A Guide to Building and Sustaining Antiracist Learning-Action Communities in Academia

Academia - historically and presently - perpetuates racial inequity in the United States. White supremacy capitalizes on the academy to falsely rationalize racial discrimination. For example, modern genetic studies that examine racial differences without accounting for socioeconomic factors (Lala & Feldman, 2024) and their historical eugenic precedents (Jackson & Weidman, 2005) have been used to justify harmful racist policies (Chatters et al., 2022). In turn, the academy mirrors socially-entrenched structures of racism, such as discriminatory recruitment, cultural gatekeeping, and macro and microaggressions (Adams et al., 2015; Dupree & Kraus, 2022; Mkwebu, 2024; Tiatia-Siau, 2023). The intersections of a racist academia with a racist society profoundly impact 1) the academic achievement and well-being of Black people, Indigenous people, and People of Color (BIPOC); 2) the inclusion, treatment, and representation of BIPOC in academic studies; and 3) the professional trajectories of BIPOC academics (Durkee et al., 2021; Erosheva et al., 2020; Roberts, 2024; Roberts et al., 2020). Those of us who value diverse, equitable, and inclusive institutions, thus bear a responsibility to leverage any power we have to dismantle racism, in academia and beyond.

Now, more than ever, we must find ways to address racial inequity in our day-to-day lives and in the spaces that exist “between the cracks” of our institutions. In the wake of President Trump’s 2025 executive order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” institution-sanctioned diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are under threat of dissolution (EO14173) (Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity – The White House, 2025). New and continued challenges to institutional DEI initiatives stress the importance of grassroots actions that push for change beyond, and in parallel to, established institutions. We cannot single-handedly reshape these institutions, thus we must form our own communities that leverage collective action. Replicable models for such grassroots collective action within academia are, however, seldom documented.

In this article, we detail a strategy for fostering sustainable and collective antiracist action within academic institutions. We do so by describing our Antiracist Learning-Action Community (ALAC) framework. The ALAC framework is of our own making, but its design is deeply rooted in grassroots organizing practices and philosophies. Here, we focus on the development and accomplishments of our ALAC at the majority-white University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our ALAC was established following the brutal murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery at the hands of law enforcement in 2020. Our community was initially formed to prioritize action in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields as our members are all researchers in STEM disciplines. STEM has deeply entrenched racial discrimination, and STEM fields often (falsely) claim race-neutrality in their academic pursuits (Dupree & Kraus, 2022; Fausto-Sterling, 1981) . However, while STEM fields might especially benefit from antiracist change, we believe grassroots antiracist communities are essential across all areas of academia. Our guide, therefore, is broadly applicable.

Our guide is both a case study and recipe book; its purpose is to present a practical narrative, and clear recommendations, for initiating and sustaining grassroots antiracist service communities in academia. To do this, we outline the composition of our own ALAC (Section 2), including the roles of the Steering Facilitators and Action Subgroups dedicated to focused action work. We then provide an overview of how we maintain supportive and productive meetings (Section 3). Finally, we model a workflow for organizing and implementing Action Subgroups (Section 4) by highlighting four example actions. These example actions are:

1. The Science Expo, a high school community event in which we bring scientists who self-identify as underrepresented in STEM to an underserved school in our community.

2. The Research Opportunities Catalog for Underrepresented Undergraduates, a spreadsheet populated with labs dedicated to making their spaces inclusive. It is sent out on a semester basis to affinity groups with students who self-identify as underrepresented in STEM.

3. The Grad Guide, a living document in which we aim to break down the hidden curriculum of graduate school to incoming graduate students, as well as provide resources that may be helpful for graduate students at all stages.

4. The Leveraging Privilege Panel/Workshop, in which we collaborated with women and non-binary scientists of color during a scientific conference to discuss ways in which scientists at all career stages can leverage their privilege to improve racial equity in academia.

Antiracist organizing at academic institutions is far from new. Many BIPOC, and their allies, have fought for racial equity in the academy for centuries (Bell et al., 2021; Luz Reyes & Halcón, 2011; Wagner, 2005). There is an abundance of scholarly work detailing the history of racism in academia, and potential solutions at the institutional level (Ahmed, 2012; Cole, 2020; Foste & Tevis, 2023). This guide serves not to attempt to address every institutional issue, but to contribute to that storied history by providing a methodological account of our antiracist community work in the academy. Through this, we present graduate students, undergraduates, postdoctoral researchers, professors, and staff with practical actions they can implement immediately. Just as the replication and expansion of empirical research necessitates published methodology, we believe grassroots organizing benefits from the formalized documentation of experience.

Our community is driven by a central goal: for every minute spent learning about the persistence of racism in academia, local communities, and national landscapes, an equal amount of time is dedicated to actively dismantling that injustice. We operate on a four-part framework in service of this goal (Fig 1 ):

1. Antiracist: The community recognizes the presence of racist systems at all levels of society. Its antiracist goals focus on leveraging privilege and power to improve racial equity.

2. Learning: The community emphasizes the importance of deepening its members’ understanding of racist systems and how they operate. This knowledge is used to critically examine and challenge members’ behaviors that contribute to upholding racist institutions. By learning about racial inequity within and outside academia, members are better equipped to undertake actions that challenge injustice and prevent harm.

3. Action: The community seeks to leverage its power and privilege to foster racial equity within and beyond its own circles. Its members work collectively towards goals that address racial inequity, such as providing resources and opportunities to minoritized students or advocating for transformational policy change within their departments or broader communities.

4. Community: Collective action and learning rely on collective care. To that end, the community is built on empathy for its members. All members are accountable to community guidelines, allowing them to interrogate their own positions and hold one another to consistent antiracist efforts. Community members care for and support one another, and the community becomes a space for solidarity, compassion, and collective processing. An ALAC is not just a professional working group, it is a community that takes care of its own.

Community organizing is practice, not theory. However, there are deep wells of grassroots knowledge that community organizers can draw from to foster their collective work (Bobo & Max, 2010; Carruthers, 2018; Piepzna-Samarasinha, 2018; Sen, 2003; Staples, 2004; Stout, 2018). We scaffolded the ALAC Framework upon three key grassroots principles: community learning, collective action, and mutual aid (Brown & Lambert, 2012; Giacomucci, 2021) (Fig 1 ).

