Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education: Their Origin, and Present and Future Challenges [1 ed.] 9781620361450

Citation preview

H I S P A N I C - S E RV I N G I N S T I T U T I O N S I N A M E R I C A N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION Their Origin, and Present and Future Challenges

Edited by Jesse Perez Mendez, Fred A. Bonner II, Josephine Méndez-Negrete, and Robert T. Palmer Foreword by Frank Hernandez

STERLING, VIRGINIA

COPYRIGHT © 2015 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 Hispanic-serving institutions in American higher education : their origin, and present and future challenges / edited by Jesse Perez Mendez, Fred Bonner II, Josephine Méndez-Negrete, and Robert T. Palmer ; foreword by Frank Hernandez. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-62036-144-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-62036-143-6 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-62036-145-0 (library networkable e-edition) ISBN 978-1-62036-146-7 (consumer e-edition)   1. Hispanic Americans--Education (Higher)  2. Hispanic American college students.  3. Universities and colleges--United States--Administration.  4. Educational equalization--United States.  I. Mendez, Jesse Perez, editor of compilaton LC2670.6.H596 2015 378.1’982968073--dc23 2015005927 ISBN: 978-1-62036-143-6 (cloth) ISBN: 978-1-62036-144-3 (paperback) ISBN: 978-1-62036-145-0 (library networkable e-edition) ISBN: 978-1-62036-146-7 (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, 2015 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is dedicated to the students who walk on the campuses of Hispanicserving institutions who are seeking a better life.

CONTENTS

Foreword Frank Hernandez

ix

Introduction Laura I. Rendón

1

1. An Overview of Hispanic-Serving Institutions’ Legislation: Legislation Policy Formation Between 1979 and 1992 Patrick L. Valdez 2. Balancing Teaching, Research, and Service at HispanicServing Institutions Jesse Perez Mendez, Fred A. Bonner II, Robert T. Palmer, and Josephine Méndez-Negrete

5

30

3. Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions Through the Lens of Critical Race Theory María C. Ledesma and Rebeca Burciaga

40

4. T  he Role of Student Affairs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Its Impact on Supporting Student Success Vasti Torres

58

5. Bridging Academic and Student Affairs: Working Together to Craft Pathways That Advance Latinos and Latinas in Higher Education Edna Martinez and Leslie D. Gonzales

68

6. Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge: Leveraging Latin@ Assets to Foster Student Success Laura I. Rendón, Amaury Nora, and Vijay Kanagala

92

7. Researching White Student Experiences at HispanicServing Institutions:119 A Troubling Matter of Interest Convergence Michelle M. Espino vii

8. Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement for Latino Male Students Attending a Designated Two-Year Hispanic-Serving Institution Renzo Lara and J. Luke Wood

133

9. World AIDS Day: A Case Study of How One Hispanic-Serving Institution’s Inclusive Practices Supported Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students Gilbert Valadez

154

10. Engaging the Latino Community: Enhancing Hispanic-Serving Institutions’ Latino Donor Base Noah D. Drenzer and Rebecca C. Villarreal

178

About the Editors

195

Index

197

FOREWORD

E

very other Monday at my university, I attend a meeting held by the administrative council. I work at a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) in West Texas with approximately 6,000 students, 55% of whom identify as Hispanic. We are a growing university with 23% growth over the last two years. Most of our growth is due to our Hispanic students and has resulted in significant increases in the university’s state funding. In fact, every entering class, including first-year and transfer students, is more Hispanic by percent than the previous entering class. Our university’s strategic plan has predicted that enrollment will reach 8,000 students by 2020 along with a concurrent significant increase in the number of our Hispanic students. Our university president leads the administrative council meetings, which are basically an opportunity to address the health of the university along with other challenges and successes. Heads of every department attend the administrative council meetings. Those in attendance range from the head of facilities and vice president of student affairs to the director of development and the provost. In total about 30 individuals attend this meeting. I am the only Hispanic administrator in the entire group. Hispanic administrators make up 3% of the administrators on my campus; Hispanic faculty make up 8% of the total faculty. I share this demographic information for several reasons. First, the Hispanic population in West Texas continues to grow, and our institution has b­ enefited greatly from the enrollment of Hispanic students. In fact, as I noted earlier, this specific population’s enrollment growth has resulted in unprecedented growth for the university as a whole and the highest funding for the university since its inception. Second, my institution has benefited from more than $20 million—yes, $20 million—from external Title V grants that support HSIs. Title V provides grants to HSIs so that they can increase and expand educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Title V also assists with the expansion of program offerings, program value, and institutional permanency. My institution has become financially secure owing chiefly to our Hispanic students. Please do not misunderstand me here; my institution, like many others across the country, is working hard to identify ways to strengthen the retention and graduation rates of our Hispanic students. These same ix

x  

foreword

institutions must also look beyond enrollment numbers and funding opportunities and focus on important yet nuanced issues related to retention and graduation. For example, at my institution we are expanding our office of student success and identifying innovative ways to connect with and support our Hispanic students. Many of our first-generation Hispanic students have young families, care for an elderly parent or grandparent, and hold down jobs. As a result, my institution has sought to address Hispanic student success by creating or facilitating peer-to-peer mentoring programs, learningoriented communities, structured first-year experiences, and ways to connect with students beyond their first year. We have accomplished much, but we still have a long way to go. This book of essays, edited by Jesse Perez Mendez, Fred A. Bonner II, Josephine Méndez-Negrete, and Robert T. Palmer, can help my institution and other HSIs increase their effectiveness when working with Hispanic students. In Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education: Their Origin, and Present and Future Challenges, the editors have brought together an outstanding group of scholars to probe questions of what it means to attend, persist in, and graduate from—as well as work in—HSIs. We know that HSIs have played a critical role in the success of Hispanic students. We now have a book that will play a critical role in how we think about the future of these important institutions of higher learning. This book offers a historical overview of the development of HSIs, the challenges these institutions faced early in their existence, and the challenges that they still face today. Scholars in this volume also address the specific challenges that Hispanic faculty have in balancing their teaching responsibilities with research and community service. In addition, this book selectively examines issues related to faculty governance at HSIs. The reader of this book will have a better understanding of the ­relationship, among students’ extracurricular worlds and their influence on student success. Scholars in this book also highlight the ways in which HSIs have sought to integrate academic and student affairs, with the goal of validating students’ experiences inside and outside the classroom. To further deepen our understanding of how Hispanic students are perceived, some essays challenge the deficit mind-set that is far too often present in educators’ work with Hispanic students. These essays argue that Hispanic students bring social, cultural, and historical capital to institutions of higher learning and that it is the responsibility of all to elevate and use this capital in the realm of education. Essays in this book examine not only the development of HSIs but also the ways in which HSIs have changed and continue to change, with special attention paid to the experiences of the schools’ White students. The volume concludes by discussing the sense of belonging and self-efficacy characteristic

foreword  

xi

of Hispanic males who attend two-year institutions; how HSIs create inclusive communities for students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered; and the important role that philanthropy plays in the success of HSIs. This book about HSIs is both comprehensible and scholarly and provides a broad overview of issues influencing Hispanic students. Those readers interested in staying informed about the most pressing current and future issues faced by HSIs will welcome the ideas and discussions in this book. Policymakers, higher education administrators, faculty, students, and community leaders will find the content of this book enriching and insightful and will be inspired to act on behalf of these valuable institutions and the students who attend them. Frank Hernandez, PhD Dean, College of Education  The University of Texas of the Permian Basin

INTRODUCTION Laura I. Rendón

I

n the early 1980s, when I was starting my professional career in higher education, I remember attending a meeting to discuss the creation of Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. At the time Latino issues were rather obscure and misunderstood; few professionals were interested in public policy or education issues affecting the nation’s Hispanic population. Yet, this small group of educators, some senior and some emerging scholars like me, understood that something dramatic was happening—something that was not apparent on the radar screens of education policymakers. We knew Latinos were growing in number, and we knew we wanted equitable federal funding considerations to ensure that educational support programs were implemented for Latinos, especially in colleges and universities that were experiencing significant growth in their Hispanic student enrollment. I don’t think anyone in that room could have fully imagined the demographic and institutional scenario that we have today—roughly 409 HSIs, 296 emerging HSIs, and more to come (Excelencia in Education, 2015). Quietly, yet not so slowly and with definite assurance, Latinos have been transforming the landscape of American higher education. Within the next 10 years it is likely that HSIs will grow from 15% to 20% of the nation’s public and private two- and four-year colleges and universities. If this is the trend today, one can only imagine what the scenario will be like 30 years from now when Latinos will account for about 30% of the U.S. population. Some might even envision a scenario in which HSIs become the majority of higher education institutions in the United States. Consequently, this book appears at a dynamic time when we are witnessing the “Browning” of American higher education. These chapters point to successes and unresolved challenges as well as to research gaps and new study findings that advance our understanding of the faculty, staff, and student experience in HSIs. They call for us to imagine the next evolution of HSIs. This book’s contents are contemporary in nature, and they lift the scholarship of HSIs in significant ways. We learn the importance of past and present Latino advocacy, and we are reminded that equity for Latinos has never 1

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education been freely given. For example, the first chapter by Patrick L. Valdez examines the often overlooked history of HSIs. Attention to Hispanics in higher education from policymakers was not necessarily intentional or accorded by design. From the 1980s and into the 1990s it took a concerned group of Latino advocates to push for federal attention to HSIs. Indeed, as Valdez notes, we should never forget that HSIs stand on the shoulders of giants, courageous Latino advocates who faced powerful congressional leaders as they launched an aggressive campaign to push for Hispanic student success and expanded educational opportunities. It is now the role of present and future advocates to keep that vision alive. This book’s contributors also turn their attention to the importance of faculty issues in HSIs, a critical topic that remains underresearched. Chapter 2 by Jesse Perez Mendez, Fred A. Bonner II, Robert T. Palmer, and Josephine Méndez-Negrete informs us that Latino faculty remain underrepresented in American higher education. This is the case across institutional types and even at many HSIs, where one would think that the ­administrators would make a special effort to diversify their faculty and administrative ranks to provide Latino students with culturally sensitive mentors and role ­models to positively affect students’ intellectual, social, emotional, and innerlife development. The participation of Hispanic faculty in leadership and governance is also critical for creating a community of inclusiveness and social justice, a point made by María C. Ledesma and Rebeca Burciaga in ­Chapter 3. We are now at a point when greater attention should be given to not only the representation of Latino faculty in HSIs but also the advancement of Latinos as college and university presidents, academic and student affairs leaders, and trustees. Student success is now on the radar of almost every two- and four-year college in the nation. Given the general unsatisfactory progress of Latinos at HSIs, it is critical for these institutions to become not only H ­ ispanic-serving, but also Hispanic-graduating colleges and universities. Two chapters address the importance of the in- and out-of-class student experience to promote holistic student success. In Chapter 4 Vasti Torres discusses the importance of the out-of-class student experience, such as providing mentors to create a hospitable, welcoming campus climate and opportunities for student engagement. Edna Martinez and Leslie D. Gonzalez’s Chapter 5 employs validation theory (Rendón, 1994; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011) to showcase six HSI programs focused on student success that are the result of academic and student affairs collaboration. Laura I. Rendón, Amaury Nora, and Vijay Kanagala in Chapter 6 set out to debunk deficit viewpoints about Latino students and offer research evidence that students bring to college diverse ventajas (assets) and conocimientos

Introduction   

(funds of knowledge) rooted in their familial upbringing, lived experiences, and cultural traditions. The scholars note that student success frameworks are incomplete if they don’t account for the cultural wealth Latinos bring to the college experience. It is also important for HSIs to be more intentional about their mission with regard to their identity and their role serving large numbers of Hispanic students, a point Michelle M. Espino makes in Chapter 7. Espino reflects the sentiments of many Latino scholars when she argues, “HSIs are in great need of developing a more heightened institutional identity with ethnocentric curricula and programs and practices that reflect Hispanic culture” (p. 128). Renzo Lara and J. Luke Wood suggest in Chapter 8 that HSIs should ensure that students experience a sense of belonging and are able to become involved in the campus culture. This book does well at keeping an eye on the ultimate prize: Latino students and their success. HSIs are playing a key role in educating large numbers of Latino students who are diverse in terms of not only gender and ethnicity but also sexuality, religion, physical ability, worldview, citizenry, and financial status. There is much we have yet to learn about the full range of diversity among Latino students. For example, Hispanic lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students’ experiences in higher education have not been the subject of extensive research or educational programming. Gilbert Valadez’s Chapter 9 provides an example of how one HSI nevertheless supported this cohort of students living with AIDS. Finally, Chapter 10 focuses on yet another underresearched topic: philanthropic activities at HSIs. Noah D. Drenzer and Rebecca C. Villarreal note that in a period of fiscal exigency and at a time of increased Latino population growth, it is important for HSIs to develop alternative modes of fiscal support and to develop a new donor base in particular. Latinos have typically not been viewed as givers, but according to emerging literature, they will give if they are motivated to do so by Latino programming and efforts to promote Latino success. Latinos will also give if they are approached by solicitors who use a framework of personalismo, a personal connection or relationship that engenders trust. As we see the emergence of more Latinos with middle- and upper-class status, it will be important for HSIs to cultivate close relationships that can result in creating and sustaining a solid Latino donor base and an influential cadre of Latinos who promote and fund institutional policy and practice that have a positive impact on students. HSIs are now the Brown center of higher education, and their evolution has turned them into the fastest-growing segment of higher education. It is now time to develop a new, futuristic vision of HSIs. This future is not so much about having more HSIs; clearly, that is already happening.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education The contributors to this book point us to a vision that is nothing short of HSIs being highly regarded as distinct, yet excellent, and in the same league with the most prestigious colleges and universities in the nation. The future calls for HSIs to come into their own as institutions that enjoy high Latino bachelor’s degree completion and transfer rates to four-year institutions, wide scholarly and governance participation of Latino faculty and staff, and large endowments. I have no doubt that this HSI transformation will ultimately happen with relentless advocacy and with a cadre of newly emerging Latino leaders who will see to it that the vision of our early leaders, who sought nothing less than a high-quality education for Hispanic students, endures, advances, and unfolds even beyond our wildest imagination.

References Excelencia in Education. (2015). Hispanic serving institutions (HSIs): 2013–2014. Washington, DC: Author. Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Towards a new model of learning and student development. Innovation Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51. Rendón Linares, L. I., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 12–33.

1 A N O V E RV I E W O F H I S PA N I C S E RV I N G I N S T I T U T I O N S ’ L E G I S L AT I O N Legislation Policy Formation Between 1979 and 1992 Patrick L. Valdez

The Congress acts on what citizens bring to them and it rarely gets documented but we [Latinos] need to have the same history of record . . . so that generations later will know who the pathfinders were when there was no course charted, when there was no road to be followed. (Proponent 3, personal communication, March 28, 2012)1

R

esearch by Latino2 scholars (Acuña, 2006; Ana, 2002; De León, 1971, 1983; Galarza, 1969; Gándara, 2009; Meier, 1972; Montejano,  1987; Rosales, 1997; Samora, 1971; San Miguel & Valencia, 2004; Zamora, Orozco, & Rocha, 2000) has provided a history of the social struggles faced by Latinos in the United States, but little research exists about the Latino struggle to gain recognition and equity within the federal higher education community (MacDonald, 2001, 2004; MacDonald, Botti, & Clark, 2007; MacDonald & Garcia, 2003). The work and commitment of early Latino higher education advocates has remained largely uninvestigated and unknown to many. This chapter sheds light on the work of early proponents of Hispanic higher education who fought to increase Hispanic student access and opportunities across the country and identifies seminal moments in the legislative policy formation of Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) between 1979 and 1992. 5

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education

Extant Literature Since HSIs were introduced into the higher education lexicon in 1992 (Higher Education Amendments, 1992), a growing body of literature focused on HSIs has emerged. Early research focused on the potential impacts HSIs could have for Hispanic students and institutions (Dey & Hurtado, 1995; Santiago, 1996), investigated HSIs on a comprehensive level, addressed holistic issues such as diversity of student bodies, and examined institutional infrastructure and funding aimed at serving Hispanic students (Benítez, 1998; Laden, 2001, 2004). This work informed and produced a number of HSI policy briefs (Santiago, 2006, 2007, 2008) that offered policymakers and educators a holistic overview of Latino students’ decisions to attend HSIs, costs of attending, outreach strategies, academic support, transfer paths of students attending two-year HSIs, and institutional and best practices of HSIs. Contemporary scholars have begun to look at the mission of HSIs (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008) and have focused specifically on the impact HSIs have on Hispanic student enrollment and completion rates (Crisp & Cruz, 2010; Crisp, Nora, & Taggart, 2009; Núñez, Sparks, & Hernández, 2011; Santiago, Andrade, & Brown, 2004). This shift in focus has placed emphasis on concerns of institutional leaders and policymakers regarding the educational experiences of Hispanic students at HSIs, with the hope that an increased understanding of these students’ quality of educational experiences will lead to an increase in Hispanic student success. The growing body of scholarship on HSIs has allowed us to gain a better understanding of HSIs, but how the HSI designation was formulated remains a bit of an enigma. Santiago’s (2006) time line and Espino and Cheslock’s (2008) research inform us that HSI legislation has roots prior to 1992; thus in this chapter I seek to elucidate the HSI legislation policy formation period between 1979 and 1992.

The Hispanic Higher Education Coalition Much of the current literature on HSIs identifies the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) and its members as early advocates for federal legislation to formally recognize institutions of higher education (IHEs) that serve large numbers of Hispanic students as HSIs in 1992, but an analysis of congressional documents reveals that members representing the Hispanic Higher Education Coalition (HHEC) began providing testimony in support of increasing federal funds to “Hispanic Colleges” during the 1979 hearings for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA; “Reauthorization

An Overview of Legislation   

of the HEA,” Part 1, 1979, p. 328). Although Latino advocates and organizations had testified before Congress on a wide range of issues prior to the reauthorization of the HEA in 1979, the saliency of the HHEC is that it was the first broad-based coalition of Latino educators, leaders, and organizations to develop testimony focused on increasing federal funding to IHEs serving large numbers of Latino students. As one member of the HHEC stated: They [League of United Latin American Citizens and other social and civic Latino organizations] knew what the problems were, they just didn’t have really good spokespeople to bring them [higher education issues] up [or] the resources and infrastructure to make it substantive. (Proponent 4, personal communication, May 25, 2012)

This realization, coupled with an understanding of the issues facing Latinos in higher education, served as the impetus for establishing the HHEC in Washington, DC, in 1978. According to a Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF, 1979) memorandum, the HHEC was initially made up of the following Latino advocacy organizations: ASPIRA of America, El Congreso Nacional de Asuntos Colegiales, League of United Latin American Citizens, MALDEF, National Association for Equal Educational Opportunities, National Council of La Raza (NCLR), Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the U.S. Catholic Conference. Key Latino practitioners and scholars associated with forming the HHEC include Al Perez, Alvin Rivera, Michael Olivas, Monte Perez, and Ray Valdivieso.

1979: A Watershed Moment in Hispanic Higher Education Officially formed in 1978, the HHEC convened through the coordination of MALDEF (1979). Members of the HHEC recognized the need to increase funding to underresourced institutions that were educating large numbers of Hispanic students and identified Title III of HEA (1965), Strengthening Developing Institutions, as a source for delivering increased federal funds. Because Title III was created to strengthen underfunded developing institutions through a competitive grant process, HHEC members knew that several colleges and universities enrolling large numbers of Hispanic students qualified for Title III. Using the experience and the expertise of HHEC members and the organizations they represented, HHEC members prepared testimony that showed how Title III grants had been inconsistently awarded to Hispanic colleges. Representing the HHEC in 1979, Alvin Rivera’s testimony provided a background of the critical needs facing Hispanic students, an overview of Title III and its application to Hispanic students, and recommendations for amending Title III that would address the Hispanic population. The

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education testimony focused on four areas that the HHEC believed needed attention to increase Hispanic higher education success: access, retention, professional development, and institutional representation. The HHEC used data on the growing Hispanic population, which at the time made up 6.9% of the U.S. population and 33% of the U.S. minority population, to argue for increased Title III funding. Additionally, Rivera provided Hispanic education and labor statistics that highlighted low education and high unemployment rates as stating, Educational attainment still remains at the 9th grade level. Dropout rates soar over 50% in an overwhelming number of densely populated school districts. Participation rates in four year, graduate, and professional schools continue to be 1% to 2%. These inequities set against the continued high unemployment rates of Hispanic youth (upwards to 30%) exemplify the seriousness of the inequities we face. (“Reauthorization of the HEA,” Part 1, 1979, p. 326)

These data illustrated how IHEs serving Hispanic students qualified for Title III under the developing institutions definition, yet data provided by the HHEC on the Basic Institutional Development Program (BIDP) showed that funding for IHEs serving Hispanic students was remarkably lower than for other institutions and inconsistent from year to year (see Table 1.1). Using the BIDP data and Government Accountability Office reports as a cornerstone, the HHEC recommended the following changes to Title III: College Programs: The coalition recommends that this Title be changed to “Strengthening Developing Institutions and College Programs.” This change is directed toward providing incentives through effective and innovative college programs. The college programs will be designed to serve substantial numbers of economically disadvantaged students and students who come from environments in which the dominant language is a language other than English. (“Reauthorization of the HEA,” Part 1, 1979, p. 333)

Additionally, the HHEC made recommendations to increase funds set aside for community colleges. The Coalition recognizes the contribution that community colleges make to higher education. We know that over 50 percent of Hispanic students start in community colleges. In the past, Title III has received a disproportionately large number of applications from community colleges. However, the setaside for community colleges presently is limited to 24 percent. The Coalition recommends that the current 24% set-side for community colleges be increased to 40 percent. (“Reauthorization of the HEA,” Part 1,1979, p. 336)

An Overview of Legislation    TABLE 1.1

Funds Awarded for Hispanic Programs From 1966 to 1978 Funds Awarded for Hispanic Program’s Basic Institutional Development ­Program Title III, Strengthening Developing Institutions, Fiscal Years 1966–1978 Year

Number of Colleges Total Amount Funded ($)

Percentage (%) of Total Funds

Average Grant ($)

1966

NA

164,784

3.00

NA

1967

NA

504,188

1.60

NA

1968

NA

919,010

3.00

NA

1969

NA

891,147

2.90

NA

1970

NA

610,000

2.00

NA

1971

14

613,000

4.76

115,214

1972

18

2,816,000

5.43

156,444

1973

23

3,556,000

6.83

154,608

1974

26

3,812,000

7.33

146,615

1975

24

4,336,000

8.33

180,666

1976

31

4,660,825

8.96

150,349

1977

27

4,861,440

9.35

180,053

1978

22

3,612,000

6.95

164,181

Note. From “Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and Related Measures, Part 1: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,” 96th Cong. 1 (1979) (testimony of Alvin Rivera), pp. 332–333.

The HHEC recommendations were reiterated and restated during the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and Related Measures, Part 8 (1979) and Higher Education Amendments of 1979 hearings in July and October, 1979. The HHEC’s concerns and recommendations were captured in a 1982 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report that summarized the 1979 HEA hearings: The hearings ranged across many issues, including the appropriateness of the new program regulations, the role of assisting agencies, the requirement that grantees enter into cooperative arrangements, the extent to which institutions appeared to be dependent upon Title III assistance, the

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education participation of institutions serving Hispanic students, the effect of the community and junior college set-aside, the definition of a “developing” institution, and the misuse of funds. (Stedman, 1982, p. CRS-44)

As a result of many issues raised during the 1979 hearings, a Senate and House conference committee was formed to resolve the disparities between differing versions of the Education Amendments signed into law on October 3, 1980 (Stedman, 1982, p. CRS-48). The compromise between the Senate and House versions is the following: Agreed on a three-part Title [III] to be known as Institutional Aid. Part A, Strengthening Institutions was derived from the House version of Title III; Part B, Aid to Institutions with Special Needs embodied many features of the Senate program of that same name; Part C—Challenge Grants established a separate matching grant program. The set-aside for schools historically serving Black students was applied to the Special Needs program (Part B) and limited the amount of Title III funding these institutions could receive to 50 percent for FY [fiscal year] 1979. (Stedman, 1982, p. CRS-48)

A review of the Education Amendments made to Title III in 1980 indicates that testimony provided by the HHEC during the 1979 HEA hearings had some effect on Title III’s future direction. The HHEC’s 1979 testimony was unprecedented in Latino higher education because it was the first concerted effort to expand Title III to increase federal funding to colleges and universities serving large numbers of Hispanic students. The 1979 testimony also laid the foundation for HHEC testimony and advocacy during the Oversight Hearing on Title III in 1981, Hearings on the Reauthorization of the HEA in 1984, and Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Title III: Developing Institutions, Volume 6, in 1985.

HHEC: Understanding the Policy Process and Gaining Congressional Support One of the key elements required to create policy is a group’s ability to turn a social issue into an agenda item (Sabatier, 1993; Stone, 2001). HHEC members provided testimony during the 1979, 1981, 1984, and 1985 HEA hearings. Participation in these HEA hearings allowed the HHEC to continue advocating for Hispanic higher education legislation throughout the 1980s. Each time HHEC members testified, they faced resistance from other stakeholders who suggested that Title III was created to fund traditional Black colleges and that any deviation from that purpose would be contrary to

An Overview of Legislation   

the title’s original intent. Despite these challenges, the HHEC was successful at navigating Congress and stemming resistance because its members understood the policy formation process. For example, as stated by one member of the HHEC: We began identifying Latinos throughout the country who could testify on our behalf; we helped write testimony for them, and got them in. It was easy to do in those days because the place was run by Democrats. Now, it changed in 1980, of course, when Ronald Reagan’s people came in. But even then, part of the thing about DC is that there are parts of it that just move on, whoever’s in charge. You know, the establishment, the organizations. . . . There are individual players that change but sometimes changing administrations gives you new opportunities not fewer. So you know, we ebbed and flowed. (Proponent 4, personal communication, May 25, 2012)

By understanding the policy formation process HHEC members not only earned access to testify during HEA hearings, but also gained increased congressional support for the Hispanic higher education community as they moved forward. One example of the HHEC members’ understanding of the policy process is how they gained congressional support from a group of congressional representatives from the southwest United States. In a letter to President Jimmy Carter, dated March 14, 1979, a bipartisan group of senators (Pete V. Domenici, Dennis DeConcini, Gary Hart, S. I. Hayakawa, Harrison Schmitt, John Tower, and Barry Goldwater) expressed concerns that the administration had ignored the needs of Hispanic students (“HEA Amendments of 1979,” p. 872). Rivera referred to the letter during his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities in 1979. When asked how the HHEC was able to gain the interest of the seven bipartisan senators, one proponent explained that the strategy was to draw their attention to the limited Title III appropriations that were being awarded to western states: If you went back and looked at funding levels by state during that period, you would see so clearly that the western states, and it just so happens that that’s where Latinos were. . . . This was not a Latino complaint, let me quickly add, this was really a complaint, if you would, muted as it was, of some states just not getting [Title III] support because qualifying applicants that met the eligibility criteria [for Title III funding] were somehow coming out at the bottom end [of the applicant review process]. So “that” [the level of federal funding to certain states] was the concern at the time, not necessarily in reference to Hispanic underrepresentation [in

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education college]. Trust me, even with people like Gary Hart, Hayakawa, Schmitt, and Domenici—Schmitt and Domenici I think were both from New Mexico. They knew about Latinos, but the issues of Latinos in higher education wasn’t quite as high a priority for them yet, but at that time every member—even today it continues—was sensitive to their state getting its rightful share of [federal] monies. (Proponent 2, personal communication, February 17, 2012)

The letter from the seven senators and HHEC testimony in 1979 increased pressure on Congress to consider restructuring Title III after the 1979 HEA reauthorization hearings. The pressure provided access to HEA hearings and created momentum that the HHEC used to encourage Latino and non-Latino congressional members to sponsor the Hispanic Access to Higher Education hearing (1982). Subsequently, the HHEC was invited to give testimony during the hearings for the HEA Amendments (1984) and “Reauthorization of the HEA, Title III” (1985).

Hispanic Access to Higher Education Hearing In 1982 Rep. Paul Simon (D-IL), chairman of the House Subcommittee for Postsecondary Education, sponsored the first congressional hearing focused on Hispanic higher education (Hispanic Access to Higher Education, 1982a). Simon opened the hearing with the following: We are holding hearings today for the first time on a problem that is not one which is likely to erupt in headlines. It is the question of Hispanics in higher education. . . . It is a problem that tends to be ignored. For example, in my rural, southern Illinois District, there are virtually no Hispanics. They live in certain pockets in the State, and the higher education communities have not paid that much attention to the problem. (Hispanic Access to Higher Education, 1982a, p. 1)

Simon’s statement is important because it acknowledged that Hispanic students had been ignored, and he was willing to use Illinois (his home state) to illustrate the lack of attention Hispanic students had received from state governments and higher education institutions. Of the 50 percent of Hispanics who finished their high school education—incidentally, this is the highest dropout rate of any ethnic group in the United States, and is another indication of the problem that has to be addressed—19 percent go on to enroll in postsecondary institutions. The

An Overview of Legislation    enrollment of these students who do enter higher education is disproportionately weighted in 2-year community colleges, with very little transition into 4-year colleges and graduate schools. (Hispanic Access to Higher Education, 1982a, p. 1)

Simon’s statements and sponsorship of the hearing elevated the concern over Hispanic higher education and provided a platform for Hispanic congressional members to lend support. Although there were no Hispanic representatives on the Committee for Postsecondary Education, Robert Garcia (D-NY) provided testimony on behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Cau3 cus. His testimony echoed the sentiments expressed by Simon and provided testimony in support of the HHEC recommendations: To the degree that Federal programs influence institutional behavior and to the degree that institutional advocacy influences Federal policies, these policies form a cycle difficult to break without specific programs or policy intervention. Many Hispanic educational organizations, and specifically the Hispanic higher education coalition [HHEC], have sought to address these barriers via a concise focus on the policy process aspect of this problem. Their efforts have been concentrated on greater Hispanic access to postsecondary education and the retention of Hispanics in college programs. (Hispanic Access to Higher Education, 1982c, p. 6)

Garcia went on to state that the lack of Hispanic representation at the Title III program office—or in the policy-making process—had served as a disadvantage to the Hispanic community: Many scholars and researchers familiar with the Hispanic community assume that Hispanic education issues have not been sufficiently examined even by equity researchers or bilingual educators. Systematic and structural disadvantages facing Hispanic learners are so great at all levels of education are so intertwined with Hispanics’ political powerlessness that disadvantages are rarely understood. Several legislative programs designed to serve economically disadvantaged students have failed to reach Hispanic students because program administrators at Federal, State, and institutional levels are unfamiliar with Hispanic demographics and because too few Hispanic professionals are employed in positions of influence and policymaking, such as Title III funding and developing institutions. (Hispanic Access to Higher Education, 1982c, p. 7)

The Hispanic Access hearing was not explicitly focused on expanding Title III funding, but the HHEC, represented by Arturo Madrid of the

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education University of Minnesota, provided testimony in a prepared statement highlighting the struggle surrounding Hispanic higher education access.4 Over the past 20 years Hispanic organizations, ad-hoc groups, and individuals have waged a sustained struggle to improve the participation rate of Hispanics in higher education. The rationale we have used in that struggle has been equity; that is, the need to correct our underrepresentation in American institutions as a “consequence of institutional discrimination and/or exclusion. We have argued that there is a historical relation in American society between level of education and income, social status, participation in institutional life, general well-being, and increasingly, employment as well. (Hispanic Access to Higher Education, 1982b, pp. 17–19; Madrid’s statement was prepared and submitted on behalf of the HHEC)

Testimony from the HHEC during the Hispanic Access hearing was one of a series of statements provided by several Latino organizations. Obtaining support from Garcia and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is a testament to the impact the HHEC had on influencing early congressional efforts aimed at Hispanic higher education, but members were also aware that they needed to gain support from non-Hispanic congressional representatives. The following excerpts from interviews with HHEC members revealed that building relationships with congressional staffers was instrumental in forming this support. The rationale was getting some testimony for the 1980 reauthorization. And we didn’t have much time; these things are done in house with [congressional] staffers who usually tap the usual cast of characters and for us it was kind of like building those relationships with members. And again, this is with the higher education community, the legislative higher education community. We were like, at that point in time, the new kids on the block and so we didn’t have as much leverage. (Proponent 2, personal communication, February 17, 2012) I could tell you because I could remember vividly, we had some helpers. We knew we had some people in the Congress that worked with us, people out of Kennedy’s office especially I remembered that. We knew all the committee chairs and if we had people there in those offices we would work with them to see how we could prepare to get our testimonies together and which committees we needed to go to and so forth and so on. (Proponent 3, personal communication, March 28, 2012) And then we begin advocating, identifying some of the presidents, people like [removed for confidentiality] and so forth. I formed a friendship with

An Overview of Legislation    a staff member to Bill Ford, who was the head of the higher education subcommittee [House Committee on Postsecondary Education], and he was the one heading up reauthorization. . . . I remember having a meeting; we [HHEC] wanted to put something in so we arranged for [a] Representative to bring the staff member to his office while we sat there and made the pitch. And it was in his office, but [the] Congressman just was running around and so forth. But it was very symbolic that the staffer had been summoned to a Congressional office where we could make the pitch to him. (Proponent 4, personal communication, May 25, 2012)

Because the group understood and could successfully leverage the political process, the HHEC gained support and influenced changes to Title III’s program administration (Stedman, 1982). Yet no specific language or set-aside recommendations provided by the HHEC during the 1979 and 1982 hearings in regard to funding higher education institutions serving large numbers of Hispanics made their way into Title III policy legislation until 1984.

Moving Toward HSI Legislation: 1984 and 1985 HEA Hearings During the 1984 hearings on the reauthorization of the HEA, Simon sponsored H.R. 5240 to reauthorize the HEA of 1965 to include language identifying an IHE with 40% or more Hispanic student enrollment as an Hispanic institution, but members of the HHEC were concerned that the 40% threshold would exclude the majority of IHEs located on the U.S. mainland. The HHEC recommended that 30% or more Hispanic student enrollment be used as the percentage to identify IHEs as Hispanic institutions (see Figure 1.1). Simon and the HHEC’s recommendations could be considered the first legislative attempt to define colleges and universities serving a significant number of Hispanics through the use of a percentage designation. Moreover, the HHEC recommended that institutions should reflect (some proportion of ) the following: (1) Be physically located in areas which have significant populations of Hispanics; (2) Be physically located in areas where the local elementary and secondary school enrollment reflect significant Hispanic enrollments which exceeds the state average by more than double; (3) Have cooperative agreements with local LEA’s having significant Hispanic enrollments; (4) Have Title IV Trio programs enrolling 50% or more Hispanic students; (5) Show evidence of significant Hispanic staffing patterns, at the faculty and administrative levels; (6) Have special academic or campus programs accessed by Hispanics which provide training in academic and professional areas in

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education which Hispanics are underrepresented; and, (7) Show evidence of serious commitment to the needs of Hispanic learners and the Hispanic community. (Hearings on the Reauthorization of the HEA, 1984a, pp. 808–809)

suggests that the definition of a Hispanic institution was never intended to rest solely on a percentage designation (see Figure 1.1). Figure 1.1  Title III, Definition of Hispanic Institutions

For purposes of Title III, we recommend under Sec. 312, Definitions, Part 2(c) that an Hispanic Institution be defined more expansively than proposed. The current language in H.R. 5240 defines an Hispanic institution as one having an enrollment of which at least 40 percent are Hispanic. We applaud the move away from a reliance on a simple Hispanic majority criteria. However we must point out that there are only 24 institutions on the U.S. mainland which meet this 40 percent criteria. These 24 schools collectively enroll 77,000 Hispanic students or only 16% of all U.S. mainland college students. Taking into account the 34 institutions in Puerto Rico, which together enroll 130,000 Hispanic students, 911 U.S. institutions encompassed under the 40% criteria would only reflect a maximum enrollment of 34% of all Hispanic students. We urge the consideration of a broader definition which can encompass a larger universe of Hispanic learners and not be as narrowly targeted. We suggest that for purposes of this part: the term “institutions with significant enrollments of Hispanic students” mean any institutions which have Hispanic student enrollments of a minimum of thirty percent [30%] of the total institutional enrollment and/or fifteen hundred or more Hispanic students enrolled full-time. In addition to the above, such institutions should reflect (some proportion of) the following: (1) Be physically located in areas which have significant populations of Hispanics. (2) Be physically located. in areas where the local elementary and secondary school enrollment reflect significant Hispanic enrollments which exceeds the state average by more than double. (3) Have cooperative agreements with local LEA’s having significant Hispanic enrollments. (4) Have Title IV Trio programs enrolling 50% or more Hispanic students. (5) Show evidence of significant Hispanic staffing patterns, at the faculty and administrative levels. (6) Have special academic or campus programs accessed by Hispanics which provide training in academic and professional areas in which Hispanics are underrepresented. (7) Show evidence of serious commitment to the needs of Hispanic learners and the Hispanic community. This can be reflected in the required five-year master plan for institutional development. Such a definition will more accurately reflect the actual institutional enrollment patterns of Hispanic across the nation. It is estimated that approximately seventy colleges and universities on the mainland would meet this criteria in addition to all 34 Puerto Rican institutions.

Note. From “Hearings on the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 98th Cong. 1,” 1984, pp. 808–809.

An Overview of Legislation   

When asked about the process that resulted in this percentage designation, one early proponent stated the following: There was such an extraordinary concentration of Hispanics and just a handful of institutions . . . in this period, here again we’re trying to amend the bill in ’85, ’86. And so we had a lot of discussion in terms of how broadly or how narrowly do we want to try to make the case for Latino institutional support. At the early stages, there wasn’t a set agreement on that because the reality was that where you had Hispanic majority institutions, and there must have been maybe, I don’t know, maybe 17–18 of them at the time, and you had a real regional skewedness [sic]. (Proponent 2, personal communication, February 17, 2012)

Furthermore, HHEC members agreed that any federal funding focused on increasing Hispanic higher education success should be awarded to the institutions. [We were trying] to get something free standing that was independent of the institutions but that had institution basis because 501(c)(3)s and nongovernment organizations and groups like that couldn’t really deliver the goods, which meant instructing the students and actually getting Title III money, so it had to be institutionally based. And then the only question was how do you identify them. . . . You can give all kinds of lectures and talks and they can pass all kinds of proclamations and you can have all kinds of commissions and do all kinds of studies, but at the end of the day, [it is about] delivering money to institutions to educate these kids. (Proponent 4, personal communication, May 25, 2012)

In the final version of the HEA (1986), Congress amended Title III by adding to Part A, Section 312(b), Subsection (3). Section 312(b)(3) recognized any institution legally authorized by the secretary of education to provide higher education within a state, with “an enrollment of which at least 20 percent are Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Hispanic students, or combination thereof,” as eligible for Title III funding (p. 100 Stat. 1292). An equally significant amendment added to the HEA of 1986 was Section 353(a)(2), which required the secretary “to assure that representatives of historically and predominantly Black colleges, Hispanic institutions, Native American colleges and universities, and institutions with substantial numbers of Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Native American Pacific Islanders (including Native Hawaiians)” be included as readers during the Title III application review process (p. 100 Stat. 1305). The difference between the 40% and 30% thresholds recommended by Simon and the HHEC suggests that significant consideration was given

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education to the impact a percentage threshold would have on making an institution eligible for Title III funding. It also reveals that further negotiations were required to bridge the 10% gap that existed between the HHEC’s 30% recommendation and Simon’s proposed 40% in H.R. 5240 (HEA, 1984). These negotiations occurred throughout the 1984 and 1985 HEA hearings. When asked how the two parties arrived at the 20% designation in 1986, one of the proponents stated the following: The best we came up with was language that spoke to lowering the common denominator, you know, lowering the threshold . . . I guess is a way to put it, for any institution that had at least a 20% enrollment of Latinos that would get some extra points under Title III. And at that time when we did our analysis on institutional enrollment patterns, we figured that that 20% would be as fair as we could come up with to be as inclusive as possible with institutions where Latinos were concentrated. We really battled back and forth but again the battle was seeing what particular formula would provide increased eligibility and hopefully increase chances for Hispanic or institutions with Hispanic enrollment being in a more competitive position to draw down on these funds. (Proponent 2, personal communication, February 17, 2012)

In conjunction with deriving a percentage threshold that was fair to IHEs with a concentration of Hispanic students and inclusive of regional representation, HHEC members were aware that adding any federal policy amendment to the HEA of 1986 required a compromise with members of Congress. When asked how HHEC members arrived at this awareness, one proponent offered the following: Because we were in DC, we knew the real action was in legislation and we knew, working with [congressional] staff members, that there’s just a methodology of doing this kind of stuff. . . . So we fight over, you know, should it go in section 3 or should we try and add a new section on. And you know, we did horse trading and the like. So all of it was very highly technical and legal and drafting and those kinds of things. (Proponent 4, personal communication, May 25, 2012)

Analysis of HHEC testimony during the 1979, 1981, 1984, and 1985 HEA reauthorization hearings and interview responses from Hispanic higher education proponents reveals that the decision to designate and award monies to IHEs enrolling Hispanic students using a percentage designation was a well-conceived political compromise that could “win” in the legislature and the field (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2003, p. 26). This, in turn, illustrates

An Overview of Legislation   

how the eventual (and current) HSI designation became law in 1992, based on a 25% or more Hispanic student enrollment threshold, and originated in a policy-making process that began with the HHEC in 1979. The 1985 HEA hearings were the last time anyone from the HHEC would testify on behalf of Hispanic institutions. In 1986 the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) was founded in San Antonio, Texas (HACU, 2011) and in 1991 provided testimony during the HEA reauthorization hearings that recommended Section 316 be added to Title III, Part A of the HEA of 1992 (Congress of the United States, 1991). Section 316 created the first legislative definition of an HSI. As defined by Section 316, any IHE with a full-time undergraduate enrollment comprising a 25% Hispanic student population, 50% of whom must be first generation and low income, was designated an HSI. The history of HACU and its advocacy for HSIs since 1986 is well documented. Less documented are the efforts of the HHEC between 1979 and 1985, yet it is here that the advocacy of HHEC and HACU must be connected. When asked about the advent of HACU in 1986, early proponents provided the following comments: I don’t think anyone was looking for credit for what we did. I just think we did it because it was the right thing to do. That’s a good way of saying it; because it was the right thing to do at the right time. . . . The people who were most impacted by what we were talking about were the people who were going to run those institutions and for them to follow up on some of those initiatives (was important). So that Hispanic college group [HACU] that came in to step up our initial efforts, that was probably pretty damned important. (Proponent 3, personal communication, March 28, 2012) [We] realized very quickly that HACU was going to be the best organization for this because they could actually work with the very institutions where our students were that we were trying to help. And they used the idea, the one HHEC advanced of a percentage. Once HACU became a real player . . . once the DC office was created, they had a structure in place and that’s what became institutionalized and ever since then that organization has prospered and grown and morphed into something else. But their government relations piece was originally what the Hispanic Higher Education Coalition intended to do. (Proponent 4, personal communication, May 25, 2012)

In the six-year span between 1979 and 1985, the HHEC provided HEA testimony in 1979, 1981, 1984, and 1985. What distinguished the efforts of the HHEC from efforts prior to 1979 was that it was a concerted effort by several Latino advocacy groups representing the welfare of the Hispanic

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education community, from social, political, and education sectors, to collectively strategize to ensure Hispanic student higher education success. More important, these groups used data to advocate for legislative change to overcome a history of injustice toward the Hispanic higher education community. The HHEC’s lasting legacy is that its efforts propelled legislation that forever changed Hispanic higher education in the United States and Puerto Rico for hundreds of institutions and thousands of Hispanic students.

HSI Legislation Policy Formation, 1979 to 1992 A review of the HEA reauthorization time line indicates that HEA (1965) was reauthorized four times between 1976 and 1992; the fourth time (1992) was the year HACU introduced HSI legislation that was amended to Title III of the HEA. Yet when HACU was founded in 1986, proponents of Latino higher education had been testifying for the expansion of Title III for nearly 10 years (see Table 1.2). A review of Table 1.2 lists some early proponents of Hispanic higher education and indicates their involvement in HEA hearings in the 1970s and early 1980s. Analysis of testimony given by HHEC members helps frame the policy formation period that directly ties HHEC efforts to the creation and passage of HSI legislation in 1992 (see Table 1.3). The policy formation period begins in 1978, the year the HHEC was formed, identifies seminal moments in HSI legislation, and concludes in 1992, the year HSI legislation was passed by the 102nd Congress. Table 1.3 indicates that 1982 was a seminal year because it was the first time a congressional hearing on Hispanic access to higher education had ever been held. The year 1982 was also when members of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education in the U.S. House of Representatives expressed support for Hispanic higher education. This support laid the foundation for the 1984 and 1985 hearings, during which the 20% designation was amended to Title III to include the (first) eligibility requirements based on an institution of higher education’s “enrollment of which at least 20 percent are Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Hispanic students, or combination thereof ” (HEA, 1986, p. 100 Stat. 1292). Finally, Table 1.3 shows HSI legislation from a policy formation process and demonstrates that Title III amendments that addressed Hispanic higher education were incremental and the result of HHEC advocacy. A better way to understand the impact the HHEC had on the creation of HSI legislation is to look at policy formation as a sequence of legislative actions that occured over a decade (Dougherty, Nienhusser, & Vega, 2010). In doing so we are able to “study the complex process of [policy] formation

Hostos Community College

HHEC

HHEC

HHEC

HHEC

HHEC

HHEC

Candido de Leon

Alvin Rivera

Alvin Rivera

Alvin Rivera

Roberto Zuniga

Rafael Magallan

John Trasvina

99th/1985

98th/1984

97th/1981

96th/1979

96th/1979 (October)

96th/1979 (March)

94th/1976

Congress/Year

Reauthorization of the HEA, Title III: Developing Institutions, Volume 6

Hearings on the Reauthorization of the HEA

Oversight Hearing on Title III of the Institutional Aid Program

HEA Amendments of 1979, Part 8

Reauthorization of the HEA and Related Measures, Part 1

Reauthorization of the HEA and Related Measures, Part 1

HEA Amendments

Hearing Type

Note. HHEC = Hispanic Higher Education Coalition; HEA = Higher Education Act.

Representing

Proponent

House of Representatives

House of Representatives

House of Representatives

Senate

House of Representatives

House of Representatives

House of Representatives

House of Congress

Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education

Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education

Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education

Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities

Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education

Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education

Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education

Subcommittee

TABLE 1.2 Latino Title III Testimony Between 1976 and 1985

Committee on Education and Labor

Committee on Education and Labor

Committee on Education and Labor

Committee on Labor and Human Resources

Committee on Education and Labor

Committee on Education and Labor

Committee on Education and Labor

Committee

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education and change within interest groups that support or resist a policy or program” (Cooper et al., 2003, p. 26) over a period of time (Hojnacki, 1997; ­Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). A review of HHEC congressional testimony that began in 1979 helps establish a 13-year time line of legislative actions that culminated with HSI legislation in 1992 (Figure 1.2), and thus extends Latino higher education advocacy history from 1992 to 1979. However, a review of the literature indicates that the extant research has focused on the efforts of HACU and the post-1992 era. Yet the importance of expanding the time line and including the policy formation efforts of Latino higher education advocates prior to HACU and 1992, as stated at the beginning of this chapter, is that it allows us to establish a history of record “so that generations later will know who the pathfinders were when there was no course charted, when there was no road to be followed” (Proponent 3, personal communication, March 28, 2012).

Conclusion Because history exists on a continuum, it is hard to draw a strict demarcation between the cause-and-effect relationship of one period and another or to measure how much of an impact things set in motion in one decade do or do not have on things that occur in the next decade. Yet we know that “the past causes the present, and so the future” (Stearns, 1998); thus the study of history is not reserved only for understanding how “certifiable heroes, the great men and women of history . . . successfully worked through moral dilemmas, but also of more ordinary people who provide lessons in courage, diligence, or constructive protest” (Stearns, 1998). Such is the case with Latino higher education and the story of how ordinary individuals coalesced to advocate for changes that led to extraordinary legislation in 1992. It is often said that if we can see for miles, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. In the case of Hispanic higher education, however, the measure of what early proponents of Hispanic higher education accomplished is not that they were giants but that they faced giants. Remarkably, they paved the way for HSI legislation in 1992, took what had been entregado (entrusted) to them by previous Latino generations, and became the vanguard for Hispanic higher education legislation starting in 1979. Yet theirs is a history and a struggle that has rarely (if ever) been recorded in higher education textbooks. Far too often, we ascribe social and policy changes to a natural evolution. In doing so, we fail to recognize that change often comes with great sacrifice, dedication, will, and intent, and this can lead to a failure to act on the changes that were brought about by those who previously

An Overview of Legislation    TABLE 1.3

Seminal Moments in Hispanic-Serving Institutions’ Legislation Policy Formation Between 1978 and 1992 Year

Significant Events

1978

Eight social, political, and legal Latino advocacy organizations coalesce to form the Hispanic Higher Education Coalition in Washington, DC.

