Multiculturalism on Campus : Theory, Models, and Practices for Understanding Diversity and Creating Inclusion [2 ed.] 9781620364178

Citation preview

HIGHER EDUCATION / ETHNIC & DIVERSITY STUDIES / MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION / STUDENT AFFAIRS

“In two words: impressively comprehensive. New professionals and seasoned administrators alike will find much that is useful in the second edition of this book. The editors have again assembled a dynamic constellation of scholars who offer rich insights into the texture and substance of multiculturalism on contemporary college campuses. Anyone who aspires to become a more culturally competent and responsive educator should read this text.”—SHAUN R. HARPER, Professor and Executive Director, University of Pennsylvania Center for the Study of Race & Equity in Education

“This book advances our ability as educators to create inclusive campus communities by first providing information about critical issues and developmental processes for key college student populations, and then providing case studies and discussion questions. The focus on developing critical consciousness is especially powerful as it moves the conversation on diversity beyond mere inclusion to a more substantive dialogue on social justice, action, and identifying and challenging systemic privilege and racism on our college campuses.”—EBELIA HERNÁNDEZ, Chancellor’s Scholar and Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University

The first edition was one of the first texts to gather in a single volume the related theories, assessment methods, and environmental and application issues pertinent to the study and practice of multiculturalism, while also offering approaches to enhancing multicultural programming and culturally diverse campus environments. This second edition retains the structure and vision of the first, providing an array of case studies, discussion questions, examples of best practices, and recommendations about resources for use in the classroom. This edition includes a new chapter on intersectionality, updates several chapters, presents a number of new cultural frameworks and updated best practices for creating an inclusive environment for marginalized groups, and expands the final section on culturally competent practice.

Cover designed by Kathleen Dyson

22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2102 www.Styluspub.com

M U LT I C U LT U R A L I S M O N C A M P U S

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb i

7/26/2016 7:24:11 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb ii

7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

MULTICULTURALISM ON CAMPUS Theory, Models, and Practices for Understanding Diversity and Creating Inclusion

Edited by Michael J. Cuyjet, Chris Linder, Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, and Diane L. Cooper Second Edition

STERLING, VIRGINIA

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb iii

7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

COPYRIGHT © 2016 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC.

Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC. 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cuyjet, Michael J., editor. Title: Multiculturalism on campus : theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion / edited by Michael J. Cuyjet, Diane L. Cooper, Mary F. Howard Hamilton, and Chris Linder. Description: Second edition. | Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, [2016] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016008007 (print) | LCCN 2016024087 (ebook) | ISBN 9781620364154 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781620364161 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781620364178 (library networkable e-edition) | ISBN 9781620364185 (consumer e-edition) Subjects: LCSH: Multicultural education--United States. | Cultural pluralism--United States. | Minorities--Education (Higher)--United States.| Educational equalization--United States. Classification: LCC LC1099.3 .M87 2016 (print) | LCC LC1099.3 (ebook) | DDC 370.117--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016008007 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-415-4 (cloth) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-416-1 (paperback) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-417-8 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-418-5 (consumer e-edition) Printed in the United States of America All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard. Bulk Purchases Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops and for staff development. Call 1-800-232-0223 First Edition, 2016 10

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb iv

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

To my mom and dad for introducing me to the concept and responsibilities of privilege at a very early age, and with gratitude to my friends and colleagues at the University of Georgia for your support during the development and publication of this book. —Diane L. Cooper With sincere thanks to John von Knorring and the rest of the staff at Stylus, I dedicate the work that has gone into producing this book to my immediate family—Carol, Allison, Leslie, and Ashley—who motivate me and have supported me unconditionally; to my graduate students who, over 21 years of teaching, validate my efforts and have inspired me repeatedly; and to each of you who reads this book and uses the knowledge and information you gain in some way for bettering our collective human community. —Michael J. Cuyjet “If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don’t love, I’m nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate” (1 Corinthians 13:1, MSG). Thank you, John G. Howard and Frances E. Howard, for teaching me the way of love. —Mary F. Howard-Hamilton To the student staff in Women’s Programs and Studies at Colorado State University from 2004 to 2010 who patiently taught me about lived experiences of intersectionality, power, and privilege. I think of you often and carry your stories with care and love. —Chris Linder

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb v

7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb vi

7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Michael J. Cuyjet

1

PART ONE: AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES 1

2

UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, Michael J. Cuyjet, and Diane L. Cooper OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT Mary F. Howard-Hamilton and Kandace G. Hinton

3

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE Michael J. Cuyjet and Jason L. Meriwether

4

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS Chris Linder

11

22

40

66

PART TWO: INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS 5

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS Susana Hernández and Anna M. Ortiz

83

6

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS Julie J. Park and OiYan A. Poon

112

7

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS Bettina C. Shuford and Lamont A. Flowers

141

8

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS LeManuel Lee Bitsóí (Navajo)

164

vii

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb vii

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

viii 9

CONTENTS

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS Kristen A. Renn and Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero

10 WORKING WITH WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS TO UNDERSTAND AND NAVIGATE WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES Chris Linder

186

208

11

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS Sevan G. Terzian and Leigh Ann Osborne

232

12

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS Merrily S. Dunn and Philip D. Badaszewski

256

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS Dena R. Kniess, Tony W. Cawthon, and Kristin M. Walker

278

14

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS Fiona J. D. MacKinnon and Rosiline D. Floyd

309

15

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Martha E. Wisbey and Karen S. Kalivoda

328

16

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Laura A. Dean and Darris R. Means

350

PART THREE: CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE 17

FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS Creating Inclusive Campus Environments Chris Linder and Diane L. Cooper

379

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

393

INDEX

403

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb viii

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

INTRODUCTION Michael J. Cuyjet

T

he first edition of this book provided a comprehensive resource for students, faculty, and higher education administrators about multiculturalism and diverse populations on college campuses. It was one of the first texts to gather in a single volume the related theories, assessment methods, and environmental and application issues pertinent to the study and practice of multiculturalism and to suggest ways to enhance multicultural programming and culturally diverse campus environments. Although the open discussion of multiculturalism on campus has been steadily increasing during the last quarter of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century, cultural diversity and the need for cultural competence seem to have grown exponentially in the past decade, especially since the release of the first edition of this book in early 2011. The election and reelection of an African American president; the rapid growth of non-White populations—particularly Latinxs—in several states and numerous urban centers; increasing tension between police and minority populations; and the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all states are among a number of societal changes that impact cultural interactions in the country at large and particularly on our college campuses. Like the first edition of this book, this second edition reviews the theories and models that have been primary guides to understanding the development of college students and continues an attempt to give greater voice to students who are not part of the dominant culture. New in this edition is a chapter on intersectionality that explores the intercultural diversity of cultural identity among many students whose life experiences do not fit nicely into preconceived cultural patterns. This edition also updates the chapter that addresses issues of students who identify as part of the U.S. ethnic majority by providing additional material that will help them navigate their White racial identities and White privilege and provide lessons for all students to address racism and racial justice. This edition also updates new cultural frameworks as well as updates best practices for creating an 1

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 1

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

2

MULTICULTURALISM ON CAMPUS

inclusive environment for marginalized groups. Each chapter includes a case study, list of questions, suggested interventions, a set of exercises to enhance understanding of the group’s behaviors and characteristics, or some combination of these resources. The material in Part Three of the book, “Critical Consciousness of Cultural Competence,” is enhanced significantly over the content in the first edition, so readers will find it more helpful in equipping professional practitioners, students, and faculty with new skills and information. While aiming for completeness, the editors recognize that some cultural subpopulations are not included among the groups addressed in this book. For example, student athletes form a distinct subculture on some campuses that have large athletic programs. Similarly, fraternity and sorority members can be a significant subgroup on campuses where their numbers constitute a large plurality or even a majority of the students, and veterans and military students are a growing population that require attention on many campuses. Neither of these is covered. Nonetheless, the editors hope this book will continue to fill a void in the current student development literature by presenting broad overviews of the issues that multicultural students bring to our campuses. One’s cultural identity is more than ethnicity or race. Gender, age, religion, geographic identity, sexual orientation, and intersectional cultural identity are equally part of the cultural makeup of a multicultural individual—all factors this book takes into account. Furthermore, with this book the contributors provide student affairs professionals, students, and faculty an opportunity to assess their own levels of multicultural sensitivity, awareness, and competence. Although language is constantly evolving and all language is incomplete and limiting (Butler, 2007), we wanted to indicate some intentional choices we made in language that may be new for some readers. We chose to capitalize the word “Color” when used to describe people of Color or students of Color throughout the book, given that it is standard practice (and required by APA) to capitalize words describing racial categories. We also intentionally chose to use the pronouns “they” and “them” in some cases even with singular nouns so that we did not recreate a gender binary with masculine and feminine pronouns. We use Latinx as a gender-inclusive term recognizing that the descriptors Latino or Latina assume a gender binary not reflective of all members of the ethnic group. Finally, we use trans* with an asterisk to represent the inclusion of multiple gender identities transgressing gender norms and binaries. This is similar to using an asterisk in a search term to include as many forms of the word as possible, given that people choose a plethora of ways to express gender identity. To assist readers in understanding more fully the problems they will encounter with increasing diversity on college campuses and enable them

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 2

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

INTRODUCTION

3

to frame appropriate policies, this book approaches multiculturalism from three perspectives, each of which is a part of this book: Awareness of Cultural Issues, Information on Cultural Populations, and Critical Consciousness of Cultural Competence.

Part One: Awareness of Cultural Issues This part begins with a chapter that introduces multiculturalism and multicultural competence and provides the background information, definition of terms, and key concepts to understanding multicultural issues in higher education settings. In this part, the chapters also highlight changes in the way multiculturalism is perceived and manifested in the demographic college student trends and issues that have occurred in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Part One also includes a competency assessment to help readers gain some insight into their own level of understanding of multiculturalism and racial identity awareness. The chapters stress the importance of observing environmental influences (physical, organizational, structural, and human) that may impede the successful matriculation of multicultural students, as well as outline methods to identify and complement intercultural identity within the campus community. In Chapter 1, Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, Michael J. Cuyjet, and Diane L. Cooper set the context with definitions of multiculturalism and multicultural competence as a foundation for understanding how these central concepts connect with each diverse group presented in subsequent chapters. This chapter proceeds to explain why multiculturalism is important and necessary and presents a number of competence models from 1998 to 2015 to demonstrate why competencies are significant to multicultural development and how they can be acquired. Chapter 1 also explores how commonalities among cultural groups tie multiculturalism together (rather than focusing on the differences) and suggests how faculty, administrators, students, and related constituents and stakeholders might use this book and apply its insights across campus. In Chapter 2, Mary F. Howard-Hamilton and Kandace G. Hinton provide an overview of privilege, power, oppression, and identity development from a twenty-first-century perspective that takes into account the varying complex identities that students internalize and bring to campus as part of their persona. The chapter includes a case study that presents readers with a set of hypothetical student problems and connects them with theories related to racial identity, oppression, and critical race ideology.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 3

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

4

MULTICULTURALISM ON CAMPUS

In Chapter 3, Michael J. Cuyjet and Jason L. Meriwether explore the environmental influences on culture and offer some perspectives on campus ecological systems using a multicultural lens. This perspective also presents an overview of environmental influences on nonmajority students that includes issues of campus size, type, location, and mission. In Chapter 4, Chris Linder examines the tenets of intersectionality theory, including a historical framing of intersectionality. She provides some suggestions for student affairs educators striving to employ an intersectional approach to their work and specific examples to illustrate the complexity of intersectionality theory.

Part Two: Information on Cultural Populations This part of the book focuses on the problems, concerns, issues, and perspectives of various racial/ethnic cultural groups on college campuses. Each chapter updates the earlier edition’s examination of demographic trends, issues, and practices that can promote the academic success of different groups, and successful programs that promote student growth and development. The chapters in this section include case studies and discussion questions that student affairs professionals can implement on their own campuses. They also consider the characteristics that each specific ethnic or cultural population has in common with other groups. This echoes the emphasis in the book’s first chapter on commonalties rather than differences among cultural groups and the fourth chapter’s focus on intersectionality. In Chapter 5, Susana Hernández and Anna M. Ortiz look at the history of Latinxs in the United States, mainly focusing on the Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban experience, and explore their current conditions in a sociological context—income levels, generational factors, and the impact of discrimination. The chapter also examines student experiences that can inform student affairs professionals, especially the role of family and campus climate issues, particularly at community colleges. Chapter 6 examines the demographics of the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) collegiate population in general, as well as several of the largest Asian ethnic groups. Julie J. Park and OiYan A. Poon also explore the ramifications of the Asian model minority stereotype and describe some of the differences among the dozens of individual ethnic groups and their interaction with the American college environment. The chapter authors also look at some developmental models pertinent to AAPI groups. In Chapter 7, Bettina C. Shuford and Lamont A. Flowers provide a review of the recent enrollment statistics of African Americans in U.S. higher

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 4

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

INTRODUCTION

5

education and an overview of the historical struggles that African American students face while attending college. The authors also explain how student development theory is applied to African American college students’ current issues. The chapter concludes with recommendations of effective practices for university faculty and administrators. In Chapter 8, LeManuel Lee Bitsóí explores issues of self-identification with tribal culture and community, tribal sovereignty, and government oppression and offers an overview of the history of American Indians to help the reader understand Native American college students. He presents a model of American Indian identity development and defines important issues for higher education practitioners to consider while working with this student population. Chapter 9 explores some of the experiences particular to biracial and multiracial college students: the quest for self-identification, the impact of their physical appearance (and others’ reactions to it), and the establishment of a multiracial peer culture. Kristen A. Renn and Marc P. JohnstonGuerrero’s chapter also includes a description of several identity development models that can apply to this population, and offers corresponding suggestions for student affairs professionals to help these students find a place in the campus community. In Chapter 10, Chris Linder provides an overview of the social construction of Whiteness, synthesizes current literature about Whiteness and White privilege on college campuses, and highlights some White identity and racial justice ally development models. She concludes the chapter by providing suggestions for student affairs educators attempting to support and challenge White students in their White identity development. International students face challenges on college campuses ranging from language barriers to visa issues to xenophobic behavior by Eurocentric Americans. In Chapter 11 Sevan G. Terzian and Leigh Ann Osborne discuss the multicultural competencies necessary for student affairs professionals to become more aware and knowledgeable about the issues these students face, and the need to acquire the skills to be effective communicators and empathetic advisers for this population. The history of women and men in higher education is in many ways the history of the education of White men, and initially only those of substantial means. For many, the term gender issues translates to women’s issues. A more honest and complete exploration requires the inclusion of men. To do less provides a picture of only part of our world and ignores the important understandings gained from studying the interplay between women and men. Merrily S. Dunn and Philip D. Badaszewski in Chapter 12 provide us with an examination of sex and gender roles and offer examples of methods

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 5

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

6

MULTICULTURALISM ON CAMPUS

we can use in practice to help students developmentally, socially, and cognitively. Dena R. Kniess, Tony W. Cawthon, and Kristin M. Walker address the collegiate experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) students in Chapter 13, including a history of LGBT movements on college campuses and the impact of heterosexism and homophobia on identity development. The chapter authors also present different developmental models for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender students and explore intersectionality in the context of LGBT student development. Examples of best practices from a number of campuses conclude this chapter. As we move further into the twenty-first century, the number of students over the traditional age range of 18 to 21 years old entering colleges and universities continues to increase. In Chapter 14, Fiona J. D. MacKinnon and Rosiline D. Floyd share information on the challenges facing college campuses in enabling faculty and administrators to better serve the adult population on campus. They provide a conceptual cognitive and psychosocial map called the adult persistence in learning model to give student affairs professionals an overview of how this population has become a central demographic on many college campuses today. In Chapter 15, Martha E. Wisbey and Karen S. Kalivoda explore issues faced by students with disabilities on today’s college campuses. Since the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, the number of students with disabilities on college campuses has grown, but visible and hidden barriers still need to be addressed to create an environment of full inclusion. The chapter authors provide case studies for readers to explore the challenges that students with disabilities face from a variety of perspectives and insights for student affairs professionals to consider in creating more inclusive and welcoming environments. Chapter 16 considers the issues of religious affiliation among college students and provides an overview of issues of spirituality that affect students. To clarify the role of religion in the modern system of higher education, Laura A. Dean and Darris R. Means review the history of religion at colleges, including religious diversity and religious conflict, and its impact on students and the student affairs practitioners who serve them.

Part Three: Critical Consciousness of Cultural Competence In chapter 16, the book’s comprehensive concluding chapter, Chris Linder and Diane L. Cooper stress the need for student affairs professionals, students, and faculty to increase their critical consciousness in personal and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 6

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

INTRODUCTION

7

professional approaches to their work on college campuses. They also suggest how student affairs professionals might move forward to apply the material in this volume to improve experiences for all students. Successfully applying the knowledge presented and personally incorporating the concepts, models, theories, and practices outlined can bring about systemic change in the college environment. The editors and chapter authors of this volume identify the areas where we all must hone our cultural awareness and knowledge and develop our critical consciousness. This text describes the defining characteristics of a broad array of identifiable cultural groups among our student populations, and discusses frankly the skills we need to develop to bring about a more cultural-competent approach to our work. Our hope is that the cumulative effect of this collection of information, data, and recommended practices will be to encourage and motivate students, faculty, academic administrators, student affairs professionals, and others who care about the state of higher education to foster greater understanding, acceptance, interaction, and common appreciation among all the members in the collegiate community. To strive for anything less will be a failure to live up to the ideals of American higher education in the twenty-first century.

Reference Butler, J. (2007). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 7

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 8

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

PA RT O N E AWA R E N E S S O F C U LT U R A L I S S U E S

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 9

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 10

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

1 U N D E R S TA N D I N G M U LT I C U LT U R A L I S M A N D M U LT I C U LT U R A L COMPETENCE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, Michael J. Cuyjet, and Diane L. Cooper

When we define ourselves, when I define myself, the place in which I am like you and the place in which I am not like you, I’m not excluding you from the joining—I am broadening the joining. Audre Lorde (2007, p. 11)

A

s we embarked upon the second edition of this text it became crystal clear that the theme should be “the end is the beginning” because we are experiencing a rash of overt acts of violence against minoritized groups across the country (see Chapter 2 for a definition of minoritized ), yet these situations are bringing about a new beginning of dialogue, reflection, and action. Specifically, people from minoritized groups are asking for the end to police brutality against women and men of Color; the end to racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks or actions by privileged groups on college campuses; and the end to celebrating and memorializing symbols of hate and domination in visible environments that lend to the subjugation of some and elevation of others. Across the country there have been episodes of hatred, violence, and domination, such as the following: 11

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 11

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

12

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

• The murder of nine African Americans at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, by a lone White male assailant on June 18, 2015 (Alcindor & Bacon, 2015). • Fraternity members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon at the University of Oklahoma were videoed singing racist lyrics about Black people in March 2015 (Berrett, 2015). • A controversial statue, made of newspapers, depicting a member of the KKK that was created by a faculty member in the art department was placed in the center of the University of Iowa campus in December 2014 and remained there for several hours until university officials removed it (“Controversial Art at UI Raises Civility, Freedom Issues,” 2014). • Pennsylvania State University closed its Chi Omega sorority chapter in December 2012 due to a racist photo depicting members dressed in sombreros and mustaches with signage stating, “Will mow lawn for weed and beer,” and “I don’t cut grass, I smoke it” (Kingkade, 2014). These are just a few situations in which dramatic actions from community members, institutional representatives, and the police were required to bring an end to the racist acts. As we stated, the end is the beginning, and the starting point has been countless diversity training programs being facilitated on college campuses, institutions finding ways to increase and enhance the visibility and power of their chief diversity officer, and policies that extend the discussion of hate crimes and freedom of speech. Moreover, controversial symbols that depict hatred are being removed. For example, leaders in South Africa have removed the statues, signs, and symbols in the large cities that celebrated the domination of Whites over the Black Africans. Concomitantly, the city of Pretoria, which was named after the South African Voortrekker leader Andries Pretorius, has now been changed to Tshwane (Jansen, 2009). Furthermore, an example of symbolic transition in the United States is the removal of the Confederate flag from many government buildings, particularly the South Carolina statehouse, as well as on campus paraphernalia such as the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) institutional flag. This decision came from to a student senate vote of 33-15 in October 2014 directing the institution to lower the flag. These types of daring acts led by multiculturally competent individuals on campus transform colleges and universities and empower those who speak out and challenge the traditions that are exclusionary. By recognizing the demographic shift taking place in this country, college campuses can become spaces where everyone belongs and senses that their culture can be embedded in the organizational structure along with other diverse voices. We need no longer predict the change; it is here, ready or not.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 12

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE

13

Delgado and Stefancic (2012) defined multiculturalism as a perspective through which “social institutions should reflect many cultures” (p. 168). Historically, the Founding Fathers reflected similar attitudes of English colonists; thus, they “rejected the idea of a multicultural society and advocated the creation of a unified American culture” (Spring, 2013, p. 11). This unified melting pot culture became difficult to create and maintain, given the diversity of immigrants from all around the world coming to the land of opportunity. The practical reality that multiculturalism is embedded in the social and systemic structure of our society should send a message of recognizing these differences and understanding the biases that could impede an individual’s process. However, personal, political, educational, structural, and legal factors can block the implementation of societal multiculturalism and perpetuate a sense of fear and mistrust among those who have not been part of the dominant group in a society. Through much of our own country’s history, this type of hegemony has persisted on predominantly White campuses due to a lack of multicultural courses, the paucity of multicultural faculty and administrators, and finally the small representation of multicultural students, thus enabling the dominant culture to maintain an attitude of intellectual and cultural superiority. Spring (2013) used the term deculturalization to describe the “educational process of destroying a people’s culture (cultural genocide) and replacing it with a new culture” (p. 9). The issue of multiculturalism and sensitivity or insensitivity toward groups marginalized by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other cultural characteristics has become a prominent issue on college campuses because students are no longer willing to allow a hostile or uncaring environment to impede their college careers. Indeed, many colleges and universities wishing to maintain or create supportive climates for all students have implemented policies against hate crimes and other discriminatory actions because the institutions recognize the need to change the perception and behaviors of those who are insensitive or hostile to diverse individuals. Additionally, these policies give victims a voice and the power to expose discriminatory acts. Overall, more administrators are attempting to find ways to support the need for multicultural programming and maintain funding for diversity issues on their campuses. Yet even with the increase in policies, there are headlines almost weekly noting events that run counter to the notion of supportive environments and practices. The increasing diversity among the U.S. population in general and on college campuses in particular (Quaye & Harper, 2015) has led many administrators of student affairs and higher education administration graduate preparation programs to attempt to better prepare their students to work

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 13

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

14

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

with diverse populations of college students—in short, to become multiculturally competent. Administrators of student affairs units on some campuses are undertaking similar efforts in their professional development programs to help working professionals become better able to serve diverse student populations.

Competency Models What cultural competencies should student affairs staff members be able to demonstrate? A set of multicultural attributes for students was developed by Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, and Shuford (1998) (see Table 1.1) that included the following characteristics: “knowledge of self as it relates to one’s cultural identity,” “ability to identify similarities and differences across cultures and the ability to articulate that with others,” and “pride within one’s own cultural group” (p. 11). Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller (2004, 2014) expounded upon their earlier work on multicultural competence by stating that campus leaders should understand what constitutes multicultural competence and how to achieve its various components of awareness, knowledge, and skills. Since the authors’ germinal writings on multicultural competence in 2004, there has been “a broader appreciation of what multiculturalism means (i.e., incorporating issues of social class, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, and others into the initial conversations which primarily focused on race)” (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2014, p. 12). Keeping in mind the broadened concept of multiculturalism in our society, the basic premise of multicultural competence is for individuals in higher education to have a mastery of three required components: awareness, knowledge, and skills (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2014). Multiculturally aware individuals understand that personal beliefs, upbringing, biases, prejudices, and assumptions can impede the interaction with persons who do not have a similar cultural background. Therefore, “our worldview is fundamental to how we view the world around us, others, and ourselves” (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2014, p. 12). Understanding others involves engaging oneself intellectually to learn more about others beyond superficial conversations or interactions. The result of this intellectual engagement is multicultural knowledge, which can be gained through intrusive cognitive as well as personal immersion into the experiences and culture of those from marginalized or minoritized groups. Personal cognitive introspection of one’s own cultural identity should also be present, as well as the intellectual curiosity and understanding of other cultures. Both the awareness and knowledge components are necessary to create a multicultural skill set, for “without in-depth understanding

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 14

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

15

UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE

TABLE 1.1

Attributes of a Culturally Competent Student Knowledge

Skills

Attitudes

Awareness

Knowledge of self as it relates to one’s cultural identity. Knowledge of other cultures and how they are similar to or different from one’s own cultural group.

Self-reflection. Ability to identify similarities and differences across cultures and the ability to articulate that with others.

Pride within one’s own cultural group. No one group is better than another.

Understanding

Knowledgeable about issues of oppression and the effect it has on different cultural groups. Knowledgeable about interactions between multiple oppressions, such as race, gender, class, lifestyle, and religion.

Ability to see things from multiple perspectives. Understands difference in multiple contexts.

Discrimination due to one’s cultural status is unjust. Assumptions about an individual cannot be based solely on one’s group membership.

Appreciation/ Valuing

Knowledge about elements involved in social change. Knows the effect cultural differences can have in communication patterns.

Able to challenge acts of discrimination. Ability to communicate cross-culturally.

One must take risks in life. Cross-cultural interactions enhance the quality of one’s life.

Source: From M. F. Howard-Hamilton, B. J. Richardson, and B. Shuford (1998), Promoting multicultural education: A holistic approach. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), pp. 5–17. Copyright 1998 by Dennis E. Gregory. Reprinted with permission of the author.

of ourselves and an equally thorough appreciation of the realities of others, it is too easy to assume that our own experiences are the norm or the reality for others” (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2014, p. 13). Multiculturally competent leaders rely upon detailed diversity experiences and interactions to create the programs, activities, and classroom experiences that are appropriate for all learners. They know how to skillfully challenge and support unique ideas in their programming efforts or

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 15

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

16

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

classroom environment so that everyone has a voice that is heard and a perspective that is capable of transforming the minds of others around them. Multicultural competence extends beyond the student affairs staff. The whole institution has the responsibility to challenge faculty to learn how to apply this cultural competence in the classroom and to engage students in shifting their views about themselves and others. Pope (2014) discussed the need to move toward using multicultural organizational development (MCOD) procedures to truly transform the entire institution from monocultural to multicultural. The entire community should become involved in creating an environment that has diversity initiatives as its central mission. Delgado and Stefancic (2012) also noted that the entire institution should have a multicultural frame of reference—such as cultural artifacts, curricular offerings, and extracurricular activities that reflect the various demographic groups on campus—embedded in its overall mission and structure. After identifying and endorsing the competencies and attributes associated with the diversity reflected in the enrollment at their colleges and universities, students, faculty, and administrators can then develop a delivery method to guide student learning initiatives and classes, as well as programs in the curricular and cocurricular arenas. One such mechanism is the authentic, action-oriented framing for environmental shifts (AAFES) method developed by Sherry Watt (2015). The AAFES method is based on the concept of transformative learning and “identifies qualities that higher education institutions can use in dismantling systemic oppression” (p. 27) in order to create a nurturing cultural environment that allows its members to be “more fully human” (p. 28). Programs using Watts’s method are based on six assumptions: 1. Social oppression is a societal illness deeply rooted in our campus culture, history, tradition, and practices (p. 29). 2. Communities need to be continually in a process of dialogue that deconstructs and reconstructs environments for inclusion (p. 29). 3. Transformation occurs at the personal, institutional, community, or societal level when people in the environment balance their head (intellect/ thought), heart (emotion/spirit), and hands (practice/real world application; p. 29). 4. Acts of inclusion are riveting processes for community members and the institution. Controversy has a greater potential to lead to a more just outcome, particularly for the marginalized and historically traumatized communities (p. 29). 5. Change in the environment needs to occur rather than retrofitting individuals with noncentralized identities to fit within a pathological system (p. 30).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 16

7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE

17

6. Increasing the capacity of community members and citizens to engage difference skillfully equips people with the skills to face cultural change that is ever-changing and nebulous. Ultimately, improving qualities of processes and developing skills equip communities with necessary features to create environments that are more just and inclusive (p. 30).

Differences and Commonalities At the beginning of this first chapter we mentioned the intent of the early colonists to unify the cultures in America. Our intention in this book is not to be divisive of commonalities that bring people together but to help the readers understand that it is important to value, respect, and embrace our cultural differences as well. In addition, we must understand that intersections of our lives create a framework of commonalities. As a result, an intentional effort to deconstruct one’s racial and ethnic identity should be made before attempting to understand the complexity of another person’s cultural background. An in-depth discussion of this process is explained in Chapter 2, in which theories and models of privilege, identity development, and oppression are presented.

Recommended Use of This Book This book is a guide to gaining a clearer comprehension of some of the major elements that impact cultural diversity—privilege, oppression, identity development, environmental influences—and a deeper understanding of the various multicultural groups on college campuses. We intend for the book to be useful for faculty and students in the classroom as well as to professional staff who desire to increase their understanding of the complexity of the students they serve and to develop their own cultural competence. Freire (2005) said that teachers should always be learning, and he firmly believed that previously learned knowledge may need to be reassessed and reevaluated to understand how one’s political and ethical obligation affects the other. Specifically, learning is a dynamic process particularly for people in a constantly changing and evolving environment, and exposure to newer techniques or interventions to enhance cultural development and competence for students entering college today is an important part of that learning. A second feature of this edition of the book is its expanded focus on intersectionality as a more complex view of identity than the singular approaches we have often taken in the past. Intersectionality honors the interconnectedness of the individuals as well as the relationship of the individual to systems

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 17

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

18

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

of power and privilege on our campus (Mitchell, Simmons, & Greyerbiehl, 2014). Intersectionality also accommodates an understanding of the diverse cultural identity of individuals should they embrace more than one distinct cultural group or cultural heritage as part of their salient identity. A powerful example of salience in intersectional identity is present in the following excerpt from an unpublished essay by Sienna Hunter-Cuyjet, the executive director of tribal operations for the Shinnecock Nation. She writes, Being Indigenous for me is much more than just blood quantum but embracing and participating in one’s cultural beliefs and practices. . . . It lays the foundation and constructs the lens of [sic] which I see the world. This can be both a strength and a weakness but I choose it to be strength. Being an individual who is of a mixed ethnic background, listening to the stories from the elders in my community, remembering the teachings of my aunties I find myself in a new light and perception of identity. I have always been taught to honor my ancestors, honor my grandmothers. Although I choose to identify as an Indigenous woman because that is the culture of which I was born, raised in and practice in my daily life, I do not deny the fact that I do also have Irish/Scottish, Panamanian, and Afro French ancestry. I welcome conversations on identity; I challenge people’s thoughts and perceptions of what makes up identity to hopefully open their minds to other possibilities. I am who I am by blood, by practice, by belief, and by choice. (Hunter-Cuyjet, 2015)

A number of researchers have developed models that can be used to explore the concept of social identity intersectionality (Jones & Abes, 2013) and multiracial identity (Wijeyesinghe, 2012). The concept is expanded further in Chapter 4. This book also presents a number of relevant theoretical frameworks and connects them to professional practice. Our purpose is to encourage the use of new concepts, not by dichotomizing theory and practice but by inclusively using both to make informed decisions about teaching and learning in a universal fashion (Freire, 2005). The universal perspective gives the individual an opportunity to step into the shoes of another person and react to a situation differently than if a traditional lens had been used. When a 360-degree universal perspective is used, everyone is empowered because it gives the marginalized person a chance to have a voice and gives the listeners a chance to gain an appreciation for diversity. Another feature of this book makes it uniquely useful to the campus community in understanding the application of multicultural principles on campus. In addition to identifying the general characteristics that define and differentiate each of the various cultural groups included in this book, each

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 18

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE

19

chapter addresses the multiple identities and cultural intersections of diverse groups. Moreover, when coupled with an appreciation for these differences, personal growth, a practical understanding of inclusiveness, and the resolve to dismantle privilege could lead to the moral forthrightness needed to bring about civility and a higher sense of moral reasoning among the students, faculty, and staff on our campuses. Furthermore, by including a chapter focused on the multicultural development of White students, this book provides an opportunity for members of the majority culture to perceive themselves in a cultural sense and to understand their symbiotic connection to other cultural groups on campus. As Spring (2013) explained, members of the majority culture who perceive their cultural characteristics to be the norm often cannot see that their customs and characteristics are, in fact, artifacts of their culture. They see divergent cultural characteristics as “deficient” and often have difficulty seeing other cultures as valid. Helping such individuals to recognize and appreciate their own culture is a key step in allowing them to recognize and appreciate other cultures.

The Town and Gown: How the External Community Can Use This Book We can all gain a deeper understanding of the Millennial cohort that is entering graduate school and the workforce, as well as of our next generation of young adults and how their perspectives on diversity and social justice are beginning to make a significant impact on society. There has been a recent proliferation of student unrest on college campuses across the country (Johnston, 2015), and the protests mirror the activism of the 1970s. Specifically, we should note that there are three issues that today’s students are vociferously raising with administrators on college campuses: racial discrimination, sexual assault and harassment, and rising tuition and student debt (Johnston, 2015). “In each case, longstanding grievances of traditionally underrepresented students have been brought to a crisis” (Johnston, 2015, p. B6). Another example of this openness to change— with a desire to shift the traditions that have been present in our governmental structure—was the election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States and his reelection in 2012. The impact of college students on the election process was felt in every community across the country. Both the 2008 and 2012 election processes made it virtually impossible for the majority of Americans to remain isolated from the influence that college students had by knocking on doors and canvassing neighborhoods to solicit support for a biracial person. The material provided in this book may help those outside the campus environment, including in the private

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 19

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

20

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

sector, gain awareness of various cultural groups from a safe distance and, with encouragement from the authors, move closer and not “let the fear of what is difficult paralyze you” (Freire, 2005, p. 49). Chapter 17 further explores the development of cultural competence that must be part of any real change on our campuses. As we approach the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, we see more and more college campuses creating administrative positions such as chief diversity officer, and we realize the increased presence of individuals representing diverse cultural groups in high-level administrative positions and assisting with the promotion, creation, development, and assessment of diversity initiatives on campus. The establishment of individuals in these visible, high-ranking positions—deans, vice presidents, provosts, and presidents—on more and more campuses clearly signals that conversations about race, racism, and multiculturalism are not being left to a few disconnected individuals. Rather, we are all being collectively held accountable for the successful inclusion of diverse students, faculty, and staff because everyone is affected when discrimination exists on campus. Given the changing demographic landscape from the leadership in our nation’s capital to our own hometown communities, the promotion of social justice and the development of marginalized groups are causes that should be everyone’s passion. As Martin Luther King Jr. (1986) so eloquently stated, “What impacts one directly, impacts us all indirectly” (p. 254), thus calling each of us to invest in the promotion of every one of our fellow citizens, particularly those who have been historically underrepresented.

References Alcindor, Y., & Bacon, J. (2015, June 21). Emanuel AME Church holds first service since killings. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ nation/2015/06/21/mother-emanuel-chirch-services/29065125/ Berrett, D. (2015, March 19). Stunned by a video, U. of Oklahoma struggles to talk about race. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com Controversial art at UI raises civility, freedom issues. (2014, December 5). Iowa City Press Citizen. Retrieved from press-citizen.com. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New York University Press. Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach (D. Macedo, D. Koike, & A. Olivei, Trans.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Richardson, B. J., & Shuford, B. (1998). Promoting multicultural education: A holistic approach. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), 5–17. Hunter-Cuyjet, S. (2015). My evolution of identity. Unpublished manuscript.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 20

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE

21

Jansen, J. D. (2009). Knowledge in the blood: Confronting race and the apartheid past. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Johnston, A. (2015, December 18). Student protests, then and now: From “Hey, hey LBJ!” to “Black lives matter!”. The Chronicle Review: The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B6–B7. Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. King, M. L. Jr. (1986). A testament of hope: The essential writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. In J. M. Washington (Ed.), A Christmas sermon on peace (pp. 253–267). San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row Kingkade, T. (2014, February 27). Penn State sorority closes 14 months after controversy over racist photo. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/ penn-state-sorority-chi-omega_n_4810010.html Lorde, A. (2007). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. New York, NY: Random House. Mitchell, D., Simmons, C. Y., & Greyerbiehl, L. A. (2014). Intersectionality and higher education: Theory, research, and praxis. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2014). Creating multicultural change on campus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2015). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York, NY: Routledge. Spring, J. (2013). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Watt, S. K. (2015). Designing transformative multicultural initiatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Wijeyesinghe, C. L. (2012). The intersectional model of multiracial identity: Integrating multiracial identity theories and intersectional perspectives on social identity. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development (2nd ed., pp. 81–107). New York, NY: New York University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 21

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

2 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT Mary F. Howard-Hamilton and Kandace G. Hinton

Let no one be discouraged by the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills—against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. . . . Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. . . . It is from the numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man [sic] stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. Robert Kennedy (as cited in Shoreline Productions, 2010)

S

ystematic oppression is a central part of the foundation of our national identity, and its eradication requires uprooting and changing the existing hierarchy of power (Spring, 2013; Takaki, 1993). For change to occur in the dominant culture, a significant loss of privilege and power will result. Thus, recognizing the notions of privilege and power is critical to understanding the development of individuals from marginalized groups. A difficult yet important aspect of being nonmajority is the potential for experiencing oppression. 22

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 22

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

23

Before addressing issues related to identity development of diverse populations and designing practices to empower these groups, we need a connecting theory of oppression to understand how outside influences shape behavior. A theoretical framework is necessary for several reasons. First, as Bell (2016) stated, theory allows us to reason and think clearly about our intentions and how we implement our actions in various settings (classroom, residence hall, meetings, etc.). Theory allows us time to think and mobilize our energy, then move in a direction of certainty. Theory can also mobilize social energy; a group of people can work toward a common goal grounded in theory. Without such a base, personal dominance may become the focal point. Second, old approaches to interacting with individuals can be queried as well as challenged, and new paradigms can be created when we infuse oppression theory with our actions. In other words, theory protects us against our own unconsciousness (Bell, 2016). “Ideally we keep coming back to and refining our theory as we read and reflect upon the emerging literature on oppression, and as we continually learn through practice the myriad ways oppression can seduce our minds and hearts or inspire us to further learning and activism” (Bell, 2016, pp. 4–5). Third, oppression theory reminds us that people are historical subjects, and this influences the way we think, act, and behave toward others. It is important that we “learn from the past as we try to meet current conditions in more effective and imaginative ways” (Bell 2016, p. 5).

Theory of Oppression According to Paulo Freire (1968/1987), oppression is overwhelming control, and “an act is oppressive only when it prevents men [sic] from being more fully human” (p. 42). Furthermore, Freire stated that the oppressors see only themselves as human beings and other people as things. “For the oppressors, there exists only one right: their right to live in peace, over against the right, not always even recognized, but simply conceded, of the oppressed to survival. And they make this concession only because the existence of the oppressed is necessary to their own existence” (Freire, 1968/1987, p. 43). Those who are oppressed live in a culture of silence or have no voice when determining their destiny; thus, they are politically and economically powerless (Spring, 1998, 2007). The oppressed develop a mental construct called “the wheels in the head” syndrome (Spring, 2007, p. 3), when internalized ideas are not their own but thoughts prescribed by others to subjugate them. Oppressed people are not independent thinkers controlling their own destiny: their future is determined by the oppressor.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 23

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

24

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

The method most commonly used to domesticate or dictate prescribed thoughts and minimize creative power to oppressed groups is called banking education (Freire, 1968/1987). Teachers dictate to learners information from an oppressive historical ideology. The learners become passive by not talking about, sharing, or discussing the information they receive; rather, they simply receive, memorize, and repeat what has been dictated. Moreover, knowledge is created and disseminated in a manner that does not allow for dialogue and differing opinions to be shared. Where banking education exists, the oppressed groups become the objects of history rather than its subjects. “A subject of history is a conscious maker of history. . . . As objects of history, their actions are determined by history, but they do not make history” (Spring, 1998, p. 148). This is a form of deculturalization, or the educational process of destroying a people’s culture and replacing it with a new culture (Spring, 2013). Those who are the subjects of the information may find that their culture, history, and attributes are misrepresented because the stories of the oppressed are not part of the information that the dominant group created. The information has been banked and deposited into the minds of the oppressed and the oppressors. Withdrawal of that information is manifested in the form of stereotypes, language, and policies that subjugate the oppressed and uplift the oppressors. When people accept oppression in their lives, they become dehumanized and lack any will, consciousness, or motivation to make societal or systemic changes (Freire, 1968/1987). Without the critical consciousness to become self-determining rather than self-deprecating, the oppressed continue to allow the oppressor to make choices for them that limit their freedom. Even when a collaborative breakthrough occurs between the oppressors and the oppressed, praxis still needs to occur. Praxis is when dialogue, reflection, and action take place between the oppressors and oppressed in order to transform the world (Freire, 1968/1987). Spring (1998, 2007) separates attributes of the oppressor and the oppressed into two categories: a revolution from the right and a revolution from the left. A revolution from the perspective of the oppressor, or right, means creating a dominant overt and covert environment and systemic structures in which there is very little freedom or flexibility for the oppressed to attain success, become empowered, and move comfortably through life without doubts about one’s abilities and future aspirations. Maintenance of the dominant environment is a generational inhibitor as well, leaving the future bleak for progeny of the oppressed. The revolution for the oppressed, or the left, is grounded in a framework that knowledge is the key to changing one’s perception that being different from the majority is dysfunctional. The revolution from the left empowers

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 24

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

25

the oppressed so that they begin to name their own identity rather than having the oppressor define their personalities and cultural background. The revolution is a gathering of people who create a base of power to change societal misconceptions about who they are and their contributions to the world. The oppressor exhibits behaviors from a revolutionary right perspective by fearing freedom for others and perceiving them as lifeless individuals. Domination is exhibited by the desire to keep the oppressed muted, dependent, and domesticated. The oppressed operate from a revolution from the left, which is a liberating experience. The revolution to the left engages people to become part of a utopian vision that is liberating because there is empowerment, dialogue, and a stream of information or education that engages people to be nonconformists and create their own destiny. The basic premise is that unconditional support, liberation, and dialogue move the group to a point of reflection and transformation. The oppressed begin to create their own history by organizing and finding solutions to problems by continuously operating from a revolutionary frame of mind to the left that is dichotomous to the perspectives of the oppressors’ revolution to the right. Specifically, even though both are using revolutions to garner support from large groups of constituents, one group subjugates and dominates (i.e., the oppressor from the right) and the other group is collaborative and empowering (i.e., the oppressed from the left). Therefore, when the oppressed begin to adopt a social change perspective from the left, the “revolution will result in the transformation of consciousness and personality of all people” (Spring, 1998, p. 149). To define the dialogue between the oppressor and oppressed, Alschuler (1986) created a three-stage developmental response to oppression: magical conforming, naive reforming, and critical transforming. The magical conformist does not see any problems in society and passively colludes with the oppressor, believing that the problems among the oppressed are unchangeable and hopeless. The naive reformist blames others for problems that exist because the others have deviated from the rules and expectations of society. Critical transformation of these beliefs occurs with a critical analysis of the system and oneself and when people name the ways they have oppressed others and “victimized themselves by their active collusion in supporting the conflict-producing rules and roles” (Alschuler, 1986, p. 493). Overall, oppression exhibits six significant characteristics, according to Bell (1997), which are 1. Pervasiveness: Oppression is the “pervasive nature of social inequality woven throughout social institutions as well as embedded within individual consciousness” (p. 3).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 25

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

26

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

2. Restricting: Oppression represents “structural and material constraints that significantly shape a person’s life chances and sense of possibility” (p. 3). 3. Hierarchical: “Oppression signifies a hierarchical relationship in which dominant or privileged groups benefit, often in unconscious ways, from the disempowerment of subordinated or targeted groups” (p. 3). 4. Complex, multiple, cross-cutting relationships: Power and privilege are relative since “individuals hold multiple and cross-cutting social group memberships” (p. 3). 5. Internalized: “Oppressive beliefs are internalized by victims as well as benefactors” (p. 4). 6. “Isms”—Shared and Distinctive Characteristics: “Oppression is manifested through racism, sexism, classism, anti-Semitism, ableism, and heterosexism, and the dimensions of experience that connect “isms” in an overarching system of domination” (p. 4).

It is important to understand how these theories intersect with the dayto-day issues at higher education institutions. When faculty members do not teach students how to view their own work and personal space from a multicultural lens, they create a covert bias that limits students’ growth and development. The classroom becomes a place in which specific material from the dominant culture is presented, giving a subtle message that this model fits everyone, marginalized groups thus must accept the norm. This type of acclimation process occurs frequently on campuses. Examples include invited speakers who are only male; programs for marginalized groups that are limited to one specific period of the year, such as women’s or Latinx history month; and committees that are made up of one demographic group. Alschuler (1986) would view such an institution as magical conformist because the system has always operated in this manner and is part of the pervasive oppression. Moving into a transformation state requires that student affairs staff and faculty teach students how to analyze and assess the organizational structure that is covertly and overtly oppressive. This assessment may take the form of challenging units to evaluate their organization from a multicultural frame of reference and providing the appropriate incentives and support to help them become more inclusive. This support often entails training student affairs administrators in how to become continuous and not occasional diversity advocates. Faculty and administrators who are transformational leaders from Alschuler’s (1986) perspective find methods to create an environment that is not oppressive. Implementing diversity workshops, creating committees

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 26

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

27

to assess the campus and departmental climates, advocating workshops that support underrepresented groups, diversifying membership on key university committees that are part of retention efforts, and hiring staff members who are compatible with the demographic makeup of the institution all help to dismantle the hierarchical form of oppression that manifests itself on many college campuses. Furthermore, these methods recognize that complex, multiple, and cross-cutting relationships must be recognized and changed before diversity initiatives can become a routine part of the campus environment.

The Social Oppression Matrix According to Hardiman and Jackson (2007), “oppression is not simply an ideology or set of beliefs that assert one group’s superiority over another, nor is it random violence, harassment, or discrimination toward members of target groups” (p. 37). These researchers identified a social oppression model that is pervasive when one social group, consciously or subconsciously, devalues another social group for its own gain (Hardiman & Jackson, 2007). Four key elements are associated with social oppression: 1. The agent group has the power to define and name reality and determine what is “normal,” “real,” or “correct.” 2. Harassment, discrimination, exploitation, marginalization, and other forms of differential and unequal treatment are institutionalized and systematic. These acts often do not require the conscious thought or effort of individual members of the agent group but are rather part of business as usual that become embedded in social structures over time. 3. Psychological colonization of the target group occurs through socializing the oppressed to internalize their oppressed condition and collude with the oppressor’s ideology and social system. 4. The target group’s culture, language, and history are misrepresented, discounted, or eradicated and the dominant group’s culture is imposed. (Hardiman & Jackson, 2007)

Social oppression exists when one group is the beneficiary of privileges because of its social group membership. An example of privileged social group membership is when an organization is solely composed of administrators or leaders from one racial/ethnic group and gender, allowing them to create all the hiring practices, and policies, as well as the pay structure, for the organization without consultation from those who are different (Hardiman & Jackson, 2007). These privileges are supported by the institutions and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 27

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

28

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

structures of society as well as by individuals who assist in operating, supporting, maintaining, and perpetuating these benefits. The social oppression matrix comprises individual, institutional, and cultural/societal levels. These levels work in a dynamic fashion along three dimensions “that operate to support and reinforce each other: the context, the psychosocial processes, and the application” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 18). The context dimension intersects with the individual, institutional, and cultural/societal levels. The boundaries are not rigid but fluid, allowing for interaction and thus making all three levels mutually supportive. The individual level emphasizes the beliefs, views, values, and practices of the person rather than an entire social or institutional system. The impact of social oppression on an individual and the institution is reciprocal. Individuals are affected by the institution when they abide by, maintain, and sustain oppressive rules, regulations, and structures. Conversely, individuals have an impact on the institution when they internalize and value dominant societal values, codes, and mores. Institutions—such as corporations, schools/colleges/universities, religious groups, and federal/state/local governments, as well as the family— construct and are affected by two levels: individual and cultural/societal. “The application of institutional policies and procedures in an oppressive society run by individuals or groups who advocate or collude with social oppression produces oppressive consequences” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 19). Policies barring people of Color from country club golf courses or religious organizations excluding women from assuming primary roles of power are examples. The psychosocial processes may be conscious or unconscious when individuals decide to support, collude, or actively participate in a system of social oppression (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). People act as conscious participants in social oppression when they engage in activities that support and maintain a system that denigrates others—for example, providing funds for a White supremacist group or voting against human rights legislation. Individuals may unconsciously support social norms that are culturally demeaning, such as people of Color turning to plastic surgery to mirror White facial features. The application dimension recognizes that social oppression is evident at the behavioral and attitudinal levels of the individual and system interface (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). “The attitudinal level describes the individual and systemic values, beliefs, philosophies, and stereotypes that feed the other dimensions” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 19), like the stereotypes that the Muslims are terrorists, Italians are in the Mafia, White people have no rhythm, Latinxs are migrant workers, and Asians are always stoic and solemn. When zoning laws are designed to keep poor children in dilapidated

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 28

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

29

schools or people of Color are systematically overlooked for promotion and relegated to low-paying positions, individuals are behaviorally taking actions that sustain and preserve social oppression.

Social Identity Development Theory Social identity development theory (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997) details the characteristics that are common to the identity development of oppressed and dominant groups. The theory should not be used to label people, because they may be in one or more stages simultaneously coping with differing emotional and cognitive struggles with oppression. The theory is helpful in understanding the perspectives of students and in developing training or teaching modules. The first stage of the theory, naive/no social consciousness, is when individuals from oppressed and dominant groups “are unaware of the complex codes of appropriate behavior for members of their social group” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 23). They may experiment and push the boundaries or norms, but the social structure provides information and cues about what being part of a particular social category is like. They begin to accept the roles prescribed by teachers, parents, clergy, or the media and note differences between and among individuals. In the second stage, acceptance, these roles are internalized, and the oppressed and dominant groups conform to the characteristics that society has deemed for them, whether consciously or unconsciously. Members of the dominant group who are in the passive acceptance stage have “to some degree internalized codes of appropriate behavior, [so] conscious effort is no longer required to remind them of what to do and how to think” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 24). If the dominant group is in the active acceptance stage, its members receive messages in a very overt and direct method that people from oppressed groups are inferior, deviant, and weak. Privileges are evident for dominant members of the active acceptance stage, although they are oblivious to these societal perks. Oppressed people in the acceptance stage have learned to internalize and accept messages about the inferiority of their culture and themselves and overtly or consciously connect with the views, beliefs, and ideology of the dominant group. The passive acceptance individuals are oblivious to how they emulate the oppressor and reflect the oppressor’s views. In the third stage, resistance, increased awareness occurs. Members of the dominant group have experienced a challenging life event that provides some impetus for creating a new worldview and rejecting their old

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 29

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

30

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

frame of reference. In the resistance stage, those who are oppressed begin to acknowledge and question the collective experiences of oppression and their damaging effects. Stage four, redefinition, requires that a new identity be created “that is independent of an oppressive system based on hierarchical superiority and inferiority” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 27). Dominant group members start to reframe and create new definitions for their social group identity that are independent of social oppression and the projection of prejudicial views toward oppressed groups. Members of the oppressed group find themselves independently defining who they are and developing a new personal identity in the redefinition stage. This stage is significant for the oppressed because “it is at this juncture that they shift their attention away from a concern for their interactions with agents of oppression towards a concern for primary contact with members of their own social group who are at the same stage of consciousness” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 27). The fifth stage, internalization, is geared toward infusing the identity developed in the redefinition stage into every phase of one’s life. The dominant groups work toward creating a more inclusive and egalitarian society. The oppressed groups are engrossed in embracing and accommodating their new level of critical consciousness and group dignity.

Critical Race Theory There are similarities between Freire’s (1968/1987) pedagogy of working with oppressed populations and critical race theory. Both theories are about raising the consciousness of individuals who have been silenced and eliminating every form of oppression (race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Freire, 1968/1987). Critical race theorists believe in the role of storytelling to give the oppressed an opportunity to be empowered and heard (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). The stories also allow people to interpret their own experiences and validate them with individuals who are in similar situations. Counterspaces are physical locations within an existing environment that are affirming as well as comfortable niches for interactions that can be verbal or nonverbal, for marginalized or oppressed groups (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Cultural centers, for example, are considered counterspaces on predominantly White campuses. Students of Color often create counterspaces by sitting together in conspicuous locations in a student center, cafeteria, or lounge area. Counterspaces are where these stories are often told, and they provide a safe space for marginalized groups to dissect how their lives have been affected by oppression. Critical race theorists

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 30

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

31

also view racism as endemic and an integral part of our society, a reality that is normal and natural “because it is so enmeshed in the fabric of our social order” (Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 2009, p. 23). It is also understood that attempting to create a color-blind society and embrace a neutral stance about race is detrimental to marginalized groups. Color blindness leads to an unconscious racism by oppressors that allows them to be oblivious to the needs of the oppressed; everyone is treated the same because they are blind to differences. Critical race theory was developed by law scholars who believe this scholarship is transferable to other disciplines (Litowitz, 2009). It respects previous diverse perspectives including “political activism of the 1960s, nationalism, postmodernism, Marxism, and pragmatism (Litowitz, 2009, p. 293). The subjective experiences of marginalized groups are valued because they have had actual encounters with oppressive acts. Critical race theorists recognize the role of history in oppressed groups because it frames a context for the events that occur in the lives of the oppressed. Today’s generation of college students has a different perspective about diversity. Many of the students matriculating at our colleges and universities have encountered individuals from racial/ethnic or cultural groups different from their own. They have also been exposed to media that have provided a lens into the worlds of populations outside their respective environments. Students today have also been exposed to phenomena such as the increasing diversity within our federal political system, transitions in careers that have traditionally been deemed gender-specific domains, and the expanding opportunities to participate actively in community service. One would assume that this generation has already embraced the critical race perspective of understanding privilege through personal engagement and assessment. However, we need to be cautious about such assumptions because exposure to diverse groups is often experienced vicariously through the media, for example, rather than through direct and sustained personal encounters. College students may view their comfort with diverse populations as being nondiscriminatory and color-blind to differences. This perspective relieves members of the dominant group from the guilt associated with seeing people as being from distinctly different cultures from their own. The colorblind philosophy often allows the dominant group to make the assumption that our society provides equal access to everyone regardless of race, creed, or religious affiliation. Students should be exposed to cultural experiences throughout their college career, in the classroom as well as extracurricular activities, to dispel this notion of color blindness (Bell, 2007a). The classroom experience is a key component in challenging the comfort level of students in college today. Denson and Chang (2009) found that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 31

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

32

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

“there are appreciable educational benefits associated with racial diversity” (p. 344). The authors continue, stating that “campuses where students are more engaged with racial diversity through related knowledge acquisition or cross-cultural interaction have measurable positive effects on all students irrespective of a student’s own frequency of engagement with diversity” (Denson & Chang, 2009, p. 344). The institution’s role in providing a diverse experience for students, in and out of the classroom, creates the perfect space for them to be purposeful in their cultural journey. The manner in which students are exposed to diversity experiences will challenge their sense of whether they have internalized their own racial identity and their understanding that society still views marginalized groups in a mostly stereotypical manner. The students need to be challenged to see diversity and differences in others, and they need to learn that to do so does not mean they are prejudiced, racist, sexist, or homophobic. It means they are comfortable with the discourse that leads to hearing the stories of oppressed individuals. Moreover, they will appreciate the need for counterspaces so that marginalized groups can share their experiences with those who are willing to listen and learn.

How Oppression Affects Privileged Groups Oppression has a tremendous impact on the identity development of dominant or privileged groups. McIntosh (1998) metaphorically described White privilege “as an invisible package of unearned assets that I could count on cashing in each day but about which I was meant to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks” (p. 207) and is mainly provided to those who are male, White or European American, heterosexual, and who possess physical adeptness and mental acuity. The privileged identity exploration (PIE) model is a tool created by Watt (2015) “that individuals can use to identify defenses that arise as observed in self or others when introduced to a dissonance-provoking stimulus (DPS)” (p. 42). When a dissonance-provoking stimulus arises, individuals have eight defensive mechanisms that may arise, including recognizing privileged identity (denial, deflection, and rationalization), contemplating privileged identity (intellectualization, principium, false envy), and addressing privileged identity (benevolence and minimization; Watt, 2015). First, the PIE model emphasizes that there is “no ultimate level of consciousness” (Watt, 2015, p. 43); thus, unraveling one’s privileged identity is an ongoing and lifelong socialization process. Second, in order to dissect one’s privileged identity there is a need to engage in difficult dialogues about social justice issues and “-isms” that are embedded in the fabric of our organizational

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 32

7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

33

systems. When individuals are attempting to situate themselves to understand where they are in their belief system and how to digest the unfamiliar information being introduced to them, “the PIE model assumes that defense modes are innate and normal human reactions when introduced to a DPS” (Watt, 2015, p. 44). The PIE model also recognizes that self-awakening dialogue will occur and “there is an intersection of privileged and marginalized identities within each person” (Watt, 2015, p. 44). As mentioned earlier, there are eight defense modes identified in the PIE model. The recognizing privileged identity phase finds individuals attempting to protect themselves from DPS through the use of denial, rejecting the existence of the DPS, and deflection, “shifting the focus of the DPS toward another source” (Watt, 2015, p. 46). When one is contemplating privileged identity, the defenses are minimization, rationalization, and intellectualization. Downplaying or making light of the impact of the DPS is minimization. Using rationalization allows individuals to situate the DPS in their worldview and continue to disprove the stimulus with intellectualization or the use of data. The last phase, addressing privileged identity, “includes the defensive reactions of false envy, principium, and benevolence” (Watt, 2015, p. 47). “False envy is a defensive reaction that compliments or expresses affection toward a person or a feature of a person that represents the DPS” (Watt, 2015, p. 47). A method of resisting the logic of the DPS is to use a principle or personal value as a way to argue for the perspective of the privileged person. Additionally, a way to assuage the guilty or conflicting feelings of the privileged person and the DPS is through an act of benevolence or charity by donating one’s time or money to a cause that is antithetical to what is believed or perceived. Understanding the denial mechanisms of the privileged group helps those who are oppressed or individuals attempting to enact change identify the emotions and gestures that are manifested and deflected toward them. Thus, giving the marginalized group an opportunity to deflect, react, and challenge what is being exhibited or said by the privileged group can create deeper DPS to help them incorporate new knowledge and information from the oppressed group. The PIE model “identifies normal reactions that people often display as they attempt to incorporate ideas that challenge the very structure of their beliefs and values” (Watt, 2015, p. 55).

Conclusion This chapter provided an overview of Freire’s (1968/1987) pedagogy of the oppressed, a social oppression matrix, the social identity development theory, critical race theory, and the impact of privilege on dominant groups. This

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 33

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

34

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

perspective offers a context for understanding why identity development is difficult and why those who are oppressed often express different views about their experiences. A critical foundation to understanding identity development among diverse populations, this context may enable students, teachers, and administrators to find creative and collaborative methods for reducing oppressive behaviors in the classroom and on campus. Additionally, personal reflection on the issue of social oppression may bring about a change in individual identity. Freire (1968/1987) cogently stated that we should not let the fear of what is difficult paralyze us and that there is no teaching without learning. One of the authors of this chapter learned about the difficulty of peeling back layers of privilege, guilt, magical conforming, naive reforming, and critical transforming from a White male doctoral student who took a seminar course on critical race theory. The student agonized over the eye-opening yet hurtful experience of having been part of political, educational, professional, and societal systems that oppressed people who have dreams similar to his. The student used poetry, journaling, and self-disclosure during class discussions to describe his transformational process and his realization that unpacking the invisible knapsack is a lifelong process. Regardless of whether your profession is teaching, mentoring, counseling, advising, or administration, everyone is an educator and has a responsibility to encourage individuals to become the creators of their own destiny. The educational process should include modeling and teaching others how we can transform oppressive systems that subjugate marginalized groups and liberate them from the mechanized “wheels in the head” (Spring, 2007, p. ix) controlling behavior traditionally used by media, books, technology, and schools. The student poem gives us insight into the dissonance-provoking process of developing a critical consciousness and becoming motivated to transform systemic oppression. This work deals with a very obvious truth: just as the oppressor, in order to oppress, needs a theory of oppressive action, so the oppressed, in order to become free, also need a theory of action. The theory of oppression is learned, transmitted, and replicated. (Freire, 1968/1987, p. 185)

Case Study Translating theory to practice can be a daunting task for students and student affairs professionals. Understanding how the theories and models presented in this chapter can assist in helping individuals navigate the challenges of negotiating different environments and understanding marginalized cultures

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 34

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

35

could assist in transforming the campus community or institutional environment. The mini cases presented are examples of how others can misread and misinterpret culture, race, ethnicity, and traditions. Using a reflective lens, dialogue, and collaboration (i.e., Freire, critical race, or social justice models) can lead to an outcome that empowers everyone. Here the term minoritized is used to identify the individuals from the nondominant group (Bensimon & Bishop, 2012), and it “is used in solidarity with a number of scholars and critical race theorists in reference to the societal construction of subordination of certain racial/ethnic groups in global social institutions” (Kilgo & Barajas, 2015, p. 70).

Free ISU Free ISU is a midsize (13,700 students), predominantly White institution located in the country’s “heartland.” At the university fall address, President Noall Chadley shared great news about the increase in student enrollment as well as the burgeoning number of minoritized students attending Free ISU. He stated that “this year our university is comprised of 25% racial ethnic groups which include African Americans, Latino(a)s, Asian and Pacific Islanders, as well as Native Americans.” This news was exciting for some; however, there was discomfort for others because many believed that President Chadley’s recent decision to eliminate the Office of Diversity was antithetical to the direction in which the institution was heading in regard to its recent more diverse demographic shift and growth. Moreover, the decision to eliminate the Office of Diversity was based on the results of a commissioned research study from an external diversity consultant, and there was no discussion with the university community about the ramifications of the consultant’s recommendations. President Chadley also created a Multicultural Center that would focus on campus-wide diversity student programming and activities. In order to continue the assessment of the campus climate, the president selected an African American male administrator, Stephen Jefferson, as special assistant to the provost, to orchestrate the dialogue among students, administrators, and faculty around diversity and inclusion on campus. The provost, Tom Panther, was recently hired at Free ISU and embraced his new special assistant as part of the executive administrative team. Observing the increase in minoritized students at Free ISU and the decrease in racial/ethnic staff, administrators, and faculty, a group of concerned minoritized employees and allies decided to create the Diversity and Equity Coalition. The coalition was formed to shed light on several concerns that could impact everyone at Free ISU. As part of its impetus, the coalition felt silenced and marginalized because the decision to eliminate the Office of Diversity was made unilaterally, and the written responses from

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 35

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

36

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

the campus community refuting the consultants’ findings were not acknowledged. The coalition was also interested in the findings from the deans of the various colleges who were assigned, by Provost Panther’s predecessor, the task of researching the best diversity practices on comparable college campuses across the country. In order to move the discussion with the administration further along, the coalition understood the importance of having minoritized representation at all levels within the university structure, including the board of trustees. During the next board appointment cycle there will be two openings; the current demographic makeup of the group is six White men, one Latina, one African American woman whose term is ending, and one White woman. The coalition created the following list of requests that were presented to Provost Panther, Special Assistant Jefferson, and President Chadley: 1. To hire a vice president for diversity and equity who reports directly to the president and has a staff to assist with the myriad diversity issues on this campus. 2. To have two persons from minoritized groups be selected as members of the board of trustees in 2016. 3. To have minoritized faculty promoted and placed in positions of department chair, deans, and other upper-level administrative posts on campus.

At the coalition meeting there were a sizable number of students in the attendance who also felt marginalized and neglected at Free ISU, so they organized and created a list of demands, prepared a petition, and posted the information on social media, at Change.org, to gain national attention and support from external entities. The student demands are as follows: 1. Reestablish the Office of Diversity by creating a vice president for equity and inclusion position to provide oversight of university-wide efforts toward inclusive excellence. 2. Increase initiative to recruit African American faculty and staff, providing an equal African American faculty and staff to African American student ratio. 3. The need for internationally trained staff members in each office or college who know issues surrounding visas, education requirements, and financial needs of international students. 4. Provide advocates within the financial aid office for the purposes of ensuring that students’ questions are responded to with civility (which also offers someone the students can trust). 5. Hire more officers from minoritized communities to increase a sensitized presence.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 36

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

37

6. Establish a Latino/Latina Cultural Center. 7. Enhance the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Resource Center, which will give the LGBTQ community a safe place to get resources and support. 8. Have an open-ear policy, not just an open-door policy, so that students feel that their voices are heard when they have concerns, grievances, or other issues concerning their education and the environment at Free ISU.

The Faculty, Staff, and Administrative Coalition as well as the Student Coalition immediately faced deep-seated resistance on campus from the dominant culture as well as some minoritized individuals. Some students felt as though the group was “forcing their agenda” on everyone, and the environment seemed to be quite comfortable on campus, so why try to change things? Others indicated that they were being forced to sign a petition in which some of the demands seemed appropriate, but other issues did not impact them at all. The administrators and staff on campus were beginning to feel uncomfortable about supporting the coalitions because their supervisors were warning them of possible repercussions if there was any indication that their signature was on the form. One staff member sent a private message to the organizers stating that she was in favor of the movement and signed the form, even though she was told not to do so by an upper-level administrator. The final blow was delivered by a group of White male graduate students in the student affairs master’s program who were tired of hearing about concerns of the minoritized students from their professors and peers. They complained to their practicum supervisors about the conversations in the Multiculturalism in Higher Education class that seemed to be “just endless diatribe” about the coalitions and their demands. The supervisors stated that if they were feeling overwhelmed and pressured to be part of the petition, then they should report this behavior to the academic administrator, Dr. Panther. The students agreed that they were being marginalized and oppressed, so they took their cause to the provost and stated that the coalition was going to disrupt Homecoming weekend with a major demonstration. The information about the complaint was passed down from Provost Panther to the dean of the College of Education, Elnora Banks, who immediately sent an e-mail to everyone in the student affairs program stating that freedom of speech allows all people to share their concerns and by no means is anyone coerced to align to a cause that is antithetical to one’s belief system. The faculty in the program are quite stunned that students who will soon be encountering situations like this on a college campus would be so insensitive and uncaring about the concerns of the minoritized students.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 37

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

38

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Discussion Questions 1. What are some personal and systemic privileges exhibited in the case? 2. How should the professors in the student affairs program respond to the accusations of the White students who are complaining? 3. What should be the role of the student affairs division in regard to the Student Coalition and their list of demands? 4. What are some of the critical race theory components that emerge from this case (e.g., counterspace, counterstory, interest convergence, microaggression)? 5. What are some of the Freireian components that emerge from this case (behaviors of the oppressor, banking education, behaviors of the oppressed, praxis, critical consciousness)? 6. How can the student affairs cohort be supportive of the White students who complained, yet challenge them as well to think about their behavior? 7. Using the PIE model, what defense mechanisms are the privileged group using?

References Alschuler, A. S. (1986). Creating a world where it is easier to love: Counseling applications of Paulo Freire’s theory. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 492–496. Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.). Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge. Bell, L. A. (2007a). Overview: Twenty-first-century racism. In M. A. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 117–122). New York, NY: Routledge. Bell, L. A. (2007b). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge. Bell, L. A. (2016). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. Y. Joshi (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed., pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Routledge. Bensimon, E. M., & Bishop, R. (2012). Introduction: Why “critical”? The need for new ways of knowing. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 1–7. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New York University Press. Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 322–353.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 38

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

39

Freire, P. (1987). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1968) Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1997). Conceptual foundation for social justice courses. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 16–29). New York, NY: Routledge. Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (2007). Conceptual foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.; pp. 35–66). New York, NY: Routledge. Kilgo, C. A., & Barajas, R. (2015). Multicultural initiatives as bridges: Structures necessary for successful facilitation. In S. K. Watt (Ed.), Designing transformative multicultural initiatives: Theoretical foundations, practical applications, and facilitator considerations (pp. 61–71). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Litowitz, D. E. (2009). Some critical thoughts on critical race theory. In E. Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson-Billings (Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in education (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Routledge. McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege, color, and crime: A personal account. In C. R. Mann & M. S. Zatz (Eds.), Images of color and images of crime: Readings (pp. 207–216). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Shoreline Productions. (Producer). (2010). RFK in the land of apartheid: A ripple of hope [DVD]. Available from http://www.rfksafilm.org Spring, J. (1998). Wheels in the head: Educational philosophy of authority, freedom, and culture from Socrates to human rights (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Spring, J. (2007). Wheels in the head: Educational philosophies of authority, freedom, and culture from Confucianism to human rights (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Spring, J. (2013). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Taylor, E., Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (Eds.). (2009). Foundations of critical race theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Watt, S. K. (2015). Privileged identity exploration (PIE) model revisited: Strengthening skills for engaging difference. In S. K. Watt (Ed.), Designing transformative multicultural initiatives: Theoretical foundations, practical applications, and facilitator considerations (pp. 40–57). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 39

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

3 E N V I R O N M E N TA L INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE C U LT U R E Michael J. Cuyjet and Jason L. Meriwether

F

rom the early days of the student affairs profession, theorists have recognized the impact of environment on the lives of the individuals who populate our campuses. Kurt Lewin (1936) proposed the formula B = f (P, E) to explain that behavior (B) is a function (f ) of the interaction of a person (P) and his or her environment (E). Kaiser (1975) applied Lewin’s concept to the college setting and identified this interaction as a “transactional relationship” in which “the students shape the environment and are shaped by it” (p. 38). Unfortunately, when we consider concepts such as these in the general sense, we tend to focus on the impact that environment has on all the members of the community as a single entity. Typically, we look at the interaction of environment with the elements of culture as reflected in the dominant American culture. While this may help us gauge the impact of environment on the cultural and social lives of students who are part of the dominant American culture, it does not accommodate the differences that exist among people who do not embrace the dominant culture. Strange and Banning (2015) discussed findings from a 1991 report by the Council of Ontario Universities that concluded “The environment is experienced differently according to a person’s ethnicity, race, class, age, ability, and sexuality” (p. 182). Thus, it becomes necessary to examine the impact of environment through alternate cultural perspectives to observe how the same element of the environment can have different—sometimes minute, sometimes drastic—effects on the inhabitants of the community whose characteristics differ from those of the dominant majority.

40

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 40

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

41

This chapter presents a theoretical model of person-environment interaction and examines its components using the divergent cultural perspectives. In doing so, we can explore ways to better use the concepts represented in these models to make college and university environments more accommodating and welcoming to students who embrace cultural perspectives other than dominant American cultural norms.1 A number of useful models exist that help conceptualize the influence environment has on participants in a college community. Strange and Banning (2001, 2015) organized the elements of campus environments into a framework with four dimensions: physical environments, the designated features of the campus physical plant; human aggregates, the collective characteristics of the campus human population; organized environments, the dynamics of the interaction among campus members and groups; and constructed environments, the meanings that campus members put on these interactions. This model builds on the earlier work of Huebner and Lawson (1990), who offer six constructs that affect students’ development and performance in the college setting: heterogeneity/homogeneity, supportchallenge balance, social support, social climate, the physical environment, and person-environment congruence. The material in this chapter is organized using Strange and Banning’s model and addresses these constructs using the four dimensions they have outlined, with reference to the sixth of Huebner and Lawson’s constructs (person-environment congruence) added appropriately for emphasis.

Physical Environments The first of Strange’s (1996) environmental dimensions, physical environments, examines the influence of physical structures on the behavior of individuals within a community and includes the concepts of architectural determinism, architectural possibilism, and architectural probabilism (Strange & Banning, 2015). In architectural determinism, behavior is presumed to be caused by the environment. People behave in a certain way because the physical structure and design allow few other options. Fences and gates that limit access to areas of the campus and buildings that have few entrances are examples of deterministic architecture. Architectural possibilism describes a physical environment that may or may not facilitate behavior, providing a source of opportunities that may set limits on, but does not restrict, behavior. The environment serves as an influence of “passive limiting agency” (Wissler, 1929, as cited in Strange & Banning, 2001, p. 13). An attractively designed campus restaurant in a very visible location is

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 41

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

42

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

an example of possibilism. It is more than just another place to eat; it is an attraction that draws patrons. Architectural probabilism assumes that certain behaviors have “probabilistic links to the built environment” (Strange & Banning, 2001, p. 14). The layout, location, and arrangement of space and facilities render some behaviors much more probable than others. For example, the location of a cultural center in a remote building on the campus periphery rather than in the student union in the center of campus could impact the probability of its use by students. The physical environment of the campus “communicates messages that influence students’ feelings of well-being, belonging, and identity” (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005, p. 106), yet architecture affects students differently based on their cultural conditioning. The dominant American culture tends to be individualistic, concentrated on internally focused individual characteristics and self-aggrandizement. Individuals from collectivist cultures that focus more on benefiting the entire social group even at the expense of the individual have a greater desire to congregate and interact socially and may be inhibited by an architectural arrangement that provides few spaces for such congregation to occur (Kim & Hakhoe, 1994; Leibbrandt, Gneezy, & List, 2013; Triandis, 1995; Veenhoven, 1999). For example, little or no outdoor seating, few open plazas, small lounges in classroom buildings, even narrow hallways do not facilitate impromptu, collective social interactions that may be more characteristic of some cultures than the dominant American culture. Campus environment, particularly its architecture, has both function and symbol (Strange & Banning, 2015). While it is important to observe the general symbolic influence of the campus architecture, it is also very important to try, to the best of one’s ability, to imagine how that symbolism is perceived by members of the campus subpopulations through their differing cultural lenses. A mural in a lecture hall at Indiana University (IU) provides a stark example. Painted by Thomas Benton in 1933 to depict the history of the region at that time and installed at IU in 1941, one of the panels of the mural includes images of robed Ku Klux Klansmen burning a cross (Commission on Multicultural Understanding, 2015). There have been periodic objections over the years, but a serious protest occurred during the spring 2002 semester when several African American students who were attending a class in that lecture hall found the images offensive and requested that they be painted over. The perspective of the “pro-mural” people was that this was a valuable piece of art that accurately depicted a chapter in Indiana’s history. The perspective of the protesting students was that the mural reminded them of a particularly offensive series of events perpetrated on their ancestors and that the images were stressful for them to have to see on a regular basis. The dilemma in such

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 42

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

43

situations is that both perspectives have merit, and administrators must be sensitive to the differences in viewpoints, the people, and the cultures that spawn such feelings. Environments provide symbolic nonverbal cues for behavior, and an important conduit between function and symbol in the physical environment is nonverbal communication (Strange & Banning, 2015). Various aspects of the physical environment evoke nonverbal interpretations in the members of the community. These interpretations can be positive or negative; they can be aligned with the intention of the campus administrators, or they can be the opposite of what was intended. The placement of the offices of the various student service agencies in a prominent, centrally located student center rather than in an older, less accessible building sends a clear nonverbal message about the importance of student services and cocurricular activities in the life of the campus. Nonverbal (covert) messages are often seen as more truthful than verbal or written (overt) messages (Mehrabian, 1981). Double messages have a strong impact, and when a person on campus perceives an inconsistency between the language and the nonlanguage message, the nonverbal often becomes the most believable (Eckman, 1985). Imagine the perceptions of a first-generation Latinx student and his parents sitting in a freshman orientation session in which an all-White, all-Anglo team of orientation advisers reads the nondiscrimination statement from the college catalog. Which message—verbal or nonverbal—is more likely to be believed? The physical environment is more than bricks and mortar; the behavior setting is part of the physical environment. As a behavior setting, the college environment is composed of two parts: the physical, or nonhuman, aspects and the social, or human, aspects. Humans interact on campus among nonhuman components (buildings, pathways, parking lots), and it is the mutually influential transactional relationship between the human and nonhuman elements in these settings that shapes behavior (Strange & Banning, 2015). As with any human interaction, this aspect of the physical environment is influenced by culture. Nonverbal influence can be manifested through proxemics, or spatial zones, and through artifacts. Proxemics is the study of the social implications of the use of physical space. Thus, the implication of a classroom with rows of seats bolted to the floor and an instructor’s lectern on a podium 20 feet away from the first row of seats offers a very different message about the formality of student-teacher relations in the classroom than a room with movable furniture and access to interactive instructional materials. As with other aspects of the campus, we must also examine physical characteristics for their differing implications toward people of different cultural backgrounds. Individuals from cultures with greater tendencies for animated

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 43

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

44

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

verbal and tactile expressions of communication would be more greatly affected by physical spaces that inhibit such contacts. Spatial zones describe the distances people tend to establish between themselves and others when they engage in social interaction. Strange and Banning (2001) identified four distinct social zones of interaction: intimate (0 to 1.5 feet), personal (1.5 to 4 feet), social (4 to 12 feet), and public (more than 12 feet) and explained that there is a cultural dimension to this as well. The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis has a wonderful example in an exhibit consisting of a life-size silhouette of a human figure on a wall and five sets of footprints painted on the floor. The first set of footprints is about 12 inches from the wall, and each of the ensuing sets of footprints is a bit farther from the wall, with the fifth set being about five feet away. The signage accompanying this exhibit explains that each set of footprints represents the distance at which people from various cultures feel comfortable engaging in face-to-face conversation. Realizing this, when we consider spatial zones, we must understand that the placement of physical items all across campus—from the desks in the classrooms to the chairs in the cafeteria—can send different messages to different members of the campus community. Strange and Banning (2015) describe physical artifacts as objects made or modified by inhabitants that are often placed with intended purposes on a campus. “Such objects and artifacts give directions, inspire, warn, or accommodate through signs and symbols” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 19). Artifacts include signs and symbols, artwork or posters, graffiti, and specific physical structures (Banning, Middleton, & Deniston, 2008). All of these can convey significant nonverbal messages. Signage can give confusing signals. Signs that are placed midway up a wall instead of near the ceiling convey a welcoming message to individuals using wheelchairs. Signs that have a Braille translation or are written in both English and another language suggest inclusiveness. Campus symbols can have important cultural messages, too. A recent example of how individuals with different cultural perspectives can interpret symbols very differently is the controversy that has erupted in past years over college mascots that depict American Indians. Although the circumstances may vary from school to school, generally those who favor keeping such mascots unaltered argue for maintaining a time-honored tradition that fits the majority culture’s perspective of American Indians, while those who advocate changing the mascots usually see them as a distortion or an insult to American Indian culture and American Indian people (Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2003). Among several other elements of the physical campus environment discussed by Strange and Banning (2015) is the use of a concept called display of self that explores the use of the physical environment by individuals or groups to convey messages of presence or ownership. With such displays, a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 44

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

45

representative balance must be maintained among various cultural groups on campus in the personalization of their space. If White fraternities and sororities can prominently display their letters on Greek Row houses, the smaller Black or Latinx fraternities and sororities should be encouraged to display theirs in a designated area, such as those seen at many historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Campus administrators must make it clear that if one group is allowed to contribute to the campus physical environment with a display of self, any group can do so, as long as their expression is not harmful to others. One more physical element presented by Strange and Banning (2015) is sense of place, consisting of constructs that lend themselves to understanding how participants connect with an institution. They include the following eight concepts that improve the design of campus space and the quality of its users experiences. Wayfinding is the organization of space and communication provided by signs and graphics to help people easily find their way around campus. Placemaking is a comprehensive approach to the creation, maintenance, and renovation of buildings to form the campus’ design. Placemarking includes landmarks, style, materials, and landscapes that make a campus unique. Placebuilding is the connection of the university campus with other places, particularly the community in which it resides. Public space includes both the physical features (e.g., use of green spaces) and the activities occurring in them (e.g., games and active-ties) providing a sense of community. Servicescape refers to the campus retail opportunities (e.g., bookstore, restaurants) or the general presentation of the campus to consumers (e.g., admission office, advising center), to provide “pleasant human scale surroundings” (p. 43). Atmospherics focus on the transactional experience (positive or negative) of consumers in these campus settings. Post-occupancy evaluation is the process of assessing a building’s performance in relation to its occupants and intended uses. All of these can have culturally influenced interpretations.

Human Aggregates The second of Strange’s (1996) environmental dimensions examines the characteristics of the human population within the campus community and the effect that the various components of that population have on the campus as a whole as well as on each other. Moos (as cited in Strange & Banning, 2001) reminds us that the character of an environment depends on the typical characteristics of its members which raises two important issues that affect the ability of members of any particular campus community to

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 45

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

46

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

grasp the impact that the human element has on their environment. The first issue relates to who is represented among the human aggregate and the proportion of that representation among various identifiable groups of members. The second issue concerns the relative strength or weakness of the impact any or all of these groups have on the environment. Strange and Banning (2015) described these two elements as differentiation and consistency. Differentiation is the degree of homogeneity of type among inhabitants of an environment. Consistency is the similarity of type among those community inhabitants. A campus is said to be highly differentiated if there is a single type of student who tends to be dominant in the environment, while an environment that is characterized by a relatively broad distribution of types is said to be undifferentiated or diffused. A good example of the effect of environmental differentiation can be seen in the description of environments by Holland (1973). In his model of vocational-interest personality types, Holland describes six different types of individual personalities and the environments they inhabit: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. In Holland’s model, the six social environments corresponding to these six personality types tend to be dominated by individuals who reflect the typical characteristics of the dominant type. In turn, because a particular type tends to dominate a particular social environment, a certain set of behaviors, attitudes, and skills tend to be reinforced (e.g., artistic environments reinforce artistic characteristics). Thus, Holland’s environments are said to be highly differentiated. From a multicultural perspective, there are four concerns with differentiation. First is the relative strength of the dominant group or type in a highly differentiated environment and the effect that strength has on the ability of nondominant groups to function freely. For example, a small college campus that is overwhelmingly Greek may have an active extracurricular cultural milieu with much interchapter interaction. However, if Greek membership is a requisite for participation in most of these activities, such a highly differentiated community diminishes or excludes the participation of non-Greeks. The second concern is the differentiation of subenvironments within the larger campus environment. While an assessment of the total campus population may reveal a relatively even representation of a number of different cultural groups, the impact of any high concentration of a certain type leading to high differentiation in a part of the campus community might prove stifling to any nondominant group. Thus, the high differentiation of the college of engineering with White males with backgrounds in the natural sciences could be problematic for Black females interested in the social applications of civil engineering.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 46

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

47

A third cultural concern in determining differentiation on campus is the common tendency to see various cultural groups as discrete entities. Recent research on identity intersectionality (Cole, 2008; Linder & Rodriguez, 2012; Shields, 2008) that examines how multiple identities such as race, gender, class, and sexuality intersect has shown that differentiation is a fluid concept that can take a multitude of forms. This concept is explored in greater detail in Chapter 4. Consistency, the similarity of type among the inhabitants of an environment, has a significant effect on the human aggregate of a campus community. Consistency differs from differentiation in that a campus can be somewhat diverse (or undifferentiated), yet these heterogeneous groups may exhibit very similar characteristics, providing consistency to the environmental milieu. This situation can sometimes be a positive occurrence, since high consistency in a particular environment tends to make social interaction easier among the inhabitants because they already have similar characteristics upon which to build relationships. On the other hand, in environments in which a message is sent, overtly or covertly, that consistency in human characteristics among all community members is highly desirable, those whose cultural characteristics are in any way dissimilar to the consistent norm will be marginalized. As an example of this condition, consider two hypothetical international graduate students in the college of engineering. One is a Chinese student from a middle-class background with a strong academic record at a highly rated technical institution in her home country. The other is a Guatemalan student who demonstrates the potential to succeed in the engineering field but comes from an economically depressed region and was trained in an institution lacking access to the latest and most sophisticated technology. Both students add to the heterogeneity and diversity (i.e., undifferentiation) of the college’s student body, but the Chinese student exhibits consistency with those middle-class American students who have been trained at highly rated U.S. institutions. The danger is that the former student’s background and training may set a potentially false expectation that all international students will have this level of consistency and those who do not are personally deficient, without giving appropriate consideration to the environmental factors that contribute to their differences and failing to provide needed additional assistance. Moreover, if all international students are expected to have consistency with the American students, those who do not are unfairly perceived (by others as well as themselves) as deficient and marginal. This example, however, is an oversimplification of what occurs when an individual gives salience to the intersectionality of two or more elements of her or his identity—race and gender, for example (Linder

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 47

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

48

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

& Rodriguez, 2012). Identity intersectionality complicates the issue of consistency by muddling the range of cultural factors well beyond the discrete characteristics often traditionally used, such as ethnicity, race, class, age, ability, and sexuality. The last of Huebner and Lawson’s (1990) environmental constructs, person-environment congruence, helps explain the impact of this concept of consistency on the college campus. Defined as the fit between an individual’s characteristics and the environments in which he or she finds comfort, person-environment congruence measures one’s similarity or dissimilarity with the dominant normal characteristics exhibited in a particular campus community. A person is congruent with an environment “if his or her type is the same or nearly the same as the dominant type within that setting” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 73). If this is so, it can be difficult for individuals whose characteristics, behaviors, and values may be considerably different from those of the dominant group to feel connected to that particular environment. The first task of administrators in such a community is to recognize and call to the attention of others around them the presence of groups of students who do not have consistency with the dominant group. The second task is to ensure that what qualifies members of the community to receive acceptance and achievement is not dominated by the characteristics of the predominant type. To accomplish this, all students must be afforded a way to feel belongingness with the campus community. Strayhorn (2012) defines sense of belonging as “students’ perceived social support on campus, a feeling of connectedness, or that one is important to others” (p. 16). This perception of importance to others is an expansion of the concept of mattering first presented by Schlossberg (1989). Multiple studies (Garbarini-Philippe, 2010; Renn, 2003; Sands & Schuh, 2003) reveal that connectedness is aided by contributing to students’ confidence in exploring their racial identities. This research also reveals that environmental influence on issues of race, culture and identity, peer culture, belief systems, and social-historical context can impact cognitive development. The negative impact of unmet needs caused by unsupportive college environments on multiracial students can create undesirable affects, such as despair, apathy, or depression (Museus, Yee, & Lambe, 2011). Museus and colleagues prescribe intentional dialogue and programs that address the interaction of race and environmental experience as tools to positively impact multiracial students on college campuses. Helping nondominant community members identify similarities and commonalties with the dominant culture is an effective way to begin building consistency where it may not be readily apparent. For example, merely

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 48

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

49

enrolling a viable population of Latinx students without making an even greater effort to develop a cultural environment in which they can feel comfortable is not enough. If these students believe they are expected to assimilate into the Anglo culture to find success on the campus, many of them may consider this too high a personal price to pay (Castillo, et al., 2006). The concept of fit also requires efforts to have members of the dominant cultural group adapt some behaviors and values to accommodate those of nondominant groups. If nonconsistent groups are struggling to find a person-environment fit on the campus, student affairs administrators have the role of helping them accomplish this objective. “Lack of congruence must lead to dissatisfaction and instability, a condition that is likely to be resolved in one of three ways: by seeking a new and congruent environment, by remaking the present environment, or by adapting behavior to the dominant characteristics of the present environment.” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 75). Too often, predominantly White institution (PWI) administrators assume that the third option will naturally occur if nondominant groups such as African Americans, Latinxs, or American Indians are to adjust to the campus environment. While some members of these populations find assimilation relatively easy, some find it very difficult, and even those who do adapt may expend considerable emotional and psychological energy that might have better been directed at other positive pursuits, such as academic studies. Perhaps the second option, remaking the environment, is a more viable choice for some students. Student affairs professionals are often called upon to lead efforts to change the environment to fit students rather than trying to change students to fit the environment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Such change may not be easy. Strange and Banning (2015) stated that “a highly differentiated and consistent environment is thought to be resistant to change in that its strongest tendency is to reinforce itself ” (p. 75). Nonetheless, analyzing any resistance in terms of differentiation and consistency can reveal what characteristics are dominant, which of these dominant characteristics are problematic for diverse and nonconsistent groups, how to accommodate the characteristics of other groups in the community, and how to overcome the natural resistance of social groups—both dominant and nondominant—to segregate. Recognizing that divergent subgroups of campus populations are seldom likely to facilitate interaction on their own, student affairs professionals must create mechanisms to entice them to interact positively, appreciate and honor each other’s differences, and find and celebrate their cultural commonalities.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 49

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

50

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Organizational Environments Simply stated, the organizational dimension of an environment is measured by the interactions among people and groups within that environment as well as by what they are able to achieve when they interact (Strange & Banning, 2001, 2015). Each of the four components of the Strange and Banning environmental model builds on the components that precede it. Thus, in the same way that the human aggregate of an environment brings life to the physical component, the organizational component is the manifestation of the various human aggregate elements interacting with each other to achieve common goals.

Organizational Patterns Strange and Banning (2015) tell us that “varying degrees of organized patterns of structure and process” (p. 81) are found in all environments. These patterns exist for people to achieve specific goals. Each college or university generally has a set of common goals, including collecting and disseminating knowledge and imparting that knowledge to students in some systematic way. However, the patterns of structure and process give each institution its distinct characteristics and also determine its relative success or failure in meeting its goals. Homogeneity can often contribute to the success of the institution’s ability to attain its goals. As a result, an institution whose mission focuses on science and technology may more easily achieve many of the typical measures of success for such an academic institution—prominent faculty, high-quality students, numerous science and technology research grants, substantial graduation rates—although the students may get significantly less exposure to the study of the humanities and social sciences than at other institutions. Not all such characteristics are academic. Cultural characteristics can shape the organizational environment of a campus. HBCUs present a clear example. HBCU curricula often include an infusion of Black history and examples of Black culture that are missing from PWI curricula (Ricard & Brown, 2008). Ricard and Brown (2008) also discuss HBCU experience, noting the more prominent use of in loco parentis attitudes by administrators and faculty in attending to the personal behavior of students (particularly at smaller, private HBCUs) and strong ties to the surrounding community, particularly the local Black community. Technical institutions and HBCUs are examples of highly homogeneous aggregates that influence the organizational structure of their environments. These examples reflect Strange and Banning’s (2015) contention that homogenous aggregates “attract, satisfy, and sustain individuals who share

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 50

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

51

those same interests” (p. 220). While the positive benefits of this homogeneity are apparent in the strength of curricula and culture and the stability of the organizational structure, in the context of this book we want to examine the patterns of structure in an organizational environment, not only as they might affect the dominant characteristics of the majority of the population, but also as they relate to various cultural subpopulations within that community. For example, urban community colleges with high numbers of nontraditional-age commuter students and no residential students should be very concerned that an administrative structure developed in years past when the majority of students were traditional 18- to 22-year-old full-time students may fail to serve the needs of large numbers of the current student population (Drekmeier & Tilghman, 2010). While exclusion of a cultural group in a homogeneous environment is clearly detrimental to the community, so, too, is the false inclusion of a cultural group based on a misleading stereotype. For example, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students are often confronted with the historically problematic model minority myth, which, as Museus and Vue (2013) describe, occurs when educators “rely on aggregate data and oversimplified analyses to suggest that AAPIs achieve the highest rates of educational success among all racial groups” (p. 46). Museus and Vue challenge educators to combat such overgeneralization and stereotyping by pursuing an agenda to examine and understand the complexities of AAPI students beyond generalizing the group as a monolithic population that needs little resources or support. The deleterious effect of failing to do so could lead to rapid dissatisfaction, lack of connection, disengagement, and disenrollment from the institution. At the beginning of this section, we stated that the organizational dimension of an environment is measured by the interactions among people and groups within that environment. Thus, from a multicultural perspective, mechanisms must be developed that facilitate interactions among various subpopulations within the campus community, particularly those that are nondominant or prone to marginalization. Kuh and colleagues (2005) emphasize this point by advising campus administrators to make certain they demonstrate their commitment to interactions among diverse people and groups early by overtly socializing all newcomers to this value. However, just attending to the particular needs of various subpopulations within the campus community may not be the proper solution to making the environment comfortable for all. Balancing organizational structure to accommodate various components of the campus community is often difficult because invariably the needs of one group conflict with the needs of some other group. Thus, providing one subpopulation with resources that strengthen the status

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 51

7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

52

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

of its members on campus often diminishes the status of another subpopulation. Consider the ongoing debate over whether it is prudent to have separate Greek councils for the predominantly White, predominantly Black, or other culturally focused fraternities and sororities (Atkinson, Dean, & Espino, 2010; Rashawn, 2013). Proponents of a unified all-Greek governance body protest that separate councils weaken efforts to benefit the entire Greek community, while proponents of different councils claim that the needs of divergent groups can better be served separately. Strange and Banning (2015) reflected on this dilemma of whether focusing on the environmental needs of subpopulations can weaken the entire campus environmental structure when they remarked, “That what contributes to strong subcommunities most often detracts from the community of the whole and what sustains the whole community usually does so at the expense of various subcommunities” (p. 223).

Organizational Structures Strange and Banning (2015) suggested that the campus environment comprises seven organizational structures: “complexity, centralization, formalization, stratification, production, routinization, and efficiency” (p. 87–88). By examining the campus environment using these organizational structures, we can explore how each may be used to make the environment comfortable for different subpopulations in the campus community while still providing an overall organizational environment that is multicultural and welcoming of diverse components of the campus community. Examples of the cultural dimensions of all seven structures are plentiful, but for the purpose of demonstrating the use of cultural perspectives in organizational structures in this chapter, only four of them—complexity, stratification, production, and efficiency—are exemplified here. Complexity. The fundamental concern of organizational complexity is the question of how many units and subunits serve the purposes of the organization and how they should be arranged. Cultural diversity affects complexity in two ways. First, as more distinct subunits are required to meet the needs of distinct subpopulations, the campus becomes more complex. Adding a separate agency to attend to the concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered students or establishing an office to serve returning veterans and military students may have clear advantages to those distinct populations, but if additional funding and personnel are not available, these services will have to compete with other agencies for existing resources. Second, units that are responsible for providing a service to the entire campus will need to decide if they are capable of adequately meeting the needs of a complex

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 52

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

53

organizational environment. For example, administrators of a counseling center on a campus with broad cultural diversity (i.e., having complexity) must be concerned about the diversity of its personnel to be able to address the needs of a diverse clientele. Stratification. Stratification in an organization is manifested in the differential distribution of its rewards. Generally speaking, culturally sensitive organizations should have less stratification in the way rewards and resources are distributed, for a number of reasons. High stratification tends to be divisive because “reward structures are usually cast into a competitive framework” (Strange & Banning, 2015, pp. 92–93), and this very competitive environment itself is not reflective of the various cultures to which members of the campus community may belong. Individuals with characteristics of some collectivistic Asian or American Indian cultures, for example, may find a competitive individualist process of reward allocation difficult to embrace. Additionally, if one subpopulation on a highly stratified campus tends traditionally to have acquired a disproportionate amount of the rewards, that group is likely to be resistant to efforts to enhance cultural diversity and cross-cultural sharing of resources. Administrative stratification is an additional concern. Members of various subpopulations should be able to see individuals who reflect their cultural characteristics among the decision makers at all levels of the organizational structure, particularly near and at the top. For example, the absence in a particular institution of any vice presidents or deans who are female or Latinx or openly gay may signal that the institution’s stratification is not inclusive. Smaller subsets of certain cultural groups often have greater difficulty accessing campus rewards not only because of their fewer numbers but also because they are sometimes rendered invisible by the characteristics of the larger population of which they are a subunit. An example of one such subset disadvantaged by stratification is high-achieving Black students, described by Fries-Britt and Griffin (2007) as having superior intelligence and superior or exceptional academic performance. Fries-Britt and Griffin note that this population is understudied, which leaves many educators to rely on assumptions about this group’s needs on campus with respect to social and academic support. Their broad dispersion across campus may further deny a low number of high-achieving Black students access to the shared experiences, commonality, or potential mentor/mentee relationships with other high-performing peers or graduate students or faculty with similar scholarly interests. This lack of contact with faculty or administrators of Color can deny high-achieving Black students an important support system without which they may succumb to fears of perceived tokenism, behavior modification to avoid being perceived as conforming to negative racial stereotypes, or

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 53

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

54

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

the pressure to behave in manners that dispel pressure from peers and faculty related to perceptions of Black student performance. Production. Strange and Banning (2015) state that “the value of any organization is often assessed by what it does, most frequently in terms of what it produces” (p. 93). When evaluating the success or failure of an institution’s production (e.g., the number of students matriculating, the number of graduates, the amount of grant money won by faculty), administrators on a culturally sensitive campus should monitor the assessment not just in the aggregate but also by subpopulations to see if the effects are being equally felt. Thus, an overall undergraduate graduation rate of 50% is a less-thanadequate gauge of success if the rate for African American men within that group is only 25%. We should also consider “the quality of production” (Strange and Banning, 2015, p. 95); simply measuring the number of Latinx graduates, for example, is not a true assessment of production if large numbers of them leave the institution having felt alienated or disconnected during their matriculation. Efficiency. Organizational efficiency involves the assessment of the relative cost of the products or services that an organization produces. Efficiency generally implies an emphasis on the prudent use of resources and cost reduction (Strange & Banning, 2001, 2015). A cultural perspective in measuring efficiency calls for institutional administrators to give ample consideration to the development and maintenance of cultural diversity in personnel and programs as they make determinations about the efficient use of resources and minimizing costs. Accordingly, for example, an Asian studies department might be supported even if it maintains a relatively lower number of majors, or the Student Life Office may hire an adviser for the nine traditionally Black fraternities and sororities even though their chapter memberships are measurably lower than the average for their traditionally White counterparts. Strange and Banning (2015) also suggest that “colleges and universities are in the business of creating new ideas and programs responsive to changing conditions and needs” (p. 97). Thus, a culturally responsive perspective on efficiency is as sensitive to the needs and situational conditions of smaller cultural subpopulations, such as those with physical or learning disabilities, as to more traditional campus units, such as academic departments or the general student body as a whole.