Members of an ALAC engage in community learning to deepen their understanding of how academia, along with its broader societal contexts, perpetuates oppression against BIPOC. Community learning, often described in higher education as being done by “learning communities” (Mitchell & Sackney, 2011), is the vital process by which each member of a group invests not only in their own learning, but in sharing their knowledge and experiences with other members as well. Through community learning, an ALAC calls on its members to recognize and confront their active and tacit involvement in racist systems.

Crucially, the knowledge gained through meetings is translated to collective action aimed at cultivating a racially equitable academic environment. Collective action is, by definition, essential to group work and social change (Millward & Takhar, 2019). ALAC members achieve more together than they can alone, and hold each other accountable for progress. Since its formation, our own ALAC has successfully accomplished multiple actions, highlighted in section 4.B “Example Actions.”

These actions would not have been possible without a culture of mutual aid shared by the members of our ALAC. A culture of mutual aid encourages members to take care of one another, and is reflective of community self-reliance, solidarity, and collaborative exchange (Spade, 2020). ALAC members recognize that compassion, support, and vulnerability are required for fostering learning and action communities, but that the academic system does not often provide such resources. The community prioritizes the safety and care of its members by creating and upholding community guidelines, holding space for emotional processing, checking-in with those who are struggling, and celebrating its members’ company. While antiracist work cannot be without sorrow, it also cannot be without joy.

Before moving through the framework in detail, we answer questions commonly-asked by those interested in establishing their own ALAC:

1. “Who can start an ALAC?”

   Anyone can. We all have the capacity to learn and act, even in small ways. While this guide is designed for those with a committed group ready to implement the suggested framework, initial efforts can be informal. The minimum a community needs is two people and a regular meeting time in the calendar. Meeting weekly with a friend or colleague to discuss the next chapter in a book about the history of policing, or to look up local nonprofits seeking donations, is better than doing nothing. Sustainable commitment, no matter how seemingly minor, is infinitely more impactful than inaction.

2. “How do I start an ALAC?”

   Forming a community might be challenging at first, especially because it requires finding like-minded individuals who share your enthusiasm and commitment. Connect with trusted friends or colleagues and propose a regularly-scheduled, informal gathering. Meet casually–this could start as a journal club or space to discuss current issues–until your community feels prepared to embrace the structured approach detailed in the subsequent sections of this article.

3. “What if I’m not an expert in racial justice?”

   It is not only acceptable, but anticipated to feel like an inexpert. Embarking on this journey involves a significant amount of learning. This guide draws from several years of organizing experience within a community, yet our members consider themselves far from experts. Become comfortable sitting in ignorance. Hold each other accountable to compassionate, uncomfortable learning. Be vulnerable, and acknowledge areas where you may know little. Embrace learning from and with your community.

4. “Why not just join a DEI committee instead?”

   Although our community is composed of members of various institutional departments, the community itself exists independent of those departments. Functioning separately from the institution allows for greater freedom and control within our own space, and actions tend to move faster than those of institutionally-based service committees. Many members of our community also participate in departmental committees such as DEI committees, as doing so allows for our community to choose when to collaborate with the institution. However, operating in parallel to the institution means that the community does not benefit from departmental funding, and therefore requires a smaller operating budget (and sometimes a need to apply for external funding opportunities).

5. “What if I’m not ‘allowed’ to do DEI work?”

   There has recently been an increase in political challenges to DEI initiatives run by public universities and funded by federal grants (Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity – The White House, 2025; Trump Orders Cause Chaos at Science Agencies, n.d.) and even private foundations (HHMI Kills Program Aimed at Boosting Inclusivity in STEM Education, n.d.). These challenges both threaten the existence of institutionally-dependent work and highlight the alignment of public institutions with dominant political powers. As an ALAC works in parallel to institutions (and can operate without institutional funding), members participate in the community in their capacity as private citizens and on their own time. However, the decision of when and how to prioritize personal and community safety in response to institutional and state threat ultimately varies from group to group, and individual to individual

We have developed a community structure with three major components: The General Body, Steering Facilitators, and Action Subgroups (Fig 2 ). We describe each of these components below.

Ensuring consistent member attendance poses a significant challenge when establishing any community. In the subsequent section, we describe how we have cultivated a community of enthusiastic members.

In the first year, our ALAC had 6-12 members and has gradually expanded since. However, the community could have started smaller – what has mattered most is that everyone is interested in meeting regularly and all are aligned in their goals. Prioritizing connection over size is crucial to fostering a safe space where members can build trust and community. Larger groups can make it challenging to form close-knit dynamics, while smaller groups enhance accountability, facilitate trust, and foster regular upkeep of Community Guidelines (see Section 3.A.: Community Meetings). However, over time we have found it is easiest when the General Body is large enough to 1) maintain structure and engagement when individual members are absent, 2) invite a broad range of perspectives in discussion and idea generation, and 3) better distribute labor when the number of actions increases. As our community grew, we became more intentional about facilitating trust, solidarity, and closeness. Our meetings now typically begin with 5-10 minutes of checking in with one another and engaging in casual conversation. Laughing, and crying, together is an important part of community building. Additionally, if someone has not attended in awhile, we check in on them to demonstrate care and concern for their well-being. Finally, Community Meetings (Section 3.A.) are designed to encourage vulnerability through asking questions and sharing stories – opportunities that bring the group together.

When forming an ALAC, be intentional about the inclusion of group members. Thoughtfully reflect on the following key considerations when inviting new members:

1. Prioritize the community’s antiracist focus. While specific goals may differ, everyone is unified under a shared intention of dismantling racist systems within themselves, their department, their university, their field of study, and their broader communities.

2. Prioritize active participation in the community. In an antiracist community, everyone not only values antiracist work, but also expresses a desire to be an active member. Being an active member can look different to each individual depending on their personal goals, interests, and experiences. For example, one member may be particularly driven to engage in action work, while another member may want to work to interrogate their complicity in oppressive systems. The ability to attend meetings may fluctuate, and it is important to be compassionate in times when bandwidth to work is low, and to invite members to engage when they are able.

