Best Practices for Antiracist Education in Virtual Settings

: In 2020, resources proliferated for 1) teaching in virtual settings in response to educational disruptions; and 2) antiracist education practices. Resources that combined these subjects to suggest antiracist education practices for the virtual setting were comparatively few. In this article, the authors propose ways to connect antiracist practices to virtual education. We begin with an exploration of racism and antiracism. Next, we explore existing literature for how racism shows up in the virtual classroom. Literature suggests instructor bias, course planning, and course delivery practices can work to uphold racism and manifestations of white supremacy in these virtual settings. Drawing from the work of scholars in the area of antiracist pedagogy, we suggest processes educators can engage in for increasing awareness of instructor bias, and for increasing the use of antiracist practices in course planning and delivery to help begin (or continue) the process of implementing antiracist practices in the virtual classroom.

One area that is ripe for examination is the connection of antiracist practices to virtual education (Migueliz Valcarlos et al., 2020). Although resources for either virtual instruction or antiracist education have proliferated (e.g., Nichols, A Guide to Equity and Antiracism for Educators, 2020; University of Mississippi, 2022), comparatively few resources have explicitly applied antiracist educational practices to the online environment. We note here, as explained in more detail below, our conception of antiracism is not the same as equity, inclusion, or diversity in the online setting. In this article, the authors propose ways to connect specifically antiracist practices to virtual education. This is particularly salient given the recent addition to the Grand Challenges for Social Work. Eliminating racism is a call to social work to confront its history of racist actions and policies with the profession and society as a whole (Teasley et al., 2021).
Encouraging best practices to promote antiracist teaching in the virtual setting would be incomplete without an acknowledgement of our own positionalities (Milner, 2007). The first author identifies as a cisgender, straight, lighter skin African American woman who has taught online, face to face, and hybrid courses for the past 6 years at various public, predominantly white, research institutions. The second author identifies as a white, cisgender, straight woman who has been teaching online, face to face, and hybrid social work courses since 2012 at a small public, predominantly white, research institution. The third author identifies as a white, cisgender, straight woman who has taught both online and face to face courses for over 15 years at a large public, predominantly white, research institution. Our research collaboration began as a result of our meeting each other through shared experiences at institutions as well as through an organization committed to dismantling white supremacy in social work education. We acknowledge the potential for the privileged aspects of our positionalities to reify white supremacist and oppressive ideologies. We have endeavored in our personal and professional lives to incorporate antiracist actions and ideology. We have also attempted to foreground the voices of BIPOC scholars throughout this manuscript.