Constructed Environments Constructed models of the environment “focus on the subjective views and experiences of participant observers, assuming that environments are understood best through the collective perceptions of the individuals within

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 54

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

55

them” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 116). Critical to this perception of human environment is the notion that “examining collective personal perspectives of an environment (from inside participants as well as from outside observers) is critical for understanding how people are likely to react to those environments” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 116). In other words, each person’s perceptions are the reality of that environment for him or her. Thus, of the four sets of environmental dimensions in the Strange and Banning model, the constructed model might seem to most accurately reflect a multicultural perspective because the constructed identity of the environment is composed of the collective viewpoints of the various individuals who inhabit that community. However, a closer examination of the way this environmental dimension is used in most situations reveals that, like the physical, human aggregate, and organizational dimensions, the typical application may not necessarily employ a fully multicultural perspective without some additional adaptations to accommodate the needs and worldviews different from the dominant American cultural viewpoint. Three perspectives employing the work of other theorists—environmental press, social climate, and campus culture—are offered by Strange and Banning (2015) to demonstrate the interaction of elements in a constructed environment.

Environmental Press Stern (1970) said that environmental press is inferred from consensual selfreporting of activities by either participants in or observers of an environment. For example, if 75% of the undergraduate students at a particular college are members of fraternities and sororities, the environment is inferred to have a press toward Greek involvement. In such an environment, student affairs professionals may respond by designating one staff member whose primary job is to advise Greek organizations and assist in programming events focused on their activities. The housing office might designate sections of the residence halls for the exclusive occupancy and use of separate Greek chapters. Such allocation of resources would probably be beneficial to the overall development of the members of the Greek organizations. However, a comprehensive, inclusive, multicultural perspective goes beyond serving the majority and provides for the needs of recognizable minorities as well. Thus, in such a highly Greek-oriented environment, appropriate attention must be paid to the minority of students who elect not to affiliate with fraternities and sororities or to those students who might not be accepted readily into the Greek organizations. Moreover, these efforts need to guarantee that the support of non-Greek students is not marginalized and that the efforts

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 55

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

56

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

to address their needs are not subsumed by the efforts being devoted to the Greek students. Stern’s (1970) explanation of environmental press includes the observation that “the perceived environment is both personal and consensual” (p. 12). However, the concept of consensus can fail to accommodate the needs of minorities; even when consensus is apparently achieved, it can result because some of the members of an environment feel compelled to concede one single characteristic to represent the entire group. Thus, it is not simply enough to find a course of action that seems to elicit a consensus of perception among the members of the population, be it a particular group of students or the whole student body or the entire college community. The absence of dissent does not imply total agreement or full acceptance of the consensus position. Marginalized groups may believe that expressing any opposition to the status quo is futile and simply may choose to accept a lessthan-desirable situation as inevitable. Student affairs professionals need first to identify the particular constructed environmental press in various aspects of the campus community and determine whether that press truly represents characteristics and inclinations of all the students (and faculty and staff ) in the environment. A helpful strategy would be student inclusion as active participants in the development and implementation of initiatives to mitigate this concern. Then, if necessary, student affairs practitioners need to seek out any members of the community whose cultural characteristics and consequential needs are not being fully addressed in that environment. As an example of a potential lack of environmental press within a cultural group, we can look to a study measuring sense of belonging during the first-year experience of students across racial backgrounds (Johnson et al., 2007). Johnson and colleagues found a lack of a sense of affiliation among Asian American and Pacific Islander students when there was no celebration of their ethnic identity. A suggested remedy to this lack of perceived connectivity was for student affairs practitioners to engage with the students in a mutually shared responsibility for campus integration in culturally meaningful ways in three areas: residence hall climate, overall racial climate on campus, and college transition.

Social Climate Strange and Banning referred to “the nature and effects of various ‘environmental personalities’ as perceived by participants” (2015, p. 120) as the social climate dimension of the environment as described by Moos (1979, 1986). According to Moos’s model, social climate is composed of three

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 56

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

57

socioenvironmental domains, each with a respective set of dimensions: relationship dimensions, personal growth dimensions, and system maintenance and change dimensions. Relationship dimensions indicate how people are directly involved in the setting and how they support each other. Personal growth dimensions assess the extent to which personal development and self-enhancement occur. System maintenance and change dimensions measure how the environment maintains control and responds to change and the orderly manner in which it functions. As with other aspects of the environment examined in this chapter, student service professionals are advised to hone their sensitivities and establish measures to determine that all members of the campus community, particularly any individuals or groups that are traditionally marginalized, are given equal opportunity to experience these dimensions of the campus’s social climate. Thus, by recognizing the impact that the campus social climate has on all students and the reciprocal impact that all students have on the collective social fabric of the campus community, campus administrators provide an environment where relationships can cross typical cultural lines. Also, personal growth can be fostered even for those with divergent lifestyles, and the environment maintains the orderly functioning of its system while accommodating widely differing aspects of social interaction. Professionals overseeing these social climate environments should routinely conduct assessments to determine the state of these environments. Even with standardized assessment instruments, we need to exercise caution before determining that evaluation results truly measure the perceptions and needs of all the participants and not simply the majority. As an example, let us look at the University Residence Environment Scale (URES; Moos & Gerst, 1988). Results of such an assessment may indicate that a particular environment (e.g., a certain residence hall complex) may represent one of Moos’s (1979) six particular environments. However, the culturally sensitive professional takes this assessment one step further to protect against the consensus phenomenon in which the perspective from the dominant culture may give a false analysis of social climate among individuals who do not exhibit all the typical characteristics of that dominant culture. For example, one of the personalities Moos (1979, 1986) identified is a traditionally socially oriented living environment. Students in traditionally socially oriented living units “give priority to dating, going to parties, and other traditional heterosexual interactions as well as to aspects of formal structure and organization, such as rules, schedules, established procedures and neatness” (Moos, 1979, p. 55). Now imagine a not-yet-out-of-the-closet gay man who would function best in this structured social environment but chooses not to engage in these “traditional heterosexual interactions.” What he truly needs is a socially oriented living environment with “formal structure and organization” that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 57

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

58

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

best suits his climatic needs but also with the possibility of engaging in nonheterosexual interactions; however, the URES would incorrectly identify this social environment as inappropriate for him. This hypothetical example shows how easily the use of a single assessment could result in a significant mismatch of climate and the placement of a student in a nonsupportive, and possibly hostile, residential environment. Attentive student affairs professionals have the sensitivity to detect the nonconforming individual who may be marginalized or even hurt in a particular social setting by being made to conform to the prevailing construct.

Campus Culture Kuh and Hall (1993) defined campus culture as the “confluence of institutional history, campus traditions, and the values and assumptions that shape the character of a given college or university” (pp. 1–2). To give substance to this definition, Kuh and Hall described four levels of culture: artifacts, perspectives, values, and assumptions. Artifacts. Artifacts refer to tangible features and, as such, are very similar to the environmental features discussed in the section of this chapter on physical environments (see pp. 41–45). However, artifacts can be verbal or behavioral as well as physical. Verbal artifacts can include language or phrases that are connected to the institution’s culture, and behavioral artifacts are certain activities, rituals, or events that tend to connect members of the community to the institution. Sometimes these nonphysical forms of artifacts should be examined to assess their cultural significance to the changing populations of the campus (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). An example of a verbal artifact is the former name of the street where a number of the fraternity and sorority houses are located at the University of Louisville. Named for a nineteenth-century monument located in an adjacent plot of land, the street was named Confederate Place after the nearby statue commemorating the members of the Louisville community who served in the Confederate Army. While that name may not have been of any consequence many years ago, the location of university-owned facilities on such a street running through a section of campus was deemed offensive to an increasing number of students, faculty, and administrators. Acknowledging this discomfort, university administrators changed the name of the street to Unity Place and initiated the statue’s removal in 2016. An example of a behavioral artifact that has significant implications for cultural sensitivity is the ritual that used to occur at home football and basketball game halftime activities at the University of Illinois. Near the end of the halftime festivities, for many decades, Chief Illiniwek performed a dance

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 58

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

59

routine. However, in recent years, more and more members of the community deemed it inauthentic, stereotypical, and offensive to American Indians. After years of debate between those who were offended by the performance and those who saw it as a cherished artifact of the university’s culture (Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2003), Chief Illiniwek performed his last dance at a basketball game on February 21, 2007 (Associated Press, 2007). Perspectives. Kuh and Hall (1993) describe cultural perspectives as “the socially shared rules and norms applicable to a given context” that allow members of the community to “determine what is ‘acceptable behavior’ for students, faculty, staff, and others in various institutional settings” (p. 6). Strange and Banning (2015) point out that “students quickly become aware of appropriate campus customs, attire, and ideologies” (p. 28). Yet being aware is not the same as acceptance and comfortable conformity. While it is certainly a reasonable expectation that all students accept certain customs and norms for the good of the whole community, it is important to ensure that all those community members have an equal opportunity to express their own perspective on what the preferred norms are and to influence the decisions that establish or maintain those customs. Recent years have provided an interesting example of a newer perspective that is producing changing “norms” for the good of the entire community in the form of the discussion about universal design (Center for Universal Design, 2008). The universal design movement encourages faculty, administrators, and student affairs professionals to design academic instruction and to plan and implement cocurricular programs to accommodate, in advance, the needs of all students, including those with various disabilities (Wisbey & Kalivoda, 2011). This broader perspective that includes attempts to anticipate the various needs of members of the community with disabilities along with those of able-bodied members is anticipated to make the need for providing special accommodations after the fact unnecessary. Two desirable outcomes of the universal design perspective are the sense of inclusion provided to community members with disabilities and a heightened sense of awareness about the needs of others among ablebodied community members. Values. Kuh and Hall (1993) are quick to state that values are much more abstract than perspectives or artifacts, yet some common values are needed for members of the university culture to be able to judge situations on their appropriateness to the group or to subpopulations of the group. In determining the cultural values of an institution, administrators have a responsibility to articulate clearly those values to which all members of the community are expected to adhere, such as the importance of attaining and disseminating knowledge or certain religious principles at sectarian institutions affiliated with a particular sect. On the other hand, culturally sensitive administrators

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 59

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

60

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

are careful to recognize how different cultural values may influence the ways some members of the institutional community react to certain values held by the majority of members. Although most of the values in the dominant American culture have a Judeo-Christian and heterosexual foundation, we should still respect value-driven perspectives of people of other theological beliefs (or the absence of such beliefs) or of individuals with an alternative sexual orientation. Values equity is important within microunits of the environment, such as individual classrooms. Rankin (2003) found that 30% of harassment cases related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) students occurred in classroom settings. Rankin also noted that classroom-type environments are one of the top three places in which students are faced with bias. To effectively support student experiences within the academy that are free of harmful artifacts for LGBT students who have or have not disclosed their sexual orientation, it is critical for faculty to be cognizant of potential bias and harmful language within the classroom culture. Another specific part of the campus environment that could benefit from review of values is the athletic community. Griffin and Taylor (2013) remind us that “some traditions long accepted in athletics do not promote or reflect a culture of inclusion, diversity, or respect. Practices such as [lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and queer] LGBTQ or sexist name-calling . . . team hazing rituals . . . or older athletes bullying young team members all encourage studentathletes to view actions that promote humiliation and disrespect as part of the game rather than the divisive and destructive distractions that they are” (p. 4). Attending to this democracy of values is important not just within the athletic culture but also among nonathlete members of the campus community in their perceptions of athletes. One way to accomplish this is by helping students, faculty, and staff to embrace and value the uniqueness of the lived experiences of student athletes beyond stereotypical assumptions about athletic culture and eschew harmful and negative terminology that is damaging to student athletes. Note that cultural sensitivity is not cultural anarchy. While different people bring different values to the campus community, for that community to function, certain commonly held values are necessary (i.e., adherence to basic civil laws). Being sensitive to others’ values does not mean an abdication of the responsibility to establish some common values for the good of society and to hold all members accountable to them, even if for some they are newly learned as part of an acculturation process. Assumptions. Kuh and Hall (1993) describe assumptions as the “tacit beliefs that members use to define their role, their relationship to others, and the nature of the organization in which they live” (p. 7). In the context of this chapter, this aspect of campus culture is a call for continuous assessment of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 60

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

61

the student culture by student affairs professionals having continual contact with students in all facets of student life. Strange and Banning (2001, 2015) reminded us that participant perceptions and understandings of campus organizational culture are an important source of information for designing responsive educational environments, and educational administrators must be particularly sensitive to any discrepancies between their views of the institution and those of students. Moreover, these relationships must be developed and nurtured so that students are willing to share openly their own personal beliefs with student affairs professionals, whether or not these assumptions fit with those of the majority population. As an example of the importance of uncovering the tacit assumptions of minority students on campus, consider the importance of identifying gender-neutral restrooms so that transgender students can more easily perceive that they are welcome on the campus and not destined to be permanently marginalized in the campus social culture. Making tacit viewpoints viable is seldom an easy task, but student affairs administrators are expected to develop mechanisms to provide the divergent elements of the campus population with a means of expressing themselves to test their tacit assumptions against the realities of the community’s other values in an attempt to find a harmonious fit for all of the community’s participants.

Conclusion College and university environments and the individuals who populate them have significant reciprocal impacts on each other—what Kuh (2009) calls “the mutual shaping of cultural properties, . . . the physical attributes of a campus, established practices, celebratory events, symbols and symbolic actions, and subcultures” (p. 72). If the environment is affected by the members of the community, that environment will be as diverse as the characteristics of all the individuals in it. Likewise, the collective effects of the environment will touch each member in a way as individualistic as each person’s own cultural identity. A number of good models are available to help us assess and understand the influence of environments on their participants. This chapter has used one such model, Strange and Banning’s (2001, 2015) dimension design, to look at the composition of a typical collegiate environment and how that environment may have an impact on the campus populations. However, the most significant message of this chapter is that even the best model can probably use some tweaking to make it more sensitive to the nuances of the cultural characteristics of the individuals and subgroups that populate the environment. We must pay particular attention to identifying and understanding the cultural differences of the nonmajority people and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 61

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

62

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

groups on our campuses to give them the same opportunities as majoritymember individuals have to gain the benefits of environmental impact.

Discussion Questions 1. Identify nonverbal cues or messages in your institution’s environment from the physical structures, design, staffing, or organizational patterns. If any of these messages appear to be negative or marginalizing to any subpopulation, what steps can be taken to change them? 2. Discuss the environmental stratification on your campus. Have certain cultural subpopulations acquired a disproportionate amount of the resources and rewards on campus? Is such a group likely to be resistant to efforts to enhance cultural diversity and cross-cultural sharing of resources? If so, what steps can be taken to create a more equitable distribution of rewards and resources? If resources are already distributed equitably, what measures can be taken to maintain such a balance? 3. Consider the impact of person-environment congruence on your campus environment. What specific questions should you ask to help examine the issue of “fit” for all students in the environment? Are there trends in student attrition that demonstrate a lack of “fit” for individuals or groups that have led or are likely to lead to their departure from the institution? Are there consistent characteristics among students who express a level of discomfort to the prevailing culture of the institution? Once these trends or characteristics have been identified, what can be done to diminish them? 4. Discuss the concept of false inclusion within your campus community. Are there groups who are deleteriously impacted by misleading stereotypes about their ability to persist academically, or by false concepts about their inclusion in the campus cultural community? What steps can be taken to correct any misperceptions you identify? 5. Do artifacts exist on the campus that constitute negative experiences for any subgroups along racial, ethnic, or cultural lines? Are there overgeneralizations about any group’s adaptation to the campus community that may lead to lack of adequate services for certain student populations? What strategies can help mitigate these challenges?

Note 1. One way of explaining the concept of the dominant American culture is to use what Tatum calls “seven categories of ‘otherness’ commonly experienced in U.S. society” (1999, p. 22): race or ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socio-

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 62

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

63

economic status, age, and physical or mental ability. She states that in each of these categories, there is a group that is systematically advantaged and a group considered subordinate. Thus, the authors choose to identify “dominant American cultural norms” as those characteristics that tend to typify persons in these dominant groups (i.e., White Anglo-Saxon, male, Christian, heterosexual, upper or middle class, younger or middle-aged, or able-bodied individuals).

References Associated Press (2007, February 22). Illinois’ Chief Illiniwek performs last dance. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2774670 Atkinson, E., Dean, L. A., & Espino, M. M. (2010). Leadership outcomes based on membership in multicultural Greek council (MGC) organizations. Oracle, 5(2), 34–48. Banning, J. H., Middleton, V., & Deniston, T. (2008). Using photographs to assess equity climate: A taxonomy. Multicultural Perspectives, 10 (1), 1–6. Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., Choi-Pearson, C., Archuleta, D. J., Phoummarath, M. J., & Landingham, A. V. (2006). University environment as a mediator of Latino ethnic identity and persistence attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 267–271. Center for Universal Design. (2008). The Center for Universal Design: Environments and products for all people. Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/ Cole, E. R. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: From practice to theory. Sex Roles, 59, 443–453. Commission on Multicultural Understanding. (2015). Benton mural. Retrieved from http://studentaffairs.indiana.edu/dean-students/commission-multiculturalunderstanding/benton-mural.shtml Drekmeier, K., and Tilghman, C. (2010). An analysis of inquiry, nonstart and drop reasons in non-traditional university student populations. InsideTrack. Retrieved from http://www.insidetrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/adult-studentresearch-paper-chris-tilghman-kai-drekmeier.pdf Eckman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: Norton. Fries-Britt, S., & Griffin, K. A. (2007). The Black box: How high-achieving Blacks resist stereotypes about Black Americans. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 509–524. Garbarini-Philippe, R. (2010). Perceptions, representation, and identity development of multiracial students in American higher education. Journal of Student Affairs at New York University, 6, 1–6. Griffin, P., & Taylor, H. (2013). Champions of respect: Inclusion of LGBTQ studentathletes and staff in NCAA programs. NCAA Publications. Retrieved from http:// www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/CRLGBTQ.pdf Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 63

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

64

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Huebner, L. A., & Lawson, J. M. (1990). Understanding and assessing college environments. In D. G. Creamer & Associates (Eds.), College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s (pp. 127–151). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., RowanKenyon, H. T., & Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542. Kaiser, L. R. (1975). Designing campus environments. NASPA Journal, 13, 33–39. Kim, U., & Hakhoe, H. S. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kuh, G. D. (2009). Understanding campus environments. In G. S. McClellan Stringer & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd ed., pp. 59–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., & Hall, J. E. (1993). Using cultural perspectives in student affairs. In Kuh, G. D. (Ed.). Cultural perspectives in student affairs work (pp. 1–20). Lanham, MD: American College Personnel Association. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities. College Station, TX: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Leibbrandt, A., Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2013). Rise and fall of competitiveness in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(23), 9305–9308. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Linder, C., & Rodriguez, K. L. (2012). Learning from the experiences of selfidentified women of Color activists. Journal of College Student Development, 53(3), 383–398. Longwell-Grice, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2003). Chiefs, braves and tomahawks: The use of American Indians as university mascots. NASPA Journal, 40(3), 1–12. Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Moos, R. H. (1986). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Moos, R. H., & Gerst, M. (1988). The university Residence Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Museus, S. D., & Vue, R. (2013). Socioeconomic status and Asian American and Pacific Islander students’ transition to college: A structural equation modeling analysis. Review of Higher Education, 37(1), 45–76. Museus, S. D., Yee, A. L., & Lambe, S. A. (2011, September/October). Multiracial in a monoracial world: Student stories of racial dissolution on the colorblind campus. AboutCampus, 16(4). American College Personnel Association and Wiley Periodicals. doi:10.1002/abc.20070

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 64

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE

65

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A national perspective. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Rashawn, R. (2013). Fraternity life at predominantly White universities in the U.S.: The salience of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(2), 320–336. Renn, K. A. (2003, May/June). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a development ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 383–403. doi: 10.1353/csd.2003.0032 Ricard, R. B., & Brown, M. C. (2008). Ebony towers in higher education: The evolution, mission, and presidency of historically Black colleges and universities. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Sands, N., & Schuh, J. H. (2003). Identifying interventions to improve the retention of biracial students: A case study. Journal of College Student Retention, 5(4), 349–363. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New Directions for Student Services, 1989(48), 5–15. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry. New York, NY: Wiley. Strange, C. C. (1996). Dynamics of campus environments. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed., pp. 244–268). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments for student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging. New York, NY: Routledge. Tatum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York, NY: Basic Books. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Veenhoven, R. (1999). Quality-of-life in individualistic society. Journal for Qualityof-Life Measurement, 48(2), 159–188. Wisbey, M. E., & Kalivoda, K. S. (2011). College student with disabilities. In M. J. Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multiculturalism on campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion (pp. 347–370). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 65

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

4 AN INTERSECTIONAL A P P ROAC H TO S U P P O RT I N G STUDENTS Chris Linder

There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not lead single-issue lives. Lorde (1984, p. 138)

I

ntersectionality provides a solid foundation for student affairs educators working to support and challenge students from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. As highlighted throughout this book, social identity significantly influences ways in which students experience campus environments. Intersectionality provides a framework for understanding ways that students experience more than one social identity at a time and how the intersections of those identities create experiences unique to each student. Black feminist scholars advanced intersectionality theory to illustrate the ways in which Black women experienced oppression uniquely from White women and Black men (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991). Because they experienced oppression at the intersection of their race and their gender, Black women’s experiences were qualitatively different both from White women (who led feminist movements) and Black men (who led civil rights movements). Scholars have built on Black feminist scholars’ work to advance intersectionality as a theory that examines ways in which multiple social identities intersect to influence individuals’ experiences with privilege and 66

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 66

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS

67

oppression (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). Highlighting how multiple identities, such as race, gender, class, and sexuality, intersect pushes student affairs educators to consider multiple possibilities and experiences when designing programs and services for students. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the tenets of intersectionality theory and provide suggestions for student affairs educators to integrate intersectionality into their work. Specifically, I highlight a history of intersectionality theory and examine tenets of intersectionality theory applicable to student affairs work. I explore some cautions and limitations of intersectionality theory. Finally, I suggest strategies for employing intersectionality in student affairs work and provide examples of programs and services designed through an intersectional approach. This chapter may also provide a foundation for assisting readers in interpreting the single-identity foci of most of the chapters of this book. Although we choose to center single social identities in many chapters in this book, we advocate the use of identity-explicit rather than identity-exclusive approaches to identity-based work, meaning that although we are explicit about focusing on one identity in a chapter, that does not mean that we think that students’ experiences within a particular identity are monolithic. We implore readers to consider the ways in which students’ various social identities influence their experiences. For example, as readers explore the experiences of Asian American students in Chapter 6, we encourage those readers to keep in mind ways in which gender or sexual orientation or disability may also intersect to influence students’ experiences as an AAPI person.

History of Intersectionality Black feminist scholars advanced intersectionality theory, imploring their peers to consider ways in which their experiences differed from other people who experienced oppression (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991). The term intersectionality was coined in the 1990s, although concepts associated with intersectionality can be traced to much earlier times. In 1851 Sojourner Truth spoke at the Women’s Rights Convention and called attention to the reality that she experienced as a Black woman. Although no transcript from the speech exists, most women’s studies and Black historians acknowledge the speech happened and illustrated the intersection of Truth’s identities as a woman and a Black American (BlackPast.org, n.d.). Truth challenged the notion that women were frail, an excuse used by many politicians and other White men with power to keep women from owning property or voting. She famously said,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 67

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

68

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Look at my arms! I have ploughed and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me—and arn’t I a woman? I would work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get it—and bear the lash as well. And arn’t I a woman? I have born thirteen children, and seen most of ’em sold to slavery, and when I cried out with my other’s grief, none but Jesus heard me—and arn’t I a woman?

Truth’s comments illustrate the invisibility of the experiences of women of Color and how they were frequently ignored in women’s movements. Similarly, throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, conflict ensued about ensuring women and African Americans had the right to vote. Once again, Black men and White women made the experiences of women of Color invisible. Some White women “feminists” advocated against including African American women in their suffrage efforts, noting that by including them, they were hurting their chances of getting the right to vote. They advocated working first on White women’s rights, then they would turn toward rights for African Americans related to voting (Newman, 1999). Similarly, as African American men advocated for voting rights after slavery was abolished, they frequently left out, minimized, or ignored the needs of Black women, striving to gain equality to White men, often mimicking White men’s subscription to patriarchy and sexism as a strategy for gaining political power (Newman, 1999). By the 1970s, women advocating for inclusion in feminist and civil rights movements expanded beyond Black women. In the 1970s, the Combahee River Collective, a group of racially diverse women of Color, queer women, and working-class women gathered to discuss racism, classism, and heterosexism present in mainstream feminist organizing (Thompson, 2002). White women led feminist movements, often advocating for political and workplace equality (Newman, 1999; Thompson, 2002). The Combahee River Collective provided a space for historically marginalized women to gather and engage in consciousness-raising and healing processes, eventually resulting in awareness in mainstream feminist organizing more broadly. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, originally published in 1981, included perspectives from a variety of women of Color and queer and working-class women, highlighting the ways in which they had been excluded from feminist organizing. For example, White women organized around issues of rape and sexual assault by advocating increased use of law enforcement as a response to sexual violence, largely ignoring the racism inherent in criminal justice systems in the United States. Similarly, White women feminists appealed to White men in power by advocating for policies and practices that protected “their” women from rape and sexual violence,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 68

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

69

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS

resulting in the experiences of women of Color being ignored or minimized in organizing related to sexual violence (Bevacqua, 2000; Freedman, 2013). Women of Color called attention to these inequities, naming the racism present in criminal justice systems and the invisibility of women of Color in sexual violence prevention movements (Crenshaw, 1991). Crenshaw, in her legal work related to women of Color and interpersonal violence, highlighted the term intersectionality. Similar to critical race theory, intersectionality theory also grew from critical legal issues, and the DeGraffenreid v. General Motors (1977) discrimination case brought significant attention to the importance of intersectionality for Black women. A group of five Black women brought suit against General Motors for failing to promote Black women into senior positions in the organization. The court granted summary judgment to General Motors, highlighting that the Black women did not have a case for discrimination because they did not make a case for why Black women should be considered a “special case” (Crenshaw, 1989, p. 59). Specifically, the court indicated White women and Black men had been promoted within the organization, which illustrated sexism and racism did not influence the promotion practices at General Motors, thus making the experiences of Black women invisible. Crenshaw (1989) argued, The court’s refusal in DeGraffenreid to acknowledge that Black women encounter combined race and sex discrimination implies that the boundaries of sex and race discrimination doctrine are defined respectively by white women’s and Black men’s experiences. Under this view, Black women are protected only to the extent that their experiences coincide with those of either of the two groups. (p. 59)

The result of the DeGraffenreid case illustrates the complexities with which Black women experience discrimination and highlights the need for intersectionality theory. In 1991 Crenshaw drew on her analysis of the DeGraffenreid case to illustrate the ways in which women of Color were ignored in organizing related to interpersonal violence (Crenshaw, 1991). Crenshaw highlighted structural, political, and representational intersectionality as essential in considering the ways identities intersect to influence people’s experiences with oppression. Structural intersectionality refers to the ways in which social location influences individuals’ experiences. Crenshaw (1991) described the reality that the “location of women of Color at the intersection of race and gender” makes their experiences of sexual violence “qualitatively different

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 69

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

70

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

than that of white women” (p. 1245). Political intersectionality highlights the reality that people may experience competing agendas at the intersection of their identities. For example, given the history of racism within the criminal justice system, women of Color must balance the tension between reporting experiences of sexual violence to police for their own perceived safety with the violence they or their male counterparts may experience at the hands of police. Finally, representational intersectionality refers to the “cultural construction of women of Color” (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1245), or the master narratives created without women of Color about their experiences. Structural, political, and representational intersectionality provided the foundation on which additional intersectional scholars have continued to develop intersectionality as a theoretical framework. In the next section, I explore six major tenets associated with intersectionality theory.

Tenets of Intersectionality Theory Intersectionality theory highlights the significance of systems of domination in understanding oppression. Specifically, intersectional scholars examine oppression through interpersonal experiences, structural hierarchies that maintain power and oppression, and symbolism that influences social consciousness (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). By exploring “domination and subordination, privilege and agency, in the structural arrangements through which various services, resources, and other social rewards are delivered,” intersectionality scholars complicate common understandings of single-identity oppression (Dill & Zambrana, 2009, p. 5). Similar to critical race theory, the tenets of intersectionality theory have been developed over time, and different authors or scholars highlight different tenets as particularly salient, frequently depending on their social location and experiences. In this summary of tenets of intersectionality theory, I focus on the tenets particularly applicable to student affairs work.

Identity Is Intersectional, Not Additive One of the primary tenets of intersectionality theory is that multiple identities are intersectional, not additive (Collins, 1990). The example from DeGraffenreid v. General Motors illustrates this principle. Black women’s experiences are uniquely different from Black men’s and White women’s experiences. It is not possible to simply layer identities on one another; the experience of oppression happens at the intersection of the identities, not as a sum of them. Women of Color experience sexism differently from White women and racism differently from men of Color, resulting in an outcome that exists at the intersection, not the sum, of two individual experiences.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 70

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS

71

Intersectionality Places Lived Experiences of Marginalized Identities at the Core Intersectionality highlights the importance of lived experiences as a key to understanding oppression (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Dill & Zambrana, 2009). Intersectionality scholars emphasize the importance of placing marginalized experiences at the core of any analysis, given that most analyses center the lived experiences of people from dominant groups without specific attention to power (Crenshaw, 1991). For example, by listening to and exploring the lived experiences of women of Color related to interpersonal violence, White women may better understand why women of Color may choose not to report interpersonal violence to police. Similarly, when straight men listen to the lived experiences of gay men, they may better understand the ways in which gay men fear for their safety in ways that heterosexual men do not.

Identity Is Fluid and Contextual The salience, or significance of, a social identity varies depending on the context in which people find themselves and may change depending on the situation (Jones & Abes, 2013). Additionally, some identities may change over time, resulting in more or less salience for an individual and people interacting with that individual. For example, people from a working-class background who attend college and eventually earn a significantly higher income than their parents did may experience their social class identity as fluid. The person likely continues to maintain ties to the cultural pieces of their working-class identity even as they gain access to more money and additional resources. The person will likely continue to exist in both worlds, potentially never quite feeling whole in either space. Similarly, individuals may experience shifts in the salience of an identity depending on their context. For example, people of Color who grew up in a neighborhood and attended schools with a majority of people of Color may find that their racial identity becomes more salient to them if they attend a predominantly White institution for their undergraduate degree. Although their racial identity has always been a part of who they are, if the context changes, the identity may become more salient for that person.

Intersectionality Explores the Complexities of the Intersections of Individual Identities With Systemic/Structural Inequity Although the simplest way to understand and explore intersectionality may be through interpersonal interactions, including ways that people treat each other differently based on various social identities, intersectionality scholars

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 71

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

72

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

advance the importance of examining the ways in which structural inequality influences individual people’s lived experiences (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991; Dill & Zambrana, 2009). For example, although the common statistic cited for workplace inequality is that women make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes, the reality is that White women make 78 cents for every dollar that a White man makes. The inequity for women of Color is even more significant; Black women make 64 cents, American Indian women 59 cents, and Latinas 54 cents for every dollar a White man makes (Fisher, 2015). Although women of Color may experience individual discrimination from people in the workplace, income inequality is an example of systemic or structural oppression. Several conflating factors, including racism and sexism, contribute to the reality that women of Color earn less money than White women and men, and investigating each of these systemic factors contributing to income inequality is an example of the structural tenet of intersectionality theory.

Intersectionality Focuses on the Intersections of Multiple Marginalized Identities and the Intersections of Dominant and Subordinated Identities Intersectionality theory was created to examine the intersections of multiple marginalized identities, specifically race, class, and gender, as illustrated in the historical overview of intersectionality theory. Understanding the intersections of multiple subordinated identities warrants increased attention among student affairs educators. Additionally, student affairs educators must acknowledge and examine the intersections of dominant and subordinated identities through intersectionality (Dill, McLauglin, & Nieves, 2007; Linder, 2015). By focusing exclusively on subordinated identities, people with a particularly salient dominant and subordinated identity may fail to recognize the privilege associated with a dominant identity, thus reinforcing unexamined privilege resulting in ongoing oppression, even as they experience oppression. For example, White women who are unaware of their White privilege, focusing exclusively on the sexism they experience through their gender, contribute to ongoing racism through an unawareness of their dominant White identity (Linder, 2015).

Intersectionality Focuses on Creating Change Through Research, Policy, and Practice Intersectional scholars insist that educators, researchers, and policymakers use intersectionality as a framework to advance change, not simply to theorize about systemic oppression (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). An intersectional

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 72

7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS

73

framework may help to illuminate the complexities of a problem or situation, but it cannot stop there. Educators must then use the insight they gain as a result of employing an intersectional framework to engage in action to address a problematic situation. For example, in the current climate related to sexual violence on college campuses, understanding that trans* students of Color experience high rates of sexual violence and that they may not feel comfortable using some support services on campus is only the beginning. After student affairs educators understand this reality, they must do something to address the inequity. Tenets of intersectionality theory highlighted here provide a foundation on which student affairs educators might build a stronger, more equitable framework for supporting students on campus. Although intersectionality, when used correctly, may assist student affairs educators in their work, some cautions related to intersectional approaches also warrant attention.

Cautions and Limitations When used in a nuanced manner, intersectionality provides a powerful framework to create and maintain socially just campus spaces, but some scholars caution against using intersectionality without a critical frame (Luft, 2010). Specifically, when scholars and educators use intersectionality simply to “explore difference” and identify multiple identities, they may cause additional harm to students experiencing oppression on campus. Intersectionality requires those using it as a framework to interrogate the power inherent in social identities. Just acknowledging multiple identities without attending to the ways in which identities relate to power, privilege, and oppression results in unhelpful self-aggrandizing reflection. For example, if a women’s center program focuses on better understanding the ways in which women experience their genders differently based on social identities in addition to their gender, yet the facilitators of the program do not acknowledge racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and other forms of oppression, the result is that people are aware of various identities, but not the ways that some women experience racialized or homophobic sexism. Additionally, like all scholars using intersectionality, student affairs educators must exercise caution not to overtheorize their work, resulting in little attention to action. Because a central tenet of intersectionality includes engaging in action related to intersectional oppression, educators must continually find ways to address the oppression they observe. Although naming oppression is an important starting point for addressing oppression, it is not the ending point. Especially through dominant identities, people have

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 73

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

74

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

a tendency to overanalyze and overthink people’s lived experiences. Scholars and educators must take caution to use intersectionality as a framework for understanding and explaining oppression, not theorizing beyond the point of action. In the next section I explore strategies for engaging in action related to intersectionality, specifically in student affairs work.

Intersectional Strategies for Student Affairs Educators As student affairs educators develop an understanding of intersectionality theory, they must also develop strategies for implementing and addressing intersectional oppression. Before educators can effectively address intersectionality, they must have a good grasp of ways to help students understand concepts related to social identities, power, privilege, and oppression. Several specific strategies for incorporating intersectionality into student affairs work follow.

Develop Comfort in Discussing Social Identities To effectively develop spaces, programs, services, and resources inclusive of students from a variety of social identities, backgrounds, and experiences, student affairs educators must develop comfort in discussing social identities, power, privilege, and oppression. Specifically, student affairs educators must learn to discuss social identities with a variety of students from a multitude of perspectives. Some students will resonate more with academic information about social identities, like statistics or definitions of terminology, while others will resonate with activities focused on exploring their own experiences, like reviewing the model of multiple dimensions of identity (Jones & McEwen, 2000). Additionally, some students may better understand the complexities of social identities by thinking about them while others may understand more by feeling. Student affairs educators must be equipped to navigate each of these needs in a variety of settings, learning to effectively communicate with students with different levels of experience and background. Further, in order to effectively discuss social identities with students, student affairs educators must be aware of their own social identities and how they influence their experiences as an educator and as a person beyond the walls of academe. As highlighted previously, identity is fluid and contextual, so student affairs educators must be aware of how their own identities shift and provide space for students to also explore their shifting social identities. Student affairs educators must effectively role model vulnerability and self-awareness in all of their identities—both dominant and subordinated. For example, student affairs educators should participate in activities in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 74

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS

75

which they ask students to share personal experiences. Some people find that developing relationships and opportunities to discuss and explore experiences with people who share their dominant or subordinated identities helps them to have a better grasp of their own experiences. Affinity groups or identity caucuses may provide space for student affairs educators to engage in deeper reflections about their identities. Student affairs educators might be wellsuited to organize ongoing reflection and affinity groups for themselves while also facilitating such reflection opportunities for students.

Consider an Identity-Explicit, Not Identity-Exclusive Focus for Programs and Services Students, especially those from historically marginalized or minoritized groups, need opportunities to explicitly explore their experiences in particular identities. Student affairs educators must provide this space. However, these spaces need not be identity-exclusive. Students might focus or center a particular identity without ignoring all other aspects of their identities. For example, a forum about police brutality directed toward Black individuals may have an explicit focus on race. However, the forum must also include attention to additional social identities as racist police brutality impacts Black women and Black trans* people differently than it does Black men, yet the focus of these forums tends to be exclusively on Black men. Intersectionality pushes educators to be intentional about creating spaces where a particular identity may be centered, but not at the expense of ignoring other identities.

Intentionality Without Tokenism Student affairs educators must also develop strategies to effectively incorporate a variety of social identities into the programs, services, and resources they offer. However, student affairs educators should use caution not to tokenize people when attempting to include them. Frequently, when student affairs educators are planning a new program or event, they reach out to diversityrelated offices or professionals to ask for a member of the staff to serve on a planning committee. Members of diversity-related staffs and minoritized faculty and staff on campus are frequently overtaxed and asked to serve on many more committees than other professionals. To avoid tokenizing students or colleagues from historically underrepresented groups, student affairs educators should be intentional about finding ways to include perspectives from marginalized groups without relying exclusively on people on campus to provide those perspectives. Student affairs educators should also work to educate themselves about groups of which they are not a member and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 75

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

76

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

consider strategies for staying abreast of current issues facing students from various marginalized backgrounds. Additionally, instead of always asking for help from diversity-related offices, attend their events and participate in programs and services offered by those offices, which may result in increased awareness and opportunities for coalition building between two programs.

Engage in Coalition Building Working across identities to establish coalitions dedicated to advancing common interests among groups may result in changes to policies and practices resulting in more socially just campus spaces. For example, students of Color and trans* students may both have an interest in addressing oppression in criminal justice systems. Although the two groups (and not mutually exclusive as trans* people of Color experience oppression at the intersection of these two identities) experience oppression in criminal justice and policing systems differently, the root of the issue is the same: continued dominance of particular groups of people. Building coalitions across the identities may help students learn about each others’ experiences and contribute to the overall improvement of socially just spaces. Although student affairs educators each work from a different social location and functional area, engaging in strategies to build inclusive spaces from an intersectional perspective warrants increased attention. In addition to the strategies highlighted here, several examples of intersectional student affairs programs and services follow.

Intersectional Examples Strategies for building inclusive, intersectional programs and services provide some insight for student affairs educators, and specific examples of these strategies may help student affairs educators think creatively about opportunities within their social locations to create intersectional programs. Specifically, three examples of intersectional approaches to common campus-based support groups and services are provided here. Queer people of Color groups and spaces. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) resource centers and multicultural centers have an identityexplicit focus on LGBT and students of Color, respectively. Based on the missions of the offices and people who inhabit the spaces, some students of Color report feeling unwelcomed in LGBT spaces, and some queer students feel unwelcome in multicultural centers (Linder & Rodriguez, 2012). One strategy for addressing these concerns is for the two programs to collaborate, creating mutually sponsored opportunities of interactive programming for queer students of Color. One example might be a discussion group that can

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 76

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS

77

be a processing space, an opportunity for students to discuss their experiences at the unique intersection of their identities as a queer person and a person of Color. The group could be facilitated by student affairs educators who share these identities, or students may choose to facilitate their own discussion processes. Additionally, spaces designed for queer students of Color should strive not to be identity-exclusive spaces. Some queer students of Color have additional salient social identities (e.g., their gender or class or age) that influence their experiences significantly, and they should be able to share and process those experiences in the group as well. Generally speaking, members of groups like these set their own parameters, deciding when to meet, what to discuss, and ground rules for participation. LGBT interpersonal violence services. LGBT students experience interpersonal violence at the same or higher rates as their heterosexual peers (Edwards et al., 2015); however, support for survivors of interpersonal violence may not always be inclusive of LGBT identities and experiences. To effectively support LGBT survivors, leaders of campus-based counseling centers and advocacy programs may choose to hire an advocate specifically trained to support LGBT survivors of interpersonal violence and should definitely provide training for their current staff about the unique issues facing LGBT survivors. Additionally, education and prevention programs should take care to include LGBT survivors’ experiences as part of their awareness and prevention programming. Failing to do so makes LGBT survivors’ experiences invisible and contributes to ongoing marginalization within LGBT communities. Black men’s leadership programs. An example of a program examining the intersection of a dominant and subordinated identity is a leadership development program supporting Black men, who frequently experience marginalization as a result of their race and relative privilege compared to Black women related to their gender. Black men are consistently underrepresented in higher education, as undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and student affairs educators (Cuyjet, 2006). Additionally, the recent increased attention to police brutality directed toward Black men creates a need for spaces of support for Black men on college campuses. Additionally, these spaces may provide an opportunity for Black men to explore the complexity of the intersection of their experiences with racism and the ways in which they experience some male privilege. For example, Black men’s voices could influence conversations about interpersonal violence, specifically as they relate to the experiences of Black women, which are often made invisible in feminist and civil rights movements. In developing programs of support for Black men, facilitators must be intentional about a complex, intersectional focus. Too often, groups designed to support men in college

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 77

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

78

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

have an unspoken focus on heterosexual men’s experiences, and facilitators must intentionally work to ensure that queer men’s voices are not left out of these conversations, even if not the explicit focus of the group. Student affairs educators may have numerous additional examples of intersectional programs and services. As student affairs educators become more aware of the challenges and issues facing students from a variety of marginalized backgrounds, working to create programs and services with an intersectional focus becomes vital to student affairs work. Ongoing education and critical consciousness, as highlighted in Chapter 17, are two ways student affairs educators may develop strategies for effectively developing inclusive, intersectional programs.

Case Study The university president recently appointed a sexual violence task force on your campus. You were asked to serve on the task force and have attended two group meetings so far. You have noticed that there tends to be a heavy focus on response to, rather than prevention of, sexual violence and that most discussion revolves around ways that cisgender, straight women experience sexual violence. The prevention programs have a heavy emphasis on “protecting” women from sexual assault through a blue light system, a campus escort system, and teaching men to engage in “bystander intervention.” Based on the tenets of intersectionality theory and strategies for developing intersectional programs, discuss the following: 1. What might be missing from the current approaches of sexual assault prevention? Who is not represented in the conversation? 2. Using the tenets of intersectionality theory as described here, what are some strategies for creating a more inclusive approach to sexual violence prevention and response? 3. Design at least three programs with an intersectional approach to addressing sexual violence. Who would need to be included in the development of these programs? What is the purpose of the programs? What resources would you need to make the programs happen?

References Bevacqua, M. (2000). Rape on the public agenda: Feminism and the politics of sexual assault. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 78

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS

79

BlackPast.org. (n.d.). (1851) Sojourner Truth “Arn’t I a woman?” Retrieved from http://www.blackpast.org/1851-sojourner-truth-arnt-i-woman Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge. Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and anti-racist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167. Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Cuyjet, M. (2006). African American men in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. DeGraffenreid v. Gen. Motors Assembly Div. (1977). 558 F.2d 480, 484. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New York University Press. Dill, B. T., McLaughlin A. E., & Nieves, A. D. (2007). Future directions of feminist research: Intersectionality. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 629–637). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp. 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., Barry, J. E., Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cohn, E. S., Walsh, W. A., & Ward, S. K. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580–600. Fisher, M. (2015, April 14). Women of Color and the gender wage gap. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ women/report/2015/04/14/110962/women-of-color-and-the-gender-wage-gap/ Freedman, E. B. (2013). Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and segregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 405–414. Linder, C. (2015). Navigating fear, guilt, and shame: A conceptual model of White anti-racist women’s identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 56(6), 535–550. Linder, C., & Rodriguez, K. (2012). Learning from the experiences of selfidentified women of Color activists. Journal of College Student Development, 53(3), 383–398. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press. Luft, R. E. (2010). Intersectionality and the risk of flattening difference: Gender and race logics, and the strategic use of anti-racist singularity. In M. T. Berger & K. Guidroz (Eds.), The intersectional approach: Transforming the academy through

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 79

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

80

AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

race, class, and gender (pp. 100–117). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (1981). This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. London, United Kingdom: Persephone Press. Newman, L. M. (1999). White women’s rights: The racial origins of feminism in the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second wave feminism. Feminist Studies, 28(2), 337–360.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 80

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

PA RT T W O I N F O R M AT I O N O N C U LT U R A L P O P U L AT I O N S

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 81

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 82

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

5 L AT I N X C O L L E G E S T U D E N T S Susana Hernández and Anna M. Ortiz

C

olleges and universities in many settings are already experiencing an influx of Latinxs1 in their student populations. The impact of the Latinx infusion into higher education will continue to grow and become more widespread. By 2060, Latinxs will be responsible for 60% of the nation’s population growth. Latinxs will move from being 17% of the current population to 31% in 2060, making them the largest minority group in the United States (Ennis, Ríos-Vargas, & Albert, 2011). Depending on a number of individual characteristics (e.g., time of immigration, precollege educational environments, extended family units, family history with higher education), these students may require paradigm shifts in the way higher education professionals have structured campus programs, written educational policy, and executed individual work with students in and out of the classroom. This chapter explores the experiences of Latinxs in higher education and seeks to shape a picture of their participation that is most representative of the diversity of the group and of the higher education institutions they inhabit. After a review of Latinxs in the United States, the chapter considers the sociological context that Latinxs inhabit and then moves into a discussion of student experiences in higher education. Particular attention is paid to the role of the family in higher education, the experience of Latinxs in community colleges, and campus climate issues that impede and promote the success of Latinx students. We conclude the chapter with an overview of places to find resources related to Latinx students, and recommendations, implications, and future trends. The panethnic term Latinx is used throughout this chapter, except in direct quotes and in reference to critical race theory, to refer to people whose ethnic origins are found in Central American, Caribbean, and South American countries (Spring, 2010). More discrete terms may be used, 83

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 83

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

84

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

when appropriate, to refer to specific groups, such as Chicano/a or Mexican American, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and so on. Individuals from these groups often use several labels to identify themselves depending on the immediate context. A person can be comfortable using a specific label, such as Dominican, and the panethnic Latino/Latina (the use of Latinx is not widespread as a personal descriptor). Mexican Americans who take a more politicized view of their ethnicity would likely use Chicano/Chicana as their ethnic label. While most Latinxs reject the term Hispanic as a word constructed by government bureaucrats, some embrace the term, especially if they see themselves as genealogically closer to Spain. In the 2010 U.S. census, 7% of all people of Hispanic or Latino descent used Hispanic as their ethnic label. Interestingly, in New Mexico, one third of all Latinos/Latinas used this label (Ennis et al., 2011). Latinx is more recently favored to reflect a more gender-inclusive descriptor.

Brief History of Latinxs in the United States Each Latinx ethnic group has a unique history in the United States. Mexican Americans, the largest of the ethnic groups (63% of all Latinxs; Ennis et al., 2011), were first incorporated into the United States when northern Mexico was annexed by the United States through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 (Spring, 2010). While the treaty transferred governance of the Southwest to the U.S. government, it allowed Mexican citizens to retain their land and choose whether to become U.S. citizens. However, shortly after annexation, laws were established to block U.S. and dual citizenship. A series of laws and common practices served to dispossess Mexicans of their lands, transferring large parcels in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to pioneer hands. The history of Mexicans in the United States during the twentieth century was one of welcome immigration when a ready, inexpensive labor force was necessary and then deportation once the labor was no longer needed. For example, prior to the Depression of the 1930s, trains of Mexicans were brought into the United States to fill the demand for labor after immigration laws restricted entry of Asian groups that had been a primary source of labor. However, the shortage of jobs during the Depression resulted in the expatriation of thousands of Mexicans. Less than 10 years later, the labor needs of World War II again required the mass migration of Mexican laborers who were allowed to work legally through the Bracero Program (Portes & Bach, 1985), which facilitated the importation of Mexican immigrant workers to the United States as temporary contract laborers. Labor needs and inconsistent immigration policies created a pattern

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 84

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

85

of cyclical migration where many Mexicans come north to work and return to Mexico in the off season. This sojourn pattern is, of course, a generalization because so many Mexicans have taken up residence that they are now a substantial presence in the Southwest. Mexican Americans make up 85% of the total Latinx population in Texas, 83% in California, 87% in Arizona, and 43% in New Mexico (Ennis et al., 2011). The second largest Latinx group in the United States is Puerto Ricans, who constitute 9.2% of all Latinxs (Ennis et al., 2011). Of course, Puerto Ricans cannot be considered immigrants since they are U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory after the Spanish-American War of 1898. Unlike the Philippines, which also became a U.S. territory at the time, Puerto Rico has not achieved independent status as a nation or state. The migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland has primarily been attributed to the industrialization of the agricultural economy in Puerto Rico in the early part of the twentieth century. Large agribusiness firms acquired sugar plantations and mechanized much of the production, eliminating many of the jobs that had been held by whole towns of rural people. No longer able to make a living through agriculture, many Puerto Ricans migrated to cities in the American Northeast to work in the industrial and service sectors. In New York State, 36.2% of all Latinxs are of Puerto Rican origin (Ennis et al., 2011). Cubans are the third largest Latinx ethnic group, making up 3.5% of all Latinxs (Ennis et al.,2011). Nearly one third of all Latinxs in Florida are Cuban. The history of Cubans in the United States is long and complex. Contrary to popular belief, they did not begin their migration to the United States as a result of Fidel Castro’s takeover of Cuba in the late 1950s. Rather, patterns of sojourning from Cuba to the United States and back began at the time of the Spanish-American War. Cuban politicians commonly regrouped in Florida after a change in leadership. Cuba’s elite and middle class also saw Florida as a vacation destination; these segments of the Cuban population were quite comfortable in the Miami area. After Castro took control in 1958, many of the Cuban political and economic elite traveled north for what would eventually become a permanent stay, although many Cubans maintain the belief that they will return to their homeland after the Castro government is no longer in power (Portes & Stepick, 1993). Cubans from other socioeconomic classes followed the upper-class refugees, culminating in the highly controversial Mariel emigration of 1980. This last mass migration was made up of Cubans from the working class (and lower) who were more racially mixed than previous immigrants. Unlike refugees from other Latin countries, Cubans have consistently received political asylum in the United States. Despite government programs seeking to relocate Cuban

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 85

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

86

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

refugees, Miami remains home to the largest Cuban population outside the island itself (Portes & Stepick, 1993). Other significant groups of Latinx immigrants have come to the United States in the past 25 years because of political unrest in their home countries. Nicaraguans, political refugees from the Contra-backed war of the Reagan administration, have primarily settled in Miami. Guatemalans and Salvadorians have mainly settled in California. Colombians are the third largest Latinx ethnic group in Florida. Dominicans are the second largest Latinx ethnic group in New York. Most have come to the United States as political refugees, all experiencing the same economic, cultural, and language barriers faced by the immigrants before them. However, for these later Spanish-speaking immigrant groups, the established ethnic enclaves in the Southwest, New York, and Miami have served as a sociocultural welcome wagon to ease their transition to the United States.

Sociological Context Given the diversity of the Latinx group, generalizations about its sociological context can be precarious. Nonetheless, a number of common factors influence the context in which Latinxs find themselves. As with other non-White ethnic groups, a major factor is income, with 23.5% of all Latinx families living below the poverty line (Krogstad, 2014). While this number is nearly 10% more than the national rate, it does reflect the lowest poverty rates for Latinxs since 2006. For many Latinx families, poverty is related to the immigrant experience, with successive generations achieving higher socioeconomic levels. Therefore, generational status influences other sociological factors related to Latinxs, such as educational attainment, familial influence and structure, bilingual skills, and Spanish language use. Generational status, a key construct in understanding the progress and experiences of Latinxs as a group, refers to the number of generations a family has been in the United States. Conventionally, the first generation is the immigrant generation, with the second generation being the first of the family to be born as U.S. citizens. The closer to the immigrant generation, the more likely the family is to be at risk for the socioeconomic conditions that impede occupational, financial, and educational attainment. With Latinx families, generational status also has an effect on language use and the primacy of Spanish as the language spoken in the home. Englishlanguage fluency among Latinx, especially the youth, has steadily increased significantly since 1980, with U.S.-born Latinx fluency rate as high as 89% (Krogstad, Stepler, & Lopez, 2015). The increase in English-language

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 86

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

87

fluency is indeed an important achievement, but Taylor, Lopez, Martínez, and Velasco (2012) remind us that nearly 95% of Latinxs feel that it is very or somewhat important that future generations of Latinxs be able to speak Spanish. Preserving the Spanish language is an essential common practice for first- or second-generation immigrants; however, Spanish-language acquisition, maintenance, and fluency among Latinx people are varied. This point is significant, as language use is an important marker of cultural identity and a source of pride for students (Phinney, 1995; Santiago-Rivera, Arredondo, & Gallardo-Cooper, 2002). Therefore, a loss of language has the potential for a negative impact on students’ identity and sense of self as they encounter other Latinxs who expect them to speak Spanish (Delgado Bernal, 2001; Torres, 2003). Students who have maintained their language experience a sense of comfort and even anticipate economic rewards for being bilingual in today’s multicultural world (Delgado Bernal, 2001). Maintenance of language is also important to the family as a societal unit. Children of immigrants often serve as language brokers, translating and interpreting for their parents and other individuals whom they encounter in schools and other public facilities (Morales & Hanson, 2005). Children not only play important roles in the lives, survival, and success of immigrant families, but also place themselves in adult situations that may have complex implications for personal development. Thus, language acquisition, maintenance, and fluency remain significantly challenging sociological issues for Latinxs. Generational status also helps to determine the type of family systems that students experience. More often than not, especially in families closer to the time of immigration, the family is a collectivist entity (Ramirez, Castaneda, & Herold, 1974; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002). These earlygeneration families tend to be more traditional in relationships with authority and in gender roles (Falicov, 1998; Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006). Traditionally the Latinx family is a close-knit group and considered the most important social unit. This is sometimes referred to as familialismo (Ortiz & Santos, 2009; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001). The term refers to a family unit beyond the network of parents that also includes extended family, like grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Individuals within a Latinx family may feel moral responsibility to support members of their family with problems related to economic, social, and health concerns. Like other non-White ethnic and racial groups, Latinxs experience exclusion, discrimination, and racism that impede their ability to fulfill their desired destiny in this country. The degree of overt discrimination they experience is related to factors similar to those that African Americans experience.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 87

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

88

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Educational attainment, income, and occupational levels can mediate overt discrimination. The general public’s lack of understanding of Latinx culture, in concert with periodic episodes of political anti-immigration sentiment, may also lead to readily accepting stereotypes of Latinxs as illegal immigrants and undereducated manual laborers. Like African Americans, Latinxs also suffer discrimination in the workplace (such as a lack of advancement opportunities or overscrutiny) and the negative effects of experiencing a frequent barrage of microaggressions related to racism and stereotypes. Solòrzano (1997) has characterized microaggressions as comments and opinions that may be meant as innocuous or even complimentary but are hurtful to Latinx students. Microaggressions can be daily or cumulative forms of racism that subtly and negatively impact the mental and physical health of individuals. Such statements include, “You speak English so clearly,” or “You aren’t like most Mexicans.” Many educators also assume that family structures and cultural values actually keep students from excelling in academics— that Latinx families prefer their children to work rather than go to college. Scholars have documented the ways in which people of Color deal with racial battle fatigue, defined as the physiological and psychological consequences of microaggressions experienced by people of Color over time (Solórzano & Pérez Huber, 2012).

Latinx Student Participation in Higher Education Latinx young adults from 18 to 24 years old have experienced six consecutive years of increases in college-going—from 26.6% in 2007 to 37.5% in 2012 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). This represents a 10.9% gain in the college-going “gap” between White and Latinx individuals, as the enrollment of White 18- to 24-year-olds has remained relatively stable. Latinx students now compose 16% of the undergraduate student population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013), just one percentage point short of their proportion of the U.S. population. Further, it is expected that by 2028 the number of Latinx college-age youth will increase by 13.7%, while enrollment of all other ethnic and racial groups will decline (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2014), positioning Latinx students to play an even more significant role in our colleges and universities. However, Latinx students attend college differently than those from other ethnic and racial groups. Almost half of Latinx students begin their college career in a community college (46%, though this percentage is decreasing); they are less likely to attend a selective college and more likely to attend school on a part-time basis than their White peers (Fry & Taylor, 2013). Latinx students are also more likely

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 88

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

89

to be the first in their families to attend college, as 20.4% of Latinxs over 25 years of age hold an associate degree or higher, compared to 34.8% of the total population (U. S. Census Bureau, 2014). Given the higher proportion of Latinx who are closer to age 25, it is likely that the percentage of college students’ parents who have at least an associate degree may be actually lower. Since 2004, the number of Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) has increased by more than 50%, to 409 four- and two-year institutions in 2014 (12% of all institutions). In fact, almost 60% of all Latinx students attend an HSI (Excelencia in Education, 2015), which are private or public colleges and universities where Latinxs make up at least 25% of the student population. California has the greatest number of HSIs, with 139, followed by Texas (75), Puerto Rico (58), Florida (23), New Mexico (23), and New York (19). Fast-forward to degree completion, and we see continued growth in the number of Latinxs completing degrees at all levels; in 2012–2013, Latinxs achieved the highest number of degrees ever. Latinxs earned 16% of associate degrees, 10.5% of bachelor’s degrees, 8.1% of master’s degrees, and 6.5% of doctoral degrees (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Like other groups, women are outpacing men at each of these degree levels, but the difference is relatively minimal, ranging from 0.2% for associate’s degrees to 1.2% for bachelor’s degrees. The continual increase in the number of Latinxs earning college degrees at all levels would be expected, given the increase of Latinxs in the population; however, coupled with the increase in the proportion of Latinxs attending college (one point below parity), there is promise for attaining parity in degree completion in the not so distant future.

Current Research, Trends, and Issues The research literature on postsecondary Latinx students primarily revolves around their getting to college, persisting once there, and the quality of their experiences in the college environment. In addition, ethnic identity overlaps many of these factors but primarily focuses on how students come to define themselves as they interact in the college environment and balance issues of salience, acculturation, assimilation, or biculturalism. Changes in federal and state policies regarding tuition for undocumented college students has influenced both practice and research, especially for Latinx students, who make up the majority of undocumented students.

College Access The importance of early college aspirations to the success of Latinxs as a group cannot be overstated. In the beginning of the twenty-first century,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 89

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

90

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

efforts to develop outreach programs to Latinxs in middle school and high school have increased dramatically. In part, the boost was necessary in states with large numbers of Latinxs where affirmative action was abolished, such as California, Florida, and Texas. Research at that time showed that the number of Latinx students accessing top state institutions declined (Barr, 2002; Garcia, Jorgensen, & Ormsby, 1999), with inequities continuing (Harris & Tienda, 2012; Perna, Li, Walsh, & Raible, 2010). Harris and Tienda (2012) analyzed the application rates of Latinx students to Texas’s flagship universities prior to the affirmative action ban, after the ban, and since the implementation of the Texas 10% policy which guarantees admission to a Texas postsecondary institution to the top 10% of a high school’s graduating class (Texas H.B. 588). They found that the 10% policy did not result in a greater number of applications, as the percentage of Latinx applications changed very little despite a dramatic increase in the number of Latinx high school graduates. If Latinx high school students applied to the flagship universities in equal proportion to White students, their application numbers should have doubled since the affirmative action period. After their full analysis of application, admission, and enrollment, Harris and Tienda (2012) concluded that demonstrating that equity in access is mediated by the decision to apply, making precollege programs and experiences paramount in increasing Latinx participation at flagship institutions. There is additional evidence that a focus on Latinx high school students and even, as some would argue, middle school students is warranted. Latinxs are graduating from high school at historic rates, not merely by virtue of population growth, but by proportion. Since 2004, the Latinx high school graduation rate has increased from 57% to 65%, and the high school dropout rate has been reduced by half to 13% (Excelencia in Education, 2015). Higher education has a unique opportunity to partner with local school districts to help their students develop college-going aspirations and to guide them through the college choice, admissions, and financial aid application processes.

College Preparation Unfortunately, precollege experiences for Latinx students is often one characterized by poverty, as one third of families with children under 18 living in the home live at or below the poverty line (Excelencia in Education, 2015). Factors associated with poverty, such as lack of early childhood education, unevenly funded schools, and teens’ early participation in the workforce (College Board, 2011) make it more likely that Latinx students come to college less prepared than their majority peers. Over half (58%) of the Latinxs who attend community colleges and 20% who attend four-year universities needed remediation

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 90

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

91

in 2006, the most recent year for which there are data (Complete College America, 2012). In this same analysis, just over a third of those who needed remediation at a four-year university were able to complete both remediation and pass the college-level or gateway courses in two years. What begins as a precollege issue quickly and importantly becomes a situation that has significant implications for college completion and major choice, especially for Latinx students pursuing science, technology, math, and engineering (STEM) degrees. Although many struggle with remediation as a result of their high school experiences, when Latinxs have the opportunity to engage in challenging academic programs, the results are often quite favorable. Of the Latinx high school students who took the ACT, a sign of a college preparatory curriculum and intent to attend a four-year institution upon graduation, 78% at four-year institutions were retained to their second year of college. This retention rate is equal to that of all college students and just one percentage point behind White students (Excelencia in Education, 2015).

Family and College Aspirations Despite stereotypes that the Latinx family devalues education, 88% of Latinxs age 16 or older report that their families placed importance on a college education (Fry & Taylor, 2013). McCallister and colleagues (2010) found similar results in their survey of middle school parents, where 97% of parents said that they wanted their children to attend college, and 94% reported that getting a college degree was essential. Parental support for college aspirations is expressed in multiple ways, such as teaching their children to respect teachers and other adults at school, having an expectation that a college education will provide a better or easier life than the parents’, and placing an emphasis on bringing pride to the family, as the following section describes (Ortiz & Santos, 2009). Additionally, Latinx college students acted as role models and college counselors to younger siblings and cousins in the Ortiz and Santos study. Although research has consistently shown that Latinx families support college aspirations for their children, a persistent problem is incorrect or mythical perceptions of financial aid and college access that serve to build self-imposed barriers to higher education. Many Latinxs begin their college careers in community colleges, not because of poor academic records but because they perceive four-year colleges as an unviable choice in view of the repeal of affirmative action policies and a lack of financial aid. To compound this misunderstanding, a study by Zarate and Pachon (2006) found that Latinx students and their families had misunderstandings about the cost of college and financial aid policies. Specifically, 80% of students overestimated the cost of attending in-state public universities and had misperceptions

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 91

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

92

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

regarding financial aid policy, the criteria needed to obtain government grants, citizenship status for federal and state financial aid, and availability of guaranteed student loans (e.g., 30% of students said they would go to a commercial bank to get a loan for college). Most troubling was the finding that almost 40% of the respondents said they felt that the cost of college outweighed the benefits of a college education. McCallister and colleagues (2010) found similar results in their study of middle school parents, where 35% said that they were unaware of financial assistance programs to attend college, and 71% believed that their children would receive scholarships based on their grades.

The Latinx Family and Community Influences Tara Yosso’s concept of community cultural wealth brings theoretical understanding to the multiple ways in which Latinx youth are supported by the families and home communities when they plan for and attend college (Yosso, 2005). She identified six types of capital that students use: 1. Aspirational (ability to dream beyond current circumstances despite real and perceived barriers) 2. Linguistic (the benefits of bilingualism) 3. Familial (broad kinship connections, care, and moral and life skill education) 4. Social (peer and community networks) 5. Navigational (ability to maneuver through social institutions) 6. Resistant (challenging inequities)

When university faculty and staff understand these assets that are developed prior to college attendance, they are better able to assist college students in activating their capital when they experience challenges. Supportive families contribute to the resiliency necessary for Latinx students to overcome barriers in higher education, especially for students from low-income backgrounds or those whose first language is Spanish. Many have found that the academic achievement of Latinx students was linked to individual and familial influences (Aguilar, 1996; Hassinger & Plourde, 2005; Ong, Phinney, & Dennis, 2006; Ortiz & Santos, 2009; Sy, 2006). Sánchez, Reyes, and Singh (2006) found that despite a lack of college knowledge, parents were able to “provide cognitive guidance (asking questions, giving advice) regarding students’ classes” (p. 61). The researchers also found that of the key supporters whom students named, 42% were family members. This was also true in Ceja’s (2004) study of Chicanas and their college aspirations: “It was not so much what the parents said through their direct

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 92

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

93

messages but what these Chicana students perceived to be important, as a consequence of being keenly aware of the conditions and struggles of their parents” (p. 345). In addition to parents being sources of support and expectation, parents and families also play more customary college-going roles for their children. Older siblings who attended college were also a resource and source of support, serving as role models or offering guidance in the application process or tutoring in higher-level courses (Hurtado-Ortiz & Gauvain, 2007; Ortiz & Santos, 2009; Sánchez et al., 2006).

Latino/a Critical Race Theory Latino/a critical race theory (LatCrit) continues to be an important development in the research on Latinx students. Through this theoretical framework, the intersection of such forces as ethnicity, race, immigration, class, sexual orientation, language, and gender allows for critical analysis of the oppressive nature of societal institutions and the opportunity to view cultural resources, experiential knowledge, and resistance as important tools for social justice and equity. Scholars such as Daniel Solórzano, Dolores Delgado Bernal, Miguel Ceja, Octavio Villalpando, and Tara Yosso have been leaders in the development of this scholarship. As an example of the application of LatCrit, Chicana feminist pedagogy more formally acknowledges cultural resources present in the home as valuable sources of strength for students. “The teaching and learning of the home allows Chicanas to draw upon their own cultures and sense of self to resist domination along the axes of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation” (Delgado Bernal, 2001, p. 624). An example Delgado Bernal offers is that by continuing to speak Spanish, Chicanas draw personal strength and pride through their ethnic identity and can convert a practice many perceive as interfering with educational success to an asset in the educational and work environments. The use of counter storytelling and testimonios as a research methodology and a tool to help students understand societal institutional forces that impact their lives has gained prominence as an extension of LatCrit (Delgado Bernal, Burciaga, & Flores Carmona, 2012; Espino, 2012; Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012).

Ethnic Identity and Biculturalism Ethnic identity as a psychological construct and as a contributor to characteristics that positively affect the educational experience of students continues to be a vibrant line of research on Latinxs. Classic dispositions associated with ethnic identity include increased self-efficacy and self-esteem, which have a positive influence on students’ academic performance (for a review, see Ortiz & Santos, 2009). These forces help students resist the urge

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 93

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

94

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

to assimilate, losing their Latinx culture by fully integrating into the dominant culture, and instead acculturate their native culture with the acquisition of some aspects of Anglo culture. Key components of Latinx ethnic identity include activities and traditions associated with specific cultures largely based on country of origin, language, Catholicism, collectivist family structure based on respect for elders, and traditional gender roles. Ortiz and Santos (2009) found that college experiences with Chicano studies courses, Latinx student organizations, and experiences with racism and discrimination caused students to strengthen their ethnic identity and develop a group consciousness that led them to envision their role in elevating the status of Latinxs in society and to take political action to benefit group causes. Even though these students attended universities that were highly diverse and came from communities with high concentrations of coethnics, the students saw how their educational experience was changing them, making them more American through acculturation. They saw this as an opportunity to create a unique ethnicity that allowed them to keep what was best about the cultures in which they were raised, while transforming other elements, such as traditional gender roles, to achieve their goals. Helping students to strengthen their ethnic identity and its salience is an important success strategy, especially in predominantly White institutions, as connection with ethnic peers and cultural congruity have been predictive of college GPA (Cerezo & Chang, 2013). Case and Hernandez (2013) studied the impact of an intensive cohort program for Latinx students at their small liberal arts college. Students in the program experienced pride, affirmation and acceptance in their Latinx identity, as well as elevated ethnic consciousness, resulting in engagement in the community and becoming ethnically rooted bicultural leaders. These findings were similar to the Ortiz and Santos study (2009), demonstrating that ethnic identity can be supported and enhanced in environments that lack a critical mass of Latinx students.

Undocumented Students Research on undocumented students has increased dramatically since the first edition of this text. Although undocumented students come from every continent, the vast majority of them are Latinxs, coming from Mexico and Central America. The laws, policies, and general political landscape for undocumented students change rapidly and are governed by both federal and state policy. As of this writing, at least 17 states provide in-state resident tuition rates to undocumented students (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 94

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

95

Policies such as those regarding admission and financial aid as related to undocumented students are dynamic; thus, there is confusion among students, parents, and educators about college admission, financial aid, internship eligibility, and postgraduate study and employment (Gildersleeve & Hernández, forthcoming). Despite countless barriers, many high school students without documentation have high aspirations for college and their careers (Torres & Wicks-Asbun, 2013). William Perez has conducted extensive studies of undocumented students in multiple institutional settings (Perez, 2009, 2011; Perez & Cortes, 2011). His work documents the challenges faced by students and the resiliency and optimism they maintain to reach graduation and then use their considerable talents to create change (Perez, 2009). His work focusing on community college students (Perez & Cortes, 2011) is particularly enlightening as this is the primary college entry point for undocumented students due to their low cost and convenient locations. The negative attitudes of college staff that he and Cortes report are disappointing and reflect the lack of knowledge about policy and ignorance about the potential of these college students. Undocumented students experience multiple challenges in the college environment: paying college expenses, working in under-the-table jobs, and balancing coursework with family responsibilities. Even getting to campus is a challenge, especially when attending a four-year institution; driving is often impossible because of the inability to legally obtain a driver’s license in some states, leaving students to rely on public transportation. Ellis and Chen (2013) found that students shared experiences common to their documented peers, such as family conflict regarding responsibility and acculturation. Students’ documentation status prompted unique identity development dimensions that included increased empathy for disenfranchised groups and the increased agency and resilience based on the multiple hurdles they encountered. They were better at getting things done because of all they had to maneuver. However, they simultaneously had to deal with the shame and stigma of being undocumented that resulted in isolation, invisibility, and internalizing stereotypes. Applying the research literature to practice by creating synthesized discussions about undocumented students provides higher education professionals with a holistic understanding of what to do to support successful pathways for these students (Gildersleeve & Hernández, in press). Gilbert (2014) emphasizes the need to remain diligent access agents for students without documentation, both in terms of keeping abreast of policy changes and in student advocacy. In California, AB540 Ally Programs are designed to train students and staff on policies and resources that affect students, while educating them about student experiences. Like other ally programs,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 95

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

96

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

participants who complete the training receive a sticker they can post on their office door to signal to students that are ready and willing to help. A case study by Barnhardt, Ramos, and Reyes (2013) offers another example of how institutions can better serve undocumented students. They show that explicit admissions and financial policies, in addition to an openness to adapt institutional procedures, are necessary to provide equitable education for undocumented students. This was especially true in the case of providing summer internships, which were thought to be unavailable to undocumented students until the institution devised a way to offer a modest fellowship to pay for living expenses and a small stipend for students who could not be paid in traditional ways. The recent establishment of DREAM Centers at some California State University campuses is another way to coordinate services and information for undocumented students in a space that also serves as a gathering place to connect students with each other and campus staff.

Latinxs in Community Colleges and College Choice Because of many of the factors already discussed (poor academic preparation, misinformation about access and financial aid), community colleges serve as the primary entry point for Latinxs pursuing higher education. Latinxs are disproportionally enrolled in community colleges—close to half of Latinx students enrolled in postsecondary education are enrolled in community colleges (Santiago, Calderón Galdeano, & Taylor, 2015). Despite the high number of Latinx community college students who aspire to transfer to four-year institutions, the research suggests that few Latinx students are transferring (Núñez & Elizondo, 2013). Moore & Shulock (2010) draw attention to the completion and transfer racial gaps in California community colleges. On average, out of 100 Latinx students in California who enroll in a community college, four will complete a career and technical education, and 14 will transfer to a California state university or a University of California campus. This figure suggests that a large number of Latinx students leave school without a certificate or degree (Rivas, Pérez, Álvarez, & Solórzano, 2007). Further complicating this matter is the “transfer choice gap” (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009, p. 635), which refers to the phenomena of students who are academically eligible for transfer to a selective university but opt to transfer to a less selective institution or not transfer at all. Their study aimed to explore the transfer choice gap for Latinx community college students in California, which is the state with the largest enrollment of Latinxs in community colleges. Bensimon and Dowd raise attention to the need for what they call “transfer agents” (p. 651) to mediate information to transfer into selective institutions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 96

7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

97

Leading community college scholars note that “the actual transfer rate is debatable and mysterious because there is little agreement as to how it should be measured” (Hagedorn & Lester, 2006, p. 833). The multiple missions of community colleges make transfer rates irrelevant for many students who have no intention of transferring or who enroll simply to establish or update workplace skills or engage in lifelong learning. Dual (or multiple) enrollment and reverse transfer (from a four-year to a two-year college) further complicate determining accurate transfer rates. Hagedorn and Lester (2006) found that remedial and prerequisite transfer-level courses become barriers to transfer, women were more likely to complete transfer-ready courses, and there were no differences in transfer readiness between native Spanish or English speakers. Solórzano, Acevedo-Gil, and Santos (2013) draw attention to the role developmental courses play in Latinx student transfer. After submitting a community college admission application, students must take a standardized test to measure academic competencies in English writing and reading, and math. These scores determine placement in college-level courses that are required for transfer. Out of 100 Latinx students who place into developmental English, only 34 will pass a transfer level course in a three-year period. The number is even lower for math, as only 14 Latinx students will complete a transfer-level course within three years.

Retention of Latinxs in Postsecondary Education According to Swail, Redd, and Perna (2003), a more holistic model of student persistence explains that the student experience is shaped by three sets of factors: cognitive (i.e., quality of learning, study skills, and time management), social (i.e., financial issues, social coping skills, cultural values, and parental and peer support), and institutional (i.e., how institutions react to students and the ability of the institution to provide support). Students attain equilibrium when the cognitive, social, and institutional forces combine in a manner that supports student persistence and achievement. The geometric model suggests that a student must find a balance between all three factors to reach equilibrium. Balance does not require all three factors to be equal. A Latinx student may have strong social support, such as a family and friend network, to compensate for a shortage of college survival skills like time management and knowledge of institutional resources. Students’ family and social networks prior to college can thus assist in persistence rather than impede integration, as Tinto (1993) argues in his classic work on student retention. There is a cyclical relationship among campus racial climate, college adjustment, and persistence. Students’ ability to find

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 97

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

98

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

membership or a sense of belonging on campus has long been connected with persistence (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tinto, 1993). Experiences with discrimination or racism on campus serve to block that sense of belonging and then become barriers to achieving a degree. Students have reported that discrimination from campus administrators, advisers, and support staff has a negative effect on their ability to succeed (Lopez, 1995). The scholarship on the retention of Latinx students has been explored across gender. Sáenz and Ponjuán (2012) describe Latinx male participation in higher education as in a state of crisis. In 2010, for example, three out of every five associate or bachelor’s degrees granted to Latinxs were earned by women. Sáenz and Ponjuán (2011) contend that observable differences in enrollment rates between male and female students begin to show up long before postsecondary education and as soon as early childhood education. In 2009, for example, 44.4% of Latinx females under the age of 5 were enrolled in school compared to 39.4% of Latinx males in the same age group (Sáenz & Ponjuán, 2011). The disparities continue across the educational pipeline, and a growing body of work is dedicated to exploring the college access and degree completion of Latinx male students. Particular attention has been given to the participation and degree completion of Latinx students pursuing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees. Dowd, Malcom, and Bensimon (2009) document the educational disparities of Latinx students who pursue and earn STEM degrees and challenge institutions to identify and investigate the conditions under which effective practices can lead to greater STEM degree attainment. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, challenges associated with developmental education or gateway courses put in place significant challenges for Latinx students who begin postsecondary education in community college and intend on pursuing STEM degrees. A cyclical relationship exists among campus racial climate, college adjustment, and persistence. Students’ ability to find membership or a sense of belonging on campus has long been connected with persistence (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tinto, 1993). Experiences with discrimination or racism on campus serve to block that sense of belonging and then become barriers to achieving a degree. Students have reported that discrimination from campus administrators, advisers, and support staff has a negative effect on their ability to succeed (Lopez, 1995). However, social support systems and cultural connections have been shown to mediate the effects of a negative campus racial climate (Llamas & Ramos-Sánchez, 2013). Social support, coupled with high self-efficacy, is significantly responsible for success in college adjustment and a decrease in psychological and physical distress (Solberg, Valdez, & Villarreal, 1994; Solberg & Villarreal, 1997). In fact, the ability

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 98

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

99

for Latinx students to create, negotiate, and sustain social networks can positively influence their college experience and persistence (Llamas & RamosSánchez, 2013; Saunders & Serna, 2004).

Campus Climate and Community Affiliations Hurtado’s (1992) longitudinal study on campus racial climate found that campus racial conflict is prevalent across U.S. higher education, although White students almost always perceived less racial conflict than students of Color. Race relations on campus affect Latinxs in many of the ways they affect members of other ethnic minority groups. In the classroom, students experience disregard from faculty and other students and seldom see Latinx scholars or researchers teaching their courses or represented in course material (Pappamihiel & Moreno, 2011). Since these students often come to college with varying levels of preparation because of uneven precollege educational experiences, any disconnect they experience in the academic environment at college is exacerbated. In the cocurricular environment, Latinx students may experience the same chilly climate they experience in the classroom. Latinx students who perceive a hostile climate for diversity on campus also express more difficulty in building a sense of belonging to the college (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Hurtado & Ponjuán, 2005). Ethnic student organizations and Chicano or Latino studies programs provide opportunities for Latinx students to build community with other students, faculty, and staff. Belonging to these organizations helps students maintain their cultural identity or become more familiar with a cultural identity that may have been deemphasized prior to college (Garcia & Okhidoi, 2015; Ortiz & Santos, 2009). However, membership in these communities often plays a contradictory role in students’ acclimation to college. Hurtado and Carter (1997) found that involvement in student organizations led to a sense of belonging for Latinx students but simultaneously was associated with a greater awareness of racial and ethnic tensions on campus. Conversely, Latinxs who did not belong to these clubs experienced a lower sense of belonging despite reporting lower levels of racial and ethnic tension on campus. However, other important outcomes are associated with these clubs and organizations. The opportunity for Latinxs to affiliate with each other has been shown to have positive outcomes, such as commitment to the community and altruistic career choices. Further, this affiliation, which some may consider to be a form of self-segregation, is often considered to be an act of self-preservation in predominantly White institutions (Villalpando, 2003). Garcia and Okhidoi (2015) describe the importance of culturally relevant

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 99

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

100

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

curriculum and programs like Chicano/a Studies departments for students, especially those that attend HSIs.

Resources for Staying Informed This section provides an overview of organizations dedicated to advance and promote Latinx student success. These organizations are great resources for staying informed on news and data related to Latinx student education.

Excelencia in Education (www.edexcelencia.org) This national, independent, not-for profit organization is dedicated to “accelerat[ing] Latino/a student success in higher education by providing data-driven analysis of the educational status of Latino/as, and by promoting education policies and institutional practices that support their academic achievement.” Based in Washington, DC, the organization was cofounded in 2004 by Sarita Brown and Deborah Santiago, and in little more than a decade has become a source of information and a clearinghouse for information and data on Latinx students and Hispanic-serving institutions.

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) (www.hacu.net) HACU’s mission is to champion Hispanic success in higher education. The association was established in 1986 and currently represents more than 400 colleges and universities. HACU is the only national educational association that represents HSIs and is dedicated to promoting the development of member colleges and universities. HACU is based out of Washington, DC, and has field offices around the country. The association convenes an annual conference that provides a unique forum for the dissemination of information and ideas related to the most promising practices related to Latino education.

American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education (AAHHE) (www.aahhe.org) AAHHE is a national educational nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of higher education. AAHHE is a cross-disciplinary higher education organization focused on the need to develop Latinx faculty and senior administrators as well as serving as a leading research and advocacy group for Hispanic higher education issues. AAHHE administers

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 100

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

101

two highly successful programs: the Graduate Student Fellows and the Faculty Fellows Program. These fellowships provide unique opportunities for Latinx graduate students and faculty to build community, mentorship, and socialization in the academy. AAHHE also commissions scholarly papers focused on contemporary issues related to Latinx education and produces Perspectivas, an annual higher education policy report in partnership with the Educational Testing Service and the Center for Policy Research and Policy in Education at the University of Texas–San Antonio.

White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics (WHIEEH) (www.ed.gov/edblogs/hispanic-initiative/) Since 1990, one of the federal responses to address Latinx educational opportunity and concerns was creating the WHIEEH. The WHIEEH is a federal policy initiative that provides advice and guidance to the Secretary of Education on education issues related to Latinxs and is the only federal initiative exclusively dedicated to the Latinx community. The WHIEEH sets a national stage and platform to engage the challenges and opportunities related to the educational concerns of Latinxs.

Recommendations, Implications, and Future Trends Latinx student advocates also must work to change structures, policies, and programs in the university that impede the success of Latinxs. Student affairs professionals, researchers, and academic administrators, as well as graduate students studying to enter the student affairs field, should become familiar with the topics summarized here.

Integrated Outreach The literature explicitly shows how critical it is to design outreach programs that connect four-year colleges and universities with K–12 school systems and community colleges. New programs indicate that college awareness programs are most successful when they are directed at students in middle school. Because many Latinx students come from families with little experience in higher education, this introduction to college awareness must also include the nuclear and extended family. Families and parents actively encourage college attendance, but often lack specific information about required high school coursework, the admissions process, and financial aid. The current legislative and legal environment has reinforced messages about opportunities for Latinxs. Changing and complicated immigration laws make it

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 101

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

102

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

difficult for parents and students to know how and when they should reveal documentation status. Outreach to community colleges and their students is also vital. Because these institutions have open admission policies that do not require standardized tests or minimum grade point averages, have little or no application fees, and are often more conveniently located than fouryear institutions, they are ideally suited to serve as the intake institutions for many Latinxs. However, these features of convenience can allow students to put their education behind the other roles they play, which makes progress to attaining the degree slow and tenuous. Four-year colleges and universities either need to work harder at making themselves points of entry for the majority of Latinx students or work more closely with community colleges to transfer students who intend to complete a baccalaureate degree. The four-year institution is responsible for helping to design programs that actively assist students and community college advisers in navigating articulation agreements and course eligibility; the institution is also responsible for providing support once transfer students arrive on their campuses.

Success in Remediation and Gateway Courses Due to poor high school preparation for college, many students find that they need to take one or more remedial courses before they begin collegelevel work in math and English. One strategy is to help students understand the importance of placement examinations. Early-assessment programs are designed to prepare high school students for these exams and administer them while they are still in high school rather than at orientation. Some campuses have designed early-start programs so that students can take remedial coursework the summer before matriculation. This serves as a bridge program and allows learning community features and supplemental instruction to be built in to the remedial coursework. Students are not only likely to pass these courses but are also often better prepared for gateway courses. These efforts are particularly critical for students who wish to pursue STEM majors. Such programs allow student affairs and academic affairs specialists to partner to enrich the student experience, necessitating special training for all staff and instructors. Teachers of remedial courses should be the best instructors, rather than part-time instructors with the least experience. Advising staff needs to understand how to work with students in a way that empowers them to succeed to counter the negative stigma of remediation. For an example of a successful effort, refer to the STEM Pathways Program at Norco College, which is part of the Riverside Community College District (www.norcocollege.edu/STEM).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 102

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

103

Career Preparation Latinxs tend to take a highly pragmatic view of their career preparation and higher education’s role in that preparation. Students and families expect that college will prepare them for a job and career that offer opportunities for income and advancement beyond what would be possible without a college education. One study reported that Latinxs are more likely than any other ethnic group to major in business (Leppel, 2001). This practical view of the college experience has several implications. First, it inhibits students from exploring alternative career and academic opportunities in college. Students who choose careers and majors that are perceived to be less tied to employment after graduation face criticism and resistance from families that expect a college graduate to be well employed. Career and counseling centers need to be prepared to assist students who experience this difficulty. A second implication of the tendency to view a college education pragmatically is the realization that we may not be able to attract Latinx students to careers in higher education, which has a number of significant effects. Latinx faculty represent only about 4.3% of the national full-time faculty (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2014). Students who may consider doctorallevel work are often encouraged by family expectations to enter the workforce after completing the undergraduate degree. This problem perpetuates the lack of Latinx role models in higher education. Programs like the Doctoral Scholars Program of the Southern Regional Education Board (www.sreb .org/page/1074/doctoral_scholars.html) or the California State University Doctoral Incentive Fellowship Program (www.calstate.edu/HR/CDIP) seek to increase the numbers of underrepresented minorities in the nation’s professoriate and are slowly making a change in the number of Latinxs who teach in U.S. colleges and universities. Change could be accelerated by being more candid with undergraduates about faculty work, academic salaries, and consulting opportunities, so that they understand that a life in academia can also have pragmatic benefits.

Seamless Partnerships in Student Services Serving Latinx students requires that campus units work across divisional and reporting lines to educate Latinxs from a holistic perspective. Personnel who work in academic support need to be updated constantly about changes in financial aid policies and procedures so that continuing students get current information before their registration status is threatened. Navigating financial aid policies is a task for not only the high school senior or community college transfer but also student services personnel. Issues that may complicate financial aid eligibility include confusion over dependency status, continued

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 103

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

104

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

reporting of parental income and tax information, satisfactory course load if remedial courses are taken, and minimum grade point average standards. Student support services also need to be in regular communication about the progress of Latinx students. On larger campuses, this type of communication is often a significant barrier because of discrete organizational structure reporting lines, overlap of job responsibilities, and the sheer number of students served. Because early support programs, such as summer bridge programs and other precollege programs, are often housed in targeted support service units, other student service units need to be prepared to work closely with students and these early-start programs so that students receive the help they need throughout their matriculation. This also applies to communication among faculty, academic advising staff, and student services professionals. Classroom and academic issues are often viewed in isolation from other student issues, which leads to a poor diagnosis of student problems and incomplete plans to address them. Early-alert programs include communication channels between classroom faculty for first- and second-year students and student support personnel so that intervention takes place before education problems become insurmountable.

Chicano/a Studies Courses and Student Organizations as an Intervention Strategy Nuñez (2011), Ortiz and Santos (2009), and Case and Hernandez (2013) all showed the important role that ethnic studies courses play in the success of Latinx college students. As noted earlier in the chapter, there are multiple benefits to this participation, as there are benefits for non-Latinx students taking these courses, particularly increased understanding of Latinx issues. Chicano/a student organizations fulfill a similar purpose. Students develop leadership skills that may help them resist and counter racism or discrimination in the institution and elsewhere. Clubs and organizations provide a peer group that helps students feel as if they belong in the university, particularly in predominantly White universities, as the groups counter feelings of isolation. Extracurricular activities are also important for Hispanic-serving institutions since many of these are in urban areas with student populations that largely reside with their families, not in campus residence halls. Clubs that are affiliated with a major or career also enable Latinx students to develop important networks and gain preprofessional experiences that first-generation college students often lack.

Policy-Oriented Research The higher education research community also has a responsibility in the success of Latinx students. It is imperative that researchers, policymakers,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 104

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

105

and educators understand and create the conditions to promote Latinx student success. A solid foundation of research (Crisp & Nora, 2010; Crisp & Nuñez, 2014; Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Nuñez, Hoover, Pickett, StuartCarruthers, & Vasquez, 2013; Oseguera, Locks, & Vega, 2009; Solórzano, Acevedo-Gil, & Santos, 2013) demonstrates the persistence of Latino/Latina students and identifies factors that are key to persistence. Ensuring that this research is disseminated among faculty and student services practitioners through professional development programs, professional association presentations, and other written media is critical. Still, one key area for further development is exploring the role HSIs play in serving Latinx students. An increasing body of scholarship is exploring the meaning and growth of HSIs and its implications for higher education (see Nuñez, Hurtado, & Calderón Galdeano, 2015; Nuñez et al., 2013). How are parents, families, and communities incorporated in the college process? What kinds of programs have been most effective in helping students get to, persist, and graduate from college? We have a special opportunity to do the right thing at the right time for Latinx students. The numbers of Latinxs in higher education will increase faster than our ability to design programs, conduct the needed research, or transform policies and institutions. Understanding their unique precollegiate experiences is an important way to begin to assist these students once they arrive on campus. Latinxs’ history as a people and as individuals in a complex sociocultural context challenges many basic assumptions in higher education. Practitioners, researchers, and students should examine policies and practices to see how our hidden assumptions and misunderstandings of Latinx students may affect their academic progress and satisfaction with college. We might incorrectly assume that all our students, having made it to college, have similar K–12 experiences, similar family and community models, and equal beliefs that all opportunities are open to them. For Latinx students to believe that they have infinite possibilities for the future, our role is to create the conditions necessary to ensure they have infinite possibilities and, more important, to ensure equitable outcomes. It is hard work for a staff or faculty member to do this on a regular basis, but the benefits are well worth the investment.

Discussion Questions 1. Discuss the similarities and differences among the variety of nationalities and cultures that compose the panethnic group. How will you as a student affairs professional endeavor to attend to members’ collective and specific needs?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 105

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

106

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

2. Identify the major impacts resulting from LatCrit. How can student affairs practitioners use these impacts to provide best practices with Latinx students? 3. How can student affairs practitioners use the strong connections with family of most Latinx students to enhance their positive experiences while enrolled in college and to improve the likelihood of their retention and completion? 4. Reflect on and discuss the ways your practices are culturally responsive to Latinx students and their families. How can the resources and scholarship provided in this chapter support and develop your cultural competence to work with Latinx students?

Note 1. Latinx is a gender-inclusive term recognizing that the descriptors Latino or Latina assume a gender binary not reflective of all members of the ethnic group.