3. Think about the career stages represented in the community. In our ALAC, the ratio of faculty members to graduate students was higher initially. Now the community predominantly consists of graduate students. The privileges faculty members had were, at times, a valuable asset; for example, the community implemented inclusive teaching practices in those professors’ classes. This was possible because those professors shared the antiracist values of our community, sought directly actionable solutions, and trusted evidence-based approaches. However, a community composed of members from a single career stage may enable more candid conversations. If multiple career stages are represented in the community, it is helpful to address within-group power dynamics. This can happen when creating and upholding Community Guidelines (see Section 3.A.: Community Meetings).

4. Assess how new members will impact trust and safety in the community. The composition of the community can enhance or hinder the development of trust and safety. How does a community of mostly white women impact the types of conversations a BIPOC member would feel comfortable having? It is important to note that while a community welcomes people at different stages of learning and with different perspectives, bad-faith actors are not tolerated. While challenging, building the community gradually and vetting new members to prioritize safety can facilitate the creation of a strong community. Above all else, prioritize the safety of folks who are BIPOC within the community. To ensure this safety, interested members meet with Steering Facilitators (see below) before a decision is made about whether they will be invited into the community.

Our ALAC prioritizes distributed responsibility and accountability while minimizing power hierarchies (Moreno et al., 2023). However, designated individuals, responsible for coordinating group efforts, can enhance organization. These are people who display dedication to the community’s success, encourage others to stay motivated, and value upholding a community space that is safe, compassionate, and capable of joy. Our ALAC includes four key facilitator roles: General Facilitator, Learning Facilitator, Action Facilitator, and Community Facilitator (Fig. 1 ). If necessary, an individual can fill multiple roles.

1. The General Facilitator schedules regular meetings, sends meeting reminders, creates meeting agendas, and oversees community administrative tasks during meetings. General Facilitator responsibilities can be divided amongst the other facilitators if the community is small.

2. The Learning Facilitator coordinates learning-focused meetings, which involve determining the semester’s learning focus (e.g., criminal justice system, housing discrimination, discrimination in healthcare, etc.) and organizing a schedule wherein members sign up to present topics, share resources, and lead discussions at meetings. The Learning Facilitator also organizes other activities at these meetings such as hosting speakers, coordinating antiracist book club reading groups, or antiracist workbook group reflections.

3. The Action Facilitator oversees action-oriented meetings, ensuring the progress of ongoing initiatives within subgroups (discussed below) and supporting the initiation of new actions proposed by community members. Importantly, the action facilitator provides opportunities for subgroups to communicate with the General Body for advice and accountability. For example, our Action Facilitator ensures that the Research Opportunities Catalog is updated and distributed to underrepresented undergraduates every semester, and that the Grad Guide is distributed to incoming graduate students annually. Additionally, they regularly check in with all subgroups to ensure they are making steady progress. If they are not achieving their goals, the Action Facilitator may recruit more members to that specific project, or dedicate full-group meetings to work on the project collectively. Action Facilitator responsibilities pair well with General Facilitator responsibilities if the community is small.

4. The Community Facilitator ensures that the group is more than “just another committee” by taking a human-first, worker-second approach. They oversee community-centered meetings, which provide a space for personal processing, interpersonal vulnerability, support, and rejuvenation. Community-focused meetings will likely be the least frequent of the meeting types but still occur semi-regularly. Examples of work done by our Community Facilitator include organizing discussions around the community’s history of antiracist work, what motivates us, what topics we feel passionate about, what we feel nervous about, etc. Additionally, our Community Facilitator is typically the member to greet people as they enter the virtual meeting space and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to address the group, and in that way be thanked for their participation. Community Facilitator responsibilities pair well with Learning Facilitator responsibilities if the community is small.

Because facilitator roles require a significant time commitment, they are undertaken by those who have the availability to dedicate themselves to substantial organizing and mobilization efforts. The positions of General, Learning, Action, and Community Facilitators can be rotated on a regular basis (such as per semester or year), or they can remain fixed. Existing facilitators mentor interested members who are motivated to make the space inclusive, build community, and who have the capacity to take on a greater share of responsibilities.

Small groups provide space for individual interests to flourish and lead to effective goal achievement. Action Subgroups are the primary way in which an ALAC translates learning into action. As a result, subgroups complete more actions than does the General Body. The level of commitment required by a subgroup depends heavily on its goals. One subgroup may only require a brief meeting each week, while another may require multiple hours per week. One subgroup may require short-term, concentrated commitment, while another may distribute work evenly across months or years. Regardless of its goals, every subgroup includes four essential components:

1. A Subgroup Facilitator is the point-person for a specific initiative. They communicate regularly with the Action Facilitator, who supports them with organization and logistics. A Subgroup Facilitator can concurrently be a Steering Facilitator and/or facilitate other subgroups.

2. Subgroup Meetings are scheduled separately from General Meetings, and only subgroup members attend. The frequency of meetings depends on the scope of the action. See Section 4 for more details.

3. Subgroup Members are folks who share a common interest in a particular action. Depending on its goals, a subgroup can consist of two or more people (e.g., our Science Expo subgroup includes 7 members, but the Research Opportunities Catalog subgroup includes 3 members).

4. Subgroup accountability encourages progress which aligns with the overall community values. A Subgroup Facilitator works with the Action Facilitator to provide progress updates and seek advice at General Action Meetings. This approach promotes a sense of collaboration and coordination within the larger community while allowing for targeted efforts and specialization.

An ALAC will likely have different meeting structures depending on its size and goals. We detail the meeting structures of our ALAC below. We have three major meeting types (Fig 3 ):

1. Planning Meetings are typically for Steering Facilitators only, and are meant for discussions about organizing the community at large. They occur as often as is deemed necessary, and at least once at the beginning of each semester. They are useful for:

   • Coordinating the schedule (e.g., meeting times) and structure (e.g., editing meeting templates) of future General Meetings.

   • Discussing the progress of subgroups, the capacity to introduce more subgroups, or the need to keep the number of subgroups stable.

   • Preparing community upkeep topics to introduce at General Meetings (e.g., inviting new members, updating Community Guidelines, or rotating Steering Facilitators).

2. General Meetings are weekly, full-community meetings that are coordinated by the Steering Facilitators. Their focus rotates between Learning, Action, and Community, depending on the schedule made at the beginning of the semester. For example, our ALAC maintains a meeting ratio of 40% Learning, 40% Action, and 20% Community. For an example General Meeting schedule, see Section 3.C.