Racism and Antiracism
Racism is the manifestation of white supremacy (Cross, 2020). White supremacy describes the dominant norms and ways of being that serve to support and maintain institutional and structural racism (Davis, 2019;Kuilema et al., 2019;Leonardo, 2004;Minarik, 2017). Social work scholars have long argued for the recognition and correction of the influence of white dominant culture and the mechanisms of white supremacy in social work education (Abrams & Gibson, 2007;Almeida et al., 2019;Beck, 2019;Iglehart & Becerra, 1995;Longres, 1972;Martin & Martin, 1995;Tascón & Ife, 2020). Without deliberate intention to do so, whiteness and white supremacy go unseen and unmarked, as they embody the unspoken norms that govern daily life (Almeida et al., 2019;Beck, 2019;Leonardo, 2004).
White supremacy is also described as "a mechanism of social control that originated in European imperialism" (Almeida et al., 2019, p. 151). In the U.S., race was constructed in order to justify slavery and the eradication of indigenous peoples; the superiority of whiteness was enacted through law (Almeida et al., 2019;Ortiz & Jani, 2010). The continuation of these effects is apparent in the treatment of Mexican and Central Americans and of Muslims (Ortiz & Jani, 2010). Concurrent with the rise of white supremacy, norms and biases emerged (Sue et al., 2016). On the surface, physical characteristics such as light complexion, blond hair, and blue eyes are preferred in U.S. society. Individualism, the Protestant work ethic, and capitalism are normative (Sue et al., 2016). Characteristics such as the use of standard English, control of emotions, and the written tradition of knowledge transmission are privileged (Sue et al., 2016). However, Leonardo (2004) reminds us that a critical pedagogy of white supremacy "revolves less around…the state of being dominant, and more around the direct processes that secure domination and the privileges associated with it" (p. 137). This concept will be central to the discussion of best practices for the online classroom that follows below. Dominelli (2018) conceptualized antiracism as the bridge between where we are (societies embedded in racist social relations) and the goal of being non-racist societies. In her book on anti-racist social work, Dominelli (2018) conceptualized antiracism as action-both personal and collective in organizations and institutions. Others have conceptualized antiracism as actions that lead to the dismantling of all forms of racist ideas and policies (National Museum of African American History and Culture, n.d.; Kendi, 2019). Antiracism is more than simply being not racist (Kendi, 2019). Social work scholars have advocated for the use of antiracist teaching practices and content in the field of social work for some time, including teaching students about whiteness and white racial identity (Abrams & Gibson, 2007) and how to facilitate antiracism discussions within their own communities (Loya & Cuevas, 2010) and have shown evidence of the effectiveness of these practices (Loya & Cuevas, 2010).
We draw from the work of scholars David Humphrey and Camea Davis (2021) that directly connects antiracist education practices to virtual education to frame our ideas, as well as provide examples of best practices. Humphrey and Davis (2021) use critical Black theory, a metatheory used to examine anti-Blackness that underlies many theories, even critical theories. Critical Black theory also highlights "the ways in which blackness signifies a being and deep embodied knowing" (Humphrey & Davis, 2021, para. 6). They argue that online learning is an under-recognized and underutilized space for "addressing anti-blackness and engaging in antiracist praxis" (p. 2). Nonetheless, they state: white supremacy and its chief actor, whiteness, still maintain a hegemonic hold on online learning. More explicitly, race-neutral language transposes whiteness to educational technology as normative, reifying that white people are the standard for humanity, thus relegating blackness to sub-human. Online education operates with race-neutral rhetoric that obscures how race informs everything. (p. 2)

How Racism Plays Out in the Online Environment
In order to begin developing an antiracist approach to online learning, the mechanisms that maintain white supremacy must be identified and dismantled. White supremacy privileges white experiences and creates dominant norms against which other experiences are judged (Almeida et al., 2019;Pewewardy & Almeida, 2014). Students of color can feel their experiences are not valued, or are co-opted for the purpose of educating their white classmates (Bernard et al., 2014;Blackwell, 2010;Ortiz & Jani, 2010). Virtual experiences of racism are often faced by students of color beyond the classroom as well. They may experience racism from a barrage of sources like print, news, and social media. Students may experience racism from other students as demonstrated in instances where White students have called police on students of color simply for sleeping in their dorm rooms or other public places on campus. These broader threats of racism can impact the online environment as well.

Bias in Virtual Education
Technology is not and has never been objective (Benjamin, 2019;Migueliz Valcarlos et al., 2020), yet the general belief is that the virtual classroom is a "non-threatening, unbiased, safe environment" (Conaway & Bethune, 2015, p. 162). However, without deliberate intention to do otherwise, decisions made about education are filtered through a lens of white supremacy culture and thus reflect it (Humphrey & Davis, 2021;Kuilema et al., 2019;Ortiz & Jani, 2010). Just as educators need to guard against racism in traditional brick and mortar settings, so must social work educators review and reflect on racism in its virtual settings. Without a clear exploration of the impact of unconscious bias and racism in these very different settings, and deliberate work toward creating antiracist practices, our field runs the risk of placing students in a dangerous and debilitating virtual environment (Hopson, 2014;Humphrey & Davis, 2021;Ortega et al., 2018). This includes the need for self-reflection that examines one's privilege and power. Not only taking stock of one's privilege in the world based on one's positionality, but how your privilege can be used to "disrupt the status quo" in the classroom and institution (Fellmayer, 2020).
Beyond implicit racial biases favoring the dominant norm, faculty and administration can hold negative perspectives of virtual learning in general (Levin et al., 2018). Many social work faculty members have been opposed to remote instruction from its inception and continue to object to this form of education (Levin et al., 2018). We saw that the COVID-19 pandemic left those in academia who had previously refused to engage in remote instruction without a choice of whether or not to engage. Faculty members' skepticism of the online educational model could impact their interest and ability to explore the current best practices in online learning management systems (LMS) including the ways to avoid racist and oppressive approaches online. These biases may include an assumption on how a classroom environment should be "managed." A sense of control in the physical classroom can mean calling out students' behaviors deemed negative or disruptive or even disrespectful. This level of control extends to the online setting where students are required to turn on cameras (Finders & Muñoz, 2021).

