Introduction

There is a significant lack of Black, Asian and minority ethnic leadership in all governance systems in universities, with Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff struggling to progress to tenure and/or leadership positions. Governing bodies lack diversity with few Black, Asian and minority ethnic members, female members and those from disabled backgrounds (Advance HE, 2020a). In the context of good governance, the Framework for Supporting Governing Body Effectiveness Reviews in Higher Education (Advance HE, 2020b) recognises that diversity is a strength and is needed to avoid the ‘group think’ mentality seen in many governing bodies. The argument that diversity is good for business, innovation, problem solving and decision making is made in many places (as supported by Phillips, 2014 and Priest et al, 2015). Despite the Equality Act (2010), underrepresentation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff at senior levels in governance, leadership positions and decision-making bodies (that is, Universities UK, Office for Students) is well documented (Advance HE, 2018; 2020c), with Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff struggling to progress to tenure and leadership positions in universities (Weale, 2019).

Bhopal and Henderson (2019) have identified that the Athena Swan Charter (ASC) and the REC influence policy making, governance and leadership of awards. They argue that the ASC mostly benefits White, middle-class women, setting a covertly higher precedence on gender issues above race inequality, which has resulted ‘in a hierarchy of oppression in which women’s experiences have been privileged over [the intersection] of men and women of colour’ (Bhopal, 2021). Bhopal and Henderson (2019) argue that gender equality is progressing because the ASC process has become more established and embedded in HEIs over the last 20 years in contrast to the REC, which was formed only in 2016. The charters do recognise and address issues pertaining to governance and offer frameworks for change in different institutions; however, there is still a need to understand how sustainable and efficacious changes to governance are made. When critically reflecting on the role of such equalities frameworks, researchers like Hu-DeHart (2000) argue that policies for diversity and inclusion are ‘camouflage for the self-interest, power and privilege of dominant groups’. See also Iverson (2007) and Lehan, Hussey and Babcock (2020), who studied equality and diversity practice in universities and educational institutions in the United States.