3. Subgroup Meetings occur separately, as often as is decided by each subgroup. For our ALAC, this is where the majority of action work occurs. These meetings are run by each respective Subgroup Facilitator.

Below, we provide an overview of the topics covered in each General Meeting type, and follow with suggested agendas for topics to cover in the first three General Meetings. In Section 4, we detail how to conduct Subgroup Meetings.

A note on participation: Each person holds a unique combination of identities that may provide them with an advantage or disadvantage within the academic system and thus impact how other community members participate. For example, students have less power compared to professors. More so, a white male professor has more power within the department than does a non-binary graduate student of color. Ultimately, members are mindful of the amount they participate in discussions relative to others with less power.

About 40% of our General Meetings are dedicated to learning about racial justice. The number of topics that intersect with racial justice is innumerable, but we have focused on topics such as: community and campus policing, incarceration, inclusive teaching practices, political engagement among college students, micro and macroaggressions, disability, environmental racism, and medical racism, among many others.

The meetings are founded on principles of community learning (Brown & Lambert, 2012), where members are encouraged to share their experiences and learning from outside of the community to further each other’s knowledge and understanding. Community learning can occur in a number of ways:

1. General Body sign ups: Each semester, community members have the opportunity to sign up and lead discussions on topics aligned with their own and the community’s interests. These discussions can revolve around a specific theme or be prompted by ongoing events. For example, we previously developed a syllabus for Learning Meetings that explored major topics on the history of policing and incarceration in the US. Members then brought learning resources and discussion questions to each meeting.

2. Invited speakers: Additionally, the Learning Facilitator may invite external speakers involved in antiracist work, based on the collective interests and goals of the community for that semester.

3. Workbook, free course, or book club: The community may decide to follow a pre-set syllabus. After the community chooses a resource, the Learning Facilitator organizes a schedule for the pace of assignments and reflections, and facilitates discussions about them during Learning Meetings. Similar to a course, a book provides an opportunity to deeply focus on a particular topic. After the community chooses a book to read, the Learning Facilitator organizes a schedule of members to lead Learning Meeting discussions (or leads the discussions themself).

4. Campus and broader community events: Members find and share relevant talks, panels, or workshops hosted by other groups or occurring elsewhere on campus. This helps to form connections outside of the community and to learn what is already being considered and addressed on campus. Building relationships with other groups is an important responsibility for an ALAC.

There is often a bidirectional relationship between Learning Meetings and the Action Meetings described below. Learning can be an opportunity to develop ideas for new actions, and deciding on an action can be an opportunity to determine what learning needs to be prioritized in order to achieve that action.

About 40% of our General Meetings are dedicated to taking action. The particular actions that a community engages in depends on the needs of the broader community and the interests and capacity of the members. Such meetings are founded on principles of collective action (Brown & Lambert, 2012). Broadly, Action Meetings provide a space for the following types of action work:

1. Collective work. Action Meetings, especially when the community is small or no Subgroup Actions have begun, can be held to accomplish small, collective actions. For example, we have used Action Meetings to contact legislators, develop lab diversity statements, review course syllabi, and practice responding to witnessing microaggressions. These are actions that are often overlooked but are powerful because they can be accomplished quickly with a group and benefit from the diverse contributions of many members. Anyone in the community can suggest something they want the group to collectively accomplish.

2. Personal action. Antiracism must be practiced in everyday life, not only during scheduled meetings. Action Meetings can serve as an opportunity for members to share what actions they have been working on outside of the group, such as volunteering in the broader community, attending protests, donating, or serving on service committees. Sharing this information encourages others to participate in their own individual actions. The Action Facilitator may find and share community event resources, such as protests, and organize a contingent from the group to attend.

3. Subgroup check-ins. The majority of our action work occurs in subgroups; therefore, the majority of Action Meetings are dedicated to subgroup check-ins. Subgroups and their reporting to the General Meeting are discussed in detail below. During check-ins, subgroups provide progress updates, receive feedback, and ask for advice. Additionally, this time is spent brainstorming new Subgroup Actions.

The remaining 20% of our General Meetings are dedicated to our community. While the least frequent of the General Meeting types, Community Meetings serve the essential function of fostering safety, trust, respect, and vulnerability in our space. These meetings delineate our ALAC from a typical departmental service committee: our ALAC is not merely a tool for productive output, but a Community of Care - a place for us to take care of our own. Such meetings are founded on the principles of mutual aid (Giacomucci, 2021). We share values with care webs and networks described in disability studies literature (Piepzna-Samarasinha, 2018).

Whether the space held for community meetings is shorter and more frequent or longer and less frequent depends on community preferences. Regardless of format, Community Meetings can cover many topics:

1. Developing or updating Community Guidelines: Community Meetings can foster trust and safety in the community more broadly, but only if a foundation of trust and safety is intentionally scaffolded. Community Guidelines are an important step towards scaffolding such a foundation. They are a living document, referred to often and updated regularly, and are created by the community to articulate shared community values and member expectations. For example, members may consider what guidelines are followed to ensure that every member is treated respectfully during meetings, or what protocols exist for when one member’s words hurt another member. Below are example Community Guidelines from our ALAC:

   • Mutual respect. We do not tolerate racism or bigotry of any kind. Treat other members with the same compassion and understanding you want for yourself.

   • Lean in, sit back. Be aware of how much you are participating in any particular discussion, or broadly in discussions over time. If you are dominating a conversation, consider stepping back and inviting others to speak. If you are speaking less than others, consider adding your voice to the conversation.

   • Stories stay, lessons leave. Commit to confidentiality and respect. Specific details that people share during conversations may not be intended to be disclosed elsewhere. Simultaneously, work towards sharing important themes and messages outside of the community.

   • Acknowledge impact. Sometimes our words have harmful consequences, even if our intent was well-meaning. Recognize your impact when others communicate hurt and own-up to your mistakes without defensiveness: apologize, seek understanding, and learn how to do better next time.

   • Equitable distribution of participation. Navigating conversations virtually can be challenging. If someone is speaking and you would like to speak afterwards, indicate so in the meeting chat. If a queue forms, the Facilitator for the meeting calls on people in order. If there is no one lined up to speak next in the chat, discussion can proceed as normal.