References Aguilar, M. A. (1996). Promoting the educational achievement of Mexican American young women. Social Work Education, 18, 145–156. Barnhardt, C., Ramos, M., & Reyes, K. (2013, June 12). Equity and inclusion in practice: Administrative responsibility for fostering undocumented students’ learning. About Campus, 18, 20–26. doi:10.1002/abc.21112 Barr, R. (2002). Top 10 percent policy: Higher education diversity after Hopwood (pp. 77–79). Austin: Texas House of Representatives, House Research Organization. Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. C. (2009). Dimensions of the transfer choice gap: Experiences of Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 632–659. Case, K. F., & Hernandez, R. (2013). “But still, I’m Latino and I’m proud”: Ethnic identity exploration in the context of a collegiate cohort program. Christian Higher Education, 1(12), 74–92. Ceja, M. (2004). Chicana college aspirations and the role of parents: Developing educational resiliency. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 338–362. Cerezo, A., & Chang, T. (2013). Latina/o achievement at predominantly White universities: The importance of culture and ethnic community. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(1), 72–85. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2014). Almanac of higher education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/section/Almanac-of-Higher-Education/801/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 106

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

107

College Board. (2011). The college completion guide: State policy guide (Latino ed.). Retrieved from http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/advocacy/cca/ latino/policy_guide_latino_2011.pdf Complete College America. (2012). Four-year myth: Make college more affordable; restore the promise of graduating on time. Retrieved from http://completecollege .org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/4-Year-Myth.pdf Crisp, G., & Nora, A. (2010). Hispanic student success: Factors influencing the persistence and transfer decisions of Latino community college students enrolled in developmental education. Research in Higher Education, 51(2), 175–194. Crisp, G., & Nuñez, A. (2014). Understanding the racial transfer gap: Modeling underrepresented minority and nonminority students’ pathways from two- to four-year institutions. Review of Higher Education, 37(3), 291–320. Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Learning and living pedagogies of the home: The mestiza consciousness of Chicana students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 623–639. Delgado Bernal, D., Burciaga, R., & Flores-Carmona, J. (2012). Chicana/Latina testimonios: Mapping the methodological, pedagogical and political. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(3), 363–372. Dowd, A. C., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009). Benchmarking the success of Latino and Latina students in STEM to achieve national graduation goals. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Ellis, L. M., & Chen, E. C. (2013). Negotiating identity development among undocumented immigrant students: A grounded theory study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 251–264. Ennis, S. R., Ríos-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010. The United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www .census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf Espino, M. M. (2012). Seeking the “truth” in the stories we tell: The role of critical race epistemology in higher education research. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 31–67. Excelencia in Education. (2015). Growing what works database. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/growing-what-works Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2013, April 13). An uneven recovery, 2009–2011: A rise in wealth for the wealthy; declines for the lower 93%. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/04/wealth_recovery_final.pdf Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed school policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garcia, E. E., Jorgensen, R. E., & Ormsby, C. (1999). How can public universities still admit a diverse freshmen class? The case of Latinos, the SAT, and the University of California. Journal of College Admission, 164, 5–11. Garcia, G. A., & Okhidoi, O. (2015, August). Culturally relevant practices that serve students at Hispanic-serving institutions. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 345–357. doi:10.1007/s10755-015-9318-7

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 107

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

108

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Gilbert, A. (2014). Why undocumented students still matter. Journal of College Admission, 223, 51. Gildersleeve, R. E., & Hernández, S. (Forthcoming). Undocumented students in higher education: Supporting pathways for success. New York, NY: Routledge. Hagedorn, L. S., & Lester, J. (2006). Hispanic community college students and the transfer game: Strikes, misses, and grand slam experiences. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 827–853. Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77, 1282–1297. Harris, A., & Tienda, M. (2012). Hispanics in higher education and the Texas top 10% law. Race and Social Problems, 4(1), 57–67. Hassinger, M., & Plourde, L. E. (2005). Beating the odds: How bilingual Hispanic youth work through adversity to become high-achieving students. Education, 126, 316–327. Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 539–569. Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324–345. Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college: Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education, 37, 135–157. Hurtado, S., & Ponjuán, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251. Hurtado-Ortiz, M. T., & Gauvain, M. (2007). Postsecondary education among Mexican youth: Contributions of parents, siblings, acculturation, and generational status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 181–191. Krogstad, J. M. (2014, September 19). Hispanics only group to see its poverty rate decline and incomes rise. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewre search.org/fact-tank/2014/09/19/hispanics-only-group-to-see-its-poverty-ratedecline-and-incomes-rise/ Krogstad, J. M., Stepler, R., & Hugo Lopez, M. (2015). English proficiency on the rise among Latinos: U.S. born driving language changes. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2015/05/2015-05-12_hispanics-englishproficiency_FINAL.pdf Leppel, K. (2001). The impact of major on college persistence among freshmen. Higher Education, 41, 327–342. Llamas, J., & Ramos-Sánchez, L. (2013). Role of peer support on intragroup marginalization for Latino undergraduates. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(3), 158–168. Lopez, E. M. (1995). Challenges and resources of Mexican American students within the family, peer group, and university: Age and gender patterns. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 499–508. McCallister, L., Illich, P., & Evans, J. (2010). Perceptions about higher education among parents of Hispanic students in middle school: Implications for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 108

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

109

community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(10), 784–796. Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and closing racial gaps in California’s community colleges. Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy, California State University–Sacramento. Retrieved from http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513823.pdf Morales, A., & Hanson, W. E. (2005). Language brokering: An integrative review of the literature. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 471–503. Muñoz, S. M., & Maldonado, M. M. (2012). Counterstories of college persistence by undocumented Mexicana students: Navigating race, class, gender, and legal status. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 293–315. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_302.60.asp Nuñez, A. (2011). Counter-spaces and connections in college transitions: Firstgeneration Latino students’ perspectives on Chicano studies. Journal of College Student Development, 52(6), 639–655. Nuñez, A. M., & Elizondo, D. (2013, Spring). Closing the Latino/a transfer gap: Creating pathways to the baccalaureate. Perspectivas: Issues in Policy and Practice, 2. American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education. Nuñez, A. M., Hoover, R. E., Pickett, A. K., Stuart-Carruthers, C., & Vazquez, M. (2013). Latinos in higher education: Creating conditions for student success. ASHE Higher Education Report, 39, 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nuñez, A. M., Hurtado, S., & Calderón Galdeano, E. (Eds.). (2015). Hispanicserving institutions: Advancing research and transformative practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Ong, A. D., Phinney, J. S., & Dennis, J. (2006). Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective influence of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 961–979. Ortiz, A. M., & Santos, S. J. (2009). Ethnicity in college: Advancing theory and improving diversity practices on campus. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Oseguera, L., Locks, A. M., & Vega, I. I. (2009). Increasing Latina/o students baccalaureate attainment: A focus on retention. Journal of Hispanics in Higher Education, 8(1), 23–53. Pappamihiel, E., & Moreno, M. (2011). Retaining Latino students: Culturally responsive instruction in colleges and universities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(4), 331–344. Perez, W. (2009). We ARE Americans: Undocumented students pursuing the American dream. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Perez, W. (2011). Americans by heart: Undocumented Latino students and the promise of higher education: New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Perez, W., & Cortes, R. (2011). Undocumented Latino college students: Their socioemotional and academic experiences. Dallas, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Perna, L., Li, C., Walsh, E., & Raible, S. (2010). The status of equity for Hispanics in public higher education in Florida and Texas. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(2), 145–166.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 109

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

110

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Phinney, J. (1995). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and integration. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic psychology: Critical issues in theory and research (pp. 57– 70). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Portes, A., & Bach, R. L. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Stepick, A. (1993). City on the edge: The transformation of Miami. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ramirez, M., III, Castaneda, A., & Herold, P. L. (1974). The relationship of acculturation to cognitive style among Mexican Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 424–433. Rivas, M. A., Pérez, J., Álvarez, C. R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2007). An examination of Latina/o transfer students in California’s postsecondary institutions (Latino Policy and Issues Brief No. 16). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Chicano Studies Research Center. Sáenz, V. B., & Ponjuán, L. (2011). Men of Color: Ensuring the academic success of Latino males in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Sáenz, V. B., & Ponjuán, L. (2012). Latino males: Improving college access and degree completion—a new national imperative. American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education, 1, 1–12. Sánchez, B., Reyes, O., & Singh, J. (2006). Makin’ it in college: The value of significant individuals in the lives of Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Hispanics in Higher Education, 5, 48–67. Santiago, D. A., Calderón Galdeano, E., & Taylor, M. (2015). The condition of Latinos in education: 2015 fact-book. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Santiago-Rivera, A. L., Arredondo, P., & Gallardo-Cooper, M. (2002). Counseling Latinos and la familia: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Saunders, M., & Serna, I. (2004). Making college happen: The college experiences of first-generation Latino students. Journal of Hispanics in Higher Education, 3, 146–163. Solberg, V. S., Valdez, J., & Villarreal, P. (1994). Social support, stress, and Hispanic college adjustment: Test of a diathesis-stress model. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 230–239. Solberg, V. S., & Villarreal, P. (1997). Examination of self-efficacy, social support, and stress as predictors of psychological and physical distress among Hispanic college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 182–201. Solòrzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5–19. Solórzano, D., Acevedo-Gil, N., & Santos, R. (2013). Latina/o community college students: Understanding the barriers of developmental education. All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity (UC/ACCORD). Retrieved from http:// pathways.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/DevEdPolicyBrief.pdf Solòrzano, D., & Pérez Huber, L. (2012). Microaggressions, racial. (pp. 1489– 1492). In J. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 110

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS

111

Spring, J. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Swail, S. W., Redd, K. E., & Perna, L. W. (2003). Retaining minority students in higher education: A framework for success. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 30, 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sy, S. R. (2006). Family and work influences on the transition to college among Latina adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 368–386. Taylor, P., Lopez, M. H., Martínez, J., & Velasco, G. (2012). When labels don’t fit: Hispanics and their views of identity. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http:// www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/when-labels-dont-fit-hispanics-and-theirviews-of-identity/ Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student retention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Torres, R. M., & Wicks-Asbun, M. (2013, January 8). Undocumented students’ narratives of liminal citizenship: High aspirations, exclusion and “in-between” identities. Professional Geographer, 66(2), 195–204. doi:10.1080/00330124.201 2.735936 Torres, V. (2003). Influences on ethnic identity development of Latino college students in the first two years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 532–547. U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Educational attainment. Retrieved from https://www .census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2014/tables.html Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and Latina/o critical theory analysis of a study of Chicana/o college students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 619–646. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. Zarate, M. E., & Pachon, H. P. (2006). Perceptions of college financial aid among California Latino youth. Retrieved from www.trpi.org/PDFs/Financial_Aid_Survey final6302006.pdf

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 111

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

6 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R STUDENTS Julie J. Park and OiYan A. Poon

A

fourth-generation Chinese American student attending community college with little awareness of his ethnic identity. A Lao American student whose parents immigrated as refugees beginning her college journey at a university where few others look like her. A student whose mother is Japanese and father is African American, going back to school after having served in the military for several years. An undocumented Korean American student enduring a two-hour commute on public transportation to campus because of his ineligibility for a driver’s license. In some respects, these students will likely have radically different college experiences, and each will be shaped by a myriad of influential social forces. However, as students who all fall under the category of “Asian American,” they will also likely be affected by stereotypes and expectations due to the continuing influence of race and racialization. The experiences of Pacific Islander students are no less complex, yet this community often goes unrecognized in the discourse because it is commonly lumped in with Asian Americans under the broader term Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) due to the political realities of racial and ethnic categorization. In this chapter, we attempt to discuss key issues related to Asian Americans as well as Pacific Islander students in higher education, at times discussing them as a broad group (AAPI) and at other times discussing them separately. This chapter provides an overview of key themes and trends affecting AAPI students on university campuses, although it is by no means exhaustive. We discuss demographics and population trends, college access, key challenges encountered, ethnic identity development, and student involvement/activism. 112

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 112

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

113

Demography and Population Trends It is necessary to have an understanding of some basic demographic information about AAPI students when considering this diverse and rapidly growing cohort. First, the terms AAPI, Asian Pacific American, and Asian Pacific Islander represent a highly politicized and imperfect panethnicity that in turn includes a multitude of ethnic groups, bringing benefits and detriments related to community self-determination in educational advocacy. Second, significant educational disparities exist between Pacific Islanders and Asian Americans as well as between ethnic subgroups within these two distinct racial categories. Differences are also found in educational experiences and perspectives by economic status, immigration status, gender identities, cultural identities, and many other conditions and contexts among AAPIs. This section highlights the high level of ethnic diversity among AAPIs and the rapid rate of population growth nationally and among the U.S. undergraduate population. Although not within the scope of this text, enrollments of international students (i.e., granted a student visa by the U.S. Department of State) from Asian countries in U.S. higher education are also increasing, and these students experience unique challenges, too. We also shed some light on ethnic disparities between AAPIs in educational attainment.

Panethnicities: Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, AAPI, APA, API According to Espiritu (1992), “Panethnic groups in the United States are products of political and social processes, rather than of cultural bonds” (p. 13). Panethnic terms like Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Asian American and Pacific Islander are social constructs often simultaneously imposed by broader systems of power and leveraged by community-based groups “as a means of claiming resources inside and outside of the community” (Espiritu, 1992, p. 14). Accordingly, Asian Americans include a multitude of distinct ethnic groups with roots in South Asia (i.e., the Indian subcontinent), Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the Philippines, while Pacific Islanders include populations from Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. Although recognized as different and distinct groups in Asia and the Pacific Islands, these populations have been racialized under the terms Asian American and Pacific Islander in the United States. However, the populations under the AAPI umbrella have many different experiences. Certain ethnic groups have been deeply shaped by their experiences as primarily refugee populations (e.g., Cambodian, Lao,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 113

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

114

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Vietnamese, Hmong) who experienced tremendous hardship in leaving war-torn lands. Other populations have tremendous within-group diversity, both socioeconomically and as related to the historical dimensions that influenced immigration. Chinese Americans, for instance, encompass everyone from recent immigrants coming through highly skilled work visas to the so-called paper sons who came in the early twentieth century using forged or duplicated documents to circumvent racist bans on immigration from Asia between 1882 and 1965 (Hing, 1994). Thus, generational status is another dimension of diversity within the AAPI population. The diversity of the community also means that AAPIs have tremendously different experiences within the education system (Pak, Maramba, & Hernandez, 2014) Panethnicity has paradoxically produced political benefits as well as challenges for AAPIs. Separately in the United States, the relatively small populations of discrete AAPI subgroups (e.g., Vietnamese American or Tongan American) garner limited political power to advocate for community interests. However, these groups collectively form a much larger panethnic population and one of the fastest growing racial groups in the United States, allowing for more power in numbers necessary for effective political advocacy (Espiritu, 1992). The U.S. Census Bureau recognizes 24 response categories under the category of “Asian” and another 12 categories under “Pacific Islander.” Still, disparities and differences are often overlooked between various ethnic groups within the panethnic categories. Severe educational disparities experienced by many AAPIs are often hidden because educational statistics are typically reported for AAPI groups as an aggregate group (Buenavista, Jayakumar, & Misa-Escalante, 2009; CARE, 2008; Chang, Park, Lin, Poon, & Nakanishi, 2007; Kauanui, 2008; Museus & Chang, 2009; Museus & Truong, 2009; Nadal, Pituc, Johnston, & Esparrago, 2010; Suzuki, 2002; Teranishi, 2010). For example, although Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander groups exhibit some of the lowest levels of college attainment, Indian Americans and Taiwanese Americans obtain college degrees at some of the highest rates in the United States (CARE, 2008). Moreover, even though Pacific Islanders are often grouped with Asian Americans in education, it is important to respect the interests of Pacific Islanders to be recognized as separate from the interests of Asian Americans (Benham, 2006; Kauanui, 2008; Perez, 2002; Poon et al., 2016). According to Perez (2002), the “homogenisation and racialisation [of Pacific Islanders with Asian Americans] is detrimental to indigenous self-determination—a central issue among Pacific Islanders” (p. 469). Unlike Pacific Islanders, most Asian Americans come from histories and experiences of either voluntary

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 114

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

115

or involuntary immigration (e.g., war refugees; Hing, 1994). Given these important distinctions between Pacific Islanders and Asian Americans, intentional use of panethnic terms is important.

Population Growth and Diversity The U.S. Census Bureau (2014) predicted that Asian Americans will experience a growth rate of 81.1% between 2015 and 2060, representing the fastest growing racial group in the nation. Pacific Islanders are predicted to experience the third highest population growth rate between 2015 and 2060. Table 6.1 presents estimates of the U.S. population by race and ethnicity between 2015 and 2060. By 2060, it is estimated that 11.5% of the U.S. population will identify as Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. Table 6.2 presents data from the U.S. Census Bureau on ethnic diversity among AAPIs. These statistics also highlight the numerical utility of panethnic identities and coalitions for organizing and advocacy in the context of U.S. representational politics (Espiritu, 1992). Only five ethnic Asian groups exceed one million in population, while only two Pacific Islander groups surpass 100,000. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), undergraduate enrollment across all sectors in the United States has grown 91.8% between 1976 and 2011. Figure 6.1 illustrates the increasing college enrollments nationally. Although White students increased their undergraduate enrollment numbers by 37.1% between 1976 and 2011, enrollments of students of Color have grown more rapidly in this time frame. Latinxs and AAPIs have experienced the fastest rates of enrollment growth, with Latinxs increasing by over 660% and AAPIs increasing by over 540%. Although Asian Americans have often been perceived as a population that is overrepresented in U.S. higher education, along with Pacific Islanders they represent about 6% of the undergraduate enrollment, on par with general population statistics. However, important racial differences remain in where students enroll. Figure 6.2 summarizes enrollment patterns by institutional type and race. Although Asian Americans are often perceived to be attending elite, private, four-year colleges (CARE, 2008), over 40% of Asian Americans attend two-year institutions, and over 41% attend public four-year institutions, not the elite private institutions they are stereotyped as attending. More than half of all Pacific Islander students enroll at two-year institutions. These data summaries emphasize the need to recognize the high level of diversity among AAPI populations. Like other students, AAPIs bring diverse perspectives, cultural richness, and a wide range of educational needs to college campuses.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 115

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 116

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

56,754

198,354

42,697

4,257

19,513

1,132

Latino

Non-Hispanic White*

African American†

American Indian & Alaska Native†

Asian†

Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander†

77,463

359,402

2030 21.6%

%/ total 91,626

380,219

2040 398,328

2050

%/ total 416,795

2060

%/ total

24.1% 105,550 26.5% 119,044 28.6%

%/ total

0.4%

6.1%

1.3%

13.3%

1,466

27,960

4,810

50,174

0.4%

7.8%

1.3%

14.0%

1,691

33,872

5,087

55,054

0.4%

8.9%

1.3%

14.5%

1,920

39,835

5,303

60,124

0.5%

10.0%

1.3%

15.1%

2,155

45,822

5,507

65,773

0.5%

11.0%

1.3%

15.8%

61.7% 199,403 55.5% 195,197 51.3% 188,419 47.3% 181,930 43.6%

17.7%

%/ total

* = one race † = including individuals identifying as more than one race Note. From U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2014) (Table NP 2014-T10)

321,369

2015

Total Population

Year

TABLE 6.1

Estimated U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity (in Thousands), 2015–2060

90.4%

134.8%

29.4%

54.0%

−8.3%

109.8%

29.7%

2015–2060 change (%)

117

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

TABLE 6.2

AAPI Population by Ethnicity, 2009–2013 Asian Americans

15,231,962 (n)

Percentage

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders

526,347 (n) Percentage

Chinese (not Taiwanese)

3,429,655

22.5

Native Hawaiian (Polynesian)

168,421

32.0

Asian Indian

2,960,584

19.4

Samoan (Polynesian)

107,812

20.5

70,483

13.4

Filipino

2,604,783

17.1

Guamanian/Chamorro (Micronesian)

Vietnamese

1,649,951

10.8

Other Micronesian

58,796

11.2

Korean

1,438,725

9.4

Tongan (Polynesian)

45,497

8.6

Japanese

785,003

5.2

Other Pacific Islander

30,361

5.8

Other Asian

678,687

4.5

Fijian (Melanesian)

29,437

5.6

Pakistani

375,994

2.5

Other Polynesian

15,108

2.9

Cambodian

254,640

1.7

Other Melanesian

432

0.1

Hmong

250,653

1.6

Laotian

205,422

1.3

Thai

179,925

1.2

Taiwanese

149,119

1.0

Bangladeshi

136,489

0.9

Indonesian

70,277

0.5

Sri Lankan

43,880

0.3

Malaysian

18,175

0.1

Note. From U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009–2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Table B02006

College Access A holistic understanding of college access for diverse AAPI populations is often distorted by aggregate data suggesting high levels of educational attainment among AAPIs along with stereotypes of an “Asian invasion” in U.S. higher education, particularly at highly selective colleges and universities (CARE, 2008; Chang et al., 2007; Lee, 2006; Poon, 2011b; Teranishi, 2010). As Figure 6.3 illustrates, Pacific Islander educational attainment is relatively low compared to Asian Americans as an aggregate and nonHispanic Whites in the United States, similar to other Indigenous populations (i.e., American Indians and Alaska Natives), African Americans, and Latinos/Latinas.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 117

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

118

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Figure 6.1. U.S. undergraduate enrollment by race (any sector), 1976–2011. Undergraduate enrollment in thousands

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

1976

1980

1990

2000

2011

American Indian/Alaska Native

69.7

77.9

95.5

138.5

169.9

AAPI

169.3

248.7

500.5

845.5

1,085.1

Latino

352.9

433.1

724.6

1,351.0

2,685.1

African American

943.4

1,018.8

1,147.2

1,548.9

2,698.9

7,740.5

8,480.7

9,272.6

8,983.5

10,611.6

White

Note. From U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Table 263.

Figure 6.2. Fall 2011 undergraduate enrollment by institutional type and race. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

ite

an

Wh

eric

m nA

ica

Afr

ino

Lat

an

eric

m nA

a

Asi

c cifi

Pa

r

nde

Isla

n/A

dia

In can

ka las

tive

Na

r

2o

re mo

Public 4-year

Private, nonprofit 4-year

n

es

nr No

Public 2-year

alie

s

ate

adu

gr der

n

ll U

era

Ov

eri

Am

es

rac

Private, nonprofit 2-year

Note. From U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Table 268.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 118

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

119

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

Figure 6.3. Educational attainment by race (population at least 25 years old). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S.

Latino

Advanced degree

Non-Hispanic White

African American

American Indian/AK Native

Some college

BA/BS

Asian American

Native Hawaiian & Other P.I.

Less than high school

HS diploma

Note. From American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample 2011–2013 dataset.

Figure 6.4. Asian American educational attainment by selected ethnicity (population at least 25 years old).

Advanced degree

BA/BS

Some college

HS diploma

n ia As

es e

O

th

er

ai

i

et n

am

Th

st an

Vi

Ja

n

tia

o La

ki

e

es

n pa

Pa

lip in o Hm on g

Fi

ic er

Ko

i ) an dian esh dian se d o ne In la b a n Am sia ang am aiw C T B A an i g in As d u cl (in se ne hi C

.

.S

U

re an

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Less than high school

Note. From American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample 2011–2013 dataset.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 119

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

120

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

However, when educational attainment among Asian Americans is examined more closely, clear inequalities are found between Asian American ethnic groups, as depicted in Figure 6.4. This section focuses on issues of college access for AAPIs that can lead to ethnic inequalities in college access and attainment. First, we discuss the relationship between Asian Americans and affirmative action. Then we summarize research on Asian American college choice experiences. Unfortunately, very limited research is focused on Pacific Islanders in this area, beyond acknowledging the low numbers of Pacific Islanders obtaining college entry and degree completion.

Affirmative Action and Asian Americans Historically, U.S. higher education was a privilege saved for those who were White, Protestant, wealthy, and male (Thelin, 2011). The twentiethcentury civil rights movement not only led to more inclusive domestic policies, including those related to higher education opportunity, but also resulted in the landmark Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. The liberalization of U.S. immigration ended a long history of anti-Asian immigration policies and allowed for a dramatic increase in the Asian American population (Hing, 1994). In higher education, admission and enrollment of Asian American students had increased by almost 50%, from just under 170,000 in 1976 to nearly 250,000 in 1980 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012, Table 263). This increase is attributable to general Asian American population growth and policies like the Higher Education Act and affirmative action, which expanded college entry opportunities to diverse, historically underrepresented minority populations (Lee, 2006). However, starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some selective colleges and universities began excluding Asian Americans as a target population in affirmative action policies and practices, as their aggregate “overrepresentation” on campuses led to a “deminoritization” of Asian Americans (Lee, 2006, p. 1). Some have argued that decisions to exclude Asian Americans are based on a lack of understanding of educational disparities among this population (CARE, 2008; Museus & Truong, 2009). As Figures 6.3 and 6.4 point out, limited access to college education found among Pacific Islanders and Southeast Asian Americans could warrant their inclusion in these policies. Indeed some institutions, including public universities in Wisconsin and Hawaii, continue to target AAPIs in their diversity and affirmative action plans in admissions. Debates over whether race-conscious affirmative action policies discriminate against Asian Americans in selective college admissions have persisted

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 120

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

121

since the 1980s (Nakanishi, 1989; Poon, 2014; Takagi, 1992). At that time, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) completed an extensive investigation into allegations that Harvard and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) were discriminating against Asian American applicants in favor of Whites (Takagi, 1992). While the OCR found evidence that UCLA was in fact practicing what Kang (1996) calls “negative action,” which seeks to suppress a minority group’s selection in favor of Whites, it did not find Harvard guilty of similar charges (Takagi, 1992). The OCR attributed alleged admission discrepancies between Asian American and White applicants at Harvard to the higher propensity of Whites to identify as children of alumni (i.e., legacies) and student athletes, two predominantly White applicant categories that receive significant advantages in Harvard’s admission process (Nakanishi, 1989; Takagi, 1992). To expose anti-Asian discrimination in selective college admissions, Asian American community leaders filed federal complaints with the OCR in the 1980s. These community leaders did not claim that affirmative action was to blame for the discriminatory practices; nonetheless, White affirmative action opponents misappropriated Asian American concerns for anti–affirmative action campaigns (Takagi, 1992). In 2014, questions about whether affirmative action harmed Asian Americans in selective college admissions reappeared in several legal actions: • California’s Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 5 controversy (Huang, 2014) • Filing of federal legal complaints alleging anti-Asian and anti-White discrimination by affirmative action policies at Harvard • Filing of federal legal complaints alleging anti-Asian and anti-White discrimination against the University of North Carolina (UNC) on behalf of Edward Blum’s group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA; Mulhere, 2014) In the controversy over SCA 5, during the 2013–2014 state legislative session, a very vocal and politically organized group of mostly Chinese Americans ended efforts to reinstate affirmative action in admissions at public universities (Hing, 2014). Despite their successful campaign to table SCA 5, this group likely represents a small minority of Asian Americans who oppose affirmative action. According to rigorous opinion polling results, a large majority of Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans in California and across the United States are supportive of affirmative action (Ramakrishnan & Lee, 2012; Ramakrishnan & Lee, 2014). Similarly, without regard to broader Asian American community opinions, SFFA filed legal complaints against Harvard and UNC in the federal court system at the end of 2014. In the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 121

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

122

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

complaint against Harvard, SFFA alleged that the university’s practice of affirmative action discriminates against Asian Americans. In response to the Harvard lawsuit, more than 135 Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander community-based organizations and civil rights groups signed a letter supporting affirmative action, and U.S. commissioners for civil rights Michael Yaki and Karen Narasaki (2015) issued a statement voicing support for affirmative action. Also, Thomas Espenshade, whose research has commonly been used by anti–affirmative action advocates, stated that his research does not provide definitive evidence that elite schools are discriminating against Asian Americans (as cited in in Bernhard & Delwiche, 2015). The Harvard case demonstrates a high level of anxiety over admissions policies among some Asian Americans (Poon, 2009; Poon & Sihite, in press) and the continued interest of White anti–affirmative action leaders to present Asian Americans as a model minority or racial mascot. Coined by legal scholar Sumi Cho, the discursive process of creating a racial mascot is defined as “the adoption of a racial [minority] group, or even an individual of color by a white political figure or constituency. . . . [It is] necessary to deflect charges of racism and preserve the redeemed status of whiteness” (as cited in Allred, 2007, p. 69). In this way, affirmative action opponents often present Asian Americans as a model minority, implicitly and explicitly drawing on stereotypes of Asian American over-achievement to underscore stereotypes of other students of Color as undeserving and not qualified for admission at highly ranked institutions. Given ongoing litigation, the short- and long-term fate of affirmative action policies in selective admissions remains unclear. However, racial diversity resulting from affirmative action has been demonstrated to broadly benefit Asian Americans (Park, 2013; Park & Liu, 2014). Specifically, studies have shown that racial diversity on campus contributes toward Asian American intellectual and academic growth, civic engagement development, and increased cultural engagement (Engberg & Hurtado, 2011; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Park, 2012a). Moreover, Park (2009a) found that Asian Americans on more racially diverse campuses were generally more satisfied with diversity in college. These empirical findings may provide an explanation for why Asian American college student support for affirmative action increases over time (Park, 2009b). Although the fervent debate over affirmative action in selective admissions receives a considerable amount of media attention, in reality these policies affect a limited number of students. This continuing public debate primarily focuses on a relatively small population of high-achieving students with privileges and resources to consider gaining admission at elite public and private colleges and universities that practice selective admissions. The great majority of AAPI students, who either do not have the opportunity

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 122

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

123

or do not aspire to compete for admission at elite institutions, are excluded from this narrow, but still important, debate. Student affairs practitioners should be aware of the affirmative action debate to support AAPI students in making sense of race, racism, and identity. As Inkelas (2003) suggested, some Asian American students have found these racially charged debates challenging to making sense of their racial identities on campus. We encourage student affairs educators be equipped to explain how both race and class shape educational opportunity, and also to be aware of how affirmative action policies affect AAPIs differently (e.g., Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander groups are most likely to be directly considered through such policies, but in some contexts, other Asian Americans may be included). Student affairs practitioners should also be aware of how AAPI students contribute to the richness of the student body, and how they benefit from engaging with racial diversity as well.

Stratified College Pathways Understanding how diverse AAPI students experience and navigate unequal educational opportunities and structures leading to and into college is crucial. Unfortunately, college entry does not present a level playing field, as is often presumed. The interaction among college opportunity systems, student background characteristics, and how students and families act within these contexts contributes toward eventual outcomes and racialized patterns in college-going (Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs, & Rhee, 1997; Perna, 2006). Various socioeconomic characteristics and social contexts can shape diverse students’ pathways toward college. They can increase or diminish a student’s opportunity to attend college, the types of college at which a student might have the opportunity to gain entry, and the resources available to support how a student navigates the process of college entry and enrollment (McDonough, 1997; Perna, 2006). Diverse Asian American students, like others, often face stark inequalities along their pathways toward college. Although little research has been conducted on how Pacific Islanders navigate college access systems, research has shown that ethnic differences play a significant role in stratifying collegegoing inequalities (Teranishi, Ceja, Antonio, Allen, & McDonough, 2004). Along these lines, Southeast Asian Americans and Filipino Americans have been found to be more likely than other Asian Americans to attend less selective four-year institutions and two-year colleges (Buenavista, Jayakumar, & Misa-Escalante, 2009; Teranishi et al., 2004). Other diverse background characteristics have been found to contribute toward differences in college-going opportunities among Asian Americans.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 123

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

124

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Like other students of Color, many Asian American four-year college students (42.5%) are the first in their families to attend college (Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007). Some studies on Asian American college access have shown that first-generation college-going status plays a role in limiting resources available to support these students’ college aspirations (An, 2010; Poon & Byrd, 2013). Economic class background can also have a similar bearing on differences in resources available and know-how in students’ navigation of college-going structures (Kim, DesJardins, & McCall, 2009). Differences in K–12 educational experiences and resources represent yet another factor, perhaps correlated to economic class, which can substantively result in college-going differences among diverse Asian Americans (Teranishi, 2010). However, ethnic community cultural resources also mitigate the negative effects of factors such as low economic status and firstgeneration college-going status, in the development and deployment of college-going knowledge and strategies. For example, Park (2012b) found that mixed-income church communities could provide lower-income members with important information for college entry. One segment of the AAPI college-going population that has remained relatively overlooked is undocumented immigrants, although public discourse and media have primarily racialized this issue as a Latinx community challenge. According to some estimates there are approximately 1.5 million undocumented Asian Americans in the United States (AAPI Data, 2015), with about 17% of the undocumented immigrant population under the age of 18 (Buenavista & Tran, 2010). Because many of these young people migrated to the United States with their families as young children, they have experienced the majority of their lives in the United States and often learn about their immigration status when they apply for driver’s licenses or passports, or go to college (Buenavista & Tran, 2010). Unfortunately, their immigration status makes them ineligible for federal financial aid and legal employment opportunities. Therefore, even for the high-achieving undocumented student admitted to college, significant financial barriers remain. To address these issues, some states, including California and Texas, have passed laws to allow undocumented students to attend public institutions as in-state students and benefit from state financial aid programs (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2014). Unfortunately, other states, including Arizona and Illinois, have declared undocumented students ineligible for in-state tuition rates (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). The state of Georgia has even gone as far as banning undocumented students from admission to state institutions (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). Until the federal government takes up comprehensive

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 124

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

125

immigration reform, the status of undocumented students, including AAPIs, remains subject to political, legal, and economic vulnerabilities. Thus, a multitude of socioeconomic factors and different contexts of college-going opportunities found among diverse Asian American populations results in a vast range of college access patterns. Contexts of opportunity for college preparation can vary significantly for students, resulting in an extremely unequal playing field for college access. These differences influence the eventual enrollment demographics found at different types of colleges and universities.

Commonly Encountered Challenges In the university environment, AAPI students may encounter numerous challenges. They include manifestations of racism via microaggressions, low student-faculty engagement, lack of AAPI role models, and lack of general campus support. Racial/ethnic challenges may not always take the form of blatant racism toward AAPI students. However, troubling incidents in recent years remind us that AAPI students are still the target of race-related harassment and crime on campus. In 2014 Asian American female students at Harvard received threatening and graphic e-mails targeting them as Asian American women. One notorious incident occurred at the University of California, Los Angeles when a White student filmed a segment with racially loaded mockery at Asian students and their families and posted it on YouTube. The video went viral, resulting in wide condemnation from the community. In the age of social media, it is increasingly easy for race-related threats to be anonymous, making it difficult to identify perpetrators. However, probably more common than blatant acts of racism in the campus environment are racial microaggressions. Microaggressions are slight and subtle, everyday comments or actions that reinforce the subordinate status of their recipients. They are often casual comments, such as “You speak English so well,” or “Where are you from?” that may be delivered without any ill intent, but still have the effect of reinforcing stereotypes about Asian American students, and contributing toward a negative campus climate (Poon, 2011a). Microaggressions have a cumulative building effect on individuals and communities of Color and act as a source of stress over time. While the microaggressions in and of themselves may be seemingly benign comments, they are a broader reflection of racial hierarchies that pervade society. Another challenge that AAPI students may encounter in university settings is the relatively low level of student-faculty engagement among the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 125

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

126

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

population. Asian American students in particular are known for having the lowest levels of student-faculty interaction (Kim, Park, & Chang, 2009) a troubling finding considering research that Asian American students, like all students, benefit from positive student-faculty interaction. The same study highlighted that Asian Americans in particular are less likely to have interactions that are initiated and driven by faculty. Perhaps faculty are influenced by the minority racial stereotype of high achievement and do not see Asian American students as a group that needs assistance, thus minimizing facultyinitiated contact. Another challenge that AAPI students commonly face is a simple lack of campus support, including cut or zero funding for Asian American studies classes, few AAPI faculty and staff who can serve as role models, and lack of inclusion into programs supporting students of Color. Due to racial stereotypes, assumptions commonly exist that Asian American students are doing fine and not in need of targeted programs or outreach. These assumptions ignore the fact that challenges around mental health are pervasive within the Asian American student population, and such students are less likely to seek out counseling due to a cultural stigma or misunderstandings about the role of counseling. These combined challenges result in Asian Americans having the lowest average sense of belonging among any racial/ethnic group in studies using national data (Fincher, 2014). Sense of belonging is a key factor in student success and retention, and the alienation that many AAPI students experience in college is deeply worrisome. Initiatives such as the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) program, funded through the U.S. Department of Education, aim to bring national attention to the unique needs of AAPI students. Institutions with at least a 10% AAPI student enrollment and a certain threshold of low-income students are eligible to apply for a federal designation, which makes them eligible to apply for grants that can fund initiatives to enhance campus support for AAPI students (Park & Chang, 2010). While the AANAPISI designation has key symbolic significance, highlighting the needs of AAPI students within the existing Minority Serving Institutions program, actual funding is only provided to several institutions a year, meaning that numerous student needs will continue to be unmet.

Racial and Ethnic Identity Development The university years are a critical time period for ethnic identity development and identity development more broadly. Especially for traditional-age

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 126

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

127

college students, college is a time when they may be experiencing more independence from their families and potentially living in another location for the first time. College students may experience “crossroads” experiences that spur dissonance, forcing them to reevaluate long-held beliefs (Baxter Magolda, 2009). Young adulthood is generally a period that students enter with more dualistic ways of thinking; further, their sense of self tends to be heavily reliant on external formulas imposed on them by family, society, and peers. Ideally, the college years are a period where students can transition to more nuanced and contextual ways of thinking, where they come to formulate their own opinions and sense of identity, as well as the ability to evaluate and gauge others. During this process, ethnic identity development is a key area of growth for Asian American students. For Asian Americans, several key conditions uniquely influence ethnic identity development, including the collective orientation of many Asian-origin countries and the influence of individual, social, and structural racism (Yeh & Huang, 1996). Several models have been proposed to describe how this process occurs within the population, as well as subsets of the population. Earlier models proposed a more linear developmental pathway and also based descriptions of ethnic identity development on limited samples of students. For instance, Kim’s (2012) Asian American racial identity development model was based on her research of a study of Japanese American women initially developed in the early 1980s. Kim (2012) identified the stages that women generally followed as ethnic awareness, White identification (including either active or passive forms of identification), awakening to political consciousness, Asian American consciousness, and incorporation. Using a racial identity scheme to describe development, Alvarez (2002) has suggested that individuals progress through stages, including conformity, dissonance, immersion, emersion, internalization, and integrative awareness. More recently, in her study of Chinese American and Filipino American students, Wong (2013) found that students’ identities were constantly in flux; indeed, recognition, construction, and understanding of identity occurred even during her interviews due to students having the rare chance to reflect on their experiences. She discovered “three distinct, yet interrelated, understandings of being Asian American: as a political coalition, as an identity informed by shared experiences with racism, and as familial heritage and personal experiences” (p. 94). Social context played a key role in shaping students’ sense of self and influencing identity development. Recent studies highlight the diversity of the AAPI student community, addressing multiracial student identity development and intersectionality. With intersectionality, students have more than one salient identity, and the intersection of a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 127

7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

128

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

student’s multiple identities creates a unique experience and identity. So, for instance, identity development models may consider the influence of being an Asian American woman versus an Asian American man, or the impact of the intersection between race and sexual orientation. One limitation of current research is that identity models have not deeply interrogated the experiences of Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian college students and how they might differ from some of the dynamics related to Asian Americans. Multiracial identity development is also an evolving field, and the identity development of multiracial Asian American students is influenced by unique external forces surrounding multiracial individuals (Johnston & Nadal, 2010). Some AAPI students may struggle to reconcile their new experiences with the external formulas or expectations of significant others and society (Samura, 2015). Some of these external formulas could include the dominant view of color blindness within society and the idea that Asian Americans are basically like Whites. Other external formulas may include pressure and expectations from family members around choosing an academic major or career path. Educators need to remember that such expectations have often been formed by legitimate societal pressures and sociopolitical forces. Further, the collectivist dimension of some Asian-origin countries and influence of other social forces uniquely shapes how many Asian Americans may understand themselves in relationship to others (Maramba, 2008; Pizzolato, Nguyen, Johnston, & Wang, 2012). For instance, an adviser coming from a Eurocentric point of view that elevates the individual above all could learn about an Asian American student whose parents are pressuring him to be pre-med and flippantly tell the student that he needs to ignore his parents and make his own decision. We would encourage the adviser to understand where the parental pressure might be coming from—perhaps the student is the child of low-income refugees who are desperate for financial stability—and to help the student clarify personal goals while considering multiple points of view. Some parents’ narrow understanding of what careers can be satisfying may be due to their own experiences with limited opportunities due to racism, or a fear of their child being shut out of other potential career paths. The overall advice in the end may be the same, but people advising Asian American students must be sensitive about context when offering counsel and recommendations (Poon, 2014). A student’s journey with ethnic identity may also vary remarkably due to precollege experiences and environments. Some AAPI students may come to college from majority White backgrounds where they grew up desiring assimilation and resist conversations around race, while others might come

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 128

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

129

from the same background and come to college eager to explore their racial and ethnic identity. Of course, some AAPI students may come from home environments where they were the majority population or where Whites represent a minority, and be puzzled to be the minority at a predominantly White institution. Student affairs educators need to balance the uniqueness of each student’s journey while being aware of how race and racism may shape students’ lives, regardless of how the individual student actively acknowledges and understands it.

Student Involvement, Organizations, and Activism Involvement in student activities, organizations, and activism represents an important aspect of student learning during college. Conceptually, student involvement represents the time and energy a student invests into academic and social activities within their college campus contexts. Extensive research has shown that student involvement can support desired developmental and educational outcomes (Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009). AAPI students, like other students, have been involved with various activities in addition to their academic commitments. Since 1971, Asian American students have also increasingly shown an interest in developing their leadership skills, participating in community service activities and being civically and politically engaged during their college years (Chang et al., 2007; Park, Lin, Poon, & Chang, 2008). This section primarily focuses on Asian American students due to the lack of research available on Pacific Islander students.

Student Organizations As the AAPI population has grown on college campuses, the number of student organizations focused on a wide range of AAPI interests has increased as well (Buenavista & Jain, 2009). Race- and ethnicity-based student organizations often provide important communities that support diverse students’ sense of belonging and cultural validation, particularly on predominantly White campuses (Museus, 2008). On campuses with relatively large and diverse AAPI student populations, a multitude of AAPI organizations might exist, including panethnic AAPI or Asian American organizations and ethnicity-specific organizations like a Filipino American or Indian American student association. On campuses with smaller representations of AAPI student populations, there might only be enough students and interest to form a panethnic organization. Race- and ethnicity-oriented student organizations play important roles in supporting the educational development of AAPI students. For Asian

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 129

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

130

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

American students, AAPI student organizations encourage the development of Asian American self-awareness and commitment to community interests (Inkelas, 2004). As counterspaces, student organizations can also provide vital spaces to nurture student growth and counteract negative experiences with racial microaggressions and challenging campus racial climates (Buenavista & Jain, 2009; Poon, 2013; Yosso & Benavides Lopez, 2010). In addition to race- or ethnicity-based student clubs, AAPI students have established numerous race- or ethnicity-based student organizations, including Asian-interest Greek letter organizations (Tran & Chang, 2010) and student-initiated access and retention organizations (Maldonado, Rhoads, & Buenavista, 2005). They have also founded student organizations that validate and support intersectionality in student identities such as race- or ethnicity-based religious groups (Buenavista & Jain, 2009; Park, 2013) and queer student organizations such as Asian Pacific Islander Queers at the University of California, Davis. Far from promoting self-segregation, studies link ethnic student organization participation with higher rates of student cross-racial interaction (Bowman & Park, 2014). At some campuses, the presence of AAPI cultural centers can also serve as important counterspaces that support race- and ethnicity-based student organizations and activities (Yosso & Benavides Lopez, 2010). They play an important role in creating a culturally relevant foundation and a space for AAPI student development, outreach, support, cultural validation, identity exploration, and empowerment (Liu, Cuyjet, & Lee, 2010). Interestingly, these campus cultural centers were often created in response to AAPI student activist campaigns (Liu, Cuyjet, & Lee, 2010) like those at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (University of Illinois Asian American Studies, n.d.), and Yale University (Asian American Cultural Center, n.d.). Indeed, student activism is an important form of student involvement in efforts to transform higher education (Rhoads, 2000).

Asian American Student Activism Asian American student-led activist projects and campaigns are often initiated out of a desire to transform campus racial climates that are unsupportive of or even hostile toward Asian American student well-being, educational needs, and community interests. Researchers have documented a long history of student activism going back to the early twentieth century of AAPIs seeking to transform their campuses and communities (Liu, Geron, & Lai, 2008; Maeda, 2011; Umemoto, 1989). On college campuses in the 1960s and 1970s, Asian American students participated in activist coalitions that “took forceful actions to compel institutions of higher learning to heed their demand

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 130

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

131

that education be a tool of liberation. Campuses served as incubators of Asian American action, places where students came together, were politicized, and built new identities and organizations” (Maeda, 2011, p. 27). Working in multiracial coalitions with other students of Color and allies, Asian American students during this era successfully convinced colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay Area to establish ethnic studies programs, including Asian American studies, African American studies, Chicano/Latino studies, and Native American studies, and to increase college access for historically marginalized populations (Umemoto, 1989). These academic programs gave students the chance to critically consider the perspectives and narratives of diverse populations in the United States and analyze how social, political, and economic systems produce and reproduce inequality. Since its establishment, the field of Asian American studies has expanded its presence on campuses nationally and as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship (Chiang, 2009), and challenged students to develop critical thinking skills and apply them to solving community problems (Umemoto, 1989). AAPI students are not the only ones to benefit from being able to take these courses—other students benefit from learning about the rich history, experiences, and diversity of AAPI populations. The legacy of the 1960s and 1970s ethnic studies movement and Asian American student activism can be seen in more contemporary AAPI student-initiated programmatic efforts and campaigns addressing student and community concerns. The availability of and student engagement in Asian American studies courses and academic minors and majors can play valuable roles in developing critical consciousness, facilitating leadership development, and encouraging student participation in social justice causes (Ryoo & Ho, 2013). For example, in 2007 a coalition of AAPI students at the University of California led a successful “Count Me In!” statewide campaign, resulting in the public university system’s decision to ethnically disaggregate AAPI student data (Dizon, 2011). Many of these student leaders had taken courses in Asian American studies or participated in panethnic AAPI student organizational activities, allowing them to develop an understanding of the importance of ethnically disaggregated data in revealing educational disparities requiring institutional attention. Another sustained and more localized example of the legacy of earlier Asian American student movements is found in the development of student-initiated retention programs (SIRPs). Established at about a dozen public universities across the country, SIRPs are “student organized, student run, and student funded. . . . The emergence of large-scale and highly organized SIRPs dates to the early and mid-1990s. . . . The central goal of SIRPs is to increase the retention and academic success of students” (Maldonado et al., 2005, pp. 606–607).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 131

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

132

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

In geographic regions and college campuses with less developed consciousness of the legacy of Asian American student movements and a lack of Asian American studies courses, AAPI students have long organized student conferences to facilitate collective learning and the development of critical community consciousness and identities. Since 1978, several established regional AAPI student organizations have coordinated annual conferences that attract thousands of students. They include the now defunct Asian Pacific Student Union (APSU) on the West Coast, the East Coast Asian American Student Union (ECAASU), the Midwest Asian American Student Union (MAASU), the Boston Asian American Students Intercollegiate Coalition (BAASIC), the Southeast Regional Conference on Asian American Leadership (SERCAAL), and the Coalition of Asian Americans Collaborating Together to Unite the Southwest (CAACTUS). There are also several national, ethnic identity–based student organizations, such as the Korean American Student Conference (KASCON), South Asian Student Association (SASA), Union of North American Vietnamese Student Associations (UNAVSA), Intercollegiate Taiwanese American Students Association (ITASA), and the Filipino Intercollegiate Networking Dialogue (FIND). These conferences build AAPI student communities, collectively teach and learn about AAPI histories and issues, and develop leadership and advocacy skills (Lee, 2010). Many of these annual student-led conferences provide support to peers who may be feeling racially isolated, interested in learning more about AAPI community issues, or seeking to advocate and organize for Asian American studies on their campuses (Lee, 2010). There are also innovative programs across the country seeking to serve the diversity of the AAPI college student population. The AANAPISI program in particular has provided federal funding at a small number of institutions to drive innovation and experimentation around programs that can serve AAPI students. At City College of San Francisco, De Anza College, and South Seattle Community College, institutions have distributed scholarships through the Asian Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund (APIASF) in order to provide financial support for students who balance studies with a significant amount of responsibilities related to work and family. At the University of Maryland, College Park, a unique collaboration between the Asian American Studies Program (AAST) and Office of Multicultural Involvement and Community Advocacy (MICA) represents a creative partnership between academic affairs and student affairs. AASP and MICA created the Maryland Leadership Institute, which brings together a number of undergraduates for programming on pertinent social issues, leadership development, and social engagement. At the University of Maryland, the close collaboration between Asian American studies and MICA encourages learning inside and outside the classroom for AAPI students.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 132

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

133

Recommendations and Conclusion Overall, the AAPI student population is richly diverse in the breadth and depth of experiences represented. We have several recommendations for how educators can be better equipped to serve this group. First, student affairs educators have a responsibility to educate themselves about this fast-growing population, by maintaining a continuous posture of learning when it comes to being lifelong learners of students’ unique needs as this population continues to grow and evolve. It is critical to not make assumptions about what stereotypes or experiences a student may have been subject to during his or her life, and educators should balance a strong understanding of trends affecting this population with the individuality of each student. Second, educators have a responsibility to be aware of the social, political, and historical forces that shape educational opportunity and engagement. Students do not arrive on campus in a vacuum; they come with complex histories and layers of micro- and macro-level social forces, including the continuing tides of racialization and racism that affect their agency. Third, educators should be ready to advocate for this population’s unique needs. There may be times when it is appropriate and important to include AAPI students in programs designated for underrepresented minority students or student of Color populations, and there may be times when AAPI students need their own unique programming. Sometimes a pan-AAPI grouping is helpful in addressing students’ concerns, and at other times, Asian American and Pacific Islander students need to be assisted depending on unique subgroup needs, including but not limited to ethnicity, generational status, social class, gender, and sexual orientation. Fourth, we advocate that student affairs educators work to support or initiate ethnic studies offerings, particularly in the areas of Asian American and Indigenous Peoples studies. Ethnic studies is a unique space where the curricular and cocurricular lines are blurred more than in other spaces of the academy; these courses represent a unique opportunity for educators to blend outside-of-the-classroom learning with rigorous academic curricula that can help students better understand their place in the world and responsibility to advance social change. Student affairs educators should be prepared to make partnerships across campus to spaces that are serving AAPI students, including academic advising, counseling services, and religious and spiritual life. While we have outlined salient themes, this chapter by no means offers an exhaustive description of this population. Thus, educators should be careful to avoid assumptions regarding this diverse group of students who have often been stereotyped as a silent and invisible population on campus. The importance of recognizing the criticalness of serving AAPI students on college campuses has never been greater.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 133

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

134

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Discussion Questions 1. What sorts of services, programs, and units specifically serve AAPI students on your campus? What types of initiatives would you like to see developed? 2. Are AAPI students actively participating in services, programs, and units that are geared toward serving the general student body (e.g., Office of Student Activities, Greek Life, Office for Leadership Development)? Why or why not? How might these offices better seek to engage AAPI students? 3. How does diversity by social class, generational status, immigration history, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, and so on shape the climate for AAPI students at your institution? 4. What opportunities are there for AAPI students to learn about their communities in the classroom? How might student affairs partner with academic affairs to advance these opportunities? How might student affairs professionals work with student leaders to offer such opportunities outside of the classroom? 5. How is the campus climate at your institution perceived by different pockets of the AAPI community? How does this vary among staff, students, and faculty?

References AAPI Data. (2015). Data on undocumented Asian Americans. Retrieved from aapidata.com/undocumented-2014/ Allred, N. C. (2007, January). Asian Americans and affirmative action: From Yellow Peril to model minority and back again. Asian American Law Journal, 14(1), 57–84. Retrieved from scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article=1134&context=aalj Alvarez, A. N. (2002). Racial identity and Asian Americans: Supports and challenges. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, C. Liang, & S. Lee (Eds.), Working with Asian American students (New direction for student services, Vol. 97, pp. 33–43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. An, B. P. (2010, March). The relations between race, family characteristics, and where students apply to college. Social Science Research, 39(2), 310–323. doi:10.1016/j .ssresearch.2009.08.003 The Asian American Cultural Center. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from http://aacc .yalecollege.yale.edu/about/history Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). Authoring your life: Developing an internal voice to navigate life’s challenges. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Benham, M. K. P. (2006, August 20). A challenge to Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander scholars: What the research literature teaches us about our work. Race Ethnicity and Education, 9, 29–50. doi:10.1080/13613320500490705

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 134

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

135

Bernhard, M. P., & Delwiche, N. J. (2015, May 16). Groups file federal complaint alleging discrimination in Harvard admissions process. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/5/16/complaint-federalharvard-admissions/ Bowman, N. A., & Park, J. J. (2014). Interracial contact on college campuses: Comparing and contrasting predictors of cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship. Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 660–690. Buenavista, T. L., & Jain, D. (2009). Student groups. In E. W. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Asian American issues today (Vol. 1, pp. 249–252). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing. Buenavista, T. L., Jayakumar, U. M., & Misa-Escalante, K. (2009). Contextualizing Asian American education through critical race theory: An example of U.S. Pilipino college student experiences. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142), 69–81 doi:10.1002/ir.293 Buenavista, T. L., & Tran, T. (2010). Undocumented immigrant students. In E. W. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Asian American issues today (Vol. 1, pp. 253–257). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. CARE (National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education). (2008). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders—facts, not fiction: Setting the record straight. New York, NY: Author. Chang, M. J., Park, J. J., Lin, M. H., Poon, O. A., & Nakanishi, D. T. (2007). Beyond myths: The growth and diversity of Asian American college freshmen, 1971–2005. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Chiang, M. (2009). The cultural capital of Asian American studies: Autonomy and representation in the university. New York, NY: NYU Press. Dizon, J. P. M. (2011). Lessons on ethnic data disaggregation from the “Count Me In” campaign. Vermont Connection, 32, 21–31. Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Developing pluralistic skills and dispositions in college: Examining racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 416–443. Espiritu, Y. L. (1992). Asian American panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Fincher, J. (2014). Powerful pathways across race: Sense of belonging in discriminatory collegiate environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366. Hing, B. O. (1994). Making and remaking Asian America through immigration policy, 1850–1990. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Hing, J. (2014, March 18). The Chinese-American community grapples with affirmative action, and itself. COLORLINES. Retrieved from colorlines. com/archives/2014/03/the_chinese-american_community_grapples_with_ affirmative_action_and_itself.html

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 135

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

136

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Huang, J. (2014, March 17). Affirmative action bill SCA 5 “dead for the year.” Retrieved from scprv4-staging-es.scprdev.org/blogs/multiamerican/2014/03/17/ 16109/affirmative-action-bill-sca-5-dead-for-the-year/ Hurtado, S., Inkelas, K. K., Briggs, C., & Rhee, B. S. (1997). Differences in college access ad choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 43–75. doi:10.1023/A:1024948728792 Inkelas, K. K. (2003). Caught in the middle: Understanding Asian Pacific American perspectives on affirmative action through Blumer’s group position theory. Journal of College Student Development, 44(5), 625–643. doi: 10.1353/ csd.2003.0053 Inkelas, K. K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic cocurricular activities facilitate a sense of ethnic awareness and understanding? A study of Asian Pacific American undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 285–302. Johnston, M. P., & Nadal, K. L. (2010). Multiracial microaggressions: Exposing monoracism in everyday life and clinical practice. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 123–144). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Kang, J. (1996). Negative action against Asian Americans: The internal instability of Dworkin’s defense of affirmative action. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review, 31, 1–47. Kauanui, J. K. (2008, September 8). Where are Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders in higher education? The academy speaks. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. Retrieved from diverseeducation.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/where-arenative-hawaiians-and-other-pacific-islanders-in-higher-education/ Kim, J. (2012). Asian American racial identity development theory. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development (pp. 138–160). New York, NY: NYU Press. Kim, J., DesJardins, S. L., & McCall, B. P. (2009). Exploring the effects of student expectations about financial aid on postsecondary choice: A focus on income and racial/ethnic differences. Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 741–774. Kim, Y. K., Chang, M. J., & Park, J. J. (2009). Engaging with faculty: Examining rates, predictors, and educational effects for Asian American undergraduates. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(4), 206–218. Lee, S. S. (2006). The racialization of Asian Americans in higher education. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 2(2). Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4r7161b2 Lee, S. S. (2010). (Un)seen and (un)heard: The struggle for Asian American “minority” recognition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1968–1997 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Liu, M., Geron, K., & Lai, T. (2008). The snake dance of Asian American activism: Community, vision, and power. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Liu, W. M., Cuyjet, M. J., & Lee, S. (2010). Asian American student involvement in Asian American culture centers. In L. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice (pp. 26–48). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 136

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

137

Maeda, D. J. (2011). Rethinking the Asian American movement. New York, NY: Routledge. Maldonado, D. E. Z., Rhoads, R., & Buenavista, T. L. (2005, December 21). The student-initiated retention project: Theoretical contributions and the role of self-empowerment. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 605–638. doi:10.3102/00028312042004605 Maramba, D. (2008). Immigrant families and the college experience: Perspectives of Filipino Americans. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 336–350. McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Mulhere, K. (2014, November 18). 2 new challenges to affirmative action. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/18/lawsuits-allegeaffirmative-action-violations Museus, S. D. (2008). The role of ethnic student organizations in fostering African American and Asian American students’ cultural adjustment and membership at predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 568–586. Museus, S. D., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Rising to the challenge of conducting research on Asian Americans in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142), 95–105. doi:10.1002/ir.299 Museus, S. D., & Truong, K. A. (2009). Disaggregating qualitative data from Asian American college students in campus racial climate research and assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142), 17–26. doi:10.1002/ir.293 Nadal, K. L., Pituc, S. T., Johnston, M. P., & Esparrago, T. (2010, November– December). Overcoming the model minority myth: Experiences of Filipino American graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 694–706. doi: 10.1353/csd.2010.0023 Nakanishi, D. T. (1989, November–December). A quota on excellence? The Asian American admissions debate. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 21, 39–47. doi:10.1080/00091383.1989.9937604 National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012, November). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2011. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_263.asp National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014, June 12). Undocumented student tuition: State action. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/ undocumented-student-tuition-state-action.aspx Pak, Y., Maramba, D., & Hernandez, X. (2014). Charting new realities: Asian Americans in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Park, J. J. (2009a). Are we satisfied? A look at student satisfaction with diversity at traditionally White institutions. Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 291–320. doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0071 Park, J. J. (2009b). Taking race into account: Charting student attitudes towards affirmative action. Research in Higher Education, 50(7), 670–690. doi:10.1007s11162-009-9138-7

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 137

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

138

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Park, J. J. (2012a). Asian Americans and the benefits of campus diversity: What the research says. National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education. Retrieved from care.gseis.ucla.edu/assets/care-asian_am_ diversity_d4.pdf Park, J. J. (2012b). It takes a village (or an ethnic economy): The varying roles of socioeconomic status, religion, and social capital in SAT preparation for Chinese and Korean American students. American Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 624–650. doi:10.3102/0002831211425609 Park, J. J. (2013). When diversity drops: Race, religion, and affirmative action in higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Park, J. J., & Chang, M. J. (2010). Asian American Pacific Islander serving institutions: The motivations and challenges behind seeking a federal designation. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice, and Community, 7(2), 107–125. Park, J. J., Lin, M. H., Poon, O. A., & Chang, M. J. (2008). Asian American college students and civic engagement. In P. M. Ong (Ed.), The state of Asian America: Trajectory of civic and political engagement. Los Angeles, CA: Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics. Park, J. J., & Liu, A. (2014). Interest convergence or divergence? A critical race analysis of Asian Americans, meritocracy, and critical mass in the affirmative action debate. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 36–64. doi:10.1353/jhe.2014.0001 Perez, M. P. (2002). Pacific identities beyond US racial formations: The case of Chamorro ambivalence and flux. Social Identities, 8, 457–479. doi:10.1080/1350463022000030001 Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXI, pp. 99–157). New York, NY: Springer Press. Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In Higher Education (pp. 99–157). doi:10.1007/1-4020-4512-3_3 Pizzolato, J. E., Nguyen, T. L. K., Johnston, M. P., & Wang, S. (2012). Understanding context: Cultural, relational, and psychological interactions in self-authorship development. Journal of College Student Development, 53(5), 656–679. Poon, O. A. (2009). Haunted by negative action: Asian Americans, admissions, and race in the “color-blind era.” Asian American Policy Review, 18, 81–90. Retrieved from isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k74751 Poon, O. A. (2011a). A critical race theory case study of Asian Americans, “critical mass,” and campus racial climate. In R. Endo & X. L. Rong (Eds.), Asian American education: Identities, racial issues, and languages (6th ed., pp. 101–130). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Poon, O. A. (2011b). Ching chongs & tiger moms: The “Asian Invasion” in U.S. higher education. Amerasia Journal, 37, 144–150. Poon, O. A. (2013). “Think about it as decolonizing our minds”: Spaces for critical race pedagogy and transformative leadership development. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and the implications for higher education (pp. 294–310). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 138

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS

139

Poon, O. A. (2014). Asian Americans and college admissions debates. In M. Danico (Ed.), Asian American society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Poon, O. A., & Byrd, A. (2013). Beyond tiger mom anxiety: Ethnic, gender, and generational differences in Asian American college access and choices. Journal of College Admission, 221, 23–31. Poon, O. A., & Sihite, E. (In press). Anxieties, uncertainties, and misinformation: A complex picture of Asian Americans and selective college admissions. In M. Zhou & A. C. Ocampo (Eds.), Contemporary Asian America: A multidisciplinary reader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: NYU Press. Poon, O. A., Squire, D., Kodama, C., Byrd, A., Chan, J., Manzano, L., Furr, S., & Bishundat, D. (2016). A critical review of the model minority myth in selected literature on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 469–502. doi: 10.3102/0034654315612205 Ramakrishnan, K., & Lee, T. (2012, October 26). The policy priorities and issue preferences of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. National Asian American Survey. Retrieved from www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS12-sep25-issues.pdf Ramakrishnan, K., & Lee, T. (2014). Views of a diverse electorate: Opinions of California registered voters in 2014. National Asian American Survey. Retrieved from www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS-Field-2014-final.pdf Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Freedom’s web: Student activism in an age of cultural diversity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ryoo, J. J., & Ho, R. (2013). Living the legacy of ’68: The perspectives and experiences of Asian American college students. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and the implications for higher education (pp. 213–226). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007, May). First in my family: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/TFS/Special/Monographs/FirstInMyFamily.pdf Samura, M. (2015). Wrestling with expectations: An examination of how Asian American college students negotiate personal, parental, and societal expectations. Journal of College Student Development, 56(6), 602–618. Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for student affairs practice and higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 2002(97), 21–32 doi: 10.100/ss.36. Takagi, D. Y. (1992). The retreat from race: Asian American admissions and racial politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Teranishi, R. T. (2010). Asians in the ivory tower: Dilemmas of racial inequality in American higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Teranishi, R. T., Ceja, M., Antonio, A. L., Allen, W. R., & McDonough, P. M. (2004). The college-choice process for Asian Pacific Americans: Ethnicity and socioeconomic class in context. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 527–551. Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 139

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

140

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J. (2010). To be mice or men: Gender identity and the development of masculinity through participation in Asian American interest fraternities. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and the implications for higher education (pp. 67–85). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Umemoto, K. (1989). “On strike!” San Francisco State College strike, 1968–69: The role of Asian American students. Amerasia Journal, 15(1), 3–41. University of Illinois Asian American Studies (n.d.). Department history. Retrieved from www.asianam.illinois.edu/about/history/ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Table B02006. Generated by O. A. Poon. Retrieved from American FactFinder http://factfinder2.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Set, 2011-2013. Retrieved from http://www2.census.gov/acs2013_3yr/pums/ U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2014). Table 10. Projections of the population by sex, Hispanic origin, and race for the United States: 2015–2060 (NP2014-T10). Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/ files/summary/NP2014-T10.xls U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Table 268: Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by control and level of institution, level of enrollment, and race/ethnicity of student: 2011. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_268.asp U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Table 263: Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2011. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/ dt12_263.asp Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428. Wong, A. (2013). Racial identity construction among Chinese American and Filipino American undergraduates. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and their implications for higher education (pp. 86–105). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Yaki, M., & Narasaki, K. (2015, May 15). Asian American U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners issue statement on Harvard discrimination complaint. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from http://asianamericancivilrights.org/asian-american-u-s-civilrights-commissioners-issue-statement-on-harvard-discrimination-complaint Yeh, C. J., & Huang, K. (1996). The collectivistic nature of ethnic identity development among Asian American college students. Adolescence, 31, 645–661. Yosso, T. J., & Benavides Lopez, C. (2010). Counterspaces in a hostile place: A critical race theory analysis of campus culture centers. In L. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice (pp. 83–104). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 140

7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

7 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS Bettina C. Shuford and Lamont A. Flowers

T

he experiences and concerns of African American college students have been topics of discussion and research for many years. The primary reason can be traced back to the period between slavery and the Jim Crow era of segregation. The overt discrimination that existed during those times represented a clear impediment to democracy and educational opportunity. The fact that many African Americans were not permitted (by law, in some states) to exercise the basic human rights outlined in the Constitution is indicative of the historical negation of opportunities for African Americans. The forms and structures of discrimination, including not being able to drink from certain water fountains and socialize in various establishments, had spillover effects on all other areas of human enterprise, especially education. The fact that these forms of discrimination were allowed to persist for hundreds of years is the starting point for cogent discussions concerning the history, development, and current status of African American college students. And despite the sensitivity of these issues, it is important not to overlook the “peculiar institution” of slavery and the later Jim Crow era during which educational opportunities were limited for African Americans. Even though access for African American students into higher education has greatly improved, the vestiges of an unequal playing field are still manifested, albeit in more subtle ways, in higher education settings. Considering the African American college student in this context, using historical information to inform current knowledge is important and may yield a more advanced understanding of this student population. As you read this chapter, also keep in mind the following fundamental questions that will better prepare you to work with and enhance the intellectual and social development 141

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 141

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

142

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

of African American college students: (a) What are my personal perspectives about African American people? (b) What do I know about the history, circumstances, and lives of African American people? (c) How can I learn more about African American people? and (d) In what ways can I use my knowledge of African American history, culture, and research to better facilitate academic and social development among African American students on campus? Collectively, African American students represent a unique mixture of racial heritages that include African, Caribbean, Nigerian, and Haitian, just to name a few. However, for the purposes of this chapter, based on the definition used in the 2000 census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), the term African American refers to “people having origins in any of the Black race groups of Africa.” Because African Americans represent a diverse mixture of individuals from a number of nationalities and countries, the answers to the preceding four questions may differ depending on the Black students one has encountered (the terms Black and African American are used interchangeably in this chapter). In the first section of this chapter we discuss the effects of historical discrimination on African Americans in general and African American college students in particular. The second section deals with student development theory and examines how African American students may develop in college. The four-stage model of African American identity development is explained along with behavioral examples in the third section of the chapter. The fourth section delineates selected characteristics of African American college students along with enrollment statistics. In the fifth section we offer a best-practices list of programs that have been designed for the recruitment, retention, and graduation of African American students on college campuses. Finally we present some recommendations for practice.

History of African Americans in Higher Education African Americans’ access to higher education has been greatly influenced by a social system that has perpetuated differential treatment of groups based on race and systematically affected the accessibility of higher education for African Americans. Because of past and enduring inequities in relation to educational opportunity, a multitier educational class has emerged, in which distinct levels remain hard to define. Clearly, though, today’s African American college students—many of whom are first-generation students—are the product of intense civil rights campaigns and significant legislation.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 142

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

143

African Americans’ dream of achieving a higher education was suppressed prior to the Civil War by a social system that severely limited educational opportunities to them. A philosophical belief that African Americans were inferior and an elaborate legal system combined to deny them an education (Fleming, 1976). Despite the barriers, 28 African Americans had obtained a baccalaureate degree by 1860 (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971). Alexander Locus Twilight is documented as the first African American to receive a college degree in 1823, from Middlebury College (Fleming, 1976). Since formal preparation was not an option for the majority of African Americans, apprenticeships and self-study were acceptable means of training for professional and skilled laborers (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971; Fleming, 1976). A number of schools in the South were established during the pre–Civil War period for the sole purpose of educating African Americans. Cheyney University of Pennsylvania (created in 1842), Lincoln University (1854), and Wilberforce University (1856) were the first schools established for African Americans, and later they became degree-granting institutions (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971; Thomas & Hill, 1987). After the Civil War, many of the large church and missionary groups, along with the Freedmen’s Bureau that was created by the War Department in 1865, established higher education institutions in the South for African Americans. Between 1865 and 1890, hundreds of private higher education institutions were founded with the words normal, college, or university in their names. Many of these institutions were established as elementary and secondary schools with the eventual goal of becoming degree-granting institutions. At one point in the early 1870s, the percentage of Black children enrolled in school was higher than that of Whites. However, by the 1900s the numbers had declined as discrimination laws began to proliferate (Spring, 2001). Despite the changing political climate, strides had been made regarding the education of Blacks. According to DuBois and Dill (as cited in Bowles & DeCosta, 1971), over 1,000 individuals had graduated from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) by 1895. While used to suppress African Americans’ access to higher education in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the legal system began to open doors for African Americans in the late nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. The second Morrill Act of 1890, which provided equitable funding for Black land grant institutions, and the 1896 Supreme Court ruling of Plessey v. Ferguson, which established the separate but equal doctrine, spurred significant growth among HBCUs in the South (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971; Fleming, 1976; Pounds, 1987). However, questions concerning the type of education Blacks should receive gave rise to philosophical debates within the Black community. The industrial education approach advocated by Booker

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 143

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

144

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

T. Washington was influenced by the political climate in the South and focused on developing good work and moral habits. The industrial approach created a place for Blacks in the new industrial order in the South but maintained the social order of segregated schools. W.E.B. DuBois, on the other hand, believed in a traditional liberal arts education that would train future leaders within the Black community (Spring, 2001). Opportunities for African Americans to attend predominantly White institutions (PWIs) were still very limited during this period. A turning point in the struggle for access to higher education was the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971; Fleming, 1976; Pounds, 1987). Sparked by pressure from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), mounting tensions, and legal maneuverings of African Americans, the Supreme Court ruled that education could not remain disconnected and separate in America. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was revolutionary in its effects on education because of the inclusion of African Americans in the educational process. African Americans in the South were no longer limited to attendance at HBCUs. Despite the ruling, some schools remained resistant to change. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning discrimination in federally funded programs, further enhanced African American access to higher education (Fleming, 1976). The period after the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling was a great time of transition for HBCUs and PWIs (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971). In addition to the factors already noted, other developments influenced college enrollment of African American students in the 1940s and 1950s. Prior to 1945, 90% of African Americans in college were enrolled in HBCUs in the South (Garibaldi, 1991). The 1944 GI Bill of Rights and the Korean War significantly contributed to the increase in the number of African American males who enrolled in institutions of higher education (Garibaldi, 1991). The migration of African Americans to the North in the early 1940s positively affected enrollment of African American students in northern colleges (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971). College enrollment for African American students continued to increase in the 1960s and 1970s as veterans from the Vietnam War used funding from the GI Bill (Garibaldi, 1991). Enrollment levels for African Americans increased significantly in the mid-1970s because of the expansion of federal legislation and federal policies aimed at reducing barriers to minority and low-income students (Hill, 1983). Over the years, total college enrollment for African American students has steadily increased (Carter & Wilson, 1996; Nettles & Perna, 1997). These statistics show an upward trend for African Americans and reflect the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 144

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

145

continued desire of African Americans to pursue higher education in the United States. The interactions of various political, legislative, and governmental influences have been instrumental and indispensable in spurring and facilitating African Americans’ pursuit for higher education. While significant progress has been made in the educational attainment of African Americans, their proportional representation in college remains below the rate of White students. Thus, improving access to higher education for African Americans continues to be a priority even in the twenty-first century.

Student Development Theory and African American College Students The college experience enables African American students, like other students, to gain a variety of skills, values, and knowledge that promotes academic and social development in college and beyond (Flowers, 2004, 2004–2005; Person & Christensen, 1996). To better assist student affairs professionals and to spur additional research on this topic, McEwen, Roper, Bryant, and Langa (1990) offered a list of developmental issues that need to be addressed by student affairs professionals and researchers who want to gain a better understanding of African American student development in college. Based on the scholarly literature and personal observations, they articulated nine developmental tasks essential to academic and social growth for African American college students. In this section we highlight their salient issues and suggest how student affairs professionals can assist African American students in achieving each task. To more fully understand and promote African American students’ development on campus, we recommend that student affairs professionals explore the underlying and related theories more deeply.

Developmental Task 1: Developing Ethnic and Racial Identity African Americans need to reflect on how the formal and informal structures of American society affect them and the extent to which their racial status influences their interactions with the larger society. This developmental task is extremely important because it speaks to African American students’ perceptions of self-worth, self-confidence, and self-esteem in and out of the classroom. Since a proliferation of negative images, verbally and nonverbally presented, can be found in various forms in society, African Americans should engage in opportunities at critical junctures during the educational process to challenge problematic forms of societal and personal interactions. One helpful approach to counteract potentially negative information and interactions is to connect African Americans with role models. Additionally, support

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 145

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

146

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

groups may be created so that Black students can have an opportunity to dialogue about issues they face on a daily basis. Successful interventions and programs are noted throughout this chapter. Other classroom and practical examples for teachers and administrators are also presented in Chapter 17.

Developmental Task 2: Developing Facility to Interact With the Dominant Culture This developmental task refers to the experiences and interactions that African American students have with other students on campus. Campus administrators should continually assess and improve the campus climate in ways that promote productive student-student and student-faculty interactions on campus.

Developmental Task 3: Developing Cultural Aesthetics and Awareness This developmental task is a reminder that African American students may greatly value their racial heritage. As a result, student affairs professionals should plan programs that support and celebrate African American culture and embrace African American history throughout the academic year. Faculty should also incorporate culturally relevant material and perspectives in the curriculum.

Developmental Task 4: Developing Identity This developmental task considers the process by which African American students learn to understand themselves better and become comfortable with their personal identity. Faculty and staff must keep in mind that African American students’ perceptions of their identity are constantly evolving and that their identity may influence their cognitive and affective development in college.

Developmental Task 5: Developing Interdependence This developmental task involves striking a balance among self-reliance, independence, and family identity. For maximum interdependence, it is recommended that African American students maintain familial connections as well as engage in actions that promote personal development and individual growth. Because more families are using technology to share spiritual notes, updates on daily activities, and news about grades and classroom activities, connecting with one’s family for support should be encouraged on college campuses and can be accomplished with the use of technology—particularly e-mails, text messages, and social networking websites. However, these forms of communication and technology should not be used exclusively and in lieu of face-to-face interactions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 146

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

147

Developmental Task 6: Fulfilling Affiliation Needs This developmental task addresses a fundamental concern for all students: the sense of belonging. African American students who perceive an institution as hostile or alienating will be less likely to interact with the campus environment. Thus, campus administrators need to assess African American students’ perceptions of the institutional environment and levels of engagement in and out of the classroom to ensure that these students perceive the campus environment as welcoming and supportive (Cuyjet, 1998).

Developmental Task 7: Surviving Intellectually This developmental task takes into consideration that academic achievement is very important to African American students. Thus, they, like other students, are worried about their cognitive development and put forth the effort to study and earn good grades. Higher education and student affairs professionals should consider the intellectual survival of African Americans as a top priority. Faculty can also promote African American students’ academic success by incorporating pedagogies that are responsive to diverse needs, providing supportive mentors, and embracing the diverse perspectives that African American students bring with them to campus (Quaye, Tambascia, & Talesh, 2009).

Developmental Task 8: Developing Spirituality This developmental task is also very important in the life of many African American students. While some higher education professionals may not feel comfortable assisting in the spiritual development of African American students, these professionals should still be aware of this important developmental task and put people and policies in place that can provide the necessary support.

Developmental Task 9: Developing Social Responsibility This developmental task is intended to examine the reasons that certain African American students seek to help others and contribute their time engaging in community service. Student affairs professionals should keep in mind that some African American students will participate in serviceoriented activities while others may need encouragement, which can be accomplished by establishing programs that seek to combine the needs of African American students to support the greater good while allowing them to realize the personal gains associated with helping others.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 147

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

148

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Although other tasks are important to African American student development, including enhancing vocational skills, engaging in meaningful interpersonal relationships, and navigating a hostile campus environment, these nine developmental tasks should be a useful starting point for those who wish to enhance the educational experiences and outcomes of African American students. As McEwen, Roper, Bryant, and Langa (1990) stated, “Student affairs professionals must develop out of the experiences of African Americans workable theories of student development” (p. 434). Although some research has explored these developmental tasks of African American students, the literature has not considered these issues in any great detail. Thus, we believe this situation calls for scholars and student affairs researchers to develop new theories and developmental tasks that incorporate African American college students’ perspectives, concerns, and issues if we are to better assist and understand these students on campus. The next section discusses the latest development in African American racial identity research and provides guidance for student affairs professionals to better serve Black students on campus.

African American Identity Development The theoretical literature on African American students has overwhelmingly focused on how they develop a racial identity and the impact of racial identity development on academic achievement, student involvement, and perceptions of the institutional environment. In fact, most of the published research related to psychosocial development for African American students conducted over the past 30 years has addressed some aspect of their racial identity or the extent to which they have come to understand how their racial status affects their daily life on campus and society. In this regard, research suggests that African American students who have positive attitudes about themselves are more likely to progress along the continuum of racial identity development (Scottham, Cooke, Sellers, & Ford, 2010). Until recently, Cross’s (1971) racial identity development model represented the most detailed and most often used explanation of the transformative processes that African Americans go through as a result of personal and interpersonal experiences and interactions with different levels of American society. Cross’s model includes five stages: preencounter, encounter, immersion-emersion, internalization, and internalization and commitment. Numerous researchers have used Cross’s theory of racial identity (Goodstein & Ponterotto, 1997; Helms, 1990; Helms & Carter, 1991; Mitchell & Dell, 1992; Parham & Helms, 1981, 1985a, 1985b; Parker & Flowers, 2003;

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 148

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

149

Poindexter-Cameron & Robinson, 1997; Pope, 1998; Taylor & HowardHamilton, 1995). The cumulative findings of this research indicate that racial and ethnic identities are important predictors of self-esteem, student involvement, and academic achievement for African American college students. Since 1971, Cross (1991) and other researchers (Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver, Fhagen-Smith, Cokley, Cross, & Worrell, 2001; Worrell, Cross, & Vandiver, 2001) have redefined and revised the original theory of racial identity in light of subsequent research and more than 20 years of reflection and refinement regarding conceptions of the importance of race in American society. The revised model incorporates four primary stages: preencounter, encounter, immersion-emersion, and internalization. The revised model presupposes that an individual may belong to a primary group and that his or her frame of reference or group affiliation is determined by his or her racial identity. Cross (1991) also suggests that the degree of significance that race has in people’s lives plays an important role in their racial identity development. Vandiver (2001) stated, “Race salience refers to the importance or significance of race in a person’s approach to life and is captured across two dimensions: (a) degree of importance and (b) the direction of the valence. Race salience can range from low to high in importance and from positive to negative in valence” (p. 168). Stated differently, African American students may consider their racial identity positively or negatively, and at the same time race may or may not have a considerable amount of significance in their lives. Using this basic framework, one can begin to better understand the nature of African American racial identity and the possible outcomes of such developmental process stages in college settings. In the preencounter stage of the revised model, African Americans have not experienced a direct action (i.e., encounter) that has caused them to question their racial identity and move them into deeper self-reflection about the importance of race in their lives. Furthermore, the preencounter stage includes three separate “identity clusters” (Vandiver et al., 2001) that may characterize African American thought processes and actions during this stage: assimilation, miseducation, and self-hatred. A preencounter assimilation identity refers to people who do not attach a great deal of significance to their racial status and who most closely relate with the dominant perspective. A preencounter miseducation identity refers to people who accept the negative depiction of African American people in images and stereotypes that appear in the media (newspapers, television programs, etc.). The preencounter self-hatred identity applies to individuals who have internalized a concept of African American inferiority and as a result may dislike themselves and other African American people.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 149

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

150

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

The encounter stage refers to an experience that causes an African American to reflect on his or her racial identity. According to Vandiver (2001), “The Encounter stage represents a very fluid period in development and is not as easily categorized as other stages” (p. 168). African Americans at the encounter stage may also show signs of depression or guilt in light of the encounter. Following the encounter stage, the immersion-emersion stage is characterized by an intense interest in and celebration of African American culture, and a disinterest in and avoidance of White culture. Based on the new conceptions of the model, both identities may be present in African American individuals and may even develop simultaneously. The final stage, internalization, is based on the acceptance of and respect for African American culture. Internalization may develop into four separate identity clusters: Black nationalist, biculturalist, multiculturalist racial, and multiculturalist inclusive. A Black nationalist identity refers to “the positive internalization of being Black” (Vandiver, 2001, p. 169), characterized by an intense focus on African American history, culture, politics, and expression. People with Black nationalist views may hold a separatist view (e.g., African Americans should develop their own social, educational, and economic institutions) or an inclusive view (e.g., African Americans should work within the dominant social, educational, and economic institutions). Those with biculturalist identities may support African American culture as well as the American cultural frame of reference (Vandiver et al. 2001). African Americans who have strong connections to African American culture as well as other cultural groups represent the multiculturalist racial identity. The multiculturalist inclusive identity is characterized by African Americans who have cultural connections and belief systems that resonate with more than one ethnic group or more than one cultural group. Higher education administrators, student affairs professionals, and faculty must recognize that African American students will have encounter experiences that may begin a process of identity exploration. This does not imply that all students will perceive every encounter in the same way or that all African American students will react or respond to acts of insensitivity and discrimination in the same way. Nor is it implied that all African American students will develop a racial identity or that African American racial identity will progress in the stages advanced by Cross (1991) and others (Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver et al., 2001; Worrell, et al., 2001). However, it is clear from research (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000) and the general observations of the authors that institutional environments on college campuses provide African American students with various experiences and encounters that may result in the development of a racial or ethnic identity. Moreover, recent research

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 150

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

151

based on data from African American students from several institutions suggests that racial identity significantly impacts perceptions of academic engagement (Jackson, Parker, & Flowers, 2012).

Characteristics of African American College Students The percentage distribution of African American students on college campuses has continued to increase in recent years. According to national estimates, in 2000, African American students made up about 12% of the total undergraduate enrollment; in 2008, African American students constituted about 14% of the total undergraduate enrollment (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002, 2010). Today, African American college students make up approximately 16% of the undergraduate student enrollment ((NCES, 2014).

Demographic and Precollege Characteristics The statistical data that follow describe the population of African American students enrolled among the nation’s colleges and universities in 2012 (NCES, 2014). Based on national data, African American females constituted about 63% of the total African American undergraduate enrollment, and 37% were males. Approximately 38% of African American undergraduates were between the ages of 19 and 23. Nineteen percent were between the ages of 24 and 29, and 36% were age 30 or older. Data showed that 28% of African American undergraduates had at least one parent who had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of all African American undergraduates, 14% were married, and 12% reported having a disability.

Enrollment Statistics Data also indicate that approximately 62% of all African American undergraduates attended public colleges and universities, and 10% of all African American undergraduates attended private nonprofit colleges and universities. Forty-three percent of all African American undergraduates attended two-year institutions, and approximately 46% attended four-year institutions. Thirty-three percent of all Black students attended college full-time for the full year, and 20% attended college part-time for the full year. In terms of college majors, African American students pursued a wide array of academic subjects: health care fields (22%); business (17%); social sciences (7%); education (5%); biological and physical science, science technology, mathematics, agriculture, and natural resources (4%); computer and information

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 151

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

152

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

sciences (4%); humanities (4%); and engineering and engineering technology (3%). We recommend that individual campuses undertake their own data collection projects and that student affairs practitioners, academic administrators, and faculty consider the resulting data and compare them to other racial and ethnic groups on campus to determine whether African American students are just as likely as other groups to have interactions with faculty and staff, perceive a safe campus environment, and obtain adequate support in and out of class. This scholarly activity may be a preliminary step toward ensuring that African American students’ needs are being met and that students are developing in meaningful and appropriate ways.

Program Examples That Facilitate the Development of African American Students in College: Best Practices Institutional support for inclusive excellence around diversity and equity remains a high priority for colleges and universities. Inclusive excellence requires a commitment on the part of institutions to provide support and opportunities for full engagement in curricular and cocurricular experiences on campus. With a focus on student success, colleges and universities are examining data related to retention and participation in high-impact practices to uncover inequities in student success and educational practices. As a result, support for African American males has become a priority on many campuses and in some cases at the system level. For example, the University System of Georgia’s African-American Male Initiative focuses on recruitment, retention, and graduation of African American males throughout the system’s campuses. The following programs, under such categories as academic success, leadership, and mentoring, represent some of the best practices for serving African American students on college campuses. The list was compiled from a variety of sources, including the model programs identified in this book’s first edition and a review of program presentations at national student affairs and higher education conferences from 2013 to 2015 that featured best practices for supporting African American students on their respective campuses.

Academic Success Options Through Education at Boston College is a residential bridge program for a select group of diverse students who have demonstrated leadership for overcoming challenging educational and financial circumstances. This summer residential program nurtures students’ academic, social, cultural, and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 152

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

153

spiritual development. Students receive course credits in English, math, and oral communication and receive academic and financial support throughout their four years of college. Contact information: Office of African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian-American, and Native American (AHANA) Student Programs, Boston College, www.bc.edu/offices/ahana/programs/ote.html The Gateway Scholars Program at the University of Texas at Austin is a four-year success program designed to facilitate and enhance students’ transition to and through college. The program offers a fall signature course and spring lecture series, participation in first-year interest groups, peer mentoring and coaching, academic and professional workshops, tutoring, and study abroad opportunities. The program is housed in the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement. Contact information: Longhorn Center for Academic Excellence, University of Texas at Austin, ddce.utexas .edu/academiccenter/gateway-scholars/

Graduate Education Preparation The Ronald E. McNair postbaccalaureate achievement program, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, prepares students from disadvantaged backgrounds for doctoral studies by involving them in research and other scholarly activities. The ultimate goal is to increase the number of lowincome, first-generation, or underrepresented students enrolling in graduate school. Contact information: www.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/index.html

Leadership The Black Male Leadership Institute Initiative Fellows Program at Louisiana State University is designed to improve the retention, graduation, and participation rates for Black male students through mentoring, leadership development, and academic support, while connecting the students with faculty, staff, and the campus community. The Fellows participate in the following programs and support services: workshop series on career planning, leadership, and citizenship; monitoring of grades; academic recommendations provided by professional staff; assignment of a faculty or staff mentor; attendance at leadership conferences; and engaging in social activities aimed at socializing the Fellows to campus and other settings. Contact information: Office of Diversity, uiswcmsweb.prod.lsu.edu/academicaffairs/ bmli/AboutBMLI/item22830.html

Mentoring Programs The African American Male Initiative at the University of Louisville provides academic engagement, mentoring support, peer connection, and student

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 153

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

154

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

involvement for undergraduate African American male students. A mentoring family network consisting of upper-class students and members of the faculty staff are available to assist participants in navigating academic and personal challenges. Students are encouraged to use academic resource services, attend workshops, and participate in cocurricular activities on campus. Contact information: University of Louisville Cultural Center, louisville.edu/ culturalcenter/retention-programs/african-american-male-initiative

Recruitment The Project Uplift Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC–Chapel Hill) is a special program that enables high-achieving rising seniors to experience college life on the Carolina campus. High-achieving African American, American Indian, Latinx/Hispanic, Asian American, lowincome, rural, and other rising seniors from historically underserved populations are invited to spend two days on campus to experience the academic rigor and social climate of UNC–Chapel Hill. This early recruitment program provides prospective students with insight into the UNC–Chapel Hill undergraduate experience. Contact information: Diversity and Multicultural Affairs, UNC–Chapel Hill, diversity.unc.edu/resources/prospective-students/ summer-institutes/project-uplift

Residential Programs The Huntley House for African American Males is a living and learning community at the University of Minnesota. Students have the opportunity to explore issues of ethnicity, identity, and leadership while receiving vital academic support and actively participating in and contributing to campus student life. Professional advisers are available to help advise and navigate their curricular and cocurricular activities. Contact information: Multicultural Center for Academic Excellence, aaas.umn.edu/ugrad/huntleyhouse.html

Retention The African American Academic Network (AAAN) is a retention and student success program that addresses the needs and unique interests of Black undergraduate students at the University of Illinois at Chicago. AAAN has three teams of academic professionals who work with students from the admission process through graduation. Services of the program include recruitment and admission assistance, academic advising and student development activities, and learning support through the Learning Resource Center. Although each team has its own function, they all work together to provide a seamless and comprehensive approach to address students’

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 154

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

155

individual needs. Contact information: University of Illinois–Chicago, African American Academic Network, http://www.uic.edu/depts/aaan/ aaan_units.shtm The Reaching Inside Your Soul for Excellence (RISE) program at the University of Pittsburgh is designed to increase dramatically the retention and graduation rates of all students. However, priority is given to first- and second-year students who are facing academic challenges. RISE employs strategies designed to improve students’ academic efficacy, encourage and facilitate student involvement, strengthen connectedness to mentors, improve students’ self-awareness, and programmatically address other specific and unique needs of undergraduate students. Fellows participate in a variety of activities and meet regularly with an academic coach and a RISE mentor. Contact information: Office of Student Life, www.rise.pitt.edu The Student African American Brotherhood (SAAB), a student organization located on more than 100 campuses, embraces the principles of accountability, proactive leadership, self-discipline, and intellectual development for African American college males. SAAB provides structured opportunities for Black men by encouraging them to serve as role models to younger Black men, engage in service, and prepare to enter the workforce and make their place in society. Contact information: Student African American Brotherhood, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, www.saabnational.org

Recommendations to Benefit African American Students The presence of African American students in higher education has significantly changed since the first African American was awarded a baccalaureate degree in 1823 (Fleming, 1976). Despite the gains in enrollment, and despite the best efforts of institutions to retain and graduate students, gaps in academic achievement and “a host of inequitable outcomes” between African American students and their White counterparts still persist (Harris & Bensimon, 2007, p. 77). Efforts to close the academic achievement gap have been successful when institutions are able to determine how differentiated populations are engaging in curricular and cocurricular activities, the necessary conditions that lead to equitable outcomes are created, and faculty and staff share in the responsibility for student success (Harris & Bensimon, 2007; Smith, 2009). Student success is multidimensional. It’s more than quantifiable measures where the focus is on retention and educational attainment. Student success includes an expanded view that involves being intellectually, socially, and psychologically engaged (Schreiner, 2010). The literature on student thriving encompasses a holistic approach to student success. Thriving in college is

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 155

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

156

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

defined as optimal functioning in five key domains: engaged learning, academic determination, social connectedness, diverse citizenship, and positive perspective. A thriving student is “engaged in the learning process, invests effort to reach important educational goals, manages time and commitment effectively, connects in a healthy way to other people, is optimistic about the future and able to reframe negative events as temporary setbacks, is appreciative of difference in others, and is committed to enriching his or her community” (Schreiner, 2014, p. 11). According to Schreiner and her research team, the pathways to thriving tend to differ by race for students attending predominantly White institutions. For African American students, the pathway to thriving includes campus involvement, student–faculty interaction, spirituality, and a sense of community on campus. Intervening in one or more of these areas contributes to the African American students’ success (Schreiner, 2014). Faculty and student affairs administrators must play an integral role in designing and implementing interventions that promote student success. Campus involvement, particularly when it entails serving in a leadership capacity, tends to bolster a sense of belonging for African American students (Schreiner, 2014). Faculty and student affairs administrators can play a significant role in advising African American students to increase their engagement in educationally purposeful activities on campus. As institutions continue to disaggregate data to determine who is (or is not) participating in educationally purposeful activities, both inside and outside of the classroom, faculty and student affairs administrators can add to African American students’ sense of belonging by personally recruiting them to serve in key leadership positions, as well as other high-impact cocurricular opportunities on campus (Finley & McNair, 2013; Harris & Bensimon, 2007). In addition to campus involvement, student–faculty interactions also contribute to a sense of belonging among African American students. Positive interactions from faculty that encompass a belief in a student’s potential contribute to a student’s overall ability to thrive (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Schreiner, 2010; Strayhorn, 2012). Institutions are taking the necessary steps to provide programs and services that support student–faculty engagement outside of the classroom, as evident from the best practices listed in the previous section of this chapter. Other avenues for African American students to engage with faculty or student affairs administrators include participation in undergraduate research, service learning opportunities, learning communities, and key leadership and student employment positions. These structured programs provide a forum for engagement. Faculty and student affairs administrators can also engage with students in less formal ways by meeting with students one-on-one during office hours, facilitating a discussion in a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 156

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

157

residence hall, or serving as an adviser to a student organization. No matter the type of engagement, formal or informal, it is important for faculty and student affairs administrators to hold a shared responsibility for educational quality and student success. This situation can occur when faculty and student affairs administrators believe in a student’s capacity, set high expectations, invest time and effort, value multiple perspectives, and provide instructive feedback (Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013; Schreiner, 2010, 2014; Smith, 2009). When these conditions are in place, students feel a sense not only of belonging, but also that their participation in the academy is validated (Rendon, 1994, 2006). Spirituality plays an important role in African American students’ ability to thrive. It serves as a foundation from which African American students view and perceive the world around them. At its core, spirituality provides the mind-set from which Black students can find purpose, resilience, and meaning in life (McIntosh, 2015; Schreiner, 2014; Stewart, 2010). From an institutional perspective, faculty and student affairs administrators need to recognize the important role of spirituality in shaping the African American student experience on campus. As a starting place, faculty and student affairs administrators can support efforts for students to leverage their spirituality by equipping themselves to engage in conversations about worldview, meaning making, and sense of purpose within the curriculum and in cocurricular activities (McIntosh, 2015). Providing the opportunity for students to engage in service learning or in other activities that require a focus on personal and social responsibility is a good forum for students to reflect on purpose and meaning making. Discussions about purpose and values exploration can easily be incorporated in career advising sessions and leadership development trainings. Additionally, engagement in social justice initiatives on campus and beyond is another opportunity for students to reflect on their experiences within the context of their involvement and their spiritual foundation. Developing a sense of community is the final pathway to thriving for African American students. A sense of community occurs when students feel that they belong on campus, have positive interactions with others, believe they can make a difference on campus, and are in partnership with the institution to achieve common goals (Schreiner, 2010, 2014). The strongest institutional contributor to a sense of community for African American students is consistency in messaging between what the institution espouses in its mission statement and other printed material and the actions of the faculty and staff on campus (Schreiner, 2010, 2014; Strayhorn, 2012). African American students should see signs of the institution’s commitment to diversity from the admission process through graduation. Subsequently, African American students should engage in cross-cultural interactions and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 157

7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

158

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

experiences with other identity groups as well as educationally purposeful activities. In the quest to support African American students, higher education administrators must remember that not all African American students have the same experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. As a result, culturally specific programs may not be applicable to all students. Students’ individual needs must be taken into account when planning programs and services for African Americans.

Conclusion The experience of African Americans in higher education closely parallels their experience in American society. The ability of African Americans to obtain a quality education has been impeded by a social system that has suppressed their legal rights and their human dignity. Despite these historical obstacles, African Americans have been able to transcend legal and social barriers. Although significant gains have been made in terms of enrollment and acceptance into higher education, inequities still exist. Thus, knowledgeable and caring student affairs professionals, faculty, and higher education administrators are needed to ensure that African American students have an enjoyable and educational college experience.

Case Study: Meeting of the Minds You have just received a letter informing you that you were selected by the president of your university to serve on a team of university administrators from various offices within academic and student affairs. The team has been charged with developing strategies to improve the retention and graduation rates of African American students attending your university (a large, public, four-year institution). The meeting is scheduled to take place the following week. When you arrive at the meeting, you see colleagues from throughout the university. The president calls the meeting to order and thanks the team members for their commitment to student retention on campus. She also remarks that while she is proud of the progress that has been made to support the intellectual and social development of students on campus, she is firmly committed to success and engagement for all students, which prompted this meeting. She then mentions that the previous semester, the university commissioned a campus climate study to assess student perceptions of the campus culture and university environment. A primary finding indicated that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 158

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

159

African American students felt a sense of alienation on campus and perceived the institution as unwelcoming and hostile. During her opening remarks, the president asked the team to consider how the African American Cultural Center could better support the educational and social development of African American students and provide cultural programs for all students on campus. In addition, the president asked the team to consider how other campus-based programs and services could be enhanced and new programs developed in cooperation with offices on campus (e.g., counseling center, learning communities, and academic support services). Next, the president asked the team to form groups of four to five people to address these and other issues relating to African American student retention. Before taking her seat, she added, “Your mission for this meeting is clear. Use your insight, experience, and expertise to develop strategies and approaches to support the recruitment of African American students, enhance the engagement of African American students in and out of the classroom, and improve graduation rates for African American students attending our university.”

Discussion Questions 1. If you were assistant dean of academic advising, given your experience and knowledge of holistic advising and retention initiatives, what strategies and approaches would you recommend to your group? How would your response be different if you were the director of the admissions office? Director of the career resource center? Director of the financial aid office? Director of the multicultural affairs office? Director of the student activities center? Vice provost for academic programs? Associate dean of arts and sciences? Chair of the sociology department? 2. Based on the research literature, student development theory, and your personal experience, what are the major issues affecting African American students at your university? 3. Following a review of research and academic literature that examines strategies, programs, and services designed to support the academic and social development of African American students, what would you perceive to be the most effective interventions or programs that are currently in place on other campuses for African American students? List and examine the feasibility of implementing selected programs and services on your campus. 4. Design an educational program or service to support the academic, social, and emotional development of African American students at your

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 159

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

160

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

university. Also, develop an assessment plan to determine the effectiveness of your educational program or service. 5. Do you believe you could design a campus community where diversity is understood and embraced? Explain your answer. 6. Does your university have an obligation to ensure the success of African American students on campus because of past racial discrimination in American higher education? Explain your answer. 7. How would your answers to the preceding questions change if you were advising a small, private, four-year university? Two-year college? Women’s college? HBCU?

References Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 180–185. Bowles, F., & DeCosta, F. A. (1971). Between two worlds: A profile of Negro education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Carter, D., & Wilson, R. (1996). Minorities in higher education. 1995–96 fourteenth annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education. Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience: Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20, 13–27. Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of Black. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Cross, W. E., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement: Introducing the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. M. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 371–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cuyjet, M. J. (1998). Recognizing and addressing marginality among African American college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), 64–71. Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact practices. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Fleming, J. E. (1976). The lengthening shadow of slavery: A historical justification for affirmative action for Blacks in higher education. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. Flowers, L. A. (2004). Examining the effects of student involvement on African American college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 633–654. Flowers, L. A. (2004–2005). Retaining African American students in higher education: An integrative review. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6, 23–35.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 160

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

161

Garibaldi, A. M. (1991). Blacks in college. In C. V. Willie, A. M. Garibaldi, & W. L. Reed (Eds.), The education of African Americans (pp. 93–99). New York: Auburn House. Goodstein, R., & Ponterotto, J. (1997). Racial and ethnic identity: Their relationship and their contribution to self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 275–292. Harris, F., III, & Bensimon, E. T. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New Directions for Student Success 2007(120), 77–84. Helms, J. (Ed.). (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Helms, J., & Carter, R. (1991). Relationships of White and Black racial identity attitudes and demographic similarity to counselor preferences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 446–457. Hill, S. T. (1983). Participation of Black students in higher education: A statistical profile from 1970–71 to 1980–81 (Special Report). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED236991) Jackson, L. D., Parker, W. M., & Flowers, L. A. (2012). In the pursuit of excellence: Examining the effects of racial identity on African American college students’ academic orientations. In J. L. Moore III & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), African American students in urban schools: Critical issues and solutions for achievement (pp. 289–313). New York: Peter Lang. Kuh, G. D., & O’Donnell, K. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. McEwen, M. K., Roper, L. D., Bryant, D. R., & Langa, M. J. (1990). Incorporating the development of African American students into psychosocial theories of student development. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 429–436. McIntosh, E. J. (2015). Thriving and spirituality: Making meaning of meaning making for students of Color. About Campus, 19(6), 16–23. Mitchell, S., & Dell, D. (1992). The relationship between Black students’ racial identity attitude and participation in campus organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 39–43. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Profile of undergraduate students in U.S. postsecondary institutions: 1999–2000 (2002–168). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Profile of undergraduate students: 2007–08 (NCES 2010–205). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Profile of undergraduate students: 2011–12 (NCES 2015–167). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Nettles, M. T., & Perna, L. W. (1997). The African American education data book: Higher and adult education (Vol. 1). Fairfax, VA: Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 161

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

162

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1981). The influences of Black students’ racial identity attitudes on preferences for counselor’s race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 250–257. Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1985a). Attitudes of racial identity and self-esteem of Black students: An exploratory investigation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 143–146. Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1985b). Relation of racial identity attitudes to selfactualization and affective states of Black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(3), 431–440. Parker, W. M., & Flowers, L. A. (2003). The effects of racial identity on academic achievement and perceptions of campus connectedness on African American students at predominantly White institutions. College Student Affairs Journal, 22, 180–194. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Person, D. R., & Christensen, M. C. (1996). Understanding Black student culture and Black student retention. NASPA Journal, 34, 47–56. Poindexter-Cameron, J., & Robinson, T. (1997). Relationships among racial identity attitudes, womanist identity attitudes, and self-esteem in African American college women. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 288–296. Pope, R. L. (1998). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of Black college students. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 273–282. Pounds, A. W. (1987). Black students’ needs on predominantly White campuses. In D. J. Wright (Ed.), Responding to the needs of today’s minority students (pp. 23–38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Quaye, S. J., Tambascia, T. P., & Talesh, R. A. (2009). Engaging racial/ethnic minority students in predominantly White classroom environments. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 157–178). New York: Routledge. Rendon, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51. Rendon, L. (2006, October). Reconceptualizing success for underserved students in higher education. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/resp_Rendon.pdf Schreiner, L. (2010).Thriving in community. About Campus, 15(4), 2–11. Schreiner, L. (2014). Different pathways to thriving among students of Color: An untapped opportunity for success. About Campus, 19(5), 10–19. Scottham, K. M., Cooke, D. Y., Sellers, R. M., & Ford, K. (2010). Integrating process with content in understanding African American racial identity development. Self and Identity, 9, 19–40. Smith, D. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 162

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

163

Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73. Spring, J. (2001). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Stewart, D. S. (2010). Knowing God, knowing self: African American college students and spirituality. In S. L. Strayhorn & M. C. Terrell (Eds.), The evolving challenge of black college students: New insights for practice and research (pp. 9–25), Sterling, VA: Stylus. Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success. New York, NY: Routledge. Taylor, C., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1995). Student involvement and racial identity attitudes among African American males. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 330–336. Thomas, G. E., & Hill, S. (1987). Black institutions in U.S. higher education: Present roles, contributions, future projections. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 496–503. U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, August). The Black population: 2000. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Psychological nigrescence revisited: Introduction and overview. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 165–173. Vandiver, B. J., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Cokley, K. O., Cross, W. E., & Worrell, F. C. (2001). Cross’s nigresence model: From theory to scale to theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 174–199. Worrell, F. C., Cross, W. E., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory: Current status and challenges for the future. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 201–213.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 163

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

8 N AT I V E A M E R I C A N C O L L E G E STUDENTS LeManuel Lee Bitsóí (Navajo)

A

s with many minority groups in the United States, diversity among Native American communities is not always recognized by non-Native people. While individual tribal nations maintain their own customs, language, and traditions, historical and social elements shared by all tribes influence the development of Native American college students. To attend to this population of students, academe must realize that the issues that have an impact on the developmental process of American Indians are connected to history, self-identification with tribal culture within the institution or community, and the prevalence of American Indian culture in the environment.