1979

Hispanic Higher Education Coalition provides testimony before the House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education (March and July 1979) and the Senate Subcommittee (October 1979) to expand Title III to include programs serving large numbers of Hispanic students.

1982

Rep. Paul Simon (D-IL) sponsors the Hispanic Access to Higher Education hearings before the House of Representatives Committee on Postsecondary Education on September 16, 1982. Members of the Hispanic Higher Education Coalition and Congressional Hispanic Caucus testify before Congress.

1986

Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended to include the eligibility requirement based on an institution of higher education’s “enrollment of which at least 20 percent are Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Hispanic students, or combination thereof ” (Higher Education Amendments, 1986, p. 100 Stat. 1292 ).

1986

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities is founded in San Antonio, Texas.

1991/1992

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities gives testimony that coins the term Hispanic-serving institution and increases the 1986 percentage designation from 20% to 25% (Higher Education Amendments, 1992). The “critical mass” explanation is cited as reason for the increase from 20% to 25% designation (Congress of the United States, 1991, p. 65).

Note. Table 1.3 is a revised version of Table 5.2 Seminal Moments in Hispanic Higher ­Education Prior to 1992 in Valdez (2013).

HHEC formed

1978

1982

HHEC testifies before Congress to expand Title III

1979

20% Hispanic eligibility requirement amended to Title III

1984/85 1986

HACU founded in San Antonio, TX HACU requests 20% designation be increased to 25% and introduces the HSI term (1991); Congress passes HSI legislation, and current designation is amended to Title III (1992)

1991 1992

HSI Title V amended to HEA

1998

Present

Post-1992: Current HSI definition and Title V (period most researched and referenced in extant HSI literature).

Note. HACU = Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; HEA = Higher Education Act; HHEC = Hispanic Higher Education Coalition; HSI = Hispanic-serving institution; - - - - - - - = break in HSI literature. From Hispanic-Serving Institution Legislation: An Analysis of Policy Formation Between 1979 and 1992 (Doctoral dissertation), by P. L. Valdez, 2013. Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/21872/VALDEZ-DISSERTATION-2013.pdf?sequence=1. Copyright 2012 by Patrick L. Valdez.

HEA of 1965 passed

1965

Pre-1992: HSI policy formation (period least referenced and researched in extant HSI literature).

Figure 1.2  Expanded HSI Legislation Time Line, 1979 to 1992

An Overview of Legislation   

opened the doors. Moreover, this failure can reduce the impact they had because we have failed to recognize what they did. This chapter sheds light on the important role early proponents of Hispanic higher education and the HHEC played in paving the way for HSI legislation in 1992. The congressional testimony of proponents provided in this chapter, and the names of those who testified, exist and are part of the U.S. congressional record. They have always been there, perhaps waiting for the next generation of Latino scholars to take note. Te los entrego (I give them to you).

Notes 1. Personal communications for this chapter were obtained for my dissertation study titled Hispanic-Serving Institution Legislation: An Analysis of Policy Formation between 1979 and 1992 (Valdez, 2013). Because of internal review board confidentiality requirements, the four interviewees who participated in this study are identified as “proponents of Hispanic higher education.” Although proponents during the HSI policy formation period of this study (1979–1992) were Latino and non-Latino, the four proponents interviewed for this study identified as Latino or Hispanic. 2. The terms Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably in this chapter. 3. Garcia was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election to fill a vacant seat previously held by Herman Badillo. He represented New York’s 18th and 28th Districts from 1978 to 1990 (“Hispanic Americans in Congress,” n.d.). The Congressional Hispanic Caucus was founded in December 1976 as a legislative service organization of the U.S. House of Representatives. Today, the caucus is a Congressional Member organization, governed under the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. The caucus focuses on addressing national and international issues and the impact these policies have on the Hispanic community (“About the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,” 2015). 4. Madrid founded the National Chicano Commission on Higher Education and was director of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.

References About the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. (2010). Retrieved from http://velazquez .house.gov/chc/history.shtml Acuña, R. (2006). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos (6th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Ana, O. S. (2002). Brown tide rising: Metaphors of Latinos in contemporary American public discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Benítez, M. (1998). Hispanic-serving institutions: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Higher Education, 102, 57–68. Congress of the United States House Committee on Education and Labor. (1991). Legislative recommendations for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and related measures. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic serving institutions. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. Turener (Eds.). Understanding minorityserving institutions (pp. 71–90). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cooper, B. S., Fusarelli, L. D., & Randall, E. V. (2003). Better policies, better schools: Theories and applications (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of a measure of “mentoring” among undergraduate students attending a Hispanic serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(3), 232–244. Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a stem degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924–942. De León, A. (1971). Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in Texas, 1910–1920 (Unpublished master’s thesis). Texas Christian University, Fort Worth. De León, A. (1983). They called them greasers: Anglo attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821–1900 (1st ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Dey, E. L., & Hurtado, S. (1995). College impact, student impact: A reconsideration of the role of students within American higher education. Higher Education, 30(2), 207–223. Dougherty, K. J., Nienhusser, H. K., & Vega, B. E. (2010). Undocumented immigrants and state higher education policy: the politics of in-state tuition eligibility in Texas and Arizona. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 123–173. doi:10.1353/rhe.2010.0012 Espino, M., & Cheslock, J. J. (2008). Considering the federal classification of Hispanic-serving institutions and historically Black colleges and universities. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 257–268). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Galarza, E. (1969). Mexican-Americans in the Southwest. Santa Barbara, CA: McNally and Loftin. Gándara, P. P. C. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hearings on the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 98th Cong. 1 (1984a) (testimony of Rafael Magallan). Hearings on the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 98th Cong. 1 (1984b) (testimony of Robert Garcia).

An Overview of Legislation    Higher Education Act, Pub. L. 89-329 (1965). Higher Education Amendments of 1979: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, 96th Cong. 1 (1979) (testimony of Alvin D. Rivera). Higher Education Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. 96-374 (1980). Higher Education Amendments of 1984, H.R. 5240, 98th Cong. (1984). Higher Education Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. 99-498 (1986). Higher Education Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. 102-325 (1992). Hispanic Access to Higher Education: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of ­Representatives, 97th Cong. 1 (1982a) (statement from Paul Simon). Hispanic Access to Higher Education: Hearing before the Subcommittee on ­Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 97th Cong. 1 (1982b) (testimony of Arturo Madrid). Hispanic Access to Higher Education: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 97th Cong. 1 (1982c) (testimony of Robert Garcia). Hispanic Americans in Congress, 1822–1995: Robert Garcia. Retrieved from Library of Congress website: http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/congress/garcia.html Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. (2011). About HACU/HACU 101. Retrieved from http://www.hacu.net/hacu/HACU_101.asp Hojnacki, M. (1997). Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 61–87. Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-serving institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(1), 73–92. Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 181–198. doi:10.1080/10668920490256381 MacDonald, V. (2001). Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, or “other”?: Deconstructing the relationship between historians and Hispanic-American educational history. History of Education Quarterly, 41(3), 365–413. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5959.2001 .tb00093.x MacDonald, V. (2004). Latino education in the United States: A narrated history from 1513–2000. New York, NY: Macmillan. MacDonald, V., Botti, J., & Clark, L. H. (2007). From visibility to autonomy: Latinos and higher education in the U.S., 1965–2005. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 474–504. MacDonald, V., & Garcia, T. (2003). Historical perspectives on Latino access to higher education, 1848–1990. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority: Expanding the representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators and students in higher education (pp. 15–46). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Meier, M. S. (1972). The Chicanos: A history of Mexican Americans. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. (1979, January 23). Memorandum. Washington, DC: Author. Montejano, D. (1987). Anglos and Mexicans in the making of Texas, 1836–1986 (1st ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Núñez, A.-M., Sparks, P., & Hernández, E. A. (2011). Latino access to community colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions: A national study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(1), 18–40. doi:10.1177/1538192710391801 Oversight Hearing on Title III of the Institutional Aid Program: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 97th Cong. 1 (1981) (testimony of Roberto Zuniga). Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and Related Measures, Part 1: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 96th Cong. 1 (1979) (testimony of Alvin Rivera). Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and Related Measure, Part 8: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 96th Cong. 1 (1979) (testimony of Alvin Rivera). Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Title III: Developing Institutions, Volume 6: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 99th Cong. 1 (1985) (testimony of John Trasvina). Rosales, F. (1997). Chicano!: The history of the Mexican American civil rights movement. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press. Sabatier, P. A. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In P. Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 13–39). San Francisco, CA: Westview Press. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Samora, J. (1971). Los mojados: The wetback story. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. San Miguel, G., Jr., & Valencia, R. R. (2004). From the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo to hopwood: The educational plight and struggle of Mexican Americans in the southwest. In D. J. Carter, S. M. Flores, & R. Reddick (Eds.), Legacies of Brown: Multiracial equity in American education (pp. 121–180). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Santiago, D. A. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): The basics. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ ERICServlet?accno=ED506052 Santiago, D. A. (2007). Choosing Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): A closer look at Latino students’ college choices. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/ hsi-cp2/research/choosing-hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis-closer-look-latinostudents-college

An Overview of Legislation    Santiago, D. A. (2008). Modeling Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): Campus practices that work for Latino students. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/ hsi-cp2/research/modeling-hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis-campus-practiceswork-latino-students Santiago, D. A, Andrade, S. J., & Brown, S. E. (2004). Latino student success at Hispanic-serving institutions. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/ research/latino-student-success-hsi-demonstration-project Santiago, I. S. (1996). Increasing the Latino leadership pipeline: Institutional and organizational strategies. New Directions for Community Colleges, 94, 25–38. Stearns, P. N. (1998). Why study history? Retrieved from http://www.historians.org/ pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm Stedman, J. (1982). Federal institutional aid for postsecondary education: Analysis of Title III of the Higher Education Act (Report No. 82-194 EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Norton. Valdez, P. L. (2013). Hispanic-serving institution legislation: An analysis of policy formation between 1979 and 1992 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https:// repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/21872/VALDEZ-DISSERTATION-2013.pdf?sequence=1 Zamora, E., Orozco, C., & Rocha, R. (2000). Mexican Americans in Texas history. Austin, TX: Texas Historical Association.

2 BALANCING TEACHING, R E S E A RC H , A N D S E RV I C E AT H I S PA N I C - S E RV I N G INSTITUTIONS Jesse Perez Mendez, Fred A. Bonner II, Robert T. Palmer, and Josephine Méndez-Negrete

L

atinos account for the largest minority population in the United States, and the growth in their population shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2013), the Latino population grew by 2.2% (1.1 million) in 2012, raising the total to 53 million. There are currently 2 million Latino students attending colleges and universities across the country, making this population the second largest minority group in higher education, and their numbers are rising (Fry, 2011). Given the increase in Latino students, institutions such as Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) serve as a gateway for college access for this demographic of students. Although HSIs have drawn increasing attention from scholars, many facets warrant more attention, including the faculty, who serve as the representatives for most of these students at HSIs. Faculty must assume responsibility for research, teaching, and service, and the nature of their contributions is at the center of the institutional mission of HSIs. In this chapter we discuss research, teaching, and service issues that HSI faculty must face when interacting with their student population. HSIs have a more positive impact on Latino graduation and retention rates compared to 30

Balancing Teaching, Research, and Service   

other institutions known as predominantly White institutions (PWIs), which serve a largely White student population (Malcom, 2010). Here, we discuss how faculty in HSIs connect to the mission of their institution, considering that graduation and retention rates indicate institutional effectiveness. First, we discuss the nature and environment of HSIs, providing a context of the atmosphere in which faculty work. Second, we provide an overview of interactional responsibilities with teaching, research, and service and their impact on the students and communities served by HSIs. Last, we discuss recommendations likely to improve faculty institutional effectiveness at HSIs.

The State of HSIs HSIs are one of several different types of minority-serving institutions (MSIs), which include historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges and universities, and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions. The definition of HSI emerged in 1992 as a designation of Title V of the Higher Education Act (1992). As mentioned in the previous chapter, to qualify as an HSI, a postsecondary institution must maintain a Hispanic population of 25%, nearly half of which must fall below the U.S. Census Bureau’s designated poverty level (Laden, 2004). Unlike HBCUs, HSIs were not created by federal law. Historically, HBCUs emerged for a specific purpose—the education of African Americans. However, HSIs arose out of circumstance. PWIs made the transition to HSIs as student demographics changed. According to Hurtado and Ruiz (2012), “The majority of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) began as [PWIs] located in regions that have experienced significant demographic growth in terms of Hispanic births and immigration” (p. 2). Given this dynamic, it is not surprising that HSIs are highly concentrated in particular regions of the country, such as California with 112 institutions, Texas with 66, New Mexico with 23, and Puerto Rico with 61 (Excelencia in Education, 2014). The number of HSIs has increased, totaling 409 (Excelencia in Education, 2015a) with 296 emerging HSIs in the United States and Puerto Rico (Excelencia in Education, 2015b), and these institutions expect to enroll 60% of the Latino undergraduate population at all institutions (Excelencia in Education, 2015a). While the numbers of Latino student enrollment imply that access to higher education for this population group is greater, it is important to note that HSIs are disproportionately distributed by institutional type in the stratified system of higher education. Specifically, nearly half of HSIs (48%) are community colleges (Excelencia in Education, 2015a), while 20% are public colleges and universities.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Although one might surmise that HSIs serve the interests of Latino students specifically, they are not necessarily more accommodating than other types of postsecondary institutions (Contreras & Bensimon, 2005; Lane & Brown, 2003). In fact, HSIs do not always incorporate Latino students in their institutional mission statements (Contreras & Bensimon, 2005; Lane & Brown, 2003). In addition, when an institution experiences waning enrollment of the Latino student population or is unable to meet other qualifying parameters, it loses federally recognized institutional status as an HSI (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008). Given this specific dependence on student enrollment and the institution’s probable historic origins as a PWI, an HSI may not possess the same deep institutional sense of purpose and culture that HBCUs, tribal institutions, and women’s colleges may have. This lack of association may trickle down to other stakeholders of the institution, including the faculty. Despite the growing number of HSIs in the country, research on faculty serving in HSIs is limited. Hubbard and Stage (2009) used data from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty to examine the perceptions and attitudes of faculty who work in MSIs, including HSIs and HBCUs. They examined faculty responses to overall career satisfaction, teaching perception, instructional duty satisfaction, and institutional environment. They found a minimal difference between faculty in PWIs and HSIs, concluding that “HSIs do not have the cultural artifacts, institutional missions, or historical rationales of serving Latino students” (p. 285). Hurtado and Ruiz (2012) reviewed the current state of HSIs and made recommendations to improve the effectiveness of HSIs in the future. Another nondistinguishing aspect of PWIs and HSIs is the state of diversity among the faculty. It might be assumed that the faculty profile would be more diverse at an HSI. However, Whites constituted 81.6% of faculty at HSIs, while African Americans made up 13.4%, and Latinos 5.2%. A closer look at the executive, administrative, and managerial staff of HSIs reveals that Whites constituted 84.6%, while Blacks made up 14.5% and Latinos 8.8% (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002). While the data are not particularly recent, this baseline illustrates the need for a greater diversity of faculty to address the needs of Latino student populations in forming various types of connections to the institution.

Teaching and Faculty Interaction Many elements in the collegiate environment, such as interaction with faculty through course work and the campus atmosphere, to name just two, can have an effect on students’ connections with their institutions and with their

Balancing Teaching, Research, and Service   

intellectual development, particularly for minority students. Given that HSIs serve 59% of Latinos in higher education institutions (Excelencia in Education, 2015a), emphasis on faculty and student interactions is key. Faculty and student interactions can have a positive influence on academic success and retention of students of color, given that these interactions are a main conduit of communication between the student and the institution (Bensimon, Pena, & Castillo, 2004; Hubbard, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). The beliefs, classroom practice, and overall values that faculty convey to students have an impact on underrepresented students (Bensimon et al., 2004; Brawer, 1995; Jaramillo, 1992; Rendón, Justiz, & Resta, 1988). In addition, a number of studies found that the campus ethos and institutional type, along with faculty attitude toward minority students, affect students’ development (Nelson Laird, Bridges, Morelon-Quainoo, Williams, & Salinas Holmes, 2007). Four-year HSIs garner most of the attention in the literature; however, the contributions and roles of community colleges that happen to be HSIs should not be overlooked, considering they are frequently a pathway to postsecondary education for Latino students. Cedja and Rhodes (2010) found that faculty teaching at an HSI community college indicated that mentoring and cultural sensitivity were prerequisite requirements for the retention and success of Latino students. Hagedorn, Chi, Cepeda, and McLain (2007) found that community college HSIs produce a higher transfer rate to fouryear institutions than other community colleges. These indicators of transfer rates are particularly important, acknowledging that HSIs provide broader access to the general population. More than 61% of HSIs have an openadmission policy in contrast to 38% of all undergraduate institutions (Calderón Galdeano & Santiago, 2014). Among all colleges and universities, four-year institutions with open admission policies have a lower retention rate at 61% than those with selective admissions at 95% (Kena et al., 2014). At HSIs with open admission policies, enrolled students are at a higher risk for withdrawal, considering characteristics such as college preparation, socioeconomic status, and parental education. Yet, given the populations they serve, HSIs have a financial justification to not only retain these students but also meet these students’ needs at every possible level to facilitate successful completion of their degrees. Why is this? In order to foster more accountability in higher education, more state legislatures are moving toward performance-based funding initiatives, particularly those that focus on student success (Dougherty & Reddy, 2011, 2013; Harnisch, 2011; HCM Strategists, 2011). Still, some question if such performance-based funding strategies are effective (HCM Strategists, 2011) or not (Dougherty & Reddy, 2011). But the benefits for students attending HSIs are substantial if these institutions maintain faculty diversity. Hagedorn et al. (2007) found a

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education relationship between the academic success of Latino students and the ­number of Latino faculty on campus, concluding that “critical mass does matter for Latino students in urban community colleges. Students on campuses with [a] higher level of Latino students and faculty experienced greater success” (p. 89). Students may feel more comfortable having a support system of peers and faculty from similar backgrounds who can serve as role models. For instance, although dealing with a different student population and institutional type, Nelson Laird et al. (2007) found that African American students in HBCUs felt they had greater support than those who attended PWIs. The same research indicated that faculty at HBCUs were more engaged in the welfare of African American students (Nelson Laird et al., 2007), which once again highlights the significant role of faculty in student success and development. The faculty’s perception of their own institution can also have a substantial impact on the direction and approach of the institution. Some faculty view HSIs as having a stronger commitment to issues pertaining to social justice (Murakami-Ramalho, Núñez, & Cuero, 2010). As one respondent stated, “Perhaps if I was in a predominantly White institution, in a different area of the country, these social justice ideals would not be in the forefront of my teaching and research agenda” (p. 712). In addition, other scholars see HSIs as institutions where scholarship and teaching can be interwoven to address the societal ills of inequality (Núñez, MurakamiRamalho, & Cuero, 2010). However, whether this mind-set is widespread remains inconclusive. On the basis of the research findings at HBCUs (Nelson Laird et al., 2007), one could might surmise that HSIs collectively would naturally provide a more supportive atmosphere for the Latino student population than other institutional types (PWIs, HBCUs, etc.). However, the opposite may be closer to reality. Some studies suggest that a disconnect exists between the work of HSIs and the needs of the students and communities they serve (Contreras & Bensimon, 2005; Hubbard & Stage, 2009; Nelson Laird et al., 2007). Could it be that faculty are either disconnected from or have not bought into the emerging mission of HSIs? At this point, there is evidence of a chasm, and in the following section, we provide some general recommendations to help bring these two sides closer together.

Recommendations First, given the number of HSIs in the country and the growing number of student populations they serve, more scholarly perspectives of faculty working in these special institutions are essential. More dedicated work focused

Balancing Teaching, Research, and Service   

on faculty attitudes and working environments in HSIs may provide administrators with a sharper insight into those on the front line of their institutions; administrators of some HSIs may not know how to grapple with their current or emerging HSI status (Allen, 2008). Although some scholars have examined aspects of working in MSIs, these specialized institutions deserve to be examined separately, not grouped together (Hubbard & Stage, 2009), to reveal their institutional uniqueness and raise nuanced understanding of their historic and contemporary missions. In addition, there are many evolving challenges now facing HSIs that warrant attention—for example, the integration of online learning in populations whose primary language is not English (Stern, 2012), the challenges associated with college access of undocumented immigrants among the Latino communities these institutions serve, and the induction of the campus of the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley in south Texas and the growing pains that accompany that transition (Leon, 2014). Second, HSIs must employ more aggressive means to develop candidates for administrative leadership and faculty who can reach out to Latino communities and serve as cultural conduits. Increasing Latino/Latina administrative hires in HSIs is crucial as the number of Latinos in high-level administrative positions with decision-making and participation powers in the promotion and tenure processes remains low (Cook & Cordova, 2006; De los Santos & Vega, 2008; Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012). Latino presidents and chancellors preside over only a third of HSIs (De los Santos & Vega, 2008), and a large majority of institution leaders who make tenure and promotion decisions are White (Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012). Developing an environment and culture supportive of Latino administrators and faculty takes institutional time and commitment. Yet these institutional efforts of attracting, retaining, and assisting diverse faculty can be the best approach for serving a diverse student population (Kezar & Eckel, 2005). Third, after these administrators and faculty are established in their positions, we can expand the concept of “institutional agents” campuswide (Bensimon & Dowd, 2012). As institutional agents, they will be able to bridge any chasm Latino students may face (Bensimon & Dowd, 2012). As advocates of underrepresented students, they can put a caring face on an institution as students make the transition to a new phase in their life. However, to enable and sustain effective advocacy, administrators and faculty need to be in a position of power. Individuals who occupy high status positions within their institution or organization and who know how to access high value resources, navigate complex systems and take effective action, have the potential to be institutional agents. They possess human, cultural and social capital. It is only

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education when these individuals use their capital to transmit high value resources— opportunities, privileges and services—to underserved students that they become institutional agents. (Bensimon & Dowd, 2012, p. 3)

These institutional agents can make connections with Latino students. In that capacity, they can provide students with the support and capital to navigate issues that arise in college. Faculty need to posses not only a willingness to mentor underrepresented Latino students, but also understand the institution’s role in serving large Latino populations. In addition, they need to develop an understanding of the policies of their institution and cultivate their own political and social capital—attributes that benefit not only themselves but eventually the Latino students that they will serve.

Conclusion HSIs are multidimensional institutions with a very short history, but they serve a very distinct purpose in providing postsecondary access to large populations of Latino students. Because of the relatively short institutional history of HSIs, we should not be surprised that a disconnect exists among the institutional mission of HSIs, the faculty they employ, and the student population they serve. As the Latino student population grows nationwide and student retention concerns become a higher priority in state funding equations, administrators of HSIs may need to reflect on their institutional identity and their approach to building stronger ties with their diverse constituencies. Increasing the diversity of faculty with new hires and promotions, cultivating institutional agents among faculty ranks for Latino students, and aligning the actual ethos of the HSI with its mission statement could be some macro-, micro-, and meso-approaches (Dee, 2014), respectively, to addressing these ills and creating better feng shui in the academic atmosphere for student success and development. Reappointment, tenure, and promotion discussions should become central in aligning the evolving institutional missions to serve the Latino student population. While there may always be some level of disconnect between mission statements and institutional behavior, the consequences of not bringing these two closer together can be harmful for Latino student populations.

References Allen, K. (2008). The Hispanic-serving designation: Asset or deficit? Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(16), 34.

Balancing Teaching, Research, and Service    Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. C. (2012). Developing the capacity of faculty to become institutional agents for Latinos in STEM. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Bensimon, E. M., Pena, E. V., & Castillo, C. (2004, November). The cognitive frames which institutional actors interpret inequality in educational outcomes among Black and Hispanic college students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education in Kansas City, MO. Brawer, F. B. (1995). Policies and programs that affect transfer. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 385336) Calderón Galdeano, E., & Santiago, D. A. (2014, February). 2012–2013 new analysis on HSIs. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Cedja, B. D., & Rhodes, J. H. (2010). Through the pipeline: The role of faculty in promoting associate degree completion among Hispanic students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 249–262. Contreras, F. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2005, November). An equity-based accountability framework for Hispanic-serving institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA. Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic-serving institutions: Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for Latino/a students. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding ­minority-serving institutions (pp. 71–90). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cook, B. J., & Cordova, D. I. (2006). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-second annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. De los Santos, A. G., & Vega, I. I. (2008). Hispanic presidents and chancellors of institutions of higher education in the United States in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(2), 156–182. doi:10.1177/1538192707313983 Dee, J. (2014, July 14). Organization, administration, and leadership: Addressing the relevance gap in higher education research [Web blog post]. Retrieved from http://aeradivisionj.blogspot.com/2014_07_01_archive.html Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature and policy recommendations (Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 37). Retrieved from https://www.ccrc.tc.columbia/Publication/asp?UID+1004 Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms? What are the impacts? ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(2), 45–51. Excelencia in Education (2014). Hispanic-serving institutions, 2012–13. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/hispanic-serving-institutions2012-13#sthash.DFrWkJqx.dpuf Excelencia in Education. (2015b). Emerging HSIs by location, 2013–14. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/emerging-hsis-location-2013-14#sthash .McfEGJt0.dpuf

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Fry, R. (2011). Hispanic college enrollment spikes, narrowing gaps with other groups. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/08/25/hispanic-college-­enrollmentspikes-narrowing-gaps-with-other-groups/ Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). An investigation of critical mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73–91. Harnisch, T. L. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. HCM Strategists. (2011). Performance funding in Indiana: An analysis of lessons from the research and other state models [Working draft]. Retrieved from http://www .in.gov/che/files/HCM_Strategies_Study_Performance_Funding_8-22-11_B.pdf Hubbard, S. (2005). Identifying factors that influence student-centered teaching in the undergraduate classroom: A structural equation modeling analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(12), 4317. Hubbard, S. M., & Stage, F. K. (2009). Attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of faculty at Hispanic serving and predominantly Black institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 270–289. Hurtado, S., & Ruiz, A. (2012). The climate for underrepresented groups and diversity on campus. Retrieved from http://heri.ucla.edu/briefs/urmbriefreport.pdf Jaramillo, J. A. (1992). A multi-methodological evaluation of Hispanic student recruitment and retention effectiveness at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, University Minority Student Recruitment and Retention Agencies. Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., . . . Kristapovich, P. (2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2005). Important journeys: Presidents supporting students of color. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 181–198. Lane, J. E., & Brown, M. C. (2003). Looking backward to see ahead: Implications for research, policy, and practice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 118, 27–40. Leon, J. S. (2014). Project South Texas: South Texas status. Austin: University of Texas System. Retrieved from http://www.utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/sites/project-southtexas/2013-dec-16.pdf Malcom, L. E. (2010). Charting the pathways to STEM for Latina/o students: The role of community colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research, 148, 29–40. Murakami-Ramalho, E., Núñez, A. -M., & Cuero, K. (2010). Latin@ advocacy in the hyphen: Faculty identity and commitment in a Hispanic-serving institution. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(6), 699–717. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Hispanic serving institutions: Statistical trends from 1990 to 1999. Washington, DC: Author.

Balancing Teaching, Research, and Service    Nelson Laird, T. F., Bridges, B. K., Morelon-Quainoo, C. L., Williams, J. M., & Salinas Holmes, M. (2007). African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 39–56. Núñez, A. -M., Murakami -Ramalho, E., & Cuero, K. K. (2010). Pedagogy for equity: Teaching in a Hispanic-serving institution. Innovative Higher Education, 35(3), 177–190. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rendón, L., Justiz, M. J., & Resta, P. (1988). Transfer education in southwest border community colleges: Final report of the Ford Southwest Transfer Education Research Project. Columbia: University of South Carolina. Stern, G. M. (2012, April 23). Helps HSIs collaborate on online learning. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 22, 25–27. Retrieved from http://search .­proquest.com/docview/1017677315?accountid=4117 Title V, Part A of the Higher Education Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1101-1101d (1992). U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Asians fastest-growing race or ethnic group in 2012 [Press release]. Washington, DC: Author.

3 F A C U LT Y G O V E R N A N C E AT H I S PA N I C - S E RV I N G INSTITUTIONS THROUGH THE LENS OF CRITICAL R AC E T H E O RY María C. Ledesma and Rebeca Burciaga

I

n recent years, scholarship on or about Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) has been on the rise. Much like HSIs themselves, this scholarship has mirrored the growth and expansion of Latina/o populations.1 However, despite growing research, less is known about if and how the HSI designation creates better conditions for Latina/o success in higher education. Some have questioned how HSIs have addressed “anything more than the mere presence” of Latinas/os on their campuses (Greene & Oesterreich, 2012, p. 169). Indeed there is much to learn about how HSIs structure learning environments to facilitate the success of their students. More specifically, what is the role of faculty at HSIs in governing this effort to support student success? This chapter delves into the important and underaddressed topic of faculty governance at HSIs. We rely on critical race theory in education (LadsonBillings & Tate, 1995; Solorzano & Yosso, 2000) to examine the distinctive experiences encountered by faculty committed to working at HSIs. Through a critical race theory in education lens, we investigate some of the unique attributes of faculty governance at HSIs and how these attributes may facilitate or impede the success of the Latino students they serve. To borrow from Minor’s 40

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

(2004) analysis of decision making and governance at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), we suggest that given the scarcity of research on governance within HSIs, developing a critical understanding of these institutions is fundamental to theorizing about why particular challenges exist. As defined in various chapters of this book, HSIs are accredited nonprofit two- or four-year colleges and universities that enroll at minimum a 25% Latina/o student body. HSIs are more common in geographic areas of the United States where there are higher concentrations of Latinas/os, including Puerto Rico and the Southwest. While there are relatively few HSIs in relation to the total number of colleges and universities, it is notable that over half (54%) of all Latina/o students attending college in the United States are enrolled in a Hispanic-serving institution (Santiago, 2013). To claim HSI status, universities must be certified by the U.S. Department of Education. In return, institutions are eligible to apply for funds through the Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, whose purpose is to expand educational opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic students, and to expand and enhance the academic offerings, program quality, and institutional stability of the colleges and universities that educate the majority of Hispanic students and help large numbers of Hispanic and other low-income students complete postsecondary degrees. (U.S. Department of Education, 2012, p. 2)

Federal grants are not intended to assist individual students; rather, they are intended for institutional activities that include enhancement of administrative management systems and faculty development. More pointedly, HSI Program grants are intended to facilitate the governance of institutions to better serve students, especially Latinas/os in higher education. Three broad bodies are responsible for governing colleges and universities: boards of trustees, presidents of institutions, and faculty. Discussions of faculty governance have largely centered upon the development and sustention of policies and procedures related to academic affairs, including but not limited to instruction, degree requirements, and tenure. However, it is critical to also consider the campus context—the culture and climate of universities— as it plays an important role in how faculty determine their sense of power and change strategies (Kezar & Eckel, 2010). Given the varying structures of institutions, faculty governance looks very different at two-year and four-year schools, four-year comprehensive colleges, and private institutions. Governance is largely dictated by the history, context, and needs of each institution. Regardless of the governance structure, the HSI designation was created with the explicit intention of improving college graduation rates among Latinas/ os and other marginalized groups. Faculty governance provides an important and underresearched lens for understanding how this purpose is pursued.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education

HSIs and Faculty Governance As noted by Fry and Taylor (2013), the college enrollment rate of Latina/o high school graduates has surpassed that of their White peers. The majority of these students are concentrated in two-year colleges (“Race and Ethnicity of College Administrators,” 2012). Because more than half of all Latino students in college attend HSIs (Santiago, 2013), these institutions are proving to be critical to Latina/o students aspiring to, or working on, college degree attainment. While HSI research is anchored in understanding student access and success in college, it is important to recall that HSIs are representative of a complex constellation of issues beyond full-time-equivalent student e­ nrollment. To achieve the promise of an increase in Latina/o college graduates in the United States, issues of governance in HSIs contribute to our understanding of how institutional cultures are shaped to serve Latina/o students. The traditional governance literature has explored the multifaceted nature behind the leadership and decision-making culture of institutions of higher education. As this research has uncovered, the very nature of power and decision making in institutions of higher education is multifaceted (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 2010; Salanick & Pfeffer, 2010). Indeed, power is rarely if ever allotted equally within institutions, including colleges and universities. As Salanick and Pfeffer surmise, “Despite protestations to the contrary, not all organizational subunits [are] equally influential within the organization” (p. 37). More commonly, those institutional functions deemed to be “most critical” (p. 38) tend to be allotted the most power. Furthermore, the foundational literature on organizational theory and governance establishes that there is not one single governance model in higher education. Rather, there are varying governance structures, including “the organized anarchy, the academic bureaucracy, and the university collegium” (Baldridge et al., 2010, pp. 205–208) models. Governance is operationalized depending on the context and needs of the organization in question. However, whatever the context, leaders of organizations are most willing to support those activities they deem to be most important. In turn, these actions come to be normalized and implicitly reflect institutionally sanctioned core values. These findings are true across all institutions. While the broad topic of faculty governance is well researched (Brown, 2001; Kezar & Eckel, 2000; Kezar & Lester, 2009), scholarship is sparse on faculty governance issues at HSIs (Laden, 2001). Neither the Association of American Colleges and Universities nor the Association of Governing Boards provides any specialized information concerning HSI governance. The Association of American University Professors offers a select list of publications related to HSIs, yet none of these explicitly address HSI faculty governance. With the increasing prominence of HSIs, the issue of HSI faculty governance is ripe for

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

examination. As the first point of contact with respect to learning opportunities on college campuses, faculty play an important role in shaping opportunities for student success at the bachelor level as well as in graduate school. When investigating faculty governance at HSIs, we use critical race theory to help recenter HSIs’ program goal of “improv[ing] the academic attainment of Hispanic students” (U.S. Department of Education, 2012, p. 2).

Critical Race Theory in Education Increasingly, scholars and practitioners alike have looked to critical race theory to help examine and explain the endurance of disparate educational opportunities for historically marginalized communities, including access to quality educational opportunities. An outgrowth of the critical legal studies movement of the 1970s, critical race theory focuses on acknowledging that race and racism are not aberrant phenomena but endemic facts, informing all facets of life for historically underrepresented populations, including Latinas/os (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw, 1993; Stefancic, 1998). Although critical race theory was born in critical legal studies, the theory has been adopted and adapted by scholars within and outside the law. In the late 1990s, Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) and Solorzano (1997) introduced the concept of critical race theory in education. This chapter builds upon Solorzano and Yosso’s (2000) five foundational themes of critical race theory in education to examine and understand the unique attributes of faculty governance at HSIs and the ways these may facilitate or impede the success of the Latina/o students they serve. The first theme—the centrality and intersectionality of race and racism—provides the foundation to discuss HSIs as entities that operate within a larger society that has been shaped by racism, classism, nativism, and other forms of oppression that influence the existence and sustainability of any university, especially an HSI. The second theme—the challenge to dominant ideology—addresses normalized ideals of neutrality, meritocracy, objectivity, and color blindness that are embedded in everyday policies and practices in higher education. The commitment to social justice, the third theme, centers the responsibility of higher education in working toward improving opportunity and upward social mobility for all, particularly for socially disenfranchised populations such as Latinas/os. The fourth theme in this framework is the centrality of experiential knowledge—the (re)centering of people of color and their lived experiences as legitimate—an integral part of understanding faculty governance at HSIs. Finally, the fifth theme is the interdisciplinary perspective and the importance of placing HSIs within contemporary and historical contexts that are informed by interdisciplinary approaches to researching these phenomena.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education In this chapter, we build upon Solorzano and Yosso’s framework of critical race theory in education to examine faculty governance at HSIs. The use of critical race theory to analyze faculty governance at HSIs may seem off-kilter or out of place; however, we suggest that critical race theory provides a useful framework to deconstruct the unique challenges and opportunities as related to faculty governance at these institutions. Through our analysis we propose that Solorzano and Yosso’s (2000) critical race theory in education tenets, originally developed to address the need for a critical race theory of Chicana and Chicano education, provide a useful structure to examine faculty governance at HSIs.

Critical Race Theory and HSIs The Centrality and Intersectionality of Race and Racism Although minority-serving institutions (MSIs), including HBCUs, tribal colleges and universities, and HSIs, each have unique histories and contexts with respect to the students they serve, they also share significant attributes. A critical race theory in education analysis of MSIs suggests that the founding, endurance, and prevalence of these institutions reflect the larger history of segregation and restricted access to predominantly White institutions for students of color. Indeed, the founding of HBCUs and tribal colleges and universities directly points to the legacy of racism framing educational opportunities for historically disenfranchised students aspiring to a college education. Unlike HSIs, whose growth has been largely dictated by geography and demographics, the racial politics framing MSIs such as HBCUs and tribal colleges and universities are distinct. These institutions were founded precisely because historically White-serving institutions (WSIs) refused to allow students of color entry to their campuses (Belgarde, 1996; Brown & Davis, 2010; Gasman et al., 2007). It is ironic then that institutions whose student bodies are often no more than 25% Black or Brown are labeled as MSIs or HSIs despite the reality that, in many cases, the vast majority of the students they serve are White. Moreover, despite the slight increase in the number of faculty of color at MSIs, the vast majority of faculty and administrators at HSIs are White (Murakami, & Núñez, 2013). In an attempt to address this power differential (Greene & Oesterreich, 2012), in this chapter we choose to refer to all non-HSIs or non-MSIs as WSIs. Regardless of differences, there is an overwhelming normative script that has historically classified all MSIs, including HSIs, as less competitive and less prestigious than WSIs (Minor, 2004). Indeed, not one highly selective research institution enrolls enough Latinas/os to be a considered an HSI.

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

Despite the fact that MSIs often do a better job of preparing students of color for baccalaureate and postbaccalaureate attainment (Brown & Davis, 2010), HSIs have been socially constructed as inherently inferior to WSIs (Minor, 2004). This framing is a problem in part because, unlike many WSIs, HSIs do not count on notable financial endowments, grants, or partnerships with industry to help sustain educational and entrepreneurial ventures. On the contrary, HSIs often enroll and serve a student body that has been historically marginalized with respect to educational opportunities. Much like their K–12 counterparts, colleges and universities that serve a predominantly Black and Brown student body are much less likely to have the necessary resources to provide supplemental support for faculty beyond teaching. In other words, although some faculty of color may purposely choose to work at MSIs because they want to work and support students of color, their aspirations are dampened by lack of institutional or monetary support and resources. With the dramatic curtailment of federal and state support for higher education, administrators at many teaching institutions see economic value in striving to become more like research universities. Gonzales’s (2013) case study of how faculty members made sense of one HSI’s transition from a teaching to a research university provides insight on what is at stake during such transitions, whether implicitly or explicitly. The debate presented in Gonzales’s work reveals one faculty member’s concern when “mission creep” takes hold and compromises and redefines an institution’s values and commitments. One tenured female professor in Gonzales’s study lamented, “The school’s new goals seem nearly opposite of those for which we’ve been striving for years—to serve the general student population of the region” (pp. 192–193). In her eyes, this HSI’s move to become a Tier 1 institution involved a purposeful distancing from its previous commitment: to serve local, predominantly Latina/o students. Moving forward, leaders, education professionals, and policymakers concerned with the future of HSIs would do well to be more cognizant of what it truly means to be an HSI.

The Challenge to Dominant Ideology Critical race theory’s assertion to challenge dominant ideologies helps expose the implied norms and values that accompany an HSI designation. To begin, the centralization of race in the form of an HSI label implies the prioritization of institutional efforts to help Latino students succeed. However, under the HSI veneer, the story can be very different. As researchers have uncovered, not all HSIs operate in ways that are congruent with helping Latino students succeed; worse yet, in some instances the HSI designation is manipulated solely for its monetary value. Villalpando’s (2010) research demonstrates how institutions

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education “appeared to have selectively claimed an HSI designation only in relationship to the Title V–related funding material and/or initiatives related to such funding.” (p. 245). In another example, according to Hubbard and Stage (2009), Because HSI is simply a moniker based on Latin@ student body count used for public relations and privileged access to funding rather than practices connected with missions and purpose, HSIs across the country continue to be PWIs inhabited by a predominantly White professorate not charged with expressly fighting racism through their work. (as cited in Greene & Oesterreich, 2012, p. 169)

HSI administrators should consider that to best support Latino students, it may be useful to employ practices and techniques that directly confront normative practices that privilege dominant groups. After all, the purpose of the federal HSI Program is to use federal money to facilitate the university’s mission and practice for the purpose of supporting the graduation of Latina/o students. With respect to faculty governance, the mission of the university is central to how faculty participate in the governance of the institution. The disintegration of a unified faculty or university mission may in turn lead to the fragmentation of faculty governance. After all, Gonzales (2013) revealed how faculty who were committed to working in HSIs experienced disillusionment with central administration when leaders refused to walk their talk. Consequently, it is plausible that these faculty disengage or distance themselves from governance roles and instead focus on what brought them to HSIs in the first place: supporting Latina/o students to succeed. As noted by Solorzano and Yosso (2000), A critical race theory in education challenges the traditional claims of the educational system and its institutions to objectivity, meritocracy, colorblindness, race neutrality, and equal opportunity. Critical race theorists argue that these traditional claims camouflage the self-interest, power, and privilege of dominant groups in U.S. society. (p. 41)

This applies not just to student support services but also to governance structures. It is conceivable to think that if an HSI designation at the student level is important, then the composition of administrative leadership, tenured ladder-rank faculty, and other positions of power should also reflect espoused values (Laden, 2001). More commonly, however, positions of power at HSIs, just as in the wider, general sphere of higher education, are likely to be occupied by White males (Hammond, 2014, Greene & Oesterreich, 2012). This fact, coupled

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

with the composition of predominantly White governing boards, results in a tacit and overt embrace of dominant ideology (Greene & Oesterreich, 2012). Furthermore, as alluded to by Kezar and Lester (2009), the lack of faculty of color in positions of authority helps perpetuate a cycle of disengagement. On faculty governance they state, Because faculty are generally not socialized to be effective leaders in institutional change, role models and mentors serve a pivotal function in helping to create and foster leadership on campus. Senior faculty informally provide mentoring to new faculty teaching them how to create visions for change, political skills, strategies and tactics (e.g., letter writing, meetings and negotiations, working with student activists) that are effective on a particular campus. (p. 731)

The presence of role models and mentors is especially useful for faculty of color, who are often themselves first-generation college graduates. On the flip side, senior faculty who do not advocate for historically disenfranchised students contribute to a faculty climate of disengagement and apathy. Another complication to fostering faculty governance at HSIs and most teaching institutions is related to how faculty of color perceive and experience faculty life, including tenure. Scholars have suggested that dominant institutional and cultural norms still privilege and reward majoritarian types of knowledge and experience (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002). Delgado Bernal and Villalpando add that “higher education in the United States is founded on a Eurocentric epistemological perspective based on white privilege and ‘American democratic’ ideals of meritocracy, objectivity, and individuality” (p. 141). Despite the HSI moniker, this is also true for HSIs (Greene & Oesterreich, 2012).

The Commitment to Social Justice The elimination of racism and all forms of subordination are central tenets for critical race theory and critical race theory in education. MSIs, including HSIs, have been an integral part of promoting social justice by expanding access to higher education for students and faculty of color who have been historically shut out of college and the professoriate. With respect to faculty, welcoming environments where faculty feel respected enhances not only retention but also faculty commitment to institutional governance. As Kezar and Lester (2009) have observed, early engagement in leadership opportunities helps faculty feel connected and invested in their institutions. More important, as they also recognize, early participation in governance structures are important experiences for all faculty. According to Kezar and Lester,

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education “non-participation in leadership during the pre-tenure years may inhibit the faculty member’s ability to effectively contribute as a leader in their career because they never formed the habit and skills” (p. 718–719). However, for faculty of color, increased involvement in governance structures is a doubleedged sword. While it is true that leadership roles are changing, and now more faculty are taxed with additional duties and obligations related to their jobs (Kezar & Lester, 2009), faculty of color continue to be tapped for more committee work and informal mentoring obligations than their White peers. As Laden (2001) has observed, Hispanic faculty and administrators [at HSIs] have greater demands placed on their time by not only Hispanic students in need of guidance and support but by other students interested in their cross-cultural comparative research and their greater sensitivity to student needs. This cultural taxation, however, places them at a disadvantage in trying to attend to their own research that affects tenure and promotion considerations. (p. 85)

Even at HSIs, which tend to be teaching institutions, Latina/o faculty find themselves overwhelmed with juggling course loads, students, campus politics, and tenure expectations. Nonetheless, the participation in leadership and governance for HSI faculty is significant for many reasons, not the least of which is that faculty of color, including Latina/o faculty, remain underrepresented in leadership positions, even at HSIs. In addition, as previously noted, many faculty of color purposely choose to commit their professional lives to working at MSIs where they will have greater access to historically underrepresented students of color. Often this commitment is driven by aspirations to enhance and expand educational access while promoting social justice for historically disempowered groups. Another way HSIs manage to advance a social justice agenda is by enrolling a critical mass of students of color. Despite the irony that some HSIs are MSIs in name only (Greene & Oesterreich, 2012), the enrollment of a critical mass of students of color is important. As Hagedorn, Chi, Cepeda, and McLain (2007) have noted, While the dictionary definition for critical mass indicates that it is “the amount of substance necessary for a reaction to begin”; within the field of education, the term has been adapted to indicate a level of representation that brings comfort or familiarity within the education environment. Further, critical mass has been hypothesized to foster a “staying environment” for students aligned with a dominant campus culture, in turn promoting retention and persistence. (p. 74)

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

Therefore, the presence of a critical mass of students and faculty of color allows these communities, which have been historically excluded or underrepresented in academe, to feel more at home and less like “guests in someone else’s house” (Turner, 1994, p. 356). The presence of a critical mass also promotes persistence. And just as a sense of belonging is important for Latina/o student success, it is equally important for faculty of color. Ek, Cerecer, Alanís, and Rodríguez (2010) state, “Belonging is an important factor in the retention and promotion of Chicana/Latina faculty” (p. 546). Belonging entails feeling accepted, respected, included, and supported by others (Ek et al., 2010). Ek and colleagues (2010) have also noted that given the right structure and support, HSIs can be places of transformative change. Building on their “agencies of transformational resistance” framework, Ek et al. identify six ways Latina faculty countered discrimination and promoted social justice through the formation of agencies of transformational resistance at one HSI: (1) creating a community of inclusiveness, (2) providing resources for the community, (3) providing a critical voice regarding community issues, (4) empowering the community through the expansion of resources and skills, (5) raising community members’ consciousness and commitment to social justices, and (6) providing hope for the community. (p. 541)

Indeed, the presence of Latina/o faculty in positions of leadership and governance not only signals to other community members that their presence and voices are respected, it also fosters commitment to and ownership in the institution’s long-range planning and well-being.

The Centrality of Experiential Knowledge Although the majority of HSIs have evolved with the demographic and geographic growth and placement of Latino populations, their administrators can learn much from other MSIs on how to more effectively integrate and centralize Latinos’ experiential knowledge. As previously mentioned in this volume, HBCUs and tribal colleges and universities were created with special intent to serve African American and Native American populations. These MSIs have long recognized the importance of anchoring institutional mission, pedagogy, and governance with cultural knowledge and values. Brown and Davis (2010) have suggested that HBCUs function as “participants in a social contract” (p. 831), with an explicit commitment to maximize interest and cooperation in support of a shared vision or cause. For African American and Native American MSIs there is an explicit recognition of the important role HBCUs and tribal colleges and universities have played in honoring and

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education respecting community history and experience. In addition, administrators of MSIs, unlike those of WSIs, more commonly recognize that students of color do not arrive on their campuses as empty vessels. Rather, MSI administrators respect the fact that their campus community members bring important and rich cultural values and traditions to their higher educational pursuits. These institution leaders recognize the value in the stories and histories of Black and Brown people (Yosso, 2006) who have for too long been subordinated or excluded from normative histories and practices. As noted by Roebuck and Murty (1993), HBCUs, unlike other colleges, are united in a mission to meet the educational and emotional needs of Black students. They remain the significant academic home for Black faculty members and many Black students. The goals described in Black college catalogs, unlike those in White schools, stress preparation for student leadership and service roles to the community. (p. 10)

Community development and empowerment were shared guiding principles in the establishment of HBCUs and tribal colleges and universities. As Belgarde (1996) recounts, sharing experiential knowledge has been a key function of tribal colleges and universities since their founding. Speaking about the role of faculty, Belgarde explains, “A special group of instructors with little formal education are employed in some institutions. These are the Indian culture specialists—Indian elders hired to pass on the native culture traditionally transmitted as an oral rather than written tradition” (p. 10). In organizational and governance literature, the practices highlighted by HBCUs and tribal colleges and universities illustrate the more positive examples of what Clark (2010) has labeled organizational saga, which is defined as “a collective understanding of a unique accomplishment based on historical exploits of a formal organization, offering strong normative bonds within and outside of the organization” (p. 271). Sagas often take on mythical proportions and are accompanied by distinct technique, players, and imagery. In the case of the preceding examples, these MSIs have managed to fold in cultural norms and traditions as valuable parts of their institutional saga by recognizing there is literal and figurative value in experiential knowledge. Like their MSI counterparts, HSI administrators can look to what Delgado Bernal (2002) calls “cultural intuition” and “critical raced epistemologies” (p. 107) to strengthen and solidify their support of Latina/o academic success. Delgado Bernal writes, “Although students of color are holders and creators of knowledge, they often feel as if their histories, experiences, cultures, and languages are devalued, misinterpreted, or omitted within formal educational settings” (p. 106). Though Delgado Bernal’s scholarship focuses

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

on students of color, as Ek and colleagues (2010) have also established, faculty of color, even at HSIs, perceive their experiences very differently from those of their White colleagues at the same institutions. Respecting their students and faculties’ “ways of knowing” (p. 106) is one way that HSIs can better honor the experiential knowledge that Latinas/os bring with them as members of a campus community. With respect to governance issues at large, Kezar and Eckel (2002) have suggested, Governance scholarship has focused almost exclusively on structural theories, and to a more limited extent, political theories. Human relations, cultural, and social cognition theories remain underutilized theoretical frameworks in the study of governance. Human relations theories emphasize how people within organizations affect organizational processes and include concepts such as motivation, training, and rewards. (p. 374)

Ek et al.’s (2010) work has certainly begun to address the importance of human relations and cultural and social cognition theories in governance practices at HSIs; however, there is more work to be done.

The Interdisciplinary Perspective Solorzano and Yosso (2000) said that “a critical race theory in education challenges ahistoricism and the unidisciplinary focus of most analyses and insists on analyzing race and racism in education by placing them in both an historical and contemporary context using interdisciplinary methods” (p. 42). For marginalized communities, including Latinas/os, this has often meant being diligent about disproving normative myths and stereotypes that have historically framed Latina/o academic aspirations. Valencia (1997, 2002) has long chronicled the notion of deficit thinking, which has been used to explain school failure for Latina/o students. As Valencia (1997, 2002) recounts, the educational attainment of Latina/o students has been influenced by a history of racist policies such as compulsory ignorance laws, school segregation, and high-stakes testing, to name just a few. Even with the proliferation of HSIs, Laden (2001) also echoes the need to dispel persistent myths about Latina/o students and their educational pursuits, which include misperceptions that Latino students are not interested in attending college and that Latino parents do not encourage their children to go to college. An interdisciplinary perspective toward faculty governance at HSIs would recognize that HSIs do not operate in a vacuum. The educational goals and opportunities available to Latina/o students, like other minority students in the United States,

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education have been shaped by cultural, economic, legal, and sociopolitical policies and practices throughout the pre-K–20 educational pipeline. An interdisciplinary perspective also suggests that like all educational institutions, HSIs are shaped as much by their historical and contemporary contexts as by their campus climates (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005) and campus cultures (Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). Nevertheless, the label of HSI offers a unique opportunity for institutions to enact practices that foster interdisciplinary campus cultures and campus climates that truly embrace a holistic approach to Latino student success. For such practices to be most effective and efficient it helps for campus constituencies to buy into them from the bottom up and the top down. Student success should not just be the purview of student affairs departments but rather a core value embraced and supported, financially and symbolically, by institutional mandates and leaders, including faculty. As the first point of contact for learning opportunities on college campuses, faculty play an important role in shaping opportunities for student success inside and outside the classroom.

Discussion The U.S. Department of Education’s (2012) HSI Program is intended to improve educational opportunities for Latina/o students “and to expand and enhance the academic offerings, program quality, and institutional stability of the colleges and universities that educate the majority of Hispanic students and help large numbers of Hispanic and other low-income students complete postsecondary degrees” (p. 2). As such, the purpose of an HSI is unmistakable. As the HSI Program mission explicitly specifies Latina/o and other low-income students, a critical race theory in education lens provides a critical framework to investigate some of the unique attributes of faculty governance at HSIs and the ways these may facilitate or impede the success of the Latino students they serve. Despite stark schooling inequities for Latina/o students in K–12 (Burciaga, Pérez Huber, & Solorzano, 2010), the college enrollment rate of Latina/o high school graduates has surpassed that of their White peers (Fry & Taylor, 2013). With 54% of all Latina/o college students enrolled in an HSI (Santiago, 2013), these institutions are faced with a tremendous opportunity to increase the rate of Latina/o students completing undergraduate as well as graduate degrees. Laden (2001) asserts that the growth in HSIs over the last third of the twentieth century was “in most cases the result of demographic default rather

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

than conscious design” (p. 88). If HSI administrators are truly committed to helping Latina/o students succeed, this laissez-faire approach is inadequate. Instead, HSI leaders must accept and enact institutional practices that better marshal the monetary resources bestowed upon them. In other words, they can do a better job of aligning their institutional mission with institutional practice. This critical race analysis of faculty governance at HSIs is but one piece of a larger conversation. While the topic of faculty governance at HSIs merits more research, a critical race theory lens helps us begin to understand four clear issues that are certain to arise in the coming years: (a) the proliferation of HSIs, (b) an increased need for shared governance in HSIs, (c) an increased demand for faculty and administrators of color in HSIs, and (d) a (re)visioning of HSI university mission statements to better reflect the realities and support the needs of an increasingly Latina/o student body. The growing Latina/o population in the United States and recent rise in Latina/o college enrollment signal continued growth in already established HSIs as well as the likelihood for the founding of new HSIs. Despite the uncertainty of state and federal higher education funding, the need for improving higher education access to Latina/o students remains. With the dramatic curtailment of federal and state support for higher education, administrators of universities are already working to reduce administrative bloat at their institutions. Still other HSIs are responding to budget cuts by moving from teaching to research institutions. In either case, these changes signal a shift in governance structures and the need for faculty to take on more or different leadership roles. Of concern is how these new responsibilities are being placed upon faculty with little change in institutional policies and procedures to support them (Gonzales, 2013). A critical race theory analysis of faculty governance suggests that HSI officials should be mindful of majoritarian practices that inhibit shared governance. For instance, the composition of governing boards and campus leadership and administration should better reflect the racial and gender diversity that have come to define HSIs. As with the increase in the Latina/o collegegoing population, Laden (2001) cites the important role that Latina/o and other faculty and administrators of color will increasingly play at HSIs. Hispanic and other ethnic administrators and faculty will be in greater demand. These individuals bring to the classroom and campus a personal sensitivity, cultural awareness and orientation, and curricular valuing of who Hispanics are and Hispanic cultural and experiential knowledge. These faculty and administrators often make the difference in improving Hispanics’ overall undergraduate and graduate college enrollment, retention, and completion rates. (p. 89)

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Laden’s observation suggests that faculty governance issues at HSIs will become more, not less, important as the demand for Latina/o administrators grows. Indeed, in the shadow of an anticipated Latina/o student demographic boom, more institutions, HSI and otherwise, are likely to look toward augmenting their current faculty and administrative ranks with more Latina/o leadership. Finally, HSIs are tasked with (re)envisioning university mission statements that better embody and support the needs of an increasingly Latina/o student body. HSIs must learn to negotiate their WSI tendencies with their HSI-espoused values. Such a broad change is tied to institutional culture and climate. As such, HSIs would do well to clarify and strengthen cultural norms that are truly in sync with their mission and needs. As Kezar and Eckel (2010) have forewarned, “Where strategies for change violate cultural norms, change most likely will not occur” (p. 291). We offer critical race theory in education as a useful tool kit and barometer to help HSIs work toward achieving their full potential.

Note 1. In this chapter, the terms Hispanic and Latina/o are used interchangeably.

References Baldridge, V. J., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P., & Riley, G. L. (2010). Alternative models of governance in higher education. In M. C. Brown, J. E. Lane, & E. M. ZamaniGallaher (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 202–216). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Belgarde, W. L. (1996). The history of America Indian community colleges. In C. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. Rendón (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (pp. 3–13). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. Brown, M. C., & Davis, J. E. (2010). The historically Black college as social contract, social capital, and social equalizer. In M. C. Brown, J. E. Lane, & E. M. Zamani-Gallaher (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 830–842). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Brown, W. O. (2001). Faculty participation in university governance and the effects of university performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 44(2), 129–143. Burciaga, R., Pérez Huber, L., & Solorzano, D. (2010). Going back to the headwaters: Examining Latina/o educational attainment and achievement through a framework of hope. In E. Murillo, S. Villenas, R. Galván, J. Muñoz, C. Martínez, & M. Machado Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 422–437). New York, NY: Routledge.

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions    Clark, B. R. (2010). The organizational saga in higher education. In M. C. Brown, J. E. Lane, & E. M. Zamani-Gallaher (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 271–277). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105–126. Delgado Bernal, D., & Villalpando, O. (2002). An apartheid of knowledge in academia: The struggle over the “legitimate” knowledge of faculty of color. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(2), 169–180. Ek, L. D., Cerecer, P. D. Q., Alanís, I., & Rodríguez, M. A. (2010). “I don’t belong here”: Chicanas/Latinas at a Hispanic-serving institution creating community through Muxerista mentoring. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(4), 539–553. Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2013). Hispanic high school graduates pass Whites in rate of college enrollment. Retrieved from Pew Research Hispanic Center website: http:// www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/09/hispanic-high-school-graduates-pass-whitesin-college-enrollment/ Gasman, M., Baez, B., Drezner, N. D., Segwick, K. V., Tudico, C. and Schmid, J. M. (2007). Historically Black colleges and universities: Recent trends. Academe, 93(1), 69–77. Gonzales, L. D. (2013). Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalized ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. The Review of Higher Education, 36(2), 179–209. Gonzales, L. D., Murakami, E., & Núñez, A.-M. (2013). Latina faculty in the labyrinth: Constructing and contesting legitimacy in Hispanic serving institutions. Educational Foundations, 27(1/2), 65–89. Greene, D., & Oesterreich, H. A. (2012). White profs at Hispanic-serving institutions: Radical revolutionaries or complicit colonists? Journal of Latinos and Education, 11(3), 168–174. Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). An investigation of critical mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73–91. Hammond, R. (Ed.). (2014). Almanac of higher education 2014–2015. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60(45). Hubbard, S. M., & Stage, F. K. (2009). Attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of faculty at Hispanic serving and predominantly Black institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 270–289. Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A., and Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302. Jayakumar, U. M., & Museus, S. M. (2012). Mapping the intersection of campus cultures and equitable outcomes among racially diverse student populations. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures: Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Routledge.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Kezar, A. and Eckel, P. (2000). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Retrieved November 3, 2001 from http://www.eriche.org.adrianna/culture.html Kezar. A., & Eckel, P.D. (2002) The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2010). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. In M. C. Brown, J. E. Lane, & E. M. Zamani-Gallaher (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 278–293). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Kezar, A. & Lester, J. (2009). Supporting faculty grassroots leadership. Research in Higher Education, 50(7), 715–740. Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-serving institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(1), 73–92. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory in education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68. Matsuda, M., Lawrence, C., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the First Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Minor, J. T. (2004). Decision making in historically Black colleges and universities: Defining the governance context. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(1), 40–52. Race and Ethnicity of College Administrators. Chronicle of Higher Education (2014). Almanac of Higher Education 2014-2015, Vol LX (45). Washington, D.C.: Author Roebuck, J. B., & Murty, K. S. (1993). Historically black colleges and universities: Their place in American higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger. Salanick, G. P., & Pfeffer, J. (2010). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. In M. C. Brown, J. E. Lane, & E. M. Zamani-Gallaher (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 36–53). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Santiago, D. A. (2013). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): 2011–12. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/hispanic-serving-institutionshsis-fact-sheet-2011-12 Solorzano (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5-19. Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Toward a critical race theory of Chicana and Chicano education. In C. Tejada, C. Martinez, & C. Martinez (Eds.), Charting terrains of Chicana(o)/Latina(o) education (pp. 35–65). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Faculty Governance at Hispanic-Serving Institutions    Stefancic, J. (1998). Latino and Latina critical theory: An annotated bibliography. La Raza Law Journal, 10, 423–498. Turner, C. S. (1994). A guest in someone else’s house: Students of color on campus. The Review of Higher Education, 17(4), 355–370. U.S. Department of Education. (2012). FY 2012 project abstracts for new grantees. Washington, DC: Author. Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2002). Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Villalpando, O. (2010). Latinos/as in higher education: Eligibility, enrollment, and educational attainment. In E. G. Murillo, S. Villenas, R. T. Galván, J. S. Muñoz, C. Martínez, & M. Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline. New York, NY: Routledge.

4 THE ROLE OF STUDENT A F FA I R S AT H I S PA N I C S E RV I N G I N S T I T U T I O N S A N D I T S I M PA C T O N S U P P O RT I N G S T U D E N T SUCCESS Vasti Torres

S

ince their inception in the 1980s, Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) have enrolled many first-generation college students despite being insufficiently funded and resourced to meet the academic needs of all the students they serve. Because 59% of Latino college students are enrolled at HSIs (Santiago, 2014), it is necessary to understand the specific role student affairs can play in providing intentional support for student success. The student affairs practice has always been based on seeing the student as a “whole” (Boyle, Lowery, & Mueller, 2012, p. 23), yet when this concept was envisioned in the late 1930s, the authors never considered institutions like HSIs or the types of students served by these higher education institutions. For this reason, new ideas and research for how student affairs can serve the whole Latino/a student must be considered. Research directly involving student affairs practice and HSIs is limited; therefore, research about students at HSIs and Latino/a college students and other relevant literature was considered for this chapter. This chapter focuses 58

The Role of Student Affairs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

on student access to higher education, student outcomes, and institutions as agents for helping Latino/a college students. As mentioned previously in this book, 48% of HSIs are community colleges and 20% are public universities (Santiago, 2014), and many of the students attending these institutions are the first generation in their families to go to college and have various financial and academic needs. These characteristics lead to a student population that may lack the knowledge and capital needed to maneuver higher education successfully (Núñez & Bowers, 2011). For this reason student affairs practitioners can be immensely helpful in supporting student success. The function of student affairs is most visible in grant proposals because the majority of HSI grant-funded activities from 2004 to 2009 were focused on student support services (102 awards); faculty and curriculum was second in the number of grants awarded (Villarreal & Santiago, 2012). While the specifics of the student support services that were funded are not clear, the number of successful proposals serves as an example of how important student services are to HSIs around the country. With this in mind it is imperative for practitioners working in multiple student support areas to understand their role in supporting student success. In this chapter, the term student affairs practitioners is used as a generic category to represent professionals who function within student support services. While institutional organizational charts may place an array of different departments under the student affairs division, everyone who supports students in out-of-class and academic support areas is likely to find aspects of this chapter helpful. To provide a context for the process of creating student success, the chapter begins with a discussion of access to institutions of higher education.

Access to Higher Education Accessing higher education is the first step toward achieving student success in higher education. Yet little is known about why Latino/a students choose to attend an HSI instead of another type of institution. What is known about the college selection process is that Latino/a college students value an understanding of the cost of attending, a location that is close to their families, and the idea of getting a good job that can offer financial security (Hurtado, Sáenz, Santos, & Cabrera, 2008; Torres & Zerquera, 2012). For these reasons a large number of Latino college students begin their educational journeys at community colleges, many of which are HSIs. The characteristics of high schools are also an important influence on the college selection process of Latino students. Research shows that students from high schools with large proportions of Latino teachers and students are

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education more likely to access higher education through a community college (Núñez & Bowers, 2011). These students are also less likely to have access to financial aid and academic information. This lack of information may influence their college readiness and their level of financial literacy about the cost of attending. For many of these students, the choice to attend an HSI may be more closely tied to decision-making processes that are centered on proximity to home and following another member of the family who previously attended the institution—a concept that is referred to as “chain enrollment” (Torres & Zerquera, 2012, p. 266). As Latino students access higher education, student affairs practitioners are on the front lines helping them understand the complex ways in which admissions and financial aid work. According to a study of Texas-border Latino students attending HSIs, 75% of these students rely on financial aid to pay for college, and financial aid officers working at these institutions described Latino students as having an aversion to borrowing money to pay for college (Santiago, 2010). This combination of being from low-income households and being averse to borrowing creates a perfect storm that promotes working for pay over schoolwork, thus jeopardizing success in college. When a student prioritizes work over school, he or she will likely limit time for studying and change course, taking patterns to fit work schedules (Ziskin, Torres, Hossler, & Gross, 2010). Helping Latino students develop their academic and financial capital has to be an important goal for student affairs practitioners in the enrollment management area. Without this knowledge and understanding of systems, students are likely to take courses without knowing if they will count toward requirements and to fail to understand the sequences of courses that are needed in the prerequisites; these unknown mistakes can inhibit academic progress. A critical first step for student affairs practitioners is to initiate conversations about academic systems that can help students succeed.

Student Outcomes Student affairs practitioners in many states are adjusting their work to focus on the student success agenda required in performance-based funding states. In states that use performance-based funding, the metric used may be specifically associated with being a Latino/a college student. While there is limited research on HSI students, there is significant research on the experiences of Latino students that can reveal particular concerns a student affairs professional at an HSI should know about to properly serve students. The first of these concerns to be discussed is helping students overcome the negative

The Role of Student Affairs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

images that society has of Latinos, the second is understanding the role of family, and the third is mentoring students within HSIs.

Overcoming Adversity Popular media, along with educational interactions, create negative stereotypes of Latino students that can hinder how students see themselves and thus influence their academic success (Torres, 2009). HSIs are in a position “to change societal views of Latino students” (Dayton, Gonzalez-Vasquez, Martinez, & Plum, 2004, p. 37). In their study of administrators and students at HSIs, Dayton et al. (2004) found that administrators saw themselves as being in a position to change societal understandings of Latino/a college students by creating environments where everyone had the same opportunities. It is important to distinguish between everyone having the same opportunity and everyone being treated the same. This book illustrates that the students attending HSIs are not all the same, and, therefore, they should not all be treated as if they all had the same opportunities and access to academic or other types of capital. One area critical to understand is the influence that little academic capital can have on the ways first-generation college students seek out information (Torres, Reiser, LePeau, Davis, & Ruder, 2006). A longitudinal study of Latino students that included two HSIs found that first-generation students tended to rely on online and print materials (“pamphlet advising”) and trusted others for information instead of on an academic adviser (Torres et al., 2006). These trusted advisers tended to be family members who had previously attended the institution but who may not have had updated information or a complete understanding of underlying requirements and policies. As a result, many of these students found themselves experiencing negative consequences such as losing their financial aid after making insufficient progress or not completing the correct sequence of courses to satisfy their degree requirements. Intentional intervention by student affairs practitioners can help these students avoid many of these negative consequences (Torres et al., 2006). It is critical for student affairs practitioners who work with first-generation college students to understand that a title may not be sufficient for these students; trust must be developed for the student to feel comfortable asking questions and admitting his or her vulnerability when not knowing what to do. In addition to informationseeking processes, it is important to understand the role of family among the students who attend HSIs. Another example of the unique qualities of students who attend HSIs is the way students view themselves within the United States. In HSIs where

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education the percentage of Latino students is 80% or more, Latinos/as do not see themselves as minorities or as oppressed because they are actually the majority in their communities. As a result, these student do not understand how they may be viewed outside their predominantly Latino environments. As one teacher of writing put it, “HSIs attract students whose access to higher education is limited by financial, sociological, academic, and cultural circumstances” (Newman, 2007, p. 18). These limits may create situations in which students are ill equipped to deal with U.S. societal norms outside their own communities.

Role of Families Families can serve both as support systems and as barriers. As support systems, the vast majority of Latino parents want their children to succeed in education. As barriers, Latino parents may not understand what it takes for the student to be successful in higher education (Dayton et al., 2004; Torres, 2003). Student affairs practitioners are in a position to help Latino students understand how to articulate their experiences to their parents, who may have little knowledge of formal education, much less higher education (Torres, 2004). In Torres and Hernandez’s (2007) longitudinal study of Latino/a college students (which included two HSIs), it became clear that the students needed to learn to manage family expectations, not be encouraged to ignore them (2007). This requires the student affairs practitioner to develop the trust needed for a student to share these types of vulnerable issues with him or her. A completely different way of thinking about family influence is the consideration that students at HSIs are more likely to be older than is traditional and also more likely to be transfer students (Bridges, Kinzie, Nelson Laird, & Kuh, 2008). This means that some students at HSIs are not children but parents responsible for their own families. Limited research is available on HSI students who are parents. Regardless of the family role, Latino students are likely to need someone to help them understand and maneuver in the college environment. This type of mentoring relationship is critical for Latino student success and is often found in student affairs departments and programs.

Mentoring Latino Students Despite knowing that mentoring can help students succeed in higher education (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; McDonough, 2004), in a study of Latino college students only 42% of the participants had identified an adviser or

The Role of Student Affairs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

mentor by their sophomore year (Torres & Hernandez, 2009). The students who had identified an adviser were more satisfied with faculty; experienced greater academic integration, institutional commitment, and encouragement; and saw the environment as having more cultural affinity. These f­actors are important in helping to retain students at the HSI where they began their academic journey (Torres & Hernandez, 2009). Student affairs practitioners are critical in creating mentoring opportunities and helping students understand how they can be a part of the educational community. In a study on student mentoring at a large HSI, researchers found that women experienced more mentoring than men, and first-year students experienced more mentoring compared to students in subsequent academic years (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). This study goes on to recommend that generic mentoring programs that are not specifically designed for diverse groups, such as Latino/a students, may not be as effective as mentoring activities for these cohorts. For example, much energy and attention is paid to the first year of college, yet the low completion rate may indicate that mentoring should be considered beyond this first year. In addition, the finding that women experience more mentoring leads to questions about how Latino men (African American men as well) experience mentoring, since these men have lower completion rates. This would indicate that mentoring programs should be refocused to make sure mentoring initiatives for men are sustained beyond the first year of college and that the focus on males at HSIs should be intentional.

Role of Institutions as Agents in Promoting Latino Student Success Because HSIs are considered HSIs only as a result of the number of Latino students at an institution and must apply for this designation, critics say HSIs do not have an identity that is truly focused on the success of the Latino students who attend the college (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008). In an analysis of institutional mission statements Contreras et al. found that none of the institutions in their study mentioned being an HSI in its mission statement. Although mission statements usually include broad language and are meant to be overarching, the fact that these institutions do not choose to publicly state their identity as an HSI may indicate that the institutions do not see their primary mission as contributing to the student success of Latino/a college students. To be an agent for Latino student success, it is recommended that administrators of HSIs consider the role of staff and faculty in helping carry out a mission of serving Latino student populations (Contreras et al., 2008). This connection with a mission focused on Latino/a

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education student success includes understanding how student affairs practitioners can serve as agents to promote the success of Latino students. Because the behavior of practitioners should be guided by the mission of the institution, when the mission does not encompass an identity focused on ensuring Latino/a student success, other goals will likely take priority, making attending an HSI no different from attending a predominantly White institution (PWI). Research comparing HSI students to students at other types of institutions found that committed HSIs may help students overcome challenges by engaging them in educationally meaningful activities at higher levels than Latinos attending PWIs (Bridges et al., 2008). This finding must be considered within the context that HSIs can vary by having in excess of 90% to having fewer than 25% Latino student population. These contextual differences among HSIs create a variety of challenges for student affairs professionals. Institutions with a larger number of Latinos will create a comfortable environment for these students because there is no challenge to their ethnicity, and they compose the majority of the student body on the campus. While this comfortable environment may be very supportive, student development occurs when students have a balance of support and challenge (Sanford, 1969). Therefore, an HSI with a large proportion of Latino/a students needs to consider how to challenge its students in different ways. Without this level of challenge, students who leave community environments with a majority of Latinos may not have the skills to interact in more diverse environments. For HSIs with an ethnically diverse student population and a critical mass of Latino/a students constituting about 25% of the population, it is important to understand that these students will likely have very diverse experiences and may question their own sense of ethnic identity. The institutions that are successful in engaging students will intentionally create opportunities for students to feel supported academically and socially (Bridges et al., 2008). A study of faculty attitudes and perceptions found only a few differences between HSIs and institutions with fewer Latino/a students. This finding led the researchers to assert that this was “further evidence that HSIs do not have institutional missions that directly serve the needs of the Latino population” (Hubbard & Stage, 2009, p. 285). These institutions must support the identity of Latino/a students through cultural artifacts and activities that engage them in cultural exploration and expressions (Torres, 2006).

Opportunities for Student Affairs at HSIs As this chapter illustrates, student needs at HSIs are many, and the research available to help student affairs practitioners is limited. While other research

The Role of Student Affairs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions   

has been used to piece together the role of student affairs practitioners, there are some clear themes at HSIs that should be considered when working in this environment. The first is to understand the unique student who is likely to attend an HSI. Many (though not all) students in HSIs are the first generation in their family to attend college and will need additional attention to adjust and make the transition to higher education institutions. Second, it is clear that student affairs practitioners can make a difference for these students by providing information and mentoring. Helping Latino students succeed may well be one of the most important aspects of student affairs work in HSIs. Finally, as an institution moves toward becoming or more deeply embracing an HSI, it is critical that those at all levels in the institution discuss what it means for the mission of the institution to include the HSI classification. Without intentional efforts, Latino/a student success is not likely to be influenced. While the influence of student affairs is often relegated to the out-ofclass experience, this chapter highlights several areas in which professionals in student services can be critical to students’ academic success. The goal of any HSI should be to ensure that all professionals are aware of the unique needs of Latino/a students and have the cultural competence to serve students in this environment. If all HSIs can accomplish this goal, the future of Latino/a student success should become much brighter.

References Boyle, K. M., Lowery, J. W., & Mueller, J. A. (2012). Reflections on the 75th anniversary of the student personnel point of view. Washington, DC: ACPA—College Student Educators International. Bridges, B. K., Kinzie, J., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Student engagement and student success at historically Black and Hispanic-serving institutions. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, and C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minorityserving institutions (pp. 217–236). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic-serving institutions: Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for Latino/a students. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, and C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 71–90). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50, 525–545. Dayton, B., Gonzalez-Vasquez, N., Martinez, C. R., & Plum, C. (2004). Hispanicserving institutions through the eyes of students and administrators. New Directions for Student Services, 105, pp. 29–40.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Hubbard, S. M., & Stage, F. K. (2009). Attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of faculty at Hispanic-serving and predominantly Black institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 270–289. 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, 17(4), 324–345. Hurtado, S., Sáenz, V. B., Santos, J. L., & Cabrera, N. L. (2008). Advancing in higher education: A portrait of Latina/o college freshmen at four-year institutions: 1975–2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/ TFS/Special/Monographs/AdvancingInHigherEducation-LatinoTrends.pdf McDonough, P. M. (2004). Counseling matters: Knowledge, assistance, and organization commitment in college preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 69–88). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Newman, B. M. (2007). Teaching writing at Hispanic-serving institutions. In C. Kirklighter, D. Cárdenas, & S. W. Murphy (Eds.), Teaching writing with Latino/a students: Lessons learned at Hispanic-serving institutions (pp. 17–35). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Núñez, A.-M., & Bowers, A. J. (2011). Exploring what leads high school students to enroll in Hispanic-serving institutions: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1286–1313. Sanford, N. (1969). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Santiago, D. A. (2010). Reality check: Hispanic-serving institutions on the Texas border strategizing financial aid. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/ research/reality-check-hispanic-serving-institutions-texas-border-strategizingfinancial-aid Santiago, D. A. (2014). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): 2012–13. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/hispanic-serving-institutions-2012-13 Torres, V. (2003). Mi casa is not exactly like your house. About Campus, 8(2), 2–7. Torres, V. (2004). Familial influences on the identity development of Latino firstyear students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(4), 457–469. Torres, V. (2006). A mixed method study testing data-model fit of a retention model for Latino students at urban universities. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 299–318. Torres, V. (2009). The developmental dimensions of recognizing racism. Journal of College Student Development, 50(5), 504–520. Torres, V., & Hernandez, E. (2007). The influence of ethnic identity on self-authorship: A longitudinal study of Latino/a college students. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 558–573. Torres, V., & Hernandez, E. (2009). Influence of an identified advisor/mentor on urban Latino students’ college experience. Journal of College Student Retention, 11(1), 141–160.

The Role of Student Affairs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions    Torres, V., Reiser, A., LePeau, L., Davis, L., & Ruder, J. (2006). A model of firstgeneration Latino/a college students’ approach to seeking academic information. NACADA Journal, 26(2), 65–70. Torres, V., & Zerquera, D. D. (2012). Hispanic-serving institutions: Patterns, predictions, and implications for informing policy discussions. Journal of Hispanics in Higher Education, 11(3), 259–278. Villarreal, R. C., & Santiago, D. A. (2012). From capacity to success: Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) and Latino student success through Title V. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/capacity-success-hsis-and-latinostudent-success-through-title-v Ziskin, M., Torres, V., Hossler, D., & Gross, P. K. (2010). Mobile working students. A delicate balance of college, family, and work. In L. Perna (Ed.), Understanding the working college student (pp. 67–92). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

5 BRIDGING ACADEMIC AND S T U D E N T A F FA I R S Working Together to Craft Pathways That Advance Latinos and Latinas in Higher Education Edna Martinez and Leslie D. Gonzales

I

n 2012 Latinas and Latinos were 17% of the U.S. population.1 By 2060 Latinos are projected to account for 31% of the total U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). An increasing number of college-going individuals are Latina and Latino. Estimates show that at 16.5%, Latinos now constitute the largest racial/ethnic minority group across U.S. campuses among 18- to 24-year-olds (Fry & Lopez, 2012; Snyder & Dillow, 2012). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) play a critical role in advancing a great number of these Latino college students (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008; Gonzales, Murakami, & Núñez, 2013; Laden, 2004). The majority of HSIs are community colleges and serve as an access point to higher education for 54% of all U.S. Latino students (Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 2012). HSIs have received increased, warranted attention and recognition in the field of higher education (Laden, 2004; “Presidential Proclamation,” 2012; Santiago & Reindl, 2009) because they are so well positioned to advance the Latino population and thereby have an opportunity to have an impact on the country’s future economic development (Malcom, Bensimon, & Davila, 2010; “Presidential Proclamation,” 2012). As of 2012–2013, there were 370 recognized HSIs (Calderón Galdeano & Santiago, 2014). Additionally, Excelencia in Education (a nonprofit 68

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs   

organization dedicated to Latino student college completion) has classified institutions whose student enrollments are between 15% and 24% Latino as emerging HSIs (Santiago & Andrade, 2010, p. 3), meaning that HSIs are a growing sector in the U.S. higher education system. Although HSIs have made significant strides in retaining Latino students to degree completion (Nguyen, Bibo, & Engle, 2012), higher education scholars still know very little about the organizational character and practices among HSIs, whether the student experience is distinct among this sector, and to what extent such distinct experiences affect student outcomes (Flores & Park, 2013). Initial scholarship suggests, however, that among HSIs, there is an important distinction between those that serve and those that enroll Hispanic students (Contreras et al., 2008; Santiago & Andrade, 2010). As maintained by Santiago and Andrade, “Enrollment is about access, while serving is about retention and completion. Serving Latino students goes beyond enrolling them” (p. 7). Taking into account the noted distinction between HSIs that serve versus those that simply enroll, scholars who study student experience and success suggest that postsecondary institutions ought to create infrastructure and programming that serve students in holistic ways, particularly by developing collaborations between student affairs and academic affairs (Whitt, Nesheim, Guentzel, & Kellogg, 2008). In fact, research indicates that Latino students benefit from such strategic efforts in particular ways (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004–2005; Ortiz, 2004; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Yet, Whitt and colleagues wrote that “research documenting the characteristics of effective partnership programs [between student affairs and academic affairs] is sparse” (p. 235); this assessment holds for HSIs as well. In this chapter, we begin to address this void in the higher education literature by highlighting collaborative programs that bridge student services and academic affairs across six HSIs. Furthermore, we lean on the work of scholars who have focused explicitly on the advancement of Latino students as we study these six programs to understand if and how they provide “validating” experiences throughout their educational journeys (Rendón, 1994; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Specifically, our efforts were guided by validation theory (Rendón, 1994, 2002; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011), a conceptual and philosophical school of thought that charges higher education researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and others to recognize the rich and valuable knowledge, capabilities, and histories that nontraditional, nondominant students bring into institutional settings, and when relevant, to fold such assets into programming, policies, and the institutional fabric, more generally (Gloria, Castellanos, & Orozco, 2005; Gonzales, 2012; Murakami, Núñez, & Cuero, 2010). Thus, the programs at the center of our study were

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education examined not only for connections between academic and student affairs professionals, but also for how they worked to develop and support Latino students as capable academic achievers by building on the rich assets that Latinos, a diverse population in and of itself, bring into postsecondary institutions (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004–2005; Rendón, 1994, 2002; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). As an example, validating programs recognize the value of the Spanish language and create and use bilingual materials in their efforts to provide Latino students with access to critical fiscal and informational resources (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004–2005; Rendón, 1994, 2002; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Additionally, efforts anchored in validation would not only intentionally connect Latino students to a community of college peers who share a similar background, but also provide professional networks that tie them into resources and opportunities (Zalaquett & Lopez, 2006). Again, we were interested in examining collaborative efforts between academic and student affairs because research suggests that when programs bridge the social and academic aspects of students’ lives, they are more likely to address, holistically and seamlessly, Latino students as a whole, and when such efforts are undertaken with an ethic of care (Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011), nondominant students have a better chance at success. To conduct this work, we used several strategies. Given that most Hispanic students begin their postsecondary careers in community colleges (Kurlaender, 2006; Perez & Ceja, 2010), many of which are HSIs, it was important to begin our query in this sector. However, as scholars committed to the maximal advancement of Latinos, we also wanted to explore efforts among HSIs that happen to be four-year institutions, including comprehensive and research universities. Thus, the contribution of this work is the foci on collaborative programming within HSIs. The rest of this chapter is organized as follows: First, we briefly review literature that has addressed partnerships between student and academic affairs. Second, we introduce validation theory (Rendón, 1994, 2002; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Our methodology and analytical process are presented in the third major section. After presenting program profiles, we conclude with an illustration and a discussion of the ways HSIs might intentionally build pathways filled with support and validation along the higher education continuum. This concluding section, we hope, will provide current and future HSI leaders, institutional researchers, and planners as well as program developers with concrete recommendations for developing policies, practices, and programs that are supportive, grounded in evidence, and most important, validating to Latino students.

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs   

Review of Relevant Literature Typically, student affairs and academic affairs have been viewed as units with distinct yet interrelated goals. Drawing from various sources, Engstrom and Tinto (2000) highlighted customary cultural characteristics, norms, and attitudes that differentiate the two units. For example, according to Engstrom and Tinto student affairs often “[emphasizes] student personal growth dimensions (social and affective) and value experiential education” (p. 429). Conversely, academic affairs emphasizes “student critical thinking, acquisition of knowledge” (p. 429). Given the different emphases between the two units, Brown (1990) highlighted the struggles to forge meaningful, reciprocal, and equitable relationships among professionals from these two units. After decades of research pointed to the need to support students inside and outside the classroom, to develop their personal as well as academic and professional identities, today an increasing number of collaborations attempt to address students holistically (Engstrom & Tinto, 2000; Schroeder, 1999; Whitt et al., 2008). A cultural merger between academic and student affairs units has offered “integration and coherence to a traditionally fragmented, compartmentalized, and often random approach to achieving important undergraduate education outcomes” (Schroeder, 1996, p. 2). For example, rather than remaining on the margin of academic conversations and initiatives, student affairs professionals play a principal role in learning communities (Sandeen, 2004; Tinto, 2000). Learning communities are perhaps one of the best examples of collaboration between academic and student affairs professionals where learning and student development are folded together by a team of faculty and student affairs professionals. The communityoriented and integrative approach to learning has been identified as an effective mechanism for enhancing the experience of Latino students (Nora & Crisp, 2012). Other examples of collaborations between student affairs and academic affairs include residential learning communities (Cox & Orehovec, 2007; Golde & Pribbenow, 2000). Living-Learning centers, with their foundations in both the student affairs and the academic affairs sectors of campus, offer an opportune avenue for combining the formal, course-oriented learning activities of academic affairs with the programmatic learning activities typical of residential life. (Henry & Schein, 1998, p. 9)

Although these practices have been identified as effective, little is known about their actual implementation or the sort of theoretical assumptions underlying them.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Also, it is important to consider institutional mission in the implementation of such collaborative programs and services, as suggested by Whitt and colleagues (2008): Effective partnership programs are grounded in, and extend the influence of, the institution’s mission in their purpose, design, implementation, and assessment. In the process, they demonstrate and enhance institutional commitments to students and their learning. The importance of clear connections between institutional mission and institutional policies, practices, and programs for creating educationally effective opportunities for students has been well established in other research about college impact. (p. 239)

In other words, Whitt and colleagues (2008) highlight the import of mission and suggest that without a mission that is grounded in a commitment to any and all efforts that might enhance student experiences and outcomes, it will be difficult to engender, much less institutionalize, collaborative programs and practices. With this in mind, it is important to recognize those colleges and universities that have managed to develop workable and working collaborative efforts aimed at the improvement of student experiences and outcomes. We are specifically concerned with considering these questions in the context of HSIs and aim to highlight the potential of HSIs to serve students holistically and in ways that advance them throughout all levels of higher education. Thus, we examine six collaborative programs, all based at HSIs, that merge student affairs and academic affairs through the lens of validation theory, which we describe next.

Conceptual Framework As noted earlier, our analytical work was guided by validation theory (Rendón, 1994, 2002; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Rendón developed validation theory in the early 1990s in response to student development theories that centered on the experience of multigenerational, college-going, middle- to upper-middle class, mostly White students while overlooking the experience of first-generation and working-class students and students of color. Specifically, in the 1980s higher education researchers began to theorize and study the influence of activities outside the classroom, particularly in the form of on-campus involvement (Astin, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). On-campus involvement or integration into campus life became the centerpiece of student development theory (see Astin, 1985; Tinto, 1993). At its core, the conventional

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs   

approach to student development theory held assumptions about students’ lives, priorities, and values. However, when the conventional involvement theories were deployed to frame a massive national study focused on student experience and persistence, the results for low-income, first-generation students of color did not coincide with the assumptions embedded in the involvement and integrationist perspectives (Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Laura Rendón (1994) began to inspect the results for alternative ideas and themes and suggested that the dominant perspective on student development and college student experiences was unfit for many low-income, first-generation college students and students of color. Instead of college involvement, academic and interpersonal relationships seemed to be central to persistence, performance, and general self-confidence. Of this, Rendón Linares and Muñoz (2011) wrote: The most vulnerable students will likely benefit from external validation that can serve as the means to move students toward gaining internal strength resulting in increased confidence and agency in shaping their own lives. As such, both external affirmation and internal acknowledgements of self-competence are important in shaping academic success. What is being theorized is that for many low-income, first-generation students, external validation is initially needed to move students toward acknowledgements of their own internal self-capableness and potentiality. (p. 17)

According to Rendón (1994), “Validation is an enabling, confirming and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that foster academic and interpersonal development” (p. 44). Potential agents include faculty members and other professionals from the academic side of the university, such as tutors, teaching assistants, and even academic chief officers. On the student affairs side of the university, professional staff who develop programming related to leadership development, professional and career development, and family support efforts might serve as validating agents. Validation calls on these various agents to reach out to students and affirm their capabilities (Rendón, 1994, 2002). Several critical elements are threaded in Rendón’s validation theory. The theory charges colleges to not only be p ­ roactive agents who reach out to students, but also ground outreach in an ethic of care and validation. (Noddings, 1984; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Specifically, college and university professionals are encouraged to reach out in ways that honor the history, experience, and knowledge students bring with them to the postsecondary setting. Validation theory requires college and university agents to create space for multiple forms of knowledge and recognize

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education that students are not only capable learners but also knowers of information. This approach to relationships with students is the most important, and perhaps innovative, aspect of Rendón’s (1994) theory. Rendón Linares and Muñoz (2011) explained that this particular aspect of validation theory is anchored in Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule’s (1986) theory on women’s ways of knowing (p. 16). Rendón Linares and Muñoz (2011) elaborated: A key assumption is that students, regardless of background, bring a reservoir of funds of knowledge and experiences that render these students open to learning. . . . When validating agents work with students as possessing a reservoir of assets, the dominant view that poor students only have deficits is shattered and decentered. (p. 25)

In this work, we use validation theory to analyze the six programs we selected as exemplary efforts of academic affairs and student affairs collaboration. Next, we discuss our methodology.

Methodology We employed qualitative methodologies for this work. Specifically, we used document analysis (Bowen, 2009) and content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) techniques. Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents—both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internettransmitted) material. Like other analytical methods in qualitative research, document analysis requires that data be examined and interpreted in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge. (Bowen, 2009, p. 27)

Similarly, as suggested by Krippendorff, “Content analysis provides new insights, increases a researcher’s understanding of particular phenomena, or informs practical action” (p. 18). These techniques allowed us to assess the content of the data, while our conceptual framework helped us analyze the meaning embedded in the content.

Site and Program Selection As previously noted, the goal of this chapter is to highlight efforts that bridge student services and academic affairs in HSIs. Six programs were purposefully selected for this study on the basis of specific criteria. The program had to

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs    1. be housed at an HSI; 2. be recognized by Excelencia in Education in 2010, 2011, or 2012; and 3. demonstrate collaborations between student affairs and academic affairs.

First and foremost, to be considered for inclusion in this study, a collaborative effort had to be housed at an HSI, meaning that at least 25% of the institution’s student enrollment was Hispanic. Second, we wanted to focus on programs that had already demonstrated success in serving Latino students. To identify successful programs, we relied on the work of Excelencia in Education, which, since 2005, has recognized programs that contribute to the advancement of educational opportunities and outcomes for Latino students. Specifically, Excelencia administers an initiative, Examples of Excelencia, that is intended to systematically identify and honor programs boosting Latino enrollment, performance and graduation with evidence of effectiveness. . . . Examples of Excelencia focuses on institution-based programs and departments. These programs do not serve Latino students exclusively, but each program disaggregates [its] data and can demonstrate success with Latino students. (Excelencia in Education, 2012, p. 2)

Working from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Examples of Excelencia reports, we selected three programs at the associate level and three programs at the baccalaureate level. Initially, we intended to include graduate-level programs; however, collaborations between student affairs and academic affairs at this level are rare as “the department, rather than the institution as a whole, is the locus of control for doctoral education” (Golde, 2005, p. 671). We maintain that Golde’s statement holds for master’s-level education as well. Of course, the Excelencia reports featured many commendable efforts. We narrowed our selection on the basis of the criterion of collaboration, which we define as involving a shared responsibility between the divisions of student affairs and academic affairs to promote the holistic success of students with both divisions working to cultivate a seamless, less fragmented, less daunting environment. In other words, in a collaborative environment academic and student affairs professionals have a clear and correct understanding of the resources offered by the other. This may mean having someone in house who can answer questions that cut across the divisions or having an explicit process in place to connect a student to specific solutions for commonly asked questions or problems. With such mutual understanding and knowledge, both academic affairs and student affairs professionals are able to use and promote complementary programming and efforts. For example, academic degree

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education program information may be presented alongside information on student services, or information for familial matters (child care, parent orientation) might be found in an area where academic tutoring is offered. Additionally, academic and student affairs professionals have an awareness of the multiple dimensions of student life needs. When the Examples of Excelencia featured such collaborations, we selected a program for further review and continued to narrow our search on the basis of availability of information and representation of various institutional types.

Data Sources Texts were primarily selected through a combination of relevance and convenience sampling (Krippendorff, 2004). Specifically, we relied on the documents available on programs and information from their websites and focused on texts that served to answer our research question. Additionally, we asked program coordinators or administrators if they had any publicly available documents that might not be on their website that they were willing to share. In some instances, the accessible texts led us to other sources. We also used snowball sampling techniques (Krippendorff, 2004). For example, the website for the Transitional Bilingual Learning Community (TBLC) program at Harry S. Truman College displayed a fact sheet that listed various sorts of media coverage on the program, which we were able to retrieve. In content analysis, texts are not limited to written material (Krippendorff, 2004). Texts also include, for example, artifacts, recorded speech, and visual images (Krippendorff, 2004; Rose, 2012). Consequently, in addition to program websites, electronically retrieved program brochures, fact sheets, program newsletters, media releases, a book chapter, videos, and photographs publicly accessible on the university program websites were also used in this analysis.

Data Analysis All data sources were manually coded and analyzed (Saldaña, 2009); specifically, data were analyzed deductively (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Our framework and definition of collaboration provided items for us to look for. From the initial codes, categories were constructed on the basis of related items. Our analysis was guided by the following questions: 1. What are the collaborative efforts between student affairs and academic affairs that exist within these programs? 2. What services are rendered via this collaboration?

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs    a. How is the academic advancement of Latinos supported via these programs, especially the collaborative efforts? 3. How and to what extent are students validated? 4. Specifically, how is validation about their academic abilities, their future, as well as their history communicated to students?

Findings We set out to highlight six programs in HSIs where student affairs and academic affairs collaborate to promote the holistic success of students, particularly Latino students. We begin by providing program descriptions based on our review of the aforementioned data sources. Following the program descriptions, we present common practices offered by these exemplary programs.

Program Descriptions Transfer Achievement Program ( TAP ). In 2010 the Santa Barbara City College’s (SBCC) TAP was recognized as an Examples of Excelencia finalist. SBCC is an HSI with a 32% Latino student population (“College Facts,” 2015, para. 5). Currently, 88% of the students served by TAP are Hispanic (R. Wright-Castro, personal communication, April 4, 2013). According to the program mission statement, “TAP’s goal is to provide students with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions in their development of a plan that ensures a successful transition from SBCC to a four-year university” (“About TAP,” 2015). Explicitly designed to serve traditionally underrepresented students, TAP has helped increase the number of underrepresented students who successfully transfer to four-year institutions. During the 2011–2012 academic year, 94% of TAP students who applied and were admitted to a four-year university “successfully transitioned and enrolled” (R. Wright-Castro, personal communication, April 4, 2013). Transitional Bilingual Learning Community (TBLC). Established in 2002, the TBLC program at Harry S. Truman College is “aimed at students who, because of limited skills in English and limited financial resources, would otherwise not be attending college on a full-time basis” (“What Is the TBLC?” n.d., para. 1). Harry S. Truman College, one of the seven colleges of City Colleges of Chicago, is an HSI with a 34.4% Latino student population (Calderón Galdeano & Santiago, 2014). Furthermore, a total of 96% of the students served by TBLC are identified as Hispanic. TBLC students are more likely to complete their associate’s degree than non-TBLC participants. Through its learning community design, TBLC reported a 91% retention rate from fall 2007 to spring 2008. In 2012 TBLC was named as a finalist for the Examples of Excelencia at the associate level.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Direct Connect. Recognized as the 2012 Example of Excelencia at the associate level, Valencia College’s Direct Connect program aims to provide students with a seamless and guaranteed transfer to the University of Central Florida (UCF). Valencia College is an HSI with a reported 30.5% Hispanic student population in fall 2011 (“Just the Facts,” 2012). Through the partnership that Direct Connect facilitates, 83.5% of students who earned their associate’s degree from Valencia transferred to UCF in 2010 (“Just the Facts,” 2012). “Since 2007, over 15,000 Valencia graduates have transferred to UCF as part of Direct Connect; 12% (3,695) were Hispanic” (Excelencia in Education, 2012, p. 7). The Scholars Academy (SA). Countering the underrepresentation of women and racial/ethnic minority students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is the SA in the College of Sciences and Technology at the University of Houston–Downtown (UHD), an HSI with a 40.9% Latino student population (“Fact Book,” 2013). Furthermore, about 60% of students served by SA are Hispanic or African American. In addition to improved semester-to-semester retention and graduation rates among SA members, intense mentoring efforts have resulted in an increasing number of SA alumni pursuing a graduate or professional degree (“Scholars Academy,” 2009). As such, SA was a 2011 baccalaureate-level Examples of Excelencia finalist. Grow Your Own (GYO) Teachers. The mission of this statewide teacher preparation initiative in Illinois is “to improve teaching and learning in highneeds schools by recruiting and preparing community-based teachers and returning them to their local schools” (Schultz, Gillette, & Hill, 2011, p. 5). GYO is currently made up of 12 consortia (“Grow Your Own Consortia,” n.d.) and has a clear political orientation toward increasing the number of traditionally underrepresented teachers “who will challenge, question, and improve schooling practices to include much stronger connections to their own culture and that of students” (Skinner & Schultz, 2011, p. 3). Northeastern Illinois University’s Grow Your Own Teachers program was a 2011 Examples of Excelencia baccalaureate-level finalist. Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CAHSI). CAHSI is “a consortium of universities that are committed to increasing the number of Hispanics who earn baccalaureate and advanced degrees in computing” (CAHSI, n.d.). The CAHSI initiative is currently made up of 16 institutions (Hug & Thiry, 2011). The University of Texas at El Paso’s CAHSI program was named an Examples of Excelencia baccalaureate-level finalist in 2010. Through concerted efforts, CAHSI has successfully recruited, retained, and increased the number of Hispanics in computing.

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs   

Collaborative Efforts and Services As we analyzed these nationally recognized programs, we identified varying levels of collaboration between academic and student affairs. As noted in the literature, learning communities are one of the most involved and complex forms of collaboration undertaken by academic and student affairs professionals (Sandeen, 2004; Tinto, 2000). TBLC is built entirely on the notion of learning communities. Students receive support from staff, class instructors, and their peers. Although TAP is not designed as a learning community, this program also exhibits high levels of collaboration between student affairs and academic affairs. For example, TAP and faculty work closely to monitor student academic progress. Specifically, faculty complete progress reports twice a semester that are then provided to TAP staff who might reach out to students struggling to pass their courses. Furthermore, TAP staff noted collaborations with about 18 departments across the college campus to carry out TAP’s mission. Other forms of collaboration, although less intense, were also identified across this pool of programs. Whereas previous examples involve participants working together continuously throughout the academic school year, these collaborations are mainly limited to the occasional or semester use of services offered by the other division that are available to all students. CAHSI, for example, schedules activities with the University Career Center such as résumé building and mock interviews for its students. Additionally, workshops offered by the University Career Center are integrated into the juniorand senior-level computer science professional orientation course. Attending the Career Expo hosted by the Career Center is also a course requirement (C. Casas, personal communication, February 26, 2013). Another example of a less vigorous, though still important, collaboration is noted in TBLC’s program brochure, which highlights the college’s academic programs alongside TBLC’s own services.

Anchoring Collaboration in Validation Beyond identifying collaboration and some of the common services offered by these exemplary collaborative programs, our use of validation as an analytical framework helped us consider if and how these programs attempted to serve Latina and Latino students with what Rendón Linares and Muñoz (2011) call an “ethic of care” (p. 22). For instance, validation theory suggests it is important to reach out to first-generation and low-income students and students of color, who often report that they “feel uncomfortable asking questions, and/or will not want to be viewed as stupid or lazy” (Rendón Linares

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education & Muñoz, 2011, p. 17). Validation also advocates building on and honoring students’ heritage. In other words, a student’s past “is a source of strength and knowledge” (Rendón, 1994, p. 48), as illustrated by TBLC’s unique curriculum design, which begins by teaching classes in Spanish and gradually shifts to English. This structure not only facilitates student learning and progressively builds self-confidence; it does both in a validating way. Next, we further highlight how these programs used validation principles and strategies. Academic family. As previously noted, “Validation is an enabling, confirming and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that foster academic and interpersonal development” (Rendón, 1994, p. 44). Thus, programs aim to provide a supportive and seamless environment for students, by not only collaborating across divisions but also working to create a welcoming, familial kind of environment. In fact, the term family was threaded throughout all but one program’s materials. The attempt to build family among participating students and staff was encapsulated by SA, which has a Family Photos section on its website featuring photos taken each semester with students, peer mentors, and faculty. Additionally, student testimonials on program websites (e.g., TAP, TBLC) highlight the family atmosphere and relationships fostered by these programs. In addition to noting the family atmosphere, students illuminate the affirmation of capabilities taking place in these programs, resulting in increased confidence. Consider the following statement by a TAP student: Now, when I sit in a college classroom and listen to my professors, my mind travels back in time to that day when Francisco Dorrame (counselor) from the T.A.P. convinced me that I could reach success, even though I was the first generation to attend college. Thanks T.A.P. You changed my life, and the lives of my future generations. (“Meet Some Students,” para. 3)

This statement highlights the affirmation and encouragement taking place as well as the meaningful connections between students and staff. The following example by a TBLC student also highlights a new level of self-confidence fostered by the program: “When I first came to Truman I couldn’t even raise my hand, I was just like the girl that didn’t want to talk and now they can’t stop me.” This student concluded by noting, “The journey, you can say, is that in the end we were all like a family” (www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Xw8O8nS_k4g). Personal relationships are formed with not only counselors or program staff but also faculty in and outside of the classroom, as discussed next. Beyond the classroom: Student-faculty relationships. Five out of the six programs we analyzed had components that allowed meaningful student-faculty

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs   

interactions inside and outside the classroom. For example, in addition to providing updates to TAP staff on students’ academic progress, faculty are involved in students’ educational experiences beyond the classroom by serving as guest speakers during TAP’s mandatory monthly meetings. Furthermore, along with students’ families and other guests, faculty members are invited to attend the Recognition Ceremony hosted to honor TAP students transferring to a four-year institution. In turn, given the extensive role that faculty members play in TAP, TAP students have an opportunity to nominate faculty (among others) for the Armando Segura Transfer Exemplar Visionary Award, which recognizes “faculty/staff for their dedication and constant commitment to student success” (“Faculty/Staff,” 2015, para. 2). SA also provides opportunities for meaningful faculty-student interactions. Specifically, students work with faculty on individual research projects, engage in service projects alongside faculty, and participate in field trips. These practices illustrate an academic validating model. As suggested by Rendón (1994), in addition to frequent interactions with students a validating academic model involves “active learning techniques such as collaborative learning, demonstrations, simulations, field trips, etc.” (p. 48). In addition to interacting with students, faculty serve as mentors to students. This applies to both programs situated in the academic side of the house (e.g., CAHSI, SA, GYO) and on the student affairs end (e.g., TAP, TBLC, Direct Connect). Faculty mentorship in particular is a major component of CAHSI and SA. Financial assistance. Traditionally underrepresented students (e.g., racial/ ethnic minority, first generation, low income) have different concerns and needs in their pursuit of higher education than their middle- and upperclass, multigeneration, college-going peers. Inadequate financial resources, for example, serve as a source of stress and are a barrier to their enrollment and persistence (Hernandez, 2000; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004–2005; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2006; Salis Reyes & Nora, 2012). Accordingly, Hernandez and Lopez noted that “aggressive outreach and educational efforts are needed to educate Latino students and their families about federal and state financial aid programs as well as providing assistance with cumbersome applications” (p. 42). Given rising tuition costs across institutional types and the increasing unmet need, this concern has become more pronounced (Long & Riley, 2007; Sacks, 2007). All six programs in our analysis responded to these well-documented financial stressors by providing some form of service related to financing higher education. Specifically, all programs offered assistance with the financial aid process, while five of the six programs actually offered some form of financial aid. Both forms of financial assistance are important because Latino

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education students often, although not always, come from working-class families and communities (Quijada-Cereceres, Ek, Alanís, & Murakami-Ramalho, 2011; Gonzales, 2012; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011) whose finances may be limited. For instance, SA hosts an annual event to introduce freshmen and their families to the college. During this event, they are provided with “additional information and handouts on the financial aid packages available to new students in order to add further funding towards their college education” (“Project Description,” n.d., p. 5). TAP also works to provide current students with valuable financial aid information through a workshop titled Financial Aid/California Dream Act. This workshop, along with financial aid reminders, is highlighted in the program’s monthly newsletter. For example, students are reminded about their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and offered assistance with the FAFSA renewal process. Additional information such as the FAFSA priority deadline and the Federal School Code are also noted. TAP’s website also highlights 15 internal and external scholarships students can apply for. Forms of financial assistance include but are not limited to scholarships, book grants, transportation stipends, and funding for travel. Although the forms of financial assistance differ by program, they all support students in their educational pursuits. For instance, some of the programs extend information and support to students who are unable to apply for financial aid because of their undocumented status. This student population, dubbed “the dreamers,” includes students from many countries, but research has found that a large proportion of this group are, in fact, aspiring Latinos attending college (Gonzales, 2009). Some examples of these programs include TAP for students who are not eligible for federal financial aid. TAP provides information on California’s Assembly Bill 540, which permits undocumented students who meet specified criteria to pay in-state tuition (Abrego, 2008). TAP also provides a link and deadline information for the California Dream Application, which offers undocumented students the opportunity to apply for and receive private and state-administered financial aid. In addition to information, TAP provides financial assistance for Assembly Bill 540 students through book grants and the Michael and Diana Giles Grant. Similarly, TBLC offers the Academic Achievement Scholarship. SA also has “some scholarship funds that can be awarded to international and undocumented students” (“Scholarship Award,” n.d., p. 2). This information is also available in Spanish. Family involvement. Ortiz (2004) wrote that “the family influences college choice, motivation, and integration of students into campus communities” (p. 91). In addition to creating a family environment, some programs integrate students’ families into programming. Four of the programs

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs   

recognize students’ families as influential and integral to Latino students’ educational experience and overall success. Families are primarily included during program enrollment and upon completion. For example, parents of TBLC participants are provided with the opportunity to accompany their children to orientation, a collaborative effort involving staff and faculty. English and Spanish are spoken at these orientation sessions as faculty and staff share their personal educational experiences and motivate students (Lumina Foundation, 2008). Similarly, and as previously noted, SA hosts an annual event for the purpose of “familiariz[ing] the new freshmen Scholars Academy members and their families with university life” (“Scholarship Award,” n.d., p. 5). This event also involves faculty and staff. TAP invites families to celebrate students’ successes during its annual Recognition Ceremony, during which graduates are presented with the opportunity to “publicly acknowledge family and friends” (C. WrightCastro, personal communication, April 4, 2013). These programs recognize and value students’ family ties and responsibilities. GYO, for example, is dedicated to providing child care for its students, the majority of whom have limited incomes (Schultz et al., 2011). TBLC, in particular, uses the importance of family to build on students’ motivation and further advance Latinos in higher education. Consider the following statement from a TBLC instructor: This is the nurturing environment, but it’s also the confidence building environment to move them from the “I don’t think I can navigate this world,” to the “I now know what it takes.” And hopefully they will become the network for their brothers and sisters.

In sum, it is clear that students receive support from staff, class instructors, and their peers in validating ways via many efforts that rely on collaborations. The following section contains a discussion of these findings and concludes with a potential pathway for postsecondary institutions to better serve the Latino student population.

Discussion This chapter features an analysis of collaborative programs in HSIs that demonstrated success in serving Latino students. Given the extant evidence that validation matters to first-generation, low-income, working-class, and otherwise nontraditional students, we also wanted to understand in what ways these programs incorporated validation principles and practices. In sum, we found that all these programs entailed collaboration, ranging from a high

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education level of interdependency among academic and student affairs divisions (e.g., TAP) to a more practical connectivity and awareness among the units (e.g., CAHSI). These collaborations consisted of not only intentionally connected academic and student affairs professionals, but also efforts, to differing degrees, anchored in a philosophy of validation (Rendón, 1994). The programs offered many services that brought together academic, social, and personal aspects of student life. For example, these programs provided meaningful information and resources that contribute to Latino student persistence, such as financial assistance or child care. They offered financial resources that ranged from scholarships to book grants, and in some cases, financial support was available to undocumented students. In addition, notions of family and the creation of a family atmosphere were consistent across these efforts. The programs recognized and thus involved students’ families in their academic experience. Furthermore, opportunities and spaces were created for meaningful faculty-student interactions in and outside the classroom, meaning that faculty members were folded into the larger social and personal dimensions of student life via programming. Often, student affairs professionals and faculty exchanged updates and information related to these variable aspects of a student’s life. Given these findings, we present Figure 5.1, which is representative of the sort of pathway that could serve to advance Latina and Latino students in their educational endeavors. We provide this figure as a summation of the preceding analysis and as a tool that could inform the programming, partnerships, and practices that HSIs (including emerging HSIs) adopt in the future. The pathway, of course, must stem from P–12 schooling systems, much like the GYO program, in which university administrators work to understand the day-to-day context of communities of color to more fully and deeply prepare teachers to work with such individuals in culturally relevant and validating ways. GYO intentionally aids in the development of aspiring teachers from communities of color to support their educational goals. The intentional focus on communities of color, and the investment in such individuals, is based in the assumption that these communities have much knowledge and an ability to serve. The cross-cutting academic services provided by GYO, including family support, child care, economic support, and academic as well as career counseling, are only possible because of collaborations, and there is an explicitly holistic focus on the student’s broader life experiences. Any pathway that supports the advancement of Latina and Latino students, particularly any pathway developed by an HSI, should include some connectivity to students’ communities.

Figure 5.1  Advancing Latinas and Latinos: Pathways of Validation Career Counseling and Placement Programs

Graduate School Research experiences, application support, test preparation workshops Four-Year Universities

Professional and Two-Year Colleges association networks

Ongoing counseling, family involvement, and financial support Information exchange among academic and student affairs professionals In- and out-of-class relations with faculty

Informational and Financial Support

Family Acknowledgment, Involvement, and Support

Programming for College Access and Transition

Creating Family

University and College Professionals Schools and Family Community

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education To support Latina and Latino students through the complex college entrance process, a pathway should include efforts that are welcoming and comfortable, clear as well as intentional. Such efforts are visible in the documents provided by TAP and Direct Connect, especially. Each of these programs is based at a community college but has very explicit transfer orientations. Direct Connect provides step-by-step information about transferring into its four-year institution counterpart alongside financing and workforce entry information. Additionally, TAP provides a short monthly newsletter, wittily named Transfer Times, that highlights opportunities for students to receive assistance with four-year college applications and personal statements as well as scheduled field trips to local four-year institutions to help students make informed college transfer decisions. Transfer students are also reminded to include the Federal School Code(s) for their transfer college choice(s) on their FAFSA. Finally, we believe the pathway should be built with an orientation toward advanced degree completion, which is the case with CAHSI and SA. Both programs host a number of activities centered on graduate school. SA, for example, provides Graduate Record Examination preparation workshops and graduate school application sessions all in the context of creating an academic family for student participants. Additionally, the research experiences provided by both programs help prepare and motivate students to pursue graduate studies (Russell, Hancock, & McCullough, 2007).

Conclusion Again, our study began by examining six programs that had previously been recognized for their ability to have a successful and positive impact on Latino student success. We examined these six programs to understand if and how collaboration and validation characterizes their efforts. Our examinations showed that these programs did, in fact, contain collaboration between student and academic affairs anchored in validation. Using our analysis, we developed what we call a “pathway,” which is built of practices and policies that could be helpful as researchers, program planners, and practitioners develop programming intended to advance Latinas and Latinos in higher education. We hope this tool is particularly helpful to professionals serving inside HSIs. While HSIs have helped increase the representation of Latinos in higher education, degree completion for this group of students remains low. Therefore, this pathway can be used to guide policy conversations and program development among and outside HSIs to ensure that the full potential of all students is supported.

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs   

Note 1. In this chapter, Latina and Latino are used interchangeably with Hispanic. The term Latino is often used to refer to males and females for readability. In the details of the chapter, we discuss the diversity within the Latino population, but it is important to point out that we use the identifiers Latino and Hispanic in the most inclusive way possible, and we understand that there are important cultural, historical, and other differences in this large population.

References About TAP. (2015). Retrieved from the Santa Barbara City College website: http:// www.sbcc.cc.ca.us/tap/Abouttap.php Abrego, L. (2008). Legitimacy, social identity, and the mobilization of law: The effects of Assembly Bill 540 on undocumented students in California. Social Inquiry, 33(3), 709–734. Astin, A. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone for excellence. Change, 17(4), 35–39. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Brown, S. S. (1990). Strengthening ties to academic affairs. In M. J. Barr, M. L. Upcraft, & associates (Eds.), New futures for student affairs: Building a vision for professional leadership and practice (pp. 239–269). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Calderón Galdeano, E., & Santiago, D. (2014). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): 2012–13. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/hsis-2012-13 College facts. (2015). Retrieved from the Santa Barbara City College website: http:// www.sbcc.cc.ca.us/about/collegefacts.php Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:// faculty.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=41859 Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic-serving institutions: Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for Latina/o students. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 71–90). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cox, B. E., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology from a residential college. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 343–362. Engstrom, C. M., & Tinto, V. (2000). Developing partnerships with academic affairs to enhance student learning. In M. J. Barr, M. K. Desler, and associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 425–452). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Excelencia in Education. (2012). What works for Latino students in higher education 2012 compendium: Profiles of selected programs. Washington, DC: Author.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Fact book. (2013). Retrieved from University of Houston–Downtown website: http://www.uhd.edu/about/irp/documents/Fact_Book_2012-2013.pdf Faculty/staff. (2015). Retrieved from the Santa Barbara City College website: http:// www.sbcc.cc.ca.us/tap/Faculty%20Staff.php Flores, S. M., & Park, T. J. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and college success: Examining the continued significance of the minority-serving institution. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 115–128. Fry, R., & Lopez, M. H. (2012). New largest minority group on four-year college campuses: Hispanic student enrollments reach new highs in 2011. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., & Orozco, V. (2005). Perceived educational barriers, cultural fit, coping responses, and psychological well-being of Latina undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 161–183. Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669–700. Golde, C. M., & Pribbenow, D. A. (2000). Understanding faculty involvement in residential learning communities. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 27–41. Gonzales, L. D. (2012). Stories of success: Latinas redefining cultural capital. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11(2), 124–138. Gonzales, L. D., Murakami, E., & Núñez, A. -M. (2013). Latina faculty in the labyrinth: Constructing and contesting legitimacy in Hispanic serving institutions. Journal of Educational Foundations, 1(2), 65–88. Gonzales, R. G. (2009). Young lives on hold: The college dreams of undocumented students. New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved from http://professionals .collegeboard.com/profdownload/young-lives-on-hold-college-board.pdf Grow your own consortia. (n.d.) Retrieved from the Grow Your Own Teachers website: http://www.growyourownteachers.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=57&Itemid=63 Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. (2012). 17th annual national capitol forum on Hispanic higher education agenda. Washington, DC: Author. Henry, K., & Schein, H. (1998). Academic community in residence halls: What differentiates a hall with a living/learning program? Journal of College and University Student Housing, 27(2), 9–14. Hernandez, J. C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41(6), 575–588. Hernandez, J. C., & Lopez, M. A. (2004–2005). Leaking pipeline: Issues impacting Latino/a college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 37–60. Hug, S., & Thiry, H. (2011). CAHSI annual evaluation report: Academic year 2010–2011. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/documents/ CAHSIfinalAnnualEvaluationReportHugThiryOct11FIN.pdf Just the facts: 2011/2012. (2012). Retrieved from the Valencia College website: http:// valenciacollege.edu/ir/Reporting/internal/documents/Fact_Sheet_Master11-12.pdf

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs    Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kurlaender, M. (2006). Choosing community college: Factors affecting Latino college choice. New Directions for Community Colleges, 133, 7–16. Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 181–198. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Long, B. T., & Riley, E. (2007). Financial aid: A broken bridge to college access? Harvard Educational Review, 77(1), 39–63. Lumina Foundation. (2008). Students aren’t just data points, but numbers do count. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/files/wp-content/ uploads/2011/02/LessonsWinter2008.pdf Malcom, L. E., Bensimon, E. M., & Davila, B. (2010). (Re)constructing Hispanicserving institutions: Moving beyond numbers toward student success (Education Policy and Practice Perspectives No. 6). Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Meet some students. (2015). Retrieved from the Santa Barbara City College website: http://www.sbcc.cc.ca.us/tap/Meet_The_Students.php Murakami, E., Núñez, A.-M., & Cuero, K. (2010). Latin@ advocacy in the hyphen: Faculty identity and commitment in a Hispanic-serving institution. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(6), 699–717. Nguyen, M., Bibo, E. W., & Engle, J. (2012). Advancing to completion: Increasing degree attainment by improving graduation rates and closing gaps for Hispanic students. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminist approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G., (2006). Examining the tangible and psychosocial benefits of financial aid with student access, engagement, and degree attainment. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1636–1651. Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2012). Hispanic student participation and success in developmental education. San Antonio, TX: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. Ortiz, A. M. (2004). Promoting the success of Latino students: A call to action. New Directions for Student Services, 105, 89–97. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Perez, P. A., & Ceja, M. (2010). Building a Latina/o student transfer culture: Best practices and outcomes in transfer to universities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(1), 6–21. Presidential proclamation: National Hispanic-Serving Institutions week. (2012). Retrieved from the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2012/09/14/presidential-proclamation-national-hispanic-servinginstitutions-week-20 Project description. (n.d.). Retrieved from the University of Houston–Downtown website: http://www.uhd.edu/academic/colleges/sciences/pdfs/SA_PROJECT_ DESCRIPTION_2810.pdf

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Quijada-Cereceres, P., Ek, L., Alanís, I., & Murakami-Ramalho, E. (2011). Transformative resistance as agency: Chicanas/Latinas re(creating) academic spaces. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(1), 70–98. Rendón, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51. Rendón, L. (2002). Community college puente: A validating model of education. Educational Policy, 16(4), 642–667. Rendón Linares, L. I., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations, application, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal: Student Access, Finance, and Success in Higher Education, 5(2), 12–33. Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching visual materials (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548–549. Sacks, P. (2007). Tearing down the gates: Confronting the class divide in American education. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salis Reyes, N. A., & Nora, A. (2012). Lost among the data: A review of Latino first generation college students. San Antonio, TX: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. Sandeen, A. (2004). Educating the whole student: The growing importance of student affairs. Change, 36(3), 28–33. Santiago, D. A., & Andrade, S. J. (2010). Emerging Hispanic-serving institutions: Serving Latino students. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/ emerging-hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis-serving-latino-students Santiago, D. A., & Reindl, T. (2009). Taking stock: Higher education and Latinos. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/taking-stock-higher-­ education-and-latinos Scholars Academy. (2009). Project description. Retrieved from the University of Houston–Downtown website: https://www.uhd.edu/academic/colleges/sciences/ pdfs/SA_PROJECT_DESCRIPTION_2810.pdf Scholarship award and financial aid information. (n.d.). Retrieved from the University of Houston–Downtown website: http://www.uhd.edu/academic/colleges/ sciences/scholars/files/finaid-english.pdf Schroeder, C. C. (1996). Enhancing undergraduate education: An imperative for student affairs. About Campus, 1(4), 2–3. Schroeder, C. C. (1999). Partnerships: An imperative for enhancing student learning and institutional effectiveness. New Directions for Student Services, 87, 5–18. Schultz, B. D., Gillette, M. D., & Hill, D. A. (2011). Teaching as political: Theoretical perspectives for understanding the Grow Your Own movement. In E. A. Skinner, M. T. Garreton, & B. D. Schultz, Grow your own teachers: Grassroots change for teacher education (pp. 5–21). New York, NY: Teachers College.

Bridging Academic and Student Affairs    Skinner, E. A., & Schultz, B. D. (2011). Rethinking teacher preparation. In E. A. Skinner, M. T. Garreton, & B. D. Schultz, Grow your own teachers: Grassroots change for teacher education (pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Teachers College. Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012001.pdf Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2000). Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on student success. Journal of Institutional Research, 9(1), 48–53. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Profile American facts for features: Hispanic heritage month 2013. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/­ newsroom/facts-for-features/2013/cb13ff-19_hispanicheritage.pdf What is the Transitional Bilingual Learning Community program? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ccc.edu/colleges/truman/departments/Documents/TBLC%20 Report%202page%204_29_11.pdf Whitt, E. J., Nesheim, B. E., Guentzel, M. J., & Kellogg, A. H. (2008). “Principles of good practice” for academic and student affairs partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 235–249. Zalaquett, C. P., & Lopez, A. D. (2006). Learning from the stories of successful undergraduate Latina/Latino students: The importance of mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 14(3), 337–353.

6 V E N TA J A S / A S S E T S Y CONOCIMIENTOS/ K N OW L E D G E Leveraging Latin@ Assets to Foster Student Success Laura I. Rendón, Amaury Nora, and Vijay Kanagala

L

ike so many underserved students from low-income backgrounds, Latin@ students have generally been perceived as problematic or dysfunctional because many live in poverty, attend poorly resourced schools, and are the first in their families to attend college.1 These students are often described with a largely unchallenged narrative fueled with deficit language such as “incapable of learning,” “not college material,” “speaking with accents,” “high risk,” “high maintenance,” “disadvantaged,” “underprepared,” or “culturally deprived” (Delgado Bernal, 2010; Harper, 2012; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 2001; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011; Yosso, 2005). Educators who uncritically accept and internalize these spoken and unspoken assumptions are likely to believe that low-income students are not capable of knowing and that it is almost impossible to get these students to complete a college education. It can be very easy to give up on students when one believes there is no hope for them. Absent from this deficit-based grand narrative are asset-based views that focus on Latin@ student cultural wealth and experiential ways of knowing that these students employ to transcend their socioeconomic circumstances and to excel in education. These assets are accumulated not from formal education but through lived experiences 92

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

and life challenges that have helped them become survivors and move past hurdles (Howard, Flennaugh, & Terry, 2012; Yosso, 2005). It cannot be denied that low-income students bring challenges to the educational system, although often through no fault of their own. Research has found that low-income students are concentrated in poorly resourced, largely segregated schools of questionable quality (Kucsera & Flaxman, 2012; Orfield, Kucsera, & Siegel-Hawley, 2012; Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg, 2012). In contrast, those students who attend better resourced and diverse schools not only possess more wealth (in the form of social and academic capital) but also are more likely to graduate from college on time, earn more money, and enter high-level leadership positions in business and government (Chingos & McPherson, 2011; Kahlenberg & Potter, 2012). Yet there are multiple examples of low-income students who despite seemingly insurmountable life challenges are making good progress toward earning college degrees. Do low-income, first-generation Latin@ students possess a diverse array of cultural assets and ways of knowing that they employ to become successful college students? Can academic and student support staff leverage Latin@ student assets to foster greater academic success? This chapter firmly answers these two questions in the affirmative.

Focus of Chapter This chapter is based on qualitative research findings from a study funded by TG Philanthropy that involved 47 University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) Latin@ students. For deeper probing, six students (three males and three females) who participated in the focus groups were selected to participate in a one- to two-hour-long videotaped interview. All interviews were conducted at one Hispanic-serving institution (HSI)—the University of Texas at San Antonio (see Table 6.1 and Table 6.2). Analyzed transcripts uncovered the positive and negative aspects of the college experience as well as instances in which students directly or indirectly referred to an ability or strength they employed in their personal and academic contexts. Asset-based theoretical frameworks developed by Latin@ scholars (Anzaldúa, 1999; Delgado Bernal, 2010; Moll et al., 2001; Yosso, 2005) allowed for critical inquiry and the development of common themes related to student strengths and knowledge. These themes were triangulated with the extant research on Latin@ student success. This chapter (a) begins with a description of the contextual nature of a Latin@ college experience (the upside and downside) based on student voices from the study, (b) moves to an outline of asset-based theoretical frameworks

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education TABLE 6.1

Eligibility Criteria for Participation Criteria for Inclusion Latin@ students First generation Pell Grant eligible Part-time or full-time Year in school: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and later Native or transfer

TABLE 6.2

Focus Group Participant Characteristics Characteristic

Number (%)

Number (%)

Status

Transfer: 16 (34)

Native: 31 (66)

Enrollment

Full-time: 45 (95)

Part-time: 2 (5)

First generationa

Yes: 33 (70)

No: 14 (30)

Pell Grant eligible

Yes: 34 (72)

No: 13 (28)b

Gender

Female: 29 (62)

Male: 18 (38)

Self-reported. Students can still receive financial aid even though they are not Pell eligible.

a b

that may be employed to develop student success models, (c) identifies multiple strengths and types knowledge students employed to their advantage, and (d) describes Latin@ student ventajas (assets) and conocimientos (knowledge) that can be leveraged to foster success.

The Upside of the Latin@ College Experience In our study, we found that the college years represented a time of great excitement for students. They appreciated making new friends, learning new perspectives, gaining new experiences, and interacting with diverse students. Students also benefitted from participation in dual enrollment programs and support programming such as supplemental instruction. Further, they benefitted from faculty support and validation, active and applied learning strategies, advising and mentoring, peer support networks, financial aid, a welcoming campus climate, and interactions with diverse cultures. Further, being in a college environment transformed students in new and different

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

ways. When students were asked how attending college had changed them, they said, among other things, that college had made them more mature, confident, inquisitive, and independent. Clearly, students were stronger as a result of having attended college. A Latina in one of the study’s focus groups described her transformation: Attending college has changed me completely. I mean, before I was in high school, I didn’t even think about college. I had one way to view the world and that was basically: get a job, create a family, work with family, get your family bigger. And it’s family, family, family, and there was only one kind of family. Coming to college is not only understanding how things work . . . but just opening myself to other cultures and how we are really similar to other cultures even though we might look different. Especially when it comes to religion. . . . It just actually made me question more things than I used to before. I argue more. I think that’s one of the major things that has changed about me. I think that’s because I have grown more confident and . . . that I know things and I know how to analyze things. I know how to have an actual argument, not just [fight] with people.

Another female student expressed how college had changed her: College is changing me in a way where it’s helping me become more of an adult, more independent, wiser in a way where I just have to say, this is it. I’m on my own. There is no more “Mommy I need this. Mommy cook me this.” It’s pretty much being independent and being out in the real world.

A male student also reported significant change: I’m a totally different person from what I was [like] four years ago because of [college]. In a way, I see myself more . . . mature. I actually do want to get that degree and see myself in the future with a degree. It’s not—whatever. Oh, yeah, I’m going to college. I actually do want to do it. I see myself doing it.

A female student related the flexible way she was open to new perspectives: I think as a person I’ve changed because I’m much more accepting. I’ve learned a lot of things here and met a lot of people. I know that there are always going to be people who don’t believe that you can do something or people who are your biggest supporters. . . . I’ve made great relationships here and I’ve made great bonds and great friendships, and those are the people who will always support you. But there are also people who are

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education going to discourage you and there are people who think that something may not be within your reach. So, I think that I’ve learned to accept those people and then to accept the people who do believe in me and just take it all in and use it as a driving force to do what it is that I want to do. I think I’ve become a lot more accepting and open to new things.

Part of the transformation involved breakthrough moments when students were finally able to figure things out, such as understanding what they needed to do to be successful or resolving time and money management challenges. A male student spoke about his epiphany: The most exciting moment I’ve had . . . has been [when] I got my grades all back up to passing; whenever I got [serious about] my studying, like I figured it out. I figured out everything I needed to do. I figured out how I needed to study. I figured out how much I need to study and for what classes, and [when] I need to go to study groups and all the friends I’ve made while doing this. I figured out how to balance working and going to school. Figuring all this out [and] the moment I realized—“hey, I’ve got things; hey, I can be here, I can do this”—that has been my most exciting moment, just that realization, that little breakthrough.

Another male student reported a breakthrough when he realized that majoring in business was not in his best interests and decided to switch his major to engineering. He said: I continued in my major [business] because I wasn’t [correctly advised]. I don’t want to blame anybody. I don’t want to blame all the counselors for not telling me what to take. That’s my fault. I’m the one that made that decision. I was taking business and I had to take [an] astronomy class as a science class and I saw all this math again, and it started coming to me. I was like, God I love this. I enjoyed it, and that’s when I switched things to . . . engineering. Then in engineering, I was [taking] electrical engineering, and I was taking computer engineering, and I took a computer science class, and that’s when I was like— “Wait a minute, this is what I want to do.”

The Downside of the Latin@ College Experience While uplifting, inspiring, and exciting, attending college also had a downside for students who were faced with formidable challenges associated with making the transition and adapting to the foreign world of college, a dynamic that has been previously discussed in the research literature on Latin@ students (Delgado Bernal, 2010; Nora, 2001–2002; Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000).

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

The preparation these Latin@ students recieve to negotiate very difficult challenges is unclear, but the fact that students managed to deal with complex transitional issues illustrates their intelligence and sheer determination to stay in college. The complexities of making transitions are described next.

Entre Mundos: Navigating Multiple Worlds A high degree of social and emotional intelligence is needed for low-income, first-generation students to deal with the tensions and complexities associated with transitioning from their personal, familiar worlds into the foreign world of college. Figure 6.1 illustrates how students lived entre mundos (among multiple worlds). These spaces included their personal contexts of family, peers, work, spirituality, barrio/community, and native country, as well as the unfamiliar territory of college. Clearly, students were called to stretch their capacity to navigate the tensions of constantly shifting contexts, deal with the psychological and emotional wounds of culture shock, negotiate separation anxiety, and work through the tensions of dislocation and relocation. To operate entre mundos, students had to learn to deal with the following complex, highly demanding dynamics. Dealing with choque (cultural collision). As students move from their familiar realities to the foreign context of college, they can experience what Anzaldúa (1999) calls “un choque” (p. 100) or cultural collision (see Figure 6.1). Scholars (Boyte, 2014; Rendón et al., 2000; Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012) have noted there is a cultural mismatch between low-income and upper-class cultural norms that can create a social performance gap and reproduce social inequalities. For instance, norms such as “doing your own thing” and “realizing your own potential” Figure 6.1  Entre Mundos: Navigating the Transition to College

Liminality Family Dislocation

Native Country

Peers

Separation Anxiety College World Challenges

Choque

Barrio and Community

Work Spiritual

Relecation

Affordability

Microaggressions

Advising Issues College Readiness

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education can run counter to values of some first-generation students who typically focus on giving back and collective success. Further, the world of college includes academic values and conventions such as merit and independence, along with specific formal and informal forms of language expression, codes of behavior, and belief systems, which are often foreign to first-generation, low-income students. One Latino student put it this way: One of the things that was very difficult was transitioning. I think maybe lots of college students have that, maybe even more so Latinos have that where they have to transition to something new that you’ve never experienced, that maybe you never thought of before. . . . Academically, preparing was one of the things that I had to really learn to adapt.

Ultimately, students were able to figure out how to succeed, but they did struggle. A Latino student explained that he would have liked for his professors to understand the things he struggled with in college: “Not being able to understand some of the subjects that they’re talking about, some of the words that I do not understand and that I kind of have to, myself, look [up] those things and research those things.” Experiencing liminality. The transition to college was not linear in nature. Figure 6.1 depicts how Latin@ students lived entre mundos, as ­students tended to move back and forth among multiple personal and academic contexts. Personal worlds included family, peers, work, spirituality, barrio or community, and native country (for students who were born in and stayed connected to Mexico or to other Latin American countries of origin). A liminal space is an in-between space, “nepantla,” as Anzaldúa (1999, p. 276) called it, where threshold students can find themselves caught and pulled in one or more operating contexts. It can also include the experience of feeling as if one is neither here nor there (ni aqui, ni alla). When one straddles multiple contexts, one cannot help but experience liminality. Making the transition to college was no exception, as students found themselves trying to adapt to a new world while staying connected to their old one. The transition created a very vulnerable liminal space where some students had doubts about whether college was really worth the effort or really meant for them. During this adjustment period, some students earned low grades. Standing between the world of college and their treasured family life, students also felt the cultural pull from their families and friends, who saw them struggling and instinctively sought to help them the only way they knew how—by encouraging them to return home. A Latino student recalled this experience: Yes, a lot of them have actually told me to come back a lot of times. They’ve said, you know, I see you struggling, but why are you doing that? You know

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge    you can just come back and live at home and then you don’t have to pay for gas or pay for food. You are going to have stuff taken care of and you can work here, and you’ve got all your friends and family here; just come home.

Experiencing separation anxiety. Students experienced separation anxiety as they made efforts to stay connected to family and friends who chose not to leave their home communities. For instance, a Latino student described the impact of leaving his family behind: What I think was really hard was leaving my mom and my brother behind. . . . I was always there for them, . . . I was the man of the house. I had to . . . be there for him and for my mom . . . financially, I was always struggling. I didn’t know how . . . it [was] going to work, but my mom [said]. . . , “Don’t worry about it, it’s going to work” . . . financial[ly], and leaving my family behind was the hardest part.

Recalling her first year in college, a Latina student described her initial months on campus: It was kind of hard to leave at the beginning. . . . As soon as you’re away you kind of start to feel, you know, homesick, or whatever it is. It took me about a year to [get over feeling] . . . homesick. . . . And, whenever they are constantly telling me about things, which you want to stay informed with your family, . . . you’re kind of like: “Well, you know I wish I could have been there.” Or, if you know there is a death in the family, you’re not there so it kind of becomes difficult to sit there and take it.

A Latino student indicated how he dealt with traversing multiple worlds and breaking away from friends: “The way I move around these worlds of my college life, my high school friends and my family life is a lot more difficult because I try to keep in contact with my friends who didn’t leave.” At the same time, this student employed his determination and sense of giving back to his family to acknowledge that separation could also mean that his example could help his family later on in life. I feel like I’m just deserting my family sometimes. I have to remind myself that that’s not true, that what I’m doing with my life—where I want to go with my life—it is not only going to help me, but I’ll be able to help take care of my family later on and that, for the younger members of my family . . . my little brother and little sister and my little cousins . . . they see—my cousin can do that or my brother did that—so I know I can do that. . . . I want to go to college. I want to get out of this town. I want to make something with my life.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Negotiating dislocation and relocation. All students interviewed had experienced some form of geographical or educational dislocation and relocation to wind up at UTSA, such as graduating from high school, transferring from a community college, moving from one state to another, or moving from a foreign country to the United States. For example, one female student had spent the first 12 years of her life in Juárez, Mexico. She came to the United States as an undocumented student and completed a high school diploma in San Antonio, graduating in the top 10% of her class. She then attended San Antonio College for one year and subsequently moved to California, where she completed an associate of arts degree with an emphasis in math and physics at Solano Community College. From there, she returned to Texas, enrolling at UTSA, where she was a fourth-year student majoring in mechanical engineering with a minor in chemistry. The navigational sophistication and resilience this previously undocumented student employed while traversing two nations, two states, and several educational institutions is remarkable. The student made the following comments on her multiple transitions: Well, the impact of moving back and forth between Juárez and the U.S., I don’t know how I did it. I guess when I first moved to the U.S. from Juárez I was kind of forced to adapt to it. I mean I had no other option. I was only 12 and my parents moved me here so it was not like I could just go back, but at first I did not like it at all. I did not want to be here. I was just like . . . we were immigrants, it wasn’t as easy for us to go back and live with family or friends. So, it was literally abandoning our family and my friends when we moved . . . to start a whole new life.

Experiencing microaggressions. For students of color, navigating a new college world often involves experiences with racial and gender microaggressions (Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Sue, 2010). Examples of microaggressions against Latin@ students were being made to feel embarrassed for playing Spanish music, being treated as cultural outsiders, being laughed at for cooking ethnic foods in a dorm, and dealing with perceptions that Latinas were not intelligent enough to be enrolled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors. Further, Latinos were sometimes viewed as short in height and unable to play popular college sports (e.g., basketball), and students reported perceptions that Latin@ students were only recruited so that UTSA could qualify as a federally designated HSI. Some students were teased because of an accent or were made to feel as though they weren’t as smart as White students. A male student remarked on how he had tried to offer academic assistance to a nonLatino student in his engineering class only to face a hurtful response: It was in the recitation period from my electrical engineering class. In that period, we just go over the class work and they give us problems to do

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge    and we run a lot of formulas through programs and things like that. . . . I remember this one instance that we were all working and there was a student next to me who was really having trouble with the program that we were running. He couldn’t figure out the formula. He couldn’t figure out how to plug it in right and make it run. I told him that I could help him. I was like, hey, do you need my help, and he looked at me and [it] was like, no, I’m fine. This was a non-Latino student. He continued to struggle and . . . constantly asked other non-Latino students [for help]. Everybody he asked for help was non-Latino or non-minority. . . . I just kind of took that personally, and it honestly kind of hurt. It made me realize like, well, maybe not everything about being here is so much better. . . . I think that was one of my more negative moments of being here.

A Latina student said that speaking in Spanish created some tension with her roommates: For me, um, I’m from the Valley [San Fernando Valley, CA]. So, pretty much everybody is Latino, Latina. . . . I always felt like safe. So then, . . . I came here and there is such a huge diversity and my roommate—I lived with three other roommates—and all three of them were white. So, I remember the first time I was in the living room talking to my mom, obviously in Spanish. And then, after I hung up the phone they were just like, like the whole entire time we were talking (my mom and I were talking), they were like just staring at me. I was like, “Guys, calm down. It’s just a different language.”

Challenges Associated With Financing College and Making Academic Progress The burden of paying for college, lack of college readiness, and inadequate advising weighed heavily on students. Financial burden and concerns about college affordability. Students were not only concerned about paying for college, but also worried about their families’ financial burdens. A Latina student shared her thoughts regarding her financial circumstances: The reason I chose UTSA is . . . because my father lost his job my graduating year [in high school] and I was working. So, coming here allowed me to still go to school and work off-campus. I also work here on campus as well, so that way I can help my parents out by paying for most of the school expenses myself and then helping them out here and there when I can.

Latino students played a significant role in the family when it came to finances. For instance, a Latino student revealed that he worried about

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education leaving his mother and brother behind because, “I was basically the man of the house.” He talked about how the family of three was already struggling financially and recalled the difficult conversation he had with his mom asking, “How are we going to afford college?” Lack of college readiness. Students said that sometimes they felt their high school preparation was inadequate. Two male students addressed the lack of rigor in their high school curriculum: In my senior year in high school, I would just literally [only] take a pen [to school], just a pen for senior year. I remember after I graduated . . . coming here [UTSA] and . . . felt like I wasted all my time in high school because I learned literally nothing. The homework I received in high school was nothing compared with the stuff that I have to know here; there is just [such] a big gap. I think . . . a lot of people . . . say, “Yeah, after this [high school] I’m going to college,” but what they don’t realize [is that] there is such a big gap and then you get to college and it’s entirely different.

Less than adequate advising. Advising was a problem for most students as they navigated registration and their new life on campus. A male student noted, I know the difficulty I had was in trying to register for UTSA. Getting my official transcripts over to UTSA, that was easy enough, but having to come back and talk to . . . academic advisers and trying to register and everything with the business office [was difficult]. There were lots of times where people either seemed like they didn’t know what they were doing or just didn’t care enough to really follow up and figure out exactly what needed to be done. A lot of times it seemed like they just wanted to wash their hands of it [the whole advising time] or just give an answer quickly and then like: OK, now I’m done with you and let’s hurry up to the next person.

A female student commented on the effects of being misadvised and provided with an incorrect academic plan: Coming in, they had my credits to be an engineer. So, I should have been here [at UTSA] this year and next year and graduated in the [following] class. So, I was a little concerned that maybe there weren’t so many classes available, knowing I was going to be an upperclassman. So I contacted my [high school] adviser and he assured me that they would find a way to get me into the classes that I needed. So, when I got here [to UTSA] the adviser that was [assigned] . . . to me [at] . . . orientation day to enroll me—I guess maybe a miscommunication happened—I was put on the wrong academic plan.

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

Attending college brought significant benefits and arduous challenges to low-income Latin@ students. What were the assets and cultural knowledge students employed to survive in college and overcome challenges? To answer this question, data derived primarily from the six one-on-one interviews were analyzed. Asset-based theories outlined in Table 6.3 provided the conceptual framing to illuminate the diverse array of assets and ways of knowing Latin@ students employed to gather strength, work through personal and academic difficulties, negotiate multiple worlds, and stay on track to complete college. In the absence of these assets, and without anyone in their family or in college being able or willing to provide assistance, it would not be an overstatement to say that students would have dropped out of college.

Ventajas y Conocimientos: Assets and Funds of Knowledge The research literature has recognized that Latin@ students have strengths and knowledge rooted in their ancestry, community, family, and identity (Delgado Bernal, 2010; Elenes, González, Delgado Bernal, & Villenas, 2010; Moll et al., 2001; Yosso, 2005). They also have what Gloria Anzaldúa terms conocimiento, a consciousness that evolves in the process of developing a new awareness as one goes through specific life experiences. “Conocimiento” is just a good old-fashioned word that means knowledge, or learning, or lo que conoces [what you know]. When you’re about to change, when something in your life is transforming itself, you get this “Aha! So this is what it’s about.” That to me is conocimiento. (Lara, 2005, p. 44)

We use the term ventajas to refer to the assets or personal resources these six students possessed, while the term conocimientos refers to the funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 2001) related to each of these ventajas. Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth model was employed as a starting point to identify multiple ventajas these students possessed and employed to their advantage. Yosso’s framework, which includes six forms of cultural wealth, was substantiated by the research findings. Moreover, the study uncovered four additional forms of ventajas y conocimientos.

Validating Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth Model As shown in Table 6.3, this study confirmed the six forms of capital in Yosso’s (2005) model.

TABLE 6.3

Validation is an enabling, confirming, and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that fosters academic and personal development. Students benefit when others believe in them and when others provide affirmation, support, and encouragement. This holds that education should incorporate an inclusive curriculum, be relationship centered, honor diverse ways of knowing, take action against multiple forms of oppression, and focus on social justice, diversity, and interdependence. It encourages student ability to think critically about educational situations and welcomes student voices in the classroom.

Moll et al. (2001)

Anzaldúa (1999)

Delgado Bernal (2010)

Rendón (1994)

Funds of knowledge

Mestiza consciousness

Pedagogies of the home

Validation

Liberatory ped- Freire (1971); agogy hooks (1994); Lather (1991); Rendón (2009)

Pedagogies of the home constitute the cultural knowledge bases and strategies of resistance students employ to survive in educational systems that are alien to them and that often cast students with deficit-based frameworks.

The constant crossing over and the racial, ideological, cultural, and biological cross-polliniation results in a new mestiza consciousness (una conciencia de mujer). Psychic restlessness can occur as a result of occupying liminal spaces, of being in a state of perpetual transition, and of living between two cultures—a state called nepantla. While nepantla can be messy and confusing, it is also where transformation can occur, new knowledge can emerge, worldviews can be shattered, personal growth can happen, and new identities can emerge.

Funds of knowledge “refer to the historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (p. 133). Faculty can potentially draw out hidden talents in students when they get to know them and when they acknowledge and validate their backgrounds, culture, family sacrifices, and challenges they have overcome.

Cultural wealth includes the following forms of capital: aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistant. These forms of knowledge, skills, abilities, and contacts are used by communities of color to survive and to combat oppressive circumstances.

Yosso (2005)

Community cultural wealth

Key Points

Theorist(s)

Theory

Asset-Based Theoretical Frameworks

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

Aspirational Students were able to be hopeful about their future and to set aspirations to attend college as well as enter fields such as engineering, science, or politics. A male student said, “Me and my twin brother . . . both had aspirations of going to college. I remember we would go late into the night and just talked about our aspirations of going to college and making a difference.” These aspirations were often shaped by validating agents (e.g., parents, siblings, grandparents) who shared testimonios (life stories) on overcoming adversity and who provided support and consejos (sage advice). Community role models also served to foster aspirations and hope for the future. For example, one male student stated, As a Latino I want to be that [San Antonio] Mayor Julian Castro for somebody else, like he was for me, like Joaquin Castro for my brother, or for myself. I want to be that person where I can sort of help that other student, Latino or non-Latino, to say that this shaped me, that I can do this, so anybody else can do this as well.

Linguistic While some students were cognizant of their Spanish accent and were sometimes teased about it, they also recognized that being bilingual in Spanish and English helped them communicate and form relationships with others. A Puerto Rican woman explained that she felt her mother had given her an advantage by teaching her to speak two languages at an early age. She said she had appreciated “what it means to be bilingual” since she was a small child, noting the advantage in understanding what others had to say and being able to communicate in two different languages. With regard to the importance of linguistic capital in forming relationships, a Latino student expressed the importance of speaking Spanish: If you are Latino you’ll always have a group of friends. You can find somebody that speaks Spanish in a classroom and just start talking Spanish to them, and they want you to be in their study group or something, just because you can speak and communicate with them.

Familial For all students the family served as a critical source of support, with mothers playing an especially central role. The accumulation of familial capital was gained through validation, consejos, and role modeling, thus establishing students’ personal determination to complete life goals for not only themselves but also their family. A male underscored the value of his mother’s

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education consejos and information: “My mom gave me all the information and all the strength I needed to go to college and to get through college. She always told me, you need to go. You have to go.” A previously undocumented female student expressed how family helped form her personal determination: “What has made me determined? My family. . . . I think that is what is helping me be determined, the fact that I want to help my family, and that’s what I want to do.” This student had also acquired her sense of determination from her father’s experiences. I mean, one of the things I really like about my dad is the fact that even though he only went up to the fourth grade, he still was able to learn enough, you know, electrician work to be able to fix the house, and now construction to be able to build something for the family—just that feeling to want to learn and to want to help.

Social Peer networks proved to be essential to students. They capitalized on their friendships with peers, the social networks that were formed with their friends, and lessons from their interactions with peers in developing an important asset—social capital. Research documents the importance of peers for personal support, political engagement, and a sense of belonging on campus (Hallett, 2013; Moreno & Sánchez Banuelos, 2013). While all the students commented on the value of diversity and learning from different cultures, they were especially able to rely on networks formed with other Latin@. This form of social capital was acquired through interactions experienced in the Hispanic Student Association (HSA) and through study groups—safe spaces where students validated each other with hugs, appreciation, and affirmation that what one person was going through was the experience of many of the others. In the following, a male student captured the general sentiment of all six students who were interviewed: Since my freshman year . . . I’ve been a part of HSA, the Hispanic Student Association, and just the connections that I’ve made in this organization and the friends I’ve made in this organization have helped with the transition. This organization makes it feel like a family, and a lot of the people in this organization are not just freshmen, they are sophomores, juniors, seniors; some are grad students. They’ve been here and they know what it’s like and a lot of them actually have been helping with that transition. . . . Going to my first meeting of the HSA . . . as soon as I walked in I had five people come up and greet me, and they introduced themselves and they gave me a hug, and I’m like, I just met you. Why are you hugging me? That’s how it is; that’s how everybody here is, just so welcoming and nice

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge    that even I’ve gotten to where if I introduce myself to someone . . . and it’s the first time . . . I’ll give them a hug.

Navigational Navigating within multiple distinct worlds (barrio, peers, native country, family, spirituality, college) was a key strategy for surviving in higher education. Each new context had its own mental script and language code as well as its own intellectual and behavioral conventions. A Latina expressed the distinctions between her family context and the world of college: College is very different. I see it as I have a college life and I have my personal life. When I’m in school, I am in slow motion. I know how to speak to people about courses and how to do projects and what I have to do in the future. I want to go to graduate school and I want to do this and that. When I’m with my parents there is no school talk other than how are you doing and how long is it going to take you to graduate. They just—I don’t think they fully understand what I actually do at school. All they see is I’m going to school and I’ve been married. I don’t have any kids; how long is that going to take. That’s pretty much what I’m getting from my parents. I just think that they just don’t know so it’s like two different worlds. I live in multiple worlds.

Another example is a Latino student who had relocated from Santa Cruz, Bolivia, to California at age 12. He then returned to Bolivia for a year and subsequently returned to the United States to live in Utah. This was followed by a return to Bolivia. He described the chaos of the constant uprooting and relocating while simultaneously having to navigate these contrasting contexts. It was pretty crazy. Honestly, I mean it wasn’t like psychologically I feel sad [or] I don’t have a home. . . . It was like OK, now this is my home, . . . but everywhere I went I felt that place was my home. . . . And making new friends all the time. California was the first one I went to, and, I mean, I spoke English, but mostly I understood it a little bit. I couldn’t really communicate. I couldn’t have, like, a full conversation all the time, so that was really, really hard. You can imagine. When I went back to Bolivia and then back to Utah again it was like starting from zero. I spoke English, but I didn’t have any friends. . . . It was kind of hard.

Resistant As noted earlier, students experienced racial and gender microaggressions as well as culture shock in college. Having gone through those experiences, these students acquired yet another important asset—resistant capital, which they came

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education to depend on as they faced the different academic and social barriers and obstacles in college. For example, one female engineering student related how she was able to overcome being intimidated in classes dominated by White males. At the beginning . . . you’re first welcomed to the class and all you see are White males. It’s intimidating. . . . Their conversations [were] . . . about cars and like how they’re going out on the weekends and meet girls. . . . I just didn’t have any connection with that so it was a bit intimidating. They were white males . . . coming from a family [whose] . . . parents went to college, who maybe . . . never had in mind [questions] about whether they were going to be able to go to school. They just kind of knew they were going to be able to go to school and they had school in mind since they were little, so they’ve had time to adjust to it. I . . . just . . . felt intimidated and way at a disadvantage. But I kind of thought through it, and I eventually got used to it.

Additional Forms of Cultural Wealth: Ventajas Latin@ Employed in College We made an exciting discovery of four new ventajas not covered in Yosso’s (2005) model: ganas (determination), ethnic consciousness, spirituality or faith, and pluriversal cultural wealth.

Ganas (Determination) Underlying this ventaja are determination, self-reliance, and inner confidence. Admirably, students refused to quit, and they also recognized and embraced the sacrifice that must be made in going to college. Overall, the life experiences and circumstances of students paint a picture of hardships and adversities one would think they would not be able to overcome, but they did. Students were able to overcome difficult life challenges such as being undocumented, lacking role models and mentors in their communities, experiencing poverty, attending poorly resourced schools, being placed in a vocational track in high school, becoming head of the household at an early age after experiencing the death of a parent, dislocating from their native country, or constantly moving from one geographical or educational context to another. One female student’s description of ganas as it applied to her was succinct: I know what I want to be and I know what I need to get there so I just have to make sure I do it. That’s all there is. I mean, I hate it and I’m complaining every time I have to write a report. I complain every time where something is missing in the lecture, and I have to read the book. I mean,

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge    I’m complaining throughout the whole way, but I’m still doing it. I think that’s what’s gotten me this far, that I’m still doing it.

A male student expressed one regret regarding education and his family: [It’s] the fact that my mom only went to business school. She has always told me my whole life that she regrets not going to college. She regrets not making that choice, and I think that’s what pushed me to go to college a little bit more. That was something . . . in the back of my head pushing me. . . . I didn’t want to . . . struggle the way they did. I don’t want my kids to . . . struggle with what I did growing up, you know, not having enough money or having to see my parents work three jobs, not seeing them until night time [when they] come home from their job[s], just because she didn’t have the degree necessary to get a higher job.

Ethnic Consciousness When Latin@ are confronted with similar social and educational inequities, these conditions may serve as a basis to foster solidarity and unity resulting in what Padilla (1985) termed ethnic consciousness. What appeared evident was a form of ethnic consciousness that manifested itself as students felt a deep sense to give back to their families and communities. Ethnic consciousness, as the name implies, involves cultural pride and the sense that personal accomplishment could lead to the betterment of the Latin@ collective whole. Further, students were overwhelmingly proud of their heritage and proud to attend an HSI, evidence of the cultural pride embedded in the ventaja. For example, a Latino student described how he foresaw that perhaps he could be a role model for his siblings: What made me decide that I [didn’t] want to do vocational [school] over maybe going to a four-year college was . . . looking up the jobs and opportunities. . . . I could get a lot further with an electrical engineering degree and realizing that I’m setting an example for my little brother and my little sister. . . . I want them to make the most out of their lives.

In the following, a Latina described her perception of the cultural responsibility of setting an example for those who came behind her: I’m one of the first, pretty much the one setting up the test for the ones that are coming behind me, and that means that, whatever decisions I make or whatever path I choose to take, it’s not only going to affect me . . . it’s going to affect everyone that comes behind me, whether it’s my sisters, my neighbor, or just any female or Latina that’s the next generation, and that’s pretty scary because it’s not just me anymore.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education A Latina engineering student gave another example of the desire to give back when revealing the reason she had joined the organization Engineers Without Borders. I believe my purpose in life [was that] . . . I was given these skills to, like, love math, to be good with numbers and to be able to pursue engineering . . . to use civil engineer [training] . . . to build a community or help other people [and] other communities outside of the United States in other countries, and help them rebuild some of their countries and stuff. Like, for example, I want to go to Panama and build them a few houses and stuff like that. So I think my purpose in life is to, like, use my skills to help others.

Spirituality or Faith Interestingly, many students came to the interviews wearing religious necklaces and bracelets, and they often referred to their faith in God to gather strength and to cope with difficult situations. They also appeared to be guided by a broader sense of spirituality such as gratitude, compassion, and a sense of purpose in life as well as a positive view of the world. Nora and Anderson (2002) found a distinction between the concepts of spirituality and religiosity. One aspect is that being spiritual means having a positive worldview of others and society. In line with that view are the notions that how we treat each other and how we see the world in general are positively affected by a sense of spiritual nobility. Religiosity is represented by a faith in God or a higher power and communicated through the performance of and adherence to religious rituals and beliefs. Spirituality and faith appeared to be key to giving students strength, comfort, and determination to succeed as well as a sense of humanitarianism. One male student described the importance of faith in God: One of the things that I have, culturally, is having faith in God. I think that’s something that really identifies [resonates] within the Latino community. I know myself I will go late into the night and pray to God: . . . thank you for another day, thank you for helping me with these opportunities that are presenting themselves. Sometimes you’re not going to understand [those] . . . circumstances that are going throughout your life, but I think being a Latino, having faith . . . in God, I think that’s something that really pushes you toward the best of your beliefs.

Several students expressed a broader sense of spirituality. For example, a male student who had a rough childhood with no role models or a father figure said, “I feel my purpose in life is to leave an example, leave a mark that says I did this. I made something of myself . . . the kind of mark that says he did this, so you can do this.”

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

A female noted that her purpose in life was to be a good person attuned to others: So what that entails is being compassionate to others, being understanding of others (you don’t know what other people go through), being positive because in every [negative] circumstance that you may be going through, there is always somebody else who is going through something much worse than you. So . . . just trying to stay positive, being the hands and feet of God and just being a good person.

A young man described the importance of helping others: I could have asked for anything that maybe has the most money . . . but to me it’s helping people, giving a hand, listening to their concerns, voicing their concerns. . . . I turn to God. I just pray to Him and ask, what is my purpose in life?

Pluriversal According to Andreotti, Ahenakew, and Cooper (2011) in non-Western conceptualizations of knowledge production, competing and contradictory systems of meaning can be held “in tension without having to come to a dialectical synthesis or resolution” (p. 221). Pluriversal or multiepistemic perspectives run counter to Western hegemonic conceptions that are focused on either/or thinking as opposed to both/and. Students in this study were able to function with pluriversality similar to what Anzaldúa (1999) calls “mestiza consciousness” (pp. 99–100). The versatility of being able to make identity and behavioral shifts while operating in multiple, diverse worlds (i.e., being a college student as well as a family member, a peer, or a community member) likely gave students a tolerance for ambiguities and contradictions. For example, engaging in professional, academic roles in class is different from engaging with a parent, sibling, or friend back home in a much more informal manner. This ability to move in and out of these different spaces and intellectual or social understandings and to engage successfully in all of them illustrates the asset of pluriversality. A female student in the study indicated that she could be conscious of how she would respond to others depending on the context she found herself in: A simple question such as, what are you planning to do in 10 years from now? . . . If I’m speaking to someone at school I would immediately refer to graduate school where I might want to do research or what school I’m planning to go to. If I’m speaking to my parents it would be where I’m

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education planning to live, whether I want to have kids, or if I’m planning to travel. Same question but different answers because of two different worlds.

A Latino male talked about the complexities of his identity: I’m proud of where my family came from [in] Mexico. I have ties to my family’s Mexican heritage, but I’m Mexican American because . . . I was born here and I’m still American too. I also define myself as Hispanic because a lot of people will try and classify me as say, Spanish, and to me that means that my family came over from Spain.

A Latina born in Mexico related how she had to relearn Spanish and embrace her immigrant and American identity as she became more comfortable living in the United States. I sort of relearned to be proud of being Mexican and being an immigrant and what it means to be an immigrant. . . . Then we were able to travel back to Juarez. It was like going through this whole thing all over again because, even though I’m Mexican and I grew up there when I was little, it’s not the same thing. Like you miss your whole teenage years spending them with your friends and your cousins and now, to them, you are considered American. While here you’re considered an immigrant, even though you are no longer [an immigrant].

Leveraging Latin@ Students’ Ventajas y Conocimientos This section provides examples of leveraging strategies that are aligned with Latin@ student assets and ways of knowing discussed in this chapter. For each student ventaja, there is a list of conocimientos that can be leveraged to foster student success (see Table 6.4). One of the key assets students possess is an aspirational mind-set. To leverage this ventaja, advisers and counselors should form validating and mentoring (Nora & Crisp, 2008; Rendón, 1994) relationships with students to fine-tune their aspirations and affirm that they have the capacities and strengths to realize their hopes and dreams. Students should also be advised on academic and student support services that can help them move forward with addressing any academic or college adjustment problems they may be experiencing. This can happen in first-year experience programs and in a onestop student success center to help students obtain needed information about admissions, financial aid, and support programming. Engaging students in peer language tutoring, study abroad experiences, intergroup dialogues, and

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

opportunities to develop language competencies can enhance a student’s linguistic asset. Family represents a very important ventaja for Latin@ students. Leveraging this strength can include hosting family events on campus, forming study groups that become their familia, and participating in livinglearning communities where students can form their own familia with peers. Another key ventaja is related to the ability to create social networks, make new friends, and form new relationships. Faculty and student affairs staff could work with social assets through study groups where students can learn from and support each other, collaborative learning assignments, ­relationship-centered learning communities, and ethnic-themed college clubs and organizations. Students do have navigational skills, although clearly there were challenges associated with making the transition to college and learning the new world of college. Latin@ and feminist studies programs could help students find a safe space where they can share their testimonios (life stories) and learn with students who have similar educational and life journeys. For example, the Center for Multicultural Excellence at the University of Denver (www.du.edu/cme) houses programs (e.g., Voices of Discovery Dialogues and first-generation student support groups) that allow small groups of students from varied backgrounds to share their life and campus experiences as they confront a college culture vastly different from their home realities. Making use of the asset of resistant capital could include peer support groups and counseling to help students combat microaggressions and heal from any negative situations they may have experienced—­racism, stereotyping, or public embarrassment, for example. Ganas, or perseverance, is a ventaja connected to the drive to succeed, which could include a theoretically grounded mentoring initiative involving academic and student support offices to encompass career preparation, realistic self-assessment, and academic advising. Students with an ethnic consciousness are driven by the notion that their success is not just for themselves, but for the benefit of the Latin@ community. This is an especially important asset that can be enhanced through service-­learning in underserved communities, research and program development with a faculty or staff member oriented in social justice, and ethnicthemed learning communities such as the Puente Project, which includes a Latin@-centered curriculum. In addition, a liberatory pedagogy that focuses on social justice issues can be helpful in affirming and strengthening the commitment to the Latin@ collective. Another strong ventaja is spirituality or faith, which consists of students expressing faith in God or a higher power and having a sense of purpose, compassion, and goodness. Leveraging practices could include faith-based

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education TABLE 6.4

Leveraging Latin@ Student Ventajas y Conocimientos Ventaja (Asset)

Conocimientos (Knowledge)

Aspirational

Ability to do the following 1. Set high aspirations 2. Recognize value of education 3. Remain hopeful about the future

Linguistic

Ability to do the following 1. Employ two or more languages 2. Engage with formal and informal modes of expression

Familial

Ability to do the following 1. Model the strength and determination of the family 2. Employ knowledge gained through the value of family consejos, respeto, testimonios, and educación

Social

Ability to do the following 1. Create social networks 2. Make new friends and form new relationships

Navigational

Ability to do the following 1. Operate in liminal spaces 2. Traverse multiple distinct social contexts 3. Dislocate and relocate 4. Adapt to new culture

Resistant

Ability to do the following 1. Resist stereotypes, combat and overcome microaggressions 2. Overcome hardships, such as poverty and lack of guidance and resources

Ganas (Perseverance)

Ability to do the following 1. Develop inner strength, become self-reliant and determined to succeed 2. Recognize and embrace sacrifices that must be made to attend college

Ethnic consciousness

Ability to do the following 1. Form deep commitment to the Latino community and to betterment of the collective—a sense of giving back 2. Develop cultural pride 3. Develop pride in attending an HSI

Spirituality or faith

Ability to do the following 1. Employ faith in God or a higher power to overcome struggles 2. Develop sense of meaning and purpose 3. Embrace concepts such as gratitude, goodness, and compassion

Pluriversality

Ability to do the following 1. Operate in multiple worlds or diverse educational and geographical contexts (college, peers, work, family, spirituality, native country) 2. Hold multiple and competing systems of meaning in tension

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge   

organizations and holiday celebrations, service-learning experiences, and capstone courses. Contemplative pedagogy also holds promise for fostering a sense of meaning and purpose and provides a holistic learning experience that activates inner and outer learning. With carefully trained faculty, inner learning can be activated employing contemplative practices. Examples include use of music, rituals and poetry, journal keeping, arts-based projects, and mindfulness (Center for Contemplative Mind in Society, n.d.; Rendón, 2009; Rendón & Kanagala, 2014; Shapiro, Brown, & Astin, 2011). ­Pluriversality means that one can hold multiple and sometimes competing systems of meaning in tension, so leveraging practices could include peer mentoring and advising to assist students as they attempt to negotiate multiple identities and function in diverse cultural contexts.

Conclusion The findings from this study clearly substantiate that deficit-based assumptions—that most low-income, first-generation Latin@ students have no ambition, are not capable of knowing, lack motivation, and are a lost cause— are egregiously erroneous. Student success frameworks are incomplete without consideration of the diverse array of cultural wealth Latin@ students bring to college. College faculty and staff need to learn more about the lowincome Latin@ student college experience, reframe their assumptions about students from poverty backgrounds, and work with an asset-based framework to foster success. Another message from this study is that there is hope for Latin@ student success. The student profile that emerged illustrates extraordinary strengths and the drive to succeed as well as the ability to become transformed from the college experience. It cannot be denied that some of these students needed more academic skills (although many were clearly very smart). But what pushed these students was their firm commitment to their families and to the Latin@ community, their notion that they now served as role models for others in similar situations, their ability to use bilingualism to their benefit, their ability to resist microaggressions and to serve as personal support systems for their peers, and their remarkable capacity to maneuver in the foreign world of college and in their familiar personal worlds. These Latin@ students also demonstrated sheer determination and drive to succeed. They had a deep need to give back to their communities, a purpose in life, and an intellectual consciousness of pluriversality, a critical high-level cognitive skill that is advantageous when oppressed people have to negotiate shifting power structures and cultural conditions.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education This chapter identifies 10 ventajas y conocimientos that all educators must learn about and leverage as they work with low-income, first-generation Latin@ students who should not be treated the same as affluent, privileged students. Reinforced with research evidence, it can definitely be asserted that Latin@ students possess an exceptional knowledge base that should be accounted for when developing student success initiatives. When armed with their own toolbox of ventajas y conocimientos and assisted with high-quality academics and student support services, Latin@ students can definitely complete a college education.

Note 1. Latino is a masculine Spanish term. The use of @ is used to reject the gendering of the word and to avoid privileging one gender over another.

References Andreotti, V., Ahenakew, C., & Cooper, G. (2011). Towards global citizenship education “otherwise.” In V. de Oliveira Andreotti & L. de Souza (Eds.), Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education (pp. 221–238). New York, NY: Routledge. Anzaldúa, G. (1999). Borderlands/la frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. Boyte, H. (2014). Higher education and rising inequality. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-boyte/higher-education-and-risi_b_5602158 .html Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. (n.d.). Contemplative practices: What are contemplative practices? Retrieved from http://www.contemplativemind.org/ practices Chingos, M., & McPherson, M. (2011). Improving educational attainment. Recent trends and challenges. Retrieved from http://acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm ?Section=Forum&Template =/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=43624 Delgado Bernal, D. (2010). Learning and living pedagogies of the home: The mestizo consciousness of Chicana students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 623–639. doi:10.1080/095183390110059838 Elenes, A. A., González, F. E., Delgado Bernal, D., & Villenas, S. (2010). Introduction: Chicana/Mexicana feminist pedagogies: Consejos, respeto, y educación in everyday life. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 595–602. doi:10.1080/09518390110059900 Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum.

Ventajas/Assets y Conocimientos/Knowledge    Hallett, R. E. (2013). Undocumented student success: Navigating constraints related to retention. Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 5(2), 99–112. Harper, S. R. (2012). Black male student success in higher education: A report from the National Black Male College Achievement Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Howard, T. C., Flennaugh, T. K., & Terry, C. L. (2012). Black males, social imagery, and the disruption of pathological identities: Implications for research and teaching. Educational Foundations, 26(1/2), 85–102. Kahlenberg, R. D., & Potter, H. (2012). A better affirmative action: State universities that created alternatives to racial preferences. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. Kucsera, J., & Flaxman, G. (2012). The Western states: Profound diversity but severe segregation for Latino students. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, University of California, Los Angeles. Lara, I. (2005). Daughter of Coatlicue: An interview with Gloria Anzaldúa. In A. L. Keating (Ed.), Entre mundos/among worlds: New perspectives on Gloria Anzaldúa (pp. 41–55). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within/in the postmodern (critical social thought). New York, NY: Routledge. Minikel-Lacocque, J. (2012). Racism, college, and the power of words: Racial microaggressions reconsidered. American Education Research Journal, 50, 432–465. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2001). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Moreno, D. R., & Sánchez Banuelos, S. M. (2013). The influence of Latina/o Greek sorority and fraternity involvement on Latina/o college student transition and success. Journal of Latin American Studies, 5(2), 113–125. Nora, A. (2001–2002). The depiction of significant others in Tinto’s “Rites of Passage”: A reconceptualization of the influence of family and community in the persistence process. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 41–56. Nora, A., & Anderson, R. G. (2002, April). The role of religiosity as a determinant of persistence for minority and nontraditional college students: A logistic regression analysis of a theoretical model of student persistence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2008). Mentoring students: Conceptualizing and validating the multi-dimensions of a support system. Journal of College Student Retention: Theory and Practice, 9(3), 337–356. Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pluribus separation: Deepening double segregation for more students. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, University of California, Los Angeles.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Padilla, F. M. (1985). Latino ethnic consciousness: The case of Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans in Chicago. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51. Rendón, L. I. (2009). Sentipensante (sensing/thinking) pedagogy: Educating for wholeness, social justice and liberation. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (Rev. ed., pp. 127–156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Rendón, L. I., & Kanagala, V. (2014). Embracing contemplative pedagogy in a culturally diverse classroom. In B. Tobolowsky (Ed.), Paths to learning: Teaching for engagement in college (pp. 61–76). Columbia: The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina. Rendón Linares, L. I., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 12–33. Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K. W., & Astin, J. A. (2011). Toward the integration of meditation into higher education: A review of research evidence. Teachers College Record, 113, 493–528. Siegel-Hawley, G., & Frankenburg, E. (2012). Southern slippage: Growing school segregation in the most desegregated region of the country. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, University of California, Los Angeles. Stephens, N. M., Fryberg , S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 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.

7 RESEARCHING WHITE STUDENT EXPERIENCES AT H I S PA N I C - S E RV I N G INSTITUTIONS A Troubling Matter of Interest Convergence Michelle M. Espino

A

s early as 1968, with the founding of Hostos Community College in the Bronx, New York, institutions that serve large Hispanic student enrollment shares have been part of the higher education landscape. Although not formally classified as Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) until the 1990s, these institutions have offered educational opportunities for underrepresented minority students and low-income students who may not have otherwise had access to postsecondary education. Despite their roles in “compensat[ing] for existing educational disparities and . . . the educational achievement gaps of Hispanics” (Greene et al., 2012, p. 146), HSIs struggle with financial, environmental, political, and institutional identity issues that often supersede any positive effects stemming from their presence in higher education (Benítez, 1998; Greene et al., 2012). Throughout much of the literature on minority-serving institutions, HSIs differ significantly from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities in terms of historical origin, mission, and The author wishes to thank Nolan L. Cabrera for helpful feedback in preparation of this chapter.

119

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education funding (Cole, 2011; Espino & Cheslock, 2008). Few studies go beyond describing the federal classification of HSIs to uncovering elements of innovation that intentionally center Hispanic communities in their mission, values, policies, and practices. Unfortunately, with the exception of “intentional” HSIs (i.e., Hostos Community College, Boricua College, and National Hispanic University1) and Our Lady of the Lake University (n.d.) in Texas, which in 2008 included an acknowledgment of its connection to Mexican American culture in its vision statement,2 the vast majority of “incidental” HSIs have “mission statements, [that] typically lack any reference to a distinctive Hispanic organizational identity” (Cole, 2011, p. 388). Contrary to the institutional missions of HBCUs and tribal colleges, HSIs (aside from those located in Puerto Rico) were first established as predominantly White institutions (PWIs) that happened—through very little intention—to attract increasingly larger shares of Hispanic student enrollment. Although the undergraduate student body may be classified as 25% Hispanic (at minimum) as mentioned in other chapters (e.g., Chapter 1 and Chapter 2), mainland HSIs have “principally White professors, predominantly White administrators, and largely White Boards of Regents” (Greene & Oesterreich, 2012, p. 171) who shape and implement policies through a dominant White lens. As a result, a key question arises: Are mainland HSIs significantly different from PWIs? Further research is necessary to decipher the subtle and important differences in institutional climate and the impact of the human aggregate (i.e., faculty, administrators, staff, students, local communities, alumni, and other stakeholders) in this specific environment. Investigating how institutional context is connected (if at all) to student access, persistence, and success is essential if HSIs are to demonstrate that they are distant and distinct from their predominantly White origins. Several tensions are evident in the literature and in practice in claiming distinction from other institution types, particularly PWIs. I contend that these tensions are part of the HSI dilemma that is embedded in institutional identity and culture: what HSIs are aside from their federal classification, whom they serve, and what they could become. In order to disentangle the various tensions that stem from this dilemma, I propose a thought experiment that focuses on developing more intentional institutional identities, infrastructure, and (co)curricular advancements that enhance the experiences of Hispanic students and all students at these institutions: studying the experiences of White students enrolled at HSIs. As an alumna of a private, Catholic, four-year HSI nestled in the heart of a Mexican American cultural center, and as a critical race scholar, I struggle with the (re)centering of Whiteness and White experience in the study of HSIs and other minority-serving institutions. However, I also see the value of HSIs’ potentially leveraging White student experiences to build the infrastructure that will ultimately support Hispanic students. Given the scarcity of literature on HSIs and studies

Researching White Student Experiences   

regarding specific educational outcomes such as retention and completion rates (much less a critical consciousness that enables students to retain their cultural knowledge and experiences as they enter the workforce), I employ Bell’s (1980) principle of interest convergence to demonstrate the racial realities of HSIs, which can only be remedied when “policymakers recognize and . . . perceive that such action will benefit the nation’s interest without significantly diminishing Whites’ sense of entitlement” (Bell, 2004, p. 9). To develop this argument, I discuss how institutional researchers and scholars can use the principle of interest convergence as a tool to further develop and enhance research about and funding for these institutional environments, demonstrate the extent to which research on White student experiences at minority-serving institutions and HSIs in particular is already supporting an interest convergence strategy, and contemplate the tensions and opportunities HSIs face in claiming their institutional identities.

Interest Convergence as Strategy The principle of interest convergence is rooted in critical race theory (CRT), which has come to the forefront of our scholarly tools and discourse in understanding how race and racism inform and affect the experiences of people of color in U.S. society. The CRT movement was developed in the 1970s by legal scholars who wanted to address racist discourse that affected the slow progress of civil rights legislation and the experiences of people of color within the judicial system (Tate, 1999; Yosso, 2006). In the mid-1990s, educational researchers began to use CRT in examining critical pedagogy (Parker & Stovall, 2004), racial microaggressions (unconscious or subtle forms of racism; Solorzano, 1998; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000), and best practices in educational leadership (Stovall, 2004). CRT in education is defined as “a set of . . . perspectives, methods, and pedagogy that seeks to identify, analyze, and transform those structural, cultural, and interpersonal aspects of education that maintain the subordination of [students] of color” (Solorzano, 1998, p. 123). Critical race theorists “acknowledge that educational institutions operate in contradictory ways with their potential to oppress and marginalize co-existing with their potential to emancipate and empower” (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001a, p. 479). Rather than hold individuals responsible for racism, critical race theorists focus on institutional structures where racism is embedded and enacted (Alemán & Alemán, 2010). As some scholars were incorporating CRT in education, other critical race theorists began applying CRT to various racial or ethnic and gendered subgroups, which included the development of Latina/o CRT (LatCrit). For LatCrit scholars, racism is an inherent part of the struggles faced by Latinas/os

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education in U.S. society, but one must consider the intersections of language, immigrant status, accent, phenotype, and surname, as these aspects also contribute to the subjugation of Latina/o communities (Lynn & Adams, 2002; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001b; Yosso, 2006). As CRT was introduced to education, and LatCrit was forming in legal scholarship, several educational researchers bridged the two theories to discuss the experiences of Latina/o communities in education, mainly focusing on the permanence of racism and counterstorytelling, which is “a method of telling a story that casts doubts on the validity of accepted . . . myths, especially ones held by the majority” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 144). Although the tenets have been adapted through the years, four themes are commonly noted as the foundation of CRT scholarship: (a) racism is ordinary and not aberrational, (b) U.S. society is based on a “White-over-color ascendancy” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 7) that advances White supremacy and provides a scapegoat (i.e., communities of color) for working-class communities, (c) race and racism are social constructions, and (d) storytelling “urges Black and Brown writers to recount their experiences with racism . . . and to apply their own unique perspectives to assess . . . master narratives” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 9). CRT scholarship has led to additional principles such as whiteness as property (Harris, 1993) and interest convergence (Bell, 1980), concepts not yet fully explicated in educational research (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Whiteness, or “the set of assumptions, privileges, and benefits that accompany the status of being White” in the United States, has evolved into a form of property that is “affirmed, legitimated, and protected by the law” (Harris, 1993, p. 1713). The extent to which whiteness and White supremacy are protected in the legal system and in educational institutions is evident, for example, in the reversal of affirmative action policies (Harris, 1993). The initial argument for upholding affirmative action in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) was that racial diversity at a PWI would lead to positive learning outcomes for White students, a compelling state interest (see Ledesma, 2013, for a thorough review of these cases and Fisher v. University of Texas, 2011). This diversity rationale, according to Yosso, Parker, Solorzano, and Lynn (2004), resulted in “at least three benefits: (a) cross-racial understanding that challenges and erodes racial stereotypes, (b) more dynamic classroom discussions, and (c) better preparation for participating in a diverse workforce,” (p. 7) but it ostensibly normalized and centered whiteness, while any possible educational benefits that students of color could receive as a result of their enrollment were excluded from the discourse. In essence, the inclusion of students of color at PWIs was a value-added outcome for Whites rather than a remedy for historical exclusion and marginalization of students of color, illustrating the principle of interest convergence.

Researching White Student Experiences   

Interest convergence draws attention to the permanence of racism and the unrealistic goal of racial equality (Alemán & Alemán, 2010). According to Bell (1980), “The interests of [people of color] in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of Whites” (p. 523). Thus, change occurs when Whites perceive opportunities to change the status quo as potential benefits to preserve their power in society. For example, Bell (1980) argued that the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) could only occur because the racial remedies of desegregation would “secure, advance, or at least not harm societal interests deemed important by middle and upper class Whites” (p. 523). On a global level, it was thought that desegregation would “provide immediate credibility to America’s struggle with Communist countries to win the hearts and minds of emerging third world peoples” (Bell, 1980, p. 524). The Supreme Court decision had very little to do with advancing African American equality because the intent was to “‘integrate,’ not necessarily ‘equally educate,’ students of color” (Yosso et al., 2004, p. 12). This racial realism may be difficult to digest, but by clearly stating and accepting racial realities, “people of color [could]. . . envision strategies outside of the civil rights incremental model that [had] more promise to alleviate the injustices that endure” (Alemán & Alemán, 2010, p. 4). What, then, is the racial reality for HSIs? How do we begin to excavate how interest convergence and whiteness as property are maintained even in minority-serving policies and practices that seem, from the onset, to have all the makings of well-intentioned and emancipatory projects? How can we move past incremental reforms in higher education and push for radical transformation, especially at HSIs, an institutional context that has the potential to remedy educational inequities for Hispanic students? Who benefits from maintaining HSIs in their current status? Who preserves power by offering limited federal funding to eligible HSIs yet not necessarily holding HSIs accountable for ensuring that the programs and services offered actually benefit Hispanic students? From an interest convergence standpoint, what are the benefits of studying the experiences of White students at HSIs? Is Hispanic educational equity only possible when the interests of Hispanics converge with the interests of Whites (Vasquez, 2009)?

The HSI Dilemma “A fundamental premise for creating the HSI designation [was] the assumption that a critical mass of students motivates an institution to change how it operates to better ‘serve’ these students” (Santiago, 2012, p. 163). As critical race theorists would assert, however, this sort of “magical thinking” (Chang, Chang, & Ledesma, 2005, p. 10) does not lead to racial equality and social

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education transformation if institutional structures, which are embedded in racist projects, are not interrogated. An initial step in interrogating the political construct of the HSI is acknowledging that despite larger Hispanic enrollment shares at the 356 HSIs on the mainland and in Puerto Rico, students do not generally know they are attending an HSI (Torres & Zerquera, 2012). The “silence about being Hispanic-Serving” (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008, p. 84) has several important implications that, I contend, are connected to an interest convergence strategy. The first implication is that serving Hispanic students may not be a practice that permeates HSI campus cultures, as shown by Dayton, Gonzalez-Vasquez, Martinez, and Plum’s (2004) descriptions of how HSI administrators framed access to funding under Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965: [These funding opportunities] are not just for the Latino students. They affect the entire [population] of the institution, so that everybody benefits from these funds. The administration of the college is very happy about that, because it’s not just for Latino students, it’s everybody. (p. 36)

Rather than openly praise the opportunities to support Hispanic students through federal funding, administrators direct the attention to “everybody,” which, in many cases, equates to White students. This example illustrates that while the moniker “HSI” may be used to garner more funding through the federal government, it may be downplayed when publicizing the specific benefits that can result from having large Hispanic enrollment shares at an institution. A second implication is the volatility of Hispanic enrollment at HSIs. According to federal classification requirements, at least 25% of the undergraduate student population should be Hispanic, and 50% of that population should be low-income (Higher Education Act, 2013). As a result, the number of institutions that could classify as HSIs fluctuates on the basis of enrollment trends for a specific year, especially if an institution is situated around the 25% Hispanic enrollment share (Contreras et al., 2008). If there is a change in the enrollment share or in the number of low-income Hispanic students, an institution that receives federal funding one year might not necessarily be classified as an HSI the next year, which could make publicity about HSI classification problematic. To date, there are no studies that have considered this complication in how federal funding is distributed and to what extent institutions are held accountable to fulfill the commitment to serve Hispanic students regardless of classification. In addition, Hispanic students constitute only 53% of full-time students at HSIs, in contrast to 85% African Americans at HBCUs and 83% Native

Researching White Student Experiences   

Americans at tribal colleges and universities (Cole, 2011). When HSIs located in Puerto Rico were extracted from the sample, the Hispanic enrollment share decreased by more than 10%. In determining whether HSIs offered “equitable results in baccalaureate and associates degrees earned by Latinas/os,” Contreras et al. (2008, p. 83) found that Latinas/os were below equity at a majority of the HSIs sampled and at equity in associate degrees conferred. White students, however, exceeded equity in all but one institution in the sample. It is evident, albeit anecdotally, that a 25% enrollment share of any student population is not the elusive critical mass that scholars hope would translate to a distinct institutional culture. Certainly, one can see the challenges of studying an HSI with only a 25% Hispanic enrollment in contrast to an HSI that is 75% Hispanic or one that is nearly 100% Hispanic, such as institutions in Puerto Rico. Yet, the distinct shifts in institutional culture based on significant differences within the human aggregate are seldom discussed. A third possible explanation for the silence of HSIs is connected to mission and curricula, which were first introduced at the beginning of the chapter. The assumption found in much of the literature on HSIs is that this institution type is qualitatively different from a PWI in curriculum as well as campus climate. As a matter of fact, Cole (2011) found few differences in ethnocentric curricular offerings between HSIs and PWIs; in addition, intentional HSIs “offered far more courses with ethnocentric content (14.0%) relative to incidental HSIs (2.1%)” (p. 398). HSIs in Puerto Rico were the only institutions that fully integrated ethnocentric content throughout the curriculum. Cabrera’s (2012) study of White male college students at a PWI found that enrolling in multicultural courses to acquire a raceconscious education, having cross-racial friendships, and possessing other minority identities such as religious affiliation and sexual orientation led to greater White racial awareness and empathy toward racial minorities. What is surprising is that when White students become “temporary minorities” at an HBCU, for example, they do not necessarily experience social adjustment issues or develop a sense of critical consciousness about their whiteness (Closson & Henry, 2008, p. 520). If White students are not developing a critical consciousness at HBCUs, where the mission and curriculum reflect Black culture and knowledge, it is highly possible that White students at HSIs would not experience dissonance in their social adjustment either. Institutions are missing critical opportunities when “they allow for humanizing pedagogy to be happenstance rather than structurally sanctioned” (Cabrera, 2012, p. 395) so that White students are able to develop racial awareness and find support in advocating for racial equity and the eradication of racism. Although it is assumed that HSIs would reflect greater intentionality in practice (similar to HBCUs and tribal colleges and universities), what is

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education currently offered reflects the paradox of serving, yet decentering, Hispanic student experiences and culture. A final implication is based on several studies conducted in Texas, which has large Hispanic and Black population shares and significant numbers of HSIs and HBCUs (Butler, 2010; Flores & Park, 2013). Studies regarding college choice indicate that Hispanic students tend to choose institutions of higher education on the basis of proximity to home, costs, and peer group recommendations (Butler, 2010; Torres & Zerquera, 2012). According to Butler, “most White students [in Texas] attend high schools that are majority (i.e., from 50 to 75 percent) White” (p. 43). In contrast, “the typical Hispanic student [in Texas] attends a high school that is 78 percent Hispanic” (p. 43), and most Texas HSIs are located near high Hispanic population concentrations. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Hispanic students who attend HSIs are least likely to notice a shift in culture because they have been embedded within a similar culture in their neighborhoods and secondary schools, although more research needs to be conducted to verify this conclusion. To add greater complexity to an already challenging situation, 62% of HSIs have open admissions policies, and 47% of HSIs are community colleges (Excelencia in Education, 2013), which could be “interpreted as a sign of segregation and diminished opportunity for educational advancement, depending on these institutions’ track record in preparing and facilitating transfer to four-year colleges” (Contreras et al., 2008, p. 83). By conflating HSIs in the mainland and Puerto Rico as well as two-year and four-year HSIs, it is difficult to pinpoint what HSIs can uniquely offer to students, what types of support services they can provide to all students while addressing the specific needs of Hispanic students, and whether the institutional climate leads students to a sense of belonging on the campus that is unique in contrast to PWIs and other minority-serving institutions. What remain undervalued and underresearched in mainstream higher education literature are community colleges, which are institutions that have not garnered substantial empirical evidence of effectiveness in providing access, support, and degree completion for Hispanic students, yet currently represent 47% of HSIs (Excelencia in Education, 2013). By continuing to neglect this important thread in the fabric of higher education, we are indeed preserving the status quo and attending to White interests rather than developing Hispaniccentered institutions that are more than just Hispanic serving.

Moving the HSI Research Agenda Forward In order to develop Hispanic-centered institutions, we must recognize that the HSI label goes beyond federal classification, federal funding, and the

Researching White Student Experiences   

counting of Brown bodies. As scholars and HSI professionals, we must use our critical academic skill sets to learn more about this institutional type and to transform what is to what can be in terms of advocacy and critical consciousness for all students, especially Hispanic students. This topic is ripe with opportunity to showcase the benefits of attending HSIs as well as declaring their racial realities. I offer a few examples of the types of research and assessment studies that could be conducted: • Distinguish among emerging HSIs, HSIs in the 25% to 50% range, and HSIs in the 50% to 100% range. Recognize that statistics about HSIs are often conflated with those about HSIs in Puerto Rico, which can be misleading. • Consider enrollment shares when sampling HSIs, and determine if there are differences based on 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% Hispanic enrollment. • Develop further studies that focus on environmental factors at HSIs in Puerto Rico. What best practices can be shared between HSIs in Puerto Rico and on the mainland that could enhance academic achievement of all students at HSIs? • Continue to evaluate the racial identity development of Hispanic students at HSIs as part of an intersectional framework that considers gender and social class, among other social identities (see Guardia & Evans, 2008 for a discussion of the identity development of Latino fraternity members at an HSI). To date, there are no large, robust studies that consider the nuances within Hispanic communities or the experiences of White students and how (if ever) they make meaning of their racial identities and privileged whiteness on HSI campuses. • Analyze how White students make meaning of their “temporary minority” (Closson & Henry, 2008, p. 520) status at HSIs and other minority-serving institutions and how Hispanic students make meaning of what I call their “temporary majority” status at HSIs. • Use interest convergence to analyze the development of emerging HSIs that are located in predominantly White geographic centers such as the Midwest and the South. • Employ the analytical rubric developed by Torres and Zerquera (2012) that gauges whether an institution is intentionally serving Hispanic students. Institutional researchers at HSIs should consider conducting content analysis of their “websites and recruitment materials to see whether Hispanic issues and concerns are addressed in mission statements, approaches to diversity issues, marketing strategies, and approaches to working with local communities” (p. 269).

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Acting on national and institutional data can further enhance student experiences and institutional practices at HSIs. Many HSIs that qualify for Title V grants are already collecting much of these data as part of grant application processes, yet this information is not necessarily being employed to move HSIs to reflect more intentional practices that fulfill their often understated mission of serving the local community as well as Hispanic students in particular. Crafting intentional practice and policy is essential if HSIs are to move forward.

Conclusion The danger in trying to gravitate too much to the conservative White middle is that we will replicate White structures and validate them as the only models that work for us. I think that what we need to do now is create our own Brown center, a center that is part of the edge, the growing edge of knowledge production, the growing edge of leadership and service, and the growing edge of teaching and learning (Rendón, 2003). The purpose of this chapter is to advance our theorizations about the current state of HSIs and the extent to which they maintain the vestiges of their predominantly White origins. Given fluctuating enrollment shares; limited educational opportunity structures at community colleges and institutions with open admissions processes, which make up the majority of HSIs; mission statements that fail to recognize the value of Hispanic culture and experience; and curricula mirroring courses taught at PWIs, it is evident that HSIs are in great need of developing a more heightened institutional identity with ethnocentric curricula and programs and practices that reflect Hispanic culture. Solving the HSI dilemma is a ­delicate task, but educational scholars and professionals must commit to moving HSIs from what they currently are to what they can become so that the future of the U.S. workforce, the population that will reach the majority in a few decades, will receive equal and equitable educational opportunities. By remaining silent, scholars and HSI stakeholders become complicit in attending to the interests of Whites as they hold a Brown mask over a predominantly White structure that continues to center whiteness in institutional structures, policies, and leadership. “Rather than reconfigure the structural conditions that foster the racism and inequity that [people of color] experience” (Alemán & Alemán, 2010, p. 5), well-intentioned strategies based on interest convergence may inadvertently preserve Whiteness in higher education. Focusing on interest convergence to further develop

Researching White Student Experiences   

HSIs may be a way to placate Whites and those in positions of power, sending a message that the only way that true change can occur is when Whites and those in dominant groups do not necessarily feel threatened by the change or when their interests coincide with the change. If our concern is converging our interests with White interests, we lose focus on galvanizing Hispanic communities and establishing coalitions with other communities of color and marginalized groups. By solely focusing on maintaining interest convergence, we limit our abilities to craft social change. This may mean that we diverge our interests from White interests to develop intentional and meaningful environments that support and educate Hispanic students. HSIs should embrace their identity regardless of receiving Title V grants and unabashedly work to remedy historical exclusion and discrimination caused by racism. HSIs can be places of activism and resistance, and they can help to develop a critical consciousness across all student populations and guide students to put their cultural knowledge into action. The trouble with researching White students at HSIs is that we deny the very impetus for the classification of these institutions: to serve the needs of Hispanic students. Rather than simply focusing on studying the experiences of White students, we need to disentangle the elements of White privilege that adhere to HSI structures, policies, and practices, and to interrogate whether we are advancing innovative approaches so that we can inspire Hispanic students and all students to create more emancipatory systems and structures that move beyond the status quo.

Notes 1. After several years of functioning as part of a for-profit online institution and contending with various financial issues, National Hispanic University stopped enrolling new students in January 2014 and is no longer an accredited college (Huckabee, 2014). 2. The Vision Statement of Our Lady of the Lake University (n.d.) is as follows: Inspired by Catholic values and the heritage of the founding Congregation of Divine Providence, Our Lady of the Lake University is a community called to transform individuals as they discover their purpose in life. We aspire to be nationally recognized for our distinctive programs, our expertise in Mexican American [emphasis added] culture, and our diverse graduates who lead and serve with faith and wisdom to improve the world.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education

References Alemán, E., Jr., & Alemán, S. M. (2010). Do Latin@ interests always have to “converge” with White interests? (Re)claiming racial realism and interest-convergence in critical race theory praxis. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(1), 1–21. Bell, D. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533. Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Benítez, M. (1998). Hispanic-serving institutions: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Higher Education, 102, 57–68. Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Butler, D. (2010). Ethno-racial composition and college preference: Revisiting the perpetuation of segregation hypothesis. The Annals of the American Academic of Political and Social Science, 627, 36–58. Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Working through whiteness: White, male college students challenging racism. The Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 375–401. Chang, M. J., Chang, J. C., & Ledesma, M. C. (2005). Beyond magical thinking: Doing the real work of diversifying our institutions. About Campus, 10(2), 9–16. Closson, R. B., & Henry, W. J. (2008). The social adjustment of undergraduate White students in the minority on an historically Black college campus. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 517–534. Cole, W. M. (2011). Minority politics and group-differentiated curricula at minority -serving colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 34(3), 381–422. Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic-serving institutions: Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for Latina/o students. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, and C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 71–90). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Dayton, B., Gonzalez-Vasquez, N., Martinez, C. R., & Plum, C. (2004). Hispanicserving institutions through the eyes of students and administrators. New Directions for Student Services, 105, 29–40. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press. Espino, M. M., & Cheslock, J. J. (2008). Considering the federal classification of Hispanic-serving institutions and historically Black colleges and universities. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, and C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 257–268). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Excelencia in Education. (2013). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): 2011-2012. Retrieved from http://edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/hispanic-serving-institutionshsis-2011-12 Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. granted (No. 11–345).

Researching White Student Experiences    Flores, S. M., & Park, T. J. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and college success: Examining the continued significance of the minority-serving institution. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 115–128. Gratz v. Bollinger et al., 539 U.S. 244 (2003). Greene, D., Lara, A., Lara, D., Posadas, C., Medina, C., Oesterreich, . . . García, H. (2012). Cultural citizenship in Hispanic-serving institutions: Challenges for transformation. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11(3), 143–149. Greene, D., & Oesterreich, H. (2012). White profs at Hispanic-serving institutions: Radical revolutionaries or complicit colonists? Journal of Latinos and Education, 11(3), 168–174. Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Guardia, J. R., & Evans, N. J. (2008). Factors influencing the ethnic identity development of Latino fraternity members at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 163–181. Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1710– 1791. Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Thomson/West, 2013) Huckabee, C. (2014, March 20). National Hispanic U. reportedly will close by summer of 2015. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle .com/blogs/ticker/national-hispanic-u-reportedly-will-close Ledesma, M. C. (2013). Revising Grutter and Gratz in the wake of Fisher: Looking back to move forward. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(2), 220–235. Lynn, M., & Adams, M. (2002). Introductory overview to the special issue critical race theory and education: Recent developments in the field. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 87–92. Parker, L., & Stovall, D. O. (2004). Actions following words: Critical race theory connects to critical pedagogy. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 36(2), 167–182. Our Lady of the Lake University. (n.d.). Mission, vision and core values. Retrieved from http://www.ollusa.edu/s/1190/ollu.aspx?sid=1190&gid=1&pgid=914 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978). Rendón, L. (2003). Centered on the edge: The new Latino intellectual. In R. V. Padilla (Ed.), Strategic initiatives for Hispanics in higher education: Learning to change (pp. 30–34). Washington, DC: Hispanic Caucus, American Association for Higher Education. Santiago, D. A. (2012). Public policy and Hispanic-serving institutions: From invention to accountability. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11(3), 163–167. Solorzano, D.G. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the experiences of Chicana and Chicano scholars. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 121–136. Solorzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory: Racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73. Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001a). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471–495.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001b). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a new critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2–8. Stovall, D. (2004). School leader as negotiator: Critical race theory, praxis, and the creation of productive space. Multicultural Education, 12(2), 8–12. Tate, W. F., IV. (1999). Conclusion. In L. Parker, D. Deyhle, & S. Villenas (Eds.), Race is . . . race isn’t: Critical race theory and qualitative studies in education (pp. 251–271). Boulder, CO: Westview. Torres, V., & Zerquera, D. (2012). Hispanic-serving institutions: Patterns, predictions, and implications for information policy discussions. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 11(3), 259–278. Vasquez, P. L. (2009). Whose interests are advanced by our work? Applying the principle of interest convergence to the study of Latina/o college students. In M. M. Espino (Chair), Critical Research Frameworks and Latinas/os: Advancing the Next Generation of Scholarship about Latinas/os in Higher Education. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline. New York, NY: Routledge. Yosso, T. J., Parker, L., Solórzano, D. G., & Lynn, M. (2004). From Jim Crow to affirmative action and back again: A critical race discussion of racialized rationales and access to higher education. Review of Research in Education, 28, 1–25.

8 I M PA C T O F N O N C O G N I T I V E B E H AV I O R S O N S T U D E N T ENGAGEMENT FOR L AT I N O M A L E S T U D E N T S AT T E N D I N G A D E S I G N A T E D T W O - Y E A R H I S PA N I C S E RV I N G I N S T I T U T I O N Renzo Lara and J. Luke Wood

T

he Latino/a population in the United States has experienced exponential growth in the past 40 years. From 1970 to 2011, the Latino/a community has grown from 4.5% of the total U.S. population to 16.7% and is expected to reach 30.2% of the U.S. population by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The exponential population growth of this community has also contributed immensely to the labor market and business production in the United States. Despite the fact that this community is contributing to the labor market in the United States, the majority of the Latino/a working force (51.8%) is associated with low-paying jobs, with 46.2% of Latino/a workers earning less than $20,000 per year (Dockterman, 2011). The close connection between low-paying wages and the national poverty level indicates a critical need to aid the Latino/a community with economic opportunities. In 133

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education addition to the low socioeconomic-status challenge of the Latino/a population, this community also struggles to attain college degrees. A report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2012) highlighted distressing Latino/a college graduation rates. In the twoyear postsecondary institution sector, Latino/a college participants (at 13.5%) had lower associate-degree earning rates than African American (13.7%) and Caucasian (66.3%) students. The low degree attainment numbers for Latino/a students can also be seen in baccalaureate achievement rates. In the same academic year, bachelor’s degree achievement percentages for Latino/a students were 8.8%, African Americans 10.3%, and Caucasians 72.9%. The socioeconomic and postsecondary discrepancies for the Latino/a community are alarming. When these two aspects are combined with the largest growing ethnic community in the nation, critical questions are raised concerning the level or levels of intervention, resources, and opportunities available for the Latino/a community. In postsecondary education, it seems that Hispanicserving institutions (HSIs) have possible solutions to the challenges facing Latino/a college success (Perrakis & Hagedorn, 2010). HSIs are federally designated colleges and universities intended to help Latino/a students achieve college success (Laden, 2001). HSIs are identified by demographic population and income-based criteria. Specifically, to be an HSI, an institution must have an enrollment of at least 25% Latino/a students (among other considerations). The fact that community colleges enroll the vast majority of Latino/a students has resulted in a large body of twoyear HSIs (47.5%; Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 2013; Torres & Zerquera, 2012). Additionally, HSIs have diverse student populations, unique institutional characteristics, and cultural as well as academic student support programs designed to foster positive learning environments for Latino/a students (Benítez & DeAro 2004; Laden, 2004). Such a cultural presence at HSIs allows Latino/a students to have a high sense of belonging on campus, and as a result they are more likely to involve themselves in their academic endeavors as well as their social environment. The unique characteristics of two-year HSIs, a sense of belonging, and student engagement factors are essential to Latino/a success. However, the extant research literature that examines the relations between these two elements is minimal. As HSIs continue to grow along with the number of Latino/a college students, it is imperative to examine the important factors related to Latino/a success. For these reasons, in this chapter we seek to examine the effects of noncognitive variables (e.g., sense of belonging, self-efficacy, degree utility, intrinsic interest, racial/gender climate) on student engagement (e.g., effort, interaction, use of available services) for Latino male students at a designated high-­transfer two-year HSI. In this chapter we focus on Latino male students, given the low rates of positive outcomes these men experience in community

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement   

colleges. For instance, data from the Digest of Education Statistics (NCES, 2010) indicated that only 14.6% of Latino males graduate from a community college in three years. This rate is noticeably lower than that of their White, Asian, and international peers who graduate at 22%, 24%, and 27%.

Brief Overview of HSIs HSIs are unique postsecondary entities that have distinct federal designation processes and are classified as minority-serving institutions (MSIs; Laden, 2001). To effectively serve students, the federal government designated Title III funds for MSIs. Title III grants originated from the Higher Education Act of 1965. The sole purpose of this grant is to assist colleges and universities that traditionally serve African American and Native American students with student success. Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities were the first group of institutions to be designated as MSIs and to receive funds from Title III (Wolanin, 1998). HSIs were introduced as MSIs in 1992 when these institutions officially became recognized by Congress (Benítez & DeAro, 2004; Laden, 2001, 2004). However, most MSIs differ from HSIs in their federal designation process. A major difference between HSIs and other MSIs, such as tribal colleges and universities and HBCUs, is that their designation is based on enrollment and not necessarily on a mission focused on serving a particular student population (Wolanin, 1998). As previously mentioned, to be identified as an HSI, a college’s or university’s student population must consist of 25% Latino/a students, and at least half of these individuals must qualify as low income. The institution must first apply for HSI designation. Once an institution is given the designation, administrators can apply for Title III or Title V federal grants (Laden, 2001); however, limited grants are available. As a result, these grants are awarded on a competitive basis, requiring new and established HSIs to compete to obtain federal funds. This competition cycle limits federal funds to HSIs, and already established institutions may be in jeopardy of losing funding from year to year. The strict grant competition ultimately has an impact on the large Latino/a presence at HSIs. Nevertheless, HSIs’ Latino/a student populations have grown exponentially over the last decades, and resources are needed to properly assist these students with college success. In fact, since the official HSI federal designation was established in 1992 (Laden, 2001; Perrakis & Hagedorn, 2010), Latino/a students have been enrolling at these institutions by the thousands. It is estimated that half of the total Latino/a college student population in the United States is enrolled at a designated HSI (Núñez, Sparks, & Hernández, 2011). HSIs are also known to have high levels of Latino/a cultural, social,

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education and political engagement, and these soaring results can be solely attributed to the large percentage of full-time Latino/a faculty at HSIs (13% compared to 3% at non-HSIs; Perrakis & Hagedorn, 2010). There is also a significant correlation between the large percentage of Latino/a students attending community colleges (58%) and the percentage of community colleges that are designated HSIs (Haro, 2004; Laden 2004). It is estimated that 47% of community colleges around the nation are designated HSIs (Núñez et al., 2011). The Latino/a enrollment patterns associated with two-year HSIs can be seen throughout most of the U.S. border states. The large Latino/a population centers located near the MexicanAmerican border have resulted in a large percentage of Latino/a students enrolling at two-year HSIs (Perrakis & Hagedorn, 2010). While HSIs have several unique institutional features that contribute to student success, the academic literature that supports this claim is minimal. However, the limited research on HSIs does provide concise frameworks and findings on what is essential for Latino/a success. Perrakis and Hagedorn (2010) conducted an exemplary research study that has enhanced the current academic literature on Latino/a college success factors and HSIs. The researchers examined success factors of Latino/a students attending a particular HSI. They make the claim that community colleges offer a variety of academic programs for students, but for Latinos/as to obtain social mobility and increase their socioeconomic status, it is imperative for these individuals to transfer to a four-year institution and pursue higher education degrees. Perrakis and Hagedorn (2010) also noted that HSIs have several institutional factors that contribute to transfer success for Latino/a college students (e.g., faculty of color and diverse student populations). In examining the success factors that enable Latino/a students to transfer to a four-year university, Perrakis and Hagedorn found that Latino/a students felt that a college environment that provided a social atmosphere based on their cultural needs (e.g., Spanish linguistic programs, Latino/a cultural fairs, ethnic studies) would add to HSI success factors. Many HSIs strive to foster such environments, given their recognition for serving Latino/a students.

Latino/a Students’ Sense of Belonging and Engagement Noncognitive factors are vital components of student success that have been extensively examined by educational researchers (Sommerfeld, 2011). Two of the most critical noncognitive factors associated with student success are sense of belonging and student engagement. Sense of belonging is often defined as a student’s sense of mattering to a specific educational institution (Maestas, Vaquera, & Zehr, 2007). Similarly, student engagement has been defined as the

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement   

time and energy a student devotes toward social and academic activities and the effort institutions invest toward using effective engagement practices (Kuh, 2001). Researchers have discussed the importance of noncognitive factors and student success. It is widely known that individuals who have a high sense of belonging and student engagement are more likely to persist and graduate from college (Astin, 1999; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Sáenz, Mayo, Miller, & Rodriguez, 2015). Such findings elevate the importance of our study, which examines the interplay between belonging and engagement as well as the effect of other noncognitive variables. Few academic researchers have explored the correlation between sense of belonging and Latino/a college success as efficiently and critically as Hurtado and Carter (1997), who argue that the main body of literature about noncognitive factors and their relationship to students’ sense of belonging fails to address the effects of various campus diversity elements on Latino/a college success. Hurtado and Carter mention that campus diversity factors of race and culture are important environmental aspects that highly contribute to Latino/a college students’ sense of belonging. In their study, Hurtado and Carter (1997) applied a sequential sense of belonging model that focuses on the relationships between Latino/a students’ academic and social characteristics (e.g., academic self-perspectives, gender, ethnicity, race) and their perceptions of institutional racial climate at four various developmental stages (e.g., precollege entry and first, second, and third year of college). Their results indicated that Latino/a students who have a high sense of belonging are able to navigate their campus environment through participation in various diverse peer group memberships (therefore illustrating the importance of the institution in fostering environments). This element allows Latino/a students to gain college skills (e.g., academic and social skills) and permits them to integrate successfully into the college environment. Finally, the researchers found that colleges that offered external affiliation to groups that closely resemble aspects of Latino/a culture (e.g., social communal organizations, cultural groups, religious assemblies) produce a higher sense of belonging among Latino/a students (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Another analytical study that examines sense of belonging was conducted by Maestas and colleagues (2007). They conducted a quantitative study that examined college factors with a significant impact on Latino/a students’ sense of belonging at an HSI. They made the compelling argument that while the academic literature on students’ sense of belonging has grown substantially over the past few decades, the studies do not offer an inclusive perspective on student success because most of the research has been conducted at predominantly White institutions (PWIs). To accurately assess college students’ sense of belonging, it is imperative to conduct a study at an HSI, which indicates not only the importance of Maestas and colleagues’ work but also the

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education significant contribution our study has on the sense of belonging literature. Their results concluded that the following institutional and collegial factors significantly contribute to students’ sense of belonging levels: paying for college, participating in academic support programs, connecting with faculty, living on campus, being involved with student organizations, and interacting with various racial or ethnic groups. Finally, the researchers found that positive effects on students’ sense of belonging were made possible at an HSI because it fostered diverse elements (institutional characteristics and collegial environment) found in this type of postsecondary educational setting (Maestas et al., 2007). The elements made apparent in both studies are vital to consider in an examination of college students’ sense of belonging. While sense of belonging is considered to be one of the crucial contributing factors of Latino/a college success, student engagement is equally important (Sáenz et al., 2015). Constructive student engagement has been noted as a crucial indicator of college student success (Astin, 1999; Kuh 2001). However, the academic literature that links Latino/a student engagement to college success is rather limited. The few scholars who have examined Latino/a student engagement— for example, Nelson Laird, Bridges, Morelon-Quainoo, Williams, and Salinas Holmes (2007)—have produced significant findings. In their study, Nelson Laird and colleagues stated that underrepresented groups at PWIs (e.g., African American and Latino/a) often experience several cultural, social, and academic impediments. These harmful experiences are frequently related to a negative racial campus climate. However, specialized institutions such as HBCUs provide an acclimated campus environment that allows African Americans to actively engage and persist through college. Nelson Laird and colleagues further argued that HSIs serve Latino/a students in ways similar to how HBCUs assist African American students. Therefore, student engagement levels for Latino/a students at HSIs should reflect those of African American students at HBCUs. However, HSI research does not provide an accurate account of student engagement and positive outcomes for Latino/a college students. To address the significant academic literature gap on HSI student engagement among Latino/a students, Nelson Laird and colleagues’ (2007) comparative study examined student engagement factors for Latino/a students at HSIs to those of African American students at HBCUs. The scholars wanted to compare the effects of the mission-driven focus of HBCUs and the demographic focus of HSIs on their main student populations. The results indicated that Latino/a students attending an HSI engage at similar levels as Latinos/as enrolled at PWIs. Latino/a students’ level of involvement, satisfaction with college, and overall identity development are in stark contrast to that of Latino/a students at PWIs. However, African Americans are more actively involved in all levels of engagement at HBCUs compared to their engagement at PWIs (Nelson Laird et al., 2007).

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement   

While a majority of the findings in this literature review section highlight the ­heightened challenges associated with Latino/a student success, further research studies that examine success factors of each gender are necessary. Thus, this study aimed specifically to examine student engagement factors and Latino male student success.

Methods Data from this study were derived from the Community College Survey of Men (CCSM), an institution-level needs assessment tool designed to examine factors that influence the success of men of color in community colleges. The instrument has shown strong construct validity and cross-racial reliability (see Wood & Harris, 2013) and has a total of 30 questioning blocks with multiple questions in each block. The CCSM has three primary uses, including benchmarking for key indicators of student success, monitoring the experiences and performance of men of color, and identifying areas in need of enhanced attention. This study used data from a single HSI, selected because of its unique reputation as a high-transfer institution. Thus, this study provides insight into factors that influence the Latino male community college experience in a high-transfer HSI (hereafter referred to as high-­transfer college). Specifically, this study investigated the effect of noncognitive variables on engagement among male students. The high-transfer college is located in the western United States and has an enrollment of more than 30,000 students. A total of 320 men participated in the study, 222 of whom were Latino. The three outcome variables employed in this study were constructed through factor analyses of 21 items representing different measures of engagement. All items were collected via a six-point scale. The researchers assumed unidimensionality of the measures and employed a one eigenvalue criterion to determine the total number of factors for rotation. Two separate factor analyses were run, one using general engagement measures and the second using engagement with campus services. With regard to general engagement, principal components extraction was employed, indicating a total of three underlying constructs. These three factors were examined using a maximum likelihood approach with Varimax rotation. (Factor loadings are presented in Table 8.1.) A .500 factor loading criterion was employed for inclusion. As evident, the third factor retained only two items. Thus, this factor was eliminated from further analyses. Two factors were retained; the first, referred to as “effort engagement,” included six items, all with factor loadings above the .500 threshold. Cronbach alpha for these items indicated strong

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education TABLE 8.1

Factor Loading for General Engagement Effort ­Engagement

Interaction Engagement

[Excluded]

1. Talk with instructors about academics outside of class

-

.747

-

2. Talk with instructors about nonacademic subjects outside of class

-

.615

-

3. Participate in study groups

-

.619

-

4. Participate in class discussions and ask questions during class

-

-

.650

5. Take detailed notes during class

.667

-

-

6. Pay full attention during class

.707

-

-

7. Complete course readings and finish assignments before class

.703

-

-

8. Turn in assignments on time

.722

-

-

9. Revise a paper several times before turning it in

.588

-

-

10. Talk about grades or course work with the instructor

-

.550

-

11. Interact with the instructor during class

-

-

.924

12. Attend the instructor’s office hours

-

.631

-

13. Participate in small groups during class

-

-

-

.582

-

-

14. Attend class

reliability at .83. The second factor, referred to as “interaction engagement,” comprised five variables and illustrated strong reliability at .80. The second grouping of variables examined usage of student services. The initial analysis indicated two underlying constructs; the variables were also rotated using a Varimax procedure. Factor loadings are presented in Table 8.2. Two items did not have loadings above .400 and were excluded. The first factor, referred to as “service engagement,” had three variables that illustrated sufficient reliability at .79. Given that the second factor only had two items, this factor was excluded from further analysis. The factor analyses produced three determinable measures of engagement: effort engagement,

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement    TABLE 8.2

Factor Loading for Service Use Engagement Campus Services

[Excluded]

1. Academic advising

.724

-

2. Career counseling or job placement

.846

-

3. Transfer center or transfer services

.635

-

4. School library for schoolwork

-

.719

5. Computer lab(s) for schoolwork

-

.625

6. Tutoring services

-

-

7. Financial aid advising or office

-

-

interaction engagement, and service engagement. These items were summed and employed as outcome variables in this study. Five predictor variables were examined in this study to determine their relationship (if any) on the outcome variables. All the predictor variables were noncognitive measures and included intrinsic interest, self-efficacy, degree utility, sense of belonging, and perceptions of campus racial/gender climate. Definitions employed for these variables in Wood and Harris (2013) are the following: • Sense of belonging—students’ feeling of mattering or connectedness to the campus and its affiliates • Degree utility—students’ perception of the anticipated usefulness of their college experience • Self-efficacy—students’ confidence and perceived ability to complete academic course work successfully • Intrinsic interest—students’ authentic personal interests and enjoyment in learning academic subject matter • Racial-gender climate—students’ perceptions of faculty, staff, and students’ beliefs and attitudes about men of color (p. 334) Operationalization of these variables (e.g., items, coding) can be found in Wood and Harris (2003). The aforementioned are composite variables derived from multiple items. These constructs have strong reliability for all male groups, including Latino male students. In addition to these variables, several relevant controls were employed, including college grade point average, total credits earned, respondent’s age, household income, time status (e.g., full-time or part-time), and dependency (whether individuals depended on the respondent for financial support).

TABLE 8.3

College grade point average

Total credits

Respondent age

Household income

Time status

Dependents

Belonging scale

Degree utility scale

Self-efficacy scale

Intrinsic interest scale

Racial/gender climate scale

Effort engagement

Interaction engagement

Service engagement

C

C

C

C

C

C

P

P

P

P

P

O

O

O

Note. C = controls, P = predictors, O = outcome variables.

Variables 

Variable Use

5.21266 3.73230

8.2727

5.14376

4.03548

3.32355

3.07953

3.83419

5.26607

.43600

.46670

1.69921

.63938

20.95439

.73380

Standard Deviation

14.4589

29.0574

6.4340

20.2010

19.6327

20.2729

15.7316

1.7500

1.3178

1.7824

2.2387

33.8639

2.7266

Mean

Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

3.00

5.00

6.00

3.00

4.00

10.40

4.00

4.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

0.00

Minimum

18.00

30.00

36.00

18.00

24.00

24.00

24.00

24.00

2.00

2.00

12.00

5.00

75.00

4.00

Maximum

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement   

Means and standard deviations for all items appear in Table 8.3. Respondent age was collected using class intervals. The following scale was employed: 18 and under (coded 1), 18 to 24 (coded 2), 25 to 31 (coded 3), 32 to 38 (coded 4), 39 to 45 (coded 5), 46 to 52 (coded 6), 53 to 59 (coded 7), 60 to 66 (coded 8), and 67 and older (coded 9). Similarly, household income was collected via class intervals as follows: under $10,000 (coded 1), 10,001 to 20,000 (coded 2), 20,001 to 30,000 (coded 3), 30,001 to 40,000 (coded 4) and so forth. Time status was a dichotomous variable; full-time enrollment was coded 1, and part-time enrollment was coded 2. Dependency status was also a dichotomous variable. Students who had dependents were coded 1, and those without dependents were coded 2. Using the aforementioned variables, this study sought to determine the effect (if any) of noncognitive variables on student engagement. Three different multiple regression models were employed to investigate effort engagement, interaction engagement, and service engagement. All variables were subjected to exploratory data analysis prior to regression analyses. All the outcome variables were correlated (see Table 8.4), although only to a moderate degree at maximum. Effort engagement was positively correlated with interaction engagement (r = .337, p < .001) and service engagement (r = .231, p < .001). Moreover, interaction engagement was positively correlated with service engagement (r = .433, p < .001).

Results The first regression model examined the effect of the noncognitive predictors on effort engagement. The total model accounted for 34.7% of the variance in the outcome (R = .347, adjusted R = .258). Only two variables in the model had a significant effect on the outcome. Intrinsic interest was a positive predictor of effort engagement (B = .496, p = .01). In addition, degree utility was also a significant predictor of the outcome (B = .396, p < .01). Students with greater personal interest in learning the academic subject matter and who perceived the importance of a degree put greater effort into their studies (see Table 8.5). The second regression model investigated the usefulness of the predictors on interaction engagement. The model accounted for 31.3% of the variance in interaction engagement (R = .313, adjusted R = .217). In this analysis, only one of the variables had a significant effect on the outcome. Sense of belonging was a positive predictor of students’ interaction engagement (B = .427, p < .001). This suggests that students who have a greater feeling that they matter, are cared about, and are valued in the college setting will be

.289

.097

.113

−.178

.127

.155

.070

.389

.121

.141

.273

.185

.082

3. Respondent age

4. Household income

5. Time status

6. Dependents

7. Belonging scale

8. Degree utility scale

9. Self-efficacy scale

10. Intrinsic interest scale

11. Racial/gender climate scale

12. Effort engagement

13. Interaction engagement

14. Service engagement

1

2. Total credits

1. College grade point average

 

.013

−.002

.062

.247

.077

.186

−.071

.005

.059

−.081

.065

.130

 

2

.024

−.097

.110

−.063

.078

.109

.066

.012

−.202

.178

.438

 

 

3

TABLE 8.4

−.081

−.016

.021

.073

.001

.044

−.005

−.063

−.159

.157

 

 

 

4

−.121

−.013

.075

−.062

−.061

−.018

.044

.037

−.064

 

 

 

 

5

−.068

−.045

.057

−.018

−.050

.025

−.044

−.016

 

 

 

 

 

6

.257

.476

.275

−.065

.287

.302

.405

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

.120

.248

.401

−.012

.337

.381

Correlation Among Study Variables

.108

.170

.299

.037

.365

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

.183

.270

.369

−.093

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

.036

.127

−.113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

.231

.337

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

.433

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement    TABLE 8.5

Multiple Regression: Estimates for Effort Engagement B

Standard Error

Standard Beta

t

Sig.

(Constant)

7.111

4.686

 

1.517

.133

College grade point average

1.059

.672

.171

1.577

.119

Total credits

.014

.020

.066

.686

.495

Respondent age

.009

.608

.002

.015

.988

Household income

.216

.212

.097

1.015

.313

Time status

.363

.932

.038

.389

.698

Dependents

1.348

.997

.133

1.352

.180

Intrinsic interest

.496

.187

.300

2.654

.010

Self-efficacy

−.080

.163

−.053

−.492

.624

Degree utility

.396

.145

.318

2.720

.008

Sense of belonging

−.009

.083

−.011

−.103

.918

Racial/gender climate

−.159

.108

−.142

−1.480

.143

more likely to engage in interactions with others on campus, particularly their faculty members (see Table 8.6). The final model examined the effect of the noncognitive predictors on academic service engagement. This model accounted for 17.1% of the variance in the outcomes (R = .171, adjusted R = .054). Interestingly, as in the previous model, sense of belonging was the only significant predictor in the model (B = .187, p < .05). This finding highlights the importance of institutional environments that are affirming and supportive, as they can foster interaction engagement and service use engagement (see Table 8.7).

Discussion and Recommendations The results of the study prompt the implementation of culturally based recommendations aimed at improving Latino student engagement and sense of belonging at HSIs. HSI administrators intend to provide Latino/a students with college and career opportunities (Laden, 2001, 2004; Sandoval-Lucero, Maes, & Chopra, 2011), but, in some cases, HSIs do not create an inviting

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education TABLE 8.6

Multiple Regression: Estimates for Interaction Engagement B

Standard Error

Standard Beta

t

Sig.

(Constant)

7.328

5.034

 

1.456

.149

College grade point average

.865

.729

.133

1.186

.239

Total credits

.012

.021

.056

.561

.577

Respondent age

−.460

.662

−.077

−.694

.490

Household income

−.100

.229

−.044

−.437

.664

Time status

−.293

.999

−.030

−.294

.770

Dependents

.379

1.104

.036

.343

.732

Intrinsic interest

.019

.204

.011

.093

.926

Self-efficacy

−.240

.176

−.153

−1.365

.176

Degree utility

.097

.158

.075

.612

.543

Sense of belonging

.427

.091

.508

4.712

.000

Racial/gender climate

.111

.116

.095

.956

.342

environment that fosters student engagement and sense of belonging. Instead HSI administrators implement strategies that have little to no relation to Latino/a students’ social and cultural backgrounds (Benítez & DeAro, 2004; Haro, 2004). For these reasons, HSI administrators, advocates, and ­policymakers must provide appropriate outlets (e.g., seminars, career trainings, faculty cultural training) for student engagement and sense of belonging to come to fruition for Latino/a students. However, the fact remains that not all HSIs provide proper resources, services, training, and opportunities to engage students and foster environments that promote belonging (De los Santos & Cuamea, 2010; Perrakis & Hagedorn, 2010). This study shows that inadequate engagement and belonging equates to low intrinsic interest and lack of career opportunities (degree utility), factors that may lead to high attrition rates for Latino/a students. To prevent such attrition rates and to improve Latino/a success at HSIs, it is imperative for postsecondary education policymakers to take into consideration the recommendations made in this section. First, to increase student engagement and sense of belonging with Latino/a students, it is critical that HSIs instill a campus culture that is accepting, inviting, and accommodating concerning the unique characteristics of this

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement    TABLE 8.7

Multiple Regression: Estimates for Service Engagement B

Standard Error

Standard Beta

t

Sig.

(Constant)

5.866

4.124

 

1.422

.159

College grade point average

.358

.593

.074

.603

.548

Total credits

.002

.018

.014

.127

.900

Respondent age

.807

.535

.183

1.509

.135

Household income

-.163

.187

-.096

-.874

.385

Time status

-.651

.817

-.089

-.797

.428

Dependents

-.373

.875

-.048

-.427

.671

Intrinsic interest

.066

.165

.052

.403

.688

Self-efficacy

-.161

.144

-.138

-1.116

.268

Degree utility

-.018

.129

-.019

-.143

.887

Sense of belonging

.187

.075

.299

2.506

.014

Racial/gender climate

.117

.095

.135

1.236

.220

ethnic population. Postsecondary institutional culture is often conceptualized as a complex unit with multiple priorities that correspond to individual department goals or objectives (Kezar, 2011). This type of culture creates a divided campus climate that operates through an individualistic and authoritative bureaucratic process. As a result, operational campus procedures usually involve top-level administrators engaging in conflict for superior power (Kezar, 2011). For these reasons, the campus culture shift must begin with top-level administrators who are willing to unite the institution by creating a collaborative, inclusive climate with all campus personnel. This process may be initiated by having executive administrators (e.g., chancellors, presidents, vice presidents, academic senate leaders, and trustees) engage in professional retreats and training sessions on HSI history, the cultural and social needs of its main student population, and best practices for serving Latino/a students. Faculty and staff who understand the purpose of HSIs and are informed on the social and cultural needs of Latino/a students will be better prepared to serve these students (Perrakis & Hagedorn, 2010). Additionally, HSI administrators should offer campus activities relevant to Latino/a student needs and interests, which could be presented in formats such as diversity cultural conferences that include speakers from similar backgrounds

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education and academic and social workshops that address key issues among ethnic communities. Additionally, Latino/a students should be not only allowed but also encouraged to participate in the development and planning of campus activities (e.g., workshops, conferences). This participation would allow Latino/a students to actively engage at HSIs with key administrators, faculty, and staff. Latino/a culture tends to operate on community patterns (SandovalLucero et al., 2011). If Latino/a students witness their peers actively participating in the campus community and are aware of the institutional cultural shift toward Latino/a college participants, they are more likely to engage academically and socially (Bordes & Arredondo, 2005; Sandoval-Lucero et al., 2011). Therefore, it is crucial for HSIs to create campus cultures that allow Latino/a student engagement and address the social and cultural realities of these students. Only through the creation of an HSI campus climate that instills Latino/a cultural awareness and support throughout its college personnel can Latino/a students achieve high levels of student engagement and sense of belonging. Second, HSIs are diverse institutions with high proportions of underrepresented and underserved students. National data indicate the following racial and ethnic breakdown for HSIs: Latino/a 42%, Caucasian 30%, African American 10%, Asian American 9%, other 8%, and Native American 1% (Benítez & DeAro, 2004). Institutional cultural shifts on HSI campuses must incorporate the unique characteristics of these student populations if administrators wish to see an increase in intrinsic interest. One specific yet crucial educational strategy that can be used to increase Latino/a intrinsic interest is culturally responsive teaching. Ladson-Billings (1994) first defined the term culturally responsive teaching as a pedagogy aimed at implementing the significant factors of students’ culture in all aspects of learning. It is a process that challenges students socially, academically, and emotionally. Culturally responsive educators have found that this teaching method increases retention rates of Latino/a college students because the teachers are able to connect, understand, and influence the outcomes of each individual in their classrooms (Pappamihiel & Moreno, 2011). Implementing a culturally responsive teaching approach across all aspects of the institution may also increase the intrinsic interest of Latino/a students, which can lead to higher student engagement and sense of belonging. The effects of cultural teaching pedagogy on Latino/a students can also be seen with successful student support programs, ethnically oriented student centers, and culturally diverse student organizations. Student support resources like Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (a state-funded program aimed at helping underrepresented students achieve success at the two-year level; California Community Colleges Extended Opportunity

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement   

Programs and Services Association, n.d.), Puente (a state-supported project whose primary goal is to assist traditionally underserved student populations with transfer and degree attainment success; Puente, 2014), and the federal TRiO and Student Support Services (aimed at providing resources and academic assistance to underrepresented college students; U.S. Department of Education, 2014) are crucial to the success of Latino/a and underserved college students. These programs use several methods from the culturally responsive teaching model, and they also provide personal and academic guidance relevant to the students’ cultural backgrounds. In return, Latino/a students are able to connect to the institution, have higher intrinsic interest, and are able to actively engage in academic and campus culture (Cerezo & McWhirter, 2012; Haro, 2004). Latino/a students could also benefit from participating in social, cultural, and academic organizations on their campus. Astin (1975, 1999) has noted that students who actively engage in student organizations and campus activities are more likely to persist and graduate from college, and this can also apply to Latino/a students. However, college campus administrators often struggle with providing climates that engage Latino/a students, likely a result of limited diversity on campus. Latino/a students are more likely to interact with campus organizations and peers if the institution has a diverse student population. The diversity of the student population often determines Latino/a college success (Person & Rosenbaum, 2006; Strayhorn, 2008). Luckily, HSIs offer multicultural campus organizations that foster a student engagement environment for Latino/a students (Benítez & DeAro, 2004; Núñez & Bowers, 2011). Therefore, it is imperative for HSI administrators to support diverse student organizations because they allow Latino/a students to become engaged and lead to the development of high levels of intrinsic interest for Latino/a students. With proper implementation of critical race theory, combined with student ethnic support programs and an active, diverse student organization, HSIs could benefit from high intrinsic interest, student engagement, and sense of belonging among Latino/a students. Third, the importance of degree utility must be incorporated in all aspects of HSI teaching, program procedures, and campus activities. The Latino/a population tends to emphasize outcomes (e.g., work, financial responsibility) that benefit their families or community (Sandoval-Lucero et al., 2011). The educational investment a Latino/a student makes toward his or her studies must have a clear financial outcome that is tied to the individual’s degree (Sandoval-Lucero et al., 2011). If the degree earned by the student does not have a clear financial outcome, Latino/a students will most likely lose interest in education and will not seek further schooling. Therefore, in order for HSIs to increase student engagement and sense of

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education belonging with Latino/a students, it is imperative for faculty members to apply a teaching pedagogy or andragogy that emphasizes the importance of a degree. For example, HSI faculty members could develop student learning outcomes tied to class activities and assignments that are aimed at exploring degree and career opportunities. An example of this teaching approach could be presented in a Psychology 101 course in which the student could be asked to research major mental illnesses that affect underrepresented communities, research professions that are aligned with mental health, or conduct an informational interview with mental health professionals on the important characteristics of specific vocations in the field. At the end of the assignment, the student will have learned the vital components of various mental illnesses, and the student will have also gained valuable information on the professions related to such fields (e.g., level of education, duties, salary, etc.). Aligning faculty teaching with career and degree exploration activities can have profound and impactful results in Latino/a student engagement at HSIs. Student support programs at HSIs can also provide opportunities aimed at exploring degree utility with Latino/a students. These programs can offer community service-learning projects with various organizations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; humanities; education; business; and health, for example. The interactive experience exposes Latino/a students to professionals in various careers. Fourth and finally, to improve and encourage Latino/a student success HSIs should develop partnerships with multiple agencies (e.g., state and federal governments, chambers of commerce, nonprofit organizations, medical and educational institutions) that would provide internships and career opportunities for students and graduates. Faculty members and staff at student support programs could explain the benefits of internships to students and guide them toward career experience opportunities based on Latino/a students’ academic majors. HSIs could also coordinate career exploration conferences or symposiums with various community partners in the business industry (e.g., chambers of commerce, hospitals, technology companies). These career conferences or symposiums could include speakers from a multitude of careers, presentations on educational and career paths, and interactive student activities for Latino/a students. Such career and educational exploration events can expose Latino/a students to opportunities that can influence their degree utility levels. As Latino/a students become more aware of their degree utility options, they are more likely to engage in the campus culture. This type of engagement then leads to a high sense of belonging for Latino/a students on the campus. However, HSI administrators must first recognize the need for implementing career-applicable teaching methods, programs of community learning projects, and vocational exploration conferences for Latino/a students. Without

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement    .

HSI officials recognizing the importance of degree utility for the Latino/a students, the HSI might experience low levels of engagement. The recommendations made here are intended to help HSI p ­ olicymakers, advocates, and educators increase their and their peers’ awareness of the different methods to improve student engagement and sense of belonging for Latino/a students in community colleges. The recommendations are important because HSIs will continue to grow each year, and, as HSIs continue to grow, so will their Latino/a student populations. Therefore, for HSIs to properly graduate Latino/a students, legislators need to take into consideration these suggested recommendations to create student success among this fast-growing ethnic population.

References Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of Student Development, 40(5), 519–529. Benítez, M., & DeAro, J. (2004). Realizing student success at Hispanic-serving institutions. New Directions for Community Colleges, 127, 35–48. Bordes, V., & Arredondo, P. (2005). Mentoring and 1st-year Latina/o college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(2), 114–133. California Community Colleges EOPS Association. (n.d.). The mission of EOPS and the CCCEOPSA. Retrieved from http://www.ccceopsa.org/ Cerezo, A., & McWhirter, B. (2012). A brief intervention designed to improve social awareness and skills to improve Latino college student retention. College Student Journal, 46(4), 867–879. De los Santos, A. G., & Cuamea, K. M. (2010). Challenges facing Hispanic-serving institutions in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(2), 90–107. Dockterman, D. (2011). Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2009. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Haro, R. (2004). Strategies to increase Latino students’ educational attainment. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 205–222. Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. (2013). 2013 fact sheet: Hispanic higher education and HSIs. Retrieved from http://www.hacu.net/images/hacu/ OPAI/2013_HSI_FactSheet.030613.pdf 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(4), 324–345. Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Kezar, A. (2011). Organizational culture and its impact on partnering between community agencies and postsecondary institutions to help low-income students attend college. Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 205–243. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17, 66. Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-serving institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(1), 73–92. Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 181–198. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers for African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maestas, R., Vaquera, G. S., & Zehr, L. M. (2007). Factors impacting sense of belonging at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(3), 237–256. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education statistics. Alexandria, VA: Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The condition of education 2012 report. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf Nelson Laird, T. F., Bridges, B. K., Morelon-Quainoo, C. L., Williams, J. M., & Salinas Holmes, M. S. (2007). African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 39–56. Núñez, A. -M., & Bowers, A. J. (2011). Exploring what leads high school students to enroll in Hispanic-serving institutions: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1286–1313. Núñez, A. -M., Sparks, P. J., & Hernández, E. A. (2011). Latino access to community colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions: A national study. Hispanic Higher Education, 10(1), 19–41. Pappamihiel, E. N., & Moreno, M. (2011). Retaining Latino students: Culturally responsive instruction in colleges and universities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(4), 331–344. Perrakis, A., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2010, August). Latino/a student success in community colleges and Hispanic-serving institution status. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(10), 797–813. Person, A. E., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2006). Chain enrollment and college enclaves: Benefits and drawbacks of Latino college students’ enrollment decisions. New Directions for Community Colleges, 133, 51–60. Puente. (2014). About. Retrieved from http://puente.berkeley.edu/about Sáenz, V. B., Mayo, J. R., Miller, R. A., & Rodriguez, S. L. (2015). (Re)defining masculinity through peer interactions: Latino men in community colleges. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(2), 164–175. Sandoval-Lucero, E., Maes, J. B., & Chopra, R. V. (2011). Examining the retention of nontraditional Latino(a) students in a career-based learning community. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(4), 299–316.

Impact of Noncognitive Behaviors on Student Engagement    Sommerfeld, A. (2011). Recasting non-cognitive factors in college readiness as what they truly are: Non-academic factors. Journal of College Admission, 213, 18–22. Strayhorn, T. L. (2008). Sentido de pertenencia: A hierarchical analysis predicting sense of belonging among Latino college students. Journal of Higher Education, 7(4), 301–320. Torres, V., & Zerquera, D. (2012). Hispanic-serving institutions: Patterns, predictions, and implications for informing policy discussions. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 11(3), 259–278. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Who’s Hispanic in America? Retrieved from http://www .census.gov/newsroom/cspan/hispanic/2012.06.22_cspan_hispanics.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Programs: Student support services programs. Retreived from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/index.html Wolanin, R. (1998). The federal investment in minority-serving institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, 102, 17–31. Wood, J. L., & Harris, F., III. (2013). The Community College Survey of Men: An initial validation of the instrument’s non-cognitive outcomes construct. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37, 333–338.

9 W O R L D A I D S D AY A Case Study of How One Hispanic-Serving Institution’s Inclusive Practices Supported Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students Gilbert Valadez We demand full and equal inclusion of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgender people in the educational system, and inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender studies in ­multicultural curricula. (“Platform of the 1993 March on Washington,” n.d.)

I

ncreased attention has been given to significant issues faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community in local and national media. Indeed, gay marriage, gays in the military, and the bullying of LGBT youth at public schools are at center stage in public political discourse. At the same time, Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) are increasing in number (and arguably influence) as the population of Hispanics in the United States increases exponentially. As the issues affecting the LGBT community become more prominent, leaders of institutions of higher education should consider integrating the LGBT student community in proactive ways that sustain university cultures that accept and respect LGBT people. University and college administrators should reflect on strategies to increase tolerance of LGBT individuals in higher education through focused policies and social justice projects. This chapter describes in detail how one Southern California HSI conducted a social justice project on behalf of individuals living with HIV/AIDS (Figure 9.1). The intention is to provide insight on how HSIs can better serve LGBT students and students with exceptional circumstances in powerful ways. A central philosophical tenet of this discourse is the necessary development of collaboration among the various and naturally occurring communities at an HSI. Moreover, the project illustrates how the celebration of 154

World AIDS Day    Figure 9.1  World Aids Day 2008 at California State University San Marcos

Note. Gilbert Valadez speaking at World AIDS Day 2008 (Photo provided by Valadez, 2015)

individual and cultural diversity is an essential feature of a university striving to define and maintain itself as a multicultural institution of higher learning.

Institutional Context: California State University San Marcos California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) is the twentieth of 23 universities in the California State University System. Founded in 1989, CSUSM has recently obtained federal designation as an HSI. CSUSM’s student population, however, is highly diverse owing to its proximity to San Diego and Mexico. Since its founding, CSUSM has maintained a solid reputation as a university committed to multicultural inclusion and global education. The faculty, administration, and support staff are highly committed to excellence in teaching and research, illustrated in the following excerpt from CSUSM’s mission statement: California State University San Marcos is an academic community dedicated to the values of: • Intellectual Engagement: learning, teaching, discovery, and application of knowledge • Community: shared commitments to service, teamwork, and partnership • Integrity: respect, honesty, trust, fairness, academic freedom and responsibility • Innovation: creativity, openness to change, flexibility, responsiveness, and future focus • Inclusiveness: individual and cultural diversity, and multiple perspectives (CSUSM, 2013)

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Given the commitment to increased diversity of intellectual and cultural perspectives, CSUSM has been a model of inclusive education since its founding. Situated in San Diego’s North County, diversity is practically a natural phenomenon. There are significantly large Hispanic populations in county municipalities near our campus: San Marcos, Carlsbad, Escondido, ­Oceanside, Fallbrook, Temecula, and San Diego. The student population at CSUSM is also diverse in other ways since we serve veterans, Asians, African Americans, Eurocentric students, and LGBT students.

World AIDS Day: A Personal Journey, a Public Gesture One facet of CSUSM’s commitment to diversity is its shared governance structure. The university has an active, influential Academic Senate, a creative engine that generates curriculum, policy, and a number of projects that support faculty teaching and research. Additionally, the Senate is an organizational structure through which social justice and cultural projects can be developed to examine, create and explore diverse thoughts and ideologies. Over the years, for example, the Academic Senate has issued proclamations concerning faculty rights, gay rights, veteran’s rights, women’s rights, and so forth. It is within this context that the World AIDS Day observance was conceived and carried out. In May 2006 I was elected chair of the Academic Senate. Prior to this, I was vice chair, and prior to that I worked on several committees as a senator in our faculty governance structure, including the Academic Policy Committee, Hispanic Serving Force, Budget Committee, and University Space Committee, to name a few. My election to the chairmanship was quite an honor since I had only been a faculty member at CSUSM for five years at the time. Let me begin by declaring I am a gay Hispanic male living with AIDS. Before I began my tenure as chair of the Senate, I thought about the possibility of making a statement about AIDS and my gay and Hispanic identities in a manner that would speak to authentic diversity of thought and cultural contexts. It was important, I felt, to give back to the students, faculty, and administration through a social justice project personal to my experience as a part of my service to the university and the world. In that instance, it occurred to me to lead the development and implementation of a World AIDS Day observance at CSUSM. The World Health Organization (2013) described World AIDS Day as follows: World AIDS Day on 1 December brings together people from around the world to raise awareness about HIV/AIDS and demonstrate international

World AIDS Day    solidarity in the face of the pandemic. The day is an opportunity for public and private partners to spread awareness about the status of the pandemic and encourage progress in HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care in high prevalence countries and around the world. (“World AIDS Day,” para. 1, 2013)

Prior to 2006, CSUSM had never organized a formal university-wide observance of World AIDS Day. The notion of a World AIDS Day observance was significant to me because I nearly died of AIDS in 2002. What had started as a cold ended up as a diagnosis of AIDS. At the height of my health crisis in spring 2002, I had pneumocystis pneumonia, Karposi sarcoma, blood poisoning, stomach parasites, and on and on. At one point, doctors were not sure I would survive as I had lost a great deal of weight, and my breathing was very weak. Fortunately I did survive, thanks in no small part to HIV medications and loving people in my life. Throughout my struggle it was heartwarming to see how many of my colleagues and friends supported me. There were many moments when I wanted to give up and stop teaching altogether. Somehow I managed to keep up, and by 2004 I regained my health. I was free of fear because my medication was working; my state of mind moved toward the greater fulfillment of teaching and learning. The summer before I assumed my full duties as chair I envisioned what a World AIDS Day observance would entail. After much thought, a plan for the day evolved. The following is a list of the elements I determined would work best for CSUSM’s first World AIDS Day observance on December 1, 2006: • A monthlong display of a section of the national AIDS quilt that would be hung in Kellogg Library during November leading up to December 1 • A march around the perimeter of the campus at night during which observers would carry lit candles and walk toward a stage where the observance would take place • A selection of refreshments served at the event • A fund-raising drive during the month of November; one-dollar tickets would be traded for a candle at the event, with proceeds going to a North County AIDS hospice • A group of dignitaries speaking at the event, which I would officiate and which would be sponsored by the Academic Senate and the School of Education (SOE) • A candlelit procession, speeches, poetry, and a moment of silence

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education

First Stage of Collaboration and Process: Inclusive Practices Made Real After envisioning the event, collaboration began. The initial work began in late spring and continued into the summer of 2006. At that stage it was necessary to lay the groundwork for university-wide collaboration for the World AIDS Day observance. I first contacted the faculty and staff of the SOE, where I teach. At a faculty retreat in May 2006 I gave a report to my colleagues about the project in which I discussed my personal and political reasons for undertaking it. A copy of the plan for the event was provided to the faculty, staff, and administration in the SOE. At the retreat I requested an endorsement from the SOE as well as a letter of support from our dean indicating the commitment of the school to the project. I made it clear that participation in the project was voluntary. Individuals could choose to participate in the planning and implementation of the vigil if they desired. Happily, those at the SOE expressed great enthusiasm about the project; they granted unanimous endorsement. A week later I had a letter from the dean that I used often in other collaborative efforts in and outside the university. In the summer of 2006 I cultivated three major collaborations outside the university to ensure the success of this project. First, to establish a relationship with AIDS health service providers I applied for and was accepted to be a member of the North County AIDS Coalition (NCAC) in June 2006. As a member of this group, I interacted with social workers, sociologists, AIDS activists, doctors, nurses, psychologists, and public health administrators whose work was in common with the North County HIV/AIDS communities. I was accepted into the NCAC in fairly short order. Perhaps this was because of my attitude about the process. Indeed, my commitment to the group was strong; I attended bimonthly meetings of the NCAC for two years after the project. It was highly rewarding to serve as a representative of CSUSM for the NCAC, not only because I live with AIDS but also because my presence at the meetings was the first instance of a formal outreach to this body on behalf of CSUSM. Several members of the coalition indicated their approval of my participation because they felt it was a genuine statement from the university on the value of their work. As a member of this coalition I learned that HIV/AIDS has had a significant effect on the LGBT and Hispanic communities of North County. Issues concerning cultural sensitivity outreach among high-risk individuals and the mechanics of managing services to HIV/AIDS clients were the main topics of this group whose tremendous expertise provided me with a deep appreciation for its work. The group membership was highly diverse, and several caseworkers in the group were bilingual. The passion and dedication of these social service professionals was inspiring.

World AIDS Day   

The members of the coalition helped secure another collaborative partner in this project: Fraternity House (2013), whose mission is: [T]o provide warm and caring homes where men and women disabled by HIV/AIDS can receive comprehensive care and services in order to rebuild their health and return to independent living, or where they can spend their last days in comfort and dignity. (Fraternity House, para. 1, 2014)

With the support of the NCAC, I contacted the director of Fraternity House, Marie Jones-Kirk, who agreed to meet with me to discuss my project. We met twice during the summer of 2006. At those meetings I toured both facilities of Fraternity House: Fraternity House in Escondido and Michaelle House in Vista. The houses were beautiful residential houses converted to halfway homes. Each house provided shelter for 10–15 patients who had been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS. During my visits I was introduced to HIV/AIDS patients, nurses, doctors, and social service professionals who each provided me with a context of Fraternity House’s mission. Jones-Kirk and I agreed CSUSM’s World AIDS Day observance would be a fund-raising and a consciousness-raising event for Fraternity House. All proceeds collected from the sale of candle tickets would go to this organization. Jones-Kirk agreed to be one of the main speakers at the first observance. Having secured these commitments, I went about the work of organizing the event. Finally, the NCAC directed me to my third community collaboration: Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad. The members of the Pilgrim United Church had many years of experience in creating World AIDS Day observances. This church is also known for its commitment to serving LGBT individuals and minorities. I thought this was a perfect fit for my project. Since I had no experience in organizing this kind of event, I contacted the pastor of Pilgrim United, who directed me to a committee in the congregation that was in the process of planning Pilgrim’s own World AIDS Day observance. I met with the committee three times during the summer and was in phone contact with the chair until December 1. This committee was extremely helpful in organizing CSUSM’s first World AIDS Day observance for two reasons. One, the members’ organizational expertise was extensive, and they were very generous about offering suggestions for creating a successful project. Two, we were able to share resources for both of our events to help reduce costs. We agreed to share the cost of renting two sections of the AIDS quilt. One section was to be hung at Pilgrim United, and the other section would be hung in the foyer of the Kellogg Library of CSUSM. We also decided to share the fee for our guest

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education speaker, a 12-year-old girl living with HIV who was on a national tour to increase AIDS awareness. The committee and I negotiated with the speaker’s agent, who agreed our guest would speak at both venues on World AIDS Day for the cost of one event. She would speak at CSUSM first and later at the Pilgrim United Church on the evening of December 1. In the months leading up to World AIDS Day I worked closely with the members of Pilgrim United, who provided many helpful insights into the dynamics of a candlelight vigil. This committee contacted the North County Times, which published three articles about the synchronized events. It was exciting to work with this church, for the congregation possessed a spontaneous, natural kind of inclusive attitude central to the goals of this social justice project.

Second Stage of Collaboration: University Connections At the start of each academic year, the president of CSUSM invites the chair of the Academic Senate to give a three-minute speech at Convocation. As I prepared for my speech, I decided to use the opportunity to announce my project to the faculty. The advocacy of a social justice project by the chair of the Senate would be unusual. Nevertheless, my reasons for undertaking this project were personal and political. It was necessary, I felt, to use the bully pulpit to make a statement about AIDS to allow myself the freedom to tell the truth of my HIV status. I felt the speech could be a moment to invite the faculty, staff, and administration to participate in a symbolic gesture that would increase CSUSM’s visibility as a university dedicated to the eradication of AIDS in the world and in our local community. The following is an excerpt from my speech germane to these notions: I plan this year to facilitate a university-wide observance of World AIDS Day on December 1, 2006. My decision to undertake this project is personal while rooted in a desire for social action and transformation. As a man living with AIDS, I have a real commitment toward educating others about the importance of confronting AIDS both locally and globally. Furthermore, I am very pleased to report that The College of Education has elected to undertake, in collaboration with the North County AIDS Coalition, a social justice project focusing upon educating our students and the community about AIDS and its impact on the lives of countless men, women, and children here and throughout the world. It is my hope the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business, ASI [Associated Students, Inc.], the Library and the new School of Nursing will assist both the College of Education and myself in this worthwhile university project. (Valadez, 2006)

The response to my request was highly positive. A week after Convocation at our first governance meeting, the Academic Senate unanimously

World AIDS Day   

endorsed the project. Moreover, several colleagues expressed support by offering suggestions for outreach to the diverse campus student organizations. I began collaboration in September by applying for the Arts and Lecture Series Grant from the Academic Senate. The $1,500 grant request was approved in October. Funds obtained from the grant paid for the AIDS quilt rental, speaker fees, and other expenses related to the candlelight vigil—candles, security fees, copy fees, and so on. Students and faculty of the SOE were very generous with their time. In total, five cohorts of CSUSM’s teacher credential program volunteered to do logistical and promotional work in the name of the project. For example, the arts education cohort created hand-drawn tickets that were photocopied and sold during the month of November. Students, faculty, and staff from the SOE sold tickets for the candlelight vigil for a suggested donation of one dollar. Every Wednesday from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. CSUSM has what it calls a University Hour, when no classes are scheduled. The dedicated block of time provides CSUSM students with an hour to hold meetings for the various student committees and projects on campus. During every University Hour for November 2006, a booth sponsored by the LGBTQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and ally) Pride Center and the Student Health and Counseling Services center promoted the project and provided free HIV testing. During the University Hour the SOE also had a booth where tickets to the event were sold. In November a section of the AIDS quilt was hung on the fifth floor of the Kellogg Library. Posters next to the quilt were created by four students from the LGBTQA center. One poster explained the history of the AIDS quilt and its significance to the LGBT community. The remaining three posters displayed photos and short biographies of residents of Fraternity House describing the profound impact of HIV on their lives. The stories also encouraged greater compassion for people living with AIDS and stressed the importance of providing the necessary emotional, spiritual, medical, and psychological support for anyone living with the AIDS virus. One of the stories was about a person living with her husband who had AIDS. These eloquent testimonies were effective because they put a face on the AIDS crisis and situated the AIDS virus locally. Many of the students who visited the display wrote in a guest book they had no idea that HIV was so prevalent in North County. There were also comments about the emotional impact of the photo display and the beauty of the AIDS quilt hanging in full sunlight next to a west-facing window with a view of the Pacific Ocean. During the months of October and November there was a flurry of work for this project. Happily, I had a partner, Adrienne Durso, a support staff

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education member of the SOE, who helped with logistics. Durso contributed her time and energy by attending meetings of several university committees responsible for safety and the budget. I attended several meetings with student groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Society, MeCha (a Hispanic student club), the Associated Student Body, and the Academic Senate. I also gave reports about the event at a few department meetings in the College of Arts and Science and the College of Business. Table 9.1 provides a list of the collaborative activities in the fall of 2006. Finally, promotion was an integral part of the process, and it involved university and community resources alike. Students from the SOE produced posters that were hung in various locations on and off campus during November. The North County Times covered the event at length and interviewed me about the project. Pilgrim United Church also had an article published about its contribution to the process. The local TV news channels each broadcast stories about North County’s World AIDS Day observances, and each report mentioned CSUSM’s vigil. Throughout the process I was in constant contact with Fraternity House and Pilgrim United, as we had become true partners in this endeavor that had taken on a life of its own.

World AIDS Day: December 1, 2006 After seven months of work, the World AIDS Day observance on ­December 1, 2006, proceeded without a hitch. Everyone involved with the project was in good spirits, although I was incredibly nervous. The vigil started at 6:00 p.m. at the east end of campus, where people turned in tickets for candles. About 300 people attended the event. At 6:45 p.m. the procession began, and we walked in moonlight for a quarter of a mile on a predetermined path marked off with student-made posters. People laughed and conversed in muffled tones; the mood was very serene. Several children had come to the event with their parents, and some of them brought along the family dog. I walked at the end of the parade with our dignitaries, the main speaker, the director of Fraternity House, and a student poet who had written a poem for the event. Although a little chilly, the weather was otherwise perfect. The air was still and the sky clear. A bright half-moon shone in the heavens. We were virtually alone on campus. Once everyone reached the staging place, we all took our places. Lawn chairs were set in front of the stage so that people could sit during the observance. At the end of the procession everyone placed his or her lit candle on the stage. The effect of the clustered candles was beautiful as the strong yellowish light seemed to glow with true purpose.

World AIDS Day    TABLE 9.1

University Collaborations for World AIDS Day 2006 University Collaborator

Nature of Collaboration

Academic Senate

Provided Arts and Lecture Grant, $1,500

Health and Counseling Services

Provided HIV testing for November 2006 Promoted event at the test sites

LGBTQA Pride Center

Provided student volunteers to operate HIV testing sites Provided student volunteers for the World AIDS Day table during University Hour for November 2006 Provided four posters to accompany the AIDS quilt in Kellogg Library

Kellogg Library

Provided space for November 2006 to hang AIDS quilt

Latin American Faculty and Staff Association

Donated $100

School of Business

Donated $50 Provided support for promotion of event by business students as part of senior experience project

SOE

Provided student volunteers to organize vigil, refreshments, and promotion Provided student volunteers to operate World AIDS Day observance booth during University Hour for November 2006

Starbucks

Donated hot cocoa and pastries for the candlelight vigil

California Faculty Association, San Marcos affiliate

Donated $100 Provided table for World AIDS Day promotion during University Hour

Once everyone was settled, the program began with my introductory comments (similar to the scene in Figure 9.2): Thank you all for coming tonight and welcome to Cal State San Marcos’ first observance of the International World AIDS Day. This evening we are here to remember those who have died of AIDS. We are here also to consider the struggles of those living with AIDS and HIV, offering good thoughts they will be comforted and that one day AIDS will be no more. Two years ago I nearly lost my life to AIDS. In the two years since my

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education diagnosis I endured tremendous heartbreak and doubt as I underwent my treatments, which often exhausted me, stretching the boundaries of my resolve to live and to love. I don’t know that I am better for all of it but I can say I am different. For myself I learned AIDS is simply a disease of the autoimmune system. AIDS is not a Gay thing, a Hispanic thing, or a morality thing. It is a disease and, therefore, a human thing. Tonight we stand together knowing all over the world people are also standing in recognition of the loss and pain caused by AIDS. Let us consider the enormity of the simple act of reflection in solidarity with other humans locally and around our planet. Our presence here in candlelight is a tender means to confront the sister diseases connected to AIDS—sorrow and loneliness. Let us hope and work for the cure and work harder toward slowing the rate of infection. Let us show compassion to those afflicted with AIDS and HIV, their families and friends. Let us stand in flickering candlelight in a reckoning of shared humanity transcending suffering to the place where hope and spirit reside in serenity. Please join me in a moment of silence. (Valadez, 2006)

After the moment of silence, our student poet read her poem, which was followed by a few words from the director of Fraternity House, Marie Jones-Kirk. The program ended with comments from our guest speaker. At the conclusion, thanks were given to all the partners of the observance and especially to the students who had given so much of their time and energy. The crowd calmly dispersed to the refreshment booths for hot cocoa and pastries. In total, the event lasted only 25 minutes, which, somehow, seemed to be just long enough. The sales of tickets for this first event totaled $3,500, Figure 9.2  World AIDS Day 2008 at California State University San Marcos

Note. Valadez speaking at World AIDS Day 2008 (Photograph provided by Valadez, 2015)

World AIDS Day   

and this money went to Fraternity House. The evening brought out a tender feeling among all attendees. There was laughter and good conversation, and everyone seemed genuinely moved by the experience of being the only group on such a large campus in late autumn. The candlelight vigil was a very successful enterprise. Fortunately, this first World AIDS Day observance established a tradition at CSUSM with respect to HIV/AIDS awareness. From 2007 to 2010 students from CSUSM’s LGBTQA Pride Center organized their own versions of a vigil. As a result of their efforts, Fraternity House benefitted from more of a presence on campus and off. Responding to this fact in 2010, Fraternity House director Jones-Kirk said, The monies collected [from] these vigils is terrific, but what we most appreciate is the visibility your work provides our organization. Since your first World AIDS day observance there has been an increase of CSUSM student volunteers to our two homes. The good work extended beyond the vigils so that we (Fraternity House, Inc.) have the feeling of solidarity with our campus and with North County. (M. Jones-Kirk, personal communication, January 14, 2010)

Ideological Framework: The World AIDS Day Observance As stated previously, my reasons for undertaking this project were both personal and political. As a 57-year-old Hispanic male living with AIDS, I understand the devastating impact HIV/AIDS has had on LGBT and Hispanic communities in the United States. Over the years, hundreds of my friends have died of the virus. The memory of their struggle is painfully vivid. Moreover, my own personal battle with AIDS contributed to a profound understanding of how the virus affects the mind, body, and spirit of an infected human being. Much has improved in the treatment of AIDS in the 30-plus years of the virus. Were it not for the medications available today, I would certainly have died in 2002. In spite of medical progress, however, the necessity of continued education about HIV/AIDS remains for LGBT and Hispanic people. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2011), gay and Hispanic men currently have the first and third highest infection rates of HIV in the United States. When I was elected chair of CSUSM’s Academic Senate, it occurred to me that a social justice project focused on HIV/AIDS would help sharpen the focus of the impact the virus has had in San Diego’s North County and beyond. My role as chair of the Academic Senate, coupled with my lived experience of AIDS, provided a context for bringing together divergent groups of

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education CSUSM students, faculty, and administrators to make a statement about AIDS. In retrospect, this work was informed by three ideological constructs: inclusive practice, transformational pedagogy and praxis, and coalition building. The first and most central ideological construct for this project was inclusive practice within the framework of effective multicultural pedagogy and praxis. “Multicultural education,” writes Olneck (1983), “aims to revise the public assignment of status by including in curricular representation those who have heretofore been left out and whose contributions have been unacknowledged or undervalued” (p. 243). To a great extent, this project is an example of how a Hispanic-serving university can increase inclusion within its organizational culture. The project also gave voice to individuals who might otherwise have been ignored. North County and the city of San Diego have large LGBT and Hispanic communities (Gustafson, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Given this reality, this project fit well into the geographic and cultural context of the students CSUSM serves because hundreds of individuals are living with HIV/AIDS in North County. As the project evolved, I focused my energies on how to best cultivate a collaborative process in the implementation of the World AIDS Day observance by organizing an authentically collaborative project. The second ideological foundation for this project was the dual-­ structured idea of transformational pedagogy and praxis. In 2005 I conceptualized my work as an out gay professor by defining myself as a queer coyote (Valadez & Elsbree, 2005). Coyote is a Mexican term for a smuggler who illegally transports people across the U.S. border. It is my assertion that my role as a queer coyote engenders an aspect of helping LGBT students cross the physical, emotional, and cultural boundaries that might inhibit success in a higher education system not always supportive of LGBT students. As a gay educator, it is critical for me to use my intellectual, cultural, and academic experience to support LGBT students. In other words, all aspects of my individuality contribute to my assisting LGBT students because teaching is as much social action as it is continued dialogue and transformation. As a queer coyote I am more than a role model because I instruct students, through actions and words, how to navigate their journey in higher education. This process is necessarily a dialogue among equals, or as Freire (1987) would put it, among “subjects” (p. 104). The term queer coyote is useful because it captures metaphorically how I engaged others in the discussion of HIV/AIDS at CSUSM. This project was fundamentally a campaign to promote AIDS literacy. My role as primary organizer required careful maneuvering within Hispanic and gay cultural norms; I also accessed understanding of CSUSM’s institutional culture and

World AIDS Day   

history in coordinating human and monetary resources. Furthermore, my experience as a Hispanic educator helped focus my energies to assist others in understanding the intersections of the LGBT and Hispanic communities in regard to HIV/AIDS awareness. Indeed, my disclosure about my HIV status put a human face on AIDS on the CSUSM campus. Through focused social action, constructive discourse was significantly increased about an important social problem. The motivating factor in revealing my HIV status to the CSUSM community was not to proclaim victim status; it was a pedagogical choice. By coming out about my HIV status I reconstructed my advocacy to one of a queer coyote living with AIDS. My main task was to open up a dialogue about AIDS through sustained community action. At the start of the project, my intention for organizing this event was focused primarily on educating others about HIV/AIDS while learning about myself in the interaction with my gay and straight partners. For this transformation to take place, it was necessary to engage all aspects of my individuality to relate the importance of HIV/ AIDS awareness at CSUSM and in North County. The third ideological construct informing this project was coalition building. In her book Virtual Equality, Vaid (1995) passionately wrote about the need for the LGBT movement to move from a single gender or sexual orientation platform to a more inclusive model of social activism. “Our work [that of LGBT leaders],” wrote Vaid, “must be augmented by the presence of a multiracial movement in order to be fully effective” (p. 292). In other words, Vaid asserts that LGBT people should confront racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination in all their manifestations extending outside the LGBT communities through coalitions with multiethnic social movements or institutions. As a matter of practicality, the work of confronting the various “-isms” of our society can be shared and, more likely, contribute to a greater integration of LGBT people in mainstream American society (Vaid, 1995). This notion of shared effort through coalition building was a foundational aspect of this social justice project. From the start of this project to its conclusion, deliberate efforts at collaboration with multiple organizations in and outside the CSUSM campus were cultivated and maintained. Gays, lesbians, Hispanics, heterosexuals, African Americans, partners on and off our campus, all contributed to this process. The effectiveness of this strategy cannot be undervalued because the inclusion of multiple voices and energies that contributed to a deeper authenticity of CSUSM’s first World AIDS Day observance would have been absent if the project was directed solely by myself. To restate this concept, working toward the completion of this project focused divergent groups to confront a common issue—the very essence of inclusive pedagogy and praxis.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education

Pedagogical Goals of World AIDS Day Observance The central pedagogical goal of this project was to increase awareness of the basic tools in fighting HIV/AIDS: prevention, treatment, and compassion. In the final analysis, each of these elements was addressed over the course of the project. The most obvious activities focusing on prevention were the HIV testing booths during University Hour and at the Student Health and Counseling Services center. In addition to free HIV tests, brochures about HIV prevention were distributed, which is normal practice at HIV testing sites. During the month of November, the Pilgrim United Church of Christ also offered HIV testing and education at the church. The staff at Fraternity House was extremely helpful in explaining to the CSUSM community how AIDS treatment is administered in North County. The biographical sketches of patients from Michaelle House displayed at Kellogg Library were instructive because they not only related stories of real people living with AIDS but also illustrated how social service agencies and medical establishments provide treatment to HIV/AIDS patients. Moreover, the HIV testing sites each distributed brochures about treatment options for anyone interested in the topic. As the organizer, I spoke on two occasions in 2006 at the CSUSM student apartments to relate my own experiences with diagnosis and treatment of AIDS. These sessions were informal rap sessions lasting about a half hour each. After my very short presentations, students asked questions about AIDS and HIV infection. Many of the students attending these events did so as part of their course work. Ultimately, CSUSM’s first World AIDS Day observance was a very public statement about showing compassion for those living with HIV/ AIDS. Through the sustained efforts of multiple groups of individuals, coupled with my own personal commitment, the World AIDS Day observance evolved into a collective expression of compassion and social consciousness. The project brought about a significant change in the institutional culture of CSUSM. The first World AIDS Day observance was a moment of profound teaching about compassion because many individuals were able to express emotions about HIV/AIDS hitherto unspoken. There were other informal observances of World AIDS Day before 2006; however, single individuals or student or faculty organizations undertook those projects. Owing to its structure and adherence to ideological principles, this project was the first formal observance involving multiple groups at CSUSM.

The Evolution of World AIDS Day Observances at CSUSM Every year since 2006, CSUSM has organized some version of a universitysponsored World AIDS Day event. On the night of the first World AIDS

World AIDS Day   

Day observance, it was gratifying to note the diversity of people involved in the vigil. There was a calmness about the crowd, a quiet respect for what was happening in the moment. Walking together engendered an authentic feeling of compassion that only a group of people could demonstrate. Happily, the tradition of acknowledging AIDS at CSUSM continued after our first candlelight vigil. For two years following the first observance I facilitated the project. Gradually the responsibility of the project fell to CSUSM’s LGBT students, who worked in tandem with the LGBTQA center. Their projects included more aggressive outreach to the LGBT communities outside CSUSM, emphasizing early detection and treatment. Many of the main elements of the original observance, however, remained. By the third year I no longer participated in the organization of this project because the students had assumed ownership of HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns at CSUSM. As the years progressed, other campus organizations contributed to AIDS awareness. In 2008 one of our campus Christian organizations, in partnership with the health center, sponsored an “AIDS in Africa” fair that was very successful. The fair was held during one week in November and was conducted in tents that housed information booths. Food and refreshments were distributed to students during University Hour. As this fair progressed, a variety of invited guest speakers shared stories about the devastating impact of AIDS in Africa. This event was so popular it was repeated in 2009.

LGBT Students and the HSI So far, this chapter describes how a social justice project can be implemented as a means for inclusive education at an HSI campus. Any human can contract HIV; regardless of orientation, AIDS kills and should be sensitively addressed by any institution of higher learning. The success of CSUSM’s World AIDS Day observance, therefore, is a viable case study of inclusive pedagogy and of collaborative social engagement. Nevertheless, this social justice project can also be viewed as an effective strategy for engaging LGBT students at an HSI campus. As previously noted, gay men remain the group at highest risk for HIV/AIDS infection in the United States. Because of this fact, AIDS continues to be a significant social issue within the LGBT community. Moreover, the great number of HIV/AIDS health and support services available in San Diego and North County demonstrates the fact that AIDS remains a significant issue in the LGBT community. As the primary organizer of this project I was deeply committed to reaching out to the LGBT community in and outside the CSUSM campus. The LGBT community in San Diego is a tight-knit community with a long history of pro-LGBT visibility and AIDS activism. It only made sense to use my connections to the community in the name of this project. As a queer

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education coyote living with AIDS I also had entry into the community of individuals living with AIDS in San Diego. As a matter of fact, since my diagnosis I have participated in a number of support groups for gay men living with AIDS, one of which was a group specifically of Hispanic gay men living with AIDS sponsored by Bienestar, a center for Hispanic people living with HIV/AIDS. The work of organizing this project compelled me to cross boundaries separating the LGBT, HIV/AIDS, and CSUSM communities. My own coming out about my HIV status was a good first step in demonstrating the depth of my cause. This transparency served a logistical purpose because it was important for me to reveal my status to enable others to come out of hiding and discuss how HIV/AIDS remains a source of pain for many people in San Diego and beyond. As the project evolved, I became conscious of the programmatic structures available to LGBT students and faculty. CSUSM has a highly active, well-funded LGBT student center, and there are several courses about LGBT people in women’s studies, literature, and sociology, to name a few. CSUSM’s local branch of the California Faculty Association is also proactive in increasing sensitivity to LGBT issues for faculty and students. The association conducts annual Safe Zone trainings in which faculty and support staff are provided with information on how to maintain a safe space for LGBT students to speak out about their lives and the unique problems they face in and outside the university. Safety is a critical factor when working with LGBT students. To mentor LGBT students it is essential to develop trust, as the anxiety of coming out as gay or lesbian is often difficult to manage. LGBT students should feel safe and empowered at the same time by their choice to live in the open. A university needs to be a place, therefore, where LGBT students can best explore the dimensions of their sexuality and identity. The university should also be a place where difference is accepted and even honored as an essential element of academic culture. As I worked to realize the many aspects of this project, it was apparent to me that CSUSM was open to LGBT students in a manner undiluted by political correctness or empty gestures. Enabling LGBT students to assume a primary role in the development and implementation of this World AIDS Day observance was a positive way to integrate voice and authorship of their efforts as social activists. This project was not about paying lip service to LGBT students or LGBT causes; it was a call to action for any group affected by HIV/AIDS. As I worked with students, it was clear they took the project seriously; they were incredibly creative and energetic about their contribution to the process. It was very impressive to observe the LGBT students assuming the responsibility of this project in so robust a fashion. It was equally impressive to witness the manner in which other student and faculty organizations on

World AIDS Day   

campus supported their efforts. Furthermore, I did not sense any fear on the part of the LGBT students who helped me. In fact, there was an unspoken unity between them and me, which I believe was made possible because CSUSM had the structures and policies in place to help these students realize their potential as scholars and citizens. When I spoke on behalf of this project at campus meetings or functions it was evident that many of the heterosexual students I interacted with had limited experience with LGBT people. The questions asked of me about gay people and about AIDS were very much interwoven so that my conversations opened up a broader discussion about sexual identity and AIDS. As an educated gay Hispanic man I was able to convey the common struggles of coming to terms with sexual identity, racism, homophobia, and ignorance about AIDS in person. Of course, all this was a positive thing. My role as the primary organizer of this project, therefore, required reflection on my representative status as a gay Hispanic male living with AIDS. Although I am loathe to consider myself a role model, this work was a wonderful opportunity to illustrate how individuals can make a difference by being honest about who they are to reveal a truth behind misconceptions and fear.

Recommendations This project demonstrated the efficacy of inclusive practice in bringing together diverse groups working toward a common goal. Upon reflection, organizing a World AIDS Day was a multidimensional experience that evolved into a statement of common humanity and ideological unity. Indeed, this event resulted in several positive outcomes—monetary, social, and pedagogical, to name a few. Since 2006 CSUSM has maintained its position as a university sympathetic to the struggles of individuals living with HIV/AIDS because, at its philosophical foundation, the institution remains true to diversity and inclusion. Reflecting further, this case study of a social justice project illustrates how the commonalities shared by CSUSM’s Hispanic and LGBT students were solidified though concrete actions for a common purpose. Both groups struggle with issues related to inclusion in the larger U.S. society. Each group experiences prejudice and bigotry from individuals who still do not comprehend how much we all share in a pluralistic society. For these reasons, projects such as the World AIDS Day candlelight vigil can be instrumental in illuminating our shared humanity. At this point it can be stated that if officials of an HSI desire to be inclusive of LGBT students in a respectful manner, an attitude of authentic inclusion that transcends mere tolerance of LGBT individuals is necessary. If

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education this case study illustrates anything, it illustrates the necessity for concrete acts of inclusion that enable and encourage LGBT students to express themselves in a safe atmosphere devoid of intolerance. The following is a list of concrete actions to achieve greater inclusion of LGBT students at an HSI university: • Maintain a safe place policy on campus for LGBT students and their allies. To facilitate this process, training for interested faculty, staff, and administration needs to be provided. • Maintain an LGBT center as resources allow. • Identify interested faculty and staff who can engage LGBT students in civil rights and cultural projects of interest to LGBT students, such as gay pride lectures. • Support LGBT communities outside the university with activities such as gay pride parades, HIV testing, social services collaborations, and so on. • Identify social justice projects whereby multiple groups can work on common agendas—immigration, voters’ rights, women’s rights, veterans’ affairs, and so on. • Provide resources whenever possible for special projects of interest to students and faculty, such as faculty grants in arts and lectures. • Address diversity from multiple perspectives that engage all types and kinds of students and cultures particularly including LGBT students. • Review the university’s mission statement, making sure its language explicitly addresses diversity and inclusive practices. Ultimately, this chapter argues that LGBT students should be included in the mainstream of the HSI campus. LGBT students are a valuable resource for any university, and their experiences and knowledge only enhance the grand conversations about citizenship, ethics, and social justice that are integral to institutions of higher learning. As the LGBT community increases its visibility, and as it becomes more integrated into society in significant ways, universities, and especially HSI campuses, need to be willing to open pathways for LGBT students to develop as healthy, functioning citizens. Projects such as the World AIDS Day observance are a very good start in this process.

Conclusion: A Safe Space In the fall of 2008 I taught a philosophy of education course for the SOE’s master’s program in a class of 11 people. Given the small number of students, it was easy to establish an intimacy not found in courses with more

World AIDS Day   

participants. This particular group of students was highly diverse in regard to life experience, gender, and sexual orientation. It was a simple thing to feel at ease with the students because they were very forthcoming and eager to discuss the various topics normally found in a course about educational philosophy. We met on Wednesdays from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. One night as class was ending, Maria (not her real name) asked me if I would be willing to speak with her alone in my office after class. Maria was ordinarily a bit shy in class, so I was pleased about her eagerness to speak to me, although I felt some apprehension about what might transpire. When class finally ended, we walked to my office. As we walked, I wondered what Maria wanted to discuss, which made me anxious as we neared my office door. Sometimes in situations such as this, a student has a complaint about the course or wants to discuss a conflict with another student or myself. I quietly hoped our conversation would be constructive. By the time we arrived at my office, I had worked up my composure, knowing I would maintain a professional demeanor whatever the circumstances. Once inside my office I invited Maria to sit. She sat, asking if it was possible to shut the door before we talked. I agreed to shut the door, feeling now a greater curiosity about the nature of our interview. Evidently Maria wanted to discuss something very personal, so personal it was necessary to ensure no one else would be privy to our conversation. I shut the door and sat in my desk chair. “Thanks for coming,” I said. “How can I help you, Maria?” Maria sat for a moment trying to regain her composure. Her face showed an anxiety I had never witnessed in class. All the while her hands moved restlessly about her lap, which only increased my concern about what was about to transpire. As I watched Maria, I thought about her life situation. She was a divorced single parent in her late 30s, and her ex-husband lived in Tijuana, Mexico. Maria lived in a small two-bedroom apartment with her mother and two daughters in National City. Maria was bilingual, educated in Mexico before immigrating to the United States in her 20s. She taught grade school for two years prior to her admission to CSUSM’s master of education program, but her teaching position was dissolved because of budget cuts. Even though she no longer held a teaching post, Maria wanted to complete her master’s degree to increase her prospects for employment. In class discussions it was obvious how much passion Maria had for teaching and, in particular, bilingual bicultural education. She always spoke with eloquence about her upbringing, describing in great detail her experiences in Mexican public schools. Everyone in the course appreciated her contributions in class, and it was easy to admire her determination.

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Deciding I had to break the awkward silence, I asked, “Is there an issue in class you need to discuss with me?” Maria said, “No, I wanted to talk about something that is going on in my life. The class is great.” There was another moment of silence before Maria spoke. “I wanted to talk to you, Dr. Valadez, because I am like you.” “Like me?” I asked. The statement was a bit confusing. “Yes, I am of Mexican decent like you,” I said. “No, no, no,” said Maria, “I know we are Mexican.” Holding back tears, she restrained herself before speaking again, “I wanted to tell you I am like you. HIV. SIDA. I have the HIV like you.” What an intense moment. I was stunned. Never had I thought Maria had HIV. It struck me as ironic that I should possess such a narrow perspective about just who can be infected with HIV. Maria was a mother of two girls; Hispanic; and, to all appearances, very healthy. To my mind she was not a likely candidate for HIV infection, but sadly that was not the case. In that moment I realized my own view about HIV was changing profoundly because a student was baring her soul to me; she needed to disclose the truth about her status. Without even thinking about it, I got up and asked Maria to give me a hug. We embraced for a moment. Maria shed a few tears. I comforted her saying, “It will be all right, it will be all right.” Afterward, we sat, and it was quiet for a minute or so. Maria then began to speak. “After my divorce,” said Maria, “about a year after the divorce, my husband visited me after school one day. He came to my classroom and then he told [me] he was HIV positive. I couldn’t believe what he was saying; I didn’t want to believe him. How could it be true? But it was true.” Maria paused before speaking again. “So I went to the doctor and took the test. It came back positive.” “So are you doing OK?” I asked. “Are you taking care of yourself, Maria?” She said, “I have been on the medications for a year now. The doctors tell me I am doing very well. I feel good most of the time. It’s just, it’s just that I still haven’t told my family. Nobody knows about this except my doctors and my ex-husband. He still lives in Mexico, and I know he hasn’t talked to my mother or our daughters about my HIV.” I studied Maria’s face, noticing she was more at ease. She looked me in the eyes; I could see a plaintive expression now. She was so exposed, and I knew the fear she felt and, to a great extent, the shame. “I think you should trust your family,” I told Maria. “My own family has been so good to me. I don’t know how I would have managed without them. Maybe you can tell them now?” “No!” said Maria. “I can’t tell them,” she continued. “It isn’t that I don’t trust them. I just don’t want my family to be afraid. I don’t want them to think I will die soon.” Maria grew quiet. I felt as if we were both in a tunnel all of a sudden, and the sound of an approaching train grew louder, more

World AIDS Day   

threatening. “I know you won’t die soon if you are on the medications,” I said. “Look at me, it has been four years now and I am doing very well. The medications work, and your family could help you, really. They could help you while you find peace about this situation.” Maria sat a while, taking it all in. We both were more circumspect. “I wanted to tell you Dr. Valadez,” Maria said, “because I know you understand. I know you will not tell anyone about it. You have helped me because you are honest.” “How did you find out I have HIV?” I asked Maria, knowing my status was very much an open book at CSUSM. “I don’t remember talking about AIDS in class.” “Two years ago,” said Maria, “I heard you speak at the World AIDS Day vigil. You probably didn’t see me. You didn’t even know me. But I was there with all the others. I heard you, and I read the newspaper article about you.” Maria paused again before speaking, “Everything was crazy those days. I came to the vigil because I found out about my status three weeks before that night.” “I see,” I replied. “I am glad you were there.” Maria’s story seemed so incredible to me. “I was glad to be there, Dr. Valadez,” continued Maria. “That night I was so scared. I didn’t know what to do. I just wanted to quit. I thought I wanted to quit school. I wanted to hide, and I wanted not to have SIDA. All I could think about was my family, and my mother, and my ex, the vavoso, and how much everything changed when I found out about being positive. So I watched you, and I looked at all the candles. People were everywhere, and then the speakers started to speak. I listened to all of you, and especially the little girl with HIV. By the end of it I decided I would stay in school. I had to stay in school. I had to, Dr. Valadez. I didn’t want anything else.” For a moment we sat in my little quiet office. I gathered my thoughts. “Maria,” I said, “thank you for your story. I can’t tell you how happy and proud you make me feel knowing you didn’t give up and that I had some part in that fact. I think you are a marvelous teacher, and you give me much to think about how to live. Your decision to continue your master’s program in spite of your fear says a lot about who you are, Maria. Promise me you will never be ashamed about who you are; be proud. AIDS is only a disease, and with medications you can fight it. Don’t let it stop you from living or from continuing your education.” Maria assured me she would continue with her education. We talked for a few minutes longer about the course, about our families. Maria loved her daughters so much. As we talked, I could see that a burden had been lifted from her. She was smiling once again. I encouraged her to join a support group if possible; I knew of an HIV support group for Hispanic women in San Diego organized by the social service group Bienestar. About 20 minutes

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education later, Maria excused herself, promising to do her homework, which was a little funny. I felt much older for some reason—older, not wiser. It was all so intense, but now I felt as if we were sitting in the open air and the starry night only offered quiet comfort. I thanked her again, telling her I would do anything to help. She only had to ask. We parted ways happy. I left campus in the dead of night for the 40-mile drive home. As I drove home, I reflected upon my exchange with Maria and on the sequence of events leading to the first candlelight vigil. It was incredible to learn Maria and I had walked together that December night. Even though I did not know Maria, and she had only a glimpse of who I am, we both unearthed a deeper feeling about AIDS and about our lives. Somehow we made a connection based on mutual vulnerability and spiritual and moral pain. The fact that Maria would later become my student struck me as profound and, deeply life affirming. Driving on, I concluded human connection was at the heart of this project; what ended up happening that night was a human kind of gesture, because in that moment both Maria and I experienced hope. I remembered the night of the first vigil and how beautifully the moonlight shone, saturating the CSUSM campus. It was chilly, but the clear sky and cold air made everything stand out so distinctly. It was as if the lines were not so blurred, and people, all bundled up and laughing, appeared more like themselves bathed in the light of tiny candles. It was a beautiful thing. AIDS. How is it, I wondered, that savage Nature has such a beautiful face? On the night of the vigil Maria decided not to disrupt her education and adopt for herself my own decision, which was, like it or not, to live with AIDS. The disease would not kill the better parts of me. Indeed, there are many ways AIDS can kill one’s inner life, but at least with acceptance there can be a new order and premise to living day by day. On the night of the vigil, at least two individuals kept a promise to live and learn because the spirit within us could come to no greater conclusion. As I neared my condo in San Diego, I thought about the parade of people wandering the pathway to the stage with candles in hand. I could hear the barking dogs. Laughing children ran between strangers only steps away from their parents. We walked slowly. When we all arrived at the stage, we set our candles on the stage. Eventually, the hundreds of candles gave off a yellowish glow in the center of the stage. Oh, the glowing heat. I wanted to cry. I wanted to jump up. Only four years prior I was coughing up blood in my bed, and now the sounds of humanity and the still cold air made breathing so sweet and sorrowful. At peace; the night was so peaceful. I did not realize that night that my own little candle burned in solidarity beside Maria’s on the stage. Both of us had found a place on the stage for our little candles, as we

World AIDS Day   

had come to terms with how AIDS transformed our lives for good and bad. The flames were so tentative, yet it all made gorgeous sense. It occurred to me our little candle flames had long been put out and the spent candles thrown away. The vigil was a wonderful moment leading to other moments. Yes, but the tiny flame inside us keeps burning still, burning still, still.

References California State University San Marcos. (2013). Mission, vision, and values. Retrieved from http://www.csusm.edu/wasc/csusm_mission.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). HIV in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/pdf/us.pdf Fraternity House. (2013). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.fraternityhouseinc .org/ Freire P. (1987). Critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum. Gustafson, C. (2010, January 22). San Diego ranks first in states for “gay cities.” San Diego Union Tribune, 1. Olneck, W. (1983). Introduction to teacher as stranger. In W. O’Neill (Ed.), Rethinking education: Selected reading in educational ideologies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt. Platform of the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation action statement: Preamble to the platform. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.qrd.org/qrd/events/mow/mow-full.platform U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State & county quickfacts: San Diego County, California. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06073.html Vaid, U. (1995). Virtual equality: The mainstreaming of gay and liberation. New York, NY: Doubleday. Valadez, G. (2006). Convocation speech before Academic Senate [Senate chair convocation speeches]. Archives of Kellogg Library, California State University San Marcos. Valadez, G., & Elsbree, A. (2005). Queer coyotes: Transforming education to be more accepting, affirming, and supportive of queer individuals. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(3), 171–192. World Health Organization. (2013). WHO campaigns: World AIDS Day 1 December 2013. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/campaigns/aids-day/2013/event/en/ index.html

10 E N G A G I N G T H E L AT I N O COMMUNITY Enhancing Hispanic-Serving Institutions’ Latino Donor Base Noah D. Drezner and Rebecca C. Villarreal

A

s governmental support for higher education institutions continues to decrease, colleges and universities must look for other revenue sources. Passing on increased costs to students and families is not a real option for any institution, especially Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) and other institutions serving student populations with limited resources; these colleges and universities must look for other options. Private giving by individuals and foundations, endowment revenue, or partnerships with surrounding business communities are several common alternative sources of revenue. Historically, many four-year public and private institutions engaged alumni and solicited private donations. Some two-year institutions have begun advancement activities, but inequities in capacity to fund-raise are apparent in their initial efforts. (Klingaman, 2012). As with the old adage “The rich get richer,” institutions with more resources are able to secure more resources, and this is the case with fund-raising as well. Those institutions with successful fund-raising programs have larger budgets for the next campaign. Therefore, campuses with limited financial support or noninstitutionalized systems, such as a development office or an official alumni association, are at a disadvantage. Many HSIs, unfortunately, are in this situation. 178

Engaging the Latino Community   

HSIs have focused on access to higher education for Latino students and successfully enroll over half (60%) of all Latino undergraduate students (Excelencia in Education, 2015). HSIs that have traditionally received large portions of their budgets from federal, state, and local governments must turn to other sources. Given the decrease in government funding to higher education, there is a need for funding from alternative sources. Therefore, we explore the alternative revenue source of alumni giving and opportunities for HSIs to expand their donor base.

HSI Background In the 1980s leaders at the federal, state, and institutional levels recognized that a small set of colleges and universities enrolled a large percentage of Latino students but had low levels of resources.1 After years of debate, federal law under the Higher Education Act first recognized and defined HSIs in 1994 (Santiago, 2006), and they are now defined by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 as accredited and degree-granting public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education with a total enrollment of 25% or more undergraduate Hispanic full-time equivalent students. Whereas other minority-serving institution—for example, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) or tribal colleges and universities—were established with the intention of serving distinct populations, many HSIs were originally predominantly White institutions (PWIs), which because of demographic shifts, reached the threshold of 25% in Latino student enrollment. While most HSIs originated as PWIs, several institutions founded in the second half of the twentieth century explicitly served Latino students. However, of those established to serve Latinos, only three remain open today: Hostos Community College, founded in 1968 in New York; Boricua College, founded in 1974 in New York; and National Hispanic University, founded in 1981 in California (Laden, 2004).2 Regardless of the original student populations served by these institutions, it is clear that with the growing Latino postsecondary enrollment, the number of institutions that meet the federal definition of an HSI will continue to increase. When federal law first recognized HSIs in 1994, 189 institutions met the criteria to be identified as HSIs (Villarreal & Santiago, 2012). By 2013–2014, 409 institutions met the basic federal definition (Excelencia in Education, 2015). It is important to note that HSIs are not a monolithic group of institutions; they include two- and four-year public and private colleges and universities. According to Excelencia in Education’s (2015) analysis, 190 community colleges accounted for nearly half of

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education all HSIs in 2013–2014, followed by 125 private, not-for-profit four-year ­institutions (31%); 81 public, four-year institutions (20%); and 13 private, not-for-profit two-year institutions (3%). Because of the diversity of HSIs, one funding structure does not apply to all institutions. As with other nonprofit institutions, HSIs use a combination of funding sources, such as tuition, state and local appropriations, federal grants, and philanthropic giving, to support operational expenses.

Federal Funding of HSIs In 1992 an opportunity for direct federal support came about as a result of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The revised legislation established criteria for an institution to be considered an HSI and set up a competitive grant program for HSIs to secure additional federal funding for a wide variety of institutional capacity-building efforts, such as professional development for faculty, creation or enhancement of student services, and general infrastructure improvements. The original HSI legislation (Higher Education Amendments, 1992) outlined 14 different activities and included several items related to fund-raising activities: establishing funds and administrative management and acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening funds management, establishing or improving a development office to strengthen or improve fund-raising efforts, and establishing or improving an endowment fund. In their review of Title V grants from 2004 to 2008, Villarreal and Santiago (2012) found that support for fund-raising activities was cited in fewer than 10 awards. Frequently, institutions paired student success initiatives with increasing alumni involvement or increasing their endowments. In other words, at this point only a few HSIs have used Title V grants to focus on their advancement activities. This is understandable given that access, retention, and persistence to degree are necessary foci of these institutions. For example, in 2007 the U.S. Department of Education awarded California State University San Bernardino a Title V grant to help fund educational and internship opportunities. The overarching goal of the “Be SMART” project was to improve the academic attainment of Hispanic and other low-income students in science, mathematics and research for transformation (SMART) disciplines by providing enhanced academic support, career preparedness training, and enhanced internship opportunities (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). One component of the program involved improving the accuracy and completeness of alumni contact records and using the data to identify 1,000 alumni to participate as volunteers for Be SMART career development programs and establish a 1,000-member

Engaging the Latino Community   

Hispanic alumni networking group. University administrators saw alumni as a valuable resource for current students and a potential source of fiscal support. In 2008 the reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act reduced the number of allowable activities from 14 to 8 and removed all three areas with connections to enhancing HSI fund-raising capacities. The change reflected the programs and activities that most institutions applied for (Villarreal & Santiago, 2012) and ended the only opportunity HSIs had for federal support to enhance development offices or fund-raising ­initiatives. Beyond Title V grants coordinated through the Department of Education, other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy, support additional programs and funding opportunities, but many of these grants focus on supporting specific outreach programs, internships, or student support services. In general, HSIs tend to have lower levels of funding compared to other types of higher education institutions (De los Santos & Cuamea, 2010; De los Santos & De los Santos, 2003; Mulnix, Bowden, & Lopez, 2002). According to the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (2015), from all federal funding sources, HSIs receive 69 cents for every dollar allocated to all other colleges and universities annually per student. Moreover, despite the unequal levels of federal support, it is important to remember these programs are funded through legislation and are frequently debated when ­policymakers are looking for opportunities to cut federal support for social programs and initiatives. Burkhardt et al. (2013) found that from 1999 through 2009, state and local appropriations remained the primary source of revenue at the majority of public institutions and averaged about 55% at HSIs and 45% at non-HSIs, respectively. This is particularly concerning given that HSIs tend to be almost entirely dependent on state and federal funds and many have virtually no endowment (Mulnix et al., 2002).

Literature on HSI Philanthropic Activities Beyond federal grants, several philanthropic organizations have awarded grants to HSIs for student success initiatives. For example, the W. K. Kellogg and Lumina Foundations have both funded HSIs directly or indirectly through community-based organizations striving to increase Latino access and graduation rates. While these funds are helpful, they are small infusions, and HSIs must explore other avenues for securing consistent financial support. Limited information is available on institutional advancement activities at HSIs. Mulnix et al. (2002) surveyed member institutions of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities on fund-raising, public relations,

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education alumni affairs, marketing, enrollment management, and government relations. With a response rate of 32%, this study provided the first overview of fund-raising at HSIs from the perspective of HSI chancellors and presidents. The respondents noted effective enrollment management as an extremely important institutional advancement activity, highlighting HSIs’ dependence on tuition-based revenue. Interestingly, fund-raising is extremely important to HSI chancellors and presidents, yet alumni relations received “not i­ mportant” ratings, emphasizing an apparent disconnect between building relationships with alumni and solicitation of donations (Mulnix et al., 2002). Moreover, HSIs face additional challenges in securing private dollars; several HSIs (12% of surveyed institutions) did not have any development offices or staff members dedicated to fund-raising. Mulnix et al. (2002) noted that more than 61% of HSIs in their survey employed one to three fund-raising officers, and the majority of respondents stated that additional resources would allow them to enhance advancement efforts. A development office with three or fewer people is extremely small and cannot effectively interact with alumni. Development offices at PWIs typically have fund-raising staffs that are much larger. According to a study by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education that surveyed 120 colleges and universities of ­different institutional types and sizes, the average public institution has 74.2 advancement staff composed of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees; the smallest staff was six and largest was 375 (Kroll, 2012). Private institutions were smaller with an average of 41.8 FTE employees and ranging from 1.5 to 258.9 FTEs in their advancement offices. The study further split institutions into classifications on the basis of their fund-raising program’s maturity. Start-up offices averaged 21.3 FTEs, emerging offices averaged 42.3 FTEs, and mature programs averaged 78.4 FTEs. One measure of institutional advancement efforts is the annual growth of an institution’s endowment and the subsequent growth in endowment revenue. A report from the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good at the University of Michigan examined endowment revenue for public institutions and disaggregated the data for HSIs (Burkhardt et al., 2013). The report illustrates the economic downturn’s negative impact on endowment revenues across all public institutions as well as highlights great disparities between public HSIs’ and non-HSIs’ investment returns. In many cases, the public four-year HSIs report half as much annual revenue from endowments as public, four-year non-HSIs. Further, the report asserts that as federal and state appropriations to colleges and universities continue to decrease, many institutions are seeking alternative methods of revenue, such as increasing student tuition and fees, and seeking additional private support. However, given historical and structural realities, many HSIs do not have the infrastructure to quickly shift from reliance on government resources to increased private support (Burkhardt et al., 2013).

Engaging the Latino Community   

The Opportunity The growing Latino population in the United States presents an opportunity for higher education institutions generally, and HSIs more specifically, to develop a new donor group. According to a report from the U.S. Census Bureau, Latinos make up 16% of the nation’s population (Ennis, Ríos-­Vargas, & Albert, 2011). Ennis and colleagues attributed more than half of the population growth in the United States in the last decade to growth in the Latino population, and that trend is expected to continue. A report from the Pew Research Center predicts that the Latino population will hit 29% by the year 2050 (Passel & Cohn, 2008). It is also important to note that the poverty rate among Latinos in the United States is relatively high; in 2013 the poverty rate among U.S. Latinos was the second highest in the nation at 23.5%, nearly double the rate for non-Latinos (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014). However, while poverty rates in Latino communities remain high, Ramos (1999) found that Latinos are becoming “one of the nation’s most dynamic consumer and small-business communities” (p. 153). A 2012 report by Nielsen found that the purchasing power of Latinos in the United States is the highest of any ethnic community in the country, valued at $1.2 trillion (Nielsen Company & Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council, 2012). Humphreys (2012) expects the Latino purchasing power in the United States to increase to $1.5 trillion by 2015, which would make it the ninth largest economy in the world. Moreover, Latinos have one of the fastest smallbusiness start-up rates of any ethnic group in the country (U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 2012). In a philanthropic context, a study conducted by the Hispanic Foundation found that while Latino donors in Silicon Valley had lower household incomes than other groups in the area, they continued to give an average of 3.9% of their annual household income to charity (Perry, 2006). It should be noted that this included informal philanthropy to community groups and individuals in need as well as remittances to Latinos’ countries of origin.

Motivations of Latino Donors Scholarly research on Latino philanthropic giving in the United States is sparse and sometimes contradictory (Cabrales, 2013; Cortés, 2002; Marx & Carter, 2008; Ramos, 1999). Cortés found that some U.S. Latino immigrant groups did not give to many traditional nonprofit organizations in the United States because of the strong tradition of government- and churchprovided social services in their Latin and South American countries of origin. Further, Marx and Carter found that many Latinos they interviewed did not trust many American philanthropic organizations because they did not

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education understand these organizations’ processes or felt excluded. As a result of this general distrust of formal institutions, Latinos are more likely to contribute within kinship networks (Marx & Carter, 2008; Rodriguez, 1999). Cortés and others (Drezner, 2011; Pettey, 2002; Smith, Shue, Vest, & Villarreal, 1999) also argue that those previous researchers who found low levels of giving in the Latino community were not using a sufficiently broad definition of philanthropy. When surveys included informal donations made directly to individuals, domestic and abroad, and unincorporated community groups, Cortés found no statistically significant differences between Latino and nonLatino giving. Ramos argued that the low levels of formal philanthropic giving are a consequence of the relatively small number of Latinos engaged in larger philanthropic processes either as donors or development officers. The Hispanic Foundation found that many Latino donors “felt disconnected from local organizations because they did not see themselves reflected in the boards or staffs” (Perry, 2006, p. 6). Across the various studies on Latino philanthropic giving, a common theme emerges: Latinos, like many other nontraditional donor groups, are motivated to give because of their personal attachment to the organization, the cause, or the individuals or community that is being served or uplifted (Drezner, 2013a). Cortés (2002) termed this personalismo, the idea that personal, intimate relationships are the driving forces behind a Latino individual’s decision to donate. Personalismo is perhaps stronger in Latino philanthropic traditions than other nontraditional donor communities because of the focus on informal giving within kinship networks. Therefore, organization administrators need to understand the cultural significance of kinship networks and the importance of developing personal relationships and trust when engaging and cultivating potential Latino donors (Cabrales, 2013; Cortés, 2002).  Marx and Carter (2008) examined different solicitation techniques for annual fund gifts from Latino donors. A national survey of 4,216 adults, showed that nonprofits that used telephone solicitations and volunteerism to cultivate donors and solicit gifts were the most successful. Like Cortés (2002), Marx and Carter found that personalismo was important. As Latino volunteers become more invested in an organization through volunteering, they increase their personal connection to the organization’s mission and a likelihood to give. Similarly, Royce and Rodriguez (1999) found strong connection between service and giving in older Latino communities, particularly among those who identified themselves as religious.

Motivations of Latino Donors Overall, the philanthropic literature on Latino giving, while informative, does not take into account many of the unique aspects attributed to HSIs.

Engaging the Latino Community   

More recently, Gasman and Bowman (2013) reviewed the literature on Latino giving to higher education and, on the basis of results of a survey, made suggestions for PWIs to engage Latino alumni and noted the importance of hiring Latino advancement officers and building culturally sensitive solicitations and engagement opportunities. Cabrales (2013) conducted a qualitative study to examine the experiences of Latino alumni of a California PWI, exploring how their alma mater interacted with them and how they made donations. His findings highlight the interconnectedness between Latino alumni giving and careers as well as the importance of creating targeted opportunities for Latino alumni to sponsor student scholarships or career workshops. Our chapter’s limitations in scope are similar to the limitations of the previously mentioned studies regarding Latino giving within a PWI context. This chapter explores how HSIs can increase engagement and philanthropic donations from the Latino community; however, we recognize that HSIs are extremely diverse institutions, and therefore their alumni are not exclusively Latino. Although this chapter is limited, it focuses on a critical segment frequently excluded from philanthropic literature. To date there is little work that explores Latino philanthropy and fundraising directed toward HSIs. The only known study on Latino giving to HSIs is an unpublished dissertation that examined the philanthropic motivations, priorities, and relational connectedness of Latino (specifically those that culturally identify as Mexican American and Spanish American) alumni at New Mexico State University (NMSU), a four-year public HSI (Acosta, 2010). In a survey with an 18.5% response rate, Acosta (2010) found several items of critical importance to HSI development and alumni offices. First, she found that the majority of her participants (85.6%) chose to identify as either Mexican American (51.4%) or Spanish American (34.2%), and others identified themselves according to a specific country of origin (for example, Salvadoran or Cuban). This finding is important given that most institutions employ panethnic identification such as Latino or Hispanic when describing student populations or alumni groups. Second, consistent with previous research (Drezner, 2011; Pettey, 2002; Smith, et al., 1999), Acosta found that giving to extended family, friends or community members, the church community, and public or social benefit organizations ranked as areas where participants were most likely to donate. Despite feeling connected to NMSU, only 31 participants (36%) listed giving to NMSU as a top-five priority, and those who gave to NMSU gave much smaller amounts than they gave to other organizations. Participants who gave to NMSU cited motivations such as “loyalty to the university,” “belief in the university,” and “desire to help next generation of students” (p. 142). Using Acosta’s findings and a survey of the identity-based philanthropy literature along with research on the Latino community and fund-raising, we make recommendations in the

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education following section for development and fund-raising professionals at HSIs hoping to take advantage of their growing Latino alumni base.

Recommended Strategies for Donor Identification, Cultivation, and Solicitation The first (and lowest in cost) step HSIs can take to strengthen their fundraising efforts with Latino donors is to tailor their fund-raising communications—newsletters, direct mail solicitations, and website content—to highlight the direct impact their institution is having on Latino students, programs, and communities. As Acosta (2010) noted, to connect with Latino alumni, institutions must be viewed as a community resource: “Traditionally, universities have focused their ‘messaging’ and their identity on providing opportunities for individual students to succeed. . . . [Latino] communities focus on community rather than the individual” (p. 127). This communications strategy should extend beyond alumni. Marx and Carter’s (2008) analysis points to the fact that Latino donors, regardless of being HSI alumni, are likely to give to HSIs because of their commitment and success in educating Latino college students. Further, Royce and Rodriguez (1999) found evidence that the younger generation of Latinos was interested in supporting organizations committed to Latino heritage. Therefore, HSIs, particularly ones that have programs and a proven track record of nurturing and cultivating young Latino leaders and celebrating Latino culture, can make compelling cases for support. The theme of personalismo (Cortés, 2002; Cabrales, 2013), a personal connection between the donor and individual recipient or organization, was carried throughout most of the studies as an important motivating factor in Latino philanthropy. For this reason, we recommend a common practice in fund-raising generally: personal, donor-centric cultivation and solicitation. Although a strategy for identifying and cultivating donors that emphasizes person-to-person communication is a standard in soliciting major gifts, it is particularly important with Latino prospective donors. This is particularly important when thinking about how the institution can overcome the lack of trust (Marx & Carter, 2008) many Latinos/as have toward American nonprofit organizations. One reason for this lack of trust in higher education advancement programs is that Latinos rarely see other Latinos in these offices (Gasman & Bowman, 2013) and have reported that they do not feel a connection to the predominantly White staff and the alumni programs they plan. Drezner (2013b) noted, “There are myriad reasons that perpetuate the lack of diversity [in university development offices]—and they need

Engaging the Latino Community   

to change” (para. 5). Development offices are very White. According to the Association for Fundraising Professionals, about 90% of its 2013 membership identifies as White (Drezner, 2013b; Williams, 2013). Additionally, according to Drezner (2013b), “Most advancement professionals still employ strategies that are successful with the white majority and assume that they will work with other diverse groups” (para. 5). Therefore, we recommend hiring a more diverse development staff. Diversifying the staff will help in multiple ways. The most obvious opportunity for personal connections are one-on-one meetings. However, these meetings are very costly and time consuming. Therefore, we suggest organizing alumni and community events as well as volunteer programs. Institution administrators should consider creating a Latino alumni chapter or chapters so the institution can become familiar with where the highest geographically concentrated populations of Latino alumni live and can create targeted programming for these chapters. These chapter events can include opportunities to (a) interact with current students, (b) network with Latino alumni and community leaders, and (c) recognize, through awards, Latino alumni who are civically engaged or support fund-raising efforts for the university. Additionally, considering the importance of family and community for Latino alumni, it is critical for university-sponsored events or volunteer opportunities to include not only the alumnus or alumna, but also his or her entire family as well (Acosta, 2010). Networking events at a local bar or pub might appeal to some graduates, but finding ways to include parents or young children in community-based events would go a long way in connecting to family-oriented alumni (Acosta, 2010). Upon completing these engagement strategies, institution officials should make sure to develop a strong, committed donor base by encouraging those who are involved to support the institution. Building on the creation of Latino alumni chapters and Marx and Carter’s (2008) and Cabrales’s (2013) findings, HSI administrators should consider soliciting prospective Latino donors to support education and leadership development programs that focus on Latino students. Funding for scholarships that target Latino students, programs for first-generation students or undocumented students, and supportive cultural centers are just a few examples. These targeted giving opportunities speak to the philanthropic motivating factor and racial uplift found among many communities of color and other underrepresented groups (Drezner, 2013a). If HSIs do not have these funding opportunities, their administrators should consider creating them. These targeted campaigns should involve alumni and individuals in the community who have volunteered, attended events, or otherwise

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education demonstrated some interest in the university, as well as targeted groups of Latino individuals who have not yet given but might donate because of their interests. Solicitations, whether via direct mail, over the phone, in person, or at an event, should emphasize the impact the university has on members of the Latino community. The solicitations should reflect the importance of personalismo by asking volunteers, current students, and graduates to share their own stories of success or testimonials on the importance and effectiveness of the programs; having Latinos who have directly benefited from past giving means the solicitation will increase the likelihood of a gift and its size. The one essential item that has an impact on the feasibility and success of these solicitation ideas is better demographic data. Colleges and universities collect different forms of demographic data, and for fund-raising professionals to best target messages, events, and solicitations, it is critical for campuses to have accurate race and ethnicity data. More important, fundraising units must collect more nuanced information about Latino alumni to ensure they are not targeted as a monolithic group. The terms Hispanic and Latino are frequently used interchangeably as umbrella terms, but they include people from diverse national origins, races, and cultures (Benítez, 1998) and describe people with varied English-language skills and immigration status in addition to sixth- and seventh-generation U.S. citizens. Fundraising professionals must take all these elements into account when creating culturally relevant events and publications. For the purposes of this chapter, we are focusing this recommendation on the broad Latino population. However, an increased demographic data collection should include more details for all races and ethnicities, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability status. For our purposes we recommend asking demographic questions of applicants, students, and alumni based on the new ethnicity data in the 2010 census for Hispanics and Latinos, which included the following question: Is this person of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin . . . for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, ­Spaniard, and so on. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, p. 1)

Several studies have shown differences in achievement, admission, persistence, and graduation by not only race but also ethnicity within race

Engaging the Latino Community   

(Charles, Fischer, Mooney, & Massey, 2009; Massey, Charles, Lundy, & Fischer, 2006). An effort such as this is also consistent with other research suggesting that disaggregation of data is important because of the rapidly changing nature of broad racial categories.

Future Research Given the limited empirical research exploring philanthropy within an HSI context, there are several critical areas for future exploration. Continuing to understand Latino alumni engagement is important. Surveys examining the types of events or activities that draw Latino alumni would be helpful. In addition to quantitative studies, in-depth qualitative exploration of experiences and interest in philanthropic activities might highlight new ways to engage Latino alumni. With the diversity of HSIs, it is important for these studies to focus on alumni engagement in specific institutional environments. For these studies to be insightful, it is critical for HSIs to track the race or ethnicity of all students upon enrollment. This information not only is valuable while students matriculate but also serves as a way for colleges and universities to target alumni events and solicitations. Gasman and Bowman’s (2013) book, Engaging Diverse College Alumni: The Essential Guide to Fundraising, provides practical information about diverse communities and suggests ways for advancement officers to secure involvement from alumni of color. The authors surveyed staff and alumni from institutions belonging to the American Association of Universities, all of which are PWIs. Building on Gasman and Bowman’s (2012) work exploring alumni engagement at HBCUs, similar studies could explore other minority-serving institutions such as HSIs. It is important to note that given the distinct history of HBCUs, their alumni bases are diverse but predominantly Black; however, since many HSIs began as PWIs, the number of Latino alumni will vary greatly across institutions. Finally, as the body of research exploring philanthropy and fund-raising in higher education continues to expand, there is a growing need for this work to be published in scholarly and professional journals. Caboni and Proper (2007) assert that the majority of dissertations on philanthropy and fund-raising in higher education remain unpublished, as many authors conduct research to inform practice, not for publication purposes. Additionally, Caboni and Proper suggest there are limited venues to publish philanthropy and fund-raising-related work. Given the changing landscape, demographically and financially (in terms of funding structures) across all institutions of

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education higher education, it is essential for information and best practices regarding giving and engaging diverse populations to be shared across scholar and professional communities.

Conclusion Overall, empirical evidence suggests that Latinos in the United States are motivated to give. However, research has shown that many Latinos do not donate to formal nonprofit organizations because they feel that nonprofits fail to effectively involve them in their cultivation and solicitation practices. Institutions of higher education, including HSIs, are no different. By creating culturally sensitive solicitations (Drezner, 2011, 2013a), HSIs can increase donations from the Latino communities. To effectively identify and cultivate Latino donors, HSIs should tailor their fund-raising communications to Latino alumni and friends to emphasize the specific, direct impact the institution is having on the Latino community and on the students in particular. We recommend that HSIs incorporate personal stories and testimonials from previous volunteers and alumni. Additionally, HSIs should establish a personal connection with potential donors by encouraging them to volunteer and attend community events hosted by the institution, and they should provide Latino alumni with giving opportunities that will directly benefit Latino students who attend their alma mater.

Notes 1. Hispanic and Latino are frequently used interchangeably. Latino is used in this chapter. 2. National Hispanic University joined the Laureate International Universities network in 2010 and is now a for-profit institution.

References Acosta, S. Y. (2010). Corazón a corazón: Examining the philanthropic motivations, priorities, and relational connectedness of Mexican American, Spanish American and other Latino/Hispano university alumni/alumnae to a Hispanic serving institution (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Benítez, M. (1998). Hispanic-serving institutions: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Higher Education, 102, 57–68.

Engaging the Latino Community    Burkhardt, J. C., Ortega, N., Nellum, C. J., Rodriguez, A. V., Frye, J. R., & Kamimura, A. (2013). Examining the financial resilience of Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) as they prepare to serve the next generation of Latino students. Ann Arbor, MI: National Forum of Higher Education for the Public Good. Caboni, T. C., & Proper, E. (2007, November). Dissertations related to fundraising and their implications for higher education research. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY. Cabrales, J. A. (2013). An approach to engaging Latino alumni in giving initiatives: Madrinas y padrinos. In N. D. Drezner (Ed.), Expanding the donor base in higher education: Engaging non-traditional donors (pp. 26–39). New York, NY: Routledge. Charles, C. Z., Fischer, M. J., Mooney, M. A., & Massey, D. S. (2009). Taming the river: Negotiating the academic, financial, and social currents in selective colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cortés, M. (2002). Questions about Hispanics and fundraising. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 37, 45–54. De los Santos, A. G., & Cuamea, K. M. (2010). Challenges facing Hispanic-serving institutions in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(2), 90–107. De los Santos, A. G., & De los Santos, G. E. (2003). Hispanic-serving institutions in the 21st century: Overview, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(4), 377–391. DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2014). Income and poverty in the United States: 2013 (Current Population Reports, P60-249). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Drezner, N. D. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education (ASHE Higher Education Report). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Drezner, N. D. (Ed.). (2013a). Expanding the donor base in higher education: Engaging non-traditional donors. New York, NY: Routledge. Drezner, N. D. (2013b, August 13). To alienate or advance. Inside HigherEd. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/08/13/essay-needcolleges-change-their-fund-raising-efforts-reflect-diversity-donors Ennis, S. R., Ríos-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04 .pdf Excelencia in Education (2015). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) fact sheet: 2013–14. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/hsisfact-sheet-2013-14. Gasman, M., & Bowman, N., III. (2012). Fundraising at historically Black colleges and universities. New York, NY: Routledge. Gasman, M., & Bowman, N., III. (2013). Engaging diverse college alumni: The essential guide to fundraising. New York, NY: Routledge. Higher Education Amendments, Pub. L. No. 102-325. (1992). Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110-315. (2008).

   Hispanic-Serving Institutions in American Higher Education Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. (2015). 2015 fact sheet: Hispanic higher education and HSIs. Retrieved from http://www.hacu.net/images/hacu/ OPAI/3.%202015%20HSI%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf Humphreys, J. (2012). Multicultural economy 2012. Athens, GA: Selig Center for Economic Growth. Klingaman, S. (2012). Fundraising strategies for community colleges: The definitive guide for advancement. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Kroll, J. A. (2012). Benchmarking investments in advancement: Results of the inaugural CASE Advancement Investment Metrics Study (AIMS). Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 181–198. Marx, J. D., & Carter, V. B. (2008). Hispanic charitable giving: An opportunity for nonprofit development. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(2), 176–187. Massey, D. S., Charles, C. Z., Lundy, G., & Fischer, M. J. (2006). The source of the river: The social origins of freshmen at America’s selective colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mulnix, M. W., Bowden, R. G., & Lopez, E. E. (2002). A brief examination of institutional advancement activities at Hispanic-serving institutions. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 1(2), 174–190. Nielsen Company & Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council. (2012). State of the Hispanic consumer: The Hispanic market imperative. New York, NY: Author. Passel, J., & Cohn, D. (2008). U.S. population projections: 2005–2050. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Perry, S. (2006). Tapping Hispanic philanthropy. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 18(24), 1–7. Pettey, J .G. (2002). Cultivating diversity in fundraising. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Ramos, H. A. J. (1999). Latino philanthropy: Expanding U.S. models of giving and civil participation. Berkeley, CA: Mauer Kunst Consulting. Rodriguez, C. G. (1999). Education and Hispanic philanthropy: Family, sacrifice, and community. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 24, 41–58. Royce, A. P., & Rodriguez, R. (1999). From personal charity to organized giving: Hispanic institutions and values of stewardship and philanthropy. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 24, 9–29. Santiago, D. A. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): The basics. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Smith, B., Shue, S., Vest, J. L., & Villarreal, J. (1999). Philanthropy in communities of color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 census questionnaire. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Title V: The Hispanic serving institutions program (84.031S) project abstracts for new FY 2007 grantees. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. (2012). 2012–2014 legislative agenda: America’s business future. Washington, DC: Author.

Engaging the Latino Community    Villarreal, R. C., & Santiago, D. A. (2012). From capacity to success: Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) and Latino student success through Title V. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Williams, C. (2013). Just deserts: Highlights of the AFP 2013 compensation and benefits study. Retrieved from http://www.afpnet.org/files/ContentDocuments/37-43%20 Just%20Deserts.pdf

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Jesse Perez Mendez is an associate professor in higher education administration and the Donnie and John A. Brock Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at Oklahoma State University. His research explores the dynamics of access to postsecondary education, particularly for minority students and students with low socioeconomic status. He has published articles that focus on barriers to postsecondary access and campus safety issues in higher education in outlets such as Community College Review, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, and Journal of American Indians in Education. He received a BA in political science and history from Midwestern State University, an MA in political science from Texas Tech University, a JD from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, and a PhD in higher education and student affairs from Indiana University. He recently completed a term as a governor-appointed regent for community colleges in Oklahoma. Fred A. Bonner II is a professor and endowed chair in educational leadership and counseling at Prairie View A&M University.  He was the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Endowed Chair in Education in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University and continues to be an esteemed expert in the field of diversity in education. Prior to joining Rutgers, he was professor of higher education administration and dean of faculties at Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station. He earned a BA in chemistry from the University of North Texas, an MSEd in curriculum and instruction from Baylor University, and an EdD in higher education administration and college teaching from the University of Arkansas.  Bonner has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the American Association for Higher Education Black Caucus Dissertation Award and the Educational Leadership, Counseling and Foundation’s Dissertation of the Year Award from the University of Arkansas College of Education.  His work has been featured nationally and internationally. In 2014, he authored the book Building on Resilience: Models and Frameworks of Black Male Success Across the P-20 Pipeline. Josephine Méndez-Negrete is an associate professor in Mexican American studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her first book, Las hijas de Juan: Daughters Betrayed was published by Duke University Press as a 195

  About the Editors revised edition in 2006 and reprinted in 2010. New Mexico University Press will publish her upcoming book, A Life on Hold: Living with Schizophrenia in July 2015. Frontiers: A Journal of   Women’s Studies, the Journal of Latinos in Education, and Rio Bravo Journal have published her work. From 2009 to 2014, Méndez-Negrete served as lead editor of Chicana/Latina Studies: The Journal of Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS) and currently serves on its National Advisory Board. At its Summer 2014 Institute in El Rito, New Mexico, MALCS awarded Méndez-Negrete the Tortuga Award for her contributions to Chicana/Latina studies. Robert T. Palmer is an associate professor of student affairs at Binghamton University, State University of New York. His research examines issues of access, equity, retention, persistence, and the college experience of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly within the context of historically Black colleges and universities. Palmer’s work has been published in leading journals in higher education, including the Journal of College Student Development, Teachers College Record, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, The Journal of Negro Education, College Student Affairs Journal, Journal of College Student Retention, The Negro Educational Review Journal, and Journal of Black Studies, among others. Since earning his PhD in 2007, Palmer has authored or coauthored more than 100 academic publications.

INDEX

academic affairs, 41, 69–70 academic/student affairs collaboration, 69–72. See also Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions; Direct Connect; Grow Your Own Teachers; Scholars Academy; Transfer Achievement Program; Transitional Bilingual Learning Community aid program education and assistance through, 81–82, 84 Excelencia on, 75–78 familial environment through, 80–81, 84 families included in, 82–84 student advancement pathway through, 84–86 success in, 77–84, 115 validation philosophy of, 84 Acosta, S. Y., 185–86 administration development culture supportive of, 35 HSIs need for, 35, 46 institutional agents through, 35–36 affirmative action, 122 Ahenakew, C., 111 AIDS in Africa fair, 169. See also HIV/AIDS Alanís, I., 49 American Association of Universities, 189 among multiple worlds. See entre mundos Anderson, R. G., 110 Andreotti, V., 111 Anzaldúa, Gloria, 103–4, 111

aspirational cultural wealth, 103–5 asset-based theoretical frameworks, 92 cultural wealth in, 106–12, 114–15 leveraging of, 112–15 research on, 93–94 student success through, 115–16 validation of, 103–4 assets. See ventajas Association of American University Professors, 42 Association of Colleges and Universities, 42 Association of Fundraising Professionals, membership 90% White in, 187 Association of Governing Boards, 42 Basic Institutional Development Program (BIDP), 8 Belenky, M. F., 74 Belgarde, W. L., 50 Be SMART, 180–81 BIDP. See Basic Institutional Development Program Bienestar, Hispanic HIV support group, 170, 175 bilingual benefits of, 105, 115 education as, 173 materials for, 70 bisexual, 3, 154, 161 Black colleges, 10–11, 17. See also historically Black colleges and universities

197

  

index

Blacks. See also critical race theory men’s vs. women’s graduation rate, 63 more engaged at HBCUs, 34, 138 stories excluded for, 50 as students, 10 as writers, 122 Bonner, Fred, 2 Boricua College, 179 Bowman, M., III, 185, 189 Bridges, B. K., 138 Brown, S. S., 71 Browning of American higher education, 1 Brown center of, 128 HSIs center of, 3 Browns. See also critical race theory; Hispanic; Latina/Latino students stories excluded for, 50 as writers, 122 Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 123 Burciaga, Rebeca, 2 Burkhardt, J. C., 181 Cabrales, J. A., 185, 187 Cabrera, N. L., 125 CAHSI. See Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions California Community Colleges EOPS Association, 148–49 California Faculty Association, CSUSM affiliate as CSUSM World AIDS Day collaborator, 163 LGBT Safe Zone training of, 170 California State University San Bernardino, 180 California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). See also World Aids Day Academic Senate at, 156–57, 160, 163 AIDS quilt at, 159, 161 Arts and Lecture Series Grant, 161 diverse students of, 156

first World AIDS Day observance at, 156–57 governance structure of, 156 HIV/AIDS eradication focus of, 160 HIV/AIDS human face at, 167 HIV/AIDS social justice project at, 165–67 as HSI, 155 Kellogg Library of, 159, 161, 163, 168 Latin American Faculty and Staff Association at, 163 LGBT safe at, 170 LGBT safe place policy at, 167, 172 queer coyote professor at, 166–67 School of Business, 163 School of Education at, 157, 158, 161, 163 Student Health and Counseling Services of, 161, 163, 168 values of, 155 California State University System, 155 Cal State San Marcos. See California State University San Marcos Carter, D. F., 137 Carter, Jimmy, 11 Carter, V. B., 183–84, 186–87 CCSM. See Community College Survey of Men; student experience research CDC. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cedja, B. D., 33 Census Bureau, U. S., 30, 31, 133 Center for Multicultural Excellence, University of Denver, 113 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 165 Cepeda, R. M., 33, 48 Cerecer, P. D. Q., 49 Cheslock, J. J., 6 Chi, W., 33, 48 choque (cultural collision), 97–99 City Colleges of Chicago, 77 Clark, B. R., 50

index  

Clinchy, B. M., 74 Cole, W. M., 125 college experience advisers inadequate in, 102 conocimientos benefit in, 103–16 downside of, 96–103 readiness lacking for, 102 research on, 93 upside of, 94–96 ventajas benefit in, 103–16 College of Sciences and Technology at the University of HoustonDowntown (UHD), 78 Committee for Postsecondary Education, 13 community college, 42 HHEC request fund increase for, 8 Hostos Community College as, 119–20, 179 HSI higher transfer rate to 4-year institutions from, 33, 86, 139 HSIs concentrated as, 31, 68 Latinos overrepresented in, 13, 126, 134 Latino student post-secondary pathway of, 33, 70 Solano Community College as, 100 Community College Survey of Men (CCSM), 139. See also student experience research Computing Alliance of HispanicServing Institutions (CAHSI) as academic/student affairs collaboration exemplar, 78–79, 84 advanced degree orientation of, 86 faculty mentorship in, 81 Congressional Hispanic Caucus, 13–14, 29n3 congressional record, U. S., 25 Congressional Research Service (CRS), 9 Congressional support compromise over HEA for (1986), 18



Hispanic Access to Higher Education hearings for, 12–15 issues become agenda for, 10 senators’ bipartisan letter of, 11 conocimientos (knowledge), 2, 92–94, 105–7 forms of, 108–12 leveraging of, 112–15 consejos (sage advice), 105, 114 Cooper, G., 111 Cortés, M., 183–84 Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, 182 critical mass community persistence through, 49 Latina/Latino HSI students with, 64, 123 Latino community through, 23, 34, 48–49 critical race theory, 52 faculty governance in, 43–44, 46 historically Black colleges and universities in, 44 HSIs and, 40–44, 149 HSIs racial reality in, 123 interdisciplinary analysis methods in, 51 interest convergence in, 121–23 Latina/o CRT in, 121–22 “magical thinking” and, 123 scholarship of, 43, 47 tribal colleges and universities in, 44 CRS. See Congressional Research Service CSUSM. See California State University San Marcos cultural collision. See choque culture. See also asset-based theoretical frameworks administrative development supported by, 35 education as bicultural, 173 faculty supported by, 35

  

index

fundraising sensitive to, 185 ganas in, 108–9 institutional change of, 125 Latino community richness of, 50–51, 92 as noncognitive student success factor, 146–48 responsive teaching through, 148–49 student success from, 115 wealth of, 103–5 Dayton, B., 61 DeConcini, Dennis, 11 deficit-based narratives error of, 2, 74, 92, 115 negative images from, 61 school failure explained by, 51 degree utility, 86, 149–51 de Leon, Candido, 21 Delgado Bernal, O., 47, 50, 104 Department of Agriculture, U. S., 181 Department of Education, U. S., 181 Department of Energy, U. S., 181 determination. See ganas Digest of Education Statistics. See National Center for Education Statistics Direct Connect of Valencia College, 78 Domenici, Pete V., 11–12 donor group development opportunity, 183 “dreamers,” 82 Drenzer, N. D., 3, 186–87 Durso, Adrienne, 162 Eckel, P. D., 51, 54 education. See also critical race theory; higher education; legislation policy affordability of, 101–2 bilingual bicultural in, 173 funding for, 1, 7–12, 33, 41, 46, 81–82, 124, 128–29, 135, 178, 180–81 HHECs extraordinary legislative changes for, 22

HSIs recognized in, 32, 68 Latino student access to, 59–60 Latino student success factors in, 30, 34–36, 40, 46, 52, 63–64, 73, 94, 104, 113, 115–16, 134, 136–39, 146–51 learning communities in, 71 legacy of racism in, 44 marginalized communities in, 43 mission alignment of, 50, 53–54, 63–65, 72, 120 social justice through, 34, 43, 47–48, 165–67 student advancement pathway to, 83–86 student development theory in, 72 student validation in, 70, 84 teaching as social action in, 166 validation theory in, 2, 74–77, 103–4 wealth impact on, 93 White-serving institutions in, 44 Educational Opportunity Programs and Services, 148 Ek, L. D., 49, 51 engagement, 136–39. See also student engagement research measures of, 140, 145 Engaging Diverse College Alumni: The essential Guide to Fundraising (Gasman and Bowman), 189 Engineers Without Borders, 110 Ennis, S. R., 183 entregado (entrusted), 22 entre mundos (among multiple worlds), 97–100 student navigation of, 107, 114 Espino, M., 6 ethnic consciousness cultural wealth, 109–10 Excelencia in Education, 75–78, 179 experiential knowledge educational legitimacy of, 43 effective integration of, 49 organizational saga of, 50

index  

faculty. See also critical race theory culture responsive teaching of, 148–49 culture supportive of, 35 diversity of, 32, 33–34 experiential knowledge of, 43 Hispanic, underrepresented in higher education, 2 HSI governance by, 40–44, 48, 51 institutional agents of, 35–36 leadership development of, 35, 47–48, 115 leadership roles for, 53 mentoring by, 81 power and change strategy of, 41 resources lacking for, 45 responsibility of, 30 student success from interaction with, 30, 32–34, 40, 46, 52, 94, 104, 113 teaching as social action of, 166 faculty governance. See also critical race theory HSI purpose achieved through, 41, 47–48 at HSIs, 40–44, 48, 51 interdisciplinary study of, 51 issues key to, 52–54 student success impacted by, 40–48, 63–64 FAFSA. See Free Application for Federal Student Aid faith cultural wealth, 110–11, 114 familial cultural wealth, 105–6 family academic/student affairs collaboration with, 82–84 chain enrollment, 62 education inclusive of, 81–84 HIV/AIDS fear of, 174 HSI fundraising inclusive of, 187 role of, 62 student support from, 61–62, 105–6, 114



federal funding of HSIs. See Hispanicserving institutions federal higher education Hispanic legislation time line (19791992) for, 24 Latino struggle in, 5 feng shui, 36 Ford, Bill, 15 Fraternity House, 168 CSUSM World AIDS Day funds to, 159, 165 HIV/AIDS halfway homes at, 159 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), 82, 86 Freire, P., 104 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary and Education, 29n4 fundraising, HSIs cultural sensitivity needed for, 185 demographic data key in, 188 diverse development staff need for, 187 through donations, 178 donor identification, cultivation and solicitation opportunity in, 186 donor motivation for, 183 family included in, 187 Higher Education Opportunity Act on, 181 Latino interests (personalismo) focus of, 181 Latino population growth opportunity for, 183 Latino student program targets aid in, 187 literature on, 181, 184 need for, 179 response rate, 182 return on investing of, 182 staff lacking for, 182 ganas (determination or perseverance), 114 as cultural wealth, 108–9

  

index

Garcia, Robert, 13–14, 29n3 Gasman, M., 185, 189 gay, 3, 154. See also HIV/AIDS; queer coyote Gay and Lesbian Society of, 162 Hispanic and, 171 rights for, 156 gender, 118n1. See also transgender campus climate for, 141–42, 144– 47, 167, 170, 172 critical race theory and, 121 diversity of, 53, 173 mentoring and, 63 microaggression over, 100, 107 as noncognitive variables, 134, 137 success factors of, 139 Goldberger, N. R., 74 Goldwater, Barry, 11 Gonzales, L. D., 45–46 Gonzalez, Leslie, 2 governance practices at CSUSM, 156 human relations theories impact on, 51 institutional mission aligned with, 53–54, 63–64, 72 student success impacted by, 40–43, 46 Government Accountability Office, 8 Grow Your Own Consortia, 78 Grow Your Own (GYO) Teachers as academic/student affairs collaboration exemplar, 78 aid for aspiring teachers through, 84 families included in, 80–83 GYO. See Grow Your Own Teachers HACU. See Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities Hagedorn, L. S., 33, 48, 136 Harris, F., III, 141 Harry S. Truman College, 76–77 Hart, Gary, 11–12 Hayakawa, S. I., 11–12

HBCUs. See historically Black colleges and universities HEA. See Higher Education Act HHEC. See Hispanic Higher Education Coalition higher education. See also federal higher education browning of, 1 HSIs fastest growing segment of, 1–3, 8, 30, 40, 68, 133, 155 performance-based funding for, 33 power and decision making allocation in, 41–42 Higher Education Act (HEA). See also Title III of HEA amendment of (1986), 17–19 Hispanic educator testimony (19761985) for, 21 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1979) for, 5–6, 8–12, 15, 18–19 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1981) for, 5–6, 10, 18–19 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1984) for, 5–6, 10, 12, 15–16, 18–19 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1985) for, 5–6, 10, 12, 18–19 Title IV TRIO programs of, 15–16 Higher Education Opportunity Act, 181 Hispanic. See also browning of American higher education; critical race theory Congressional Caucus of, 12–15 economic opportunity need for, 133 HIV/AIDS effect on, 158, 165, 170–71, 175 HSIs as intentionally, 125, 128 network of, 180–81 population growth of, 1, 8, 15–20, 22, 30, 40–41, 68, 133

index  

Puerto Rico as, 125, 127 representation low at Title III office for, 13 unemployment rate high in, 8 Hispanic Access to Higher Education hearing HHEC members testify before, 13–15 Hispanic legislative landmark through, 12 Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), 6 creation of, 1, 19, 23 federal funding summary of, 181 HHEC relationship with, 19 HSI legislation (1992) introduced by, 19–20 legislation time line (1979-1992) of, 24 legislative policy seminal moments of, 23 Hispanic enrollment threshold HSIs in, 16, 19–20, 31, 41, 69, 124 legislative negotiation for, 18 Simon’s recommendation for, 15, 17–18 Title III designated percentage of, 20 Hispanic Higher Education Coalition (HHEC), 6. See also legislation policy congressional record, U.S., 25 creation of, 7, 23 extraordinary legislative achievements of, 22 final congressional testimony of, 19 HACU relationship with, 19 Hispanic enrollment threshold recommendation of, 15–19 HSI legislation time line (19791992) of, 24 legacy and impact of, 20, 22 legislative policy seminal moments of, 23 Title III influenced by, 7–10



Hispanic philanthropy, 3, 93, 180–81 culturally sensitivity for, 183–86 high rate of, 183, 190 kinship networks (personalismo) focus of, 184, 189–90 scholarship sparse on, 183, 185 targeted opportunities needed for, 190 Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs). See also specific topics creation of, 1, 6, 179 definition of, 16–17, 31, 41 federal funding of, 7–10, 46, 124, 128–29, 135, 180–81 growth of, 1, 31, 33, 40, 45, 86, 139, 155 mission of, 30, 34, 35, 41, 53–54, 120 Hispanic Student Association (HSA), 106 Hispanic students. See Latina/Latino students historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), 10–11, 17. See also critical race theory African American students more engaged at, 34, 138 alumni engagement at, 189 experiential knowledge in, 49–50 faculty resource lacking at, 45 faculty role in student success at, 34 federal law created, 31 as first MSI, 135 governance and decision making at, 40, 48 HSIs differ from, 119, 135, 138 men’s vs. women’s graduation rate at, 63 mission unity at, 50 prestige and competitiveness lacking at, 44–45 racism legacy of, 44 social contract participants at, 49

  

index

special intent of, 49 Whites as “temporary minorities” at, 125 HIV/AIDS, 3, 155, 169. See also World Aids Day AIDS quilt for, 159, 161 Bienestar HIV support group, 170, 175 CSUSM’s social justice project on, 165–67 death fears from, 174 deciding to live with, 176 education about, 168 eradication of, 160 Hispanic community devastated by, 158, 165 hope despite, 176 human face of, 167 literacy on, 166, 168 sexual identity and, 171 testimonies about, 162, 174–75 testing for, 168 transformational nature of, 177 hooks, b., 104 Hostos Community College, 119, 179 as intentional HSI, 120 House, Michaelle, 168 HSA. See Hispanic Student Association HSIs. See Hispanic-serving institutions Hubbard, S. M., 32 Hurtado, S., 31, 137 I give them to you. See te los entrego IHEs. See institutions of higher education inequality, scholarship mitigation of, 34, 43, 47, 120–22 institutional agents mission of, 63–65 political and social capital of, 35–36 student advocacy of, 35–36 student success through, 35–36, 63–64

institutions of higher education (IHEs) enrollment threshold to be Hispanic institution, 15–19, 41 Latino students served by, 6–8 interdisciplinary methods. See also critical race theory student success fostered through, 51–52 interest convergence illustration of, 122 as research tool, 121 as strategy, 121–23, 128–29 Jones-Kirk, Marie, 159, 164–65 Kennedy, Ted, 14 Kezar, A., 47–48, 51, 54 kinship networks focus of, 184 knowledge. See conocimientos Krippendorff, K., 74 Laden, B. V., 48, 54 Ladson-Billings, G., 43 Lather, P., 104 Latina/Latino students, 29n2, 57n1, 91n1, 118n1, 193n1. See also academic/student affairs collaboration; conocimientos (knowledge); ventajas (assets) advancement pathway for, 33, 70, 84–86 college experience downside for, 96–103 college experience upside for, 94–96 community college for, 13, 31, 33, 42, 68, 100, 119–20, 126, 134, 139, 179 with critical mass, 23, 34, 48–49, 64, 123 deficit-based narratives toward, 2, 51, 61, 74, 92, 115 education access of, 59–60 educational programs for, 1, 8, 81–82, 84, 86, 149

index  

enrolling vs. serving of, 69 enrollment chain of, 60 faculty and, 30, 32–34, 40–42, 52, 94, 104, 113 family influence on, 61–62, 81–84, 105–6, 114, 187 federal funding for, 1, 7–12, 41, 46, 82, 124, 128–29, 135, 180–81 financial needs of, 59–60, 80–82 growth of, 1, 8, 15–20, 22, 30, 40–41, 68, 133 HSIs for, 3, 6, 8, 11, 30–32, 34, 46, 53–54, 61–65, 123–24 IHEs serving, 6–8 institutional agents’ support of, 35–36, 63–65 marginalization of, 43, 45 men’s vs. women’s graduation rate of, 63 needs of, 3, 58–59 out-of-class experience of, 2, 59, 65, 71, 80–81 peer networks support of, 106–7 research on, 93–94, 127–28, 136, 138–47 retention requirements for, 33 societal norms for, 62 success of, 3, 6, 23, 32–36, 40–49, 51–52, 59, 63–65, 70, 72–73, 83–84, 93–94, 115–16, 134, 136–39, 146–51 unsatisfactory progress of, 2, 8, 12, 13, 114 validation theory for, 70, 72–74, 103–4 work over school priority of, 60 Latino community critical mass of, 23, 34, 48–49, 64, 123 rich cultural values of, 50–51, 92, 106–12, 114–15 subjugation of, 122 leadership faculty development of, 35, 47–48, 115



faculty roles in, 53 Hispanic faculty participation in, 2, 40–41, 46–48 learning communities, 71 Ledesma, Maria C., 2 legislation policy HACU introduced HSI legislation (1992) and, 19–20 HEA amendment (1986) compromise on enrollment threshold, 17–19 HHEC and congressional support of, 10–15 HHEC initiative for, 6–7 HHEC’s extraordinary achievement of, 22 HHEC understanding of, 7–15 HHEC use of data for, 8 Hispanic Access to Higher Education on, 12–15 Hispanic educator HEA testimony (1976-1985) for, 21 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1979) for, 5–6, 8–12, 15, 18–19, 23 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1981) for, 5–6, 10, 12, 18–19, 23 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1984) for, 5–6, 10, 12, 15–16, 18–19, 23 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1985) for, 5–6, 10, 12, 18–19, 23 Hispanic leadership testimony at hearings (1991) for, 23 Hispanic time line (1979-1992) of, 24 Hispanic vanguard for, 22 HSI’s seminal moments in, 23 literature on, 5–6 Title III (1979) watershed moment in, 7–10

  

index

lesbian, 3, 154, 162 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). See also bisexual; gay; lesbian; transgender American societal integration of, 167 HSIs for, 155, 169, 172 inclusive social activism of, 167, 169 public discourse on, 154 queer coyote professor as, 166–67, 169–70 safe place policy for, 167, 172 safe zones for, 170 students integral to campus as, 172 World AIDS Day recommendations for, 171–72 Lester, J., 47–48 LGBT. See lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender LGBTQA Pride Center, 161–62 as CSUSM World AIDS Day collaborator, 163 World AIDS Day tradition continues through, 169 liberatory pedagogy, 104 life stories. See testimonios liminality (an in between space), 98–100 pluriversality in, 111–12, 114–15 linguistic cultural wealth, 105 literacy, HIV/AIDS of, 166, 168 literature on HSI fundraising, 181, 184 on HSI philanthropy, 181, 185 on legislation policy, 5–6 Lumina Foundation, 181 Madrid, Arturo, 13–14, 29n4 Maestas, R., 137 Magallan, Rafael, 21 MALDEF. See Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund Martinez, Edna, 2 Marx, J. D., 183–84, 186–87 McLain, M., 33, 48

Méndez-Negrete, Josephine, 2 mentoring faculty in, 81 gender differences in, 63 student affairs in, 62–63, 65 Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), 7 meztiza/mestiza consciousness, 104 pluriversality of, 111–12, 114 Michael and Diana Giles Grant, 82 microaggression, 100–101, 107, 121 minority-serving institutions (MSIs), 31–32, 45, 135 mission statement diversity and inclusive practices into, 50, 53–54, 172 HSI faculty contribution to, 30, 81 HSIs lack of, 34, 63–64, 120, 128 LGBT included into, 172 Our Lady of the Lake University, 132n2 student success from, 35, 41, 63–65, 72 Moll, L. C., 104 Morelon-Quainoo, C. L., 138 MSIs. See minority-serving institutions Mulnix, M. W., 181 Muñoz, S. M., 73–74, 79 Murty, K. S., 50 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 32, 134–35 National Chicano Commission on Higher Education, 29n4 National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, 182 National Hispanic University, 179, 193n2 navigational cultural wealth, 107 NCAC. See North County AIDS Coalition NCES. See National Center for Education Statistics Nelson Laird, T. F., 34, 138

index  

nepantla (an in between space), 104. See also liminality New Mexico State University (NMSU), 185 Nielsen Company, 183 NMSU. See New Mexico State University noncognitive student success factors, 134 belonging and engagement components in, 146–47 belonging as, 136–38 campus culture as, 146–48 career opportunities as, 150–51 degree utility as, 149–51 engagement as, 136–39 responsive teaching as, 148–49 Nora, A., 110 North County AIDS Coalition (NCAC), 158–59, 161 North County Times, 160, 162 Northeastern Illinois University, 78 Olivas, Michael, 7 Olneck, W., 166 online learning, 35 opportunities, 5 Ortiz, A. M., 82 Padilla, F. M., 109 Palmer, Robert, 2 pedagogies of the home, 104 Pell Grant, 94 Perez, Al, 7 Perez, Monte, 7 Perez Mendez, Jesse, 2 Perrakis, A., 136 perseverance. See ganas Personal connection. See personalismo personalismo (personal connection), 3 and charitable giving, 184, 186, 188 Pew Research Center, 183 Pfeffer, J., 42



philanthropy, 3, 93, 180. See also fundraising, HSIs; Hispanic philanthropy best practice sharing needed in, 190 future research on, 189–90 HSI literature on, 181, 185 kinship networks focus of, 184 Latinos high rate of, 183 opportunities in, 186 Pilgrim United Church of Christ, Carlsbad HIV/AIDS education and testing at, 168 World AIDS Day support from, 159–60, 162 pluriversal, 111–12, 114–15 predominantly White institutions (PWI) affirmative action at, 122 African American students less engaged at, 34 federal HSI recognition lost for, 32 HSIs like, 30–32, 34, 64, 120, 125, 128 irony of, 44 Latino student graduation and retention rate at, 30–31 Puerto Rico, 16 comparison misleading with, 127 institutions nearly 100% Hispanic in, 125 PWI. See predominantly White institutions queer, 161. See also queer coyote queer coyote as HIV/AIDS engagement metaphor, 166–67 LGBT community commitment of, 169–70 race and racism. See critical race theory Ramos, H. A. J., 183–84 Reagan, Ronald, 11

  

index

Rendón, Laura, 72–74, 81, 104 Rendón Linares, L. I., 73–74, 79 research institution initiative, 45 resistant cultural wealth, 107–8 responsive teaching, 148–49 Rhodes, J. H., 33 Rivera, Alvin, 7–8, 11, 21 Rodríguez, M. A., 49 Rodriquez, R., 184, 186 Roebuck, J. B., 50 Royce, A. P., 184, 186 Ruiz, A., 31 SA. See Scholars Academy sage advice. See consejos Salanick, G. P., 42 Salinas Holmes, M. S., 138 Santa Barbara City College (SBCC), 77 Santiago, D. A., 6, 180 Schmitt, Harrison, 11–12 Scholars Academy (SA) as academic affairs/student affairs collaboration exemplar, 78 advanced degree orientation of, 86 faculty mentorship in, 81 families included in, 83 Graduate Record Examination preparation in, 86 scholarship academic affairs focus of, 69–70 HSI focus of, 1, 4, 6–7, 40, 69–70 HSI lack of, 13, 30, 34–35, 42, 119 inequality mitigated through, 34, 43, 47, 120–22 student affairs focus of, 62, 64–65 service use, 140–41 sexual identity, 171 SIDA (HIV/AIDS). See HIV/AIDS Simon, Paul Hispanic Access to Higher Education hearing sponsored by, 12–13, 23 Hispanic enrollment thresholds recommended by, 15, 17–18

IHE language in HEA sponsored by, 15 social action LGBT activism as, 167, 169 teaching as, 166 World AIDS Day as, 172 social cultural wealth, 106–7 social justice, 34, 43, 47–48, 165–67, 172 Solano Community College, 100 Solorzano, D. G., 43–44, 46 Solorzano, P., 43 spirituality or faith cultural wealth, 110–11, 114 Stage, F. K., 32 Starbucks, 163 Strengthening Developing Institutions. See Title III of HEA student affairs. See also academic/ student affairs collaboration intentional intervention of, 58, 61 mentoring in, 62–63, 65 opportunities crucial to, 65 practitioners of, 58–59 student need for, 58–61 student development framework. See also asset-based theoretical frameworks asset-based, 104 on-campus involvement of, 72 validation theory to, 72–74, 103–4 ventajas and conocimientos leveraged for, 112–16 student engagement research. See also noncognitive student success factors Community College Survey of Men, 139 effort measure in, 140–41, 145 eligibility criteria for, 139 engagement measure in, 139–40, 145 interaction measure in, 140–41, 146 need for, 138–39

index  

service use measure in, 140–41, 147 student success factors at HSIs from, 136 study variables in, 139–45 student experience research data from, 128 eligibility criteria for, 94 need for, 93 participant characteristics in, 94 topics recommended for, 127–28 White students at HSIs in, 121 Student Support Services Programs, Department of Education, U. S., 149 Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, 20 TAP. See Transfer Achievement Program Tarule, J. M., 74 Tate, W. F., 43 TBLC. See Transitional Bilingual Learning Community te los entrego (I give them to you), 25 testimonios (life stories), 105 TG Philanthropy, 93 Title III of HEA. See also Higher Education Act Black colleges original focus of, 10–11 HHEC gained support of, 15 Hispanic educator testimony (19761985) for, 21 Hispanic funding through, 7–10, 135 Hispanic institution definition of, 16–17 Hispanic institution participation in review process of, 17 Hispanic representation low at, 13 Oversight Hearing (1984) on, 10 Strengthening Developing Institutions, 7 western state Hispanics underfunded in, 11–12



Title IV Trio program, 16, 149 Title V funding. See also Higher Education Act grants of, 128–29, 135, 180 HSI defined in, 31 HSI funding through, 124 HSI moniker for, 46 HSIs, amended to HEA, 24 Torres, V., 127 Torres, Vasti, 2 Tower, John, 11 Transfer Achievement Program (TAP) as academic/student affairs collaboration exemplar, 77–82, 84 “dreamers” and, 82 FAFSA in, 82, 86 families included in, 83 Federal School Code in, 84, 86 Michael and Diana Giles Grant., 82 transgender, 154, 161 Transitional Bilingual Learning Community (TBLC) as academic/student affairs collaboration exemplar, 76–83 families included in, 83 Trasvina, John, 21 tribal colleges and universities, 31. See also critical race theory experiential knowledge in, 49–50 as first MSI, 135 HSIs differ from, 119 special intent of, 49 UHD. See College of Sciences and Technology at the University of Houston-Downtown undocumented students, 82 University of Central Florida (UCF), 78 University of Michigan, 182 University of Texas at El Paso, 78 University of Texas at San Antonio (USTA), 93

  

index

Valdez, Patrick, 1–2 Valdivieso, Ray, 7 Valencia, R. R., 51 validation theory, 2, 103–4 agents of, 105 educational program analysis through, 74–77 ethic of care in, 79–80 student success through, 70, 72–73, 83–84 ventajas (assets), 2, 92–94, 105–7 forms of, 108–12 leveraging of, 112–16 Villalpando, O., 46, 47 Villarreal, R. C., 180 Villarreal, Rebecca, 3 Virtual Equality, Vaid, 167 wealth. See also culture educational impact of, 93 student challenges from lack of, 93, 101–2 western states, 11–12 White ideological dominance challenge of, 46–47 developing resistance to, 107–8 HSIs disentangle from, 129 majoritarian practices under, 47, 53, 122 Whites. See also critical race theory; predominantly White institutions as students at HSIs, 121 as “temporary minorities,” 125 White-serving institutions (WSIs). See predominantly White institutions Whitt, E. J., 69, 72 Williams, J. M., 138 W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 181 Wood, J. L., 141

World AIDS Day Pilgrim United Church of Christ observance of, 159 World Health Organization description of, 156–57 World AIDS Day at CSUSM, 162 authenticity of, 167 as collaborative social engagement, 167, 169, 172 collaborators on, 163 compassion taught through, 168–69, 175 diversity through, 169, 172 events of, 157, 163–65, 175 evolution of, 168–69 first stage of collaboration and process for, 158 Fraternity House support from, 159, 165 hope from, 176 ideological framework of, 165 inclusive practices for, 158, 166, 169 LGBT in, 169–70, 172 pedagogical goals of, 168–69 recommendations from, 171–72 safe place policy identified through, 167, 172 School of Education endorsement of, 158 second stage of collaboration and process for, 160 social justice through, 165–67, 172 tradition established for, 165, 168–69 World Health Organization, 156–57 Yosso, T. J., 43–44, 46, 103–4 Zerquera, D., 127 Zuniga, Roberto, 21

Working With Students in Community Colleges Contemporary Strategies for Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice Edited by Lisa S. Kelsay and Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher Foreword by Susan Salvador Afterword by Stephanie R. Bulger “Once in a while, a book forces us to reconsider the fundamentals of our practices and that book is  Working With Students in Community Colleges. This volume fills a void in the current literature and is a must-read for anyone struggling to understand the current dilemmas in community colleges. It will inform and prepare graduate students in higher education administration, counseling, and student affairs programs. Faculty and graduate students can build on research questions introduced in this volume. This volume is an indispensable tool in the administrator’s toolkit and will be well used as we go boldly into the future.” —Stephanie R. Bulger, District Vice Chancellor of Educational Affairs,  Wayne County Community College District

22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, VA 20166-2102

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

Also available from Stylus Confronting Equity Issues on Campus Implementing the Equity Scorecard in Theory and Practice Edited by Estela Mara Bensimon and Lindsey Malcom Foreword by David Longanecker “This volume examines how colleges and universities are using the Center for Urban Education’s Equity Scorecard to create racial equity on campus. With in-depth examinations of the Equity Scorecard process as well as reflections from practitioner teams and researchers, the book is a testament to the role thoughtful data assessment can play in generating more racially equitable outcomes for students. The book calls educators and administrators to take personal responsibility for their roles in moving from deficit model to an equity model, and provides helpful context for anyone currently using or considering the scorecard as a tool for change.” —Diversity & Democracy

Modeling Mentoring Across Race/Ethnicity and Gender Practices to Cultivate the Next Generation of Diverse Faculty Edited by Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner and Juan Carlos González Foreword by Christine A. Stanley “This book has the potential to influence mentoring practice, processes, and policies by bringing issues that many of us still find uncomfortable talking about in academia–the micro and macro-aggressions associated with the experiences of women and faculty of color in higher education–into focus. We espouse that cultivating the next generation of academics of color is important and a reality for countless reasons; however; we often underestimate the impact an effective mentoring relationship can have on that generation. Modeling Mentoring Across Race/Ethnicity and Gender is insightful and informative and can help us to experience mentoring relationships in deeper and impactful ways to bridge the gender, social, and cultural divide.” —Christine A. Stanley, Vice President and Associate Provost for Diversity,  Texas A&M University