   • For more examples of Community Guidelines, as well as a discussion of best practices, see Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2014.

2. Reflection and vulnerable growth: We regularly hold space for members to share feelings related to our antiracist work. What are we proud of? What are we ashamed of? What are we worried about? What are we hopeful for? Finding shared feelings in each other helps to foster connection.

3. Space to process or grieve: In the event of local, national, or global tragedy or major event, the Community Facilitator may schedule an impromptu meeting to serve as a caring space for members to emotionally process and find solidarity in community. Creating safe spaces to address emotionally charged events is crucial. During these discussions, the community may explore pathways for moving forward, and individuals can share their feelings about the event and discuss potential future actions for the ALAC’s response. For example, if any members are aware of upcoming local protests related to the event, they might discuss with other members of the community ways to get involved.

4. Discussion of community structure, policies, and direction: The benefit of a small, grassroots community such as an ALAC is that its structure, policies, and goals can be highly iterative based on member feedback.

5. Social gathering and joy: There is space for joy in antiracist work. Decompression and bonding through social time helps foster connection and promotes sustained effort. Set aside time to get to know one another casually through undirected conversation or perhaps by meeting over food, drinks, or an activity.

The first few General Meetings center on setting expectations and establishing the overall direction of the community. Below are suggestions for what to cover in introductory meetings. These meetings assume that there is already one or more Steering Facilitators. For full agenda templates for these meetings, see Supplement: Agenda templates for the first three meetings.

1. Introductions and logistics. This meeting is an opportunity for members to become acquainted, discuss goals, learn more about the community, and schedule a regular meeting time. It is run by the General Facilitator.

2. Community Guidelines. This meeting lays the groundwork for effective, respectful communication between community members by developing Community Guidelines (for example Guidelines, see Section 3.A.: Community Meetings). It is run by the Community Facilitator.

3. Learning and Action goals. This meeting is the starting point for developing Learning and Action plans. It is run jointly by the Learning Facilitator and Action Facilitator.

Following the initial setup, typical General Meetings can proceed. Below is the template our ALAC uses for these meetings:

1. Check-ins (10 mins)

2. Topic (45 mins)

   • If Learning Meeting, see Section 3.A.: Learning Meetings

   • If Action Meeting, see Section 3.A.: Action Meetings

   • If Community Meeting, see Section 3.A.: Community Meetings

3. Closing (5 mins)

In our ALAC, a General Meeting schedule will often repeat the pattern of:

1. Learning Meeting

2. Action Meeting

3. Learning Meeting

4. Action Meeting

5. Community meeting

Between semesters, the community either takes a break, continues the same meeting schedule structure, or focuses on a particular theme. For example, between semesters members of our ALAC have held a book club, a documentary-watching club, and focused on digital resource housekeeping for the community. The first meeting at the start of the semester is always a re-orienting meeting to plan out the semester, set expectations, and sign up for learning meeting facilitation. After which, the typical schedule structure resumes.

Once our ALAC settled into a rhythm, it became useful to form ssubgroups (see Section 2.C.). A subgroup allows for focused action among a subset of interested members (Fig 4 ). Below, we provide recommendations for how to operate subgroups, based on our collective experiences.

Our subgroups are born from discussion in General Meetings. Because it has been important for subgroups not to overextend the efforts of the General Body, we prioritize quality over quantity of subgroups. Any decision to form a subgroup, versus working on the action in Action Meetings, merits substantial reflection and enthusiasm. When the General Body makes decisions about what actions to prioritize, we ask ourselves:

1. What issues are pressing or are currently being overlooked within our broader communities? How can we create meaningful impact on those issues? This process requires a deep understanding of the broader communities in which our group operates and effective and ethical ways to take action within them.

2. Within the context of these issues, what specific goals, values, and interests are shared among two or more General Members? Is there a shared interest to take action?

3. Where do we have influence? When selecting actions to pursue, we consider our levels of influence:

   • The individual level, involving personal actions

   • The close community level, encompassing our departments, classes, labs, and similar contexts

   • The broader community level, which can be the university, city or region, or scientific societies

4. In what ways are we prepared to leverage our privilege? What resources can we offer? Time? Money? Social influence?

After the General Body decides on an action, we determine which members have the interest and availability to work on that action. We typically decide through full community discussions or by contacting members individually. For long-term actions, the composition of subgroups have sometimes changed over time as schedules and commitments change. Flexibility and open communication within each subgroup have allowed for dynamic participation and have help accommodate members’ varying levels of availability as actions progress. When forming a subgroup, an individual interested in becoming the Subgroup Facilitators leads discussions on the following questions:

1. Who is interested? How much time can they devote?

2. When and how often will we meet to discuss?

3. How will the Subgroup Facilitator ensure progress is being made?

4. What will the Action Facilitator do to coordinate with the Subgroup Facilitator?

Answering these questions leads to important structuring for how the subgroup will operate. For example, some subgroups have 1. invited members who were not already part of our General Body (e.g., community partners), 2. applied for small grants, or 3. decreased the scope of the intended action to make it more manageable.

Before working on an action, our subgroups discuss the following topics to establish goals:

1. Research: Understand the issue and what is currently being done to address it. This could mean exploring the literature on the topic, meeting with experts already working on it from a different angle or in a different space, and gaining a better understanding of why the issue exists. Subgroups explore if there are other communities working on the same action elsewhere on campus (perhaps in a different department or a student service group), so as to avoid “reinventing the wheel.”

2. Community engagement: Meet with members of the community directly impacted by the issue. For example, if we are creating a resource aimed to benefit underrepresented undergraduates, we connect with undergraduates to ensure the resource is helpful to them and addresses their needs. If they feel it is not helpful, we adjust and consider collaborating with community leaders to build an action that works for the community. Community engagement is a critical step and merits explanation that is beyond the scope of this guide. To learn more about community engagement, we recommend the Grassroots Collective’s Tools for Project Planning handbook (Tools for Planning Community Development Projects, n.d.) and Elevated Chicago’s Community Engagement Principles and Recommendations handbook (Community Engagement Principles 2.0, 2024). A strong example of our own community engagement can be found in the Science Expo (Section 4.B.).

