Neoliberal ideologies function to transfer capitalist logics from the economic sector to all aspects of social and political life (Brown, 2006). Neoliberal logics include, but are not limited to, a hyperfocus on capital accumulation, beliefs in individualistic hyper-competition for capital as the primary means of advancing society and humanity, and the commodification of everything (e.g., education, knowledge, diversity, multiculturalism; Museus & LePeau, 2019). In response to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the most privileged sects of society launched concerted efforts to infuse neoliberal logics throughout U.S. society in the mid-20th century (Ferguson, 2017). Many argue that this neoliberal turn since the 1970s has had profound effects on higher education, as well as the study of postsecondary systems. Ferguson (2017) explained how the neoliberal turn influenced social justice conversations in higher education over the last 50 years. He noted that it functioned to replace Civil Rights Movement agendas for the radical eradication of systemic oppression with conversations about diversity and multiculturalism. Other scholars have documented how higher education's increased focused on commodified forms of diversity and multiculturalism has come at the expense of more substantial systemic transformation during this period as well (Iverson, 2008). Higher education institutions and professionals increasingly viewed and framed education and diversity as commodities, of things that could enhance graduates’ competitiveness in the workforce and their ability to advance the nation's standing in the global economy (Bok, 2009). It was within this historical context that the study of higher education took shape. In the latter half of the 20th century, researchers began studying college students’ trajectories, experiences, and outcomes (Museus, 2023). The focus was often on how to produce graduates prepared to contribute to the economic viability of the U.S. (Bok, 2009). In the late 20th Century, an increasing number of higher education scholars sought to challenge the invisibility of power, privilege, culture, and identity in many of these dominant discourses (e.g., Hurtado & Carter, 1997). They often called for more efforts to center the knowledge, values, and perspectives, of communities that faced significant systemic injustices. Conversations in the area leadership education and development also emerged within this historical context. For example, many early leadership theories focused on factors, such as leadership traits and leaders’ relationships with and ability to influence their constituents (Dugan, 2017). Over the last few decades, scholars have made efforts to underscore the importance of leaders’ social responsibility (Komives & Wagner, 2016). They have also argued that leadership should not be viewed as a transactional endeavor, but instead is inevitably a moral one (Dugan, 2017; MacGregor Burns, 2012). Many working in leadership education and development have invested extensive energy to include people from diverse backgrounds in their efforts as well. However, these discourses and efforts have typically fallen short of clarifying the types of social responsibility necessary to contribute to the well-being of society, what moral goals leaders must assume to build a more just world, or how leadership educators equitably engage and respond to the needs of historically subjugated people. These questions are important and answers to them should be viewed as common sense. Case in point: it is reasonable to assume that many neoliberals might view responsibility to expand private corporations’ capacities to accumulate capital as a social and moral good. Yet, many of those concerned with social justice would argue that such responsibilities do not necessarily make the world a better place and sometimes exacerbate the violence felt by historically subjugated communities. This issue of the New Directions for Student Leadership series is based on the premise that issues of power, privilege, culture, identity, dehumanization, and subjugation must inform socially and morally responsible leadership education and development. Accordingly, the authors in this volume are primarily concerned with the need and ways to foster social justice leadership, or leadership that prioritizes eradicating settler colonialism, white supremacy, nativistic racism, classism, ableism, hetereopatriarchy, and other forms of oppression (see Mitchell et al. in Article 1). Over the last decade, the nation's social and political winds have shifted drastically (Museus, 2020). Several questions about leaders’ moral responsibility have become increasingly difficult for people to ignore regardless of whether they are in government, industry, nonprofit, or education sectors (Brucato, 2012; Davies & Bansel, 2007; Francis & Wright-Rigueur, 2021; Wolfe, 2006). These include questions about whether the direction of our hyper-capitalist and neoliberal society is sustainable. The nation's seemingly ever-expanding wealth inequality, ongoing colonization of indigenous land and waterways, widespread racialized and gendered violence, and the specter of global warming have taken center stage. Equally important, a wide range of social movements have made it clear that society needs leaders who are not just individually savvy and economically efficient, but also needs those who have the courage to challenge the status quo and are capable of making important socially just decisions (Guthrie & Chunoo, 2018). Therefore, the responsibility of college educators to support the development of leaders who will be capable of addressing these systemic injustices should be of paramount importance to all policymakers and educators. To respond to these imperatives, a team of researchers created the social action leadership and transformation (SALT) model (Museus et al., 2017), which more explicitly center issues of power and oppression in leadership development discussions. The research team included researchers from diverse racial and ethnic, working class, immigrant and refugee, and genders and sexual orientation backgrounds. They grounded the model in critical epistemological perspectives and scholarly knowledge, which authors in this volume discuss can serve as an asset in centering issues of power in leadership discourse while simultaneously marginalizing the perspectives and priorities of some groups (e.g., indigenous communities) in these discussions (see Robledo in Article 2). The current volume expands the conversation that the SALT model aimed to spark about the role of social justice leadership development to include indigenous perspectives and leadership education practitioners to address some epistemological and practical complexities and limitations of the initial conversations about the framework. The current volume is designed to continue these conversations. The authors of the volume build on the SALT model to provide deeper insight into various elements of social justice leadership education, raise questions about the applicability of social justice leadership to indigenous communities, and offer lessons learned from the integration of social justice into leadership education. The first article provides additional social and political context for the volume and discusses some important misconceptions about leadership that must be refused in order to reshape leadership discourse in more socially just ways. Articles 2–6 delve into various elements of the SALT model, providing deeper discussion about the important role that these concepts play in social justice leadership education and development. The author of article 7 offers a vital discussion about the possibilities and limits of social justice leadership education and discourse in addressing the concerns and desires of Indigenous Peoples and communities. Finally, articles 8–12 offer valuable insights from the application of the SALT framework in the development, delivery, and assessment of leadership development initiatives. It is important to acknowledge that many people in historically subjugated communities have always infused moral imperatives into views and discussions about leadership, but critical conversations about formal leadership education are arguably in their infancy within higher education scholarly, policy, and practice arenas. This volume is designed to invite higher education leaders and educators across the nation and world into a shared and more targeted conversation about what leadership development can and should look like in a society that demands more from it. We hope readers will join us in this dialogue. Mayra Puente is an assistant professor of higher education in the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research focuses on college access and success for rural Latinx students from agricultural regions in California. Tania D. Mitchell is an associate professor of higher education in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities. Her research explores community engagement strategies and leadership development initiatives as social justice education. Samuel Museus is a professor in the Department of Ethnic Studies at University of California, San Diego. His research focuses on how education systems can create conditions for people to thrive. Marie P. Ting is an assistant vice provost for equity, inclusion & academic affairs at the University of Michigan. Her research interests include higher education leadership and organizations. Kapua Chandler is a University of California President's Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on the indigenization of institutions of higher education.