Virtual Course Development
The consideration of antiracist virtual course development must begin with these questions: who is responsible for the creation of online coursework in social work? The characteristics of institutions of higher learning can influence the ability of instructors to implement anti-racist perspectives to social work education. For example, some universities outsource course development or utilize quality assurance agencies to streamline courses. This may limit the ability to infuse nuanced and diverse material into online courses. Other institution-based influences include the financial stability of the institution and whether the funds to hire more faculty and adjuncts to diversify the lens with which courses are taught. Some universities lack funds to invest in curriculum innovation in this way.
Other universities rely on instructors, whether adjunct or full-time faculty, to add relevant sources and material as part of course delivery. When asking, telling, or incentivizing the conversion of face-to-face to online offerings by administration begs certain questions. Who gets this opportunity? Is it viewed as an opportunity or perceived as a chore? What types of training and resources are provided for the shift in how course content is delivered? What is the racial makeup of the individuals working on these conversions? As stated above, explicit biases against online education and implicit biases connected to race, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability status can operate to maintain structural racism/white supremacy culture if not acknowledged and addressed by educators while developing content for virtual environments.
Just as traditional on the ground (OTG) classrooms should be founded on principles that demand the ethical and non-discriminatory treatment of others, virtual courses need particular and unique attention to this goal (Hopson, 2014;Humphrey & Davis, 2021;Ortega et al., 2018). Social work education must acknowledge that with the introduction of new and exciting technologies, there is also the potential for innovative ways to enact racial violence (Ortega et al., 2018). Further, programs are often entwined with course development businesses such as plagiarism checkers and automated online proctoring that are not only lacking antiracist approaches but encourage practices that use online platforms as areas for policing and discipline (Finders & Muñoz, 2021).

Content and Authors
Choosing topics and the texts used to convey the principles within these topics is a first step in the planning and creation of a course. Traditional literary choices are made based on canon, most often dominated by white, cis/het (cisgender and heterosexual), wealthy men (Ortega-Williams & McLane-Davison, 2021;SWCAREs, 2020). One of the biases of white supremacy central to education is the all-too-often unnamed assumption that only white voices have epistemic authority, which results in the rejection of people of color's knowledge about their own lived experiences as valuable to learning (Almeida et al., 2019;Longres, 1972;Ortiz & Jani, 2010;Snowden et al., 2021;Tascón & Ife, 2020). Indeed, Ortiz and Jani (2010) described universities as the "bastion of Euro-American values" (p. 180).
The works of writers of color are typically excluded or minimized and offered only during diverse and special weekly topics. This exclusion also comes from a false binary between "quality writers" whose work has been published widely and are often white and those who are authors of color. The underlying message is based on the dominant discourse that white authors offer the standard of writing that is given elevated status in our society (Longres, 1972;Pewewardy & Almeida, 2014;Tascón & Ife, 2020). The oppression and erasure of articles and texts by people of color not only maintains the status quo, largely built by the norms of white supremacy culture, but also alienates the students in the classroom who do not identify as white (Longres, 1972). Having authors that reflect the diverse student makeup of the class offers them representation and a confirmation of their lived experience (Chavez, 2020). This is particularly salient in virtual learning, where students' interaction with course material is foregrounded, as opposed to interaction with the instructor and others in the classroom setting.