3. Scope: Break down large plans into achievable goals. It has been crucial for our ALAC to strike a balance between “small and fast” goals that are immediately achievable (e.g., updating a syllabus to be more inclusive) and “large and slow” goals that may create systemic change but pose greater challenges (e.g., advocating for the restructuring of tenure decisions to prioritize DEI work). Our members have been wary of becoming overly-focused on big-picture issues, which could lead to a sense of inevitable failure. We make sure to set small, incremental goals alongside long-term goals as a strategy to build cumulative impact and maintain morale. However, while it is important to be realistic and pragmatic, we do not lose sight of the larger goals that contribute to dismantling racist institutions. One approach is to identify broad issues and develop actionable steps to address them. When possible, we collaborate with other groups, including faculty working on similar issues, and identify opportunities for synergistic efforts.

4. Impact: Create a plan for the assessment of impact before starting the action: As with our academic research, we plan ahead how we will assess the effectiveness of our actions. While not every action needs to be assessed with the same rigor of a scientific intervention, we seek at minimum to determine whether an action has done more good than harm. We build this assessment into the action timeline. During action planning, we ask ourselves this key question: How do we know that what we did was beneficial and not harmful? See Section 4.A.5. Assess, Improve, and Sustain for details on how we approach this question.

1. Delegate. The members of our subgroups participate because they want to contribute labor to the success of a project. Our Subgroup Facilitators help them direct this energy. Although subgroup members may not always work on the same tasks, it has been important for Subgroup Facilitators to ensure that everyone in the subgroup has a role and responsibility. Even working on a small action has served as a source of motivation for individual participation. However, it has been crucial for our Subgroup Facilitators to be understanding if a member does not have the capacity to take on additional tasks, or is only able to contribute by attending meetings.

2. Asset mapping. Asset mapping (for an overview, see Lightfoot et al., 2014) exercises have helped members of our subgroups (and the General Body at large) learn about each other’s skills and interests. Further, it has helped determine roles and responsibilities during the action development process. Asset mapping involves identifying and discussing the skills, resources, background knowledge, and other attributes that each member brings to the community. This may include community organizing skills, project management expertise, grant writing abilities, artistic experience, or connections to specific groups such as schools or political organizations. Members have also shared their cultural experiences and knowledge from other communities of which they are a part. Our own process of asset mapping draws heavy inspiration from Urban Bush Women’s 2022 Summer Leadership Institute (George-Graves, 2010), which one of our members attended.

3. Establish a plan for collective accountability. During scheduled full-community action meetings, we incorporate check-ins to discuss what each member accomplished since the last meeting. This approach keeps our discussions and actions moving forward without singling anyone out. It has also served as motivation for subgroup members to accomplish something before the next action meeting.

4. Be flexible. Not all of our actions have unfolded as initially envisioned. However, by following through with the majority of actions, we have sought to demonstrate our dedication to antiracist action. Our collective effort and commitment is what has ultimately mattered to us and our community partners, even if individual actions have varying levels of success.

1. Get feedback: When evaluating the impact of an action, we seek to assess the experiences of the individuals for whom the action was intended. When we are working with community partners, it has been important to provide those partners with opportunities to share their feedback.

2. Follow-through with the assessment: Our subgroups sometimes assign specific members to conduct post-hoc assessment of their actions. Conducting assessments is one of the hardest tasks for a subgroup, as members are often most focused on and enthusiastic about implementing the action itself. For this reason, our ALAC subgroups now emphasize building an assessment plan during the early stages of action design.

3. Reflect on results: Reflecting on the results of an action has been crucial to determine if our ALAC is having a positive impact. We ask ourselves the following questions:

   • Did we accomplish the goals we set out to achieve?

   • Do our community partners share our assessment of success or failure?

   • Do our community partners express enthusiasm for collaborating with us again in the future? If so, how do we continue to make it a sustainable relationship?

   • Did our actions result in a positive impact without harm?

   • If not, how will we address and correct this?

4. Develop a framework for sustainability: A well thought-out plan for sustainability has been essential for our ALAC’s long-term survival. Given the transitory nature of many stages of academic training, we prioritize sustainability throughout all subgroup planning. Including members at different career stages has helped to maintain continuity and ensure longevity of our actions.

5. Existing tools: Taking advantage of pre-existing tools, frameworks, and best practices saves time and effort. Examples of such resources can be found on our ALAC’s website (ANTIRACISM LEARNING AND ACTION IN NEUROSCIENCE, n.d.).

Below, we describe four example actions that our ALAC has done that vary in size and scope. While we provide these examples to illustrate our framework in practice, another Antiracism ALAC’s actions will look different depending on its members and broader academic contexts.

An annual science community event at a local high school during the school day, where graduate students discuss their research, their identity, and how their identity has shaped their path through science.

1. Choose an Action. The development of the Science Expo was prompted by discussions about improving pathways into STEM fields for historically underrepresented high school students. We researched and learned about the need to emphasize fostering a scientific identity and how developing a sense of belonging in the sciences is crucial for ensuring students stay in scientific fields. We discussed how our research, identities, and background are not visible to the larger community. We identified the need to communicate research in a way that is more accessible to our community while highlighting the myriad paths to research careers. We finally noted how many programs for high schoolers take place on campus, on weekends or during the summer, which might exclude students who lack transportation, work jobs, or provide family care outside of the school day. Members of our ALAC developed the Science Expo to meet these needs and to support the development of a stronger scientific identity among high school students from historically underrepresented backgrounds.

2. Form a Subgroup. Three graduate students developed the Science Expo. At the time planning began in the summer of 2020, none had any experience in planning events of this magnitude. A fourth graduate student joined shortly before the first Expo.

3. Set Action Goals. Development began by researching current work on developing scientific identities, existing programming at the University, and the likelihood of creating lasting change through a one-day event. Once we determined the event was viable, we met with teachers and administrators at our target high school to ensure it met the needs of their students. We met extensively with other community programs at the University for advice on how to recruit and organize such an event. During this time, we developed the two goals of the Expo: 1. to increase student interest in the sciences and 2. to foster an identity in the sciences, particularly for students from historically underrepresented backgrounds.

