Higher education has been long considered a hallmark of social mobility among minority students who live in poverty. However, research has reported continued barriers for retention and much needed supports for these students to successfully graduate from predominantly white institutions. Doctoral students of color entering colleges and universities that were originally designed for the social elite, have an academic experience that would reflect theories of social exclusion. Often, minority doctoral students experience traumatic interactions with their institutions, and unfair structures, that perpetuate societal constraints and limit their mobility. Utilizing Photovoice as a research tool, minority doctoral students reflect on their experiences in their doctoral programs and use photos as a catalyst to engage the academic community in a discussion around their experiences and how academic gatekeepers can help to foster solidarity and supports for the next generation of scholars and activists. After the photographs are taken, this creative session will invite the extended community of scholars through an exhibition of these photos. The session will serve as a forum to reflect on the strengths and challenges of these students. The photographs serve as an artistic technique to express desired changes and allow a community of scholars to discuss ways in which academic institutions can begin effecting these changes. Critical race theory provides a framework in support of these counter-narrative photos to be explored and discussed in settings that are typical to academic elites who have the power to implement changes within their institutions and ultimately help to mitigate the disparity of student success and social mobility of minority doctoral students.

Since May of 2018, an Aboriginal ethicist (Mandy) and a white researcher (Peta) have been engaging in critical discussion regarding the structural violence and white fragility that protects the coloniser-researcher through the ethics approval process within higher education. The discussion began when a number of Peta’s research projects were triaged for elevation from low risk to high risk review. Until the projects had been reviewed by Mandy, who offered an Indigenous standpoint, the projects that concerned topics of Indigenous interest were not considered by white research office staff to warrant HREC review. The focus of this presentation is to deconstruct the nuance of the initial phone call between Mandy and Peta, when Mandy conveyed the news that the projects were not low risk. This first exchange between two strangers conveys a collision between cultural standpoints; depicting the burden experienced by Mandy to be the ‘bearer of bad news’ while simultaneously endeavouring to meet conflicting cultural and institutional expectations. Further, Mandy’s endeavours occurred within an institutional context that sympathised with the coloniser-researcher that until then effectively cradled Peta’s white fragility. Neither Mandy nor Peta are actors, but the startling difference in how the conversation could have played out is (we hope) best depicted via performance. Three versions of this first telephone conversation between Mandy and Peta will be conveyed; one where institutional expectations are upheld, another were cultural responsibilities are honoured, and a third illustrating Mandy’s decision to facilitate the phone call through engaging in epistemic disobedience. Following this, Mandy and Peta will facilitate reflexive discussion with those in attendance. Through collectively deconstructing the nuances between the Aboriginal woman and the white woman who were talking, we aim to illustrate the violence that is embedded in procedural ethics.