Indigenous Terminology Self-identification for indigenous people includes American Indian and Native American, and the terms are often used interchangeably. While much of the research literature uses American Indian, usage of the term Native American has increased.1 In some instances, Native is used to refer to Native culture, yet among American Indians, their particular tribal or nation affiliation has greater importance than broad terminology (Herring, 1991). To that end, American Indian and Native American are used interchangeably throughout this chapter. This interchangeability also allows for readers to understand how Alaska Natives are included in this conversation. The diversity among tribal nations makes tribal affiliation a more accurate and descriptive self-identification. Moreover, there are commonalities The author and editors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Vasti Torres in the development of this chapter.

164

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 164

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

165

between all Native students in the United States, and they will identify with some of the challenges and issues that are presented. This rich diversity includes the 566 tribal nations in the United States, a number that does not include the 70 tribal nations recognized by state governments (Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], 2015). Each tribal nation has a different language and tribal customs, but what is most important to ascertain is how a Native American student self-identifies. A critical factor in selfidentification is the set of requirements for tribal membership unique to each tribal nation; thus, membership becomes an important aspect of personal identity. Diversity among Native American tribes throughout Native America makes it difficult for college administrators and faculty, as well as other students, to understand the experiences of all American Indian tribal members, yet sensitivity and knowledge about tribal expectations is the first step in helping American Indian students succeed in postsecondary institutions.

Historical Context Affecting American Indians Understanding the American Indian experience begins with historical issues that influence how American Indians interpret societal expectations and their own environment. The first of two historical issues, which are interconnected, is the need for an understanding of and respect for tribal sovereignty. Sovereignty is critical to American Indians because of the second historical issue: the history of government-sanctioned oppression of Native culture. By maintaining tribal sovereignty, tribal nations have been able to overcome deliberate attempts to eliminate their culture and instead have created environments where Native culture is valued, maintained, and shared with their progeny. Challenges to the preservation of Native culture and language are explained by Spring (2010): “As a result of globalizations and imperialism, indigenous peoples have been forced to undergo extreme cultural change, resulting in many becoming socially and psychologically dysfunctional” (p. 21). This condition stems, obviously, from historical and inhumane deculturalization by their conquerors—Europeans. The persistence and resilience of Native Americans have combined—along with civil rights activism and federal legislation to abolish horrific policies that were instituted during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—to keep languages alive. Issues of sovereignty continue today and influence educational opportunities for many American Indians. Furthermore, Bitsóí and Lee (2014) argue that settler colonialism and historical trauma have had a huge impact on the current state of American Indian education. Research on ethnic and racial minorities has determined that the developmental process for racial or ethnic identity acknowledges the potential presence of oppression and domination (Evans,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 165

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

166

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). Thus, these historical issues become even more relevant to understanding the development of contemporary American Indian college students.

Tribal Sovereignty Though tribal nations have varying degrees of sovereignty, this privilege provides tribal governments with some degree of independence and the right to self-govern. Tribal sovereignty has its foundation in the assertion that tribal nations held inherent sovereignty before there was a U.S. government and have never delegated those rights (Lomawaima, 2000). Tribal members take great pride in the notion of sovereignty, and for many it is the “bedrock upon which any and every discussion of Indian reality today must be built” (p. 3). Furthermore, sovereignty is essential to the development of any tribal nation in regard to education, economic development, social services, and health care (Bitsóí, 2007). Begay (1997) also asserts that sovereignty places the keys to economic and social development in the hands of tribal governments. Through sovereignty, many American Indian tribal nations use tribal councils that focus on maintaining the community and promoting the needs of the tribe. However, spiritual and traditional knowledge keepers may also assist with tribal leadership. For example, Sandia Pueblo in New Mexico is a federally recognized tribal nation that appoints a governor and lieutenant governor to lead the tribal council, while a warchief and lieutenant warchief are responsible for all spiritual activities in the Pueblo (Sandia Pueblo, 2015). Perhaps one of the most sophisticated forms of tribal governments is that of the Navajo Nation, which happens to mirror the federal government with its three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial), but it is tailored to meet the needs of the Navajo people (Navajo Nation, 2015). An example of the unique tailoring is the world-renowned Peacemaking Program that is part of the judicial branch of the Navajo Nation government. The program has been referred to as a “horizontal system of justice,” since all participants are considered to be equals with the purpose of preserving relationships and restoring harmony among involved parties (Navajo Courts, 2015). In essence, peacemakers are the institutional keepers of the methods and principles of original dispute resolution, culture, and tradition in the Navajo justice system (Navajo Courts, 2015). With these examples, it becomes clear that decisions made by tribal governments are at times focused on efforts to maintain their culture and the community values of their tribal nations. As previously mentioned, the federal government has historically authorized countless attempts to oppress and deculturalize Native Americans,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 166

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

167

beginning with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that excluded American Indians from being U.S. citizens even though they were indigenous peoples (Spring, 2010). The legal assault that kept American Indians mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually oppressed continued with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which allowed the government to take tribal lands and forcibly evict indigenous owners. This was followed by the Indian Peace Commission, established in 1867, to determine where American Indians would be allowed to live as Whites began moving westward, spreading across indigenous territory (Spring, 2010). Today’s American Indian reservations are a result of the federal government’s primary motivation to control and socially engineer the assimilation and deculturalization of American Indians into the White educational and cultural systems (Spring, 2010; Takaki, 1993). Even the term reservation implies that indigenous people need to be contained within a reserved area, much like a wildlife reserve. So, even if tribal nations maintain reservations, the land is actually still held in trust by the federal government. In addition, often overlooked is the primary impetus for the establishment of reservations, which is the perceived misunderstanding that indigenous people did not know about land usage, so ownership became a priority for non-Natives. As Spring (2010) noted, “Reservations and allotment programs were the responses to the land issue” (p. 32). In addition, this forced removal to specific plots of land was to discourage seasonal migration, because tribal territories (e.g., hunting grounds, fishing waters, agricultural fields) were coveted by White settlers. This was also an attempt to force American Indians to learn how to manage farming-sized tracts of land (Deloria, 2001), another European concept that was incongruent with indigenous agricultural knowledge. The reservation system further allowed the U.S. government to control tribes by using the military, without warning, to strike American Indian bands outside the boundaries of the reservations (Takaki, 1993). Furthermore, the early goal of the reservation system was to make sure that American Indians did not retain their Native culture and to force their transition onto “the white man’s road” (Takaki, p. 233). First created in the 1850s, the reservation system has gone through many policy changes, but the crux of this system focused on socially engineering how American Indians live, and on providing the U.S. government with control methods to continue institutionalized oppression. Federal policies have gradually improved, and land ownership on reservations is now regulated with more tribal involvement, including the establishment and building of schools on reservations that are supported by federal, state, or tribal funding (National Indian Education Association, 2015). With the onset of gaming, some American Indian tribal nations have even more

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 167

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

168

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

authority in controlling schools on their reservations, as well as funding tribal government operations or programs, providing for the general welfare of the tribe and its members, promoting tribal economic development, donating to charitable organizations, and helping fund operations of local government agencies (National Indian Gaming Commission, 2015). In addition to improved federal policies governing K–12 schools in regard to bilingual education, the establishment of tribally controlled colleges and universities has assisted in maintaining and sustaining tribal languages and cultures. Tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) share a common mission that seeks to promote the culture of the tribe and strengthen the economic as well as social status of the tribal community (Belgarde, 1996). Guardia and Evans (2008) also reiterate that the mission of TCUs is to preserve tribal language and culture (as outlined by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium [AIHEC], 2015). Safeguarding language and culture by tribal communities led to the establishment of the first tribally controlled community college in the United States: Navajo Community College. Now known as Diné College (2015), it was established in 1968 on the Navajo reservation. To further the advancement of TCUs, in 1972 the American Indian Higher Education Consortium was established with five charter colleges. The criteria for AIHEC membership required that the college have a formal charter from an American Indian tribe, establish an American Indian governing board, have a majority American Indian student body, and provide educational services to the American Indian community (Belgarde, 1996). Today these colleges provide a transition from tribal living to the outside educational world and create an educational environment that accepts and rewards American Indian traditions and equips students to pursue more opportunities (Belgarde, 1996). Bitsóí and Lee (2014) further argue that TCUs play a huge role in allowing Native Americans to obtain postsecondary credentials to enter the workforce sooner and encourage more economic self-sufficiency. Furthermore, TCUs have a vital role in the personal and academic development of American Indian students by providing access to education, personal support, exposure to Native culture and language, and preparation for additional educational opportunities and careers (Guardia & Evans, 2008). According to the AIHEC (2015), at the time of this writing there are 37 tribal colleges and universities in the United States. The advent of TCUs has been a boon for Native American communities on many levels—educational advancement, economic development, and cultural renaissance, for example. However, they are still modeled, to a certain extent, on majority higher educational systems that are not congruent with indigenous values and may cause some distrust. There are numerous historical examples of sanctioned oppression of Native Americans that illustrate

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 168

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

169

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

the vestiges of distrust between tribal communities and the federal government. Therefore, to better understand some of the developmental concerns of American Indians today, one must first understand the historical origins of this distrust. For many years, one of the major historical issues of contention between the U.S. government and tribal leaders was the dissonance between the values of the tribes and those of the majority society. The ultimate goal of such ill-advised U.S. governmental policies until the mid-1900s was to force American Indians to assimilate and not promote the retention of American Indian culture (Takaki, 1993). Because of the atrocious track record of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in educating American Indians and the push by tribal governments for more autonomy in tribal schools, the federal government reorganized their trust responsibility to tribal education within the BIA and created the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in 2006. The BIE’s primary mission is as follows: To provide quality education opportunities from early childhood through life in accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural and economic well-being in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and governmental entities. Further, the BIE is to manifest consideration of the whole person by taking into account the spiritual, mental, physical and cultural aspects of the individual within his or her family and tribal or village context. (BIE, 2015)

With this strengths-based approach, the BIE recognizes how cultural values help people form identities and dictate behavior, so it is important to look at the connection between cultural values and student development in college.

American Indian Values and the Connection With Student Development In spite of attempts to assimilate and destroy their culture, American Indians “insist on surviving on their own terms” (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 281). This survival includes maintaining Native culture, language, and values. Ecklund (2005) found that attending college can sometimes have a negative rather than a positive effect on some American Indian students and their commitment to their cultural community. However, Bitsóí (2007) found the opposite to be true at an Ivy League institution where Native students strengthened their Native identities and found they could be both Natives and scholars. At the core of Native values are communal concerns (including adherence to tradition), responsibility for family and friends,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 169

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

170

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

cooperation, and tribal identification (LaFromboise, Heyle, & Ozer, 1990). These values can at times be in conflict with White American majority values of individualism, competitiveness, and amassing property and titles. Thus, when working with Native American students, one needs a clear understanding of the central role these values have (LaFromboise & Rowe, 1983). It is extremely important that Native Americans have a place on campus where they can have a sense of comfort and belonging (Brown, 2005). College administrators and faculty must recognize that Native Americans’ values and traditions allow them to be successful and that the choices these students make can be based on Native values and may not necessarily be in line with the majority-oriented societal values prevalent in the college environment. We can also look to the findings of Schooler (2014); Turner and Lapan (2003); and Hansen, Scullard, and Haviland (2000), who note that Native students tend to choose careers that reflect “cultural values, such as humility and charity, which often conflicts with the mainstream values of prestige, independence, and competition” (Schooler, 2014, p. 4). According to non-Native traditional student development theory, part of developing integrity includes the tearing down of “traditional” values and the rebuilding of a broader understanding of the world that will better suit the student in the future (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). These traditional values of the majority culture as explained by Chickering and Reisser focus on selfish or exploitative behaviors; the shift in thinking needed is to understand how these beliefs can demean the beliefs of others or people as individuals. The opposite is true for traditional Native American values. In American Indian culture, communal values begin with an understanding of one’s responsibility to the whole (LaFromboise, Heyle, & Ozer, 1990). This core value places Native college students at odds with some of the traditional values that their White counterparts hold. Furthermore, Guardia and Evans (2008) found that many American Indians hold the following core values: sharing, cooperation, noninterference, present-time orientation, being versus doing, extendedfamily orientation, respect, harmony and balance, spiritual causes for illness and problems, group dynamics, and the importance of the tribe. These types of contrasts with majority cultural values question the process by which Native Americans maneuver the development of integrity in the White sense, even though they may know what it means to have integrity within their Native communities. Since congruence between personal and societal values is one of the sequential stages for developing integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993), American Indian students may experience a different way of viewing and processing concepts of mainstream integrity and competitiveness. This example of the differences between traditional beliefs in White and Native cultures illustrates the limited amount of research on Native

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 170

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

171

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

Americans and existing student development theories. Understanding the experiences of Native students is the first step to being able to recognize when theories developed for majority students may not necessarily apply to this student population. Though more research is needed on the developmental issues of American Indian college students, models and research studies can inform practice. Research in other disciplines has focused mainly on issues of identity development among Native Americans, and for this reason, the next section focuses on these models in existing research.

American Indian Identity Development Horse’s “Reflections on American Indian Identity” (2001) examines Native American consciousness by examining the ways in which Native American individuals develop in their diverse identities, which include knowledge of one’s native language, genealogical heritage, respecting traditions, the degree to which individuals see themselves as Indian, and being recognized as a member of an official tribal nation. This theory builds upon the Native American identity theories presented earlier in this chapter, including Horse’s “Native American Identity” (2005). Horse outlines “five influences on American Indian consciousness” as follows: • The extent to which one is grounded in one’s Native American language and culture, one’s cultural identity

• The validity of one’s American Indian genealogy • The extent to which one holds a traditional American Indian general philosophy or worldview (emphasizing balance and harmony and drawing on Indian spirituality) • One’s self-concept as an American Indian • One’s enrollment (or lack of it) in a tribe. (p. 65)

These two theories are particularly salient when considering the primary way that Native Americans self-identify. Like many cultures that interact with the majority White culture in the United States, American Indians usually identify first with their Native cultures while possessing varying degrees of acculturation to the majority culture. This level of acculturation sometimes influences self-identification and the development of American Indian college students. While various research studies (Garrett, 1996; Horse, 2001; Sage, 1997) have examined American Indian identity development, two models emerge from the concepts of acculturation that can assist the academy in better understanding American Indian college students. The first model is Ryan and Ryan’s categories of Indianness (as cited in LaFromboise,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 171

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

172

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Trimble, & Mohatt, 1990), and the second is the health model conceptualization of acculturation by Choney, Berryhill-Paapke, and Robbins (1995). The first model builds on the work of various researchers (e.g., Ryan & Ryan, 1982). LaFromboise, Trimble, and Mohatt (1990) classified Indians according to residential patterns, level of tribal affiliation, and extent of commitment to maintaining their tribal heritage. Collectively, they define the five categories of so-called Indianness as • Traditional: These individuals generally speak and think in their native language and know little English. They observe “old-time” traditions and values. • Transitional: These individuals generally speak both English and the Native language in the home. They question basic traditionalism and religion, yet cannot fully accept dominant culture and values. • Marginal: These people may be defensively Indian, but are unable either to live the cultural heritage of their tribal group or to identify with the dominant problems (i.e., socioeconomic status, religion, politics, etc.) due to their ethnicity. • Assimilated: Within this group are the people who, for the most part, have been accepted by the dominant society. They generally have embraced dominant culture and values. • Bicultural. Within this group are those who are, for the most part, accepted by the dominant society. Yet they also know and accept their tribal traditions and culture. They can thus move in either direction, from traditional society to dominant society with ease. (p. 638) Acknowledgment and awareness of the multiple loyalties inherent in American Indian students can assist non-Indians (including non-Native students, faculty, and staff ) in understanding the various state of Indianness for Native students (LaFromboise et al., 1990). What developmental process, if any, occurs within these categories is not clear, and therefore it is difficult to ascertain if movement (or development) among the categories should be expected. However, these categories can serve as a tool to help describe the diversity among Native American college students. For example, traditional students usually come from rural reservation high schools where language and culture are highly valued, while transitional students usually attended border town high schools with mixed Native and White populations. Marginal students attended predominantly non-Native high schools where they blend in but are still marginalized, compared to assimilated students, who grew up in urban areas and attended predominantly White high schools where they blended into the dominant culture. Bicultural students attended any type of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 172

7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

173

high school—reservation or off-reservation—and more than likely have a college graduate in their family. Moreover, they recognize the importance of honoring and respecting culture and language, and understand that education is complementary to their traditional knowledge bases. The second model is the health model conceptualization of acculturation by Choney and colleagues (1995), which uses a health- and strengths-based approach to acculturation rather than a deficit approach. This intertribal/ cultural model represents four areas of human personality that are in harmony “with the domains of the medicine wheel (a uniquely indigenous means of conceptualizing the human condition based on four essential elements)” (p. 85). The four areas of human personality are behavioral, social/ environmental, affective/spiritual, and cognitive. Within these areas are concentric circles, with each perimeter of the circle representing a different level of acculturation: traditional, transitional, bicultural, assimilated, and marginal. No value judgment is “placed on any level of acculturation, nor is any dimension of personality emphasized more than another” (p. 85). A person in each of the levels would respond differently and would illustrate the various ways of coping with that result, depending on an individual’s environmental and societal circumstance. This model does not take a linear approach, and therefore it is feasible that an individual could maintain four different levels of acculturation corresponding to the four personality domains. An example of the medicine wheel in an educational setting is depicted in Figure 8.1, providing an illustration of the four domains (Bell, 2014).

Figure 8.1. Gifts of the four directions.

WEST reason “figure it out” knowledge

NORTH movement “do it” wisdom

SOUTH time “relate to it” understand

EAST vision “see it” awareness

Note. From N. Bell. (2014). Teaching by the medicine wheel. Education Canada, 54(3). Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/teaching-medicine-wheel. Reprinted with permission.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 173

8/11/2016 5:25:38 PM

174

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

This interaction between acculturation and personality domains is important to understand, because Native American college students may respond differently according to the personality domain and their own coping skills. For example, a student who is more acculturated in the cognitive domain while being more traditional in the social/environment domain may have few academic difficulties but many outside-of-class (social) stressors. Understanding the interactions among these constructs becomes important to better understanding the Native American experience. This model is useful in conceptualizing the variety of experiences that American Indian college students can face and how their reactions may vary. Native Americans also have values that are similar to other ethnic and racial groups. For example, Asian Americans also value collectivism and the importance of family (Kim, Atkinson, & Umemoto, 2001). In their study, Kim and colleagues found that valuing “group interests and goals is expected to be promoted over individual interests and goals” (p. 575), which is similar to Native Americans’ valuing tribal traditions and culture over individual accomplishments. In regard to the importance of family, Asian Americans feel a strong sense of obligation to the family as a whole and a commitment to maintaining family well-being. Furthermore, “individual family members are expected to make sacrifices for the family” (p. 577). This finding correlates with the expectation of American Indians to contribute to their families throughout their lives. Another example regarding the value of family is apparent in the African American community. According to Suizzo, Robinson, and Pahlke (2008), African American mothers stressed that their children should know they will always have their families to support them. They also found that family history was important as well as knowing the “stories from way back when” (p. 303). In addition, Suizzo and associates reported that extended families played an active role in rearing children. Knowing that these types of parallels exist between Native Americans and other racial or ethnic groups should assist American Indian students in knowing that they have more in common with others, which should allow them to understand that they are indeed part of the institutional community.

Critical Issues for Practitioners in Higher Education Qualitatively, there has been a trend among Native scholars to examine the success and persistence factors of American Indians in college (e.g., Bitsóí, 2007; Bitsóí & Lee, 2014; Brayboy, 2004; Lowe, 2005; Waterman, 2004). However, much of the quantitative research in diversity studies uses datasets that include very few American Indians, making it difficult to generalize findings for that population. The studies presented in this section provide insight

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 174

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

175

into American Indian college students and the issues that administrators and faculty need to understand. Next, a section on applying the research provides suggestions on how campus and student affairs personnel can help American Indian students develop in college. Though more research is needed, there is sufficient evidence that American Indians perceive their environment in different ways than White students and therefore may experience difficulty in adjusting to predominantly White institutions (PWIs; Ducheneaux, 1999).

Research on American Indians in College As mentioned previously, inroads have been made in positive research on Native Americans in college, but the focus here is on the following areas of study: (a) American Indians at a PWI, (b) attending a TCU versus a state university, and (c) the importance of family. The first study is qualitative and focuses on 13 undergraduate American Indian students who persisted for more than one semester at a large PWI where Taylor (1999) identified factors that affected their persistence. The variation among the participants illustrated the diversity of this population. Eight of the participants were first-generation college students, while five considered themselves to be assimilated into the White culture, and three described themselves as more traditional Indians. The factors that emerged from this study indicated that, although a number of major positive influences were revealed as reasons for going to college, several different forms of alienation were major negative influences on persistence for these students. The alienation emerged from seven subfactors: stereotypes, hostility, lack of respect, thoughtless comments, aloneness, lack of role models, and lack of institutional support. Misconceptions and stereotypes from majority students promoted students’ feelings of not fitting in. Indeed, the researcher noted “the looks” that American Indians reported getting that gave them the feeling of not looking like everyone else. The lack of diversity, especially few numbers of Native Americans in the student body, as well as in faculty and staff, made students feel alone and illustrated the importance of having others who look like them in the university community. The lack of institutional support resulted from an absence of the rhetoric of support and the lack of action directly oriented toward supporting American Indians. General support and financial aid were interpreted as specifically not supporting Native Americans, and annual events to support cultural diversity were perceived as “tokenism” by these students (Taylor, 1999, p. 12). The reasons for going to college were found to be salient because they helped identify the students’ ultimate goal. For some of these students, the goal is not simply the desire to go to college, but rather something “they need in order to survive in a predominantly White society, but do

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 175

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

176

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

not personally want” (Taylor, 1999, p. 12). A number of these students were compelled to return to their roots, yet the difficulty in finding jobs on rural reservations where they could use their college degrees generated some difficult choices for them. These types of choices further illustrate the complex interrelation that the health model conceptualization of acculturation (Choney et al., 1995) attempts to frame. On one hand, students may understand the need for a college degree, but on the other hand, the economic conditions on many reservations make it somewhat difficult to meet students’ goal of returning to their communities. As Bitsóí and Lee (2014) found, success is a relative term, and for some Native Americans obtaining a bachelor’s degree does not equate to success. Success could also mean becoming a traditional ethnomedicine practitioner, an artisan, or a knowledge keeper. In the second study comparing the experiences of 48 Plains Indians at two institutions (one TCU and one state university), Ducheneaux (1999) found that the students attending the state PWI were more “traditional” in their orientation than expected. In previous studies using the Native American college student attitude scale, American Indians at White state institutions were found to be more likely to be bicultural or assimilated in their acculturation level than their tribal college counterparts (Ducheneaux, 1999). Though many issues were discussed in regard to why this result emerged, Ducheneaux’s study brings to light the issue of assumptions made about students as a result of the institution they choose to attend and the uncertainty of such assumptions being borne out in fact. In the third study, family support emerged as being very important to academic success (Dodd, Garcia, Meccage, & Nelson, 1995). The family is at the core of American Indian values, and educational programs oriented toward American Indians must incorporate this fact. Ortiz and Heavy Runner (2003) reinforce the findings of these research studies through their factors that affect success in college for American Indians, most of them dealing with family support. These factors include the effects of being first-generation college students, the need for positive role models who have experienced success, support from family members, and an understanding of the familial obligations that many American Indian students have. Moreover, Bitsóí (2007) reported that all Native American students at Harvard University found a sense of family within the Harvard Native American Program and its community, which was essential to having an even more successful educational experience at Harvard. Thus, on-campus programs and services that focus on forcing students to separate themselves from their ties to their families can be incongruent with traditional American Indian values and cause cultural dissonance rather than enabling student development.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 176

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

177

In other studies focusing on the retention of American Indian students, several important factors emerged. Some of the studies found that academic preparation and study habits contribute to academic success (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Hulburt, Kroeker, & Gade, 1991). Others using more culturally sensitive surveys found that cultural pressures and prejudice were barriers to success (Dodd et al., 1995; Tate & Schwartz, 1993). The research of Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) emphasized the importance of the academy’s respect for American Indian students and their “need for a higher educational system that respects them for who they are, that is relevant to their view of the world, that offers reciprocity in their relationships with others, and that helps them exercise responsibility over their own lives” (p. 1). It is important for Native students not only to feel connected in academe, but also to remain connected with families and communities. This is what Waterman (2012) found in her study of Haudenosaunee students who used home-going as a strategy to be successful in higher education. Waterman wrote, “With families and spirituality being so important to Native students, they must balance family and community needs with those of the postsecondary institution” (p. 194). American Indian values are closely tied to community; therefore, Hulburt and colleagues’ (1991) finding that Native students were more concerned about personal relationships and relevance of subject matter than about study habits is not surprising. This study recommended learning environments that focus on mutually empowering learning rather than traditional lecture-style teaching. This style of collaborative learning was also suggested as a method to help American Indian students improve their study skills. Thus, Native American students are encouraged to enroll in study skill seminars and to actively seek advising to help create collaborative partnerships between academic advisers and American Indian students to increase their chances of success (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997). Along with obtaining skills in how to be successful in higher education, Native students are becoming more aware that college is another part of lifelong learning. To that end, Native scholar Lowe (2005) contends that Native American students are now attending college to learn that “college is yet another school and nothing more” (p. 38).

Applying the Research to Help American Indians Develop Students, faculty, and staff at colleges and universities hold many stereotypes that more than likely do not pertain to American Indian students on campus. The first issue to consider when in helping American Indian students develop in college is the education of student affairs professionals and faculty on the values and traditions of the individual American Indian student. Using one of the models presented, they should attempt to understand how students

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 177

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

178

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

self-identify as a American Indians and help them make choices that align with their cultural values. Cultural assumptions should not be made with American Indian students, for what can appear “to be adaptive in one culture would be nonadaptive—in fact culturally destructive—in another,” as LaFromboise and Rowe found (1983, p. 589). For this reason, it is important for student affairs practitioners to interact with American Indian students with open minds and recognize and respect the differences among value systems. The second issue to consider is the level of institutional commitment to actively support American Indian students. As for many minority students, active support for the culture includes more than just programs and activities. Understanding how institutional policies and practices either assist or hinder students from making choices consistent with their cultural values is critically important. For instance, if the institutional environment promotes a competitive and individualist culture for students, some sort of assessment should be performed to determine how these values clash with the traditional values of American Indians. In addition, a choice alternative for Native American student life programming could be highlighting the importance of honoring collaboration and sharing over competition and hoarding. The third issue to consider is assessing the openness of administrators in determining any cultural differences in the college community. This issue is perhaps the most difficult because it requires student affairs professionals and faculty to self-reflect and demonstrate a commitment to diversity that transcends words. Based on the historical legacy of Native Americans in the United States, it is imperative that administrators understand they must go beyond the minimum to gain the trust of and build relationships with American Indian students. Development is more likely to occur in a safe and supportive environment (Evans et al., 2010); therefore, the challenge for student affairs and academic administrators, as well as faculty, is learning what a supportive environment is for American Indians on their campuses. Beyond learning, it is crucial to institutionalized support services and academic offerings that are focused on indigenous studies. Since existing research is limited, student affairs professionals and faculty need to pay additional attention to ensuring that American Indian students succeed. The lack of culturally sensitive information available to help these students can promote behaviors that can eventually hinder success. Taking the time to listen and understand the experiences of American Indian students on campus can help one to understand how student development is being affected. Moreover, the traditional values of respect for elders in American Indian communities may make it difficult for a student to confront an administrator or faculty member about an unwelcoming environment. Therefore, the responsibility and risk need to lie with the staff and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 178

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

179

faculty members working with American Indian students. In this time of greater accountability for student success (i.e., recruitment, retention, and graduation), institutions now need to bear the onus for creating a successful environment for all students. Environmental factors at each institution vary greatly, so there must be a multifaceted and interdisciplinary approach to create a positive environment for American Indian students. In The Renaissance of American Indian Higher Education: Capturing the Dream, Benham and Stein (2003) described model programs that meet various goals for a positive environment. The programs in this book may provide ideas to help a particular campus create a positive environment for American Indian student success. In their work, Pavel and Inglebret (2007) provide practical information regarding college choice; financial aid; spiritual, mental, and physical well-being; strategies and profiles of successful college graduates; and additional information designed to assist Native American students, their parents and families, and the educators who work with them. In a recent seminal book, Bitsóí and Lee (2014) provided insight on plausible recommendations to address educational disparities for Native Americans in their chapter, “Ahistoricism in the Native American Experience.” Some of these recommendations include requiring colleges and universities to work more collaboratively with tribal communities, leaders, and elders; encouraging Native communities to enhance and strengthen language and cultural programs; and urging full participation of tribal communities at all levels—grandparents, parents, children, educators, leaders, and government officials—to earnestly and intentionally look within their cultural capital to find answers to address this educational crisis. While the book in which this chapter appears is focused on men of Color, it is written through an intersectional perspective that embraces feminist theory to help communities of Color understand that it does indeed take a village to educate children. Intersectionality is introduced here to assist in understanding that Native American students maintain multiple identities based on sundry tribal membership(s), clan affiliations, historical lineages (surnames), and blood quantum. Such overlapping cultural identities exemplify one aspect of the concept of intersectionality (initially for women of Color) that also includes race, gender, and class (Crenshaw, 1991), and how these factors shape our experiences in education and society (Berger & Guidroz, 2009). For example, one notable bicultural identity that has existed in the United States for centuries is the intersection of Native American and African American heritage (Brooks, 2002; Tayac, 2009). Starting during slavery, when escaped slaves would seek shelter and protection among Indian tribes, Blacks became assimilated members of such tribes, but many never fully

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 179

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

180

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

abandoned their African heritage and cultural roots (Walton-Raji, 2008). Embracing one’s dual heritage persists today. The 2010 U.S. census listed more than a quarter million individuals who identified as both Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native (Jones & Jungmiwha, 2012; see Chapter 4 for a more comprehensive exploration of cultural intersectionality). In sum, Native scholars have recently begun a more comprehensive examination of Native American student development from indigenous perspectives, including such topics as first-year experiences, incorporating Native culture in student affairs, tribal college partnerships, effective practices for administrators, and professional and graduate student support (Shotton, Lowe, & Waterman, 2013). Hopefully, the outcomes of this new research will greatly enhance Native student success, and assist non-Native faculty and staff in becoming better equipped to ensure success for Native students.

Case Study Allison is a transfer student from Tribal College, located on her reservation. She has lived on the reservation for most of her life but left only because she had finished all the available academic courses for her major at Tribal College. She transferred to the nearby State College because it was close to home. Though a PWI, State College is surrounded by several American Indian tribes, and there is a noticeable number (about 5%) of undergraduates who self-identify as American Indians. Allison is living on campus, as do the majority of students, because it is easier than commuting three hours each way from her reservation home every day. Allison is taking an interdisciplinary course called Democracy in Action. The course meets a general education requirement, and because she is a transfer student she feels a bit behind on her general requirements. During a class discussion, the issue of gaming, specifically casinos on American Indian reservations, was brought up as an example of an unwanted business in the state. This prompted further conversation on the issues of tribal sovereignty, and many of the White students felt that sovereignty was not more important than the fact that state law does not allow gambling. Allison is the only American Indian in the class, and because the instructor did not explain tribal sovereignty or the economic issues that tribes face on reservations, she was very uncomfortable speaking up or talking to the instructor. Instead, Allison has approached you, her assigned mentor, for advice and guidance. State College’s mentoring program was established to help minority students in their transition to the college environment. Most of the issues you have dealt with were bureaucratic in nature, and by explaining a process or making a phone call, these issues were fixed. However, this

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 180

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

181

issue is more complex; Allison has told you that she does not feel welcome in the class and is worried that the instructor will be biased against her because she is an American Indian and a member of the tribe being discussed. Allison has never been in this situation and is wary about the institutional climate or what support she has available to her. As a result, Allison is discouraged and is considering leaving college because she feels unsupported and uncomfortable.

Discussion Questions 1. Though all individuals in this case need some skill and knowledge enhancement, which ones should be focused on first—the instructor, other students, Allison, or someone else? 2. What assumptions do the students and faculty at this institution appear to have about American Indians? 3. How can the environment be improved for Allison and other American Indian students? 4. Should someone (an individual or a representative of an on-campus resource agency) intervene to assist Allison? 5. What type of community outreach is needed to better inform the State College community about Native Americans?

Note 1. The term American Indian has historical significance as well as political significance. In the 1970s the American Indian Movement (AIM) put the spotlight on American Indian issues of poverty, inequity in education, and lack of the U.S. government’s attention to the social needs and heath care of American Indians. Today, the term Native American refers to any indigenous person of the United States and its territories. The term is also used to refer to indigenous people throughout Central and South America (Bitsóí, 2007).

References American Indian Higher Education Consortium. (2015). About AIHEC. Retrieved from www.aihec.org/about/index.cfm Begay, M. A., Jr. (1997). Leading by choice, not chance: Leadership education for native chief executives of American Indian nations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Belgarde, W. L. (1996). History of American Indian community colleges. In C. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. I. Rendon (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3–13). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 181

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

182

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Bell, N. (2014). Teaching by the medicine wheel. Education Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/teaching-medicine-wheel Benham, M. K. P., & Stein, W. J. (2003). The renaissance of American Indian higher education: Capturing the dream. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berger, M. T., & Guidroz, K. (2009). The intersectional approach: Transforming the academy through race, class, and gender. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Bitsóí, L. (2007). Native leaders in the new millennium: An examination of success factors of Native American males at Harvard College (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania. Bitsóí, L. L., & Lee, L. (2014). Ahistoricism in the Native American experience. (pp. 55–84) In R. Williams (Ed.), Men of Color in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Brayboy, B. M. (2004). Hiding in the ivy: American Indian students and visibility in elite educational settings. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 125–152. Brooks, J. (2002). Confounding the color line: The Indian-Black experience in North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Brown, D. L. (2005). American Indian student services at UND. In G. S. McClellan, M. J. T. Fox, & S. C. Lowe (Eds.), Serving Native American students (pp. 87–94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, L. L., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing academic persistence of American Indian college students. Journal of College Student Development, 38(1), 3–12. Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2015). What we do. Retrieved from www.bia.gov/What WeDo/index.htm Bureau of Indian Education. (2015). Bureau of Indian education. Retrieved from http://www.bie.edu Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Choney, S. K., Berryhill-Paapke, E., & Robbins, R. R. (1995). The acculturation of American Indians: Developing frameworks for research and practice. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 72–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Deloria, V., Jr. (2001). Property and self-government as educational initiatives. (pp. 101–111) In V. Deloria Jr., & D. R. Wildcat (Eds.), Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources. Diné College. (2015). History. Retrieved from www.dinecollege.edu/about/history .php Dodd, J. M., Garcia, F. M., Meccage, C., & Nelson, J. R. (1995). American Indian student retention. NASPA Journal, 33(1), 72–78. Ducheneaux, T. (1999). Biculturalism and Native American college students’ performance on the WAIS-III (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 182

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

183

Ecklund, T. R. (2005). The relationship between psychosocial development and acculturation among American Indian college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Buffalo. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrett, M. T. (1996). “Two people”: An American Indian narrative of bicultural identity. Journal of American Indian Education, 36(1), 1–21. Guardia, J. R., & Evans, N. J. (2008). Student development in tribal colleges and universities. NASPA Journal, 45(2), 237–264. Hansen, J. C., Scullard, M. G., & Haviland, M. G. (2000). The interest structure of Native American college students, Journal of Career Assessment, 8(2), 159–165. Herring, R. D. (1991). Counseling indigenous American youth. In C. C. Lee (Ed.), Multicultural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity (2nd ed., pp. 53–70). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. Horse, P. (2001). Reflections on American Indian identity. In C. Wijeyesinghe & B. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 91–107). New York, NY: New York University Press. Horse (Kiowa), P. G. (2005). Native American identity. New Directions for Student Services, 2005, 61–68. doi: 10.1002/ss.154 Hurlburt, G., Kroeker, R., & Gade, E. (1991). Study orientation, persistence, and retention of Native students: Implications for confluent education. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 16–23. Jones, N. A., & Jungmiwha, B. (2012, September). The two or more races population: 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census briefs. Retrieved from http://www .census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-13.pdf Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Umemoto, D. (2001). Asian cultural values and the counseling process: Current knowledge and directions for future research. Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 570–603. Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The four Rs—respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–15. LaFromboise, T. D., Heyle, A. M., & Ozer, E. J. (1990). Changing and diverse roles of women in American Indian cultures. Sex Roles, 22(7–8), 455–476. LaFromboise, T. D., & Rowe, W. (1983). Skills training for bicultural competence: Rationale and application. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 589–595. LaFromboise, T. D., Trimble, J. E., & Mohatt, G. V. (1990). Counseling intervention and American Indian tradition: An integrative approach. Counseling Psychologist, 18(4), 628–654. Lomawaima, K. T. (2000). Tribal sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 1–21. Lomawaima, K. T., & McCarty, T. L. (2002). When tribal sovereignty challenges democracy: American Indian education and the democratic ideal. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 279–305.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 183

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

184

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Lowe, S. (2005). This is who I am: Experiences of Native American students. In G. S. McClellan, M. J. T. Fox, & S. C. Lowe (Eds.), Serving Native American students (pp. 33–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Indian Education Association. (2015). State of Native education address. Retrieved from www.niea.org/Policy/State-of-Native-Education-Address-2012 .aspx National Indian Gaming Commission. (2015). What happens to the profits from Indian gaming operations? Retrieved from www.nigc.gov/About_Us/Frequently_ Asked_Questions.aspx Navajo Courts. (2015). Peacemaking program of the judicial branch of the Navajo Nation, July 30, 2012. Retrieved from www.navajocourts.org/Peacemaking/Plan/ PPPO2013-2-25.pdf Navajo Nation. (2015). The Navajo Nation government. Retrieved from www.navajo .org/history.htm Ortiz, A. M., & Heavy Runner, I. (2003). Student access, retention, and success: Models of inclusion and support. In M. K. P. Benham & W. J. Stein (Eds.), The renaissance of American Indian higher education: Capturing the dream (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pavel, D. M., & Inglebret, E. (2007). The American Indian and Alaska Native student’s guide to college success. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Ryan, L., & Ryan, R. (1982). Mental health and the urban Indian. Unpublished manuscript. Sage, G. P. (1997). Counseling American Indian adults. In C. Lee (Ed.), Multicultural issues in counseling (pp. 35–52). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Sandia Pueblo (2015). The administration. The Pueblo of Sandia. Retrieved from www.sandiapueblo.nsn.us/administration/ Schooler, S. D. (2014). Native American college student transition theory. College Student Affairs Leadership 1(1). Retrieved from scholarworks.gvsu.edu/csal/vol1/ iss1/1 Shotton, H. J., Lowe, S. C., & Waterman, S. J. (2013). Beyond the asterisk: Understanding Native students in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Spring, J. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Suizzo, M., Robinson, C., & Pahlke, E. (2008). African American mothers’ socialization beliefs and goals with young children: Themes of history, education, and collective independence. Journal of Family Issues, 29(3), 287–316. Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Tate, D. S., & Schwartz, C. L. (1993). Increasing the retention of American Indian students in professional programs in higher education. Journal of American Indian Education, 33(1), 21–31. Tayac, G. (2009). IndiVisible: African-Native American lives in the Americas. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 184

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

185

Taylor, J. S. (1999, November). America’s first people: Factors which affect their persistence in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX. Turner, S. L., & Lapan, R. T. (2003). Native American adolescent career development. Journal of Career Development, 30(2), 159–172. Walton-Raji, A. Y. 2008. Researching Black Indian genealogy of the five civilized tribes. Berwyn Heights, MD: Heritage Books. Waterman, S. J. (2004). The Haudenosaunee college experience: A complex path to degree completion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Waterman, S. J. (2012). Home-going as a strategy for success among Haudenosaunee college and university students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(2), 193–209. Retrieved from journals.naspa.org/jsarp/vol49/iss2/art5/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 185

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

9 BIRACIAL AND M U LT I R A C I A L C O L L E G E STUDENTS Kristen A. Renn and Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero

B

iracial and multiracial students—individuals who have parents from or claim membership in more than one racial group—are a growing presence on college campuses.1 In fall 2013, 20 million students were enrolled in U.S. degree-granting postsecondary institutions, with 2.9% of U.S. resident students (over 559,000) placing themselves in the Two or More Races Category (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Evidence suggests that the development of racial identity among college students who are biracial or multiracial is in some ways similar to that of other students of Color but may differ somewhat from racial identity development among their monoracial peers (i.e., having parents from only one racial group; Brittian, Umaña-Taylor, & Derlan, 2013; Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Renn, 2004; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002). How these students make sense of their own racial identities in the context of increasingly diverse college campuses is an important matter for research and professional practice. This chapter addresses the status and experiences of biracial and multiracial students in U.S. postsecondary education, discusses foundational and emerging models that describe their identity development, and offers suggestions for higher education professionals working with these students.2 It concludes with learning activities and discussion questions related to understanding and working with multiracial college students.

186

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 186

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

187

Biracial and Multiracial College Students In the 1990s, multiracial students became a visible and vocal presence at a number of colleges and universities (Campus Awareness and Compliance Initiative, 2005). The increased visibility of mixed-race students on campus coincided with the emergence of a national multiracial movement to advocate for changes in how the federal government defined racial groups and collected data in the census. Beginning with the founding of Interracial Intercultural Pride (I-Pride) in San Francisco in 1978–1979 and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s, parents of biracial children, individuals in multiethnic relationships, and parents who had adopted children of races other than their own (a process sometimes called transracial adoption; see Javier, Baden, Biafora, & Camacho-Gingerich, 2007; Hoffman & Peña, 2013) joined mixed-race adults and youth in local groups and national organizations such as the Association of MultiEthnic Americans (AMEA; ameasite.wordpress.com/about). These groups were central to the movement that resulted in the 1997 decision by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to permit census respondents to indicate more than one race.3 At the same time, student organizations formed locally and connected using technologies facilitated by the emergence of the Internet (Gasser, 2008; Ozaki & Johnston, 2008). Even on campuses without official mixed-race student groups, biracial and multiracial students became more visible to educators who sought to provide programs and services that could accommodate their needs and interests (Wong & Buckner, 2008). Because federal reporting of data on student race and ethnicity historically required that each individual be assigned to only one race, obtaining an exact count of mixed-race students in higher education has been difficult. Yet starting in 2010–2011, the U.S. Department of Education (2007) required that all postsecondary institutions collect these data in two steps: Students now indicate if they are Hispanic/Latino or not Hispanic/ Latino, regardless of race, and they can select from one or more of the five federal categories—American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or White. Institutions can collect more specific data on student ethnicity or heritage but must then collapse those data into an unduplicated head count in the five racial categories and a “Two or More Races” category for reporting to the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS; Kellogg & Niskodé, 2008). After the 1997 OMB decision to include a more-than-one-race option in federal record-keeping,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 187

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

188

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

the new requirements allow for the creation of a database that can be used to examine trends within institutions, compare institutions, and link K–12 and postsecondary data systems (Renn, 2009). However, comparing populations (and various success indicators) before and after the changes should be done with caution, given the likelihood for other population sizes to decrease with the inclusion of the new Two or More Races category. For example, if 10% of all students formerly counted in one racial category now count in the Two or More Races category, other racial category sizes will appear to decrease. So the percentages of African American, Native American, or Asian American students might appear to decrease, which would be a concern on many campuses that are trying to increase structural diversity. There is evidence that the number and proportion of mixed-race students in higher education will continue to grow from the present 2.9%. Jones and Bullock (2012) reported that Two or More Races respondents grew from 2.4% of the total population in 2000 to 2.9% in the 2010 Census. The total population grew by 9.7% during this time, but the Two or More Races population grew by 32%. Population trends predict that the Two or More Races group will continue to grow in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education (Renn, 2009).

Experiences of Multiracial College Students Knowing the number of multiracial students and the population’s projected growth is not enough; to serve their needs, all college educators, including administrators and support personnel, must also understand something about the students’ multiracial experiences. A growing body of literature provides insight into how multiracial youth and college students negotiate the racialized landscape of U.S. high schools and higher education. Research on secondary and postsecondary students (Basu, 2006; Chang, 2014; Harper, 2014; Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; King, 2011; Renn, 2003, 2004; Rockquemore, 2002; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Townsend, Markus, & Bergsieker, 2009; Wallace, 2001) makes up a substantial part of this literature. Autobiographies and collections of personal narratives (Fulbeck, 2006; Funderberg, 1994; Gaskins, 1999; Garrod, Gómez, & Kilkenney, 2013; O’Hearn, 1998) bring the voices of mixed-race youth and young adults directly to the reader. Together these works suggest three themes in the experiences of multiracial students: the desire to identify themselves rather than to be placed in categories by others, the role of racism (largely related to physical appearance) in multiracial identity, and the role of peers and peer culture in school and college experiences related to race.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 188

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

189

Self-Identification The theme of racial self-identification persists in research about and narratives of mixed-race college students. In their studies of multiracial college students, Basu (2006), Kellogg and Liddell (2012), Renn (2003, 2004), and Wallace (2001) noted that the ability to identify themselves rather than be placed in racial categories by others was important to their research participants. Multiracial students may identify themselves differently according to context (Basu, 2006; Harper, 2014; Johnston, Ozaki, Pizzolato, & Chaudhari, 2014; Renn, 2003, 2004; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Wallace, 2001). Whether mixed-race students identify themselves consistently in one way or differently according to context, the central principle at stake is the right and opportunity to self-identify. In addition to outlining a bill of rights for multiracial people that describes the right to self-identification (Root, 1996), Root (2004) created a multiracial oath of social responsibility, which recognizes how the individual rights to self-identification are interconnected to other people and forms of oppression. With very few exceptions, beginning with filling out admissions applications, students’ experiences in college are marked by compulsory identification in racial categories (Renn & Lunceford, 2004). Ninety-eight percent of colleges in a random sample drawn from one study (Renn & Lunceford, 2004) asked applicants to indicate race/ethnicity; the 2% that did not ask on the application were historically Black colleges and universities. To be clear, asking applicants to check boxes to indicate race and ethnicity is not necessarily the same thing as asking for their racial or ethnic identity (Rockquemore, Brunsma, & Delgado, 2009; Townsend et al., 2009), yet young people refer to official college forms, including applications and research surveys, as potential opportunities to indicate multiple racial backgrounds (Brittian et al., 2013; Johnston et al., 2014; King, 2008; Renn, 2000, 2004). The 1997 decision revising OMB standards for collecting and reporting data on student race and ethnicity required institutions to instruct respondents to indicate all races that apply (from the five racial categories described earlier), yet the requirement to report multiracial students in a merged Two or More Races category in effect reduces the ability of respondents to have their self-identified racial background carried forward in the data. The difference between a student reporting Asian and White heritage and a student reporting Latino and Black heritage will be invisible in the data when both students are reported as Two or More Races. And students will be unable to identify themselves as multiracial or biracial, if those are their preferred racial identities. The opportunity to check more than one box, however, is generally seen as a step forward for self-identification (Kellogg & Niskodé, 2008).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 189

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

190

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Experiences in college, after the admissions application and other forms are completed, also highlight multiracial students’ desire to identify themselves rather than be identified by others. Voluntary membership in student organizations and activities focused on race, ethnicity, and culture may provide opportunities for mixed-race students to explore and more closely identify with aspects of their heritages, regardless of how others perceive their identities (Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Renn, 2004). For students with a parent who is not a native speaker of English, language classes are sometimes a place for identity exploration and commitment, and study abroad provides some mixed-race students with the opportunity to identify with one of their cultural heritages (Renn, 2004). Other academic activities—class projects, research papers, language dialogues, performing arts—may complement a biracial student’s efforts to identify with multiple aspects of his or her racial and ethnic background (Basu, 2006; Renn, 2004). Taken together, curricular and cocurricular involvement in identity exploration provides opportunities for the self-identification that many mixed-race students report they are seeking.

Physical Appearance and Racism Physical appearance—skin color, eye shape and color, hair color and texture, body shape—is an enduring factor in research and narratives on the mixedrace experience of high school and college students (AhnAllen, Suyemoto, & Carter, 2006; King, 2008; O’Hearn, 1998; Renn, 2004; Rockquemore, 2002; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012). A central theme of this factor is dealing with other people’s discomfort with, curiosity about, or attention (welcome or unwelcome) to the ways that many mixed-race people do not fit neatly into societal expectations of what it means to “look” White or Black or Asian. Others’ discomfort often results in multiracial individuals experiencing monoracism, a particular form of racism targeting individuals who do not neatly fit monoracial categories (Hamako, 2014; Johnston & Nadal, 2010). Manifesting in the form of microaggressions, or the subtle, everyday, brief, and often unintentional slights against people of multiracial heritage (Johnston & Nadal, 2010), monoracism is a newer term, yet the concept is ingrained in previous literature, often relating to physical appearances. On college campuses, where racial dynamics function in part based on appearances, not being readily identifiable to others creates an uncomfortable ambiguity, perhaps prompting other students to project specific identities—“You look Latina. You must speak Spanish”—or stereotypes—“Your skin is so light, you must be one of those stuck-up, light-skinned African American women” (King, 2008; Renn, 2004; Rockquemore, 2002). These are classic examples of Johnston and Nadal’s (2010) proposed categories of multiracial

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 190

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

191

microaggressions, which include instances of exclusion and isolation, exoticization and objectification, assumption of monoraciality and mistaken identity, denial of multiracial reality, and pathologizing of identity or experiences. While it might be tempting in an age of increasing diversity and globalization to dismiss the role of physical appearance—sometimes called phenotype—in the racialized experiences of mixed-race students, this theme is one of the most persistent in the literature on multiracial experiences and identities (Basu, 2006; Fulbeck, 2006; Funderberg, 1994; Gaskins, 1999; Renn, 2004; Root, 1996; Wallace, 2001; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012). Research involving biracial women showed that appearance may be an especially salient factor for their identities and experiences (Basu, 2006; Rockquemore, 2002). Biracial women report that dating culture, popular media (such as beauty magazines), advertising, and the entertainment industry focus attention on women’s appearances, portraying light-skinned women of Color as more socially desirable than darker-skinned women and more “exotic” than White women. Moreover, the ethnically ambiguous look has been used by entertainment, advertising, and fashion industries to market across racial lines (DaCosta, 2007). Biracial women then face the paradox of being desired by men (and advertising agencies), sometimes resented by other women of Color, yet still subject to societal racism because they are not White. Such positioning often results in not knowing where to place multiracial people within racial hierarchies (e.g., as either privileged or oppressed), which is why monoracism, as a unique form of oppression that multiracial people face based on their mixed-heritage status, is important to comprehend. Monoracism privileges monoracial identity yet intersects with traditional forms of racism where Whiteness is privileged (Guillermo-Wann & Johnston, 2012). For instance, a Black-White biracial student who looks White might benefit from White privilege, yet feel marginalized due to monoracism. This experience of marginalization often stems from biracial college students’ desire to self-identify; identifying oneself as one wishes may be difficult based on how others perceive one’s race and ethnicity based on appearance (Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012). The opportunity to self-identify may be reduced or made more challenging if others make assumptions about the racial identities of biracial students. Self-identification then becomes a constant process of “coming out” as mixed race (Renn, 2004), a process that may be more or less comfortable based on the individual and his or her circumstances.

Peers and Peer Culture The role of peers and peer culture on college student outcomes is well documented (Kaufman & Feldman, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 191

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

192

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Evidence indicates that peers play a substantial part in the identity exploration and racial identities of multiracial students (Basu, 2006; Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Renn, 2003, 2004). Groups of multiracial peers create opportunities for multiracial students to find comradeship, and monoracial peers (White and students of Color) create opportunities for identity exploration, support, and challenge (Renn, 2004; Renn & Arnold, 2003). Research participants have described the role of multiracial peers in providing situations to explore mixed-race identity, to discuss shared experiences about growing up with parents who were from different backgrounds and who were different from the students themselves, and to provide educational activities for the rest of the campus (Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Renn, 2004; Wallace, 2001). On some campuses, formal student organizations for mixedrace students form a nucleus for these activities (Hamako, 2014; Ozaki & Johnston, 2008; Wong & Buckner, 2008). On other campuses there are informal networks of multiracial students that may or may not coalesce into a formal organization (Ozaki & Johnston, 2008; Renn, 2000), while some students may find support in organizations or networks in communities off campus (Hamako, 2014). In either case, formal and informal networks of multiracial peers provide settings for identity exploration and commitment. Monoracial peers also play important roles in the experiences of multiracial students. In some cases, monoracial friends and student organizations (e.g., Black Student Union, Asian/Pacific Alliance) provide support for multiracial students to explore their different heritage groups and to identify themselves as they choose (Renn, 2004). Often, however, multiracial students report that they encounter resistance from monoracial students based on physical appearance (as noted previously) or a perception that by claiming a multiracial identity, mixed students are somehow “trying to . . . ‘escape their Blackness’” or other non-White identity, as one participant in Renn’s study claimed (2004, p. 119). Biracial students experience pressure to be “authentic” in their identities—to be Black enough, Latinx enough, Native American enough, Asian in the right way—and not to appear to be rejecting any one racial identity (King, 2008; Renn, 2004; Wallace, 2001). Some biracial students experience peer pressure to choose one heritage group over another (King, 2008; Talbot, 2008) as a way to demonstrate authenticity and loyalty to other people of Color. The dominant role of peers and peer culture in racial identity is not unique to biracial students, but because these students are de facto not part of the monoracial White majority and because they may face additional scrutiny by peers concerned with maintaining communities of students of Color, exploring the influence of peers on biracial student experiences is important.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 192

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

193

Identity Development Models The status and experiences of biracial students provide contexts and foundations for understanding various identity and identity development models that have been proposed for multiracial students. Largely unexplored until the 1990s, biracial and multiracial identity development was first described in stage models (e.g., Kich, 1992; Poston, 1990), then by models that emphasize identity processes, outcomes, or both (e.g., Renn, 2003, 2004, 2008; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Root, 1990, 1998; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012). Psychological approaches dominated the early models (e.g., Kich, 1992; Poston, 1990; Root, 1990); sociological, ecological, and intersectional approaches entered the field later (e.g., Renn, 2003; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012); and more intersectional models are the most recent additions (e.g., Wijeyesinghe, 2012). The models share an assumption that racial identity development for people with mixed heritages can result in healthy racial and overall self-concept, and nothing is inherently worse or disadvantageous about being biracial or multiracial than being monoracial. Inherent in all of these models is the reality that, by definition, biracial students have at least some heritage (or in some cases, all) that places them in a nondominant racial or ethnic group in the United States. As such, their identity development is influenced by the dominant White racial ethos that may favor assimilation to the majority culture. For students whose appearance allows them to “pass” as White, no matter what their actual background is, these forces can be especially strong (Renn, 2004). Other students may pass as monoracial people of Color, as Khanna and Johnson (2010) documented that some biracial Black-White adults are “passing as black” (p. 382) in contemporary contexts. It is important to remember that although biracial identity development processes and patterns may differ from those of monoracial students of Color, mixed-race students are still subject to environmental factors and dominant forces of White culture, whether they identify as having White heritage or claim membership in multiple non-White racial groups or not (Talbot, 2008).

A Stage Model of Biracial Identity Development Like stage models proposed for monoracial people of Color (e.g., Cross, 1995; Helms, 1995), biracial identity development stage models trace an individual from early childhood through adolescence into adulthood. Believing that the monoracial models did not accurately depict the development of biracial individuals, Kich (1992) proposed the following three stages

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 193

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

194

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

of biracial, bicultural identity development, tracing development from childhood through adolescence to adulthood: 1. An initial awareness of differentness and dissonance between selfperceptions and others’ perceptions of them (3 through 10 years of age) 2. A struggle for acceptance from others (age 8 through late adolescence and young adulthood) 3. Acceptance of themselves as people with a biracial and bicultural identity (late adolescence throughout adulthood) (p. 305)

Kich’s (1992) model highlights the dynamic between self and others’ perceptions, which explains critical aspects of how identity develops, not just what it develops into. In his model, Kich specifically identified school and community settings as the location for the struggle for acceptance, a finding confirmed by Kellogg and Liddell (2012), Renn (2004), and Wallace (2001). Kich provided a useful road map to biracial identity development but did not allow for the full range and fluidity of identities that later scholars pointed out as healthy and possible.

Varying Identity Outcomes for Multiracial Individuals First proposed by Root (1990) as ways to “resolve ‘Other’ status,” varying identity outcomes for multiracial students have become the accepted ways of thinking about biracial student identities. Based on her clinical psychological practice, Root proposed four potentially positive resolutions of the tension of biracial identity. Renn (2003, 2004) found an additional identity category in which students chose to opt out of identifying racially. Terming this category extraracial, she located it among five patterns of racial identity: 1. Student holds a monoracial identity, choosing one heritage with which to identify (as in Root, 1990, third resolution: Identification With a Single Racial Group). 2. Student holds multiple monoracial identities, shifting according to specifics of a situation (Root, 1990, second resolution: Identification With Both Racial Groups). 3. Student holds a multiracial identity, electing not one heritage or another, but a distinct, separate category called multiracial, biracial, mixed, and so on (Root, 1990, fourth resolution: Identification as a New Racial Group). 4. Student holds an extraracial identity, deconstructing race or opting out of identification with U.S. racial categories as a means of resistance to

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 194

7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

195

what may be seen as artificial or socially constructed categories (not seen in Root, 1990). 5. Student holds a situational identity, identifying differently in different contexts, a fluid identity pattern in which racial identity is stable but some elements are more salient than others depending on context foundational to Root’s (1990) model.

In a sample of 56 students from six institutions, Renn (2004) found that nearly half (48%) identified in each of the first two patterns, 89% held a multiracial identity, 23% held an extraracial identity, and 61% identified situationally (percents total more than 100 because nearly all students were in more than one pattern). Other researchers (Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Wallace, 2001) found roughly similar proportions, with variations explained by sampling and data collection methods. Wallace (2001) used Root’s (1990) identity resolutions as the basis of her research with high school and college students, finding that students did, in fact, identify in these ways. Rockquemore and Brunsma (2002) noted them as well in their survey-based quantitative study of 177 biracial (Black/White) college students. Critical to all these models is the idea that one way of identifying is not a stage on the way to another, and that individuals may choose to change identities over time. Some models propose factors that may influence identity, typically in a person-environment framework.

Ecological and Person-Environment Approaches to Biracial Identity Development If accepting an integrated biracial identity is the goal (Kich, 1992), or coming to have one or more of the four (Root, 1990) or five (Renn, 2004) identity patterns is considered healthy, understanding how individuals arrive at these identities may enable educators to help students achieve these outcomes. Person-environment or psychosocial processes similar to those implicit in earlier models of racial identity development (e.g., Cross, 1995; Helms, 1995) have been shown also to contribute to biracial identity development. Ecological approaches (Renn, 2003, 2004; Root, 1998, 1999) have been useful in explaining the processes of multiracial identity development, and Wijeyesinghe’s factor model of multiracial identity (FMMI, 2001) and intersectional model of multiracial identity (IMMI, 2012) highlighted personenvironment features that contribute to various identity outcomes. Developmental and human ecology models typically place an individual in his or her sociohistorical and cultural context to illustrate how the environment influences the person and vice versa. In his person-process-context-time

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 195

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

196

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

developmental ecology model, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1993) focused attention on how an individual’s developmentally instigative characteristics act to provoke or inhibit various reactions from people and objects through what he termed proximal processes (Renn & Arnold, 2003). According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecology model, some school and college contexts favor individuals with certain characteristics (Renn & Arnold, 2003). Renn (2003, 2004) used this model to show how individual characteristics such as propensity to explore a new environment, initiative to self-label, and family history could affect any of the five identity patterns that multiracial college students might choose. For example, a campus featuring many groups for students of different cultural backgrounds could provide a rich context for exploration of multiracial heritages. On the other hand, if that environment also featured very tightly controlled access to those groups—where peers kept strict control over who was “X enough” to belong comfortably—then exploration of multiple heritages might be constrained. The emphasis on the person-environment interaction from proximal processes to more distal influences of broad sociocultural contexts is central to Renn and Arnold’s ecological approach to studying college student development. Root’s ecology approach (1999) embeds identity in nested contexts of generation, regional history of race relations, class, and gender systems. Personal characteristics such as inherited influences (e.g., languages at home, parent’s heritage, extended family, values, phenotype) and traits (e.g., temperament, social skills, coping skills, talents) enter social interactions with the community (home, school, work, community, friends) to influence racial and ethnic identity. Putting identity, rather than the individual, at the center of this model allows Root (1999) to provide detail on personal characteristics most relevant to racial identity, whereas Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) model does not specify a domain of development or characteristics most important to that domain. By emphasizing the processes of the person-environment interactions, the ecology models provide a window into the how as well as the what of multiracial identity development.

Emerging Approaches: Intersectionality Within the realm of ecological models are more recent models attempting to integrate the influence of multiple factors, including how multiracial identity intersects with other social identities and systems of oppression (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of intersectionality). Building upon her well-cited FMMI, which proposed eight factors (racial ancestry, early experience and socialization, physical appearance, other social identities, religion, cultural attachment, political awareness and orientation, and social and historical context) influencing choice of racial identity,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 196

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

197

Wijeyesinghe (2012) proposed a new IMMI. The IMMI updates the original eight factors of the FMMI to also include geographic/regional environment, situational differences, and global influences and generation. In both models, the inclusion of “other social identities” calls to attention how important it is to consider how multiracial identity is informed and often constrained by one’s other identities. The IMMI incorporated intersectionality to acknowledge how various factors interact with each other. Represented as an individual’s “personal galaxy” with the choice of racial identity at the center, the IMMI acknowledges how each factor represents its own galaxy that may intersect with other factors or the choice of racial identity itself. Although intersectionality is emerging as an important theoretical perspective in higher education research, researchers have already explored biracial and multiracial identity intersections with gender (e.g., Basu, 2006; Rockquemore, 2002), sexual orientation (e.g., King, 2011), and social class (e.g., Korgen, 2010), even if not specifically addressing or using an intersectionality framework. Brunsma, Delgado, and Rockquemore (2013) incorporated intersectionality in their proposed “identity matrix” model to capture how multiracial identity manifests differently across five different social fields, including social, political, cultural, physical/embodied, and formal contexts. Taken as a group, the ecological and intersectional approaches bring together key aspects of person-environment theory and emerging perspectives on identity. They account for factors that have been empirically linked to multiracial identity development in college students, including gender, social class, family and family status, age, spirituality, social awareness and orientation, and geographic region (Renn, 2004; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Root, 1998, 2003; Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, & Peck, 2007; Wallace, 2003). The ecology models also suggest to educators ways of designing environments to promote healthy racial identity development among all students, including those of mixed race.

Programs and Services for Multiracial Students in Higher Education There is no evidence to suggest that multiracial students need programs or services different from those that benefit other students who are in a minority on their campuses. In fact, researchers (e.g., Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Ozaki & Renn, 2014; Renn, 2004; Wallace, 2001) have found that like other students of Color, mixed-race students benefit from a campus climate that is culturally open and inclusive, with programs and services that acknowledge

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 197

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

198

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

differences and similarities among students from all backgrounds. It is also true, however, that for services to be effective for mixed-race students, the approach to providing programs and services for students of Color must take into account the reality that not all students fit neatly into one race or ethnicity (Literte, 2010). The importance of changing institutional forms has already been discussed, but there are a number of other opportunities for higher education professionals to improve the learning and developmental environment for multiracial students. First, conduct an audit of existing programs, services, practices, and offices to see how they deal with students who choose to identify in more than one racial category, in no racial category, or in a stand-alone multiracial category. Do forms require students to indicate one race only? Are the requirements for race-based scholarships clear for biracial students? If there are offices or professional staff for monoracial groups of Color (e.g., Black, Asian, Native American, Latinx), how do multiracial students fit into their mission, programs, and services? Are resources available for monoracial groups of Color equally available to a mixed-race student organization? How would the campus look and feel to a student who identified as mixed race? Do ostensibly monoracial students and student groups welcome mixed-race peers? Second, train professional and paraprofessional staff to understand monoracism as a system of oppression and look for bias toward monoraciality. Being aware that not all students will identify themselves in a single category is a starting point. For example, it is not uncommon at some diversity/ awareness training activities for the facilitator to ask students to join others of the same race, typically in five monoracial groups (White, Black, Asian, Native American, and Latinx). Where do biracial students go during this exercise? Having frank discussions on the ways physical appearance is an unreliable means of determining racial identity is another strategy; naming skin color, hair texture, and eye and nose shape as unreliable markers of identity creates space for staff to confront their own assumptions about what people from X group or with Y identity look like, and who looks X or Y enough to be part of a certain group. Third, create and sustain opportunities for mixed-race students to participate in peer groups with other mixed students. Whether a campus sustains a biracial student organization or not, administrators can ensure ongoing visibility of biracial people by sponsoring and supporting activities that draw attention to the fact that not everyone is monoracial (e.g., speakers and films featuring multiracial topics and themes). Hosting discussion groups for multiracial students is another strategy, and helping multiracial students connect with one another online could help create sustainable peer communities as well.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 198

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

199

Fourth, identify campus and community role models for mixed-race students. In addition to President Barack Obama, a number of prominent biracial public figures come from entertainment (Halle Barry, Mariah Carey, Naomi Campbell, Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Alicia Keys, Bruno Mars, Olivia Munn) and sports (Carmelo Anthony, James Blake, Derek Jeter, Blake Griffin, Tiger Woods, Jamila Wideman, Apolo Anton Ohno). Many of these individuals could be used as case studies to acknowledge the multiple factors influencing racial identification and the dynamic nature of multiracial identity; for example, President Obama selected only African American on his 2010 census form while he openly acknowledges his mixed heritage in books and speeches. While students can easily point to famous people of mixed heritage, they may benefit from having local mentors and more accessible role models. Tap informal networks of multiracial faculty, staff, and community leaders to lead discussions, participate in educational panels, or advise student groups. While it would be inappropriate to approach someone who “looks biracial” to enlist them in this effort, using campus networks, online social networks, and other means to seek participation would be appropriate. Fifth, provide opportunities in the curriculum for students to explore and express their racial identities. Mixed-race students in various studies (e.g., Basu, 2006; Renn, 2004) discussed the importance of academic coursework in exploring aspects of their heritage and understanding the history and context of race in the United States and other countries. The biennial Critical Mixed Race Studies conference (criticalmixedracestudies.org) may serve as a helpful resource for those wanting to create or maintain multiracial coursework. Whether in the occasional course dedicated to the mixed-race experience or in courses where multiracial issues were one topic among many, or even in courses where race was not a central focus but class exercises and assignments allowed for exploration of racial identity, multiracial students took advantage of opportunities to build their knowledge and cultural skills. Language courses and study abroad provided additional opportunities for students to understand their heritages better. By conducting a campus audit, training staff, creating opportunities for peer and mentor interaction, and providing curricular opportunities to explore racial identity, campus administrators can prepare for increasing populations of multiracial students. Creating an environment that welcomes multiracial students and supports their full participation in intellectual and campus life also creates a context in which multiracial students can contribute to the community by providing monoracial students of different cultural identities, backgrounds, and experiences with opportunities for interactive mutual learning from them as well. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the number of multiracial Americans grew more than a third since 2000

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 199

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

200

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

(Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). Over 9 million Americans identified with two or more racial groups on the 2010 census, with the vast majority of those individuals (92%) indicating just two racial groups (Jones & Bullock, 2012). The U.S. Census Bureau is currently considering making more changes to Census 2020 (for instance, making Latino a racial option and not a separate ethnicity question). Whether the Census Bureau makes such changes or not, it is already clear that by including Latino as a racial category, the school-age population that is mixed-race—the young people who are coming to college in the next 10 years—is somewhere between 10% and 40%, depending on the state (Lopez, 2003). Old systems for collecting data and providing programs and services for a collegiate population that is incorrectly assumed to consist of monoracial groups will need to change to understand and accommodate the growing number of multiracial students and assist in meeting their needs and interests.

Learning Activities and Discussion Questions 1. Find your undergraduate institution’s admissions application (typically online) and see how applicants are asked to indicate their race and ethnicity. Does the format comply with the Office of Management and Budget (1997) guidelines? Does it offer more than the required minimum categories? Can all students identify themselves as they choose? Next locate the institution’s data on student race and ethnicity. Is it clear how the answers reported on the admissions form are aggregated and reported publicly? How do multiracial students appear in the institutional data? How do international students and those students who choose not to identify themselves appear? Is there an explanation on the admissions application or in institutional data about how missing data are handled? What about students who report more than one race? 2. Choose a higher education institution and see what kinds of student organizations are present. See if there are groups for monoracial students of Color and if there is a group for biracial or multiracial students. If there are both, do they appear to receive the same amount of institutional support or recognition? If there is not a group for multiracial students, can you tell to what extent monoracial student groups may address their concerns and interests? Do those groups sponsor events geared toward understanding and appreciating mixed race? To what extent does there appear to be cross-group programming (e.g., Black Student Union cosponsoring with Asian/Pacific Alliance)? Be sure, when you are looking for multiracial student groups, that you are finding groups of multiracial

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 200

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

201

students, not groups for students of many races (a multiracial group, not a group of multiracial students). From what you can find, and recognizing the limitations of what is available online and in published materials, what can you say about the likely climate for students who identify with more than one racial group? 3. Visit the websites of the MAVIN Foundation (www.mavinfoundation .org), the Mixed Heritage Center (www.mixedheritagecenter.org), Loving Day (lovingday.org), MixedRaceStudies.org (www.mixedracestudies.org), and the Critical Mixed Race Studies conference (criticalmixedracestudies .org). These sites feature reports, resource links (to books, articles, and films), media, and discussion boards. What resources can you locate that you could use in your work with students, both biracial and monoracial? 4. The OMB changed the “Check one only” policy to “Check all that apply” in 1997. Higher education enacted this policy in 2010–2011, with institutions now using the two-question format that asks ethnicity in binary as “Are you Hispanic/Latino?” and race as “Select one or more from the following races: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or White” (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, n.d.). How can institutions track student data across the change? For example, if a biracial individual started college in 2008 and marked only “Black” on the admissions form, how would that person’s persistence and retention data be reflected in reports after the change? And considering trend data, how would the cohorts before the change look different from the cohorts after the change? What effect would the change in data collection have on tracking persistence by racial categories? 5. In what ways do the experiences and identities of multiracial students reflect those of other (monoracial) students of Color, and how do they differ? In what ways are they similar to monoracial White students, and how are they different? How do the differences and similarities among these four groups—multiracial students who have White heritage, multiracial students from multiple minority backgrounds, monoracial students of Color, and monoracial White students—influence their college experiences?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 201

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

202

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Notes 1. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) offers five racial categories: American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, and two ethnic categories: Hispanic/ Latino and Not Hispanic/Latino (OMB, 1997). The presence of many students with one or more Hispanic/Latino/Latina parents supports consideration of this category as socially equivalent to the five defined racial categories (Carter, Yeh, & Mazzulla, 2008; Harris & Sim, 2002). Thus, for the purposes of this chapter, multiracial includes individuals with, for example, one Latino/Latina and one White parent. 2. Individuals with parents from two or more federal racial categories may be called biracial, multiracial, multiethnic, mixed race, mixed heritage, or mixed. There is little concurrence on preferred terms among individuals with two or more racial heritages (MixedFolks, n.d.) or among scholars and professionals who work with these students. The terms are used interchangeably in this chapter. 3. Under the OMB 1997 guidelines, respondents can indicate all categories that apply. Data are aggregated in a category titled “Two or More Races” (Jones & Smith, 2001). Competing proposals called for adding a category titled “Multiracial” to the existing categories, but the “Check all that apply” strategy was preferred (Perlmann & Waters, 2002; Renn & Lunceford, 2004).

References AhnAllen, J. M., Suyemoto, K. L., & Carter, A. S. (2006). Relationship between physical appearance, sense of belonging and exclusion, and racial/ethnic selfidentification among multiracial Japanese European Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 673–686. Basu, A. (2006). Negotiating social contexts: Identities of biracial college women. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. Brittian, A. S., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Derlan, C. L. (2013). An examination of biracial college youths’ family ethnic socialization, ethnic identity, and adjustment: Do self-identification labels and university context matter? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(2), 177–189. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brunsma, D. L., Delgado, D., & Rockquemore, K. A. (2013). Liminality in the multiracial experience: Towards a concept of identity matrix. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 20(5), 481–502. Campus Awareness and Compliance Initiative. (2005). Toolkit, Introduction, College Campus Experiences. Retrieved from www.mavinfoundation.org/caci Carter, R. T., Yeh, C. J., & Mazzulla, S. L. (2008). Cultural values and racial identity statuses among Latino students: An exploratory investigation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(1), 5–23.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 202

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

203

Chang, A. (2014). Identity production in figured worlds: How some multiracial students become racial atravesados/as. Urban Review, 46(1), 25–46. Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revisiting the Cross model. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 93–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. DaCosta, K. M. (2007). Making multiracials: State, family, and market in the redrawing of the colorline. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fulbeck, K. (2006). Part Asian, 100% Hapa. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books. Funderberg, L. (1994). Black, White, other: Biracial Americans talk about race and identity. New York, NY: William Morrow. Garrod, A., Gómez, C., & Kilkenny, R. (Eds.). (2013). Mixed: Multiracial college students tell their life stories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gaskins, P. F. (1999). What are you? Voices of mixed-race young people. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Gasser, H. S. (2008). Being multiracial in a wired society: Using the Internet to define identity and community on campus. New Directions for Student Services, 2008(123), 63–71. Guillermo-Wann, C., & Johnston, M. P. (2012, November). Investigating theory and research on multiracial college students in a “post-racial” era: Towards an integrative model of multiraciality in the campus climate for diversity. Paper presented at the Critical Mixed Race Studies Conference, Chicago, IL. Hamako, E. (2014). Improving anti-racist education for multiracial students (doctor of education dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Harper, C. E. (2014, May 15). Pre-college and college predictors of longitudinal changes in multiracial college students’ self-reported race. Race Ethnicity and Education (forthcoming). doi:10.1080/13613324.2014.911161 Harris, D. R., & Sim, J. J. (2002). Who is multiracial? Assessing the complexity of lived race. American Sociological Review, 67, 614–627. Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and people of Color racial identity development models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hoffman, J., & Peña, E. V. (2013). Too Korean to be White and too White to be Korean: Ethnic identity development among transracial Korean American adoptees. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(2), 152–170. Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (n.d.). Collecting race and ethnicity data from students and staff using the new categories. Retrieved from nces .ed.gov/ipeds/reic/collecting_re.asp Javier, R. A., Baden, A. L., Biafora, F. A., & Camacho-Gingerich, A. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of adoption: Implications for researchers, practitioners, and families. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 203

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

204

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Johnston, M. P., & Nadal, K. L. (2010). Multiracial microaggressions: Exposing monoracism in everyday life and clinical practice. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics and impact (pp. 123–144). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Johnston, M. P., Ozaki, C. C., Pizzolato, J. E., & Chaudhari, P. (2014). Which box(es) do I check? Investigating college students’ meanings behind racial identification. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 56–68. Jones, N. A., & Bullock, J. (2012). The two or more races population: 2010. 2010 Census Brief Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Jones, N. A., & Smith, A. S. (2001). The two or more races population: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Kaufman, P., & Feldman, K. A. (2004). Forming identities in college: A sociological approach. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 463–496. Kellogg, A. H., & Liddell, D. L. (2012). “Not half but double”: Exploring critical incidents in the racial identity of multiracial college students. Journal of College Student Development, 53(4), 524–541. Kellogg, A., & Niskodé, A. S. (2008). Policy issues for student affairs and higher education. In K. A. Renn & P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial and multiracial college students: Theory, research, and best practices in student affairs (pp. 93–102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Khanna, N., & Johnson, C. (2010). Passing as Black: Racial identity work among biracial Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 380–397. Kich, G. K. (1992). The developmental process of asserting a biracial, bicultural identity. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 304–317). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. King, A. R. (2008). Student perspectives: The racial balancing act. New Directions for Student Services, 2008(123), 33–42. King, A. R. (2011). Environmental influences on the development of female college students who identify as multiracial/biracial–bisexual/pansexual. Journal of College Student Development, 51(4), 440–455. Korgen, K. O. (Ed.). (2010). Multiracial Americans and social class: The influence of social class on racial identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Literte, P. E. (2010). Revising race: How biracial students are changing and challenging student services. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 115–134. Lopez, A. M. (2003). Mixed-race school-age children: A summary of census 2000 data. Educational Researcher, 32, 25–37. MixedFolks. (n.d.). Names for MixedFolks. Retrieved from www.mixedfolks.com/ names.htm National Center for Education Statistics. (2014, November). Digest of Education Statistics: 2013. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/ dt14_306.60.asp Office of Management and Budget. (1997). Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Retrieved from www.whitehouse .gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 204

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

205

O’Hearn, C. C. (1998). Half and half: Writers on growing up biracial and bicultural. New York, NY: Random House. Ozaki, C. C., & Johnston, M. P. (2008). The space in between: Issues for multiracial student organizations and advising. New Directions for Student Services, 2008(123), 53–62. Ozaki, C. C., & Renn, K. A. (2014). Creating engaging and supporting spaces for multiracial college students. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed.; pp. 91–104). New York, NY: Routledge. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Perlmann, J., & Waters, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). The new race question: How the census counts multiracial individuals. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Poston, W. S. C. (1990). The biracial identity development model: A needed addition. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 152–155. Renn, K. A. (2000). Patterns of situational identity among biracial and multiracial college students. Review of Higher Education, 23, 399–420. Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 383–403. Renn, K. A. (2004). Mixed-race college students: The ecology of race, identity, and community. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Renn, K. A. (2008). Research on bi- and multiracial identity development: Overview and synthesis. In K. A. Renn & P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial and multiracial college students: Theory, research, and best practices in student affairs (pp. 13–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Renn, K. A. (2009). Education policy, politics, and mixed heritage students in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 165–184. Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on peer culture. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 261–291. Renn, K. A., & Lunceford, C. J. (2004). Because the numbers matter: Transforming postsecondary education data on student race and ethnicity to meet the challenges of a changing nation. Education Policy, 18(5), 752–783. Rockquemore, K. A. (2002). Negotiating the color line: The gendered process of racial identity construction among Black/White biracial women. Gender & Society, 16(4), 485–503. Rockquemore, K. A., & Brunsma, D. L. (2002). Beyond Black: Biracial identity in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Rockquemore, K. A., Brunsma, D. L., & Delgado, D. J. (2009). Racing to theory or retheorizing race? Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity theory. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 13–34.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 205

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

206

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Root, M. P. P. (1990). Resolving “other” status: Identity development of biracial individuals. Women and Therapy, 9(1–2), 185–205. Root, M. P. P. (1996). A Bill of Rights for racially mixed people. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 3–14). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Root, M. P. P. (1998). Experiences and processes affecting racial identity development: Preliminary results from the Biracial Sibling Project. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4(3), 237–247. Root, M. P. P. (1999). The biracial baby boom: Understanding the ecological constructions of racial identity in the 21st century. In R. H. Sheets & E. R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development (pp. 67–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Root, M. P. P. (2003). Racial identity development and persons of mixed-race heritage. In M. P. P. Root & M. Kelley (Eds.), Multiracial child resource book: Living complex identities (pp. 34–41). Seattle, WA: MAVIN Foundation. Root, M. P. P. (2004). Multiracial oath of social responsibility. Retrieved from drmariaroot.com Shih, M., Bonam, C., Sanchez, D. T., & Peck, C. (2007). The social construction of race: Biracial identity and vulnerability to stereotypes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 125–133. Talbot, D. M. (2008). Exploring the experiences and self-labeling of mixed-race individuals with two minority parents. In K. A. Renn & P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial and multiracial college students: Theory, research, and best practices in student affairs (pp. 23–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Townsend, S. S. M., Markus, H. R., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2009). My choice, your categories: The verification or denial of multiracial identities. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 185–204. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Final guidance on maintaining, collecting, and reporting racial and ethnic data to the U.S. Department of Education. Federal Register. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/ 101907c.html Wallace, K. R. (2001). Relative/outsider: The art and politics of identity among mixed heritage students. Westport, CT: Ablex. Wallace, K. R. (2003). Contextual factors affecting identity among mixed-heritage college students. In M. P. P. Root & M. Kelley (Eds.), Multiracial child resource book: Living complex identities (pp. 87–92). Seattle, WA: MAVIN Foundation. Wijeyesinghe, C. L. (2001). Racial identity in multiracial people: An alternative paradigm. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 129–152). New York, NY: New York University Press. Wijeyesinghe, C. L. (2012). The intersectional model of multiracial identity: Integrating multiracial identity theories and intersectional perspectives on social identity. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 206

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

207

racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (pp. 81–107). New York, NY: New York University Press. Wong, M. P. A., & Buckner, J. (2008). Multiracial student services come of age: The state of multiracial student services in the United States. In K. A. Renn & P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial and multiracial college students: Theory, research, and best practices in student affairs (pp. 43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 207

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

10 WORKING WITH WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS T O U N D E R S TA N D A N D N AV I G AT E W H I T E R A C I A L IDENTITIES Chris Linder

W

orking with White students to understand their racial and cultural identities remains of vital importance for student affairs educators. Like other student groups, White students are not a monolithic group; they possess a variety of additional social identities that influence their experiences and understanding of their White identities, and many White students feel confused about how to have a positive White racial identity while simultaneously understanding a history of racism in the United States. Additionally, White students come to college and university campuses with a variety of previous experiences related to race and racism (Ambrosio, 2013; Chesler, Peet, & Sevig, 2003). Some White students have developed an understanding of systemic racism and attempt to engage as a racial justice ally, while others exhibit explicitly racist behaviors (Cabrera, 2012). The vast majority of students on college campuses likely fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum, with a large number of students recognizing that racism exists, that White people have historically contributed to it, and not knowing or understanding their role in addressing it. Whiteness is more than a racial identity; it is a system through which behaviors, practices, and policies are enacted with a dominant or cultural norm in mind (Ambrosio, 2013; Gusa, 2010). Raising issues of systemic oppression presents unique challenges for working with White students 208

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 208

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

209

because it requires that they consider the unearned privileges they may have received throughout their lives, which, in turn, frequently results in defensiveness and denial of racism (Ambrosio, 2013; Linder, 2015). The purpose of this chapter is to provide student affairs educators with information to consider when working with White students to address race and racism. Specifically, I provide an overview of the social construction of Whiteness, synthesize current literature about Whiteness and White privilege on college campuses, and highlight some White identity and racial justice ally development models. Finally, I provide suggestions for student affairs educators supporting White students in their White identity development.

Social Construction of Whiteness Frequently conflated, race and ethnicity are two different concepts. Race refers to the classifications used by the government and other agencies to categorize people and generally includes broad categories based largely in phenotype. Ethnicity often refers to a specific culture or nationality to which a person belongs. For example, a person’s race might be White and ethnicity may be Italian. The social construction of race frequently results in the conflation of race and ethnicity, especially for people who do not have strong roots or connections to a particular ethnicity. Race has roots in legal, political, scientific, and religious history. Religious, legal, and political leaders who were mostly White and male constructed race during the Revolutionary Era in the United States to justify slavery. Christians could not allow slavery unless they could “demote Africans to nonhuman status” (Smedley & Smedley, 2005, p. 19). Between 1878 and 1952, courts in the United States heard 44 racial prerequisite cases from people seeking citizenship and classification as White (Lopez, 1995). Courts regularly struck down these requests, creating legal racial classifications based on perceived scientific evidence that race is biologically defined (Kendall, 2006; Lopez, 1995). More recently, geneticists, psychologists, and anthropologists argue that people are not born with “propensities for any particular culture, culture traits, or language, only the capacity to acquire and create culture” (Smedley & Smedley, 2005, p. 17). Because genes cannot determine people’s race, geneticists argue that biological racial differences do not exist. Racial differences are socially constructed based on skin color, hair texture, nose width, lip thickness, and other physical features, even though these features vary considerably among people within the same racial categories (Smedley & Smedley, 2005).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 209

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

210

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

However, just because race is socially constructed does not mean it is not real. The consequences of socially constructed ideas are significant. Throughout U.S. history, courts have determined who is considered White; the classification of White has changed over time depending on the needs of White people with power. For example, when Irish people first immigrated to the United States, they were not considered White; when people with power determined that greater numbers of White people were needed to maintain power and control, Irish people became White (Takaki, 2008). The social classification of Whiteness changes when it financially and politically benefits White people to include or exclude additional people into this classification. Social constructions of people of Color as the opposite of White people perpetuate continued racism. Generally, when discussing racism in the United States, scholars and activists focus attention on people of Color because they experience racism. However, some scholars and activists emphasize the importance of exploring White identity development and culture to understand the dynamics of race and racism in the United States (Johnson, 2006; Kendall, 2006).

Whiteness and White Privilege Whiteness refers to the culture surrounding White racial identity, including the existence of power and privilege (Kendall, 2006; Reason, Roosa Millar, & Scales, 2005). As with all races, Whiteness is socially constructed and has many meanings. Exploring White socialization, White culture, and White privilege provides additional insight and examples of the influence of Whiteness on U.S. culture. White socialization. In a world where people rush to claim “postracialness,” children learn from an early age they should be “color-blind.” They should not see or discuss race (Lawrence, 1997). This is especially true for White children, socialized from a very young age not to see or discuss racial differences. I reflect on the many times I have observed White children and heard stories from White college students where they first noticed someone had a different skin color from them and loudly pointed it out to their parents in public. Embarrassed and unskilled at discussing difference, White parents often silence the children while in public and do not revisit the conversation. The implicit message the child learns is, “Difference is bad, and we should not point it out or discuss it.” At some point, White children also learn that Whiteness is superior. Messages from many White parents to their White children include, “We do not see color,” and “Everyone is equal,” but children still learn from actions and experiences about the power of systemic racism

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 210

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

211

and White superiority (Wise, 2005). White children notice from a young age that the many of people who serve them lunch at school and many of the people who clean often have a different skin color than they do. Eventually, many White (especially middle-class) children learn that service jobs like food service and janitorial service are undesired and for people “beneath” them. This socialization begins from a young age and continues for a lifetime. White people (and people of Color) continue to receive messages from multiple places about the superiority of White people compared with people of Color. This example highlights one step in the cycle of socialization (Harro, 2000), which describes ways that institutions and culture shape people’s experiences and beliefs. Initially, individuals learn norms and expectations from caregivers, including parents, teachers, clergy members, and relatives. The caregivers provide information and share norms they learned from the larger culture, working to ensure safety and comfort for the child in their care. Next, individuals participate in societal institutions and develop their social lens based on what they learn in schools, churches, and other institutions, as well as through media, language, and other transmitters of culture (Harro, 2000). The cycle of socialization explains one way that individuals learn to understand their racial identity—and the internalization of messages of superiority and inferiority (Harro, 2000). The internalization of these messages frequently results in the perpetuation of the same messages, contributing to the cyclical nature of the model. White college students arrive on campus with many experiences related to race and racial socialization, largely characterized by lack of exposure to people of races other than their own, subtle and overt racist acts by family and other significant influences, racial tokenism, and few role models of “successful” people of Color (Chesler et al., 2003, p. 221). Racial tokenism refers to the ways in which people have been socialized to believe that people of Color do not face institutional oppression because some people of Color have managed to meet White standards of success despite the oppression they face. Additionally, when students arrive on campus with these previous experiences, researchers indicate there is little incentive for them to change their perspectives about their racial identities and the occurrence of racism (Chesler et al., 2003). In fact, the college environment, significantly influenced by White culture and White people, seems to reify social structures that keep racism in place, especially for students who are both White and male (Cabrera, 2011). White culture. Many people argue that White culture does not exist (Kendall, 2006). Often, White individuals do not identify as racial beings, although they may identify with some specific nationalities or ethnicities (e.g., Italian, Irish). Because White people frequently identify as raceless, they

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 211

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

212

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

rarely understand or acknowledge the culture and consciousness that come with Whiteness (Kendall, 2006; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; Reason et al., 2005; Singleton & Linton, 2006). A significant piece of White culture is White privilege, or benefits afforded to people based on the color of their skin, usually invisible or ignored by White individuals (Kendall, 2006; Lawrence, 1997). Because White privilege is often invisible to those who receive it, it manifests itself as entitlement (Watt, 2007). When White individuals believe they are entitled to the benefits they receive, they do not recognize the benefits as privilege (Singleton & Linton, 2006). Entitlement is closely related to White people’s socialization to individualism (Watt, 2007). White individuals are socialized to believe that achievements are a result of individuals working hard, so that when they consistently observe people of Color not succeeding in the same ways as White people, they attribute it to laziness or individual failure, rather than systemic oppression (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Singleton & Linton, 2006). Another way individualism contributes to White people’s understanding of racism is through the idea of “moral responsibility” (Applebaum, 2007, p. 454). White people separate the “good” antiracist Whites from the “bad” racist Whites through the idea that racism constitutes individual acts perpetuated by individual people (Scheurich, 1993, p. 7). The belief that some White individuals possess a moral responsibility not to be racist while others commit overt racist acts contributes to the idea of individual oppression rather than systemic oppression. While society socializes White people to see racism as individual acts, people of Color experience racism based on their membership in a social group, perpetuated by members of a different social group (Scheurich, 1993). When White people do not understand ways they are complicit in racism because they only view racism as individual acts, they contribute to further marginalizing people of Color. Another characteristic of Whiteness is universalization. Because many people do not view Whiteness as a race, Whiteness is considered the norm, making it the dominant race in society (Kendall, 2006; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). People of Color learn to understand Whiteness to survive, but White people do not have to understand their or other people’s race because their experiences are considered the norm (Singleton & Linton, 2006). Once White individuals begin to understand their racial identity, they often attempt to distance themselves from Whiteness for a multitude of reasons (Alcoff, 1998; Eichstedt, 2001; Linder, 2015). White individuals often experience guilt, anger, and embarrassment as a result of recognizing White privilege (Singleton & Linton, 2006). In addition, because many people associate Whiteness with bigotry and discrimination, and most White individuals do not consider themselves racist, they do not want to associate with

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 212

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

213

a group that perpetuates racism (Alcoff, 1998). Further, because of White people’s socialization to individualism, some White people may believe it feels impersonal to associate with a group, rather than be recognized as an individual (Kendall, 2006). As described in the following racial identity development models, many White individuals work through this distancing to embrace their White identity. White privilege. Privilege, or benefits afforded to people based on their membership in the dominant culture, permeates U.S. culture (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997). The term privilege originates from the Latin words privus (private) and legis (laws). Privilege originally indicated “individual exemption from the law,” illustrating the legal roots of privilege in the United States. The term eventually evolved to indicate social status, often resulting in informal exemption from the law (Kruks, 2005). Privilege manifests itself in many capacities, often associated with various social identities—including race (White), gender (men), class (middle and owning class), and sexual orientation (heterosexual). People do not ask for White privilege, nor can they give it back (Johnson, 2006; Kendall, 2006). As illustrated earlier, an elite group of people created White privilege through legal, political, and social norms (Kendall, 2006). A foundational article by Peggy McIntosh (1990) laid the groundwork for White people to discuss White privilege. Defining and explaining White privilege presents complex challenges. Most authors who discuss it acknowledge the ways other social identities influence how White people experience White privilege. For example, White working-class people do not have access to the same kinds of power as White middle-class people (Johnson, 2006; Kendall, 2006). In addition, scholars discuss White privilege as being invisible, something individuals do not see unless someone points it out to them (Alcoff, 1998; Johnson, 2006; Kendall, 2006). Examples of White privilege appear daily. Some specific examples of White privilege include ignoring or minimizing the experiences of people of Color, learning and teaching a one-sided history that sanitizes racism in the United States, expecting people of Color to educate White people about racism and White privilege, intellectualizing issues of privilege in order to avoid the pain associated with racism, and believing race is not an issue of concern (Goodman, 2011; Kendall, 2006). Further, White people have a significant influence on the experiences of people of Color. A White person’s assessment of a person of Color’s experience may significantly influence that person’s future. For example, in job interviews, when a White person, who does not have experience with various racial and ethnic groups, says they believe a person of Color does not have the appropriate experiences or skills, it is often taken more seriously than what a person of Color says

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 213

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

214

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

about the same candidate. An additional component of White privilege in this setting is when White people believe people of Color cannot cope with situations, rather than recognizing the significance that racism and White privilege have on the person’s experiences (Kendall, 2006). White privilege also manifests itself by keeping White people central in conversations about race (Applebaum, 2007). Seeing Whites as the norm or reference point for everyone else contributes to a culture that does not value people of Color. Additionally, when White individuals focus on the guilt they feel as a result of White privilege, the attention is back on the White people, rather than on understanding and addressing the racism experienced by people of Color (Accapadi, 2007; Kruks, 2005). In addition to setting a norm for all people, White individuals also create the standards of appropriate language, dress, and speech for all people (Kendall, 2006). Another component of White privilege is White people’s ability to surround themselves with people who look and think like them at all times (Goodman, 2011; Johnson, 2006; Kendall, 2006). Whiteness and White privilege on college campuses. Whiteness and White privilege appear on college campuses in ways similar to those in mainstream society. Two major ways Whiteness and White privilege appear on college campuses include the pervasiveness of Whiteness and color-blind mentalities (Gusa, 2010). Socialization prior to college impacts college students’ experiences related to race (Chesler et al., 2003; Milem, Umbach, & Liang, 2004). White students socialized in mainstream culture often do not recognize Whiteness as a culture or a race (Rankin & Reason, 2005). This invisibility of White culture contributes to the overall campus climate and feelings of isolation and marginalization for students of Color. Pervasive White culture results in the creation of traditions and practices on campuses that cater to White populations, including social programming and classroom curricula (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Reason & Evans, 2007). The pervasiveness of Whiteness contributes to ignorance about cultures other than White (Gusa, 2010). Students of Color report “interpersonal awkwardness” (Lewis, Chesler & Forman, 2000, p. 81) and White resistance to discussions related to diversity and social justice, which contribute to a negative campus racial climate for students of Color (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Lewis et al., 2000; Reason & Evans, 2007). Many White faculty, staff, and students on college campuses proudly proclaim they are “color-blind” (Reason & Evans, 2007, p. 67) to show their support for racial diversity, believing racism ended with the civil rights movement. The color-blind mentality contributes to subtle, rather than overt, racism and supports the notion that individuals, rather than systems, perpetuate

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 214

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

215

racism. A color-blind mentality contributes to feelings of isolation and marginalization of students of Color (Reason & Evans, 2007). For example, a student of Color may feel trivialized or ignored when a friend or faculty member says they “do not see color” because that means that the person does not see a significant aspect of the student’s identity and experience. Similarly, the concept of White institutional presence (WIP) describes the saliency of Whiteness on college and university campuses (Gusa, 2010). By exploring the “unexamined historically situated White cultural ideology embedded in the language, cultural practices, traditions, and perceptions of knowledge” (p. 465), a better understanding of Whiteness emerges. Gusa (2010) described four characteristics of WIP: (a) White ascendency, or the normalization of White experiences which results in entitlement; (b) monoculturalism, the expectation that all people learn the dominant educational canon with little attention to nondominant histories and realities; (c) White blindness, frequently described as color blindness; and (d) White estrangement, creating distance between White students and students of Color. Thinking about the ways in which Whiteness as a construct, not just an identity, influences campus environments helps student affairs educators consider ways to better support students and specifically to understand ways White students have been socialized to think about race. For example, many awards programs on campus require students to apply for recognition, which is a practice commonly associated with dominant, individualistic values (e.g., Whiteness as a practice, not an identity). These practices may immediately exclude students whose cultures value more collectivist practices. The pervasiveness of Whiteness on college campuses contributes to creating a negative racial climate for all students, including White students, through minimizing and ignoring racial differences and creating an environment in which one way of being is considered the norm. To mitigate some of the negative impact, educators must intentionally create spaces to help White students understand their White identity, White privilege, and racism. As described through student development theory, when White students understand their racial identity, they gain an awareness of other cultures and better understand ways to improve the campus racial climate (Eichstedt, 2001; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; Reason & Evans, 2007; Reason et al., 2005).