4. Develop and Implement Action. We decided to develop four different presentation booths to meet our goals. At demonstration booths, volunteers performed quick science demonstrations in their area of expertise. At “science concepts” booths, volunteers presented their research questions and explained their research in an easily digestible way. At advice booths, volunteers gave practical advice about their pathways through science and how their identity shaped their path. At the Expo, volunteers presented research and identity-focused information at the same time. Finally, “getting involved” booths provided information about summer research, internship programs, academic programs, or other ways students could pursue a career in STEM. Volunteers selected their demonstrations and designed their own materials. We also frequently asked volunteers about their comfort sharing information about their identity, emphasizing that this was not a requirement to participate in the Expo. Ultimately, the vast majority of students belonging to historically underrepresented groups decided to openly discuss their identity at the event.

   We split our team of three into two roles. One person was dedicated to recruitment and managing volunteers, including assembling a list of presenters, ensuring a wide variety of booths, arranging transportation, and communicating day-of logistics. The other two were focused on logistics, including coordinating with the school for parking and security, obtaining materials, printing and assembling posters, and purchasing lunch for presenters. The addition of a fourth team member allowed the subgroup to contact additional academic institutions and programs in the community but not affiliated with the University. The entire team was involved in running the Expo itself, managing the needs of volunteers and presenting themselves.

   The inaugural Science Expo was successfully held in October of 2022 at Madison East High School with over 40 booths and 70 scientists participating throughout the day. We split volunteers into two shifts, one before lunch and one after. Students came to the gymnasium during their typical class period and perused the booths at their own pace. The school provided worksheets to students to ensure they interacted with booths. We had approximately 20 booths during each session, with between 60 and 90 students attending at any given time.

5. Assess, Improve, and Sustain. The primary assessment of the inaugural Expo was simply to hold the event. After its success, we began planning the second Expo and ways to sustain and improve the Expo for future years. Sustainability was focused on securing long-term funding, which we achieved through the home department of many of our graduate students. We also focused on adding and training new members to the team, adding three new members (two graduate students and one faculty member). To improve the Expo, we lowered the activation barrier to discussing identity and recruited more historically underrepresented volunteers by building relationships with interested and goal-aligned on-campus groups. Finally, the addition of another team member meant we were able to focus on assessing student reactions to the Expo to evaluate its effectiveness. The second and third Expos were held in October of 2023 and 2024. In future years, we are equipped to conduct a more sophisticated survey to assess Expo efficacy.

An unofficial handbook addressing “the hidden curriculum” for incoming first year Psychology PhD students at UW-Madison.

1. Choose an Action. The idea for a Grad Guide developed in an action meeting. Members of our ALAC brainstormed ideas for actions that would support our fellow graduate students. We discussed the issues that we faced when entering graduate school and the issues that we heard from our peers. We discussed the elusive nature of institutional knowledge that is passed down inequitably to those with resources or powerful networks. This was an issue that members of our ALAC personally experienced and an action that would directly support our academic community, which is inline with our ALAC’s values to engage in antiracist actions, meet community needs, and act as a community of care. Thus, we agreed to move forward with this action.

2. Form a Subgroup. Although all General Members contributed to this action, we collectively agreed on a Subgroup Facilitator and enlisted two other members to meet regularly and accomplish goals.

3. Set Action Goals. We began by researching existing guides, meeting with a professor who had developed their own guide, and discussing what information was useful to include. These broad discussions were often held as a large group. Through these meetings, we determined what aspects of graduate school are often “hidden,” and what we wanted to address in the guide.

4. Develop and Implement Action. Action meetings with the whole community were used as a time for all members to collectively contribute to the guide in real time. The facilitator and enlisted members met weekly to work on components of the Grad Guide in more detail. Occasionally, the Subgroup connected with graduate students across the department who could provide their expertise in a niche area such as preliminary exams or differences in funding for international students. Finally, when the subgroup completed a final draft, the guide was disseminated to the whole community for edits and finalization. We requested honest feedback from first-year graduate students and others. The Facilitator shared the complete guide with all incoming graduate students via email. The guide was also shared to all psychology PhD students via an email listserv.

5. Assess, Improve, and Sustain. An anonymous survey link is included in the guide to receive feedback from our peers. After disseminating the Grad Guide, we discussed feedback we received from our peers either verbally or via email. Feedback gathered from graduate students who received the guide has been overwhelmingly positive, with students stating that it is a valuable source of information that they frequently reopen throughout their first years in graduate school. Additionally, an abridged version that is more broadly applicable to all graduate programs has been adopted by the Graduate Student Union on campus.

A living document of labs across life science departments at UW-Madison. The inclusion of a lab in this document is predicated on that lab’s upheld value of hosting underrepresented undergraduate research assistants.

1. Choose an Action. The Research Opportunities Catalog (ROC) developed as a result of brainstorming current needs within the University, led by a graduate student who completed their undergraduate degree at UW-Madison. In these brainstorming sessions we discussed the barriers for entry into research labs on campus for students who do not know how to “play the game”. Many minoritized students are not aware of the research opportunities available to them, how to get involved, or the benefits of involvement. Our ALAC created a regularly-updated, standardized catalog of labs that are committed to creating an inclusive space for underrepresented undergraduates.

2. Form a Subgroup. This subgroup started with three people: the aforementioned graduate student who also graduated from UW-Madison, and two other graduate students who were experienced mentors of undergraduates. The group coalesced under the shared value of increasing access of STEM to underrepresented undergraduates.

3. Set Action Goals. The subgroup first researched lab catalog resources that were currently being offered to undergraduates at the university: what was available at departmental and cross-departmental levels? Who was maintaining those resources? Were any of them geared toward BIPOC students? Was the information standardized and up-to-date? We then explored what barriers may keep underrepresented students at UW-Madison from entering research. We identified key barriers that the ROC would seek to address, and developed specific goals accordingly. Our goals were as follows: 1) A living document of labs in the life sciences that provides up-to-date information about labs on campus that have explicitly stated that they would be enthusiastic about hiring underrepresented undergraduates. 2) A resource containing standardized information about what labs study, what application materials are required, what lab responsibilities would be, and what compensation looks like. 3) A resource that assumes no prior experience. Information about why being a lab assistant is a valuable opportunity, demystifying the process of applying to labs, and determining if a lab is a good fit. 4) A resource that is moderated for safety and removes labs that have been suggested to be non-inclusive. 5) A resource that is easily shared, updated, and maintained.

