This paper takes as its point of departure a study of equality and diversity work in Swedish schools in relation to organizational practices. Research has shown, both internationally and in Sweden, that inequality and discrimination are everyday events in public institutions such as schools (Gillander-Gådin 2012; Osbeck et. al. 2003, Schmauch 2006; PISA 2017). This implies that the possibility to learn, and to be healthy and successful are not equally distributed in relation to gender, sexual identity, race/ethnicity, disability etc. Since 2008 (SFS 2008) Sweden has an anti-discrimination law that states that schools have to work actively with equality and anti-discrimination issues. Despite this, research is still limited in relation to the importance of organizational factors (Ahlström 2009), as is research regarding how anti-discrimination work is done in practice. In order to look closer at these issues we have conducted interviews at four different schools, in different parts of the country.

The analysis presented here is based on two points of departure. The first is an intersectional understanding of power. In 1995 Crenshaw critiqued the mainstream feminist understanding of power relations by pointing out that also among feminists race and class, among other things, were being reproduced. Crenshaw argued that dimensions of power, such as gender, race and class cannot be clearly separated from each other, other than in theory (Crenshaw 1995). In a similar way de los Reyes & Mulinari (2005) stress that intersectionality should be understood as a perspective based both on a Marxist and a poststructuralist understanding of power – as simultaneously material and under constant construction. The second point of departure is organizational theory and Acker’s concept of inequality regimes – ”…loosely interrelated practices, processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender, and racial inequalities within particular organizations.” (Acker 2006: 443). Focus is not on the proclaimed goals of organizations or their (lack of) ideals of inclusion and equality, but rather on the everyday practices of and within organizations. Ahmed (2012) has argued that although organizations spend resources and time on diversity and equality work, the very way that this work is organized often tends to reproduce the structures of inequality it is put to weaken. In this paper, we are interested in the inequality regimes that are being reproduced in Swedish school organizations within the context of equality and diversity work.

More specifically this paper discusses the common and popular strategy and practice of special theme days related to gender and diversity work and its relation to annual surveys about wellbeing and experiences of harassments or discrimination. What are the themes that are discussed within the spaces created for and within theme days and surveys? What are the presumption and assumption underling these representations? For, and by, whom are they created and what are the consequences for power relations within the school setting?

The analysis presented here is part of a larger study looking at the organization of equality work in Swedish schools. Schools were selected on the basis of an analysis of plans for gender equality and diversity work (Keisu 2018). Data consists of 40 interviews, individual and focus groups with students, teachers, school principals and different key actors at 2 secondary schools and 2 upper secondary Swedish schools in different parts of the country. The questions focused on how the work was conducted in practice, by whom and for what reasons, in order to get accounts of different actors’ experiences and perspectives on equality work. Interviews were recorded and transcribed ad verbatim. All of the schools in the study has theme days related to equality and gender in one form or another. As an example, one school, South, organized an equality week focused on honor violence in collaboration with civil society organizations. Although the theme week discussed in the paper was organized for a larger part of the school, we looked specifically at the Introduction program for students that recently arrived to Sweden, often as refugees. Another school, Center, organized a theme day around the theme of “Consent”. Prior to the theme day the school had had large conflicts between staff and students in relation to the #metoo-movement, where students told of experiences of sexual harassment and a misogynist culture. The analysis of data was inspired by policy analysis as presented by Carol Bacchi’s (2012) approach that focuses on “the unexamined assumptions and deep-seated conceptual logics within implicit problem representations” (s22) in relation to the theme days. 1. What’s the ‘problem’ represented to be in a specific theme day? 2. What presuppositions or assumptions underpin this representation of the ‘problem’? 3. How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about? 4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently? 5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?

Our preliminary findings show that although we see a backlash against gender equality and diversity work in many countries discussing gender issues is still common in Swedish schools. An explanation for this is the historically strong position of gender in relation to other equality issues in Swedish policy (Swedish Gender Equality Agency 2019). Furthermore, as Ahmed argues regarding diversity documents as a fetish for diversity, we view the theme days and surveys as a way to separate diversity work from institutional work (Ahmed 2012:87). We argue that the strategy is linked to neoliberal discourses of performance culture (Ahmed 2012). Problems are identified through the student survey, dealt with through theme days and evaluated in another survey. Inequality cannot be eradicated by separate events that maintain the status quo in relation to how organizations work. Although this strategy puts equality issues at the center of the school agenda for a short period of time it also peripheralizes them from everyday practice (see also Banks 1989, Ladson-Billing 1994, Gay 2004). It risks, being understood as “ticking the box” for such work in the school year audit. The adults at the schools refer to these theme days and surveys as good examples of their work. The students experience that gender and equality work is limited to these very days and that adults do not take the issues seriously. Using the metaphor of bolts of lightning, theme days make a big noise and do not go by un-noticed when they do happen. However, they are relatively seldom and most of them do not affect everyday practices. There is, thus, a paradox between the adults framing diversity and gender equality work as something that is highlighted on one hand, and on the other hand the students that perceive this work as being forgotten or marginalized.

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464 Ahlström, B. (2009) Bullying and Social Objectives - A Study of Prerequisites for Success in Swedish Schools. Diss. Umeå: Umeå universitet Ahmed, S (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life London: Duke University Press. Alfven, G., Östberg, V., & Hjern, A. (2008). Stressor, perceived stress and recurrent pain in Swedish schoolchildren, Journal of Psychosomatic Research 65, 381-387. Bacchi, C. (2012). Introducing the ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ approach. In Bletsas A. & Beasley C. (Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic Interventions and Exchanges (pp. 21-24). South Australia: University of Adelaide Press. Banks, J., A. (1989) "Approaches to Multicultural Curriculum Reform," Trotter Review: 3(3) 17, Article 5 Crenshaw, K.,W. (1988) “Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law” Harvard Law Review, 101(7) pp. 1331-1387 Gillander-Gådin, K. (2012) Sexual harassment of girls in elementary school – a concealed phenomenon within a heterosexual romantic discourse, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol 27, No 9, P -1762-1779 Keisu, B. (2018) Sammanvävda praktiker? En studie av likabehandlingsarbete och vetenskapligt förhållningssätt i grundskolan. , I; Rönnström, N. & Johansson, O. (red) Att leda skolor med stöd i forskning: exempel, analyser och utmaningar, Stockholm: Natur och kultur 2018: 417-447De los Ladson-Billings, G. (1994) What We Can Learn from Multicultural Education Research. Educational Leadership, 51(8) p22-26 Osbeck, C., Holm, A-S., & Wernersson, I. (2003). Kränkningar i skolan, förekomst, former och sammanhang. Göteborg; Göteborgs universitet, Centrum för värdegrundsstudier. PISA (2017) PISA 2015 Results: Students’ Well-Being (Volume III), PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris de los Reyes, P. & Mulinari, D. (2005) Intersektionalitet – kritiska reflektioner över (o)jämlikhetens landskap Liber, Malmö SFS (2008) Svensk författningssamling, 2008:567 Swedish Gender Equality Agency (2019) ” Sweden's gender equality policy” www.jamstalldhetsmyndigheten.se