College Student Development Theory Student development theory describes the process by which college students grow and change during college. A subset of student development theory describes ways college students understand their social identity group

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 215

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

216

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

memberships, including race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion and spirituality, and ability (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). To date, most White racial identity development models include a focus on becoming aware of Whiteness as an identity, moving through guilt, and ultimately integrating White racial identity into a person’s complete identity (Hardiman, 2001; Helms & Cook, 1999/2005).

White Racial Identity Development Historically, scholarship related to White racial identity development (WRID) focused solely on the ways White people understood their relationship to racism and White privilege. Many scholars have critiqued the WRID literature for failing to explore the meaning of Whiteness independently of other races and for assuming all White people grow and develop as antiracist allies (Hardiman, 2001; Rowe, Bennett, & Atkinson, 1994; Sabnani, Ponterotto, & Borodovsky, 1991). Further, many models describe race in a binary construct—Black and White—resulting in ignoring the experiences of people from different racial identities. Notwithstanding these critiques, I describe these models here as a foundation for understanding White identity development. Helms and Cook’s model of White identity development. Helms and Cook (1999/2005) described White racial identity development specifically in relation to Black identity through seven statuses. Starting with contact, White individuals generally deny racism exists. They avoid discussing race and ignore instances of racist behaviors. According to this model, during contact, White individuals discover the reality that Black individuals exist. Next, White people experience disintegration and reintegration, statuses related to their White racial environment. In disintegration, people recognize racism exists, forcing them to choose between White loyalty and loyalty to humanity. Usually people in disintegration disassociate with race and racism, behaving in ways that allow them to be accepted by members of their White communities. Disintegration often feels disorienting and confusing (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005). Many White individuals then enter reintegration, a status where they engage with their White environment, noting the historical context of racism. White people deny current racism, absolving themselves of any responsibility for it. Additionally, many people in reintegration adopt the racist values of the environments in which they find themselves to avoid acknowledging racism exists (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005). Next, White individuals enter pseudo-independence, a status where they accept White superiority and tolerate people of other races who subscribe

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 216

7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

217

to White standards of success. For example, they may be comfortable with people of Color who talk and dress like they do, but not people of Color who exhibit behaviors outside the “norm” of Whiteness. Additionally, during this status, White people reject the “bad” racist White people and associate with “good” antiracist White people (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005, p. 252) and attempt to assist people of Color in acting more like White people. Additionally, people in pseudo-independence shape their experiences to fit into their worldview and deny their racist behaviors. In immersion status, White individuals begin the search for an understanding of Whiteness, specifically related to racism and the privilege they receive as a White person. Individuals seek accurate information about Whiteness and racism, working to understand their socialization as it relates to White privilege. Often, White individuals in the immersion stage focus on relationships with people of Color to help them understand their White identity (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005). After immersion, a White person might enter emersion, a status in which he or she engages with other White people who are trying to understand Whiteness and racism. Emersion allows people to continue to develop a sense of themselves and their White identity. Autonomy represents the final stage in the White identity development model. In autonomy, White individuals integrate their White racial identities and possess “the capacity to relinquish the privileges of racism” (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005, p. 251). Further, White people use their experiences and ideas to define racism and to understand people of Color, rather than relying on stereotypes they learn from other people. Hardiman’s model of White identity development. Hardiman (2001) developed a White identity development model to understand ways White people recognized racism and White privilege. She developed the model to push White individuals forward in a “new way to be White” that did not rely on the “subjugation or denigration” of people of Color (Hardiman, 2001, p. 110). Hardiman (2001) described a White identity development model with five stages: no social consciousness of race or naiveté, acceptance, resistance, redefinition, and internalization. White people begin this process with no consciousness of race and no awareness of the value assigned to various races and ethnicities. After childhood, White individuals move into the acceptance stage. During acceptance, a person has unconsciously accepted race and racism as fact and internalizes the superiority of Whiteness over other races. The model assumes it is impossible for White people in the United States to skip the acceptance stage, given that every person is socialized to understand and accept racism (Hardiman, 2001).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 217

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

218

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Following acceptance, people enter resistance, where they begin to question the dominant paradigm about race, sometimes becoming active in antiracist movements. During resistance, many White individuals deal with emotions of guilt, embarrassment, and anger about their Whiteness. Some White people even distance themselves from other White people in an attempt to deny their White privilege and racism. For example, some White college students may not look forward to returning home for breaks from school because they have experienced a shift in their values related to racism and do not want to associate with friends and family who have not also experienced this shift. From the resistance stage, some White individuals move into redefinition, where they begin to understand how racism affects them as White people and begin to take responsibility for the role they play in racism. They do not distance themselves from White people; instead, they attempt to create a new version of being White (Hardiman, 2001). Finally, some White people reach the internalization stage, where they integrate an understanding of race and racism into all aspects of their lives (Hardiman, 2001). Scholars critique the Helms (1999/2005) and Hardiman (2001) models of White racial identity development for focusing on the development of White people in relation to people of Color, further contributing to the lack of understanding of White culture, which is a form of White privilege. Additionally, scholars critique the models for their linear nature, highlighting the fact that development depends largely on the context in which it happens (Rowe et al., 1994; Sabnani et al., 1991). Rowe and colleagues (1994) developed the White racial consciousness statuses (WRCS) model to address some of the concerns with the WRID models. White racial consciousness statuses model. The WRCS model uses statuses rather than stages to describe White people’s racial consciousness. Acknowledging people’s attitudes and behavior changes as a result of their experiences and environments, the model relies on a typology structure, rather than a linear developmental model (Rowe et al., 1994). The authors name the model a “racial consciousness” model because it describes the process of consciousness in relation to people of Color, rather than a White identity development process. The WRCS model describes unachieved and achieved racial consciousness statuses. The unachieved statuses include avoidant, dependent, and dissonant. The achieved statuses include dominative, conflictive, reactive, and integrative (Rowe et al., 1994). The unachieved statuses lack exploration and commitment in relation to racial consciousness, and the achieved statuses include exploration and a commitment to beliefs about race. Unachieved statuses. The avoidant type is similar to the unawareness stage of Hardiman’s (2001) model. People in the avoidant typology do not

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 218

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

219

recognize race as an identity and do not recognize their White racial identity. People subscribing to avoidant typology minimize and dismiss the existence of race and racism. People characterized by the dependent typology rely on others for their perceptions of race and racial consciousness. They are aware that race exists, yet they have not internalized any beliefs about race or racism. Finally, the dissonant type describes people who are aware of race and racism but have not developed any commitments to their ideas about race. They are open to new information but feel confused because the information conflicts with other information they have received about race (Rowe et al., 1994). Achieved statuses. The achieved White racial consciousness types exemplify people who have considered race and racism and are committed to their ideas about race. The dominative type subscribes to White superiority and actively engages in racist acts toward people of Color. Additionally, the dominative type does not see commonalities with people of Color. People described by the conflictive type acknowledge overt acts of racism exist and recognize the harm in racism, yet oppose any potential remedies for it. Conflicted between the two values of egalitarianism and individualism, people in the conflictive typology believe everything should be addressed fairly, resulting in a lack of support for programs like affirmative action and busing (Rowe et al., 1994). The reactive typology describes characteristics of people who see discrimination in society and react to it. They note discrimination in situations and respond to it, yet they are unaware of their own roles in racism. People in the reactive typology attribute every problem with racism to systems, failing to recognize the individual responsibility for addressing racism. Finally, attitudes in line with the integrative type include a complex understanding of issues affecting people of Color. People have integrated their White racial identity and recognize the ways they experience privilege compared to people of Color. People in the integrative typology participate in social action to address inequity and comfortably engage with people of Color as well as White people (Rowe et al., 1994). As previously discussed, these models have been heavily critiqued for focusing on White identity in relationship to people of Color, which may contribute to continued perceptions of Whiteness as normal and dominant (Chesler et al., 2003). Additionally, these models do not explain the behavior of students who exhibit explicitly racist behaviors. These models fail to include a critical component of racial identity development: an understanding of systemic oppression. Literature on Whiteness in student affairs and higher education often focuses exclusively on “how individual students ‘work through their Whiteness,’ develop their racial selves, and sometimes become racial justice allies” (Cabrera, 2014, p. 769). Ignoring the complexities of White racial

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 219

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

220

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

identity development results in a lack of understanding of ways to work with students who are not aspiring to be racial justice allies, and in fact, contribute to creating and maintaining hostile campus climates.

Color-Blind Racism Although most survey data indicate White individuals are more racially tolerant than they have been historically, a closer examination highlights the reality that students’ actual behaviors differ significantly from their beliefs (Ambrosio, 2013; Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000). For example, as highlighted in a study exploring racial dialogues in classrooms, “White college students often possess negative racial attitudes toward people of Color while professing a strong belief in the liberal notion of equality of opportunity” (Ambrosio, 2013, p. 1391). Similarly, when Bonilla-Silva and Forman (2000) interviewed White students after they took a survey on racial attitudes, the researchers highlighted the contradictions inherent in the ways college students spoke about race and racism compared to what they reported on the survey. For example, students who indicated they were supportive of interracial marriages on a survey then stumbled in interviews about the same topic. Similarly, White students used “abstract and decontextualized notions of liberalism” (Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000, p. 70) when discussing race and racism, highlighting their belief race does not contribute to their judgment of people, yet they also drew on a cultural rationale for explaining inequities, making statements like, “Blacks lack the proper work ethic” (Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000, p. 70). Bonilla-Silva’s (2010) work led to the development of a theoretical framework of Color-blind racism, highlighting the ways in which racism manifests in a “postracial” culture in which it is generally unaccepted to exhibit explicitly racist behaviors, yet covert racism still exists. His study of White college students led to the development of four central frames of Color-blind racism: abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2010). Abstract liberalism refers to White people using concepts associated with liberalism (e.g., equal opportunity, choice) to explain race-related matters. For example, White people often refer to “choices” people of Color make as explanations for racism, rather than acknowledging the systemic factors influencing inequity. Naturalization refers to the tendency of White people to refer to natural occurrences as excuses for racism. For example, a person might say it is just natural that people gravitate to others like them as an excuse for segregation (Bonilla-Silva, 2010). Closely related to naturalization, cultural racism refers to the idea that White people subscribe to beliefs about a particular group as an explanation for racism. For example, someone might claim, “Latinos do not value

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 220

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

221

education,” as an excuse for why retention and graduation rates are lower for Latino students. Finally, the minimization of racism relies on the idea that “it is better than it used to be” as a framework for ignoring racism. By pointing out the ways in which society is perceived to be better now than before, White people can ignore racism’s current realities. Building on the color-blind racism framework, Cabrera (2011, 2012, 2014) highlighted the multiple and contradictory ways White male college students attempt to understand race and racism. Through his work, Cabrera (2012) identified two groups of White men in college: those who subscribe to a dominant belief in racial ideology and those who are “working through Whiteness” (p. 375). The “dominant racial ideology” (Cabrera, 2011, p. 81) consisted of four frames: (a) Whiteness as normal, (b) racism being of minimal importance, (c) the United States as meritocratic, and (d) opposition to race-conscious social policy. Students who were “working through Whiteness” exhibited three criteria: (a) understanding of systemic racism, (b) self-awareness of personal racial bias, and (c) “support of race-conscious policies” (Cabrera, 2012, p. 382). These descriptions of White male students’ understanding of race may contribute to student affairs educators’ abilities to more complexly understand the ways in which White students approach race. By acknowledging some students subscribe to a “dominant racial ideology” (Cabrera, 2011, p. 81), student affairs educators may approach these students in a different way than they approach students who are working through Whiteness. For example, if a student exhibits signs of subscribing to traditional notions of racial ideology, a student affairs educator’s approach may consist of presenting new information to counter the student’s dominantly held beliefs. For students working through racial consciousness, student affairs educators may support them in processing ways to take action related to their increased awareness of racial injustices. Also emerging in recent years is increased scholarship on engaging White students as racial justice allies (Linder, 2015; Reason et al., 2005). As peers remain an important influence on college students’ understanding of themselves and the world around them, engaging White students as potential racial justice allies to educate their less racially conscious and interested White peers warrants increased attention.

White Racial Justice Advocacy Understanding the process by which White people begin to explore and develop as racial justice allies provides context for educators challenged with engaging White students. Although few studies have specifically explored racial ally development among college students, several scholars have explored

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 221

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

222

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

antiracist activism among White adults (Applebaum, 2007; Eichstedt, 2001; Frankenberg, 1993; O’Brien, 2001; Thompson, 2001; Warren, 2010). In this section, I use antiracist activist and racial justice advocate or ally interchangeably, following the lead of scholars I cite. White racial justice advocates understand what Whiteness and White culture mean to them without reifying the superiority of Whiteness or defining Whiteness in negative terms (Bailey, 1998; Eichstedt, 2001). Racial justice allies explore their understanding of their racial identity, acknowledging the reality that Whiteness is not neutral. Many antiracist White activists describe experiencing feelings of guilt and embarrassment about their Whiteness and working through those feelings to establish a healthy sense of racial consciousness (Eichstedt, 2001). Next, White racial justice allies name themselves as oppressors and recognize the privileges they receive over people of Color (Applebaum, 2007; Eichstedt, 2001). Further, White racial justice allies understand ways they are personally complicit in a system of racism and recognize that racism consists of more than overt, discriminatory acts (Applebaum, 2007; Eichstedt, 2001). They acknowledge that “nice” White people perpetuate racism when they fail to acknowledge their roles in upholding the system of oppression by ignoring White privilege (Applebaum, 2007, p. 455). Racial justice allies also recognize how feelings of guilt about White privilege contribute to further ignoring and marginalizing people of Color. By focusing on guilt and “moral status” (Applebaum, 2007, p. 458), the conversation about racism gets stuck on addressing the feelings of White people, rather than addressing racism and systems of privilege (Alcoff, 1998; Applebaum, 2007; Kruks, 2005). For example, in some discussions about race, facilitators seek to make White students comfortable to keep them engaged in the conversation, yet this recenters White students often at the expense of students of Color. Finally, White racial justice allies understand racism affects everyone (Eichstedt, 2001; Frankenberg, 1993). Because some White racial justice allies have experienced marginalization in other areas of their lives, they may understand the ways systems of oppression maintain the superiority of one group over another. Further, White racial justice allies understand the ways racism hurts them and work to dismantle systems of oppression for their benefit as well as for the benefit of others (Eichstedt, 2001; Frankenberg, 1993). This is not to say White people experience racism; however, White people may experience some hurt and frustration caused by racism directed toward people of Color. For example, a long history of racism may cause people of Color to distrust White people, which may result in some hurt that motivates White people to engage in racial justice advocacy. Although harnessing this potential hurt and frustration may motivate White people

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 222

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

223

to engage as racial justice advocates, it is always important to help White students understand the consequences of racism for people of Color are far more significant than the ways racism hurts White people. People of Color experience systemic and individual oppression as a result of racism; for example, police brutality claims the lives of hundreds of people of Color every year (Wihbey & Kille, 2015). This is significantly different than feeling sad because a person of Color does not trust a White person. Thompson (2001) explored the history of antiracist activism in various civil rights movements by interviewing 39 racial justice allies across the United States. Frustrated with the lack of a road map for White racial justice allies, Thompson sought to explore the experiences of activists to learn from their challenges and successes. Themes included courage and resilience, self-reflection, and accountability. White racial justice allies work on issues requiring a significant amount of courage and resilience, as well as the ability to learn from mistakes and stand up to their greatest fears. Racial justice allies risk losing or hurting relationships with family members or other loved ones by challenging the systems that provide benefit to White people (Thompson, 2001). By doing the work of self-reflection, antiracist White activists learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of their colleagues. Self-reflection requires honest assessment of successes and failures and the ability to change behaviors and beliefs when they do not benefit antiracism work. Self-reflection requires a level of self-awareness and ability to admit to failure (Thompson, 2001). Building on the work of racial justice scholars, some student affairs and higher education scholars have begun to explore ally development among college students, including racial justice advocacy.

Racial Justice Ally Development Among College Students Researchers have explored the development of social justice allies in college. While the names for such models vary depending on the authors, the themes are similar. Generally, students transition through stages of unawareness of social injustices, an early awareness of injustice, education related to the injustice through friends or formal education, integration of the awareness, and commitment to social activism (Broido, 2000; Chávez, Guido-DiBrito, & Mallory, 2003; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Additionally, some researchers have begun to explore racial justice advocacy among college students. Specific to college students’ racial ally development, White students’ experiences prior to college, college coursework, and cocurricular experiences in college influence their understanding of Whiteness (Reason et al., 2005). In addition, invitations and opportunities to participate in social justice work significantly influenced students’ identities as racial justice

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 223

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

224

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

allies. Participants in one study shared they did not initiate activism on their own; they were invited to participate by a friend or educator on campus. Students’ cognitive ability to make meaning of their experiences also impacted their ability to understand their Whiteness and act as racial justice allies. A preliminary model of racial justice ally development includes coursework related to race, diverse friendships, “minority” experiences (Reason et al., 2005, p. 543), sense of Whiteness, racial justice actions, invitation and opportunity, support, White racial justice role models, and intentionally diverse living arrangements (Reason et al., 2005). When all of these components are present, White students are more likely to engage as racial justice allies. Building on the previous work of Frankenberg (1993), I developed a model of antiracist identity development among feminist college women (Linder, 2015). Mainstream feminist movements have a long history of racism perpetuated by White women failing to interrogate their White privilege and rallying around issues of gender at the exclusion of additional forms of oppression. Therefore, it is important for White feminist women to consider their race in addition to their gender when engaging in allied behavior. Although this model is based on White women’s experiences, people have also indicated they believe this model describes their experiences at the intersection of their dominant and subordinated identities. The model of antiracist feminist identity development is cyclical in nature and highlights the ways guilt, shame, and fear intersect to feed a cycle of hyperawareness and overanalysis. Although participants have good intentions to engage in allied behavior, being “in their heads” (Linder, 2015, p. 543) contributed to them failing to take action in many situations where they needed to speak up to interrupt racist oppression. Fear of doing it wrong, not being liked, or hurting someone’s feelings often inhibited them from acting. Eventually, participants might work through these feelings of guilt, shame, and fear to engage in action, but they often found themselves thrust back into the cycle if they were not vigilant about identifying their fear of action. Student affairs educators may see similar patterns with students who are attempting to work through Whiteness (Cabrera, 2012) to engage in racial justice advocacy. Although many racial and ally identity development models focus on an arrival or end-stage, it is important to recall unlearning racism and White superiority is a cyclical, ongoing process. In fact, student affairs educators may (and should) recognize themselves in these models, highlighting the reality that ongoing professional and personal development related to power, privilege, and oppression are vital to the work of critically conscious student affairs educators.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 224

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

225

Implications for Student Affairs Educators Understanding White students’ experiences with race and racial identity development warrants attention from student affairs educators. In addition to understanding how White students may experience their own racial identity development, student affairs educators must also understand how Whiteness, as an ideology, influences campus environments. As racism continues to plague campuses, helping White students understand their own racial identities and their role in addressing racism on campuses and beyond presents a unique challenge. Specifically, I recommend four strategies for continuing to engage and support White students in their identity development and working to develop a racially inclusive campus environment for students of Color.

Engage in Ongoing Self-Awareness and Reflection To effectively support White students, student affairs educators must engage in their own processes of ongoing self-awareness and reflection. Especially for White student affairs educators, engaging in a process of understanding their own racial identity and how it consciously or unconsciously influences their work may help them effectively support White students. By identifying strategies and behaviors that inhibit and contribute to their White identity development, White racially conscious student affairs educators may be in a unique position to support White students in their identity development. Further, if student affairs educators are not aware of how their own race influences their work, they may cause harm to White students and students of Color by failing to recognize the significance of race and racism in their everyday work. Seeking out specific opportunities to continue to deepen one’s understanding of themselves is one strategy for engaging in ongoing reflection and self-awareness. White student affairs educators report the Social Justice Training Institute, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA)’s Social Justice Institute, and the White Privilege Conference as examples of personal and professional development opportunities that contribute to a more nuanced understanding of their White identity. Similarly, engaging with other racially conscious White educators also contributes to ongoing reflection and self-awareness. Educators must carefully and intentionally facilitate White caucuses to be effective, and they are often places where White individuals can continue to explore their struggles, effectively engaging as racial justice allies without burdening people of Color to do the work of constantly educating them about racism. Additionally, reading, listening to podcasts, and watching documentaries and videos about racial justice also contribute to ongoing personal and professional development.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 225

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

226

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Engage White Students on Issues Related to Race Student affairs educators must be comfortable discussing race and racism with all students. This frequently requires student affairs educators (both White and of Color) to have done some work related to their own racial identities prior to engaging students. Student affairs educators must frequently push White students to understand that they do, in fact, have a racial identity and it is worth exploring. Further, as student affairs educators observe students subscribing to a dominant frame of racial ideology (i.e., Whiteness as normal; Cabrera, 2011), educators can challenge and support students to consider alternative perspectives. Introducing cognitive dissonance, without expecting students to change their perspectives immediately, may contribute to White students exploring their racial identity and considering the role of systemic racism. For example, a student affairs educator may ask White students if they have ever thought about their race or ask them what it means to them to be White. Similarly, pointing out issues of inequity on campus or in society at large may also help White students start to identify issues of racism. For White students who have acknowledged that racism is a reality, student affairs educators may support them as they work through potential guilt and shame related to their White identity. At this point, White student affairs educators may be especially effective by sharing some of their own struggles with guilt and shame and strategies for working through it. Because White identity development is an ongoing process, this does not assume that White student affairs educators are done working through their struggles; rather, it allows the student affairs educator to engage vulnerably with White students, which may result in White students feeling more confident as they continue to grow on their journey, recognizing that people they respect are also still learning and developing. Similarly, student affairs educators may help students identify strategies to engage as a racial justice ally.

Explore Intersectionality and Empathy White students who possess at least one subordinated identity (e.g., gay, lesbian, or queer; working class or poor; women) are more likely to engage as racial justice advocates (Goodman, 2011; Munin & Speight, 2010). Researchers and educators believe this outcome likely occurs because students with other subordinated identities can empathize with the experience of marginalization. Although White people cannot know what it feels like to experience racism, and heterosexual people cannot know what it feels like to experience homophobia, they can understand the implications of systemic

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 226

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

227

oppression from a lived experience in a different subordinated identity, which can create empathy for people who experience different systemic oppression. Using the reconceptualized model of multiple dimensions of identity (MMDI; Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007) as a framework, student affairs educators may support White students in identifying the multiple dimensions of their identities and their relationships to power and privilege. The model allows students to map their own social identities and their salience in particular contexts. Using this model as a foundation, student affairs educators may add an additional layer of discussion related to power and oppression with the MMDI to help students explore ways they experience both dominance and subordination and how those influence each other and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of racism. For example, a White woman may approach social justice work through a gendered lens because of her experiences with sexism. By validating her experiences with sexism, and also challenging her to understand how her White privilege influences her experience, she may become more open to recognizing her role as a White racial justice ally. She may be able to consider some of the ways she wishes her male peers would support and engage in gender justice work as a guide for her own work as a racial justice ally.

Examine Campus Environments for Messages of White Racial Superiority Student affairs educators must learn to critically examine campus environments for explicit and implicit messages norming Whiteness and White privilege. For example, educators may consider visible representation of racial diversity in publications, including brochures, posters, and websites. Tokenizing students of Color is harmful, so student affairs educators should avoid misrepresenting the racial diversity of their programs; yet consider the messages sent by including only visibly White individuals in promotion materials. Further, student affairs educators may also examine practices for selecting students for leadership and employment positions. Which previous cocurricular experiences are seen as “valuable” leadership experiences? In what ways might student affairs educators promote homogeneity in their programs by failing to consider leadership experiences outside White norms? For example, is being involved in student government valued more highly than serving as a tutor for a summer bridge program? Similarly, some students from more collectivist cultures may not consider the service they do in their communities as “community service,” but students from more individualistic (White) cultures may put these same activities on their resumes as “service.”

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 227

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

228

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Conclusion Supporting White students in their racial identity development is a complex and challenging task. Similar to other groups of students, White students differ considerably in their needs and experiences. Additionally, many of the people charged with supporting White students in their identity development are engaged in a similar process of their own racial identity development, creating complex advising and mentoring situations for which there is little guidance. As White student affairs educators continue to engage in their own process of awareness and self-reflection, they may become better equipped to support White students engaged in similar processes. Although racism and White privilege have created conditions in which educators of Color are often acutely aware of the influence of Whiteness and White privilege on college campuses, they may also benefit from understanding the scholarship about White college students’ experiences to further support them on their journeys of holistic development.

Case Study You are the coordinator of student organizations at Southern State University (a midsize public institution in the southeastern United States) and manage the formal recognition process for new student organizations. Student groups must be formally recognized by your office to reserve space on campus, apply for programming funding from student government, and advertise through campus communication mediums. A group of seven White students presents the paperwork necessary to start a White Student Union. They express they feel discriminated against because there are organizations for students of Color but not White students. They have followed all of the guidelines and technically meet all of the requirements set forth by university policy to be a student organization, including that their membership is open to any student, of any race, who wants to join. Based on what you read in this chapter about White racial identity development and Whiteness on college campuses, what are your strategies for working with the students who want to start this group?

References Abes, E. A., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1–22. Accapadi, M. M. (2007). When White women cry: How White women’s tears oppress women of Color. College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 208–215.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 228

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

229

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P., (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Routledge. Alcoff, L. M. (1998). What should White people do? Hypatia, 13(3), 6–26. Ambrosio, J. (2013, October 22). Teaching the psychosocial subject: White students and racial privilege. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(10), 1376–1394. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.840402 Applebaum, B. (2007). White complicity and social justice education: Can one be culpable without being liable? Educational Theory, 57(4), 453–467. Bailey, A. (1998). Locating traitorous identities: Toward a view of a privilegecognizant White character. Hypatia, 13(3), 27–42. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and racial inequality in contemporary America (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Bonilla-Silva, E., & Forman, T. A. (2000). “I am not a racist but . . .”: Mapping White college students’ racial ideology in the USA. Discourse & Society, 11(1), 50–85. Broido, E. M. (2000). The development of social justice allies during college: A phenomenological investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 3–18. Cabrera, N. L. (2011). Using a sequential exploratory mixed-method design to examine racial hyperprivilege in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(151), 77–91. doi:10.1002/ir.400 Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Working through Whiteness: White, male college students challenging racism. Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 375–401. Cabrera, N. L. (2014, May 13). “But I’m oppressed too”: White male college students framing racial emotion as facts and re-creating racism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(6), 768–784. doi:10.1080/09518398.20 14.901574 Chávez, A. F., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Mallory, S. L. (2003). Learning to value the “other”: A framework of individual diversity development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(4), 453–469. Chesler, M. A., Peet, M., & Sevig, T. (2003). Blinded by the Whiteness: The development of White college students’ racial awareness. In A. W. Doane & E. BonillaSilva (Eds.), White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 215–230). New York, NY: Routledge. Eichstedt, J. L. (2001). Problematic White identities and a search for racial justice. Sociological Forum, 16(3), 445–470. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Frankenberg, R. (1993). The social construction of Whiteness: White women, race matters. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Goodman, D. J. (2011). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. New York, NY: Routledge. Gusa, D. L. (2010, Winter). White institutional presence: The impact of Whiteness on campus climate. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 464–489.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 229

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

230

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Hardiman, R. (2001). Reflections on White identity development theory. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B.W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 108–128). New York, NY: New York University Press. Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24. Harro, B. (2000). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfield, R. Castaneda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 16–21). New York, NY: Routledge. Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (2005). Models of racial oppression and sociorace. In M. E. Wilson & L. E. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), ASHE reader on college student development theory, (pp. 235–258). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. (Reprinted from Using Race and Culture in Counseling and Psychotherapy: Theory and Process, 1999). Johnson, A. (2006). Power, privilege, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGrawHill. Kendall, F. E. (2006). Understanding White privilege: Creating pathways to authentic relationships across race. New York, NY: Routledge. Kruks, S. (2005). Simone de Beauvoir and the politics of privilege. Hypatia, 20(1), 178–205. Lawrence, S. M. (1997). Beyond race awareness: White racial identity and multicultural teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 108–117. Lewis, A. E., Chesler, M., & Forman, T. A. (2000). The impact of “colorblind” ideologies on students of Color: Intergroup relations at a predominantly White university. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 74–91. Linder, C. (2015). Navigating fear, guilt, and shame: A conceptual model of White anti-racist women’s identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 56(6), 533–548. Lopez, I. F. H. (1995). White by law. In R. Delgado (Ed.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (pp. 542–550). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. McIntosh, P. (1990, Winter). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School, 31–36. Milem, J. F., Umbach, P. D., & Liang, C. T. H. (2004). Exploring the perpetuation hypothesis: The role of colleges and universities in desegregating society. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 688–700. Munin, A., & Speight, S. L. (2010, May 7). Factors influencing the ally development of college students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(2), 249–264. doi:10.1080/10665681003704337 O’Brien, E. (2001). Whites confront racism: Anti-racists and their paths to activism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Ortiz, A. M., & Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Deconstructing Whiteness as part of a multicultural educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 81–93.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 230

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES

231

Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of Color and White students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61. Reason, R. D., & Evans, N. J. (2007). The complicated realities of Whiteness: From color blind to racially cognizant. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 67–75. Reason, R. D., Roosa Millar, E. A., & Scales, T. C. (2005). Toward a model of racial justice ally development. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 530–546. Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). White racial identity models: A critique and alternate proposal. Counseling Psychologist, 22(1), 129–146. Sabnani, H. B., Ponterotto, J. G., & Borodovsky, L. G. (1991). White racial identity development and cross-cultural counselor training: A stage model. Counseling Psychologist, 19(1), 76–102. Scheurich, J. J. (1993). Toward a White discourse on White racism. Educational Researcher, 22(8), 5–10. Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). The sixth condition: Let’s talk about Whiteness. In Courageous conversations about race (pp. 181–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005, January). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60(1), 16–26. doi:10.1037/0003066X.60.1.16 Takaki, R. (2008). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York, NY: Back Bay Books. Thompson, B. (2001). A promise and a way of life: White antiracist activism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Warren, M. R. (2010). Fire in the heart: How White activists embrace racial justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Watt, S. K. (2007). Difficult dialogues, privilege, and social justice: Uses of the Privileged Identity Exploration (PIE) model in student affairs practice. College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 114–126. Wihbey, J., & Kille, L. W. (2015, October 29). Excessive or reasonable force by police? Research on law enforcement and racial conflict. Retrieved from journalistsresource .org/studies/government/criminal-justice/police-reasonable-force-brutality-raceresearch-review-statistics Wise, T. (2005). White like me: Reflections on race from a privileged son. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 231

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

11 I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O L L E G E STUDENTS Sevan G. Terzian and Leigh Ann Osborne

O

n August 1, 1946, U.S. president Harry S. Truman signed the Fulbright Act into law (U.S. Public Law 584). This provision funded foreign student study in the United States for a prescribed period of time, and it marked the beginning of a steady rise in the number of international students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees at American institutions of higher education. By the 1964–1965 academic year, 82,045 international students enrolled from all regions of the world, with students from southern and eastern Asia being the largest group. This figure continued to increase dramatically, ballooning to 154,580 in 1974–1975. For 2014–2015, international student enrollment in U.S. higher education institutions reached an all-time high of 974,926, totaling 5% of the entire student population on American campuses (Institute of International Education, 2015a). A number of factors have contributed to this growth. For example, the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 (also called the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act) opened more sources of federal funding for student and faculty exchanges (U.S. Public Law 87-256). Nearly all international students are classified as nonimmigrant and need to obtain a student visa to study in the United States. Today, these prospective students can come to the United States only if they are accepted by an academic institution accredited by the Department of Homeland Security. The applicant must show the acceptance letter, certificate of eligibility, evidence of financial support, and proficiency 232

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 232

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

233

in English to a consular official during a personal visa interview at a U.S. consulate abroad. The federal government regulates three classes of visas for international students. The F-1 visa is the most common and is primarily for students at degree-granting institutions and language schools. The M-1 visa applies to students attending vocational and nonacademic trade schools. The J-1 visa was created by the Mutual Educational Exchange Act of 1961 for exchange visitors, and it targeted professors and research scholars who intended to visit for an extended period of time. In addition to the scholar category, the J visa is also used for exchange students and students receiving government funding such as Fulbright grants. Although part-time on-campus employment is permitted, employment restrictions on these visa categories prohibit F, M, and J holders from obtaining full-time jobs while studying. Spouses of J visa holders can apply for employment, but spouses of F and M visa holders cannot—a distinction that holds significant financial implications for married international students. Thus, one important variable that can influence the rate of international student growth in the United States involves policies concerning granting and renewing student visas. (U.S. Department of State, 2010; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2007). Although the United States has historically hosted the greatest number of international students, there are signs that the country faces significant challenges if it is to maintain its position as the destination of choice. Roughly 40% of the world’s international students attended U.S. schools in the early 1980s, but this fell to 32% by the mid-1990s and slipped even further to 22% in 2014 (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Institute of International Education, 2015b). Several factors account for this decline. Competition for international students has increased drastically as other countries have recognized the potential academic, cultural, and financial contributions these students bring to their universities. English-speaking nations such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have developed coordinated national strategies to welcome sojourning students. Western European countries have increased the number of English-taught degrees at their universities and are recruiting heavily around the world. China, India, and South Korea have also expanded access to higher education that was previously unavailable, particularly at the graduate level (Bhandari & Blumenthal, 2011). Government policies enacted in the name of national security have compromised U.S. dominance as an educational destination as well. These policies restricted visas and increased monitoring of foreign students. Particularly in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, public debate intensified about whether to restrict granting visas to international students and to monitor their activities

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 233

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

234

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

(Altbach, 2004; Bennell & Pearce, 1998; Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Coppi, 2007). However, questions about policies regarding international students are not unique to the terrorism concerns of recent years; the United States has historically expressed a degree of ambivalence about hosting and educating international students (Terzian & Osborne, 2006). The proliferation of online degree programs and the growth of branch campuses have also allowed thousands of international students to obtain a U.S. degree without leaving home. Several prominent American universities have established branch campuses in locations such as China, Qatar, Kuwait, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Farrar, 2015; Lewin, 2008; McMurtrie, 2015). In 2015 the United States operated the largest share of branch campuses in the world (80), with numerous others slated for future development. The United Kingdom operated the second highest number (37) of such campuses (Cross-Border Education Research Team, 2015). The United States nonetheless has remained the top destination of international students, with international student enrollment at its highest growth rate in 35 years for 2014–2015 and reflecting an increase of 10% over the previous year. In 2012 the U.S. Department of Education issued its first international strategy report outlining the importance of global learning throughout the K–12 and higher education curriculum. Strategic federal measures, such as the Department of State’s 100,000 Strong educational exchange initiatives, were enacted to increase the number of U.S. students in China and the Americas, beginning in 2009 and 2011, respectively. Further, the 100,000 Strong in the Americas fund aims to increase the enrollment of students from Latin America and the Caribbean in U.S. higher education institutions. Despite these initiatives, the United States continues to lack a comprehensive national policy on the importance of international students (Institute of International Education, 2015a). In addition to their significant academic contributions, international students added an estimated $30.5 billion to the U.S. economy in 2014– 2015. In that academic year, 64% of the 974,926 international students in the United States paid for their education through personal and family resources. Only 21% of all international students studying in the United States received funding from the host college or university (Institute of International Education, 2015a). These figures indicate that increases in college tuition or the implementation of various fees can affect whether a student can study in the United States. Thus, as college tuitions have continued to rise significantly, a growing number of international students have chosen to study at two-year colleges, which often have lower tuition rates and reduce students’ time spent in the United States (and associated living expenses) by

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 234

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

235

half. Whether enrolling for English language immersion or for brief training in a specialized discipline, international students have found two-year colleges increasingly appealing. Enrollments doubled between 1988 and 1998; in the 2014–2015 academic year, 91,648 international students attended community colleges. Doctorate-granting universities, however, still host the greatest number of international students (Desruisseaux, 1998; Institute of International Education, 2015a). China sent the most students to the United States in the 2014–2015 academic year, with 31% of the international student population. India and South Korea were the second and third most represented countries of origin, with 13.6% and 6.5%, respectively. In the 2014–2015 academic year, the majority (42%) enrolled in undergraduate-level degree programs, while graduate-level students made up 37%. Twenty percent of all international students in the United States studied business and management, while another 20% studied engineering. Mathematics and computer science was the third most popular area of study for international students, with nearly 12% of the total population (Institute of International Education, 2015a). Beyond these generalizations, however, it is important to acknowledge that significant differences prevail among international students: “A married graduate student from East Asia is likely to have very different priorities and interests from those of an unmarried Latin American undergraduate. Regarding both as foreign students implies that they have more in common than they do” (Bulthius, 1986, p. 22).

Research on International Students Despite a plethora of scholarly research on international students on American campuses, no meta theories have emerged to help guide policies for counselors and academic institutions. Some have noted that most studies on international students employ convenient samples at nearby universities (Leong & Chou, 1996; Yoon & Portman, 2004). Moreover, most research focuses on adjustment problems and outcomes, “without exploring the dynamics or process of adjustment itself ” (Pedersen, 1991, p. 14). Researchers have devoted much more attention to the client (i.e., international student) than the role of the counselor or the process of counseling. On the one hand, some scholars suggest that a more sophisticated understanding of international students requires increasingly specific studies that take into account their social class, places of origin, gender, and undergraduate or graduate status. Spouses and children of international students have been largely ignored in this body of research and warrant greater attention (Abdullah, Abd Aziz, & Mohd

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 235

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

236

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Ibrahim, 2014; Chittooran & Sankar-Gomes, 2007). On the other hand, some scholars have lamented the specific nature of research on the experiences of international students and have called for investigations beyond the social, psychological, and academic dimensions of adjustment. There is a pressing need for research on international student experiences in more specific studies that take into account greater numbers of variables, as well as more general studies with larger samples considering a wider range of factors of adjustment. Still, the existing literature offers some theoretical consideration of some of the challenges facing these students.

Patterns of Student Adjustment to the Host Country and Academic Institution Bulthius (1986) developed a model of adjustment for student sojourners with stages of spectating (exhaustion upon arriving in the host country but excited to be there), adaptation (participation in the host culture conflicts with native values, leading to a form of culture shock), coming to terms (reconciliation as the sojourner rejects some aspects of the host culture but accepts others), and predeparture (preparation for returning home). Various researchers have questioned such theories of sojourner adjustment. Some have argued that such a monolithic model cannot adequately account for so many different cultures, social classes, and situations involved in the sojourner experience. For example, Nash (1991) noted that some international students do not adapt to the host culture and return home before finishing their studies. In addition, Ward, Bochner, and Furnham (2001) have indicated that most empirical studies of international student adjustment are not longitudinal and lack control groups to show whether the stages of adjustment are unique to sojourners. Several scholars have furthered research into the relationship between developmental categories and an international student’s ability to mitigate stress and successfully adjust to academic and social life in the United States (Sullivan & Kashubeck-West, 2015; Wu, Garza, & Guzman, 2015; Zhou, Frey, & Bang, 2011). Hull’s (1981) modified cultural contact hypothesis suggests that foreign students who interact with people from the host country tend to become more satisfied with their overall academic experience than those who do not. According to this theory, such contact can bridge language barriers and mitigate social and academic isolation. Arthur (2004) suggested that the difficult period of adjusting to the host culture should also be recognized for its productive potential: “Culture shock is therefore a double-sided feature of cross-cultural transition; it is the most stressful and the most motivating aspect of living and learning in a new environment” (p. 29).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 236

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

237

Sources of Stress Some researchers have suggested that expectations of international students to play multiple roles tend to confuse and stress them. Furnham and Bochner (1982) separated the challenges for international students into the following groups: (a) those common to anyone living in a foreign culture, (b) those common to late adolescents and early adults, (c) academic stress, and (d) pressure to represent one’s home country well. Indeed, international students often find themselves in the difficult position of being mediator between the home and host countries, particularly when international relations may be strained. Paige (1990) proposed that international students studying in the United States find that others perceive them as having inferior language, academic, and analytical skills, and a naive understanding of the American educational system; serving as cultural resources to enrich the lives of Americans; serving as financial resources by enrolling and paying full tuition; and playing the role of outsider/other. Pedersen (1991) argued that these myriad expectations render it particularly difficult for international students to fulfill stereotypes. Ironically, perhaps even scholarly research on international students stigmatizes them further as a group. Yoon and Portman (2004) criticized the “overgeneralization of research findings to all international students and the underemphasis of within-group differences” (p. 35). As a result, one must account for individual factors in studying these groups. Theories of cultural difference also attempt to explain the nature of international students’ difficulties. Oropeza, Fitzgibbon, and Baron (1991) identified culture shock, changes in social and economic status, expectations about academic performance, isolation and discrimination, and family problems as sources of stress. Chapdelaine and Alexitch (2004) concluded that larger cultural gaps between the student’s home and host culture decrease the amount of interaction with individuals from the host culture. Social customs and ways of communicating may be out of place and contribute to an international student’s frustration. In some instances, international students exacerbate the stress that results from these factors. Aubrey (1991) cited the tendency of international students to repress stress and to be unwilling to admit they are unhappy in the host country, out of fear that such an admission would be shameful. As a result, international students tend to internalize their emotional problems. Misra and Castillo (2004) found that international students report lower levels of self-imposed academic stress than American students. Similarly, Hanassab and Tidwell (2002) noted that international students ranked academic and career goals higher than psychological and individual needs. Rather than concluding that international students experience less stress or have minimal personal concerns, however, the investigators said their findings support the notion that many international

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 237

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

238

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

students do not admit to feelings of stress because of their home culture’s stigmatization of such admissions. Furnham and Bochner (1982) cautioned that international students may view emotional problems differently from Americans, and the viable options for addressing those problems may differ.

Common Issues of International Students International students on American campuses often encounter a host of challenges including academic, linguistic, social, familial, financial, and racial.

Academic Adjustments International students encounter a host of academic challenges. To a large degree, international students’ academic difficulties difficulties stem from the problem of adjusting to a distinct educational system with explicit and implicit expectations. For example, many American institutions of higher education place a heavy emphasis on the intellectual as well as the personal growth of their students. As a result, American colleges and universities typically allow students more freedom in selecting courses and expect their students to demonstrate their learning in the form of class discussions and open-ended essay examinations. To many international students, these expectations can present problems. Various studies of Asian international students, for instance, reveal apprehension about voicing their ideas in a class discussion. This behavior can result from a lack of confidence in speaking English, but it also reflects differences in educational systems and cultural values. In many Asian societies, the professor is viewed as the definitive authority on a matter, and silence is viewed as a sign of respect. By contrast, faculty in many American institutions of higher education tend to value autonomy and self-assertiveness and thus expect their students to engage in more open-ended assignments. Many international students who are often unaccustomed to having such freedom are therefore acutely afraid of speaking in class. Such discrepancies can result in feelings of alienation and lower grades (Leong & Sedlacek, 1989; Lin & Yi, 1997; Mori, 2000; Sheehan & Pearson, 1995; Yan & Berliner, 2009). Although much of the literature suggests that Asian students in particular struggle to adjust to the U.S. classroom, some scholars caution against stereotyping Asian students as passive individuals. Liu (2001) found that crosscultural differences in the classroom can lead to misunderstandings between American and Asian students: “For Asian students, especially those who do not speak English very well, the momentary silence in class may give them an opportunity to formulate in English what they want to say, but this desire may be subverted by American students’ eagerness to break what they perceive as

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 238

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

239

an uncomfortable silence” (p. 198). Pursuing this point, Hsieh (2007) argued that attributing the relative silence of Asian international students in U.S. classroom settings to cultural differences alone is shortsighted. In an analysis of the experiences of a female Chinese student, the investigator called attention to the potentially “disempowering nature” of the American classroom because of American classmates’ “assumption of cultural superiority” (p. 390).

English Language Difficulties and Social Isolation If international students do not possess a proficient command of the English language, they can encounter a host of frustrating situations on American campuses. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), or a similar equivalent, is required of most prospective international students before admission to a U.S. higher education institution. Prior to 2005 the TOEFL measured reading and writing abilities but neglected speaking skills. Thus, a high score on the TOEFL did not necessarily indicate fluency or an understanding of different English dialects, idioms, or cultural nuances. In response to numerous criticisms of the TOEFL design, the Educational Testing Service developed an Internet-based TOEFL that also measures speaking abilities. The addition of a speaking requirement caused concern among Asian students, in particular because many English instruction curricula do not emphasize conversation skills (Associated Press, 2005; Bollag, 2005). Although the TOEFL changes may lead to improvements in English instruction worldwide and provide a more accurate predictor of a student’s English skills, international students with marginal English abilities still face linguistic challenges in the U.S. classroom. Many such students tend to have more difficulty in understanding class lectures, participating in class discussions, preparing oral presentations, and studying for essay examinations. While a number of academic institutions offer intensive English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes, international students may overestimate their English language proficiency upon arrival and eschew that option—a choice that can overburden them and cause inordinate stress as the semester progresses and they fall behind in their coursework. As some international students are hired as teaching assistants, moreover, the language barrier can become particularly acute. Undergraduate students may complain they do not understand their instructor, and in response the instructor may become defensive. These difficult situations can be prevented if academic advisers encourage their international students to take English support courses and carry a lighter academic course load as they begin their studies at the host institution (Charles & Stewart, 1991; Lin & Yi, 1997; Mori, 2000; Pedersen, 1991). In addition, supervising professors and domestic classmates can make adjustments to improve the learning environment for all students. For

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 239

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

240

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

example, Halleck (2008) constructed a role-play exercise for international teaching assistants and their undergraduate students to “confront culturally embedded attitudes and values” (p. 137). Through institutional case studies and student testimonials, Glass, Wongtrirat, and Buus (2015) underscored the importance of faculty members developing their own intercultural competencies to better facilitate in-class discussions and use educational methods that take into account the complex diversity of students within their classrooms. Language barriers can also exacerbate the already stressful elements of transition by socially isolating international students on American campuses. A number of studies have proposed that meaningful social contact between international and domestic students can significantly improve the English language skills of nonnative speakers. The best way to overcome language difficulties is to have a native-speaking friend. However, such relationships can appear difficult to establish: “Generally speaking, host students neither make themselves available nor make an effort great enough to create a bridge for international friendship” (Hayes & Lin, 1994, p. 12). For many international students, moreover, social activities are far less important than academic achievement. The safer alternative for many non-English-speaking international students, therefore, is to associate in culturally homogenous groups (Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008; Sheehan & Pearson, 1995). A number of scholars have found that international students on American campuses tend to experience social isolation because of an unfamiliarity and general discomfort with main currents of American culture. Trice (2004) concluded that Western European students and those with a high proficiency in English had more frequent social interactions with American students than other international student groups. While Middle Eastern and African students interacted the least with Americans, these groups were less concerned about this lack of interaction than students from East and Southeast Asia. The geographic distance separating international students from their native country is indicative of the sense of “social loss” they are likely to feel. Far away from friends and family, these students find themselves removed from their familiar social support networks: “As a consequence, they often feel less confident, sense unremitting tension, take less time off, enjoy it even less, and become confused over how to have fun” (Hayes & Lin, 1994, p. 8). Unfamiliarity with American social customs and culture can lead to isolation, homesickness, performance anxiety, sleeping and eating problems, and other physical ailments—all of which can enervate international students’ motivation to work toward their primary goal of academic achievement. Further, discrimination or lack of interest from American students can discourage

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 240

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

241

international students from actively seeking Americans as friends (Gareis, 2012; Hotta & Ting-Toomey, 2013). None of this behavior is pathological; it represents a rational response to difficult circumstances. Staff of international student offices and other campus resources can work to resolve the feelings of isolation that many international students endure.

Pressures From Abroad and Returning Home International students tend to experience a host of pressures stemming from their native countries. For example, most finance their education using family resources or sponsoring agents in their home country. Economic or political developments at home can dramatically affect the availability of funding, so many international students have particular incentives to finish their academic programs as quickly as possible, which can lead to academic overload. In many cases, international students bear the burden of high expectations of academic achievement from their families and peers back home, which can exacerbate stress if the student encounters initial difficulties in coping with linguistic and cultural transitions. The worst possible scenario would be to return home as a result of failing in school and not receiving the degree, which can be “the ultimate disaster for many, if not most, foreign students” (Pedersen, 1991, p. 38).

Financial Concerns Financial restrictions also concern international students studying in the United States. The vast majority of international students hold F-1 visas from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS, formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]). To remain in the country legally, the student must remain enrolled full-time at the approved institution. These students can be employed by the school for up to 20 hours per week, although no such limits to their on-campus employment exist when school is not in session. After completing their program of study, international students on F-1 visas can engage in temporary off-campus employment known as Optional Practical Training. This work must occur in the student’s field of study, and the student must apply to the USCIS for approval at a cost of $380. Spouses of F-1 visa holders, moreover, cannot seek employment. These rules limit how much an international student can supplement his or her income and can lead to inordinate stress and create unrealistic timetables for completing their academic programs. Although international students can request exceptions for special circumstances, they generally cannot take courses part-time or drop out without forfeiting their student visas (Bulthius, 1986; Charles & Stewart, 1991; Mori, 2000).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 241

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

242

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Discrimination and Stereotyping International students can also encounter racial discrimination upon entering the host country and throughout their sojourn. For instance, Hanassab and Tidwell’s (2002) findings substantiated the research of Sodowsky and Plake (1992), who found that African students perceived more prejudice and discrimination than other international student groups surveyed. The impact of racial discrimination can be profound. Rahman and Rollock (2004) illustrated a link between feelings of prejudice and levels of depression among South Asian international students. Perceptions of discrimination can also inhibit meaningful social interaction in the host community. Domestic students may attach particular stigmas to the international student, based on his or her country of origin. Indeed, as international developments alter the balance of foreign relations, students from different countries of origin may become susceptible to hostile treatment in the United States (Hayes & Lin, 1994; Lee & Rice, 2007). The status of international students as minorities further complicates their relationship with the host majority culture. For some students who are part of the majority culture or ethnicity in their home countries, their minority status in the United States may be the first time they have ever experienced discrimination (Arthur, 2004; Bulthius, 1986; Johnson & Sandhu, 2007; Yoon & Portman, 2004). Furthermore, several researchers have called attention to the complexities of gender discrimination and the female international student experience (Bonazzo & Wong, 2007; Cole & Ahmadi, 2003; Green & Kim, 2005; Hsieh, 2007). Lee (2010) found a correlation between international students’ perceived levels of discrimination and their willingness to recommend the institution to other students from the same country. American colleges and universities must therefore ensure that they have created an inclusive campus climate before embarking on international recruitment efforts.

Defining International Student Problems Although the literature on international students generally focuses on problems unique to them and contrasts the differences between international and domestic students, all college students face certain challenges, including adjusting to a new setting, academic demands, social and family pressures, financial concerns, and anxiety about future careers. While the sources of stress in the academic experience may be similar, the reactions to these stressors differ significantly between international and domestic students (Misra & Castillo, 2004; Mitchell, Greenwood, & Guglielmi, 2007; Yoon & Portman, 2004; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). In addition, most international students

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 242

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

243

have concerns that do not apply to the majority of domestic students, such as navigating through a new culture, adjusting to the U.S. educational system, overcoming language difficulties, and comprehending complex immigration rules. Despite the difficulties that international students experience, many find ways to cope successfully. Arthur (2004) lamented the lack of research on the fortitude of this population: “Agendas that are focused on problems give the implicit message that international students are problem-laden. This ignores the major contributions that international students make to the internationalization of educational institutions” (p. 125). International students have the greatest chance of succeeding if university personnel lead them to “see their strengths and view their cross-cultural studying experience in an explorative and experiential fashion, like a journey” (Lin & Pedersen, 2007, p. 297).

Institutional Policies Affecting International Students International students’ experiences on American campuses often depend on political factors and the host institution’s practices and support programs.

Institutional and Governmental Policies The decision to grant or deny a visa to prospective international students lies with the U.S. Department of State, but admissions decisions are made at the campus level. The professional organization NAFSA: Association of International Educators laments the decentralized nature of this process and recommends a uniform national effort to increase the United States’ share of international students via more deliberate recruiting and internationalizing of campus facilities and resources. At many institutions, the international student adviser has little input on admissions decisions, as a graduate college often ensures that a candidate has met the admission requirements. Additional criteria often include an applicant’s academic transcript and results from the TOEFL and SAT or GRE exams. Admissions officers often try to gauge a prospective student’s language proficiency, social/psychological readiness, and research prospects. As interviews are rarely feasible, however, such questions are usually left unanswered (Desruisseaux, 1999). NAFSA urges admissions officers to consider numerous obligations when recruiting and evaluating applications from prospective international students, including ensuring that the goals and policies for international students are compatible with the academic institution’s larger mission. In addition, such officials need to communicate timely and accurate information about living expenses, English language requirements, and the particular demands of an academic program (Heaney, 2009). These deliberate considerations are

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 243

7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

244

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

particularly important, for as Thackaberry and Liston (1986) noted, “The consequences of failure for this population are far higher both financially and emotionally than for Americans” (p. 34). Common abuses in recruiting and admitting international students can include using placement agencies (headhunters who charge a fee and are more interested in profit than finding a good match for the applicant and the institution), recruiting international students without having proper support services on campus, misrepresenting the institution in brochures, misusing immigration forms, employing poorly trained foreign admissions advisers, and misleading an applicant into thinking that success in an intensive ESOL program will guarantee admission to an academic program. Admissions personnel therefore have an ethical responsibility to portray their institution fairly to prospective international students (Neuberger, 1992; Thackaberry & Liston, 1986). College and university administrators must also navigate complex governmental requirements. In the mid- to late 1990s, the INS developed a plan called the Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS) to use fingerprints and detailed computer records to track the activities of international students on American campuses. The idea arose in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 and was seen by some as a potential defense against future terrorist acts. In the fall of 1997 the INS tested its program in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Under the plan, academic institutions would be required to notify the INS when an international student dropped a course (to ensure that the student was taking at least the minimum allowed to remain in residence). University administrators and advocates for international education, such as the Institute of International Education, the American Council on Education, and NAFSA, criticized the plan for the reporting burdens it placed upon colleges and universities. In addition, these groups opposed the fees that students would be required to pay to support the system (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Urias & Yeakey, 2008). After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, government scrutiny of international students intensified and led to the swift creation of a successor to CIPRIS: the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). Although only one of the 19 terrorists involved in the 2001 attacks entered the United States on a student visa to study English at a language school, the news that two others received student visa approvals posthumously exposed the need for better coordination and oversight of the INS. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 allocated more than $36 million to implement an Internet-based tracking system (U.S. Public Law 107-56). It required all academic institutions with

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 244

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

245

international students to report information about them to the SEVIS system by January 30, 2003 (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2002). The federal government’s swift implementation of SEVIS led to a dramatic shift in the role of student personnel responsible for advising international students. Formerly charged with providing support services and cultural programming, these professionals now faced the dilemma of advocating for students while simultaneously ensuring their institution’s compliance with federal regulations. In a national survey of international student and scholar advisers, 86% of respondents “believed that SEVIS required them to focus more on regulatory compliance than student programming” (Rosser, Hermsen, Mamiseishvili, & Wood, 2007, p. 532). While university administrators worked to implement the government’s new student visa policies, they also faced a backlash against international students that persisted in varying degrees after the events of September 11, 2001. Although the exact number of physical assaults and threats against international students after September 2001 is unknown, the perception of the United States as unwelcoming lingered. Students from the Middle East in particular experienced feelings of uneasiness and suspicion as well as pressure from families to return home (Klein & DeGregory, 2001; McMurtrie, 2001; Morgan, 2002; Wilkinson, 2002). Campus officials addressed the needs of international students after September 2001 by arranging discussion forums between international and domestic students and bolstering counseling and support services. Organizations for international students were also instrumental in working with staff to address concerns. Some university presidents wrote statements declaring the importance of international students and calling for sensitivity. Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project published a guide (2003) to help international students identify and respond to hate crimes and racial profiling. In addition to addressing the potential hostility toward international students on campus and in the community, administrators were also met with visits from federal investigators seeking information about specific students. FBI agents visited more than 200 institutions to gather information that led to personal interviews of numerous international students. This FBI presence on campus, not seen since the Cold War, forced higher education officials to balance government mandates for information with the need to protect the rights of students and safeguard them against racial profiling (Marklein, 2003; Steinberg, 2001; Urias & Yeakey, 2008; Wilkinson, 2002). The perception of an unwelcoming climate, coupled with the increased visa woes and government scrutiny, left many advocates for international education worrying about the effect on international student enrollments in the wake of September 11, 2001. Some institutions responded by offering

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 245

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

246

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

to pay the government’s mandatory SEVIS fee for students committing to enroll or to pay for the express shipment of their immigration documents to speed the visa process. Others developed new recruitment strategies, which occasionally resulted in a large increase of international students particularly at the undergraduate level (Redden, 2015).

Guidelines for Student Affairs Personnel and Faculty Despite a general lack of research on counseling foreign students, according to Dalili (1982), “The long-term success of foreign students’ stays in the U.S. will depend on their successful adjustment, which may in turn depend on the success of the advising/counseling process” (p. 11). Campus administrators must find ways to initiate and maintain contact with international students, and Pedersen (1991) recommended that counselors identify specific skills for international students to use to help them cope with problems in adjusting to American culture and campus life. He also suggested that counselors encourage international students to reflect on their changing values and worldviews and to develop relationships with conationals while negotiating the host culture. A continuous process of orientation and counseling, including follow-up contacts after the international student has returned home, can help to mitigate tensions often associated with cultural transitions. It is also important to have a frontline counseling staff from a variety of cultural backgrounds who are able to empathize with the international student and then refer him or her to a counseling expert (Dalili, 1982; Fritz et al., 2008; Pedersen, 1991).

Campus Programs Orientation programs can begin even before a student’s arrival in the host country. International student advisers at the receiving institution can send information about academics, housing, health insurance, transportation, and other matters. Some institutions have developed online orientations to provide new students before arrival with information about the visa process, housing, and campus life. Alumni groups in foreign countries can host receptions and information sessions to provide prospective students with useful insights about the institution and community. It is also beneficial for student personnel staff or students to meet the arriving traveler at the airport or bus station. A series of orientation programs can welcome the new students and offer essential information to acquaint them with the campus, inform them about immigration rules, familiarize them with the American system of higher education, describe various aspects of American culture and values, and identify some of the challenges involved in cross-cultural adjustment.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 246

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

247

More specific topics can include advising, community, and other available campus services, and how to manage finances and understand the U.S. health care system. It is especially important to make new students aware of the myriad student services that exist on campus, as many international students may not even imagine they would be in place (Wolfe, 2014). One challenge that institutions may face in designing orientation programs is ensuring that students are not overwhelmed with information during their initial arrival, when basic needs such as housing and class registration are high priorities. Institutions that offer a for-credit course to facilitate adjustment to life in the United States and within the academic institution provide their students with a comprehensive understanding of these new systems with the added benefit of peer support, which can in turn lead to a more positive and successful student experience (Wolfe, 2014). Residential life staff must also recognize the particular needs of various international students and acknowledge their own cultural assumptions. Orientation programs through residential life offices can help all campus residents appreciate differences. Furthermore, while the majority of international undergraduate students are unmarried, some graduate students bring their dependents with them. Orientation programs for the family can address topics to encourage and facilitate the student’s smooth cultural adjustment. Thus, staff members who have experience working with families and children are needed (Chittooran & Sankar-Gomes, 2007; Neuberger, 1992). Programs for intercultural exchange can facilitate international students’ adjustment to campus life. These include coffee hours, performances, discussion forums (in which the entire campus learns about a particular culture), and international film nights. In addition, peer programs in which international students are matched with American students have yielded beneficial results on social adjustment as well as academic performance. For example, intercultural communication workshops can engage with small groups of international and American students through role playing, case studies, and communication exercises to address the various cultural backgrounds of the participants. The goal is to lead all participants along a path from awareness to appreciation, and ultimately to deeper understanding and acceptance of cultural differences and similarities (Glass et al., 2015). A significant but frequently overlooked aspect of international student adjustment entails the transition upon returning to the home country. Various recommendations for host colleges and universities include establishing a job-placement office and offering outreach services from the career center. As many international students studying in the United States come from countries with developing economies, such services are especially important.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 247

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

248

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Counselors need to be aware that the international student has inevitably changed during his or her sojourn and perhaps may find it difficult to readjust to the cultural traditions and customs of the home country. Such dissonance can be mitigated in counseling sessions in which the international student is encouraged to articulate his or her expectations about returning home. Marks (1987) cited the ambivalence many international students may encounter: “stress from either their desire or their lack of desire to return home, from a feeling or lack of feeling of accomplishment in what they have done during their stay in the host country, and from the opportunity or lack of opportunity to discuss their experiences with those who have had similar ones” (p. 126). Campus workshops can allow returning students to anticipate these potential problems and to equip them with strategies for coping with reverse culture shock, economic challenges, and how their American education can translate into new opportunities (Arthur, 2007; Reynolds & Constantine, 2007).

Case Study Mountain State University (MSU) is a public institution with 35,000 undergraduate and graduate students. It is situated in a state that has witnessed unprecedented population and economic growth over the past 40 years. During that time, MSU has undergone a transformation from a regional and academically marginal school into a leading research university with a wideranging international reputation. Its student body has reflected the changing demographics of the state, and nearly 5% of its undergraduate and graduate students come from other nations. Deng Liu from China is a first-year doctoral student in American history. He had distinguished himself as an outstanding undergraduate student at one of China’s premier universities and was highly recruited by the history faculty at MSU and awarded a lucrative graduate fellowship. Despite some initial difficulties, moreover, Deng’s English proficiency proved to be very good and did not inhibit his ability to complete heavy reading assignments for his classes. Within a few weeks of his initial semester, however, a serious problem emerged that threatened Deng’s academic status at the university: one of his history professors accused him of academic dishonesty. The specific issue arose in response to a research paper assignment in which Deng included multiple lengthy passages from published historical texts without quoting or citing the sources. According to the professor, the issue was clearly a case of academic plagiarism, and she confronted Deng in her office shortly upon discovering the transgression. The professor indicated that Deng would receive

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 248

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

249

a failing grade for the assignment and be reported to MSU’s academic review board, which would determine whether Deng could remain at the university. It was possible that Deng would lose his graduate fellowship, be expelled from the university, and be forced to return home to China. Despite these implications, Deng found it difficult to comprehend the seriousness of his academic transgression. In fact, he did not deny that he had copied text from other historians in his research paper. He stated that it was customary in his home country to use the words of scholars without quoting or citing as a source of respect to the leading authorities on a given subject. In other words, Deng did not understand the conventions of academic citations commonly used in the United States. He did not question the professor’s accusations during their private meeting and came away confused about what exactly he had done wrong. The following day, the graduate coordinator of the history department informed Deng that he was being put on academic probation and that the status of his fellowship was now in jeopardy pending the decision of MSU’s academic review board. Although this represented a clear case of plagiarism to Deng’s professor and the graduate coordinator, Deng remained confused about the nature of the academic dishonesty claims made against him. But he did come to acknowledge that his future at the university was now at stake, and the prospects of being expelled and forced to return home branded as a failure were too traumatic to fathom. That evening, as the resident adviser of Deng’s floor in the graduate student dormitory, you pass Deng in the hallway outside his door and notice his intense expression—bleary-eyed, confused, and disoriented. When you ask him if you can help, he recounts his ordeal to you for the first time.

Discussion Questions 1. How do you respond, and why do you respond as you do? 2. What resources would you use to help this student? 3. Whom would you contact on campus to inquire about this student’s situation? 4. What measures could university administrators take to remedy this particular situation and to prevent this from happening to other international students?

References Abdullah, D., Abd Aziz, M. I., & Mohd Ibrahim, A. L. (2014). A “research” into international student-related research: (Re) Visualising our stand? Higher Education, 76, 235–253.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 249

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

250

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the top destination for foreign students? Change, 36(2), 18–24. Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. Arthur, N. (2004). Counseling international students: Clients from around the world. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Arthur, N. (2007). International students’ career development and decisions. In H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international students in the United States (pp. 37–56). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Associated Press. (2005, September 25). An English test is changed, and some foreign students worry. New York Times, p. 23. Aubrey, R. (1991). International students on campus: A challenge for counselors, medical providers, and clinicians. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 62, 280–284. Bennell, P., & Pearce, T. (1998). The internationalisation of higher education: Exporting education to developing and transitional economies. IDS Working Paper 75. Brighton, UK: Copyright Institute of Development Studies. Bevis, T. B., & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International students in American colleges and universities: A history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Bhandari, R., & Blumenthal, P. (2011). International students and global mobility in higher education: National trends and new directions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Bollag, B. (2005). New test of English as a foreign language puts an emphasis on speaking. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(7), A49. Bonazzo, C., & Wong, Y. J. (2007). Japanese international female students’ experience of discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes. College Student Journal, 41(3), 631–640. Bulthius, J. D. (1986). The foreign student today: A profile. In K. R. Pyle (Ed.), Guiding the development of foreign students (pp. 19–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 167–183. Charles, H., & Stewart, M. A. (1991). Academic advising of international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19, 173–181. Chittooran, M. M., & Sankar-Gomes, A. (2007). The families of international students in U.S. universities: Adjustment issues and implications for counselors. In H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international students in the United States (pp. 113–136). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2003). Perspectives and experiences of Muslim women who veil on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 47–66.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 250

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

251

Coppi, C. (2007). The changing landscape of international student advisement. In H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international students in the United States (pp. 3–11). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Cross-Border Education Research Team (2015). C-BERT Branch Campus Listing. Retrieved from globalhighered.org/branchcampuses.php Dalili, F. (1982). Roles and responsibilities of international student advisors and counselors in the United States. Akron, OH: University of Akron. Desruisseaux, P. (1998). 2-year colleges at crest of wave in U.S. enrollment by foreign students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(16), A66–A68. Desruisseaux, P. (1999). Foreign students continue to flock to the U.S. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(36), A57–A59. Farrar, L. (2015). In China, Duke U. navigates a foreign landscape. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(17), A10. Fritz, M. V., Chin, D., & DeMarinis, V. (2008). Stressors, anxiety, acculturation, and adjustment among international and North American students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 244–259. Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact (pp. 161–198). New York, NY: Pergamon. Gareis, E. (2012). Intercultural friendship: Effects of home and host region. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(4), 309–328. Glass, C. R., Wongtrirat, R., & Buus, S. (2015). International student engagement: Strategies for creating inclusive, connected, and purposeful campus environments. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Green, D. O., & Kim, E. (2005). Experiences of Korean female doctoral students in academe: Raising voice against gender and racial stereotypes. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 487–500. Halleck, G. B. (2008). The ITA problem: A ready-to-use simulation. Simulation Gaming, 39(1), 137–146. Hanassab, S., & Tidwell, R. (2002). International students in higher education: Identification of needs and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(4), 305–322. Harvard University Civil Rights Project. (2003). Know your rights on campus: A guide on racial profiling, and hate crime for international students in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476894) Hayes, R. L., & Lin, H.R. (1994). Coming to America: Developing social support systems for international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 22, 7–16. Heaney, L. (Ed.). (2009). NAFSA’s guide to international student recruitment (2nd ed.). Washington DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Hotta, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2013). Intercultural adjustment and friendship dialectics in international students: A qualitative study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 550–566.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 251

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

252

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Hsieh, M. H. (2007). Challenges for international students in higher education: One student’s narrated story of invisibility and struggle. College Student Journal, 41(2), 379–391. Hull, F. W. (1981). A modified culture contact hypothesis and the adaptation of foreign students in cross-cultural settings. In S. C. Dunnett (Ed.), Factors affecting the adaptation of foreign students in cross-cultural settings (Special Studies Series No. 134). Buffalo, NY: University of New York at Buffalo, Council on International Studies. Institute of International Education. (2015a). Open doors 2015: Report on international educational exchange. New York, NY: Author. Institute of International Education. (2015b). Project Atlas. Retrieved from www.iie .org/Research-and-Publications/Project-Atlas Johnson, L. R., & Sandhu, D. S. (2007). Isolation, adjustment, and acculturation issues: Intervention strategies for counselors. In H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international students in the United States (pp. 13–35). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Klein, B., & DeGregory, L. (2001, October 1). Muslim students emerge concerned. St. Petersburg Times, p. 1B. Lee, J. J. (2010). International students’ experiences and attitudes at a US host institution: Self-reports and future recommendations. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(1), 66–84. Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 381–409. Leong, F. T. L., & Chou, E. L. (1996). Counseling international students. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (4th ed., pp. 210–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Leong, F. T. L., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Academic and career needs of international and United States college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 106–111. Lewin, T. (2008, February 10). Universities rush to set up outposts abroad. New York Times, p. A1. Lin, A. S. P., & Pedersen, P. B. (2007). Multi-national competencies of international student service providers. In H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international students in the United States (pp. 285–298). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Lin, J. G., & Yi, J. K. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program suggestions. College Student Journal, 31, 473–479. Liu, J. (2001). Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities: An emic perspective. Westport, CT: Ablex. Marklein, M. (2003, January 20). INS database worries colleges. USA Today, p. 6D. Marks, M. S. (1987). Preparing international students in the United States for reentering the home country. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 15, 120–128.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 252

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

253

McMurtrie, B. (2001). Arab students in U.S. head home, citing growing hostility. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(6), A42. McMurtrie, B. (2015). UMass-Lowell deal in Kuwait, like other overseas campuses, banks on partner. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(17), A13. Misra, R., & Castillo, L. (2004). Academic stress among college students: Comparison of American and international students. International Journal of Stress, 1(2), 132–148. Mitchell, S. L., Greenwood, A. K., & Guglielmi, M. C. (2007). Utilization of counseling services: Comparing international and U.S. college students. Journal of College Counseling, 10(2), 117–130. Morgan, R. (2002). An international-student adviser faces rumors, fear, and prejudice. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(2), A6. Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 137–144. Nash, D. (1991). The course of sojourner adaptation: A new test of the u-curve hypothesis. Human Organization, 50, 283–286. Neuberger, C. G. (1992). Working with international students on our campuses. In D. McIntire & P. Willer (Eds.), Working with international students and scholars on American campuses (pp. 124–138). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Oropeza, B. A. C., Fitzgibbon, M., & Baron, A., Jr. (1991). Managing mental health crises of foreign college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 280–284. Paige, R. M. (1990). International students: Cross-cultural psychological perspectives. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 161–185). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 10–58. Rahman, O., & Rollock, D. (2004). Acculturation, competence, and mental health among South Asian students in the United States. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 130–142. Redden, E. (2015, January 7). The University of China at Illinois. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/07/u-illinois-growthnumber-chinese-students-has-been-dramatic Reynolds, A. L., & Constantine, M. G. (2007). Cultural adjustment difficulties and career development of international college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(3), 338–350. Rosser, V. J., Hermsen, J. M., Mamiseishvili, K., & Wood, M. S. (2007). A national study examining the impact of SEVIS on international student and scholar advisors. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 525–542. Sheehan, O. T. O., & Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American students’ psychosocial development. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 522–530.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 253

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

254

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Sodowsky, G. R., & Plake, B. S. (1992). A study of acculturation differences among international people and suggestions for sensitivity to within-group differences. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 53–59. Steinberg, J. (2001, November 12). A nation challenged: The students: U.S. has covered 200 campuses to check up on Mideast students. New York Times, p. A1. Sullivan, C., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2015). The interplay of international students’ acculturative stress, social support, and acculturation modes. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 1–11. Terzian, S. G., & Osborne, L. (2006). Postwar era precedents and the ambivalent quest for international students at the University of Florida. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 286–306. Thackaberry, M. D., & Liston, A. (1986). Recruitment and admissions: Special issues and ethical considerations. In K. R. Pyle (Ed.), Guiding the development of foreign students (pp. 31–38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687. Urias, D., & Yeakey, C. C. (2008). Analysis of the U.S. student visa system: Misperceptions, barriers, and consequences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(1), 72–109. U.S. Department of State. (2010). Exchange visitors. Retrieved from travel.state.gov/ visa/temp/types/types_1267.html#1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2002). Final rule implementing SEVIS: Highlights. Retrieved from www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/0212FINALRU_ FS.htm U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2007). Becoming a nonimmigrant student in the United States. Retrieved from www.ice.gov/sevis/becoming_ nonimmigrant_student_52007.htm#_Toc129683761 U.S. Public Law 584. 79th Congress. August 1, 1946. (Fulbright Act.) U.S. Public Law 87-256. 87th Congress. September 21, 1961. (Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 or Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961.) U.S. Public Law 107-56. 107th Congress. October 26, 2001. (USA PATRIOT Act.) Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Wilkinson, C. K. (2002). September 11, 2001. In C. K. Wilkinson & J. A. Rund (Eds.), Addressing contemporary campus safety (pp. 87–96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wolfe, J. (2014). Improving international student experiences: Five case studies. Washington, DC: NAFSA E-Publication. Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/wcm/ Product?prodid=409&catId=10 Wu, H., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment to college. Education Research International 2015, 1–9. Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2009). Chinese international students’ academic stressors in the United States. College Student Journal, 43(4), 939–960.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 254

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

255

Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 33–44. Zhao, C., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209–231. Zhou, Y., Frey, C., & Bang, H. (2011). Understanding of international graduate students’ academic adaptation to a U.S. graduate school. International Education, 41(1), 76–94, 99–100.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 255

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

12 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS Merrily S. Dunn and Philip D. Badaszewski

T

he history and development of women in college and the history and development of men in college are not two stories containing the same events, the same issues and processes, and a matching set of salient and relevant aspects of identity, neatly lined up next to each other. We now realize that gender is not a binary construct and that gender identity development in the context of higher education encompasses myriad stories and perspectives. But why does the gender story matter at all? This chapter discusses the context for identity development in women and men in college, putting this development in a historical context while describing relevant developmental theories and models. Finally, the chapter addresses what we most need to know about the outcomes of development related to gender so that we can work most effectively with and on behalf of college students.

History of Women and Men in Higher Education The history of higher education in the United States begins with the education of White men, initially only those of substantial means. Since the midnineteenth century, women and people of Color have become participants through coeducation, integration, and the development of separate institutions. Whether as students, faculty, staff, or administrators, women’s participation is always reconciled with their roles in the dominant culture. Women have been allowed to fill traditional male roles when men are not available to fill them. Wars, economic depressions, and less dramatic economic downturns have meant opening up higher education to women, although often reluctantly (Arlton, Lewellen, & Grissett, 1999; Goldin & Katz, 2011). 256

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 256

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

257

The precursor to women’s higher education was the creation of the Young Ladies’ Academy in Philadelphia and other similar institutions. The years between 1790 and 1850, characterized by the Enlightenment and the Second Great Awakening, laid the foundation for the evolution of women’s higher education in the United States (Solomon, 1985). The first Morrill Act of 1862 and the second Morrill Act in 1890 set aside federal lands, allowing each state to establish land-grant institutions dedicated to teaching agricultural and mechanical arts (Jencks & Riesman, 1968; Johnson, 1997). These institutions, often understood in terms of the practicality of their courses of study, were actually created by reformers striving for an egalitarian ideal—providing educational opportunities for the men and women often overlooked by more elitist institutions (Johnson, 1997). The twentieth century ushered in the Progressive Era, characterized by reform movements and a growing sense of the need for community and unity of purpose (Gordon, 1997; Gruber, 1997; Mathers, 2013). Post–World War II America saw a dramatic increase in college enrollment for women, people of Color, and low-income students who saw higher education as the means to a successful future (Solomon, 1985). Increasing student interest in college led to increased competition for the best students. As a result, many women’sonly institutions were forced to close or become coeducational. In addition, many prestigious men’s-only institutions (e.g., Yale, University of Virginia) relented to external pressures and began to admit women (Goldin & Katz, 2011; Griffin & Hurtado, 2011). Abolishment of extensive rules governing women’s behavior coincided with broad social change within the United States during the 1960s. The civil rights, antiwar, and free speech movements challenged societal norms and mores and led women to question the influence of those structures on their own experience (Dunn, 1993). Women’s studies, courses devoted to the study of gender and women’s experiences in fields from history and psychology to anthropology and languages, blossomed on college campuses during the late 1960s (Howe, 1984), even though courses on women’s history had been taught as early as the 1940s (Rupp & Taylor, 1987). Educational opportunities for women continued to expand throughout the final decades of the twentieth century. Women’s studies broadened the curriculum of universities while working to eliminate institutionalized sexism and the oppression of women in the broader society (Bastedo, 2005; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Women have continued to enter all types of higher education institutions, although at rates not always congruent with their numbers in society. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, women constituted more than half of the population of our nation’s colleges and universities. According to the 2014 Almanac issue of the Chronicle of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 257

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

258

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Higher Education, women comprise 52.4% of students enrolled in higher education institutions in the United States. In the most recent data available (2011–2012), this group earned 61.5% of associate degrees, 57.3% of bachelor’s degrees, 59.5% of master’s degrees, and 51.4% of doctoral degrees. Women earned 50% of all professional degrees awarded (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2014).

Women’s and Men’s Student Development The work of many early developmental theorists, such as Chickering (1969), Kohlberg (1984), and Perry (1970), often studied as part of a student affairs curriculum, was based primarily on White men and did not represent a complete picture of college student development. The participants whom these theorists studied were not diverse relative to race, sexual identity, class, and other identities and did not consider gender as an identity construct (Davis & Laker, 2004; Harper & Harris, 2010). In spite of these limitations and overall lack of diversity, the work of these initial theorists was generalized to all college-aged students regardless of their particular identities. More plainly, the developmental experiences of these privileged men were generalized as the development of all students. This was not limited to the study of college student development but rather the state of all of academia. Men, almost always White, were in control of the curriculum, the journals, and the majority of research. White men were in control of the academy, and the experiences of White men were normative (Chrisler, 2010).

Adding Women In part as a reaction to the reality of those generalizations and the definition of women’s development as deficient (Chrisler, 2010), Carol Gilligan’s (1982) In a Different Voice sought to paint a more complete picture. The theory presented in the book relied on a sample of women engaged in the process of making morally demanding decisions in real-life settings leading to a model of moral development. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) had similar purposes in their study of the intellectual development of women, Women’s Ways of Knowing. The work of these theorists stands with that of a number of researchers studying women and gender (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Josselson, 1987, 1996). Goldberger and colleagues (1996) believed gender to be a major category playing a role in the choices made by women in all cultures and communities. Feminist research, of which these theories are examples, traces its roots to second-wave feminism and its manifestation on college campuses. While

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 258

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

259

women’s rights activists were involved in struggles for affirmative action, equal pay, and similar issues, women’s liberation (second-wave feminism) activists focused in part on the higher education curriculum (Chrisler, 2010; Weiler, 2008). This work led to the beginnings of women’s studies as an academic field of study and feminist scholarship as a method of knowledge creation and dissemination. Early goals included raising conciousness for students and faculty; integrating compensatory courses to add women to a variety of disciplines, creating a mass of research about women; and changing the curriculum to reflect all of humanity (Howe, 1984). There has been a progression from identification and understanding of oppression to studying the addition of women and then to studying the construct of gender and all it implies. This progression of thought and study led to the study of women’s identity development through a feminist lens. By focusing on gender, researchers were able to understand women and women’s experiences as separate from the experiences of men rather than always in connection to men. In addition, the research articulated that women’s learning takes place in a wide variety of contexts—public, private, formal, and informal—and in settings intimate and isolating (Hayes & Flannery, 2000). Howe (1984) described how it is feasible to “study cohorts of half the human race in their own contexts and their own terms, without reference to the other half ” (p. 277). She argued that only after doing this can one effectively conduct comparative studies involving women and men. The second-wave emphasis on the personal as political, and the differences in the lived experiences of women and men, supports this study of women in their own contexts (David & Clegg, 2008). While the movement from second- to third-wave feminism is not clearly demarcated, there is general agreement that its origins can be traced to the late 1980s and early 1990s (Tong, 2007; Yu, 2011). The progression from second- to third-wave feminism included an institutionalization of women’s movements and a corresponding creation of organizations and academic units as well as changes in the way discrimination was actualized in society (Chen, 2014). The product of second-wave feminism included a greater understanding of how women make meaning of their identity (Josselson, 1987, 1996, 1998) and how gender plays a role in meaning making (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Belenkey et al., 1986; Gilligan, 1982). Given the second-wave emphasis on greater awareness of self (consciousness raising) and the understanding of self as woman in relation to other (man), these theories/models are a natural outgrowth of that time and context. A major criticism of second-wave feminism was the lack of attention paid to identities other than gender (Roth, 2010) and in particular race (Marbley, 2005). Third-wave feminism moves beyond the earlier goals to a movement more inclusive of all women with a greater awareness of and emphasis on the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 259

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

260

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

intersectionality of identity. Second-wave feminism emphasized a collective, often to the exclusion of many, so within third-wave feminism there is an evolution to individualism and recognition of the multitude of identities and feminisms that women, in all their diversity, represent (Harnois, 2008; Tong, 2007; Wood, 2013). The goal of greater understanding of the diversity of women’s identities and experiences was necessary. The role of White privilege in feminist scholarship as agenda setter and arbiter of which work, which paradigms, and which experiences were relevant has been a crucial piece in understanding the political nature of race in feminist scholarship (CooganGehr, 2011).

Reconsidering Men As discussed, many of the foundational theories in student affairs are based on studies that included only men (Cass, 1979; Chickering, 1969; Cross, 1978; Kohlberg, 1971; Perry, 1970). This led not only to the exclusion of women, people of Color, and other marginalized groups but also to the incorrect assumption that men were well understood in the literature. Many, but not all (Cross, 1978), studies included only White men and focused on other aspects of human and student development; gender was not considered as an identity construct, nor was it explored or considered for theory creation (Davis & Laker, 2004; Harper & Harris, 2010). Initial research into men’s development examined the impact of gender on men and attempted to define masculinity (Connell, 2001; Levant, 1996; O’Neil, 1981; O’Neil, Helms Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986). Little consensus exists on a universal definition of masculinity due in part to the criticism that current definitions are heteronormative and overemphasize the differences between men and women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). In general, masculinity is viewed as socially constructed and varies by class, race, and ethnicity (Levant, 1996). Although masculinity as a concept lacks consistency, hegemonic masculinity is often used when considering masculinity in men’s research (Harper, 2006; Harris, Palmer, & Struve, 2011). Hegemonic masculinity is the configuration of practices acting together to give legitimacy to patriarchal systems that keep women subordinated and men dominant (Connell, 2001). Men and women both act in ways to further male privilege and to push men to conform to a stereotypical view of masculinity whether it is beneficial or not (Kahn, 2009). It is assumed that men should measure themselves against this fantasized view of masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity and masculine gender norms have been woven into the framework of U.S. colleges and universities (Harper & Harris, 2010).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 260

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

261

Hegemonic masculinity and traditional gender norms become the barometer used to judge college men’s behavior, and as researchers have found, aspects of hegemonic masculinity lead to problematic behavior (Harper, Harris, & Mmeje, 2005). Boys from a young age see models of men who have strength, wealth, and power while suppressing fear, emotion, and vulnerability (Pollack, 1998). As these boys become young men, many enroll in colleges and universities with particular expectations for the next four years within the context of societal expectations of masculinity. The impact of the gender roles and socialization appears to be a subversion of personal values by what men interpret to be the true ideals of what it means to be a man. Men hide their true selves in order to abide by societal rules and expectations and also misinterpret the behavior of those around them, particularly other men. They form misperceptions by remembering problem behavior displayed by a small group of individuals rather than more commonly displayed positive behavior (Berkowitz, 2005). This concept is commonly referred to as pluralistic ignorance and “operates by encouraging individuals to suppress healthy attitudes and behaviors that are believed to be contradictory to the norm and to encourage unhealthy attitudes and behaviors that are falsely perceived as normative” (Harper et al., 2005, p. 577). Pluralistic ignorance and the freedom of college often lead men to act out socialized behavioral patterns. Men who enroll in college expect those four years, and the years immediately following, to include opportunities for exploration and risk taking without consequences (Kimmel, 2008). Kimmel referred to this period as “Guyland,” an undefined span of time where guys gather to be guys with each other while avoiding the responsibilities of adulthood and enjoying freedom without consequences. Research has supported the lifestyle portrayed by Guyland. Years of seeing college depicted in the media leads men to have inaccurate expectations of the experience. Men appear open to having exclusive relationships with women, but often end up backing out of these commitments in order to have nonromantic sexual relationships with numerous other women (Foste, Edwards, & Davis, 2012; Tatum & Charlton, 2008). In fact, many mention male peers criticizing them for being in serious relationships (Harris et al., 2011). They also feel obligated to show toughness through a willingness to fight other men, avoid close friendships with men, and compete in formal and informal settings (Foste et al., 2012; Steinfeldt & Steinfeldt, 2012). Men may view college as a time to party and drink to excess (Capraro, 2000). Researchers found that after consuming alcohol, men were more likely to have done something they later regretted, forgotten where they were, gotten in trouble with the police, had unprotected sex, physically injured themselves,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 261

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

262

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

physically injured another person, or seriously considered suicide (American College Health Association, 2012). As men behave according to stereotypes and inaccurate portrayals of college, they experience a host of negative consequences. Men are not only less academically prepared but also, as a group, less likely to study, take advantage of cocurricular opportunities, use campus services, and vote (Kellom, 2004). Men are involved in more campus judicial cases (Harper et al., 2005) and are more likely to respond to situations with anger (Kinney, Smith, & Donzella, 2001). They also have lower self-esteem due to socialization processes (hooks, 2004), struggle with body image even when their weight is in the normal range (Hatoum & Belle, 2010), and avoid intervening in violent situations due to contextual and masculine norms (Carlson, 2008). For example, when presented with a scenario of two men ganging up on another man to fight him, Carlson (2008) found that men would intervene only if they felt as though they were stronger than the two men or if they felt the man being attacked did not “deserve it” (p. 6). Despite the negative picture depicted by adherence to hegemonic norms, researchers have also studied men to gain a better understanding of who they are beyond those norms and how men develop gender identity. Although college men don’t often consider their gender identity, they are deeply aware of the norms governing their behavior (Davis, 2002; Edwards & Jones, 2006; Harris, 2008, 2010). Men do not learn these norms in college. In reality, men arrive at college socialized in traditional norms of masculinity and construct their meaning of masculinity in a way that privileges those who perform masculinity according to societal norms (Harris, 2010). College men view masculine expectations as increasingly rigid and constricting, but something of which they were always aware. The expectations led to men performing masculinity by “putting on a mask” known as their “man face” (Edwards & Jones, 2006, p. 214). When engaging in certain activities and expressing feelings, men remain conscious of the narrow boundaries governing masculinity and a fear of being viewed as feminine because femininity could lead others to question a man’s masculinity and sexual orientation. In putting on a mask, as Edwards and Jones (2006) described, men felt they needed to perform in hypermasculine ways and to work hard and play hard, all with a group of male friends (Harris, 2010). Due to the fact that men repress their emotions and are wearing a mask, these friendships operate on a surface level (Edwards & Jones, 2006; Harris, 2010). Even though men are able to articulate norms governing their behavior, they are unable to specify what it means to be a man. However, as they developed through college, they recognized areas where their values contradicted masculine norms,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 262

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

263

and they began to act more authentically. Additionally, important individuals in their lives encouraged and discouraged certain behaviors leading to more authenticity. Men found that the college environment (e.g., personal independence, peer and romantic relationships) offered them the opportunity to reconsider traditional hegemonic masculinity. Although college men may not acknowledge it as gender development, pushing against masculine norms and developing their own sense of self shifted their understanding of their gender (Badaszewski, 2014)

Possible, Productive, and Constructive Masculinity Recently researchers have begun to examine how college men develop in more positive and productive ways. Growing out of positive psychology, “Possible masculinity encompasses what men need to become healthy, responsible, tolerant, civil, and nurturing in their families and communities . . . [and] includes those attitudes, characteristics, behaviors, skills, and coping strategies that are required for men to lead positive, healthy lives” (Davies, ShenMiller, & Isacco, 2010, p. 348). Possible masculinity looks to focus in on what men can become with the help of a supportive community and to look beyond many of the negative behaviors for ways to challenge men to become their ideal selves. Continuing the shift in research on college men, several researchers have explored how college men behave counter to stereotypes and develop outside of hegemonic characteristics of masculinity. In one study, fraternity leaders consciously disrupted racist, sexist, and homophobic behavior; confronted brothers who behaved in ways inconsistent with fraternity values; and had significant, nonromantic relationships with women (Harris & Harper, 2014). Countering stereotypes, these men stood in direct opposition to traditional gender roles and socialization processes and, in effect, were modeling an antihegemonic conceptualization of masculinity. Harris and Harper defined the brothers’ behavior as productive masculinity. Similiarly, constructive masculinity encompasses an opposition to gender norms along with nonbinary conceptualization, explored later in the chapter. Through the participants’ stories, the researchers defined constructive masculinity as “an open, non-binary category where men understand and challenge gender norms and develop their own healthy sense of self and masculinity with the support of significant people in their lives” (Badaszewski, 2014, p. 111). Men were able to understand and describe traditionally masculine gender expectations, but through a process of developing their own individual sense of self, and with the help of family role models and female friends, they were able to move to a constructive understanding of their masculinity.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 263

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

264

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Although these two studies just scratch the surface of understanding different conceptualizations of masculinity, they offer an important counternarrative to the majority of research depicting college men in a negative light. Further explorations of productive or constructive masculinity will assist practitioners in supporting the needs of college men and describe a more comprehensive picture of men’s experiences and development.

Shifting Views of Gender Gender is not a static construct. Social activism, research, and the ways in which gender is experienced and reflected on combine to deconstruct longstanding ideas and stereotypes. Inherent in this process is the recognition of power and privilege and their centrality in maintaining these stereotypes.

Power and Privilege While male perceptions, understandings, characteristics, and points of view were once the standard for a variety of disciplines, academic feminism has evolved into, through, and from the naming and study of gender, questioning the male norm. When the female is made visible, then the male becomes a contrasting construct, not just a norm. As sex roles have evolved beyond the traditional, women run up against the conflicts inherent in the interplay between sexuality and power: What is exploitation and harassment versus sexuality and desire? Research has shown that women struggle with their own sexuality and desire while contemplating the fine line dividing harassment from desired and mutual expressions of this sexuality and desire (Phillips, 2000; Riophe, 2001). Sexual assault, for all persons regardless of gender identity—ranging from unwanted touching to rape (by acquaintances and strangers)—is a continuing issue on campuses (Brown, 2015; King, 1992; Scarce, 2000). While nonconsensual sexual behavior is the symptom, the quest for power and control and gender role stereotyping are the root causes of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Compounding the problem is a lack of agreement and consistent understanding of what constitutes rape among female and male students (Clark & Carroll, 2008). Recent public attention to sexual assault has put a spotlight on how colleges and universities respond. The White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (2014), the It’s On Us Campaign (Somander, 2014), and investigations by the Office of Civil Rights (Anderson, 2015), coupled with media coverage of institutional mishandlings of sexual assault cases (Coronel, Coll, & Kravitz, 2015; McIntire & Bogdanch, 2014), have

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 264

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

265

all made sexual assault prevention a mainstream conversation. Furthermore, the explosion of technology on college campuses creates new layers to sexual violence presentation. Survivors of sexual violence need to worry about not only encountering their attacker in physical campus spaces but also falling victim to further anguish through social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat), text messaging, and e-mail. Working with these issues requires those responsible for a response to think differently about this type of harassment (Dalaimo, 1997; Geach & Haralambous, 2009). Educators argue that teaching students about sexual assault in the context of gender allows them to think critically about culture, solve problems in context, and be better equipped to see how behaviors fit into the larger picture (Kilmartin & Berkowitz, 2005). When looking at the issue of sexual assault from a change perspective and from the perspective of evolution of understanding and response, the presence of men as change agents becomes apparent. Men are working within the movement not only to stop sexual assault but also to change societal power structures. There is evidence of a growing understanding of the positive, proactive roles that men can play in changing the culture that allows sexual assault and in some ways promotes it (Montagna, 2000). The existence of these issues on campuses underscores the fact that while women are present in large numbers, their push for real equality against male power structures is still unwelcome to many. Through education, women gain access to power while disrupting the existing power dynamics. College and university campuses are microcosms of the larger society. In the United States, sexual assault and sexual harassment remain significant societal issues. That being said, it is not surprising that higher education continues to be representative of the larger society through the presence of these crimes on campus. Student affairs professionals are often the staff called on to address these problems and issues. While reactive measures address negative behaviors and the consequences, proactive responses often cause the greatest change. Sexual assault; sexual harassment; drugs, alcohol, and other abused substances; growing mental health concerns; and eating disorders are some of the issues compelling student affairs professionals to gain a greater understanding of the problems and their effects on men as well as women students. Educational program design, implementation, and assessment play an ever stronger role in divisions of student affairs as staff members continue to search for effective responses to these problems.

Beyond a Binary On college and university campuses, as well as in the broader society, there is a slowly growing recognition that gender is not adequately or accurately

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 265

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

266

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

defined as a binary of women and men. Gender diversity encompasses gender conforming and gender-diverse students (Rankin & Beemyn, 2012). The concept of gender permeates all lives, whether recognized or not. In addition, societal constructions of gender influence everything from career choice to comfort on campus. Although the gender binary is becoming an outdated concept, it reflects the normative messaging of gender that still permeates society. Even as research on gender identity—how people describe their individual sense of being male, female, or outside the binary (Bilodeau, 2005) increases—societal expectations still categorize aspects of gender as either masculine or feminine. Even though societal expectations resist nonbinary shifts, media portrayals in television and movies, increased focus on intersectionality, and a willingness of individuals to share their personal beliefs and experiences are some of the ways all people and, more specifically, college administrators, have been exposed to the shifting views of gender. “No person can experience gender without simultaneously experiencing race and class,” wrote West and Fenstermaker (1995, p. 13). Although only acknowledging race and socioeconomic status, West and Fenstermaker argued for consideration of intersectional perspectives. Intersectionality explores the interaction and mutual construction of seemingly individual identity status (Bowleg, 2008; McCall, 2005). Intersectional approaches help researchers better understand the complexity of human problems and the systems of power in which they operate (Dill & Zambrana, 2009; Shields, 2008; Strayhorn, 2013). Relative to considerations of women and men college students, college administrators should not only consider the broad needs of students based on sex and gender but also recognize the more complex needs of particular subgroups of students. For example, a straight Black female student from an urban environment would likely have a different set of needs than a lesbian Black student from a rural area. These two students share a common sex and race, but sexual identity and geographic differences could have provided each with very different developmental experiences. Additionally, even two identical people from the same area will be developed and shaped by their environment in wholly different ways. Additionally, researchers and practitioners can no longer think about sex and gender as binary identity statuses. Genderqueer, a concept originating in the 1990s, is a nonbinary identity status. Genderqueer people express their gender in a variety of ways, considering themselves as neither male nor female, both, nor somewhere in the middle (Beemyn, 2009). According to Rankin and Beemyn (2012), younger people are more likely to identify as genderqueer. Moreover, genderqueer people make individual choices on how

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 266

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

.