Meeting Students Where They Are
How one views their role as professor will impact how they plan and deliver the content. Educators in higher education tend to follow what Freire (1970) termed a banking system of learning that assumes students are an empty vessel prepared for the professor to pour knowledge into. This form of education can be described as a form of indoctrination into white supremacy/dominant culture that academia promotes and expects from its students (Almeida et al., 2019;Chavez, 2020;Migueliz Valcarlos et al., 2020). The virtual environment exacerbates the potential harm of this model by removing the natural lines of communication between student and instructor made possible by face-to-face instruction.
In face-to-face instruction, there is give and take, and the ability to see and address misunderstandings in real time. Students in virtual settings can be unaware of how to contact the instructor in case of emergency. If they find themselves falling behind, the anonymous nature of online instruction can enable them to more easily disengage from the course.
As students began to wrestle with new expectations of online learning and the additional mental and emotional health concerns, universities have become more aware of the need to focus beyond grades and due dates. Programs are emphasizing self-care and work life balance (Abdi et al., 2020). Faculty are encouraged to seek compromise and understanding as students present with multiple personal and professional stressors that interrupt their ability to complete assignments. Yet this push for a more community-based approach to teaching, largely co-opted from communities of color (Abdi et al., 2020), may be a temporary salve that will expire once the pandemic subsides.
While much is focused on the individual response and exchange between educator and student, these responses are embedded within systems overseen and managed by administrators. Faculty are not stand-alone creators of content and curriculum. Much of what is deemed professional and suitable for classroom experiences and oversight are led by a leader who sets the tone for the entire school. Further, each school or program administration is concurrently led by the larger university leadership that creates a desired culture of academia -one that can focus on community care or maintain steadfast in white supremacy ideals of "objectivity," "rigor," and a "maintenance of expectations." Educators are now continually assessing students' situations during this time. We are called to expand our understanding of how students are experiencing not only their class time but their whole existence in this world. It is necessary to heed these words: "to assume the primacy of the educational institution over the student is regressive" (Rorabaugh, 2020, p. 14).
Administration prefers the status quo, and any changes made tend to be couched in what "can" be done, with specific guardrails that do not allow for messy and uncomfortable discussions and decisions (Fellmayer, 2020). While schools are now introducing "diversity" committees, the use of this term and the need to publicize these changes can actually indicate a lack of true commitment to antiracism and only offer a space to further hide inequities (Ahmed, 2012). In true bureaucratic form, policies can be suggested and even adopted, but if practice is not followed this support rings empty. This creates a performative stance that gives the illusion of change without a true commitment to change. Furthermore, a committee decision that places antiracism at the foundation of their program can be quickly usurped by authority figures in administration that can simply deny policy changes out of concern for resources (Ahmed, 2012).

Course Delivery Practices
Course delivery practices reviewed here are those that can contribute to the maintenance of white supremacy if not critically examined. Toprak et al. (2010) explored the necessity for educators to create norms and expectations for interacting with others in the virtual setting. This can be a particular concern when discussing topics such as diversity and oppression (Deepak & Biggs, 2011). People are in fact more likely to be hurtful, disrespectful, and racist in the virtual environment due to the phenomenon of sharing unfiltered thoughts because a person is behind a screen (Ortega & Marquart, 2016;Ortega et al., 2018). This false sense of anonymity positively correlates with racist actions in the form of responses that are defined as microaggressions. Microaggressions experienced by students of color can impact their psychological well-being and academic success (Nakaoka & Ortiz, 2018), particularly in the virtual environment (Ortega et al., 2018).

The Virtual Environment
Further, a virtual learning situation creates the additional challenge of "reading the room" during which in-person interactions that consider one's body language, are largely missing (Abdi et al., 2020). More generally, the traditional online course may rely heavily on the written word for content, ignoring the wide range of learning styles and ways to conduct knowledge creation. It may ignore the need for context and real-world application, reducing its meaning for those who need to learn in more creative ways (Chavez, 2020;Migueliz Valcarlos et al., 2020). This is particularly important to review when considering grading and how one assesses a student's capacity to demonstrate what they have learned. The use of virtual teaching spaces may reinforce a focus on content over community as people learn to interact at a distance. A lack of cohabited space and interpersonal interaction may cause instructors to depend solely on content and deadlines (Abdi et al., 2020).
Other features of white supremacy that may arise during virtual course delivery include fear of open conflict, individualism, and the rejection of alternatives to objectivity (Brookfield, 2018;Katz, 2003;Longres, 1972;Ortiz & Jani, 2010), and these may be particularly difficult to manage in the virtual setting. Fear of open conflict may lead instructors to avoid tackling issues of racism when they appear in the classroom.
Individualism may reduce the amount of classroom interaction and groupwork between students reflecting the idea that students rise or sink by themselves. The rejection of alternatives to objectivity can often hamper the voices of historically excluded groups whose beliefs are not reflected in many course textbooks and materials written from a predominantly white perspective.

