This is where the intervention of discursive analysis in higher education becomes useful, because we can simultaneously approach the material stratification, referred to here as "the sieve" and the ideological component "the temple" which legitimates official knowledge/power, as one sort of sublated discursive formation.

• When considering the work of social reproduction in the University, I suggest we focus our attention to two interrelated and crucial sites: the reproduction of the University itself, and the reproduction of the subject (the student-self).
• Mapping social reproduction in the University uncovers the racism and patriarchy at work. As the neoliberal university seeks to market its diversity and multiculturalism, it requires those diverse bodies to do the work of reproducing the university as such.

As Moten and Harney convey poetically and simply, the barrier to an autonomous university is the inorganic work of labor reproduction--that which necessitates administrative work and its ideological state apparatus (managerial rationality). Human capital production, as noted, is thus the scheme of labor reproducing itself in contradiction. Just as capital, and the administrative apparatus seeks to "rid itself of the trouble of labor," labor in the university must wage an equally militant movement to abolish the administrative apparatus that interpolates labor as trouble.

Referencing Intersections and Dialectics, McNally identifies in liberalism what he calls "social Newtonianism." In this theoretical framework, "things—be they entities, processes, or relations—can thus only be understood as utterly discrete atomic bits whose identities exclude the co-constituting effects of others," a critique which he applies doubly to liberalism and strains of intersectional theory. (McNally, 97) In a much less radical sense, we can understand social Newtonianism to be constitutive of the faux-progressivism of the neoliberal university, in which Contemporary DEI is an entrenched set of discourses. The production of social atomism amongst the working class is essential to ruling class ideology, and by extension managerial rationality. Managerial rationalities within the university are thus accepting of a watered-down form of intersectionality--one that leans into social Newtonianism and discourages class analysis. For this reason, among others, SRT provides resources to combat institutional discourse on race, gender and inequality.

In the residential university, the economic and social life of the student are collapsed. In this sense, the labor of being surveilled and the production of human capital through all social processes inherent to regimes of managerial rationality, is panoptical, totalizing.

Part 2 aims to supplement the economic questions addressed in Part 1 to fully account for the vast unpaid and uncompensated labor that constitutes the labor process within the university. A proper analysis of labor in the university, and Contemporary DEI's role in facilitating it is to understand the socio-economic productive and reproductive forces that produce student, faculty and administrative subjectivity.

In the racialized and gendered capitalism that produces DEI, embodying diversity and similar forms of labor are made invisible as such.