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

267

they express their gender identity. Some use neutral pronouns (e.g., ze, hir, they, them), select a new name, or opt to seek medical solutions to better express their preferred gender (Donatone & Rachlin, 2013). Finally, while transgender individuals may identity as genderqueer, the reverse is not always true. Genderqueer people challenge the notion that people who feel they are a different gender from the one assigned at birth will express that gender by completely changing their appearance and opting for gender-reassignment surgery (Beemyn, 2009). Neither a single chapter nor a single section can delve into the complexities of intersectionality or genderqueer identity. As research in both areas increases and as college students increasingly embrace more open gender conceptualizations and how gender relates to their other identities, student affairs personnel will need to consider their own assumptions of gender and maintain an open and inclusive environment for students. Furthermore, practitioners will need to reimagine services and programs that have traditionally been used to challenge and inform not only gender and sex differences but also identity as a whole.

Supporting Women and Men Students Since gender matters in higher education, it is important to consider how colleges and universities support college students’ gender development. While creating an office is not the only way, or perhaps even the best way, to support students, an office or center can signal legitimacy of need and serve as a home for students. A survey of websites devoted to gender-related programs reveals extensive programmatic efforts on behalf of women at campuses across the country with far fewer having programs designed to address men’s issues. This is not surprising given the historical context of women and men in higher education. At the same time, some campuses seek to simultaneously support the needs of women and men through an overarching Gender Equity Center.

Women’s Centers Women’s centers most often include services and programs to support the diverse needs of college women. From programming on income equity to sexual assault prevention and self-defense, women’s centers provide safe and welcoming spaces on campus. The Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan (www.cew.umich.edu) is one of the oldest university women’s centers in the United States. Founded in 1964, its mission includes research, publication, advocacy and policy development,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 267

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

268

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

counseling and internships, as well as extensive programming. The center focuses on undergraduate women; faculty and staff women; community women; and women with special needs, such as graduate students who are single parents. In addition, women’s centers seek to empower women as leaders on campus and beyond. The Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University (www.cawp.rutgers.edu/education_training/NEWLeadership) supports a bipartisan initiative titled the National Education for Women’s Leadership (NEW Leadership), “to educate college women about the political process and teach them to become effective leaders.” This program brings together undergraduate women from all political parties to discuss how women can take on leadership positions in the political arena. These are just two examples of countless women’s centers across the country that support, encourage, and empower women during and after their college years.

Men’s Centers Although not as prevalent as women’s centers, some colleges have added specific men’s centers. The men’s center will often work in concert with the women’s center on campus to address issues impacting both men and women students. In addition, men’s centers explore issues influencing college men, including the effect of traditionally masculine stereotypes, the increase in men’s body issues, and the role of men in sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Men’s Center at Lone Star College (www.lonestar.edu/mens-center .htm) provides support, mentoring, and educational programming to increase academic success and involvement. In addition to one-on-one mentoring, the Men’s Center offers group mentoring opportunities around topics such as manhood, sexuality, and fatherhood and offers flexibility in other topics based on student interest. The Men’s Development Institute at Saint John’s University (www.csbsju .edu/sju-student-development/mens-development-institute) founded in 2014 is a student-run center that promotes the holistic development of men and empowers men to “embrace their own brand of masculinity, recognize the importance of campus and civic engagement, and grow as individual men.” While this program is new, it shows the investment of students in their own development and the desire for programming and services directed specifically at men. The Student Health Center at the College of William & Mary (www .wm.edu/offices/wellness/healthcenter/services/menshealth/index.php) offers a Men’s Health Clinic, a well-researched, comprehensive program that seeks to combat the effects of gender stereotypes that potentially lead men to neglect and disregard good health and good health practices. Physicians in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 268

7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

269

the Men’s Health Clinic provide specific information to men on male health concerns, instruct men on testicular self-exams, and discuss sexually transmitted infections (STIs) with a particular focus on men.

Gender Centers Some colleges and universities have chosen to create one office to support student gender inclusion. In some instances, so-called gender centers have been created through an expanded focus of the campus women’s center. After a student-led initiative in 2013, the Women’s Center at Amherst College was expanded and renamed the Women’s and Gender Center (www.amherst .edu/campuslife/womens-gender-center/about-us). The center expanded its focus to include all aspects of gender through personal experience, academic inquiry, and discussion. In addition to the Amherst Women’s Network and the Men’s Project, the center supports student health educators and gender and sexuality programming and student organizations. At Carleton College, gender education is supported through the Gender and Sexuality Center (apps.carleton.edu/campus/gsc). This center offers individual advising, peer education, and programming to encourage healthy relationships and also provides resources and support for issues of sexuality and gender.

Recommendations, Implications, and Future Trends Affecting Men and Women Although this chapter focuses primarily on binary constructions of gender, the student narrative on college campuses is pushing administrators to think about sex and gender beyond the two sides of a coin. This particular shift in student needs poses a challenging premise: Colleges and universities have often struggled to simultaneously support the needs of women and men, so how can institutions aid an increasingly gender-diverse student population? With reductions in resources; increased attention from parents, media, and legislators; and a renewed focus on sexual assault, how can faculty and administrators educate and support while following legislative mandates? First, it is necessary to understand the needs of the students on campus. Has a comprehensive needs assessment related to sex and gender been conducted recently? With campus-specific data in hand, benchmarking with peer and aspirational institutions could provide ideas for how to address student needs. The examples in the previous section are by no means an exhaustive list, but they do provide possible starting points for programmatic

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 269

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

270

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

interventions. Next, as this chapter briefly highlights, it is important to think about gender beyond the binary and students beyond individual identity statuses. Although women constitute the majority of undergraduate college students, college men and, increasingly, trans* and genderqueer students have specific needs. In addition, thinking beyond sex and gender to consider how other aspects of identity impact students complicates the work of professionals but will better serve students. Student affairs administrators need to be intentional about the structures and processes in place to support students (Manning, Kinzie & Schuh, 2014). Such intentionality and attention to the specificity of campus cultures and populations leads to supporting students’ needs as related to gender and all the identities discussed in this volume. In order to focus on students’ needs, student affairs professionals should think about ways to collaborate across campus and to develop innovative solutions. In addition, all student affairs personnel should consider how they can support gender identity needs as well as the diverse needs of all students. On one campus, this could mean refocusing a current initiative or program, whereas on another the students would benefit from the creation of a stand-alone gender equity center. Regardless of the format, student affairs practitioners should reflect on the ways they are aiding students from all gender identity backgrounds as well as educating students on campus about gender issues. One way administrators can help students with sex and gender issues would be to stay current on research and regularly assess student needs. Most journals and academic search tools allow users to set up parameters, similar to an RSS feed, where new articles on topics of interests can be e-mailed upon publication. Staff development activities can regularly have a focus related to these issues. Assessment also continues to be an important message of success and means of learning about the student experience. Beyond understanding how the office serves student needs, administrators need to consider intentional ways to assess programs and services, analyze and interpret the data, and then use the data to make improvements. While higher education has made strides toward greater equity in the academy, much work remains to be done. Sex and gender issues in higher education are complex. Now is the time to think about gender education as inclusive of men. Now is the time to think about gender as a continuum and not as a simple binary with women on one end and men on the other. We are in a place of far greater subtlety and individualization. We need to understand the lessons of the past—and how the current generation of students has been shaped by those social changes—and develop specific ways to educate and uplift students from all gender backgrounds. Higher

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 270

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

271

education must create spaces for students of all gender identities. In this area, as in so many others, our institutions must push the boundaries of what we know and what we assume to better understand how best to serve students. Inherent in this role of leading social change is the responsibility to understand and support our students, in all their identities, creating communities where they are most able to fulfill their potential as students and citizens.

References American College Health Association. (2012, Fall). National College Health Assessment (reference group executive summary, fall 2012). Retrieved from www .acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_ExecutiveSummary_ Fall2012.pdf Amherst College Women’s and Gender Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www .amherst.edu/campuslife/womens-gender-center/about-us Anderson, N. (2015, March 4). Schools facing investigations on sexual violence: Now more than 100. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost .com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/03/04/schools-facing-investigations-onsexual-violence-now-more-than-100/ Arlton, D., Lewellen, A., & Grissett, B. (1999). Social systems barriers of women in academia: A review of historical and current issues. In M. McCoy & J. Di-Georgio-Lutz (Eds.), The woman-centered university: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 61–70). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Badaszewski, P. D. (2014). Beyond the binary: How college men construct positve masculinity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Bastedo, M. N. (2005). Curriculum in higher education: The historical roots of contemporary issues. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp. 462–485). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Beemyn, B. G. (2009). Genderqueer. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender and society (pp. 371–372). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic. Berkowitz, A. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. C. Lederman & L. P. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign (pp. 193–214). New York, NY: Hampton Press. Bilodeau, B. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgender students at a midwestern reseach university. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 29–44. doi:10.1300/J367v03n01_05

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 271

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

272

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Bowleg, L. (2008, September). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59(5/6), 312–325. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z Brown, J. (2015, January 11). Rethinking gender and sexual assault policy: My story. Stanford Daily. Retrieved from www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/11/rethinkinggender-and-sexual-assault-policy-my-story/ Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Capraro, R. L. (2000). Why college men drink: Alcohol, adventure, and the paradox of masculinity. Journal of American College Health, 48(6), 307–315. Carleton College Gender and Sexuality Center. (2015). Retrieved from https://apps .carleton.edu/campus/gsc/ Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and bystander intervention. Journal of Men’s Studies, 16(1), 3–17. doi:10.3149/ jms.1601.3 Cass, V. (1979). Homosexuality identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. Chen, Y. (2014, January). How to become a feminist activist after the institutionalization of the women’s movements: The generational development of feminist identity and politics in Mexico City. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 35(3), 183–206. doi:10.1353/fro.2014.0029 Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chrisler, J. (2010). In honor of Sex Roles: Reflections on the history and development of the journal. Sex Roles, 63(5), 299–310. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2014, August 18). Almanac of higher education 2014: Differences in male and female full-time professors in representation and average salaries, by rank and institution type, 2013–2014. Retrieved from http:// chronicle.com/article/Differences-Between-Male-and/147307/ Clark, M. D., & Carroll, M. H. (2008). Acquaintance rape scripts of women and men: Simarilites and differences. Sex Roles, 58, 616–625. Connell, R. W. (2001). The social organization of masculinity. In S. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 30–55). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859. Coogan-Gehr, K. (2011). The politics of race in U.S. feminist scholarship: An archaeology. Signs, 37(1), 83–107. Coronel, S., Coll, S., & Kravitz, D. (2015, April 5). Rolling Stone and UVA: The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism report. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-whatwent-wrong-20150405?page=7 Cross, W. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5(1), 13–31. doi:10.1177/009579847800500102

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 272

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

273

Dalaimo, D. M. (1997). Electronic sexual harassment. In B. R. Sandler & R. J. Shoop (Eds.), Sexual harassment on campus: A guide for administrators, faculty and students (pp. 85–103). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. David, M., & Clegg, S. (2008). Power, pedagogy and personalization in global higher education: The occlusion of second-wave feminim? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4), 483–498. Davies, J. A., Shen-Miller, D. S., & Isacco, A. (2010, August). The men’s center approach to addressing the health crisis of college men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(4), 347–354. doi:10.1037/a0020308 Davis, T. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men’s identity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 508–521. Davis, T., & Laker, J. (2004). Connecting men to academic and student affairs programs and services. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(107), 47-57. Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inquiry: An emerging lens. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp. 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Donatone, B., & Rachlin, K. (2013). An intake template for transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, gender nonconforming, and gender variant college students seeking mental health services. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 27, 200–211. Dunn, M. S. (1993). Separation and integration: Women at The Ohio State University 1960–1975 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus. Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2006). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 210–228. Foste, Z., Edwards, K., & Davis, T. (2012). Trial and error: Negotiating manhood and struggling to discover true self. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 39(1), 124–139. Geach, N., & Haralambous, N. (2009). Regulating harassment: Is the law fit for the social networking age? Journal of Criminal Law, 73, 241–257. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldberger, N., Tarule, J., Clinchy, B., & Belenky, M. (Eds.). (1996). Knowledge, difference and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing. New York, NY: Basic. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2011). Putting the “co” in education: Timing, reasons, and consequences of college coeducation from 1835 to the present. Journal of Human Capital, 5(4), 377–417. Gordon, L. D. (1997). From seminary to university: An overview of women’s higher education, 1870–1920. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), ASHE reader series on the history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. 473–498). Old Tappen, NJ: Person Custom Publishing.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 273

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

274

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Griffin, K. A., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Institutional variety in American higher education. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed.; pp. 24–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gruber, C. S. (1997). Backdrop. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), ASHE reader series on the history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. 203–221). Old Tappen, NJ: Person Custom Publishing. Harnois, C. (2008). Re-presenting feminisms: Past, present, and future. NWSA, 20(1), 120–145. Harper, S. R. (2006). Peer support for African American male college achievement: Beyond internalized racism and the burden of “acting white.” Journal of Men’s Studies, 14(3), 337–358. Harper, S. R., & Harris, F., III. (2010). Beyond the model gender majority myth: Responding equitably to the developmental needs and challenges of college men. In S. R. Harper & F. Harris, III (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 1–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harper, S. R., Harris, F., III, & Mmeje, K. (2005). A theoretical model to explain the overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implications for campus administrators. NASPA Journal, 42(4), 565–588. Harris, F., III. (2008). Deconstructing masculinity: A qualitative study of college men’s masculine conceptualizations and gender performance. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 453–474. Harris, F., III. (2010). College men’s meanings of masculinities and contextual influences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 297–318. Harris III, F., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Beyond bad behaving brothers: Productive performances of masculinities among college fraternity men. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(6), 703–723. Harris, F., III, Palmer, R. T., & Struve, L. E. (2011). “Cool posing” on campus: A qualitative study of masculinities and gender expression among black men at a private research institution. Journal of Negro Education, 80(1), 47–62. Hatoum, I. J., & Belle, D. (2010). Mags and abs: Media consumption and bodily concerns in men. In S. R. Harper & F. Harris, III (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 337–354). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hayes, E., & Flannery, D. D. (Eds.). (2000). Women as learners: The significance of gender in adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. New York, NY: Atria Books. Howe, F. (1984). Myths of coeducation: Select essays. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Johnson, E. L. (1997). Misconceptions about the early land-grant colleges. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), ASHE reader series on the history of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 274

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

275

higher education (2nd ed.; pp. 222–233). Old Tappen, NJ: Person Custom Publishing. Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kahn, J. S. (2009). An introduction to masculinities. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Kellom, G. E. (2004). Editor’s notes. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(107), 1–7. Kilmartin, C., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). Sexual assault in context: Teaching college men about gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kimmel, M. S. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York, NY: Harper. King, M. B. (1992). Male sexual assault in the community. In G. C. Mezey & M. B. King (Eds.), Male victims of sexual assault (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kinney, T. A., Smith, B. A., & Donzella, B. (2001). The influence of sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness on anger and verbal aggressiveness among U.S. college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 245–275. Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Moral Education. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Levant, R. F. (1996, June). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(3), 259–265. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.27.3.259 Lone Star College Men’s Center. (2015). Retrieved from www.lonestar.edu/ mens-center.htm Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2014). One size does not fit all: Traditional and innovative models of student affairs practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Marbley, A. F. (2005). African-American women’s feelings on alienation from thirdwave feminism: A conversation with my sisters. Western Journal of Black Studies, 29(3), 605–614. Mathers, P. P. (2013). Did the women’s colleges founded in the Progressive Era represent a new model? American Educational History Journal, 40(2), 221–239. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 30(3), 1771–1800. McIntire, M., & Bogdanch, W. (2014). At Florida State, football clouds justice. New York Times. Retrieved from mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/us/florida-statefootball-casts-shadow-over-tallahassee-justice.html?referrer=&_r=1 Montagna, S. (2000). Men-only spaces as effective sites for education and transformation in the battle to end sexual assault. In J. Gold & S. Villari (Eds.), Just sex: Students rewrite the rules on sex, violence, activism, and equality (pp. 39–46). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s lives. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(4), 203–210.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 275

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

276

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14(5/6), 335–350. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and domination. New York, NY: New York University Press. Pollack, W. S. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York, NY: Random House. Rankin, S., & Beemyn, G. (2012, October). Beyond a binary: The lives of gendernonconforming youth. About Campus, 17(4), 2–10. doi:10.1002/abc.21086 Riophe, K. (2001). Reckless eyeballing: Sexual harassment on campus. In L. LeMoncheck & J. P. Sterba (Eds.), Sexual harassment: Issues and answers (pp. 249–259). New York: NY: Oxford University Press. Roth, B. (2010). Feminist coalitions: Historical perspectives on second-wave feminism in the United States/Radical Sisters: Second-wave feminism and Black liberation in Washington. Signs, 35(3), 765–768. Rupp, L. J., & Taylor, V. (1987). Survival in the doldrums: The American women’s rights movement, 1945 to the 1960s. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. (2015). Retrieved from www .cawp.rutgers.edu/education_training/NEWLeadership/ Saint John’s University Men’s Development Institute. (2015). Retrieved from www .csbsju.edu/sju-student-development/mens-development-institute Scarce, M. (2000). Male-on-male rape. In J. Gold & S. Villari (Eds.), Just sex: Students rewrite the rules on sex, violence, activism, and equality (pp. 39–46). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Shields, S. (2008, September). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5/6), 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8 Solomon, B. M. (1985). In the company of educated women: A history of women in higher education in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Somander, T. (2014, September 19). President Obama launches the “It’s On Us” campain to end sexual assault on campus [Web log post]. The White House. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/19/president-obamalaunches-its-us-campaign-end-sexual-assault-campus Steinfeldt, M., & Steinfeldt, J. A. (2012). Athletic identity and conformity to masculine norms among college football players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24(2), 115–128. doi:10.1080/10413200.2011.603405 Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). Introduction. In T. L. Strayhorn (Ed.), Living at the intersections: Social identities and Black collegians (pp. 1–20). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Tatum, J. L., & Charlton, R. (2008). A phenomenological study of how selected college men construct and define masculinity. Higher Education in Review, 5, 99–125. Tong, R. (2007). Feminist thought in transition: Never a dull moment. Social Science Journal, 44(1), 23–39.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 276

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

277

University of Michigan Center for the Education of Women. (2015). Retrieved from www.cew.umich.edu/ Weiler, K. (2008, November). The feminist imagination and educational research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4), 499–507. doi:10.1080/01596300802410219 West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing differences. Gender & Society, 9(1), 8–37. White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (2014, April). Not alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report_0.pdf William & Mary Student Health Center. (2015). Men’s health. Retrieved from www .wm.edu/offices/wellness/healthcenter/services/menshealth/index.php Wood, J. T. (2013). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Yu, S. (2011, September). Reclaiming the personal: Personal narratives of third-wave feminists. Women’s Studies, 40(7), 873–889. doi:10.1080/00497878.2011.603606

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 277

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

13 L E S B I A N , G AY, B I S E X UA L , AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS Dena R. Kniess, Tony W. Cawthon, and Kristin M. Walker

T

he lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) college student population has been referred to as an invisible minority (Sanlo, 1998). Its members constitute a significant student subpopulation meriting intentional efforts in education and support. A common misconception is that LGBT students “belong to a single, amorphous group when in fact there are many differences among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people” (Worthington, McCrary, & Howard, 1998, p. 141). By definition, gender identity and sexual orientation are two completely different constructs, yet three primary concerns “unite sexual orientation and gender identity in distinct ways: overlapping identities, mistaken identities, and the sexual orientation” (Carter, 2000, p. 272). In this chapter, we explore the complexities of the identities of LGBT students. The chapter begins with an investigation of the terminology associated with LGBT individuals. The sections on history, demographics, and sociological context explore dimensions of significant changes for LGBT populations. An examination of contextual issues relative to LGBT students and current research and trends accompanies an exploration of best practices and exemplary programs. We conclude with specific recommendations for working with and addressing the needs of LGBT students on college campuses, followed by a case study and discussion questions.

278

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 278

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

279

Terminology Social identities play an integral role in people’s lives. While individuals have several socially constructed identities, some may be more salient than others for a variety of reasons. As we focus on terminology, we invite you to remember that identities do not exist in isolation. Identities involving individuals’ race, socioeconomic status, or ability, for example, may complicate LGBT terminology. Ultimately, student affairs professionals may demonstrate an appreciation of LGBT identity by promoting an understanding of the associated terminology and how these terms connect with the intersectionality of identities. Sexuality includes three components: sexual behavior, sexual identity, and sexual orientation. Often these terms are used interchangeably, but in fact they have significantly different meanings. Sexual behavior refers to what one does sexually—one’s actions. Sexual identity can incorporate gender identity, sex roles identity, physical identity, and sexual orientation identity (Ryan & Futterman, 1998). Gender identity refers to an individual’s understanding of themselves in regard to men and women, boy and girl, transgender, genderqueer, and other gendered categories (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007). Sex roles are socially constructed expectations associated with being masculine or feminine. Physical identity refers to characteristics of biological sex (i.e., physical makeup as determined by chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, and body parts; Ryan & Futterman, 1998). The term sexual orientation involves not only a person’s choice of sexual partners (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.; Patterson, 1995) but also emotional attraction (Coleman, 1990; Human Rights Campaign, n.d.; Shively & DeCecco, 1993). These sexual partners and emotional attractions could involve same-sex individuals (gay/lesbian), opposite-sex individuals (heterosexuality), same- and opposite-sex individuals (bisexuality), or all or several different gender attractions (pansexuality; Green & Peterson, 2003–2004). Identity (or how one identifies oneself ) is only one component of our sexual orientation. Closely related to sexual orientation is affectional orientation. This term refers to a broader range of sexuality and assumes that an individual’s sexual orientation is characterized by who he or she is prone to fall in love with, with sexuality only being a portion of the range of experiences and attractions (Lambert, 2005). The term homosexual first appeared in 1869 (Mondimore, 1996), although it did not appear in an American text until 1892 (Fone, 2000). Historically, homosexuality was associated with the idea of something deviant, unnatural, or sick, and the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973. Similarly, the word queer was

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 279

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

280

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

historically a derogatory slang word used to identify homosexuals. However, it has been “embraced and reinvented as a positive, proud, political identifier when used by homosexuals among and about themselves” (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Center, 2010, para. 32), and often extends to include bisexuals and transgender individuals within its broad span. Queer is sometimes used as shorthand for LGBT. The term gay is frequently “used to refer to the LGBTQI [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and intersex] community as a whole, or as an individual identity label for anyone who does not identify as heterosexual” (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004, p. 3). It may also refer specifically to men who are attracted to other men. Similarly, the term lesbian describes women who are attracted to other women (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004). Bisexual identity and bisexual behavior are terms that further describe a subpopulation of the queer community. Bisexuality has been defined as erotic and sexual interest in or attraction to men and women (Robin & Hamner, 2000). Additionally, individuals who are attracted to different types of genders along the gender identity continuum can be described as pansexual (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004). The term gender identity describes an individual’s internal sense of self as man, woman, or somewhere between or outside these two categories (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). The term cisgender “describes someone who is comfortable with the gender identity and gender expression expectations assigned to them based on their physical sex” (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004, p. 2). Someone who is gender normative chooses to conform to the gender expectations of society. Transgender identity focuses on individuals whose gender identity does not align with biological sex assignment. It encompasses a wide array of gender-nonconforming identities and behaviors. Transgender challenges the concept of the gender binary in which there are only two genders: man and woman. Ekins and King (1996) defined a transgender individual as one who blends or bends genders. Research has also identified the notion of an identity sphere, defined as the concept that “gender identities and expression do not fit a linear scale, but rather on a sphere that allows room for all expression without weighting any one expression as better than another” (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004, p. 5). Because transgender refers to gender identity and not to sexual orientation, transgender people may be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. Two other terms professionals must understand are heteronormativity and homophobia. Weinberg (1972) first defined homophobia as irrational fear of, intolerance of, and discomfort with people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual (see also Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Heteronormativity refers to maintaining the assumption, whether individually or institutionally, that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 280

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

281

heterosexuality is superior to all other forms of sexuality (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004). Discrimination and prejudice against LGBT students are often the result of homophobia and heterosexism. Unfortunately, LGBT students may also internalize these prejudices and stereotypes, resulting in self-hatred.

History Although the gay movement began in Germany, gay organizations have existed in the United States since the eighteenth century (Bullough, 1979). While the first formally organized gay group in the United States was the Society for Human Rights in 1924, the gay rights movement publicly emerged in the United States after World War II with the Mattachine Society in 1951, ONE in 1952, and Daughters of Bilitis in 1955 (Adam, 1987). Despite the birth of these groups, a repressive atmosphere continued to exist throughout the 1950s as gay individuals were routinely abused and blackmailed. In 1961 Illinois became the first state to decriminalize homosexual behavior between consenting adults; the first television special on homosexuality, The Rejected, was aired; and the Society for Individual Rights was founded, later becoming a leading advocacy group (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). In 1965 the American Civil Liberties Union proposed changes in laws dealing with homosexuals, and in 1968 the North American Conference of Homophile Organizations was attended by 26 gay-related groups (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Another important expression of societal change was the founding of the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles (mccchurch.org) in 1968 as a global Christian church with an open, inclusive, and loving message for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans* individuals, and all people (as of this writing, the church has 222 congregations in 37 countries). The gay rights movement was forever changed on June 28, 1969, when a routine police raid of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City, was met by a core group of customers who fought back and started a three-day riot during which the bar was set on fire (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Though similar raids had regularly occurred years before in Los Angeles, by the end of the Stonewall riot, the gay movement was born. Soon organized gay groups demanded protection and became a political force (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Despite attacks by religious conservatives in the 1970s, progress was still made. In 1970 the Unitarian Church revised its view of homosexuality and passed the first of multiple resolutions in support of LGBT people (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Since the 1970s the United States elected its first openly gay politicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 281

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

282

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders, and the United Church of Christ became the first major Christian denomination to ordain an openly gay minister (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). During the 1980s and 1990s the gay and lesbian movement strengthened, and bisexuals and transgender individuals gained increased visibility (Fone, 2000). The LGBT organizations BiNet and Queer Nation were founded in the United States, and OutRage! was founded in the United Kingdom in 1990 (see www.binetusa.org and queernationny.org/history). Following the lead of the World Health Organization in 1994, the American Medical Association no longer considered homosexuality an illness (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). While the emergence of LGBT organizations represented progress, legal rights for LGBT individuals were mixed in terms of support. In 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws against hate crimes were constitutional while also enacting a ban on gays serving openly in the military, known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The court also ruled in 1996 that states could not enact legislation to deny civil rights or due process to gay men and lesbians. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, same-sex marriage laws were enacted in the Netherlands. Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, and Utah, in addition to the country of Australia, banned same-sex marriage in 2004, while Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wisconsin banned same-sex marriages and civil unions. During President Barack Obama’s inaugural address in 2013, he mentioned the issue of gay rights for the first time in a presidential swearing-in ceremony, and on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage a right in all 50 states. Today, gay pride marches are held in most major cities; increasing numbers of companies extend benefits to domestic partners of their employees; and healthy role models exist for gay individuals in sports, politics, and entertainment. However, despite these positive changes, the United States lags behind other countries in legal protections for LGBT individuals (Baird-Remba, 2013). A common perception is that the growth in LGBT student organizations on colleges and universities occurred after the Stonewall riots of 1969. The reality is that the struggle for visibility started on campuses a few years prior to the Stonewall riots. For example, in 1967 the Student Homophile League, the first LGBT student organization, was founded at Columbia University, and within a year student chapters of the Student Homophile League were established at Cornell, New York University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Beemyn, 2003). After Stonewall, the number increased significantly, and whereas the first organizations were influenced by the Student Homophile League, groups after 1969 were influenced by the Gay

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 282

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

283

Liberation Front (founded in New York). By 1971, gay liberation groups existed in every major city and campus in the United States (Adam, 1987). At the University of Minnesota in 1971 Jack Baker became the first openly gay person elected student body president at a major university, and with his partner, they became the first American gay couple to seek a marriage license (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Barol (1984) described the late 1980s as a time when colleges recognized gay and lesbian student organizations, allowed gay dances, granted tenure to openly gay faculty, and began offering academic courses on homosexuality. The inaugural gay fraternities and lesbian sororities were chartered at the University of California, Los Angeles in 1988. Berrill (1989) estimated in 1989 there were about 300 gay student organizations in existence, which Slater (1993) said was a typical method for providing services to LGBT populations even though they were staffed with volunteers and had few financial resources. These organizations served several purposes on campuses: They facilitated social interaction, served as political entities, offered educational resources, provided services and support, and allowed students opportunities for leadership development (Scott, 1991). As LGBT campus student and national organizations have grown in number and impact, so has the attention devoted to them. LGBT campus resource centers and offices, another development on college campuses, provide student services and programs; offer campus-wide support to LGBT students, faculty, staff, their friends, and families; and work to offer opportunities for growth for entire institutions (Sanlo, 2000). The website for the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals (www .lgbtcampus.org) notes that the first office of LGBT affairs opened at the University of Michigan in 1971, and the majority of these offices opened in the 1990s. Founded in 1971 the National Queer Student Coalition (NQSC) is one of the oldest national LGBT student organizations. NQSC is an affiliate of the U.S. Student Association (USSA, 2007). Founded and run by students, USSA’s primary purpose is organizing, advocating for, and providing networking for LGBT students and disseminating to its members copies of federal legislation affecting LGBT students. Safe Zone is a national program designed to equip heterosexual individuals with skills and resources to assist them to become advocates for the LGBT student population as allies. The program exists under names such as Safe Space, Safe on Campus, and Safe Harbor. The general idea of these groups is to allow LGBT allies to place a “safe” symbol in a high-visibility area to identify that area as a safe place for LGBTs (www.montana.edu/wwwcc/docs/ safezone.html).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 283

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

284

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Campus Pride is the only national nonprofit organization for student leaders and campus groups working to create a safer college environment for LGBT students. It is a volunteer-driven network of student leaders whose primary objective is to develop resources, programs, and services to support LGBT and allied students on U.S. college campuses. Campus Pride was founded in 2001 and started out as an online community and resource clearinghouse (www.campuspride.org). Individuals along with the development of coalitions, nonprofit organizations, programs, and legislation have contributed toward increased awareness and support. Unfortunately, society and college campuses still have work to do in regard to equity and intersecting identities. Race, gender, immigration status, socioeconomic status, ability, and religion must be considered in one’s overall identity as a person and as essential components of any discussions about LGBT identity. Furthermore, transgender students are frequently not considered equally in efforts of the LGBT community, and their identities are frequently rendered invisible by the lack of attention to their unique concerns (Marine & Nicolazzo, 2014).

Demographics Describing the demographics of LGBT students on college campuses is difficult (American College Health Association, 2012). Counting the number of individuals who identify as a member of this community is problematic. One of the main challenges is due to changing behavior. While a person may be or feel a certain way, outward behavior can change over time. Additionally, college may be the first time students feel empowered or supported to align actions with the person they know themselves to be. A further complication can be if the behavior exists in all facets of a person’s life. Understanding the estimates of adults or college students who identify as members of the LGBT population may be helpful. Some institutions, including Elmhurst College (Hoover, 2011) and University of Iowa (Hoover, 2012), ask their applicants to indicate their sexual and gender identity to gain an understanding of their population. While this information is challenging to calculate, the following is some information that student affairs practitioners may find helpful from a population perspective. Four population-based surveys indicated that individuals who identified as LGBT constituted between 2.2% and 4.0% of the U.S. population, meaning between 5.2 and 9.5 million adults in the United States identify as LGBT (Gates, 2014). Results of a recent survey by the American College Health Association (ACHA) illustrates the presence of even greater percentages of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 284

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

285

LGBT students on our campuses. The American College Health Association (2012) reported that from their recent survey of 90,000 students, 3% identified as gay/lesbian, 3% identified as bisexual, 1.9% were unsure; when asked about gender, 0.2% identified as transgender. Although population-based surveys are helpful in identifying how many individuals identify as LGBT, student affairs practitioners must understand that these students are on all our campuses and need support regardless of their percentage of the overall population.

Sociological Context The prevailing societal assumption that “heterosexuality is normal, natural, and preferable as a sexual orientation” (O’Brien, 1998, p. 31) creates a heteronormative culture in which individuals are assumed to be heterosexual and are treated as such. This culture routinely “denies the existence and contributions of LGBT individuals” (Worthington et al., 1998, p. 136). Homophobia in both forms—the fear and hatred of homosexuality in others and the fear of homosexuality in oneself—permeates our society and affects LGBT and heterosexual individuals alike, constituting a form of oppression. Heterosexism and homophobia in the larger American society is mirrored in its college and university campuses (Tomlinson & Fassinger, 2003). Despite the strides that have been made in fostering increased acceptance of LGBT people and the increasing numbers of institutional policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, researchers have documented pervasive prejudice, derogatory comments, verbal and physical harassment, and violence against LGBT individuals on college and university campuses (Rankin, 2005). More than 36% of LGBT undergraduates have experienced harassment on campus, and in 79% of the cases the harassment came from other students (Rankin, 2003). Compared to LGBT faculty and staff members on campus, LGBT students experienced higher rates of harassment attributed to their sexual identity (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld & Frazer, 2010). Seventeen transgender individuals have been murdered in 2015 up to the time of this writing, and the majority of the victims have been Black or Hispanic (Rogers, 2015). The danger present in the environment is illustrated by the murder of Tamara Dominguez, a trans* woman, who was hit by a vehicle and run over several times in Kansas City, Missouri. Throughout history, individuals condemning and attacking LGBT people claimed religious justification, often using the Bible to justify oppression (DuMontier, 2000; Kraig, 1998). Many private colleges and universities have a religious affiliation that shapes their approach to serving LGBT students,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 285

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

286

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

and LGBT college students come from a broad range of religious traditions. DuMontier (2000) described faith development and LGBT identity development as “parallel processes” (p. 322) and emphasized that “there are points in which the evolution of gay identity development may be connected and integral to faith development” (p. 327). In the past three decades, theories of LGBT identity development have been formulated; they “are grounded in the assumption that oppressive contextual influences exert impact on normative developmental processes” (Fassinger, 1998, p. 14). In other words, the stress of college is exponentially greater for young people developing an identity as an LGBT person in the particular sociological context of the collegiate environment. Thus, the lifelong process of developing a positive LGBT identity collides head-on during the college years with the developmental trajectory of the college student. LGBT students are put “at considerable disadvantage in terms of achieving successful resolution of developmental tasks” (Fassinger, 1998, p. 19). Coming out is another critical aspect of LGBT identity development, “and one that is distinct from that of heterosexuals” (Newman, 1998, p. 163). Coming out involves the development of an LGBT identity and the public expression (to varying degrees) of this identity. LGBT students must come out to three primary populations—oneself, other LGBT people, and heterosexuals (Evans & Broido, 1999). In addition, being out is not always an either/or process but can be understood as a “continuum from not being out to oneself . . . to being explicitly out in every setting. Some midway points include being out to oneself, but not to others; being out to a few trusted others; being out selectively to friends; and assuming that everyone [knows], often because of visibility” (p. 663). Ultimately coming out is an individualized process. Motivations to come out “often had to do with environmental circumstances as much as internal pressures” (Evans & Broido, 1999, p. 663). Encouragement from supportive individuals, perception of a receptive climate, and availability of LGBT role models are additional factors that motivate this important decision. Peer culture can have a strong impact in not only the coming-out process but also influencing exploration of multiple identities, such as gender and sexuality (King, 2011). Coming out is “usually understood as psychologically beneficial, in that LGBT people eliminate, or lessen, the dissonance caused by the lack of congruence between public and private personas (Newman, 1998, p. 164). Students have reported the advantages of “feelings of pride, authenticity, and relief . . . [as well as] appreciating being able to be open about who they are” (Evans & Broido, p. 664). However, coming out into a hostile environment may result in additional stressors such as increased social ostracism or loss of social support (Newman,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 286

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

287

1998). For precisely such reasons, many LGBT students choose to remain in the closet and to pass as heterosexuals. As we have previously mentioned, we must consider the impact of multiple identities on students. For example, LGBT people of Color are more likely than White LGBT people to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid harassment (Rankin, 2003). The coming-out process is viewed positively in sexual identity development but is viewed differently by different racial identity groups (Patton, 2011). For example, African American males at a historically Black college or university only disclosed their sexual identity to individuals who they trusted, indicating that “coming out was not a public process” (Patton, 2011, p. 86). The African American males in Patton’s (2011) study also wanted to resist being stereotyped as “flamboyant, feminine, and loud” (p. 88). Research has shown that students perceive distinct disadvantages to being out: feelings of concern for others who might be indirectly hurt by the student’s being out (e.g., closeted friends, family), distress at being labeled, fears and actual experience of harassment and rejection, needing to limit behaviors to avoid unsafe situations, and negative effects on academic performance because of involvement in LGBT activities (Evans & Broido, 1999). The classroom climate for trans* students is uncomfortable (Garvey & Rankin, 2014; Pryor, 2015). Classroom roll call produces anxiety for trans* students as many colleges and universities do not have a way to list a preferred name on course rosters, which creates an unsafe environment for trans* students who are transitioning. Marginalizing behaviors from peers and faculty, such as refusing to call trans* students by their preferred name, further isolates them in the classroom, which can lead to withdrawing from the course or higher education altogether (Pryor, 2015). Social groups exist on college campuses that compound the difficulties of isolation, add barriers to involvement, and are pockets of heterosexism and homophobia. Examples of these groups are single sex, such as athletic programs and Greek organizations (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). “LGBT athletes are often fearful of derision if they come out, and straight athletes are frequently afraid of falsely being labeled as gay if they do not participate in oppressive acts” (Salkever & Worthington, 1998, pp. 193–194). A similar dynamic can be seen among members of some sororities and fraternities. The result is that LGBT students become silenced within their own teams and organizations and are often forced to suffer the assault of homophobic remarks unknowingly made by teammates, fraternity brothers, or sorority sisters. Discrimination against LGBT individuals on sports teams and other organizations is still pervasive. For example, in 2014, Michael Sam was the first openly gay football player drafted by a National Football League team, the St. Louis Rams. Sam was ultimately cut from the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 287

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

288

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

team, becoming a free agent for the Dallas Cowboys, where he was released from their practice squad (Baskin & Keith, 2015). There is evidence that fraternities and sororities are becoming more tolerant. Case’s (1998) research indicated that despite fears to the contrary, “Most GLBT [sic] fraternity- and sorority-initiated members receive a relatively supportive response from the majority of their members when they voluntarily reveal their sexual orientation. . . . [However,] the probability of a negative response is much greater if the member is involuntarily outed” (p. 69). According to a study conducted by Rankin, Hesp, and Webber (2013), LGBT students reported experiencing high levels of harassment on campus, and in three studies comparing LGB and non-LGB students’ experiences LGB students reported statistically significant higher level levels of harassment. Follow-up analyses on the males in the study indicated that men who joined after the year 2000 reported more positive experiences in their fraternity (Rankin et al., 2013). There are fraternities and sororities for LGBT students. For example, Delta Lambda Phi was founded in 1986 by gay men for all men (dlp.org) and Kappa Alpha Lambda was founded in 2003 for lesbian women (kappaalphalambdasorority.com/about_kalsi).

Identity Development To be effective, student affairs professionals must be knowledgeable about foundational and current research on LGBT identify development. It is imperative they understand gay identity development since many students begin questioning their sexuality—coming out to themselves and others— during the college years (Beemyn, Curtis, Davis, & Tubbs, 2005; Evans, Broido, & Wall, 2004; Evans & D’Augelli, 1996). Researchers writing about identity development use the terms homosexual identity and gay identity interchangeably; few studies clearly delineate what is meant by the concept (Cass, 1983–1984). Cass identified five different uses of these terms: “(1) defining oneself as gay, (2) developing a sense of self as gay, (3) possessing an image of self as homosexual, (4) knowing the way a homosexual person is, and (5) exhibiting consistent behavior in relation to homosexual-related activity” (p. 108). From these differing definitions, it is apparent that identity can be defined individually, intrapersonally, or as both. Regardless of which specific definition is being used, Warren (1974) said that most researchers agreed that the process toward identity development is answering the questions, “Who am I? and Where do I belong?” (p. 145). Extensive attention to homosexual or gay identity development began in the 1970s. The early theories on gay identity development were primarily sociological in perspective and explored gay identity and related issues.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 288

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

289

Early studies included those of Dank (1971), Hammersmith and Weinberg (1973), Weinberg (1978), and Bell and Weinberg (1978). Building upon the work of gay identity research, gay identity development models followed. These models focus on the process that gay and lesbian individuals go through to become aware and accepting of their gay identities. The early models are developmental in nature, involving a series of stages that are linear in thought and reflect a social, psychological, or psychosocial perspective (Levine & Evans, 1991). Examples include social (Coleman, 1981; Lee, 1977;), psychological (Minton & McDonald, 1984; Plummer, 1975; Troiden, 1979), and psychosocial (Cass, 1979; Savin-Williams, 1990, 1995, 1998). These models have been criticized for not allowing for differences in identity development among gay men and lesbian women, ignoring identity development in bisexuals and transgender individuals, and assuming that identity formation occurs in sequential stages. Additionally, the theories did not take into account the impact or intersection of other social identities such as race, class, and faith. Some of the additional theories developed include lesbian identity development (Fassinger & Miller, 1996; Sophie, 1986); lesbian, gay, and bisexual development (D’Augelli, 1994); bisexual identity development (Bleiberg, Fertmann, Godino, & Todhunter, 2005; Brown, 2002; Fox, 1995; Klein, 1993; Rust, 1993; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994); transgender identity development (Bilodeau, 2005; Bolin 1993; Carter, 2000); and transsexual identity development (Devor, 2004). Morales (1990) criticized most homosexual identity models as being based on the experiences of upper-class White lesbians and gay men. McCarn and Fassinger (1996) further noted that existing models do not consider the multiple aspects of identity such as race, class, and faith. To understand students’ development and assist with their growth, student affairs professionals need to be knowledgeable about the aforementioned theories. As space does not allow detailed discussion of all identity development theories, we provided an overview of some foundational theories as well as emerging theories. We suggest reading Bilodeau and Renn (2005) for an excellent comparison of sexual orientation and gender identity development theories. Cass’s model of homosexual identity formation. Vivienne Cass’s work (1979, 1983–1984, 1984) formed the basis for conceptualizing homosexual development for men and women starting in the late 1970s. Cass proposed a stage model of homosexual identity development with six stages that assume a movement in self-perception from heterosexual to homosexual. The first stage is identity confusion, in which the individual first perceives his or her thoughts of, feelings about, and attractions to others of the same sex. The second is identity comparison, where the individual perceives and must deal

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 289

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

290

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

with social stigmatization and alienation. Cass’s third stage is identity tolerance, in which individuals, having acknowledged their homosexuality, begin to seek out other homosexuals. Stage four is identity acceptance, in which positive connotations about being homosexual foster even further contacts and friendships with other gays and lesbians. In the fifth stage, identity pride, the individual minimizes contact with heterosexual peers to focus on issues and activities related to his or her homosexual orientation. In identity synthesis, the sixth and final of Cass’s stages, there is less of a dichotomy of individual differences between the heterosexual and nonheterosexual communities or aspects of the individual’s life; the individual judges himself or herself on a range of personal qualities, not just upon sexual identity. Fassinger’s model. Ruth Fassinger (1998), whose work has become quite popular with student affairs professionals, developed an inclusive model of lesbian/gay identity formation. It, too, is stage-based, but it is multifaceted, reflecting dual aspects of development—individual sexual identity and group membership identity. The first of Fassinger’s four stages is awareness—from an individual perspective, of being different from heterosexual peers, and from a group perspective, of the existence of differing sexual orientations among people. The second stage is exploration—on an individual level, of emotions and erotic desires for people of the same sex, and on the group level, of how one associates with gay people as a social class. The third stage a deepening commitment to this changing notion of identity; on an individual level, it is a personalization of the knowledge and beliefs about same-sex sexuality, and on the group level, it is personal involvement with a nonheterosexual reference group, and realizing the existence of oppression and the potential consequences of identifying and socializing with nonheterosexuals. The fourth stage, internalization/ synthesis, is an integration of same-sex sexuality into one’s overall identity; from a collective perspective, it conveys one’s identity as a member of a minority group in all social contexts. Bisexual identity development. The diversity and complexity of bisexuality challenges our notion of dichotomous sexuality and identity and “confuses, unnerves, and creates suspicion among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual people” (Pope & Reynolds, 1991, p. 206). Many heterosexuals see bisexuals as gay and extend homophobia and heterosexism to incorporate this population as well, while “many lesbian and gay people suspect individuals of choosing bisexuality as a means of maintaining heterosexual privileges” (Pope & Reynolds, 1991, p. 207). Biphobia is a term for prejudice based on the fear and distrust of bisexual people and feelings; it has at its core “the ultimate marginalizing question, ‘Does bisexuality really exist?’” (Pope & Reynolds, 1991, p. 207).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 290

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

291

In addition to these definitional and conceptual issues, O’Brien (1998) stated, “For bisexual people, there is no large-scale or widespread ‘bisexual subculture,’ no bisexual Mecca (as San Francisco is, for example, for gays). Bisexuals depend largely on individual support and understanding for their affirmation” (p. 31). Klein (1993) found that the average age that individuals first identify as bisexual is 24 and may be delayed because of the resistance from the straight and gay communities. What bisexual students wanted most, according to O’Brien (1998), was unbiased and considerate treatment that does not marginalize them based on their sexual orientation or assume they are abnormal. The layer cake model of bisexuality development (Bleiberg et al., 2005) seeks to conceptualize the lesser known and seldom-researched identity of bisexual individuals. The authors argue that the existing knowledge on bisexual people is often surrounded by confusion due to a lack of research. This model serves as a bridge from existing theory of homosexual identity development to the realm of bisexual identity development. In this model, individuals move through five layers, beginning at birth, and they generally follow this sequence: (a) socialize into a heterosexual world as a heterosexual; (b) experience homosexual thoughts, emotions, or behaviors; (c) confirm homosexual attraction while remaining under a heterosexual identity; (d) integrate both their heterosexual and homosexual identities; and (e) embrace their own unique bisexual identity. With the fifth layer having the least amount of existing knowledge, it should be understood that bisexuality could carry different meanings for different people. In short, the fifth layer is characterized by the subjective identification within the bisexual population. Transgender identity development. Confusion surrounds the term transgender. Few individuals can accurately define it or can fathom what it might be like “not to be comfortable living within the confines of the social stereotypes of gender as applied to themselves” (Lees, 1998, p. 37). According to Lees (1998), “The process of educating the wider community about transgender issues can be difficult: Most transsexual people choose to live a quiet life not identified as having ‘changed sex’” (p. 43). Perhaps this is at least partially because transgender people are more vulnerable to random homophobic attacks than lesbian, gay, or bisexual people (Carter, 2000). For many students who are questioning their gender identity, “The time away at college is often the first chance to challenge the gender role assigned at birth and to decide how to integrate transgenderness into life as an adult” (Lees, 1998, p. 37). Lees (1998) explained, “The path of self-discovery often involves going from one gender extreme to the other, then settling down somewhere in between” (p. 38). The college years are considered an optimal

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 291

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

292

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

time for transgender individuals to make a transition (Lees, 1998). Most colleges and universities offer little support for transgender students on college campuses (Beemyn et al., 2005), where they often experience a hostile campus climate and a lack of resources, such as health care (McKinney, 2005). Across the nation, transgender students have been demanding comfortable living space, representation in organizations, and support from higher education administration and staff (Carter, 2000; Erbentraut, 2015; McKinney, 2005). Not all transgender people are comfortable being part of the LGBT conglomeration. After all, gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation, and many transgender individuals identify as heterosexual. Approximately 200 colleges and universities have a professionally staffed LGBTQ center, but tensions often surround the center’s name, programming, staffing, activism, and advocacy (Marine & Nicolazzo, 2014). For example, programming about rather than for trans* faculty, staff, and students, marginalizes the needs of the trans* community on college campuses (Marine & Nicolazzo, 2014). Evan’s model of transgender identity development (Gender and Sexuality Development, 2011) outlines a series of steps that are experienced by individuals who identify as transgender. The six-step model follows this sequence: 1. Existing a traditionally gendered identity—the understanding of gender roles and the impact of these roles 2. Developing a personal transgender identity—the individual’s gender identification within the transgender community 3. Developing a transgender social identity—the discovery of a support group and the understanding of the values of this group 4. Becoming a transgender offspring—pronouncing one’s identity to others and integrating these reactions 5. Developing a transgender intimacy status—the process of sharing one’s holistic self with an intimate partner 6. Entering a transgender community—connecting with the transgender community and assuming similar political and social actions and beliefs

Devor (2004) produced witnessing and mirroring: a fourteen-stage model to highlight the complex progression that occurs during the identity development of a transsexual individual. Devor proposed a comprehensive sequence of 14 steps that conceptualize the full transition of the transsexual population. These steps are 1. Abiding anxiety 2. Identity confusion about originally assigned gender and sex

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 292

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

293

Identity comparisons about originally assigned gender and sex Discovery of transsexualism Identity confusion about transsexualism Identity comparisons about transsexualism Tolerance of transsexual identity Delay before acceptance of transsexual identity Acceptance of transsexual identity Delay before transition Transition Acceptance of post-transition gender and sex identities Integration Pride (p. 41)

While this sequence appears structured, Devor emphasized that this model is intended to serve as a guideline, not a rule or expectation. Individuals experience these stages in different ways and at different paces, and individuals can stop progressing through the sequence at their own comfort level. Two key themes frame this theory: witnessing and mirroring. For individuals to feel validated and their sense of self to be reinforced, individuals need to be seen by others for what they are (witnessing), and individuals must see themselves in others’ eyes as they see themselves (mirroring). Lack of congruence between witnessing and mirroring results in negative self-identity and behavior.

Intersectionality Identity development theories tend to follow a consistent trend that ends with a person integrating the salient identity with their other identities. Intersectionality represents a growing perspective of theory and research related to social identities. This perspective stresses that changes in one component of our social identity (gender, class, race, faith) cannot be understood without understanding changes in other parts of our social identities (Dill, McLaughlin, & Nieves, 2007; Jones & Abes, 2013; Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009). These theories encourage holistic development and integration of identities as people tell their stories. Two excellent resources for understanding intersectionality are offered by Wijeyesinghe and Jackson (2012) and Jones and Abes (2013). Wijeyesinghe and Jackson explore racial identity and its intersection with other identities, and Jones and Abes explore intersectionality, critical race theory, and queer theory as related to race, class, gender, and sexuality.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 293

7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

294

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Student affairs practitioners must consider developing programming centered on identity development and the intersectionality of identities. Practitioners must allow for the space and patience for students to progress one level or stage at a time at their own pace and development. For example, the experiences of a gay Black student on one campus are qualitatively different from a gay White student; a low-socioeconomic lesbian student combines her experiences as a working-class and lesbian person to create an outcome that will be different than a low-socioeconomic heterosexual friend as well as different from the experiences of a lesbian from a middle-class background. Student affairs professionals must understand that these experiences represent identities that intersect to create a unique experience for each individual. Intersectionality is not additive; one does not layer on unique identities. Rather, people experience the world at the intersection of all of their individual identities.

Best Practices: Historical and Emerging This section highlights best practices that many campuses have historically used to provide a safe space for LGBT students (campus resource centers, Lavender Graduations, a comprehensive webpage, gender-inclusive bathrooms, and academic partnerships) and three emerging practices for working with these students (gender-affirming living-learning communities, admission application changes, and study abroad experiences). Readers can go to www.lgbtcampus.org for other examples of best practices. In addition, many of the institutions described have received national attention due to the alignment with the Campus Pride Index, which is why these initiatives were chosen as best practices (www.campusprideindex.org). Even though many campuses are making strides toward implementing these best practices, they are not commonplace in higher education. It takes time to develop or acquire the necessary relationships, policies, and funding to implement these initiatives. Additionally, we realize that best practices may not be feasible on all campuses, and student affairs professionals should examine their respective campus contexts for appropriate initiatives to implement. Ultimately, we offer these best practices to inspire student affairs practitioners to make strides in several areas, thereby improving the college experiences of LGBT students.

Campus Resource Centers and Lavender Graduations The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals currently lists 194 registered campus offices or centers, many with a full-time

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 294

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

295

professional director with at least 50% of the position devoted to LGBT students or a graduate assistant with a sole focus on LGBT students (see www.lgbtcampus.org/lgbt-map). In 2001, 45 institutions held Lavender Graduations (celebrations designed to recognize LGBT students graduating from college), and in 2015 the number nearly doubled to 86 institutions (see www.hrc.org/resources/entry/lavender-graduation). Campuses have made strides in these areas, but these best practices that demonstrate inclusivity have not yet become the norm nationwide.

Comprehensive Webpages Retention is a common challenge for many college students, and particularly for LGBT students. In 2010, 33% of LGBT students in higher education considered leaving their respective institutions for reasons related to their sexuality and gender (Rankin et al., 2010). Purdue University’s webpage reflects a comprehensive approach that includes a method for reporting hate and bias as well as ways to donate to its resource center. In an effort to provide educational opportunities to various campus stakeholders, someone can complete a short form to request a speaker. There are also ways for students to submit a request to have their names appear differently in Blackboard for academic purposes and BoilerLink for student involvement purposes. This institution and others use a comprehensive and innovative approach rather than a static website.

Gender-Inclusive Bathrooms Making facilities more inclusive is a necessary step for campuses and surrounding communities (Beemyn, Dominque, Pettitt, & Smith, 2005). More than 150 college campuses have gender-inclusive bathrooms for LGBT students and employees (see www.transgenderlaw.org/college/guidelines. htm for more information and guidelines). Several universities provide lists of buildings on campus and in the surrounding community that provide gender-inclusive facilities.

Academic Partnerships Providing development opportunities for faculty is an important strategy for colleges and universities striving to create more inclusive campus environments for LGBT students. Even when faculty want to learn more about LGBT issues, too many colleges and universities fail to provide such opportunities. Arizona State University’s faculty learn how to create an inclusive classroom environment and incorporate LGBT subject matter into their courses (see cls.asu.edu/lgbt). Arizona State University LGBT

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 295

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

296

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

resource center professionals also collaborated with academic affairs to provide and promote an LGBT certificate program that encompasses 15 credits worth of courses. Several universities provide opportunities for students to major, minor, or earn a certificate in LGBT studies at the undergraduate and graduate level (see people.ku.edu/~jyounger/lgbtqprogs.html for an evolving list).

Emerging Best Practices In addition to the four historical best practices listed earlier, we also highlight three emerging strategies that many campus educators have begun exploring to develop more inclusive campus spaces for LGBT students. Although the ultimate answer to oppression experienced by LGBT students is dismantling it, including homophobia and transphobia, these best practices may provide some relief for students until that happens.

Gender-Affirming Living-Learning Communities As previously stated, much campus sensitivity to trans*- and genderaffirming students’ needs first began with the issue of gender-inclusive bathrooms. Campus professionals soon realized that this sense of inclusion must become part of the larger campus culture. As such, campuses such as the University of Louisville, University of Rhode Island, Dartmouth College, and the University of California, San Diego have begun focusing on genderaffirming housing programs, with the creation of gender and sexuality living-learning communities. These communities offer a programmatic and academic structure, as well as attention to revised assignment policies that may conflict with inclusion.

Admission Applications Changes With the increased recognition of the fluidity of gender, campuses such as the University of Iowa and Oregon State have been early leaders in the collection of queer and trans* student data in their admissions process. This shift in policy allows for nonbinary gender information in Banner, Blackboard, Canvas, and other learning management tools. In 2011 Common Application reported it would not collect gender identity or sexual orientation information; in 2015, numerous organizations forwarded a letter to the Common Application requesting that on their standard application form, they add optional demographic questions related to gender identity and sexual orientation. We anticipate in coming years that collection of such data will be standard process for institutions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 296

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

297

Study Abroad Experiences Recent years have seen the rise of LGBTQ-focused student abroad programs. LGBT students must contend with a number of considerations and risk factors when traveling abroad. The University of Louisville, Augsburg College, Syracuse University, and the University of Maryland–Baltimore County have developed study abroad programs for or inclusive to LGBT students, and Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin provide resources for LGBT students on their respective websites. In addition to these programs, institutions are also becoming cognizant of the increased numbers of queer and transgender international students who want to come to the United States to explore their identity in more culturally affirming and legally protecting environments than their home countries. Institutions must be prepared to provide student support organizations; legal resources, as these students often want to seek political asylum; and training for university personnel (J. Kenney, personal communication, August 23, 2015).

Recommendations Ensuring that LGBT college students have a safe, supportive, and conducive environment for pursuing their educational goals must be an institutional and student affairs priority. As the moral conscience of the campus (Brown, 1985), student affairs staff should be at the forefront of efforts in creating an LGBT-affirmative campus climate and should serve as role models for others. Please note that while the authors do not assume that all the readers of this volume are heterosexually oriented, this section primarily addresses heterosexual student affairs professionals and faculty out of particular concern with helping this group become more knowledgeable and skilled in addressing the needs of LGBT students.

Institutional Support An institutional ally is a college or university that intentionally creates and sustains an environment that supports the actions of individual allies on behalf of LGBT students (Lucozzi, 1998). Its personnel recognize the harmful effects of homophobia not only on LGBT students but also on heterosexual students. For example, a study by Rankin (2005) showed that 36% of undergraduate LGBT students experienced harassment. To assist LGBT students, administrators should develop and endorse policies against harassment, accompanied by public statements of support for campus LGBT students. The 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People offers the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 297

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

298

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

following recommendations for campus administrators to create inclusive communities: • Develop inclusive policies • Demonstrate institutional commitment • Integrate LGBTQQ issues and concerns in curricular and cocurricular education • Respond to LGBTQQ bias incidents • Considerations for on-campus housing • Offer comprehensive counseling and health care • Improve access and retention (pp. 15–17)

Individual Support On the individual level, the 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT people emphasized the importance of creating “brave spaces” for dialogue. In order for faculty, staff, and students to create inclusive communities, learning needs to occur through dialogue between individuals who do and do not identify as LGBT. LGBT students need safe public and private spaces for dialogue and reflection (King, 2011). These safe spaces can include online chat sessions, discussion boards, student organizations, and support groups (King, 2011). Student affairs professionals must also continually and intentionally seek to learn about the wide-ranging needs of LGBT students and issues pertinent to their development (Worthington et al., 1998). When institutions take a proactive approach, research suggests that it does not automatically mean that LGBT students will feel safe and included (Rankin, 2005). In addition to campuses taking a proactive approach, it must also be comprehensive with opportunities for dialogue, education, signage, policies, facilities, engagement opportunities, partnerships with the surrounding community, and rapid response systems.

Ongoing Self-Awareness While understanding issues that LGBT individuals face and being able to make a difference in their experience are fundamental, “It is equally important to consider their own development in becoming an LGBT-affirmative person” (Worthington et al., 1998, p. 136). Gelber and Chojnacki said that to become effective in working with the LGBT population, individuals must “1) be realistic about the limitation imposed on them by their socialization into homophobic, heterosexist practices; 2) make a commitment to overcome that socialization; and 3) actively pursue experiences that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 298

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

299

facilitate their own movement toward that goal” (as cited in Worthington et al., 1998, p. 136). Other efforts include providing educational programs to develop student affairs staff competencies in working with LGBT students and educating other elements of the campus community (faculty, administrators, support personnel) to create a more LGBT-affirmative campus climate and to make additional allies for the LGBT population. Educational programs can include forum presentations, speakers, group discussions, panels, ally training, problem-solving sessions, films, and workshops. Indeed, “as knowledge is gained, ignorance and prejudice can be lessened, providing a more sensitive atmosphere” (Salkever & Worthington, 1998, p. 199).

Student Development and Intersectionality of Identities The provision of support services—including advising, peer support groups, mentoring, and resource referral—for LGBT students is essential. Keeling (1998) underscored the importance of services that do not presume that the fact of the sexuality is the only or dominant psychological issue for LGBT students but “that do, on the other hand, take into account the specific needs created by being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and the context that sexuality creates for other psychological and spiritual concerns” (p. 150). “LGBT students struggle with many of the same issues that confront heterosexual students” (Worthington et al., 1998, p. 140). Therefore, student affairs practitioners need to be able to “recognize sexual orientation is peripheral to the issue at hand to respond accordingly” (Worthington et al., 1998, p. 140). Faculty and staff on college campuses need to provide safe spaces where LGBT students can explore not only aspects of their sexual identity but also how their gender, racial, and social class identities intersect with their sexual identity (King, 2011). They should realize the limitations of their training and expertise in working with LGBT students. Their primary goal is to listen, express concern and support, and help students “consider and evaluate her or his needs for services without presuming that the student will want or need additional help” (Salkever & Worthington, 1998, p. 200). If the student desires additional help, it is essential to have a list of appropriate referrals to campus and community resources. Services should be able to assist students who may be at varying stages of their identity development and coming-out process. Additionally, student affairs practitioners must avoid overgeneralizing and essentializing the experiences of LGBT students and realize that each story is unique (Patton, 2011). As LGBT students are in college, they may still be in the process of negotiating their sexual identity, along with other identities (Patton, 2011).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 299

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

300

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

LGBT students should be able to view any campus professional as knowledgeable and LGBT-affirmative (Keeling, 1998). Optimally, programs and services could be centralized in or coordinated with an LGBT resource center to be used by all members of the college and university community. Watkins (1998) said that this office would serve as the primary clearinghouse for GLBT [sic] educational resources, such as videos, books, and pamphlets, would provide support services for GLBT individuals, sponsor GLBT cultural events, compile GLBT hate crime statistics, and conduct training sessions for the campus community on GLBT issues and heterosexism (p. 275).

Case Study: The Shower You are Marie Santos, dean of students at Valley University, a public university of 20,000 students in a small rural town in the Midwest. A large protest on campus has been scheduled that day because the campus is divided on issues stemming from an incident that occurred in the residence halls. Donna Smith, a freshman resident of one of the all-women’s halls, stayed in her room one Saturday night because she was feeling ill. All of her friends and most of the residents of the hall were out at a home football game that was followed by a concert. Entering the restroom down the hall, feeling nauseated for the third time that evening, she was surprised to hear voices coming from one of the shower stalls. She stayed in the restroom for several minutes fighting the urge to be sick again and then decided to brush her teeth. She was startled when Marcy from two doors down the hall emerged from the shower stall followed closely by her roommate, Jane. Playful flirtation was obvious between the two, who were equally startled to see Donna in the restroom. Donna blushed, stammered, and made a quick exit, concluding that the rumors about the two being lesbians certainly seemed to be true. Several days later, the campus community became aware of the incident through Donna’s opinion piece in the student newspaper. Donna’s purpose was to talk about the diversity on campus and how grateful she was to have the opportunity to be exposed to so many different people, even though the incident itself had been uncomfortable at first. In addition to pledging her support to gay and lesbian students on campus as an ally and urging other students to do the same, she voiced her support on various social media platforms. Though Donna did not include names, residents of her floor quickly identified the two women and started to avoid Marcy and Jane. Several residents went to the resident assistant and the resident director, appalled that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 300

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

301

nothing had been done to address the situation disciplinarily. The “inequity” outraged a number of students who said that the university is discriminating against heterosexual students who are not allowed to shower with their boyfriends in the floor’s common bathroom or to live with their boyfriends. Students are talking about this incident on several social media platforms, including anonymous ones. The protest involves conservative student groups on campus that believe the university should take strong action against promoting this lifestyle in the residence halls. A street preacher who visits campus, regularly condemning homosexuality on religious grounds, has been called by some of the religious groups. A bill has been introduced in the Student Senate that would ban homosexual students from being able to be roommates in campus residence facilities, although no enforcement mechanism has been specified. The campus ally organization plans a counterprotest, although the group is somewhat divided over the inequity question. The LGBT student group on campus, Gay Straight Alliance (GSA), has been largely silent on the issue. Mostly a support group sponsoring a few social events each year and one highly publicized fund-raiser, a drag show, GSA has not been involved in political or advocacy issues for LGBT students. Some of the GSA members are highly frustrated with the leadership of the group in this crucial situation. As the dean of students, you have several things scheduled on your calendar related to what has occurred: the protest at noon in addition to a meeting with Chris Stevens, a male-to-female transgender resident of the floor in question, who lives in a single room and who is increasingly uncomfortable and is sure she will be outed in this process; an early-afternoon meeting with Pat Clark, a student affairs staff member who is adviser to the GSA to discuss the division occurring in that organization; and a late-afternoon meeting with the resident hall’s resident director and the director of residence life to discuss the situation in the hall and the disciplinary actions that should be taken, if any.

Discussion Questions 1. What are the issues or problems presented in this case? Be specific. 2. How would you handle the social media implications of this incident? 3. What resources are available to you to address this issue? How would you include other entities on campus to assist you? 4. What primary issues or actions would you anticipate for each of your scheduled meetings and the protest? How would you approach these events?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 301

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

302

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

5. Using your knowledge of LGBT identity development, what interventions would you recommend for participants and organizations involved? 6. What roles can allies play in helping the campus eliminate the homophobia and discrimination that LGBT students face?

References Adam, B. D. (1987). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement. Boston, MA: Twayne. Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Alyson Almanac: The factbook of the lesbian and gay community. (1994–1995). Boston, MA: Alyson Publications. American College Health Association. (2012). National college health assessment II: Reference group executive summary, Spring 2012. Hanover, MD: Author. Baird-Remba, R. (2013, March 14). 13 countries that are more gay friendly than America. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.in/ articleshow/21230403.cms Barol, B. (1984, May). The fight over gay rights. Newsweek on Campus, pp. 4–10. Baskin, B., & Keith, T. (2015). Go north, young Sam. Sports Illustrated, 122(22), 28. Beemyn, B. G. (2003). The silence is broken: A history of the first lesbian, gay, and bisexual college student groups. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 205–223. Beemyn, B., Curtis, B., Davis, M., & Tubbs, N. J. (2005). Transgender issues on college campus. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 49–60. Beemyn, B., Dominque, D., Pettitt, J., & Smith, T. (2005). Suggested steps to make campuses more trans-inclusive. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(2), 89–94. Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Berrill, K. (1989). Report of the campus project of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Bilodeau, B. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgender students at a midwestern research university. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 29–44. Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications for practice. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender identity and sexual orientation: Research, policy, and personal perspectives (pp. 25–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bleiberg, S., Fertmann, A., Godino, C., & Todhunter, A. (2005). The layer cake model of bisexual identity development. The National Association for Campus Activities Programming Magazine, 37(8), 1–19.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 302

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

303

Bolin, A. (1993). Transcending and transgendering: Male-to-female transsexuals, dichotomy, and diversity. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 447–486). New York, NY: Zone Books. Brown, R. D. (1985). Creating an ethical community. New Directions for Student Services, 1985(30), 67–79. Brown, T. (2002). A proposed model of bisexual identity development that elaborates on experiential differences of women and men. Journal of Bisexuality, 2(4), 67–91. Bullough, V. L. (1979). Homosexuality: A history. New York, NY: New American Library. Campus Pride. (2015, August 3). Campus Pride joins letter asking Common Application to include gender identity and sexual orientation questions on college admission standard form. Retrieved from www.campuspride.org/campus-pridejoins-letter-asking-common-application-to-include-gender-identity-and-sexualorientation-questions-on-college-admission-standard-form/ Carter, K. A. (2000). Transgenderism and college students: Issues of gender identity and its role on our campuses. In V. A. Wall & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation issues on campus (pp. 261–282). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Case, D. N. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues within the Greek community. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 67–78). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, 20, 143–167. Cass, V. C. (1983–1984). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of definition. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 105–126. Coleman, E. (1981). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 31–43. Coleman, E. (1990). Toward a synthetic understanding of sexual orientation. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 267–276). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dank, B. M. (1971). Coming out in the gay world. Psychiatry, 34, 180–197. D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Devor, A. H. (2004). Witnessing and mirroring: A fourteen-stage model of transsexual identity formation. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8(1/2), 41–67. Dill, B. T., McLaughlin, A. E., & Nieves, A. D. (2007). Future direction of feminist research: Intersectionality. In S. E. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research (pp. 629–637). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 303

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

304

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

DuMontier, V. L., II (2000). Faith, the Bible, and lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In V. A. Wall & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation issues on campus (pp. 321–341). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Ekins, R., & King, D. (1996). Blending genders: An introduction. In R. Ekins & D. King (Eds.), Blending genders: Social aspects of cross dressing and sex-changing (pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Routledge. Erbentraut, J. (2015, May 18). College campuses are more trans-inclusive than ever, but still have a long way to go. Huff Post Gay Voices. Retrieved from www .huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/trans-friendly-colleges_n_7287702.html Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (1999). Coming out in college residence halls: Negotiation, meaning making, challenges, supports. Journal of College Student Development, 40(6), 658–668. Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., & Wall, V. (2004). Educating student affairs professionals about gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues: An evaluation of intervention. College Student Affairs Journal, 24(1), 20–31. Evans, N. J., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1996). Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people in college. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adult (pp. 201–226). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and student development theory. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 13–22). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 53–78. Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Fox, R. C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 48–86). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Garvey, J. C., & Rankin, S. R. (2014). The influence of campus experiences on the level of outness among trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum students. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(3), 374–393. Gates, G. J. (2014). LGB/T demographics: Comparisons among population-based surveys. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Gender and Sexuality Development. (2011, March 27). Retrieved from student developmenttheory.wordpress.com/gender-and-sexuality/ Green, E. R. & Peterson, E. (2003–2004). LGBTQI terminology. Retrieved from www.lgbt.ucla.edu/documents/LGBTTerminology.pdf Hammersmith, S. K., & Weinberg, M. S. (1973). Homosexual identity: Commitment, adjustment, and significant others. Sociometry, 36(1), 56–79. Hoover, E. (2011, August). Elmhurst College will ask applicants about sexual orientation. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/blogs/ headcount/elmhurst-college-will-ask-applicants-about-sexual-orientation/28553

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 304

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

305

Hoover, E. (2012, December 12). U of Iowa will ask applicants if they “identify with” the gay community. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle .com/article/U-of-Iowa-Will-Ask-Applicants/136269/ Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Resources—sexual orientations and gender identity. Retrieved from www.hrc.org/resources/entry/sexual-orientation-and-genderidentity-terminology-and-definitions Jones, S., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Keeling, R. P. (1998). Effective and humane campus health and counseling services. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 147–157). Westport, CT: Greenwood. King, A. R. (2011). Environmental influences on the development of female college students who identify as multiracial/biracial-bisexual/pansexual. Journal of College Student Development, 52(4), 440–455. Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. Kraig, B. (1998). Exploring sexual orientation issues at colleges and universities with religious affiliations. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 245–254). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Lambert, S. (2005). The experience of gay male and lesbian faculty in counselor education departments: A grounded theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (06A), 2113. (UMI No. 3177885) Lee, J. A. (1977). Going public: A study in the sociology of homosexual liberation. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 49–78. Lees, L. J. (1998). Transgender students on our campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 37–44). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Center. (2010). Definitions and information. Retrieved from www.ohio.edu/lgbt/resources/Definitions _and_Information.cfm Levine, H., & Evans, N. (1991). The development of gay, lesbian and bisexual identities. In N. Evans & V. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gay, lesbians and bisexuals on campus. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Lucozzi, E. A. (1998). A far better place: Institutions as allies. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 47–52). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Marine, S. B., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2014). Names that matter: Exploring the tensions of campus LGBTQ centers and trans* inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(4), 265–281. McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Re-visioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model for lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. Counseling Psychologists, 24, 508–534. McKinney, J. S. (2005). On the margins: A study of the experiences of transgender college students. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 63–76.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 305

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

306

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Minton, H. L., & McDonald, G. J. (1984). Homosexual identity formation as a developmental process. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 91–104. Mondimore, F. M. (1996). A natural history of homosexuality. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Morales, E. S. (1990). Ethnic minority families and minority gays and lesbians. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. Newman, P. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of AIDS: HIV prevention on campus. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 159–170). Westport, CT: Greenwood. O’Brien, K. M. (1998). The people in between: Understanding the needs of bisexual students. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 31–35). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: A summary of research findings. In American Psychological Association (Ed.), Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Patton, L. D. (2011). Perspectives on identity, disclosure, and the campus environment among African American gay and bisexual men and one historically Black college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 77–100. Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1991). Including bisexuality: It’s more than just a label. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Pryor, J. T. (2015). Out in the classroom: Transgender student experiences at a large public university. Journal of College Student Development, 56(5), 440–455. Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgender people: A national perspective. Washington, DC: National and Gay Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. Rankin, S. (2005). Campus climate for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 17–23. Rankin, S. R., Hesp, G. A., & Webber, G. N. (2013). Experiences and perceptions of gay and bisexual fraternity members from 1960 to 2007: A cohort analysis. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 570–590. Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: 2010 national college climate survey. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride. Robin, L., & Hamner, K. (2000). Bisexuality: Identities and community. In V. A. Wall & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Toward acceptance (pp. 245–259). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 306

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS

307

Rogers, K. (2015, August 21). Seventeen transgender killings contrast with growing visibility. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/us/ explosion-of-transgender-murders-contrast-with-growing-acceptance.html?_r=0 Rust, P. C. (1993). “Coming out” in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender and Society, 7, 50–77. Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1998). Lesbian and gay youth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Salkever, K., & Worthington, R. L. (1998). Creating a safe space in college athletics. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 193–202). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Sanlo, R. L. (1998). Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Sanlo, R. L. (2000a). The LGBT campus resource center director: The new profession in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 37(3), 485–495. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of identity. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1995). Lesbian, gay, male and bisexual adolescents. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the life span: Psychological perspectives (pp. 165–189). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). And then I became gay: Young men’s stories. New York, NY: Routledge. Scott, D. (1991). Working with gay and lesbian student organizations. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 117–130). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Shively, M. G., & DeCecco, J. P. (1993). Components of sexual identity. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences (pp. 80–88). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Slater, B. R. (1993). Violence against lesbians and gay male college students. In L. C. Whitmaker & J. W. Pollards (Eds.), Campus violence: Kinds, causes, and cures (pp. 171–202). New York, NY: Haworth Press. Sophie, J. (1986). A critical examination of stage theories of lesbian identity development. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 39–51. Tomlinson, M., & Fassinger, R. (2003). Career development, lesbian identity development and campus climate among lesbian college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 845–860. Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development theories in student affairs: Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 577–596. Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity acquisition. Psychiatry, 42, 362–373. U.S. Student Association. (2007). Welcome to USSA! Retrieved from www .usstudents.org/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 307

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

308

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Warren, C. A. B. (1974). Identity and community in the gay world. New York: Wiley. Watkins, B. L. (1998). Bending toward justice: Examining and dismantling heterosexism on college and university campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 267–276). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York, NY: Anchor/ Doubleday. Weinberg, G. (1978). On “doing” and “being” gay: Sexual behavior and homosexual male self-identification. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(2), 143–156. Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wijeyesinghe, C. L., & Jackson, B. W. (Eds.). (2012). New perspectives on racial identity development. New York, NY: New York Press. Worthington, R. L., McCrary, S. I., & Howard, K. A. (1998). Becoming an LGBTaffirmative career adviser: Guidelines for faculty, staff, and administrators. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 135–143). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 308

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

14 A D U LT C O L L E G E S T U D E N T S Fiona J. D. MacKinnon and Rosiline D. Floyd

A

dult learners add a welcome dash of maturity and character to college campuses. They enrich the college classroom with their wide-ranging backgrounds and diverse perspectives; they are varied in age, gender, color, political persuasion, and socioeconomic class. The stereotype of college as an experience for the young is still pervasive within society at large, and on many campuses, adults feel sensitive about their status. Even the term most institutions use to describe adult learners—nontraditional students—has negative implications. Fortunately, some colleges and universities, particularly community colleges, urban institutions, and liberal arts colleges with specially designed niches for returning adults, create environments in which all multicultural adult learners are not only accepted but also appreciated and respected. Historically, students and teachers came to universities from the same privileged social backgrounds, sharing similar values and principles (Hermida, 2009). Thus, teachers’ and students’ perspectives were the same. Because of this cultural climate, the differences and needs of diverse populations and the role of educators in meeting the needs of all students were not acknowledged or understood. Throughout most of U.S. educational history, institutions of higher education have not welcomed adults, even though veterans have been tolerated following major wars. Many multicultural adults and women have had an even more difficult time gaining access to continued education. Race, class, age, and gender have been the primary factors leading to disparities in access. In spite of rhetoric that voices empowerment and equal access, the reality denies the sentiment (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Many multicultural academics challenge collegiate educational providers to create environments that are engaging and supportive for all students (Bell, 1992; Guy, 1999; Wilson, 1987). Higher education administrators, faculty, and student affairs professionals can play important roles in changing 309

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 309

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

310

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

society for the betterment of all. All educational stakeholders must carefully examine their own views of mainstream American culture and the European American ethnic identity that prevails in most colleges and universities to enhance the learning experience of multicultural adult learners (Guy, 1999). Higher education is a very patriarchal environment with a strong European tradition. Traditionally, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans have not only been relegated socially, politically, and economically to the margins of society but also marginalized as adult learners by higher education. The reality of the higher education experience for adult learners is not always evident to student affairs professionals, who must not make assumptions about the institutional culture or physical or psychological environment in which learning is taking place (Knowles, 1984). Professionals must listen and assess carefully the stories or narratives that adult students tell about their experiences. Instead of expecting adult learners to adapt, stakeholders in education must adapt to the needs of the adult students.

Demographic Background The rate of adult involvement in formal learning has grown enormously since the stream of veterans into higher education after World War II. During the 1960s and 1970s adult participation in organized learning activities increased at twice the growth rate of the adult population (Kett, 1994). The label nontraditional was first applied to adult women. This term was later applied to any college students older than the traditional 18- to 22-year-olds (Kett, 1994). Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, colleges and universities were “male bastions” (Kett, 1994, p. 429), but by the latter half of the 1970s the number of women students rose by 25%, and the number of men remained unchanged (Kett, 1994). The increased enrollment of adult women who took advantage of the easing of age requirements (i.e., institutions favoring and admitting students between the ages of 18 and 21) in the 1970s paved the way for other adults. Voorhees and Lingenfelter (2003) offered one of the most encompassing definitions of the adult learner in postsecondary education: someone 25 years of age or older involved in postsecondary learning activities. This definition, along with the term nontraditional student, is used throughout this chapter. The numbers of nontraditional college students continue to increase. From 1985 to 1996 there was an estimated 65% increase in enrollment of students 25 years of age and older, from 1.7 million to 2.9 million (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1996). Using age as the criterion to

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 310

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

311

define adult learner, 43% (or 14 million) of students in U.S. higher education are 25 or older (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems [NCHEMS], 2007). The percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds completing a bachelor’s degree or higher increased from 17% to 29% between 1971 and 2000 and was 31% in 2008. Women accounted for 57% of the bachelor’s degrees conferred and 62% of all associate degrees awarded in the 2006–2007 academic year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Overall, the nontraditional student population has grown rapidly. According to the NCES, adult learners represented a staggering 6.8 million college students in 2009 (Headden, 2009). Headden further contended that adult learners or nontraditional students made up about 70% of enrollment on most college campuses that year. “Those numbers are expected to climb rapidly as colleges look for pools of students—and tuition income—to replace the cohort of 18- to 22-year-olds that will start shrinking when the current baby boomlet trails off ” (p. 4). Significant demographic changes are occurring in society, and the population is diversifying culturally and ethnically. Projections indicate that by the year 2050, minorities will account for 47% of the population, yet “minority adults . . . are disproportionately represented among the unemployed, the low-income stratum and the less educated. These characteristics are correlated with low rates of participation in organized adult education” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999, p. 9). This underdevelopment of talent is a great loss to the nation that benefits when all citizens are educated and productively employed. Community college administrators have been diligent in recruiting nontraditional populations (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Community colleges have higher percentages of nontraditional, low-income, and minority students than four-year institutions. Adult learners made up about 43% of total enrollment at community colleges, and represent 12% of all postsecondary education students (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning [CAEL], 2008). As we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, community colleges account for about half the total enrollment in higher education, and 47% of ethnic minority students. Community college student populations tend to reflect the makeup of the local community, indicating the openness and readiness of the community college system to welcome students of all backgrounds (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Retaining nontraditional learners is still a challenge in higher education, with 38.9% dropping out of college, compared to traditional-age full-time students (18.2%; Headden, 2009). Moreover, “The retention rate for nontraditional students age 30 or older is 65.4 percent, and the graduation rate is an abysmal 10.8 percent” (p. 4). In an attempt to reverse poor retention trends, scores of two- and four-year institutions have committed to focusing

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 311

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

312

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

on this population. This commitment includes improving outreach, loosening schedules, accelerating courses, granting interim certificates, offering more online classes, providing better advising, improving developmental education, and awarding credit for life and work experience—all radical reforms in how educational institutions serve nontraditional students. Educators did not foresee the dramatic economic downturn in this country that started at the beginning of this century. This systemic shift in the nation’s economy created an effect similar to a ripple in a pond, with individuals from every generation seeking admittance to our higher education institutions to catch up on the latest trends; find a skill set to meet the needs of today’s industries; and, in some cases, compete with students half their age.

Nontraditional Students in the Twenty-First Century Fifty-nine million people, or 30% of the U.S. adult population, have never entered postsecondary education—and in 35 states, more than 60% of the population does not have an associate degree or anything higher (CAEL, 2008). Minorities and nontraditional adult learners disproportionately enroll in community colleges and for-profit institutions (NCES, 2009). Kelly (2001) stated that a growing number of traditional colleges and universities—under pressure to be more responsive to the needs of students, parents, employers and communities—are turning to some of the same entrepreneurial, customeroriented approaches that have been used so successfully by for-profit institutions. (p. 4)

To compete globally, we must seek to develop the untapped potential of the millions of working adults who have not completed a four-year degree. Their success is essential to themselves, their families, their communities, and the health and security of the nation (Headden, 2009). These people are from different backgrounds—the previously well-paid, now laid-off factory worker; the single parent struggling with three children; the high school dropout or GED recipient who now realizes a future without an education is bleak; the immigrant with limited English skills; the corporate executive who was downsized; and the honored military veteran. All face the transition of returning to school for survival. Some say this population might hold the key to America’s future. In the early twenty-first century a record number of jobs were eliminated in manufacturing and the industries that support manufacturing. Technology now drives an increasingly global economy. As companies

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 312

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

313

reinvent themselves for profitability, displaced workers are forced to either find new careers or make adjustments for new career options. Stakeholders in education must be proactive in committing resources to assist in these transitions. Headden (2009) concluded that today’s adults need higher levels of academic and technical knowledge to remain employable in an information and service economy characterized by frequent job and career change. The United States must produce 64 million individuals with college degrees between 2005 and 2025 to remain competitive with leading nations and meet labor force needs. According to NCES (2015), the number of postsecondary degrees conferred by public and private institutions between 2002–2003 and 2012–2013 increased. It should be noted, however, that the degree-awarding gap remains because the percentage is being compared to previous years in which the conferral rate was already at a low level of productivity. Increasing global economic competition and the rapid pace of technological change are revolutionizing the skills and educational qualifications necessary for individual job success and national economic well-being. To meet this demand, adults from a variety of backgrounds find themselves returning to school. With this increasing population, colleges and universities around the country must now adapt to the influx of adult learners who have different expectations and perspectives from traditional college students. Postsecondary education that was once viewed as a luxury is increasingly needed for economic survival. Having fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers in increasing numbers are returning from war seeking career opportunities. The new Post-9/11 GI Bill offers generous educational benefits to many of these veterans, as well as those still serving in the active, reserve, and National Guard components of the armed forces. These veterans are expected to enroll in higher education to enhance their job prospects, achieve career goals, expand their knowledge and skill sets for personal and career enrichment, and facilitate their transition to civilian life. Like many other adult students, they return as outsiders to a campus that is paperless with an increased use of technologically based teaching platforms, and smartphones or tablets as the primary method of communication as well as notetaking.

Who Are Adult Learners? Adult learners, or those who CAEL (2000) described as past the transition from 18- to 21-year-olds to an older undergraduate population (and who are now the majority of students), have a greater understanding of the impact of education on their lives and different expectations from courses and professors than traditional students. Research on adult education shows that adult

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 313

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

314

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

learners have different expectations for the college experience (Strange, 2008). In a study of adult learners versus traditional-age students, adult learners described their ideal professor and ideal course as organized and flexible. These learners are typically over the age of 25 and often are independent with families. Higher education research tells us that adults learn best when they are actively engaged in the learning experience, that the curriculum is most effective when it builds upon the life experiences and interests of the adult learner, and that there is a need for flexibility in student services (e.g., evening office hours and electronic access; Cross, 1981; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Headden, 2009; Merriam & Caffarella, 1991). Despite having an understanding of the values of adult learners, the Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners concluded that ill-adapted higher education practices pose barriers to participation, including a lack of flexibility in calendars and scheduling, academic content, modes of instruction, and availability of learning services (NCHEMS, 2007). This disconnect resonates as adult learners or nontraditional students drop out of college at a much higher rate (38.9%) than traditional full-time students (18.2%). The retention rate for nontraditional students age 30 or older is 65.4%, and the six-year graduation rate is an abysmal 10.8% (Pusser et al., 2007). In an attempt to reverse these trends, some colleges, including two- and four-year institutions, have accepted that nontraditional adults learn very differently from younger adults and have adapted their methods accordingly. Many if not most college instructors will say they actually prefer teaching adult students. According to Pusser and colleagues (2007), older students are generally more engaged, motivated, and focused than younger students. Their expectations are higher, and adult students are more vocal and interactive in class and online. However, unlike younger learners, they have less tolerance for abstract concepts, and they want to use education to help solve problems. As an instructor of adult learners, one of the authors of this chapter has encountered students who were forced to return to school to receive government benefits. These women sometimes had to bring children to class or leave them outside the door during class. On more than one occasion, the instructor fed or walked a baby so that a student could take a test. One memorable African American male student was a laid-off factory worker whose income had dropped from over $80,000 to closer to $20,000 in unemployment and union benefits; he had lost his home, his nice car, and his dignity. There was also the soldier who served two tours in Iraq and was leaving his wife and four kids in another city to attend class from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays attempting to earn a degree in heating and airconditioning. Returning to school has physical and psychological effects for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 314

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

315

these students. Adult learners enter classrooms where chalkboards have been replaced by smart boards, and technology permeates all aspects of college, from registration to ordering textbooks. Many adults are astounded to find themselves carrying or rolling a backpack like other college students when they expected their career choices to last a lifetime without the benefit of additional schooling. They enter these campuses disenfranchised by the lack of economic opportunities and determined to change their futures. Thomas (2005) contended that adult learning programs are all too often marginalized, neglected, and left out of a college or university’s mission. However, budgetconscious administrators of colleges and universities must recognize the need and benefits of catering to this increasing population. These students seek more than an instructor; they want a compassionate, understanding ear, and they clearly understand the urgency of an education for future employment. Adult students lead full lives balancing family responsibilities, jobs, and community responsibilities. They cannot place their roles as parents or workers on hold while they attend college to better their lives for themselves and their families. NCES surveys consistently indicate the primary reason that adults consider continued learning is for job-related reasons (Kim, Collins, Stowe, & Chandler, 1995). Merriam and Caffarella (1999) cited a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) survey in which 91% of the respondents indicated professional or career upgrading for participation in adult education activities. Women without college degrees, industrial workers facing layoffs, and the poor who have not had a chance to further their education are interested in preparing for jobs that will help them support their families (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). College graduates who are already established in careers but wish to advance in the early and middle years of their work life frequently seek advanced education. The economically, politically, and socially disadvantaged who have not had the opportunity for postsecondary education and, in fact, may have received a poor elementary and secondary education foundation also pursue higher education for job-related reasons. Education is frequently the means to meaningful career goals, or at least a reasonable paycheck. Adult learning is often triggered by life events and transitions (Aslanian & Brickell, 1980; Merriam & Clark, 1991; Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman, 1995). Life transitions create periods of uncertainty and opportunity that require sustained attention for resolution. Adults report that when they are faced with transitions, like having a baby, changing jobs, or being laid off from work, they are likely to seek informal and formal learning opportunities to develop skills or gain knowledge (Aslanian & Brickell, 1980). For example, a person laid off from the health care industry may view the transition as an opportunity to pursue a different career and return to higher education

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 315

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

316

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

to acquire a certificate or degree in accounting, social work, or computer programming. Transitions or drastic changes in general are particularly distressing for adults. Headden (2009) reports that the number of adult learners (age 25 and older) in the United States is expected to climb as colleges seek more students and careers require more education. Academic administrators, faculty, and student affairs professionals all need to work together to provide adult learners with convenient and affordable access, flexible subsidies, and innovative planning tools to increase student success (Headden, 2009). Much research exists on meeting the needs of traditional students (Astin, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998; Tinto, 2008). However, one size fits all does not accommodate the different learning styles of adult learners or address the different issues they face. The transition hurdles that adult learners face include the technology gap, part-time and reenrollment issues, family and financial commitments, and inadequate initial skills.

Developmental Theories The Adult Persistence in Learning Model The adult persistence in learning (APIL) model provides a road map to help faculty and administrators structure instruction and services for adults (MacKinnon-Slaney, 1994), and it identifies survival skills that adults must master to be able to negotiate the occasionally stormy waters of higher education. The model contains three components (personal issues, learning issues, and environmental issues) that combine to direct the success or failure of adults to survive in formal learning environments. Personal issues, the first group of factors, can be separated into five groups of factors that are heightened when adults are faced with new learning experiences at matriculation or at the start of each term. Factors such as self-awareness, willingness to delay gratification, clarification of career and life goals, mastery of life transitions, and a sense of personal competence allow adult learners to feel ready to accept learning challenges. One factor in particular, academic self-efficacy, plays a continuing role in multicultural adults’ ability to persevere in the face of challenge. If faculty and administrators use these concerns as a checklist for problem solving with learners, adults can better face their fears and move ahead. The second group of factors focuses on learning issues. When adult learners return to the classroom they are faced with increased concerns about their educational competence. Relearning how to learn is critical to success in the classroom. A simple suggestion from a faculty member to read a study

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 316

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

317

skills book or take a test to determine favored learning styles can make a difference and help allay classroom jitters. Intellectual and political awareness in the classroom are also important skills. The third group of factors concentrates on the university or college environment. Many adults, particularly those who are first-generation college students, simply do not know what questions to ask. They do not understand the specialized vocabulary such as bursar, elective, major, and prerequisite. Adult learners have many unanswered questions about how to access information from the registrar, the bursar, their adviser, the course schedule, and so on. They also want to know about special opportunities available to them and the challenges they will face. And they are concerned with their own comfort level in the environment: comfort with faculty, student colleagues, and administrators and staff. Students want to know they matter to the institution and can find a comfortable place for themselves within the university system (Schlossberg, Lynch, & Chickering, 1989). Also, direction and support from professionals can help multicultural adults examine the environment and resolve issues.

A Model for Educating Adult Learners: The Sequence of Student Educational Services Schlossberg and colleagues (as cited in Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010) described the process for adult learners as providing services and support during pivotal stages in their college years from the entry phase, engagement phase of coursework, and on-campus transitions as they successfully matriculate and graduate. This approach provides direction for student services professionals and outlines the needs of adult learners. At each stage of moving—the moving-in, moving-through, and moving-on phases—the model directs the professional to learner needs, institutional responses, payoffs for learners, and payoffs for institutions. Learners start at the move-into stage, entering the college environment and needing to learn the ropes, which involves getting help with such issues as financial aid and planning, admissions procedures, orientation to the institution, availability of student employment, registration, assessment of prior learning, and developmental assessment. The moving-through phase focuses on hanging in there through supportive educational services such as career development, life and personal counseling, health services, child care, family care, and developmental mentoring. Finally, the moving-on phase centers on planning next steps such as internships and co-op learning, academic review and integration, placement services, job search, and developmental transcript review (Schlossberg et al., 1989). The model ensures that all necessary services will be provided at the right time for returning adults.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 317

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

318

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Ecological Systems Approach As student affairs professionals listen to the stories of adult learners, specifically those historically underserved or multicultural adults, they need a method to sensitively analyze the life space of multicultural adults who are embarking on formal learning experiences (Evans et al., 2010). The analysis should reflect the multiple responsibilities of complex lives. Simple, linear models of development or environmental structure are not adequate for the task of understanding how multicultural adults cope with the university experience as well as their already daunting everyday tasks. What is needed is a way in which student affairs professionals can sort and sift through the factors that challenge or enhance persistence in learning. Analytical tools that offer an ecological systems approach provide valuable assistance to professionals as they search for appropriate guidance to respond to multicultural adult learners. Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) ecological systems approach provides administrators with insight into the constellation of environments any individual adult lives in. The focus of analysis is on the adult’s perceptions of the interconnected reality of life—home, grandparents, in-laws, the neighborhood, the children’s school, the classroom, the campus, as well as the values of the larger society. The ecology of human development entails the study of the developing, ever-changing person within the continually varying settings and larger context surrounding that person (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). Adult learners juggle multiple responsibilities and lead complicated lives that affect their dedication to the college experience. Simple models of development or environment do not capture the essence of their existence. The ecology systems approach divides the ecological environment into nested systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. The microsystem, the first level of analysis, includes “a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced . . . in the immediate environment” (Bronfenbrenner, 1993, p. 15). This level of analysis is helpful for understanding the adult’s relationships to spouse, partner, children, and parents. If the adult learner is a single parent the student affairs professional can find out answers to such questions as the following: Who takes care of the laundry? Who cooks? Who picks up the children at the day care center? Is there enough money for food? The dynamics of the microsystem have a great impact on the learner’s ability to focus on educational responsibilities. The mesosystem is the second level of analysis and “recognizes that the individual microsystems in which the individual functions are not independent but are closely interrelated and influence each other” (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002, p. 22). The mesosystem consists of two or more microsystems (home and day care, day care and college, college and family, for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 318

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

319

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

example). Attitudes and information from one microsystem filter into the other and modify behavior and development accordingly. For example, if day care is not available when the English class is held, then the adult learner either scrambles to find suitable care or leaves the child at home alone. Professionals can help advocate for services that will help adults meet their learning agendas. The exosystem is the third level of analysis and consists of settings in which the adult may not be a participant but nevertheless influences development in particular ways. For example, the local school board or the welfare system or even extended family, like aunts and uncles, may not be part of the adult’s immediate microsystem but yet can have an impact on processes that affect the adult. When the school administration calls for a snow day, the adult learner is left trying to determine how to cope with children at home; when corporate headquarters decides to close the factory, then the adult faces being laid off and termination of any tuition reimbursement plan agreement with the employer. By understanding the linkages between the microsystem and the exosystem administrators can seek solutions to problems that seem overwhelming to the adult learner. The macrosystem is the fourth and most complex level of analysis. It provides the societal context for the individual’s life space. This system is composed of societal “customs, values, and laws considered important in the individual’s culture” (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002, p. 23) According to Bronfenbrenner (1993), the macrosystem consists of the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other extended social structure, with particular reference to the . . . belief systems, resources, hazards, lifestyles, opportunity structures, life course options and patterns of social interchange that are embedded in such overarching systems. (p. 25)

Societal perspectives, biases, and stereotypes that relate to race, ethnicity, disability, and other realities of life can be examined intentionally through the analysis of the macrosystem. These factors are important for multicultural adult learners to recognize and understand so that they may overcome barriers frequently placed in their way. Finally, the fifth level of analysis, the chronosystem, chronicles the nested systems over time and introduces the possibility of examining the influence of sociohistorical conditions. Often, developmental perspectives or environmental theories only take into account one particular point in time and do not consider the changes in settings, processes, influences, and development that occur over time. For example, the terrorists’ acts that brought down the World

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 319

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

320

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Trade Center in 2001 have sensitized society to the importance of family and relationships, and families may have changed their ways of interacting with each other because of those attacks. Neighborhood violence has devastated many lives in the inner city, creating awareness over time of the inability of the police or government authorities to act; this situation, in turn, has spurred on many neighborhood groups to take matters into their own hands for the sake of their children. Student affairs professionals need to teach the ecological systems approach to adults so that they can make their own judgments and decisions about life experiences in the present and in the future. Student affairs professionals must intentionally seek the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required to facilitate the learning experience of multicultural adult learners. The central adult issues of identity, purpose, intimacy, and integrity are of continuing concern throughout the life span and not just at the young adulthood stage (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002; Helms, 1994; Kegan, 1994). Professionals must come to understand and not take for granted the issues that trigger reflection and response as multicultural adults seek to manage their complex lives with dignity and grace. An empathetic response, an ability to reframe issues, and knowledge of pragmatic techniques that help adults control their own learning experiences are critical skills. Student affairs professionals must recognize that adults take a brave step when returning to the educational setting. Adult learners are looking for support for their learning agendas and for opportunities that will provide them with ways of coping. Professionals can help learners transform their dreams into reality.