What Instructors and Departments Can Do to Combat Racism in the Online Environment
Combining the available scholarly literature with other publicly available sources of information, as well as the current authors' own experiences, we derived a set of best practices for antiracist virtual social work education, which we present here. We use the term "best practices" with a certain amount of hesitation. Antiracism is a critical framework, and critical frameworks seek to encourage users to engage in a process rather than providing prescriptive solutions (Leonardo, 2004;Mehta & Aquilera, 2020). These recommendations are presented as questions so that in the planning and preparation of the virtual coursework and throughout course delivery, instructors can engage in the ongoing reflection necessary to implement these antiracist practices in the online classroom. Additionally, we reiterate the process of antiracism due to the potential existence of structural limitations within institutions that may limit the implementation of antiracist practices even as instructors reflect, plan, and prepare for antiracist course delivery. Instructors do not all have the same resources due to these structural challenges and this cannot be a one-size-fits-all checklist.

Instructor Self-Reflection
Prior to beginning course development, instructors should take time to reflect on how their own worldviews shape their thinking about students, learning, knowledge, and virtual education.
• What biases do I hold about race? Am I biased against virtual education? How might these biases impact my course development and delivery? • Do I understand and acknowledge the ways in which my own racial and ethnic identity impacts how I see the world?
Consider how privileges impose blinders on lived experiences and thereby, teaching. One tool instructors can use to help illuminate their own unconscious biases regarding race, skin tone, age, sexuality, disability, and more is the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Project Implicit, n.d.), which can be found with a quick internet search.

Course Development Practices
During course development, there are questions educators should answer honestly about themselves and their course in order to avoid supporting and maintaining white supremacy in the virtual classroom setting. If the answers to these questions require adjustments, make them during the process of course development.

Content and Authors
1. Does this course elevate non-white scholars?
While preparing the required readings for the course, find non-white scholars and voices on the subject to include (Harper & Davis, 2016;Migueliz Valcarlos et al., 2020). As noted above, non-white scholarship often gets stuck on the supplemental readings list. Instead, move some of these into the main texts and readings of the course. Also, critique the "seminal" works of your course for lack of focus on diversity or perspectives from people of color. In addition, the virtual environment can create many opportunities for providing diverse scholarship and thinking that are not present in face-to-face teaching, such as links to the vibrant and disruptive discourses available through virtual platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and others (Almeida et al., 2019;Humphrey & Davis, 2021). Many social media platforms open up access to talented and thoughtful discourse that may operate under the institutional radar of social work programs and instructors. Many social workers engaged in practices, research, and leadership use these platforms for elevating voices of historically marginalized groups. In doing this they are often providing contemporary examples of social work in action.

Meet Students Where They Are
2. How can I give students grace throughout the course as crises arise, due to either major world events such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the vicissitudes of daily life?
There is a need to balance giving students all the rigor required with making sure they are not overburdened. Part of the ecological approach includes meeting students where they are and allowing them the self determination of their depth of engagement with course material. This is quite easily created in the virtual environment, particularly with asynchronous materials that students can work through on their own time. Open lines of virtual communication during crises can provide for allowing grace as long as students are communicating with you. Plan clear communication policies about availability, the reality of crises and unpredictability, and the desire not to cause undue stress . Some educators recognized the unparalleled times and chose a more humanistic approach that allowed for a holistic view of a student and their contribution to the classroom beyond what is evidenced in the LMS threaded responses. This includes being more open to listening to students' concerns, extending deadlines, and providing a space to reflect as a community on the effects of what is happening in society (Abdi et al., 2020). Offering grace and requesting it can help to build a learning community based on reciprocal care, joint community, and rapport building.

Course Delivery Practices
Ongoing self-reflection on how educators are conducting their courses is really the main strategy to avoid maintaining white supremacy in the virtual teaching environment. Routinely asking these questions and implementing the recommended steps paves the way for antiracist education in the virtual environment (Sulecio de Alvarez & Dickson-Deane, 2018). If we are going to continue to practice and potentially rely on a digitized education, it is essential we seek to offer an experience that is empowering and offers "opportunities of human connectivity" (Rorabaugh, 2020, p. 13).

