Higher education has a dual responsibility, both to the academy and to society at large, to effectively confront racism on campus. And yet, in the United States and perhaps elsewhere, it fails to effectively confront racism as the result of systemic flaws, expressed as organizational intransigence, even as new “supportive and protective” structures are created. Thus, the central question raised by the anonymized, composite narrative case study at the core of this paper is as follows: To what extent, if any, (...) do the familiar organizational structures of higher education, encompassing both leadership and management processes, reinforce or resist racism on campus? Consistent with other social science researchers, the authors believe that richly contextualized narrative cases help to bridge the world of ideas and conjecture and actual situations. We used an iterative process spanning three months for drawing our case, involving a back-and-forth communication of actual experiences involving campus racism. The resulting composite narrative provides a richly contextualized situation drawn from real life, while still preserving anonymity. We regarded this later aspect as crucial for making possible the close examination of an ethically challenging situation that might otherwise remain invisible due to sensitive information. Our analysis focused on campus responsiveness to the challenge of racism within a mechanistic organization, rooted in structuralism, versus an organic organization, rooted in post-structuralism. Four aspects of a more organic university design are identified as key to bringing about meaningful, ethically sound change within the academy: deep, reflective listening; a more horizontal, consensus-based leadership structure that empowers professionals at various ranks; freedom within a framework; and a broadly shared, continually reinforced focus on overarching principles, goals, and ideals. (shrink)