexities that arise in the pursuit of an anti-racist educational environment. GTAs, through their frontline interactions with students, become agents of care, uniquely positioned to address diverse needs and ethical considerations that are integral to the successful implementation of anti-racist pedagogy. Ultimately our experience underscores our two central claims: that care is inherently woven into the fabric of anti-racist pedagogy, and the successful implementation of anti-racist pedagogy necessitates the engagement of GTAs in that carework.
Conclusions and Proposed Solutions
Our experiences offer an insight into the substantial carework undertaken by GTAs, underscoring their commitment to students’ learning. In this essay, we argue that genuine anti-racist pedagogy transcends individual instructors and necessitates the full engagement of all teaching team members, including GTAs. It is in recognizing and elevating the role of GTAs that anti-racist pedagogy can truly thrive at a large scale. Central to this argument is the assertion that care is not just a complementary aspect but an integral component of anti-racist pedagogy. GTAs, through their close interactions with students, embody care in navigating the nuanced challenges and diverse needs that arise. The genuine commitment to students’ learning, evident in the carework undertaken by GTAs, becomes an indispensable element in the successful implementation of anti-racist pedagogy.
Our call for instructors and others in positions of pedagogical authority to critically reflect on the effective incorporation of GTAs into the pedagogical design echoes the overarching theme of care. GTAs are not mere facilitators but crucial collaborators in the anti-racist educational endeavor. Their inclusion in the pedagogical framework ensures a more holistic and responsive approach to students’ needs, fostering an environment where anti-racist values are not just preached but lived. To this end, we highlight the imperative for additional research into GTAs’ carework experiences, emphasizing the need to explore how intersecting inequalities, such as race and gender, shape their roles and impact the efficacy of anti-racist pedagogy.
Moreover, our experiences highlight the challenges of scaling up anti-racist pedagogy beyond individual classrooms. The institutional shift toward comprehensive anti-racist practices demands a collective effort and systemic changes. Beyond the commitment of individual instructors, universities need to actively integrate critical pedagogies into their institutional fabric as well as create robust pedagogical support and sufficient preparation time for faculty intending to include anti-racist practices in their teaching. Anti-racist pedagogy extends beyond the classroom and demands a concerted “effort for institutional and social change” (Kishimoto 2018:540). Our experiences illuminate not only the carework undertaken by GTAs but also the pivotal role they play in the realization of authentic anti-racist pedagogy. The successful implementation of anti-racist practices demands a holistic approach that integrates care at its core and recognizes the significance of GTAs in shaping the educational journey of students. In response to Kishimoto’s call for self-reflection and in recognition of our own call for change, we offer the following proposals:
Proposals for Anti-Racist Pedagogy at Scale
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Caroline Petronis and Beatrice Waterhouse for their advice and feedback on this essay. They would also like to thank our fellow graduate student teaching assistants for their support as we were learning how to teach and our students for pushing us to be better teachers.