Institutional Support for Nontraditional Students American higher education continues as a work in progress nudged by federal policy such as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, stretched by community needs, and pushed by lifelong learning and the learning society. Community colleges have responded to society’s cry for continued learning for adults, but fouryear institutions of higher learning have been reluctant to follow suit. In spite of voicing interest and accepting adults to make up for the shortfall of 18- to 22-year-olds, four-year colleges and universities have not necessarily been hospitable sanctuaries of learning. Nevertheless, adult students continue to seek learning opportunities. President Barack Obama has stated his belief that the key to the economic future of this country is education (Fuller, 2010). The $787 billion economic stimulus law of 2009 provided $1.7 billion for adult employment services, including education and training. Also, in mid-July 2009, President Obama

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 320

7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

321

announced a $12 billion federal initiative to aid community colleges—a move intended to increase opportunities for many adult students at two-year institutions and prompt some of these students to transfer to four-year institutions. The Lumina Foundation report Adult Ed Grows Up (Headden, 2009) identified several areas of concern regarding America’s growing numbers of adult learners. The report contended that the higher education community must seek to develop the potential of the more than 54 million working adults who lack a college degree. Initially, higher education institutions must recognize adult learners as a diverse and complex set of individuals. Adult learners need convenient and affordable access to education, as these students increasingly choose entrepreneurial postsecondary programs and institutions (Headden, 2009). Adults transferring from a community college can merge their extensive real-world skills with relevant career interests, as they have work experience and life experience that will provide an immediate benefit to the employer. Unlike traditional-age students, adult learners believed instructors were resources to help them learn. These learners said they would more readily ask questions to clarify material. Adult students’ self-profiles more closely matched those of their college faculty than those of traditional-age students (Feldman, 1988). Educational institutions must reconstruct their mission to serve all students, including adult learners. Meeting the needs of the adult learner population will require faculty and administrators to respect the diversity of age, gender, race, and social class of adult students; appreciate that academic, professional, and personal goals greatly influence continuing education for most adult learners; implement practices that respect the years of experience that adult learners bring to class; ensure that rigorous adult degree programs are accessible, flexible, and practical; and ensure that serving the adult learner population is included in the overall mission of the university (Thomas, 2005).

Rethinking Practice A paradigm shift to include adult learners in the design of all aspects of postsecondary education needs to occur. This mandate is necessary for all involved, including federal and state policymakers, student affairs professionals, postsecondary educators, and postsecondary administrators. Faculty, academic administrators, and student affairs professionals must review their respective policies and practices with a reflective eye, making sure that their approach signals culturally relevant adult learning. This starts with an

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 321

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

322

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

understanding of the power influences of the dominant group and of the complexity of biculturalism. “Biculturalism is a mechanism of survival that constitutes forms of adaptive alternatives in the face of hegemonic control and institutional oppression” (Guy, 1999, p. 13). A consistent focus on biculturalism is the only way to ensure the cultural democracy that creates a culturally relevant learning environment. In particular, four aspects of the learning environment require scrutiny: the student affairs professional’s cultural identity, the learners’ cultural identity, the curriculum and support in and out of class, and instructional methods and processes of practice (Guy, 1999). The first aspect requiring attention is student affairs professionals’ or instructors’ cultural self-awareness, which involves scrutiny of personal values, norms, and dispositions along with an understanding and respect for cultural differences (Kegan, 1994). On the part of the professional, this necessitates going beyond stylistic differences to the developmental constructivist understanding of self in relation to others and a willingness to suspend personal ethnocentric beliefs to concentrate on the meaning derived by learners (Kegan, 1994). Understanding the learners’ culture is the second aspect that requires attention from effective professionals. Professionals must begin by acknowledging the culture of their learners and coming to know that culture in a personal way through their relationships with their learners, especially in the classroom. Instead of pushing nontraditional students to adopt North American mainstream academic skills, disciplinary perspectives, and thought processes, we should open our classroom doors to teaching disciplinary content and academic skills from a wide array of diverse traditions so that every student will feel included. This approach will prepare mainstream and minority students to succeed as interculturally knowledgeable citizens in a globalized world (Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007). The third component involves examination of the curriculum in and out of class. “Course content that stereotypes the very learners it is designed to serve does those learners an injustice. Insensitive or unknowing teachers can overlook material that learners may find offensive or simply irrelevant to their daily lives” (Guy, 1999, p. 15). Some educators have attempted to integrate adult learners into instruction and curriculum design. Instead of adjusting to the needs of these students, most of these initiatives are remedial in nature; that is, they aim at equipping nontraditional students with the academic skills and knowledge of mainstream students and teachers (Tinto, 2008). Not surprisingly, these actions have proved inadequate to empower most minority students to succeed, as these measures neglect to acknowledge and incorporate the diverse values, beliefs, and skills that nontraditional students bring to the classroom.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 322

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

323

Educators must strategically consider all diverse populations, including adult learners, in the development and administration of curriculum, instructional styles, and interactions with students. No longer should nontraditional students be viewed as underprepared; rather, faculty must develop an understanding that their preparation responds to a different way of seeing themselves and understanding the world that derives from their own cultures and traditions. This different way of seeing the world has repercussions in most academic areas (Hermida, 2009). Siebert (2000) contends that instructors must be prepared for this challenge by recognizing that teaching adult learners requires more advanced teaching skills than teaching traditional students. He cites research that consistently shows adult students begin college classes with more fears and concerns than younger students. The role of the instructor is reducing the fears and concerns and then developing strong intrinsic interest in the course by connecting each student’s plans for the future and past experiences with the course material. He further explains that an instructor needs many diverse skills to facilitate learning in adult students, including creating a noncompetitive atmosphere that encourages cooperative learning. Finally, instructional methods and processes of practice may inadvertently include or exclude learners. Adult education approaches to learning, such as andragogy, traditionally require instructors and professionals to share power with learners. In formal learning environments power customarily resides with the instructor or administrator, negating the learner’s past experience and ability to direct aspects of the learning agenda (Brookfield, 1995; Guy, 1999; Knowles, 1984). Inclusive teaching acknowledges and incorporates diverse knowledge modes, thought processes, and expressive styles into the classroom (Hermida, 2009).

Recommendations to Benefit Nontraditional-Age Students Creating services and programming to enhance the postsecondary experiences of adult learners and increase success requires incorporating their needs into the mission of the institutions. In alignment with Siebert’s (2000) assertion that the colleges most effective in attracting, retaining, and graduating adult students are those that are highly resilient and responsive to the needs of the students, instructors must be adaptable and flexible. Instructors should respect life experiences of adult learners and include their experiences in curriculum design and in-class activities. Instructors must recognize that adult learners have diverse learning styles and design curriculum and present information using visual and auditory methods

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 323

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

324

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

(Hermida, 2009; Siebert, 2000). Adult learners seek relevancy, so instructors should align their courses such that the assessment, teaching, and learning activities match intended learning outcomes (Biggs, 2003). Diversity should be included in assessment by going beyond exams, research papers, and group presentations to include tools used in other cultures, such as informal dialogues, holistic evaluation of student performance throughout the course, or self-evaluation (Hermida, 2009). Biggs (2003) contends that assessments that actually evaluate whether and how well students have mastered a wide array of knowledge modes, diverse academic skills, and nontraditional disciplinary perspectives will likely achieve intended learning outcomes. Programmers of cocurricular activities can also employ understanding of the importance of these four factors—adult learners’ significant life experiences, diverse learning styles, need for relevance to their lives, and different communication styles—in planning and executing events and programs that will be attractive to this population. To facilitate success for adult learners, student affairs professionals must become active listeners. By listening to adult students’ stories, professionals can identify the developmental tasks that need to be accomplished and provide referral to services and programs that help adults master needed skills, knowledge, and attitudes for successful learning ventures.

Discussion Questions 1. Who are adult learners, and why are they returning to school? How do adult learners differ from traditional students in learning styles and expectations of their experience? 2. What is the impact of adult learners on other students, the institution, and society? 3. What strategies can university administrators, student affairs professionals, and classroom instructors use to actively engage and facilitate success for adult learners? Include in this discussion incorporating diverse populations into a traditional Eurocentric model and differing models for success. 4. What are some barriers to success for adult learners from the learners themselves and the institution? How can both groups work to limit the impact of these barriers? Discuss models of success for adult learners. Include in this discussion the evolution of technology and how it can hinder or assist adult learners with their transition.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 324

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

325

References Aslanian, C. B., & Brickell, H. M. (1980). Americans in transition: Life changes as reasons for adult learning. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board. Astin, A. W. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966–1996. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bell, D. A. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York, NY: Basic. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. W. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). (2000). Serving adult learners in higher education: Principles of effectiveness. Retrieved from www.cael. org/pdf/publication_pdf/Summary%20of%20Alfi%20Principles%20of%20 Effectiveness.pdf Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). (2008). State policies to bring adult learning into focus. Retrieved from www.cael.org/pdf/State_Indicators_ Monograph.pdf Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Feldman, K. (1988). Effective college teaching from the students’ and faculty’s view: Matched or mismatched priorities. Research in Higher Education, 28(4), 291–344. Fuller, A. (2010, March 30). Obama reaffirms support for community colleges at signing of student-loan bill. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/article/Obama-Reaffirms-Support-for/64877 Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2002). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Guy, T. C. (1999). Culture as context for adult education: The need for culturally relevant adult education. In T. C. Guy (Ed.), Providing culturally relevant adult education: A challenge for the twenty-first century (pp. 5–18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Headden, S. (2009). Adult ed grows up. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. Helms, J. E. (1994). The conceptualization of racial identity and other “racial” constructs. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 285–311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 325

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

326

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Hermida, J. (2009). Inclusive teaching strategies to promote non-traditional student success. Tomorrow’s Professor. Retrieved from cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/ posting.php?ID=966 Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kelly, K. F. (2001). Meeting needs and making profits: The rise of for-profit degreegranting institutions. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Kett, J. F. (1994). The pursuit of knowledge under difficulties: From self-improvement to adult education in America, 1750–1990. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kim, K., Collins, M., Stowe, P., & Chandler, K. (1995). Forty percent of adults participate in adult education activities: 1994–95. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf. MacKinnon-Slaney, F. (1994). The adult persistence in learning model: A road map to counseling services for adult learners. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 268–275. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Clark, M. C. (1991). Lifelines: Patterns of work, love, and learning in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1991 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students (NCES 97–578). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009). The condition of education, 2009 (NCES 2009–081). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2015). Degrees conferred by public and private institutions. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ indicator_cvc.asp National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). (2007). Adding up: State challenges for increasing college access and success. Retrieved from makingopportunityaffordable.org Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century: Meeting new challenges. Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151–165. Pusser, B., Breneman, D., Gansneder, B., Kohl, K. J., Levin, J. S., Milam, J. H., et al. (2007). Returning to learning: Adults’ success in college is key to America’s future. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation. Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher education environments for adults: Responsible programs and services from entry to departure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 326

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS

327

Schuerholz-Lehr, S. (2007). Teaching for global literacy in higher education: How prepared are the educators? Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 180–204. Siebert, A. (2000). The instructor’s role in retaining adult learners and increasing their chances of success in college. Paper presented at the National Conference on the Adult Learner 2000, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from www.adultstudent.com/eds/ articles/teaching.html Strange, A. (2008). Traditional and nontraditional college students’ descriptions of the ideal professor and the ideal course and perceived strengths and limitations. College Student Journal, 42(1), 225–231. Thomas, E. (2005). The adult learner: Here to stay. Black Issues in Higher Education, 22(6), 1–4. Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Voorhees, R. A., & Lingenfelter, P. E. (2003). Adult learners and state policy. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers Association and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 327

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

15 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Martha E. Wisbey and Karen S. Kalivoda

C

olleges and universities continue to face challenges integrating students with disabilities into the campus milieu, despite social, legislative, and technological policies designed to provide equal opportunities in higher education. Education about the rights and necessary supports to further inclusion of students with disabilities in campus programs and activities is key for student affairs practitioners. Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the number of students with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education has more than doubled (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000, 2012), and about 11% of all students in postsecondary educational institutions in the United States report having disabilities (NCES, 2012). Higher educational attainment is linked to increased likelihood of employment and higher incomes (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014); a higher level of education for people with disabilities improves the chances for them to sustain themselves financially with dignity and greater participation as citizens. The call to inclusion for academic institutions is to make programs and services accessible to all students, which may include making physical adjustments to facilities, providing accessible information technology, and incorporating the concept of universal design in programming and activities. This chapter is designed to assist student affairs professionals in providing full and meaningful access to college campuses for students with disabilities. The challenge is to go above and beyond legal requirements for access and embrace the spirit of the law for full inclusion. Including students with disabilities in discussions of diversity and multiculturalism on college campuses is critical to removing barriers to full participation. Incorporating the needs of students with disabilities will promote social justice and equitable 328

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 328

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

329

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

educational opportunities for all students, both those with disabilities and those without disabilities.

Background The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, mandates civil rights and equal access for people with disabilities. This victory did not come about easily. People with disabilities fought for years for civil rights protection while carefully refraining from claiming the role of victim. The goal of the disability movement was for integration and an equal opportunity to achieve success (Shapiro, 1993). The disability rights movement, referred to as a hidden power, is compared to other minority group movements as follows: Given the sweep of the ADA, it seemed a formidable task to win passage. For one thing, disability rights constituted a stealth civil rights movement. Although its activists pointed to the black, women’s and gay rights movements as models, unlike those causes, the disability rights movement had never filled the streets with tens of thousands of protesters. It had no Martin Luther King Jr. to bring it together, no Betty Friedan to write its manifesto. It had no unifying touchstone moment of courage or anger like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Freedom Rides, or the Stonewall riots. There was virtually no attention from the public or press. The fight for disability civil rights was a largely invisible, almost underground, movement. (Shapiro, 1993, p. 117)

The ADA acknowledged in federal legislation that society has historically tended to isolate and segregate people with disabilities and that this type of discrimination creates a grave social problem. The findings and purpose section of the ADA (1990c) states the following: Individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society. (p. 4)

The ADA’s legal definition of disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as walking,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 329

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

330

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

seeing, breathing, working, and learning. Examples of disabilities listed in the federal regulations include, but are not limited to, orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; heart disease; diabetes; emotional illness; specific learning disabilities; and HIV disease (Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services Final Rule, 1991). Some disabilities commonly found among college students are visibly apparent, while others are less obvious, such as traumatic brain injuries, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), blindness and low vision, chronic illnesses, deafness and being hard of hearing, learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, and psychological disorders. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, the disabilities seen most frequently on college and university campuses are learning disabilities (31%), attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (18%), psychological conditions (15%), and health impairments (11% ; Raue & Lewis, 2011). Congress initially established a broad definition of disability in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; however, Supreme Court decisions subsequently narrowed this definition. For example, in Sutton v. United Air Lines. Inc. (1999), the court decided that mitigating measures must be considered when determining whether an individual has a disability under the ADA. Mitigating measures are devices or medications that ameliorate the effects of a disability such as corrective lenses, medications, hearing aids, or prosthetic devices. The decision stated that if mitigating measures alleviate the limitations related to a disability, the individuals could not be considered substantially limited by their disability. This considerably narrowed who was covered because while mitigating measures often do not alleviate a disability completely, they could be used to exclude an individual from protection under the ADA (Benfer, 2009). This and several other cases narrowed the definition to such a degree that the focus of many requests became whether a person met the definition of disability rather than focusing on access or accommodation. The ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), adopted in 2008, made important additions to the definition of disability, while keeping the ADA’s basic definition of an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. In particular, the Amendments Act described what constitutes substantially limits and expanded the definition of major life activities by including many more specific activities, some of which directly impact college students, such as reading, communicating, and concentrating. In addition, chronic health issues were further outlined and described under major bodily functions. The ADAAA also gave more detail to mitigating measures such as medical or therapeutic interventions and stated that an episodic condition or a condition in remission is a disability if it affects a major life

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 330

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

331

activity. Overall, the ADAAA gave colleges and universities a broader and more detailed conceptualization of disabilities and expanded protections for people with disabilities. The access needs of students with disabilities vary as much as the type and severity of disabilities. A universal description of a person with a disability does not exist, so institutions must provide accommodations on an individual basis. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that accommodations may include academic adjustments, modification or alteration of course examinations, and the provision of auxiliary aids. Accommodations and services may vary from student to student and across institutions; however, some common services are available to students through disability support offices (Shaw & Dukes, 2001). Typical services offered by support offices include regular meetings with a counselor or disability specialist; consultation and collaboration with members of the campus community who serve as support to students (e.g., tutors, advisers, counseling staff ); extended deadlines on assignments; academic adjustments and restructuring of class assignments; counseling and advocacy to assist a student as a self-advocate; extended time for test taking in a separate, quiet location to reduce distractions; note takers in the classroom to supplement the student’s notes; document conversion services (e.g., from print to Braille or electronic text); sign language interpreters; real-time captioning; assistive technology; and instructional interventions.

Developmental Issues A critical issue for students with disabilities involves developing healthy self-identities. This process can take time and can mirror the developmental process other underrepresented groups go through in their developmental growth (Cass, 1979; Helms, 2003). There are also specific developmental issues associated with acquiring a disability later in life that can be different from those of a person who is born with a disability. Adaptation to disability is not a static concept; it is constantly changing and is often complicated by several different phases of development. Livneh and Sherwood (1991) present a summary of eight phases of adaptation to a traumatic disability: 1. Shock. The initial phase of disbelief when a sudden and severe impairment occurs; 2. Anxiety. A panic response to the initial understanding of the trauma of the event;

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 331

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

332

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

3. Denial. An attempt to mask the painful realization of the condition; 4. Depression. A full look at the loss of one’s prior physical/sensory abilities; 5. Internalized anger. A reaction of resentment accompanied by guilt and self-blame; 6. Externalized hostility. A reaction which is other-directed as a way to retaliate against imposed limitations; 7. Acknowledgment. Cognitive recognition of the implications of the disability and gradual acceptance of its permanency and limitations; 8. Adjustment. Affective internalization of the disability along with behavioral adaptation to the newly perceived life situation. (p. 525)

Gibson developed a three-stage theory on identity for students with disabilities; however, the theorist warns about categorizing every student with a disability into the model. The three stages are similar to other stage development. They are described as passive awareness, realization, and acceptance (Gibson, Laux, & Myers, 2012). When reviewing the stages of identity development for different underrepresented groups, it is helpful to look at some of the similar paths of acceptance a student with a disability may experience (Jones & Abes, 2013). A student, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, religion, or sexual orientation, may view the initial period of being disabled through an unquestioning acceptance of societal stereotypes and oppression. At this point, the student may be unaware of alternative, positive views of disability and may attribute problems to personal deficits. Students report feeling “less than” in their abilities, and if any changes have occurred in their appearance, they may lose a sense of confidence. Some students will attempt to pass as nondisabled if possible, distancing themselves from others with disabilities and rejecting membership in this population. Eventually, a student will begin to develop an awareness of the reasons behind feelings of difference and begin to identify with the issues of oppression he or she has experienced. This may evoke feelings of anger and eventually lead to action in the form of activism or legal challenges. If a student with a disability gains acceptance in an environment and feels valued through interactions with others, eventually he or she will achieve identity synthesis (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007). Gill (1997) discussed four types of integration for persons with disabilities in their identity development. The four types include (a) coming to feel belonging (b) coming home, (c) coming together, and (d) coming out. As people with disabilities gain confidence with their identities, they seek to find places where inclusion and belonging are represented and supported. Offices of support and student affairs units with symbols and consciousness about engaging students with many different abilities are critical. For

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 332

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

333

example, programs and services marketing should state that accommodations for any participant interested in being a part of an event will be provided. This type of symbol is minimal but important. Materials should also advertise “available in alternative format upon request” for maximum access. Coming home refers to joining with others with disabilities. Campuses have worked to include disability student unions for students with disabilities to advocate, educate, and have connection. By coming together, a student experiences a “psychological wholeness” (Gill, 1997, p. 43) that integrates their understanding of themselves as they interact with the campus community. Finally, coming out refers to full integration in society that isn’t differentiated. It is a full feeling of belonging, identifying with being a member of the disability subgroup, feeling complete within, and expressing it in an authentic manner. Identity development in college students is important for personal growth. This applies to students with disabilities who are seeking to plan their futures beyond college and integrate into the larger context of society as contributing citizens. The following illustrates how these phases can affect a student who experiences a sudden change in his or her abilities because of a traumatic event. During fall semester, Michael, a freshman, was driving home from college one evening and had a car accident. As a result of his injuries, he had to withdraw from school and spent three months in rehabilitation for severed nerves in his arm and wrist. His mother contacted the Disability Services Office to see if Michael could receive accommodations when he returned to school. She was instructed to help her son fill out the intake forms and provide documentation about his disability. Michael’s mother did everything as instructed and brought in the completed intake information. At that time, she said, “I’m not sure if Michael really understands how his life may have changed. He doesn’t want to talk about anything; all he wants to do is get back and visit with his friends.” The professional in disability services assured her that this is normal and that her son would soon learn how to get the appropriate support when he returned to school. However, Michael would not acknowledge that life had changed, and when he returned the following semester, he spent most of his time with his old friends in his residence. He and never met with anyone in disability services, despite being contacted several times by disability services professionals. As a result, he did not obtain note takers for his classes or any other support. His mother continued to talk with the disability services staff, but she was at a loss and couldn’t force her son to avail himself of academic accommodations or other support services. As a result, he failed all his classes during the semester following his accident. He didn’t realize his limitations until he saw his grades and recognized that life had changed because of his

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 333

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

334

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

injuries. Michael’s denial of the realities of this accident caused him to spiral into depression and finally into anger toward himself for being so slow to recognize his new status as a student with a disability. During the summer following his first year, he met with disability services staff and discussed what he had learned about his limitations. He admitted to his mother that he had not been ready to adjust to the changes, and he had ignored her pleas for him to seek academic support. Unfortunately, this story illustrates what many students may experience if they have a sudden life-altering injury or chronic health diagnosis. A disability that changes a student’s health status or the overall ability to accomplish academic work as done prior to the disability can be hard to grasp, recognize, and accept. As part of the eight phases previously discussed (Livneh & Sherwood, 1991), Michael went through denial, depression, and anger before acknowledging what happened to him. He then accepted the change and the supports available for him in transitioning back to life as a student.

Social Model of Disability Congress recognized the existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and established federal legislation to support equal access for students with disabilities in higher education. While this represents progress, true inclusion for students with disabilities will only be advanced as the campus culture shifts from a medical model of disability to a social model. In the medical model of disability, a person’s functional limitations (impairments) are viewed as the reason for any disadvantages that are experienced, and the approach is that the limitations need to be treated or cured. In this model the person needs to be fixed, rather than improving societal responses to people with disabilities (Evans & Herriott, 2009). Crow (1996) states, “The social model of disability has been our key to dismantling the traditional conception of impairment as ‘personal tragedy’ and the oppression that this creates” (p. 56). The social model views disability as the result of environmental, societal, and attitudinal barriers, rather than the result of individual differences (Loewen & Pollard, 2010). This model disputes the notion that varying from the norm in some way is dysfunctional and instead suggests “broadening the focus in such a way as to shift the perception of disability into the same valuefree or nearly value-free understanding of other forms of difference, such as eye color or left-handedness” (Evans & Herriott, 2009, p. 35). Determining eligibility for disability-related services in college often follows the medical model. Most disability support programs require students to present documentation that not only verifies a disability but also highlights

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 334

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

335

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

functional limitations. Students are responsible for providing recent documentation from an appropriate expert at their own expense (Colker & Milani, 2006). Rather than focusing on the environment as disabling, this approach focuses on what is in the student that is disabling (Hahn, 1988). Policies and procedures commonly require students who register with the disability services office to allow the professionals to assist them in advocating for equal access. This system, although set up to assist students, may actually dissuade them from becoming self-advocates and perpetuate dependence on professionals. It may also isolate students from their peers and fail to adhere to the tenets of student development theory (Szymanski & Trueba, 1994). Students with disabilities may be overlooked as an oppressed minority group because of this medical model approach to documentation and because of society’s stereotypes about people with disabilities. Hall and Belch (2000) argue, Although disability programs offer necessary accommodations and services that may offer a comfortable place for students to establish community, student affairs professionals need to consider if, as an unintended consequence, special programs and centers also relieve staff who are not located in those centers from acting on their responsibility to understand and address the diverse needs of underrepresented groups. (p. 13)

Although historically colleges have adopted a medical model approach to services, administrators of disability service programs are beginning to focus on how to change or modify the environment to make it more accessible to students with disabilities (Kroeger & Schuck, 1993; Strange, 2000). The universal design movement encourages professionals on campus, including counselors, advisers, administrators, faculty, and student affairs professionals, to design programs in advance to accommodate the needs of all students.

Universal Design Many institutions have recognized that students with disabilities want to participate with their peers in sponsored events such as leadership activities, field trips, and recreational sports. Common practice has been for educators at these institutions to issue a standard access statement that places the responsibility for revealing a disability and the needs associated with that disability on the student (Johnson, 2000). This can be an efficient and effective means of providing access to students but may also be a stigmatizing process. The concept of universal design was first developed to encourage the creation of accessible architecture and physical spaces. Beginning in the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 335

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

336

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

1990s, this idea was adapted to address the need to create inclusive programming and instruction. Several frameworks for this approach were developed, including the principles of universal design for learning (McGuire, 2014). The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) developed the universal design for learning approach in order to help educators “reduce barriers, as well as optimize levels of challenge and support, to meet the needs of all learners from the start” (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011, p. 4). The goal of universal design is to meet the unique needs of the student body and reduce the need for special accommodations by being as inclusive as possible in the planning process (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998). Programming with a universal design approach takes into consideration the individual differences and needs of all students in planning and implementing the programs, services, facilities, transportation, communication, websites, and other technology (Kalivoda, 2009). Student affairs professionals may find it helpful to adopt this approach when creating programs and services.

Universal Design for Learning Guidelines The universal design for learning guidelines developed by CAST (2011) are as follows: Principle I. Provide Multiple Means of Representation Guideline 1. Provide options for perception Guideline 2. Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols Guideline 3. Provide options for comprehension Principle II. Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression Guideline 4. Provide options for physical action Guideline 5. Provide options for expression and communication Guideline 6. Provide options for executive functions Principle III. Provide Multiple Means of Engagement Guideline 7. Provide options for recruiting interest Guideline 8. Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence Guideline 9. Provide options for self-regulation (p. 2)

Universal Design in Student Affairs The following are examples of universal design that can be used in student affairs programming. For people with limited or no vision, have printed materials readily available in alternative formats, such as large print, Braille, audio, or electronic versions. Provide assistive listening devices (ALD) for people with

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 336

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

337

hearing impairments. One common ALD, the FM system, is a small transmitter that amplifies the speech of the speaker while eliminating background noise. Also, always use captioned media when presenting videos. Captioning provides access to videos by displaying auditory information in printed form on the screen, giving participants who are Deaf or hard of hearing equal access. If a program includes transportation for participants, select vans or buses that allow people using wheelchairs or with limited mobility to travel with their peers. When selecting locations for programming, choose architecturally accessible spaces, and when planning new facilities and renovations, incorporate features that provide access to all users beyond the minimum requirements of the ADA. For example, automatic doors are not required, but they greatly assist users with mobility impairments in accessing facilities. The Disability, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DOIT) website (DO-IT Center, n.d.) presents resources to assist student services professionals in learning how to create facilities, services, and information resources that are accessible to all students. This site provides practical information on designing welcoming, accessible, and usable services. Key to the success is incorporating students with disabilities in the planning process. With advance planning and input from consumers, programs can employ universal design strategies rather than responding to individual accommodation requests (Burgstahler & Moore, 2009).

Emerging Issues Emerging disability topics in higher education include ensuring access to technology, service and emotional support animals (Rothstein, 2013), the increased incidence of students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in college settings (Sander, 2013), and career development for students with disabilities (Sears, Stauser, & Wong, 2014).

Technology Accessibility Despite the ubiquity of websites as a means of disseminating information about university programs and services, many campuses do not have a standard website development practice. Academic and administrative units have designed departmental webpages with their own resources, resulting in variable degrees of accessibility. A study by Solovieva and Bock (2014) revealed that only 51% of 509 webpages at a large public university passed automated web accessibility tests. Such accessibility tests can be a useful tool in the effort to make online information accessible. The Web Accessibility Initiative offers guidelines

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 337

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

338

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

for making webpages accessible, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), and an online tool to assess websites’ compliance with WCAG (Web Accessibility Initiative, n.d.). Another good example is the Wave web accessibility evaluation tool offered by Web Accessibility in Mind (Web AIM). Web AIM also offers online training and technical assistance. In particular, Web AIM’s WCAG checklist is a good starting point for establishing basic accessibility (Center for Persons With Disabilities, Utah State University, n.d.). Although a plethora of hardware and software tools are available to provide access, if WCAG guidelines are not incorporated into website design, students with disabilities will be at a disadvantage (Totty & Kalivoda, 2008). One critical area of accessibility highlighted in the WCAG is captioned media. Today, it is commonplace to see videos on almost all student affairs websites. When creating or selecting videos to include in programming, ensure videos are captioned. Ensuring that information is accessible requires forethought in designing websites and adopting new technology. Access for students with disabilities should be an integral part of the development process when purchasing hardware or software and when selecting vendors to develop online tools or websites.

Service and Emotional Support Animals A service animal is “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability,” as defined by regulations issued by the Department of Justice in 2012. Examples given in the regulations include helping people with visual impairments navigate, alerting people with hearing impairments to sounds, assisting people with mobility impairments with movement or retrieving objects, and helping people with psychiatric disabilities by disrupting destructive behaviors (U.S. Department of Justice § 35.104). With few exceptions, individuals with disabilities must be allowed to bring service animals into any facility “where members of the public, participants in services, programs or activities, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go” (U.S. Department of Justice § 35.136). As these rights apply to many areas on college campuses, student affairs practitioners are advised to be aware of several emerging issues about service animals. In determining whether a person with a disability should be allowed to bring a service animal into a public area, staff and faculty may only ask two questions of the person with a disability. They may ask whether the dog is needed due to a disability and what task the dog has been trained to perform. If the answers to these questions are obvious (e.g., if the dog is pulling a wheelchair), even these questions are not allowed. While students at many universities are required to register with disability services offices to receive

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 338

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

339

other accommodations, students cannot be required to register in order to have a service animal on campus. In addition to the federal regulations requiring access for service animals, many states have legislation that confers similar rights to people training dogs to become service animals. For example, in Georgia anyone training a service animal has “the same right to be accompanied” as a person with a disability using a service animal (Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 30-4-2). This has resulted in large numbers of service animals in training on some college campuses, prompting institutions to adopt supplemental policies regarding the presence of these dogs. Student affairs professionals should be aware that students serving as partners for service animals in training will need access to their programs and activities. Their presence may require flexibility and forethought to create a truly inclusive environment. Educating faculty, staff, and students on how to interact appropriately with service animals and service animals in training can prevent problems arising from a lack of information about service animals (Huss, 2012). Most service animal organizations include information on their websites about service animal etiquette. The website Please Don’t Pet Me, www.pleasedontpetme .com (n.d.), contains general information about service animals as well as how to interact with them. The University of California at Santa Cruz published a letter on its website (Sahni, 2014) that is a good example of educating the community to create a more welcoming environment. In another example of an inclusive environment, Wright State University created a dog park specifically for service animals and service animals in training (Wingerd Service Dog Park, n.d.). In addition to being set aside for service animals, the park is accessible for the service animals’ handlers, featuring paved paths and a location near academic buildings. In contrast to service animals, emotional support animals are not required to be trained to perform specific tasks, and animals other than dogs may fall into this category. These animals are not covered by the ADA, and it is not required to allow them into classrooms and other public spaces. However, whether these animals must be permitted in residence halls under the Fair Housing Act remains a question under debate (United States of America v. Milliken University, 2011; United States of America v. University of Nebraska at Kearney, 2011). Most institutions have established policies regarding the presence of animals in housing facilities. The emphasis in these policies is on safety and community living guidelines in addition to disability-related support.

Autism Spectrum Disorders People with ASDs are a growing population; as many as one in 68 children were diagnosed with an ASD in 2010 (Baio, 2014). As a result, more students

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 339

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

340

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

with ASD are entering college (Sander, 2013). ASDs are classified as neurodevelopmental disorders by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The functioning of a student with an ASD may fall along a spectrum of symptoms, skills, and levels of impairment. While some students are mildly impaired, other students may be severely hindered by autism and its associated symptoms. Symptoms of ASD vary greatly from one student to the next, but there are typically three areas of difficulty, including social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and repetitive behaviors. Characteristically, college students on this spectrum may experience social isolation, problems with understanding another person’s point of view, an inability to manage appropriate social conduct, or difficulty with conversational abilities (Longtin, 2014). Conversely, these students are often very bright, have good GPAs, and have profound interest in certain areas of study. However, they can experience an inordinate amount of stress and difficulty with social interaction. Many students with high-functioning autism have the cognitive abilities to be in college but require more help than their peers to complete a college degree. Some institutions have developed specialized programs to serve this emerging population. Examples include the MoSAIC program at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (University of Tennessee, Disability Resource Center, n.d.) and the ASD College Transition and Support Program at the University of Alabama (University of Alabama, n.d.). Intensive assistance includes groups, individualized meetings with coaches to develop appropriate skills to promote academic success, social interaction, and independent living. College student affairs professionals are challenged to be aware of this emerging population, and to understand that they are fully capable of integrating into a traditional college campus, given appropriate support services.

Career Development Resources, parental support, socioeconomic class, type of school, and other community offerings are salient factors for the overall success of students with disabilities. These factors are primarily external; however, research shows that they are major determinants in providing future career and life options for emerging adults (Test, Mustian, Fowler, Kortering, & Kohler, 2009). The more options and exposure, the more likely it is that students can begin to find a good fit for their talents and interests. Students with disabilities can be challenged in finding this fit because their disability may add another layer of complexity for receiving the kind of opportunities they need to be successful. Therefore, career development plays a very prominent role in the lives of students with disabilities.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 340

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

341

Utilizing available campus resources can assist students in learning about career opportunities. Examples of resources include internships, job shadowing, and government or professional organizations. Practitioners are encouraged to inform students with disabilities about the available resources, opportunities, and information early on in their academic careers, and instructors should incorporate disability concerns into career development courses. Career development professionals can also assist students with disabilities by connecting them with prospective employers. Many employers highlight their commitment to hiring people with disabilities by posting job announcements that encourage people from underrepresented groups to apply. In addition, a government-run program designed specifically to recruit students with disabilities for government positions, titled the Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP, 2015), is offered by the Department of Labor. Students are encouraged to gain experience in completing an application, including their resume; to interview; and then to be registered in a nationwide clearinghouse for positions across the nation. The WRP is a positive program with an intentional commitment to offer students the opportunity to gain insight into the job process and make a connection to their field of work. Students with disabilities can successfully discover their career paths if they can continue to assess their skill development, problem-solving skills, and social skills; increase their life skill knowledge; and use assistive and adaptive technology (Murugami & Nel, 2012). If institutions provide supportive role models and mentors, students can develop career plans that are realistic and attainable (Crudele, 2012).

Conclusion Including students with disabilities in campus life can present complex challenges. No two students or their disabilities are exactly alike. Individual students may encounter obvious problems, such as architectural accessibility or transportation, as well as more subtle difficulties related to communication and social integration. Campus administrators have recognized the barriers and have worked to eliminate outright intentional exclusion. However, creating an inclusive environment for students with disabilities is an ongoing process. Although disability is now included in discussions of diversity, “Developing multicultural competence about disability requires intentional and sustained selfexamination, reflection and practice” (Stewart & Collins, 2014, p. 31).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 341

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

342

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Among the goals for students with disabilities in our campus communities and for overall student persistence and progress are competence and confidence. To help students achieve this, campuses need to promote student independence and support advocacy and engagement. When making plans for new buildings, new technological programs, or services on campus, students with disabilities should be included on planning committees to offer input and represent the needs of people with disabilities. Student affairs professionals can act as advocates on campus for students with disabilities. Partnerships among students, administrators, and staff members can create new avenues for inclusion. The greatest benefit is the educational opportunity others gain by being connected to students with disabilities, which can be a valuable and positive learning experience.

Case Studies Discrimination can occur in a number of different ways. People with disabilities encounter discrimination that consists of outright acts of bias, intentional exclusion, communication barriers, inaccessible technology, transportation barriers, and segregation. The following case studies describe how discrimination, although unintentional, can show its face on the college campus.

Case Study 1 A large university offers an orientation program for all new first-year and transfer students. Campus administrators believe that participation in orientation is critical to the successful transition and retention of new students. In addition to a variety of programs that introduce students to college life, a comprehensive tour of campus is provided to parents and students that highlight key features and services. A first-year student, Jose, is unable to get on the tour bus because he uses a wheelchair and the bus does not have a lift. The orientation leader calls campus transit and secures a van to transport Jose and his parents on a personal tour of the campus. In this case study the accommodation satisfies the law by providing what the ADA refers to as program access but does so with separate programming. Unfortunately, the accessible transportation excludes the student from interaction with his peers and brings unnecessary attention to Jose and the fact that he uses a wheelchair. In this case, a little advance planning could have provided access in a more inclusive manner. Most transportation services have at least one bus that is lift equipped. It should become standard procedure to request accessible transportation even if no specific participants have revealed the need for this.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 342

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

343

Case Study 2 Students with invisible disabilities (e.g., chronic health issues, ADHD, psychological impairments) may elect to participate in university-sponsored events and hesitate to reveal their disability for fear of being excluded. The following case study examines how students encounter communication barriers that impede students with disabilities from participating in campus programming. Jessica attends a college that has an excellent reputation for leadership programs. The student affairs staff is dedicated to meeting the mission of the institution in developing good citizens and leaders who will contribute to their communities after completing their college degrees. Jessica is a junior business major maintaining a 3.6 GPA. She applies for the leadership development program after reading about it in the student newspaper. The program is described as targeting juniors and seniors seeking to develop specific skills to prepare them for their job search process. She is also pleased with the prospect of adding her involvement in this organization to her résumé. Although she has the credentials to qualify, she first has to participate in an interview that involves reading a passage of text and giving an oral summary to the committee. She has a visual processing disorder and obtains textbooks and articles electronically for use with reading software. Although she uses this method of reading for her coursework, she hesitates to reveal her disability and accommodation needs to the leadership staff because of fear that the committee may not be flexible in its standard interview procedure. Jessica proceeds to read the document but does not readily comprehend the meaning. Nevertheless, she attempts to provide a summary of the key points. The committee members note her nervousness and lack of ability to adequately process and communicate information in a timely manner. They reject her application. Jessica never knew why she didn’t get accepted, but she felt that her poor performance in that particular evaluation activity was a significant factor. This case study illustrates a situation that unfortunately is all too common. The student had legitimate concerns about disclosing her disability because of her fear of being excluded or of appearing to be too different from other students applying for the program. The leadership program had a standard, uniform way of selecting applicants. A statement on the application form indicating a desire to accommodate people with disabilities may have encouraged Jessica to request an accommodation. A general statement that asserts the desire to accommodate a diverse student body and different learning styles communicates a desire to accept and understand individual differences. Program administrators are not asked to lower standards for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 343

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

344

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

acceptance but to acknowledge the inequity inherent in setting standards based on the traditional student.

Case Study 3 An increasing number of students are being diagnosed with chronic health illnesses and are faced with fatigue, flare-ups, regular medical treatments, and ongoing pain. It is difficult to recognize chronic health issues because a person may not appear to have a disability. Students need to have the support and accommodations necessary to allow them to complete assignments and accomplish academic requirements without being penalized for disabilityrelated absences or missed deadlines as illustrated in the following case study. Anne is a sophomore majoring in psychology. She is from a rural area in the Northeast and attends a large university several hundred miles from home. In the middle of the fall semester she develops health problems and goes to the university health service. After numerous consultations and tests, the physician diagnoses Anne with multiple sclerosis (MS). Anne is overwhelmed with the diagnosis of a progressive and often debilitating health condition, especially at such an early age. Nevertheless, she chooses to continue her college education. Because of the fatigue often associated with MS, Anne misses numerous classes and has to take a reduced course load. Anne’s instructors agree to allow her to remain in their classes despite her absences if the campus disability service office provides documentation of her eligibility for accommodations. This requires that Anne register with disability services. On days when she is not feeling well, she parks in the designated wheelchair space near the building. People stare at her as if she doesn’t have a legitimate disability. People with nonobvious disabilities have to decide if they are going to disclose information about their disability. They face a different kind of stigma from those with obvious disabilities. Since revealing a disability may have negative consequences, people may choose to act as if they do not have one (Kalivoda, 2009).

Case Study 4 The stigma of a psychological disability may prevent many students from disclosing their disability. As McCune (2001) describes, “Students with mental illness face the suspicion that they deceive others in order to secure accommodations with regard to coursework and other responsibilities” (p. 9). If they hesitate to seek support, their symptoms may worsen, and many may not get the appropriate treatment and assistance as they progress in college. In the following case, a student did communicate her past struggle with a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 344

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

345

psychological disability, and the staff in her academic program sought to facilitate her success. As a highly sought-after chemistry doctoral candidate, Jasmine revealed to her major professor that she had bipolar disorder. After being at the university for three months, she told her professor she was feeling stressed, unorganized, and fatigued. The professor also noticed that her schedule was overbooked during her manic phases, and during her depressive phases she would miss classes and appointments. Her professor accommodated Jasmine by developing a flexible schedule for the following semester that allowed her time off for therapy and helped her balance some of the demands of the graduate program and assistantship. Many professors and student affairs professionals do not understand how to best support a student with a psychological disability (Grasgreen, 2012). Through discussions with her brightest student, this professor displayed a level of understanding and support that helped Jasmine accomplish her work and get treatment. Instead of feeling like she was causing the department to go out of its way for her, she found that everyone respected her skills and valued her work and was willing to make accommodations for her disability. This is ideal and not typical, but many faculty can and will help support students with psychological disabilities. In 2013 the American College Health Association survey completed by college students found that 57% of women and 40% of men reported experiencing episodes of “overwhelming anxiety” in the prior year, and 33% of women and 27% of men reported a period in the last year of feeling so depressed it was difficult to function. Studies suggest that between a quarter and a third of students meet criteria for anxiety or a depressive illness during their college experience (Wald, Meunning, O’Connell, & Garber, 2014). The rise of students with mental health disabilities on college campuses challenges student affairs practitioners to work together to serve students collaboratively and comprehensively.

References Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 1–22. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act. (2008). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as Amended. Retrieved from www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 345

7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

346

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Baio, J. (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 63(2). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Benfer, E. A. (2009, September). The ADA Amendments Act: An overview of recent changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. Retrieved from www.law.georgetown.edu/archiveada/ documents/BenferADAAA.pdf Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2009). Making student services welcoming and accessible through accommodations and universal design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(3), 155–174. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. Center for Applied Technology (CAST). (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Center for Persons With Disabilities, Utah State University. (n.d.). Web accessibility initiative. Retrieved from http://webaim.org Colker, R., & Milani, A. A. (2006). Everyday law for individuals with disabilities. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Crow, L. (1996). Including all of our lives: Renewing the social model of disability. In C. Barnes and G. Mercer (eds.), Exploring the divide: Illness and disability (pp. 55–72). Leeds, England: The Disability Press. Retrieved from http:// disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/publications/exploring-the-divide/ Crudele, A. (2012, July). Transition to employment for students with visual impairments: Components for success. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 2, 389–398. Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) Center. (n.d.). Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology. Retrieved from www.washington.edu/doit/ Evans, N. J., & Herriott, T. K. (2009). Disability realities: Community, culture, and connection on college campuses. In J. L. Higbee & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Philosophical and theoretical approaches to disability (pp. 27–40). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Gibson, J., Laux, S., & Myers, K. (2012). A disability identity development model: Pilot study and revised survey tool. Retrieved from convention.myacpa.org/archive/ programs/Baltimore11/index.html?emc=lm&m=91334&l=3&v=582378 Gill, C. J. (1997). Four types of integration in disability identity development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9, 39-46. Grasgreen, A. (2012, October 30). Students rate mental health services. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/30/collegesdont-always-help-mental-health-issues-student-survey-shows Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 39–47. Hall, L. M., & Belch, H. A. (2000). Setting the context: Reconsidering the principles of full participation and meaningful access for students with disabilities. In

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 346

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

347

H. A. Belch & L. M. Hall (Eds.), Serving students with disabilities (pp. 5–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Helms, J. E. (2003). Racial identity in the social environment. In P. B. Pedersen & J. C. Carey (Eds.), Multicultural counseling in schools: A practical handbook (pp. 44–58). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Huss, R. J. (2012). Canines on campus: Companion animals at postsecondary educational institutions. Missouri Law Review, 77(2), 418–479. Retrieved from scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol77/iss2/5 Johnson, D. (2000). Enhancing out-of-class opportunities for students with disabilities. In H. A. Belch & L. M. Hall (Eds.), Serving students with disabilities (pp. 41–53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kalivoda, K. S. (2009). Disability realities: Community, culture, and connection on college campuses. In J. L. Higbee & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Making good on the promise: Student affairs professionals with disabilities (pp. 3–25). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kroeger, S., & Schuck, J. (Eds.). (1993). Responding to disability issues in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Livneh, H., & Sherwood, A. (1991). Application of personality theories and counseling strategies to clients with physical disabilities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 525–538. Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 23(1), 5–18. Longtin, S. E. (2014). Using the college infrastructure to support students on the autism spectrum. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 27(1), 63–72. McCune, P. (2001). What do disabilities have to do with diversity? About Campus, 6(2), 5–12. McGuire, Joan M. (2014). Universally accessible instruction: Oxymoron or opportunity? Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 24(4), 387–398. Murugami, M. W., & Nel, N. M. (2012). A developmental career guidance and counseling process for learners with disabilities: Preparation for employment. Educational Research 3(4), 362–370. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Number and percent of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by disability status and selected student characteristics: 1995–96. In Digest of Education Statistics (Table 212). Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d00/dt212.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Number and percentage distribution of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by level, disability status, and selected student characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08. In Digest of Education Statistics (Table 269). Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/ tables/dt12_269.asp Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services Final Rule, 28 CFR § 35 (1991). Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) § 30-4-2 (2014).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 347

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

348

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Please Don’t Pet Me. (n.d.). Please don’t pet me. Retrieved from www.pleasedontpetme.com Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions (NCES 2011-018). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504). Rothstein, L. (2013, August 5). New legal questions about disability demand colleges’ attention. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/ article/New-Legal-Questions-About/140787/ Sahni, Ashish (2014, October 3). Service animals on campus. University of California Santa Cruz Newsletter. Retrieved from news.ucsc.edu/2014/10/service-animals .html. Sander, L. (2013, June 2). Seeking a deft touch for students with autism-spectrum disorders. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/article/ Seeking-a-Deft-Touch-for/139597/ Sears, S., Strauser, D., & Wong, A. (2014). Examining career readiness and positive affect in a group of college students with disabilities: A pilot study. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(3), 307–319. Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York, NY: Times Books. Shaw, S. F., & Dukes, L. L. (2001). Program standards for disability services in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(2), 81–90. Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(1), 47–51. Solovieva, T. I., & Bock, J. M. (2014). Monitoring for accessibility and university websites: Meeting the needs of people with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 113–127. Stewart, D., & Collins, K. (2014). Constructing disability: Case studies of graduate students and new professionals with disabilities in students affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 32(1), 19–33. Strange, C. (2000). Creating environments of ability. In H. A. Belch & L. M. Hall (Eds.), Serving students with disabilities (pp. 19–30). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Sutton et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1999). Retrieved from laws.findlaw.com/ us/527/471.html Szymanski, E., & Trueba, H. T. (1994). Castification of people with disabilities: Potential disempowering aspects of classification in disability services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 60, 12–20. Test, D. W., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009, December). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 32(3), 160–181.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 348

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

349

Totty, M. C., & Kalivoda, K. S. (2008). Assistive technology. In J. L. Higbee & E. Goff (Eds.). Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 473–478). Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. United States of America v. Milliken University. (2011). Retrieved from portal.hud .gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=doc_14484.pdf United States of America v. University of Nebraska at Kearney. (2011). Retrieved from www.ada.gov/kearney_order.pdf University of Alabama. (n.d.). The University of Alabama, ASD college transition and support program (UA-ACTS). Retrieved from autism-clinic.ua.edu/uaacts/ University of Tennessee, Disability Resource Center. (n.d.). MoSAIC. Retrieved from www.utc.edu/disability-resource-center/mosaic/index.php U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment (graph illustration of unemployment rate and median weekly earnings 2013). Current Population Survey. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/emp/ ep_chart_001.htm U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_ regulations.htm. Wald, A., Meunning, P., O’Connell, K., & Garber, C. (2014). Associations between healthy lifestyle behaviors and academic performance in US undergraduates: A secondary analysis of the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment II. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(5), 298–305. Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.w3.org/WAI Wingerd Service Dog Park. (n.d.). Wright State University Office of Disability Services. Retrieved from www.wright.edu/disability-services/community/servicedog-park Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP). (2015). Department of Labor’s Office of Disability employment policy and the U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from https://wrp.gov/AboutPre.do#Schools.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 349

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

16 R E L I G I O U S A N D S P I R I T UA L DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Laura A. Dean and Darris R. Means

H

igher education in the United States has its roots in the JudeoChristian tradition, yet the reality on campuses today is that diversity is increasing in religious affiliations, as well as in religious and spiritual beliefs. From the early colleges that were founded to train clergy to the modern nonsectarian state universities accented by campus centers for multiple religions and denominations, faith and spirituality have always been present on college campuses in some capacity. While religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the campus climate for religious minorities is still different from that of the religious majority. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the issues of religious minority students and to provide an overview of issues of spirituality that affect all students. The chapter traces the history of religion at colleges, including religious diversity and conflicts over higher education. A review of current research about the religious and spiritual beliefs of U.S. college students includes a quantitative picture of religious diversity on campuses. An examination of the role of religion in the theoretical underpinnings of student development provides insight into the assumptions held by student affairs professionals. An overview of challenges that religious students face on campuses offers information about students’ experiences. Finally, examples of religious and spiritual, interfaith, and pluralistic practices on campuses highlight implications for higher education leaders. Discussions of religion and spirituality are inherently complex. Traditionally focused on formal affiliation with religious faiths and denominations, contemporary discussion must be broadened to include 350

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 350

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

351

forms of spirituality that are not easily labeled or categorized. Further, traditional notions of majority/minority religious status (e.g., in the United States, Christian students have been considered the majority) are changing. In the right setting, a member of any religious community could be in the minority, and in an overwhelmingly nonsectarian, secular environment, members of any religion may feel excluded. Depending on the college or the region, a student of one religion may be in the majority on one campus but in the minority on another. For example, a Catholic student at a Jesuit institution could easily be part of the religious majority. That same student at a public institution in the South could be in a minority. However, Christian privilege, specifically reflective of Protestant Christianity, is embedded in U.S. society and is not a function of numerical status, which can particularly lead to the marginalization of religious minorities and individuals who are not affiliated with religion in higher education (Adams & Joshi, 2010; Bowman & Small, 2012). Though a Protestant Christian student in the United States might be in the numerical minority on one campus, that student would not be a minority in terms of the power and privilege that is associated with the Christian identity in the larger society. Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu students, and those from other religious minorities, however, may have to constantly navigate Christian privilege no matter the institutional context. The student experience will be shaped by the degree to which students identify with their religious affiliation. Just as students differ in their identity development related to issues of ethnicity or sexual orientation, they also differ in the extent to which their religion and spirituality are an integral part of their identity or outlook.

History of Religious Diversity in U.S. Higher Education Some level of religious diversity was present even at the beginning of U.S. higher education, but in the earlier years, diversity was represented only by Christian denominations. Religion on the college campus began with “the role of organized Christianity, . . . [which was] important in the founding of eight of the nine pre-Revolutionary colleges. . . . The purpose of training students for the Christian ministry is specified in all colonial college charters, with the single exception . . . of the College of Philadelphia” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 7). Later, even that institution came under religious control by the Anglican Church. The “desire of important religious denominations (such as the Anglicans and the Calvinists) for a literate, college-trained clergy was probably the single most important factor in the founding of the colonial colleges” (p. 8). The clergy were instrumental in the founding of these colleges, in defining their missions, and in setting policies.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 351

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

352

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Sectarian Institutions Chalfant, Beckley, and Palmer (1994) argued that the “most important source for the present forms of U.S. education was Puritan New England [and] its Calvinist commitment to the universal education of believers and potential believers” (p. 309). Religion was the primary subject, while reading was taught as a way to “improve the quality of Christian life” (p. 309). In contrast, in the primarily Anglican southern colonies, education was focused on training “the Anglican elite to govern the uneducated masses” (p. 309). Puritans, Congregationalists, and Baptists from New England gave life to Harvard, Yale, and Brown; Virginia’s College of William and Mary was Anglican; and Scottish Presbyterians founded Princeton. This proliferation of different schools, each affiliated in some way with a Christian denomination, shows the spread of denominational institutions and influence. If a denomination had a need to train its clergy, that denomination founded a college. This trend was also followed by many non-Protestant religious groups. For example, Georgetown College, a Catholic institution, was founded in 1789, and by 1860, “14 permanent Catholic colleges had already been established” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 72). By 1930 there were 126 Catholic colleges, including 49 for women (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Catholic institutions, expanding with increased immigration from countries with significant Catholic populations, had to contend with religious prejudice and antagonism. “American nationalism had long been identified with Protestantism, and a particularly bitter anti-Catholic agitation expressed itself in the nineteenth century” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 72). For example, citing fears that the Catholic Church was trying to undermine the principle of the separation of church and state, the granting of a charter for Boston College was delayed until provisions were added that would protect non-Catholics from discrimination at the institution (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). The practice of establishing other denominational or nondenominational religious institutions continued into the twentieth century, with institutions such as Oral Roberts University, an evangelical Christian university founded in 1963 by its namesake, and Regent University, founded in 1978 by evangelist Pat Robertson. With an increasingly competitive market, colleges began early to stress interdenominational policies and practices in their public pronouncements. For example, Quakers and Jews were “exempted from religious requirements at some of the colonial colleges” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 9). At the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), people of every religious denomination were free to participate; it would be “not so much a seminary for Presbyterian divines as a school for statesmen” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 12). This

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 352

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

353

trend toward accommodating other denominations was the beginning of religiously pluralistic institutions. Some institutions, however, instituted maximum quotas on the enrollment of some religious minorities, most notably Jewish students. For example, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and Columbia established quotas on Jewish enrollment and the hiring of Jewish faculty from the early 1900s to the middle of the century (Freedman, 2000). Yale kept a 13% limit on Jewish and Catholic enrollment. Columbia cut its Jewish enrollment from 40% in 1914 to 15% in the 1920s. By the 1930s, Dartmouth accepted only 10% of Jewish applicants, while admitting 75% of non-Jewish applicants. Although enrollment at many schools was limited, minority religions were not as prolific in establishing colleges. Sporadic attempts were made by Jewish groups to establish colleges as early as 1821 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). However, lack of support and strong differences among Jewish religious groups within the small U.S. Jewish community resulted primarily in the establishment of rabbinical seminaries (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Reform Jewish organization, founded Hebrew Union College in 1875, and the Conservative Jewish movement founded the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in 1887. Founded in 1886, Yeshiva University is the oldest comprehensive educational institution under Jewish auspices in the United States. Later, the American Jewish University was formed from the 2007 merger of the University of Judaism and Brandeis-Bardin Institute, both founded in the 1940s. Brandeis University, founded in 1948, is the “only nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored college or university in the country” (Brandeis University, 2015 para. 1).

State Institutions Another important trend in the development of religiously pluralistic colleges and universities was the advent of state-controlled institutions. While the early colleges were mostly church sponsored, the earliest state universities of “North Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Ohio, Tennessee, Maryland, and also South Carolina College and Transylvania University in Kentucky . . . were more nearly private than public” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 145). The first public institutions founded after the Revolutionary War were chartered like private corporations, an interpretation that was successfully defended in court (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). For example, although the University of Georgia was chartered in 1789, the Georgia legislature did not take over the appointment of trustees until 1876. Further, direct appropriations to the university from the state only began in 1881 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). There was competition among and within Protestant denominations as

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 353

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

354

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

they built colleges and fought for control of increasingly secular state institutions. When Methodists gained control of Ohio University in the mid1800s, for example, the faculty was quickly replaced by Methodist ministers (Rudolph, 1990). Perhaps the most influential state institution in terms of religious diversity is the University of Virginia. When it opened in 1825, the University of Virginia was “by the express intent of its constitution a thoroughly public enterprise. . . . Its early orientation was distinctly and purposely secular and non-denominational” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 148). Thomas Jefferson insisted that religious groups not appoint the faculty but supported the idea that they could build student centers adjacent to the campus for students who were affiliated with them. One can easily see the roots of the modern state university hosting groups such as Catholic Student Ministry, Hillel Jewish Leadership Council, Coptic Orthodox Christian Association, Hindu Students Council, Lutheran Student Movement, Muslim Students Association, Wesleyan Foundation, Baha’i Association, and campus groups for a wide range of religious and spiritual expressions, both denominational and nondenominational (University of Virginia, 2015). As they expanded, state institutions faced “jealousy [from] established private colleges and the suspicions and fears of denominational interests” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 154). For example, religious groups in Illinois prevented the state from founding an institution for many years. In Ohio, the state institution elected presidents who were clergy, and “compulsory chapel continued to be required at such schools as late as the 1880s and 1890s” (p. 155). Still, the rise of the state university, with its multidenominational, nonsectarian atmosphere, emerged as a great force in U.S. higher education. Institutions struggle with the nature of religious practice and its focus on their campuses as demographics change, sometimes bringing large numbers of students from different faith traditions, including religious minority students. The Wellesley College Religious and Spiritual Life Program, for example, is based on a philosophy of religious pluralism, spirituality, and education; the Religious Life Team includes a Buddhist adviser, Catholic chaplain, Hillel director, Hindu adviser, Muslim adviser, Protestant Christian chaplain, and Unitarian Universalist chaplain, all working closely with the dean of religious and spiritual life (Kazanjian & Laurence, 2007; Wellesley College, n.d.). The wealth of religious diversity at some denominational institutions raises complex questions about the role of religion at church-affiliated colleges. As is true for the students they serve, institutions also vary greatly in the current salience of their religious traditions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 354

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

355

Religious Centers and Organizations By the 1850s and continuing with the Morrill Act of 1862, public education became more widely available and offered a broader range of disciplines (Butler, 1989). The increasing diversity of options and decreasing control by religious denominations led to major changes in the face of higher education. By the 1880s, as many colleges and universities became increasingly secular, various religious denominations began seeking new ways to reach out to students. The “appearance in sufficient numbers of Catholics and Jews at institutions that were nominally Protestant in tradition” led to student centers for individuals of those faiths (Rudolph, 1990, p. 459). The first undergraduate Catholic club appeared at the University of Wisconsin in 1880, a precursor of the Newman Centers that serve the religious needs of Catholic students at many non-Catholic institutions (Rudolph, 1990). As of 2014 the Catholic Campus Ministry Association reported “nearly 700 campus ministers serving students on more than 955 college campuses” (2014 para. 2). The Hillel movement, founded in 1923 at the University of Illinois and adopted in 1924 by B’nai B’rith, a Jewish service organization, had at the time of this writing over 550 student centers/organizations (Hillel, 2015). The Muslim Students Association (n.d.) of the United States and Canada, which began in 1963 at a meeting of 10 schools at the University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign, listed more than 50 affiliated campus organizations in 2015. With the increasing religious diversity in the United States and on campuses, it is not possible for every student, regardless of faith, to have the benefit of an organized campus religious center. At many institutions, local churches, mosques, and synagogues play an important support role for religious minority students when there is no campus-based program. Campus religious clubs, often advised by a faculty or staff member of the group’s religion, also provide support. Some denominations prefer to integrate college students of their faith into the existing community religious establishment. For example, many of the historically African American churches, such as African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AME-Zion) or the historically African American Baptist churches, typically do not establish campus religious centers, instead bringing students of their denomination to local churches. On the other hand, Newman Centers, especially the larger ones, reach out to the entire campus Catholic community of students, faculty, staff, and even local residents. Over time, other organizations have also contributed to a religious presence in higher education. The Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) was a dominant presence in religious life at many institutions. In 1877 “an intercollegiate YMCA was formed, and the movement soon came to have great influence throughout the American academic world” (Brubacher &

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 355

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

356

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Rudy, 1997, p. 126). College fraternities and sororities also took on a role in religious life. Early in their histories, many fraternal organizations either denied membership to Jewish or Catholic students, or had such a strong Protestant bent to their purpose that non-Protestant students began to found their own organizations. According to Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities (Anson & Marchesani, 1998), several Greek letter organizations were founded for religious minority students. In 1903 Zeta Beta Tau, the first fraternity for Jewish men, was founded at Cornell. Alpha Epsilon Phi, the first sorority for Jewish women, began in 1909 at Barnard College. Phi Kappa Theta had its beginning in 1959 through the merger of two existing Catholic men’s fraternities, Phi Kappa, founded in 1889 at Brown University, and Theta Kappa Phi, founded at Lehigh University in 1917. Today, these organizations and the other Greek letter societies founded for religious minorities welcome members of all faiths. Interestingly, not all Greek letter organizations began as monocultural organizations. Alpha Phi Omega was founded in 1925 at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania as an organization for men of all religions. While it is more appropriately classified as a service fraternity rather than a social fraternity, it is an example of an early Greek letter organization with broader foundations than others of the time. Alpha Phi Omega later also established chapters at historically Black institutions beginning at Howard University in 1948. In 1976 the fraternity became even more diverse by admitting women students as full members (Anson & Marchesani, 1998).

Interfaith Programs and Centers A significant development in campus religious and spiritual life has been the emergence of interfaith or multifaith programs and centers, designed to create intercultural learning as well as dialogue and collaboration across faith traditions. An Internet search identifies such programs at institutions as diverse as the College of Wooster, Washington University, California Lutheran University, Boston College, Virginia Commonwealth University, Johns Hopkins University, and Stony Brook University. According to Reverend Janet Cooper Nelson, university chaplain and director of the Office of the Chaplains and Religious Life at Brown University, an interfaith approach offers multiple opportunities in campus ministry: The opportunities are vast and hold tremendous promise for allowing students in the “laboratory” of higher ed communities to experiment with new modes of collaboration and exploration. However, the implications of not doing this work while students are in residence and studying together are also vast. We risk hardening the stereotypes that are rampant

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 356

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

357

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

in society. . . . We may well discourage religious identified students in their pursuit of intellectual growth by failing to integrate spiritual and religious growth with intellectual depth. Because some of this reflects my fear of missed opportunities it is important to note that each of these concerns has a dazzling, positive correlate for what the years of a university education can begin—a life of deeper respect for difference and the intriguing and demanding work of envisioning a world where coexistence is a highly prized goal. (HigherEdJobs, 2012)

The history of religious diversity on campus is complicated, filled with conflict, compromise, and change. Every campus is a unique picture of the religious experience and must be understood in that context; however, the student experience also occurs on an individual level, as well as in the larger societal context.

Demographics of Religious Diversity on Campus Colleges and universities in many ways reflect the breadth of religions and denominations of their constituent population. According to a Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) study of trends in U.S. first-year students, the number of students indicating no religious preference increased from 15.4% in 1971 to 27.5% in 2014 (Eagan et al., 2014); however, over 70% of incoming college students still do identify a religious preference. Approximately 62% of first-year students surveyed identified as Christian, of which 25.3% identified specifically as Roman Catholic, while 1%, 2.8%, and 1.7% of students identified as Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim, respectively (Eagan et al., 2014). While the number of entering college students reporting no religious preference at all has doubled in the 20 years prior to this publication, an even larger increase has been reported by those noting their religious preference as “other Christian (Protestant),” the percentage of which has more than tripled in the two decades from the mid-1980s to mid-2000s (Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz, Santos, & Korn, 2007). Included in the latter category are nondenominational Christian churches, many of which are conservative and evangelistic in nature. Affiliation with these groups was claimed by nearly 20% of entering students (Pryor et al., 2007). While discussion of religious diversity is generally focused on the experiences of students in the religious minority, these statistics reflect the reality that such diversity increasingly includes those with no religious affiliation as well as those with ties outside the traditional denominational structures. Across campuses and religious preferences, students overall continue to exhibit connections to their faith. About 71% of those first-year, full-time

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 357

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

358

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

students surveyed reported attending religious services in the last year either frequently or occasionally (Eagan et al., 2014). Conversely, approximately only 30% of the students said that they frequently discussed religion. Eagan and colleagues (2014) also found that “in 1996, 44% of students reported their spirituality ‘above average’ or ‘highest 10%.’ By 2014, this had dropped to 35.7%” (p. 10). Eagan and colleagues (2014) suggested that the decline in religious affiliation may be related to the decline of self-rated spirituality. However, Astin and colleagues (2011) found that while religious engagement declines in college, students show growth in regard to spirituality measures. For example, Astin and colleagues found that there was an increase in spiritual quest, a concept that measures “an engagement in the search for meaning and purpose in life,” between students’ first and third years in college (2011, p. 28). Even with declining numbers related to religious affiliation, religious life and spirituality are an important part of many students’ lives. Cherry, DeBerg, and Porterfield (2001) examined the religious culture of four different institutions that included public, Catholic, and Protestant colleges and universities. They interviewed students, faculty, staff, and campus chaplains, examining religion in practice and in academic offerings. These researchers concluded “religion on the four campuses [to be] sufficiently vital and inviting. . . . It is possible that young people in American culture have never been more enthusiastically engaged in religious practice or with religious ideas” (pp. 294–295). In addition, research has indicated that college students have a high interest in spiritual development to facilitate finding meaning in their lives (Astin et al., 2011; Brandenberger & Bowman, 2013; Bryant, Choi, & Yasuno, 2003; Chickering, 2006; Lindholm, 2007). For example, a significant number of college students “report that they are actively engaged in a spiritual quest; nearly half indicate that they consider it ‘essential’ or ‘very important’ to seek opportunities to help themselves grow spiritually” (Lindholm, 2007, p. 12). The evidence at hand shows that religion and spirituality are alive and well in U.S. higher education.

Student Development Theory and Religious Diversity Religious diversity is rarely discussed in texts on student development theory, although the inclusion of material on spiritual development is becoming more common. Perry (1970) briefly discussed the difference between belief and faith, indicating that belief comes from parents and culture, while faith is a personal affirmation. The fifth position—relativism correlate, competing, or diffuse—in Perry’s scheme of development represents

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 358

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

359

the division between belief and faith in an individual’s growth. Kohlberg (1984) also discussed how religious values change from those received from parents to those resulting from personal commitment. Kohlberg made the assumption that the process is the same, regardless of the particular religion. Chickering and Reisser (1993) discussed religion as part of two vectors, developing integrity and developing purpose, with specific examples of students dealing with Christianity. Fowler’s (1981) work on the development of faith is a valuable resource for understanding how religious belief and faith change as the individual develops. Later work by Parks (1986, 2000) contributed even more to an understanding of how religious faith develops and changes. However, literature specifically on the development of religious minority students and how their growth may differ from that of religious majority students has been limited, although some has begun to emerge. Peek (2005) studied second-generation Muslim American students and described three stages of identity development: religion as ascribed identity, chosen identity, and declared identity. Peek further examined the impact of a crisis event such as September 11, 2001, on identity. Etengoff and Daiute (2013) looked at Sunni-Muslim American religious development during emerging adulthood and described such development as a dynamic process that was affected by the sociorelational contexts in which it took place. Astin (1993) reported differences among Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish students on a wide range of variables, such as Greek letter organization membership, alcohol use, degree completion, and career choice. Astin’s results present a snapshot of student behavior and choices in campus involvement but do not provide any greater understanding on why these differences exist and how they might be understood. Further, while it is important to recognize differences between students of different religious backgrounds, it is also important to recognize the similarities. Astin and colleagues (2005) discovered clusters of similar religious preferences among students from very different religions and denominations, reinforcing the need to understand not only religions but also the students who ascribe to them. More recently, Astin, Astin, and Lindholm (2011) reported findings from a seven-year study on how college students change spiritually and religiously during college and the role that institutions play in their spiritual development. Using pilot survey findings, the authors developed spirituality and religious measures that further distinguished between spirituality and religion, while still recognizing that the two terms overlapped for some students. The spirituality measures included spiritual quest, equanimity, ethic of caring, charitable involvement, and ecumenical worldview, while the religious measures included religious commitment, religious engagement, religious/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 359

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

360

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

social conservatism, religious skepticism, and religious struggle. The authors surveyed over 112,000 students, and then 15,000 of them were surveyed again as they were completing their third year of college. The longitudinal study found that students’ religious engagement declined while in college, but students demonstrated substantial growth in regard to the spirituality measures. In addition, spiritual growth was related to better academic performance, leadership development, and psychological well-being. Finally, they found that study abroad, service learning, and interdisciplinary studies help with students’ spiritual development, as do self-reflection, meditation, and contemplation. Bowman and Small (2012) studied the relationship between religious affiliation and well-being; they found that students with no affiliation had reduced well-being compared with students affiliated with mainline Christian denominations. They further noted that “this pattern aligns with those of numerous other marginalized minority groups, including Blacks/ African Americans, Latinos/Chicanos, American Indians/Native Americans, women, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds . . . [suggesting] that privilege or marginalization (not numerical status) may account for at least some of these group differences” (p. 499). Thus, the experience of marginalization seems to result in lower levels of well-being regardless of whether the individual’s group membership is perceived to be visible (e.g., race) or invisible (e.g., religion). A review of research in student affairs peer-reviewed journals reflected an increasing focus on religion and spirituality in higher education and specifically in student affairs. For example, a search of the Journal of College Student Development ( JCSD) from 1990 to 2003 yielded only eight articles on these topics. Low and Handal (1995) examined the relationship between religion and college adjustment. Strange and Alston (1998) involved 70 students in a program to explore human differences, including religious differences. Rogers and Dantley (2001) discussed how student affairs leadership should use spiritual intelligence in their work with students. Jones and McEwen (2000) presented a conceptual model of identity that included an emphasis on religion as an important aspect of identity. They further suggested that identity evolves and that the multiple aspects of an individual’s identity change in salience over time. Between 2004 and 2014, there were 28 articles about spirituality and religion in higher education published in the JCSD, including several exploring religion or spirituality as an important dimension of identity development for students (e.g., Abes & Kasch, 2007; Bowman & Small, 2012; Love, Bock, Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005; Rockenbach, Walker, & Luzader, 2012; Sanchez & Carter, 2005; Seggie & Austin, 2010; Weddle-West, Hagan, & Norwood, 2013).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 360

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

361

Although there has been an increase in research, there is still a need for further research and theory development in the areas of religion and spirituality, as well as in their relationship to student development. Research must not only include the spirituality or religious affiliation and identity development of students but also recognize how the intersection of social identities (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, social class) may play a role in development. For example, how does understanding the research of Astin and colleagues (2011) apply to students Color who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer? Research must continuously recognize that intersection of identities or social locations does impact the religious and spiritual development of students. What seems clear from research, however, is that while students expect that their colleges and universities will play a role in their spiritual development, nearly half of college juniors in one survey reported dissatisfaction with opportunities for religious or spiritual reflection available during their college experience (Lindholm, 2007). However, findings from this same 2004 survey of entering college students indicated that “roughly two-thirds feel that their spiritual beliefs have helped them develop their identity and that these beliefs give meaning and purpose to their lives” (Lindholm, 2007, p. 12). Similarly, analysis of results from the 2004 National Survey of Student Engagement indicated that students who frequently engage in spiritualityenhancing practices also participate more in other campus activities and are somewhat more satisfied with college than their peers (Kuh & Gonyea, 2006). In the same study, students from different racial and ethnic groups were found to vary in their frequency of engaging in spirituality-enhancing activities, with African American students engaging more often than White students. Tisdell (2003) asserted that the development of a positive cultural identity is also a spiritual process for many; spirituality can also play an important role in dealing with internalized oppression. Educators committed to the development of the whole student must not ignore the important role of religion and spirituality in students’ lives and their identity development. Further, as Jones and McEwen (2000) pointed out, “Student affairs educators must not presume what is most central to individuals, but must instead listen for how a person sees herself ” (p. 412).

Distinguishing Spirituality and Religion One concept that has begun to emerge more clearly in higher education literature is spirituality as distinct from religion. One way of distinguishing them is defining religion as “an affiliation with and practice of an established

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 361

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

362

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

denominational tradition” and spirituality as involving “a highly personal search for ultimate meaning, purpose, and values wherever they may be found” (Stamm, 2006, p. 38). In other places, spirituality has other connotations. While no common definition of spirituality exists, Estanek (2006) conducted a qualitative analysis of sources on spirituality in higher education and identified five recurring patterns that characterize this new discourse: spirituality described as spiritual development, used as critique, understood as so-called empty container for individual meaning, understood as common ground, and discussed as quasi-religion. The suggestion is that no commonly accepted, universal definitions of religion and spirituality exist. Nonetheless, Estanek (2006) advocated for a developmental approach to spirituality that recognizes the diversity of spiritual and religious understandings. However, with this approach we ask of students what we ask of them in other areas of development: that they reflect upon their spirituality, however they understand it, in light of experience and integrate it into their emerging adult self. We ask them to learn more about their own faith tradition, if they have one, and those of others, not only in a religious sense but in the active sense of meaning-making. (p. 277)

This approach to understanding spirituality incorporates it into the framework of student development and suggests that it can be part of a holistic understanding of all students. Further, we should not shy away from discussions of religion and spirituality; as important dimensions of identity and self, we should incorporate them into our conversations with students, just as we incorporate other elements of their identities. Strange (2000) noted that education itself may be an inherently spiritual process, which compels us to rethink the ways we engage students in it.

Culture of Religious Diversity Religious diversity contributes to the richness of campus communities and offers opportunities for cross-cultural experiences and learning. Such diversity, however, can also create challenges. Some religious groups continue to be marginalized and stereotyped in many areas of the United States, which does not stop at the edge of campus. Religious holidays, observances, and practices for religions other than Christianity are not always recognized or understood, and students may be faced with the need to advocate for the right to practice their faith, even in public institutions. Administrators are challenged to find the right balance when there are conflicts of faith and policy, issues of free speech and freedom of association, and tensions between

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 362

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

363

privacy and faiths that call followers to approaches involving evangelism and proselytizing. Taking America’s Pulse III, a project sponsored by the National Conference for Community and Justice (formerly the National Council of Christians and Jews) indicated that while there has been some improvement in attitudes toward others in different groups, negative perceptions persist, and views on intergroup relations vary widely (Smith, 2006). Students can be challenged to embrace new environments and interactions with diverse others while also managing the anxieties and expectations of their families related to the continued practice of their faith (Dean & Grandpré, 2011). Incidents including hate crimes can both exacerbate conflict and prompt demonstrations of solidarity and unity. On one campus, for example, when offensive graffiti including swastikas was spray painted on the walls of a Jewish fraternity, the incident prompted not only the university president but also groups including the Interfraternity Council, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Student Government Association to issue statements condemning the action and supporting the fraternity (Fowler, 2014). The same article that reported this information in the student-run newspaper, however, also quoted a blog post by an alumna questioning why previous acts of prejudice on campus against other cultural, racial, gender, and religious groups did not engender the same level of outcry and public support. Colleges and universities are often thought of as being relatively progressive and inclusive places, but the underlying structures are grounded in majority cultures. For example, the traditional academic calendar allows for the celebration of Christian holidays, but not typically those of other religions. While campuses may make a point of informing faculty and others of the need to accommodate other religious observances, students report anecdotally that support and understanding can vary widely in practice. Muslim students experience similar problems regarding daily prayer times, Jumu’ah (Friday prayer), and meal scheduling during Ramadan, as well as the need to navigate differences related to dating customs and alcohol use (McMurtrie, 2001). Orthodox Jewish students sued Yale over the requirement to live on campus when the only options available were mixed-sex housing (5 Orthodox Jews Protest Mixed-Sex Yale Housing, 1997); the suit was dismissed, but the conflict between campus policy and religious practice was not resolved. Campus dining plans, which may be mandatory for residential students, may not be conducive for students whose religions dictate specific dietary or food preparation practices. In all of these instances, the opportunity for students to practice their religion involves complicated navigation of a system predicated on a culture that is not their own. Student affairs administrators can be instrumental in raising institutional awareness of these issues, educating the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 363

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

364

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

campus community about diverse religious practices, identifying ways that the dominant religion is privileged, and advocating for policies and practices that respect the right to diverse religious observations (or the right not to participate in religiously based activities). Moreover, they can also extend themselves to students and student groups to listen to their experiences and address their concerns. One of the most difficult issues emerges when the tenets of faith call for actions that are at odds with campus culture and policy. The Christian evangelical movement, while part of what is typically the dominant religion, has sometimes come under fire for aggressive tactics or exclusionary practices. Students have reported instances of feeling harassed by repeated, unwelcome invitations and proselytizing (Dean & Grandpré, 2011). The clash may be particularly strong between two growing groups of students: nondenominational, evangelical Christians and students with no religious affiliation, including those who identify as atheists. There have also been instances of campuses revoking recognition of student organizations that limit membership or leadership to Christian students (e.g., Paulson, 2014). These cases can be framed as a conflict between the freedom of association and a campus commitment to nondiscrimination; ironically, this conflict can leave these Christian groups, long the dominant religious culture, feeling that they are being discriminated against for carrying out their beliefs. As campuses grapple with the ramifications of religious diversity, they are increasingly turning to multifaith, interfaith, and pluralistic approaches.

Pluralism and Interfaith Practices As religious diversity on campuses has increased, institutions have begun to reflect a pluralistic approach, developing creative and inclusive approaches to meeting student needs. One way to frame engagement with religious diversity is to take the perspective of pluralism. Religious pluralists hold that people believing in different creeds and belonging to different communities need to learn to live together. It is therefore a sociological, not theological, pluralism. Religious pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form of proactive cooperation that affirms the identity of the constituent communities while emphasizing that the well-being of each and all depends on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its unique contribution. (Patel, 2007, pp. 5–6)

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 364

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

365

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

Campus Ministry Models The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS; 2015) section on religious and spiritual programs provides a resource for considering such programs on campus. The standards offer a framework for reviewing the role of campus chaplains, programs for students from various religious groups, and the place of religion and spirituality on campus. Further, the CAS Learning and Development Outcomes include spiritual awareness as a dimension of intrapersonal development; examples of outcomes offered are “develops and articulates personal belief system; understands roles of spirituality in personal and group values and behaviors; critiques, compares, and contrasts various belief systems; explores issues of purpose, meaning, and faith” (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2015, p. 26). These outcomes reflect the aims of the broader approach to religion and spirituality increasingly reflected on campuses today. Many campuses have a wealth of religious student organizations and campus clergy, arranged in a wide range of structures. Relationships between campuses and religious organizations range from benign neglect to enthusiastic acceptance and active coordination of multifaith efforts. The Johns Hopkins Campus Ministries mission statement, for example, reflects a strong multifaith stance that values spirituality and religious pluralism: Johns Hopkins University Campus Ministries promotes and supports spiritual development, theological reflections, religious tolerance and social awareness among students, faculty and staff within the university community. At its heart, Campus Ministries is a prophetic and pastoral presence which seeks to enhance the spiritual and ethical educational experience of the whole person mind, body and soul. (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.a)

The student Interfaith Council publishes a statement of interfaith cooperation that speaks to both the “integrity and legitimacy of the diverse religious traditions in our midst” and the intent to create dialogue “to increase understanding and mutual support of our common mission to serve the university community” (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.b). Further, the Campus Ministries webpage includes a “Word of Caution” link to information about destructive, “high pressure” religious groups and how to identify and avoid them (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.c). The overall program reflects a strong commitment to a diverse faith community. Other institutions strive to balance a religious affiliation with a commitment to inclusion. At Boston College, a Jesuit, Catholic institution, the Office of Campus Ministry focuses on that heritage but also includes Multi-Faith

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 365

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

366

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Programs and Services (Boston College, 2014a). The Campus Ministry staff includes a person designated to oversee multifaith initiatives, and a MultiFaith Center offers student groups space for their activities and individuals the opportunity for private prayer and reflection (Boston College, 2014b). The Campus Ministry Association (CMA; n.d.) at the University of Georgia is one example of how a public institution can establish a working relationship with multiple ministry groups. The CMA is an independent alliance of campus chaplains from the various denominational student centers, nondenominational organizations, and the university. The CMA has its own elected officers and admits members based on their involvement on the campus. Some are campus chaplains dedicated solely to the campus program, some are clergy working with a congregation from the university and the community, and some are advisers working with student organizations that have no specific denominational or organizational affiliation. Members ascribe to a covenant that outlines the nature of their work together: The Campus Ministry Association (CMA) is an association of faith-based professionals serving the University of Georgia who covenant to support and enrich each other’s professional commitment and competency in campus ministry; work together in an atmosphere of collegiality, inclusiveness, and tolerance; improve communications among members and the various religious groups which minister to the University community; speak to the University community on matters of religion, human values, morality, and individual and community rights; foster healthful religious practices in the University community; and serve as a resource to individuals and groups within the University. (Campus Ministry Association, 2012)

CMA publishes a directory of religious organizations on campus for referrals, questions, and services. Staff in the vice president for student affairs’ office also send out notices to faculty reminding them of non-Christian religious holidays and that some students may be absent to participate in their faith observances. Among private institutions, the University of Richmond is another good example of how to respond to religious diversity. Although the university was founded as a Baptist institution, it is now independent. On campus, the spaces designated for religious life reflect an interfaith philosophy. The Cannon Memorial Chapel on the Richmond campus is a beautiful building with stained-glass windows that represent different academic and religious symbols. Next to it is the E. Carlton Wilton Center for Interfaith Campus Ministries, dedicated in 1990. It houses “the Office of the Chaplaincy, 18 campus ministries, the multifaith reception room and kitchen, Pathways lounge, a conference room, and the Dr. David

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 366

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

367

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

Burhans Inter-Religious Prayer Room” (University of Richmond Wilton Center, 2015, para. 2). The university’s website describes the tradition and breadth of the program: Founded by faithful Baptists who believed that the life of the spirit and the life of the mind were intertwined, the University of Richmond has always been committed to supporting moral and spiritual values in an atmosphere free of sectarian bias. Now with 18 campus ministries serving five world religions and a commitment to serve those who adhere to a specific religious tradition or not, the Office of the Chaplaincy offers opportunities for students, faculty, and staff to explore their own convictions, faith, and spirituality within a welcoming inter-religious context. (University of Richmond Chaplaincy, 2015, para. 2)

Behind the building is a small garden with a walking path and areas to meditate. Along the path, various plants are identified with small plaques that note not only the botanical name and information but also religious significance. The college chapel is a physical reflection of religious pluralism that sends a clear message to the campus. Creating a multidenominational space on campus is an emerging national trend. According to McMurtie (1999), private institutions like Mount Holyoke College, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Southern California have been at the forefront in renovating chapels to make them multidenominational. Private institutions have an advantage over public ones because they are not affected by issues of church and state in the same way that public entities are. Administrators of some public institutions, such as Pennsylvania State University, have dealt with the issue by raising private funds. Such approaches, however, may also be embedded with challenges to pluralistic values. When institutions, particularly secular ones, designate spaces for religious activities, the outcome often awards the best spaces to the dominant religion (typically Christianity), while others may be relegated to a room in a student center or residence hall (McMurtie, 1999). When creating a truly multidenominational area, some groups may feel empowered, but others may feel they are giving up campus space and a preferred role. Such campus changes must be carried out with care and sensitivity so that a decision designed to facilitate diversity does not breed resentment. While working with campus chaplains can be an effective way to assist religious minority students, at some campuses a religious minority group may not have the resources of a campus center and a full-time professional religious leader. For example, at the University of Maryland, a search for religious student organizations yields a list of 58 groups (University of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 367

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

368

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Maryland, n.d.c), but the University’s Memorial Chapel webpage lists just 14 recognized chaplaincies (University of Maryland, n.d.b). Like other campuses, the University of Maryland also offers resources for interfaith programs and spiritual diversity through the Office of Multicultural Involvement and Community Advocacy (University of Maryland, n.d.a). Some institutions have more than one campus ministers’ organization. For example, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2014) has a Campus Ministers’ Association and an Evangelical Campus Ministries Association. The members of the Campus Ministers’ Association represent a wide range of faiths, majority and minority. Evangelical Campus Ministries is made up predominantly of representatives from nondenominational Christian organizations. An unusually broad approach is taken at Georgetown University. Georgetown is a Jesuit institution with a wide-ranging single campus ministry structure that includes Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant chaplains and student organizations, as well as an interfaith coordinator (Georgetown University, n.d.a). In 1968 Georgetown became the first Catholic university to employ a full-time rabbi (Georgetown University, n.d.c), and later became the first to appoint a full-time Muslim chaplain (Georgetown University, n.d.b). Additionally, as a reflection of the broadening understanding of spirituality on campus, the campus ministry website menu for Many Faiths, One Georgetown also includes pages for Humanist/ None/Unaffiliated (Georgetown University, n.d.a). Spirituality is another framework used by some campus administrators to address this dimension of their students’ lives. At Bowling Green State University, spiritual growth is one of the core values in the institution’s statement of mission; the focus is not on any specific belief system but rather on the nature of spiritual questions in the lives and development of students (Strange, 2000). Such questions focus on self-definition and understanding, relationships with others, and purpose and direction. This emphasis on helping students to ask themselves the right questions and search for their own answers reflects the best of what we know about effective teaching and learning. Using a spirituality framework can also offer nonreligious students a way to explore questions of meaning and purpose without asking them to do so in an overtly religious context.

Policies and Privilege The question of religious privilege on campus is one that has only lately been acknowledged. It is important to recognize the presence and effects of religious privilege; to address the plurality administratively, in the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 368

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

369

classroom, and in the cocurriculum; and to assist students in their awareness and responses to increasing diversity as well. As Fried (2007) pointed out, “Christian perspectives and practices are generally so embedded in institutional policies and practices that many people do not even pause to reflect on them, particularly if those policies and practices embody the beliefs of the dominant culture” (p. 3). As mentioned previously, most academic calendars are arranged so that Christian students are on break for Christmas and can, if they choose, celebrate with their families, but Jewish students may have final exams during Hanukkah. Other examples are more subtle; while many perceive traditions like Christmas trees and Secret Santa exchanges to have become secularized, non-Christian students may be acutely aware of their connections to a holiday that they do not recognize and in which they do not choose to participate. Similarly, even when a “nondenominational” prayer or invocation is used, as may be true at commencement ceremonies or in pregame locker rooms, the general form of it is typically Christian (Seifert, 2007). Such practices can be alienating to students whose faith traditions are different and to those who do not identify with a religion. Fried (2007) asserted that to have effective discussions of religious privilege, participants must commit to moving beyond dualistic ideas about religious truths and toward a focus on understanding other perspectives without judging them. Campus administrators should critically review policies and processes to identify areas that privilege one set of religious practices and thereby disadvantage others, or ignore the experiences of students without religious affiliation. For example, scheduling of campus events should take all religious observances into consideration, avoiding such conflicts whenever possible. Policies related to housing requirements, residence hall schedules, dining plans, and mealtimes should be reviewed for their effects on students from all faiths. Campuses should have unambiguous and well-disseminated statements related to their support for diverse religious practices and their intolerance for any discrimination, with clear information about where students can go for assistance. Further, faculty, academic administrators, and student affairs professionals alike must work, in and outside the classroom, to increase knowledge of differences and trust between groups so that authentic and productive dialogue can occur and the negative effects of privilege on religious minorities can be minimized. All those working with students can encourage them to reflect on their own multiple identities, including those related to religion or spirituality, and to consider the ways they interact with others who are different from themselves. Similarly, we must take care not to make assumptions about which of our students’ identities may be most salient for them, particularly for those in traditionally marginalized groups (Jones & McEwen, 2000).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 369

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

370

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Conclusion From the earliest days of U.S. higher education, religion has been an issue in and out of the classroom. The common thread through all the best practices described in this chapter is that at an institutional level they create space for religious variety and recognize the breadth of religious faith and spirituality that exists on the modern campus. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, our institutions have made significant progress in establishing racial and ethnic diversity as an expectation and positive value on campus; we must also focus on creating campuses that expect and value religious diversity and pluralism (Stamm, 2006). Patel (2007) echoed this perspective, noting, The American campus is a unique space. It gathers people from small towns and big cities, superpower nations and countries who can barely feed their own population; it manages to encourage both identity commitment and pluralist community; it values both individual freedom and contribution to the common good. Its experience with addressing the issue of race, while far from a perfect parallel, might well provide some clues, and some mistakes to avoid, regarding how to engage religious diversity in a way that impacts individual campuses, the broader system of higher education, the country we live in, and perhaps even the world. (p. 5)

We know that our students are concerned about matters of religious faith, spirituality, purpose, and meaning in their lives. They report that “their campuses feel inclusive of many faiths . . . but only 3 percent of students say they actually participate frequently in interfaith programming on campus” (New, 2015, para. 1). As we work to create campuses that support their learning and development, we must also work to create campus communities that understand that religion and spirituality are to be embraced rather than shied away from, understood rather than feared, and discussed rather than ignored.

Discussion Questions 1. What are the religious demographics of your institution? How easy or difficult is it to find this information? What do you know about your students’ spirituality? 2. How do you identify religious minority students on your campus? What do you know about their experiences on your campus? How do you know it?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 370

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

371

3. Do you, or does your institution, intentionally address issues of spirituality and faith with students? Why or why not? 4. How are religion and spirituality reflected in discussions or training related to diversity at your institution? How does the institution recognize and communicate about non-Christian holidays? If these issues are not currently being addressed on your campus, how could you begin to raise them? 5. What is the relationship between the institution and various campus ministries and campus ministers’ organizations? If a formal organization exists, what are the organization’s criteria for membership? How are students from denominations where there is no designated campus minister referred or directed? If no formal organization exists, how is this relationship between the institution and ministers manifested? 6. For those at private sectarian institutions, what is the role of religion and spirituality on your campus with respect to those who are not of your sponsoring denomination’s faith? Is there a relationship with campus ministers from other faiths who work with students not of the institution’s faith? How is the role of religion presented to prospective students and their families? 7. What kinds of opportunities for interfaith dialogue does your institution offer? How are they publicized? 8. How can you contribute to the creation of an institution that is free of religious discrimination and harassment, and open to religious and spiritual expression?

