I don’t know exactly when the shift happened.
At some point in my career, I moved from being the mentee, seeking guidance, learning the landscape, trying to understand how decisions really get made, to receiving requests to serve as a mentor. It is humbling. It is also clarifying, because while I am still learning, I now have a clearer view of the system and its gaps.
In conversations with students, emerging professionals, and mid-level leaders across the country, one concern surfaces consistently: access to opportunity.
Not opportunities for students, but opportunities for professionals.
Higher Education’s Selective Commitment to Access
Higher education has built its identity around expanding access for students. Open-access institutions, transfer pathways, and equity-centered enrollment strategies all reflect a sector committed, at least in principle, to opportunity.
But that commitment has limits.
While we work tirelessly to create access for students, we have not applied the same intentionality to those seeking to work within our institutions, and it shows.
From hiring practices to leadership pipelines, access to opportunity for professionals remains inconsistent, informal, and often inequitable.
This Is Bigger Than a Single Population
Several years ago, I wrote about the barriers facing Black men attempting to enter and advance in higher education, individuals who had done everything expected of them: earned advanced degrees, demonstrated commitment to students, and developed the competencies required to lead. Yet access to opportunity remained elusive.
At the time, I viewed this as a race- and gender-specific issue. I was wrong.
Through years of mentoring and national engagement, I have heard the same story repeated across identities and roles. Talented professionals, women, first-generation college graduates, mid-level administrators, and others, find themselves prepared, capable, and ready, yet unable to access meaningful opportunities for advancement. This is not a pipeline issue; it is a systems issue.
The Unspoken Rules of Advancement
Higher education operates with a hidden curriculum, not just for students, but for professionals.
Advancement is shaped less by what is formally posted and more by what is informally known. Who is in proximity to decision-makers. Who is invited into key conversations. Who is given stretch assignments that signal readiness for leadership. Who has advocates in rooms where decisions are made. And critically, who is already inside.
Hiring and advancement often favors familiarity. Internal candidates benefit from visibility, established relationships, and reduced perceived risk. External candidates, even when equally or more qualified, must overcome an additional barrier: they are unknown.
Hiring managers are often faced with a quiet but consequential choice: the known candidate or the unknown one. Too often, institutions choose comfort. In doing so, they unintentionally narrow access, reinforce existing networks, and limit the diversity of thought and leadership they claim to value.
Mentorship Without Access Is Not Equity
Mentorship remains one of the most valued practices in higher education, and for good reason. Many of us are products of mentors who invested time, insight, and advocacy into our development. However, mentorship, by itself, is insufficient. Without access to real opportunities, mentorship can become a holding pattern where individuals are continuously prepared but rarely advanced.
What professionals are asking for is not more advice; they are asking for access:
Access to visibility.
Access to decision-making spaces.
Access to roles that align with their preparation and potential.
This requires a shift from mentorship to sponsorship, where leaders not only guide talent, but actively position it.
What Institutions Must Do Now
If higher education is serious about equity, then access must be examined as an institutional practice, not just a student outcome.
That begins with hiring. Search processes must be designed to identify the best candidate, not the most familiar one. This requires intentional disruption of informal advantages that internal candidates may hold, while still valuing their contributions. It also requires a
willingness to fully assess external candidates whose experiences and perspectives may strengthen the institution in new ways.
Leaders must also bring transparency to advancement pathways. Too many professionals operate without a clear understanding of how to move forward, while others benefit from informal knowledge that is never broadly shared.
Professional development must be tied to actual opportunity, not participation alone. Succession planning must be deliberate, inclusive, and aligned with institutional goals around equity and leadership diversity.
Perhaps most importantly, senior leaders must recognize that access is not neutral. It is constructed through decisions: who is selected, who is supported, and who is seen.
From Awareness to Responsibility
As I continue my own leadership journey, I remain grateful for those who created access for me. However, gratitude cannot be the endpoint.
Each request to mentor is not merely professional; it reflects a deeper, often unspoken question from the mentee: Will there be space for me in this field? That question should not depend on proximity, luck, or informal networks. It should be answered through intentional leadership.
Higher education knows how to create access.
The question is whether we are willing to do it, consistently, equitably, and beyond our immediate circles.
Dr. Jonelle Knox serves as assistant provost at New Jersey City University, President of the National Council on Student Development, and adjunct associate professor at Bronx Community College
