While the policy distractions outlined in this collection manifest in myriad ways—and our authors examine them through a wide range of lenses and analytic tools—we were struck as an editorial team by the commonalities they share. What is clear throughout these articles is that scholars, most centrally, raise the ubiquitous power of policy distraction as it relates to ignoring systems and structures that serve to maintain normativity in many forms. Throughout, scholars instead point to policy distractions that locate both problems—and solutions—in individual actors (e.g., students, educators), symbolic gestures, and taken-for-granted procedures and practices that are rooted in white supremacy, cis-heteronormativy, anti-blackness, and patriarchy, to name a few. In this final article we, as an editorial team, offer insights about how we see the voices in the Issue in conversation, and, in the spirit of curious collaboration and engaged scholarship, we invite you to think along with us.

尽管本系列中概述的政策分散性以多种方式体现出来-我们的作者通过多种视角和分析工具对其进行了研究-但我们作为编辑团队的共同点让我们震惊。从这些文章中可以清楚地看到，学者们最集中地提高了政策分心的普遍力量，因为它涉及到忽略了以多种形式维持规范性的系统和结构。在整个研究过程中，学者们反而指出了政策分心，这些问题既将问题和解决方案定位在单个行为者（例如学生，教育工作者），象征性手势以及扎根于白人至上，顺从异性恋，反黑与父权制，仅举几例。在最后一篇文章中，我们作为编辑团队，