Cultural taxation or “tax credit”? Understanding the nuances of ethnoracially minoritized student labor in higher education

ABSTRACT

In this conceptual paper, we use an intersectional approach to understand the divergent outcomes stemming from ethnoracially minoritized students’ labour to improve diversity on U.S. campuses. Research shows that attempts to leverage the perspectives of ethnoracially minoritized faculty in diversity work has levied a burden, known as cultural taxation (Padilla 1994), on the professional advancement of this group. While the literature on cultural taxation on faculty is well-developed, the impacts of taxation on students is less understood. We argue that, when ethnoracially minoritized students are asked to perform diversity-related labour, they can experience a similar tax on their academic and professional progress. However, we expand on this discussion to introduce the concept of a “cultural tax credit,” whereby some students may benefit in a meaningful way from this diversity-related labour based on intersections of their other identities. We provide recommendations to both mitigate taxation and increase credits for students.

KEYWORDS:

• Cultural taxation
• cultural tax credit
• diversity
• ethnoracially minoritized students
• higher education institutions
• racialized equity labour

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 We will use university, college, and higher education institution interchangeably.

2 Our focus in this paper regarding diversity in higher education institutions pertains mostly to ethnoracial and socioeconomic diversity, but other identities, such as gender and sexual orientation are also important for universities to include.

3 Informed by Benitez’s work (2010), we use the term “ethnoracially minoritized students,” as opposed to minority students, to highlight the process of minoritization that historically underrepresented students (e.g., African American, Asian, Latinx) endure.

4 Yosso’s (2005) model challenges dominant/Bourdieusian capital and suggests that marginalized communities of color have their own types of social and cultural capital, such as familial (e.g., commitment to family) and aspirational capital (e.g., having hope in the face of discrimination). She argues that such capital plays an essential role in achieving goals such as graduating from college.

5 This reality may be changing as universities increase the ethnoracial and socioeconomic diversity of their faculty and students.

6 Defined as knowledge based on personal experience within a given culture or smaller structure (e.g., family). For example, first-generation Latinx student translating/interpreting for Spanish-speaking immigrant parents.

7 Students with more privileged identities (e.g., upper middle-class) have more dominant capital due to having many resources (e.g., money, well-resourced schools, influential connections) versus less privileged students (e.g., low-income) who have less dominant capital because they lack resources.

8 Although Joshua and Samuel’s stories may seem overly simplified, the successes and struggles these students faced are highly plausible and elucidate the racist and classist systems that impact ethnoracially minoritized students. Even if some students, such as Samuel, possess high non-dominant capital, these sources of knowledge are not as valued in mainstream U.S. universities as dominant Bourdieusian capital is. Accordingly, although highly flawed, the status quo at most U.S. universities is to perceive Joshua’s capital through an asset-based framework, while perceiving Samuel’s capital through a deficit-based framework.

9 Though Samuel likely had accumulated some dominant capital as he made his way to graduate school, differences in class status compared to Joshua suggest that Samuel did not have similar levels of dominant capital or the habitus to maximize the opportunity to turn his racialized equity labor into credits instead of taxation.