More ?s I'm asking when looking at curricula, policies, practices, etc. 1) "Cultural diversity" "Respect Diversity" ... how are you defining culture? Diversity? 2) Where are you asking for reflection & naming of positionality? Beyond right/wrong narratives that avoid complexity.

3) What group(s) and culture(s) are you framing as default and normal? Who are you othering and dismissing? 4) In your clinical evaluations, how are you asking students to demonstrate "respect for diversity"? 5) Are you lumping together caring, altruism, and social justice?
6) Where are you asking students and providing guidance about honoring patient leadership and autonomy, not merely supporting patients voicing concerns?
7) Safety in clinical evaluations: How are you defining safety beyond medication errors, falls, etc. Where are you asking students to consider cultural safety and demonstrate trauma-informed healing-centered care?
8) Where do you give students the space to PRACTICE inclusion and antiracism and genuine apologies with guidance & a clear theoretical stance? 9) How do you de-center niceness and deservingness and normalize dialogue through conflict?
10) How is your program using technology? How is social control built into and protected by nursing faculty? @UMassWalker @jdillardwright @drannamvaldez @Dr_Whomever are among those I'm learning from about this - join me
11) "Vulnerable populations" - how do you talk about what creates/protects vulnerability and who benefits? 12) Racism not race when we talk about risk factors
13) How are you providing guidance related to & asking students to demonstrate "patient-centered care?" 14) What values are you centering in your admissions process?
15) What will future generations of nurses+communities have to grapple with because of current ongoing inaction by nurses? 16) Will nurses from your program be prepared to act collectively across disciplines/spaces to demand and cocreate change beyond interpersonal situations?

More from Culture

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?