4. Develop and Implement Action. We first created a simple survey that we sent to labs on campus via department coordinators. This survey asks labs for 1) a short summary of research done in the lab, 2) how to apply to the lab, 3) how undergraduate work is compensated, and 4) their enthusiasm for making their lab an inclusive space. In addition to communicating with department coordinators, we specifically reached out to a variety of labs on campus with a demonstrated dedication to diversity and inclusion. To make this action more achievable, we decided to narrow our scope to life-science oriented labs. In addition to the standardized list of labs, the catalog also includes resources on 1) why working in a lab might be a valuable opportunity, 2) “tips and tricks” to applying to labs at a large research University such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and 3) advice for determining if a lab is a healthy and inclusive work environment. After putting the document together, we researched affinity groups on campus that are dedicated safe spaces for underrepresented students at the University. We connected with these affinity groups and asked them if they would be willing to share the catalog with their members on a regular basis.

5. Assess, Improve, and Sustain. We can get an indirect sense of the catalog’s impact by observing how many people have accessed the digital link. At the time of writing, the number is over a thousand unique visitors. However, assessing the true impact of this catalog is a challenge because it is hard to determine how many of these viewers gain research assistant positions. Qualitatively, faculty on the catalog have reported increased recruitment of underrepresented students, and the template of the catalog has been implemented by the Psychology Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Regardless, we continue to improve access and receive feedback. We are currently planning to create physical fliers with QR codes to post in buildings that host affiliation groups on campus. Additionally, we are discussing how to implement a feedback survey for host labs.

   With the Research Opportunities Catalog we sought to demonstrate that we could provide a valuable resource that could be sustained with minimal effort. Lab availability changes on a semester-by-semester basis. Therefore, we need to ensure that the catalog does as well. We distribute the survey to labs we think may be valuable additions every semester, as well as reaching out to labs that are currently in the catalog for updates every semester. These labs then have the opportunity to update their information on the catalog themselves, reducing the labor on our end. We give labs a week to update their information before distributing the updated catalog to affinity groups on campus each semester.

A joint panel and workshop hosted by our ALAC at an international science conference in 2022. The goal was twofold: 1) to amplify underrepresented voices in the society and ask how they would like to see other society members leverage their privilege to improve racial equity in academia and 2) to provide our ALAC’s tools and resources for leveraging privilege to improve racial equity in academia.

1. Choose an Action. The idea for the panel/workshop stemmed from discussions in Action Meetings. We had discussed how to broaden the impact of our work into our scientific societies, and had simultaneously been developing our formalized framework. The General Facilitator was a member of the Professional Development Committee of a science society and requested space on the upcoming meeting’s program.

2. Form a Subgroup. This action was initially done by a single person - the General Facilitator. A second person was brought on to help develop and present the workshop materials.

3. Set Action Goals. The initial goal was to lead a workshop on our ALAC’s framework in the hopes that it would help start communities at other universities. However, through discussion with the General Body it quickly became clear that hearing from underrepresented voices in the science society would be an important part of the conversation on leveraging privilege to improve racial equity. Thus, the goals became 1) invite underrepresented scientists to speak at a panel, and 2) follow the panel with a workshop on collective grassroots action in academia.

4. Develop and Implement Action.

   • The Panel: We first distributed a survey through social media that asked society members to express their interest in participating on a panel, or to suggest members who might be interested. We also reached out to members who we knew had a history of racial equity advocacy. Eventually, we organized a panel of five women and nonbinary scientists of color across career stages. Our ALAC’s members helped develop the questions for the panelists during Action Meetings. Finally, the panel was hosted by the General Facilitator during the society’s annual meeting.

   • The Workshop: The General Facilitator had been in the process of formalizing our ALAC’s framework to be shared on the group’s website; so, many of the resources and concepts were already developed. The two members of the subgroup made the presentation and discussion activities for the workshop, and piloted them during an Action Meeting. The workshop occurred immediately following the panel discussion at the conference.

5. Assess, Improve, and Sustain. We discussed the panel and workshop with the panelists and participants following the conference, and all agreed that we would like to broaden the impact of the panel/workshop. This led to a follow-up action, in which our ALAC members worked with the panelists to write an article in the society’s journal on leveraging privilege to improve racial equity in academia (Monari et al., 2023). As an additional follow-up action, members adapted the workshop for another conference, The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 2024.

The process of forming and maintaining a grassroots service community is not easy, especially when its members are volunteering their time in-between the other demands of academia. However, it is not only possible, but essential. In this guide, we detailed our process for developing and sustaining our ALAC as an example that may help other academics join or start similar initiatives. We hope that by sharing this guide we can foster greater change than that wrought from our hands alone. Below, we share reflection questions to spark the start of your journey, as well as some final tips (see inset box: Extra Tips for Building and Sustaining an Antiracist Learning-Action Community).

1. Who is one person (or more) who would be excited to meet with me regularly to learn about and develop a small action centered around racial equity?

2. What are the barriers preventing me from scheduling regular meetings with that person (or people)? What can I do to overcome those barriers?

3. What values, skills, experiences, and privileges can I bring to a community focused on antiracism?

Just as our individual voices are stronger in a collective, so too is our collective’s voice stronger in a network. Grassroots service communities across departments and institutions can advocate for broad transformational change in coalition with one another. Our hope is that Antiracist Learning-Action Communities can eventually help to facilitate coalition building at larger scales (Fig 5 ). We must first, however, start with those around us.

Contributed to conception and design: PKM, ERH, ALAN

Drafted and/or revised the article: PKM, ERH, MM, BDD, DMC, CLM

Approved the submitted version for publication: PKM, ERH, MM, BDD, DMC, CLM, ALAN

C. Marler; J. Monari; C. Puntureiri; M. Snead; K. Wyant provided detailed manuscript feedback. Members of the ALAN Community provided general feedback and developed the described frameworks and actions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation NSF IOS-1946613 to C. Marler. We would like to thank the Institute for Diversity Science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison for their support in helping to publish the present manuscript. Additionally, much of this work would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of our many community partners, including volunteers, outreach specialists, teachers, and friends.

The authors declare no competing interests.