The Virtual Environment
• Does the course offer a welcoming virtual environment that is inclusive of all student identities?
The implicit curriculum is as important as the content of the course and can impact how both students (is it safe to express my feelings?) and professors (will they acknowledge me, praise me, or embarrass me?) perceive the classroom. The Council on Social Work Education (2015) outlines the necessity to provide an implicit curriculum that is manifested through "the culture of human interchange; the spirit of inquiry; the support for difference and diversity; and the values and priorities in the educational environment, including the field setting, [which] inform the student's learning and development" (p.14).
Getting to know students and allowing space for them to bring their authentic selves, including all of their identities, is crucial to ensuring equity in the online environment (Harper & Davis, 2016;Humphrey & Davis, 2021;Migueliz Valcarlos et al., 2020). As Chavez (2020) suggests, "first impressions matter" (p. 23). As part of the learning management system introduction, educators can model for students an introduction that includes how their own racial identity is brought forth in their teaching (Katz, 2003;Sue et al., 2007) and ask students to introduce themselves acknowledging their identities as they feel comfortable. Humphrey and Davis (2021) offer an explicit and detailed introductory exercise that can be used in both synchronous and asynchronous virtual settings. The exercise has three goals: 1) to allow students a soft entry into the semester and get to know each other; 2) to demonstrate that teaching and learning are not neutral acts-racial, gender, and class identities matter in the classroom; and 3) to allow students to share what is important to them and what they believe is important to learning. The authors provide the detailed assignment guidelines in their article.

Ways in Which White Supremacy Manifests in the Classroom
• Do I and the course acknowledge and combat how white supremacy enters the virtual classroom?
To combat the privileging of white experiences, ensure that you allow student experiences to be valued in the course and don't restrict their freedom to engage in the topics . This can be an especially rewarding experience in the virtual environment as students engage with a wide range of virtual sources outside the learning management system (Humphrey & Davis, 2021).
To address over-reliance on the written word, ensure varied types of assignments beyond papers and discussion boards (e.g., creating videos, role plays, and presentations) so that value is placed on critical thought even when expressed in ways other than writing (Rodgers & Summers, 2008).
Addressing fear of open conflict can be a particularly delicate balance in the virtual setting. Set norms and expectations that acknowledge that conflicting ideas are often conducive to learning, while ensuring racial violence will not be tolerated (Jones et al., 2018). Welcome conflict as an opportunity to model respect for differences and appropriate handling of conflict in the classroom environment. Be intentional in naming what is happening (Humphrey & Davis, 2021).
To work against individualism and foster collectivism, encourage students to work together to solve problems and emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of solutions to the world's problems (Harper & Davis, 2016). The ways to do this in the virtual environment are myriad-breakout rooms and other tools can be used to successfully encourage group work.
Humphrey and Davis (2021) offer another detailed example of creating collaborative work that is also grounded in students' experiences. They offer a description of a research methods course that employs critical ethnography tools to design research studies that contribute to creating equity, amplify minoritized participant voices, and humanize the act of research.
The rejection of alternatives to objectivity is another way white supremacy invades the learning environment, and in which student's subjective views are devalued. Do your best to lift up student perspectives and expertise in addressing the course content (Harper & Davis, 2016;Ortega-Williams & McLane-Davison, 2021).
• Do I identify and challenge issues of power and privilege within course interactions?
Use covert, overt, explicit, and implicit incidents as teaching moments for students (Harper & Davis, 2016). When a student inappropriately uses privilege in the virtual setting, use it to teach about how power and privilege work in and out of the classroom. If we aren't willing to "go there" with the conversation and stretch our students' comfort levels, then we are doing a disservice to our profession and future colleagues. This is particularly relevant to online discussions-set norms and expectations at the beginning of the course that allow for this kind of teachable moments.
• How do I allow for mistakes in class when discussing difficult topics?
Students are scared of making mistakes when having conversations about race/racism, particularly in the virtual environment, where "conversations" occur via discussion board, or are recorded for students not present to view later. Explicitly set expectations that mistakes are learning opportunities and are expected as well as integral to the learning process .

Conclusion
This paper identifies strategies to integrate antiracist practices into virtual education. Rather than present an exhaustive list of best practices, the framework and examples given are meant to open the door to further examination by educators, and to differing lines of inquiry. Antiracist education, we propose, is like antiracism itself-a matter of lifelong learning. Becoming antiracist and recognizing where oppressive and biased systems function within the planning and creation of an online course, depends on a shift in thinking that recognizes this as a process and not a product. All syllabi should be considered living documents that change as the professor and the profession grows to embrace an antiracist perspective. Considering the history of our professional education as well as the current context will further allow for a more nuanced integration of antiracist content and delivery.