Allyship is often framed as a moral commitment. Yet in practice, it is frequently exercised as a conditional act. We argue that allyship should never be personalized. It should not be contingent upon affinity for a specific group, agreement with their decisions, or proximity to their lived experiences. Allyship must be grounded in conviction and a commitment to justice itself. Justice should be advocated for and defended regardless of personal feelings, political disagreements, or social distance.
We are currently witnessing a troubling shift in real time. Allyship appears to be waning for certain ethnic and demographic groups because of disagreement with how those groups voted in recent elections.
There is a growing sentiment that individuals should suffer the consequences of their decisions. The reality is that they already are. However, withholding advocacy for their rights because “they brought it on themselves” is not justice. Right remains right even when a group has, wittingly or unwittingly, supported leadership or policies that contribute to their own marginalization and demise.
This moment reveals a critical distinction between allies to people and allies to justice. Allies to people often operate from emotion, proximity, or social capital. Their advocacy fluctuates depending on how they feel about a group at any given time.
Allies to justice are rooted in principle. They challenge corruption, confront hate, and disrupt inequity regardless of who is affected. Their commitment does not waver in the face of personal disagreement or discomfort.
Another challenge with personalized allyship is the subtle entitlement it can produce. We have encountered individuals who believe that advocating for marginalized communities earns them a certain level of privilege within those communities.
This position is rarely stated outright, but it is often evident in their actions. It suggests that prior acts of advocacy grant permission to speak without accountability, even when words or actions are harmful. It reflects a broader pattern in which individuals center their intent, identity, or past advocacy as mitigating factors when harm occurs.
Allyship rooted in justice does not rely on past contributions to excuse present harm. It requires accountability, especially when one is corrected by the very communities they claim to support.
For example, in 2010, United States Senator Harry Reid of Nevada described Barack Obama as a light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one. The comment reinforced long-standing stereotypes about intellectual inferiority and respectability politics.
While the comment was widely criticized, there were also calls for leniency. Some of Reid’s allies directed critics to his legislative record on civil rights and urged others not to be offended, framing him as an ally for the African American community whose intent mattered more than his impact. This response is telling. It reveals how perceived allyship can create space for diminished accountability.
We also encountered this dynamic years ago in a previous role as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion leaders. We were brought in to help resolve a situation involving a professor who used the “n-word” multiple times in her classroom. The campus community was surprised and discouraged because this professor was widely regarded as an ally due to her meaningful work in the African American community.
As we worked through the situation with the dean, we offered a different perspective. We said, “We get it now. She is operating from a place of arrogance. She believes she has earned the right to say it.”
The dean paused and responded, “Bingo.” That moment crystallized the issue for us. When allyship is rooted in affinity or past contributions, it can evolve into entitlement, and entitlement is incompatible with justice. Justice requires humility and does not excuse harmful behavior because of someone’s prior acts of service to a community.
We do not need allies who advocate for justice solely because of their relationships or proximity to marginalized communities. While relationships can and should motivate action, they cannot be the foundation of justice work. What happens when the relationship changes? What happens when disagreement arises? What happens when frustration replaces empathy?
If allyship is anchored in personal feelings, it becomes fragile, and justice work is abandoned. This happens more often than it should when allyship is not grounded in principle.
There is also a persistent gap between what people believe allyship looks like and how it actually shows up in practice. Research from McKinsey & Company, particularly in their Women in the Workplace reports from 2021 through 2023, highlights that many women experience allyship as inconsistent and reactive rather than proactive. Colleagues frequently offer support after an incident of bias or discrimination but remain silent in the moment when intervention is most needed. This pattern reinforces inequity rather than disrupting it.
We have observed this firsthand. Someone experiences bias, dismissal, or even explicit racism in a meeting. The harm is public and the silence is deafening. Then, after the meeting, an individual reaches out and says, “I am so sorry that happened to you.” While affirming, it is ultimately ineffective. It does nothing to prevent harm, interrupt bias, or change outcomes in real time. That is not allyship. That is not courage. That is not integrity. That is not justice.
An ally for justice does not wait until after the meeting to express support or indignation. They speak up during the meeting. They name the unjust behavior. They challenge the dismissiveness. They interrupt the co-opting of ideas. They are willing to risk discomfort, and in some cases professional capital, to ensure that justice is upheld in real time.
People who are experiencing harm do not need allies who act based on convenience, comfort, or personal alignment. They need individuals who are guided by unwavering conviction. The data is clear.
McKinsey states in their reports that the gap between intention and action remains one of the most significant barriers to equity in organizations. If we are serious about advancing justice, we must transition, in real time, from meaning well to doing well.
If we are to redefine allyship, we must detach it from conditional relationships and anchor it in justice. It is not about being liked, being perceived as progressive, or gaining access or credibility within marginalized communities. In fact, real allies are more likely to lose favor with majority groups than to gain prominence within marginalized groups. It is about standing firmly and publicly for what is right.
Justice does not require agreement. It requires principled belief and enduring resolve.
Sheila Caldwell, EdD, is the inaugural Vice President for Anti-racism, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer for the Southern Illinois University System and a member of the Insight Into Academia Editorial Board. Venessa Brown, PhD, is the retired Associate Athletic Director and Chief Diversity Officer for SIUE Intercollegiate Athletics and a member of the Insight Into Academia Editorial Board.