Useful Web Resources The following list provides websites of national organizations for several religious groups’ college programs, sites for researching religious issues, and sites for various national organizations for campus chaplains and ministers. • • • • •

Association for Christians in Student Development: www.acsd.org Catholic Campus Ministry Association: www.ccmanet.org Hillel International: www.hillel.org Hindu Students Council: www.hindustudentscouncil.org Jesuit Association of Student Personnel Administrators: www.jesuit studentaffairs.org • Muslim Students Association: msanational.org/old • National Association of College and University Chaplains: www.nacuc .net

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 371

7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

372

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

• National Campus Ministry Association: www.campusministry.net • The Pluralism Project at Harvard University: www.pluralism.org

References Abes, E. S., & Kasch, D. (2007). Using queer theory to explore lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 619–636. Adams, M., & Joshi, K. Y. (2010). Religious oppression: Introduction. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 227–234). New York, NY: Routledge. Anson, J. L., & Marchesani, R. A. (Eds.) (1998). Baird’s manual of American college fraternities. Indianapolis, IN: Baird’s Manual Foundation. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Lindholm, J. A., Bryant, A. N., Calderon, S., & Szelenyi, K. (2005). The spiritual life of college students: A national study of college students’ search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Boston College. (2014a). About campus ministry. Retrieved from www.bc.edu/ offices/ministry/aboutcm.html Boston College. (2014b). Multi-faith center. Retrieved from www.bc.edu/offices/ ministry/interfaith/66comm.html Bowman, N. A., & Small, J. L. (2012). Exploring a hidden form of minority status: College students’ religious affiliation and well-being. Journal of College Student Development, 53(4), 491–509. Brandeis University. (2015). About Brandeis: Defining Brandeis. Retrieved from www .brandeis.edu/about/defining.html Brandenberger, J. W., & Bowman, N. A. (2013). From faith to compassion? Reciprocal influences of spirituality, religious commitment, and prosocial development during college. In A. B. Rockenbach and M. J. Mayhew (Eds.), Spirituality in college students’ lives: Translating research into practice (pp. 121-137). New York, NY: Routledge. Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Bryant, A. N., Choi, J. Y., & Yasuno, M. (2003). Understanding the religious and spiritual dimensions of students’ lives in the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 723–745.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 372

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

373

Butler, J. (1989). An overview of religion on campus. In J. Butler (Ed.), Religion on campus (pp. 3–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Campus Ministry Association. (n.d.). Campus Ministry Association at the University of Georgia. Retrieved from www.uga.edu/cma/ Campus Ministry Association. (2012). Covenant & code of ethics of the Campus Ministry Association at the University of Georgia. Retrieved from cma.uga.edu/shared/ files/cmacovenantandethics.pdf Catholic Campus Ministry Association. (2014). About: Who we are. Retrieved from www.ccmanet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153&Ite mid=187 Chalfant, H. P., Beckley, R. E., & Palmer, C. E. (1994). Religion in contemporary society. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Cherry, C., DeBerg, B. A., & Porterfield, A. (2001). Religion on campus. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Chickering, A. (2006, November). Strengthening spirituality and civic engagement in higher education. Journal of College and Character, 8(1). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1153 Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS professional standards for higher education (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Dean, L. A., & Grandpré, E. A. (2011). Religious and spiritual diversity on campus. In M. Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multiculturalism on campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion (pp. 371–398). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). The American freshman: National norms, fall 2014. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Estanek, S. M. (2006). Redefining spirituality: A new discourse. College Student Journal, 40(2), 270–281. Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2013). Sunni-Muslim American religious development during emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 690–714. Fowler, S. (2014, October 6). Swastikas drawn on AEPi walls. Emory Wheel. Retrieved from emorywheel.com/swastikas-drawn-on-aepi-walls/ Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Freedman, J. O. (2000, December 1). Ghosts of the past: Anti-Semitism at elite colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, B7. Fried, J. (2007, September). Thinking skillfully and respecting difference: Understanding religious privilege on campus. Journal of College and Character, 9(1). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1103 Georgetown University. (n.d.a). Many faiths, one Georgetown. Retrieved from campusministry.georgetown.edu/interfaith Georgetown University. (n.d.b). Campus ministry: Muslim life at Georgetown. Retrieved from campusministry.georgetown.edu/muslim

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 373

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

374

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Georgetown University. (n.d.c). Witness to history: Alumni stories. Retrieved from witnesstohistory.georgetown.edu/?p=428 HigherEdJobs. (2012) Religious affairs: Understanding interfaith on campus. Retrieved from www.higheredjobs.com/higheredcareers/interviews.cfm?ID=396&Title=Re ligious%20Affairs%3A%20%20Understanding%20Interfaith%20on%20 Campus Hillel. (2015). About Hillel. Retrieved from www.hillel.org/about Johns Hopkins University. (n.d.a). A word of caution. Retrieved from chaplain.john shopkins.edu/index.php/a-word-of-caution.html Johns Hopkins University. (n.d.b). Campus ministries. Retrieved from chaplain.john shopkins.edu/index.php/home.html Johns Hopkins University. (n.d.c). Interfaith Council. Retrieved from chaplain.john shopkins.edu/index.php/ifc.html Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–413. Kazanjian, V., & Laurence, P. (2007, November). The journey toward multifaith community on campus: The religious and spiritual life program at Wellesley College. Journal of College and Character, 9(2). doi:10.2202/19401639.1123 Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006, Winter). Spirituality, liberal learning, and college student engagement. Liberal Education, 40–47. Lindholm, J. A. (2007). Spirituality in the academy: Reintegrating our lives and the lives of our students. About Campus, 12(4), 10–17. Love, P., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 193–209. Low, C. A., & Handal, P. J. (1995). The relationship between religion and adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 36(5), 406–412. McMurtie, B. (1999, December 3). Pluralism and prayer under one roof. Chronicle of Higher Education, A48. McMurtie, B. (2001, November 9). For many Muslims, college is a balancing act. Chronicle of Higher Education, A55. Muslim Students Association. (n.d.). MSA map. Retrieved from msanational.org/ old/msa-map/ New, J. (2015, January 26). Interfaith interaction (or lack thereof ). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/26/few-studentsengage-regularly-campus-programming-promotes-religious-diversity 5 Orthodox Jews protest mixed-sex Yale housing. (1997, August 30). New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/1997/08/30/nyregion/5-orthodoxjews-protest-mixed-sex-yale-housing.html Parks, S. D. (1986). The critical years: The young adult search for a faith to live by. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 374

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

375

Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Patel, E. (2007, November). Religious diversity and cooperation on campus. Journal of College and Character, 9(2). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1120 Paulson, M. (2014, June 9). Colleges and evangelicals clash on bias policy. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us/colleges-and-evangeli cals-collide-on-bias-policy.html?_r=0 Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociology of Religion, 66(3), 215–242. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Santos, J. L., & Korn, W. S. (2007). The American freshman: Forty-year trends, 1966–2006. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles. Rockenbach, A. B., Walker, C. R., & Luzader, J. (2012). A phenomenological analysis of college students’ spiritual struggles. Journal of College Student Development, 53(1), 55–75. Rogers, J. L., & Dantley, M. E. (2001). Invoking the spiritual in campus life and leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 589–603. Rudolph, J. R. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Sanchez, D., & Carter, R. T. (2005). Exploring the relationship between racial identity and religious orientation among African American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 280–295. Seggie, F. N., & Austin, A. E. (2010). Impact of the headscarf ban policy on the identity development of part-time unveilers in Turkish higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 564-583. Seifert, T. (2007). Understanding Christian privilege: Managing the tensions of spiritual plurality. About Campus, 12(2), 10–17. Smith, T. W. (2006). Taking America’s Pulse III: Intergroup relations in contemporary America. New York, NY: National Council for Community and Justice. Stamm, L. (2006). The dynamics of spirituality and the religious experience. In A. W. Chickering, J. C. Dalton, & L. Stamm (Eds.), Encouraging authenticity and spirituality in higher education (pp. 37–65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Strange, C. (2000, June). Spirituality at state: Private journeys and public visions. Journal of College and Character, 1(3). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1273 Strange, C., & Alston, L. (1998). Voicing differences: Encouraging multicultural learning. Journal of College Student Development, 39(1), 1–13. Tisdell, E. J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. University of Maryland. (n.d.a). Interfaith programs and spiritual diversity. Retrieved from thestamp.umd.edu/multicultural_involvement_community_advocacy/stu dent_involvement_areas/interfaith_programs_and_spiritual_diversity

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 375

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

376

INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

University of Maryland. (n.d.b). Memorial Chapel: Chaplains. Retrieved from thestamp.umd.edu/memorial_chapel/chaplains University of Maryland. (n.d.c). ORGSYNC.UMD.EDU. Retrieved from orgsync .umd.edu/browse_student_organizations University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (2014). 2014–2015 undergraduate bulletin: Religious activities. Retrieved from www.unc.edu/ugradbulletin/facilities. html#religious University of Richmond Chaplaincy. (2015). Chaplaincy: History. Retrieved from chaplaincy.richmond.edu/about/history.html University of Richmond Wilton Center. (2015). Wilton Center. Retrieved from chaplaincy.richmond.edu/about/wilton-center.html University of Virginia. (2015). @UVa: Organizations directory. Retrieved from atuva .student.virginia.edu/Organizations Weddle-West, K., Hagan, W. J., & Norwood, K. M. (2013). Impact of college environments on the spiritual development of African American students. Journal of College Student Development, 54(3), 299–314. Wellesley College. (n.d.). Religious life: Meet the team. Retrieved from www.wellesley .edu/religiouslife/meet_the_team

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 376

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

PA RT T H R E E CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS O F C U LT U R A L C O M P E T E N C E

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 377

10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 378

10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

17 F R O M C U LT U R A L COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS Creating Inclusive Campus Environments Chris Linder and Diane L. Cooper

O

ver the past two decades, scholarship about equity and inclusion in student affairs has grown exponentially. A review of scholarly literature in higher education and student affairs indicates a strong commitment to creating campus environments that are welcoming and inclusive for all students. Scholars have explored the ways students from underrepresented groups experience campus environments (e.g., Harper, 2008; Museus & Jayakumar, 2012), persist to graduation (e.g., Braxton et al., 2014; Palmer, Wood, Dancy, & Strayhorn, 2014; Strayhorn, 2012), and grow and develop over their time in college (e.g., Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010; Jones & Abes, 2013). Additionally, scholarship about engaging students from dominant groups in equity and inclusion work has also grown. For example, scholars have examined ally development among college students (e.g., Broido, 2000; Edwards, 2006); engaging men as allies in addressing sexism and sexual assault (e.g., Barone, Wolgemuth, & Linder, 2007; Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, & Stark, 2003); heterosexual students as allies to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) students (e.g., Evans & Broido, 2005; Goldstein & Davis, 2010); and White students in addressing racism on campuses (e.g., Alimo, 2012; Linder, 2015; Reason, Roosa Millar, & Scales, 2005). Studies about campus climates for women and students of Color began emerging in the 1980s and 1990s, highlighting the ways in which women and students of Color experienced a “chilly” climate on campus. Early studies indicated that women and students of Color experienced overt racism and sexism as well as more covert invisibility, minimization, or invalidation 379

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 379

10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

380

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

(Hall & Sandler, 1982; Hurtado, 1992). In the 1990s and 2000s, scholarship on the experiences of lesbian and gay students grew, highlighting homophobia and heterosexism on campuses (Rankin, 2003; Wall & Evans, 1999). Most of this scholarship related to persistence and retention of students from historically marginalized groups. Additionally, scholarship about the identity development of historically underrepresented groups also emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and has continued to grow in recent years (see Cass, 1979; Cross, 1991; D’Augelli, 1994; Gilligan, 1982; Helms, 1990). In addition to the explosion of scholarship about equity and inclusion in student affairs, attention to current national and international events— including police brutality toward people of Color, violence toward trans* people, and sexual assault on campus—amplifies the importance of equity and inclusion work on college campuses. Students and student affairs educators, including faculty and practitioners, navigate complex and dangerous experiences with racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and transphobia. Additionally, students and student affairs educators must also manage the pain and exhaustion they experience as a result of oppression. Addressing racial battle fatigue, secondary trauma, and compassion fatigue becomes an important strategy for student affairs educators related to equity and inclusion work. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an opportunity for readers to consider strategies for engaging in critically conscious work on our campuses with students. In this book, a variety of authors examined the culturally specific experiences of student populations, and in this chapter we seek to provide a framework through which student affairs educators and others on campus might consider integrating this information in their work. We describe multicultural competence and critical consciousness, then highlight strategies for student affairs educators to engage in critical consciousness. Finally, throughout this chapter we note resources that may be helpful for student affairs educators, faculty, and staff related to equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts.

Multicultural Competence and Critical Consciousness Multicultural competence, frequently discussed as a core competency in student affairs graduate preparation programs, includes “the awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to work with others who are culturally different from self ” (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004, p. 14). Emphasizing the importance of knowledge and skills, multicultural competence also relies on awareness of cultural differences that is based on acquired knowledge about

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 380

10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

381

cultures—one’s own and others’. However, student populations are constantly changing, and attempting to memorize a set body of knowledge about various student cultures may lead to further marginalization and oppression. For example, if student affairs educators “know” or have learned somewhere in their quest for multicultural competence that Asian students come from collectivist cultures that value indirect communication, they may unintentionally perpetuate marginalization by assuming that all Asian students have the same needs and communicating differently with Asian students than with other students. Critical consciousness advances multicultural competence by requiring educators to stay critically engaged, understanding the complex ways in which power, context, and constantly shifting identities influence ways students experience campus environments. Requiring educators to understand themselves, their experiences, and ways to engage in action related to social change rather than just understanding those who are different from themselves, critical consciousness pushes on educators to move beyond competence to continued engagement. As defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, competence is the ability to do something well. So at minimum, multicultural competence represents an expectation for student affairs educators to effectively support and engage students from a variety of backgrounds. As leaders in the area of inclusion and equity (ACPA/NASPA, 2015), student affairs educators must do more than be competent; we must engage in critical consciousness through an ongoing commitment to critical analysis and socially just education. Developing and using a critical consciousness to name and challenge power dynamics in campus policies, practices, and individual interactions will contribute to more inclusive campuses for students from all backgrounds. Discussions of cultural competence in the field of student affairs have evolved over time. Beginning with notions of “diversity,” early work focused on teaching educators from dominant groups about students from historically underrepresented groups (Landerman & MacDonald-Dennis, 2013). Diversity trainings often included descriptions and generalizations for practitioners to consider about underrepresented groups on campus. Eventually, this evolved into “multicultural education,” which focused on exploring similarities and differences among student populations, with a heavy emphasis on discovering commonalities so that people could connect with one another (Landerman & MacDonald-Dennis, 2013). In the late 1990s, the term social justice emerged in education, highlighting the ways in which power, privilege, and oppression influenced educational institutions and social interactions. Social justice reflects “both a process and a goal” (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997, p. 3), by emphasizing the ongoing nature of equity and

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 381

10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

382

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

inclusion work. As discussed in more detail later in this chapter, approaching social justice from individual, institutional, and societal levels of privilege and oppression allows for a more complex view of equity and inclusion in higher education and student affairs. Critical consciousness builds on social justice to advance the personal nature of equity and inclusion work. In order to effectively address issues of power, privilege, and oppression, student affairs educators and others on campus must engage in critical consciousness. Student affairs educators who have become more critically conscious engage in ongoing awareness of social issues impacting students and colleagues and an awareness of how their own perspectives and experiences inform their approaches to student affairs work. Critical consciousness pushes student affairs educators, faculty, and staff to approach equity and inclusion work holistically, continually reflecting on the role of power in campus environments, cultures, and policies.

Strategies for Developing Critical Consciousness Several strategies may assist student affairs educators in moving beyond cultural competence to critical consciousness. In this section, we highlight the role of intersectionality in critically conscious student affairs work and examine Hackman’s (2005) essential components for social justice education. Finally, we provide suggestions and tools for ongoing development related to critical consciousness.

Intersectional Framework Throughout this text, we have attempted to integrate a framework of intersectionality, highlighting the ways in which students experience multiple identities at once and how the salience of those identities shift depending on the context in which they find themselves. An intersectional framework also includes a focus on power and oppression, highlighting various methods by which power influences the ways people experience their identities (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). As explored in more depth in Chapter 4, students may experience a dominant identity differently based on the intersection of a subordinated identity or the reverse. For example, a man of Color may struggle to recognize his male privilege because the racism he experiences may seem to mitigate privileges he experiences as a man. Similarly, White working-class students may struggle to understand their White privilege because they experience classism on a regular basis. Intersectionality assists educators in understanding how subordinated and dominant identities mediate each other. For instance, recent incidents

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 382

10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

383

of violence directed toward people of Color and trans* people illustrate the complex intersection of identities of trans* people of Color. Trans* people of Color frequently live in fear of violence perpetuated by people in authority roles (police) as well as peers, family members, and other individuals in their immediate environments. Trans* students of Color on our campuses are likely acutely aware of these experiences, even though the majority of incidents of violence that receive attention in the media happen in the broader community rather than on campus. Thus, trans* students of Color may struggle to have their experiences understood in trans* communities lacking a racial consciousness or in communities of Color lacking any awareness about the oppression trans* students face. Some student affairs scholarship has begun to address the complexities of intersectionality in campus environments. For example, the model of multiple dimensions of identity (MMDI; Jones & McEwen, 2000) describes ways that students may experience identity salience differently in different contexts, which illustrates the importance of context in an intersectional framework. Identity salience refers to the idea of the significance or presence of a particular identity for a person (Jones & McEwen, 2000). Similar to the examples just presented, experiences of queer students of Color may help to illustrate this point (Linder & Rodriguez, 2012). Queer students of Color frequently report feeling invisible in LGBT offices and student organizations because of their racialized queer experiences. Queer and LGBT organizing frequently ignores the complex intersections of race, gender, class, ability, and religion with queer identity. Students of Color report feeling as though activism related to LGBT and queer issues focuses on dominant identities, including maleness and Whiteness. Similarly, queer students of Color also report not feeling entirely welcome or comfortable in race-based organizations or offices because their sexual orientation is ignored, minimized, or invalidated (Linder & Rodriguez, 2012). Thus, their identity salience shifts depending on the context of their involvement. When participating in activities sponsored by an LGBT resource center, students of Color may experience their race as more salient because it is not the norm in that space. Critically conscious student affairs educators support students in being more intentional about recognizing the complex and intersecting identities of their peers and creating more inclusive campus environments. For example, student affairs educators may use the MMDI to facilitate workshops with students about their identity salience and facilitate discussions among students about their individual and shared experiences. These discussions can support students in being more aware of how their experiences, power, and privilege inform their interactions in a space. For example, in identitybased centers, students may assume that they have a shared experience

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 383

10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

384

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

around the subordinated identity (e.g., sexual orientation, race, gender). However, students with multiple marginalized identities may not experience the identity-based center as a welcoming and inclusive space because their experiences at the intersection of two or more subordinated identities are ignored. Discussing various salient social identities may lead students to consider ways they experience spaces differently from their peers to contribute to more inclusive programming. Intersectionality contributes to a more nuanced understanding of critical consciousness and the significance of shifting power dynamics based on context. Staff development programs on campus should also provide ongoing education and training to student affairs educators, staff, and faculty related to understanding and honoring the multiple identities of our students. To promote an understanding of critical consciousness on a personal level, administrators need to acknowledge and address the power structures and policies in place that inhibit this shift in the academy. Just providing programming and services to students is not enough; administrators also need a venue to reflect and have difficult conversations in order to change campuses. Webinars (e.g., through ACPA, NASPA, as well as studentaffairs. com), theme-focused conferences (e.g., the NASPA Multicultural Institute; American Association of Colleges and Universities’ [AAC&U] Diversity, Learning, and Student Success: Assessing and Advancing Inclusive Excellence Conference), and a number of private diversity and social justice consulting organizations are available to provide additional staff development processes.

Essential Components of Social Justice Education A framework of essential components of social justice education (Hackman, 2005) provides a foundation for the strategies for critical consciousness included in this chapter. Grounded in social justice education, essential components include “1) content mastery, 2) tools for critical analysis, 3) tools for social change, 4) tools for personal reflection, and 5) an awareness of group dynamics” (Hackman, 2005, p. 104). The emphasis on tools for ongoing personal work sets this model apart from others focused on multicultural competence. Content mastery refers to the notion that people must have an awareness and knowledge of oppression and the ways in which it impacts people from a variety of backgrounds, including their own. Student affairs educators may gain knowledge about oppression in a variety of ways. Some may gain content mastery in coursework in undergraduate or graduate programs; hopefully this content mastery continues through ongoing efforts on the part of the student affairs educator to engage in professional development

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 384

10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

385

and continued learning. In addition to traditional methods for gaining new information (e.g., reading books, watching documentaries, keeping abreast of new research, and attending conferences), student affairs educators may also engage in virtual professional development through webinars, meetings, and other technologically supported avenues. However, mere possession of knowledge and awareness is not enough. Student affairs educators must know how to use that knowledge and information to improve practice and create more welcoming, inclusive environments for students. Tools for critical analysis, action and social change, and personal reflection (Hackman, 2005) all contribute to improved practice and ongoing personal development (Vaccaro, 2013). Tools for critical analysis are tools that help student affairs educators consider the role of power in all interactions. Asking questions like, “Who is not represented? How does this policy impact X group? What are we not considering? What are the power implications of this decision?” represent tools for critical analysis. Developing tools for action and social change requires student affairs educators to use their knowledge and skills to engage in action related to equity and inclusion. When people first begin to learn about power, privilege, and oppression, they may feel overwhelmed or incapable of responding (Linder, 2015). Tools for social change allow people to move through this inability to respond to oppression and work within their circles of influence to create change (Hackman, 2005). Too often, student affairs educators may feel unable to respond because they perceive themselves as powerless or expect people above them to address the issues they observe. Developing strategies for engaging in action and working within their circles of influence to create change results in more welcoming campus environments. Next, tools for personal reflection push student affairs educators to continue to explore their own experiences and to influence their interactions with others. Engaging in continual reflection about one’s social location (and its fluidity) and the ways social location influences their experiences is of vital importance for student affairs educators (Vaccaro, 2013). By understanding their own experiences and perspectives, they will be more effective at supporting students who share their identities and those who do not. Finally, awareness of group dynamics builds on all of these tools to ensure that student affairs educators are using a critical consciousness to observe dynamics in a space and consider ways social identities may affect interactions. For example, a student affairs educator may notice that in some meetings only the men or only the White people are contributing. Be aware of these dynamics so that more voices could be included in future conversations. By noticing and naming these behaviors in a space, student affairs educators may contribute to more people feeling invited to share,

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 385

10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

386

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

which ultimately results in more creative and innovative ideas. While all members of the campus community have a responsibility to engage in critical consciousness, student affairs educators should lead efforts toward critical consciousness on campuses. Collaborative activities with faculty and other administrators should focus on social justice issues, moving toward critical consciousness in policy development, as well as changing classroom environments based on developing an understanding of power and privilege.

Strategies and Resources Several strategies and resources exist for student affairs educators interested in continuing to develop critical consciousness and inclusive campus environments. Additionally, we provide suggestions of resources where student affairs educators may gain additional information on these topics. Continually work to make the unconscious conscious. As highlighted previously, asking questions about who is and who is not included in a variety of campus spaces remains important. Additionally, asking questions about the intended and unintended consequences of various policies warrants increased attention. As student affairs educators consider these questions, they contribute to an environment in which unconscious bias becomes conscious, resulting in more intentionally inclusive spaces, as highlighted in Chapter 3 of this text. Additionally, student affairs educators must continually work to understand their own identities and experiences and how those inform their behaviors. For example, student affairs educators who come from relatively economically privileged backgrounds may unintentionally assume that students may be able to pay even small fees for campus activities and events. As those student affairs educators interact more with students or colleagues from working-class backgrounds, they may become more aware of the challenges facing students with less access to money, including the shame that often accompanies not being able to afford something that seems relatively small. As this awareness becomes more conscious, these student affairs educators may consider and encourage student programmers to consider alternatives to charging students for a variety of activities. Create identity-explicit, not identity-exclusive, spaces. As highlighted previously, using an intersectional framework to explore the experiences of students from a variety of social identities is important. No space can be all things to all people; however, it is vitally important to be clear about what a space is designed to do and what it is not. For example, an LGBT center is designed to examine and support the experiences of LGBT students.

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 386

10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

387

The missions of these centers should be explicit and intentional; however, that does not mean the missions should be exclusive. An LGBT center mission may be explicit about a focus on sexual orientation without excluding the experiences of students with additional social identities. For example, an LGBT resource center and a multicultural office may partner to effectively and intentionally support students through an intersectional lens by organizing a group designed for LGBT students of Color. This is one strategy for encouraging people to stay engaged and aware of the ways in which multiple and intersectional identities influence students’ experiences, which will ultimately lead to more inclusive programming through those offices. Approach work from a “yes, and . . .” perspective. Critically conscious student affairs educators must learn to approach their work from “yes, and . . .” perspectives. Too often, student affairs educators see their work as a zerosum game, assuming that creating opportunities for one group of students automatically takes away from opportunities for other groups of students. The dominant narrative around inclusion often implies that naming and highlighting the experiences of one group of students results in ignoring or minimizing other students. For example, when student activists advocate for gender-neutral restrooms, some cisgender students may feel threatened or uncomfortable with the idea of nonbinary gender spaces. However, upon further reflection and discussion, cisgender students may recognize that, in fact, gender-neutral restrooms not only provide safety for trans* people but also support people with children or people who care for disabled individuals and need restrooms where people of different genders may enter at the same time. Similarly, in relation to the intersectional frame, simultaneously validating students’ experiences with subordination and privilege warrants increased attention. Student affairs educators engaged in critical consciousness have a responsibility to push students to understand their privilege in addition to their experiences with oppression. For example, as men of Color often see themselves subordinated because they compare themselves to White men, asking them to consider how their experiences may be different from their women of Color peers may assist them in recognizing their male privilege. This is a “yes, and . . .” perspective. Yes, you experience oppression as a person of Color, and you may experience some privilege in your male identity. Address racial battle fatigue, compassion fatigue, and vicarious trauma. Student affairs educators play an important supportive role in students’ lives. Similar to counseling, student affairs is a helping profession, yet most student affairs educators do not receive the same kind of structured, intentional supervision as counselors to help process and manage

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 387

10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

388

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

their own feelings related to supporting students in crisis. Many student affairs educators engage in work specifically related to their own subordinated social identities and do not always find support for navigating the associated challenges. For example, staff in multicultural centers frequently identify as people of Color and manage their own experiences with racism as they attempt to support students navigating racism. Racial battle fatigue—exhaustion based on experiencing and addressing racism—may ensue for these staff members (Smith, Allen, & Danley, 2007). Similarly, women’s center staff members frequently identify as women and manage their own experiences with sexism at the same time they are attempting to support students in navigating experiences with sexism. Even staff who do not directly experience the same oppression as the students they support may experience compassion fatigue or vicarious trauma as a result of supporting students. Student affairs educators must find ways to care for themselves and create support systems for processing experiences related to their own and students’ experiences with oppression. For example, student affairs educators may seek counseling or opportunities to connect with people with similar identities and experiences through community groups and organizations. Additionally, supervisors of staff consistently engaged in work related to oppression, power, and privilege must encourage and support staff in practicing self-care. For example, supervisors may process intense emotional events with their staff members or bring an outside facilitator to process the events. Further, supervisors can require staff to take time away for selfcare, or support them in doing so, including time for counseling during work hours. Stay abreast of current issues. Most of the strategies presented previously represent an ongoing focus on self-awareness. To support the content mastery component of Hackman’s (2005) model, it is important for student affairs educators to stay abreast of current issues in the field of student affairs and in society at large. Educators can engage in professional development on their campuses, attend regional or national conferences, participate in webinars, and read current literature in student affairs. The increase in effectiveness of technology contributes to student affairs professionals’ ability to connect with each other and access resources. In addition to current issues in student affairs, educators must also pay attention to current events nationally and internationally. Students and student affairs educators do not live in a bubble isolated from the rest of the world. Current events have a significant impact on students’ experiences, and staying aware is an important strategy for student affairs educators in creating inclusive campus environments. One possibility is beginning student staff

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 388

10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

389

meetings or student organization meetings with a check in about current events and how they are affecting students. This provides an opportunity for student affairs educators to learn from students and to better understand how they are navigating the complicated realties of the world. Exploring current events and their impact on students may also contribute to ongoing dialogue among students, facilitating an increase in self-awareness and considering the influence of outside events of which some students may be otherwise unaware. Additionally, student affairs educators may find it beneficial to collaborate with community and civic leaders in these endeavors. Engaging in community relationships in urban, suburban, and rural areas in which colleges and universities are located contributes to a deeper understanding of the ways current issues influence the community immediately surrounding the campus. Such partnerships could result in opportunities for students and staff to contribute to important social change work in communities beyond campus. Seek out critically conscious communities. People are more likely to engage in activism and social change when supported by communities of shared values (Linder, 2011). Although student affairs educators committed to developing a critical consciousness should not isolate themselves into communities of only people who share their values, developing and maintaining relationships with people who challenge and support them in addressing issues of oppression remain vital. Ongoing personal and professional development requires support from a variety of people. Engaging in intra- and interidentity discussions may contribute to a more holistic understanding of one’s self (Robbins & Jones, 2015). People need to find spaces to engage in discussion across different social identities to learn and better understand others’ experiences. For example, engaging in intragroup discussions, or discussions around privileged or dominant identities, may result in people having a better understanding of their own experiences. Engaging in White racial caucuses may result in White individuals having a place to process White privilege and their roles in addressing racism. The specific strategies highlighted here contribute to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of critical consciousness in student affairs work. The concepts presented in this chapter and throughout this book extend beyond student affairs educators to other campus staff, faculty, and administrators, all of whom must be part of creating more inclusive environments for students. Systemic change can only occur when every member of the community is supported, valued, and able to present as his or her true self on safe campuses. Student affairs educators must lead these efforts.

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 389

10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

390

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

References ACPA/NASPA (2015, August). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators. Retrieved from www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_ Professional_Competencies_FINAL.pdf Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Routledge. Alimo, C. J. (2012, February). From dialogue to action: The impact of cross-race intergroup dialogue on the development of White college students as racial justice allies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 36–59. doi:10.1080/1066 5684.2012.643182 Barone, R. P., Wolgemuth, J. R., & Linder, C. (2007). Preventing sexual assault through engaging college men. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 585–594. Braxton, J. M., Doyle, W. R., Hartley, H. V., Hirschy, A. S., Jones, W. A., & McLendon, M. K. (2014). Rethinking college student retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Broido, E. M. (2000). The development of social justice allies during college: A phenomenological investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 3–18. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African American identity development. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Edwards, K. E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally development: A conceptual model. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 39–60. Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (2005). Encouraging the development of social justice attitudes and actions in heterosexual students. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(110), 43–54. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D. & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fabiano, P., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003). Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52(3), 105–112. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldstein, S. B., & Davis, D. S. (2010). Heterosexual allies: A descriptive profile. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(4), 478–494.

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 390

10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS Editors Diane L. Cooper is a Distinguished Research Mentor for the College of Education and professor of college student affairs administration in the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services at the University of Georgia. She served for eight years as a student affairs professional at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro before joining the faculty in student development at Appalachian State University from 1992 to 1995. Cooper served for six years as the editor of the College Student Affairs Journal and is currently the cochair of Books and Media for ACPA. She is coauthor of several books, including Identity Development of Diverse Populations: Implications for Teaching and Practice in Higher Education and Learning Through Supervised Practice in Student Affairs: Enhancing Internship and Practica Experiences (Routledge, 2015). Her research interests are in supervised practice, program design and assessment, and integrity issues in student affairs practice. Michael J. Cuyjet is professor emeritus at the University of Louisville where he taught and mentored students in the College Student Personnel Program from 1993 to 2014. Prior to that, he served 21 years as a student affairs professional at Northern Illinois University and at the University of Maryland-College Park. During his 21 years at the University of Louisville, he also served as associate dean of the graduate school and acting associate provost for student life and development. Since retirement, he has served as a Fulbright Specialist and as contributing opinions and perspectives editor for the Journal of College and Character. His research focus includes underrepresented college student populations, particularly African American males. In addition to serving as coeditor of the first edition of Multiculturalism on Campus: Theory, Models, and Practices for Understanding Diversity and Creating Inclusion (Stylus, 2011), he was editor of African American Men in College (Jossey-Bass, 2006) and a coauthor of the How Minority Students Experience College: Implications for Planning and Policy (Stylus, 2002). He has edited two other books, including Helping African American Men Succeed in College: New Directions for Student Services, Number 80 (Jossey-Bass, 1997); published more than 25 journal articles or book chapters; and has made more than 120 presentations at national, international, and regional conferences. 393

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 393

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

394

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Mary F. Howard-Hamilton is a Distinguished Research Professor and coordinator of the higher education leadership program in the Bayh College of Education at Indiana State University. She received her bachelor of arts and master of arts degrees from the University of Iowa and a doctorate of education from North Carolina State University. She served as a higher education administrator for 15 years where her responsibilities included orientation, developmental education, judicial affairs, multicultural affairs, commuter life, and residence life. As a faculty member for 25 years, she taught courses at the University of Florida, Bowling Green State University, and Indiana University Bloomington where she was also associate dean for graduate studies in the Wright School of Education. Her areas of expertise are multicultural issues in higher education, student development theories, feminist theory and therapy, and consultation. She has published numerous articles and book chapters, and coauthored or coedited several books including Diverse Millennial Students in College: Implications for Faculty and Student Affairs (Stylus, 2011), Standing on the Outside Looking In: Underrepresented Students’ Experiences in Advanced Degree Programs (Stylus, 2009), and Unleashing Suppressed Voices on College Campuses: Diversity Issues in Higher Education (Peter Lang, 2007). Her honors include the Garcia Exemplary Scholarship Award from the Association for the Study of Higher Education’s Council on Ethnic Participation; the Robert Shaffer Award for Academic Excellence as a Graduate Faculty Member from NASPA; the University of Iowa’s Albert Hood Distinguished Alumni Award; and the Bayh College of Education, Holmstedt Distinguished Professorship Award. In 2015, she received the Indiana State University Presidential Medal for Exemplary Teaching and Scholarship and the Theodore Dreiser Distinguished Research/Creativity Award. Chris Linder is an assistant professor of college student affairs administration in the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services at the University of Georgia. Her research interests include inclusion in campus environments with a specific focus on race and gender. Additionally, she is interested in campus activism, social media, and ally identity development. Prior to becoming a faculty member, she served as a student affairs educator for 10 years with experience in fraternity and sorority life and campusbased women’s centers. Linder is a member of the Journal of College Student Development editorial board and associate editor of the College Student Affairs Journal. Additionally, she is coeditor on a forthcoming book critically examining the power and identity dynamics in campus sexual assault, Intersections of Identity and Sexual Violence on Campus: Centering Minoritized Students’ Experiences (Stylus, forthcoming).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 394

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

395

Contributors Philip D. Badaszewski serves as an assistant director of residence life for academic initiatives at the University of Pittsburgh. Previously, he worked for University Housing at the University of Georgia and The Ohio State University. He received his master’s in higher education and student affairs from The Ohio State University and his doctorate in college student affairs administration from the University of Georgia. Currently, he serves as a reviewer for the Journal of College and University Student Housing. His research interests include college men’s development, first-generation college students, and living-learning communities. LeManuel Lee Bitsóí (Navajo) is a critical ethnographer and bioethicist. He currently serves as director of student diversity and multicultural affairs at Rush University in Chicago. In addition, Bitsóí is the lead Native American scholar for an initiative focusing on men of Color under the auspices of The College Board. As an advocate for minority scientists and scholars, Bitsóí also served as the secretary for the board of directors for the Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Latinos and Native Americans in Science. Bitsóí earned a bachelor of science degree from the University of New Mexico, a master of education degree from Harvard University, and a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania. Bitsóí has devoted his career to enhancing opportunities for underrepresented minority students to become scientists and science educators. Tony W. Cawthon is an Alumni Distinguished Professor of student affairs and higher education at Clemson University. He began his faculty career at Clemson University in 1996 as program coordinator and department chair. Prior to beginning his faculty career, he worked as a student affairs administrator for over 15 years at Clemson University; Mississippi State University; and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His work as a student affairs professional was in university housing. He has written extensively in the areas of student affairs and higher education. He has presented nationally and internationally on numerous student and higher education issues. Specifically, his publications and presentations have been in the areas of career and professional development; new professional, student, and faculty issues; and student affairs administrative issues. He has published more than 35 journal articles and 16 book chapters, and he has made more than 120 national and regional presentations. Laura A. Dean is a professor in the college student affairs administration program at the University of Georgia. Prior to joining the faculty, she worked

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 395

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

396

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

at several small, religiously affiliated colleges, including serving for 10 years as senior student affairs officer. She is past president and former publications editor of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) and served for nearly 20 years as the CAS representative from the American College Counseling Association (ACCA), of which she is also past president. She has served on editorial boards for the College Student Affairs Journal and the Journal of College Counseling. Dean’s research interests include small college environments, the use of professional standards in student affairs, and program assessment and evaluation. Merrily S. Dunn is a faculty member and doctoral program coordinator for the college student affairs administration program at the University of Georgia where she has taught since 2001. Prior to her appointment at the University of Georgia, Dunn taught at Mississippi State University for eight years. She holds a doctorate in higher education administration from The Ohio State University, a master of science in higher education administration from Iowa State University, and a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Nebraska. Her work as a student affairs educator includes positions in student housing, judicial affairs, and women student services. She has served her profession through a number of positions and roles in ACPA-College Student Educators International, the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), the Southern Association for College Student Affairs (SACSA), and the Association for College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I). Dunn’s current research interests concentrate primarily on issues of social identity, poverty education, and parents of college students. Lamont A. Flowers is the Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership and the executive director of the Charles H. Houston Center for the Study of the Black Experience in Education in the Eugene T. Moore School of Education at Clemson University. Rosiline D. Floyd is the director of research and evaluation for Tindley Accelerated Schools Network, which operates the Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School, Tindley Preparatory Academy, Tindley Collegiate, Tindley Summit, and Arlington High School. She holds a BS in electrical engineering from Purdue University, an MBA from Indiana Wesleyan University, and a PhD in higher education leadership from Indiana State University. After several years in engineering sales, Floyd became a staunch education reform advocate committed to increasing high school and postsecondary graduation rates of students in Indiana. As a researcher she investigates

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 396

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

397

the role of race and gender on academic achievement and works with urban schools and postsecondary institutions as well as community-based and national organizations to develop intervention strategies including increasing cultural competencies, parental engagement, and community involvement. Floyd has presented nationally on issues of race and the achievement gap, success strategies for African American males, the importance of Black Greek Letter Organizations, and increasing educational outcomes in highperforming urban schools despite racism and poverty. She was a contributing author to the first edition of Multiculturalism on Campus (Stylus, 2011) and is an author in the forthcoming book, From the Projects to a Ph. D. and the BS in Between. Susana Hernández is an assistant professor in the higher education, administration, and leadership pathway in the Department of Educational Leadership at California State University, Fresno. She earned two bachelor’s degrees from the University of California, Irvine; a master’s degree in counseling with an emphasis in student development in higher education at California State University, Long Beach; and her doctoral degree from Iowa State University. Her published work has examined in-state resident tuition policies that affect undocumented students as well as how federal policy discursively shapes Latino educational opportunity and equity. Currently, she is examining colleges and universities designated as Hispanic-serving institutions and how they advance Latino educational opportunity and student success. Kandace G. Hinton is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership’s higher education leadership program at Indiana State University. Hinton holds a master’s and doctoral degree in higher education administration from Indiana University and a bachelor of arts degree from Jackson State University. Her research interests are African American women in higher education, multicultural identity development, and institutional support of community-based programs. Hinton has created a theoretical model that describes African American women’s professional development, and her teaching areas include the history of higher education, philosophy of education, academic leadership, ethics, and college student development and diversity. She is the coeditor of Unleashing Suppressed Voices on College Campuses: Diversity Issues in Higher Education and Student Affairs (Peter Lang, 2007). Other publications include “Student Affairs: An Historical Perspective” in Rentz’s Student Affairs Practice in Higher Education (Charles Thomas, 2016), “The Ties That Bind: Pathways to Student Affairs and Academic Affairs Administration” in Pathways to Higher Education Administration for African American Women (Stylus, 2012), “Mentoring” in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 397

7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

398

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Standing on the Outside Looking In: Underrepresented Students’ Experiences in Advanced-Degree Programs (Stylus, 2009), and numerous other book chapters. Hinton won the Reitzel Faculty Research Award in 2008 and the Holmstedt Dissertation of the Year Award in 2001. Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero is an assistant professor in higher education and student affairs at The Ohio State University. He received a PhD in education from the University of California, Los Angeles after working in multicultural affairs units across several institutions, including the University of Arizona and New York University. Johnston-Guerrero’s research interests focus on diversity and social justice issues in higher education and student affairs, with specific attention to advancing and nuancing understandings of multiraciality. He regularly presents on multiracial topics at the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity (NCORE) and the Critical Mixed Race Studies conference. Johnston-Guerrero has served on the editorial boards of Journal of College Student Development and Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. Karen S. Kalivoda is director of the Disability Resource Center and of University Testing Services and is an adjunct faculty member for the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services at the University of Georgia. Director of the Disability Resource Center since 1985, she has guided it to dramatic growth. As the primary university resource for disability-related concerns, Kalivoda’s expertise has been instrumental in the university’s response to the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 2004, she became director of University Testing Services, where she manages the administration of numerous examinations for the campus and wider communities. Kalivoda leads the Disability Resource Center’s efforts to increase private support for scholarships and leadership programs for students with disabilities at the University of Georgia. She is published in regional and national journals and presents at the state, national, and international levels. Dena R. Kniess is an assistant professor in the college student affairs program at Eastern Illinois University. Prior to joining the faculty, she worked for 11 years as a student affairs professional in residence life and new student programs. She is on the directorate for the Commission for Assessment and Evaluation for ACPA. Additionally, she serves on the editorial boards for the College Student Affairs Journal, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, and Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Kniess’ research interests include multicultural issues in student affairs, assessment, and retention.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 398

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

399

Fiona J. D. MacKinnon retired in 2008 as associate professor emeritus of higher education and student affairs and coordinator of the adult learner focus program at Bowling Green State University. At the time of her retirement, she was associate dean for student and academic services for the College of Education and Human Development. At Bowling Green State University, she served as chair of educational foundations and inquiry, chair of the faculty senate, and provost associate. She was the editor of Rentz’s Student Services in Higher Education (Charles Thomas, 2004) and is the author of the adult persistence in learning model, the focus of her research. In 1997 she received a Fulbright Award as senior scholar at Beijing Normal University, People’s Republic of China. MacKinnon’s career in higher education spanned 45 years; she served in every area of student affairs and university administration at Bowling Green State University, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, the University of Akron, Syracuse University, The Ohio State University, and Denison University. Darris R. Means is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services at the University of Georgia. Prior to joining the faculty, he worked as an administrator for a university-based college access and success program. His research focuses on diversity, equity, and inclusion in K–12 and higher education contexts. Specifically, his research focuses on three primary areas: (a) college access and persistence for students of Color, students with a financial need, and/or students with no family history of college; (b) the intersection of sexual orientation, race, and gender; and (c) critical theories and methodologies. His research manuscripts have been accepted (in print or in press) by several journals in higher education, including Journal of College Student Development, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, Journal of College Student Retention, and Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Jason L. Meriwether is the vice chancellor for enrollment management and student affairs at Indiana University Southeast. He has published on topics such as adult learning, student retention, digital media, and hazing prevention. A higher education and social media contributor for Socialnomics.net, Meriwether is a contributing author of What Happens on Campus Stays on YouTube (Equalman Studios, 2015). In 2014, he was selected to Louisville Business First’s Top Forty under 40 and as one of Business First’s 20 People to Know in Education and Workforce Development. In 2014, he was honored as Outstanding Kentuckian, and was commissioned to the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels. Meriwether completed the inaugural Academic Leadership Academy at The Pennsylvania State University Center for the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 399

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

400

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Study of Higher Education in 2011, earning a certificate. In 2016, he was named one of Southern Indiana Business Source’s 20 under 40. Meriwether earned his PhD in educational administration with a specialization in higher education leadership at Indiana State University. Anna M. Ortiz is professor and department chair of educational leadership at California State University, Long Beach. She teaches student development theory and qualitative research methods. She is coauthor of Ethnicity in College (Stylus, 2009); editor of Addressing the Unique Needs of Latino/a Students (JosseyBass, 2004); and author of numerous articles and book chapters on multicultural education, ethnic identity, Latinx and Native American students, and career issues for student affairs professional and faculty members. She earned her bachelor of science from the University of California, Davis; her master of arts from The Ohio State University; and her doctorate from the University of California, Los Angeles. She has served on the faculty of Michigan State University and is an active member of many higher education professional associations where she has served on editorial boards and in leadership positions. Leigh Ann Osborne is program director for exchanges and intercultural programs at Florida State University’s Center for Global Engagement. She has served in various roles within the field of international education for more than 15 years, including international student services and study abroad administration. She received a master of arts in education from the social foundations program at the University of Florida. Her thesis examined the history of international students at the University of Florida in the post– World War II era. Julie J. Park is assistant professor of education in student affairs in the Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research addresses race, diversity, and equity in higher education. She is the author of When Diversity Drops: Race, Religion, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education (Rutgers University Press, 2013), an examination of how universities are affected by bans on affirmative action. A research advisory board member for the National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education, she is widely published in academic journals, including the American Educational Research Journal, Journal of Higher Education, and Journal of College Student Development. Her work has also been featured in venues such as the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. OiYan A. Poon is an assistant professor of higher education at Loyola University Chicago. Her research interests include racial inequalities in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 400

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

401

college access, affirmative action and selective admission policies, and Asian Americans in higher education. In 2014, she received an Emerging Scholar Award from ACPA. Poon has been involved in advocacy, research, and institutional development efforts related to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in education for over a decade. Prior to earning her PhD in education with a certificate in Asian American studies from the University of California, Los Angeles, Poon was the first Asian Pacific American student affairs director at George Mason University and the first student affairs officer in Asian American studies at University of California, Davis. Kristen A. Renn is professor of higher, adult, and lifelong education and associate dean of undergraduate studies at Michigan State University. Previously, she was a dean in the Office of Student Life at Brown University for 10 years and a policy analyst for the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. Her research and teaching interests include college students and student development, particularly in the areas of mixed-race identities, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender issues, and student leaders in identity-based organizations. She conducts international research on women’s colleges and universities with a focus on their roles and status. Winner of the ACPA Contribution to Knowledge Award, she is also an ACPA Senior Scholar. Bettina C. Shuford is an associate vice chancellor for student affairs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She previously served as an assistant vice president for student affairs at Bowling Green State University and held positions in the Office of the Provost and the Center for Multicultural and Academic Initiatives on the same campus. She has supervised a wide range of areas in student affairs including student health; counseling; disability; career services; student union; orientation and parent programs; Campus Y; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer center; TRIO programs, and multicultural affairs. Other professional experiences have included positions in residence life, the dean of students office, and multicultural affairs at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She received her bachelor’s degree in psychology from North Carolina Central University, her master’s in guidance and counseling from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and her doctorate in higher education administration from Bowling Green State University. Her research interests, publications, and presentations have focused on functions in multicultural affairs offices, assessment of multicultural affairs programs, minority student development, and retention of students of Color, affirmative action, and African American women in student affairs.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 401

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

402

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Sevan G. Terzian is professor and associate director for graduate studies in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida where he teaches courses in the historical and philosophical foundations of education. Most of his published scholarship has addressed aspects of the history of twentieth century American education. His first book, Science Education and Citizenship: Fairs, Clubs, and Talent Searches for American Youth, 1918– 1958 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), traces the changing civic justifications for science education in the United States. Terzian also coedited American Education in Popular Media: From the Blackboard to the Silver Screen (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) with historical essays from leading scholars examining how mass magazines, radio, film, and television have represented schooling in the United States in the twentieth century. Kristin M. Walker is an associate director of analytics and initiatives at Clemson University’s Center for Career and Professional Development. Prior to working at Clemson, Walker received her bachelor of science in English from Radford University and taught high school English in the Washington, DC area. After seven years, she came to Clemson University to earn her MEd in counselor education and PhD in educational leadership. In addition to working in career services and serving as a national board member for her sorority, Alpha Sigma Tau, Walker teaches and coteaches master’s level courses in the counselor education program. Her research interests include career development, fraternity and sorority life, and underserved students. Martha E. Wisbey has worked for over 20 years in higher education. Currently in private practice as a licensed clinical social worker, she served in disability services as director and associate director for Florida State University and Emory University, respectively. She received her degrees from Miami University and the University of Georgia. Wiseby has been an administrator at several institutions in student affairs and served as an adjunct professor teaching courses in multicultural education, student development, social work, and counseling. Her research interests are in disability studies, student development theory, women’s identity development, and cultural diversity. She has published over 20 journal articles on disability, counseling, diversity awareness, women’s identity, student development theory, residence hall community development, and Greek life peer development.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 402

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

AAAN. See African American Academic Network AAFES. See Authentic, Action-oriented Framing for Environmental Shifts AAHHE. See American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education AANAPISI. See Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions AAPI. See Asian American and Pacific Islander AASP. See Asian American Studies Program AB540 Ally Programs, 95–96 academics, 147 acceptance in social identity development theory, 29 of students with disabilities, 332 accommodations and services, for students with disabilities, 331 acculturation, 173–74 Acevedo-Gil, N., 97 ACHA. See American College Health Association ACPA. See American College Personnel Association ACT. See American College Testing activism of AAPI students, 129–32 against sexual assault, 19, 264–65 over student debt, 19 for women’s rights, 258–59 ADA. See Americans with Disabilities Act ADAAA. See ADA Amendments Act

ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), 330 administrators, 13, 49, 51, 53 on African American students, 158 on faith and policy, 363–64 on gender issues, 270–71 international students and, 243–45 Native American students and, 178 against oppression, 26–27 on students with disabilities, 341 values from, 59–60 admissions applications, 296 at HBCUs, 189 adult college students, 309 biculturalism and, 321–22 at community colleges, 320 demographics of, 310–12 discussion questions about, 324 ecological systems approach to learning for, 318–20 institutional support for, 320–21 overview of, 313–16 persistence of, in learning model, 6, 316–17 recommendations about, 323–24 rethinking practice for, 321–23 the sequence of student educational services learning model for, 317 student affairs educators on, 320, 321–23 in twenty-first century, 312–13 Adult Ed Grows Up (Headden), 321 adult learner. See adult college students adult persistence in learning (APIL) model, 6, 316–17 affectional orientation, 279 affirmative action, 90, 91

403

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 403

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

404

INDEX

Asian Americans and, 119–23 selective colleges and, 121 African American Academic Network (AAAN), 154–55 African American Male Initiative, 152–54 African American students, 4–5. See also Black women biculturalism of, 179–80 case study about, 158–59 discrimination of, 141–42 discussion questions about, 159–60 enrollment of, 144–45, 151–52 faculty engagement with, 146 high-achieving, and stratification, 53–54 history of, in higher education, 142–45 identity development of, 145–51 programs for, 152–55 at PWIs, 144 recommendations for, 155–58 role models for, 145–46 segregation of, 143–44 spirituality and religion of, 157 student affairs educators and, 145–48 student-faculty engagement for, 146, 156–57 terminology about, 142 African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AME-Zion), 356 age, 6 AIM. See American Indian Movement ALD. See assistive listening devices alienation, 175 allies for LGBT students, 283 programs for, 95–96 terminology of, 222 for undocumented students, 95–96 White students as, 208, 223–24 Alschuler, A. S., 25, 26 alumni groups, 246

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 404

AMEA. See Association of MultiEthnic Americans American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education (AAHHE), 100–101 Faculty Fellows Program at, 101 Graduate Student Fellows at, 101 Perspectivas publication from, 101 American Civil Liberties Union, 281 American College Health Association (ACHA), 284–85 American College Personnel Association (ACPA), 225 American College Testing (ACT), 91 American Indian. See Native American students American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), 168 American Indian Movement (AIM), 181 American Jewish University, 354 American Medical Association, 282 American Psychiatric Association, 279, 281–82, 340 American Psychological Association, 281–82 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 6, 328, 329 AME-Zion. See African Methodist Episcopal Zion Amherst College, gender resources at, 269 Anglo culture, 94 antiracists. See allies Anzaldúa, Gloria E., 68 APIASF. See Asian Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund APIL. See adult persistence in learning APSU. See Asian Pacific Student Union architecture, as functional and symbolic, 42 Arizona State University, 295–96 Arthur, N., 236 artifacts, 44, 58–59

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

ASD. See autism spectrum disorders ASD College Transition and Support Program, 340 Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) program, 126, 132 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), students, 4, 115. See also Asian Americans; Pacific Islanders activism of, 129–32 challenges of, 125–26 class of, 124 college access for, 117–19 college pathways of, 117–19, 123–25, 130 counseling of, 126, 133 demographics of, 113 discussion questions about, 134 diversity of, 115–17 enrollment of, 115 ethnic identity development of, 126–29 financial aid for, 124–25 in Greek community, 130 lack of support for, 126 microaggressions toward, 125 panethnicities of, 113–15 population by ethnicity, 116–17 recommendations for educators of, 133 role models for, 125, 126 scholarships for, 132 stereotypes of, 51, 112 as undocumented students, 124–25 Asian Americans, 112–13, 173 affirmative action and, 119–23 stereotypes of, 117, 125–26 Asian Americans Educational Attainment by Selected Ethnicity, 120 Asian American Studies Program (AASP), 132 Asian invasion stereotype, 117

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 405

405

Asian Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund (APIASF), 132 Asian Pacific Islander Queers organization, 130 Asian Pacific Student Union (APSU), 132 assaults. See also sexual violence and sexual assault of international students, 245 assimilation of Latinxs, 93–94 of Native Americans, 167, 169 at PWIs, 49 assistive listening devices (ALD), 336–37 Association of MultiEthnic Americans (AMEA), 187 Astin, A. W., 359, 360 athletics discrimination of LGBT people in, 287–88 role models from, 199 values in, 60 Authentic, Action-oriented Framing for Environmental Shifts (AAFES), 16–17 autism spectrum disorders (ASD), 339–40, 342–44 BAASIC. See Boston Asian American Students Intercollegiate Coalition Badaszewski, Philip D., 5 Baird, W., 357 Baird’s Manual of College Fraternities (Baird), 357 Baker, Jack, 283 banking education model, deculturalization in, 24 Banks, Elnora, 37 Banning, J. H., on environment, 40, 41, 44–45, 49–52, 55–56, 59–60 Barnhardt, C., 96 Barol, B., 283 Belenky, M. F., 258

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

406

INDEX

Bell, L. A., 23 belonging, sense of for AAPI students, 126 for African American students, 147 consistency in, 48 for Latinx students, 99 for Native Americans, 170 Benham, M. K. P., 179 Bensimon, E. M., 96, 98 Benton, Thomas, 42 Bernal, Delgado, 93 Berrill, K., 283 BIA. See Bureau of Indian Affairs bias, 26 the Bible, 285 biculturalism, 150 adult college students and, 321–22 of Native Americans and African Americans, 179–80 BIE. See Bureau of Indian Education BiNet, 282 biphobia, 290 biracial and multiracial students, 5, 186 campus environment for, 197–99 discussion questions for, 200–201 history of, 187–88 identity development of, 128, 193–97 microaggressions toward, 191 in peer culture, 191–92, 198 physical appearance and racism toward, 189–91 programs and services for, 197–200 role models for, 199 self-identification of, 189–90 stereotypes of, 190 bisexual identity, 270 development in, 290–91 Bitsóí, L. L., on Native Americans, 5, 165, 168–69, 176, 179 Black nationalist identity, 150 Black women, 69 intersectionality of, 66–68 Blum, Edward, 121 B’nai B’rith, 356

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 406

Bonilla-Silva, E., 220 Boston Asian American Students Intercollegiate Coalition (BAASIC), 132 Boston College Office of Campus Ministry at, 366–67 Options through Education at, 152–53 Bowling Green State University, 369 Brandeis University, 354 Bronfenbrenner, U., 318 Brown, Sarita, 100 Brown University, 357 Brown v. Board of Education, 144 Bulthius, J. D., 236 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 169 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), 169 CAACTUS. See Coalition of Asian Americans Collaborating Together to Unite the Southwest CAEL. See Council for Adult and Experiential Learning California’s Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 5, 121 California State Universities, 96 California State University Doctoral Incentive Fellowship Program, 103 campus culture artifacts in, 58 assumptions in, 60–61 climate of, for Latinxs, 99–100 diversity in, 20 international students in, 246–48 involvement in, 156 multicultural competence on, 14 sexual violence and sexual assault in, 73 values in, 59–60 White privilege in, 213–15 campus environment, 13, 227. See also spirituality and religion on campus for biracial and multiracial students, 197–99

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

constructs of, 41, 54–61 cultural perspectives on, 40 discussion questions for, 62–63 human aggregates in, 41, 45–49 models for, 61–62 for Native American students, 176–79 organization of, 41, 50–54 orientation of, 246–47 person interaction with, 41 physical aspects of, 41–45 Campus Ministry Association (CMA), 367 Campus Pride, 284 careers Latinx preparation for, 103 of Native Americans, 170, 175–76 for students with disabilities, 340–41 Carleton College, Gender and Sexuality Center at, 269 Carlson, M., 262 Carter, D. F., 99 CAS. See Council for the Advancement of Standards’ Case, K. F., 94 case study of African American students, 158–59 about international students, 248–49 for intersectionality theory, 78 about LGBT students, 300–301 about Native American students, 180–81 of oppression, 34–38 about students with disabilities, 342–45 about White students, 228 CAS Learning and Development Outcomes, 366 Cass, Vivienne, 288, 289–90 CAST. See Center for Applied Special Technology Castro, Fidel, 85 Catholic Campus Ministry Association, 356

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 407

407

Catholicism, 94. See also spirituality and religion on campus Cawthon, Tony W., 6 Ceja, Miguel, 92–93 Census Bureau, U. S., 114, 115, 180, 199–200 Two or More Races category and, 187–88 Center for American Women and Politics, 268 Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), 336 Center for the Education of Women, 267 Chadley, Noall, 35–36 Change.org, 36 charter colleges, AIHEC and, 168 Chen, E. C., 95 Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, 143 Chicano/Chicanas, 92–93, 104 Chickering, A. W., 170 The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, 44 Chi Omega sorority, 12 Cho, Sumi, 122 Choney, S. K., 173–74 Christian privilege, 352 Christian students. See spirituality and religion on campus Chronicle of Higher Education, 257–58 CIPRIS. See Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students cisgender, 270 City College of San Francisco, 132 civil rights movement for, 68 for people with disabilities, 329 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 144 Civil Rights Project, 245 the Civil War, 143 class of AAPI students, 124 identity fluidity in, 71

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

408

INDEX

of Latinxs, 85 classrooms, 60 CMA. See Campus Ministry Association Coalition of Asian Americans Collaborating Together to Unite the Southwest (CAACTUS), 132 coalitions, intersectionality and, 76 the Cold War, 245 college access for AAPIs, 117–19 for Latinxs, 89–90 College of William and Mary, Men’s Health Clinic at, 268–69 colonialism, 165 colonists, 13, 17 color blindness of AAPI students, 128 critical race theorists on, 31 racism in, 220–21 Whiteness and, 214–15 Combahee River Collective, 68 coming out, in LGBT identity development, 286–87 commonalities, 17 the Common Application, 296 communication as nonverbal, 43–44 patterns of, 15 of student support services, 104 technology for, 313 community. See also Greek community affiliations with, 99–100 African American students and, 157–58 Native American students and, 177 community colleges adult college students at, 320 Latinxs at, 90–91, 96–97 nontraditional recruitment for, 311 outreach to, 102 undocumented students at, 95 community cultural wealth, 92 Confederate Army, 58 consensus, 56

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 408

consistency on human aggregates, 45, 47–48 intersectionality and, 47–48 person-environment congruence and, 48 sense of belonging in, 48 Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals, 283, 294–95 constructed environments, 41, 54 campus culture as, 58 environmental press in, 55–56 social climate in, 56–58 Cook, D. A., 216–17 Cooper, Diane L., 3 Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS), 244 Cortes, R., 95 Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), 313–14 Council for the Advancement of Standards’ (CAS), 366 Council of Ontario Universities, 40 counseling, 103 of AAPI students, 126, 133 for Asian American students, 126 for Latinx students, 103 for LGBT students, 77 counterspaces, 30 “Count Me In!” campaign, 131 Crenshaw, K., 69 criminal justice system oppression in, 76 racism in, 68–69 critical consciousness multicultural competence and, 381–84 strategies for, 384–91 Critical Mixed Race Studies conference, 199 critical race theory history in, 31 Latinx in, 83–84, 93 of oppression, 30–32

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

in storytelling, 30 Cross, W. E., 148–50 Cubans, 85–86 cultural centers, on campus, 30 cultural sensitivity, 60 culture. See also campus culture; peer culture of Anglos, 94 dominance in, 146 in Greek community, 52 preservation of Native, 165 professionals on, of learning, 322 of spirituality and religion on campus, 363–65 as tribal, 5 of White students, 211–13 curriculum for adult college students, 322 biracial and multiracial awareness in, 199 Cuyjet, Michael J., 3 Dalili, F., 246 Dallas Cowboys, 288 Daughters of Bilitis, 281 Dean, Laura A., 6 De Anza College, 132 deculturalization, 13, 24 defensive mechanisms, of privilege, 32 DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, 69, 70 degree completion, 89 dehumanization, 24 Delgado, R., 13, 16 Delta Lambda Phi, 288 deminoritization, 120 demographics of AAPIs, 113 of adult college students, 310–12 of diversity in spirituality and religion on campus, 358–59 of LGBT students, 284–85 demography and population trends of AAPIs, 113 denial mechanisms, of privileged groups, 33

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 409

409

Department of Education, 126 international students and, 234 multiracial students and, 187 Ronald E. McNair program from, 153 Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR), 121 Department of Homeland Security, 232 Department of Justice, 338 Department of Labor, 341 Department of State, 243 Department of War, Freedmen’s Bureau from, 143 the Depression, 84 Devor, A. H., 292–93 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association), 340 Diné College, 168 disabilities. See students with disabilities Disability, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) website, 337 discrimination, 69. See also exclusion; racism of African Americans, 141–42 of Asian Americans, 121 in athletics, 287–88 of international students, 242 of Latinxs, 87–88 of LGBT students, 281, 287–88 in student experience, 98 of students with disabilities, 334 display of self in Greek community, 45 in physical environment, 44–45 dissonance-provoking stimulus (DPS), 32–33 diversity, 1–3 of AAPI, 115–17 complexity and, 52–53 elements of, 17 experiences of, from college students, 31 in gender identity, 265–67

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

410

INDEX

initiatives for, on campuses, 20 among Native Americans, 165 professionals on, 13–14 of spirituality and religion on campus, 358–59 training programs for, 12 Diversity and Equity Coalition, 35–37 Doctoral Scholars Program of the Southern Regional Education Board, 103 dominant culture, 146 Dominguez, Tamara, 285 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, 282 Dowd, A. C., 96, 98 DPS. See dissonance-provoking stimulus DREAM Centers, 96 DuBois, W. E. B., 144 Ducheneaux, T., 176 duel enrollment, 97 Dunn, Merrily S., 5 Eagan, K., 359 East Coast Asian American Student Union (ECAASU), 132 ECAASU. See East Coast Asian American Student Union ecological approach to identity, 195–96 to learning for adult students, 318–20 economic downturn, 312 education attainment of, by race, 119 history of, for African Americans, 142–45 industrial approach to, 143–44 of Native Americans, 168–69, 174–80 Obama on, 320–21 in transforming oppression, 34 Educational Testing Service, 101 Ellis, L. M., 95 Elmhurst College, 284

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 410

Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, 12 emotional support animals, 339 empathy, 226–27 employment, 328 of undocumented students, 95 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), 239, 243 the Enlightenment era, 257 enrollment, undergraduate of AAPI students, 115 of African American students, 144–45, 151–52 by institutional type and race, 118 of international students, 232 in Progressive Era, 257 by race, 118 entertainment industry, role-models from, 199 entitlement, of White people, 212 environment. See also campus environment; constructed environments; organizational environments assimilation in, 49 congruence of people and, 48–49 human aggregates of, 41, 45–49 inclusion in, 51, 56 physical, 41–45 environmental press, 55–56 ESOL. See English for Speakers of Other Languages Espenshade, Thomas, 122 Estanek, S. M., 363 ethnic identity of AAPI students, 126–29 of African Americans, 145–46 of Latinxs, 93–94 ethnicity population by, 116 terminology of, 209 ethnic labels, 83–84 Evans, N. J., 168, 170, 292 Excelencia in Education, 100

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

exclusion, 51 extraracial description, 194 F-1 visa, 233 factor model of multiracial identity (FMMI), 195, 196–97 faculty, 16. See also administrators; professionals; student affairs educators; student-faculty engagement bias and, 26 against oppression, 26–27 family of Latinxs, 87, 92–93 of Native Americans, 174, 176–77 social oppression and, 28 of undocumented students, 95 Whiteness and, 210 Fassinger, Ruth, 290 FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 245 feminism antiracist identity development and, 224 intersectionality in, 66, 259–60 racism in, 68–69 research from, 258–59 on sexual violence, 68–69 women’s suffrage as, 68 Filipino Intercollegiate Networking Dialogue (FIND), 132 financial aid. See also scholarships for AAPI, 124–25 for Latinx students, 91–92, 103–4 for undocumented students, 95 financial issues of international students, 241 of Latinxs, 90 organizational efficiency and, 54 FIND. See Filipino Intercollegiate Networking Dialogue fit, concept of, 49 flagship institutions, 90 Flowers, Lamont A., 3

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 411

411

Floyd, Rosiline D., 6 FMMI. See factor model of multiracial identity Forman, T. A., 220 Founding Fathers, 13 four-year colleges, 96–97, 102 Fowler, J. W., 360 Frankenberg, R., 224 fraternities, 2 Alpha Phi Omega as, 357 Delta Lambda Phi in, 288 Sigma Alpha Epsilon in, 12 Freedmen’s Bureau, 143 freedom of speech, 12, 37 Free ISU Diversity and Equity Coalition at, 35–37 freedom of speech at, 37 Office of Diversity at, 35 as oppression case study, 34–38 Student Affairs Program at, 37 Freire, Paulo, pedagogy of oppressed from, 23, 30, 33–34 Fried, J., 370 Fries-Britt, S., 53 Fulbright-Hays Act, 232 Gateway Scholars Program, 153 gay identity, 280 Gay Liberation Front, 282–83 gay pride marches, 282 gay rights movement, 281 GED. See general education development gender, in intersectionality theory, 266–67 gender-affirming living-learning communities, 296 gender identity, 2, 5 administrators on issues of, 270–71 centers for, 269 cisgender as, 270 distinction between sexual orientation and, 278 distinctions of, in retention, 98

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

412

INDEX

diversity in, 265–67 gender normative in, 280 of genderqueer people, 266–67 privilege in, 264–65 stereotypes of, 264 gender-inclusive bathrooms, 295 gender normative, 280 genderqueer people, 266–67 general education development (GED), 312 General Motors, 69 generational status, of Latinxs, 86–87 genetics, in race, 209 Georgetown College, 353 GI Bill of Rights, 144 Gibson, J., 332 Gilbert, A., 95 Gill, C. J., 332 Gilligan, Carol, 258 global economy, 312–13 goals, after college, 175–76 Graduate Record Examination (GRE), 243 graduate school, 153 GRE. See Graduate Record Examination Greek community. See also fraternities; sororities AAPI students in, 130 culture in, 52 display of self in, 45 environmental press for, 55–56 LGBT students in, 287–88 religion in, 357 Griffin, K. A., 53, 60 Guardia, J. R., 168, 170 Guyland, span of time, 261 Hagedorn, L. S., 97 Hall, J. E., 58–60 Halleck, G. B., 240 Hardiman, R., 27, 217–18 Harris, A., 90 Harvard Native American Program at, 176

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 412

Harvard University, 121–22 Civil Rights Project at, 245 Harvard Native American Program at, 176 hate crimes, 12–13 Haudenosaunee students, 176 HBCUs. See historically Black colleges and universities Headden, S., 313, 316, 321 Heavy Runner, I., 176 HECATE. See American Indian Higher Education Consortium Helms, J. E., 216–18 HERI. See Higher Education Research Institute Hernandez, R., 94 Hernández, Susana, 4 heterosexism, 285, 287 heterosexual perspective, 60 Higher Education Act, 120 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), 358 high school students Latinxs as, 90–91 as undocumented, 95 Hillel movement, 356 Hinton, Kandace G., 3 Hispanic, as ethnic label, 84 Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), 100 Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), 89 historically African American churches, 356 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), 45 admissions applications at, 189 history of, 143–44 homogeneity of, 50–51 history of African American students in higher education, 142–45 of biracial and multiracial students, 187–88 in critical race theory, 31

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

ecological approach to identity and, 196 of HBCUs, 143–44 of international students, 233–34 of intersectionality theory, 66–70 of Latinxs, 84–86 of LGBT students, 281–84 Native Americans and, 165–66 of spirituality and religion on campus, 352–58 of Whiteness, 209 of women and men in higher education, 256–58 Holland, J. L., 45–46 home-going, strategy in higher education, 177 homogeneity, 50–51 homophobia, 280–81 heterosexism and, 285 social groups and, 287 homosexuality, 279–80 medical perspective on, 281–82 Horse, P., 171 Howard-Hamilton, Mary F., 3, 14–15 Hsieh, M. H., 238–39 HSIs. See Hispanic-serving institutions Huebner, L. A., 41, 48 human aggregates, of environment assimilation at PWIs and, 49 belonging in, 48 of campus, 41, 45–49 concept of fit in, 49 consistency on, 45, 47–48 differentiation in, 45–46 false differentiation of, 46 person-environment congruence in, 48 Hunter-Cuyjet, Sienna, 18 Huntley House for African American Males, 154 Hurtado, S., 99 identity development, 34, 146. See also ethnic identity; gender identity

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 413

413

of biracial and multiracial students, 128, 193–97 in class, 71 as contextual, 71 as cultural, 2, 14–15 ecological approach to, 195–96 as intersectional, 70, 72–73 salience of, 385 in social climate, 57–58 social identity development theory for, 29–30 student affairs educators on, 74–75, 129 terminology of, 213, 279 of transgender students, 280, 291, 293 of United States, 22 Whiteness as, 208 identity development models. See also LGBT identity development; Native American identity development; White racial identity development Asian American racial identity development (Kim) in, 127 biracial identity development (Kich) in, 193–94 ecological systems approach (Bronfenbrenner) in, 318–19 factor model of multiracial identity (Wijeyesinghe) in, 195–97 homosexual identity formation (Cass) as, 289–90 intersectional model of multiracial identity (Wijeyesinghe) in, 195 LGBT students identity development (Fassinger) in, 290 racial identity development (Cross) in, 148–51 racial identity model (Renn), 194–95 transgender identity development (Evan) in, 292 White identity development (Hardiman) in, 217–18

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

414

INDEX

White identity development (Helms and Cook) in, 216–17 Witnessing and Mirroring: A Fourteen-Stage Model (Devor), 292–93 identity matrix, 197 immigrants, 84–85 AAPI as, 113–14 Asian Americans as, 119 language and, 87 Latinxs as, 86 laws involving, 101–2 Immigration and Naturalization Act, 119 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 241, 244 In a Different Voice (Gilligan), 258 inclusion environmental press and, 56 in homogeneous environment, 51 Indiana University (IU), 42–43 Indian Peace Commission, 167 Indian Removal Act, 167 individualism, 212 industrial education approach, 143–44 inequity, 71–72 inferiority, 149 Inglebret, E., 179 Inkelas, K. K., 123 INS. See Immigration and Naturalization Service institutions in social oppression matrix, 28 support from, for adult students, 320–21 integrated research, 101–2 intellectual engagement, 14 Intercollegiate Taiwanese American Students Association (ITASA), 132 interdependence, 146 interfaith, campus ministry models of, 366–69 interfaith groups, 357–58 internalization

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 414

in African American identity development, 150 in social identity development theory, 30 international students, 5 abroad pressures on, 241 academic adjustments for, 238–39 adjustment to host country and institution, 236 assaults of, 245 case study about, 248–49 contributions of, 234–35 discrimination of, 242 discussion questions about, 249 English language abilities of, 239–40 enrollment of, 232 financial issues of, 241 history of, 233–34 institutional and governmental policies for, 243–46 isolation of, 240–41 language of, 239–41 programs and services for, 246–48 stereotypes of, 237, 242 stresses of, 237–38 student affairs educators and, 246 visas for, 233, 241 Interracial Intercultural Pride (I-Pride), 187 intersectionality theory, 4, 17–18 of AAPI students, 127–28 for biracial identity development, 196–97 Black men’s leadership programs and, 77–78 Black women and, 66–68 case study for, 78 coalitions and, 76 consistency and, 47–48 critical consciousness development and, 384–86 differentiation and, 47 discussion questions for, 78 in feminism, 66, 259–60 gender in, 266

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

genderqueer identity and, 267 history of, 66–70 identity in, 70–72, 73 inequity and, 71–72 LGBT students and, 77, 293–94, 299–300 limitations of, 73–74 lived experiences in, 71 oppression and, 70–74 queer POC spaces in, 76–77 salience in, 18 sexual violence and sexual assault in, 69–70 student affairs staff on, 73, 294 White students and, 226–27 intersectional model of multiracial identity (IMMI), 195, 196–97 invisible disabilities, 343 IPEDS. See National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Data System I-Pride. See Interracial Intercultural Pride Islamic students. See spirituality and religion on campus isolation, of international students, 240–41 ITASA. See Intercollegiate Taiwanese American Students Association It’s On Us Campaign, 264 IU. See Indiana University Ivy League institutions, 169 J-1 visa, 233 Jackson, B. W., 27 Jefferson, Stephen, 35–36 Jewish students. See spirituality and religion on campus Jim Crow era, 141 Johns Hopkins Campus Ministries, 366 Johnston-Guerrero, Marc P., 5 Judeo-Christian perspective, 60. See also spirituality and religion on campus

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 415

415

Kaiser, L. R., 40 Kalivoda, Karen S., 6 Kang, J., 121 Kappa Alpha Lambda, 288 KASCON. See Korean American Student Conference Kelly, K. F., 312 Kich, G. K., 193–94 Kim, B. S. K., 174 Kim, J., 127 Kimmel, M. S., 261 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 20 KKK. See Ku Klux Klan Klein, F., 291 Kniess, Dena R., 6 Korean American Student Conference (KASCON), 132 Korean War, 144 Kuh, G. D., 51, 58–60 Ku Klux Klan (KKK), 12, 42 labor, 84–85 Lafayette College, Alpha Phi Omega at, 357 language choices in, 2 ESOL in, 239 immigrants and, 87 of international students, 239–41 preservation of Native, 165 Spanish, ability of Latinxs, 86–87 TOEFL in, 239 Latino/a critical race theory (LatCrit), 93 Latinxs, 4 assimilation of, 93–94 campus climate for, 99–100 career preparation for, 103 Chicanas as, 92–93 class of, 85 college access for, 89–90 at community colleges, 90–91, 96–97 in critical race theory, 83–84 Cubans as, 85–86

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

416

INDEX

discrimination toward, 87–88 discussion questions about, 105–6 ethnic identity of, 93–94 families of, 87, 92–93 family of, 87, 92–93 financial aid for, 91–92, 103–4 financial issues of, 90 as high school students, 90–91 history of, 84–86 integrated research and, 101–2 language of, 86–87 LatCrit of, 93 microaggressions toward, 88 organizations for, 104 policy-oriented research for, 104–5 Puerto Ricans as, 85 resources for, 100–102 retention of, 97–99 as role models, 91, 93 sociological context of, 86–88 in STEM, 91, 98 stereotypes about, 91 students services and, 103–4 terminology about, 83–84, 106 as undocumented students, 89, 94–96 Lavender Graduations, 295 Lawson, J. M., 41, 48 leadership programs, for Black men, 77–78 Lee, L., on Native Americans, 165, 168, 176, 179 Lees, L. J., 291 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, 6. See also gender identity; homosexuality; LGBT identity development; sexual orientation; transgender students allies for, 283 best practices for, 294–97 bisexual identity and, 270 case study about, 300–301 cisgender term and, 270 coming out, 286–87

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 416

demographics of, 284–85 discrimination against, 281, 287–88 discussion questions about, 301–2 gay term and, 280 gender normative and, 280 in Greek community, 287–88 harassment of, 60 heterosexism and, 285, 287 history of, 281–84 homophobia and, 280–81, 287 intersectionality of, 77, 293–94, 299–300 as minority, 278 organizations of, 282–84 recommendations about, 297–300 religion and, 281–82, 285–86 resource centers for, 76–77 role models for, 282, 286, 297 sociological context of, 285–88 student organizations for, 130 students of Color as, 76–77 support for, 297–98 terminology about, 279–81 violence toward, 77, 285 Lester, J., 97 Lewin, Kurt, 40 LGBT. See lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender LGBT identity development, 288 bisexual identity development in, 290–91 Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Formation in, 289–90 coming out in, 286–87 Fassinger’s model of, 290 transgender identity development in, 291–93 liberal arts college, 94 Lincoln University, 143 Linder, Chris, 4, 5 Liu, Deng, 248–49 Liu, J., 238 Lone Star College Men’s Center, 268

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

Louisiana State University, Black Male Leadership Institute Initiative Fellows Program at, 153 Lowe, S., 177 low-income students, 144 Lumina Foundation, 321 M-1 visa, 233 MAASU. See Midwest Asian American Student Union MacKinnon, Fiona J. D., 6 Malcom, L. E., 98 mascots, Native American students and, 44 masculinity expectations of, 262–63 as hegemonic, 260–61 as productive and constructive, 263–64 Mattachine Society, 281 McCallister, L., 91, 92 McCune, P., 344 McIntosh, Peggy, 32, 213 McMurtie, B., 368 MCOD. See multicultural organizational development Means, Darris R., 6 the media, 31 men. See women and men in higher education men’s centers, 268–69 Men’s Development Institute, 268 mental health, 126 Meriwether, Jason L., 3 Metropolitan Community Church, 281 Mexican Americans, 84–85 MICA. See Office of Multicultural Involvement and Community Advocacy microaggressions toward AAPI students, 125 toward biracial and multiracial students, 191 toward Latinxs, 88 Middlebury College, 143

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 417

417

middle school students, parents of, 91 Midwest Asian American Student Union (MAASU), 132 Millenials, 19 minorities in consensus, 56 LGBT students as, 278 model minority AAPI stereotype of, 51 Asian Americans as, 122 monoracial students, 192 monoracism, 190 professionals on, 198 Moos, R. H., 45, 56–57 Moraga, Cherríe, 68 Morrill Act of 1862, 257, 356 Morrill Act of 1890, 143, 257 MOSAIC program, 340 Mountain State University (MSU), 248–49 MS. See multiple sclerosis MSU. See Mountain State University Mueller, J. A., 14, 16 multicultural centers, 76–77 multicultural competence, 3, 15 on campus, 14 critical consciousness and, 381–84 multiculturalism broadened concept of, 14 knowledge of, due to intellectual engagement, 14 terminology of, 3, 13 multicultural organizational development (MCOD) procedures, 16 multiple sclerosis (MS), 344 multiracial. See biracial and multiracial students Museus, S. D., 48, 51 Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, 356 Mutual Educational Exchange Act, 233

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

418

INDEX

NAACP. See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 243–44 Narasaki, Karen, 122 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 144 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 115, 311, 313 National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS), 187–88 National Conference for Community and Justice, 364 National Education for Women’s Leadership (NEW Leadership), 268 National Football League (NFL), 287–88 national identity, oppression in, 22 National Queer Student Coalition (NQSC), 283 Native American Identity (Horse), 171 Native American identity development categories of Indianness in, 172 consciousness influences in, 171 health model conceptualization of acculturation of, 173–74 Native American reservations careers on, 170, 175–76 establishment of, 167 Native American students, 5 administrators and, 178 assimilation of, 167, 169 behavioral artifact for, 58–59 campus environment for, 176–79 case study about, 180–81 community and, 177 consciousness of, 171 discussion questions about, 181 diversity among, 165 educational issues for, 174–80 education of, 168–69

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 418

family support of, 174, 176–77 history and, 165–66 identity development of, 171–74 mascots and, 44 oppression of, 165–69 research on, 175–77 retention of, 177 role models for, 175, 176 spirituality of, 177 student affairs educators and, 177–79 support of, 178 TCUs for, 168 terminology about, 164–65, 181 tokenism and, 175 tribal sovereignty of, 165, 166–69 values and student development of, 169–71 Naturalization Act, 167–67 Navajo Community College. See Diné College NCES. See National Center for Education Statistics negative action, 121 Nelson, Janet Cooper, 357 NEW Leadership. See National Education for Women’s Leadership Newman Centers, 356 NFL. See National Football League nontraditional students. See adult college students nonverbal communication, 43–44 North American Conference of Homophile Organizations, 281 NQSC. See National Queer Student Coalition Nuñez, A., 104 Obama, Barack, 19, 199 on education, 320–21 on same-sex marriage, 282 O’Brien, K. M., 291 OCR. See Department of Education Office of Civil Rights

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

Office of Civil Rights, investigations by, 264 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 187 Two or More Races category from, 189 Office of Multicultural Involvement and Community Advocacy (MICA), 132 Ohio University, 355 OMB. See Office of Management and Budget ONE, 281 online degree programs, 234 oppression administrators against, 26–27 biracial and multiracial identification and, 189–91 of Black women, 66–69 case study of, 34–38 characteristics of, 25–26 in criminal justice system, 76 critical race theory of, 30–32 faculty and administrators against, 26–27 family and, 28 by government, 166–69 as intersectional, 70–74 in national identity, 22 of Native Americans, 165–69 pedagogy and, 23, 30, 33–34 privileged groups and, 32–33 recognition of, in White racial justice advocacy, 222 social, matrix, 27–29 social identity development theory and, 29–30 theories of, 23–27 transformation of, 33–34 White students and, 208–9 Options through Education, 152–53 Oral Roberts University, 353 organizational environments on campus, 41 patterns in, 50–52

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 419

419

structures in, 52–54 orientation programs, 246–47 Ortiz, A. M., 176 Ortiz, Anna, 4, 91, 94 Osborne, Leigh Ann, 5 otherness, 62 OutRage!, 282 outreach programs. See programs and services Pachon, H. P., 91 Pacific Islanders, 112–13. See also Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), students panethnicities, of AAPI groups, 113–15 Panther, Tom, 35–37 Park, J. J., 124 Park, Julie, 4 the patriarchy, 68 PATRIOT Act, 244 Pavel, D. M., 179 Pedersen, P. B., 237, 246 Peek, L., 360 peer culture biracial and multiracial students in, 191–92, 198 monoracial peers in, 192 Pennsylvania State University, 12 people of Color (POC), 2 in intersectionality theory, 76–77 police brutality toward, 11 racial battle fatigue of, 88 social constructions of, 210 tokenism of, 75–76 Whiteness and, 212 Perez, M. P., 114 Perez, William, 95 Perna, L. W., 97 Perry, W. G., 359–60 personality types, 45–46 person-environment congruence, 48–49 Perspectivas, publication, 101 perspectives, 59 phenotype. See physical appearance

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

420

INDEX

physical appearance, racism and, 189–91 physical environment, 41–45. See also campus environment PIE. See privileged identity exploration Plains Indians, 176 Please Don’t Pet Me website, 339 Plessey v. Ferguson, 143 POC. See people of Color police brutality, 11 political intersectionality, 70 political refugees, 86 Ponjuán, L., 98 Poon, OiYan A., 4 Pope, R. L., 14, 16 population by race/ethnicity, 116 population growth, 115–17 Post-9/11 GI Bill, 313, 320 poverty, 90 predominantly White institutions (PWIs), 50 administrators of, 49 African Americans at, 144, 156 environment assimilation in, 49 Native Americans in, 175 preservation of Native culture and language, 165 through TCUs, 168 presidential election, college students in, 19 privilege, 31. See also White privilege of Christians, 352 defensive mechanisms from, 32 denial mechanisms from, 33 gender and, 264–65 as religious, 369–70 social identities of, 213 privileged identity exploration (PIE) model, 32–33 professionals assessment of social climate by, 57 on diversity, 13–14 on learning culture, 322 on monoracism, 198 programs and services

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 420

for biracial and multiracial students, 197–200 for campus orientation, 246–47 for international students, 246–48 the Progressive Era, 257 Project Uplift Program, 154 Protestant students, 352. See also spirituality and religion on campus proxemics, 43–44 proximal processes, 196 psychological disability, 344–45 Puerto Ricans, 85 Purdue University, 295 Puritan New England, 353 Pusser, B., 314 PWI. See predominantly White institutions queer, 279–80 Queer Nation, 282 queer students of Color, 76–77 race enrollment by, 118 genetics in, 209 population by, 116 salience of, 149 social construction of, 209–10 terminology of, 209 raceless concept, White people and, 211–12 racial battle fatigue, 88, 389–90 racial categories, in admissions applications, 189 racial hierarchies, 191 racialization, 112 racial profiling, 245 racism. See also microaggressions; racial profiling in color blindness, 220–21 in criminal justice system, 68–69 critical race theory on, 30–31 in feminism, 68–69 monoracism and, 190, 198

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

INDEX

physical appearance and, 189–91 White racial justice advocacy on, 222–23 of White students, 211 Ramos, M., 96 Rankin, S. R., 60, 297 rape, 68–69 Reaching Inside Your Soul for Excellence (RISE), 155 Redd, K. E., 97 Reflections on American Indian Identity (Horse), 171 refugees, 113–14 Regent University, 353 Rehabilitation Act, 330–31 Reisser, L., 170 The Rejected, 281 relationships, college men in, 261 religion. See spirituality and religion on campus remediation and gateway courses, 102 The Renaissance of American Indian Higher Education: Capturing the Dream (Benham and Stein), 179 Renn, Kristen A., 5, 192, 195 representational intersectionality, 70 research, 104–5 residential life. See campus culture residential life staff, 247 retention gender distinctions in, 98 of Latinx students, 97–99 of Native American students, 177 SIRPs for, 131 Revolutionary Era, 209 Revolutionary War, 354 rewards, stratification in, 53 Reyes, K., 96 Reynolds, A. L., 14, 16 Richardson, B. J., 14–15 RISE. See Reaching Inside Your Soul for Excellence Robertson, Pat, 353 role models, 199 for AAPI students, 125, 126

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 421

421

of African American students, 145–46 from athletics, 199 for biracial and multiracial students, 199 Latinx students as, 91, 93 for LGBT students, 282, 286, 297 for Native American students, 175, 176 student affairs educators as, 74–75 for students with disabilities, 341 White students and, 211 Ronald E. McNair postbaccalaureate achievement program, 153 Root, M. P. P., 194, 196 Rowe, W., 218 Rutgers University, Center for American Women and Politics at, 268 Ryan, L., 171–72 Ryan, R., 171–72 Sáenz, V. B., 98 Safe Zone, 283 salience of identity, 385 in intersectionality, 18 of race, 149 Sam, Michael, 287–88 same-sex marriage laws, 282 Sandia Pueblo, 166 Santiago, Deborah, 100 Santos, R., 97 Santos, S. J., 91, 94 SASA. See South Asian Student Association SAT. See Scholastic Aptitude Test SCA 5. See California’s Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 Schlossberg, N. K., 317 scholarships, 92, 132 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 243 Schreiner, L., 156 science, technology, engineering, math (STEM)

7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

422

INDEX

Latinxs in, 91, 98 remediation and gateway courses in, 102 the Second Great Awakening era, 257 Secretary of Education, 101 segregation, 141, 143–44 selective colleges, 96–97 affirmative action and, 121 SERCAAL. See Southeast Regional Conference on Asian American Leadership service animal, 338–39 SEVIS. See Student and Exchange Visitor Information System sexism, 68–70 sexually transmitted infections (STIs), 269 sexual orientation affectional orientation and, 279 distinction between gender identity and, 278 values and, 60 sexual violence and sexual assault activism against, 264–65 on campuses, 73 feminism on, 68–69 social media and, 265 in structural intersectionality, 69–70 student activism over, 19 Shinnecock Nation, 18 Shuford, Bettina C., 4, 14–15 Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, 12 SIRPs. See student-initiated retention programs Slater, B. R., 283 slavery, 141, 179–80, 209 social climate, 56–58 social construction of race, 209–10 of Whiteness, 209–15 social identity development theory, 29–30 social justice education, 386–88 Social Justice Training Institute, 225

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 422

social media, 265 social oppression matrix, 27–29 social responsibility, 147 Society for Human Rights, 281 the Society for Individual Rights, 281 Sodowsky, G. R., 242 soldiers, 313 Solòrzano, D., 88, 97 sororities, 2 Chi Omega as, 12 Kappa Alpha Lambda as, 288 the South, African American education in, 143–44 South Asian Student Association (SASA), 132 Southeast Regional Conference on Asian American Leadership (SERCAAL), 132 South Seattle Community College, 132 Spanish-American War, 85 Spanish language, 86–87 spirituality and religion on campus, 351–52 of African American students, 157 culture of, 363–65 demographics of diversity of, 358–59 discussion questions about, 371–72 in Greek community, 357 history of, 352–58 LGBT students and, 281–82, 285–86 of Native Americans, 177 pluralism and interfaith in, 365–70 privilege in, 369–70 Protestant students and, 352 stereotypes of, 363–64 student affairs educators on, 364–65 student development theory and, 359–62 terminology of, 362–63 values and, 60 Spring, J., 13, 24, 165 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People, 297–98

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

INDEX

Stefancic, J., 13, 16 Stein, W. J., 179 STEM. See science, technology, engineering, math stereotypes of AAPI students, 51, 112 alienation through, 175 of Asian Americans, 125–26 of Asian invasion, 117 banking education and, 24 of biracial and multiracial students, 190 of college men, 261–63, 268 of gender, 264 homogeneous inclusion from, 51 of international students, 237, 242 about Latinxs, 91 of model minority, 51 of religious groups, 363–64 social oppression matrix and, 28 from student affairs educators, 177–78 from students, 32 of undocumented students, 95 Stern, G. G., 55, 56 STIs. See sexually transmitted infections St. John’s University, Men’s Development Institute at, 268 St. Louis Rams, 287–88 Stonewall Inn, 281 storytelling, in critical race theory, 30 Strange, C. C., on environment, 40, 41, 44–45, 49–52, 55–56, 59–60 stratification, 53–54 Strayhorn, T. L., 48 structural intersectionality, 69–70 student affairs educators on adult college students, 320, 321–23 African American students and, 145–48 ASD students and, 340 coalitions and, 76

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 423

423

on college students with disabilities, 328–29 cultural competency of, 14 on identity development, 74–75, 129 international students and, 246 on intersectionality, 73, 294 Native American students and, 177–79 on religion, 364–65 as role models, 74–75 stereotypes from, 177–78 on tokenism, 75–76 universal design for students with disabilities and, 336–37 White students and, 208, 225–27 Student African American Brotherhood (SAAB), 155 Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), 244–45 student debt, 19 student development theory, 215–16 and African American students, 145–48 spirituality and religion on campus and, 359–62 of women and men in higher education, 258–60 student experience, 97–98 student-faculty engagement for AAPI students, 125–26 for African Americans, 146, 156–57 Student Homophile League, 282 student-initiated retention programs (SIRPs), 131 student organizations for AAPI students, 129–30 for Latinxs, 104 for queer students, 130 Students for Fair Admissions, 121 students services, 103–4 students with disabilities, 6 access needs of, 331, 337 careers for, 340–41

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

424

INDEX

case studies about, 342–45 civil rights for, 329 developmental issues of, 331–34 discrimination of, 334 emerging issues for, 337–41 identity development of, 332–33 invisible disabilities of, 343 psychological disabilities of, 344–45 role models for, 341 social model of disability for, 334–35 terminology about, 329–31 universal design for, 335–37 study abroad, 297 subcommunities, 51–52 success, recommendations for, 155–58 suffrage, women’s, 68 Suizzo, M., 174 superiority, perception of Whiteness and, 210–11, 227 support. See also family for adult students, 320–21 of institution, 97 lack of, for AAPI students, 126 for LGBT students, 297–98 of Native American students, 178 service and emotional, from animals, 338–39 as social, 97 for women and men in higher education, 267–69 support services, communication of, 104 Supreme Court, 143, 144, 282 Sutton v. United Airlines, 330 Swail, S. W., 97 symbolism, in architecture, 42–43 symbols culture differences in, 44 of hatred, 12 Taking America’s Pulse III, 364 Tatum, B. D., 62 Taylor, H., 60 Taylor, J. S., 175

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 424

TCUs. See tribal colleges and universities technical institutions, 50–51 technology accessibility, for students with disabilities, 337 terminology about African American students, 142 of allies, 222 about college students with disabilities, 329–31 of ethnicity, 209 of identity, 213, 279 about Latinxs, 83–84, 106 about LGBT students, 279–81 of multiculturalism, 3, 13 about Native American students, 164–65, 181 of race, 209 of spirituality and religion, 362–63 of Whiteness, 210 of White privilege, 213 terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 233, 245 Terzian, Sevan G., 5 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), 239, 243 This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color (Moraga and Anzaldúa), 68 Thompson, B., 223 Tienda, M., 90 Tisdell, E. J., 362 TOEFL. See Test of English as a Foreign Language tokenism Native American students and, 175 of POC, 75–76 transfer agents, 96 transfer students, 96–97, 102 adult students as, 321 transgender students bathrooms for, 60

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

INDEX

identity development of, 280, 291–93 roll call for, 287 transphobia, 296 transportation, for undocumented students, 95 transracial adoption, 187 trauma, historical, 165 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 84 tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), 168 tribal councils, 166 tribal culture, 5 tribal sovereignty, 165 government oppression and, 166–69 land ownership and, 167–68 reservations in, 167 Sandia Pueblo and, 166 TCUs and, 168–69 Truman, Harry S., 232 Truth, Sojourner, 67–68 Twilight, Alexander Locus, 143 Two or More Races category Census Bureau and, 187–88 from OMB, 189 UNAVSA. See Union of North American Vietnamese Student Associations UNC. See University of North Carolina undocumented students AAPI as, 124–25 ally programs for, 95–96 at community colleges, 95 employment of, 95 family of, 95 financial aid for, 95 in high school, 95 Latinxs as, 89, 94–96 stereotypes of, 95 tuition for, 94 Union of North American Vietnamese Student Associations (UNAVSA), 132

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 425

425

Unitarian Church, support of LGBT people, 281 United Church of Christ, 282 United States government, 19 oppression of Native Americans by, 166–69 universalization, 212 University of Alabama, ASD College Transition and Support Program at, 340 University of California, “Count Me In!” campaign from, 131 University of California, Davis, Asian Pacific Islander Queers organization at, 130 University of California, Los Angeles, 125 University of Georgia, 354 CMA at, 367 University of Illinois, 58–59 University of Illinois at Chicago, AAAN at, 154–55 University of Illinois UrbanaChampaign, 130 University of Iowa, 12 LGBT students at, 284 University of Louisville, 58 African American Male Initiative at, 153–54 University of Maryland, 368–69 University of Maryland, College Park AASP at, 132 MICA at, 132 University of Michigan, Center for the Education of Women at, 267 University of Minnesota, 283 Huntley House for African American Males at, 154 University of Mississippi, 12 University of North Carolina (UNC), 121 University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill Project Uplift Program at, 154

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

426

INDEX

religion at, 369 University of Pittsburgh, RISE at, 155 University of Richmond, 367–68 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, MOSAIC program at, 340 University of Texas, Austin, Gateway Scholars Program at, 153 University of Texas–San Antonio, Center for Policy Research and Policy in Education at, 101 University Residence Environment Scale (URES), 57–58 University System of Georgia, AfricanAmerican Male Initiative at, 152 URES. See University Residence Environment Scale USCIS. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), 241 USSA. See U.S. Student Association U.S. Student Association (USSA), 283 values from administrators, 59–60 of Asian Americans, 173 in athletics, 60 in classrooms, 60 from heterosexual perspective, 60 from Judeo-Christian perspective, 60 of Native Americans, 169–71, 174, 176–77 of White students, 170 veterans, 144 Vietnam War, 144 violence, 11. See also sexual violence and sexual assault instances of, 12 toward LGBT students, 77, 285 of police brutality, 11 visas, 233, 241 Vue, R., 51 Walker, Kristen M., 6

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 426

Wallace, K. R., 195 Washington, Booker T., 144 Waterman, S. J., 177 Watkins, B. L., 300 Watt, Sherry, 16, 32 WCAG. See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Web Accessibility Initiative, 337–38 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), 338 Wellesley College Religious and Spiritual Life Program, 355 “wheels in the head” syndrome, 23, 34 WHIEEH. See White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics (WHIEEH), 101 White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 264 White men, 5 Whiteness, 5 color blindness and, 214–15 family and, 210 history of, 209 in identity development, 208 people of Color and, 212 perception of superiority of, 210–11 POC and, 212 social construction of, 209–15 socialization and, 210–11 superiority in, 210–11, 227 terminology of, 210 universalization and, 212 White privilege, 1, 32, 72, 121, 208–9 on college campuses, 213–15 terminology of, 213 White racial consciousness statuses (WRCS), 218 achieved statuses as, 219–20 unachieved statuses as, 218–19 White racial identity development (WRID), 210

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

INDEX

Hardiman’s model of, 217–18 Helms’ and Cook’s model of, 216–17 White racial justice advocacy, 222–24. See also allies White students as allies, 208, 223–24 case study about, 228 color-blind racism of, 220–21 culture of, 211–13 entitlement of, 212 intersectionality theory and, 226–27 multicultural development of, 19 oppression and, 208–9 racial development theory for, 216–20 racial identity of, 208–9, 228 racial justice advocacy of, 221–24 racism of, 211 role models and, 211 socialization of, 210–11 student affairs educators and, 208, 225–27 values of, 170 Wijeyesinghe, C. L., 195–97 Wilberforce University, 143 Wisbey, Martha E., 6 Witnessing and Mirroring: A FourteenStage Model (Devor), 292–93 women and men in higher education. See also masculinity history of, 256–58 recommendations and implications for, 269–71 relationships of, 261 stereotypes of, 261–63 student development of, 258–60 support for, 267–69

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 427

427

women of Color. See also Black women inequity for, 71–72 intersectionality of, 69–70 lived experiences of, 71 women’s centers, 267–68 women’s issues, 5 Women’s Rights Convention, 1851, 67 Women’s Ways of Knowing (Belenky), 258 Wong, A., 127 Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP), 341 World Health Organization, 282 World Trade Center bombing, 233, 244 World War II, 84 LGBT movements after, 281 WRCS. See White racial consciousness statuses WRID. See White racial identity development (WRID) WRP. See Workforce Recruitment Program Yaki, Michael, 122 Yale University, 130 Yeshiva University, 354 YMCA. See Young Men’s Christian Association Yosso, Tara, 92 Young Ladies’ Academy in Philadelphia, 257 Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), 356 Zarate, M. E., 91

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 428

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

navigate college, graduate on time, and transition to the world of work. Underlying the process is an intersectional and identity-conscious, rather than identity-centered, framework that addresses the complexity of students’ assets and needs as they encounter the unfamiliar terrain of college.

22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, VA 20166-2102

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 429

Subscribe to our e-mail alerts: www.Styluspub.com

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

Also available from Stylus Intersectionality in Action A Guide for Faculty and Campus Leaders for Creating Inclusive Classrooms and Institutions Edited by Brooke Barnett and Peter Felten Foreword by Eboo Patel “The ‘next phase’ of diversity in higher education pushes institutional objectives beyond mere tolerance of cultural difference. Barnett and Felten have pulled together a timely re source for campus leaders that recognizes the multidimensionality of students’ identities and the imperative for institutions to pursue an intersectional approach to diversity on campus.”—Anthony Lising Antonio, Associate Professor of Education, Stanford University This book offers models for institutions to move intentionally toward intersections—of study abroad and multiculturalism, of race and gender and religion, and of other essential aspects of our educational programs and our students’ identities—in order to open doors to new possibilities that better prepare our students for life in a diverse world and allow our institutions to become more efficient and effective as we strive to not simply do things better in our own separate spheres, but to do better things by working together across difference. Closing the Opportunity Gap Identity-Conscious Strategies for Retention and Student Success Edited by Vijay Pendakur Foreword by Shaun R. Harper “Closing the achievement gap for low-income students, firstgeneration students, and students of color in American higher education needs to be a national priority. This book is a roadmap that outlines the dimensions of a systemic approach toward decreasing the attainment gap for our most under-represented students. The upfront focus on racial identity and the need for systemic change make this a ‘must-read’ for college presidents, provosts, and senior administrators who seek real equity at their colleges and universities.”—Kevin Kruger, President, NASPA This book offers a novel and proven approach to the retention and success of underrepresented students. It advocates a strategic approach through which an institution sets clear goals and metrics and integrates the identity support work of cultural/ diversity centers with skill building through cohort activities to enable students to successfully

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 430

7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM