Strategic diversity leadership: activating change and transformation in higher education [1. ed] 9781579228194, 9781579228217, 9781579228224, 2320120450911, 1579228194, 1579228216, 1579228224

Citation preview

STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP

COMPANION VOLUME THE CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER Strategy, Structure, and Change Management Damon A. Williams and Katrina Wade-Golden Also available as

THE DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP SET

STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP ACTIVATING CHANGE AND TRANSFORMATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

DAMON A. WILLIAMS Foreword by William G. Tierney

STERLING, VIRGINIA

copyright  2013 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 Williams, Damon A. Strategic diversity leadership / Damon A. Williams. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57922-819-4 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-57922-821-7 (library networkable e-edition) ISBN 978-1-57922-822-4 (consumer e-edition) 1. Minorities—Education (Higher)—United States. 2. Educational leadership—United States. 3. Educational equalization—United States. I. Title. LC3731.W53 2013 378.1'9820973—dc23 2012045091 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-819-4 (cloth) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-821-7 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-822-4 (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, 2013 10 9

8 7 6 5

4 3 2 1

To my wife Kisha, it starts and ends with you.

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix

FOREWORD

xi

William G. Tierney

1

INTRODUCTION

Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education

PART ONE: WHY IS DIVERSITY IMPORTANT IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM?

1.

DIVERSITY IN THE NEW ECONOMY

31

Navigating the Perfect Storm

PART TWO: WHAT IS DIVERSITY?

2. 3.

TOWARD A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DEFINITION OF DIVERSITY

81

HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY MODELS

129

PART THREE: WHAT IS STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP?

4. 5.

WHY DIVERSITY EFFORTS FAIL

163

The Cheetah and the Wolf THE ARTFUL SCIENCE OF STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP

vii

206

viii

6. 7. 8. 9.

CONTENTS

BEING ACCOUNTABLE

256

Building a Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING SUCCESSFUL DIVERSITY PLANS

302

ACTIVATING THE DIVERSITY CHANGE JOURNEY

368

A National Portrait of Diversity Capabilities in Higher Education DIVERSITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND TASK FORCES

408

REFERENCES

439

INDEX

459

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

G

enuine gratitude goes to my family and friends for their love, support, and sacrifices, during my sustained recesses in developing this work. It was a creative journey that took so much to realize. I appreciate your patience through the long silences and unreturned phone calls, as my nearly every moment was consumed with my leadership responsibilities and dogged desire to produce two books worthy of the investment that each of you have made in me through the years. I am especially thankful for my father and mother, Stephen and Melanie Williams, and my grandparents Melvin and Katherine Williams, Arthur and Marjorie Stephens, and Charles and Mary Fields, who sacrificed so much to ensure that I received the best education possible. This work would not have been possible without my coauthor on The Chief Diversity Officer, research partner, and sister—Dr. Katrina WadeGolden. You are an amazing scholar, wonderful mother, wife, sister, and friend to all that know you. I am so happy for you, Roderick, Dash, and Acie— my accomplishments are partially a reflection of your friendship and support through the years. I am thankful to have you in my life and look forward to our continuing partnership and collective contributions to this work. I have been particularly privileged to have a number of mentors and role models who have made powerful contributions to my development through the years. Ronald Taylor, Gerald Gurin, Frank Longstreth, Sallye McKee, John Matlock, Ron Crutcher, Alma Clayton-Pedersen, Marvin Peterson, Cheryl Apprey, Susan Mosley-Howard, Lester Monts, Rodney Coates, Walter Kimbrough, and Charlie Nelms have been particularly strengthening in their vision, support, and role modeling. Of special significance was the generous and clarifying aid of my editor John Ramsburgh, who with patience and powerful attention to the nuances of writing provided stellar assistance through multiple drafts of this manuscript. Your critical and careful reading provided valuable feedback on matters of substance, mechanics, and style, as you served as an insightful sounding board for my hopes and dreams with the project. You are truly gifted and I look forward to continuing our work together. ix

x

ACK N O W L ED GM EN TS

I also thank Dan Chen of Pixedge, who designed the cover and models embedded throughout both books. Dan, you are my design hero, a true creative whose artistic talents are only matched by the depth of your technical expertise, and the kindness through which you give of your time and brilliance. I am thankful to count you as an ally in my efforts to bring clarity and insight into the process of leading organizational change. To the men and women, the chief diversity officers, and diversity champions, who shared their ideas and experiences in this work, I am eternally grateful to your struggle and the depth of your commitment to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Please know that I will always maintain the highest standards of integrity, focus, and commitment to helping those who are vulnerable, and leading our institutions to become inclusive and excellent for all. Kudos to John von Knorring, publisher of Stylus Publishing, who was eternally patient and supportive as this book dragged into the third and fourth years of writing, and ultimately became two books that complement and extend one another. Your efforts to provide a tier-one publishing platform for diverse ideas make you a powerful leader in the strategic diversity leadership movement. I am thankful to call you a friend and ally in this work. Finally, to my staff, students, and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the University of Connecticut, I appreciate your investment in this project and understanding of the life that I have chosen to lead as a scholar-administrator-educator. Your genuine concern for the broader mission of diversity, equity, and inclusion is a reflection of the true character and commitment that each of you possess. While too many exist to name—please know that I am eternally grateful for your contributions toward making this work possible.

FOREWORD

I

n his 1903 epic The Souls of Black Folk, W. E. B. Du Bois commented that ‘‘the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line.’’ Damon Williams makes the case that the problem has extended into the twenty-first century as well, but he makes the argument more complex. Whereas Du Bois wrote about race and ethnicity, Williams employs a broad, overarching definition of diversity. He includes not only race, but also gender, LGBT, disability, and other matters related to one’s identity. Strategic Diversity Leadership makes the assumption that diversity is central to a successful country, but for diversity to succeed necessitates ‘‘strategy’’—it does not just organically happen. Such an observation is crucial. An analogy is apt: At my own institution, the University of Southern California, we are in the midst of a capital campaign. We wish to raise 6 billion dollars over seven years. Or actually, we do not ‘‘wish’’ to raise money; we intend to raise money. Our intent is based on a strategic plan on how to do it. As with any capital campaign, we quietly raised about $1 billion before we launched the campaign. We hired many development officers to help with the activities involved. We wrote a strategic plan. We figured out our objectives. We have benchmarks on how much we want to raise each year. We know what we need to do to reach our target and what we will do if we fall behind. The deans and the faculty have their marching orders. In effect, the entire institution is focused on what needs to be done to reach a goal that is among the most ambitious in higher education. Williams makes the case that if we are serious about diversity then we need similar actions. Whereas in the twentieth century we may have said that diversity was a moral imperative, Williams suggests that in the twentyfirst century it is also an economic and social imperative. As the country becomes more diverse, it is incumbent upon postsecondary institutions to help the country enable diversity to succeed. And for that to happen, one needs to be strategic. Strategy also suggests that we not only need a plan, but that we must recognize a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach is likely to fall short. In fund-raising xi

xii

FOREWORD

we would most likely work with a donor who wishes to endow an athletic center differently from someone whose concern is cancer research. Similarly, the needs of Native American students in a rural area are likely to be different from urban Latino students. We know that homeless youth are among the least likely to graduate from high school and eventually get a four-year degree—about 3 out of 100. For us to strategically help these students is different from what we might do to ensure that students who have a disability feel fully engaged on campus. In effect, Williams extends Vincent Tinto’s idea about engagement on college campuses with what we have learned over the last generation. Yes, individuals need to be engaged for diversity to succeed. But the terms of engagement ought not to be the same for everyone. Rather than an assimilationist framework, Williams is calling upon what I have defined elsewhere as a model of cultural integrity. In doing so, the model moves away from a deficit framework and toward a framework that honors the strength of multiple groups and individuals. Implementing such a model is not easy in part because the work involves honoring the multiple subject locations and identities of those with whom we work, live, and educate. Ultimately we also need to set clear goals about where we want to head; diversity, then, also has endpoints that need to be achieved. We ought to appreciate the optimism and ambition of this book. Because of the depth of the text we understand that progress has been made—but Williams suggests that we have not yet done enough. Because his definition of diversity is broad, significant, and deep, he also challenges us to go beyond easy ideas about how to proceed. This is also a text of the twenty-first century which acknowledges that more opportunities and pitfalls for such discussions exist. The advent of social media enables us to communicate faster and with more groups and individuals than we have ever done in the past. Such a capability affords us great opportunities, but also makes our work more challenging. As technology speeds up, the timeframe in which we are supposed to accomplish our tasks lessens. The leisurely tempo of how organizations were to face their decisions only a decade ago is now likely to happen simply with several clicks of a mouse in virtual time. Strategic Diversity Leadership is a moral compass for how we are to proceed in the twenty-first century. The book necessitates that we take risks into uncharted territory. The text helps us prepare for the trip, offers a rationale for why the trip must be taken, provides a sense of what we are to accomplish on the trip, explains the benefits of undertaking the trip, and finally suggests

F O R EW O R D

xiii

initial paths that we might take. With Williams as our guide, the odds are pretty good we will get where he wants us to go. But first we need to read the book. William G. Tierney Los Angeles, California

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education

In a global economy, where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity. It is a prerequisite. Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma, and yet just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation, and half of the students who begin college never finish. This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. —President Barack Obama in his first speech to a Joint Session of Congress, February 24, 2009

I

n his first speech to a Joint Session of Congress, President Barack Obama announced his goal that by 2020, the United States should have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. His remarks point to a powerful force confronting every country on earth: the emergence of a knowledge-based, global economy (Alfred, 2005; Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010; Peterson & Dill, 1997). The new drivers of this economy are developing countries like China, India, and Brazil. And the new currency of this economy is information, which gets exchanged each day through billions of clicks on the World Wide Web. To compete, countries around the world are making unparalleled investments in education, recognizing that the country with the best-educated workforce will win the information race. Incredible strides have been made by countries like Finland and South Korea, where governments have made financial commitments to education in ways that they normally reserve for their largest industries. Sadly, the 1

2

I N T RO D U CT IO N

United States has not answered this challenge, and massive cuts to all levels of education have had a powerfully demoralizing impact on our entire educational system. In the most recent ranking of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States ranked fourteenth out of 34 countries in reading, seventeenth in math, and twenty-fifth in science, earning an overall score of ‘‘average.’’1 According to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, ‘‘The hard truth is that other high-performing nations have passed us by during the last two decades. . . . In a highly competitive knowledge economy, maintaining the educational status quo means America’s students are effectively losing ground.’’2 As explored in Chapter 1, the rise of the global economy is only one of five major factors powering the ‘‘perfect storm’’ of challenges to our educational system. However, the global economy is worth emphasizing here because it also highlights the particular opportunity, and competitive advantage, that the United States still holds in the world. As one of the most diverse developed countries in the world, the United States has enshrined in its Constitution principles that uphold the value, legitimacy, and equity of ethnic and racially diverse people and women. Moreover, our colleges and universities are not only widely acknowledged as the best in the world, they are also among the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse. Increasingly in recent years, researchers have demonstrated conclusively that more diverse learning environments lead to improved creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking (P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; P. Gurin, Lehman, & Lewis, 2004; Hurtado, 2007). Thus, diversity helps establish a powerful learning context for students to achieve what the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) refers to as ‘‘essential learning outcomes’’ (AAC&U, 2007). These outcomes include ‘‘integrative learning,’’ ‘‘inquiry learning,’’ ‘‘global learning,’’ and ‘‘civic learning.’’ Students who acquire these outcomes are better able to envision multiple perspectives, explore diverse social and cultural contexts, and engage with the challenges and opportunities of a society and economy that are now globally connected. They are, in other words, best able to compete in the global economy, and become productive members of an increasingly diverse American society. Thus, promoting diversity is no longer simply a question of answering our moral and social responsibilities, but a matter of academic and institutional excellence. To take advantage of the clear intellectual and competitive benefits that a more diverse learning environment fosters, academic leaders need to become simultaneously more strategic and proactive in their approach to designing and implementing diversity policies and programs. In

I N T RO DU CT IO N

3

short, they need to become strategic diversity leaders.3 For too long, diversity has been allowed to sit on the back burner of many aspects of American higher education, from mission development and fund-raising to curriculum design and performance evaluations. Working from research compiled over several years, two contributions are offered to the field of strategic diversity leadership. The first book in a companion volume set, Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education, establishes a foundation for understanding diversity efforts in twenty-first-century American higher education. It begins by laying out the history of diversity efforts before turning to detailed proposals for developing and implementing effective diversity policies, including strategic diversity plans; accountability scorecards; recruitment and retention programs; and leadership, resource, and infrastructure development. The second book, The Chief Diversity Officer: Strategy, Structure, and Change Management, written in partnership with Katrina Wade-Golden at the University of Michigan, provides systematic guidance on how best to define, design, and deploy the role of the chief diversity officer (CDO) in higher education. Depending on the reader’s particular expertise and interests, one book may prove more germane than the other. Although the books have been written in such a way that each can stand on its own, they cover different aspects of strategic diversity leadership and ideally should be read together. From its beginnings during the civil rights movement, to its recent reorganization in response to trends in social science validating diversity’s educational benefits, the diversity movement in American higher education has fought long and nobly to carve out a place for the rights and concerns of diverse individuals and groups on college and university campuses. And this movement has achieved great strides. They include funding diversity and inclusion offices; founding departments in ethnic, racial, gender, and international studies; promoting diversity-themed research disciplines; and establishing support systems and resources for students, faculty, and staff along a number of different dimensions. However, to take our efforts to the next level and move from incremental to transformational change, we need to shift the way we think about diversity—our diversity paradigm—and appreciate that diversity is no longer only about protecting the rights, and enhancing the opportunities, of historically disadvantaged individuals and groups. It is also, essentially, about achieving academic and institutional excellence, positioning American colleges and universities to compete and win in the global marketplace.

4

I NT R O DU C T I O N

Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education Strategic Diversity Leadership, therefore, aims to answer two ambitious challenges simultaneously and in an integrated fashion: first, to engage deeply with the theoretical issues that pertain to diversity; and second, to provide specific and practical tools to help colleges and universities either launch their strategic diversity plans or improve their existing efforts. Chapter 1 gives a background of the complex social, political, and economic forces that are reshaping the diversity debate in higher education, and Chapter 2 investigates the complex and always changing understanding of diversity that exists in higher education. This book is written from the perspective that advancing diversity requires an appreciation of diversity as an evolving, multidimensional concept, what might be called the ‘‘diversity idea.’’ The term diversity idea is attractive because ideas, like diversity, are always changing. Indeed, despite some similarities, the diversity idea of 2013 departs significantly from the diversity idea of 1980, and even more from the diversity idea of 1950. The legal, political, demographic, social, organizational, and historic context continues to evolve; as a result, higher education leaders must evolve as well. Understandably, there are concerns, including among the ranks of diversity advocates, that embracing a more complex and fluid understanding of diversity presents a potential risk; by trying to encompass a wider set of concerns and obligations, institutions may lose their focus with respect to the vital ongoing work of increasing the access and equity of historically disadvantaged populations in higher education. Especially today, as the conservative right tries to use the courts and legislative measures to thwart diversity efforts, we need to redouble our commitment to increasing the enrollment and retention of ethnic and racial minorities in colleges, and to increasing the representation of both minorities and women in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, as well as in professional fields like law, medicine, and business. Indeed, even as these books go to press, the Supreme Court is set to rule in Fisher v. University of Texas,4 the most recent conservative challenge to affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies in higher education. Considering its conservative leanings, it is possible that the Supreme Court will further limit the admissions tools available to public and private colleges and universities who consider race and ethnicity as part of their admissions processes. Although a potentially immediate and negative blow

I N T R O DU CT I O N

5

to the admission of African American and Latino students to selective undergraduate and graduate schools, not even the Supreme Court can hold back profound shifts now taking place in both academia and American society. Thanks to new demographic trends and a growing awareness of the profound benefits of diversity, academic institutions are beginning to embrace diversity as a mission imperative, not just a social justice cause. The task before us all is to find ways to integrate diversity into the core missions of academic institutions and build policies that pass Constitutional muster while enhancing the diversity of our campuses. These efforts will rely on both hard work and creativity, as well as new approaches to diversity even among its strongest advocates. After all, the historic tension between addressing long-standing discrimination and opening the diversity tent wide enough to include everyone will not be resolved overnight. But it must be resolved soon. Rather than viewing diversity from an ‘‘either/or’’ perspective, our community should respond to these historic commitments and emerging opportunities with a ‘‘both/and’’ answer. Responding to the concerted attacks on affirmative action, both Strategic Diversity Leadership and The Chief Diversity Officer explore creative ways that diversity leaders can dynamically build diversity into their efforts. Rather than encourage a general and nebulous approach to pursuing the traditional aims of diversity, these books offer specific initiatives and policies to enhance diversity efforts. The two books also work to address ways to build capacity among new and emerging diverse groups within the campus environment, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and queer (LGBTQ) community; the disabled; international and undocumented students; veterans; first-generation students; and others. Of course no study can be exhaustive in its treatment of diversity, and omissions, although unintended, are inevitable. I apologize for any oversights and hope that neither individuals nor communities will feel slighted if they do not see their particular issues explored to the degree they might wish. This project should be viewed as part of an ongoing and evolving discussion of diversity issues in academia; scholars and administrators are encouraged to take up the models and theories presented here to explore in detail their own particular circumstances and aspirations. In fact, while Strategic Diversity Leadership explores both the scholarship and contemporary theory behind the diversity idea, it also serves as a practical guide for all members of the academic community who wish to build and implement concrete policies and programs to advance their diversity goals. Although the end of this introduction provides a summary of the

6

I N T R O DU C T IO N

individual chapters that follow, it is worth enumerating the practical objectives that inform each chapter. They include the following: • Helping institutional leaders develop a diversity rationale and institutional definition of diversity that can then be infused into the primary teaching, research, and service missions of academic institutions (Chapters 1 and 2) • Elaborating the three dominant organizational diversity models that currently exist on college and university campuses, and explaining how to integrate them to improve outcomes (Chapter 3) • Explaining how institutions can go from a defensive, reactionary posture with respect to diversity challenges, toward a strong, robust diversity change agenda (Chapter 4) • Exploring specific recommendations for building and funding institutional capacity, empowering diversity leadership, and navigating the difficult waters of academic bureaucracies (Chapter 5) • Constructing a strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) to evaluate diversity policies and programs before, during, and after the implementation of a diversity strategic plan (Chapter 6) • Addressing the inherent and recurrent challenges that confront ongoing diversity efforts, whether implemented through a centralized, integrated, or decentralized approach (Chapter 7) Chapter 8 offers an overview of a major survey project the author undertook involving over 700 higher education institutions across the country and examining the degree to which institutions are building their strategic diversity capabilities and practicing—or not practicing—key diversity best practices. Chapter 9 provides guidance to assist leader in their efforts to establish high performing campus diversity committees, outlining five key contingencies that must be resolved by senior leaders when tasking the issue. In addition, all the chapters explore specific historical examples of crisis incidents and actual diversity plans, as well as programs and policies at every level of academia, from community colleges to large research universities. To treat specific case studies with as much tact and discretion as possible, particular comments and confidential feedback are at times left unattributed to a particular institution or leader. The ideas and writings of leaders in the diversity field also appear throughout, including Walter Allen, James Banks, Joe Berger, Estella Bensimon, Christopher Brown II, Mitchell Chang, Alma Clayton-Pedersen, Art Coleman, Taylor Cox, Patricia and Gerry Gurin, John Matlock and Katrina Wade-Golden, Sylvia Hurtado, Jerlando Jackson,

I N T RO D U CT IO N

7

Adriana Kezar, Jonathan Alger, Jeffrey Milem, James Anderson, Gary Orfield, Marvin Peterson, Raechele Pope, Laura Rendon, Daryl Smith, David Thomas, Roosevelt Thomas, William Tierney, and many others who have focused an ‘‘organizational lens’’ on questions of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Becoming a Strategic Diversity Leader As demonstrated in Chapter 4, colleges and universities behave most often like cheetahs when it comes to diversity crises, acting in a reactionary burst of energy but often doing only what is immediately needed to resolve a diversity crisis. The difference between cheetah institutions and academic institutions that act like wolves, taking a coordinated and proactive approach to diversity issues, centers in part on leadership. Chapter 5 of this book is dedicated to exploring the five dimensions of strategic diversity leadership. And for readers interested in delving more deeply into leadership issues, much of The Chief Diversity Officer is devoted to questions of diversity leadership and the emerging role of the CDO in higher education and other areas of organizational life. In some ways, academic institutions are still a few steps behind the business sector with respect to diversity issues. By drawing on leadership best practices that exist not only in academia but also in other fields and disciplines, these books attempt to give anyone interested in promoting diversity—whether a diversity officer, student, faculty member, staff person, or administrator—the requisite tools for acting on his or her diversity priorities. They are not solely intended for diversity professionals and specialists, but for any and all diversity champions who want to become disciplined strategic diversity leaders. Indeed, the skills and activities outlined in the following pages are available to anyone involved in initiating, facilitating, or implementing diversity-themed initiatives, whether or not he or she has an official title recognizing that responsibility. In the new millennium, institutions will look more and more to strategic diversity leaders, not only to help make their campus communities more diverse, equitable, and inclusive, but also to improve their academic teaching and research objectives. To become a strategic diversity leader requires a mindset that can read external and internal pressures, navigate often treacherous organizational politics, leverage the best of what is known about diversity-themed change management science, and engage others in the process of moving the notoriously complex and tradition-bound cultures of academic institutions forward.

8

I N T RO DU CT IO N

Whether one is going to lead campus diversity planning efforts, start a campus club or organization, develop new faculty diversity recruitment policies, or chair the campus diversity committee, one should act from a place of informed understanding—not simply from common-sense insights that result from living in a diverse world, or having a sensitivity or passion for diversity issues. This is especially true of presidents, provosts, deans, and other senior leaders entrusted with engaging diversity as an institutional and strategic priority. One of the striking features of the survey results reported in Chapter 8 is how few institutions reported offering diversity training and educational programs for senior leadership. Given the vital role these administrators play in guiding strategic diversity efforts, the lack of outreach and trainings suggests a disconnect between the rhetoric of institutional commitment and the reality for those in actual positions of authority. Although one should not expect senior administrators to have the same expertise as their CDOs, gaining a better understanding of the major trends in the diversity field will help them serve all their students, faculty, and staff. After all, at this point a diverse learning environment is in the best interests of every academic institution that strives to fulfill its educational mission. Every week the author receives several calls from campus leaders struggling to develop, reinvigorate, or reframe their diversity efforts. Their most common concern is that their institutions are not taking a disciplined approach to building diversity-centered capacity. These offerings constitute a response to those calls for help and an effort to serve the emerging field of strategic diversity leadership. In the twenty-first century, there is no reason why campus leaders should struggle to develop and implement high-caliber diversity plans and accountability systems. The battle cry of Strategic Diversity Leadership and The Chief Diversity Officer is that no matter what policy model ultimately emerges, only a paradigm shift of the highest order will allow us to face the challenges and opportunities of a diverse, global, and interconnected reality still stratified along fault lines of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, economic background, and national-origin status.

The Strategic Diversity Leadership Model As mentioned earlier, the diversity equation is complex, as a ‘‘perfect storm’’ of economic, demographic, legal, and historic challenges pushes diversity to the fore as one of the most difficult issues facing higher education today. The success of an institution’s diversity efforts hinges on a complex set of

I N T RO D U CT IO N

9

interlocking dynamics, including environmental realities, fiscal constraints, the formal diversity infrastructure, institutional politics, and a host of other variables. It is for this reason that the big-picture strategic diversity goals of our institutions must be understood in terms of the environmental, organizational, and temporal contexts of a campus’s overall strategic vision for the future. Figure I.1 brings these concepts together visually in the Strategic Diversity Leadership Model, which presents a broad overview of the major concepts and principles that strategic diversity leaders must understand to be effective, and provides a touchstone for the themes that guide the rest of this book. The Strategic Diversity Leadership Model seeks to provide a framework for understanding the complex context in which strategic diversity leaders practice their ‘‘artful science,’’ the central theme of Chapter 5. Rather

FIGURE I.1 The Strategic Diversity Leadership Model

10

I N T RO DU CT IO N

than offer a framework for micromanagement, the strategic diversity leadership model provides a broad umbrella under which various campus diversity offices, initiatives, policies, and coordinating structures can find their roles and create value.

The External Environment This model presents several concentric and overlapping circles to give a sense of the multidimensional reality of strategic diversity leadership. This multidimensional aspect is a common theme in the organizational literature and vital to understanding how diversity leaders must navigate the turbulent cultural, political, and administrative contexts of colleges and universities (Berger & Milem, 2000; Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Morgan, 1986; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005). Working from the outer ring inward are the constellation of concerns that open Chapter 1. The ‘‘perfect storm’’ now taking place on college campuses is powered by (a) the emergence of a knowledge-based global economy; (b) changing demographics; (c) persistent educational inequalities along racial, ethnic, economic, and gender lines; (d) the crystallization of the importance of diverse experiences for all students as an educational and workforce imperative; and (e) continuing legal and political challenges to diversity and affirmative action. A sixth dynamic includes what I have termed isomorphic diversity forces. Isomorphic forces refers to the complementing and overlapping strategies, structures, and processes that academic institutions adopt as a way of legitimating their diversity efforts when compared against their peers, the standards of the industry, and the demands of the profession. Because of their complexity, these isomorphic forces are explored in detail in The Chief Diversity Officer.5

The Institutional Context Moving inward, the next sphere gives a sense of the complex historical, financial, cultural, and structural forces that define the campus environment. As challenging as the task often proves, especially for new diversity officers, administrators, and staff, an effective diversity leader must be well informed about both the historical context of inclusion and exclusion at his or her institution and its broader strategic reality. As a result, strategic diversity leaders must be able to navigate the historical, cultural, and political dynamics of a myriad of diverse groups. This means not only knowing the institution’s history, but also being aware of the contemporary context, and how history and context shape perceptions of diversity’s importance on campus.

I N T R O DU CT IO N

11

These issues are addressed throughout Strategic Diversity Leadership, but most explicitly in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. As this ring indicates, a number of other factors help determine the obstacles and opportunities for implementing a strategic diversity model. Several of the most prominent are featured here, including the fiscal reality of the institution, its mission and selectivity, the institution’s diversity brand, and the institution’s geographic location and cultural setting. Finally, this phase of the model takes into account the support and commitment of senior leadership. Unless senior institutional leaders are invested in change, the chance of implementing new policies and programs diminishes significantly.

Theories of Leadership Chapter 5 explores in detail the five overarching leadership frameworks that define strategic diversity leadership: (a) organizational learning, (b) structural leadership, (c) political leadership, (d) symbolic leadership, and (e) collegial leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Although diversity champions can dream of change, unless they can exercise effective leadership as they navigate their campus environments, little meaningful change will occur. Strategic diversity leaders must be able to use a confluence of different leadership lenses to activate change on their campuses. These lenses include focusing on organizational learning, building capacity, and creating formal organizational structures and processes of change. Throughout the change process, leaders should use clear and compelling symbols to create positive associations for their diversity efforts. This is accomplished by tapping into the rich myths, rituals, and traditions that are already a part of the campus culture. Finally, diversity leaders must be able to manage multiple relationships and involve the broader campus community in a conversation about diversity, finding ways to create buy-in from all stakeholders, not just minority individuals and organizations. In reviewing the various activities of most diversity leaders, one would find a number of approaches used simultaneously to achieve different levels of effect. The most effective leaders are passionate about issues of diversity, and communicate that passion in word and deed. They view organizational life as an arena where they can find creative ways to pull issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion into the cultural tapestry of what matters most on campus. Because an organization’s survival over time often depends on its conforming to normative expectations rather than simply operating with greater efficiency (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; C. Oliver, 1991), the importance of ensuring both understanding and acceptance of new strategies among key constituents is central to legitimizing a strategic diversity plan.

12

I N T R O DU CT IO N

The Strategic Diversity Core At the core of the model are five related concepts. They include the strategic diversity goals of the institution, the institutional definition of diversity, and three interconnected rationales for promoting diversity: the social justice rationale, the business rationale, and the educational benefits rationale. As explained earlier, the justification for diversity no longer needs to rest solely on the social justice case for addressing past discrimination or leveling the playing field for historically disadvantaged individuals and groups. We are witnessing the coalescence of social justice, economic, and educational aspects of diversity, achieving a kind of synergy. The new ‘‘diversity idea’’ is built on an increasingly dynamic conversation about managing and leading diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as a fundamental strategic priority for corporations, nonprofits, government agencies, the military, K–12, and higher education systems (Lipson, 2004). Higher education leaders must get up to speed with these changes. Diversity has become a societal imperative in the new global economy, fueled by factors that range from socioeconomic vitality, global competitiveness, student learning, and organizational excellence. Some of the most powerful voices driving this shift can be found among corporate and military leaders; both of these sectors have been outspoken in the need for more robust diversity efforts.6 During the 2003 Supreme Court hearings on the admissions policies at the University of Michigan, military and corporate leaders filed amicus curiae briefs supporting Michigan’s diversity policies. Although conservative forces continue to wage attacks on affirmative action, they are in some sense fighting a losing battle against a gradual cultural shift that now recognizes the intrinsic value of diversity.7 Leaders in the military and corporate America recognize that diversity is essential to our economic competitiveness, social stability, and even national security. As noted by Lipson (2004), Sandra Day O’Connor cited both the military and Fortune 500 companies in the Grutter v. Bollinger majority opinion: These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that ‘‘[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,’’ a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps . . . is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security. . . . Moreover, universities, and in particular,

I N T R O D U CT IO N

13

law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation’s leaders. . . . In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. (pp. 19–20)

The perspective embodied by Justice O’Connor suggests that we must proactively ‘‘manage’’ diversity as a core asset that is vital to fulfilling our educational mission and delivering broader economic and social benefits. The business case for diversity centers on creating and sustaining an environment in which diverse talents can thrive, capitalizing on the over 1.6 trillion in domestic spending power of ethnically and racially diverse groups while advancing a corporate responsibility agenda dedicated to outreach and environmental and social sustainability (Humphreys, 2012; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Thus, strategic diversity leadership hinges on threading the needle among these complex and shifting rationales for diversity. It means being ready one day to help students and colleagues organize an effective diversity and inclusion training that truly empowers and informs participants. The next day it means presenting on the most recent data about diversity educational outcomes to alumni donors or the business community. It means being able to move between a nuanced and sensitive negotiation of ethnic, racial, gender, disability, and citizenship issues at the individual level to articulating the broader strategic and educational principles that guide institutional policies at the highest levels.

Diversity Leadership as Artful Science Whether at the highest levels of institutional life or at its base, strategic diversity work is the artful science of anticipating change, framing efforts in ways that others can understand, and managing the change journey. Much like the ‘‘managing diversity’’ movement of the corporate sector (e.g., Cox, 2001; D. A. Thomas, 2004), academic institutions are recognizing that diversity success should no longer reflect a mix of good will and haphazard, disconnected efforts. Diversity success must be viewed as fundamental to the strategic and operational excellence of the institution, requiring an intentional approach to change management and strategy development to achieve its goals. Our definition of strategic diversity leadership is grounded in the assumption that effecting pervasive change around issues of diversity, like

14

I N T RO D U CT IO N

any other domain, is both art and science. Diversity goals are never easily achieved. Consequently, campus diversity champions, regardless of their institutional role, must be sophisticated in their approach and willing to cut against the grain of tradition, artfully navigating issues both anticipated and unanticipated, and applying the best diversity science possible to move the agenda forward and overcome an often deeply ingrained legacy of exclusion. At its core, this philosophy of leadership involves chief diversity officers, senior leaders, deans, department chairs, faculty, students, alumni, and other diversity champions, actively working together with one goal in mind: to move beyond the cycle of diversity crisis, action, relaxation, and disappointment that has been replayed so frequently on college and university campuses. To achieve this goal and make diversity a matter of excellence requires a leadership paradigm that focuses on five key principles that inform every chapter of this book and my philosophy of leading diversity-themed change in the academy. Box I.1 provides an overview of these five principles. BOX I.1 Principles of Strategic Diversity Leadership Principle 1: Redefine issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion as fundamental to the organizational bottom line of mission fulfillment and institutional excellence. Principle 2: Focus on creating systems that enable all students, faculty, and staff to thrive and achieve their maximum potential. Principle 3: Achieve a more robust and integrated diversity approach that builds on prior diversity models and operates in a strategic, evidence-based, and datadriven manner, where accountability is paramount. Principle 4: Focus diversity-related efforts to intentionally transform the institutional culture, not just to make tactical moves that lead to poorly integrated efforts and symbolic implementation alone. Principle 5: Lead with a high degree of cultural intelligence and awareness of different identities and their significance in higher education.

Principle 1: Redefine issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion as fundamental to the organizational bottom line of mission fulfillment and institutional excellence. A grounding assumption of strategic diversity leadership is that the world has changed, and, as a result, organizations of all kinds must place greater

I N T R O DU CT IO N

15

emphasis on hiring, retaining, and leveraging the contributions of diverse members, elevating them as full participants within the institution as a way of driving organizational performance and excellence. Whereas the traditional mindset has been that diversity represents deficit, the strategic diversity leadership mindset views diversity as an essential asset to increasing learning, fostering research, driving workplace productivity, enhancing morale, inspiring creativity, and improving the institution’s success and reputation. If leaders have no framework for improving diversity or of measuring our efforts, we cannot expect our institutions to achieve academic excellence. Principle 2: Focus on creating systems that enable all students, faculty, and staff to thrive and achieve their maximum potential. The second premise is that the learning, communal, and work environment of the institution must be structured in such a way that people of different backgrounds can feel included, supported, and engaged. As a result, the onus is on leaders at all levels to create support systems, training programs, outreach efforts, affinity structures, and other initiatives that will allow diverse individuals and groups to flourish on campus. This means recognizing structural inequalities in their various forms and grappling with the challenge of how to engage with ethnic, racial, gender, economic, disability, and other concerns that celebrate difference without privileging one group over another. Principle 3: Achieve a more robust and integrated diversity approach that builds on prior diversity models and operates in a strategic, evidence-based, and data-driven manner, where accountability is paramount. The third principle of strategic diversity leadership is that leadership must embrace and maximize all the diversity-related technologies of our campuses in an integrated and mutually supportive way. Hence the major systems of diversity engagement explored in Chapter 3—the Affirmative Action and Equity Model; the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the

16

I N T RO D U CT IO N

Learning, Diversity, and Research Model—must be aligned and synchronized. Rather than viewing these systems as separate efforts, we must envision them as bundles of capabilities that span areas like academic affairs, student affairs, administrative affairs, legal affairs, and so on. The key is to bring them into correspondence with each other so that their collective effect equals more than the sum of their parts. Principle 4: Focus diversity-related efforts to intentionally transform the institutional culture, not just to make tactical moves that lead to poorly integrated efforts and symbolic implementation alone. The strategic diversity leadership philosophy inherently focuses on intentional and planned change. The goal is to accomplish long-term, transformational change at the core of college or university culture. Whereas first-order changes refer to minor adjustments such as developing a new diversity office or establishing a new diversity requirement, transformative changes by contrast often create new patterns of behavior and assumptions governing organizational life. That is, such changes create an institutional culture in which diversity is fundamental to all aspects of campus life, from how we teach our courses, fund our programs, and select our leadership, to how we produce our scholarship and drive our policies. Ideally, we can imagine a reality in which a CDO is no longer necessary, simply because diversity is a fundamental value shared by everyone in academia. Principle 5: Lead with a high degree of cultural intelligence and awareness of different identities and their significance in higher education. Cultural intelligence is a fairly new idea that builds on earlier concepts like intelligence quotient (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003). Like EI, cultural intelligence cannot be acquired through rote memorization or the purely statistical analysis of the characteristics of a particular individual or group (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003). Cultural intelligence is achieved iteratively over time by interacting with, studying, and observing individuals who are culturally different (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003). To become culturally intelligent, one must be

I N T R O DU C T I O N

17

involved in a dynamic and interactive process in which cultural challenges are resolved and then built on. Although strategic diversity leaders define diversity in broad terms so as to include a host of different social, cultural, racial, ethnic, gender, and other factors, they also recognize that every group is nested in a unique institutional reality. Although each individual is important and valued, no two diversity challenges are the same. Strategic diversity leaders understand this fundamental truth, even when they may not know the precise details of every challenge. As a result, they do not take a standardized or ‘‘cookiecutter’’ approach to addressing diversity challenges. In higher education especially, in which governing structures are more fluid and democratic than in, for example, the corporate or military world, strategic diversity leaders must be attuned to the relative levels of cultural intelligence among students, faculty, staff, and members of the community. Working through both the formal networks of institutional governance and the informal networks of campus culture and cocurricular activities, the strategic diversity leader aims to help every student achieve a degree of cultural intelligence by graduation. At the same time, the strategic diversity leadership philosophy also requires cultural intelligence of every faculty member, staff member, and administrator associated with the institution. A cultural shift of the magnitude proposed by these five principles will only occur if changes take place at multiple levels, involving the structural, political, institutional, and financial systems of the college or university. Hence, at all levels leaders must address how individuals teach courses, select talent, evaluate performance, gauge student potential, create and support student organizations, foster learning, include diverse individuals, and understand the big-picture strategic diversity agenda of their institution.

Strategic Diversity Goals in Higher Education As with the guiding principles, a broad set of interlocking goals lies at the heart of Strategic Diversity Leadership. These goals connect the threads of numerous groups, issues, and priorities within the ever-evolving diversity umbrella. Understanding diversity goals in the current era is one of the first steps to becoming more effective and accountable. Although an institution’s diversity agenda should focus with rigor on issues of access and equity for minorities and women, it must also embrace and champion opportunities to tie diversity to the academic excellence goals at the core of an institution’s

18

I NT R O DU C T I O N

mission. As an associate vice provost at a large research university in the southwest explained: ‘‘Body count’’ diversity, or improving the number of minorities that we have on campus, is essential, but your diversity agenda has to embrace so much more. It has to embrace the rich diversity unique to American society and harness that diversity in the service of learning and institutional excellence. It has to focus on the levels of achievement of diverse individuals, as much as it does with their levels of representation.

College and university leaders must move from a narrow understanding of diversity goals and embrace a comprehensive strategic diversity framework that ties conversations about diversity to academic excellence. For example, perhaps faculty members representing different departments are seeking to build a new interdisciplinary research center that focuses on racial and ethnic health disparities. Perhaps a student affairs division is developing a new student leadership program that seeks to include not only members of the multicultural community, but organizations that are majority White, as well as student governing and media associations. Perhaps the international affairs office is grappling not only with visa and Student and Exchange Visitor Information System regulations for incoming international students from the Middle East, but efforts to help them feel welcome on campus during a time of heightened anxiety. These issues can no longer be viewed in isolation as tangential to the institution’s mission but rather as integral to the institution’s core competencies and values. Thus, even as there are five broad principles that should guide the work of strategic diversity leaders, there are four big-picture goals to help draw diversity efforts into a twenty-first century context: 1. Achieving access and equity for historically underrepresented groups 2. Creating a multicultural and inclusive campus climate for the entire institutional community 3. Enhancing domestic and international research and scholarship around issues of diversity 4. Preparing all students for a national and global society that is diverse and interconnected In our conversations with dozens of campus diversity committees and hundreds of individual leaders, these four goals consistently emerge as the most

I N T R O DU C T I O N

19

essential. Indeed, it has been our observation that most of these conversations follow a consistent trajectory, moving from the challenges of defining diversity and developing a strong rationale for diversity efforts, to struggling with the broad goals that will capture a new and more dynamic appreciation of diversity. Particularly when there are several groups at the table, all of them representing a range of different constituencies and backgrounds, it is important to cast the goals net wide enough to give everyone a stake in the outcomes. These four big-picture goals help define the issues in a way that every member of the institutional community can embrace.

The Strategic Diversity Goals Pyramid Figure I.2 places these four goals in a pyramid model to provide an accessible conceptual framework for appreciating the connection between diversity’s historic role and its new, contemporary objectives. Access and equity are placed at the top of the model because every institution’s diversity efforts should begin with an engagement of the historic and still incomplete goals of achieving access and equity for racially and ethnically diverse individuals, women, and other historically disadvantaged groups. Creating a diverse student, faculty, and staff community helps create a context in which institutions can become multicultural and diverse in a number of different ways. Indeed, this aspect of the model could also be extended into a conversation of vendor relationships and strategic sourcing, ensuring that minority and

FIGURE I.2 Strategic Diversity Goals Model

20

I N T RO D U CT IO N

women-owned companies are treated fairly in an institution’s procurement process. What holds the model together and sits at the center is the need to build a multicultural and inclusive campus climate in which every student, staff member, faculty member, and administrator can thrive. This means not only mitigating overt acts of discrimination and prejudice, but creating and promoting identity-themed organizations and initiatives designed to create an inclusive experience for diverse individuals and groups. Some examples might include establishing an affinity organization for women faculty members, creating an international student center, and establishing a dedicated prayer and reflection area for students of different faiths. The presence of a diverse faculty, staff, administrators, and students will enhance the potential of the institution to accomplish the two strategic goals placed at the base of the pyramid: preparing all students for a diverse and global world, and pursuing areas of scholarship and inquiry that will help us to understand issues of diversity across disciplines. Although some administration leaders have begun talking about the diverse educational needs of all students as part of their institutional diversity agenda, they have not similarly embraced the need to support faculty engaged in ethnic or gender studies, or others pursuing scholarship that is critical to understanding our increasingly diverse and multicultural world today. These two goals support the base corners of the pyramid because they are foundational to higher education’s focus on teaching, learning, research, and service. Understanding and broadly articulating the educational and research goals of diversity is essential to defining a strategic diversity agenda that goes beyond moral and historical imperatives. Furthermore, having a focus on these two areas establishes a legal and policy anchor for access and equity diversity efforts that center on increasing the number and success of historically underrepresented groups of minorities, women, first-generation college students, and other groups that may inform an institution’s particular definition of diversity. In the twenty-first century, the primary rationale for diversity must always flow from a discussion of its educational benefits and the merits of having a diverse and engaged institutional environment. The Supreme Court’s support for this rationale as it relates to student admissions offers an opportunity to expand our efforts into other areas, including curriculum development, the hiring and retention of diverse faculty and staff, funding and prioritization of research projects, and efforts to enhance cocurricular learning and service opportunities.

I N T R O DU CT IO N

21

The stakeholders involved with higher education are many, and thus our goal structure must be robust enough to handle this complexity. To make diversity a matter of excellence, the campus diversity agenda must simultaneously expand access and equity, create inclusive environments, and build the academic diversity capabilities of our institutions. Within the strategic diversity goals framework offered here, institutional leaders must work to conceptualize fully the breadth of diversity issues that exist on their campuses. Subsequent chapters in this book return to the strategic diversity goals pyramid, focusing on issues like developing a campus strategic plan and creating accountability through a strategic diversity scorecard.

The Chief Diversity Officer Study in Higher Education Both Strategic Diversity Leadership and The Chief Diversity Officer are informed by an intense, multiyear study undertaken to understand the state of diversity efforts in American education, as well as the strategic diversity leaders who are implementing these policies and programs at the ground level. This study used a mixed methodology consisting of both qualitative and quantitative components designed to provide deep insights into the topic of strategic diversity leadership in the academy (Williams & WadeGolden, 2008). The qualitative aspect of the study included intensive interviews with more than 100 individuals, numerous site visits, more than 200 hours of audio-recorded data, and the analysis of several thousand pages of internal institutional documents to develop a grounded understanding of these roles and the process of strategic diversity leadership in higher education. In consulting visits with dozens of institutions and through a systematic collection of diversity scholarship, the author has helped compile hundreds of strategic and diversity plans, reports, position papers, websites and newspaper articles. Table I.1 summarizes these research resources. The quantitative dimension of the study involved a national survey built from our initial qualitative investigations. The target sample for the project was diversity officers broadly defined at more than 2,500 institutions. Out of the 2,513 officers contacted, 772 sent answers, a 31 percent response rate. The 772 responses were used to create the national context of strategic diversity leadership capabilities explored in Chapters 7 and 8. This research also informs the detailed examination of the CDO role in the companion to this book. As mentioned earlier, the CDO role has only

22

I N T RO DU CT IO N

TABL E I. 1 Chief Diversity Officer Study Documents Overview Dimension

Description

Number

Diversity Plans

Plans outlining a comprehensive institutional diversity agenda

87

Diversity Reports

Progress reports, updates, annual reports, and other documents illustrating diversity efforts, implementation, campus climate studies, etc.

52

Dedicated Diversity Position Descriptions

Position descriptions outlining the strategy, structure, and goals of a new position dedicated to accomplishing institutional diversity goals

109

Diversity Websites

Websites describing campus diversity units and initiatives

137

Concept Papers for New Positions

Concept papers delineating new diversity positions and units, often with a comparative context

7

Newspaper Articles

Articles announcing new diversity positions, initiatives, responses to institutional crises, challenges, etc.

150

Academic and Strategic Plans

Academic and strategic plans with at least some component focusing on issues of diversity

22

recently begun to emerge as a means of identifying and empowering in one administrator the skills and responsibilities of a strategic diversity leader. Because so few diversity leaders are consistently identified with the title Chief Diversity Officer, the author casts a broad net in reaching out to diversity leaders for qualitative interviews about their work. Leaders were included on the basis of four criteria: (a) self-classification as a CDO; (b) a direct reporting relationship to the president or provost of the institution; (c) institutional rank of either special assistant or senior adviser to the president; vice president, provost, chancellor; associate vice president, provost, chancellor; assistant vice president, provost, chancellor; or dean, reflecting the institutional titles that most frequently populate the ‘‘chief ’’ designation nationally;

I N T R O DU CT IO N

23

and (e) a diversity element in their title. This process yielded 110 individuals, who were then interviewed at length.

Book Overview Strategic Diversity Leadership is organized around three major questions that have consistently emerged in conversations with scholars and diversity leaders across the country: first, why is diversity important in the new millennium? Second, what is diversity from an individual, organizational, and administrative capabilities perspective? And third, what is strategic diversity leadership? Responding to these overarching questions, this book is divided into three major sections. Part One introduces the context in which strategic diversity leadership happens. Part Two focuses on defining diversity from a number of different perspectives at the individual, organizational, and national level. Part Three centers on the process and nature of diversitythemed planning and change initiatives at colleges and universities, focusing on key issues of culture, strategic planning, organizational learning, and best practices.

Part One: Why Is Diversity Important in the New Millennium? The first section contains Chapter 1, which contextualizes strategic diversity leadership from an open systems perspective, articulating how colleges and universities are in dynamic relationship with their environment, and the need for institutional leaders to be responsive to changes that are swiftly elevating diversity as a matter of strategic importance. As mentioned earlier, this ‘‘perfect storm’’ of factors has elevated and repositioned diversity at the center of the debate over higher education in America. Only when we can appreciate these complex forces are we in a position to revisit and reframe the traditional definition of diversity, placing it in a new and more dynamic context, the ‘‘diversity idea.’’

Part Two: What Is Diversity? The second section examines the question of what diversity is through a series of chapters that provide the backdrop for understanding diversity from a conceptual, individual, institutional, and organizational capabilities perspective. Recognizing that the old definitions of diversity no longer work, Chapter 2 offers a new and more dynamic understanding of diversity in the context of the ‘‘diversity idea,’’ more accurately capturing its fluid and evolving

24

I N T R O D U CT IO N

nature. Here readers are provided with an overall framework for understanding the diversity idea from a theoretical, social identity, ideological, and institutional perspective. More specifically, this chapter uses social identity theory as a lens for thinking about diverse groups, and then presents an overview of the various mental models that characterize diversity ideology. These models or perspectives fall into six categories: the equity perspective, the racialized perspective, the centric perspective, the universal perspective, the reverse discrimination perspective, and the colorblind perspective. The first four perspectives are conducive to promoting diversity efforts, whereas the last two are hostile. The chapter features national policy guidance provided by key organizations like the AAC&U, the NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, and others with experience helping colleges and universities define their diversity agendas. Chapter 3 introduces a way of looking at ongoing college and university diversity capabilities as the expression of three models of organizational change. The Affirmative Action and Equity Model; the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, although not discrete, provide an overview for thinking about diversity issues organizationally. Each model is explored in terms of ontology, key definitions, and the technology of change that it leverages to accomplish its goals. By linking issues of environmental dynamics and formal organizational structures to these three models, this chapter establishes the context for our understanding of the role of strategic diversity leaders and CDOs as change agents who integrate, coordinate, and amplify campus diversity efforts.

Part Three: What Is Strategic Diversity Leadership? The third section answers the question, ‘‘What is strategic diversity leadership?’’ Returning to an expanded notion of diversity through the lens of the ‘‘diversity idea,’’ this section leverages a number of different metaphors designed to help readers understand the culture of colleges and universities and the difficulty of leading change on campus. Chapter 4 begins with a discussion of why diversity plans fail, highlighting the challenging cultural dynamics of postsecondary institutions that are deeply resistant to change and the often crisis-driven approach to diversity planning and implementation that too often leads to flawed implementation efforts. From here the discussion turns to the multivariate ways available to lead strategically around issues of diversity. Chapter 5 presents five organizational lenses that strategic diversity leaders can apply to overcome resistance

I N T RO DU CT IO N

25

to change and advance the campus diversity agenda: organizational learning, structural leadership, political leadership, symbolic leadership, and collegial leadership (Bowman & Deal, 2003). These five leadership lenses offer essential tools for every strategic diversity leader to keep in his or her diversity toolbox. Chapter 6 tackles the topic of diversity accountability, presenting the ‘‘strategic diversity scorecard’’ to help leaders track, monitor, encourage, and drive progress in their campus diversity efforts. Building on previous research in this area, this chapter offers a framework and multiple indicators that can be used to track diversity progress holistically from several perspectives: (a) access and equity, (b) multicultural and inclusive campus climate, (c) learning and diversity, (d) diversity research and scholarship, and (e) diversity leadership commitment. More than a definitive catalogue of indicators, this chapter provides a foundation for higher education leaders to develop their own vision of what a strategic diversity scorecard might look like at their particular institution. Chapter 7 explores diversity plans in higher education because of their importance as a structural and symbolic beacon for the entire campus community. Three types of diversity plans are featured in this discussion: integrated, centralized, and decentralized. The discussion focuses specifically on aspects of the diversity planning and implementation processes at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Michigan, because both of these institutions have extensive experience in campus diversity planning that have helped shape strategic diversity leadership, planning, and implementation at other colleges and universities around the country. Chapter 8 concludes with an overview of the diversity efforts of over 700 academic institutions across the country. Here presented for the first time are national data showing the degree to which institutions have strategic diversity capabilities in place and are practicing some of the key tenets of strategic diversity leadership. The analysis here includes a summary of the presence of diversity scorecards, decentralized diversity plans, centralized diversity plans, general education distribution requirements, board- or regent-level reporting efforts, and accountability systems associated with not only reporting on issues of diversity, but rewarding leaders in this area through their annual merit review systems. Chapter 9 concludes this book with much needed guidance for developing diversity committees, commissions, task forces, and structures. While common on many campuses, many of these cross cutting diversity structures struggle to add value to their institutions because they operate absent a clear

26

I N T R O DU CT IO N

definition and purpose for their work. Chapter 9 defines the work of diversity committees, providing a framework for their development, operationalization, and potential closure for committees that have fulfilled their purpose.

The Diversity Leadership Set Collectively referred to as The Diversity Leadership Set, both Strategic Diversity Leadership and The Chief Diversity Officer seek to provide a comprehensive picture of diversity in higher education and how to lead change efforts. Working from an open systems perspective, these books aim to help the reader frame diversity issues appropriately, develop strategic focus, align capacity, and navigate the turbulent cultural and political waters associated with all change efforts at institutions of higher learning. In short, together they offer a passport into the strategic diversity leadership movement for some, a platform to accelerate the leadership process for others, and a toolkit to tighten the language and understanding of diversity issues for all. These volumes offer metaphors, stories, recommendations, and data designed to inspire and engage as the reader contemplates his or her own investigations and activities. Some readers will find the mix of theory, research, and practice challenging. The intention is to ground any theoretical material in the lived experiences of individuals and the concrete examples of institutions reflecting the authors’ (Katrina Wade-Golden is a coauthor of the companion volume) background as scholars, administrators, and educators. The great hope is that the innovative structure of these books will inspire scholarship, action, and efforts to build on and, when necessary, challenge the theories offered here. Given the mentoring role that so many people have played throughout the authors’ careers, we are proud to showcase their voices here, offering their advice on ways to make our educational system, and by extension our society, more diverse, inclusive, and welcoming. It is to be hoped that this book helps diversity champions everywhere take one more step forward on their journeys as strategic diversity leaders.

Notes 1. Data taken from the online analyses system hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Programme for International Student Assessment (2009). Retrieved January 5, 2012, from http://stats.oecd.org/PISA2009Profiles/. See also, www.ed .gov/blog/2010/12/international-education-rankings-suggest-reform-can-lift-u-s/.

I N T RO DU CT IO N

27

2. Mintz, S. (2012). U.S. failing to meet global education and competiveness challenges. Ethics Sage [blog]. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from www.ethicssage.com/2011/11/us-failingto-meet-global-education-and-competiveness-challenges.html 3. Strategic diversity leadership is part of the diversity management literature that entered the organizational lexicon in the 1990s as the corporate community began to move away from antidiscrimination and compliance-based perspectives toward a more organizational, missioncentered argument regarding the importance of diversity (Cox, 1991; D. A. Thomas, 2004). Although numerous terms exist, such as valuing diversity, leveraging diversity, and managing inclusion, we refer to strategic diversity leadership as the managing diversity philosophy or school of leadership. This term allows for connectivity to the broader conversation of diversity and inclusion, but takes into account the unique realities of the postsecondary knowledge industry and its broader focus on leadership as opposed to management. 4. The case is Fisher v. University of Texas (docket 11–345). The Court’s decision will be made by an eight-Justice court, because the newest member, Justice Elena Kagan, has disqualified herself. She was the U.S. Solicitor General in March 2010, when the Justice Department filed a brief in this case in the Fifth Circuit Court. 5. In the companion volume to this book, six emerging forces are discussed as isomorphic energies that are reshaping issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion into a strategic diversity leadership movement taking place across higher education, and indeed all organizational sectors. These factors are (a) diversity research, (b) diversity officer affinity organizations, (c) diversity management and certification programs, (d) diversity conferences and symposiums, (e) higher education policy organizations, and (f ) cross-sector partnerships between higher education, government, and the private sector. 6. Indeed, despite its strong adherence to tradition and conservative culture, the United States military has become an important avenue for testing and implementing progressive social policies. Clearly, the integration of the armed forces beginning in 1948 played an important role in breaking down racial and ethnic barriers during the second half of the twentieth century. By the time of both Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), it was hardly surprising that military leaders should voice support for diversity programs. More recently, the military’s two top commanders, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, played a key role in overturning ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ which barred gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Their testimony came on the heels of an extensive internal military study revealing that a majority of service men and women supported ending the ban. For the report and subsequent analysis, see Johnson and Ham’s (2010) Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated With a Repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ 7. As discussed in Chapter 1, Fisher v. University of Texas will bring the issue of raceconscious admissions before the Supreme Court in the summer of 2012. Although the decision may well end affirmative action, its implications for diversity efforts as a whole are less clear. There are powerful new forces driving diversity efforts in higher education, among them changing demographics and the recognition that diversity improves learning outcomes in the classroom. There are also new diversity policies and programs, including race-neutral alternatives like K–12 outreach and ‘‘pipeline’’ efforts, which diversity leaders can access to support their efforts.

This page intentionally left blank

PA R T O N E

WHY IS DIVERSITY I M P O R TA N T I N T H E N E W MILLENNIUM?

This page intentionally left blank

1 DIVERSITY IN THE NEW ECONOMY Navigating the Perfect Storm

I

began this book with President Barack Obama’s inspiring remarks from a 2009 speech to a Joint Session of Congress. But these comments offered more than a somber assessment of the discouraging state of American education: they were a call to action. The President argued that in order to compete globally, significantly more Americans will need to obtain a college degree. And yet current trends suggest that only 46.4 percent of people in the critical 25–34 age demographic will have earned a college degree by 2020, leaving the nation nearly 24 million degrees short of the 60 percent needed to surpass countries like South Korea and Japan (Nichols, 2011). This degree shortfall, along with changing demographics and an increasingly turbulent political landscape, has created a ‘‘perfect storm’’ for leaders contemplating the role of diversity in higher education. To understand and overcome the challenges of this perfect storm, academic leaders must fundamentally reframe how they approach issues of diversity in our colleges and universities. They are not alone. In colleges and universities, corporations and nonprofits, the challenge presented by today’s global economy requires a conceptual shift in our understanding of why diversity matters (Beckham, 2008). As scholars have noted, diversity has become a vital economic asset. In short, it offers a means to improve an institution’s bottom line. Moreover, this ‘‘bottom line’’ encompasses more than economic performance. Researchers have shown conclusively that a more diverse community improves learning and problem solving, enhances research and innovation, and strengthens organizational culture and teamwork (Cox, 1991; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005; Paige, 2007; D. A. Thomas, 2004). These outcomes are increasingly cited by those seeking to promote diversity in both the workplace and the academy. 31

32

W HY I S DI VE RS IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N EW MI L L EN N I U M ?

The Five Pressure Systems Powering the Perfect Storm This chapter seeks to help academic leaders understand some of the most important social and economic issues confronting colleges and universities today. Operating from the assumption that academic institutions are open systems in constant exchange with the wider environment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), the chapter posits that organizational boundaries are shifting and permeable, simultaneously penetrating and being penetrated by the broader social sphere. Because campuses do not exist in a vacuum, they cannot be fixed in a vacuum. We all need to become more responsive to a changing world and particularly to new pressures that are exerting themselves on higher education. Although it is beyond the scope of this book to address every relevant external factor, this chapter outlines five critical pressures powering the perfect storm highlighting diversity’s importance in the new millennium: (a) the emergence of a knowledge-based global economy; (b) changing demographics; (c) persistent educational inequalities along racial, ethnic, and gender lines; (d) the crystallization of the importance of diverse experiences, both within and outside the classroom, for all students as an educational and workforce imperative; and (e) continuing legal and political threats to diversity and affirmative action (Figure 1.1). Unless we broaden our approach to issues of diversity, we risk a future in which diverse students and groups will feel marginalized on campus and all graduates, whatever their background, will emerge from college without the necessary skills to compete in the global economy. By contrast, if we can comprehend the power of these critical pressures, and chart our way accordingly, we can foster positive, transformative change, not only in our institutions of higher learning, but throughout American society.

Pressure One: The Emergence of a Knowledge-Based Global Economy As President Obama noted, in today’s economy, a secondary education is no longer a luxury; it is a prerequisite. The Great Recession1 has only amplified the need for a more educated workforce, as the economic downturn has hit the educationally disadvantaged hardest, especially Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos, older workers, and young people (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). Our ability to recover will depend on preparing students for a world where nearly two-thirds of new jobs in the next decade will require at

D IV ER S I TY I N TH E N EW EC O N O M Y

33

FIGURE 1.1 The Perfect Storm Powering Diversity’s Emergence as a Strategic Priority

least some college education. This new economy will be powered not by machines, but by highly educated people. In a lecture delivered to a national meeting of the Society of College and University Planning, President Emeritus James Duderstadt of the University of Michigan stated: Just as the space race of the 1960s stimulated major investments in research and education, there are early signs that the skills race of the twenty-first century may soon be recognized as the dominant domestic policy issue facing our nation. But there is an important difference here. The space race galvanized public concern and concentrated national attention on educating ‘‘the best and brightest,’’ the elite of our society. The skills race of the twenty-first century will value instead the skills and knowledge of our entire workforce as a key to economic prosperity, national security, and social wellbeing. (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 5)

Over the past several decades, the Midwestern region where the author grew up has experienced steep declines in manufacturing, leading to a sharp rise in poverty, crime, and other social problems. As the Internet and other

34

W H Y IS DI V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI L L E N N I UM ?

TAB LE 1. 1 Strategic Pressures and Their Implications for Higher Education Diversity Initiatives Pressure

Description

Implications for Higher Education

Emergence of a Knowledge-Based Global Economy

To compete in the global economy, significantly more American citizens will have to obtain college degrees. They face an economic future in which the ability to interact with citizens from other countries and in diverse contexts will be the norm, not the exception.

• Need to improve access for Americans seeking a postsecondary education • Need to enhance the range and quality of educational opportunities for an increasingly diverse student body • Need to expand international learning opportunities, focusing on curriculum development, study abroad programs, institutional and research partnerships, and outreach and recruitment

Changing Demographics

The American population is becoming more ethnically and racially diverse, and older. Despite the persistence of a ‘‘glass ceiling’’ in politics and the business world, women are achieving greater financial and educational parity with men. Overall, the political and social power of the LGBT community is growing.

• Need to reevaluate traditional definitions and assumptions about the ‘‘normative’’ student population in light of changing demographics • Need to ensure that campuses have inclusive academic, cultural, and social support systems to address the needs of a more diverse student body • Need to expand research opportunities to focus on the challenges of a more diverse student body and society • Need to improve opportunities for nontraditional students and lifelong learning • Need to strengthen standards with a renewed commitment to educational attainment and outcomes

Persistent Political, Social and Economic Inequalities

Persistent disparities along racial, ethnic, and gender lines present an ongoing challenge to institutions of higher learning seeking to educate an increasingly diverse student body.

• Need to develop effective techniques for addressing growing socioeconomic disparities in American society • Need to engage in aggressive K–12 partnerships to ensure young people are prepared before they reach college • Need to redress racial and gender disparities in STEM degree completion • Need to expand financial aid programs for low-income students

D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C O N O M Y

35

The Educational and Business Case for Diversity

Research has shown that diverse learning environments lead to more creative and capable students, and that America’s economic future hinges on creating a workforce capable of thriving in a diverse global economy.

• Need to develop powerful academic and cocurricular learning opportunities for students, providing tangible experiences both within and outside of the university • Need to improve the cultural literacy and competency of all students, regardless of their cultural backgrounds and values • Need to reframe diversity education as a prerequisite for success in the global economy

Political and Legal Threats to Diversity in Education

The legal and political challenges to affirmative action and diversity will continue, forcing leaders in higher education to do more than remain nominally committed to diversity; they will have to imagine and implement new programs and policies to demonstrate the viability and vibrancy of diversity in education.

• Need to review all diversity programs and initiatives to ensure they are compliant with current state and federal law • Need to connect the institution’s stated mission with diversity initiatives by developing a clear rationale and a robust framework for implementing policies and programs • Need to expand research focusing on the educational and social benefits of diversity and their implications for the global economy

LGBT, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender; STEM, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

knowledge-based resources like information technology and intellectual property have emerged, what Daniel Pink calls ‘‘creative jobs’’ have become the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy (Pink, 2005). Creative jobs in graphic and web design, sales and marketing, accounting and management, health care, law, and teaching require the ability to use information in dynamic and imaginative ways. Low-paying service jobs are now a last, dwindling opportunity for those without some form of higher education. Indeed, during the past 30 years all net job growth has occurred in sectors that require at least some form of postsecondary education (Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, 2011). One obvious indicator of the widening gap between high school and college graduates is their income disparity. As it stands today, the lifetime earning gap between a high school and college graduate is now more than $1 million and growing (Symonds et al., 2011). To say that the prospects are daunting for individuals without a college education is an understatement.

36

W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N E W MI L L E N N I U M ?

Around the world, higher learning institutions are responding to the new reality. Unfortunately, trends examined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggest that the United States has lost its historic edge in adults with a college degree (Figure 1.2). Particularly with respect to adults aged 25–34, the United States currently ranks twelfth globally at 41.6 percent (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010). The United States also has the lowest graduation rates among those students who actually enroll in college as compared with other developed nations (OECD, 2010). Meanwhile, countries like Canada (56 percent), Japan (55 percent), and South Korea (58 percent) are ahead and pulling away. Catching up with these nations will require a tremendous commitment from all levels of American society. To make significant headway, the United States must address disparities in educational opportunity and achievement, particularly among historically underrepresented African American, Latino, Native American, and firstgeneration students. The challenge has become more daunting, however, in light of the fact that higher learning itself is undergoing a revolution. It is no longer simply about getting student bodies into the classroom. Now it is about creating opportunities for students to leave the classroom, whether on study abroad programs or into online learning communities that transcend state and national borders. The Internet has opened new avenues to information and helped lower the constraints of time and space for collaborating locally and globally. It has made communication simpler and faster. But colleges and universities must do more to provide students with the training and resources they need to thrive in the web-powered working environments of the future.

Pressure Two: Changing Demographics A second pressure driving the ‘‘perfect storm’’ is the changing face of American society. For years, demographers have tracked the growth of minority populations and the fact that America’s population will reach a ‘‘minority majority’’ tipping point during this century. The future is approaching quickly, and this demographic shift offers an unparalleled opportunity to diversify our campuses even as our emerging knowledge-based, global economy demands a similar reframing of diversity’s importance in this new reality.

D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C O N O M Y

FIGURE 1.2 Percentage of Population Ages 25–34 With a College Degree by Country in 2008

Source: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010)

37

38

W HY IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N EW MI L L EN N I U M ?

Racial and Ethnic Trends Taken together, ethnic and racial minorities—those who identify themselves as non-White—account for most of the nation’s population growth among people 18 and younger (Frey, 2011a).2 From 2000 to 2010, the population of White youth under the age of 18 declined by 4.3 million, while the population of Latino and Asian youth grew by 5.5 million. The accelerated growth of this ‘‘new minority’’3 heralds an increasingly diverse labor force (Frey, 2011a). Although this demographic shift presents obvious challenges, it also offers a number of clear advantages, not only because other developed nations are experiencing slower growth rates, but because their populations lack our diversity. Box 1.1 explores the challenge of undocumented students in higher education.

BOX 1.1 An Emerging Civil Rights Issue: Undocumented Students in Higher Education The rising number of undocumented students is presenting a particularly thorny civil rights challenge for colleges and universities. In 2010, an estimated 66,000 undocumented students graduated from high school only to find the doors to secondary education closed. Many of these young people have resided in the United States nearly all their lives and consider this country their home. These young people aspire to contribute their talents to our country. American law remains ambiguous in its treatment of undocumented students. Since the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202), K–12 education has been guaranteed for all children regardless of their legal status. However, federal law denies undocumented college students access to financial aid and in-state tuition, although individual states have been able to establish their own tailored policies. Between 2001 and 2009, 11 states passed laws allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition while attending college: California, Texas, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Three of these states, California, New Mexico, and Texas, also allow undocumented students to seek state financial aid (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011). In recent years, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina have taken controversial steps to discourage undocumented students from pursuing a secondary education, much less a college degree. The most extreme measure, a (continues)

D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C O N O M Y

39

(continued) 2011 immigration bill passed in Alabama, explicitly bars undocumented students from attending in-state colleges and requires K–12 school officials to compile and submit lists of suspected undocumented students to state education officials. This policy has led to widespread anxiety among minority communities in Alabama and negative effects on the state’s economy.

The DREAM Act In 2007, a bipartisan coalition of federal legislators introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This legislation would allow undocumented students access to in-state tuition and a pathway to a six-year conditional permanent residency upon the completion of a college degree or two years of military service. Since its introduction, the bill has fallen victim to partisan politics, despite the massive mobilization of student activists and their supporters during the 2010 legislative session. If passed, the DREAM Act would provide undocumented students with the opportunity to gain a postsecondary education and ultimately become eligible for legal permanent residency, and thus access to a green card and legal employment. Upon completion of further conditions, these residents could eventually apply for full citizenship. Among other benefits, the DREAM Act would also clearly have a positive influence on national dropout rates; because the doors to college are essentially closed to them, undocumented high school students have little incentive to graduate from high school. For more information about the DREAM Act and the various organizations involved in this movement visit http://dreamact.info. Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures (2011) and Stevenson (2004).4

The browning of America is occurring faster than many anticipated (Figure 1.3). Previous demographic studies projected that the overall population would become minority White by 2042, and that the youth population would reach this state by 2023 (Frey, 2011a). Yet the twin engines of immigration and birth rates have led to greater than expected growth among minority populations. For example, in 2009 the birth rate among Whites was 1.9 compared with 3 among Latinos. Looking at trends in immigration, only 15 percent of the growth over the past 10 years was attributable to Whites; Latinos, Asians, and other new minorities accounted for nearly 80 percent (Frey, 2011a). Moreover, this statistic excludes the thousands of undocumented families who have come to the United States in search of better opportunities.

FIGURE 1.3 Race and Ethnicity Populations by Percentage in Major Metropolitan Areas in 2009

Source: United States Census Bureau (2011).

D IV E R S I TY IN TH E N E W EC O N O M Y

41

Current projections suggest that the demographic tipping point may occur sooner than anticipated and that White children may become a minority population before the next major census in 2020 (Frey, 2011a). In many of our nation’s largest school districts, minorities are already the majority. A recent Brookings Institute analysis reported that 10 states and 35 large metropolitan areas now have minority White youth populations, with major cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Orlando, and Phoenix becoming ‘‘minority majority’’ in recent years (Frey, 2011b). Indeed, recent reports by the U.S. Census Bureau showed that the majority of new births in this country are now nonwhite Hispanic children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

BOX 1.2 Demographic Shifts in the LGBT Community Although the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community rarely figures prominently in discussions of demographics, this group has a growing voice and its needs have increasingly become a priority in academia. Although their concerns do not necessarily mirror those of other minority groups, the LGBT community deserves a seat at the table in discussions about diversity and inclusion. Indeed, part of the challenge in addressing LGBT concerns stems precisely from the lack of data on its demographic size and make-up. For obvious reasons, many LGBT individuals are reluctant to reveal information about their sexual orientation or gender identity. Nevertheless, the United States 2000 and 2010 censuses counted gay and lesbian individuals and recorded 646,464 same-sex couples in 2010. Drawing on information from four national and two state-level population-based surveys, the Williams Institute of the University of California–Los Angeles Law School estimated that in 2009 there were around nine million adults in the United States who describe themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, roughly 4 percent of the adult population. Moreover, an estimated 19 million Americans report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction. Research also suggests high concentrations of same-sex couples within communities of color. In other words, to be gay is no longer to be urban and White, as the LGBT community is experiencing its own growing diversity. If we are to take diversity seriously in higher education, we must demonstrate greater responsiveness to the concerns of LGBT students, faculty, and staff. Whether granting health, retirement, and other benefits to partners, spouses, and family members; establishing LGBT offices and affinity groups; or making space for queer theory (continues)

42

W HY I S DI VE RS IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N EW MI L L EN N I U M ?

(continued) in the curriculum; institutions committed to diversity have a variety of immediate tools at their disposal. The LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index conducts ongoing reviews assessing how welcoming colleges and universities are toward LGBT students. Third-party accountability mechanisms deserve inclusion in traditional publications like the U.S. News and World Report and Barron’s College Reporter. These types of assessments will be increasingly important to a business community ever more committed to recruiting its next generation of leaders from institutions that value diversity. Sources: Gates (2011); Gates & Cooke (2010); Gates & Ost (2004).

Current demographic and educational trends now make clear that colleges and universities must become proactive on diversity issues. America’s future depends increasingly on the human capital of our next generation of young people. The persistence of educational inequities at all levels is jeopardizing this future. Indeed, some researchers have begun to think about diversity as a matter of social sustainability, as our society can no longer afford to waste so much diverse human capital if we are to maintain our quality of life. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) argues that in its simplest form, sustainability is best defined as ensuring well being in three interrelated dimensions: the environment, the economy, and society (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2010). Social disruptions, including poverty, inequity, and corruption divert resources from areas of need, damaging our capacity to plan for the future and threatening the stability of our social and environmental health. Working with other nonprofits and higher education associations, AASHE has developed the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). STARS recognizes the sustainability efforts of the full spectrum of colleges and universities in the United States and Canada—from community colleges to research universities, and from institutions just starting their sustainability programs to long-time campus sustainability leaders. This system includes social diversity as a key element in efforts to create a broad sustainability movement in higher education.

Pressure Three: Persistent Societal and Educational Inequality The increasing diversity of the American population is both our greatest strength and most serious challenge. The potential fruits of our diverse society are threatened by persistent and pernicious social, economic, and educational inequalities. Far from moving toward one nation, American society is

D I V E R SI TY IN T H E N E W EC O N O M Y

43

being fractured by ongoing economic, political, and social division. As we turn our attention to the educational inequalities in America, the stakes for higher education could not be higher.

Disparities in K–12 Education Although the primary subject of this book deals with diversity issues in higher education, the challenges begin in our primary and secondary schools. Tragically, America’s K–12 educational system is becoming increasingly characterized by a stark dichotomy (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010). One part of the educational system enjoys strong learning environments, capable teachers, parent engagement, and a consistent focus on preparing students for college. The other part of the system is characterized by low test scores and graduation rates, demoralized teachers, decaying school buildings, and a shocking trend of students not completing high school, much less enrolling in college. Although national aggregate statistics on the K–12 achievement of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) are comparable to Whites, the same cannot be said for other minority groups. According to the most recent National Center for Education Statistics report, African American, Latino, and Native American/Alaska Native youth trail their White peers in achievement in both math and reading scores drawn from the National Assessment for Educational Progress (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). In 2009, twelfth grade White students scored 27 points higher in reading and 30 points higher in math on average than African American students (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Similar gaps exist between White and Latino students: Whites scored 22 points higher in reading and 23 points higher in math on average. At the same point in their educational experience, Native American/Alaska Native youth lag 17 and 22 points behind their White peers in math and reading respectively. These disparities exist across multiple years of data and for nearly all grade levels (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). As these findings demonstrate, American schools are failing many ethnically and racially diverse young people. Box 1.3 specifically addresses disparity issues in the AAPI community.

44

W H Y IS DI V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?

BOX 1.3 The Fallacy of the Model Minority Myth: A Story of Success, Disparity, and Continuing Racial Dynamics It is standard practice in many fields to count individuals from vastly different backgrounds in the panethnic category of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI). Japan, India, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Pacific Islands are all very different places, yet they are often lumped together awkwardly in the AAPI group. As a result, educators and policy makers lose sight of the different challenges particular subgroups face. AAPI students are often designated ‘‘model minorities’’ and as far back as the 1960s, Asian communities were held up as examples to disparage African American and Latino groups. The model minority stereotype promotes the idea that AAPI youth succeed because their families value learning and hard work. Accordingly, Asian parents are a relentless force in their children’s lives, demanding academic excellence even at the expense of the emotional well-being of their children. Touting the ‘‘superior child rearing techniques of Chinese women,’’ Yale University law professor Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother is only the latest contribution to the ‘‘model minority’’ myth. Arguing that there is something deeply rooted in Asian culture that lends itself to success in school and life, Chua connects the Asian American experience to an even older American narrative, the ‘‘pull yourself up by the bootstraps’’ story of individualism and hard work. Although Chua has inspired some, and mortified others, her discussion at times passes over a number of issues that are highly consequential for understanding minority subgroups lumped under the Asian heading. As a wealthy, well-educated, second-generation Chinese American, Chua has enjoyed a degree of educational and economic privilege not open to many minority communities, even members of her own racial and ethnic group. Cultural values, including parenting techniques, do not exist in a vacuum. The parenting techniques that Amy Chua assigns to her race are actually common in both majority White culture and a broad spectrum of minority communities. What these families have in common is access to education and economic opportunity. Herein lies the deeper story of the cultural, economic, and social challenges facing ethnic minorities. Digging beneath the surface, it is worth noting that, although some AAPIs score higher on standardized test scores on average, these results are heavily influenced by socioeconomic variables and vary widely among various subgroups. Lumping Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Pacific Islander groups together with more affluent Japanese, Indian, and South Korean minorities does a disservice to the special abilities, and specific challenges, of each. Examining difficulties faced by economically disadvantaged and newer immigrant communities, like Southeast Asians (continues)

D IV ER S I TY IN TH E N EW EC O N O M Y

45

(continued) and Pacific Islanders, would help give a more accurate understanding of their test scores and ability to access postsecondary education. Indeed, when controlling for economic factors, the reality for most Asian American students centers often on first-generation students attending open-enrollment two- and four-year public institutions. Many AAPI students face the same challenges of other historically underrepresented communities lacking the cultural and economic capital required to access selective postsecondary institutions. Although no one would dispute the value of hard work, the ‘‘model minority’’ myth ignores the serious challenges many AAPI communities face. Moreover, this myth widens the division between Asian Americans and other ethnic groups, positioning AAPI success as a counternarrative to stereotypes that assign a ‘‘culture of poverty’’ and low achievement to other ethnic and racial groups. This stereotype is also unwelcome to many AAPIs, who often feel invisible in discussions about diversity, equity, and inclusion. By defining the challenge of achievement and its solution entirely through the lens of individual effort, we ignore other dynamics that dramatically influence individual success. Understanding these dynamics is essential as strategic diversity leaders seek to grasp these and other critical factors that complicate the discussion of diversity today. Sources: Asian/Pacific/American Institute and the Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy at New York University (2008); Chua (2011).

The Crisis of Male Youth of Color The challenge to attending college for young men of color is nothing less than a national crisis, in which an alarming number of young men live in poverty and are either unemployed or incarcerated (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010). Entire generations have been pushed to the margins of society, living on the outskirts of the economic, social, and cultural mainstream. In 2005 in New York City, which has the largest public school system in the nation, only about 44 percent of Black and Latino males graduated after six years of high school (Meade, Gaytan, Fergus, & Noguera, 2009). And nationally, Latino males are the most likely demographic group to drop out during middle school. A 2010 report by the Schott Foundation for Public Education, Yes We Can: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males, reported that only 47 percent of African American males graduated from public high schools in the 2007–2008 school year. The Kellogg, Ford, and Lumina Foundations; the College Board; and numerous others have partnered with schools, postsecondary institutions, and community organizations to fund a series of projects designed to reverse

46

W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N E W MI L L E N N I UM ?

these alarming trends. In the Educational Crisis Facing Young Men of Color, the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center argues that the challenge of educational attainment is one confronting minority male students across racial and ethnic backgrounds touching African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American youth (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010). This study lists among these challenges the lack of male role models, a low estimation of education as a viable pathway to success, and language and community barriers. The report calls for a more strategic approach that would require the coordination of K–12 schools, colleges and universities, state higher education accreditation bodies, and the private sector. One successful K–12 program highlighted by the College Board is the Harlem Children’s Zone. The multilayered approach championed by Harlem Children’s Zone founder Geoffrey Canada focuses on partnering at all levels of the community. Efforts include developing successful mentoring programs, providing positive male role models, engaging in parental development and job training, and establishing a comprehensive network of support available to students year round. Students in the Harlem Children’s Zone have shown impressive gains that validate the importance of a comprehensive approach to educating children. Moreover, by offering a comprehensive array of child and family services through the schools—from parenting classes and job training to health care services—the Harlem Children’s Zone is making significant contributions to the broader community outside the classroom walls (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010).

BOX 1.4 The Crisis of Young African American Males and the Response by Higher Education The African American male crisis is an ongoing challenge for strategic diversity leaders. When compared with other demographic groups, African American males fare worse across nearly every indicator of economic, educational, and social wellbeing. Their plight is harmful to the African American community, our nation, and our democracy. African American children are still suffering the tragic legacy of racism and exclusion. Despite some progress, our public education system has not responded adequately. Disparities in achievement levels and graduation rates for African American children persist, even across socioeconomic strata. Poverty, disenfranchisement, (continues)

D IV ER S I TY I N TH E N EW EC O N O M Y

47

(continued) and other ills lead to higher classroom management and disciplinary challenges. Although African American students comprise only 17 percent of public school students, they make up 41 percent of special education placements, of which 85 percent are males. The failure to educate and empower all our young people is a massive cost shouldered by our whole society. Colleges and universities have a vital role to play developing targeted efforts focused directly on these challenges. Already institutions like The Ohio State University, Clemson University, Morehouse College, Philander Smith College, the CUNY System, the University of Georgia, and others have mounted Black Male Initiatives. These institutions have joined a loosely affiliated coalition trying to enhance K–12 preparation, higher education participation, providing mentorship, assistance with social reintegration after prison and other resources designed to address the African American male crisis. Colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to develop cross-sectional partnerships with K–12 school systems, community organizations, prisons, corporations, and government organizations. Only by working together can we achieve traction and improve the lives for generations of young men who could play a vital, positive role in our nation’s future. Sources: Belfield & Levin (2007); Gilmer, Littles, & Bowers (2008); Sen (2006).

Higher Education Diversity on the Rise Although numerous challenges confront ethnically and racially diverse youth, traditional and virtual campuses alike are gradually becoming more diverse. Indeed, one of the positive trends of the last 30 years is the slow but consistent increase in the percentage of Latino and African American college students at the associate, baccalaureate, and postbaccalaureate levels. The rise of racial and ethnic minorities in higher education is essential if we are to have the numbers of educated citizens that our economy requires (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). As noted in Figure 1.4, from 1980 to 2009 the number of African American students pursuing an associate or bachelor’s degrees rose from 10 to 15 percent, the number of Latino undergraduate students rose from 4 to 13 percent, and the number of AAPIs rose from 2 to 7 percent, even as the overall college population increased substantially. During the same period, the percentage of White students fell from 83 to 62 percent, reflecting demographic shifts and the overall aging of the White population. Although the Native American and Alaska Native populations are not appreciably driving demographic growth in the United States, these groups

FIGURE 1.4 Percentage Distribution of Undergraduate Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions by Race and Ethnicity: 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2009

Source: Snyder & Dillow (2011).

D IV ER S I TY I N TH E N EW EC O N O M Y

49

are still important. Over the last 30 years, Native American/Alaska Native representation in higher education has remained flat, itself a partial reflection of an overall largely static population that hovers between 0.8 and 1.1 percent of the population (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Unfortunately, this group is often absent from discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, sometimes dismissed as ‘‘too small to matter.’’ A review of undergraduate enrollment levels in 2009 reveals that the majority of African American, Latino, Native American, and AAPI students attend public two-year institutions (Table 1.2). Nearly 52 percent of Latino students attend public two-year institutions, followed by 45 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 42 percent of AAPI students, and 40 percent of African American students. Nearly 13 percent of African Americans attend four-year private for-profit institutions, compared to 5.8 percent for Whites. Two-year and community colleges provide vital access to ethnically and racially diverse students by offering affordable education, open enrollment, and course and geographic convenience. These institutions are also critical for returning and part-time students. Often more nimble and capable of building partnerships with businesses and governments, two-year and community colleges can create tailored programs to meet job training requirements in the health care and technical fields, including nursing, information technology, advanced manufacturing, and green jobs. Although these institutions make a postsecondary education more accessible for minority groups, they have been criticized for not sufficiently preparing students for obtaining a bachelor’s degree (Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2011). For these institutions, future success means partnering more closely with bachelor-degree granting institutions, enabling students to transfer between institutions and complete their coursework without having to repeat classes. In the knowledge-based, global economy, America’s competitive edge will hinge in part on the success of two-year and community colleges. In the coming years, jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow twice as fast as those requiring no college experience, and these two-tier institutions are key to meeting this challenge (IHEP, 2011).

Disparities in Completing College Although more ethnically and racially diverse students are enrolled in college than ever before, their rate of degree completion is uneven, highlighting why college and university leaders must rally to engage with the ‘‘perfect storm’’

TA BLE 1 .2 Number and Percentage Distribution of Fall 2009 Undergraduate Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions, by Control, Level of Institution, and Selected Student Characteristics Public

Private: Not-for-Profit

Private: For-Profit

Total All Institutions

4-year

2-year

4-year

2-year

4-year

2-year

100%

35.8

40.4

14.6

0.2

6.8

2.2

Male

100%

37.7

40.1

14.4

0.2

5.8

1.8

Female

100%

34.4

40.6

14.7

0.2

7.6

2.5

White

100%

37.9

38.3

16.2

0.2

5.8

1.6

African American/ Black

100%

29.7

40.3

12.8

0.3

12.8

4.1

Latino/Hispanic

100%

29.7

51.8

8.3

0.1

6.6

3.5

Asian American/ Pacific Islander

100%

39.5

41.9

13.3

0.2

3.8

1.3

American Indian/ Alaska Native

100%

35.0

44.9

10.0

0.7

7.4

2.0

Nonresident Alien

100%

43.7

25.6

25.0

0.2

4.7

0.6

Student Characteristics Total Gender

Race and Ethnicity

Source: Snyder & Dillow (2011).

D IV E R S I T Y IN T H E N EW E C O N OM Y

51

of diversity challenges. The number of degrees earned for all racial and ethnic groups has risen overall, but at varying rates (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). A review of current U.S. Department of Education data on associate degree attainment between 1997–1998 and 2007–2008 suggests that the number of degrees earned by Latinos increased 50 percent, from 45,900 to 91,300, whereas the number of degrees earned by African American students improved 73 percent, from 55,300 to 95,700 (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). The number earned by White students increased 21 percent, from 413,600 to 501,100. In 2007–2008, African Americans earned 13 and Hispanics 12 percent of all associate’s degrees awarded, up from the 10 and 8 percent that they earned respectively in 1997–1998. Between 1997–1998 and 2007–2008, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to White students increased 25 percent, from 0.9 to 1.1 million; the number awarded to Hispanic students increased 86 percent, from 66,000 to 123,000; and the number awarded to Black students increased by 55 percent, from 98,300 to 152,500 (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). In 2007–2008, Blacks earned 10 percent, and Hispanics 8 percent, of all bachelor’s degrees awarded, up from 10 years earlier when they earned 8 and 6 percent, respectively. Although the total number of degrees awarded increased during the last 10 years for each group, existing data for six-year bachelor’s degree completion rates suggests a less positive story with respect to the performance of minority groups (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Although AAPI students earned the highest graduation rate with 67 percent, the graduation rate for African American students remains a worrisome 40 percent (Figure 1.5). And although Whites achieved 60 percent graduation rates, only 49 percent of Latino students and 38 percent of Native American/Alaska Native students completed a bachelor’s degree within six years. A closer look at the data by institutional type shows that the disparity in graduation rates exists across public, private, and for-profit institutions. Simply put, African American, Latino, and Native American/Alaska Native students have consistently lower graduation rates than their White and AAPI peers.

Private For-Profit Institutions: A Shaky Proposition for Minority Students Another important trend centers on the number of low-income students attending for-profit institutions (IHEP, 2011). Research by the Institute for

FIGURE 1.5 National Six-Year Graduation Rates of Public, Private Not-for-Profit, and Private For-Profit Four-Year Institutions by Race and Ethnicity in 2009

Source: Snyder & Dillow (2011).

D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C O N O M Y

53

Higher Education Policy has shown that low-income and ethnically and racially diverse students are increasingly pursuing studies at for-profit institutions, shifting from public four-year institutions (IHEP, 2011). Students at for-profit institutions have the lowest six-year bachelor’s completion rates among four-year institutions, at around 22 percent (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). A recent study calculated graduation rates at around 19 percent for African Americans and 25 percent for Latinos (Lynch, Engle, & Cruz, 2010).5 Among White students, the graduation rate is 33 percent (see Figure 1.5). These abysmal graduation rates, combined with increasing enrollments and the fact that students attending these institutions are often from lowincome backgrounds, suggests a challenging reality for students at for-profit institutions (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). Students at for-profit institutions represent 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default (Flannery, 2011). Indeed, the median federal student loan debt carried by students earning associate degrees at for-profit institutions was $14,000, whereas the majority of students at community colleges do not borrow at all (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). This disparity raises questions about the costs and benefits associated with vulnerable student communities turning to for-profit institutions. All too often the author has heard stories, frequently from low-income women of color, who enrolled in these institutions, found too little administrative and advising support, and ended up with no degree, expensive loans, and few job prospects. This reality has led critics to question the benefits of these degree programs (Carey, 2010; Kutz, 2010). The U.S. Department of Education has recently created a new accountability process requiring these institutions to meet several benchmarks in order to access federal aid, including graduating at least 35 percent of their students (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2011).

Gender Trends Female students currently out-perform male students at every educational level, and in every racial and ethnic category, from elementary through graduate school (Mather & Adams, 2007). The gap is most pronounced at the postsecondary level. Of the more than 20 million total projected students in college in 2010, women make up approximately 57 percent (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). In the United States, more bachelor’s degrees have been awarded to women than to men since the early 1980s (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). In 2006,

54

W H Y I S DI VE RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL EN N I U M ?

among 25- to 34-year-olds, around 36 percent of males and 43 percent of females completed higher education degrees (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Between 1999 and 2009, the number of male full-time postbaccalaureate students increased by 36 percent, compared with an impressive 63 percent increase for females. The pattern of gender differences are generally even more acute in the African American community, where women hold a large lead over their male counterparts in almost every area of educational attainment (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). In 2008, 71 percent of the total African American enrollment was female (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Today, African American women earn about two-thirds of all African American bachelor’s degrees, 72 percent of all master’s degrees, and 66 percent of all doctorates. Significantly higher percentages of African American women than men are represented in professional programs, including law, medicine, and dentistry. However, even with these gains, women overall remain underrepresented in the science and engineering disciplines, earning only 17 percent of all bachelor’s degrees in engineering-related fields and 18 percent in computer and information sciences (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Ingrained stereotypes about women in quantitative disciplines certainly contributes to this disparity, just as stereotypes about women as leaders contribute to their absence in positions of senior leadership across many industries and sectors. Thus, strategic diversity leaders must work along two tracts simultaneously, paying close attention to the basic graduation challenges that many male students face while being attentive to the particular ways that women suffer unfair and biased treatment in their pursuit of higher learning.

Educational Inequity, Attainment, and the Global Economy Without a more diverse student body making timely progress toward graduation, the United States will not meet its national goals on educational attainment (Nichols, 2011). Indeed, the global educational attainment gap can be traced to our inability to adequately educate individuals from economically vulnerable families (Nichols, 2011). To this point, over the past three decades degree attainment among young adults in the 18–24 age range has steadily increased for students at the top half of the income distribution, while remaining stagnant for students in the lower income range. Figure 1.6 shows the dramatic increase in bachelor’s degree attainment since 1977 by students in the top income percentiles (45 percent), compared with the significantly lower degree completion rates (17.2 percent) among low-income

D IV E R SI TY IN TH E N E W EC O N O M Y

55

FIGURE 1.6 Change in Estimated Bachelor’s Degree Attainment Rate by Age 24 by Family Income Quartile From 1977–1979 to 2007–2009

Source: Mortenson (2010) as referenced in Nichols (2011).

families. Students in the lowest quartiles face the toughest hurdle, at 7.3 and 2 percent, respectively (Mortenson, 2010). These graphs can sometimes render impersonal a stark moral issue, namely that educational inequality remains a question of race, ethnicity, and gender. Demographically, low-income students are more likely than their higher-income peers to be African American, Hispanic, and female, and to be the first in their families to go to college (IHEP, 2011). Due largely to a lack of financial resources, these students are more likely than their White peers to delay entry into postsecondary education, begin their degrees at two-year institutions, live at home with parents, commute to campus, and take classes part-time while working full-time (Berkner, He, & Cataldi, 2002). All these factors dramatically affect a student’s ability to complete his or her degree. The Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education found that in more than half of all states, public funding in highly concentrated minority school districts is substantially less than in low-concentration minority districts (Education Trust, 2006). More specifically, they found that across the universal K–12 student population, the educational investment in African American students is $20,000 less than that of White students, representing an average shortfall of $900–$1,200 per year (Belfield & Levin, 2007).6 Ironically, as staggering a number as this is, it is less than the amount of additional spending that would be needed to achieve equality of educational outcomes

56

W H Y I S DI V E RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?

among children living in under-resourced communities (Belfield & Levin, 2007). Clearly, the modest investment needed to raise minority-student achievement would pay steep dividends to society. The Alliance for Excellent Education calculated that raising the education levels of African American, Latino, and Native American students to that of their White peers would contribute over $310 billion annually to the American economy and help to eliminate both poverty and workforce shortages (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006).7 Another study concluded that the average high school dropout costs the national economy approximately $240,000 over the individual’s lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions, higher reliance on social services like Medicaid and Medicare, and higher criminal and incarceration rates (Belfield & Levin, 2007).

Salary Disparities Although higher levels of education do lead to significantly higher wages, there is still a disparity in earnings between Whites and minorities. U.S. Census Bureau data shows that in 2008, full-time African American workers with a four-year college degree had average annual earnings of $46,527, almost a quarter below the average earnings of fully employed White workers with a similar degree (Figure 1.7). Among students with a graduate degree, full-time African American workers had annual average earnings of $66,198, roughly 78 percent of the annual average earned by similarly educated White workers. In short, although a college education will increase one’s income at all levels of education, it fails to close the earnings gap between majority and minority workers. It is critical, therefore, that academic institutions do more to address policies that affect workers before and after they graduate, so that once in the workforce they can enjoy the fruits of their academic and professional training equally.

Pressure Four: The Educational and Business Case for Diversity In light of demographic trends and the emerging global economy, the ability of academic institutions to supply sufficient numbers of trained graduates will increasingly depend on their ability to effectively educate ethnically and racially diverse students. The economic necessity for embracing diversity is greater than merely providing a more diverse pool of workforce candidates.

FIGURE 1.7 Mean Salaries of Workers 18 Years and Older by Educational Attainment, Race, and Ethnicity in 2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008).

58

W H Y IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP OR TA N T I N TH E N EW MI L L E N N I U M ?

There is mounting evidence that all students, no matter what their background, are more qualified and effective workers when they have learned how to thrive in a diverse learning environment. Indeed, a growing body of research suggests that a diverse learning environment ‘‘promotes creativity and innovation, improved problem solving and decision-making, organizational flexibility, and tolerance for ambiguity’’ (Hurtado & Dey, 1997, p. 408). Academic leaders must therefore transform our approach to preparing students for leadership in the twenty-first century. Students no longer enter the workforce, work a single job for thirty years, and then retire. Today’s students have to prepare for a dynamic and changing economy. As illustrated by Figure 1.8, this means having the ability to (a) think critically and solve problems, (b) communicate effectively, (c) work in teams, (d) possess cultural competence to thrive in a diverse workplace, and (e) master new technologies. Colleges and universities are uniquely situated to foster these essential skills in both young people and adult learners (Carnevale & Fry, 2000; Hart, 2006). In the new economy, even service-sector jobs will require more workers with these competencies (Carnevale & Fry, 2000). Tomorrow’s workers will need to learn and adapt continually to new situations. These ‘‘high-level generalists’’ will operate like free agents, moving among jobs and even across fields while continually upgrading their skills. Auctioning their talents to the highest bidder, they will develop strategic partnerships to deliver a highquality product or service quickly and efficiently (Carnevale & Fry, 2000; Pink 2002). In this world, problem-solving skills and creativity are essential to meeting employer and consumer demand. A high school diploma and strong work ethic is no longer a passport to the American dream. Research now demonstrates persuasively what many have long suspected: students are more creative and effective when they are educated in a diverse learning environment. Among other cognitive skills, they tend to develop more sophisticated critical thinking and affective abilities (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). They show signs of participating more actively in their communities and demonstrating greater empathy. These qualities are essential to success in the global economy, and American businesses know it. Filing an amicus briefing during the U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action case involving the University of Michigan in 2003, a group of Fortune 500 companies noted: The students of today are this country’s corporate and community leaders of the next half century. For these students to realize their potential as

D I V E R SI TY IN T H E N E W E C O N O M Y

FIGURE 1.8 The Five Essential Leadership Skills of the New Economy

leaders, it is essential that they be educated in an environment where they are exposed to diverse ideas, perspectives, and interactions. Today’s global marketplace and the increasing diversity in the American population demand the cross-cultural experience and understanding gained from such an education. Diversity in higher education is therefore a compelling government interest not only because of its positive effects on the educational environment itself but also because of the crucial role diversity in higher education plays in preparing students to be the community leaders this country needs in business, law, and all other pursuits that affect the public interest. (University of Michigan Fortune 500 Amicus Brief, 1999)

59

60

W H Y IS DI V E R S I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?

Organizations of all kinds value candidates who can work effectively in diverse groups (Cox, 2001; Hart, 2006; Loden, 1996; R. Thomas, 1991). Today’s economy is built around diverse teams collaborating across ethnic, racial, gender, and geographic borders to build integrated solutions to complex problems (Paige, 2007; Pink, 2005). A study by Peter D. Hart actually found that leaders in corporate America would like to see academia place greater emphasis on preparing students for a diverse work environment. These leaders specifically endorsed values like promoting teamwork, leading in global contexts, practicing intercultural competence, interacting with empathy, and seeing the world from multiple perspectives (Hart, 2006). Employers also recognize that individuals educated in diverse learning environments are better able to envision and market products and services that appeal to a variety of consumers. In addition to ethnic and racial diversity, gender and sexuality have had a profound effect on corporate America. The entertainment and media sectors have caught on. The most popular television shows of the last decade, from Will & Grace to Modern Family, have either centered on gay characters or featured them prominently. Responding to what Gluckman and Reed (1997) have termed the gay marketing moment, marketers are now actively cultivating an LGBT consumer culture, as evidenced by consulting companies like SellingGay.com and Wilde Marketing. The Need to Produce Diverse and Culturally Competent Graduates Thus, the ground beneath academia has shifted dramatically. No longer bastions of White male power, colleges and universities are challenged with the task not only of educating a more diverse student body, but also of ensuring that all college graduates are culturally competent. The first challenge is particularly daunting because so many minority students face economic and social pressures that act as obstacles to getting a college degree. Meanwhile, their largely middle class White peers, although fascinated by minority culture, still often grow up in segregated communities and K–12 schools (Massey & Denton, 1993). In an illuminating case study, researchers determined that, among incoming freshman students at the University of Michigan, 92 percent of White students grew up in nearly all-White neighborhoods, and 83 percent attended nearly all-White high schools (Figure 1.9) (Matlock, Wade-Golden, & Gurin, 2002). A study at the University of Connecticut made similar findings. Given that most major American cities are highly segregated, one could expect to find these results at many secondary learning institutions across the country (Massey & Denton, 1993).

FIGURE 1.9 University of Michigan First-Year Students Who Grew Up in an All-White or Majority-White Neighborhood and High School Before College

Source: Matlock, Wade-Golden, & Gurin (2010).

62

W H Y I S DI VE RS IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI L L EN N I U M ?

In a world where the Internet, hip-hop culture, and the media constantly present students with images of diversity without context, and where these same students have little or no primary experience with individuals from different ethnic and racial backgrounds prior to college, it is vital that academic institutions engage diversity issues in their curricular and cocurricular activities. Despite the strong diversity programs at a number of the institutions listed in Table 1.3, racist, sexist, homophobic, and antiimmigrant theme parties are still all too common on college campuses. Table 1.3 provides a sample of institutions that have experienced these incidents and an overview of their key dynamics. At these events, students often dress as caricatures of the urban poor, immigrants, or members of the LGBT community. It is disheartening how often the party organizers are later found to be student leaders. That otherwise model student leaders not only condone but also participate in events that offend their classmates suggests, more than anything, a profound ignorance of the ways that stereotypes and demeaning parodies inflict pain. When pressed, many students talk of ‘‘just joking around,’’ failing to see how their actions fundamentally undermine the idea of the college campus as a safe and inclusive community. This failure not only threatens the ability of historically underrepresented and marginalized groups to thrive academically; it indicates that some students will leave higher education unprepared to work in a diverse marketplace (Cox, 1991; Loden, 1996; R. Thomas, 1991). The demands of a changing economy suggest that colleges and universities must undergo important cultural changes if they are to become responsive to the needs of students, employers, and the public.

Pressure Five: Political and Legal Dynamics A fifth pressure point elevating diversity as a strategic priority is our constantly shifting legal and political landscape. Table 1.4 illustrates the complex political and legal dynamics on a broad range of issues, including race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, and nationality. Hence, when developing a winning diversity strategy, the goal is not simply to reduce risk, but to maximize the strategies that will allow your institution to be as successful as possible with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion principles (Alger, 2009; Coleman & Palmer, 2004; Orfield, Marin, Flores, & Garces, 2007). Federal and state law is always pressuring institutional leaders to be creative and flexible in their approach to building programs that can make a

D IV E R S I TY IN TH E N E W EC O N O M Y

63

TAB LE 1. 3 A Sample of Colleges and Universities Where Themed Parties Have Perpetuated Stereotypes That Insult and Degrade Minorities Sample of Institutions

Category

Description

Themes

Auburn University Baylor University Clemson University Colorado State University Georgia State University Johns Hopkins University Lehigh University Macalester College Massachusetts Institute of Technology New York University Oklahoma State University–Stillwater Pennsylvania State University Santa Clara University San Diego State University Stetson University Syracuse University Tarleton State University Texas A & M University Trinity College University of Arizona University of California–Berkeley University of California–San Diego University of Chicago University of Colorado University of Connecticut–Law School University of Delaware University of Illinois–Chicago University of Illinois–UrbanaChampaign University of Maryland University of Memphis University of Mississippi University of Tennessee University of Texas Austin University of Virginia University of Wisconsin–Whitewater University of Wisconsin–Madison Vanderbilt University Whitman College William Jewell College

Urban culture

Parties presenting stereotypical images of hip-hop culture, urban life, and the entertainment industry

Pimps Up, Hoes Down

40-ounce bottles of beer Afro wigs Bandannas Players Ball College/professional athletic apparel Ghetto Fabulous Compton, CA Cookouts/barbeques Who’s Your Daddy Head scarves Parties LGBT-themed ‘‘drag wear’’ Low-income housing ‘‘projects’’ Oversized faux jewelry Pimp culture Simulated pregnancy Thug/gangster images Guns and knives Drug paraphernalia/drug trade

Historical racism toward African Americans

Parties presenting historic images of Jim Crow segregation, the antebellum South, and caricatures of African American organizations, communities, and culture

Black-face

Immigration and new minority communities

Parties presenting images focused mainly on new minority immigrant populations from Mexico, Asia, and developing nations

Poverty stereotypes Parties presenting stereotypical images of lowincome rural White culture.

Black History Month Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Symbols

Afro wigs Black-face Confederate flag/KKK Fried chicken Mammy stereotypes Lynching themes Watermelon Black Greek organizations Civil rights movement Black Power movement Antebellum South

Pin the Tail on the Hunting/persecuting Immigrant immigrant communities Fresh off the Boat Immigration law Spanish language South of the Mexican culture, food, Border and traditions Asian culture and food Illegal immigrants Migrant workers Simulated pregnancy White Trash Parties

‘‘Wife-beater’’ T-shirts Lawn chairs Trucker hats Trailer parks Public assistance checks Food stamps Simulated pregnancy

64

W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N E W MI L L E N N I UM ?

TAB LE 1. 4 Sample of Diversity Policies and Legal Guidance Frameworks

Diversity Group Sample Diversity Issues Race and Ethnicity

Increasing and retaining the number of ethnically and racially diverse students, faculty, and staff Eliminating racial discrimination and barriers to participation

Gender

Increasing the number of women on the faculty and in senior leadership roles Eliminating barriers to full participation in intercollegiate athletics

Key Legal Policy Statutes, Rulings, Affected Capabilities for and Legislation Protecting the Educational Institutions Diversity Dimension Admissions Scholarships Student outreach Faculty and staff diversity Recruitment initiatives Diversity offices and units

Title VII ‘‘Equal Protection Clause’’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Sections 101 and 102 of the 1991 Civil Rights Act 2003 University of Michigan Supreme Court cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, and 2012 Fisher v. University of Texas

Faculty recruitment initiatives Parity in athletics Employee benefits—family leave

Title VII ‘‘Equal Protection Clause’’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Equal Pay Act of 1963

Eliminating sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination LGBT

Eliminating discrimination Partner benefits against members of the LGBT community

Title VII ‘‘Equal Protection Clause’’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act U.S. Executive Order 13087 of 1998 State legislation regarding spousal benefits

Creating avenues for greater participation in academic community Proactive solutions on quality of life issues, including domestic partner benefits Nationality

Student, faculty, and staff visa compliance

Admissions Financial aid Faculty and staff hiring Study abroad and international Visiting scholar travel initiatives Study abroad efforts Enrolling and supporting International research undocumented students projects Hiring international staff

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 Patriot Act of 2001 Student and Exchange Visitor Information Services (SEVIS) Program

D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C ON O M Y

Disability

Eliminating barriers to full participation in university community, including both physical and social impediments

Providing reasonable accommodations Universal access to physical buildings and services

Eliminating hiring discrimination

Age

Eliminating barriers to full participation

Position termination

65

Title VII ‘‘Equal Protection Clause’’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title I and V of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act Sections 501 and 505 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act Sections 101 and 102 of the 1991 Civil Rights Act The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967

Hiring decisions Eliminating hiring discrimination LGBT, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Sources: U.S. Department of Labor (n.d.); U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.); U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2011); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (n.d.).

difference on issues of diversity. Whenever relevant legislation or court rulings are enacted, campuses must respond accordingly. Indeed, Supreme Court rulings have forced colleges and universities to reexamine their missions, policies, and organizational structures to ensure compliance with the latest laws and regulations. At the same time, we cannot let the specter of legal challenge or lack of clarity associated with the legal landscape stunt our ability to move forward with new diversity efforts that maximize our potential to make our institutions inclusive and excellent for all.

The Supreme Court and Race-Conscious Policy Although controversy surrounds many aspects of diversity in America, the most misunderstood and challenged issue has historically centered on raceconscious policies in admissions, hiring, and financial aid (Orfield et al., 2007). The Supreme Court first moved to set limits on race-conscious policies in college and university admissions with its ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). In the Bakke case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Allan Bakke, a 38-year-old White engineer, had been discriminated against by the admissions policies at the University of California at Davis’s Medical School, which set aside 16 of 100 places in the entering class for minority and disadvantaged students. The Supreme Court ruled that this set-aside, or ‘‘quota’’ system, was unconstitutional. Since then, legal challenges have gradually chipped away even more at the use of race in admissions. In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v.

66

W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N EW MI L L E N N I U M ?

Bollinger cases, plaintiffs challenged the University of Michigan’s law school and undergraduate admissions policies, respectively. Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Michigan’s law school policies, arguing that race could be considered among many factors in admissions decisions, it decided in Gratz v. Bollinger that the University’s undergraduate admissions point system was unconstitutional. As a result, academic institutions were allowed to consider race as a ‘‘plus’’ factor in assessing candidates, but not to assign points as a means of race-conscious policy. In the eyes of many, the Court’s decisions left academic institutions in a confusing bind, giving them a mandate to promote diversity as a valuable educational goal, yet denying them quantitative tools to make their diversity policies work.

BOX 1.5 Strategic Guidance for Leaders in the Wake of Legal Challenges to Diversity and Race Conscious Policy No matter what the future holds, the current context only underscores that a college or university’s legal counsel has become an increasingly important ally. Strategic diversity leaders must therefore be proactive and coordinated in their efforts to access a wide array of expertise to accomplish their diversity goals. The following constitute best practice recommendations: • Create a strong diversity rationale statement explaining diversity’s importance to the educational mission of the institution. This statement should be thoroughly vetted and then embraced by every relevant stakeholder group on campus, laying the moral and legal foundation for concrete policies and programs. • Know the relevant literature in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion management. The most proactive campuses rely on evidence-based practices to drive their efforts, constantly looking to raise their institutional diversity agenda to the next level. • Develop strategic planning scenarios that explore race-neutral means of achieving a diverse educational environment, establishing a record of documentation that uses the best possible social science to determine whether a particular strategy will work. If, in fact, the Supreme Court is set to end affirmative action, colleges and universities must be prepared to develop and ramp up effective race-neutral diversity initiatives. • Periodically review what you are doing—and ensure that these reviews are scheduled, formal, and transparent. One of the best ways to protect your (continues)

D IV ER S I TY I N TH E N EW EC O N O M Y

67

(continued) campus is to implement open and transparent procedures, particularly in terms of admissions, hiring, and financial aid decisions—areas that historically have been challenged most often by conservative organizations. • Seek outside legal advice from lawyers specializing in these issues who do not provide general counsel to your institution. Engage these scholars in response to present challenges and when contemplating new strategies or policies. Although general counsel is an important ally and the most important legal counsel for securing your institution’s diversity interests, the voice of other legal and policy experts may result in a clarification of perspective that is only possible when not obfuscated by the institutional and broader political implications of engaging these issues at a particular institution. • Consult with and attend conferences, symposia, and training sessions hosted by national policy organizations. Credible organizations like the College Board, the American Association of University Professors, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and others can offer strategic guidance on how to navigate these issues.

The unfortunate upshot of this legal climate is that colleges and universities regularly cave to pressure from antiaffirmative action groups, choosing to end or change their programs rather than risk lawsuits challenging their efforts to improve the recruitment and retention of minority students (Orfield et al., 2007). To truly move their diversity agendas forward, institutional leaders and their respective legal counsels must do more than simply defend against litigation (see Box 1.5 for several recommended actions for strategic diversity leaders). This means understanding not just legal opportunities but novel possibilities that push the institutional agenda in new and perhaps unexpected ways. This author’s experience suggests that many institutions are doing far less than they could from the perspective of strategically engaging novel policy initiatives. Indeed, a number of schools no longer host minority student outreach and recruitment events, and have virtually eliminated their faculty diversity hiring initiatives. When asked why, they often give the same response: ‘‘We are afraid of being sued.’’ Figure 1.10 provides a visual representation of the gradual eroding of race-conscious policies in higher education. Beginning with the Bakke decision, the Supreme Court has lessened the direct power of race-conscious admissions policies, pressuring the higher education community away from a discussion of racial equity, although perhaps also, especially with the Grutter decision, introducing the educational

68

W HY IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N EW MI L L EN NI U M ?

FIGURE 1.10 Supreme Court Decisions and the Limitation of Race-Conscious Policy Power in Admissions

benefits of diversity idea as the compelling rationale for using race in college and university admissions (Orfield et al., 2007). This perspective was presented by the critical majority opinion written by Sandra Day O’Connor, which confirmed the educational benefits of diversity and the right of admissions offices to use race in their decisions, but only as a plus factor among many considerations, not as part of either a points or quota system. In the two separate Michigan rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, although quota systems and the mechanical assignment of points on the basis of race were unconstitutional, race and ethnicity could be considered as a plus factor in admissions policies. These rulings provided a broad constitutional justification for promoting a diverse student body, but offered little specific guidance, leaving it to individual institutions to define policies consistent with the rulings. Moreover, these decisions also suggested a wide range of implications for other race-conscious institutional

D IV ER S I TY I N TH E N EW EC O N O M Y

69

policies in the areas of financial aid, student programming, precollege initiatives, and faculty and staff recruitment (Orfield et al., 2007). Two final aspects of the Grutter decision are worth noting. First, Justice O’Connor held that before using race as a factor in individualized admissions decisions, a postsecondary institution must conduct a serious, good-faith review of workable race-neutral alternatives to achieve the diversity that it seeks. Otherwise, its policies could be deemed unlawful (Coleman, Palmer, & Winnick, 2008). In other words, an institution should turn to race-conscious policies only after deeming unworkable a race-neutral alternative, either because it has been judged ineffective or would require the institution to sacrifice another component of its educational mission. Second, Justice O’Connor surmised that the Grutter decision upholding affirmative action would last 25 years. And yet, only nine years later, affirmative action policies are again under attack; the Court is expected to rule in fall of 2012 on another challenge to affirmative action when it hears Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Like schools in many states, the University of Texas at Austin restructured its admissions policies in the wake of the Grutter decision, consciously bringing their policies in line with the University of Michigan’s law school policies. What is different is that race-conscious policy had been eliminated in Texas as a result of the Hopwood v. Texas decision of 1996, which made illegal any intentional use of racial classifications in admissions decisions. In response to the Grutter decision abrogating Hopwood, higher education leaders in Texas created a hybrid policy for admission that is unique to Texas and is at once both race conscious and reliant on a ‘‘facially neutral’’8 admissions process, the Texas Top Ten Percent (TTP) Law (Coleman & Lipper, 2011). In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a White high school senior, applied to and was rejected by the University of Texas at Austin. Because she did not qualify for admission under Texas’s TTP Law, which guarantees spots to the top 10 percent of all graduating students in Texas, her application was considered as part of a secondary admissions process used to select the remaining 19 percent of the entering class (Coleman & Lipper, 2011; Pacelli, 2011). This group of students was evaluated through a holistic review process defined by their academic and personal achievement indices, which include standardized test scores, class rank, and personal achievements.

70

W H Y I S DI VE RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL EN N I U M ?

The personal achievement index is based on two essays and a personal achievement score. As part of the personal achievement score, the University of Texas considers leadership qualities, awards and service, and other factors (Coleman & Lipper, 2011; Pacelli, 2011). Among these other factors is race, which the admissions office categorizes as a ‘‘special circumstance’’ that exists alongside other factors like socioeconomic status, community service, and family circumstances. In her lawsuit, Fisher’s lawyers argue that the TTP Law already provides a viable means of boosting minority enrollment at the University without the need to resort to race-conscious admissions policies that they claim unfairly affected Abigail Fisher (Coleman & Lipper, 2011; Pacelli, 2011). Texas officials successfully argued before both a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit, first noting that using race as an additional factor was necessary to make sure that individual classrooms contained a ‘‘critical mass’’ of minority students. Furthermore, the policies defenders maintain that a race-conscious component allowed them to create more effectively diverse learning environments in specific academic disciplines where diversity has been slow to emerge (Coleman & Lipper, 2011). This point suggests a refinement of the ‘‘critical mass’’ thesis supported by Grutter, demonstrating that the absence of a race-conscious plan can result in learning environments where minority students are represented in such low numbers that they feel too isolated to participate meaningfully in the academic community. Clearly, this rationale weighed heavily in the University of Texas’s decision to complement the TTP policy with a race-conscious policy modeled on the University of Michigan’s law school.

Undermining the Grutter Decision: Fisher v. University of Texas In Fisher v. University of Texas (2011), the Fifth Circuit upheld the University’s hybrid approach, finding its holistic review process to be consistent with Grutter (Coleman & Lipper, 2011). Nevertheless, as Coleman and Lipper (2011) note, Judge Emilio Garza did take issue with the constitutionality of Grutter itself. In an extensive special concurrence, Judge Garza provided a detailed examination of the underlying Grutter decision, exploring Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dissent and writing an argument asking for constitutional review of Grutter. More specifically, he argued that Sandra Day O’Conner’s majority decision failed to pass ‘‘strict scrutiny,’’ which is the Court’s strictest standard of judicial review and used to weigh the government’s interest in cases when a constitutional right or principle is at stake. According to Garza:

D I V E R S I TY IN T H E N E W E C O N O M Y

71

Whenever a serious piece of judicial writing strays from fundamental principles of constitutional law, there is usually a portion of such writing where those principles are articulated, but not followed. So it goes in Grutter, where a majority of the Court acknowledged strict scrutiny as the appropriate level of review for race-based preferences in university admissions, but applied a level of scrutiny markedly less demanding. To be specific, race now matters in university admissions, where, if strict judicial scrutiny were properly applied, it should not. Today, we follow Grutter’s lead in finding that the University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions program satisfies the Court’s unique application of strict scrutiny in the university admissions context. I concur in the majority opinion, because, despite my belief that Grutter represents a digression in the course of constitutional law, today’s opinion is a faithful, if unfortunate, application of that misstep. The Supreme Court has chosen this erroneous path and only the Court can rectify the error. In the meantime, I write separately to underscore this detour from constitutional first principles. (Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F.3d at 247–66 [Garza, J., concurring specially], 2011)

Judge Garza questioned the veracity of considering race and ethnicity in making competitive admissions decisions, as well as the argument that governments have a compelling interest in promoting diversity. He specifically challenged the narrow tailoring component of Grutter, noting that it ‘‘set a peculiarly low bar for universities to show serious good-faith consideration of race-neutral alternatives and made impossible a court’s review of the narrow tailoring requirement by rewarding admissions programs that remain opaque’’ (Fisher v. University of Texas, 2011, as cited by Coleman & Lipper, 2011, p. 6). Garza further argued that because the University of Texas at Austin was capable of enrolling 96 percent of African American and Latino applicants through race-neutral means (TTP), the admissions office’s raceconscious admissions efforts were unnecessary to accomplishing the University’s overall diversity goals (Fisher v. University of Texas, 2011, as cited by Coleman & Lipper, 2011, p. 6). In February of 2012, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case. Building on Garza’s logic and Kennedy’s dissent in Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003), the appeal to the Supreme Court maintained that the Texas plan correctly applied the Grutter version of strict scrutiny, but that this is not strict scrutiny asserting that the Grutter court was wrong in its Sandra Day O’Connor majority holding (Coleman & Lipper, 2011; Pacelli, 2011). The Grutter decision unlawfully loosened its own strict scrutiny standard to allow a race-conscious admissions program that should only exist in the most narrow of circumstances.

72

W HY IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N EW MI L L EN NI U M ?

Because the Supreme Court’s newest member, Elena Kagan, served as solicitor general in the Obama administration, she has recused herself from the Fisher case. If recent decisions are any indication, the court’s conservative majority may rule in favor of Abigail Fisher and further curtail raceconscious policies. After just two years on the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), which prohibited school districts from assigning students to public schools solely in order to promote racial integration and declined to acknowledge that racial balancing is a compelling state interest. The decision ended the voluntary desegregation programs of many school districts (McNeal, 2009). In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts cited the Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), but argued, ‘‘The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race’’ (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007, 551 U.S. at 748). However naı¨ve and misguided the Chief Justice’s assumptions about stopping racial discrimination, his attitude enjoys strong support among conservative members of the Court. Should the Supreme Court move to strike down the race-conscious admissions policies at the University of Texas at Austin, most legal and academic scholars agree that the decision will reduce the numbers of African American and Latino students at selective private and public institutions at both the undergraduate and graduate level, while boosting the number of Whites and Asian American students (Liptak, 2012). Much depends on the Court’s swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who dissented independently on the Grutter decision and sided with the majority in overturning the integration policies in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. It is, however, hard not to see the very decision to take on the Fisher case as a reflection of the conservative right’s discomfort with diversity efforts generally, and race-conscious admissions policies in particular.

The Conservative Right’s Attack on Diversity The Fisher case has been spearheaded by a conservative legal organization, the Project on Fair Representation, and is just the latest in a series of coordinated attacks against diversity as both a cultural value and a policy goal (Chemerinsky, 2010; Clegg, 2009; Cokorinos, 2003; Orfield et al., 2007). Well-funded organizations like the Center for Individual Rights and the Center for Equal Opportunity are seeking to dismantle the legacy of the

D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C O N O M Y

73

civil rights era. Having co-opted the language, and even some of the tools, of the civil rights movement, they finance litigation, ballot initiatives, political lobbying, and elections (Chemerinsky, 2010; Clegg, 2009; Cokorinos, 2003). Much of their attack is framed around what they call ‘‘reverse discrimination’’ and ‘‘unwarranted preferences’’ (Clegg, 2009; Cokorinos, 2003; Orfield et al., 2007). With support from former University of California Regent (1993–2005) Ward Connerly and others, opponents of affirmative action have proposed ballot initiatives in states like Colorado, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Nebraska (Table 1.5). Connerly is founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, which claims as its mission to educate Americans about the harms of race preferences. A primary tactic of these organizations is to write deceptive ballot initiatives designed to roll back the rights and protections of minority individuals. These ballots attack not just affirmative action and minority scholarships, but also other civil rights policies that provide opportunities for women and minority-owned businesses. Thankfully, organizations like the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund and the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), have worked to resist these challenges, both through the courts and at the grassroots level. Indeed, BAMN recently succeeded in overturning Michigan Proposal 2, a state constitutional amendment passed in 2006 that would have ended affirmative action in public hiring, contracting, and admissions decisions. In July 2011, in a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinstated the right of public agencies to use race and ethnicity as part of their administrative decision-making processes. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has since appealed the ruling and requested an en blanc hearing by the entire court of the Sixth Circuit. Until the Sixth Court issues a ruling, Proposal 2 will remain in effect (State of Michigan Attorney General, 2011). Table 1.5 summarizes antiaffirmative action measures in a number of different states.

Responding to a Shifting Policy Environment As the legal environment changes, colleges and universities must respond. The opposition to affirmative action detailed in Table 1.5 is part of a wellfunded attack on both educational policies and our fundamental diversity values. By merely threatening legal action, conservative organizations have often scared many institutions into weakening their diversity programs. This

74

W H Y IS DI V E RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?

TAB LE 1. 5 Ballot and Executive Initiatives Eliminating Affirmative Action in Select States Year

State

Initiative

Action

1996

California

California Proposition 209

Ballot initiative Passed in 1996 (54 to 46 percent), it effectively ended the practice of affirmative action in the state of California, prohibiting the state and local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, schools, and others from using race, ethnicity, sex, color, or national origin in any hiring, contracting, or admissions decisions. In a 6–1 ruling, Coral Construction v. San Francisco, S152934, the California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition 209 in August 2010.

Description

1998

Washington

Washington State Initiative 200

1999

Florida

Governor’s Executive Order

Ballot initiative Modeled after California Proposition 209 and passed in 1998 (58 to 42 percent), it effectively ended the use of affirmative action in Washington state. Upheld in 2007 by U.S. Supreme Court ruling People v. Seattle. Executive Signed by the governor in November 1999 and decision approved by Board of Regents in February 2000, this executive order eliminated the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions for the state university system.

2006

Michigan

Michigan Proposal 2

Ballot initiative Passed in 2006, this ballot initiative effectively nullified the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision banning race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin from being considered in public university admissions, and in public employment or contracting.

2008

Nebraska

Nebraska Civil Ballot Rights initiatives Initiative 2 (NCRI)— Initiative 424

2010

Arizona

Proposition 107

In 2011, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Proposal 2 was unconstitutional, arguing that it deprived members of racial minority groups in Michigan of their 14th Amendment rights by embedding the issue of affirmative action in the state constitution, where it was prohibitively difficult to challenge legally.1 That decision was appealed and upheld to the full court of the Sixth Circuit in November 2012. In 2008, Nebraska effectively nullified the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision by passing a state constitutional amendment that banned race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin from being considered in public contracting, public employment, and public education.

Ballot initiative Placed on the ballot for the 2010 midterm election, this proposition to eliminate affirmative action passed by a margin of 60–40 percent.

Source: American Civil Rights Institute (n.d.). 1. See Brown (2011). 2. Part of ‘‘Super Tuesday for Equal Rights,’’ an effort launched by California businessman Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Institute to end affirmative action in five states. In three states (Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma), the petition failed to receive sufficient signatures to make the ballot. The ballot was defeated in Colorado but passed in Nebraska.

D I V E R SI TY IN T H E N E W E C O N O M Y

75

trend has led one emeritus president of a leading institution to conclude, ‘‘We have given our entire diversity operation over to the lawyers—and they just don’t want to push the agenda anymore for fear of a new lawsuit.’’ And yet, although the Supreme Court may revise Grutter, diversity leaders must find the courage to forge forward in this challenging context, promoting policies that are proactive, aggressive, and pass legal muster. In the words of another university president: What is the worst thing that’s going to happen? We have to spend a couple of dollars defending what we know is right! My philosophy is we do our research, find out what we think is within the law, and move forward. Until someone tells me I cannot do something, this is exactly what I am going to do! Otherwise you get nothing accomplished.

Responding to this onslaught of challenges, the Obama administration has also weighed in. In December 2011, the Administration issued its ‘‘Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Postsecondary Education’’ (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). These guidelines uphold the 2003 Supreme Court decisions, but move beyond these decisions to detail a number of race-neutral techniques that will help institutions to achieve their educational diversity goals. The guidelines were hailed by diversity advocates clearly responding to the spirit of their message, namely that colleges and universities can work proactively to promote diversity, consistent with the 2003 Supreme Court rulings without undo worry that they will be investigated by the Office of Civil Rights. In addition, colleges and universities should be looking for ways to expand and develop their race-neutral techniques for achieving diversity in higher education.

Summary Like corporations, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations, academic institutions exist within a complex and shifting social context. In the new economy, attitudes toward education are changing as discerning students often think of themselves more as consumers of a higher education product than as fortunate apprentices. The form of education is also shifting as nontraditional learning programs like online colleges enter the marketplace. Even as they navigate the ‘‘perfect storm’’ of a changing diversity landscape, colleges and universities must respond to these new challenges

76

W H Y IS DI V E R S I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?

(Alfred, 2005; Peterson & Dill, 1997). Thankfully, it is as much a time of opportunity as anxiety. The changing demographics of the American population have been and will be increasingly reflected in our classrooms, as the presence of women and historically underrepresented groups pursue higher learning. Yet discrimination and injustice continue to persist, and we will continue to struggle with transforming our institutions in ways that nurture diversity. As the financial, cultural, and social interconnections of our global economy strengthen and increase, academic leaders must become more proactive on issues of diversity. In this brave new world, it is critical for individuals to attend college and even to pursue professional and graduate training. These achievements result in higher personal income, a more capable workforce, fewer demands on the public safety net, higher levels of community engagement, and better outcomes regarding health care and personal finance (Carnevale & Fry, 2000). At a time when higher education is increasingly important, some people are being systematically left behind, particularly when viewed through the lens of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability status, and economic background. We now stand at the dawn of a new age: the age of diversity. Many of us know that this age has already arrived and that American colleges and universities are simply the advance guard for changes taking place across all sectors of society. This moment requires institutional leaders to act differently to meet the challenges and opportunities of diversity, because, ultimately, diversity is a matter of environmental and social sustainability. The time is over for traditional campus diversity policies that exist in a vacuum or are activated only in reaction to some campus crisis. The all-to-common approach to college and university diversity efforts is no longer sufficient, and if the economic recession means an absence of financial resources, then academic leaders will have to think creatively about how to leverage available resources. Without a new approach to diversity leadership, higher education will find it hard to navigate this ‘‘perfect storm.’’ The challenge for academic leaders will be to find a new way forward without losing the gains of existing processes, resources, and structures. In this context, diversity should not be viewed as a mere end product, but as the key ingredient in our effort to create a brighter, more productive and more inclusive future.

Notes 1. The Great Recession commonly refers to the time period between 2007 and 2009, when the labor force lost around 8.8 million jobs, while the unemployment rate climbed from 4.4 to 10.1 percent. In addition, long-term unemployment increased sharply, so that by the summer of 2012 people out of work for more than six months constituted more than 40

D I V E R S I T Y IN T H E N E W E C O N OM Y

77

percent of the unemployed. The Great Recession has reshaped the foundations of the American economy dramatically, necessitating even more postsecondary education and skills relevant to success in the global knowledge economy. See Grusky, Western, and Wimer’s The Great Recession (2011). 2. Recognizing that being of Hispanic or Latino origin is a matter of ethnicity, not race, the 2010 decennial census asked two separate questions regarding race and ethnicity. The first sought to determine ethnicity, asking whether the respondent was ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ or ‘‘Not Hispanic or Latino.’’ The second asked the respondent to identify his or her race. Starting in 2000, respondents could self-identify with ‘‘some other race.’’ Reflecting America’s increasingly multiracial society, around a third of respondents in the 2010 census identified themselves as ‘‘some other race.’’ For more information see Humes, Jones, and Ramirez’s Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 Census Briefs (2011). 3. The term new minorities refers generally to groups other than non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks, and American Indians. These groups include Asian, Asian Indian, and Pacific Islander. 4. See ‘‘Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview’’ by The National Conference of State Legislatures (2011). 5. For more information on the problems associated with for-profit institutions, please see Lynch, Engle, and Cruz’s (2010) Education Trust special research report Subprime Opportunity: The Unfulfilled Promise of For-Profit Colleges and Universities. For information on the controversy surrounding for-profit schools, minority students, and graduation rates, see Kirkham’s (2011) ‘‘For-Profit Colleges Draw Minorities, Stir Murky Debate on Student Success.’’ 6. According to Belfield and Levin (2007), the calculation is based on $1,000 per K–12 year plus the cost of 0.8 years of schooling at $8,500 per year. 7. The Alliance for Excellent Education’s calculation used figures from Kelly (2005) showing the net percentage increase in the proportion of the population reaching each level of educational attainment by 2020, assuming that minority graduation rates were equal with those for White students compared with a scenario in which educational attainment rates by ethnicity remained at current levels. Using census population projections and earnings estimates based on levels of educational attainment, the Alliance determined the difference in potential gains in earnings. Increased earnings were calculated using 2004 Census figures, which found that a worker who did not complete high school will earn annually $9,114 less than a high school graduate; $14,062 less than someone with some college; $15,953 less than someone with an associate’s degree; $23,238 less than a college graduate; and $55,953 less than someone with a graduate or professional degree. 8. Facially neutral policies are among the most confusing in higher education and include policies like the Texas TTP Law, which does not take race into account as an individual factor in decision-making processes. Although the overall intention of the policy may be to achieve race-conscious educational goals, the policy itself, with respect to both operations and intent, is neutral and does not confer material benefits to the exclusion of nontargeted students (Coleman et al., 2008). For example, in a competitive admissions decision, geographic, economic, or even a student’s school could be the critical factor that allows for diverse educational goals to be pursued. Facially neutral policies are subject to strict scrutiny and qualify legally as ‘‘race conscious’’ only if they are motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose and result in a racially discriminatory effect. For more information, please see Race-Neutral Policies in Higher Education: From Theory to Action, by Coleman and colleagues (2008).

This page intentionally left blank

PA R T T W O

W H AT I S D I V E R S I T Y ?

This page intentionally left blank

2 TOWARD A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DEFINITION OF DIVERSITY

The greatest challenge is trying to respond to the diverse expectations, the ambiguous definitions, and the widespread hopes of people who define diversity in so many different ways and with so many ideas about what the chief diversity officer is supposed to do. That is one of the things that I dealt with early on. Many people would say that women are the key group. Others would say that the LGBT community ought to be a part of the definition. And it would just go on and on. So that is why it is important for the leadership of the institution to be clear about how [it is] defining diversity and who is part of the institutional definition. —Vice President for Diversity at a large research university in the Midwest

W

hat is meant by the term diversity, particularly in a twenty-first century context? Although diversity has become one of the great buzzwords in academia, it is rarely defined. Diversity crops up in discussions ranging from student financial aid and curriculum reform to budget priorities and faculty recruitment. For this reason, defining diversity is one of the first challenges for any institution. This chapter presents a definition for what the author terms the diversity idea. It is fitting to pair diversity and idea because both are fluid and shift over time. For nearly five decades, the diversity idea has evolved as new communities have grown in number and voice, policy environments have changed, and language has shifted. As a consequence, this chapter covers a great deal of conceptual, theoretical, historical, and policy terrain. Consequently, this chapter takes an integrated approach, combining references to current scholarship with 81

82

W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?

personal insights and primary research gleaned from working directly on these issues. Of course, some communities may feel that their experiences are not discussed adequately, and for that, the author offers a heartfelt apology. Unfortunately, the very act of defining diversity necessarily limits one’s ability to capture all the ways that diversity finds expression in colleges and universities. This difficulty, however, should not stand in the way of formulating a working definition, because our ultimate aim should not be merely to provide a conceptual framework for understanding diversity, but to carry out the even weightier task of actually moving forward with a diversity agenda. Thus, this chapter provides a foundation for understanding diversity in four interconnected contexts: (a) as an evolving concept, (b) in relationship to intergroup identity, (c) as an expression of ideology, and (d) as a product of institutional policy. This chapter begins with an overview of the social and historical forces that helped shape the diversity idea before turning to examine the diversity idea in the context of group and intergroup identity and campus climate. The discussion then moves to the ideological dimensions of diversity, exploring seven general perspectives that shape how individuals both support and resist the diversity idea. The last section explores the policy dimension, presenting how different institutions have defined diversity and how national higher education organizations have offered to assist with this process. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the disconnect between the theory and practice of the diversity idea, providing several recommendations to help leaders avoid this pitfall and foreshadowing the treatment of diversity organizational models in Chapter 3.

The Diversity Idea: Concept, Identity, Ideology, and Institutional Policy One of the challenges in moving toward a definition of the diversity idea is that, in Raechele Pope’s words, ‘‘Individuals may use the same words but have very different ideas about what is to be accomplished and how’’ (1993, p. 201). Although the term diversity idea has unquestionably entered the general lexicon, it can invoke a range of possible meanings depending on audience and context. Ask 10 people to define diversity and you will get 10 different definitions. Common keywords might include difference, multiculturalism, identity, race, ethnicity, and gender. These keywords point toward a

T OWA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y

83

deeper and more complex concept that must be approached from several different angles. Thus, it might be more productive to begin with a series of open questions. What are the differences between an equity agenda, a multicultural agenda, and a diversity agenda? What is the most appropriate terminology for race and ethnicity? Who should be included in the definition of diversity? Is sexuality a part of the definition? Should majority White society be included, and if so, how? What about issues of social class? If diversity is primarily about access to higher education and opportunity for the most vulnerable, should these concerns play a role in defining diversity? Is the continued focus on race problematic? Is it necessary? How do we create a future where differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, and age are all embraced in a definition of diversity that does not wash away the unique social and historical issues associated with each?

The Diversity Idea Framework Although no definitive definition of diversity exists, strategic diversity leaders need a pragmatic foundation. Figure 2.1 presents a conceptual framework to begin answering the broad question, ‘‘What is diversity?’’ This framework focuses on group identity and membership, ideological perspective, and institutional policy, the four related ways that diversity functions as a dynamic idea in the academy. This framework is designed to help campus leaders develop the type of cultural intelligence needed to become strategic diversity leaders. In contrast to earlier concepts, like one’s intelligence quotient and emotional intelligence (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003), cultural intelligence measures the interpersonal abilities needed to interact with individuals from different cultures. Cultural intelligence cannot be acquired through the rote memorization of a particular group’s characteristics or tendencies. Instead, cultural intelligence emerges over time and involves observing, reflecting on, and interacting with individuals who are culturally different from oneself (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003). Whether writing a diversity plan, leading a campus budget committee, or giving a speech on the future of an institution, academic leaders gain cultural intelligence by repeatedly facing and helping to resolve challenges across cultures. In higher education, every student should possess at least some level of cultural intelligence by graduation. At the same time, the strategic diversity leadership philosophy requires an evolving ability in this area for faculty,

84

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

FIGURE 2.1 A Conceptual Model of the Diversity Idea

staff, and administrators. The cultural foundation of strategic diversity leadership must therefore draw its roots from an exploration of the general concept of diversity and its reality as an elusive and broad idea that can be understood from four different perspectives. Table 2.1 elaborates these perspectives.

Diversity as an Evolving Concept Colleges and universities exist in a broader social context that influences how individuals, leaders, and institutions understand diversity and implement

T O WAR D A TW E N T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY

85

TAB LE 2. 1 The Diversity Idea: Concept, Identity, Ideology, and Institutional Policy The Diversity Idea

Level

Definition

Implications for Strategic Diversity Leaders

Conceptual Perspective

HistoricalTheoretical

Diversity is an evolving concept that features continually shifting language to describe groups and terms like multiculturalism, diversity, equity, access, and inclusion, which all have unique meanings that are often conflated into a supra diversity concept that is amorphous and difficult to understand.

Strategic diversity leaders must understand and use diversity concepts in a more precise manner. They must be attentive to history, policy, and other dynamics that shape the diversity idea. They must recognize that mistakes are inevitable when using language in the evolving diversity idea and learn from them by asking questions and putting into practice what is learned. This will require leaders to use language with an eye toward flexibility.

Group Identity SocialPerspective Psychological Process of Group Membership

Diversity is understood from the perspective of group membership as each person has multiple identities that partially define their experience, worldview, and the ways in which others respond to them. Identity can be understood as having primary, secondary, and historicalstructural dimensions.

Strategic diversity leaders must recognize that identity is a function of both internal definitions and external attributions. They must understand the multidimensional nature of identity and group membership that has primary, secondary, and historical dimensions. They must appreciate that diverse identities matter and shape the campus climate of inclusion and exclusion for every person, particularly those in culturally diverse groups.

Ideological Perspective

Individual Mental Model

Diversity is understood from the perspective of different ideologies that govern the way people think about, discuss, and engage with the issue of diversity. These ideologies are the equity, economic, racialized, centric, reverse discrimination, universal, and colorblind perspectives.

Whether serving as chief diversity officer, senior administrator, faculty, diversity committee member, or in some other role, individuals must have an understanding of the diversity ideologies that they will encounter. Understanding these different ideologies is key to finding common ground, working through differences, and understanding the sources of diversity-themed conflict.

Institutional Perspective

Organizational Diversity is crystallized in Definition formal institutional definitions and statements of policy expressing what the institution values and believes regarding the diversity idea.

In crafting an institutional definition of diversity, leaders should (a) include both primary and secondary dimensions of diversity, (b) emphasize a shared identity as members of the campus community, and (c) embrace rather than shy away from the complexity of making diversity more fundamental to learning and institutional excellence, whether the issues are historical or emerging. This definition might also include a statement about diversity’s educational benefits and the need to continue advancing the historic agenda of access and equity, while at the same time embracing and valuing the unique needs and experiences of diverse groups.

86

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

diversity policies. Over our country’s history, legal and legislative interpretations have evolved, demographics have changed, new theories have emerged, and social mores have shifted. These changes have helped shape the definition of diversity as an evolving concept that is, by its very nature, socially and politically contested.

The Deficit and Assimilation Theses of Genetic and Cultural Inferiority In his history of science in the twentieth century, The Mismeasure of Man (1981), Stephen Jay Gould explores how early conceptions of diversity implied ideas of deviance, deficit, and inferiority. In the 1930s, scientists used spurious mental measurements as a means of reinforcing the dominant social order. Drawing on the perceived legitimacy of the intelligence test to do everything from screen prospective soldiers to segregate and control immigrant populations, social scientists used science to buttress discriminatory policies, especially along racial, ethnic, and gender lines. Even decades later, a general conception persisted that poor and minority individuals lacked the inherent mental and cultural capacities necessary to achieve success. Called the deficit model, this characterization argued for social and cultural assimilation over the recognition and celebration of difference (Birman, 1994). Even today, in ways subtle and overt, cultural standards tend to reflect the values, identity, and mores of the dominant culture. This tendency one might term the assimilation thesis of intergroup dynamics. Assimilation is defined as a pressure to conform or to be like everyone else and is one acculturating option that can be used to resolve cultural differences and adaptation between groups, particularly when a subordinate group comes into contact with a dominant group (Birman, 1994). This thread still exists in today’s diversity debates, as some tout the majority group as the normative ideal and posit a mythic ‘‘colorblind’’ society where minority groups are somehow magically assimilated into majority society. Thankfully, a new generation of social scientists has challenged the ‘‘nature over nurture’’ myth, showing the overwhelming role that the social, political, and economic practices of the majority group play in actually making a seamless integration impossible. These dynamics, not genetic factors, play the key role in determining individual success (Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994).

The Affirmative Identity Thesis The social movements of the past 50 years have allowed formerly silenced communities to offer their own perspectives on issues of diversity and identity. From the Black Power movement to Chicano, feminist, American

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R SI TY

87

Indian, social class, and gay rights groups, diverse communities have radically shifted and expanded the idea of diversity in America. This ‘‘affirmative identity thesis’’ can be characterized by principles of self-acceptance, identity affirmation, and community empowerment. This vision of diversity offers a counternarrative to the deficit and assimilation models, embracing a positive and affirming perspective on diversity and difference. In this model, diverse communities not only have a basic right to exist, but enjoy agency in articulating and defining their own experiences. This situation extends directly to today’s college campuses, as diverse student organizations, cultural centers, and new academic disciplines explore, both within and outside the curriculum, a dynamic conversation on diversity. Their conversations have demonstrated that advancing the diversity idea is not a culturally neutral process. Students, faculty, and staff do not live, study, and work on campus by checking their identities at the door. Most of them find a distinct benefit from maintaining a connection or allegiance to their culture of origin even as they participate in majority culture (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Consequently, the concept of diversity in the new millennium is more complex than ever before. It extends beyond a binary discussion of Black and White, minority and nonminority, or male and female. Now more broadly conceived along lines of diversity and inclusion, participation in organizational life must encompass overlapping themes of identity, cultural affirmation, and ideology.

BOX 2.1 Applying the Deficit Model and the Affirmative Identity Model to the Retention of Ethnically and Racially Diverse Students The concept of ‘‘integration’’ has long been central to diversity discussions in higher education. Indeed, integration has become the default measure as higher education seeks to explain institutional and affective outcomes regarding academic performance, values, lifestyle preferences, and career goals among students. Educational theorists often define integration as the extent to which an individual’s behavior and subjective perceptions of the campus environment are characterized by the acceptance of group norms, attitudes, and relationships in that environment. At the core of this discussion is the belief that successful students must ‘‘acculturate’’ into the cultural environments of college campuses. (continues)

88

W H AT I S D IV E R S I T Y ?

(continued) Vincent Tinto, one of the leading theorists in this area, argued that this acculturation is achieved as students disassociate themselves from past cultural communities and become socially integrated into the collegiate environment. Scholars working in the field of K–12 education also posit that academic achievement is higher when the school culture is compatible with a student’s home culture. Working from the deficit thesis discussed earlier, a number of impact and retention models suggest that students of color must assimilate into their college’s cultural environment to achieve success. This concept of cultural acculturation has farreaching implications for students whose cultural backgrounds depart from those of the institutions they attend. Criticisms of social integration models argue that the concept of acculturation is guided by the assumption that the cultural differences of diverse groups should be diminished and that to be successful minority and other diverse students must adopt the values of the dominant college environment. The suggestion that students must repress or downplay their cultural identity to achieve academically is neither intellectually sound nor consistent with diverse student experiences in college. Consistent with early research by Peterson and colleagues (1978), colleges have continually responded to growing minority enrollment by expanding multicultural offices, centers, and residence halls. These efforts reflect an awareness that students perform better, and enjoy their college experience more, if they can engage with others in environments that respect and even reflect their home culture. Students have also proved remarkably adept at establishing their own resources and organizations. The affirmative identity approach recognizes the dynamic ways that diverse individuals and communities establish normative contexts on campus. This process suggests that the concept of ‘‘multiple memberships’’ may be more useful than ‘‘integration’’ because it recognizes the diverse reality of the collegiate environment. Hurtado and Carter (1997) noted this development in their social integration research and suggested that students of color may achieve academic success by operating in multiple worlds, ‘‘that of their own cultural group and that of others’’ (p. 327). Any visit to a college campus will illustrate how diverse groups operate in similar ways, building community in their student organizations, cultural centers, fraternities and sororities, and other spaces that allow their identities to be preserved, strengthened, defined, and authenticated as women, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, ‘‘working class students,’’ and others. Sources: Attinasi, 1989; Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Murguia, Padilla, & Pavel, 1991; Peterson et al., 1978; Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993; Weidman, 1989.

Confusing Diversity Terminology Navigating the diversity idea is further complicated by confusing terminology. It is important to be sensitive to these terms and their shades of meaning

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R SI TY

89

when working in a diverse institution or interacting with people of different cultures. Different people use different words or names to signify membership in a particular cultural group or to define diversity on a broader level. Because these terms can be culturally specific, diversity leaders should not assume they know them. Asking members of the group their preferred term is an essential first step. At the same time, one must recognize that words and terms change over time, complicating our effort to be inclusive. The rich history of words like Colored, Negroid, Negro, Black, Afro-American, and African American is only one example. Moreover, contemporary terms can shift quickly. Again, the LGBT community offers an instructive lesson. Having appropriated gay and queer from heteronormative culture, the LGBT community in recent years adapted the Q in queer to also invoke questioning. In what many define broadly as the Latino community, there are also differences based on political, economic, and national origin factors. The term Chicano usually refers to Mexican ancestry, although not all Mexican Americans self-identify with the term. People from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America make further distinctions based on national origin. The term Hispanic is falling out of favor with some groups because of its implied reference to Spanish and Portuguese conquest. Finally, where you are in the United States matters. People in Texas and the Southeast prefer Hispanic and Chicano, whereas those in New York frequently use Latino. And within the disability community, differences exist between the use of terms like deaf or blind and hard-of-hearing or visually impaired, which offer more nuanced descriptions of an individual’s hearing and visual capacity. Strategic diversity leaders must be ready to work with individuals and among communities where once-stable terms and categories are undergoing considerable scrutiny. What matters is that these leaders work to address the profound and continuing challenges that lie beneath these terms, including equality, inclusion, and fairness.

Equity, Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Inclusion Four fundamental terms that academic leaders must understand are diversity, equity, inclusion, and multiculturalism. Through the years, different terms have ebbed and flowed, conflating into a ‘‘supra-diversity’’ idea that is often amorphous, difficult to understand, and, in the minds of many, means much less than it did when each of these terms crystallized on the national landscape during the socially transformative decades of the 1950s, 1960s, and

90

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

1970s. Box 2.2 provides a brief explanation of these concepts. Too often these terms are used interchangeably, so it is important to clarify some of the ways they depart from each other, even as, added together, they help us arrive at a more nuanced appreciation of the diversity idea. Referencing these shifts in language, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)1 stated: The concept of diversity is not new. Every few years, another word is adopted that encompasses the ideas, values, and implications around difference and identity. Examples of this trend include non-interchangeable terminology such as pluralism, inclusion, multiculturalism, intercultural communication, cross-cultural competency, diversity, and social justice. While the vocabulary may change, the concepts behind the words remain the same. . . . Given the importance of these notions, NASPA encourages campuses to employ the terminology that best fits their specific institution.2

BOX. 2.2 Diversity Terms Diversity Diversity refers to all of the ways in which people differ, including primary characteristics, such as age, race, gender, ethnicity, mental and physical abilities, and sexual orientation; and secondary characteristics, such as education, income, religion, work experience, language skills, geographic location, and family status. Put simply, diversity refers to all of the characteristics that make individuals different from each other, and in its most basic form refers to heterogeneity.

Equity Historically, equity refers to the process of creating equivalent outcomes for members of historically underrepresented and oppressed individuals and groups. Equity is about ending systematic discrimination against people based on their identity or background.

Inclusion Inclusion exists when traditionally marginalized individuals and groups feel a sense of belonging and are empowered to participate in majority culture as full and valued members of the community, shaping and redefining that culture in different ways. (continues)

T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T C E N T U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY

91

(continued)

Multiculturalism Multiculturalism acknowledges and promotes the acceptance and understanding of different cultures living together within a community. As such, multiculturalism promotes the peaceful coexistence of diverse races, ethnicities, and other cultural groups in a given social environment.

Looking closely at these terms, one notices that they all embrace a principle of inclusion. That shared trait should help serve as an antidote to the common misconception that diversity refers exclusively or reductively to difference. Through the years, diversity has evolved from its close association with deficit and assimilation to an affirmative identity connotation that champions the importance of maintaining one’s cultural identity even as one participates fully in mainstream society. Hence the end-goal of diversity is a nuanced position of cultural respect and identity affirmation. The development of this critical consciousness is essential to the work of strategic diversity leaders. Such a task requires leaders to balance diversity as a concept of acknowledgement and valuing difference, while also working to engage these issues in ways that promote understanding, inclusion, and equity.

Diversity Within Group Identity The second means of exploring the diversity idea takes its cue from the concept of groups and group identity. In an encouraging sign, contemporary discussions of the diversity idea have widened to include members of the LGBT community, individuals with disabilities, economically vulnerable communities, veterans, nontraditional students, international students, and undocumented students, among others. Although the histories of each group are different, strategic diversity leaders will encounter the same core concerns of gaining support, power, and influence for the issues that they find vital. In examining the issue of group identity, this discussion centers on three themes. First, it provides a conceptual platform for understanding group membership as an internal and external process of identity formation. Second, it defines primary, secondary, and social-historical dimensions that inform how leaders can prioritize the needs of different communities. Third, it outlines how diverse identities shape the ways that individuals experience inclusion and exclusion in the academic community. The aim is to provide

92

W H AT I S D IV E R S I TY ?

a platform for helping diverse communities achieve a sense of belonging and community in environments that are only now adjusting to their physical presence.

Group Membership It is common in workshops and trainings to facilitate understanding by creating lists of the cultural values that pertain to different minority groups. Unfortunately, this approach can risk perpetuating stereotypes or passing over the complex social-historical processes related to identity development. The social identity theory (SIT) developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979 offers a compelling alternative.3 SIT explains an individual’s identity formation as it pertains to intergroup behavior and more eloquently captures a human reality in which identity is fluid, multidimensional, contextual, and socially constructed. In particular, SIT helps elucidate how individuals position themselves within a complex network of in-groups and out-groups. Indeed, the theory assumes that all individuals possess multiple social identities (Tajfel, 1978; J. Turner, 1981). Among other aspects, gender, family membership, professional status, spousal relationships, and ethnicity represent facets of individual identity that are further inflected by personal values, social allegiances, and situational context (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). As such, people have a broad array of identities that collectively define who they are, what they value, and what groups they claim as their own. In her exploration of the ‘‘dimensions of diversity,’’ Marilyn Loden (1996) suggests that social identities among minorities can be demarcated in terms of primary (biological) and secondary (experiential) dimensions. Her distinction helps us to appreciate the differences between the biological and experiential aspects of identity formation. Furthermore, her elaboration of the experiential dimension allows us to access the profound social-historical dimension of identity formation among minorities. Table 2.2 provides a synopsis of primary, secondary, and social-historical dimensions of diversity identity.

Primary Dimensions of Diversity Identity According to Loden, age, race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, and sexual orientation act as primary dimensions in identity formation. These dimensions of identity are often, although not always, the most visible. For example, race, gender, and disability status are highly visible primary characteristics. Less visible is sexual orientation. But what this framework assumes

T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T C E NT U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY

93

TAB LE 2. 2 Dimensions of Identity Formation Primary Dimensions

Secondary Dimensions

Social-Historical Dimension

Age Race Ethnicity Gender Disability status Sexual orientation

Communication style Education Family status First language Learning style Geographic location Military experience Nationality Organizational role and level Religion Economic background Work experience Work style

Understanding the profound ways that social-historical forces have shaped individual identity and group formation, with a particular focus on issues of power, inequity, and their influence on individuals and institutions

Source: Adapted from Loden, 1996.

is that these categories are vital to assumptions that majority society makes about the presumed abilities of members of diverse groups and whether to accept individuals as full participants in society. In other words, these are the markers for determining in-group and out-group. Even though individuals have some degree of agency in determining the expression or ‘‘visibility’’ of these primary dimensions, it is principally majority culture that assigns values and makes judgments. For strategic diversity leaders, it is important to be aware of the movement between how individuals conceive of themselves and how they are defined by majority society. This is especially true in public forums and other settings where individuals might not know one another. The author encountered this challenge directly one evening while giving a lecture on diversity, student engagement, and high-impact learning. During the question and answer period, a student stood up to express offense at the use of ‘‘Sir’’ and ‘‘Ma’am’’ and ‘‘Mr.’’ and ‘‘Ms.’’ during the lecture. The student self-identified as a ‘‘freak’’ who did not ascribe to any one gender but who lived life dynamically as a ‘‘human being.’’ At the same time, members of the audience—the author included—must inevitably have been making assumptions about this individual’s gender based on biological features, style of dress, manner of walking and speaking, and so on. This

94

W HAT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?

categorization, and its potentially conflicted interaction with the individual’s sense of identity may have profound consequences for how the individual is treated by the group. The individual may be embraced as student, colleague, and friend. The student may be rejected, ostracized, and silenced. And regardless of the group’s reaction, the individual may feel displaced on the simple grounds that the individual’s sense of identity has not been understood or acknowledged by the group.

Secondary Dimensions of Diversity Identity Secondary dimensions of diversity are defined through experiences, not biology. They include, but are not limited to, communication style, education, nationality, family status, socioeconomic background, and military experience. These identities play an essential role in shaping one’s life course and are championed by many interested in expanding the diversity discussion beyond primary dimensions. Secondary dimensions help account for human agency and choice over time (Loden, 1996). Accordingly, their influence is more variable than that of primary characteristics, although they are often critically important for determining one’s success in higher education and life beyond college. Although fairly new to discussions of the diversity idea, secondary dimensions have been relevant to institutional practices for decades. One clear example is the GI Bill, which has provided support services and access to higher education for veterans since the 1940s. Another reason for the emergence of secondary dimensions in diversity policy reflects the recent shift of the courts toward the educational benefits of the diversity rationale. This discussion has moved from a focus on group conditions and equity toward a need to consider multiple dimensions of diversity as a part of a holistic admissions process. Admissions departments are increasingly sensitive to a more nuanced understanding of diversity as a combination of primary and secondary dimensions. Secondary dimensions give admissions officers the flexibility to consider a complex set of variables in selecting candidates for admission. Among these secondary dimensions, socioeconomic background is perhaps the paramount factor, because it has such clear consequences for questions of financial aid and in many ways academic preparedness, as many students from economically vulnerable backgrounds also come from educationally underserved communities. Strategic diversity leaders need to clarify their understanding of socioeconomic and secondary principles as they deal with emerging challenges of a more socially and economically varied student body.

T O WA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R S I T Y

95

Diversity Within Primary and Secondary Dimensions In considering primary and secondary dimensions of diversity, one must acknowledge that diversity does not mean ‘‘sameness.’’ Although all people and groups deserve fair and equal treatment, we must simultaneously acknowledge the inequity that can occur within primary and secondary dimensions. Even within a minority group there can be marginalized subgroups. As such, strategic diversity leaders must recognize rather than deny the differences that exist among groups. For example, there are a myriad of subgroups and classifications within broad diversity categories like African American, Asian American, Latino, LGBT, and Native American. Although all members of a broader group may share common cultural values, distinct subgroups can diverge in terms of their values, norms, and practices. Box 2.3 elaborates several specific subgroups within these broader categories.

BOX 2.3 Examples of Subgroup Diversity Identification • The terms African American and Black can be used to encompass recent African immigrants as well as the descendants of Africans, both in the United States and in the U.S. Caribbean territories (Barnes & Bennett, 2002). • The term Asian American refers to Americans who trace their origins to any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asian, or Indian subcontinents, including people with ancestral ties to India, China, the Philippines, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Pakistan, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Indonesia (Takaki, 1989). • At least 14 distinct groups make up the Hispanic and Latino American population, whose members trace their lineage to one of three continents: North America (Mexico and the Caribbean), Europe (Spain), and South America, as well as to the isthmus of Central America (Mottel & Patten, 2012). • The federal government recognizes 565 Native American tribes (Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2010). • The term LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning) combines numerous different sexuality-based identity groups into an aggregate group that defines sexuality in ways that depart from what many have considered to be long-held heteronormative notions of gender and sexual identity (National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, 2012).

96

W H AT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?

Using as our example the LGBT community, we find subgroups that include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, and questioning people. Moreover, even within these subgroups, there are individuals who do not selfidentify with any categories of sexual or gender identity, thus rendering the entire category of ‘‘sexual orientation’’ problematic (Kimmel & Plante, 2004). Thanks to advances in medicine, one’s biological identity is a flexible category. In rare cases, people are born intersex. The choices they face, and are confronted by, when defining their gender, complicates the diversity discussion even further, as it suggests the remarkable fluidity of one’s identity with respect to issues of gender and sexuality.

Social-Historical Dimensions Although Loden’s two-dimensional theory helps sharpen our ability to discuss diversity, one might consider amending it to incorporate the socialhistorical dimension, which is a vital component of identity formation. Figure 2.2 positions the social-historical dimension of diversity on the outermost ring of Loden’s original framework, thereby extending the discussion of identity to include a component that acknowledges the profound implications of social and historical dynamics on the formation of identity, and the interaction of diverse individuals and groups within a broader majority culture. It is important to posit a social-historical dimension if for no other reason than to acknowledge a persistent legacy of inequality that is deeply embedded in the fabric of American society, a point addressed in Chapter 1 of this book. Being able to account for this dynamic is fundamental when considering issues of education, admission and graduation rates, faculty recruitment and retention, as well as other issues. Social advantages are bound up in complex histories, interdependent systems, and relationships, as each identity group is nested in a particular institutional, sociological, and historical set of relationships and power dynamics. Thus, strategic diversity leaders must be aware of differences between groups in the same identity category and across primary, secondary, and social-historical dimensions. Chapter 6 explores these concerns again in the context of scorecards, accountability, and improving campus climate and graduation rates.

Privilege and Group Status A dimension of diversity often overlooked is how certain groups are positively judged based on their membership in higher-status groups. Men

T O WAR D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D E F IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y

97

FIGURE 2.2 Multiple Dimensional Model of Diversity

Source: Loden, 1996.

generally enjoy more automatic privilege than women, Whites more automatic privilege than people of color, and heterosexuals more automatic privilege than members of the LGBT community. Those who enjoy privileged status are often unaware of their privilege and the ways that the primary dimension influences opportunities and enhances status. Some individuals are slow to acknowledge this reality as it conflicts with their belief that our

98

W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?

society is a meritocracy in which everyone starts on an equal footing. This lack of awareness can be a significant barrier to advancing an institution’s diversity goals. Although blatant forms of discrimination have declined over time, various forms of bias continue to adversely affect the success of diverse groups, particularly historically underrepresented minorities (e.g., African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). This bias often operates just beneath the surface, influencing the ways that people think and behave, creating moments when members of the empowered majority take ‘‘microaggressive’’ actions toward individuals in the minority (Sue, 2010). See Box 2.4 for an overview of microaggressive relationships in the context of primary and secondary dimensions of diversity.

BOX 2.4 Microaggressive Moments and the Difference Between Primary and Secondary Diversity Dimensions Microaggressive moments can take place at any time. For example, imagine the only Latino member of an English Department directly disagreeing with a policy decision and being labeled ‘‘angry, defensive, and aggressive.’’ In a different scenario, his or her White male colleague exhibits the exact same behavior but is labeled ‘‘articulate and passionate.’’ Or imagine a situation in which the college bookstore has a theft deterrent policy requiring all students to leave their bags at the front of the store before shopping. Problems emerge when it becomes evident that the policy is only enforced when African American or Latino students are in the store. When approached, the store manager tries to evade the issue by offering that the store really only targets certain kinds of school bags, distinguishing for example between the small fashion bags carried by some women, and the larger backpacks that could be used to store stolen items. In these microaggressive instances, bias is expressed subtly and indirectly, as people justify or rationalize their actions in ways that, on the surface at least, do not appear attributable to race, gender, or ethnicity (Sue, 2010). In the instance of the upset faculty members, a double standard is applied on the basis of ethnicity. In the instance of the bookstore, the manager engages in racial profiling but has a convenient excuse. In both instances, persons of color are subjected to differing expectations and rules that take their cue from deep-seated stereotypes about minority behavior. If the institution’s senior leaders are not careful, the Latino faculty member and any students of color profiled in the bookstore will feel insulted and unwelcome. (continues)

T O WAR D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D E F IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y

99

(continued) Creating an inclusive campus environment that values diversity involves appreciating the ways that core dimensions like gender and race are embedded in hierarchies of privilege and exclusion. For many, these hierarchies are often intimately associated with aspects of primary and secondary dimensions that exert an unconscious influence on majority culture. For example, unconscious bias may come into play when faculty are unable to see the possibilities of an emerging scholar of color simply because he or she attended a historically Black college and is pursuing research centered on questions relevant to his or her background and culture. This individual may be a first-rate scholar with tremendous potential; nevertheless, his or her abilities may not enjoy the same privileged status as those of White male faculty members pursuing traditional research questions and operating within a predominantly White institutional setting.

Context and Identity In embracing the broad principles of diversity, strategic diversity leaders must develop a deep understanding of the always shifting and evolving social-historical dimension of diverse identity. In a discussion about African American women, noted scholar Patricia Hill Collins (2000) gives one such example that shows the diversity of minority identities and how they are activated by different social contexts: Because oppression is constantly changing, different aspects of an individual U.S. Black woman’s self-definitions intermingle and become more salient. Her gender may be more prominent when she becomes a mother, her race when she searches for housing, her social class when she applies for credit, her sexual orientation when she is walking with her lover, and her citizenship status when she applies for a job. (pp. 274–275)

We see here that identity varies by situation, so it is helpful to think of individuals carrying a portfolio of identity options that reflect not only their values and choices, but the values, choices, and assumptions of their surrounding environment (Nagel, 1994). A person of Indian Asian descent may be Punjabi when speaking to a group of Gudrati peers at home in Ohio, Indian American when speaking to a group of Chinese Americans, and Asian American when filling out the demographic information of his or her college application. These types of layering processes are common to many individuals as they learn to navigate the different contexts of their lives. Too often conversations of diversity and identity focus on historically excluded groups, failing to bring majority individuals into a discussion of

100

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

how their identities also take shape as a result of their environment and experiences. Imagine a White student who grew up in an all-White neighborhood, attended all-White schools, worshipped at an all-White church, and had few meaningful interactions with anyone who was ethnically or racially different. Chances are, ‘‘Whiteness’’ would not have been salient to his or her life experience. But the moment he or she walks into the Latino Cultural Center to interview members of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztla´n (MEChA)4 executive board following a racial incident on campus, this person’s racial identity would operate in powerful ways, particularly if the other students were speaking in Spanish and he or she did not understand the language. As this example suggests, social context is key to any discussion of diversity and identity, as the environment and the persons with whom we interact make a particular group membership salient. When a given environment activates the psychological boundaries of a particular identity, what exists within those boundaries—the material of identity—are the shared interests, values, behaviors, challenges, and lived experiences cutting across a particular group, no matter how it is defined (Cornell, 1996). Whether the boundary surrounds a particular racial or gendered identity, or a language-based or a professional role, what exists within this boundary is the material that establishes a sense of collective sameness, even though every person’s experiences are unique (Cornell, 1996). This is not to say that all groups are monolithic. Rather, a great diversity exists within groups. Nevertheless, this perspective does imply that common experiences may cut across individual members and define the shared interests of a particular group and how they respond to their environment. It is within this context that strategic diversity leaders must recognize that colleges and universities were not originally created to accommodate, much less nurture, diverse groups. In fact, just the opposite is true. Outside of a handful of schools with unique historical missions, most places of higher learning were created to support the experiences, and solidify the power, of a dominant White male society.5 Many of these institutions still bear the traces, if not the deep tracks, of exclusionary dynamics. Acknowledging this legacy, William Tierney (1991) argues that educational organizations exist as a complex web of dominant and subordinate cultures in which diverse groups struggle to legitimize their identities in a culture that often resists their presence. All too often, members of the campus community experience overt hate crimes, antagonism, and subtle assaults on their identities, as an exclusive campus climate can send the clear message that culturally diverse

T O WA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T IO N O F D I V E R S I T Y

101

students, faculty, and staff are not welcomed (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998; Rankin, 2003).

The Relevance of Identity Understanding identity is essential to addressing the health of the campus community. Identity plays an important role in determining where people socialize, how they work, whom they approach as mentors, and in an overarching way, whether they experience college as a place of inclusion or exclusion (Hurtado et al. 1998). The interplay of identity and the campus environment can help determine why, in Beverly Daniel Tatum’s (1997) famous phrase, ‘‘all the black kids sit together at the cafeteria.’’ For many members of a campus community, cultural identities become salient the moment that they set foot on campus. Tatum argues that for African American students, campus life is fraught with ‘‘overt and covert’’ forms of racial insensitivity or hostility: White students and faculty frequently underestimate the power and presence of the overt and covert manifestations of racism on campus, and students of color often come to predominantly White campuses expecting more civility than they find. Whether it is the loneliness of being routinely overlooked as a lab partner in science courses, the irritation of being continually asked by curious classmates about Black hairstyles, the discomfort of being singled out by a professor to give the Black perspective in class discussion, the pain of racist graffiti scrawled on dormitory room doors, the insult of racist jokes circulated through campus e-mail, or the injury inflicted by racial epithets hurled from a passing car, Black students on predominantly White college campuses must cope with ongoing affronts to their racial identity. The desire to retreat to a safe space is understandable. Sometimes that may mean leaving the campus altogether. (Tatum, 1997, p. 79)

Some of the most damaging and consistent affronts can be found in classrooms, particularly on matters of race and ethnicity (Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Hurtado et al., 1998). Despite the fact that most Whites openly espouse support for general principles of diversity, many simultaneously at least tacitly endorse the idea that students of color are ‘‘affirmative action admits’’ (Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). Efforts to increase the presence of historically underrepresented groups are often interpreted by majority students as an example of ‘‘reverse racism’’ (Feagin & Sikes, 1994). Too often, minority students find themselves compelled to defend their presence at a

102

W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?

school even as they must defend the merits of their identity as members of a particular racial or ethnic group. In Living With Racism: The Black MiddleClass Experience, Joe Feagin and Melvin Sikes highlight this point: A black undergraduate in my department is doing some research on black and white achievement in college. One of her advisors was once the head of a rather prestigious organization in my field, not to mention chair of the department. Apparently, she assumed that this one undergraduate somehow spoke for all black people. Moreover, this professor would ask her things like, ‘‘I do not know what you people want. First you want to be called Negro, and then you want to be called Black. Now you want to be called African American. What do you people want anyway? In addition, why don’t black people show up in class more? Why is it that I can’t get enough blacks to sit in on my classes?’’ (Feagin & Sikes, 1994, pp. 94–95)

This exchange typifies how racially insensitive expressions foster a climate of exclusion. Ironically, the underlying notion is at odds with the tendency of members of White majority culture to stress the need for minority students to assimilate as a means to achieve academic success. In this context, minority students may find themselves committing cultural suicide to conform to an environment that does not even desire their presence (Williams, 2002).

Beyond Race and Ethnicity Unfortunately, similar dynamics of identity and exclusion often occur with other cultural groups. How many times are LGBT individuals subject to verbal and physical threats? How many hate messages are scrawled on their organizations’ office doors? In her national study of the campus environment for LGBT faculty, staff, and students, Sue Rankin discovered multiple scenarios like these (Rankin, 2003). Moreover, what kind of society awaits them once they have left college? A 1999 study by the National Coalition of AntiViolence Projects estimated that by 2002, 29 members of the LGBT community would die as a result of antigay violence in the years following the brutal lynching of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (Ott & Aoki, 2002; C. Patton, 2002). Although examples of extreme violence on college and university campuses are thankfully rare, many members of the LGBT community report how they have been harassed and discriminated against, whether as students, faculty, staff, or administrators (Rankin, 2003). It is for this reason that

T OWA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y

103

college and university leaders must ensure that their campuses create culturally relevant and responsive services for victims of violence and discrimination by fostering better outreach, prevention, leadership development, and direct services for LGBT members. Moreover, colleges and universities should forge a national commitment to better serve these individuals, whose victimization has largely gone unseen, unreported, and unaddressed (Ciarlante & Fountain, 2010). For individuals with disabilities, bias can take not only social and cultural forms, but actual physical exclusion. Despite the Americans with Disabilities Act, students can find themselves physically barred from access to learning, social, and cultural environments. One large urban institution in the Midwest hosted a campus visit by a group of three outside consultants and conducted a climate survey with specific questions on the provision of disability services. The report highlighted the following: For several generations students with disabilities were encouraged to attend more accessible campuses downstate. In addition, our current environment includes architectural and communication barriers due to the age of our infrastructure and location within an urban environment. This includes inadequate accessible information technology and accessible buildings and facilities. There is also insufficient accessible student housing to meet the needs of students with disabilities as well as lack of door-to-door accessible transportation to enable students to take advantage of the various services on campus. Other challenges include providing sufficient accommodation in the classroom and repairs of assistive technology equipment used by students as well as sufficient resources for text conversion for blind students.

Strategic diversity leaders must be attentive to instances of discrimination beyond relatively straightforward situations in which one individual intentionally or unintentionally targets another on the basis of his or her identity. Inequality, marginalization, and disparity do not require prejudiced, biased, or hostile people. Even within the physical and social structures, inequity can be perpetuated in ways that escape detection, particularly when the disability is ‘‘invisible’’ and has to do with learning challenges and mental health issues that most are not aware even exist in many of our students on campus.

Summary of the Group Identity Perspective To summarize, individual identity is formed through the complex interplay of how you define yourself and how the world defines you. For this reason

104

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

alone, we must attend to identity as a socially constructed concept. Strategic diversity leaders must value the unique and complex realities of diverse groups, while simultaneously prioritizing concrete solutions to pressing social and historical challenges. With an ever-expanding number of communities to engage, strategic diversity leaders must have a clear idea of diversity that is anchored in history, psychology, and the dialogic dynamic between and among students, faculty, staff, and people outside the campus community.

Understanding the Ideologies of Diversity Beyond understanding diversity in the context of conceptual and group identity frameworks, academic leaders must appreciate the ideological dimension that individuals hold about the diversity idea. Over the past 50 years, liberals and conservatives have debated the notion of equality and, by extension, the meaning of diversity. The current debate over diversity has been locked in a stalemate because proponents and opponents of diversity have embraced such extreme, diametrically opposed arguments. Thus, they fail to see that the truth often lies somewhere in between. The author’s work with dozens of institutions has led to the identification of seven primary ideological categories, or ‘‘diversity perspectives’’: equity, economic, racialized, centric, reverse discrimination, universal, and colorblind perspectives of diversity. Represented in Figure 2.3, these ideologies shape the way people think about and engage with issues of diversity, including hotly contested issues like undocumented residents, affirmative action, the infusion of diversity into the curriculum, economic affirmative action, and access to higher education. Table 2.3 in turn uses these ideological frames as a means to address several questions and capture how they are commonly voiced. First, do you support diversity? Second, how do you define diversity? And third, what does a particular perspective imply for an institution’s diversity agenda? Although these perspectives are linked, each represents a major theme that, when taken collectively, help explain what leaders may encounter when they begin their efforts to define, discuss, and build diversity capacity.

The Equity Perspective For many, the idea of equity is central to their conception of diversity, informed in part thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was passed in response to the unequal treatment of ethnic and

T O WAR D A TW E N T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY

105

FIGURE 2.3 Common Diversity Ideologies in the Academy

racial minorities and women. Principles of fair treatment and restitution for past injustice are central to the equity perspective, which defines diversity work as an ongoing means of advancing a more equal American society. Here, the focus has become one of achieving quantitative improvements in the political, economic, educational, and social opportunities of historically excluded groups. Those who hold this perspective tend to focus on power imbalances and discrimination, concentrating their energy on the needs and imperatives of historically underrepresented minorities and women. It acknowledges that

106

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

TAB LE 2. 3 Common Diversity Ideologies Ideology

Support Diversity

Definition of Diversity

Program Orientation

Potential Voice

Equity Perspective

Yes

Diversity is defined in terms of the numerical representation of historically underrepresented groups.

This perspective focuses on the access and success of historically underrepresented groups.

I am not concerned about a broad definition of diversity; I am focused on achieving parity in the representation of historically underrepresented groups, compared with their majority peers. I am concerned with issues of equity.

Economic Perspective

Yes

Diversity is defined in terms of economic background and class. Other issues of difference are relevant only as they intersect with issues of socioeconomic diversity and access to higher education.

This perspective focuses on developing higher education scholarship programs and access initiatives that place a premium on economic background as the primary dimension of relevance.

My greatest concern is helping those students who are from challenged economic backgrounds. This is where we need to make a difference, regardless of other factors determining a student’s identity.

Racialized Perspective

Yes

Diversity is generally defined in terms of race and ethnicity, and more broadly in terms of the unjust treatment of historically underrepresented groups. It is common for one to define diversity as the needs and issues of African Americans as part of a Black-and-White binary discussion of diversity, as the discussion becomes even more tapered than historical underrepresentation.

This perspective focuses on developing programs, courses of study, and initiatives to build and maintain capacity centered around issues of race and ethnicity.

For me, diversity means working on issues of race and helping people of color get ahead. I do not have any problems with other groups, but our focus needs to be on the issues of African Americans and addressing the pernicious continuing implications of race and racism in this country.

Centric Perspective

Yes

Diversity is defined from the unique perspective of a particular historically marginalized group. These perspectives are similar to the racialized perspective but not as common in the general lexicon of diversity. Here, diversity encompasses the needs and issues of women, members of the LGBT or disability community, or other identity groups.

This perspective focuses on developing programs, courses of study, and initiatives to build and maintain capacity centered around issues of sexual orientation, gender, disability, nationality and other dimensions of diversity.

For me, diversity means working on sexuality and issues of gender identity. I do not have any problems with other diverse groups; in fact, I think their issues are important. But we have to put other issues on the table. When will it be our turn to be recognized and engaged as full partners in the college’s diversity efforts?

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R SI TY

107

Universal Perspective

Yes

Diversity is defined broadly, and every diverse group is valued and supported equally, with no attention to historical differences in experiences and contemporary situations.

From this perspective, diversity resources should be divided equally among the various groups and every group should enjoy matching support.

There are so many ways that we are diverse. From my perspective, I do not think we need to focus on one identity over another. Each identity is important, and all should receive equal attention, resources, and energy.

Reverse Discrimination Perspective

No

Diversity is defined broadly, with special attention given to ways that a focus on race can promote ‘‘reverse discrimination.’’

This perspective focuses on eliminating preferences in all competitive selection situations, but is often associated with a general support for diversity as an abstract concept, although not on facilitating group identity or policy development.

I believe in diversity and think that as individuals we are all diverse. My problem is with granting preferences because of one’s skin color. We need to stop thinking that way and get rid of affirmative action programs that do nothing but dumb down our institutions and provide special treatment for minorities.

Colorblind Perspective

No

Diversity is not acknowledged as an idea of any importance or continuing significance.

This perspective argues for true integration and is opposed to any programs, policies, or initiatives that support the continuing presence of difference, particularly associated with racial and ethnic identity.

The reason this campus is so disunited is because we have so many cultural centers, ethnic-themed residence halls, and minority student organizations. If our campus were not so Balkanized, students would interact and connect with one another in important and positive ways.

these groups have faced systemic barriers to equal participation in society. Common to this perspective, proponents talk of ‘‘leveling the playing field’’ and ‘‘reducing barriers.’’ Fundamental to this discussion is a focus on achieving outcomes to redress the pernicious effect of continuing legacies of racism, sexism, discrimination, and exclusion. As such, the pursuit of the diversity idea is embodied through the achievement of greater equity by achieving social justice and eliminating gaps in K–12 education, higher education, employment, compensation, and other areas of society. Although the legislative and judicial decisions of the 1970s led to the development of affirmative action policies that benefitted both women and minorities, there has been a challenge in integrating the efforts around these two broad categories. Several scholars have noted that the historical disconnect between the civil rights and feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s can be felt even today (Breines, 2006). One criticism of the feminist

108

W H AT I S D I V E R S I T Y ?

movement is that its focus on educated, middle-class White women neglected the dual burden of women of color (Breines, 2006). Consequently, women of color have been forced to follow a separate, and steeper, path. Some have combined their efforts with those of the traditional civil rights movement, arguing that race and ethnicity are the dominant factors preventing them from achieving equity. Others have developed a hybrid approach, combining elements of both the feminist and civil rights movements. Not finding a place with White women or men of color, these women prefer a path that illustrates the duality of their experience as a group marginalized because of both race and gender (Breines, 2006). One criticism of the equality perspective is that it too often ignores similar dynamics that exist across subgroups. Proponents of this view often believe that treating all elements of diversity equally risks masking the history of discrimination suffered by ethnic and racially diverse groups in particular. Strategic diversity leaders should recognize this point when it is voiced, while at the same time honoring the equity challenges of groups that may be similarly anchored in a history of inequity. Take for example the issue facing members of the LGBT community and the denial of domestic partner benefits, an issue that is clearly rooted in ideas of fairness, equal protection, and support for those who have been on the margins. The key is to acknowledge that, although exclusion and its legacy are not the same for members of the LGBT community, women, and minorities, each group’s experiences is nested in a complex macro- and microlevel historical and political context that makes it relevant to engaging issues of difference in the twenty-first century.

The Economic Perspective Imagine a female student who gains admission to the school of her choice. She will be the first person in her family to go to college. For years her parents have been saving for this day, yet with the economic downturn they suddenly find that the family’s educational nest egg has broken. Families who are paying for college tuition out of their salaries or personal savings face a stark choice between meeting basic needs and pursuing a higher education degree. This harsh reality motivates proponents of the economic perspective. They argue for reorienting the diversity idea along economic lines, particularly for students (Kahlenberg, 2003, 2004). Thus, the chief factor that would determine access to scholarships and financial aid would be a student’s financial situation, a kind of ‘‘economic affirmative action.’’ The emergence of this perspective is driven in part by the fact that more students than ever are borrowing larger amounts to pay for college. About

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R SI TY

109

two-thirds of recent graduates carry student loans, and the average debt has increased by more than 50 percent over the past decade after accounting for inflation (Baum & Steele, 2010). At the same time, the cost of higher education has risen faster than many families can sustain. Although access for the most economically vulnerable students is a decades-old issue, it is becoming increasingly pressing in light of the Great Recession. Thus, proponents of the economic perspective maintain that issues of diversity are relevant only insofar as they converge with economic considerations. Proponents of the economic diversity perspective make a powerful argument for addressing the underrepresentation of poor and working-class students, particularly at elite institutions. For example, Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a leading proponent of economic affirmative action, believes that economic background is the most critical diversity dimension. In his article, ‘‘Toward Affirmative Action for Economic Diversity,’’ Kahlenberg (2004) makes a strong case for increasing the number of the most vulnerable economic communities in academia. Using data from 146 four-year colleges representing the most selective 10 percent as defined by Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges, Kahlenberg’s research found that students in the bottom economic quartile constitute just 3 percent of the student body at these institutions. The most economically vulnerable students are 25 times less likely to be found on elite college and university campuses than economically advantaged students, with the highest economic quartile taking up 74 percent of the available slots. Kahlenberg argues that selective institutions do not give enough consideration to economic background in either admissions decisions or financial aid awards. Proponents of the economic diversity perspective argue that using financial status in admissions decisions is a preferable alternative to other factors on the grounds that 75 percent of the racial and ethnic diversity of our campuses could be achieved by using ‘‘economic affirmative action.’’ Kahlenberg notes: Class-based affirmative action would produce three-fourths as much racial diversity as using race at the most selective 146 colleges and universities. While university admissions based on grades and test scores would yield student bodies that have a four-percent combined black and Latino admissions, class-based preferences would boost that to ten percent black and Latino, somewhat short of the current 12 percent representation. Socioeconomic factors not included in the Century Foundation study—such as wealth—could boost racial diversity even further, as black income is 60

110

W H AT I S D I V E R S I TY ?

percent of white income, but black net worth is just five percent of white net worth.6

Of course it is also possible to imagine a hybrid approach that would recognize both economic status and race and ethnic factors. In this way, diversity efforts could acknowledge the economic hardships applicants face, bringing these issues to bear in a way that traditional race- and ethnicitybased affirmative action does not (Kahlenberg, 2003, 2004). Kahlenberg’s argument is not without its detractors, who point out that the continuing legacy of racial discrimination creates a different context for members of minority groups, who, even after they have received an education, may still find themselves in an inequitable position. They add that even though more minorities are obtaining college degrees, their total assets, rates of home ownership, and overall financial situation still does not begin to approach that of White majority society (M. Oliver & Shapiro, 2001). They further note that focusing solely on economics would lead to less racial and ethnic diversity because high school completion rates differ between minority and majority groups. However, as noted earlier, there is a tendency for those who disagree to talk past each other. Going all the way back to the 1960s and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work on the Poor People’s Campaign, civil rights activists have focused on the shared interests and potential for coalition building among diverse communities of the economically disadvantaged (McKnight, 1998). There may yet be a way to thread the needle between these different interests that share a similar goal: a more just, equitable society.

The Racialized Perspective Whereas the economic perspective focuses on issues of poverty and economic justice, the racialized perspective is rooted in issues of race and racism in the context of the judicial system. Legal cases, particularly at the Supreme Court level, have situated race and ethnicity at the center of how institutional leaders define diversity (Baez, 2004; M. Chang, Chang, & Ledesma, 2005; P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; P. Gurin, Lehman, & Lewis, 2004; Hurtado, 2007; Milem et al., 2005). In addition to dealing a powerful blow to segregation, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision configured diversity issues within a context of racialized policies, initiatives, and strategies to change what were, at the time, often exclusively White institutions. The racialized perspective is thus firmly rooted in programs, policies, and initiatives designed to benefit the needs of racially and ethnically diverse

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F I R S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R S I TY

111

minorities. It includes not only affirmative action programs but even more radical solutions such as fundamental restitution, including direct reparations to historically marginalized minority populations. As such, diversity exists as an idea anchored in an historic and contemporary discussion of ethnicity and race, racism, power, and privilege (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Omi and Winant (1989) defined racialization as a process of extending racial meanings to relationships, social practices, or groups. Although sexism, homophobia, and the identity issues of other oppressed groups may be acknowledged, they are not of central concern to proponents of this perspective. Even when acknowledging the presence and implications of other groups in the diversity discussion, proponents of the racialization perspective place a premium on issues of race and ethnicity. The racialized perspective looks for practices of exclusion that operate not only at the surface of our institutions, but at levels of institutional culture that are deeply embedded—consciously or unconsciously—in the values, beliefs, assumptions, behaviors, and systems that motivate people and institutions. The great strength of the racialized perspective is in accounting for recent shifts in the social-historical dimension that have forced racism and other forms of bias underground. Where prejudice and discrimination were once explicitly embedded in laws, policies, and organizational systems, recent decades have seen these exclusionary practices shift to a more covert setting. Exclusionary policies now operate as subtle rather than overt barriers to access. Accordingly, seemingly neutral policies that evaluate qualities like merit, academic potential, and achievement can have detrimental effects, undermining diversity policies by failing to account for subtle and ongoing forms of discrimination (Bonilla-Silva, 1997; Bonilla-Silva, 2006). The drawback of the racialized perspective is that it is strongly coded for race and ethnicity. At some campuses, its focus can narrow even further, focusing entirely on the relative circumstances of Black and White students. Here, the nearly singular focus is on the history, experiences, and realities of African Americans. As Hurtado, and colleagues (1998) have noted, every institution is nested in a particular macro- and microlevel sociological context, and appreciating how these differing contexts affect different groups is essential to establishing sound diversity policies. For example, in the Midwest, where the Latino population is just emerging, some institutions have demonstrated a very limited experience with racial diversity outside of the Black and White binary. Hence, the issues of other historically marginalized groups, like Latinos, Southeast Asians, and Arab Americans, are not always fully included in high-level discussions of diversity. Moreover, just because

112

W H AT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?

one is of African American or Mexican descent does not automatically place one at a disadvantage. Critics of the racialized perspective argue that people should not be judged as disadvantaged and automatically deserving of ‘‘special treatment’’ simply because of their color, race, national origin, or gender. Arguing that many Whites are in difficult circumstances, critics of the racialized perspective wonder why economically disadvantaged Whites are not prioritized more in discussions of access and inclusion across campus. When the racialized perspective is translated into new diversity programs and interventions, it is often subject to legal challenge and therefore should be pursued with clarity regarding the legal and policy guidance that exists in this area. Under federal nondiscrimination laws, educational scholarships, admissions programs, and practices that are race conscious in any way call for the most rigorous standard of judicial review, also known as strict scrutiny. To satisfy this standard, these programs must serve a ‘‘compelling state interest’’ and be ‘‘narrowly tailored’’ to accomplish that interest. As we move deeper into a discussion of organizational diversity models in the next chapter, it will be vital to outline the legal and policy parameters associated with using race and ethnicity in higher education.

Centric Perspective Themes like context, viewpoint, and empowerment underscore the centric perspective, as the goal is to define diversity from the unique vantage of a particular cultural group. In many ways, this perspective is similar to the racialized perspective in that it contextualizes the diversity idea from the vantage of a particular group’s unique interests and needs. Whereas the racialized perspective unapologetically focuses on the diversity idea from the perspective of race and ethnicity, the centric perspective uses a similar platform to focus on the unique identities, issues, and redistributive needs from the unique vantage of other social identity groups. Some of the most common include gender, sexual orientation, religion, and disability perspectives. The ultimate goal of the centric perspective is to create a theory of empowerment that speaks to the unique educational and cultural needs of their group. It is not uncommon for individuals advocating from this perspective to desire the exact same diversity services that others have, as possessing these same services reify and symbolize a commitment to their group’s unique issues and needs as a community. As the diversity paradigm continues to evolve and mature, this perspective presents new possibilities, such as the opportunity for offices of admissions to recruit at LGBT-themed high

T O WAR D A T W E N TY - F IR S T C E N T U R Y D E F IN IT I O N O F D IV ER S I T Y

113

school recruitment events, develop LGBT or disability studies departments, establish prayer and reflection rooms on campus, or even unisex bathrooms, a potential benefit for individuals who are transgender. Like each of the perspectives offered in this discussion, it is important to recognize the inherent legitimacy of the centric perspective. This legitimacy emerges out of various marginalized groups’ deep sense of pain and longing to have their identities validated by society and their institution’s leadership. Strategic diversity leaders must appreciate the growing power of the centric perspective and recognize that this worldview is vital to the process of positive change as our campuses are full of social groups that must be acknowledged as legitimate and full participants in our campus experiences.

The Universal Perspective Characterized by an overarching hopefulness and naı¨vete´, the universal perspective implies that we have already overcome the difficult issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia. But whereas other perspectives respect that the unique historical experiences of diverse groups necessitates an ongoing engagement with the diversity idea, or that we should proactively dismantle policies designed to benefit diversity, the universal perspective implies that all groups are the same. Thus, this perspective tends toward a principle of cultural homogeneity on the grounds that we live in a postracial, postgender, postidentity world, where all identities must be valued and viewed with respect and equivalence. In some ways, this perspective recalls the classic ideas of the melting pot, as it presumes that differences among individuals can be harmoniously blended into one cohesive society—often ignoring the critical role of social policy, and permanence and importance of identity for members of historically marginalized and excluded groups. A common statement might go something like this: ‘‘If we just embrace the realities of diversity, it will be true. We have to stop harping on these old discussions of the problem and look at who we are. We are all diverse—and it’s a good thing.’’ Proponents of a universal diversity perspective argue that differences in personality, ability, work styles, and ideology are dimensions of human experience that deserve greater emphasis and indeed equal importance with primary dimensions of diversity like race, ethnicity, and gender. They contend that by expanding the definition, we are more likely to gain the support of individuals who may feel marginalized by narrower conceptions of diversity. They argue that the emphasis should be on improving the environment

114

W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?

for everyone, not just individuals from traditionally marginalized groups, and that we are all diverse and consequently, the most critical issue is supporting the ties that unite us as a community, rather than focusing on differences. Hence this perspective is characterized by a principled support of the diversity idea more than a material support of programs, initiatives, and capacities that might be required to achieve the goals of the diversity idea. If any issue rises to prominence more than another, it is related to class and income, particularly as we find ourselves in the midst of economic recession. The strength of this perspective is that its broad parameters capture qualities that are truly reflective of the aspirations of the diversity ideal. However, it could also be accused of naı¨vete´ and eliminating the unique histories, perspectives, circumstances, and needs of various cultural groups. Implicit is the expectation that ethnic minorities and other diverse groups should shed their specific cultural values and practices and simply embrace the principle of our universal humanity and sameness, and that individuals who work to assimilate will be accepted by the majority as simply as one discards one pair of clothes for another. In so many ways, this perspective ignores a fundamental lesson that we discussed earlier in this chapter, namely that shedding the fundamental characteristics of one’s identity is not simply a function of what the individual does, but how the environment perceives and responds to them. As a result, it ignores the sociohistorical realities that continue to reify diverse identities daily.

Reverse Discrimination Perspective It is a sad irony that the sentiments that inspired the civil rights movement 40 years ago have been co-opted by those who oppose the diversity idea today. It was, indeed, from a sense of moral fairness that legislation and policies sought to redress long-standing discrimination. Consciously evoking the language and symbolic resonance of terms like equality, fairness, and moral responsibility, proponents of this perspective are seeking to dismantle diversity efforts, arguing that White majority individuals are now experiencing ‘‘reverse discrimination.’’ Organizations like the Center for Individual Rights and the Center for Equal Opportunity embody the reverse discrimination perspective (Barry, 1997). Although proponents of reverse discrimination may openly support the general principle of diversity, they do not support structured interventions designed to promote diverse values. Thus, they feel that higher education

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R SI TY

115

institutions should not develop proactive policies like race-conscious admissions programs because success or failure is wholly determined by individual effort, and racial identity should play no role in competitive decisions. The reverse discrimination perspective is different from the universal perspective in that the reverse discrimination perspective proactively advocates for dismantling social policies and programs designed to achieve diversity. In fact, this is the central value of the reverse discrimination perspective. Therefore, this perspective focuses on eliminating preferences in all competitive selection situations, while sometimes espousing general support toward diversity as an abstract concept rather than a focus of policy development. Rhetorically adopting the moral high ground in the name of individual rights and a ‘‘colorblind’’ society, they are seeking at every level to undermine and dismantle policies designed to support minority individuals and groups (Barry, 1997). This conundrum of support for diversity and criticism of social policies designed to accomplish this goal further complicates the diversity discussion as proponents of this perspective adopt the classic language of the civil rights movement, using terms like protection, individual rights, and nondiscrimination, to sow confusion among members of the media and the public. Finally, this perspective relies heavily on examples of individual achievement as prima facie evidence that race, ethnicity, and gender do not play an important role in determining individual outcomes. Proponents of this perspective point to the success of President and First Lady Barack and Michelle Obama as proof that the United States has overcome its past and that one’s gender, ethnic and racial background, national origin, or economic status are no longer relevant. In making this point, they shift the argument away from the continuing legacy of exclusion that exists in this country, arguing that today’s lack of success is simply the national consequence of a lack of commitment to doing what was necessary to succeed in society (Bobo, Kluegel, & Smith, 1997).

The Colorblind Perspective Although similar to the reverse discrimination perspective, proponents of the colorblind perspective take the most extreme view, arguing that diversity leads to campus Balkanization (Sidanius, Levin, Van Laar, & Sears, 2008). Hence, institutional support of diversity perpetuates division and only reinforces social boundaries that society should actively work to dismantle. Although similar to the universal perspective and its goal of moving beyond

116

W H AT I S D IV E R SI TY ?

a focus on past historical inequities, the colorblind perspective does not view diversity as a positive dynamic, like the universal perspective. On the contrary, proponents of this perspective argue that diversity is the enemy of the integrationist ideal and interrupts the establishment of community. If we recall that diversity is about acknowledging the qualities that differentiate us, the colorblind perspective situates the conversation squarely on the overarching principle of assimilating into the mainstream. Several conservative scholars have argued against making the academic canon more culturally diverse on the grounds that any changes would undermine the philosophical foundations of American society (Schlesigner, 1998; Wood, 2004). Colorblind proponents implicitly endorse the idea that the expression of subgroup identity threatens social unity and cohesion. These individuals believe that the most important contribution that one can make toward creating a more inclusive culture is to be ‘‘colorblind.’’ It is as if somehow by ignoring an individual’s primary dimensions, these identity markers will cease to exist. Proponents assert that, with regard to staffing, a person’s contributions should be evaluated solely on how well he or she can ‘‘do the job.’’ But although a colorblind society can at times sound positive and compassionate, it is a practical impossibility. With the colorblind approach, the different needs, assets, and perspectives of minority people are disregarded: they go unseen. Sociologist Troy Duster (2008) revealed the inherent biases of the colorblind perspective by asking, ‘‘Why is it that when we see eight white students having lunch together in the commons, we just see students having lunch? But when we see eight African American students having lunch together, we call it a Balkanized racial enclave?’’ (p. 1). The answer to Duster’s question hinges on both numbers and social context. On most U.S. campuses, a majority culture of heterosexual White males dominates. Thus, their experience is viewed as normative compared with minority individuals and groups. These minority populations exist in much smaller numbers, and against this majority background, their mere appearance—their styles, dress, and how they spend time together—stands out. The only possible outcome for a colorblind society is one where sameness reigns, where integration promotes the annihilation of difference, and where culturally distinct values, practices, and programs are oppressed under the false aegis of promoting social harmony. As explored earlier in this chapter, the history of inclusion or exclusion is vital to understanding how the boundaries of individual and group identity are demarcated. Many historically disadvantaged groups have never even

T O WA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T IO N O F D I V E R S I T Y

117

been in a position to define the boundaries of their identity, much less exclude others. Rather, organizations like the National Black MBA Association, the Society of Hispanic Engineers, and the NAACP define their mission as affirming the identities of their group constituencies, not excluding others. Hence, these groups hold as their highest value the right of their constituents to have a voice in a world that often ignores their interests. These groups actively work to dismantle systems of exclusion and privilege that continue to impede their members’ success. By comparison, throughout history whiteness has often been the standard-bearer for politics of exclusion. In our embrace of the diversity idea, valuing diversity means supporting and helping difference to flourish in ways that benefit the entire community, including the majority culture. In short, the assumption that diversity can only be achieved by making differences invisible and normalizing sameness is antithetical to what it means to embrace diversity in our institutions.

Summary of the Ideological Perspective This discussion is intended to help strategic diversity leaders understand the numerous ideological perspectives that they will encounter in their realworld efforts to advance diversity at their institutions. Strategic diversity leaders must be equipped with a sophisticated understanding of each of these ideologies to address the varied cultural conflicts they will inevitably encounter. A key strategy for overcoming conflict between groups is to operate from a perspective of reciprocal empowerment, continually searching for ways to help vulnerable individuals and groups, while at the same time respecting the unique needs, histories, and cultures of everyone. The savviest strategic diversity leaders begin by acknowledging the energy that is obviously powering the ideological clash. Whatever the ideological origins of this conflict, acknowledging and giving space to different points of view is essential. Next, leaders must affirm an individual’s right to express his or her ideology, so long as those expressions are respectful of others. At the same time, strategic diversity leaders must be ready to push back against arguments that undermine our shared diversity values. Moreover, they must be ready to acknowledge that not every conversation on diversity can include every important topic. At times, it may be appropriate to have a general discussion of diversity issues broadly defined, whereas at other times it may be important to drill deep into a particular diversity context, issue, or challenge. Strategic diversity leaders must point out that there are inherent limits to any conversation on diversity. The key is to engage substantively

118

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

on diversity issues in ways that are nuanced and focused. Finally, on occasion the leader must be able to suggest continuing the dialogue at a later date in a way that does not create the impression of shutting down the dialogue. The key is to confirm one’s commitment to improving the community’s ability to discuss the issues in ways that are respectful.

The Institutional Definition of Diversity Given the nearly endless permutations of the diversity idea, how do institutions arrive at an inclusive yet manageable definition? This question motivates the fourth and final aspect of discussion. Turning now to matters of institutional definition and formal policy, these concerns set the stage for the next chapters. These chapters in turn address how organizational capacity can be designed to accomplish the campus diversity agenda and bring the diversity idea to life.

National Guidance on College and University Diversity Definitions In recent years, the higher education policy community has weighed in heavily, offering guidance intended to create a more coherent conversation and ensure better coordination of the diversity agendas of institutions that may differ in size, control, complexity, and location. This perspective is helpful to our discussion, as these umbrella organizations articulate diversity in ways that are both current and consistent. Particularly, the Making Excellence Inclusive initiative by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Now Is the Time report by the National Association of State University and Land Grant Institutions, now known as the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) and the Association of American Universities (AAU) offer positive guidance that has helped shape the ways that many institutions define diversity on their campuses. Table 2.4 summarizes these two initiatives. Although the terminology is different, a number of the ideas at the core of both definitions are similar. Namely, diversity must be defined broadly, inclusive of both primary and secondary dimensions, and must contain an active component that focuses on change. Moreover, it should embrace both contemporary and historical issues of diversity. These definitions acknowledge the ways that increasingly diverse student and faculty populations have brought new visions and voices into the academy, creating new disciplines

T O WA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T IO N O F D I V E R S I T Y

119

TAB LE 2. 4 Definitions of Diversity Offered by Higher Education Policy Organizations Association

Initiative

Definition

AAC&U

Making Excellence Inclusive

Individual differences (e.g., personality, learning styles, and life experiences) and group and social differences (e.g., race and ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, and ability, as well as cultural, political, religious, or other affiliations) can be engaged in the service of learning. Inclusion, concomitant with diversity, is defined as the active, intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity—in people, the curriculum, the cocurriculum, and communities (intellectual, social, cultural, and geographical) with which individuals might connect—in ways that increase one’s awareness, knowledge, cognitive sophistication and empathic understanding of the complex ways that individuals interact within systems and institutions.

APLU and AAU Now Is the Time

Diversity can be broadly defined to include all aspects of human difference, including but not limited to race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, disability, socioeconomic status, and veteran status. However, without diminishing the importance of these aspects of diversity, for the purposes of our work, we have defined diversity to mean achieving equal access and meaningful academic and intellectual inclusion in curriculum, research, service, and holistic integration into the academic culture of higher education for underrepresented Black (African American), Latino (Hispanic), Native American, and Asian American students.

Sources: Clayton-Pedersen, O-Neill, & McTighe Musil, 2007; NASULGC/AASCU Diversity Task Force, 2005.

120

W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?

and fields of study, student organizations, offices, traditions, and other contributions that enrich the tapestry of campus culture. Both the AAC&U and APLU argue that an institutional commitment to diversity must involve more than the presence of diverse individuals. Institutions of higher education must actively integrate diversity into the fabric of their academic, cultural, and social life in ways that are substantive and meaningful. Indeed, the APLU defines diversity in ways that prioritize issues of access and equity for historically underrepresented minority groups. This distinction is consistent with an understanding of the social-historical dimension of diversity and the need for campus leaders to acknowledge this dimension’s continuing implications for their institutions. By comparison, the AAC&U definition places a premium on diversity as critical to activating a high-impact learning environment for all students.

The Access and Diversity Collaborative Indeed one of the most powerful platforms for helping college and university leaders develop definitions and policies around issues of diversity is the Access and Diversity Collaborative of the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center.7 Similar to previous examples, the Collaborative was established in the wake of the 2003 University of Michigan Supreme Court cases to provide strategic guidance in the area of diversity-related policies and programs for colleges, universities, and state systems of higher education. The Collaborative includes representatives from sponsoring College Board member institutions and other higher education organizations, as well as individuals with a detailed understanding of the legal issues involved in the twenty-first century discussion of diversity and access to higher education. The Collaborative is composed of 34 institutions of higher education, 3 foundations, and 10 additional organizations; they lend their expertise to advance access and diversity goals in higher education. Their work specifically focuses on issues of access and diversity, and have sponsored more than 30 national seminars attended by more than 1,500 representatives from nearly 400 institutions and organizations. The Collaborative is especially adept at providing policy briefs that address key strategic planning and policy development issues. Given the contentious legal and political dynamics discussed in Chapter 1, the Collaborative is a critical element of the strategic diversity leadership movement for leaders engaging these issues on their campus. The Collaborative features a number of strategy briefs as well as a dynamic website that

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV E R S I TY

121

provides helpful and timely guidance regarding ongoing litigation, new policy decisions, and best practices for defining diversity and building relevant policy goals and practices to support its pursuit as an educational priority.

Developing an Institutional Definition of Diversity The policy organizations highlighted here offer guidance consistent with emerging local and national conversations about what diversity means in the new millennium. Despite the guidance that may come from national associations, campus leaders still face a challenge in defining diversity. Indeed, in our survey, 63 percent of chief diversity officers indicated that their efforts were at times hindered by an inability to develop an effective and widely accepted definition of diversity. One associate vice president stated: When we began working on our campus diversity plan, we had to begin with a campus-wide definition of diversity. I can recall our sitting around the room and everyone being in a totally different place. Some wanted to toss aside issues of access for historically underrepresented groups, because in their words, the conversation had to move beyond race. Others were pushing for a return to the most aggressive forms of affirmative action. Still others were pushing the importance of acknowledging issues of class and sexuality. I knew we [had to] find consensus on a definition of diversity so that we could move forward and talk about actually making change happen. It probably took our committee a semester to get that definition in a draft form and it was not until one year later that it was adopted by the Board of Trustees.

A quick review of campus diversity definitions reveals how many institutions define diversity in broad and complex ways that include groups that go far beyond the legally protected categories that have anchored campus conversations over the years. The author’s survey of chief diversity officers revealed that more than 90 percent reported that their institutions had a broad definition of diversity that included more than race and ethnicity. Indeed, a number of institutions have developed considerable capacity to advance issues of diversity in terms of disability and LGBT status, religion, geographic and economic factors, and national origin. Table 2.5 includes excerpts from a sample of institutions reflecting definitions of diversity consistent with the ideas advanced in this chapter.

A Detailed Process of Definition Some institutions are very intentional about using a detailed process to define what diversity means to them. For example, at a large public university

122

W H AT I S D IV E R S I T Y ?

TAB LE 2. 5 Sample of Institutional Definitions of Diversity Institution

Definition of Diversity

Institution 1 We recognize that diversity is a concept that is ever evolving. When we developed the Diversity Action Plan in 2002, we defined diversity as the presence and participation of people who differ by age, color, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, and disability status. In addition, we include in our definition the thoughts, perspectives, attitudes, and experiences that lie outside traditional notions of diversity. Institution 2 The University defines diversity in a broad context to include the representation, integration, and interaction of different races, ethnicities, cultures, national origins, abilities, religions, orientations, intellectual positions, and perspectives. Institution 3 Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. It is extremely important to support and protect diversity because by valuing individuals and groups free from prejudice and by fostering a climate where equity and mutual respect are intrinsic, we will create a success-oriented, cooperative, and caring community that draws intellectual strength and produces innovative solutions from the synergy of its people. Institution 4 The commitment to valuing diverse participation requires that members of the campus community also acknowledge responsibility for prevention of prejudice, hostility, and barriers to opportunity based upon, but not limited to, age, race, ethnicity, sex, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, culture, ideology, politics, religion, citizenship, marital status, job classification, income, socioeconomic, geographic and regional difference. Institution 5 Diversity is an institutional philosophy that redefines academic excellence in terms of inclusive institutional culture, academic, and extracurricular programs that prepare students for active global citizenship, and faculty, staff, and student composition that reflects society, harnesses diverse human talents, and celebrates human differences.

T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV E R SI TY

123

in the Southwest, the campus diversity planning team talked with numerous campus stakeholders over a half-year period in an effort to formulate their definition of diversity. As part of their discovery process, they conducted site visits and interviews with every school, college, and division. Their final report states: There was no across-the-board definition of diversity. As a term, diversity is highly contextual. Some units argued that any richness of experience should count as diversity, while other units argued that the emphasis should be on historically underrepresented minority groups that have not had access to certain types of opportunities. Discussions thereby ranged from those who wanted to include any diversity of thought to those who wanted diversity to be tied to issues of social justice. Many recommend a rethinking and public discussion of both the meaning of diversity and its value to the institution. The institution should reformulate a core meaning of diversity and work on maintaining a dual focus on the practical and the ideal.

Their findings are not uncommon and the conclusions offered here ring true to the author’s interviews with chief diversity officers. Whether one is talking about developing strategic partnerships with sovereign Native American communities or creating more need-based financial aid to drive economic diversity on campus, the conversation must begin with the definition of diversity. As this process suggests, the more inclusive this process can be, the better it taps into the collegial nature of the academy and the premium placed on shared decision making. Chapter 5 addresses the importance of collective processes in the context of symbolic and collegial leadership. BOX 2.5 Recommendations for Developing an Institutional Definition of Diversity A review of national guidance and conversations with the nation’s leading diversity experts has led to these recommendations for defining diversity: 1. Use a collective process that encourages feedback and opportunities for hearing from and vetting multiple perspectives. 2. Include both primary and secondary dimensions of diversity, emphasizing a collective purpose as members of the campus community. (continues)

124

W H AT I S D IV E R S I TY ?

(continued) 3. Embrace rather than shy away from the complexity of diversity, making it a vital ingredient of learning, mission fulfillment, and institutional excellence. 4. Include a statement about diversity’s educational benefits and the need to continue advancing the historic agenda of access and equity, while at the same time embracing and valuing the unique needs and experiences of diverse groups broadly defined. 5. Draft, draft, and redraft—until you get to a definitional statement that feels like it reflects the language, values, and needs of your institution. While your definition is being drafted it is vital to get input from faculty, staff, and students, and then submit the definition to the formal mechanisms of governance at your institution. Failing to get support during the development and adoption process can do grave harm by marginalizing the definition as the work of a few campus voices, rather than something that was shaped by the perspectives of many. Furthermore, submitting the definition to the formal governance procedures helps hardwire it to the mission, plans, priorities, and processes of the institution.

Institutional Definitions and Diversity Strategy The Supreme Court has held that the use of race and ethnicity in policy decisions is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny (Alger, 2009; Coleman, Palmer, Richards, & Holland & Knight LLP, 2005). It is up to the institution to prove that policies supporting a diverse student body serve a compelling educational interest, are narrowly tailored, and are used because ‘‘raceneutral’’ means would not achieve adequate outcomes. Although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on issues pertaining to financial aid or employment policies, many believe that the Supreme Court’s perspective on the need for strict scrutiny holds for all matters of selection. Indeed, one of the key unanswered questions after the Michigan ruling was the role of diversity in hiring and employment policies as institutions seek to achieve the benefits of diversity (Alger, 2009) and with the Fisher v. University of Texas raceconscious admissions case set for review in the fall of 2012, the policy context of defining diversity may again evolve. With so many unanswered questions, college and university leaders must be careful when facilitating the diversity definition process. One way to mitigate risk is to implement definitions that are consistent with the social scientific arguments about the educational benefits of diversity and the legal policy guidance in this area (Alger, 2009; Coleman et al., 2005). Hence,

T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T C E N T U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY

125

institutional leaders should carefully draw out the intellectual and administrative connections between their institution’s definition of diversity and any race-sensitive diversity processes they are seeking to implement (Alger, 2009; Coleman et al., 2005). Doing so will tend to promote an approach toward the diversity idea that is holistic and entertains a broad range of diversity characteristics. In the eyes of the court, a formal institutional definition of diversity establishes the broader context within which more specific policies take shape, including strategic goals, policy and program initiatives, admissions, and financial aid and hiring processes.

Activating the Diversity Idea Unfortunately, a prevailing disparity exists between rhetoric and action, as institutions continue to emphasize a very narrow definition of diversity in their policies. In his fieldwork, the author often found broad definitions of diversity, only to learn that actual policies were implemented within very narrow parameters, initiatives were disconnected, and resources did not follow the vision. In one powerful example, the associate provost for diversity and equity at a midsize liberal arts institution related a conversation with her provost supervisor regarding the relationship between resources and the campus definition of diversity. In that conversation, she and the provost agreed that the chief diversity officer should involve herself in a broad array of campus diversity issues, among them race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, economic background, and nationality. Yet when the discussion turned to empowering her with the resources needed to activate her efforts, the provost took a narrow view of diversity as an expression of race and ethnicity. The chief diversity officer described her disappointment: I was totally stunned. After months of hearing him affirm my broad take on diversity and my trying to get lots of people involved in the issues across campus, I learned that it was all a bunch of rhetoric. He had no intention of bridging the issues and moving the diversity discussion forward in more modern terms. I felt disillusioned and really defeated because I knew I was doing my job, but he was on a totally different page in trying to move forward on these issues.

In a world of shrinking budgets, leaders must grapple with the realities of diversity beyond simply broadening its definition. When merely symbolic changes are made to a diversity definition, historic groups lose valuable resources and newer diversity communities have to fight an uphill battle to

126

W H AT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

ensure that their issues are addressed. To move campus diversity efforts to the next level, senior leaders must develop a more sophisticated understanding of the definition of diversity, the historical and contemporary realities of different groups, and the relationship between the ideas and models that have emerged to accomplish campus diversity goals. Hence, institutions should continue working to create capacity in the form of cultural centers for emerging minority groups. As campuses continue to evolve, these areas will be more important than ever and require institutions to establish new resources, even as they seek to meet the needs of traditionally underrepresented minority populations.

Summary of the Institutional Perspective Colleges and universities develop a definition of diversity as a means of creating a strategic foundation for diversity strategies, particularly as they relate to competitive selection processes, financial aid and employment. National policy organizations like the APLU and AAC&U have offered national policy guidance that is helpful for defining institutional diversity. Box 2.5 presents several recommendations for defining diversity that address the importance of fostering a broad institutional definition that can capture a contemporary aspect of diversity, namely its educational benefits for all students and the institution as a whole.

Summary This chapter provides a road map for understanding the diversity idea in higher education, outlining the major theories that undergird the complex and always contested diversity concept. It also introduces concepts of primary, secondary, and social-historical identity dimensions, adding further texture and sophistication to the diversity idea in colleges and universities. Central to this discussion is an understanding of how different ideological perspectives frame the discussion and connect different social and political constituencies. If we do not understand how people are thinking about this work on a day-to-day basis, how can we connect and engage them in a conversation of diversity planning and implementation? Campus leaders must have a well-honed understanding of diversity that is attentive to historical and contemporary diversity discussions and that addresses the unique needs and issues of different minority groups. Campus leaders can neither gloss over the historic issues of access and equity nor

T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T CE N T U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY

127

ignore the emerging priorities of groups that in some ways are new to an established conversation about campus diversity. What is important is that leaders understand that expanding the diversity definition means expanding resources and deepening the potential effect of campus policies and programs. At a minimum, establishing a clear definition of diversity creates a starting point for developing a shared understanding. For institutions looking to initiate, reinvigorate, or evolve their campus diversity agendas, an integrated and holistic approach that moves across disciplines, departments, and schools is optimal. The next chapter elaborates the diversity idea in higher education by fundamentally connecting it to the notion of organizational capacity. Colleges and universities have capacity that exists in their formal ability to advance campus diversity goals, whether defined as providing access to diverse groups or preparing all students for leadership in a diverse world. Chapter 3 provides a multidimensional framework that captures the complexity of an organizational environment, including centers for the study of race, ethnicity, and gender; multicultural centers; women’s studies departments; disability offices; affirmative action plans; general education diversity requirements; and study abroad and service learning offices. Our next step is to address the connection between diverse identities and the varied organizational capacities that exist on campus, establishing an important context for our discussion of the who, what, and how of chief diversity officers and strategic diversity leaders in higher education.

Notes 1. The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) is now known as the Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education reflecting an expanded global agenda. For more information see www.naspa.org. 2. Downloaded on June 5, 2010, from www.naspa.org/about/diversity.cfm. 3. The SIT presents a broader and in some ways more flexible conception of identity than do the stage models of identity and acculturation familiar to most of us. Stage and similar identity development theories explain the specific identity development progressions of a particular demographic group, including terms like race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. These theories provide insight into the evolving sense of self that an individual may experience over his or her lifetime. For a discussion of these theories, see Bilodeau & Renn’s ‘‘Analysis of LGBT Identity Development Models and Implications for Practice’’ (2005), Cross’s ‘‘The Negro-to-Black Conversion Experience: Toward a Psychology of Black Liberation’’ (1971), Helms’s ‘‘Toward a Theoretical Explanation of the Effects of Race on Counseling’’ (1984), Kim’s dissertation The Process of Asian American Identity Development (1981), and Sue and Sue’s Counseling the Culturally Different (1990).

128

W H AT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?

4. MEChA is a national student organization that promotes Chicano culture and history in higher education. MEChA was founded on the principles of self-determination. For more information, please visit www.nationalmecha.org/. 5. Some notable exceptions include minority-serving and special interest institutions like Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Gallaudet University, with its focus on the deaf and the hearing-impaired; and tribal institutions. These schools were founded to serve unique populations before many mainstream institutions were forced to open their doors to more diverse populations of students. 6. Downloaded on October 17, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/ a-third-path-on-affirmative-action/30606. 7. For more information on the Collaborative see http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/ admission-completion/access-diversity-collaborative. This information was cited on June 19, 2012.

3 HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY MODELS

I’ve got to approach my work as a diversity leader much the same way that I approached my research as an experimental psychologist. That is, try to approach the work from a sort of theoretical framework. A framework that helps you to understand what you believe about diversity, how it works, why we need it, how it should drive the efforts of our institutions, inform our presidents, and frame the work of chief diversity officers specifically. So let me start with my philosophy for how I define diversity strategically in higher education. —Vice Provost for Diversity at a large research university in the South

D

uring the past several decades, the diversity paradigm within higher education has expanded from a singular focus on increasing the compositional diversity of students, faculty, and staff to a broader focus seeking to capitalize on the educational benefits of diversity for all students (e.g., Baez, 2004; P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Hurtado, 2007; Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005; Umbach & Kuh, 2006). As discussed in the last chapter, the twentyfirst century has brought with it changes to the diversity paradigm, pairing traditional ideas about access, equity, multiculturalism, and affirmative action with newer concepts like globalization and internationalization. This chapter does not seek to provide an exhaustive account of diversity definitions, frameworks, rationales, or conceptualizations. Instead it aims to explore, from an organizational capacity perspective, the new opportunities 129

130

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

that exist, highlighting potentially innovative ways of formulating and leading campus diversity efforts. This chapter begins with a brief overview of diversity efforts before presenting a detailed analysis of three dominant organizational diversity models on college and university campuses: the Affirmative Action and Equity Model; the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. Although alternative frameworks certainly exist, these models offer a way of thinking about the disparate diversity offices, units, initiatives, and policies that exist in the academy. Only by understanding these core concepts can institutional leaders begin to see how all of the pieces of the campus diversity puzzle potentially fit together as part of an integrated and more cohesive whole.

Dedicated Diversity Capacity in Higher Education Over the years, academic institutions have invested billions of dollars developing campus diversity programs and offices, committees, academic departments, scholarship programs, outreach efforts, general education diversity requirements, diverse student organizations, and research centers. These campus diversity efforts are defined as ‘‘dedicated’’ capabilities because these areas generally pursue diversity-related efforts as their top institutional priority. It is not uncommon, particularly at large research institutions, to find hundreds of campus diversity offices (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] offices, Americans with Disabilities Act coordinators, multicultural centers, women’s centers, diversity and equity offices, international affairs offices, Latino studies, etc.), policies (sexual harassment policy, diversity awareness policy, domestic partner benefits policy, etc.), and initiatives (strategic faculty hiring initiative, difficult dialogues project, etc.). Indeed, the presence of so many diversity capabilities is part of what distinguishes the diversity work of academic institutions from the corporate sector, where staffs and resources are not as expansive. Despite at times long-standing and robust investments in diversity, institutional efforts are often stymied by disconnected and disjoined offices and programs. Affirmative action offices have historically been located in administrative affairs where they report to the president or a senior human resources officer. Meanwhile, multicultural centers are usually housed in student affairs, where they report to the dean of students or a chief student affairs officer. And finally, ethnic and international studies programs are

H IG HE R E DU CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI VE RS I T Y M O D E L S

131

directed by offices of academic affairs, academic deans, and the faculty. Obviously, from one vantage point these configurations can make perfect sense; after all, there is no easy way to integrate so many different offices seamlessly. Yet if we can give this loosely connected organizational structure a stronger conceptual tethering, we see capacities despite different administrative locations have the potential to link together in new and powerful ways, particularly at those institutions that desire to create a more rigorous, disciplined, and cohesive campus diversity agenda.

An Organizational Definition of the Diversity Idea in Higher Education Chapter 2 addressed diversity at the individual and ideological level, providing insights into the mental models that many individuals maintain with respect to diversity and how leaders must build on these perspectives in developing an institutional definition of diversity. This chapter turns to an organizational capabilities perspective of what the diversity idea means on college and university campuses. Figure 3.1 provides a venn diagram depicting three ontologically distinct but interconnected models of organizational diversity and change: the Affirmative Action and Equity Model; the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. The term ontology is used to imply a formal description of the history, concepts, and relationships that give form and shape to organizational diversity models in higher education (Gruber, 1993). This description of the ontology of the diversity paradigm focuses on the following questions: What organizational models exist within the present higher education diversity paradigm? What goals and dynamics differentiate diversity models? What core organizational technology is applied to accomplish the goals of each model? What limitations are associated with various models in terms of promoting organizational change on college and university campuses? Few campus leaders will have direct expertise on every dimension of campus diversity that gives shape to the three models outlined here. Too many diversity leaders talk about their campus programs as the ‘‘50 different diversity things that we do.’’ The framework offered in this chapter should serve as a tool to help campus leaders understand how, for example, the work of the ethnic studies department extends the work of the general education diversity requirement, or how the work of the study abroad office relates to the intergroup dialogue program, and how service learning efforts connect to student leadership and civic engagement.

132

W H AT I S D IV E R S I TY ?

FIGURE 3.1 Three Primary Models of Diversity in Higher Education

Why We Need an Organizational Diversity Models Framework One of the most consistent challenges at many institutions is a deep resistance to thinking about campus diversity efforts as part of a core institutional diversity agenda that must become both stronger and more interconnected. It is not uncommon to visit an institution deep in their efforts to create a new chief diversity officer (CDO) position, or develop a more powerful campus diversity plan, that simultaneously expresses no desire to think differently about how they might deploy their diversity resources. In too many instances, they may want a new leadership role, or a more integrated change

H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZAT I O N AL DI VE RS I T Y M O D E L S

133

effort, but have no desire to reframe their current infrastructure or strategic framework to become more cohesive. Because this gap in understanding is one of the most difficult hurdles that institutional leaders must overcome in order to develop a more powerful and cohesive diversity agenda on campus, The Chief Diversity Officer explores organizational restructuring and the potential for developing an integrating executive-level diversity officer role in detail. We need to stop thinking of our diversity efforts as disparate and distinct capacities sprinkled across campus and begin thinking of them as a connected network of capabilities that, if deployed in a more cohesive manner, could lead to even greater levels of diversity-related change on campus. Whether by integrating them into the same organizational structure, aligning them on a committee or task force, listing them in a common brochure, or coordinating distinctive communities of practice that focus on specific issues, we cannot think about these resources in isolation. We must think of them as interconnected elements whose relationships need clarifying and strengthening. In the absence of an understanding of various models of organizational diversity, campus leaders discouragingly often begin their work from scratch. This tripartite conceptualization helps campus leaders develop the CDO’s role and the overall diversity program. One of the author’s goals in writing this book is to provide diversity leaders with a framework to help them understand both traditional and potentially new models of organizational diversity.

Diversity Capabilities in Higher Education Some of the first campus diversity offices and policies date back to the 1960s, when the first large group of African Americans enrolled at nearly all-White colleges and universities. Beginning with early diversity offices, like the Black Student Affairs and Black Studies Departments (Peterson et al., 1978), institutions have developed new organizational capabilities to achieve diversity goals and priorities, among them: • Increasing access and equity for historically underrepresented and federally protected groups • Creating an inclusive campus climate for the entire institutional community • Engaging in research and scholarship to understand the experiences of women, minorities, and other diverse groups

134

W HAT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?

• Infusing diversity into the curriculum and cocurriculum of every student to ensure that they each experience the educational benefits of diversity Today, however, the diversity conversation is more complex than ever before. This is particularly true in terms of access issues for historically underrepresented minorities as the dynamics of diversity are much more amorphous and difficult to discern in the current context. Campus leadership is central to shaping a diversity plan that focuses on establishing diversity capacity throughout the institution. Building from a discussion of identity and the need for institutions to develop a broad and inclusive definition of diversity, this chapter articulates a theory of how the diversity idea has evolved into distinct models designed to increase, support, and enhance diversity.

Models of Organizational Diversity Based on interviews with CDOs, a thorough review of the literature, and site visits over the past several years, the author has uncovered three primary models of organizational diversity: the Affirmative Action and Equity Model; the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. Each of these models reflects a set of values used throughout this chapter to analyze the organizational reality of the programs that adhere to these models (Ellstrom, 1983). These organizational models help clarify the types of units, initiatives, policies, and programs that institutions have established in their efforts to build institutional diversity capacity. Thus, this effort builds on prior work by Marilyn Loden (1996) and David Thomas And Robin Ely (1996) to define diversity models in the corporate sector. The major characteristics of the three models include individual identity, organizational technology, originating forces, and expected outcomes. At root, each model’s goal is to accomplish some aspect of the diversity idea, whether through the actions of a minority affairs office, the implementation of an affirmative action investigation, or the establishment of an intergroup relations program. Thus, each model is grounded in a broad set of policies, programs, initiatives, and structures—referred to here as organizational technologies—even though each aims to achieve a set of diversity objectives that are consistent with that model’s specific guiding tenets. Box 3.1 describes a fourth model, the Economic Access Model, which is not covered in detail in this text because it emerged only recently.

H IG H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I Z ATI O N AL D I VE R S IT Y M O D EL S

135

BOX 3.1 An Emerging Diversity Model in Higher Education— The Economic Access Model An emerging diversity model in higher education is the Economic Access Model. Flowing out of the economic perspective discussed in the previous chapter, a number of colleges have developed financial aid policies that limit or eliminate student loans from financial aid packages, reducing costs for students and families. The goal of this emerging model is to bring more economic diversity to student demographic ranks. Although many terms exist for these programs—‘‘do no harm programs,’’ ‘‘access programs,’’ ‘‘Robin Hood programs’’—they are commonly known as higher education promise programs. The key idea is that the institution makes a promise to protect middle- and low-income families, expanding the institution’s ability to increase the socioeconomic diversity of its student body (Williams, Kolb, & Waldo, 2009). Over the last decade, institutions as diverse as Harvard University, Michigan State University, Miami University, Cornell University, North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Princeton University have developed Promise Programs. A quick scan of the higher education landscape reveals that institutions of varying size, selectivity, and geography are beginning to endorse Promise Programs (Williams et al., 2009). Although not featured in this discussion as a primary model of organizational diversity in the same way as the other three, the Economic Access Model is growing in stature in higher education, as many are calling for varying forms of ‘‘class-based affirmative action’’ to diversify colleges and universities in terms of race, ethnicity, and economic background. It is uncertain what implication these programs will have on racial and ethnic diversity or even economic diversity. Little research has been done on these programs, which have only emerged over the last five to seven years. However, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Fisher v. University of Texas, the Economic Access Model may quickly come to the forefront as a means of addressing diversity efforts in higher education—creating new scholarship efforts, retention initiatives, and outreach efforts that look to a number of economic, geographic, and precollege proxies, to assist the most selective colleges and universities to retain their diverse populations.

The Affirmative Action and Equity Model Launching Point and Definition The Affirmative Action and Equity Model has grown out of the equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action court rulings and

136

W H AT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?

laws that emerged from the 1950s through the 1970s (Fischer & Massey, 2007; Loden, 1996; Tierney, 1997; R. Thomas, 1991). Although this model has continued to evolve to embrace the importance of the educational benefits of diversity, its basic historical premise has been that colleges and universities have a moral obligation to generate opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged groups and to ameliorate the lingering effects of past discrimination. Although this rationale has evolved in response to recent court rulings about affirmative action and the emerging awareness that diversity on campus provides educational benefits to all students (P. Gurin, Lehman, & Lewis, 2004; Milem et al., 2005), this model is rooted in concepts of social justice and restitution. As such, the primary goal of programs that adhere to this model is to eliminate overt exclusionary barriers to higher education and to increase the numbers of minorities, women, and other historically disadvantaged groups enrolled or working on campus (Tierney, 1997; Washington & Harvey, 1989). Table 3.1 elaborates the intrinsic characteristics of the Affirmative Action and Equity Model. Programs falling within the Affirmative Action and Equity Model are designed to create change by promoting and protecting the rights of minority groups, advancing their representation within the community. By strategically drawing on identity-conscious policies and practices as part of a holistic process, the Affirmative Action and Equity Model works to ensure a level playing field and remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination. Although African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian and Pacific Islanders were the original recipients of these programs, policy changes and legal rulings have expanded the federally protected umbrella to include individuals with disabilities and women (Loden, 1996; R. Thomas, 1991; Tierney, 1997; Washington & Harvey, 1989). Over time, other federally protected groups have been included in this model’s protective umbrella. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group that shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people older than 40; and the disabled. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members. One group that has been the beneficiary of targeted equal opportunity legislation, but is not a protected group in the same way, are veterans of military service. Dating from the GI Bill through recent discussions about how to support current veterans who served in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, this group’s interests have been

H IG HE R E D U CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI V E R S IT Y M O D EL S

137

TAB LE 3. 1 The Affirmative Action and Equity Model Dimension

Affirmative Action and Equity

Historical Launching Point

1950s, 1960s, and 1970s

Definition

Focused institutional effort designed to enhance the demographic diversity of the institution’s faculty, staff and students, and to eliminate discriminatory practices

Drivers of Change

Civil rights movement—shifting laws, policy, social movements

Dynamics of Change

Primary Diversity Rationale

• Social justice (historical rationale) • Educational benefits of diversity (contemporary rationale)

Goals of Change • Increased compositional diversity • Reduced incidents of racism, sexism, and intolerance Target of Efforts Federally protected groups of students, faculty, and staff

Strategy of Change

Character

Elimination of exclusionary barriers, remediation, casting a broad search net, process improvement, diversity as a plus factor among many used in competitive decisions

Degree of Change

First Order

Organizational Technology

Affirmative action offices, plans, and policy statements; race-sensitive admissions and financial aid programs; and equal opportunity programs like Upward Bound, Talent Search, etc.

considered and they have received some benefits based on their identity as veterans (Cook & Kim, 2009).

Technologies of Change The primary organizational technologies of the Affirmative Action and Equity Model are affirmative action offices and plans, policy statements of

138

W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?

nondiscrimination, targeted recruitment initiatives and hiring programs, outreach initiatives like federally funded TRIO programs, and raceconscious admissions and financial aid programs. We would expect most campus diversity leaders to encounter at least a few diversity programs on their campuses that fall within this model. Indeed, the author’s research on CDOs revealed that nearly half (48 percent) reported directly supervising an affirmative action or compliance unit, and nearly one-third (28 percent) reported supervising an undergraduate student retention program designed to expand access to the institution. In terms of employment, the model depends on analysis of the workforce to determine if any occupational areas do not reflect the overall population (Washington & Harvey, 1989). If any such areas are found, affirmative action programs call on managers and workforce planners to identify what barriers, if any, have contributed to the apparent imbalance and to create strategies to eliminate them. In terms of college admissions, this model uses race, ethnicity, and gender as one factor among many within a holistic review and selection process. This area of the model is the most publicly visible and, therefore, perhaps the most controversial, as addressed in the last chapter (Orfield, 2001). This model is laudable in terms of increasing the numbers of women and ethnically and racially diverse students enrolled in higher education. Indeed, it has been instrumental in increasing the numbers of women in academia (Tierney, 1997). The model has been less successful, however, in increasing the numbers of historically underrepresented populations in the faculty, or minorities and women in the executive ranks of institutional leadership (Harvey & Anderson, 2005; King & Gomez, 2008). It has also been limited in that affirmative action is often viewed as a something that the institution must do to comply with the law, rather than as something that is inherently good and will help drive institutional success. As a result, many affirmative action initiatives and offices often exist at the margins of institutional life and are isolated from central conversations of institutional performance, excellence, and long-term viability. The Affirmative Action and Equity Model also focuses on the reduction of overt forms of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace through targeted interventions, trainings, and investigations (see Table 3.1). Diversity training programs often emerge in response to claims of discrimination or harassment, or in accordance with a state law requiring diversity programs (Washington & Harvey, 1989). A significant proportion of CDOs in the study (39 percent) reported supervising such training units. The

H IG HE R E D U CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI V E R S IT Y M O D EL S

139

assumption here is that employees who feel mistreated by the organization’s employment practices will be less inclined or able to contribute fully toward the organization’s goals. Thus, to create a truly inclusive work environment, organizations must first design and implement employment practices to ensure diverse representation throughout the organization and a welcoming and inclusive work environment. Although an important corrective mechanism, these efforts sometimes fail to connect diversity with the functional roles that faculty, staff, and administrators play on campus or issues of teaching, learning, research, and leadership. These reactive efforts rarely address the assumption that diversity is unrelated, or even antithetical, to academic excellence. Nor do they delve into the innovative ways that diversity research can expand and advance academic scholarship.

Limitations of the Affirmative Action and Equity Model The Affirmative Action and Equity Model is centrally concerned with increasing the representation of diverse minorities at an institution. It does little, however, to guarantee that they participate or engage in the campus environment. Largely a policy tool, the model focuses little on making the environment more inclusive and receptive for members of historically excluded groups. Nor does it eliminate the subtle ways that the institutional culture may prevent minority populations from flourishing once overt barriers have been removed. The majority of the bias that we see in today’s institutions is not overt but typically unconscious and unintentional (R. Thomas, 1991). Often those who exhibit this type of bias may consciously endorse principles of diversity and equality. They do not necessarily think, for example, that participating in an entirely White, male campus hiring committee in search of a new president presents an intrinsic problem. They simply never consider the importance of adding diverse voices to the group, or asking questions about diversity, equity, and inclusion during the process. Although demographically shifting the compositional breakdown of the institution is essential, it is only one piece of changing the institutional culture. Indeed, several studies have concluded that institutions need to interrupt ‘‘business-as-usual’’ if they are ever going to truly evolve (Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi, & Richards, 2004). This means not only taking actions that will diversify the institution, but also taking actions that will increase the success of diverse groups once they get on campus. Programs falling within the purview of the Affirmative Action and Equity Model are not designed to transform the deep-seated institutional bias that often prohibits cultivation

140

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

of an inclusive climate for all. Thus, these programs are only part of the change journey and must be combined with other tools if we are to shift the culture at its deepest levels. Reactive policies that force people to receive remedial training are not enough; we need programs that engage proactively, from sexual harassment sensitivity trainings to the development of diversity affinity organizations, extracurricular programs, and leadership development programs for students, faculty, and staff. We discuss these activities in the context of the other models available to academic institutions.

The Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model Launching Point and Definition The origins of the Affirmative Action and Equity Model are embedded in legal decisions and subsequent legislation that focused on breaking down barriers to full participation in American society. By comparison, the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model stems from the cultural transformations of the 1960s and 1970s, from Black Power to the Chicano, Native American, and feminist movements (Asante, 1991; Banks, 1979, 2006; Hale, 2004; Ogbar, 2005; Peterson et al., 1978; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Wilson, 2005). These campaigns focused on attaining specific political goals while also focusing on embracing identity-specific values, traditions, cultures, and behavior (Ogbar, 2005). Although the efforts of these groups have sometimes lacked coordination and cohesion, nevertheless, they form the hub of a common set of capacities focused on achieving change by fostering a multicultural and inclusive campus environment. These disparate movements power the evolution of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model in higher education.

Philosophy and Rationale First, the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model is motivated by a commitment to capitalize on the richness of different cultures and a desire to help those cultures thrive in the context of a broad institutional environment that may, in an active or passive way, resist their presence. Second, the model focuses on accepting cultural differences and exposing people to diversity in a way that establishes mutual understanding (Loden, 1996). The third priority of the model is to advance scholarship and research that enhances our understanding of previously marginalized minority groups and individuals.

H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZATI ON AL DI VE RS IT Y M O D E L S

141

In contrast to the Affirmative Action and Equity Model’s narrow focus on increasing representation, the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model addresses cultural differences once representation has been achieved. That is, how do we create dedicated diversity offices, units, programs, initiatives, and affinity organizations that will foster the type of cultural bridge to help diverse students feel included and empowered? Although not all diverse students may take advantage of these resources, these programs can still serve as a primary conduit for establishing a positive and supportive campus environment. Simply put, the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model was designed to involve and engage individuals in substantive ways that validate their identities, creating space for them within the ‘‘traditional’’ campus experience.

The Reality of Multiple Memberships The expression of cultural identity is at the core of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model. This perspective is probably best captured by the title of Beverly Tatum’s book, Why Are All of the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? (1997). Sitting at that table with one’s peers may be the only time that many African American students find a space where they are culturally affirmed and feel a sense of belonging. The same often holds true for other diversity populations on campus. This model emphasizes the distinctiveness of different groups and the importance of creating culturally aligned services, programs, initiatives, and offices designed to nurture the success of diverse communities (Fleming, 1984; Gurin, P. & Epps, 1975; Peterson et al., 1978). The model champions the coexistence of many distinct cultures within a given context, while acknowledging the permanence and immutability of diverse cultural identities. This explicit recognition actively attends to the role of cultural identity as an important factor that shapes the experiences of diverse groups in a majority educational and employment culture. The Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model (see Table 3.2) celebrates the concept of ‘‘multiple memberships,’’ arguing that assimilation is not a prerequisite for personal success or even necessarily a goal. To the contrary, diverse communities experience the campus in unique sociological contexts that are often defined through the prism of cultural identity. Some of higher education’s most influential theories of student experience argue that persistence is based on the degree to which students engage on campus and integrate into the various academic and social systems of the university environment (Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993). Others have offered similar

142

W H AT I S D IV E R S I TY ?

TAB LE 3. 2 The Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model Dimension

Multicultural

Launching Point

1960s and 1970s

Definition

Institutional efforts designed to nurture, promote, and understand the culture of ethnic and racially diverse minorities, women, members of the LGBT community, and other traditionally disadvantaged groups

Drivers of Change

Nationalist movements and campus protests that raise awareness and support

Dynamics of Change

Strategy of Change

Primary Diversity Rationale

• Social justice rationale • Educational benefits of diversity rationale

Goals of Change

• Supporting diverse constituents • Improving campus climate • Fostering intergroup understanding • Scholarly engagement with issues of diversity

Target of Efforts

• Diverse minority groups, oppressed social identity groups, and women • Primarily students, with faculty and staff serving as a secondary target

Character

Providing diversity services, fostering community and tolerance on campus, and conducting research and teaching courses in the areas of diversity

Degree of Change

First Order

Organizational Technology

Multicultural affairs units, cultural centers, gender-neutral bathrooms, lactation centers, ethnic and gender studies institutes and programs, international area studies programs

H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZATI O N AL DI VE R S IT Y M O D E L S

143

theories of social attachment in the form of ideas like ‘‘engagement’’ and involvement (Astin, 1993; Harper & Quales, 2009; Kuh, 2008). Generally, these theories offer that experiences with faculty, peers, and staff both inside and outside of class establish a degree of academic and social ‘‘integration’’ that is reflected by a student’s adherence to academic intellectual values and his or her willingness to remain at the institution. Hence, academic and social integration are identified as the essential components of the persistence process for all students. A number of researchers have challenged early conceptions of integration and the experience of students of color (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tierney, 1992; Williams, 2002). One of the strongest objections was raised in response to the suggestion that students of color must diminish or lessen their ethnic or racial identities to achieve success and integrate into the value systems of predominantly White institutions (Braxton et al., 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tierney, 1992). At the heart of these critiques was the need to fully address important issues like diverse student subcommunities and multiple identities and memberships in the discussion of the integration process (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Williams, 2002). By not validating a range of integrating options, one may ignore the social science literature, which explains how individuals flow between majority and minority contexts without compromising their cultural identities (Harper & Quales, 2009; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The right Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model initiatives can help diverse communities embrace a multicultural experience, allowing them to engage with both mainstream and culturally specific domains of the campus environment. Although members of diverse cultural groups must have the ability to interact across different social and cultural contexts, assimilation is not the only path to academic or professional success. Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model programs are designed to provide a safe haven for diverse groups, allowing their identities to serve as a potential cultural resource. Members of diverse groups can live within their own specific identity-themed group and in the broader culture of the institution (Harper & Quales, 2009; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; L. Patton, 2010). Indeed, this model helps diverse communities develop extended kinship networks and familial relationships on campus among peers, mentors, and colleagues. These spaces become powerful sites of resistance whenever these communities need to fight back or contend with racism, homophobia, and questions of identity. For students, these are also places where they learn

144

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

leadership skills and academic success strategies and become mentors. Cultural centers, multicultural affairs offices, and student organizations offer an oasis in an institutional setting that may not otherwise validate their backgrounds and experiences. For them, Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model programs offer spaces of institutional memory and selfdetermination. Cognitive and affective resources are shared in ways that center on the particular cultural identity of those individuals as they resist the potentially damaging effects of institutional climates that may be indifferent, or even hostile, in their accommodation to diverse individuals and groups.

Technologies of Change Surprisingly, there is still relatively little in-depth social science research on campus Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model capabilities (L. Patton, 2010; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008). Nevertheless, many institutions have invested in capabilities in a number of different ways. Some common organizational technologies include cultural centers, minority affairs offices, Muslim prayer and reflection spaces, lactation centers, ethnic-specific student organizations, women’s centers, and other diversity structures (Hale, 2004; L. Patton, 2010; Trevino, 1992; Williams, 2002). Often using a confluence of social, cultural, and academic initiatives, these supportive spaces allow diverse groups to become engaged and integrated. Although some have argued that multicultural and inclusion capabilities foster campus Balkanization (Sidanius et al., 2008), others have found that these spaces are the key for many diverse groups to achieve integration into the broader academic and social systems of the campus community (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). These capabilities present alternative pathways for members of the campus community to establish their identity and find success on campus, whether as a student member of a gay pride organization, a faculty member who is an active participant in the association of Black Faculty and Staff, or a member of the disability community who takes advantage of special institutional and physical resources. One of the newest multicultural and inclusion capabilities to emerge on campuses are lactation spaces. These spaces offer quiet, discrete areas where mothers attending school or work can nurse their infants. Additional features of these spaces include access to electrical outlets, refrigerators, microwaves, warming plates, rocking chairs, blankets, lockable doors, opaque windows, privacy curtains, and working restrooms. Some institutions are even moving forward with more

H IG HE R E D U CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI V E R S I T Y M O D EL S

145

intentional activities to redefine these spaces by creating bulletin boards for users to post pictures of their children, tips for child rearing, and other resources that support the inclusion of mothers on campus. Over the years, institutions have created capacity to support not only domestic students, but also international students. Many international students come to an institution for lengthy periods, particularly if they continue for advanced degrees. Historically, the growth of the international student and faculty population has expanded the focus of internationalization efforts, expanding them beyond area studies. Concerns now comprise issues of inclusion and even the development of International Area Studies. Other Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model internationalization resources include international student centers, English as a second language support systems, and mentoring programs. In a post-9/11 world, it is also common to find visa and Student Exchange and Visitor Information System compliance units integrated with other institutional resources dedicated to ensuring the legal status of international students and faculty. Another technology of this model centers on campus programs and initiatives that acknowledge and celebrate differences. Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday celebrations, Native American pow-wows, ethnic-specific theme months, and gay pride week events are just some examples. Students often play a key role in defining these offerings and it is not uncommon for diverse student organizations to host their own events, like step shows, concerts, and cultural events. The goal here is not only to provide cultural activities for relevant groups, but also to create opportunities for White students, faculty, staff, and others to gain valuable exposure to cultural differences, and thereby hopefully become more accepting of these differences. Finally, the most advanced institutions offer programs and initiatives that complement the educational principles of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, to be examined shortly. These activities take the form of intergroup dialogue and cross-cultural communication efforts designed to benefit all students on campus.

Refuting the Campus Balkanization Theory Some criticize the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model on the grounds that they ‘‘Balkanize the campus community’’ or ‘‘ghettoize diversity.’’ In some instances even supporters of diversity end up promoting this argument, implying that the presence of ethnic enclaves hinder a vital goal of the civil rights movement: integration. This is particularly true for individuals who ascribe to a colorblind perspective seeking to deny any recognition of cultural difference. Often forgotten in this perspective is the fact that

146

W H AT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?

diverse groups have always created unique spaces to reinforce their identities both within and outside the academy. Troy Duster (1993) points out that the Hillel and Newman campus organizations started nearly a century ago and continue to play a prominent role for Jewish and Catholic students, respectively. More importantly, the Balkanization thesis assumes that a strong cultural identity leads to conflict with mainstream cultural environments, an argument refuted by sociological research on identity and acculturation. Studies have demonstrated convincingly that individuals can self-identify strongly with one minority subgroup and yet have no negative predilections toward the broader community (Berry, 1994; Cross, 1971). To this end, a number of studies argue that the establishment and maintenance of an ethnic identity, or ‘‘salience,’’ does not necessarily imply that a student of color will have problems interacting in a predominantly White cultural environment (Cross, 1971; Duster, 1993; Sellers, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998; Tatum, 1997). In fact, there is research suggesting that a strong identification with one’s own cultural experiences may enhance one’s ability to interact in dominant cultural environments (Sellers et al., 1998; Tatum, 1997). The reality is that however much time students of color spend interacting with students of similar backgrounds, their campus experience is inevitably diverse. Ethnic and racially diverse students cannot take a class, join a study group, have a meal, or visit the library without experiencing diversity. The same is not necessarily true of their White peers, who can, if they choose, spend their entire academic careers without interacting with minority students, especially if the academic institution does not work to make such interactions possible and productive.

Diverse Groups Versus Federally Protected Groups It is important to note that the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model draws a distinction between ‘‘diverse groups’’ and ‘‘federally protected groups,’’ as defined by federal affirmative action programs. Whereas the federal affirmative action programs narrowly define diversity in terms of ethnic and racial minorities, women, veterans, and the disabled, they ignore a number of ‘‘diverse groups’’ that are vital to any campus discussion of diversity and fall under the broader umbrella of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model. In this model, ‘‘diverse groups’’ emerge in response to the evolving voice of the community, including students, faculty, staff, and those in broader society. In recent decades, the definition of what diversity means

H IG HE R E DU CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N A L DI VE RS I T Y M O D E L S

147

has expanded to include the LGBT community, international students, commuter students, class-based groups, and various religious constituencies, among others. Despite the expansion of diversity on campus, the recognition and support of certain social identity groups does not necessarily lead to the development of sufficient institutional capacities. Even if institutions have invested in ‘‘Rainbow Centers,’’ ‘‘Asian Cultural Centers,’’ and ‘‘International Affairs Centers,’’ these efforts do not guarantee that all groups will find a formally sanctioned office or center on campus. For example, an institution may not desire to provide an office or center to focus on the needs of members of the LGBT community, which happens occasionally at faith-based colleges or at institutions located in more conservative regions of the country. At the same time, this community may have active LGBT student organizations, faculty and staff affinity networks, and campus leaders. So although the institution may withhold or even deny resources, the LGBT voice and presence in the campus community may nonetheless be strong. Indeed, the absence of an institutional response can sometimes inspire campus communities to create a grassroots effort to support their issues and concerns, a process that has long been important to establishing dedicated diversity capacity in higher education. The author has found that, as with any schema, some programs and initiatives are difficult to categorize in one model, such as African American studies, women’s studies, and even international area studies like Latin and Caribbean studies. Although these units conduct research into experiences, challenges, and identities of various racial, ethnic, nationality, gender, and other social identity groups, they also may play an important role as academic, cultural, and social programs for members of their constituencies and for others (Asante, 1991; Ibarra, 2001; Peterson et al., 1978; Wilson, 2005). Because of the hybrid nature of their mission, these units exist in the synergies between the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model.

Limitations of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model The primary limitation of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model is that a number of its key capabilities can take place outside of the most essential conversations about retention, leadership development, and other activities dedicated to achieving positive institutional outcomes. This model’s capabilities must become more fundamentally connected with the academic systems of the institution. This is particularly true as budget cuts

148

W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?

across the country are forcing diversity units to justify programs that may in some cases target a small percentage of the population. If these programs are not understood and validated by the broader community, they face extinction. Although a great deal of academic research clearly illustrates the value of diverse cultural spaces, the units that bring these capabilities to life must do more to suggest their importance, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. These units should also highlight the educational and leadership benefits of diversity programs, complementing the social justice rationale that has long been the foundation of multicultural offices and centers. Diversity units can help bring the broader campus community to an appreciation of the educational benefits of diversity. To accomplish this feat, Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model units must assume a new leadership role. Rather than resisting these challenges, multicultural affairs offices, cultural centers, and others must examine whom they serve and how they serve at the forefront of their institution’s leadership development efforts.

The Learning, Diversity, and Research Model Although its initial emergence in the 1960s and 1970s was eventually subordinated to more immediate social justice concerns, the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model (see Table 3.3) emerged in the late 1990s and today is at the forefront of efforts by higher learning institutions to broaden their diversity efforts to all areas of university life. This model recognizes, at long last, the educational and social benefits of a diverse student body, as well as the scholarly opportunities for advancing research around issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. More than any other, this model is firmly anchored in the intellectual core of the academy. As discussed in the previous chapter, diversity is rapidly becoming the key concept in a broad range of sectors, including business, health care and government (Soni, 2000). Some have criticized this shift, arguing that it is watering down the traditional focus on issues of access and equity. Change, however, is inevitable and recent developments in the diversity discussion point to the role of shifting demographics, globalization, and the powerful need for individuals to live and work in teams. These forces have rendered diversity important for educational reasons independent of moral and social justice concerns (Baez, 2004; M. Chang, Chang, & Ledesma, 2005; Gurin

H IG H E R E DU C ATI O N O R GA N I ZATI O N AL DI VE R S IT Y M O D E L S

149

TAB LE 3. 3 The Learning, Diversity, and Research Model Dimension

Learning and Diversity

Launching Point

Late 1990s

Definition

Focused agenda centered on integrating diversity into the curriculum and promoting research on diversity issues

Drivers of Change

Changing demographics, globalization, workforce needs, persistent inequalities, legal and political dynamics

Dynamics of Change

Strategy of Change

Primary Diversity Rationale

Educational value

Goals of Change

• Intergroup relation skills • Cognitive complexity • Scholarly understanding of diversity

Target of Efforts

All students irrespective of background

Character

Diversity as an important resource for student learning

Degree of Change

First and Second Orders

Organizational Technology

Centralized diversity requirements; diversity elective courses; and diversity programs like intergroup relation offices, dialogue programs, living–learning communities, and study abroad programs; also, service learning efforts, ethnic studies, gender studies, international affairs offices, etc.

et al., 2002; Gurin et al., 2004; Hurtado, 2007; Milem et al., 2005). At the same time, persistent inequalities necessitate that we produce engaged citizens capable of communicating and collaborating across cultural lines. Consequently, we will need to open new research fronts to tackle twenty-first century diversity topics like maximizing the success of all learners, multicultural marketing, immigration reform, global markets, competitive strategies, and environmentalism.

150

W H AT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

As affirmative action has come under fire in the courts, institutions have increasingly shifted from the language of access and equity to the importance of a diverse student body as essential to creating a learning environment that will benefit all students (Chang et al., 2005; Gurin et al., 2004; Orfield, 2001; Tierney, 1997). The Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, therefore, is grounded in theories of cognitive and social psychology. Proponents argue that higher education offers an ideal environment for encouraging students to look at the world from multiple perspectives and develop skills that are essential to success in the twenty-first century. This evolution of the diversity discussion reclaims an old rationale for supporting diversity work in higher education, namely, the ‘‘educational diversity value,’’ or ‘‘educational benefits rationale,’’ as it is commonly known. Beginning with the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action programs through what is widely known as the ‘‘diversity rationale.’’ Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis Powell struck down the use of quotas but stated that institutions could consider race as one of many factors in college and university admissions decisions. Powell argued that the creation of a diverse student body promotes an atmosphere conducive to speculation, experimentation, and creativity (Chang et al., 2005). The Bakke ruling established the precedent for the 2003 University of Michigan Supreme Court decisions, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, which confirmed the core assumptions of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. The diversity idea thus becomes central to an institution’s mission to develop an educated and informed citizenry (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Chang et al., 2005; Gurin et al., 2002, 2004; Milem et al., 2005). As previously noted from this vantage point diversity is no longer simply an end in itself, but a means to fundamentally reconfigure the mission of higher education. At its heart, the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model explicitly links diversity efforts with the academic programs of the institution. It thereby moves the diversity debate from the margins to the center of the academy in terms of teaching and learning. The diversity idea becomes essential for providing a high-quality learning experience (Gurin et al., 2002, 2004; Hurtado, 2007). The presence of diversity establishes a powerful learning context that allows students to achieve what the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) refers to as ‘‘essential learning outcomes.’’ These outcomes include ‘‘integrative learning,’’ ‘‘inquiry learning,’’ ‘‘global learning,’’ and ‘‘civic learning.’’ These educational practices seek to foster diverse

H IG H E R E DU C ATI O N O R GA NI Z ATI O N AL D I VE R S IT Y M O D EL S

151

and multiple perspectives, the exploration and acceptance of diverse social identities, and an active engagement with the challenges and opportunities of difference (Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007; Milem et al., 2005). In an ‘‘integrative learning’’ experience, learners draw on diverse viewpoints to understand issues contextually, connecting the knowledge and skills they gain from one context and applying them to another. In ‘‘inquiry learning,’’ learners engage actively with both the content material and the process of learning, thereby assuming responsibility for their own progress. ‘‘Global learning’’ helps establish skills that allow students to look beyond specifics and toward the broader context, or how seemingly discrete issues play out in ways that are both local and global in their implications. Table 3.4 summarizes these essential learning outcomes.

Organizational Technologies The technologies of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model are primarily defined by efforts to advance student learning both inside and outside the classroom. These technologies also focus on advancing the scholarly agenda around issues of diversity. Some examples include diversity-focused general education requirements, courses, service learning efforts, study abroad programs, living learning communities, initiatives focused on intergroup relations, diversity-themed research centers, and ethnic and gender studies departments (Humphreys, 1997, 2000; Laird et al., 2005). One of the most important diversity technologies is the presence of general education diversity requirements. In a national study, Humphreys (1997) found that numerous institutions have diversity requirements, although they often lacked clearly defined learning goals. All too often, courses are identified to satisfy the campus diversity requirement with little thought of how the course will provide the type of learning context that leverages what we know about intergroup learning and achieving the outcomes we value. Although a step in the right direction, these requirements often fail to create the types of intentional moments necessary to leverage the educational benefits of diversity. Simply putting diverse students in a classroom studying a ‘‘diverse’’ subject like Caribbean literature is not enough. The best technologies of this model will help students to think seriously about the global community, and challenge them to explore how they see themselves contributing to this world. Too often students from different groups are strangers on campus, with very little exposure to diversity. Learning and diversity capabilities help students move beyond being intimidated by the prospect of discussing difficult

152

W H AT I S D I V E R S I TY ?

TAB LE 3. 4 The Association of American Colleges and Universities’ Essential Learning Outcomes Dimension

Description

Developmental Goals for Students

Integrative Learning

Integrative learning is a process in which learners draw on diverse viewpoints, understand issues contextually, connect knowledge and skills from multiple sources and experiences, and adapt learning from one situation to another.

• Ask pertinent, insightful questions about complex issues as they uncover relations and patterns. • Recognize conflicting points of view and move beyond the conflicts to a shared appreciation. • Synthesize from different ways of knowing, bodies of knowledge, and tools for learning. • Tolerate ambiguity and paradox. • Reflect constructively on their experiences and knowledge. • Employ confidently a range of intellectual tools. • Tackle and solve practical problems and work through difficult situations. • Connect learning in classroom to workplace and community. • Apply theories to practice in the real world. • Balance diverse perspectives in decision making.

Inquiry Learning

Inquiry learning is a process in which learners engage actively with both the material studies and the process of learning, thereby assuming responsibility for their own progress.

• Seek their own theories, answers, or solutions. • Conduct investigations, building methodological skills in systematic ways. • Gather knowledge as it is needed to pursue lines of questioning typical of experienced practitioners. • Ask questions and investigate issues in ways characteristic of disciplines, thereby learning to think like experts in that field. • Go beyond facile answers to engage with complex situations. • Readily identify ambiguous and unanswered questions. • Understand the differences among, and employ appropriately, the critical methods of analysis, synthesis and comparison.

Global Learning

Global learning is about establishing the habits of mind and skills that allow students to look beyond the obvious to the broader context of issues, appreciating how learning activities play out in ways that are both local and global in their implications.

• Gain knowledge about the world’s cultural diversity and interconnectedness. • Consider issues and actions from the perspectives of many cultures and discover their extended implications. • Prepare for personal, professional, and civic activity in a world of instant communications, multinational business opportunities, interdependent economies, codependent environments, and diverse cultures. • Understand the scientific, historical, geographical, cultural, political, economic, and religious aspects of issues. • Recognize the similarities and differences among cultures and the identities they engender.

Potential Leverage Points Campus cultural events Collaborative projects Common book programs Community involvement Creative projects Diversity research centers and institutes Ethnic studies courses Experiential learning First-year experience courses Gender studies courses Independent studies and student research Interdisciplinary instruction International studies courses Internships Living learning communities Exchange programs Multicultural student centers Problem-based learning Queer studies courses Senior capstones or culminating intergroup dialogue programs Service learning Student leadership development programs Student organizations Study abroad programs

H IG H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I Z ATI O N AL D I VE R S IT Y M O D EL S

153

• Link cultural literacy with language learning and actively pursue foreign language competency so as to communicate effectively across cultures. • Understand the world’s different political systems. • Develop a sophisticated worldview that looks beyond national borders. • Translate knowledge of the world into ethical, reflective practices that are sensitive to the consequences of actions in an increasingly diverse globally community. • Recognize the effect of global issues on individual lives and of individual and collective action on the larger world. Civic Learning Civic learning derives from the notion that higher education has a responsibility to educate students in ways that promote a functioning, inclusive, and diverse democracy.

• Gain comparative knowledge about diverse individuals and groups who have shaped the United States and the larger world. • Acquire the skills to facilitate the collective work of diverse groups to promote democratic practices and institutions. • Develop the values, discipline, and commitment to pursue responsible public action. • Understand and be able to balance the rights and interests of diverse individuals with the collective needs of the larger society. • Have the capacity to analyze relationships, structures of inequality, and social systems that govern individual and communal life. • Cultivate commitment to the democratic aspirations of equality, opportunity, inclusion, and justice. • Promote racial and cultural understanding, and compassion for others. • Engage individually and in collaboration with others to build and sustain democratic institutions.

Source: Adapted from Leskes & Miller, 2006.

topics with members of other groups. Many students have no experience talking with members of minority populations, especially about challenging diversity issues. Others may have had a wide range of contacts with diverse cultures but very few substantive discussions about issues that frequently divide their groups. Consequently, learning and diversity programs should help students learn how to talk to one another in a variety of learning contexts. As theorized by Gordon Allport (1954), highly effective learning and diversity activities promote equality in status among intergroup participants,

154

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

common goals, and an intimacy of interaction around challenging issues. Hence, Learning, Diversity, and Research Model initiatives must have a certain context that will allow students to understand their own identities and those of others, and to develop new perspectives as they engage in dialogue. When designed well, living learning programs, service learning initiatives, and study abroad efforts have the ability to help achieve the goals of the model if they are consistent with the model’s commitment to exploring constructively issues of identity and difference.

Linking the Multicultural Studies and International Conversations Many institutions have adopted general education diversity requirements that ensure that students will have at least a minimum exposure to courses that focus on ethnic and cultural difference within either a domestic or international context. However, these requirements are often taught by faculty from different disciplines and departments who do not interact adequately with each other. As a result, the domestic and international diversity discussion on campus is often disconnected. The Learning, Diversity, and Research Model can potentially integrate aspects of ‘‘domestic’’ and international diversity education in higher learning. Traditionally, multicultural education has focused on diversity issues in the domestic sphere. Meanwhile, area and international studies have focused on traditions and cultures outside of the United States. These efforts fit under the ‘‘internationalization’’ heading because it captures ‘‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, function, or delivery of postsecondary education’’ (Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007). At this point in American higher education, nearly everyone talks about the importance and centrality of preparing students to live and work in a diverse and global society. The connection between multicultural learning and its international context is an important development in the emerging strategic diversity leadership movement, and a priority of organizations like the American Council of Education (ACE) and the AAC&U, among others (Leskes & Miller, 2006; Olson et al., 2007). These institutions are beginning to see the possibilities for synergy and mutual reinforcement between traditional multicultural activities and programs and exciting developments in international and global studies. Table 3.5 summarizes the education rationale for integrating domestic and international diversity education put forward by the ACE.

H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZATI ON AL DI VE RS IT Y M O D E L S

155

TAB LE 3. 5 American Council of Education Rationale for Integrating Domestic and International Diversity Education One of the tasks undertaken by the Ford Foundation’s ‘‘At Home in the World’’ initiative in 2007 was to develop a rationale that might help engage faculty and staff in a dialogue about the interplay between multiculturalism and internationalization in education. The initiative issued the following conclusion: Working at the intersection of multiculturalism and internationalization provides creative opportunities for faculty, staff, and administrators to: • • • • • • • •

Help students understand multiculturalism and social justice in a global context Develop intercultural skills Broaden attitudes to appreciate the complexity of the world Examine values, attitudes, and responsibilities for local/global citizenships Disrupt silence and make visible issues not explicit in networks of relationships See how power and privilege are shifting in the local/global context Experience conflicts and develop skills to work together Prepare students to cooperate and compete in a multicultural and global workplace

Source: Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007.

To fully prepare our students and conduct the most robust research in the areas of diversity, educators will have to use both an international and domestic diversity lens. Only by looking at these issues from multiple perspectives can scholars apply analytical frameworks sophisticated enough to dissect global trends that may have local implications and develop the types of curricular efforts that will prepare students for a globally interdependent society. These efforts have become increasingly urgent in the wake of 9/11 and a rising suspicion of immigrant populations. In response to this national tragedy, and funded with government support, institutions and policy centers alike began establishing Middle Eastern studies programs that not only focused on the positive and rich history of Middle Eastern culture, but also on critical domestic topics like national security, immigration policy, and the global war on terrorism (Lockman, 2009). At the center of much of this discussion is the need for sophisticated and nuanced research that can

156

W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?

address a range of complex and sensitive issues without perpetuating stereotypes of an already threatened minority population in the United States. One CDO at a large research university in the Midwest explained: Since 9/11, diversity has been a matter of strategic concern to the FBI, CIA and National Department of Homeland Security. After 9/11 these entities were scrambling to enhance their diversity effort because they lacked people who even spoke Arabic, let alone knew much about the cultural or religious traditions of the Middle East. With respect to understanding these issues on the ground and knowing who our friends and enemies were, national security staff were starting from scratch. So immediately academic institutions faced the issue of developing sensitive programs and policies to help security leaders understand issues of critical importance to the nation and the world.

That so many of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were able to obtain visas legally has sparked renewed interest in immigration policies. This security issue, combined with long-standing tensions between conservatives and progressives over immigration issues generally, has led to a stalemate with regard to immigration reform. Immigration issues have been heavily debated in recent years by lawmakers, the media, and the public. Although their views have been partially informed by academic research, much of the discussion has taken place in an atmosphere of ignorance and bias, driven by ideological extremists. As has already been illustrated, this contentious debate has already had profound implications for admissions and employment policies at colleges and universities. The United States may well be at a crisis point with respect to immigration (Montesino & Sherr, 2008). If academia is going to play a constructive role in finding a solution, institutions will have to find a way to raise the general profile of the diversity idea. These concerns, along with addressing ethnic and racial health disparities, preparing culturally competent professionals, and managing diversity, rest at the center of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. The growing domestic and global context for these discussions necessitates a more aggressive approach in terms of supporting scholars and students interested in these areas of inquiry. The world we live in is growing ever more complex, and as it becomes more connected, it shrinks in size. The analytical tools that we use to understand this world and build workable solutions must be equally complex.

Limitations of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model Particularly as it relates to students, the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model is powered by a focus on working with students at the core of their

H IG H E R E DU C ATI O N O R GA N I ZATI O N AL DI VE R S IT Y M O D E L S

157

assumptions about the world. One concern with this model is that it may distract institutions from traditional commitments to addressing historical disparities and the ongoing policies that perpetuate these inequalities. In this instance, the model provides the appearance of commitment without addressing the difficult, historic work anchored in the Affirmative Action and Equity or Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Models. As one Dean of Multicultural Affairs at a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest explained: I think the educational benefits rationale is great. However, this focus on global, international concerns is like the big, new, sexy idea on campus, raising questions of how or even whether we will also address issues of access and equity. We still face major challenges with issues like racism, homophobia and sexual harassment. So while I applaud the educational and research efforts that we want to encourage among our students, I think we all still have a great deal of foundational work to do.

Summary Each of the three models described in this chapter lays out the different aspects of institutional capacities found in academic institutions. Although the models share core similarities, they are distinct enough that no one model can achieve all the outcomes demanded by today’s diversity challenges. Table 3.6 provides a structured paradigm illustrating their respective qualities and points of contact. With the current attention focused on the educational benefits of the diversity rationale, it is tempting to view the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model in a manner that is distinct from the other organizational models. Although the other models focus on the seemingly ‘‘traditional’’ objectives of the diversity agenda, one might rightly ask whether a model that works well for all students could be co-opted by conservatives bent on attacking diversity change movements in higher education. As this discussion has made clear, however, the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model does not preclude institutional commitments to create and promote a more diverse academic community that is fully engaged with the values of access, multiculturalism, and inclusion. Indeed, embracing the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model at the expense of these efforts would actually reduce the model’s ability to accomplish the academic and research goals at its core. Rather than viewing these models separately, strategic diversity leaders should work to integrate these frameworks in ways that complement each

I$8

WHAT IS DIVERSITY?

TABLE 3.6 Organizational Diversity Models in Higher Education Multicultural and Inclusion Model

Learning, Diversity, and Research Model

Model

Affirmative Action and Equity Model

Launching Point

1950s, 1960s, and 1970s 1960s and 1970s

Definition

Focused efforts designed to enhance the compositional diversity of an institution's faculty, staff, and students, and to eliminate discriminatory practices

Institutional efforts designed to nurture, promote, and understand the culture of racially and ethnically diverse minorities, women, members of the LGBT community, and other minority groups

Focused agenda centered on integrating diversity into the curriculum of the institution and conducting research around issues of diversity

Drivers of Change

Civil rights movement, shifting laws, policy, social movements

Broader social justice movements, campus social protests, shifting legal policy

Diversity movement, changing demographics, workforce needs, persistent inequalities, legal and political dynamics, global economy

Dynamics of Change

Primary Diversity Rationale

Social justice

Social justice and educational value

Educational value

Goals of Change

• Increasing compositional diversity • Reducing incidents of racism, sexism, and intolerance

• Supporting diverse constituents • Improving campus climate • Fostering intergroup understanding • Scholarly engagement with issues of diversity

• Intergroup relation skills • Cognitive complexity • Scholarly understanding of diversity

Target of Efforts

Federally protected groups of students, faculty, and staff

Diverse minority groups, Both majority and minority students, historically oppressed minorities, and women; faculty, and staff primarily students, with faculty serving as a secondary target

Character

Elimination of exclusionary barriers, remediation, process improvement, diversity as a positive factor among others used in competitive decisions

Providing diversity services, fostering community and tolerance on campus, and conducting research and teaching courses in the areas of diversity

Diversity as a vital component of student learning and faculty research

Degree of Change

First Order

First Order

First Order and Second Orders

Organizational Technology

Affirmative action offices, plans and policy statements; race-sensitive admissions and financial aid programs; equal opportunity programs like Upward Bound, Talent Search, etc.

Multicultural affairs units, cultural centers and ethnic and gender studies institutes and programs

Centralized diversity requirements, diversity programs like intergroup relations offices; study abroad and service learning initiatives

Strategy of Change

Late 1990s and 2000s

H IG H E R E DU C ATI O N O R GA N I ZATI O N AL DI VE R S IT Y M O D E L S

159

other and achieve the institution’s diversity goals. For example, the presence of ethnically and racially diverse groups, also known as ‘‘structural diversity’’ (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998), which is a goal of the Affirmative Action and Equity Model, necessitates cultural, academic, and social support capabilities fundamental to the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model. To simply bring ethnically and racially diverse students to campus without providing the relevant diversity units, student organizations, advising, or other relevant resources does these students a disservice, denying them the specific cultural vehicles shown to help them become integrated with the broader campus community (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Moreover, the presence of a diverse and engaged student body helps establish the educational context needed to activate the technologies of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. Diverse ideas and identities within the curricular and cocurricular experience are essential to activating the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, and the potential of these experiences is facilitated by the presence of minority students, faculty, and staff (Chang et al., 2005; Gurin et al., 2002; Umbach & Kuh, 2006). Finally recognizing the complexity that these interlocking requirements present, institutions have begun developing a host of diversity policies, practices, offices, and units to accomplish an expanding set of goals and objectives. This expansion is one of the reasons that CDOs are emerging, as presidents and other senior leaders look to maximize resources and coordinate initiatives through the work of the CDO, a subject dealt with in the companion volume to this book, The Chief Diversity Officer: Strategy, Structure, and Change Management.

This page intentionally left blank

PA R T T H R E E

W H AT I S S T R AT E G I C DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP?

This page intentionally left blank

4 WHY DIVERSITY EFFORTS FAIL The Cheetah and the Wolf

Despite the general perception of being hotbeds of liberalism, universities are among the most tradition-bound, conservative institutions in society. From one perspective, this resistance to change is strength, enabling higher education to sustain enduring values and avoid ‘‘faddish’’ approaches that could compromise core missions. But from another perspective—on issues where change is clearly needed— higher education’s reluctance to adjust and adapt becomes an enormous impediment to progress. —Chancellor of a large state system of higher education in the Northeast

H

ow many times has your institution developed a high-profile campus diversity plan after a crisis moment and seen that plan fizzle and die within a few short years? Are your diversity policies designed to strengthen core competencies or simply make your campus look good for prospective student visits? How closely connected are your diversity efforts to the mission, guiding principles, and central programs of the institution? Is your diversity strategy anchored in a well-developed strategic rationale, or is it merely responding to judicial or legislative directives? If you spend more time putting out diversity crisis fires than building a robust, sustained diversity agenda, chances are your institution is more like the cheetah than the wolf in its approach to diversity. Cheetahs are among the world’s great sprinters, capable of reaching a top speed in excess of 70 miles per hour. Living relatively solitary lives, they generally hunt alone or in pairs. Weighing on average only 100 pounds, they can take down prey only slightly larger than themselves. The foundation of their approach is simple, as they prefer speed and individual prowess to 163

164

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

strategy and collective effort. They lay motionless waiting for prey to cross their path before hurtling forward in a brief but powerful display of power and speed. In a matter of minutes the chase is over and after feasting they return to the shade, settling themselves before the next time to hunt. Unfortunately, although this approach may work in the wild, too often institutions take the cheetah approach to their diversity efforts. Rather than work collectively and proactively to design and implement an effective diversity strategy, colleges and universities sit in the relative shade of their indifference to diversity issues until jolted into action by a sudden crisis. Whether it is an unpleasant incident or the passage of hostile legislation in the state legislature, academic institutions often find themselves reacting to events rather than leading them. In this regard, to say they appear like cheetahs may be too generous. They appear rather like the gazelle or antelope, caught in the claws of political and social forces that are outside the ivy walls and often explicitly hostile to the goals and aspirations of the diversity idea.

The Wolf and the Power of the Pack By comparison, most wolves live in packs that may include as many as 30 members. Whereas the cheetah can only sprint for around 600 meters, the wolf can move relentlessly for days on end across nearly any terrain. Although the cheetah and wolf are about the same size, the wolf, by working collectively in a tightly orchestrated team, can take down much larger prey. The wolf rarely hunts alone and is famous for trailing behind a large herd for days, weakening them slowly, before executing an end-game strategy. The approach of the wolf is not about immediate gratification but long-term success, pursuing carefully planned tactics that ultimately lead to victory for the entire pack. In developing strategic diversity initiatives, institutions of higher education need to become more wolf-like. Yes, when diversity crises occur, these institutions need to act quickly and decisively. However, overall, most successful programs take time, thoughtful consideration, and coordinated effort to design and implement. Moreover, to create a truly diverse and inclusive academic community, our actions must reflect a larger purpose. Like the wolf pack, members of an institution must understand their roles and work collectively toward clearly defined and mutually agreed outcomes. The story of the cheetah and the wolf provides a guiding metaphor for the discussion of the many diversity programs surveyed in this chapter (see Table 4.1). The metaphor is also relevant to the treatment of strategic diversity leadership in Chapter 5.

W HY DI V E RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L

165

TAB LE 4. 1 The Cheetah and the Wolf Dimension

Cheetah

Wolf

Launching Point Responds to a crisis Creates and implements proactive diversity moment, including strategy, thereby anticipating challenges while campus event or judicial taking advantage of new opportunities. ruling that undermines community or existing policies. Implementation Approach

Acts alone, relying on disconnected and isolated initiatives

Acts collectively, leveraging a number of different initiatives and activities so as to achieve clearly articulated outcomes.

Diversity Infrastructure

Possesses few if any Possesses a clear diversity infrastructure that permanent or dedicated includes diversity committees, accountability campus resources. structures, incentives, dedicated diversity professionals, chief diversity officers, and senior leadership, among others.

Organizational Learning

Relies on a casual and ad-hoc process that ignores best practices and the management processes that facilitate effective leadership.

Engages in big-picture thinking grounded in an evaluation of programs and efforts, leveraging institutional and national bestpractices and guidance from the literature base to bring about goals.

Time Span of Change

Acts in a burst of energy followed by a gradual reduction of focus and attention.

Acts in a consistent, long-term way to achieve results that are then assessed and used to further improve organizational culture, promoting deep secondary organizational change.

To be sure, our progress is challenged by persistent and continuing inequities in American society generally and in academia in particular. Nevertheless, campus leaders have a duty to own up to their responsibility over those areas for which they do exert control. With the effort to address the longstanding unequal treatment of minority communities through proactive programs and policies comes controversy. On many campuses, the very idea of diversity has emerged against a backdrop of protest and conflict. Special interests will always seek to undermine and misconstrue these efforts. Finally, there remains a persistent lack of awareness among students, faculty,

166

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

and staff about why diversity is critical in the new millennium. Our success in advancing a powerful campus diversity agenda ultimately stems from our ability to move the culture of our institution along a continuum that flows from the tactical to the transformative. This chapter builds from the metaphor of the cheetah and the wolf to outline some of the critical reasons why diversity planning and implementation efforts often fail. It begins with an outline of the ‘‘Diversity Crisis Model of Planning’’ in higher education before delving into some of the key dynamics that define the culture of the academy. The chapter then examines several principles for understanding organizational change, offering an examination of an organizational diversity development process that can help to navigate the ‘‘perfect storm’’ discussed in Chapter 1. By setting a context for understanding the challenges inherent in the diversity planning and implementation process, we can lay the groundwork for understanding strategic diversity leadership, diversity scorecards and accountability, and the role of chief diversity officers (CDOs), a topic tackled in the last section of this book.

The Diversity Crisis Model As outlined in Figure 4.1, too many diversity-planning efforts are reactive, isolated, simplistic and driven by crises, or ‘‘cheetah moments.’’ On any number of campuses, the crisis follows a similar pattern: an unpleasant event occurs, which leads to a largely symbolic response, a half-hearted institutional mobilization, and then a gradual weakening of institutional efforts over time. The result is a missed opportunity for creating a meaningful diversity activation plan. The problem is not a lack of will by students, faculty, or staff. Rather, the challenge centers on moving from endless debates and discussions to action. The challenge is not to simply talk about problems but to develop solutions that directly address diversity challenges and then to marshal the collective will to bring these plans to life. Indeed, when campus diversity plans do not include well-conceived activation strategies, they can do more harm than good, creating a false sense of hope that is not backed by a material commitment to advancing diversity issues on campus.

Phases of Diversity Crises and Institutional Response Phase 1: Diversity Crisis Although the 10 steps of crisis and response presented in Table 4.2 have been around as long as our efforts to diversify American higher education, several

FIGURE 4.1 Diversity Crisis and Institutional Response Model

168

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

TAB LE 4. 2 The Diversity Crisis Model Phase

Dimension

Description

Phase 1

Diversity Crisis

A campus incident occurs, disrupting the campus environment and creating instability and anxiety. Typical events include a racially, ethnically, or sexually motivated verbal or physical assault on campus; an insensitive or embarrassing statement made by someone in a position of authority; or an incident that occurs in the outer community but provokes a campus response.

Phase 2

Internal and External Stakeholder Response

The incident galvanizes an internal and external stakeholder response among different members of the campus community, either collaborating or acting in isolation. Campus responders include students, faculty, and staff. ‘‘Off-campus’’ responders include parents, alumni, government officials, agency regulators, and the media, among others.

Phase 3

Protests and Demands

The incident can inspire a range of responses, from campus protests to petition and media campaigns. In addition to demands for immediate action, responders often call for senior administrative leaders to make substantive, institutional changes. This phase may feature high-level participation by government stakeholders and the media, escalating the call for change.

Phase 4

Declaration of Support

In response to these demands, the president, provost, or some other senior academic leader makes a symbolic statement regarding the institution’s support for diversity. This communication often takes the form of a letter, a press release, or a presentation given to the entire campus community.

Phase 5

Commissioning of a Planning Group

Senior leadership subsequently commissions a planning group or task force to reexamine issues of diversity, inclusion, and climate on campus and develop a new plan or framework for action.

Phase 6

Deliberation and Discussion

This review leads to deliberation and discussion regarding campus diversity issues. Data is analyzed, campus forums are conducted, and peer institutions benchmarked to develop a set of institutional diversity recommendations.

W H Y DI VE RS I T Y E FF OR T S FA I L

169

Phase 7

The Campus Diversity Plan

The campus diversity plan often includes recommendations to (a) improve the campus climate for all members of the community; (b) increase the demographic diversity of the student, faculty, and staff ranks; (c) establish a senior or chief diversity officer role to guide the institutional change effort and hold people accountable; and (d) implement diversity training and education programs for students, faculty, and staff, among other recommendations.

Phase 8

Acceptance of the Plan

After the plan is written, the process follows a similar pattern for many institutions. The diversity committee makes a presentation to the president, board, faculty senate, or some other governing body. The president, or in some instances the provost, then makes a broad public statement about the importance of diversity that appears in splashy columns in various media outlets and perhaps even promotional paid media efforts funded by the institution.

Phase 9

Delay in Implementation Following the unveiling of the plan there is often a delay, and the lack of clarity regarding next steps leads to a breakdown in implementation. Questions linger regarding who will lead implementation, how it will be financed, how responsibility will be shared, and how accountability and results will be measured.

Phase 10

Superficial Implementation

Superficial implementation rolls out in hopes that the symbolic energy of the plan will result in meaningful change on campus. The plan lacks accountability, resources, a focus on capacitybuilding and buy-in from the broader campus community.

nationally publicized incidents have occurred in recent years that highlight those steps. Examples include insensitive remarks by senior leaders, racially themed campus parties, and incidents of harassment or violence on campus. Regardless of their launching point, a diversity crisis often creates a sense of urgency among members of the campus community, although motivations can differ strikingly. Whereas many may feel genuine concern and outrage, others may be more concerned about damage to the institution’s brand or potential lawsuits. Whether and how an institution responds will decide whether the initial incident becomes a lasting wound or a chance to create a reinvigorated and more meaningful campus diversity change agenda.

170

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

Phases 2 and 3: Response and Demand Diversity crisis moments can be impossible for senior leaders to ignore and often activate the crisis model response. In other words, they make the cheetah run. In these phases, the internal and external stakeholders mobilize, looking to address the incident and its underlying causes by creating pressure for an institutional response. In nearly every situation that the author has encountered, these stakeholders follow the same strategy of confronting the administration at the highest levels, presenting them with a list of demands, or more broadly requesting the campus administration to develop a plan of action. Senior officials can respond in a number of ways, from sitting down with protest leaders in a genuine effort to find common ground, to ignoring the responders in hopes they will go away. To gain bargaining power, change leaders may foster confrontation and heighten tension in a number of different ways. This pressure can take the form of a formal vote of no confidence, a demonstration by vocal student leaders, a press release or high-profile interview with traditional forms of media—or, in the twenty-first century, a digital attack on the campus’s brand and institutional reputation. The goal of each activity is to share information, mobilize political energy, and create pressure to respond and engage in a diversity-themed change process. It is for these reasons that campus leaders must have a strategy, infrastructure, and communication plan that is proactive, well articulated, and in place prior to the diversity crisis. Box 4.1 provides a high-profile example of a diversity crisis and response at Harvard University.1

BOX 4.1 Diversity Planning in Response to a Crisis: The Example of Harvard University In 2005, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce, Harvard University’s then-President Lawrence Summers speculated that the underrepresentation of female math and science faculty members might have a genetic basis or stem from their unwillingness to work in such time-demanding fields. These statements, combined with his controversial record of addressing diversity issues generally, set off a classic series of events conforming to the diversity crisis model. First, student and faculty protests disrupted business as usual on campus and (continues)

W HY DI V E RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L

171

helped generate a wave of negative media attention, which in turn provoked concern among university board members, alumni, and donors. The overwhelmingly critical response led Summers, normally headstrong and arrogant in his reaction to criticism of any kind, to back away from his statements and reaffirm his support for women at Harvard. Within three months of Mr. Summer’s comments, the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences passed a vote of ‘‘lack of confidence’’ in his leadership by a margin of 218–185, with 18 abstentions. Although the vote was unprecedented, only the sevenmember Harvard Corporation, the university’s governing board, has the ability to remove the president. Claiming that the Arts and Sciences faculty represented only a small portion of the total academic community, Summers refused to resign, although he did appoint two task forces to examine gender equity and achievement issues: the Task Force on Women Faculty and the Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering. The first examined the overall climate for female faculty at Harvard and the second considered gender issues in the context of the science and engineering fields (Fish, 2005; Fogg, 2005a, 2005b; Kerber, 2005; Strober, 2005). The committees produced diversity reports outlining several recommendations. After the no confidence votes, a prolonged contest between Summers and his detractors ensued. Over the next year, Harvard University suffered financially in deals approved by Summers and witnessed the resignation of the one African American member of the Harvard Corporation in response to both Summers’s remarks and a salary increase he received. In June 2006, Summers announced his resignation. He continued with a joint appointment as a professor in the Kennedy School of Government and the Business School. The repercussions of the Summers crisis continue to work themselves out. Nevertheless, the Harvard example is a good illustration of how the diversity conversation often takes place in the heated context of a sudden disruption, in this instance responding to the insensitive remarks of a senior official. Because of Harvard University’s prominence, the media firestorm was national in scope. In the eyes of many diversity leaders, whatever side you may have taken in the controversy, it was clear that both Mr. Summers and senior administrative officials found themselves reacting to, rather than acting on, calls for a serious engagement on diversity issues. That said, the task forces appointed by Summers led to the creation of a senior post, a tenured faculty appointee at the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity, and the Office of Faculty Development and Diversity. Ultimately, this early diversity leadership infrastructure led to the appointment of the first CDO at Harvard; she also holds the title of special assistant to the president. Whether Harvard University was totally successful in achieving its goals remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the Harvard example is a good illustration of how the (continues)

172

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

(continued) diversity planning process often begins in reaction to a disruption of the institution’s cultural equilibrium. The disruption can take numerous forms, including changes in the legal environment, as was the case with the University of Michigan Supreme Court decisions, or new leadership touting diversity as an institutional priority, as was the case when President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University announced a $15 million plan to increase the number of minority faculty on campus (Smallwood, 2005).

Phase 4: Declaration of Support In Phase 4, the senior leadership offers a statement confirming the institution’s commitment to a diverse community and a promise to take meaningful steps to address the incident. The statement is issued across a number of platforms, including both traditional media and new online social platforms like blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. Box 4.2 provides a discussion of emerging social media strategies that are vital to an institution’s overall diversity communication efforts.

BOX 4.2 Online Social Communication Procedures Vital to Campus Diversity Efforts Digital and social media have transformed communication in the twenty-first century. The speed, ubiquity, and immediacy of the Internet cannot be ignored, particularly during a campus diversity crisis incident. These mediums have the power to create their own headlines, grabbing control of the story from both the institution and traditional media sources. The result can be a disaster for messaging efforts by the institution and a prolonged process of reconciliation by the campus community. As calamitous as a diversity crisis can be, further distortions in the online world can create an almost insurmountably negative impression of the institution, affecting current and potential students, faculty, and staff. At its worst, online media can undo the efforts of a strong and capable diversity office and undermine the core vision and operations of a college or university. It is vital that strategic diversity leaders and school administrators prepare themselves by creating strong online procedures for responding quickly to whatever happens in the online media universe. The need for a powerful digital strategy is particularly true in higher education (continues)

W HY DI VE RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L

173

where students are usually technologically savvier than most campus officials. Campus leaders can no longer wait for the stone tablets of traditional media as a means to inform the campus community and the broader society. When your brand and reputation are under attack, you must be able to respond instantaneously. Your institution must develop a digital response system that is proactive and ready to act even before a situation occurs. Some recommended action steps are as follows: 1. Create a digital response team with clear protocols and timelines for communicating in an official capacity to all traditional and online media. This team should include individuals trained in online media strategies. Establish clear directives, not only for responding to crisis incidents, but for communicating proactively the institution’s diversity vision and policies. These teams should be coordinated not only by dedicated diversity office staff, but by communication specialists from other departments and divisions. During moments of crisis, a primary role of this group is to understand the issue at hand and develop a series of statements that express the institution’s perspective. 2. Colleges and universities need to integrate more effectively their diversity agenda with the overall mission and values of the institution. The senior leadership’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion should be reflected not just in the media and online communication strategies of the institution’s diversity division, but in a variety of community, staff, and administrative contexts. 3. Build an online bank of trust with your most vital audiences around diversity issues before a negative incident affects their first impressions. By developing an online community that includes both on- and off-campus stakeholders, you have at hand an audience you can access directly via the Internet when issues arise, or simply to update a new diversity initiative or success on campus. Some priority channels of digital communication include e-mail lists, a Facebook fan page, YouTube and iTunes channels, and a Twitter feed. These mediums provide real-time messaging opportunities. 4. Develop an internal communication system for senior leaders to be able to share positive ideas about issues of diversity. The goal is to generate content that attracts ongoing interest outside of diversity crisis moments. It helps here to establish a system that includes influential students, faculty, staff, and community leaders who have credibility around campus diversity issues and are active in the digital world. Although recruiting ‘‘diversity ambassadors’’ is always a delicate task, individuals who are not necessarily acting in an official staff capacity are often the most authentic. Given the right information and (continues)

174

W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

(continued) tools, these individuals may tell the diversity story in ways that the central administration cannot. 5. Launch specific campaigns to take the pulse of students, faculty, staff, and community members. Examples include online surveys and listening tours. Members of the central campus leadership should be listening to what these individuals are saying, particularly if they are active in the blogosphere. Websites of student activists and organizations often provide an early warning sign of emerging crises. 6. It is up to the senior and strategic diversity leaders to constantly educate the community so that potentially any member can, when pressed, act as a positive and credible diversity ambassador. The challenge in today’s digital world is not simply what the university president says, but what a student or staff member posts to his or her blog. Although it is a tall order to educate every member of the campus community, the more proactive the institution, the less chance there will be of an unexpected and unwelcome remark or incident.

Like any high-ranking elected official, a college or university president is an important symbol. Diversity crises are a critical test of leadership for any president or senior official as he or she must strike a balance between two often impossibly difficult and contradictory expectations: being a symbol of stability and continuity while setting in motion meaningful planning activities that can foster real change. The best presidents are able to strike a chord of authenticity, illustrating empathy for the diversity issue at hand and its implication for the affected community, affirming the institutional commitment to diversity, and setting in motion actions that can ultimately lead to a new course of diversity change. Unfortunately, diversity crisis moments are too often the only time that college and university leaders will put the time and energy into developing a campus-wide diversity plan, leading to plans that often are not backed by a meaningful commitment to change. Phases 5, 6, and 7: Planning Committees, Deliberation, and Campus Diversity Plans In Phase 5 of the model, the president or provost often appoints a campus diversity planning group, ultimately tasking it to write a new campus diversity plan or revise an existing one. These committees are generally large and include a number of diverse stakeholders, including campus diversity champions, faculty, students, and staff. What is striking about the discussions that take place in Phase 6 is how disorganized they are and how farreaching the debates in their meetings usually become. Individuals use the

W H Y D I VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

175

forum to air larger concerns about racism, sexism, and social inequality. Although unquestionably important, these themes should only be explored in the context of addressing the development of a concrete and workable plan. Without a clear and directed focus, the discussion can end up swimming in issues beyond the planning committee and institution’s reach. As one faculty member at a large institution in the Midwest explained: These meetings feel insane at times. We spend hours arguing about the ideas in our diversity plan and then make some type of decision because it seems ‘‘right.’’ No one sticks to the point and we always end up talking about issues that then never get resolved. We never get down to why we cannot diversify our faculty. Or why we never seem to put teeth into our diversity requirements and inspire White students to ‘‘get it’’ on issues of diversity. The conversation just happens in a circular way and then a decision kind of happens and we go back to our separate worlds hoping something will be different.

These working groups generally take between four and six months to develop a campus diversity plan, Phase 7 of the model. Although their size, complexity, and lack of detailed knowledge about strategic planning, change management, and state-of-the-art diversity efforts can prove limiting, these committees play an important role in addressing the diversity crisis and offering a symbol of hope and possibility around issues of diversity. In addition, they also play a critical role in creating a shared definition of diversity, a rationale statement explaining why diversity is important, and even several major recommendations. Frequent suggestions include improving the campus climate for diverse students, faculty, and staff; increasing the demographic diversity of students, faculty, and staff; and developing diversity training and education platforms for the entire campus community. It is worth noting that the development of the committee and the role that they play as a symbol of hope and possibility is intrinsically good. In fact, managing the symbols of commitment and shared purpose are critical in the academy and an important component of strategic diversity leadership, a point explored further in Chapter 5. Phases 8, 9, and 10: Acceptance of the Plan, Delays, and Implementation Phase 8 involves senior leaders authoring and issuing a high-profile statement of appreciation for the work of the committee and, in some instances, promises to implement its recommendations. How these plans are accepted is also

176

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

a part of the symbolic management of the diversity response, as the president, provost, or even the board may be involved in accepting the plan as the new vision for campus diversity. It is often here that the wheels come off the train. Up to this point in the process, many institutions do a good job of both responding to the diversity crisis and developing a solid foundation for a diversity change strategy. But too often, long delays follow the plan’s acceptance and little clarity is achieved for how the plan will actually be implemented. That the plan may have been prompted by a diversity crisis is really of little consequence if the institution is meaningfully committed to moving forward with a well-resourced and focused diversity plan. The problem is that the great thought and care that went into developing the plan is often not mirrored in the activation strategies necessary to carrying forward a far-reaching and transformative change project over time. Unfortunately, these plans often fail to grapple with the process of implementation and change management. Incredibly thorough statements of change often ring hollow when stacked against the material commitment required to bring them to fruition. Only rarely do these plans offer clear processes for activating change. Senior leaders are often not truly on board; as a result, they fail to develop internal procedures that will hold leaders accountable or link efforts to broader campus systems like administration, finances, and strategic planning. Often these plans call for the appointment of a CDO who will have primary responsibility for ensuring diversity progress, which usually requires significant administrative restructuring. Another weakness of these plans is that they generally lack incentives and resources to encourage the broader campus community’s involvement. As a result, implementation becomes the business of the campus diversity committee, the CDO, and a few other committed individuals, rather than a shared responsibility of the entire campus community. More than any other factor, the leadership’s commitment to deep and meaningful change will determine whether the institution builds capacity for the long-term. Although a majority of diversity reports do a commendable job of documenting the problem and presenting solid recommendations, they rarely provide an adequate inventory of existing diversity capabilities, fully describe the implementation process, or lay out a detailed budget. Consequently, many diversity plans end up being shelved because institutions fail to follow through on the real work of implementing their recommendations. Indeed, in a monograph on organizational change and diversity for the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Williams, Berger, and McClendon (2005) summarized several reasons that diversity plans often fail:

W HY D I V E R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

177

• Failure to conceptualize diversity work in terms of changing the organization and enhancing institutional culture • Resistance to the logic that diversity is fundamental to excellence • Low levels of meaningful and consistent support from senior leadership • Failure to allocate sufficient resources to the process of change • Lack of a comprehensive and widely accepted framework to define diversity and track progress • Lack of accountability systems and the means of engaging individuals in the change process at all levels • Lack of leadership and infrastructure to guide and facilitate the change journey and direct campus diversity efforts at all levels of the institution Moreover, Iverson (2007) points out that these plans often convey a ‘‘whitewashed’’ version of institutional reality that does not amplify the voice of the most dissident members of the campus diversity community. To move the agenda in a way that is truly meaningful, realistic, and potentially transformative, the campus diversity planning processes must elevate the voice of these individuals and others. In too many instances, the cycle repeats itself. Eventually, there will be another incident, a new round of frustration, followed by hollow promises and an inadequate follow-through. It is relatively easy to develop a campus diversity plan with no accountability or incentives to promote its implementation, or hire a low-ranking CDO who has no material resources or ability to broadly influence diversity issues on campus. It is much harder to change the curriculum or admissions policies of the institution, invest seriously in new retention programs and scholarships, appoint a CDO who leads a portfolio of critical campus offices and units, or require faculty members to engage with issues of diversity in their teaching and mentoring.

The Messy Nature of Change in Higher Education Although this chapter began with a discussion of how diversity crises are often the catalyst for diversity planning efforts, change is still difficult because of the essentially conservative culture of the academy. Moreover, change in the academy is a messy, imperfect process. When attempting to implement a campus diversity plan or strategy, the ‘‘rubber hits the road’’ as the change agenda confronts what Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) describe

178

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

as the ‘‘organized anarchies’’ of the academy. Irrational systems, nebulous and multiple goals, complex and differentiated campus functions, and loosely coupled systems of organization and governance are just some of the dynamics that make organizational change so formidable in colleges and universities (Birnbaum, 1988; Cohen et al., 1972; Peterson & Mets, 1987; Weick, 1979). Indeed, the organizational culture of colleges and universities is markedly different from corporations, hospitals, and other more vertically structured institutions (Birnbaum, 1988). As a result, change is difficult in higher education, and, if judged by past performance, diversity-themed change is the most challenging of all. Too often, a diversity change effort is confounded by parochialism, campus politics, and a lack of significant cooperation. It is for this reason that leadership must develop a clear implementation approach as part of the diversity plan, whether it emerges out of a diversity crisis or not. Top-down approaches that are not complemented by inclusive, collegial efforts are sure to meet strong resistance. More importantly, a top-down approach violates the unique quality of academic institutions in which collaboration and consensus are central to the social and institutional fabric. An overbearing president or board of trustees, like a coercive legal ruling or legislative mandate, run counter to the culture of participation and open discourse that should exist at the heart of an academic institution. In those rare instances in which colleges or universities have tried to implement a diversity policy by fiat, the policy usually exists only as long as those who created it are around to enforce it. We often harvest the fruits of our labor only after a significant amount of time has passed. During a site visit, one president asked, ‘‘How long before we know if this is going to work or not?’’ The answer was simple: ‘‘We don’t.’’ Leaders have to be willing to take an educated leap of faith to make change happen, investing in initiatives that may not yield immediate results but that over time prove critical. For instance, take an institution’s decision to send a group of campus leaders to a summer diversity leadership institute focused on researching and assessing campus diversity efforts. This institute might not pay direct dividends for several years. In tight budget years, when resources are scarce, institutions may find themselves questioning what they view as an uncertain return on their investment. But imagine that the institution takes a gamble and sends the team to the summer institute. Following the experience, members of the team return home and launch a series of program evaluations and research efforts that did not exist

W HY D I V E R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

179

before. The projects result in highly credible research exploring the challenges minority students face navigating the gateway courses in several promising fields and majors. These studies spark a series of forums involving students and faculty members in key courses for which problems were identified. Campus retention and academic achievement programs begin to revise the way they work and advise students. The institutional research office begins issuing annual reports about campus diversity. New teaching pedagogy emerges in response to these conversations, and course completion numbers begin to rise. Over the course of two or three years the initial investment may lead to ripple effects that, slowly but surely, create positive change on campus.

Garbage Can Decision Making Because there is so much ambiguity about the definition, application, and distribution of resources, discussions of diversity priorities are rarely straightforward. As a result, the ‘‘garbage can model’’ metaphor of organizational decision making is particularly helpful to informing our understanding of diversity decision making (Cohen et al., 1972). According to the garbage can theory, an organization ‘‘is a collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and decision makers looking for work’’ (Cohen et al., 1972, p. 2). In a garbage can scenario, problems, solutions, methods, and participants are all mixed together indiscriminately. The solution to a particular organizational challenge often ends up being whatever is on top of the heap, usually when a particular course of action is politically expedient and answers the current crisis. Because resources are limited, diversity is often undervalued, priorities are politicized, and decision makers often engage in diversity planning and supportive activities only when the ‘‘problem of diversity’’ must be addressed as a result of outside or unexpected influences. The challenges of diversity, the views of campus diversity champions, and the need to act are always present. But absent an activation of these dynamics by some form of diversity spark, many campus leaders will not pluck the diversity problem-planning solution out of the garbage can as an area of priority for moving forward. It is for this reason that so many campus diversity plans often emerge as the highest priority only in the face of crises, rather than because of persistent

180

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

inequities, a lack of diverse faculty, problems with the campus climate, and other rational arguments for change. In garbage can environments like the academy, problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities flow into and out of the can. Solutions are activated when a particular course of action is convenient, politically expedient, and provides resolution to a currently existing issue or problem. The crisis creates a political context needing a solution, the campus diversity plan, which will result in an outcome, calming the campus community. Whether driven by crisis or not, diversity-themed problems are often addressed by uninformed or politically expedient solutions rather than by analysis, evidence, and proven best practices. Take for example the decision to reorganize campus diversity programs and eliminate a well-positioned CDO position after the retirement of a long-standing officer. Although this officer may have been very successful, the decision to reorganize is made without any clear rationale other than that the new president wants to create a diversity infrastructure that mirrors the one he or she experienced at a previous institution. Prior to the retirement of the diversity officer, the president did not have enough political capital to eliminate the CDO role and as a result, the reorganization of the diversity program was only plucked out of the can once the retirement made such a move possible. When garbage can decisions happen, the underlying motives are often revealed. In this case, the CDO’s retirement allows the president to reorganize the campus in accordance with the president’s past institutional experiences. It also provides a convenient means to cut the administrative budget, withholding thousands of dollars that had been authorized under a previous diversity plan. Finally, the decision allows this particular institution’s administrative infrastructure to look more traditional and satisfy the interests of colleagues who desire control over the units and resources formerly assigned to the CDO. The reorganization allows the president to meet his or her objectives without ever having to discuss the cost and benefits associated with the changes, or any other justifications for the decision.

Types of Institutional Change One way that strategic diversity leaders can overcome the inherent anarchy of the academy is to operate with a clear understanding, not only of the most ambitious long-range goals, but of more immediate and pressing objectives. People often possess uninformed notions of change and think that every new

W H Y D I VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

181

diversity plan or initiative will result in transformation. Understanding and tempering this perspective is key, even as strategic diversity leaders work toward more transformative diversity possibilities. In one striking example, a CDO at a Midwest institution rolled out a new partnership with a department of intercollegiate athletics focused on African American athletes. Although the project was innovative, had lots of support, and was evidencebased, it was not a transformative project. It was a building block project that over time could perhaps have led to significant changes in graduation rates and in preparing the athletes for life after college. Nevertheless, members of the audience had clear preconceived ideas that the project should be transformative, making statements like, ‘‘I don’t see how this project is going to transform how athletes interact on campus,’’ and ‘‘I just don’t see how the experience of being an athlete is going to be radically different, even if this is an important project.’’ Inherent in these statements is one of the challenges that diversity leaders face as they attempt to engage in change work: a lack of appreciation for the challenge of creating change. Figure 4.2 plots a range of possible changes in terms of their pervasiveness and depth. Although the long-term goal may be institutional transformation, strategic diversity leaders, diversity planning committees, and others must have a clear understanding of the different types of change initiatives that are possible, the central issue addressed by Eckel, Green, Hill, and Mallon’s (1999) typology of institutional change. In their definition, ‘‘two basic elements of change—depth and pervasiveness—can be combined in different ways to

FIGURE 4.2 Typology of Institutional Change Outcomes

Source: Adapted from Eckel, Green, Hill, & Mallon, 1999.

182

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE R S H I P?

describe varying magnitudes of change’’ (Eckel et al., 1999, p. 13). Figure 4.2 plots change along these two dimensions, ranging from low to high. The framework demonstrates that institutional change efforts fall into one of four different categories: (a) minor adjustment, (b) far-reaching change, (c) isolated change, and (d) transformative change (Eckel et al., 1999). As the descriptions of each category demonstrate, campus leaders can map their change initiatives by locating each activity along two axes, one reflecting how pervasive they are and the other reflecting their depth. This graph helps us categorize and prioritize different strategies based on the challenges and rewards of implementing them.

Minor Adjustments Located in the top left quadrant, minor adjustments are neither pervasive nor deep, as the change is minor across both of these dimensions. Eckel and associates (1999) suggest that this type of change is best thought of as ‘‘tinkering.’’ The fundamental institutional characteristics remain unchanged and the adjustments are narrow in reach and scope. An example might include using multicultural examples in an introductory calculus course. In this case, the change is isolated to one department, involving only the faculty who teach this course and the students who take it. The change is isolated and relatively easy to implement, and its consequences are usually minimal.

Far-Reaching Change The top right quadrant is far-reaching change, which may have broad implications but does not drill deep. An example might be the development of a common set of campus climate research questions gathered from every member of the campus community. This initiative involves every department but not at a great level of depth, simply offering a data collection activity and nothing more. There is no public report issued and no coordinated research effort to learn why some units on campus are more inclusive and hospitable than others through not only shared questions, but a campus-wide research effort leveraging the same methodology. There is no guidance on improving diversity training in light of the results. Hence, although this initiative is broad in its reach, it does not permeate and transform the institutional structure or core.

W HY DI VE RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L

183

Isolated Change The lower left quadrant is isolated change, which has depth but lacks breadth. For example, the math department decides to assume a leading role on diversity issues. This produces changes in everything from recruiting diverse student majors, revising the curriculum, and adopting new pedagogical techniques. The department then incorporates multicultural examples in all of its courses and promotes the unique contributions of different cultures to the development of math. A group of faculty members develops a strategic alliance with the chief diversity office and writes a number of National Science Foundation (NSF) grants designed to increase the number of minority math graduates. Finally, the department redesigns its postdoctoral program to encourage the most outstanding minority students to attend its graduate program. Over time, the department recruits from its own program to promote a more diverse teaching faculty. The changes are inspiring and profound, but they are limited almost entirely to the individual effort of a particular department and do not extend to other departments or the institution as a whole.

Transformational Change In the lower right quadrant is transformational change, which occurs when change is both pervasive and deep. Two leading voices in higher education research, Eckel and Kezar (2003), define transformational change as altering the culture of the institution by changing select assumptions and institutional behaviors, processes, and outcomes. Transformational change is deep and pervasive, affecting the whole institution over time. Although transformational change is the holy grail of what many in the diversity community seek, very few instances have been recorded in the history of higher education (Eckel & Kezar, 2003). Even fewer case studies of diversity-themed transformational change have been written to date, with some of the best work, by Peterson, et al. (1978), having taken place more than 30 years ago. Thus, the kinds of detailed analyses that might make this kind of change more accessible, and hence replicable, are missing. To achieve transformational change, an institution puts multiple efforts in place to become a national leader on diversity. This might include a requirement that every campus department undergo a common faculty diversification training experience. Department chairs might receive additional training on how to create an inclusive and supportive environment

184

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

for every member of their faculty. A central fund might be generated to provide support for department chairs and deans to pursue minority faculty and women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields that goes beyond the normal search processes. Every search committee might have to prove that it is casting a broad net in its searches, maximizing the chances for achieving greater diversity. Finally, every new diverse faculty member might receive a mentor and have the option of participating in a yearlong leadership development series that includes access to special workshops designed to increase his or her productivity. This type of effort would touch a broad swath of the institution in deep and meaningful ways. Box 4.3 provides a description of a compelling set of gender-based transformational change efforts being pursued by the NSF.

BOX 4.3 The National Science Foundation Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers Institutional Transformation Program Over the next several years, one of the places that may prove ripe for understanding the process of achieving transformational diversity change is in the work funded by the NSF Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE) program. The primary goal of the ADVANCE program is to develop systemic approaches to increasing the representation and advancement of women in STEM careers, thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce. The program emphasizes creative strategies and approaches, including a specific category referred to as Institutional Transformation, which are awards that support comprehensive programs for institution-wide change. Institutional Transformation projects include a research component designed to study the effectiveness of the proposed innovations to contribute to the knowledge base informing academic institutional transformation. With transformation awards at Brown University, the University of Arizona, the University of Wisconsin, and several others, this five-year project should reveal a number of lessons regarding the diversity transformation process. Some of the ADVANCE strategies include (a) search committee training programs, (b) campus climate survey projects, (c) developing New Women in Science and Engineering research centers, (d) equity workshops, (e) targeted mentoring initiatives, (f) department-level diversity committees, (g) family-friendly policies, and (h) policies designed to enhance the climate of inclusion for women. (continues)

W H Y D I VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

185

(continued) Given that this five-year effort is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in support, with more than 30 institutions receiving awards, this project is ripe for providing a number of lessons regarding the institutional diversity transformation process. Diversity champions should watch the maturation of this effort to learn about the successful techniques that were used at the institutions funded by the NSF. Source: National Science Foundation (2008).

Strategy as the Key Building Block of Institutional Transformation Critical to developing a transformative diversity change agenda is an understanding of the difference between a strategy and the tactics that support it. Strategy centers on knowing where you want to go and focusing your organizational energy to accomplish a particular set of goals to advance the institution’s diversity agenda. CDOs, diversity requirements, diversity symposia, targeted recruitment efforts, urban marketing efforts, domestic partner benefit programs, ethnic and gender studies departments, LGBT safe zone initiatives, women in science and engineering efforts, and study abroad programs are all examples of the tactical building blocks of strategy. Frankly, too many of our diversity efforts take place in the tactical realm, lacking an overarching strategic plan. Although important in themselves, these initiatives, if not integrated in an overarching strategy, will exist in disconnected silos, a set of free-floating and truncated possibilities. This is not to say that every diversity effort must live under the same organizational structure. To the contrary, one of the strengths of higher education is the creativity and entrepreneurial possibility that exists because of its decentralization. What it does suggest is a need to understand how all of the pieces of the diversity puzzle fit together and how organizational restructuring and creative partnerships can foster a whole that is greater than its parts. To accomplish our objectives in a world of limited resources and expanding needs, we simply must coordinate our efforts through a shared vision. Efforts that are linked collaboratively can obtain greater resources and achieve greater recognition than efforts that are not coordinated. The distinction between strategy and tactics is key, because for too long institutions have developed discrete diversity tactics without thinking through how these tactics come together to support an institution’s overall diversity objectives. Strategy is about developing a sustained vision for structural and cultural change that connects the dots between tactical elements like programs,

186

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

policies, and resources. One reason for outlining the different types of organizational diversity dimensions that exist in higher education is to equip campus leaders with the appropriate conceptual frameworks for understanding where campus diversity capabilities can be found and how they complement each other. Box 4.4 provides an example of a campus-wide diversity strategy that fosters democratic outcomes for all students.

BOX 4.4 A Democratic Outcomes Strategy One example that comes to mind is the goal of ensuring that all students have a baseline diversity competence that allows them to view the world from multiple perspectives and take the position of others when interacting in diverse groups and teams. To reach this goal of establishing what P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) refer to as democratic outcomes, an institution must develop and align capacity to build a clear and cohesive agenda to accomplish this goal. This might mean developing a new general education diversity requirement anchored to a clear set of student learning outcomes that every student must fulfill; establishing a new summer diversity leadership institute for the campus’s most highprofile student leaders; building a course credit intergroup dialogue program collaboratively between the various departments and the campus multicultural center; and relentlessly marketing the program to students, ensuring that a large number participate. The strategy might also include establishing a diversity-themed common book reading project that all incoming students would read before enrolling as first-year and transfer students. Another goal might be to ensure that more than 75 percent of all students have a global experience before graduating, and to make securing resources to meet this goal a major part of the institution’s next capital campaign fund-raising effort. Taken collectively and assessed over time, these tactical moves are an example of how an institution might ensure a high level of democratic outcomes among their students. Strategy, in its most traditional sense, is defined as the ability to create linear alignment between goals, structures, and models of organizational behavior (Bolman & Deal, 2003). And although this is not the only way to develop strategy, it is where every leader should begin in his or her efforts to provide strategic diversity leadership on campus.

W HY D I V E R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

187

Transformational Change Must Shift the Institutional Culture Change that makes diversity a matter of excellence is neither a simple adjustment nor an isolated event: it must be transformative. To truly achieve transformative change we must address the institutional structure and culture. Culture is the most challenging organizational attribute and is perhaps best understood as a piece of fruit with a soft outer membrane and tough inner core. As described by Edgar Schein (1985), cultures have multiple overlapping layers. On its outermost, superficial level, culture is easy to see, manipulate, and change. Superficial changes to a campus culture might include inserting minority student pictures into brochures and websites, relocating the multicultural center to the heart of campus, or developing a new mural that depicts diverse traditions in a student union ‘‘heritage room.’’ Although superficial cultural changes can be complicated by campus politics and competing interests over resources, this level of change is typically easy to accomplish. Figure 4.3 shows how various cultural spheres can overlap. The second level, composed of traditions, myths, and symbols, is less tangible and represents patterns of thought and action that are more unique to a specific campus. Examples include graduation ceremonies and wellknown campus stories and events. Here the cultural change effort may center on creating LGBT graduation or orientation events as part of a strategy to include and celebrate this group on campus. Another example is to infuse diversity into academic life by featuring a minority author in a common book reading program that involves the entire freshman class and their professors. The third level is composed of routine, ‘‘everyday’’ behavioral patterns and organizational processes that are even harder to change. Some examples include how faculty search committees often exclude ethnically and racially diverse job candidates in their standard recruitment policies. Rather than casting a broad net and proactively seeking out diverse faculty candidates, many search committees still only make recruitment calls to trusted colleagues whom they have worked with for years. Or they fail to post their jobs in a publication like Diverse Issues in Higher Education or attend meetings like the National Society of Black Physicists’ Annual Conference. Because they are unable to change their normal patterns and behaviors, many hiring and human resource personnel are unable to diversify their applicant pool, and thus by extension the diversity of the faculty.

188

W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

FIGURE 4.3 Multiple Models of Organizational Culture

Source: Adapted from Schein, 1985.

This level and the fourth level of institutional culture, espoused values and beliefs, most closely reflect the deeply embedded values and beliefs of an organization’s culture. It is at this level that diversity efforts are most commonly resisted because they challenge not just the institutional culture of colleges and universities, but also the pervasive cultural assumptions held by larger society. These broader assumptions include measuring student ‘‘potential’’ through standardized test scores alone, making tenure decisions on a cryptic and arcane set of expectations, or maintaining exclusionary

W HY D I V E R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

189

campus traditions for their own sake. For many people, even those with good intentions, promoting diversity is unconsciously associated with lowering standards or meeting quotas. The cultural values gap between the current crop of institutional leaders and today’s generation of students is especially wide. More often than not, it is the senior administration and staff who hold stubbornly to a set of symbols, myths, traditions, and behaviors that do not affirm diversity. It is for this reason that creating transformational change is so difficult. To promote transformational change, the institutional culture must shift at several levels. The task is to identify ways to create a powerful vision and then implement concrete programs and policies that will lead to transformational change. Otto Scharmer, a founding codirector of the Society for Organizational Learning, argues that the key condition for transforming an organization’s culture is to find the strategic leverage point. Drawing on his father’s work as a farmer, Scharmer (2007) notes that each culture has two worlds, ‘‘the visible realm above the surface and the invisible realm below’’ (p. 7). The leverage point is ‘‘at the interface between the two worlds, where they meet, connect, and intertwine’’ (p. 7). Thus, to create and sustain inclusive learning environments, institutions must seek those places where the visible elements, such as symbols and myths, intersect with the invisible elements, such as administrative structures and unconscious priorities. Hence, a campus-wide diversity plan is insufficient to transform the culture, unless the plan is supported by an implementation strategy that is complex, evolving, and at once both centralized and diffused. Box 4.5 addresses the issue of leadership development as a platform for diversity-themed transformation.

BOX 4.5 Building Human Capacity to Lead Diversity Efforts One of the most powerful levers for creating change can be found in an institution’s human resources, namely its faculty and administrative leaders. From this vantage point, institutional leaders have three options for developing a team of strategic diversity leaders: 1. Remove people from office who no longer meet the expectations of an institution’s emerging diversity agenda. (continues)

190

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

(continued) 2. Cultivate new understanding, attitudes, and skills among current administrators, faculty, and staff. 3. Bolster the efforts of those already involved in campus diversity efforts by enhancing their visibility and ability to work. Although in some cases changing an institution’s leadership culture requires making personnel decisions, in most cases institutional leaders should focus on enhancing the efforts of existing staff. This means developing human performance enhancement strategies designed to educate faculty, staff, and students regarding the definitions, framework, skills, and abilities required to help foster a more diverse and inclusive campus culture. The use of the term educate is meant to emphasize that leadership development is best accomplished through a confluence of learning pedagogies and not simply ‘‘diversity training workshops.’’ Traditional diversity training programs aligned with the Affirmative Action and Equity Model may not necessarily expose participants to opportunities for transformational change. Granted, these workshops are important because they provide an opportunity to help all students feel welcome on campus. Done right, they help foster a more inclusive campus culture in which all students, regardless of background, are prepared to succeed in a diverse, multicultural, global society. However, transformational change requires more than basic diversity training around interpersonal dynamics, sexual harassment, and the benefits of diversity. It requires creative leaders facilitating new skills, abilities, and understanding in faculty, staff, and administrators. One example of this strategy hails from the University of Connecticut, where a 90-minute lunch session called ‘‘Conversations on Diversity’’ created a forum for the president, provost, deans, and vice presidents to engage in working meetings around diversity topics like minority faculty recruitment and retention strategies, and the promotion of women and minorities in the STEM disciplines. These meetings took place several times a year and feature prominent scholars and researchers addressing issues of diversity from both a scholarly and concrete perspective, not only describing the challenges but also prescribing solutions. To truly transform institutional culture, campus leaders must help colleagues develop new ways of thinking. In transformational change, the entire community undergoes a fundamental shift in attitudes and understanding. This is the goal of the ‘‘Conversations on Diversity’’ program at the University of Connecticut. In the absence of new mental models to interpret current diversity priorities and contexts, campus leaders will continue to rely on flawed, incomplete, or otherwise unproductive strategies built from their past experiences.

W HY DI V E RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L

191

The Difficulty of Transformational Change Transformational change efforts by diversity officers and committees are effective only insofar as they can be implemented. For a change to be transformative, it has to be shared and executed at multiple points within the institution, moving organically in such a way that it touches everyone. Resources must be committed over time and senior leadership must be involved in a substantial way. For change to be transformative, not only structures but core assumptions must evolve. Too often campus diversity plans are one dimensional, resulting in minor tactical adjustments. Either campus leaders do not understand the process of institutional transformation, or are afraid of the backlash that comes from trying to challenge the way things ‘‘have always been done.’’ For example, Virginia Tech2 and the University of Oregon3 experienced this challenge directly when courageous leaders at those institutions began connecting the diversity conversation to the performance management systems of their institutions in a substantive way. In both instances, the conversation began regarding the development of best-practice diversity accountability systems. The systems involved assessing faculty’s individual contributions to the campuses’ diversity agenda as part of their annual review (Virginia Tech), and evidence of culturally competent skills (University of Oregon). In both instances, these more aggressive accountability techniques were met with staunch resistance from a small, vocal group of diversity opponents locally and, in Virginia Tech’s case, nationally. Diversity champions need to appreciate that the most ambitious diversity efforts, while often offering the best means of moving the diversity agenda forward, inevitably rock the boat. Indeed, often a clear sign that an institution is doing something meaningful occurs when diversity opponents and their sponsoring organizations emerge to fight it. The challenge stems not just from the well-financed efforts of conservative opponents, but more diffuse resistance from within the ranks of general diversity supporters. These individuals may support the idea of diversity, but lose conviction once faced with concrete plans that require them to change their assumptions and traditional procedures. One assistant vice president at a midsized university in the Southwest had this to say about a nominally supportive colleague in her office: Everything was great until we started talking about real accountability and requiring someone to do something; then the conversation changed. My liberal faculty colleagues left me standing at the altar as I was the only one lobbying for something aggressive and intentional. No one had the stomach to stand up and fight for something that would really put some skin

192

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

in the game around requiring new behaviors and expecting people to actually do something different as part of their performance review. We can talk all we want about accountability, but until we change the parameters of what we expect, nothing will happen.

Change requires courage, a fresh take on where the institution is at this present moment and where it needs to go in the future. It also requires sustained effort to achieve the goals and objectives that have been established. It is always a challenge to introduce something different into familiar contexts.

Dynamic Diversity DNA The author developed the term Dynamic Diversity DNA to help strategic diversity leaders locate their institutions along a continuum of diversitythemed planning and implementation. Taken together, the strategic diversity idea, diversity infrastructure, senior leadership support, planning systems, change activation techniques, and financial resources constitute an institution’s Dynamic Diversity DNA. Just as a double-helix strand of DNA is held together by bonds between base pairs of nucleotides whose sequence spells out the exact instructions required to create a unique organism, the Dynamic Diversity DNA of an institution has six base pairs of institutional diversity nucleotides. Figure 4.4 show how these building blocks combine and recombine to determine the form an organization takes, and whether it can achieve its diversity goals. The Dynamic Diversity DNA image helps us appreciate the unique ways that an institution will shift and reconfigure in response to its compositional building blocks. No building block stands alone; they are all interdependent. Therefore, steps taken to modify any or all of the building blocks must be coherent, coordinated, and clear. Changing any one element in isolation is likely to affect the other five in unintended ways and may set the organization back rather than move it forward. Indeed, this is often the case when a new leader comes on board and has a radically different idea of how the strategic diversity plan should be framed and implemented. In some instances, this may lead to a strengthening of the various aspects of the Dynamic Diversity DNA. In other instances, it may lead to weakening, especially if the new leadership simply does not view diversity as a priority. Does the new leadership have a vision for how to accomplish its diversity goals and are they based on a combination of well-researched evidence,

W HY DI VE RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L

FIGURE 4.4 Dynamic Diversity DNA

193

194

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

TAB LE 4. 3 Dimensions of Dynamic Diversity DNA Dimension

Definition

Strategic Diversity Idea

The way diversity is defined and how the institution engages diversity as a matter of strategic priority

Diversity Infrastructure

Presence of dedicated institutional diversity offices, initiatives, and committees, particularly at senior levels of leadership and governance

Senior Leadership Support

Presidential and provost-level support that includes the commitment of academic deans, senior administrative leaders, and faculty governance systems

Strategic Planning Systems

Presence of logistical and staff resources to guide the campus community in an inclusive stakeholder process that produces a strategic diversity plan

Change Activation Techniques

Presence of incentive, accountability, and reporting systems to drive, reward, and encourage change, along with effective systems for assessing and, when necessary, revising the plan and redirecting resources and activities

Resources

Presence of staff, financial, and other resources to implement strategic diversity plan

national best practices, and the specific needs of the particular institution? Or is the new leadership guided by a combination of ignorance, instincts, and whim? The only imperative is that the six building blocks of Diversity DNA work together rather than at cross-purposes to move the campus diversity agenda forward. Given the imperatives for diversity, institutional leaders need to give serious consideration to recombining their Diversity DNA. Achieving organizational alignment can differ depending on the institution. There is no universal prescription or right answer.

Stages of Institutional Diversity Movement These building blocks are organized in a stage model of growth and development that hinges on two related dimensions of intentionality and resource

W H Y D I VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

195

allocation. As these two dimensions increase, institutions often become more focused and ultimately successful in pursuing their campus diversity agendas. As reflected by the straight line in the model, movement from lower to higher stages involves increasing complexity, sophistication, and comprehensiveness in the diversity planning and implementation process, as institutions go from launching the discussion on campus to moving through ever more progressive stages of diversity planning, resource allocation, and capacity building. The model describes increasingly complex ways that institutions evolve their diversity efforts in a particular direction. Without an intentional allocation of resources and a strategic commitment to using best practices, creating economies of scale, linking conversations, and clarifying focus, institutions are left with a diversity implementation process of doing something for a limited period and then wondering why they were not more successful. Even then, without constant evaluation and revision, institutions can build an ambitious strategic diversity agenda that works for a limited period and then sputters, leaving the leaders to wonder why they were not as successful as they had hoped. Figure 4.5 shows how success hinges on the two twin factors of the allocation of resources and the intentionality of efforts. It also illustrates how as the institution’s Diversity DNA shifts, the institution will find itself in a different space along the dimensions of intentionality and resource allocation—hence the double-helix aspects of the model in Figure 4.4 have been incorporated into Figure 4.5. The Dynamic Diversity DNA stage model has a different focus from diversity stage models developed by Chesler (1994) and Jackson and Holvino (1988), which focus on general cultural dynamics of institutions as they move from homogenous to multicultural communities. Rather than a general orientation toward organizational culture, the Dynamic Diversity DNA model focuses on whether institutions are intentional in building diversity-themed capacity from a formal structural perspective. Such structural change includes establishing dedicated offices, unit, plans, budgets, and initiatives to achieve an institution’s stated diversity goals (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Williams et al., 2005). It is not a commentary on an organization’s culture, or its movement from being a space of exclusion to one of inclusion, although it stands to reason that if an institution is moving more intentionally and allocating greater resources, the institutional culture should become more diverse and inclusive in response to those efforts. As several scholars have noted, institutions are always on a continuum with regard to issues of capacity development and cultural change (Chesler, 1994; Jackson & Holvino, 1988; Katz & Miller, 1997). When working with

196

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

FIGURE 4.5 Dynamic Diversity DNA Stage Model

colleges and universities, it may help to use the six building blocks of the ‘‘Dynamic Diversity DNA’’ to identify where an institution is in terms of its capacity to implement the diversity idea. This analysis, in turn, can be used by diversity leaders to plot the institution’s movement along four principal stages of institutional development. They include (a) start up, (b) transitional, (c) mature implementation, and (d) inclusive excellence. Stage 4 is achieved only rarely, but represents the ideal that every institution should seek. The model also identifies some of the key themes that are relevant to organizational evolution both within and between stages of development. For example, themes like ‘‘Generating Energy’’ and ‘‘Crystallizing the Agenda’’ are placed in the model to imply that strategic diversity leaders need to focus on these issues to advance their efforts from the start-up to the

W HY D I V E R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

197

transitional stage of development. Table 4.4 presents each of the stages, plotted against the major Diversity DNA building blocks and key themes of organizational development. Their placement at a particular location on the diversity stage continuum are not meant to imply that they hold no relevance for other stages, but that these are the dominant themes associated with successful diversity movement at a particular moment in an institution’s progress. Reading the diversity stage model gives a diagnostic insight into the diversity readiness of an institution. The analysis provides heuristic clues as to where the institution is and whether the institution’s definitions, goals, planning systems, and infrastructure are internally coherent. Campus leaders and other diversity champions should have a clear understanding of their institution’s location if they are going to overcome the inherent challenges of the institutional culture of higher education. As the DNA threads depicted in Figure 4.5 suggests, institutions cycle up and down the various stages of the model depending on a variety of contingencies, from leadership changes to budget cuts, and from changing definitions of diversity to judicial rulings that change admissions policies, just to name two. As an institution’s Diversity DNA shifts, so does its stage of diversity capacity, moving from less intentional and resource-intensive efforts to more intensive and resourceladen efforts through the years and various shifts in leadership, structure, and other organizational dynamics.

Stage 1: Start Up Many institutions are just beginning to launch their discussions of campus diversity. For these institutions, simply trying to foster a collegial and productive conversation poses a significant hurdle. Unfortunately, in most instances it takes a crisis event to activate the discussion. At these institutions, no senior leaders are involved, and this lack of initiative reverberates throughout the broader campus community. It is not uncommon for many leaders to operate from the ‘‘colorblind diversity perspective’’ explored in Chapter 2. For many, diversity is either not on the radar or is considered a distraction from advancing the goals of academic excellence. At these institutions it is safe to say that diversity is not defined as an institutional priority. Minimal diversity infrastructure exists at many levels of institutional life. There are few if any staff or personnel focused explicitly on diversity concerns, much less developing and implementing an ambitious strategic diversity plan. If capacity does exist, it is generally limited to a student cultural

198

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

TAB LE 4. 4 Diversity Stage Model Overview Dimension

Start Up

Mature Implementation

Inclusive Excellence

The Diversity Idea

Diversity is neither Diversity is defined nor a beginning to priority. emerge as a point of conversation, but is narrowly defined and still not a high priority.

Transitional

Diversity is an idea that has been defined in broad and inclusive terms and is a priority on campus across a range of different diversity dimensions.

Diversity is defined broadly and exists at the highest level of institutional importance as foundational to mission fulfillment and institutional excellence. It has become a widely embraced cultural value that manifests itself in myriad ways.

Diversity Infrastructure

The campus has few if any dedicated infrastructure resources focused on issues of diversity.

A handful of campus diversity offices, initiatives, and systems may exist, but are limited and marginalized. Some typical infrastructures include underfunded cultural centers and affirmative action officers, but little else. Diversity issues are not formally part of the general education curriculum, although they may exist in isolated courses on campus.

Several diversity units and initiatives exist across the Affirmative Action and Equity, Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity, and Learning, Diversity, and Research Models.

A chief diversity officer role may exist, although how it is defined and positioned is variable. Diversity may be part of the general education curriculum, and faculty may engage in robust diversity-themed research. A chief diversity officer role exists to support the vision of the president and provides broad collaborative leadership to the campus diversity agenda. A campus-wide governance committee exists to guide and develop campus diversity efforts. A host of affirmative action and equity, multicultural and inclusion diversity, and learning, diversity, and research efforts are coordinated as diversity capacity is substantively integrated into the curriculum and cocurriculum.

Senior Leadership Support

Diversity is not on the radar of senior leaders, and they put minimal if any energy into accomplishing campus diversity goals and priorities.

Senior leadership is beginning to engage; however, they have a limited knowledge and are slow to provide resources beyond symbolic support.

Senior leaders generally have a strong awareness of diversity issues, particularly traditional issues of access and equity for historically underrepresented minorities and women. They use their authority to provide attention and resources, although their efforts may be uneven across all dimensions of their institution’s diversity agenda. Leadership drift may set in as transitions occur.

Senior leadership is a vocal and material advocate for campus diversity priorities, broadly defined. They lead the discussion, empower others, direct resources, and generally move the campus’s strategic diversity agenda as part of their efforts to ensure academic excellence, drive fundraising, build alumni relations, and develop strategic partnerships.

W HY D I V E R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

199

Planning Systems

No diversity plans exist in any way.

A major goal is to develop a campus diversity plan, but it may have yet to materialize outside of an effort to integrate diversity symbolically into the campus academic or strategic plan.

The campus may have developed a series of diversity plans through the years that have been implemented to varying levels of success. This may include centralized, decentralized, and integrated diversity plans.

A comprehensive system of diversity-planning systems exists as an embedded component of the academic and strategic plans, as well as in centralized and decentralized diversity plans that focus specifically on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. These plans are linked to one another as diversity is defined consistent with institutional excellence, and the focus is on effect and organizational change.

Change Activation Techniques

No accountability or incentive systems exist to activate change on campus because diversity is not a priority institutionally.

No accountability or incentive systems exist to activate change on campus. The majority of efforts focus on relationship building and good will.

Diversity accountability systems exist in modest ways at the level of counting and measurement, perhaps in the form of a biannual diversity report. Some institutions may have incentive programs to encourage diversity involvement, but they often come and go, depending on campus budget priorities and senior leadership.

Leaders have created accountability systems that value diversity and hold leaders accountable for their actions to advance the campus’s diversity priorities, in addition to annual reports and efforts to measure what is taking place on campus. Tenure and promotion decisions may include a component focused on diversity, as well as performance reviews and budget allocation. Financial and other incentives encourage and reward engagement through diversity challenge grants.

Resources

Diversity resources Diversity resource are nearly allocations are nonexistent. limited.

Diversity resource allocations are high institutionally, but leaders face the challenge of maximizing the return on investments. Diversity budgets may not be totally embedded into the base budgets of schools, departments, and divisions, existing in dedicated accounts that may come and go with institutional budget priorities.

Diversity funding is generous institutionally and resources are maximized fully. Not only are diversity efforts protected in good financial times and bad, but diversity is a priority goal of campus fund-raising, extramural activities, and other aspects of institutional life.

center or multicultural affairs office with little budget or full-time staff. No senior-level CDOs or campus diversity committees exist to provide broader leadership, strategic thinking, or advice. No diversity accountability or incentive systems exist to drive change. Indeed, little emphasis is placed on creating a more inclusive and diverse campus community.

200

W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

The single greatest diversity resource on campus may be that there are volunteer diversity champions working to generate momentum on campus, hosting discussions among themselves in an effort to raise awareness and understanding. The major challenge they face is how to generate positive energy and make diversity concerns an institutional priority. The central goal is to prepare their campus for a broader conversation about why diversity is important, what other institutions are doing, and why the college or university might create a rationale for change. At this stage, simply defining a campus diversity committee might constitute success. It is typical for campus diversity champions to hope that national speakers and consultants can be brought to campus to help frame the diversity discussion. The more that this conversation can dispel stereotypes and misperceptions, the more it will create a sense of urgency and relevancy as to why diversity matters today.

Stage 2: Transitional Stage 2 is transitional in nature as the diversity discussion begins to emerge as a point of conversation among senior leadership. As yet, however, no cohesive institutional framework or agenda has emerged. To the extent that diversity is discussed by senior leadership, it is limited to ‘‘body-count diversity’’ or increasing the number of minorities on campus as opposed to achieving equitable outcomes in terms of graduation rates and promotion to tenure, or viewing diversity as a fundamental ingredient to improving student learning and leadership development. At this phase of development, leadership is slow to provide financial support to build diversity capacity. If capacity does exist, it is buried deep in the formal institutional infrastructure, although more capacity may exist than at the initial start-up stage of development. In some instances, the campus may have an underfunded student affairs or diversity office and an affirmative action officer who may report to the president or provost, but has little ability to influence diversity outside of equal employment opportunity and other workplace issues. Diversity may be mentioned in the campus strategic or academic plan, but its inclusion is more symbolic than material. Although many campus diversity champions are calling for a dedicated campus diversity plan and a high-ranking CDO, these goals remain beyond the reach of institutions at this stage of development. A diversity committee may exist but is struggling to gain a clear sense of its mission and how to help the campus community move forward. Financial resources are allocated to diversity efforts at a slightly higher level than the opening stage of development, but are limited

W H Y DI VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

201

to programs like student scholarships. Resources are particularly limited in terms of their focus on Learning, Diversity, and Research Model capabilities. There is no diversity distribution requirement or efforts to encourage involvement in high-impact learning experiences like study abroad, community service learning, or intergroup relations. Nor is there any real commitment to developing ethnic studies, women’s studies, and other academic areas that will create classroom opportunities to educate students about our increasingly diverse, global world. Unsurprisingly, no accountability or incentive systems exist to activate the campus diversity agenda, as no regular diversity reports are generated at even the most basic levels. Institutions at this stage should be focused on building a more structured campus diversity agenda and looking for ways to enhance their current diversity efforts. Although they have yet to adequately allocate resources to fund their campus diversity efforts, the goal is to move in this direction. The greatest challenge at this stage is creating a material commitment to diversity that will lead to new financial investments and the serious development of a campus diversity plan and implementation effort. Similar to start-up phase institutions, these campuses often look to national thought leaders to provide senior leadership with new ways of framing campus diversity efforts. Absent a diversity crisis moment that may generate new calls for change on campus, one of the best strategies that these institutions can pursue is to develop a campus grant from a private or public foundation that can bring new resources and an ability to launch new diversity efforts.

Stage 3: Mature Implementation In Stage 3, a mature implementation is in place as diversity has been defined in broad and inclusive terms and has emerged as a clear priority on campus, although it may be subject to budget cuts in difficult economic times. At this stage, numerous diversity initiatives exist and the campus probably has developed a definition of diversity and a number of statements about its importance. Senior leaders generally have a strong awareness of diversity issues, particularly traditional issues of access and equity for historically underrepresented minorities and women. However, they still do not define their work as inspiring institutional change and transformation, but rather in more incremental terms often associated with a new project here, a new diversity plan there. They use their authority to provide attention and resources, although their efforts may be uneven. Part of their frustration is that diversity efforts never seem to go to the next level as accountability is

202

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

often limited to diversity reports that do a solid job of reporting findings, but do not take the next step of holding leaders responsible for accomplishing diversity priorities. Institutions may spend a lot of time in the mature implementation phase. Indeed, many institutions may reach a level of mature implementation and never leave this stage of development, cycling within it for many years, at times with a coherent diversity strategy and at other times not. The Affirmative Action and Equity, Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity, and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Models are all in play as the diversity idea is defined in a way that is substantive and broad, if not connected and strategic. Institutions at this stage may have numerous diversity offices, programs, centers, institutes, committees, and task forces. These investments are making a difference on campus, providing services, offering courses, and promoting research that is critical to accomplishing the institution’s strategic diversity goals. The campus may have a CDO role in place, although it is variable, whether the role is optimally positioned for success in terms of the officer’s formal authority and portfolio of responsibilities. Diversity resource allocations are high institutionally, but leaders face the challenge of maximizing their return on investment. Diversity budgets may not be totally embedded in the base budgets of schools, departments, and divisions, existing in dedicated accounts that may come and go with institutional budget priorities, loss of campus grants, and changes in the economy. Most institutions in this phase have developed multiple diversity plans. Indeed the complexity of early success and then building diversity infrastructure for many years can overwhelm some campuses as they stumble forward without clear focus, despite having implemented a series of campus diversity plans. At this stage, it is common to find what Clayton-Pedersen, Parker, Smith, Moreno, and Teraguchi (2007) refer to as ‘‘projectitis,’’ as institutions experience difficulty achieving coordination, a more strategic focus and eliminating low-performing efforts. As a result, committed advocates have grown frustrated with incomplete implementation, lack of overall success, and misdirected efforts across campus. Although this frustration is legitimate, it may at times be overly critical, as these individuals often ignore many diversity successes that exist alongside continuing challenges, preferring to focus on how the glass of change is half-empty, rather than half-full. Institutions at this phase must look to reinvigorate their campus efforts and build rigorous accountability systems that move beyond periodic diversity reports. They should also strengthen challenge grants and other incentive programs as the campus-wide diversity agenda remains largely a matter for

W H Y DI VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL

203

campus diversity champions, CDOs, and others who are personally and professionally committed to these issues. It is not a priority for the average faculty, staff, and campus leader because they are not held accountable or given incentives to become involved. It is also important for leaders at this level to engage in rigorous assessments of their campus diversity efforts by looking for ways to innovate, terminate, reorganize, and develop more collaborative diversity efforts that amount to more than the sum of their parts. For those institutions with many race-conscious admissions, financial aid, and other efforts, it is critical that they ensure that these programs are consistent with legal guidance governing the development of programs that may be held to the legal standards of strict scrutiny (Coleman, Palmer, Winnick, & Holland & Knight LLP, 2007).

Stage 4: Inclusive Excellence Some institutions do achieve a lasting and successful strategic diversity agenda with a clear investment of resources and a high degree of coordination in their efforts, moving toward ‘‘inclusive excellence.’’ This is the last stage of the diversity evolutionary process. At the Inclusive Excellence stage, diversity is defined broadly and exists at the highest level of institutional importance as foundational to mission fulfillment and academic excellence. It has become a cultural value that manifests itself in myriad ways, including being protected during difficult economic times and leadership transitions. The focus is on strategic diversity thinking, planning, and implementation of organizational systems and policies designed so that the institution fundamentally changes not only programs and policies, but how the campus community understands the challenges and opportunities of diversity. At this stage, diversity is operational across three connected diversity models: Affirmative Action and Equity; Multicultural and Inclusion; and Learning, Diversity, and Research. As such, diversity is driven by social imperatives, educational imperatives, and imperatives to enhance organizational performance. A CDO exists to provide broad integrative leadership for the agenda. A campus-wide diversity governance committee exists to guide and develop the plan. Beyond dedicated diversity roles, the broader campus community and leadership play an active role in diversity efforts. Diversity matters are substantively integrated into the curriculum and cocurriculum. Powerful communities of practice exist. Senior leadership is a vocal advocate for campus diversity issues and is actively engaged in implementation activities. The president and provost are

204

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

proponents of the agenda, helping to lead the discussion while simultaneously empowering the CDO and others to revise and improve processes. Finally, these processes are fully integrated, making diversity synonymous with institutional excellence. Each of the three diversity systems is activated as leaders have created systems to hold leaders accountable for diversity efforts. Tenure and promotion decisions may include a component focused on diversity, community-based research, and service to diverse communities, as well as performance reviews and budget allocation. Financial and other incentives encourage and reward engagement with issues through diversity challenge grants. Diversity funding is integrated and focused, as both targeted resources exist alongside efforts to incorporate diversity into general budget priorities and funding systems. Fund-raising, extramural activities, and other streams include a focus on diversity.

Summary My experience with the diversity change journey suggests that leading a longterm campus diversity effort is like leading a jazz band. Inevitably, the journey will require careful listening and collaboration, creative bursts of energy, and the need to harmonize different instruments. At times the audience is largely an observer, and at times, through call and response, the audience acts as a full participant. At times the pace will be fast and furious, as when a crisis incident provokes an institution’s cheetah response. At other times, change will involve the gradual implementation of a new policy or program. In still other moments, those on the journey will have to retrace their steps after getting lost or to find a new direction. No matter the tempo, strategic diversity leaders never lose sight of where the change effort is going, even as they look for creative ways to increase or slow the tempo as needed. Indeed, helping the campus to engage the process of change is the key idea that rests at the heart of the diversity effort. The enormity of our challenge necessitates that we move beyond rhetoric and engage in a disciplined process of strategic diversity thinking that creates a space for new possibilities and actions. Although some institutions may want little more than simplistic myths and symbols, diversity champions and others must be ready to seize any opening as an opportunity to create real and lasting change. Diversity champions must pressure senior leaders to keep the institutional diversity agenda alive, while fostering a space that allows for new initiatives and coalitions to emerge. At the end of the day, the focus must always remain on the

W HY DI VE RS I T Y E FF OR T S FA I L

205

institution taking positive steps forward, even if those steps are at times incremental and slow. This is true for all members of the campus community, from the president to an untenured assistant professor, from the provost to a repairman in the maintenance department, from the board of the trustees to the freshman arriving for her first day of orientation.

Notes 1. The identification of the Harvard University case study is offered as an example of how a diversity crisis often leads to campus mobilization and planning activities. Although a full-blown case study of the Harvard University planning and implementation process is beyond the scope of this book, this example illustrates many of the key characteristics of diversity crisis and planning. As with many institutions, the implementation component continues to evolve and can only be fully understood through an in-depth case study of process, organizational dynamics, and institutional outcomes. 2. For an overview of the claims issued by the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education please visit http://thefire.org/case/778. 3. Trower and Smith (2006).

5 THE ARTFUL SCIENCE OF STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP Most of the time, institutional leaders are thinking about what to do, rather than how to do it. Strategy and process are afterthoughts, and too often are simply ignored. How often do we hear about a well-conceived campus initiative that failed because of a process that did not take into account a particular group, or because it ignored the widespread fear that the change engendered? At the end of the day, the personal, political, and cultural aspects of change—the process—will make or break a change initiative. —Eckel, Green, Hill, and Mallon (1999)

W

hen faced with the complexity of leading a diversity change process, even committed senior leaders often find themselves confused, frustrated, and looking for someone simply to ‘‘give me the best practices and tell me what to do.’’ This perspective has played itself out in a number of visits to colleges and universities, Fortune 500 companies, and major foundations. Many institutions are either unable or unaware of how to initiate and implement an effective process on their own and end up seeking a cookie-cutter template to meet their diversity challenge. For example, during one visit to a college in the Southwest, the chair of the campus diversity committee told the author, ‘‘Look, I just want to know what I can do to move this thing forward. I don’t want to get into the consciousness raising mumbo about diversity and institutional change. Just tell me what to do and let’s get it done.’’ Leaving aside the narrow perspective that this comment reveals, consider for the moment just how important the process is to the finished product. Without engaging in some consciousness raising, and appreciating how institutional change takes place, any diversity plan we seek to implement will never rise above the level of window dressing. Indeed, a diversity plan done 206

T HE AR T F U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P

207

poorly may prove worse than no diversity plan at all. So although one may wish for easy solutions, diversity-themed change is about more than imitating what seems to be working at other institutions, even though benchmarking and environmental scans are important. This discussion of strategic diversity leadership begins with the assumption that effecting pervasive change around issues of diversity is both an art and a science. Consequently, campus diversity champions must be sophisticated in their approach and willing to work against the time-honored traditions and time-bound bureaucracies that render academic institutions so resistant to change. Absent either powerful external forces (e.g., Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession, California’s Proposition 209) or powerful internal motivators (e.g., a diversity crisis, a visionary leader, an activist student body), diversity change efforts are often frozen by the resistant nature of the academy.

Developing a Strategic Diversity Leadership Toolkit To successfully lead on-campus diversity efforts requires a sophisticated yet accessible toolkit that can help steer campus leaders through the diversity change process. After all, the waters are treacherous and require a leadership compass that can help to navigate options, cutting against the grain of tradition, artfully navigating issues both anticipated and unanticipated, and applying the best diversity science possible. With more than 20 years in education and extensive experience as a chief diversity officer, Dr. Justine McKenny observed the following about the type of leadership that is required to lead diversity change efforts in the academy: You have to be able to see all of the angles: the politics, how the money moves and who reports to whom. To be successful, you have to work on the sly. You have to find ways to clarify the issues without drowning in the politics. This means that you need to work [the diversity agenda] a bit differently from how you would work less political issues. Because diversity is always political, you have to be strategic as you maneuver in and out of the conversation, balancing the needs of your constituents, peers, and superiors. If you want to be effective, you cannot simply be the good soldier marching the proposal into the president’s office. You may get it accepted, but you will never get it implemented. Success comes from working your agenda, building coalitions, pushing the message and working the visible and invisible parts of the campus.

208

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

The compass image offered in Figure 5.1 stresses the need for diversity champions to understand organizational dynamics from several different perspectives. By looking at diversity challenges from a number of different locations, or coordinates, diversity leaders can anticipate challenges in creating change activities, whether they are anchored in a new diversity plan, the symbols associated with the title of a new diversity office, or the work of other leaders

FIGURE 5.1 Strategic Diversity Leadership Compass

T H E A R TF U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S I T Y L E A DE R S H I P

209

who must engage with diversity, ranging from the president to the chair of the faculty senate, or even a student leader or corporate partner. Having a multidimensional philosophy toward change is a fundamental theme in the organizational literature, a key aspect of becoming a strategic diversity leader and vital to navigating the turbulent cultural, political, and administrative contexts of colleges and universities (Berger & Milem, 2000; Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Morgan, 1986; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005). Successful diversity leadership is based on the assumption that the most accomplished leaders determine the direction of their leadership by examining the world from multiple frames of reference. As such, strategic diversity leaders push the boundaries of understanding and action by operating from an organizational learning perspective that rests at the core of their practice as they ask different questions of themselves and those around them. Who has authority over this decision? What is the real reason this plan failed? Where are the resources required to lead change? Who are the players? Is the chancellor or president committed? What are the politics? Who are my key stakeholders? Do I need to get buy-in from shared governance? Are my stakeholders supportive of my leadership? How does the plan align with the budget? And what kind of message will this decision send? This chapter focuses on the five key frames of strategic diversity leadership depicted in Figure 5.1: (a) organizational learning, (b) structural leadership, (c) political leadership, (d) symbolic leadership, and (e) collegial leadership (Table 5.1). To describe fully their inherent qualities, each quality is treated separately. The most sophisticated diversity leader, however, will of course artfully apply particular combinations organically and fluidly as called for by the situation, or, in the terms of the guiding compass metaphor offered here, as called for by their location in the diversity change journey (Birnbaum, 1988). The key is for strategic diversity leaders to master each of these perspectives and use them when exploring the opportunities and challenges of leading diversity-themed change.

Organizational Learning Frame To break the cycle of flawed diversity implementation efforts, strategic diversity leaders must look for ways to change the governing organizational logic of their institutions (Argyris & Scho¨n, 1974; Paul, 2003). This means having a philosophy of diversity leadership that focuses on learning from both past

210

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

TAB LE 5 .1 Dimensions of Strategic Diversity Leadership Leadership Frame Description

Importance

Strategic Themes

Organizational Learning

Applying single-, double-, and triple-loop learning to build new organizational strategies and tactical actions to advance institutional diversity goals

Essential to breaking flawed diversity implementation efforts that lead to suboptimal achievement of institutional outcomes—and stand in the way of institutional transformation

Single-loop learning Double-loop learning Triple-loop learning

Structural Leadership

Leveraging formal organizational structures, leadership roles, resources, and policies to advance campus diversity goals

Essential for delivering tangible results on issues of diversity that move out of the abstract and philosophical and into the meaningful and concrete by allocating human and financial resources and changing institutional policies

Senior-level support Organizational realignment Fiscal strategies Mission Accountability processes Policy changes

Political Leadership

Negotiating campus power dynamics, decision-making processes, competing priorities, and the importance of building relational and political capital to advance campus diversity efforts

Essential for understanding why campus diversity plans and efforts are often enacted when political contexts change and power dynamics reconfigure—and navigating the turbulence that comes with attempting to move the campus diversity agenda

Political mapping of interests Cultivating key relationships Exchanging resources Awareness of changes

Symbolic Leadership

Creating a social contract regarding diversity’s importance through a system of shared values, symbols, rituals, and meanings to advance the campus diversity agenda

Essential for situating the campus community within a common umbrella of shared meaning, purpose, and direction. Sensitive to the shared social contract between the various stakeholders on campus and able to engage them on the importance of diversity to the institution’s moral and educational mission

Campus messaging Shared definitions High-profile events Diversity branding strategies

Collegial Leadership

Focusing on collective planning, decision making, and implementation activities to advance campus diversity efforts

Essential for achieving deep and transformative change by engaging multiple stakeholders, expanding consensus and building strong coalitions. Sensitive to divergent opinions, the democratic process, and shared decision making

Town hall meetings Communication Social networking techniques Committees Learning forums Incentive programs

Sources: Adapted from Bess & Dee, 2008; Chaffee, 1985; Kezar, 2001.

T H E AR TF U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P

211

successes and failures, asking hard questions, and moving beyond previous approaches that may have yielded inadequate outcomes. Indeed, the ability to frame diversity challenges and submit them to rigorous evaluation is one of the core skills of strategic diversity leaders, and is the focus of diversity accountability and measuring performance issues in Chapter 6. Figure 5.2 presents a visual representation of the deeper processes involved in organizational learning. The work by Argyris and Scho¨n (1974) and Senge (2006) offers a strong starting point for developing an organizational learning model for strategic diversity leaders. In this figure, the process of organizational learning goes through three stages, moving left to right from the establishment of a governing organizational diversity logic, to diversity strategy and tactics, and finally to diversity outcomes. The following three learning loops help explain how strategic diversity leaders must engage in several successive and overlapping learning processes if they intend to achieve pervasive change in their institutions.

Single-Loop Learning As the model depicts, single-loop learning is highly tactical and is situated largely on making minor fixes and adjustments. Leaders engaging the single loop are centrally concerned with the question, ‘‘What are we going to do

FIGURE 5.2 Triple Loop Model of Organizational Learning

212

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

now?’’ Although this question is critical to organizational action, it may lead to change that only happens at the tactical or superficial level of institutional culture. Thus, single-loop learning strategies often ignore deeper issues that may rest at the core of whether diversity goals are achieved. Too often, campus diversity leaders are locked in the ‘‘projectitis’’ referenced in Chapter 4. ‘‘Projectitis’’ consists of engaging in project after project without either stopping to take into account a changed environmental context or burrowing deeply into a guiding institutional logic that is hindering the overall accomplishment of the institution’s strategic diversity goals (Clayton-Pedersen et al., 2007). For example, it is like focusing on creating a strategic diversity hiring pool without considering how to address fundamental issues about how the search and screen process is conducted. This conversation needs to consider how the committee recruits and evaluates talent, and how departments ultimately nurture and support diverse faculty. Single-loop learning means having a discussion about closing the achievement gap between ethnically and racially diverse students without addressing how we address curricular, financial aid, and student life dynamics that are essential to achieving the goals driving the conversation in the first place.

Double-Loop Learning Sometimes, to get new outcomes a strategic diversity leader will have to rethink the base logic guiding his or her strategy and tactics. In double-loop learning, the entities (individuals, groups, or organizations) question the values, assumptions, and policies that have produced an unsatisfactory or incomplete outcome. The central question for strategic diversity leaders operating with a double-loop learning mindset is, ‘‘Why did it happen, given the outcomes that we achieved?’’ Finding answers to this question and marshaling the courage to act is the difference between diversity efforts that are meaningful and those that are woefully disappointing. Once the data is clear and the plan developed, leadership must commit to acting in innovative ways. For example, if the issue is minority student retention and academic achievement, one underlying question rests on whether poor pedagogical practices in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) gateway courses have contributed to a disproportionately high failure rate for historically underrepresented students. These negative achievement levels inevitably result in lower graduation rates and a host of other deficient outcomes, even when standardized test scores and other measures are controlled for in evaluations of student achievement. Only through double-loop leadership can we break the ‘‘diversity crisis model’’ and other flawed theories of action that continue to limit our work. Even if we are limited in our ability to

T H E AR TF U L S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P

213

change the dominant organizational logic in a way that is pervasive, strategic diversity leaders must drive for clarity, using their insights to frame the agenda in new and substantive ways.

Triple-Loop Learning Triple-loop learning happens at three levels and involves not only thinking tactically (single loop), and in the context of guiding the organizational logic (double loop), but also in terms of the big-picture strategic context of the institution (see Figure 5.2). For example, when considering the K–16 educational system, we need to consider actively the environment and the institution’s strategic reality, which will guide how we shape a new organizational logic to drive action. When triple-loop learning occurs, deeper and more meaningful diversity efforts become possible. Perhaps one of the clearest needs for triple-loop learning occurs after dramatic shifts in the policy environment. Here, the focus is on translating an awareness of those shifts into a new understanding of what should be done to achieve the institution’s diversity goals. For example, a new governing logic and strategy emerged in Texas after the Fifth Circuit court struck down the state’s affirmative action policies in its 1996 Hopwood v. Texas ruling. As interpreted by the Texas Attorney General, the ruling was broad enough to extend beyond admissions to a range of other policies, including financial aid, scholarships, fellowships, and recruitment and retention. Knowing that the ruling would have had devastating effects on the state’s still segregated and economically vulnerable minority population, the Texas state educational system helped lobby for the passage of House Bill 588, the ‘‘Top Ten Percent’’ law, which guarantees admission for the top ten percent of all graduating Texas seniors to state public schools (Finnell, 1998). While some questioned the effectiveness of the ‘‘Top Ten Percent’’ law, it provides a clear example of triple-loop learning, because university leaders were able to respond to a big-picture challenge presented by a shift in policy with an approach that took strategic advantage of the state’s long-standing inability to integrate fully its K–12 schools (Harris & Tienda, 2012). By thinking creatively, and acting decisively, the Texas public university system was able to preserve its commitment to diversity, albeit in an altered form, by capitalizing on geographic diversity—creating space for the top 10 percent of every graduating class in the state. Undoubtedly, the policy environment may have to shift again in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Fisher v. University of Texas. Still, it is encouraging to see that educational and

214

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

policy leaders in Texas have already been able to respond creatively and in some ways effectively to a negative judicial ruling. The passage of the ‘‘Top Ten Percent’’ law demonstrates the importance of leaders having a clear understanding of the big-picture environmental forces that always play a role in how diversity is enacted, particularly at public institutions. Box 5.1 explores the inherent challenges posed by geographic location to the tripleloop learning approach. BOX 5.1 The Triple-Loop Learning Approach and an Institution’s Geographic Location Across America, colleges and universities can be found in every community, from rural towns to sprawling metropolises. An institution’s strategic diversity leaders must reckon with the effects of such varied geographic locations. Whether the focus is on increasing the representation and inclusion of diverse groups on campus or ensuring that students have experiences with diversity in the curriculum and cocurriculum, the institutional environment can both constrain and enable diversity possibilities. It is for this reason that a triple-loop learning perspective is essential as institutional leaders seek to understand their environmental context. Often one hears the following refrain from college officials in rural areas and small towns: ‘‘We can’t recruit diverse faculty and staff to come work at our institution because we are located in a rural community. No one will come here.’’ The sticking point in an urban area can shift dramatically: ‘‘This city is so expensive, no one wants to come here. The cost of living is too high.’’ Our response to both perspectives is to acknowledge that the challenge is real, and then lead a proactive discussion about how to overcome the obstacles presented by geographic location or cost of living. Concerns about geographic location and cost of living are both essentially quality of life issues representing variables that cannot be changed. Although an institution’s environment might be constraining, several initiatives can help mitigate these challenges. Too often, strategic thinking is constrained by a lack of creativity. Perhaps the solution for overcoming the isolation of a rural institution is to focus on regional attractions. The University of Connecticut has built momentum in this regard. Although Storrs, Connecticut, is a small rural community, New Haven, Hartford, Boston, and Providence are all within an 80-mile radius and New York City is less than a two-hour train ride away. In addition, New England is probably one of the most densely populated university communities in the country, offering numerous opportunities for partnerships to emerge across campuses, something that has led to the emergence of so many cross-organizational diversity affinity networks. (continues)

T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P

215

(continued) College and university leaders have to understand their geographic context and build programs to exploit what advantages may exist. Too often academic institutions operate behind their ivy walls, ignoring rich learning and working resources that could take students off campus and into situations in which they not only learn but contribute to their local communities. Collaborative efforts that align students with service-learning and internship opportunities pay dividends to the student, the institution, the community, and the economy. At the University of Wisconsin, for example, academic leaders have partnered with corporate, faith-based, government, and other stakeholders to develop a citywide diversity leadership group in Madison. One of the first activities of the group was the publication of a diversity-themed magazine featuring cultural offerings in Madison. The goal was to create a resource that major organizations could use to market Madison to diverse constituencies. Unless diversity leaders and community leaders work together, what incentive will students have to become more involved in their host communities? Out of this simple concept, Spectrum Magazine was born, a valuable resource that has helped Madison showcase its commitment to diversity and position Madison as an attractive destination for prospective and current residents.

Strategic diversity leaders who deploy triple-loop learning are able to engage organizational challenges at multiple levels. It is not just a matter of looking at different options tactically, but evaluating all of the variables related to choosing a particular course of action. For example, when considering admissions policies, it means asking several interrelated questions at once, and then seeking an answer that integrates effectively several possible answers. How do the state demographics, high school performance, and the state budget inform whether we should develop an admissions plan modeled on the ‘‘Top Ten Percent’’ law in Texas? How does the demographic context of your state compare with Texas or Florida, which both have percentage plans? Does your state have enough racial diversity throughout the state to accommodate a percent plan? What influence would an enhanced race and ethnicity focused precollege outreach program have? Considering demographic, economic, and regional variables, how does an economic diversity model stack up against other options? With each of these scenarios, leaders must dig deep into the data; organizational learning offers a lens for understanding what the environmental and structural challenges are and how best to address them. It is not always the case that change agents will be able to shift immediately the governing logic of their institutions. Very often diversity champions have to begin their work

216

W HAT I S S TR AT E G I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

at the grassroots level, looking for ways to create traction at the most practical and immediate level. Still, even if the initial path is faint, finding and developing pockets of excellence can point the way toward transformational possibilities. Your institution may not be ready for a campus-wide conversation of curriculum reform that would embrace more powerful diversitythemed educational strategies, but an individual department may be poised to engage in this conversation. Your institution may not be ready to implement a bold hiring and retention program, but individual academic and staff departments may be open to conversations on current hiring challenges. It is vital to begin the discussion not where you are, but where your potential collaborator or ally is. Beginning the discussion at a place that is primed for some level of subsequent action sets the stage for meaningful change.

The Structural Leadership Frame: Building Capacity to Drive Change Strategic diversity leaders must build structures that can help drive change. This means engaging in the process of organizational change at the level of formal structures and policies that can act as conduits to educational transformation. To achieve inclusive excellence, it is vital that strategic diversity leaders initiate activities that are consistent with established procedures for implementing change, namely by working through the formal structure, policies, and roles of the institution. If transformation is to be successful, senior administrators must be willing to reengineer existing institutional processes, infrastructures, hierarchies, and resource allocations to drive the campus diversity agenda. It is worth noting that organizations exist primarily to accomplish clearly articulated and rational goals and objectives (Berger & Milem, 2000; Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal 2003). These goals, in turn, are best characterized as hierarchical, complex, systematic, specialized, and controlled by adherence to rules. In higher education, some quite powerful administrative functions are centrally controlled through formal chains of command that are complemented by governance and other lateral coordinating mechanisms. Working through the chain of command and governing guidelines, diversity leaders can initiate new institutional outcomes as a result of strategy, structure, and resource alignment. The most effective strategic diversity leaders understand that success is contingent on commitment from top leaders who can establish an infrastructure for success, then mobilize and reorganize limited financial resources and balance the institution’s diversity agenda against the reality and social context of the institution.

T H E A R T F U L S C I E NC E O F S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P

217

The Importance of Top-Level Support Top-level support and long-term commitment are critical to making diversity a matter of academic excellence. Senior leadership can contribute to the process by creating a broad institutional vision, redirecting resources to implement that vision, and requiring plan development and accountability from individuals at multiple levels. Only the president, provost, and other senior leaders can focus attention and prioritize diversity in a manner sufficient enough for institutional changes to be deep, pervasive, and ultimately transformative (Cox, 2001; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Loden, 1996; D. A. Thomas, 2004; Williams, 2008). Regarding the role of the university president, one former president of a large research university in the Midwest told us, ‘‘You have to carry the flag on these issues and get out in front of the institution. You cannot lead these efforts from the rear, and you cannot assign them over to anyone else.’’ Thus, regardless of the presence of a high-ranking chief diversity officer, final responsibility for guiding change rests squarely with senior institutional leadership. If the president, provost, deans, vice presidents and other key leaders are not guiding the journey, the implementation is destined to achieve less-than-optimal results. Indeed the active involvement of senior leadership is one of the key tenets that distinguish transformative change from more incremental efforts activated solely through the campus diversity office. Indeed, a lack of senior leadership commitment is one of the primary limitations that many have identified as a major stumbling block for institutions attempting to implement a campus-wide diversity change effort (Kezar, 2007). In particular, senior leaders can help frame the big-picture strategic dynamics of the institution, explaining the diversity effort in the context of the ‘‘perfect storm’’ explored in Chapter 1: shifting demographics, the emergence of the global knowledge economy, persistent societal inequities, and the educational benefits of diversity for all students. Given the room for misunderstanding and suspicion, senior leaders need to define early the terms of the discussion and then manage expectations. But leading means more than talking a good game. Senior leaders are also critical to establishing a diversity infrastructure that is able to support and guide change. As discussed in the following subsection, senior leaders serve as the key players in creating chief diversity officer divisions, establishing guiding diversity steering committees, appointing faculty champions who can provide leadership in the diversity change process, and making the

218

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

type of tough budgetary decisions that are required when making diversity a priority. Measuring, recognizing, and rewarding the systems that implement the strategic diversity agenda all fall under the purview of senior leaders. Among other specific details, they have the capacity to redirect efforts on the strategic diversity plan, can include diversity as a part of the annual merit review process, require that dean activity reports address diversity concerns, and establish other techniques of accountability. Finally, senior leaders must personally embody the values of diversity in their decision-making, individual behavior, and interactions with others. Put simply, senior leadership must ‘‘model’’ the change behavior as an important way of getting others involved. The president cannot call for a more inclusive work environment and yet alienate colleagues and subordinates. Senior leaders must participate in the diversity symposia and training workshops and demonstrate daily what they learn from their readings, research, and experiences. One of the best examples that we’ve encountered occurred at a faithbased university in the Midwest, where the president and the entire leadership team attend annually the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity in American Higher Education (NCORE) as a way of staying abreast of key diversity discussions in higher education and to help inform their strategic diversity planning. Box 5.2 provides an overview of presidential diversity leadership recommendations.

BOX. 5.2 Presidential Diversity Leadership in Higher Education Although their powers are limited by several factors, presidents have the ability to create a strategic context for diversity efforts to emerge and flourish that no other leadership role can match. More specifically, they can leverage resources, create priority for campus diversity efforts, and capitalize on emergent opportunities to advance the institution’s diversity agenda. In a study of 30 college presidents, Adrianna Kezar and Peter Eckel (2005) found that the most successful presidents use a number of structural, collegial, political, and organizational learning strategies to accomplish their goals. These strategies include creating commitment and framing diversity in support of the institutional mission, developing a shared agenda, creating campus dialogues that involve others in the planning and operationalization of campus diversity efforts, and including support for diverse students in their strategic master plan. Presidents (continues)

T H E A R T F U L S C I E NC E O F S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P

219

(continued) resoundingly agreed that hiring faculty of color was the most important strategy for ensuring the success of students of color, because faculty provide role models, change the curriculum in important ways, and provide the necessary resources for empowering students to achieve academically and become more proactively engaged on campus. Presidents in this study also mentioned the importance of holding people accountable for results and moving from commitment and rhetoric to action, such as building a diversity plan or tying performance appraisals to diversity objectives. In addition, presidents in this study championed the use of data as a way to neutralize any divisive politics that emerge along the way. They argued that other goals, such as transforming the curriculum, raising external diversity funds, and establishing powerful external networks are secondary strategies that must be put into place after the initial groundwork has been established. Moreover, presidents in this study argued that diversity strategy is a process in which leaders repeatedly revisit key action steps along the way, reinforcing many of the concepts introduced in the last chapter regarding diversity stage models. Chapter 6 returns us to a focused discussion of senior leadership commitment, exploring ways to build diversity accountability systems into an institutional change agenda.

Strategic Planning for Diversity Successful diversity leaders understand that diversity planning must be aligned with the big-picture vision and goals of the institution. An effective place to begin this process is by writing diversity into the formal mission statement of the institution, as well as at the department, college, and divisional level. Given the prominence of the institution’s mission statement, referencing diversity reflects a highly visual commitment to diversity values. These statements should provide a clear definition of diversity and its implications for fulfilling the educational aspirations of the institution. By making the mission prioritize diversity, institutional leaders create a more lasting symbolic context for investing energy, resources, and time into specific diversity activities. It also creates a powerful institutional foundation for building admissions, hiring, and scholarship programs that require institutions to satisfy several exacting standards that illustrate how pursuing diversity goals and priorities is part of the educational mission of the institution (Coleman, Palmer, Winnick, & Holland & Knight LLP, 2007). A primary technique for implementing diversity as a major priority is through a strategic diversity plan authorized at the highest levels of the institution. Although no panacea, a campus-wide diversity plan should capture

220

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

both the broad diversity vision and the specific programs and policies designed to help the institution reach its goals, an issue explored in Chapter 7. To implement these plans throughout the academic environment, academic deans, vice presidents, and department chairs must ‘‘own’’ the process in their specific domains. Doing so allows campus stakeholders to define the diversity challenge and steps for change from their unique perspective. For example, how is diversity appreciated differently in the schools of nursing, business, engineering, or the college of liberal arts? Take for example medical education. Charging the school of medicine and public health to develop a diversity plan centered in their reality allows them to create an ‘‘operational definition’’ of diversity that may take into account ethnic and racial health disparities, the need to educate a culturally competent work force, or even the need to improve gender equity in the health professions. Helping specific entities to move from an abstract to a concrete understanding of diversity has important consequences for developing diversity strategies that are anchored in the specific teaching, research, and professional standards of specific disciplines and academic departments. Finally, diversity accountability techniques should be integrated throughout an institution’s various organizational planning systems. Establishing accountability processes is essential to strategic diversity leadership and is the focus of Chapter 6. One of the most powerful ways of ensuring accountability at multiple levels of the institution is to connect campus diversity efforts to budget allocations, performance reviews, bonuses, and merit promotions—the financial systems at the heart of the college or university (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Although annual diversity reports are part of the accountability continuum, the most rigorous forms of institutional accountability hold people responsible for making progress. Unless it is tied to the financial infrastructure, true organizational accountability is impossible to achieve, not only for diversity but any other institutional goal. The challenge is that such an aggressive strategy will no doubt meet resistance in higher education, in which performance review and accountability systems are notoriously weak, outside of the tenure and promotion process for faculty. To implement diversity accountability in its most robust form will require a senior leadership team deeply resolved to achieve its institutional goals and willing to experience the discomfort that the most powerful accountability systems can foster.

Diversity Offices, Units, and Roles Often an institution’s first steps include developing campus diversity offices, units, and staff resources. These units can take a myriad of forms, from global experience programs to ethnic studies, from health disparity research

T HE AR T F U L SC IE NC E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P

221

centers to affirmative action offices, and from LGBT support services to service-learning mentorship programs. The immediate challenge presented by such a diverse array of services is how to ensure not only that they are effective, but also that they are integrated with other institutional resources in ways that are meaningful and lasting. One approach to accomplishing these goals is to develop a chief diversity officer role that supports, evaluates, and strengthens these infrastructures—topics that are explored in the companion volume to this book. That said, creating a high-ranking role that has no staff, direct reporting units, or material resources contradicts the very premise of the structural frame of leadership. Furthermore, to help effect transformational change, this infrastructure must be broadly empowered within the administrative hierarchy, have a host of leadership partners, and build on a foundation of resources, thus sending a formal and symbolic message that these efforts are a strategic priority. Otherwise, the chief diversity officer role may amount to little more than an ‘‘unfunded mandate.’’ Box 5.3 describes a powerful example of the role of the chief diversity officer in the strategic diversity plan at the University of California–Berkeley.

BOX 5.3 The University of California–Berkeley Haas Initiative for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion The University of California–Berkeley is pursuing a powerful example of strategic diversity leadership. Following an 18-month planning process funded by a nearly $1 million planning grant from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, the university developed a 10-year strategic plan for diversity. To help drive the plan’s implementation, the foundation provided a $16 million gift to support the ‘‘UC Berkeley Initiative for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.’’ Under the leadership of Gibor Basri, Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion, the 10-year initiative involves students, faculty, and staff across all disciplines in a variety of diversity-related teaching, research, and public service programs. Highlights of the initiative include the following: • Five new faculty chairs in diversity-related research join the Robert D. Haas Chancellor’s Chair in Equity and Inclusion,1 established at UC Berkeley in 2008 by the Levi Strauss Foundation. • A $1.5 million endowed Haas Scholarship Challenge has been created, which establishes a matching fund for community college transfer students who demonstrate a commitment to public service. (continues)

222

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

• Over 30 new or revised American Cultures courses have been implemented, which have been required of all UC Berkeley undergraduates since 1991. The new courses require community and public service of all students. • An expanded mentoring and career development program for faculty members has been implemented. • New staff have been hired and tools created dedicated to gathering data that will allow the campus to analyze the effectiveness of its efforts toward equity and inclusion. • Competitive grants have been made available to students, faculty, or staff across divisions for innovative projects that drive the implementation of the 10-year diversity plan. • Resources and classes are available for students and employees on bridging cultural, physical, and social differences. The initiative is compelling for a number of reasons. First, the Haas gift makes a powerful material statement that diversity is a matter of institutional excellence and must be advanced as a major priority for teaching, learning, research, and service. Over time, leaders at UC Berkeley hope to use new and matching grants to double the original gift to more than $30 million. Second, the initiative applies a twenty-first century definition of diversity, engaging on issues of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, economic background, and nationality. By broadening their scope, campus leaders have captured the complexity of diversity in the new millennium and embraced as their guiding principle the assumption that campuses must become more ambitious and proactive in their diversity efforts. Particularly on LGBT issues, the Haas Gift has made a powerful statement. One of five new chairs is dedicated to equity rights affecting the LGBT community, one of the first endowed chairs on this subject in the United States. Following the original gift, additional contributions will result in a new endowed chair in Disability Studies and Religious Diversity. Framed within the context of the State of California and the needs of a diverse and globally interconnected world, the project makes the argument that issues of diversity are central to the current and future viability of UC Berkeley specifically, and to the United States as a whole. At the May 2011 NCORE meeting, Vice Chancellor Basri told attendees, ‘‘People are forever thinking, ‘Do we have to trade excellence for diversity?’ Of course it is a false tradeoff. Diversity promotes excellence.’’ Thus, the initiative is attuned to recent developments in the global economy, namely the Great Recession and the need for academic institutions to situate strategic initiatives on diversity within the context of the broader university community and, by extension, the outside world. Too often, campus diversity efforts take place separately from broader campus development activities. Particularly at public institutions, diversity efforts focus narrowly on merit and need-based scholarships, failing to account (continues)

T HE AR T F U L S C IE N C E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P

223

(continued) for the now global economic circumstances that define the financial situation for students, whether entering the university or leaving it. While maintaining traditional efforts to promote diversity, UC Berkeley is exploring new diversity initiatives that are the lifeblood of colleges and universities, namely the curriculum and research agenda of an increasingly diverse faculty. Traditionally, area studies such as gender, ethnic, and queer studies are at times marginalized at academic institutions, which are inherently biased in favor of traditional academic disciplines. The Haas fund helps to shift the discussion by providing funding for new endowed faculty chairs, research grants, and student scholarships. A major goal of the grant is to provide more curricular opportunities for students to study diversity issues in the classroom. The presence of new classes about culture and difference, combined with a focus on sparking community engagement and public service, provides a bridge between the traditionally cloistered setting of an academic institution and the world around it. By engaging in the ‘‘real’’ world through public-service and community learning opportunities, Berkeley students will have a better chance of developing the types of intercultural competencies that they will need to be leaders in a globally connected world. Finally, the initiative is on the cutting edge of strategic diversity leadership because it recognizes that true institutional transformation must involve everyone’s participation. Specifically, the presence of competitive research grants will allow all members of the university community to compete for new funding support. Rather than lock all of the funds into distinct projects, the initiative calls for a series of grants to encourage researchers to open new projects around diversity. In this regard, and on all its efforts, UC Berkeley is sharing information about its initiatives, explicitly offering itself as a model to other campuses. Proving that a proactive effort vastly outperforms knee-jerk reactions, the UC Berkeley model confirms the superiority of the wolf pack to the cheetah. Source: Rodriguez, 2010.

Financial Support for Diversity In an interview for this project, Frank Hale, Jr., Vice Provost Emeritus at The Ohio State University stated, ‘‘Commitment without currency is counterfeit—and don’t you let anyone tell you different.’’2 From a strategic diversity leadership perspective, this point is critical, as a serious commitment to diversity inevitably requires committing financial resources. Unfortunately, diversity work is often low on the radar as an institutional priority. Some senior administrators even view it as a distraction from an academic institution’s primary commitment to achieving academic excellence. As a result,

224

W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

especially during lean budget years, campus diversity programs are often woefully underfunded. As one chief diversity officer noted, ‘‘You know as soon as you hear the words ‘budget’ and ‘cut’ that your office may be on the chopping block.’’ In challenging economic times, campus leaders face difficult choices when trying to ensure the long-term fiscal stability of their institutions. For most, success hinges on developing four types of strategies: (a) being responsible stewards of public and private funds; (b) maximizing external revenue sources of all kinds; (c) leveraging relationships with alumni, foundations, and corporations for small and large gifts; and (d) creatively developing tuition strategies to support institutional priorities. The most successful diversity efforts develop creative financial solutions that provide the type of flexibility they need. Public institutions are at particular risk because many of their budgets rely on state and federal dollars. A change in the political winds, or the economy, can lead to precipitous drops in funding. It is therefore essential that all academic leaders, but perhaps especially public institutional leaders, understand the broad array of funding sources that exist outside public allocations or endowments. Box 5.4 explores several of the financial strategies that an institution might employ to support diversity initiatives.

BOX 5.4 Potential Financial Approaches to Drive the Institutional Diversity Agenda The Great Recession has created a tremendous need for creative strategies to raise new resources to support college and university diversity efforts. Indeed the author’s national survey of colleges and university diversity officers found that 67 percent felt their diversity efforts were challenged for financial reasons prior to the Great Recession, suggesting that leaders would even more dramatically identify this challenge today. It is for this reason that colleges and universities should look to develop new strategies that will allow them to generate new resources to support their institutional diversity priorities. Some key strategies include the following: • Develop a targeted diversity fund-raising campaign directed toward companies, small donors, large donors, and foundations. This effort should be branded; have a clear, aggressive numerical goal; and be grounded in cultural (continues)

T HE AR TF U L SC IE N C E O F S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P

•

•

•

•

•

225

insights learned from potential supporters. The campaign might focus on cultivating small donors, taking best advantage of new online fund-raising tools, and should provide a clear explanation of how resources will be allocated to benefit the campus diversity agenda. Develop an alumni fund-raising strategy that specifically targets minority alumni who benefited from the programs and policies they are now being asked to support. A key component of this approach would be to begin cultivating minority alumni as soon as they graduate, focusing on small contributions and frequent gifting. The key is to enlist alumni donors early and integrate fund-raising goals with broader efforts to keep alumni involved in diversity programs and institutions well after they have graduated, supplementing their contributions with volunteer efforts as mentors, guest visitors, and so on. Establish a philanthropic affinity group of major donors who have an expressed interest in issues of diversity. From among the general list of donors, develop a core cadre of major donors who can act as an advisory or steering committee to help guide other aspects of the fund-raising strategy. For example, this group could develop its own corporate fund-raising campaign, reaching out to potential businesses that recognize the importance of diversity in a global economy. This group could also define and establish its own specific diversity constituency. For example, in 1988 the University of Wisconsin established the Women’s Philanthropy Council, which has since become a national model. Its mission is ‘‘to inspire, encourage and advocate for women to publicly give major gifts to the University area of their own choosing, in their own name.’’ Finally, the group might also have the autonomy to choose its own organizational structure, operating centrally or in a loose affiliation that spans geographic regions and corporate sectors. Reallocate resources campus-wide to create a centralized funding source to drive new diversity initiatives. This was the strategy put into place at the University of Michigan in the early 1990s, when every unit institution sustained a 1-percent budget reduction that was then used to create a centralized funding source to drive the campus’s new diversity strategy. Although this may be the only instance yet of this tactic, it has been used to drive other new institutional priorities and could be used to advance diversity efforts. Hold institutional diversity programs harmless from campus budget cuts. An important strategy for institutions highly committed to diversity is to preserve campus diversity efforts from budget cuts because of their status as a strategic priority. Audit all campus diversity spending to ensure that current spending aligns with the institution’s diversity priorities. Contract a third-party auditor with impeccable credentials to conduct a detailed review of all diversity-related (continues)

226

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

revenues and expenditures. The audit should not only investigate the financial books, but also examine the budget in the context of the institution’s strategic diversity plan and other core guiding principles. How do current expenditures match up with the stated priorities of the institution? How might budget priorities be reconfigured to achieve stronger outcomes? What does the institution’s diversity budget reveal about potential or latent opportunities for fundraising? And how can the institution build greater accountability into the system in order to drive more effective change? • Develop a tuition differential project that would charge a higher tuition for students from more economically advantaged backgrounds. Here, the institution creates a new funding source to provide innovative support for campus priorities, of which diversity might be one. Although not always used to support diversity, and implemented with much controversy to be sure, this type of tactic has been put into place at numerous institutions, including the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Miami University, Cornell University, Michigan State University, the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, the University of Michigan, and others. The key is to ensure that campus diversity goals are included as part of these efforts, such as creating new diversity-themed scholarships and initiatives. • Hire a dedicated development officer and grant writer who focuses solely on securing public and private funds dedicated to issues of diversity. All too often institutions miss grant opportunities because individual faculty members and departments either do not know about upcoming grants, or assume that others are applying. This officer might also play a key role in cultivating high-capacity donors who may be interested in providing principal gifts around issues of diversity, creating prospective alumni lists, cultivating relationships and presenting information about campus diversity initiatives. Creating a dedicated staff position that focuses entirely on diversity-related fund-raising offers a powerful tool for finding new resources to benefit diversity. • Divert resources from revenue-generating sports merchandising and related deals to partially support campus diversity efforts. In other words, find a way of leveraging the talents of profitable football and basketball teams to help drive the campus diversity agenda. Many institutions generate revenue from ticket sales, bowl games and tournaments, licensing agreements, and other opportunities. Committed leaders could devote a portion of these resources to benefitting diversity, a fitting goal given that student athletes are among the most diverse student communities on campus. Each of these tactics is subject to different levels of risk. Institutional leaders must weigh them against their commitment to accomplishing real diversity results, the (continues)

T H E AR TF UL S C IE NC E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P

227

(continued) political dynamics associated with a particularly controversial strategy (like a tuition differential project), and other strategies that may meet resistance. Although each situation will require careful consideration, only by applying financial strategies to help drive new diversity outcomes will institutions be able to develop new revenue streams, particularly in difficult economic times.

Grant Writing Both public and private sector grants are critical to advancing an institution’s diversity strategy. In particular, several federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Agriculture, offer attractive grant opportunities to help support diversity efforts. Several of them are dedicated to increasing diversity in STEM fields, including the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program, the Alliances for Graduate Educational Preparation program, and the Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers program. Although these programs are making positive headway, the Great Recession combined with political gridlock in Washington presents a growing threat to their viability. Like the Department of Education’s TRIO Program, these federal efforts are confronting multiple challenges from the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, which is trying to reduce their allocations significantly, if not eliminate them altogether. Challenges also confront private foundations like the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Irvine Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Lilly Foundation, and others that have sponsored high-profile campus diversity efforts over the years. With many seeing their stock portfolios shrink drastically in 2008–2009, some smaller foundations have canceled giving altogether. And because many foundation grants require the college or university to find matching funds, when state or federal sources disappear, so do foundation grants. Finally, foundations frequently look at one-time grants as opportunities to initiate, or ‘‘seed’’ a new initiative, relying on the institution to raise additional funding support once a program is up and running. Few issues are more troubling for university grant writers than to launch a promising program only to see it ‘‘die on the vine’’ when the institution is unable to find additional support. Campuses therefore need to understand this harsh new reality and adjust accordingly. For the foreseeable future, strategic diversity leaders will need to look increasingly outside traditional funding sources to promote their policies and programs.

228

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

Private Fund-Raising Traditionally, strategic diversity leaders have been more adept at grant writing and accessing public dollars than at fund-raising from private sources. Especially among alumni students, strategic diversity leaders could do more to cultivate small- and medium-level individual donors. However, strategic diversity leaders are not entirely to blame. Part of the problem stems from the simple fact that a greater proportion of minority students come from economically disadvantaged families than do majority White students. But part of the challenge is also cultural, and here strategic diversity leaders, by adapting their practices, could have greater success. As has been pointed out to the author several times, not all members of minority groups are responsive to the usual fund-raising appeal, especially the impersonal, mass market pitch that typifies most first interactions between an institution and potential donor. Especially for students who have not found their college experience completely unproblematic to start with, a clumsy, impersonal appeal may strike exactly the wrong note and doom any possibility of future giving. At the same time, many minority graduates feel a strong sense of affinity for their alma maters and, given the right kind of appeal, would contribute regularly as alumni donors. But because minority students may not necessarily view their college experience through the same lens as their White peers, strategic diversity leaders should pursue fund-raising efforts in ways that are sensitive to minority experiences and cultural values. One alumnus offered the following: I’m not giving to the big blue and white [the college’s colors]. I love this institution, but I’m not giving to fund the next building for the Business School, or something else. There are plenty of people to support those projects. I want to support diversity. I want to help students who came from an experience similar to my own to get through this place, and go on to become positive role models and leaders. That means supporting initiatives for black folks and folks from urban backgrounds.

In this regard, strategic diversity leaders have something to learn from marketing firms, which have become highly attuned to multicultural marketing strategies and now develop specific, tailored messages for specific consumer populations. Just as marketing firms are targeting specific racial, ethnic, gender, and sexuality subgroups (among others), strategic diversity leaders need to consider individual student populations. Moreover, as evidenced by the previous passage, diversity fundraisers need to be able to show

T HE AR T F U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P

229

in very concrete ways how a contribution will promote the values and concerns held by donors interested in issues of diversity. The more specific a diversity leader can be about how the donation will contribute to promoting diversity on campus, the more success he or she will have in raising money.

Tuition and Student Fees Institutional leaders should also consider how tuition and student fees are applied to support the campus’s diversity agenda. Too often, we pressure campus diversity offices to expand the scope of their work without expanding their funding support. A classic example is asking a campus multicultural affairs office to take on a broader mission, working with minority and majority students alike, without asking how their budget needs will be met. To serve a broader student population invariably requires a larger share of student fees. Although access for low- and middle-income students is a decades-old issue, its importance is becoming increasingly elevated because of the current economic situation and the precipitous rise in education costs in recent years. Families who have saved for their children’s education may suddenly find that their investment portfolios have shrunk or disappeared. Families who are paying for college tuition out of current earnings are losing jobs and being forced to tighten their belts to meet their basic needs, let alone pay for higher education. And for our most vulnerable families, the prospect of paying for college seems completely unattainable, particularly at private, highly selective institutions. Creative leaders will need to turn the tuition levers of their institutions if they are to drive excellence in all that they do. Faced with a lack of flexible funds to build new excellence initiatives and provide financial aid to lowand middle-income families, many institutions have turned to tuition differential projects. As discussed briefly in the context of the ‘‘Economic Access Diversity Model’’ in Chapter 3, these efforts charge different levels of tuition for those able to pay in an effort to create financial aid for the economically disadvantaged.

Selectivity and the Admissions Process Another powerful institutional dynamic that must be considered when developing diversity strategy from a formal structural perspective is the mission and selectivity of the institution. Although Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio,

230

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

may share an equal commitment to academic excellence and diversity, the differences in their strategic diversity plans will, necessarily, be a partial reflection of differences in their selectivity. Harvard University is one of the nation’s most selective institutions; Sinclair Community College is an excellent open-enrollment institution. The differences in their selection and enrollment systems have important consequences for how each institution pursues its strategic diversity plan. Open-enrollment community colleges and less selective institutions are poised to play a special role preparing low-income and minority students for productive roles in American society. Diversity is the lifeblood of these institutions, whether defined in classic terms like race and ethnicity, or in more recent contexts, including learning styles, educational aspirations, and life circumstances. As our nation’s population becomes more diverse, these institutions are especially well positioned to capitalize on the benefits of educating a growing population of historically underrepresented and minority student populations. Therefore, these institutions must receive more funding and public support because of the critical role that they play in answering President Barack Obama’s national call to make the United States the world’s leading producer of college graduates by the year 2020. Meanwhile, more selective institutions can play a helping role by using their resources to create dynamic partnerships and bridges between themselves and community and two-year colleges. By expanding the pipeline and increasing the avenues for historically underrepresented and minority student populations, more selective schools can give diversity a central role in creating a more competitive, better educated work force. Indeed an ethic of inclusion and emergent possibility sits at the center of our ability to use racial and ethnic diversity as part of a holistic, competitive, and multidimensional admissions process. Only by thinking more creatively and broadly about educational potential will selective institutions access the untapped potential of minority students. Only a few institutions may capture the top minority high school graduates. The overwhelming majority of schools, whatever their admissions criteria or financial standing, must do more to enroll, retain, and graduate students who have great potential, but who may not have received a tier-one education because they come from low- and middle-income backgrounds. As discussed in Chapter 7, a typical higher education diversity plan must at times depart from the principles that anchor the formal structural approach to organizational change. To substantiate strategic diversity initiatives as a core value of the institution, leaders should consider, whenever

T H E AR TF U L S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P

231

possible, initiating activities consistent with established procedures for how change is achieved, namely through the formal structure, rules, and roles of the institution. Nevertheless, success is often determined by how well leaders are able to navigate the campus’s politics, work through resistance, and establish coalitions. The following sections examine these challenges in detail.

The Political Leadership Frame: Strategic Diversity Leadership Is a Contact Sport Political dynamics play a more significant role in organizational life than many of us would ever admit (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Although leaders at all levels recognize that politics are all around us, we often view ‘‘playing politics’’ negatively. Yet the reality is that unless you play, you will not win, especially in the context of advancing a strategic diversity agenda. Like boxing and mixed martial arts, promoting diversity is a contact sport. Just building the case involves difficult work as stakeholders negotiate the grounding assumptions that will guide the effort (Buchanan & Badham, 2008). Colleges and universities are political arenas full of diverging interests. Interests collide, in the form of competing agendas, differing value systems, and competing priorities. As a result, diversity champions should expect the process to be messy, nonlinear, and contested by people who view the world differently or are simply invested in moving their agenda forward, even at the expense of yours. The most accomplished strategic diversity leaders operate from the fundamental assumption that politics are not inherently bad. Politics are simply the natural consequence of organizational life (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Strategic diversity leaders must engage with these politics if they are going to be successful. Sitting on the sidelines is unrealistic in the face of selfinterested and complex resistance or even counterimplementation measures promoted by political opponents of diversity (Buchanan & Badham, 2008). The strategic diversity leader who is not willing to deal with these threats will likely be outmaneuvered by savvier stakeholders. As a vice president for diversity at a small liberal arts college in the Southeast told us: In trying to create change in my institution, understanding the political issues and being able to work through them is critical, because the politics largely define what you can actually get done. When I first arrived on campus, we started with a very rational diversity plan. You know, step a, b, c, and then d. And after about 12 months of frustration, we just threw it all out the window. Not because the plan was unsound, but because of

232

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

the campus politics. They were eating us alive. We had to develop an entirely new process that really focused on bringing people together, building consensus, and engaging them in the conversation before doing the plan. It was naı¨ve to assume that we could do it any other way given what I know now. I have done this work in corporate America and as a consultant. I have never found any place more political than higher education. The politics are unavoidable.

The following discussion highlights the importance of an institution’s political dynamics before discussing some of the key instances when campus politics are most problematic. There are several tools to help strategic diversity leaders shepherd the diversity agenda through an institutional maze that can thwart the efforts of even the most capable diversity champions.

Institutional Memory and the Historical Legacy of Inclusion and Exclusion One of the first tasks for any strategic diversity leader attempting to advance a change agenda is to understand his or her institution’s sociopolitical history of exclusion and inclusion (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998). Without the recognition and respect for the experiences of women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community, the campus agenda is often derailed by long-standing dynamics and legacies. Although diversity crisis incidents from years before may have disappeared into the review mirror, especially in the minds of new administrators and students, they have a way of lingering in the memories of campus members. The high-profile dismissal of a minority administrator or demonstrations by a White supremacist organization near campus can leave deep scars in the institutional memory of a college or university. Strategic diversity leaders need to research their institution’s history and learn where the lingering tensions reside. Some guiding research questions include the following: Is there a history of incidents of discrimination, sexual harassment, or hate crimes against minorities or women? How has the institution responded and was the response adequate? Have members of the campus community ever protested and why? What are the institutional politics that surround our current diversity policies, from student scholarships to campus resources and services? What led to the development of the chief diversity officer position? Who is the most vocal opponent of diversity on campus? Does one ethnic studies department enjoy privileges (like joint faculty appointments) that another does not? What is the morale like among female and minority students, faculty, and

T H E AR TF U L S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P

233

staff ? Finding answers to these questions will help a strategic diversity leader understand the campus climate and the institution’s memory (Hurtado et al., 1998). At many institutions, campus diversity initiatives have emerged out of an often painful and emotional journey of protest, unrest, and struggle. For some diversity champions, any discussion about evolving campus diversity efforts to encompass a more inclusive definition of diversity—one that extends beyond historically marginalized populations—is often viewed with distrust, a point that was crystallized in the racialized diversity perspective noted in Chapter 2. It is not that these individuals are uncommitted to maximizing the educational opportunities for all diverse communities; rather, shifts in the past have at times eroded an institution’s commitment to redressing the historical unequal treatment of people of color. Although senior leaders may view a decision to merge the LGBT Resource Center and the Multicultural Resource Center as a minor issue, students who use these spaces daily may see the change as a violation of their cultural identities and an act that undermines their sense of social belonging. This is particularly true on campuses where centers serve as a refuge for students and their primary means of creating a safe community within the larger campus environment. When exploring these issues, campus leaders must carefully weigh the costs and benefits of such organizational shifts. If change is necessary, leaders must demonstrate empathy and care. This is particularly critical when attempting to change long-standing organizational structures that are symbolically important to various members of the campus community. Box 5.5 presents a case study of a highly charged diversity reorganization project.

BOX 5.5 Revising Minority Outreach Capacity at Big Green U In the 1970s, a large research university in the Northeast developed a minority scholarship and outreach program as part of the vice chancellor for minority affairs portfolio. Located in the Office of Minority Affairs, the program basically operated an isolated minority outreach and recruitment effort with almost no involvement from the admissions office and financial aid. Although similar admissions criteria and processes were used to admit students, avoiding the dynamics of an illegal admissions process, the campus-wide admissions office recruited from none of the diverse (continues)

234

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

high schools across the state. These schools were nearly exclusively the priority of the minority affairs office, thus creating a segregated outreach effort through which only minority affairs interfaced with the minority communities. The chancellor desired to change the infrastructure, but knew that any changes had to be handled with great care. The office and the resources associated with the Office of Minority Affairs had emerged in response to a difficult history of campus unrest. The office had existed for nearly 30 years and the African American alumni and staff were understandably wary of any changes that could be perceived as a loss of commitment to increasing racial and ethnic diversity. Meanwhile, some felt that the office did not adequately graduate enough minority students to justify the allocation of additional resources dedicated to its intensive precollege programs. Still others felt that the office should be redesigned with core admissions and financial processes located in those units. With a new chancellor, new leadership in admissions, and the retirement of the vice chancellor for minority affairs, the question on everyone’s mind was how to restructure and integrate the two admissions offices in a way that actually increased the university’s commitment to diversity rather than scaling it back. After consulting on the initiative, the author recommended the following: 1. Appoint an interim vice chancellor who is highly credible on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Charge the vice chancellor with leading a campuswide process investigating diversity in the overall admission’s process, not just admissions policies at the Office of Minority Affairs. 2. Appoint a high-profile campus review team that might include faculty, administrators, students, and alumni with a range of different perspectives. Include at least several members who have extensive personal or professional experience with diversity issues, or who understand the institutional culture and history that led to current policies and structures. 3. Conduct a broad investigation into the infrastructure and policies at peer institutions to see what is working, and not working, at similar universities. 4. Develop a set of quantitative indicators to measure the program’s success or failure over time. Complement this analysis with qualitative insights from stakeholders intimately involved with processes of both offices. 5. Invite an outside group of chief diversity officers and diversity experts from other institutions to provide input and ongoing feedback on the development and implementation of any new policy or programs. 6. Engage stakeholders representing the entire campus community for their ideas and recommendations. 7. Create a campus website dedicated to the effort and post meeting notes, reports, and insights that emerge during the process. (continues)

T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P

235

(continued) 8. Draft a comprehensive report that summarizes the effort and provides detailed recommendations for restructuring policies and programs. 9. Hold a public meeting to discuss the contents of the report, hosted by the chancellor, provost, and the interim vice chancellor. 10. Before implementing any changes, the chancellor should issue a letter to the campus community and any relevant stakeholders explaining the changes and their rationale. These 10 recommendations provide a means of engaging diverse stakeholders on a range of challenging questions while respecting the history of diversity on campus. The goal is to maximize the potential for developing a tier-one model for improving an institution’s policies and infrastructure, while balancing the need to create broad engagement, symbolism regarding the importance of history and tradition, and looking forward to new formal structures and processes. Senior leaders should be willing and able to build support for their initiatives by working from the ground up, finding allies and supportive networks of campus stakeholders who can simultaneously embrace new possibilities without abandoning historic responsibilities. The key is to recruit and empower as many change leaders as possible, from senior faculty and administrators to the chairs of key departments, student leaders, committed staff, and motivated community members. These individuals are essential not only to launching a change project, but also to maintaining it over time. The argument for change should be made in ways that are cognitive, affective, and behavioral. It is not enough to simply explain the change. Diversity champions need to engage in a ‘‘sense-making process’’ that allows them not only to understand the change goals, but become leading advocates for the goals. Kezar and Eckel (2002) have identified institutional sense-making as critical to allowing people to craft, understand, and accept new change. Absent the sense-making process, change efforts, no matter how well intentioned, may result in increasing campus unrest and recurring incidents of racism, sexism, homophobia, and discrimination.

Although diversity offers substantial benefits to an institution, conflicts between majority and minority cultures are inevitable. These clashes often occur over divergent interests, particularly in areas of cultural and social interaction, when different groups rub against each another. For example, conflicts have arisen on several campuses over guidelines and funding for student organizations, usually between minority groups and majority White student government executive boards. For example, at one institution a nearly all-White student government executive board decided to eliminate funding for a number of minority student organizations on the grounds that

236

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

their numbers were too low. The executive board argued that funding should be distributed to organizations on the basis of membership numbers. It is perhaps unsurprising to find this assumption within a majority culture. But from the perspective of the minority student organizations, the physical numbers are irrelevant. Instead, what matters is the beneficial role an organization can play by supporting diverse students and helping them feel more included on campus. What should the student affairs division do? Should it intervene on behalf of minority groups, or support the decision of the student governance committee? Indeed, how and to what degree should budget allocations hinge on questions of student numbers, much less their minority status? This is just one of the dilemmas that strategic diversity leaders must be equipped to face, and again underscores the importance of understanding the sociohistorical dimensions of diversity.

Understanding and Overcoming Resistance to Change It is rare to hear a decision defended on explicitly political grounds, although this is often exactly what happens in the backroom conversations that produce institutional policies. Thus, organizational dynamics can only fully be understood after appreciating the political motives that exist on campus. Strategic diversity leaders must be attuned to these dynamics and understand that self-interest and deceit often exist in close proximity to an academic community’s highest aspirations to ‘‘do what is in the best interests of our students.’’ Resource dependence theory (RDT) offers a way to help strategic diversity leaders navigate resistance in the academy (Pfeffer, 1981; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). As resource-dependent organizations, colleges rarely produce internally the financial and human resources adequate to support everything they seek to accomplish. As a result, they must look ‘‘outside’’ for additional support, as there is acute internal jockeying for finite funding and staff resources. Creating support for one’s academic and institutional goals inevitably requires engaging in political maneuvering, internal competition, and coalition building. In resource-dependent environments, the interest of deans, department heads, or even diverse constituencies (women versus minorities, or low-income versus minorities) can find themselves competing and even in conflict. As with all attempts to create change, diversity efforts inevitably prompt a response from both proponents and opponents, however muted they may be (Loden, 1996). Diversity champions need to appreciate that many opponents are unlikely to ever accept diversity as an institutional priority. As

T H E A R TF U L S C I E NC E O F S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S H I P

237

discussed in Chapter 2, this is particularly true for opponents who view diversity from a ‘‘colorblind’’ perspective, as a practice of reverse discrimination. For these individuals, any efforts to elevate issues of identity, power, and privilege will always signify quotas and an erosion of quality. At the end of the day, we must be ready at some level to engage opponents to diversity, although trying to win them over should not be a top priority. We will get far greater traction working with our allies and with those in the middle who are at least approachable on our issues. As Jim Collins notes in Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap, and Others Don’t, the key is getting as many persons into the conversation of change and ‘‘putting the right people on the bus’’ (2001, p. 41). From an RDT perspective, effective leadership requires maximizing your base of organizational power. If you are working from a position deficient in organizational funding or staff resources, it is essential to establish relationships and alliances that will help facilitate obtaining these resources (Pfeffer, 1981). At the same time, however, diversity leaders must work to strengthen their internal organizations so that they are ultimately less dependent on outside individuals or institutions to further their work. Relationships should be collaborative, symbiotic, and, whenever possible, based on outcomes that can be shared equally. This does not mean diversity leaders should ignore calls for help or collaboration by ‘‘nontraditional’’ allies. By providing assistance to someone in need, and demonstrating teamwork and collegiality, a strategic diversity leader can build a network of allies who can be called on when needed to return the favor. Understanding the dynamics of social obligations and responsibilities are essential when academic entities and units are competing over limited resources (Miller, 2005). Social exchange theory argues that how we feel about a relationship with another person depends largely on our perceptions of the balance between what we contribute to the relationship and what we get out of it, the kind of treatment that we feel we deserve, and the changes that we feel we can make to an existing relationship that will improve it (Miller, 2005). Edwin Hollander (1993) argues that the social exchange in leadership dynamics share analogies with principles of banking and account balancing. According to Hollander, individuals bank ‘‘idiosyncrasy credits’’ by demonstrating competence and shared values among those whom they supervise, report to, collaborate with, and assist. The more of these ‘‘idiosyncrasy credits’’ that leaders accrue, the more influence they can exert. When account balances become deficient, leaders lose their influence.

238

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

Although the classic way of viewing power is defined through the formal authoritative role of leaders, strategic diversity leaders have a range of power sources that they can access to move their agendas. The first is technocratic and refers to information and expertise. For example, strategic diversity leaders with a particular expertise or skill set can assist others working through difficult diversity challenges. Power accrues when diversity leaders draw on their expertise to help resolve a difficult policy or program challenge, from establishing visa compliance regulations to understanding faculty culture and the nuance required to implement an effective diversity faculty hiring policy. Additional power sources include exercising authority over administrative and financial resources. And finally, possessing political capital and the ability to engage in effective grassroots organizing is often essential to effecting change. Indeed, the more that students, diversity communities, and political allies can be the messengers of change, the more effectively a strategic diversity leader can facilitate a strong, democratically driven diversity agenda. As one dean of multicultural affairs at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast explained: My process can happen in a number of different ways. I hate to do things in the shadows, but this work will pull that style of leadership to the top. I always have the NAACP, the ALANA [African Latino Asian Native American] student organization, the Latino staff alliance, and a number of powerful allies in my network, which I can call upon to ask the questions that I cannot or to raise issues from another vantage point. At the end of the day, the work has to guide the conversation, not personal politics. As the senior diversity person on watch, I have to understand that at times I need allies to move the conversation in ways that are beyond my power. Then the conversation can come back to me, and I can help the president, provost, or whomever to find a path that will serve multiple interests.

Strategic diversity leaders must build alliances and coalitions if they are going to obtain the power and resources required to advance their campus agenda (Bolman & Deal, 2003). As a result, the ability to bargain, negotiate, and build relationships is invaluable for individuals working to advance campus diversity efforts. Particularly on campuses where decisions are not made through open and transparent mechanisms, but rather hinge on longstanding interpersonal relationships, coalition building is even more essential. To navigate in these potentially treacherous waters, strategic diversity leaders must place a strong emphasis on building partnerships, creating collaborative traction, and galvanizing support for their agenda. Only by building key partnerships can strategic diversity leaders alter the campus power structure and acquire visibility, support, and resources to drive the diversity

T H E AR TF UL S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P

239

change agenda. This point is particularly true when working from a chief diversity officer position for whom diversity-themed change is the primary focus of his or her role on campus. Box 5.6 presents some useful strategies for negotiating campus politics.

BOX 5.6 Strategies to Successfully Navigate Campus Politics • Especially early in your tenure, learn the political landscape. Who are the players? What are the issues? How do your priorities fit into the matrix? • Form a list of your allies and supporters, even if it is only a mental list. How can you help them? And how can helping them help you? • Seek to build strong coalitions across diverse constituencies, leaving no stone unturned. Potential partners include not just members of the academic community, but less direct contacts, like alumni networks, influential donors, public officials, media contacts, and others. • Look for creative partnerships that may not at first glance seem like obvious choices for promoting diversity, but that have the potential to create real movement on your issues. • Develop a powerful advisory board to guide the efforts of your office. • Use informal networks to gather information and share ideas and resources. • Develop relationships of trust with those who you know will support you. • Help others freely but do not pass up the opportunity to call in a favor if you need to. • Know when to be the public face of your efforts and when to work behind the scenes. • Minimize drama and theatre in your leadership style, favoring instead concrete, well-researched, and meaningful engagement on the issues. Source: Adapted from Egan, 1994.

Symbolic Leadership Frame: Managing Meaning and Creating the Social Contract Businesses and corporations invariably feature a vertical chain of command, a clear unity of purpose, and obvious standards of success. By comparison, colleges and universities are more often than not characterized by horizontal or decentralized command structures and nebulous decision-making processes (Alfred, 2005; Birnbaum, 1988, 1992; Rowley & Sherman, 2001). For

240

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

all the real and symbolic power associated with the college president, academic institutions still reflect a cacophony of overlapping and at times competing faculty, staff, and student voices and interests. Finally, many colleges and universities do not have one simple mission but three interrelated and complex missions: teaching, research, and service. The multilayered and multifaceted quality of governance and mission has profound implications not only for the way decisions are made, but for how those decisions are then perceived by members of the campus community. The result is an organizational environment in which symbolic leadership becomes incredibly important to achieving one’s ultimate change agenda. Simple day-to-day decisions around issues of diversity send powerful symbolic messages regarding an institution’s commitment to diversity. Intended or unintended messages conveyed from routine decisions suggest importance and priority. From a symbolic diversity leadership perspective, organizational change is about understanding the messages conveyed by one’s actions and creating a shared covenant that elevates diversity’s importance and connects it to core institutional assumptions about excellence. In cases in which the structural frame is focused on the material aspects of diversity budgets—the outcomes of new campus diversity plans and the staffing profile of the chief diversity officer unit—the symbolic frame is most concerned about the message that these tactics imply about institutional commitment, having a vision for change, and moving forward with a cohesive campus diversity agenda. Box 5.7 presents several symbolic diversity leadership strategies.

BOX 5.7 Symbolic Strategic Diversity Leadership Strategies 1. Reinforce the importance of the diversity agenda with messages from the president, chancellor, provost, chief diversity officer, and other senior leaders. 2. Encourage diverse stakeholders to participate at all stages of either revising or developing a new strategic diversity plan. 3. Develop a campus diversity vision statement that receives input from multiple stakeholders and is then adopted as part of the formal vision for diversity efforts on campus. 4. Coordinate high-profile campus diversity events that present diversity in both serious and celebratory contexts, fostering a sense of its academic and social importance on campus. (continues)

T H E AR TF UL S C IE NC E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P

241

(continued) 5. Include diversity in other prominent speeches, events, and initiatives that are not directly focused on diversity. 6. Create a hybrid chief diversity officer division that helps to integrate diversity with other core institutional responsibilities, including student and undergraduate affairs offices. Include this division within the chief diversity officer portfolio (e.g., vice president for diversity and student development, vice president and vice provost for diversity and institutional research, etc.). (This tactic is discussed at length in the companion volume to this book.) 7. Include diverse images and content in traditional campus outreach and branding efforts. 8. Celebrate high-profile diversity successes as significant accomplishments for the institution.

To quote Bolman and Deal (2003) ‘‘the symbolic frame seeks to interpret and illuminate basic issues of meaning and belief that make symbols so powerful. It depicts a world far different from traditional canons of rationality, certainty, and linearity’’ (p. 242). Accordingly, actions resonate symbolically insofar as they help define an institution’s culture and its values. From this vantage point, the symbolic value of a strong diversity agenda has important value irrespective of the practical and concrete successes it may have through its policies and programs. The following discussion highlights some of the critical aspects of leading through symbols, beginning with the importance of framing campus diversity efforts appropriately. The discussion then explores multiple meanings and how strategic diversity leaders must constantly ask how different groups perceive their actions. The section concludes by addressing the social contract that a strategic diversity plan should seek to construct, and how it is only when words and actions come together that we can create the most meaningful change.

Framing the ‘‘Institutional Case for Diversity’’ Campus leaders serve as social actors that cocreate the drama of organizational life through a complex dialectic of leadership, actions, reactions, and processes. Together over time individuals and groups develop a shared definition of diversity, although this definition is rarely straightforward or static. The key for strategic diversity leaders is to facilitate the process and to help frame diversity as a critical priority, not only for minority students but society as a whole. As numerous works in the change management literature have argued, achieving buy-in is critical if an initiative is to succeed (Kotter,

242

W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

1996; Quinn, 1996). As such, a better understanding of what Dennis Gioia and Kumar Chittipeddi (1991) refer to as sense-giving will help strategic diversity efforts by focusing on how change activities are framed and disseminated to an organization’s constituents. In his study of university presidents, Birnbaum (1988) quotes Smircich and Morgan (1982), writing, Leadership is about the ‘‘management of meaning,’’ and that leaders emerge because of their role in framing experience in a way that provides the basis for action; that is, by mobilizing meaning, articulating and defining what has previously remained implicit or unsaid, by inventing images and meanings that provide a focus for new attention and by consolidating, confronting or changing prevailing wisdom. (p. 78)

From a symbolic and political perspective, this process of ‘‘meaningmaking,’’ or framing diversity issues, is an important tool for navigating change and accruing power. That is building the ‘‘business,’’ or, in this instance, organizational case for why diversity matters, not just today but into the future. In a global and interconnected knowledge economy, every person needs some form of postsecondary education, regardless of background. Furthermore, in the world today, the ability to interact with difference is not a ‘‘nice to have’’ but rather an essential part of being a leader and a citizen in a diverse and global reality. To overcome resistance and conflict, strategic diversity leaders must frame their agenda and demonstrate why that agenda is important and vital. Vice Provost Raphael Tolland, one of the nation’s most experienced chief diversity officers, said that the most powerful argument that he ever made to advance diversity occurred during a presentation to the Board of Trustees. The highlight of his presentation was one slide showing that there were only 27 tenured or tenure-track historically underrepresented minority faculty in 1977 and only 30 in 2000. By presenting this miserable record in such stark and historic terms, Tolland reframed the discussion in such a way that the Board of Trustees was inspired to authorize developing a more powerful and cohesive strategic diversity agenda. Framing diversity issues in visually and conceptually compelling ways is critical to marshaling support from key stakeholders who can move a strategic diversity agenda forward. It is for these reasons that Chapter 1 outlines the five pressure systems powering the ‘‘perfect storm,’’ and Chapter 4 posits the analogy of the cheetah and the wolf. Similarly, Chapter 2 seeks to capture

T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P

243

the complexity of diversity by exploring the ‘‘diversity idea,’’ and Chapter 3 offers a venn diagram to explain the relationships among three primary diversity organizational models. Although far from conclusive, the subjects explored in these chapters are intended to empower diversity champions with a variety of accessible images and concepts to frame how they talk about diversity. Moreover, all these concepts are compatible with arguments made in favor of diversity on a variety of different grounds, from a social justice perspective to a probusiness rationale.

Navigating Multiple Meanings of Campus Diversity Framing is so critical because the movement toward a more robust diversity agenda is always laden with multiple interpretations as diversity is one of the most highly contested ideas on college and university campuses. To take us back to Chapter 2, just think of the ‘‘meanings’’ that come up when one thinks about diversity. Diversity means quotas. Diversity means race. Diversity means deficit. Diversity means institutional priority. Diversity means any number of different social identities. Or perhaps diversity means ‘‘lip service and no action.’’ Strategic diversity leaders must navigate these complexities and create a shared understanding of how diversity is defined, why it matters and where the institution is going in this critical area of institutional priority. Strategic diversity leaders must be well versed in the various diversity viewpoints presented in Chapter 2. A key element of that chapter was recognizing how different groups may arrive at radically different interpretations of the same situation. Building on that discussion, strategic diversity leaders must recognize that campus diversity efforts exist like points on a compass (see Figure 5.1), depending on the issue. Consequently, strategic diversity leaders must look at their decisions and actions through multiple lenses, asking, ‘‘How do the various members of the campus community view the effort or action? What is the view of women on a particular issue? How does the Muslim community view it? What is the perspective of faculty, staff, and students?’’ Although caution must be used to avoid a pattern of widespread stereotyping, asking how different groups may view a decision is part of being a good leader. And even in the light of this type of analysis, it is important to acknowledge that regardless of intentions, actions can have unforeseen and unintended consequences. It is for this reason that campus leaders must be vigilant regarding the symbols of inclusion or exclusion that exist when they make various decisions, construct high-profile committees, give remarks, or engage in any number of leadership activities on campus.

244

W H AT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

Building Powerful Traditions, Rituals, and Stories Around Diversity Symbolic leaders use traditions and stories to help people buy into their vision, reframe past experience, portray shared values, and rally allies to act on behalf of the organization’s goals (Birnbaum, 1988, 1992). An academic institution’s commitment to diversity should be reinforced by campus rituals, traditions, and stories of change. Periodic ceremonies, like a campus celebration of newly tenured minority faculty or academic achievement ceremonies for minority students, help these individuals feel more included on campus, serving as a powerful ritual that conveys a message of diversity’s importance. It is particularly incumbent that senior campus leaders participate in diversity events. For example, hosting a banquet that honors diversity leadership and success on campus is important not only to the individuals and groups involved in the effort, it also sends a strong message to the broader community about the institutional value of this work. Campus diversity events create important emotional and social anchors that allow institutional citizens to enact the change vision by participating in ritualized activities that champion diversity successes and embody an institution’s vision for the future. Symbolic stories of influence and challenge also have a potentially powerful effect on organizational culture and shaping the diversity change journey. Whether they take verbal, written, or visual forms, stories are often more memorable than mere facts and figures and can supplement quantitative analysis as a way of providing personal anecdotes and compelling examples to flesh out the narrative. Stories should convey the real-life experiences of individuals who have contributed in significant ways to the organization’s vision for diversity. Stories that appear in the alumni magazine, the institution’s website, or in targeted branding campaigns can help inspire the entire campus community, reinforcing positive images and showing the benefits of diversity. Box 5.8 presents one institution’s approach to creating a powerful symbolic event that anchors diversity in the history of the school while elevating diversity as a cherished value on campus.

T H E AR TF UL S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P

245

BOX 5.8 The University of Connecticut Celebrates Diversity’s Importance Diversity needs to be integrated into the symbolic and cultural fabric of the institution. Rituals and traditions figure prominently at most colleges and universities, where events like commencement and convocation offer important clues about the cultural values of an institution. To achieve inclusive excellence, institutions should infuse diversity into existing traditions and build new traditions to position diversity on par with efforts to achieve academic, athletic, and leadership excellence. For example, in 2004, the University of Connecticut, located in Storrs, hosted a diversity awards celebration focused on achieving this goal. The formal sit-down dinner featured Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger, and was dedicated to the role of diversity as a global and educational priority in the twenty-first century. From the beginning, the event was more than an opportunity to have a nice dinner and hear a good speaker. It was about creating a new consciousness and shared understanding about diversity for those who attended. Executed with the pomp and circumstance normally associated with the university’s most cherished events, the evening began with a five-minute retrospective on the history of diversity and inclusion at the University of Connecticut. The retrospective began in the 1800s, when the first women and African American students were admitted, and continued through the 1990s, when the University of Connecticut received the first North American United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Chair in Human Rights and developed the Office of the Vice Provost for Multicultural and International Affairs as the chief diversity officer infrastructure. Academic deans and administrative vice presidents, the provost, members of the board of trustees, and state government officials attended the inaugural event and by their presence helped reinforce the importance of the celebration. Awards were given to students, faculty, staff, alumni, departments, corporations, and scholars who had made significant contributions to diversity both on campus and in the broader community. In a particularly compelling moment, former men’s basketball coach Donald ‘‘Dee’’ Rowe brought two of his former players onstage and, eyes welling with tears, accepted the Diversity Pioneer Award for his efforts to field and graduate an entire starting team of African American student athletes in the 1960s. Rowe is an athletic icon in Storrs, and to have him discuss his personal commitment to diversity created a powerful and lasting image. Although this event clearly had important material consequences, equally critical was the message conveyed to the community about the university’s support for diversity and its place in the history, culture, and administrative fabric of the institution.

246

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

Developing a Powerful Diversity Brand Strategy From a strategic diversity leadership perspective, the diversity brand is an important part of the symbolic frame of leadership that is critical to advancing an institution’s diversity efforts. The institution’s brand refers simply to what an institution stands for in the minds and hearts of its stakeholders. When we think of Stanford University, we immediately think of its worldrenowned reputation for academic excellence. This is its brand. And just as colleges and universities are associated with varying degrees of academic and athletic excellence, they are branded, too, by how well they are perceived to embrace diversity and include diverse communities in their campus culture. In today’s digital age, developing a powerful diversity brand is more important than ever before. Particularly at institutions that have made progress on diversity issues, diversity branding may provide campus leaders with several advantages over their competitors. One of the most important ways of marketing your selling points is to tell the stories of individuals who can attest credibly to their positive experiences, whether as students, faculty, or staff. This was the case at Miami University, a selective, midsized public institution in Ohio. In the late 1990s, Miami developed an urban, multicultural marketing effort, the ‘‘I am Miami’’ campaign, which was designed to position Miami’s reputation for academic excellence firmly within a prodiversity context. This strategy was particularly compelling as it was developed to reposition an institutional brand that was not favorably associated with diversity. Through the years, several incidents of racism, including marches by the Ku Klux Klan in Oxford, Ohio, had generated a perception that the institution was insensitive to the concerns of diverse students. Executed as part of a broader strategy that included new student support services, financial aid, and other programs, the new campaign set the context for increasing the numbers of minority students applying to the university. Box 5.9 offers several recommendations regarding the development of a diversity branding strategy. BOX 5.9 Student-Centered Diversity Branding Strategies The following strategies are drawn from national best practices and conversations with institutions that have demonstrated success in diversity recruitment and institutional branding. (continues)

T HE AR TF UL SC IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P

247

Conduct ‘‘Consumer Market Research’’ Into the University’s Diversity Brand Diversity leaders should begin with surveys and focus groups with a wide array of stakeholders to understand what those stakeholders think about diversity on campus. The focus groups should encompass all members of the academic community (faculty, students, and staff) and include not only minority students and women, but also members of the LGBT community and international students, as well as the White majority. In addition, the focus groups should include other important stakeholders who interact with the campus community, including alumni, current and prospective parents, individual and corporate partners, and members of the wider community. By first understanding the values and concerns of all these stakeholders, diversity leaders can begin crafting relevant messages and begin drafting relevant messengers. Academic communities are also fortunate in that they have a wide array of different mediums for delivering the diversity message. Diversity leaders therefore need to consider several variables when moving to implement their branding effort: What is the broad frame and what are the specific messages? Who are our primary and secondary or targets for the message? And what combination of mediums will we use to distribute the message?

Building and Communicating a Compelling Diversity Brand Message Whatever specific forms the diversity message takes, it is essential that it be positive, proactive, and creative, generating interest in and commitment to creating a diverse and inclusive environment. The messages will also have to be tailored for different audiences. For example, the medium and message for prospective students and parents about the diversity resources on campus could vary significantly from the medium and message used to reach the legislative community about the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Indeed, having a specific message that attracts support from companies, government leaders, and others is essential if institutions are to attract the type of financial, political, and collegial support required to advance their diversity agenda, particularly at public institutions. But even as diversity leaders disseminate a positive diversity message, they need to recognize the challenges that diverse students face negotiating their college experience. Efforts to avoid issues raised in focus groups will only lead to an obviously contrived and inauthentic diversity brand. Diversity leaders have to connect to a diverse pool of students in a way that is authentic to them yet does not marginalize their experience by presenting an image that is totally one sided. Everything that we know about multicultural marketing suggests the importance of establishing an authentic message of connectivity and relevance across diverse groups. At times a general message is appropriate; at other times a more targeted effort is essential. (continues)

248

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

(continued) Whatever the strategies deployed by the diversity leaders, it is essential that they understand who their prospective audiences are before they decide how to attract them. Some specific tactical activities might include the following: 1. Create a targeted marketing campaign. Several institutions have successfully built their diversity efforts around a strong marketing campaign. Examples include ‘‘Unleash Your Potential’’ at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan; ‘‘I am Miami’’ at Miami University in Athens, Ohio; and ‘‘What It Means to Be an Aggie’’ at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. 2. Produce targeted mailings. At a number of institutions diversity leaders produce highly focused letters and brochures talking about the diverse student experience on campus. These materials serve as a personalized communication enabling students to learn more about campus-related activities, prompting them to take the next action step necessary in the application process. 3. Produce a diversity video, or ‘‘sizzle wheel.’’ By presenting several aspects of the campus diversity experience, campus leaders can highlight resources that might otherwise go unnoticed and have particular interest for diverse student populations and students interested in issues of diversity. Essential to this tool is the authentic voice of students. 4. Use social networking tools. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are already essential to most marketing strategies, including those used in academia, but diversity leaders need to focus on using these tools in a way that actively engages students and builds community. The marketing plan should include a strong element that builds these social networking resources from within and then connects them to each other. This portion of the plan should also involve the strong participation of students, because most of them are already comfortable with online social networking. An effort that is generated and directed by students in collaboration with diversity leaders will be more viable than one maintained solely by staff on their own.

Increasingly, publications like U.S. News and World Report and Barron’s Guide to the Most Competitive Colleges are profiling diversity efforts as a means to measure and rate the steps that higher institutions are taking to become more inclusive. A marketing strategy needs to take these and other publications into account, because they are often the first contact a prospective student has with a college or university. A strong branding effort may lead to a ‘‘halo effect,’’ generating positive reviews and coverage for the institution’s overall brand. This success, in turn, can generate positive public relation opportunities with alumni, donors, and foundations.

T HE AR TF UL SC IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P

249

Collegial Leadership Frame: Building Relationships and Working With Others The collegial leadership frame of strategic diversity leadership also flows out of the unique organizational context of colleges and universities. Although they share some similarities with businesses, colleges and universities behave differently from their corporate counterparts. To effectively implement broad-based diversity changes, diversity leaders need to recognize these differences. The first and most important difference is the inherently democratic nature of academic institutions. That colleges and universities are more generally characterized by horizontal and diffuse power arrangements means that diversity leaders need to engage the entire campus community before, during, and after implementing any change, particularly when these changes affect the academic domain of the institution (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Although the structural leadership dimension focuses primarily on administrators and university governance issues, it is important to remember that colleges and universities are driven as much by faculty members as by administrators.3 The strong presence of what we might call the ‘‘legislative branch’’ of academia—faculty members and their associations—are what help distinguish governing issues in academia from other kinds of entities. The faculty senate frequently constitutes its own democracy within a democracy, in which decisions are made through consensus building, shared power, and common commitments and aspirations. It is for this reason that strategic diversity leaders must possess the ability to build coalitions and integrate diversity into the related goals of academic and institutional excellence. By providing positive incentives that encourage involvement and buy-in to the process of change, diversity leaders can move the diversity agenda forward.

Coalition Building Given the collaborative and professional norms of the academy, it would be difficult to envision a campus where faculty members were not involved in the change process (Birnbaum, 1988, 1982). Faculty members must have the means to engage in planning for and implementing strategic diversity initiatives as part of a broader, campus-wide process. This is particularly true when the issues under discussion are fundamentally academic in nature, such as changes to the curriculum, measuring student performance, and considering faculty qualifications and performance during the hiring and tenure process. As previously noted, senior administrative leaders also have an important role to play helping the campus community understand the rationale for change and helping to shape the goals and implementation strategies

250

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

of the strategic diversity plan. This demands honest and open communication with campus constituencies. Faculty, staff, and students care about their institutions and are more favorable to change projects if they are invited to provide input at the beginning and during the process (Birnbaum, 1988; Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Although senior leaders may fear a transparent process, an open dialogue with the community is essential if the change is to become a permanent part of the institution’s culture. Although websites, e-mail, LISTSERVES, and annual reports are important, the most powerful strategies are built around creating opportunities for dialogue between the campus community and institutional decision makers. Successful efforts include drawing on campus faculty expertise for consulting purposes; hosting regular meetings with key stakeholders; and holding ‘‘town hall’’ meetings with faculty, students, and staff. These mechanisms allow institutional leaders to engage the campus community in a conversation about any proposed changes. In this way, even if individuals disagree with the changes, they will respect senior leaders for acknowledging their views and respecting campus traditions of collegial engagement. By providing an opportunity to participate in the process and give feedback, diversity leaders simultaneously attend to the symbolic and political realities of institutions and the need to operate collegially and work toward consensus (Birnbaum, 1988).

Integrating Diversity Into Campus-Wide Decisions, Priorities, and Initiatives Perhaps the most powerful way for strategic diversity leaders to build support for their vision is to integrate diversity into general conversations of an institution’s commitment to academic excellence. Leaders skilled in the relational and political aspects of strategic diversity leadership may find opportunities for diversity efforts to enhance discussions of tenure and promotion, budgeting, and capacity building as part of the natural process of decision making. For example, infusing community-based research into the formal definition of scholarship in the tenure and promotion system may prove helpful to social scientists interested in conducting empowerment research in historically marginalized and vulnerable communities. Introducing diversity issues into discussions about the renovation of the new student union can anticipate the need of minority students before construction work begins, resulting in a better union for all students. Alberta Garcia, an executive director of

T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P

251

diversity at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast, gave this helpful advice about raising diversity issues in the context of broader institutional decisions and priorities: When I was talking about a chilly campus climate, I couldn’t get much done. But when I started talking about the student-faculty relationship and building rapport between educators and students regarding issues of learning, the conversation changed immensely. The trick is to make the issues relevant for all students, if you can. For me, it is often about the outcome, not the language. Sometimes you have to change your language to connect with different audiences. This is something that I have tried to get better at through the years and is one of the reasons why I am always looking to translate something that everyone is looking at [a major educational issue] into an agenda item that I can use to advance my work around issues of diversity.

Ultimately, our goal should be to make creative associations between our diversity goals and the overarching priorities of the institution. When people understand that the strategic diversity plan complements, rather than competes with, the institution’s core mission, resistance often fades. The key is to develop a powerful understanding of general campus priorities and look for ways to align diversity efforts accordingly. If the provost is concerned about quality and effectiveness, then make campus diversity efforts center on issues of quality and effectiveness. If the campus is refocusing its energy on setting clear definitions for student learning outcomes, orient your diversity policies and programs so that they address student-learning outcomes. By cross-pollinating diversity priorities with the broader priorities of the institution, you can help move the campus diversity agenda from the margins to the center. Of course there are people who will always contest the idea that diversity is intrinsically valuable or that it adds to the intellectual and social strengths of an academic institution. In situations in which disagreement is inevitable, one option is to move below the visible line of campus politics and try to sway opinion and support through political maneuvering, incentives to encourage engagement, and relationship building with key stakeholders who can champion campus diversity efforts and counteract the negative words and actions of diversity opponents. Box 5.10 presents several recommendations for navigating campus politics in a hostile environment.

252

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

BOX 5.10 Building Strategic Relationships in a Hostile Environment 1. Frame your arguments in terms of organizational goals. In Organizational Behavior (2005), Stephen Robbins argues that displays of self-interest will limit one’s effectiveness and that, therefore, arguments should always be framed in ways demonstrating their benefits to the institution. 2. Develop the right image. Learn to project a professional, collegial image that reflects the institution’s mission, culture, goals, values, and traditions. 3. Maintain control of organizational resources. Keeping exact and transparent accounting with respect to the management of all human, financial, and institutional resources makes them less susceptible to questioning or capture. 4. Make yourself indispensable. Carving out a niche means building a place for yourself, your staff, and your office that extends beyond your specific realm of work and into the broader mission and activities of the campus community. The more indispensible you are to them, the more indispensible you become when senior administrators have to make tough budget and personnel decisions. 5. Be visible. Highlight your successes and enlist influential messengers to help tell your story. 6. Develop powerful allies. Strong allies are important not only for advancing your agenda, but for representing your interests before other stakeholders. 7. Avoid ‘‘tainted’’ colleagues. Every organization has people whose performance, abilities, and ethics are questionable, and it is rarely hard to figure out whom. Without giving offence or creating a stir, quietly make it your business not to be involved in theirs, much less allowing them to involve themselves in your policies and programs. 8. Support your boss. Obviously, support for senior staff and administrators should be contingent on their performing effectively and honestly. But in today’s world, loyalty is in short supply. Consider ways that you can reward and credit both superiors and subordinates. In other words, pay it forward. Doing good turns is contagious. Source: Adapted from Robbins, 2005, pp. 609–610.

Entrepreneurial ‘‘Pull Strategies’’ to Orchestrate Change Campus leaders should consider also deploying marketing ‘‘pull strategies’’ to implement their strategic diversity plan. In this context, a pull strategy refers to an effort to attract intellectual support or buy-in for diversity efforts

T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P

253

by promoting the benefits that come with a more diverse campus. In an environment characterized by shared governance and collective decision making, entrepreneurial pull strategies can be particularly effective. Pull strategies include incentives and rewards, salary increases, release time, personal recognition, and special perks like parking spaces. Pull strategies provide an effective way to reward individuals, schools, and departments who are making strides with regard to diversity. For example, the president might host a campus-wide recognition banquet attended by the board, senior leadership, powerful alumni, and other institutional stakeholders. This type of event sends a powerful message to the campus community regarding diversity’s importance and establishes new institutional traditions that help to further underscore diversity’s importance to the campus culture. Although a central funding source for diversity efforts is critical, another strategy is to have relevant entities (schools, colleges, departments, etc.) contribute a portion of their annual budget, or ‘‘carry-forward’’ monies left over from the previous year, toward a central ‘‘strategic diversity initiatives’’ account. High-achieving diversity organizations could then access these funds by competing to accomplish specific campus diversity goals. By placing diversity change efforts in a competitive context, diversity leaders can motivate a wide range of community members to become active in diversity efforts. This strategy was used during the implementation phase of the University of Michigan’s ‘‘Michigan Mandate for Diversity,’’ and, according to former president James Duderstadt, was essential to the university’s diversity efforts (Duderstadt, 2000). A final pull strategy is to make students, faculty, staff, and departments eligible for diversity challenge grants. These competitive grants encourage entrepreneurial energy and new diversity initiatives to bubble up from the campus community. Funded initiatives then might contribute to a special report, conference, or presentation that could be used to communicate the institution’s successes in achieving its diversity goals.

Summary This chapter seeks to help diversity change leaders understand that their work will at times be linear and formal, relying on a well-developed diversity plan, and at other times improvisational and flexible, as they respond to the inherent resistance, and at times intentional opposition, of institutional stakeholders. Strategic diversity leaders understand these challenges and

254

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

embrace their complexity. They creatively seek out ways to align campus resources in the service of achieving diversity goals, always remaining open to emerging possibilities and potential allies. These leaders are proactive in managing campus symbols to champion diversity, sending inspirational messages on the benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion—even though the reality of campus life may be very much a work in progress. Strategic diversity leaders endeavoring to accomplish fundamental changes should know that there are no easy answers or quick solutions. Therefore, they must question the core assumptions about institutional life that often impede change and progress on issues of diversity. Transformational change is never easy and requires great resolve and courage. Indeed, leaders who push the envelope of change often do so at great personal risk, particularly at the beginning of the journey, when others may not have a clear understanding of diversity’s value. In the words of one former president of a major university: You know, I waded in the water on racial and ethnic equity and built a powerful diversity strategy for the university. I then waded in the water on gender equity and really pushed an agenda for women, resulting in a tremendous amount of change. But when I decided to push on issues of sexuality and really embrace the challenges of the LGBT community, I was shot down by conservative board members who disagreed with this aspect of my vision for diversity. If not for that decision, I probably would have remained as president for another five years at least. I feel good about the decision, but leadership, particularly when it is on the margins, can come at a cost. You always have to understand that cost, and personally know how far you can push it.

We need leaders who can collaboratively envision a diversity strategy and then ignite their allies to help make this vision a reality. They must recognize the types of resources and capabilities they need to win and have a clear appreciation of the challenges involved in getting there. To lead strategically is to avoid micromanaging every detail, but instead create accountability and entrepreneurial energy that inspires others to execute the vision for change.

Notes 1. The Robert D. Haas Chancellor’s Chair in Equity and Inclusion serves as the chair for the Haas Institute.

T HE AR T F U L S C IE N C E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P

255

2. Dr. Frank Hale, Jr., Vice Provost Emeritus at The Ohio State University (personal communication, May 2007). 3. Although staff members are also essential to the strategic diversity plan, we focus on faculty here because they tend to have a greater influence on mission, policy, and governance issues.

6 BEING ACCOUNTABLE Building a Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard

It is not setting small goals; it is setting no goals that lead to presidential failure. Aimless, day-to-day management, busy inertia, pre-occupied drift, and high-minded indecision mark too many presidencies, because incumbents set no goals. The first and greatest task of a president [or any leader] is to articulate the vision, champion the goals, and enunciate the objectives. —Frank Rhodes, President Emeritus, Cornell University1

D

uring a lecture delivered at a major national conference, the author once asked, ‘‘How many of you believe that diverse experiences are critical to student learning?’’ In an audience of close to a thousand, nearly every hand quickly shot into the air. But to the next question, ‘‘How many of you have the ability to illustrate with data the implications of diverse experiences and their relationship to student learning and other academic outcomes?’’ only a sprinkling of hands went up. This scenario illustrates a major challenge to those who work on diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education: the troubling absence of diversity-themed performance management systems to drive the campus diversity agenda. All too frequently conversations about performance management are limited to considering such basic measures as first-year retention rates, six-year graduation rates, or equal employment opportunity discrimination claims. Although important, these data provide only one component of the diversity story, rather than a broader view of how diversity can be aligned more powerfully with the institution’s strategic goals and efforts along multiple dimensions, involving the curriculum, learning, and research. 256

B E I N G AC CO U N TA B L E

257

Those outside of academia often criticize higher education for its failure to hold individuals accountable for their actions, a practice held sacrosanct in the private sector. To make diversity a matter of excellence is to require more than improving the headcount of minority students. It demands that we hold ourselves to the highest standards of accountability through systems of performance management that allow us to understand the implications of efforts across many facets of our institutional diversity agenda. These include everything from access and equity initiatives to the scholarly efforts of our faculty, and to the role of leadership in creating a new context in which enhanced diversity efforts become possible. Thus, accountability for better results is clearly imperative. But heightening accountability efforts in the current systems of diversity performance management would yield only marginal improvement. As practiced today, diversity performance management can best be described as weak, haphazard, and lacking in substance. As a tool for answering key questions, it gives leaders few consistent performance indicators. And even when credible information exists, diversity performance management is largely underutilized. This chapter addresses three major themes. First, it examines the five big-picture strategic diversity goals that every institution needs to reach: achieving access and equity; fostering a multicultural and inclusive campus climate; preparing all students for a knowledge-based, global economy; enhancing research and scholarship around domestic and global diversitythemed research; and the key ingredient that makes these four dimensions possible—leadership diversity commitment. The chapter then measures diversity progress across these five dimensions using a strategic diversity leadership scorecard. Finally, it explains how to use the data gleaned from the scorecard to drive organizational learning and create greater commitment to change. By developing a well-defined diversity scorecard and measurement system, academic institutions have an opportunity to create a new paradigm, shifting poorly designed efforts to evidence-based practices and thereby a stronger ability to advance your institution’s strategic diversity agenda.

The Scorecard Methodology: A Tool to Drive Performance With the emergence of new data management systems, most institutions today have vast stores of institutional data available for analysis. Unfortunately, campus leaders rarely take adequate advantage of this data, usually sharing publicly only simple measures of student academic achievement or

258

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

faculty representation. Indeed, institutional leaders often hesitate to disclose campus diversity data for fear of a backlash from the campus community or the media, perhaps motivated by perceptions of a lack of progress on diversity issues. In other cases, officials may shy away from discussing their efforts in the context of access and equity for fear of attracting the kinds of targeted attacks by conservatives that have forced institutions to pull back from a more proactive approach to advancing diversity. If we are to become strategic diversity leaders operating from an organizational learning perspective, we must use data to ground, sustain, and institutionalize our diversity efforts. High-performing organizations use data to understand where they are and to align action and intention in ways that achieve even greater influence. Diversity efforts should operate no differently. Without clear systems of alignment and accountability, any diversity strategy will attain only marginal success. To drive the campus diversity agenda, therefore, leaders must develop a system for measuring their diversity performance over time. To assist in this process, the author offers a tool grounded in concepts drawn from the ‘‘Balanced Scorecard’’ (Kaplan & Norton, 1992), the ‘‘Diversity/ Equity Scorecard’’ (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012), the ‘‘Diversity Scorecard’’ (Hubbard, 2004), and what in his own research has been called the ‘‘Inclusive Excellence Scorecard’’ (Williams, Berger, & McLendon, 2005). The tool is scalable, fluid, and contextual, helping institutions understand what they are doing well and where they need to improve. Generally speaking, an organizational scorecard operates like a balanced and carefully selected set of performance data that helps leaders understand the effect of tactical activities and how these ultimately drive the big-picture strategic diversity agenda. More than simply compiling data, the scorecard identifies key performance measures and aligns the institutional change vision with the formal day-to-day realities of the institution. Thus, the scorecard can function as the centerpiece of an institution’s campus diversity agenda, and in this way should resemble the ways the institution measures all aspects of its broader vision and mission. It also offers a way of communicating progress to stakeholders. Deployed as part of a larger process of introspection, dialogue, and action, the scorecard serves as a rallying point to deepen an institution’s commitment to change, what Chapter 5 defines as the ‘‘organizational learning perspective’’ of strategic diversity leadership. Constructed to generate success, the scorecard enables campuses to move from simply ‘‘checking off ’’ diversity outcomes as part of a diversity headcount game, to managing a holistic and integrated plan to reach diversity and educational quality goals as a matter of institutional excellence.

B E I N G AC CO U N TA B L E

259

This means of accessing organizational diversity in a manner that is sensitive to both process and outcomes can be traced to the scorecard tools first described in business literature and later adopted by the higher education and nonprofit sectors (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Kaplan & Norton, 1992; O’Neil, 1999). Among the first to translate the scorecard concept to the diversity discussion in higher education was Bensimon (2004), who presented the initial concept as a ‘‘diversity scorecard.’’ Later reframed as an ‘‘equity scorecard,’’ it reflected an effort to help colleges and universities monitor their progress and move toward equity in terms of ‘‘access, retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence’’ for historically underrepresented groups. Hubbard (2004) also developed a ‘‘diversity scorecard’’ for the corporate sector, defining diversity progress across the related dimensions of ‘‘customer and community partnerships, workforce profile, financial impact, workplace climate and culture, diversity leadership commitment, and finally, learning and growth’’ (p 132). At the heart of these scorecards was an effort to understand and activate the organizational diversity agenda from a broad perspective.

Why Are Diversity Scorecards Important? Scorecards are important because they help an institution attain clarity and consensus about diversity strategy in ways that, despite potentially high levels of preexisting institutional commitment, were previously unimaginable. First, although an institution may have a plethora of campus diversity initiatives in play, it may not have a means to assess their effectiveness, much less understand how they are connected. Second, the capacity to develop collaboratively a set of broadly shared diversity indicators allows the institution to sharpen its diversity focus. Third, scorecards allow the institution to identify key drivers of performance and measure outcomes across a number of diversity perspectives. Fourth, strategic diversity scorecards establish a framework for setting priorities. Fifth, scorecards allow an institution to understand how certain activities add value in ways that traditional analysis may not have easily measured because they rely on surveys, focus groups, and other primary data collection techniques. And finally, a strategic diversity scorecard can provide clarity around places where an institution should build new initiatives that aggressively move the agenda forward while scaling back in areas that do not. Once considered the primary domain of the business world, the scorecard methodology has become increasingly popular in higher education over

260

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

the last several years. That momentum continues to build as scorecard methodology is now regularly implemented in several contexts, ranging from general quality improvement efforts to issues of diversity. By adopting the scorecard methodology to diversity issues, leaders in higher education now have the opportunity to apply concrete accountability measures to their diversity policies and programs. In short, a scorecard can translate a broad vision to tangible examples of work that apply across multiple areas of the institution.

The Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard This section outlines the strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) that builds on the work of Bensimon (2004); Bensimon and Malcolm (2012); Astin (1991); Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and Allen (1998); Hubbard (2004); Smith (2009); Williams, Berger, and McClendon (2005); and others. The SDLS is a multidimensional performance measurement tool designed to drive change from a number of related perspectives: achieving access and equity; fostering a multicultural and inclusive campus climate; preparing all students for a knowledge-based, global economy; and enhancing diversitythemed research and scholarship. Figure 6.1 offers a visual representation of these four perspectives. The use of the word perspectives is intentional and meant to reinforce the idea that a strategic diversity effort works best if pursued from a number of different viewpoints. At the core of the model is diversity leadership commitment, which operates as the key ingredient for accomplishing the other four dimensions of the model. That said, the perspectives offered here are not meant to be exhaustive. A particular institution might develop others, including strategic partnerships and communication, or marketing. Finally, an institution might even split a perspective into two, such as by examining access and equity from a gender perspective, an economic perspective, and then a minority perspective. For a scorecard to be meaningful, it must be framed to conform to the unique vision and strategic goals of your campus’s diversity efforts. If preparing students to join a diverse, global workforce is not an institutional goal, then it should not be included as a perspective in the framework. Conversely, other required perspectives should be developed as appropriate. The four baseline perspectives offered here represent the big-picture diversity priorities of most academic institutions. It has proven quite helpful as a starting point for developing a balanced diversity performance measurement system. Figure

B E I NG AC C O U N TA B L E

261

6.1 presents each of these perspectives as a balanced set of diversity ideas that can help an institution move forward in a more effective and coordinated fashion. The model complements previous discussions of strategic diversity leadership, presenting a performance management tool that captures the various threads of an institutional diversity strategy, however defined.

Objectives, Goals, Tactics, and Indicators Figure 6.1 also indicates the need for leaders to define the objectives, goals, tactics, and indicators (OGTIs) of progress associated with each perspective. OGTIs offer an effective way of aligning an institution’s diversity efforts within a particular area of diversity, capturing the big-picture vision for your institution from a particular perspective. This part of each scorecard should be very selective and as well defined as possible. A learning and diversity objective might endeavor to ‘‘ensure that every graduate is educated for a diverse and global world.’’ The specific action objectives are then translated into goals. For example, an institution may decide that every student will FIGURE 6.1 Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard

262

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

participate in a study abroad program and fulfill a campus-wide general education diversity requirement by the end of his or her junior year. Tactics include the specific programs, initiatives and action steps that are necessary to accomplish the goals and, by extension, the big-picture objective. In this example, the tactics may be to create a new diversity requirement, develop a plan to market the study abroad program, and train advisors in such a way that they know how to present these initiatives and their importance to students. It also may involve allocating more financial resources to those departments that teach the general education diversity requirement, and funding to the study abroad office to assist economically vulnerable student populations to participate. Finally, indicators are the specific measures or themes used to track progress. In this context, indicators can be qualitative or quantitative, because the aim is to have enough evidence to allow leaders to understand, make adjustments, and lead change over time. At times, leaders will quantify their indicators, as it will be important to express equity progress in terms of where they are (baseline) versus where they ultimately want to go (target). Leaders can also define indicators in terms of progress and outcome indicators. OGTIs can cascade down through the institution. Once the overall OGTIs are outlined, individual departments can create their own OGTIs to match the objectives articulated at the institutional level.

SDLS Progress and Outcome Indicators of Organizational Diversity Progress and outcome indicators constitute ways of thinking about developments within and across each perspective of your scorecard. Simply defined, indicators are those specific criteria that are used in a performance management system or scorecard. A description of progress and outcome indicators is presented in Table 6.1, and examples are provided in Table 6.2. As they illustrate, the scorecard functions as a tool for taking an accurate snapshot of institutional diversity health across multiple dimensions, and also for understanding progress and outcomes over time. The mix of progress and outcome indicators included in a diversity scorecard should give a clear sense not only of where the institution is with respect to a particular effort in a summative fashion (outcomes), but also where it stands in the formative processes of change (progress). Progress or formative data allow us to understand how we can improve the effect of a particular program, process, or initiative. Helping us with an early indication of where the institution is across the various

B E I N G AC C O U N TA B L E

263

TAB LE 6. 1 Sample of Progress and Outcome Performance Measures Dimension

Progress Indicators

Definition

Formative data that appear during the planning Measures that capture summative information and operation of an activity and help drive the and historic performance desired outcomes, normally measuring some aspect of progress in terms of intermediate processes and activities

Outcome Indicators

Access and Equity Perspective

First-year retention rates

Six-year graduation rates

Learning and Diversity Perspective

Number of participants in a service learning program

Ability to take the perspective of the other (captured through survey data)

Multicultural Number of participants in a diversity training and Inclusive workshop Campus Climate Perspective

Perceptual measures of the campus climate (captured through survey data)

Diversity Research and Scholarship Perspective

Number of diversity-themed research institutes and projects on campus

Number of diversity-themed articles, books, and publications produced annually

Leadership Commitment Perspective

Qualitative assessment of diversity efforts as a part of the annual review of faculty, administrators, and staff

Success across the other four diversity perspectives

Advantages

Progress measures allow the institution to make adjustments midprocess to drive new outcomes

Often easy to identify and capture

Challenges

May prove difficult to identify and capture; often new measures with no history or organization

Historical in nature and do not reflect predictive power

performance measures of the scorecard, these formative data help us to judge the worth of the process or activity that is being used to drive diversitythemed change. For example, through a collaborative monitoring process of the diversity of a pool of prospective applicants facilitated by a faculty search committee and the Office of Affirmative Action, a department chair may obtain valuable information that suggests modifying the search committee’s process for identifying and recruiting diverse talent. Progress data of this kind (diversity of contacts, applicants, and interview participants) is an important complement to outcome data (the hiring decision) because it helps academic leaders understand whether their hiring initiatives are on the right track, especially if their efforts are failing to generate diversity even in the applicant pool. By

TA BL E 6 .2 Sample Tactics, Progress, and Outcome Indicators to Be Used in an Institution’s Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard Perspective

Description

Sample Tactics

Sample Progress Indicators

Sample Outcome Indicators

Access and Equity Perspective

To achieve access and equity for historically underrepresented minorities and women, boosting attendance, graduation, and promotion rates, while achieving at levels comparable to the majority population

• Curriculum transformation efforts in courses evidencing the greatest academic disparity • Diversity-themed scholarships • K–12 pipeline programs • Learning communities • High-impact learning experience programs • Retention programs • Staff and administrator hiring initiatives and leadership development programs • Diverse faculty hiring initiatives • Targeted recruitment efforts • Targeted STEM programs and initiatives

• Yield rates of ethnically and racially diverse applicants to undergraduate and graduate programs • Yield rates of Pell Grant recipient students • Number of women in STEM and business majors • Number of males in education majors • Ethnically and racially diverse students and Pell Grant recipients in the honors program • First-year retention rates and sophomore retention rates • Gateway course achievement levels • Number of historically underrepresented African American, Latino/a, Native American, and Southeast Asian students enrolled • Number of nonathlete males of color enrolled on campus • Diversity levels in the search processes for faculty and administrative positions • Levels of minority participation in high-impact learning experiences (e.g., first-year experience) • Number of community college transfers • Pell Grants by race and ethnicity • Percentage of minority and low-income students receiving merit-based scholarship support • Percentage of students receiving need-based financial aid • Ratio of student retention staff to number of student participants in the retention program • Employee turnover • Levels of diversity in different majors, particularly in STEM and professional disciplines • Levels of unmet financial need by economic background • Number of first-generation students on campus

• Six-year graduation rates for minorities and women, students with disabilities, first-generation students, Pell Grant Recipients, others • Graduating minorities and women in the professional schools commensurate with their representation on campus • Graduating minorities, women, and first-generation students in the STEM majors commensurate with their representation on campus • Minorities and women in significant leadership positions at all levels • Minority and women advancement to full professor at rates commensurate to all members of the faculty • Minority and women tenure rates • Percentage of minorities and women graduating with a 3.0 GPA or higher • Graduation rates for African American, Latino/a, and Native American males • Percentage of minorities, women, students with disabilities, first-generation students, and Pell Grant recipients graduating with honors

Multicultural and Inclusive Campus Climate Perspective

Establishing campus climate of inclusion, in which every member of the institution feels a sense of belonging and is able to participate fully in the life of the institution

• Diversity affinity professional organizations for faculty and staff • Diversity-themed student organizations • Diversity awards ceremonies • Diversity Training Programs for students, faculty, and staff • Domestic partner benefits • Family-friendly work policies • LGBT ally training initiatives

• Number of diverse student organizations • Number of course syllabi that include a diversity, inclusion, or campus climate statement • Number of ‘‘campus climate incidents’’ (e.g., homophobic letter put on the door of a member of the LGBT community) • Number and presence of diversity-related articles in campus media • Number of faculty, staff, and administrators who have attended diversity training, education, and leadership trainings • Level of participation and vitality of professional diversity affinity organizations (e.g., LGBT faculty and staff association) • Level of participation and vitality of minority student organizations • Minority student participation in campus-wide student organizations

• Levels of use and participation in diversity and campus-wide activities and initiatives • Perceptions of belonging • Perceptions of engagement • Perceptions of satisfaction • Perceptions of the campus climate • Perceptions of work-family conflicts • Number of lawsuits and settlements • Number of sexual harassment cases • Number of racial discrimination cases • Structured employee feedback

(continues)

TA BL E 6 . 2 (Continued) Perspective

Description

Sample Tactics

Sample Progress Indicators

Sample Outcome Indicators

Learning and Ensuring that Diversity Perspective students, faculty, and staff are prepared for a diverse, global, and interconnected world

• Diversity content infused in every course • Ethnic and gender studies • General education diversity requirements • International area studies • Service learning initiatives • Study abroad programs

• Number of faculty actively infusing racial, ethnic, gender, and other diverse perspectives into their content material • Majority student participation in campus diversity education leadership efforts • Number of ethnic, gender, and international area studies majors and minors • Level of majority student participation in diversityrelated courses (e.g., general education diversity requirement) • Minority and low-income student participation in study abroad and other global experience activities • Participation of majority students in intergroup relations experiences • Participation in service learning and other volunteer activities • Participation of students in advanced foreign language courses • Presence of diversity in courses across the curriculum • Number of students participating in diversity-themed courses by school, college, or department

• Social and emotional intelligence indicators • Democratic outcomes indicators such as the ability to take the position of the other, look at the world from multiple perspectives • Measures of cognitive complexity • Measures of essential learning outcomes

Diversity Research and Scholarship Perspective

• Diversity research institutes and centers • Ethnic and gender studies efforts • Faculty exchange programs • Global research partnerships • International studies centers • Visiting diversity scholars programs

• Number of ethnic, gender, and international area studies programs with departmental status • Number of full-time or affiliated faculty in ethnic, gender, and international area studies • Presence of diversity-themed research centers and institutes • Participation of faculty in international research experiences • Presence of innovative urban partnership efforts focused on access, equity, and continuing education for underserved populations

• Total number and value of grants designed to drive research and scholarship in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion • Research and scholarly output (e.g., articles, books, chapters, etc.) • Presentations at national and international meetings focused on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion

To advance scholarship and research around domestic, international, and intersectional issues of diversity

B EI NG AC CO UN TA B L E

267

comparison, summative or outcome data center on end-point questions such as: What does this educational initiative add up to? How many firstgeneration students did we graduate? How many female science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) faculty did we hire? Does our leadership commitment meet our expectations as a campus community? Summative measures provide the bottom line in a particular dimension of the scorecard, but need to be understood in a context that measures progress.

Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence of Progress and Effect In Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Jim Collins (2005) argues that the critical question for higher education (and others in the social sector) is how to create a culture of evidence when quantifying results is difficult. What matters is to rigorously assemble both quantitative and qualitative evidence to track progress over time. If the evidence is primarily quantitative, then think of your efforts like a genetics researcher measuring and analyzing data. If the evidence is primarily qualitative, then think like a lawyer gathering and assembling a body of evidence that tells a story of influence. The key is to use evidence to explain and drive performance in the area of diversity as a value-added process of organizational learning and transformative action. Addressing the question, ‘‘How does our performance in diversity enhance our ability to do what we are best in the world at?’’ transforms the ‘‘Good’’ institution into a ‘‘Great’’ one, in Collins’s framing. As you begin the process of creating your scorecard, it is important to remember that all indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, are inherently flawed. There are no perfect measures of anything (J. Collins, 2005). What matters most is not the search for the perfect indicator, but making an intelligent decision in response to what the data do suggest, and then tracking progress with rigor and clarity over time (J. Collins, 2005). Although some dimensions of your scorecard will be easy to capture and interpret, the majority will require a careful approach that establishes evidence and allows you to calibrate your performance even without an easily quantified diversity metric. Diversity, itself, is a collection of characteristics; it stands to reason that its measurement would likewise require a triangulation of multiple measures and types of information.

Multiple Sources of Data Being able to combine, or ‘‘triangulate’’ from a number of different sources and types of information is critical. Table 6.2 presents several examples of

268

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

progress and outcome indicators that may be used to develop a strategic diversity scorecard. Although data will come from a number of different sources, the most readily available source of information is an institution’s database. Campus data systems contain a wealth of information about the profile, experience, progress, and outcomes of an institution, particularly in the area of access and equity for faculty, staff, and students. Other sources of data may be more difficult to tease out. Obtaining them may require such formal data collection activities as pre- and postactivity program collections; formative and summative evaluations; focus groups; organizational case studies; exit interviews; and campus climate, culture, and experience surveys of faculty, staff, and students. Another way to generate data is to conduct secondary research of national projects like the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE), and the National Study of Chief Diversity Officers.2 Although primary data gleaned from your own institution is preferable, these studies may nevertheless provide critical information and allow you to compare your campus against institutions of similar size and scope. Regardless of the source, the goal is to amass data that will help elucidate the process and outcomes for each dimension of your scorecard, thereby facilitating conversations about where your institution stands and where you hope to go.

The Importance of Disaggregating Data In assessing campus performance along any number of different dimensions, it is important to reflect on the extent to which embedded benefits may exist for some groups to the exclusion of others who continue to struggle. Campus leadership can only understand the differences in the experience of different subgroups by disaggregating quantitative and qualitative data at every opportunity. The campus experiences of students, faculty, and staff are nested in a broader social-historical context of difference defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability, and other dimensions of the evolving diversity idea. Despite whatever positive steps they may have taken, most institutions have embedded processes that sustain the advantage of majority groups. Unless we examine the campus experience through the lens of identity and disaggregation, these advantages usually go unrecognized (Duster, 1993). As discussed

B EI NG AC CO UN TA B L E

269

later in this chapter, this type of intentionality in data collection and analysis is the only way that campus leaders can meaningfully discern how different groups are excluded or included on campus.

LGBT Themes While it is understood about the importance of disaggregating by gender; wherever possible, it is also vital to disaggregate information as it relates to issues of sexual orientation, understanding that this may not always be easily accomplished given a particular data collection activity. Indeed, one of the challenges of gathering LGBT-related survey and interview data is contingent on the very process of ‘‘coming out.’’ As individuals negotiate the process of defining their sexual orientation and gender identity, they may not always feel comfortable openly identifying themselves. Indeed, Rankin (2003) found that 27 percent of faculty and staff and more than 40 percent of LGBT students hid their identity to avoid discrimination, and that 36 percent of students said that they had experienced harassment on campus in the previous academic year. Thus, the LGBT community has understandable concerns about participating in surveys and other studies. The key to overcoming these challenges is to use a culturally aligned research process, similar to the ones that have been found to work for other historically excluded groups. If not approached with sensitivity, discretion, and confidentiality, individuals within a particular group may ignore invitations to participate in surveys, focus groups, and research projects. To overcome these challenges, particularly as they relate to the LGBT community, Rankin (2003) used purposeful sampling of LGBT community members in an effort to build a database suitable for analyzing this group’s experience on campus. In purposive sampling, research participants are carefully recruited in a sensitive and respectful way, focusing on qualitative interactions, even though the data collection activity itself may be quantitative in nature (C. Patton, 2002). Rankin’s purposive method was deployed across 14 institutions. To accomplish this goal, surveys were given to prominent and trusted LGBT leaders who then distributed the surveys to others within the LGBT community. Surveys were also distributed through key organizations on campus that enjoyed trust and communication with the LGBT community. Over time this process resulted in nearly 1,700 usable surveys that provided rich data for studying this group’s experience with the campus environment.

Race and Ethnicity Themes Perhaps one of the areas where disaggregation receives very little attention is in terms of race and ethnicity data. All too often campus leaders either resist

270

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

looking at race and ethnicity data or limit their analysis to the most obvious indicators, such as representation and graduation rates. Other times, leaders lump different minority groups together in an effort to provide an aggregate number of minority students who can be contrasted with the majority White population. Although using aggregate numbers can be helpful, institutions should disaggregate by race and ethnicity whenever these breakdowns are statistically available. In the author’s experience, campus leaders often hesitate to study their own data on race and class for fear of reinforcing widely held stereotypes about the competitive abilities of minorities as compared with the majority population. Well-intentioned administrators will sometimes say, ‘‘Aren’t we just reinforcing a message of racial or ethnic inferiority by highlighting these differences?’’ These individuals worry that highlighting the disparities between minority subgroups and the majority culture sends a discouraging message that minority individuals cannot perform as well as their majority peers, colleagues, and coworkers. They also worry that disaggregation will bring negative media attention to the institution by highlighting any persistent challenges to achieving a greater equity of outcomes. Finally, they resist disaggregation because it may call attention to particular academic departments where minority and female student achievement is apparently lower, implying a systemic challenge they wish to ignore and leave undisturbed. Yet we are only going to overcome these fundamental challenges if we can openly and honestly examine the unique experiences of different groups. Thus, it is vital that we not only disaggregate by as many factors as necessary, but also that we work to distinguish the subtle nuances within a particular subgroup. We know, for example, that the background, resources, and experiences of a fourth-generation Latino student will differ markedly from a Latino student who arrived in the United States six months ago. Racial and ethnic communities are rarely homogeneous. Researchers need to give special consideration to the different experiences of men and women within a minority subgroup. There is still significant work that remains to be done on the challenges faced by women of color in the context of the double burden they face with respect to issues of race and gender. Broadening the discussion of diversity as a matter of excellence means that the process of scorecard disaggregation cannot be wholly centered on equity for diverse cultural identity groups. The goal is also to understand the experiences of those in the majority. This point is particularly important from a learning and diversity perspective and the degree to which our efforts prepare students for a knowledge-based, global economy. As the promise of

B EI NG AC CO U N TA BL E

271

our global community unfolds, it is increasingly vital that we understand the experience of majority White students, faculty, and staff, and the ways that they are developing the skills necessary to thrive in an increasingly diverse society. Progress should also be tracked in a manner that allows for analysis by family income or socioeconomic status. For example, the disaggregating of outcome data by family income quartile and Pell Grant recipient should become standard practice. These data must be publicly available in a format that allows for easy access, interpretation, and analysis. Because the differences between and within groups are real, campus leaders should always delve deeper into the data whenever possible. Exploring and communicating their findings, however modest, will be a welcome gesture for minority communities who have often seen their particular concerns and interests either ignored by, or subsumed within, majority White society.

Calculating Equity Ratios Across Scorecard Dimensions As Estella Bensimon notes, deploying a diversity-themed scorecard consists of more than simply tracking changes across the various dimensions or perspectives of interest (Bensimon, 2004). To that end, strategic diversity leaders should focus on achieving the representation, equitable achievement, and full participation of different groups on campus across the diversity perspectives detailed earlier. Bensimon (2004) recommends using the ‘‘Equity Index,’’ which is a quantitative method to measure equity in educational outcomes for students, although it is transferrable to faculty and staff and even other perspectives of the scorecard. The Equity Index is a measure of proportionality based on the population for each group under analysis (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003). The index is a ratio of two percentages that is presented in Figure 6.2. Bensimon and colleagues go on to note that:

FIGURE 6.2 Equity Index for Educational Outcomes

272

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

Different reference populations can be chosen as the denominator depending on the purpose of the data analysis. At its simplest level, it means that students in the K–12 system should be representative of the population demographics; college student enrollment should be representative of the K–12 students, the appropriate age cohort, or high school graduates; students who obtain post-secondary degrees should be representative of the college student body; students who successfully transfer from two-year community colleges to four-year colleges should be representative of the students in the community colleges; and the faculty composition should reflect the composition of the student body. (Bensimon et al., 2003, pp. 9–10)

Although each institution will have to determine its strategic goals and reference points for defining equity, Bensimon’s vision for achieving equity of outcomes can help leaders to fine tune their campus efforts. For example, if women collectively receive 10 percent of the degrees in STEM majors but 50 percent of degrees overall, the Equity Index is 10/50 or 0.20. Equity is reached when the index ratio equals 1.0 from a campus perspective. From these data, measures of equity and inequity across all majors, programs, honors, faculty and staff positions, and tenure decisions can be compared. These equity indicator measurements are then used to provide an even more intensive analytic component for your scorecard. Table 6.3 provides an example of what a portion of a scorecard might look like from the vantage point of access and equity. One goal in this example involves addressing the equity of historically underrepresented students in the STEM disciplines. Here we offer specific strategies, such as identifying students in middle school and helping them achieve academically, as well as creating an academic success and leadership program to ensure success once students enroll in college. This use of the equity ratio process offers a powerful way of understanding where you are in terms of achieving true equity regarding your institution’s diversity performance. This process for calculating equity outcomes, whether in the access and equity dimension of the scorecard or another dimension, makes sense to campus leaders because it is concrete and quantitative. Although the access and equity perspective is generally easiest to quantify in this way, a similar process can be followed for other dimensions of the scorecard as well. Campus leaders should be aware that establishing baseline and target goals, and calculating equity/success ratios, can lead to criticism and resistance from conservative and reactionary forces arguing that any efforts to

B EI N G AC CO UN TA BL E

273

TAB LE 6. 3 Sample Portion of Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard for Access and Equity Perspective

Objective

Goals

Tactical Activity

Indicators

Access and Equity

To achieve equity of representation and outcomes for ethnically and racially diverse minority students in our undergraduate student population

To achieve proportional representation in the STEM disciplines among historically underrepresented minority students commensurate with their representation in the overall student population

Precollege Efforts • Identify potential candidates among historically underrepresented middle school students. • Work with these students in academic skills, college advising, precollege information, and STEM after-school and summer programs, beginning as early as the seventh grade. • Create a recruitment and scholarship program that targets students from the precollege program

Baseline: Proportion of historically underrepresented minority students in STEM disciplines

Undergraduate Student Efforts • Develop strong academic and leadership development programs available to all students. • Establish a cohort-driven STEM leadership and academic excellence program featuring high expectations, scholarship support, book stipends, supplemental tutoring, mentoring, research experiences, and professional development activities. • Invest resources in campus-based diversity-themed student organizations like the National Society of Black Engineers, the Hispanic premedical student group and others. • Invest resources into general campus student organizations like the Physics Club and the Natural Resources Club to develop a diversity outreach and recruitment strategy and encourage minority student participation. • Create specific minority achievement gap–themed training programs for academic advisors to strengthen their ability to work with diverse students.

Target: Proportion of ethnic and racial minorities overall Equity Ratio: Measured as the ratio of the baseline figure to the target figure

274

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

promote minority students in a particular field amounts to reverse discrimination and the promotion of special treatment. Thus, diversity leaders face a stark choice: develop programs that utilize the most rigorous assessment systems to encourage diversity access and equity, risking criticism from the radical right; or sit on their hands, frozen by potential controversy, and do little to advance diversity values at their institutions. For leadership using equity ratio’s indicators, it is critical that the objectives, goals, and tactics connect back to the big-picture diversity definition and rationale discussed in Chapter 2. The goal of these equity ratios cannot be ‘‘racial balancing’’ but rather, leveraging these assessment tools as a way of tracking progress toward achieving the institution’s broader educational goals and mission.

Some Caveats Regarding the SDLS Cox (2001) offers several important caveats that should be understood before putting an SDLS into action. First, do not oversell data when developing conclusions. Legitimacy can be lost when diversity champions aggressively position their initiatives beyond what a prudent person might consider the limitations of the data at hand. Second, make sure that the data is userfriendly and accessible. Although intensive statistical analyses are potentially important for publication, some of the most influential insights may emerge from basic descriptive and multivariate analyses. According to Cox, ‘‘A good rule of thumb is that if the average high-school student doesn’t understand a graphic, it probably needs to be revised’’ (2001, p. 74). Thus, it helps to distinguish the most critical data from the entire pool of information. The goal is to select enough information to make your point without overwhelming the reader. The third and most obvious reminder is that individuals should have a firm grasp of any statistical analysis they are presenting. Too often, well-meaning diversity committee members not formally trained in social science research methods find themselves unable to respond to questions presented by members of the community. Because of the nature of the academy, it does little good for strategic diversity leaders to develop their strategic diversity scorecard in isolation from other stakeholders; any insights would be nearly impossible to implement, especially if they aimed for transformational change. Strategic diversity scorecards must be developed and implemented in partnership with others to achieve buy-in and viability. Participation, conflict, cooperation, and implementation are all behavioral aspects of the planning process and are

B E I N G AC CO U N TA B L E

275

key factors in its success. In Creating Contagious Commitment, Andrea Shapiro (2003) argues that organizational change should spread virally, moving from person to person, with each new recipient becoming a ‘‘carrier’’ of the message of change. Some will need to come into contact with the idea in multiple ways over time to become part of the movement. The key is to reach as many people as possible, as frequently as possible. Finally, diversity-themed assessment is too often used as a political cover to eliminate programs and initiatives or cut budgets, rather than to spur learning and organizational development. Although some programs may need to be eliminated or tapered, the goal of developing a strategic diversity scorecard is to drive learning and enhance results. Diversity-themed assessment is not a smokescreen to roll back institutional commitment and eliminate the limited capacity that often already exists on campus. Because many campus diversity leaders often fear that their programs will be subject to cuts, senior leaders should be especially cautious when using their scorecard to eliminate campus efforts. If a policy or program is ultimately eliminated, the process and rollout must be handled with integrity and a clear understanding of how various communities may interpret the move. Although a cut or substantive change may be required, the process will ultimately determine if the history and mission of the efforts are handled with respect, and if the focus is set on shifting newly freed resources to drive a more powerful agenda for reaching the institution’s diversity goals.

The Access and Equity Perspective The ‘‘access and equity perspective’’ is the classic diversity prism for understanding diversity efforts in higher education. More than simply tracking changes in the representation of historically underrepresented students, faculty, and staff, its focus is on the equitable representation and achievement of diverse groups (Bensimon, 2004). Therefore, it involves tracking achievement between historically underrepresented or disadvantaged groups and their ‘‘normative other’’ in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, economic background, or any other identity profile defined as a subject of an institution’s scorecard. Although institutions may develop their scorecard in myriad ways, the persistence of long-standing social injustice and forms of discrimination should motivate every institution to develop an access and equity dimension in its scorecard that addresses issues of racial and ethnic diversity, gender equity, economic background, disability, and national origin status.

276

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

Rooted in both historic and contemporary discussions of diversity, these dimensions are fundamental to any discussion aimed at achieving equity of outcomes in higher education. Depending on the goals that a particular institution sets for its diversity efforts, several factors—including race, ethnicity, gender, and economic background—should always form part of the scorecard. The access and equity dimension should be thought of in terms of progress indicators and institutional outcomes. Examples of progress indicators are the number of incoming minority students, incoming community college transfers, minority students in the honors program, and the number of students participating in a diversity-themed academic enhancement program or in service learning opportunities. Today encompassing much more than the traditional outcome measures of minority hiring or student graduation rates, these indicators provide key process data that can help institutional leaders understand how they can successfully adjust the activities that drive their campus diversity agenda. For example, if a new articulation agreement is not leading to more transfer students from a neighboring community college, new tactics may be required, including efforts to strengthen and streamline the articulation agreement and more extensive support services to ease the transition once transferring students have arrived. The scorecard should be used to make adjustments and drive change, not simply to report findings. It’s also recommended that leaders track student participation in what George Kuh (2008) and others have referred to as high-impact learning experiences (Table 6.4). Leveraging data from the NSSE, Kuh (2008) concluded that involvement in first-year experience programs, learning communities, undergraduate research, service learning, and other activities may have an even more positive influence on the academic achievement of historically underrepresented students than previously understood. Given that they are statistically less likely to be involved in campus experiences closely associated with academic achievement, historically underrepresented students should perhaps be overrepresented in these experiences as a platform for enhancing their success. For this reason, institutions should monitor student participation in high-impact experiences as a critical process variable connected to better grades, improved graduation rates, and more students entering graduate school to complete training in a range of professional fields. A parallel indicator for faculty might involve a historical analysis of the number of minorities or women participating in a campus fellowship or leadership experience designed to groom the next generation of senior administrators. If the program has a track record of launching faculty into

B EI N G AC CO U N TA BL E

277

TAB LE 6. 4 Monitoring Minority Student Participation in High-Impact Learning Practices Identified Here as Progress Measures in a Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard* High-Impact Learning Practice

Description

Potential Scorecard Dimension

First-Year Seminars and Experiences

Includes programs that bring small groups of first-year students together with faculty or staff on a regular basis. The highest quality first-year experiences place a strong emphasis on critical inquiry, writing, information literacy, collaborative learning, and other skills that develop a student’s intellectual and practical competencies. First-year seminars can also involve students with cutting-edge questions and in the research efforts of faculty members.

Access and Equity Perspective

Common Intellectual Experiences

Include a set of required common courses or vertically organized general education efforts that include advanced integrative studies or required participation in a learning community. These programs often combine a variety of curricular and cocurricular options for students.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Learning Communities

The key goals for learning communities are to encourage integration of learning across courses and to involve students with ‘‘big questions’’ that go beyond the classroom. Students take two or more linked courses as a group and work closely with one another and with their professors. Learning communities explore a common topic and common readings through the lenses of different disciplines. Some deliberately link ‘‘liberal arts’’ and ‘‘professional’’ courses, whereas others feature service learning.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Intensive Writing Includes courses that emphasize writing at all levels of instruction Courses and across the curriculum, including senior theses and projects. Students should be encouraged to produce and revise various forms of writing for different audiences in different disciplines. The effectiveness of these practices ‘‘across the curriculum’’ has led to parallel efforts in such areas as quantitative reasoning, oral communication, information literacy, and ethical inquiry.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Collaborative Assignments and Projects

Collaborative learning combines two key goals: learning to work and solve problems in the company of others, and sharpening one’s own understanding by listening seriously to the insights of those with different backgrounds and life experiences. Approaches range from study groups within a course to team-based assignments and writing to cooperative projects and research.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Undergraduate Research

Undergraduate research has merits across all disciplines. The goal is to involve students in critical reasoning, empirical research, and cutting-edge technologies. For example, consider reshaping courses to connect key concepts and questions with a student’s early and active involvement in systematic investigation and research.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

(continues)

278

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

TAB LE 6 .4 (Continued) High-Impact Learning Practice

Description

Potential Scorecard Dimension

Diversity and Global Learning

Courses and programs that help students explore cultures, life experiences, and worldviews different from their own. This may include diversity in the Americas, world cultures, or both, often exploring such ‘‘difficult differences’’ in the context of racial, ethnic, and gender inequality, or continuing global struggles for human rights and freedom. Frequently, intercultural studies can be augmented by experiential learning in the community and by study abroad programs.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Service Learning, CommunityBased Learning

In these programs, field-based ‘‘experiential learning’’ with community partners gives students direct experience with issues they are studying in the curriculum and with ongoing issues in the community. A key element in these programs is the opportunity students have both to apply what they are learning in real-world settings and reflect on their service experiences in a classroom setting. These programs model the idea that giving something back to the community is an important college outcome, and that working with community partners is good preparation for citizenship, work, and life.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Internships

Internships are another increasingly common form of experiential learning. The idea is to provide students with direct experience in a work setting usually related to their career interests, and to give them the benefit of supervision and coaching from professionals in the field. If the internship is taken for course credit, students complete a project or paper that is approved by a faculty member.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Capstone Courses Often called ‘‘senior capstones,’’ these culminating experiences and Projects require students nearing the end of college to create a project that integrates and applies what they have learned. The project might be a research paper, a performance, a portfolio of ‘‘best work,’’ or an exhibit of artwork. Capstones are offered both in departmental programs and increasingly in general education as well.

Access and Equity Perspective Learning and Diversity Perspective

Source: Adapted from Kuh, 2008. *Please note that some of these experiences are more amenable to the Access and Equity Perspective while others are more amenable to the Learning and Diversity Perspective. Campus leadership will have to make determinations regarding the best placement in their campus framework.

campus leadership roles, then it may prove important that they diversify the program’s ranks. Participation might then serve as an indicator for your institutional scorecard and inspire campus leaders to examine other leadership, mentorship, and independent research opportunities, such as sabbaticals, to ensure that there is equity in participation levels and outcomes.

The Graduation Gap: A Possible Indicator for Your Scorecard Institutions often face several challenges in regard to student achievement. One obvious challenge is the graduation gap between majority White and

B EI NG AC CO U N TA BL E

279

minority students. Another challenge is the underrepresentation of minority students in the STEM disciplines. Generally speaking, minority graduates are clustered in the humanities and social science fields. Although many factors help account for these discrepancies, several can be traced to the grade differentials evidenced in the first two or three semesters of a student’s experience on campus. It is important for institutions experiencing an academic achievement gap to disaggregate and analyze the academic achievement patterns in their gateway and prerequisite courses as an essential indicator for their scorecard. Institutional leaders intent on closing the achievement gap must understand the circumstances of lagging students who, once they fall behind in their courses, find it extremely difficult to continue, much less catch up. A lack of success in the gateway courses can have far-reaching negative effects on students. Some leave school altogether, and others, if they do stay enrolled, often take longer to complete their degrees. These students also tend to find it harder to gain entry into graduate school or professional degree programs. Courses like precalculus, calculus, introductory chemistry, biology, organic chemistry, and botany are referred to at many institutions as the ‘‘killer’’ gateway courses. Helping students to perform at a high level and monitoring their progress in these courses is therefore critical and represents an important potential dimension of an institution’s SDLS. More than any other measure, the access and equity perspective resonates with campus leaders because it is historically anchored, concrete, and relatively easy to quantify. Although developing performance measurement indicators from the other perspectives of diversity can be more challenging, it is possible. All perspectives are necessary to form a more complete picture of an institution’s success in advancing its strategic diversity agenda.

Multicultural and Inclusive Campus Climate Perspective The multicultural and inclusive campus climate perspective offers another effective means of developing a balanced view of diversity issues on campus. Because it has been in use for so many years, the term campus climate is familiar to almost everyone in higher education. Occasionally, however, someone will ask, ‘‘What do you mean by climate?’’ Climate describes the psychological temperature of the campus, and in this case chilly refers to an environment that is hostile to diversity, whereas warm refers to a campus environment that is receptive and responsive (Hurtado et al., 1998). The

280

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

campus climate, therefore, references the degree to which various community members feel included or excluded in the learning and professional environments of a college environment. As noted in Chapter 3’s treatment of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model, the goal is not simply to diversify our environments and then leave faculty, staff, and students to fend for themselves. To the contrary, our goal must be to create an institutional context in which every member of our campus community can thrive and achieve at his or her maximum potential. Principles for Developing Credible Climate Indicators for an SDLS Addressing campus climate is a necessary component of any strategic diversity plan. To provide a foundation for a vibrant and collegial learning community, the academic institution must help foster a climate that cultivates diversity and celebrates difference. Because of the inherent complexity of the topic of diversity, it is crucial to examine the multiple dimensions of the campus climate on college and university campuses. Hurtado and colleagues (1998) have proposed that the campus climate should be understood as a multidimensional concept that includes historical, structural (demographic), psychological, and behavioral dimensions. The two dimensions of the framework most helpful for this discussion of diversity scorecards and indicators of progress and outcome are the psychological and behavioral dimensions of the campus climate. These two dimensions are the focus of most campus climate research, and should form the core of any survey or qualitative data collection activities designed to produce campus climate performance measurement indicators. Although it is beyond the scope of this book to outline comprehensively what information should be captured, there exist a number of social science principles for collecting credible organizational diversity data to populate the campus climate dimension of your scorecard. Although it is relatively easy to track some indicators of campus climate, such as the number of reported harassment incidents, it is more difficult to develop sophisticated systems for monitoring the campus climate. For this reason, institutions should pull from a number of different data sources. These sources might include institutional databases, a review of campus programs and initiatives, and the establishment of a regular organizational diversity survey that would capture information about the campus climate. Institutions should develop research instruments and processes that can be used with fidelity in student, faculty, and staff communities. Rather than create a single survey for students and faculty, diversity leaders should work to create unique surveys that will allow

B E I N G AC CO U N TA B L E

281

researchers to analyze the campus experience from several different perspectives, at times using common items for multiple communities. Given the high number of surveys that are deployed at many institutions, campus leaders may also look to creatively embed diversity-themed questions into preexisting survey instruments, creating a more efficient data collection process. This could have the added benefit of providing more opportunities for diversity efforts to be collaborative with other initiatives on campus. It also spreads the message that diversity and inclusion issues are universally important. It also sends a strong statement about how much an institution values diversity when these kinds of questions are included on, say, a housing satisfaction survey, a senior exit survey from the department, or an alumni survey. Probably one of the greatest benefits that emerge from this partnering strategy is that it avoids the growing culture of survey fatigue that has crept into higher education as more and more surveys are deployed each year. At the same time, these partnered efforts must aggressively pursue their data collection efforts in a way that will allow them to achieve a high enough response rate from diverse communities to allow for creative analyses and disaggregation of the data, a point this text made earlier and will be highlighted in Box 6.1.

The Behavioral Dimensions of the Campus Climate The behavioral dimension of the climate refers to reports of interactions or contact experiences between and among different groups; rates of participation in campus programs; traditions, rituals, and activities; and full engagement in the various identity-specific and mainstream systems of the institution. Some of this data may be readily available in campus databases, but some of it will have to be gathered. One place for leaders to develop their behavioral climate indicator systems is through their campus affirmative action report. This report should contain data regarding the number and location of harassment and racial discrimination claims. Another behavioral indicator of the campus climate is the number of lawsuits brought against the institution. Although not perfect indicators, these data are available and in some instances widely known by the broader campus community. Tracking them as one set of indicators may be important, particularly if one school, college, division, or department has a particularly poor track record in this arena. Another set of behavioral indicators includes the existence and health of diversity-themed student and professional organizations. Organizations like

282

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

the National Society of Black Engineers, the Rainbow Student Alliance, or the Latino Faculty and Staff Association can serve as important indicators for gauging the presence of a supportive and multicultural campus community. Research has consistently shown that college and university communities, and student communities in particular, operate in racialized contexts (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Williams, 2002). Indeed researchers have found that becoming involved in organizations that reflect and affirm a particular cultural background is critical to giving minority students a sense of belonging, thereby facilitating their participation in the broader campus community. Yet the presence and vibrancy of identity-themed organizations are rarely if ever monitored as a progress indicator for understanding the health and supportiveness of the campus climate. We should view these organizations, whether for students or faculty, as key indicators of an academic community’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. Finally, the behavioral dimension of the campus climate can be assessed by gathering survey or qualitative data. Some areas of data collection might address a respondent’s level of involvement in different campus-wide and identity-specific experiences, such as their involvement in campus leadership, orientation, or mentoring programs. An important aspect of the behavioral dimension of the campus climate is the degree to which individuals participate in positive intergroup experiences. Have they developed friendships, engaged in conversations, studied or conducted research, or mentored across lines of difference? Recalling the access and equity perspective, another indicator might be participation in high-impact learning experiences.

The Psychological Dimension of the Campus Climate The psychological dimension of the campus climate refers to the extent to which individuals perceive conflict and discrimination on campus, feel somehow singled out because of their background, or perceive institutional support and commitment related to diversity (Hurtado et al., 1998). Diverse administrators, students, and faculty view the campus climate from perspectives that often reflect their social identities. Consequently, perceptions of intergroup interaction, institutional commitment to diversity, and discrimination or racial conflict can be used to assess the psychological dimension of the campus climate. Who you are and where you are positioned within the campus hierarchy influences how you view and experience the institution. Any potential differences and similarities should be captured in your strategic diversity scorecard and then be used to inform ongoing and future diversity policies and programs (Berger & Milem, 2000).

B EI NG AC CO U N TA B L E

283

Examining the campus climate for diversity is an important part of a regular campus-based assessment, especially as a way of driving ever-higher levels of performance. Launching a well-designed campus climate research effort creates the type of data-driven approach that can lead to new initiatives and an enhanced understanding of the key issues that university leadership must address to create a more inclusive campus environment. If done well, it can position the campus community to have a more sophisticated understanding of the various issues affecting both minority and majority community members. Some common survey items might capture information about general satisfaction, perceptions of the work or academic environment, work-family conflict, intergroup relations, perceptions of institutional commitment, and questions designed to tap into views of discrimination and exclusion. This research might also explore concepts related to the dynamic and learning-centered nature of the organization, perceptions of morale, the collaborative nature of decision-making, and other concepts related to institutional climate and institutional culture. Gathering this data is essential to creating a robust conversation that is guided by reason and policy, not politics.

Challenges to Collecting Campus Climate Data Even when institutions attempt to assess the campus climate, the process is sometimes undermined by a refusal by campus leaders to disaggregate the data because of concerns about low participation or response rates. This is a valid concern and should be seriously considered. However, campus leaders should explore the possibilities of disaggregation, recognizing that although a small sample size may lead to mischaracterizations, it may also at times lead to meaningful differences that, although not statistically significant, suggest a course of action for leaders to pursue. To reiterate a point made earlier regarding the critical importance of disaggregating academic achievement data, campus leaders should disaggregate campus climate as well, and emphasize obtaining a strong response to their data collection efforts. How can one determine if the environment is equitable if the particular experiences of individual subgroups are not recognized? Research often fails to address the inter- and intragroup differences between and among majority White and minority populations. The result is that studies often (a) minimize the importance of race and ethnicity by not developing measures that qualitatively assess these dynamics; (b) fail to supplement quantitative data with interviews or focus groups; and (c) fail to use sufficient oversampling

284

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

techniques in which every minority student is surveyed, rather than drawing a sample, to yield a robust sample size of ethnic and racial diversity, preventing both inter- and intragroup analyses of the data. Even more problematic is the lag that occurs when troubling issues are identified and committees and units are not poised to translate findings into actionable recommendations. For this reason, institutions should develop a system of institutional metrics of diversity progress and outcomes. These metrics should be tracked and monitored over time, using not only institutional database information but also survey and other data that can be used to assess campus progress in a particular area. Some evidence may be qualitative in nature and involve focus groups for different primary and secondary identity groups. Indeed, certain demographics present a number of challenges that campus leaders must consider in their data collection efforts. Furthermore, individuals across a number of different identity groups simply may not trust the process of data collection. Researchers must be careful to ensure confidentiality and respect for privacy. This is where the process of data collection and the effort to collect qualitative information is important. Although survey information is often helpful, it is not always possible. The key is to collect data systematically and consistently over time. Box 6.1 provides sample techniques to mitigate small respondent numbers.

BOX 6.1 Potential Strategies to Increase Student Survey Response Rate 1. Develop a high-profile message from the president or another high-ranking official proactively requesting that students respond to the campus survey. 2. Oversample the minority student population. 3. Consider the merits and limitations of conducting an additional wave of data collection for minority students. 4. Leverage controlled opportunities to collect data like summer orientation, or first-year experience courses. 5. Invite students to participate in a steering committee and empower them to help drive responses. (continues)

B E I N G AC C O U N TA B L E

285

(continued) 6. Consider the merits of a paper and pencil versus a digital survey in terms of increasing response rates. 7. Consider modest incentives as long as they do not jeopardize obtaining unbiased responses. 8. Conduct targeted outreach calls at specific times during the data collection effort to nonresponders, reminding them of the survey. 9. Involve campus diversity professionals in cultural centers, student affairs, and other areas as agents to drive response rates. 10. Develop an online website for the climate research project to ensure public access to the project. 11. Pay attention to the academic calendar and avoid midterms and other periods when students are busier than usual 12. Coordinate with other data collection efforts on campus to avoid sending surveys at the same time. 13. Consider piggybacking with other survey efforts by including key climate questions on other surveys.

Learning and Diversity Perspective In today’s changing world, the learning and diversity perspective is growing increasingly important. As discussed in Chapter 1, demographic trends and the emergence of a global economy demand that today’s college graduates attain a high level of cultural competency if they are to succeed. With instant communication and a multicultural marketplace, we must ensure that all of our students, faculty, and staff are prepared to participate in a diverse and interconnected world.

Diversity and Learning Outcomes Recent research has validated earlier findings that cognitive skills develop more strongly through interactions with diverse communities and by grappling with diverse content and pedagogies. As early as 1975, Jean Piaget found that through interactions with diverse peers, students were able to more effectively negotiate differences between their own views and those of others (Piaget, 1975). In addition, they developed the ability to manage the strong feelings that intergroup interaction can sometimes engender. These cognitive and affective processes can be measured as part of the learning and diversity perspective of an SDLS. Some critical learning outcomes might

286

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

include the presence of active thinking skills, intellectual engagement and motivation, and effective communication and group problem-solving abilities, all outcomes associated with diverse learning environments (P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). In its Greater Expectations report (2002), the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) outlined a set of contemporary liberal education outcomes important for all students regardless of academic specialization. Developed out of an analysis of promising educational practices nationwide, these outcomes include the ability to think critically and to integrate knowledge across domains, being intellectually curious and motivated for lifelong learning, being able to communicate across cultures, being socially responsible and able to function in a diverse society, and being able to solve problems by working as a team. Tracking student learning and development is especially important because it provides critical benchmarks to assess how institutions are doing in terms of preparing all students to participate in a multicultural and interconnected world. Although the focus of this area is mostly directed toward students, the learning needs of faculty, staff, and other members of the higher education community can also be included under this dimension of your SDLS scorecard. Another way of considering the different types of indicators that may be tracked from this perspective is through the essential learning outcomes highlighted previously and adapted from the AAC&U. From this vantage point, some relevant outcomes might include integrating learning in a way that learners are able to draw on diverse viewpoints and understand issues contextually by connecting knowledge and skills from multiple sources and experiences. Inquiry learning, a process in which learners are asked to engage actively with both their material studies and the process of learning, allows students to assume responsibility for their own progress. Global learning is about establishing the habits of mind and skills that will allow students to look beyond the obvious to the broader context of issues and how they play out in ways that are both local and global in their implications. Finally, diverse communities are conducive to civic learning, and indeed to one of the fundamental guiding principles of higher education, namely that colleges and universities have a responsibility to help students become active members of a functioning democracy. Still a third way of conceptualizing measures for the learning and diversity dimension of your scorecard is through the lens of what Gurin and associates (2002) refer to as democratic outcomes. Democratic outcomes include the ability to take the position of another person, racial and cultural

B E I NG AC C O U N TA B L E

287

understanding between and among groups, acceptance of conflict as a normal part of life, capacity to perceive differences and similarities both within and between social groups, and interest in the wider social world and civic engagement (Gurin et al., 2002). Springer, Palmer, Terenzini, Pascarella, and Nora (1996) found that students who interacted with diverse peers reported more frequent discussions of complex social issues, including such topics as the economy, peace, human rights, equality, and justice. Meanwhile, Astin (1993) found that socializing with people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds actually increases an individual’s cultural awareness and commitment to racial understanding and the environment. Research has confirmed the close connection between a diverse learning environment and increases in understanding and empathy (Gurin et al., 2002; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). These studies show that students who interact with diverse peers are simply better at developing cultural competencies and navigating complex social environments than students who do not. Drawing on the tools and models offered by a wide range of social theorists and education scholars, diversity leaders can build an SDLS that actually measures the development of these skills and thereby validates cultural competence and diversity intelligence as valuable assets for an educated and productive society.

A Breadth and Depth of Indicators The challenge is to include these varying perspectives in the strategic diversity scorecard in a way that develops measures in terms of both breadth and depth. A study by the Association of American Colleges and Universities revealed that 54 percent of the 543 campuses responding to their survey had a general education diversity requirement (Humphreys, 2000). However, the real challenge rests in assessing the particular qualities and contents of these requirements. Is the requirement based on content knowledge about diversity issues, or developing the skills to interact and lead in diverse settings? In situations in which there is a course requirement, how do we weigh situations in which students fulfill the requirement in their first years of study? What can we learn about how a diversity requirement in the first semesters of an undergraduate career affects subsequent intellectual, social, and professional pursuits? It is not enough for an institution simply to create a diversity requirement, a designated ‘‘diversity major,’’ or a living-learning program focused on diversity and intergroup relations. Although important as process indicators and formative inputs, they alone do not tell the story of impact. When

288

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

developing indicators for this area, therefore, it is important to capture the type and quality of offerings that are presented and the levels and quality of student engagement (Milem et al., 2005). For example, one diversity progress measure may be the number of courses offered per school or department that focus on issues of diversity and feature small-group discussion and personal reflection. Although challenging, it is possible to develop an institutional database that can begin to measure the outcomes of this course beyond whatever grade the student receives. A significant body of literature suggests that engaging with diversity issues in the curriculum and cocurriculum increases a student’s abilities both cognitively and relationally in terms of their ability to interact in groups and with individuals from different backgrounds (Milem et al., 2005). One obvious progress indicator includes the number of participants in a range of curricular and cocurricular diversity experiences. Another might include the number of courses and majors that explore issues of power, social justice, equity, multiculturalism, and diversity. A third indicator is the percentage of faculty who integrate diversity themes and pedagogical techniques into their courses, readings, assignments, and evaluative mechanisms (Cohn & Gareis, 2007). Table 6.5 offers possible strategies for integrating diversity principles into a college course. One important finding in recent years is that it is not simply the presence of ethnic and racial diversity on campus, but rather an active engagement with diversity issues that is critically important for promoting diverse educational outcomes (Gurin et al., 2002). Informal interactions are an important part of the diversity equation and can be included among the indicators developed to assess learning and diversity. Although challenging, measuring interactions outside of class, whether in dorm, dining halls, or extracurricular programs, can help inform policies and programs in a wide range of more formal, institutional settings (Gurin et al., 2002). In particular, extracurricular activities, including student intergroup dialogue programs, service learning activities and other diversity education initiatives, should be included as core components of the learning and diversity dimension of a strategic diversity scorecard. To capture data from each of these experiences generally requires primary data collected through surveys, focus groups, and interviews, similar to the techniques that will be required to capture indicators in the campus climate perspective.

International and Domestic Diversity Research Perspective The international and domestic diversity research perspective centers on driving scholarship and research around local, regional, national, and international issues of diversity. During the last 50 years, questions of class,

B E I N G AC C O U N TA B L E

289

TAB LE 6. 5 Strategies for Integrating Diversity Principles Into a College Course Syllabus

Include a statement of institutional diversity values in the course syllabus reflecting individual faculty member’s commitment to creating a supportive and inclusive campus learning environment.

Textbook and Readings

Where possible, select course readings that include minority perspectives and are respectful of diversity values, while eschewing readings that engage in stereotypes or perpetuate majority assumptions.

Assignments

Create assignments that allow students to explore diverse ideas from different personal and cultural perspectives, and accommodate different learning styles and needs.

Participation Norms

Begin the course with a discussion of ground rules and expectations for communications and interactions, and take advantage of opportunities in classroom discussion and homework assignments to facilitate and encourage intercultural dialogue and exchange.

Course Evaluations

Where appropriate, develop course evaluations that provide opportunities for addressing issues of diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Source: Adapted from Cohn & Gareis, 2007.

gender, sexuality, nationality, race, ethnicity, power, and privilege have transformed guiding research assumptions in the academy. Scholars across a range of disciplines and schools, from sociology to psychology, from anthropology to evolutionary biology, have witnessed profound changes in the direction of their fields in response to the rising prominence of diversity. Scholars in the physical and natural sciences and in professional fields like law, medicine, communications, and business are making important contributions to advancing our understanding of diversity issues, from multicultural marketing to international human rights, and from immigration policy to health care. Diversity-themed research opens new conversations in neglected areas of inquiry while offering a fresh perspective on previously well-trodden intellectual terrain. Hence, it is critical for campus leaders to understand the diversity dimension of their faculty’s research and scholarship. The first step in the process is to develop a clear framework for assessing the depth and breadth of diversity research on campus. Although multicultural and international studies areas are obvious candidates for assessment, they are not the only ones.

290

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

Moreover, diversity leaders need to be sensitive to the fact that both traditions emerged out of unique historical processes and are very different (Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007). Indeed, in some circumstances these two fields have been forced to compete with each other for funding and staff resources, even as they have found themselves occupying different intellectual, political, and organizational spaces on campus. Despite these past differences, the domains of both multicultural and international studies offer a rich place to begin the conversation on diversity scholarship, research, and teaching in academia. The very fact that domestically oriented diversity and multicultural studies have been traditionally separated from international studies underscores how slowly academic institutions have responded to the changing reality of our increasingly global society. With time, institutions are beginning to appreciate that diversity issues cannot be taught in isolation either as local, domestic or international questions. In their discussion of the connections between the domestic and international diversity studies, Cornwell and Stoddard (1999) argue that it is insufficient to teach students about diversity issues in isolation. Appreciating the full complexity of diversity issues in the United States means, at some point, entertaining the international dimensions of an expanding global economy and society (Cornwell & Stoddard, 1999).

Measuring the International and Domestic Diversity Research Perspective Any effort to create a balanced understanding of diversity should seek to capture research productivity as a dimension of an institution’s scorecard. Some progress indicators may be descriptive, including, for example, the number of diversity disciplines and program areas, as well as the way these disciplines are structured. From this vantage point, the presence of departments or research centers across such areas as African American studies, Latino and Hispanic studies, Native American studies, Middle Eastern studies, queer studies, women’s studies, and international studies become critical markers of institutional capacity. Other indicators could include the number of faculty members and students teaching and studying in these areas, the number of courses being offered, and the number of graduate degrees being conferred. Other indicators include the number of grant dollars, research projects, articles, books, and conference presentations these various area studies are able to generate. The effect of the work produced in the research and scholarship domain is often difficult to describe qualitatively. To address this challenge, your

B EI NG AC CO U N TA BL E

291

scorecard may feature a description of exemplary contributions that illustrate excellence. Examples of keynote lectures, expert testimony given before policy and regulatory bodies, and teaching and research awards can all help give a sense of the effects and outcomes of the institution’s diversity efforts. Has a member of the faculty been chosen to give a keynote address at a diversitythemed conference? Is a senior administrator consulting with another university about its strategic diversity plan? Is a faculty member serving as a scholar-in-residence at a prestigious research center? Highlighting these success stories in the SDLS lends context and credence to the quantitative analysis. Indeed, have these success stories already appeared in a diversity-themed journal or campus publication? The publication itself can help inform the scorecard. Although not perfect, capturing these data with rigor, discipline, and focus will allow the institution to track its trajectory of progress and change over time, while making adjustments along the way by using the SDLS to guide policy change.

Diversity Leadership Commitment Perspective Diversity leadership commitment is essential to creating a culture of accountability to embolden your institutional diversity efforts and deliver the four major strategic diversity goals outlined in the SDLS presented in this chapter. Borrowing from Hubbard (2004), diversity leadership commitment constitutes ‘‘demonstrated evidence and actions taken by leaders to support, challenge, and champion the diversity process within their organization’’ (p. 147). Hubbard continues, ‘‘It reflects the degree to which the organization’s leaders utilize behaviors that set the diversity vision, direction, and policy into actual practice. It also reflects the individual level and degrees of accountability that leaders have in forging an implementation strategy, and it analyzes the level of specific behavior they exhibit as a model diversity champion’’ (p. 147). This dimension is critical to establishing, driving, and sustaining an organizational change agenda and moving your institution toward more mature stages of diversity implementation. It sets the tone for communicating change, building organizational capacity, and attracting the necessary resources to make diversity efforts more than symbolic. As such, this dimension serves as a critical ingredient of the four dimensions of the strategic diversity scorecard framework offered in this chapter. (See Table 6.6.) It is important to note that diversity leadership commitment is not as easily captured or measured as the four diversity perspectives offered earlier.

292

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

TAB LE 6 .6 Diversity Leadership Commitment Perspective Perspective

Description

Sample Tactics

Progress Indicators

Outcome Indicators

Diversity Leadership Commitment Perspective

Building strategic diversity capacity that allows the institution to engage diversity as a strategic priority

• Allocating financial resources to drive the campus diversity agenda • Creating an empowered diversity infrastructure (e.g., chief diversity officer, faculty efforts, diversity offices, committees, etc.) • Diversity incentive grant funds to drive innovation • Integrating diversity into the strategic plan • Presidential prioritizing of diversity in speeches • Presence of a campus diversity plan

• A stand-alone diversity plan that is developed, organized, and resourced for implementation (quality review) • Campus definition of diversity that is articulated, institutionalized, and widely promoted (quality review) • Decentralized diversity plans that are put into place in each school, college, or department (quality review) • Level of dedicated campus diversity unit budgets • Diversity included in performance review and assessment of leaders • Diversity that is infused into the campus strategic and academic plans (quality review) • Level of the campus diversity incentive fund budget • Levels of foundation resources raised to benefit issues of diversity • Number of initiatives funded out of the diversity incentive fund • Presence of diversity within the institutional mission (quality review) • Number of minority and women-owned contractors and vendors serving the institution • Number and quality of community-based partnerships and collaborations • Development of new diversity policies to guide admissions, financial aid, hiring decisions, and other matters designed to promote diversity • Level of funds allocated to faculty diversification initiatives • Requiring diversity point leadership in every school and college across campus

Assessed across the other four dimensions of the scorecard as this perspective is foundational to achieving success in each unique area

B EI N G AC CO UN TA BL E

293

At the same time, it is important to highlight ways that institutions might develop a statement in their strategic diversity scorecard reports that highlights diversity leadership commitment. Leadership and diversity commitment is as much defined by personal interactions and collegial engagement as through formal structural matters of policy and budget allocations. As a result, campus leaders must be committed to being creative, gathering information that tells the story of institutional leadership and commitment in novel and innovative ways. Although all members of the campus community need to embrace the diversity change process, it is particularly incumbent on leaders to assume a central role in guiding the effort. In addition to student and faculty diversity champions, these leaders include the president, provost, deans, senior administrators, and board of trustees. Members of these groups must be committed to establishing strategic diversity initiatives as a top priority. The roles of the president and provost are particularly critical. Although they may task a campus diversity committee to create the driving vision and a chief diversity officer to help lead the process, the campus’s most senior leadership must remain active and involved if it is to be successful. Senior leadership is key to creating systems of accountability and incentives for success, as well as to generating short-term wins, consolidating gains, and institutionalizing novel approaches in effective and innovative ways (Kotter, 1996).

Accountability Systems for Diversity Without robust accountability systems that can complement and sharpen the strategic diversity scorecard, diversity efforts can run the risk of becoming so much window dressing. For this reason, it is important that senior leaders consider ways to embed diversity procedures within individual schools and departments, and to integrate diversity principles with central administrative functions. Some examples might include facilitating the creation of a strategic diversity scorecard that is specific to each department, school, or college. Another system of accountability might be to include diversity leadership as part of the merit, performance, or activity reviews of faculty, staff, and senior campus leadership. Although such contributions may not weigh decisively in tenure or promotion decisions, the very act of requiring this information sends an important message about diversity as an institutional value. If institutions follow this message with a system that takes this information into account in a meaningful way, diversity leadership can assume a valued position in ways that are similar to financial stewardship, research productivity, and other tangible examples of leadership.

294

W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

An easy way for leaders to create a culture of diversity accountability is for a president, provost, or dean to implement a meeting schedule or communication process that addresses a particular diversity issue. For example, a new president at a large research university developed a very effective communication strategy without a lot of fanfare or public attention. As reported by Adrianna Kezar and Peter Eckel (2005) in their study of college and university presidents and diversity: [I] met with the deans once a week. The very first meeting, I asked the deans individually how their plans for hiring minority faculty were going and nobody had much going on. . . . For that entire year, I asked that same question every single cabinet meeting. Every dean knew that when they went to that meeting, they were going to have to explain, in front of their colleagues, what it was that they were doing; how many people they were interviewing, how many candidates they had identified, when the interviews were going to start, what the quality of the candidates were. . . . Everybody was going to be held responsible. . . . This pushed people to have something good to say when we went through that weekly analyses of how we were doing. (Kezar & Eckel, 2005, p. 15–16)

Still another indicator of accountability might be evidence of exempting or protecting diversity efforts from budget cuts during times of financial retrenchment. With so many institutions in difficult straits, the ability to maintain funding for diversity speaks volumes about an institution’s commitment. Capturing this information in reports that highlight diversity leadership commitment shows how well ground-level budget decisions affecting diversity match the vision and rhetoric.

Diversity-Themed 360-Degree Assessment Process Another approach to creating a culture of accountability from the leadership commitment perspective is to evaluate directly the campus leadership team’s commitment to institutional diversity. This could involve a 360-degree performance review. In this type of performance review, subordinates, peers, supervisors, and other key stakeholders provide feedback. The review could be implemented using key campus stakeholders or an outside third party relying on multiple components of data. Both approaches should involve the participation and guidance of campus leaders. For example, the review of a campus president might involve a review committee comprising a student, a direct report, the chief diversity officer,

B E I N G AC CO U N TA B L E

295

chair of the campus diversity committee, leaders in shared governance, members of the board of regents or trustees, faculty in ethnic or women’s studies programs, staff working in the multicultural student center, and others. Indeed, one approach is to have this group emerge as an officially appointed campus governance committee. Still another approach is to use an external consultant to conduct the review, similar to the process used in other highprofile evaluations. Both approaches of internal and external review teams involve campus leadership. An internal group brings an intimate understanding of the campus community, although campus leaders should take care that their presence on campus does not create a biased assessment, or political fallout should the evaluation not go well. Conversely, an external team brings an independent perspective, although obviously the team might lack the internal team’s more intimate knowledge of the institution. The review team gathers data around diversity leadership commitment using a confluence of surveys and interviews with key stakeholders. These should be compiled along with other elements of data drawn from key diversity budget decisions, high-profile speeches, editorials, and policy decisions in a given period to construct a system of evidence for a general assessment of the leadership. By establishing clear guidelines for the study, conducting a transparent and fair review process, and focusing on ways to improve rather than tear down existing guidelines and personnel, a 360-degree assessment could help develop specific recommendations for improvement. Enhancing a learning-centered organizational culture, this review process would also reinforce the institution’s commitment to issues of diversity. Even if the institution does not proceed with a specific diversity-themed performance review, it could consider incorporating diversity in the general performance review that most senior leaders undergo every three to five years, or as their contracts come up for renewal.

Cascading Your Scorecard: Achieving Buy-In An effective strategic diversity scorecard is necessary to help establish where an institution is on the change continuum and help the institution move forward in a number of important ways. At the same time, a top-level scorecard will not, by itself, drive results, even if senior leadership supports it. A campus-wide scorecard must be linked with other assessments across the institution, which will have a ‘‘cascading’’ effect as multiple entities engage diversity issues at multiple levels (Bensimon, 2004; Kaplan & Norton, 1992;

296

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

O’Neil, 1999). At their best, scorecards decentralize the framework, vision, and process of change, involving multiple constituents as learners and contributors to the overall effort. In a cascading process, each unit develops its own strategic diversity scorecard across the five areas outlined in this chapter. Hence the division of student affairs, the division of enrollment management, the business school, the medical school, and other critical areas might have a scorecard in their area. By deploying the scorecard at multiple levels, the entire campus community is afforded the opportunity to contribute to the vision of change from many unique vantage points. The key is to use the five dimensions of the scorecard as a framework for accomplishing change up, down, and across the institution. When it comes to implementing a modern-day campus diversity agenda, responsibility should not be confined to diversity professionals. Everyone in the campus community has a role to play. This can only happen if the diversity agenda is defined as a matter of institutional excellence and embraced as part of a shared covenant to lead in the new millennium. As a result, institutional leaders must find a way to infuse the campus diversity agenda as part of the strategic priorities of the institution. This means linking issues of diversity to conversations about institutional priorities; connecting issues of diversity to learning; talking about access and equity goals from the perspective of serving the broader needs of society; and educating students for a diverse, knowledge-based global economy. Plans called for by the board of trustees or president and crafted by task forces can mean very little to the various academic, administrative, and student affairs units of an institution—even if these areas are represented on the planning committee. To achieve long-term success, change must be understood and acted on at multiple levels. It is not enough for a diversity planning committee to recommend that the institution increase the representation of historically underrepresented students to match the population of the state. Admissions and other units that play a role in achieving this goal must define what this means for them in measurable terms and then develop realistic objectives, tactics, and metrics to guide their efforts. This requires a level of alignment to the big-picture agenda using a cascading scorecard process.

Structured Learning Forums as a Tool of Engagement Among the useful tools to help leaders cascade their scorecard throughout the institution and create a space for constructive dialogue are ‘‘structured

B EI NG AC CO U N TA BL E

297

learning forums.’’ Simply sharing the data from your strategic diversity scorecard is not enough. It is critical to bring together stakeholders in a series of discussions in which evidence can be shared, analyzed, and used to drive new initiatives (Moynihan, 2008). Thus, Moynihan (2008) argues that the ‘‘gap between dissemination and use [of data] occurs partly because of an absence of routines in which data are examined and interpreted’’ (p. 205). These learning forums provide opportunities for students, faculty, and other members of the campus community to consider the information across the various dimensions of the SDLS, analyze its importance, and decide on ways to use this information to make adjustments. It is only by engaging community members in the process that individuals will be empowered to take actions regarding issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. One type of learning forum should involve members of the campus diversity committee that was responsible for implementing the scorecard in the first place. Another forum might involve senior leadership and the campus deans. These forums should be confidential and limited in size to allow for an open and honest dialogue. Ideally the forums would involve a blend of informal conversations and formal presentations. Forums should involve key participants who can play an important role leveraging the data to create greater effect. For example, the learning forum might involve multiple academic deans, department chairs in courses with a high level of grade disparity between groups, faculty engaged in teaching and learning and curriculum reform efforts, campus diversity professionals, academically themed student organizations, and leadership in high-impact learning experiences. The key is to expose and engage leaders to the data so that they can confront the reality of the data, consider new possibilities, and develop new initiatives to drive change.

Benchmarking and Competitive Analysis Although your campus SDLS provides you with a system of data, it is also important to put those data in context both internally and externally. By adopting competitive analysis techniques popular in the organizational literature, diversity leaders can better understand how their diversity efforts stack up against those of peer institutions. As the name implies, competitive analysis involves understanding how peer institutions are performing on a given diversity dimension, or benchmarking.

298

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

Benchmarking uses standard measurements in a service or industry for comparison to gain perspective on organizational performance. When organizations want to improve their performance, they benchmark. That is, they compare and measure their policies, practices, philosophies, and performance measures against those of their competitors, especially competitors that are out-performing them. Benchmarking provides the most effective approach for assessing operational change. Used appropriately, benchmarks can serve as a catalyst to move institutions to a higher level of performance. To accomplish this goal, benchmarking must take into account not just outcomes, but the processes and capabilities that could ultimately improve results (Prasnikar, Debeljak, & Ahcan, 2005). It also means looking beyond a narrow focus on the most similar peer institutions. Therefore, diversity leaders should reach beyond their most obvious peers to explore not only other types of colleges and universities, but organizations outside of higher education altogether. Several different benchmarking techniques offer a means to gauge and assess performance over time (Boxwell, 1994; Prasnikar et al., 2005): • Competitive benchmarking enables an organization to compare its performance with competitors in the same sector (e.g., community college to community colleges, Catholic institution to Catholic institutions, etc.). • Best-in-class benchmarking allows leaders to compare their organization to best-in-class institutions across a range of indicators. As such, there may be different benchmark institutions for different dimensions of the comparison. • Internal or historical benchmarking is the internal procedure for comparing results from past performance to current or forecasted performance. This is an entirely internal mechanism for tracking progress within the institution. • Functional or external benchmarking involves comparing efforts with those of organizations from other industries and sectors that share similar operating procedures. For example, how does your institution’s SDLS stack up against the SDLS of a top private corporation or business? • Collaborative benchmarking involves setting up a competitive analysis in two phases. The first phase examines the efforts of two voluntary institutions within a sector. The second phase establishes an analysis between the two collaborators and an external third-party institution.

B EI NG AC CO U N TA BL E

299

For example, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) helps coordinate and evaluate the collaborative efforts of the Big Ten university members and the University of Chicago. Institutions can work with each other and the CIC to benchmark a variety of diversity indicators. In conducting competitive benchmarking analyses, institutions should track a range of inputs, outcomes, and capacity dimensions. Some input areas might include the number, background, and national origins of minority students, transfer students, and students receiving financial aid. In terms of outcomes, some key variables include graduation rates, time to degree, student loans, and placement in graduate and professional schools. One of the most important dimensions of any competitive analysis relates to the capacity of your competitive set. In this arena, campus leaders should ask questions regarding their capabilities in the areas of affirmative action and equity, multicultural inclusion, learning and diversity, and scholarship. At a minimum, do we have similarly performing diversity planning systems and infrastructures as our peers? How do we compare with those institutions we aspire to be like? Do we have a distinguishing diversity message, or are our diversity marketing efforts indistinguishable from those of other institutions? Do we have a chief diversity officer role, high-level diversity advisory committee, faculty diversification program, and other capacities essential to advancing diversity issues at the big-picture level? Box 6.2 offers a set of possible benchmarking indicators.

BOX 6.2 Potential External Benchmarking Indicators • Diversity of student, faculty, staff, and administrative ranks • Rate of success of ethnic and racially diverse faculty and students in terms of academic achievement, graduation, hiring, promotion, and retention • Minority student participation in the honors, study abroad, and service learning programs at rates consistent with their presence on campus • Campus diversity resources that can be easily accessed through our campus website • Campus diversity efforts that are included in the campus mission, strategic, and academic plans of the institution (continues)

300

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

(continued) • A broadly communicated and endorsed campus diversity plan • Campus-wide accountability system to ensure progress on issues of diversity • An ongoing campus climate assessment process • An ongoing assessment of the educational outcomes of diverse experiences • The presence of a chief diversity officer who is well positioned to provide leadership throughout campus • The presence of cultural centers, student organizations, and resources designed to foster an environment in which all students feel a sense of belonging and inclusion • The presence of mentoring programs and leadership development efforts designed to enhance the experience of women and minority students, faculty, and staff • The presence of diversity leadership development programs designed to enhance the teaching, administrative, and related leadership abilities of faculty, staff, and administrators • The presence of a general education diversity requirement designed to provide all students with experiences that will enhance their ability to thrive in a diverse and interconnected world • The presence of majors and minors in area studies that address both domestic and global diversity issues • The presence of domestic and international leadership programs designed to provide all students with experiences in diverse groups and communities • The presence of a well-coordinated intergroup dialogue program • The presence of scholarship and fellowship programs designed to increase the participation of historically underrepresented groups • Domestic partner benefits available to faculty, staff, and student members of the LGBT community

Perhaps the greatest tangible benefit of benchmarking is its potential to enhance decision-making through improved institutional knowledge of diversity issues. The second benefit of benchmarking is that it potentially removes self-imposed barriers to success by showing how others have approached their efforts to overcome diversity barriers and challenges.

Summary The primary goal of this chapter has been to demonstrate the tremendous value of creating a system for evaluating an institution’s diversity performance. Unfortunately, although many institutions have implemented strong

B EI NG AC CO UN TA B L E

301

diversity programs, many simultaneously lack strong evidence-based measures to evaluate efforts and improve outcomes. These institutions have spent billions of dollars and involved generations of students, faculty, and staff in diversity programs, but only a few have gathered the kind of evidence needed to demonstrate the return on their investment, much less make a clear case for why more substantive support could lead to further improvements. This lack of evidence means that there are also fewer compelling narratives to highlight ongoing developments or successes. In other words, many institutional leaders are ‘‘flying blind,’’ unsure of how well their programs are addressing the needs of the campus community, much less preparing students and others for the diverse and fast-paced world that is just outside the ivy walls. A strategic diversity scorecard offers a vital means to track, evaluate, and make improvements to diversity efforts. Although all of us can produce compelling anecdotes and individual success stories, our colleagues and senior administrators are more often driven by quantitative assessments and statistics. And these statistics must be accessible and compelling; only by connecting the numbers to compelling case histories can diversity leaders expect to get buy-in for their initiatives. Ultimately, what this means is producing a holistic scorecard that is broad in its implications and specific in its recommendations. A strong diversity accountability system is serious about improving performance while respecting the challenging obstacles to diversity that have plagued our institutions—indeed all of American society—for so long. A strong system of diversity accountability puts more emphasis on educational attainment, the educational implications of diverse experiences, and high-quality research. It is, after all, about creating accountability.

Notes 1. This quote is taken from Alfred, 2005, p. vii. 2. To learn more about the NSSE, contact the National Survey of Student Engagement located at Indiana University at http://nsse.iub.edu/. To learn more about the CIRP, contact UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute at www.heri.ucla.edu/index.php. To learn more about COACHE, contact Harvard University at http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword coache&pageidicb.page307142.

7 DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING SUCCESSFUL DIVERSITY PLANS

There is nothing wrong with having a diversity plan. In fact, I think diversity plans are incredibly important. Whether you make diversity a focus of your academic plan or do a stand-alone plan, the issue is to get something done. You’ve got to approach implementation in a way that has accountability, resources, presidential involvement, and coordination, or the plan is dead on arrival. We have seen lots of plans through the years; the challenge is to implement in a meaningful way that can truly lead to change. —Professor of Psychology and Associate Vice Provost for Academic Diversity at a midsized public university on the West Coast

A

Google search using the terms higher education and diversity plan garners more than 41,000 hits, largely describing the work of diversity committees at institutions around the country. As this book has emphasized repeatedly, these plans often emerge out of a campus crisis incident, or ‘‘cheetah’’ moment. Regardless of why an institution writes its diversity plan, the same hurdles always exist, namely to animate the numerous recommendations so that the plan achieves its mandate: increasing the representation and retention of historically underrepresented students and staff, improving the campus climate, leveraging diversity in the service of all students, and enhancing diversity-themed research and scholarship. Diversity plans come in all shapes and sizes. Some are highly textual, philosophical, and reflective. Others are a complex matrix of goals, strategies, and action steps. Some emphasize process; others focus on percentages. Some are lengthy treatises; others are more abbreviated. Although each diversity plan should have its own look and feel, the author’s review of more than 100 302

D E V E L OP IN G A ND IM P L EM E N TI NG S U CC E S S F U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A NS

303

diversity plans has led to the development of a framework for categorizing diversity plans, as well as some clear guidelines for writing and implementing them effectively. This chapter focuses on campus diversity plans, beginning with an historical overview of early antecedents of today’s diversity plan. From this overview, the discussion outlines three complementary approaches to diversity planning and implementation for college and university leaders: (a) the integrated approach, in which diversity goals are infused into the institution’s academic and strategic plans; (b) the centralized institutional diversity approach, in which diversity is treated as an area of strategic focus and priority in its own right, and (c) the decentralized diversity approach, in which individual departments, schools, and colleges construct their own unique plans. Although obviously each of these plans can operate independently, there are important ways to coordinate all three so that they can be enacted simultaneously. In particular, multicycle, three-year decentralized diversity planning processes work effectively, even though this approach is underused in the academy. Most academic institutions put their energy into integrating diversity goals into their campus strategic plan, taking essentially a top-down approach in terms of design and implementation. The decentralized approach offers some distinct advantages on the grounds that it is more consistent with the academy’s unique culture of shared governance and collective decision making. By creatively leveraging a decentralized approach in combination with the other two methods, campus leaders may quicken the pace of success, shifting the culture and institutional capacity in ways that benefit the entire campus community. This chapter concludes with an outline of key diversity planning guidelines that must be in place no matter what approach is taken.

Precursors to the Modern-Day Diversity Plan The first campus diversity plans emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, during a time of rapid change as colleges and universities struggled to accommodate the arrival of new African American students (Peterson et al., 1978). Seismic shifts in federal law, the emergence of new financial aid incentives, and the campaigns of student activists all played a role in pressuring leaders to take a more proactive approach to building diversity capacity (Ogbar, 2005). These dynamics changed the academy forever as predominantly White faculty and administrators found themselves encountering the cultural, academic, political, and financial needs of African American students. In response, the

304

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

federal government, private foundations, and academic institutions themselves supported new initiatives, including minority affairs offices, affirmative action offices, ethnic studies departments, student support offices, and new financial and admissions policies. Many of these early African American students had been active in the civil rights movement, and, after enrolling, directed their activism toward college and university administrations (Peterson et al., 1978). As their numbers grew, these students and their allies challenged the legacy of discrimination and racism at these institutions through demonstrations, sit-ins, and other forms of nonviolent protest. At the heart of these student-led efforts was a belief that students should have a greater say in directing and governing colleges and universities, and that institutions needed to incorporate the values and aspirations of an increasingly diverse student body in every facet of institutional life (Peterson et al., 1978).

The Ten-Point Platform Students often submitted their demands to senior leaders in the form of a ‘‘ten-point platform,’’ and these platforms invariably reflected the same core priorities: diversify student, faculty, and staff ranks; acknowledge and promote diversity in the curriculum; and develop new diversity-themed services and resources (Peterson et al., 1978). Colleges and universities responded to these demands as they do to most calls for change: with a great deal of caution and reticence. Hence the earliest efforts to engage in diversity planning and implementation activities were grounded in the principles of the diversity crisis model and characterized by the metaphor of the cheetah and the wolf presented in Chapter 4. Many of the reforms that resulted from student activism followed a cycle: explosive planning energy giving rise to new initiatives, then a gradual retrenchment and erosion of early efforts to enhance diversity and build capacity. The real test of any diversity initiative is whether its change energy will continue past early spurts of enthusiasm when the campus community has returned to its normal state of balance. In some instances, the gains achieved by these early plans fizzled and died. Leadership changed; priorities shifted; external grants were exhausted; and the new offices, programs, scholarships, and initiatives were eliminated. In other instances, these early plans endured and evolved, shaping the representation, curriculum, and infrastructures of their institutions in new and unforeseen ways. Indeed, many departments that now exist to support diverse students find inspiration from the

D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM P L E M EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

305

ethnic studies and early cultural centers that emerged to benefit racially and ethnically diverse students in the 1960s and 1970s (Ogbar, 2008; Peterson et al., 1978).

Institutional Adaptation to Diversity The tectonic shifts that took place in the demography of most campuses forced predominantly White institutions to adapt to diversity. Although one group may control the formal bureaucratic structures of an institution, pressure from new groups often leads to structural adjustments as the institution moves to serve the needs of the new group. We might term this process institutional adaptation to diversity, as the organization responds to mounting pressure, in this instance from activism, changes in policy, and an emerging diverse population. During the tumultuous years of the civil rights movement, as today, institutions had three broad categories of response. One response was to ignore the presence of diversity, building no new programs, offices, or special initiatives. A second response was to develop dedicated diversity programs specifically focused on the academic, cultural, political, and social needs of minority students and establishing dedicated diversity capacity. A third response was to integrate new diversity programs and initiatives within traditional campus units. Most institutions struck a balance, downplaying some concerns while acknowledging others. Similarly, some efforts were made to create truly robust and distinct bureaucratic structures to implement new policies and programs, whereas in other situations initiatives were simply window dressing tacked onto preexisting offices and processes, serving a more symbolic than material function on campus. Looking across the multiple dimensions of diversity activity on most campuses, strategic diversity leaders find a general philosophy in the academy that encompasses each of these three potential responses. For example, some institutions may have ignored various aspects of the diversity challenge (e.g., the desire for a Latino studies department) while acknowledging other aspects with dedicated efforts (e.g., building a race-conscious scholarship for historically underrepresented minorities) and then infusing diversity priorities into preexisting offices and processes (e.g., establishing a special minority recruiting role within the office of undergraduate admissions). These approaches indicate the general architecture that colleges and universities use to this day, and echo the themes of assimilation and identity affirmation presented in the exploration of the diversity idea in Chapters 2 and 3.

306

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

The Modern Diversity Plan This text defines a diversity plan as any intentionally created document that includes a diversity definition, rationale, goals, recommended actions, assignments of responsibility, timelines, accountability processes, and a budget. According to the author’s survey of colleges and universities throughout the United States, the most common form of diversity plan is the integrated approach, in which diversity is infused as a priority in either the academic or strategic plan.1 Among respondents, 86 percent infused diversity in their academic plans and 74 percent in their campus strategic plans. The second most common approach was a centralized institutional diversity plan, with 59 percent of surveyed institutions. The decentralized diversity plan, at 34 percent, ranked last. Although coordinated centrally, this approach locates the planning and implementation processes in schools, colleges, and divisions, rather than within the central administration. Despite being less popular than the other two, this approach presents great promise as a planning method. Indeed, the most effective approach requires blending the three, so that diversity efforts combine the advantages that each has to offer. Figure 7.1 offers a visual representation of this idea, placing outcomes like the educational benefits of diversity and the imperatives of incentives and accountability at the core of any diversity plan efforts, regardless of type. Each of these models offers great possibilities for establishing a broad vision and framework for change, although obviously they also face challenges. As discussed in Chapter 4, three common challenges stand out: a lack of senior level support, a lack of financial resources, and a vague implementation plan. Because no approach is perfect, diversity leaders should first examine the specific needs and objectives of their institutions and then examine these needs in the context of these differing approaches.

Implementation of the Modern-Day Diversity Plan As with so many efforts to improve higher education, diversity plans will not succeed simply because diversity champions want them to. On too many campuses, tales of heroic diversity plans and heartfelt efforts play out alongside overt and covert forms of cultural and institutional resistance. It is for this reason that planning and implementation efforts must unfold consistent with the principles of strategic diversity leadership and the challenge of overcoming the reactive, tradition-bound governing structures of college and university environments. The question for diversity champions is, ‘‘How can we get people to do diversity work’’?

D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES S F UL D I V E R S IT Y P L A N S

307

FIGURE 7.1 Integrated, Centralized, and Decentralized Diversity Plans

The days of affirmative action may be ending. The efforts of conservative special interest groups have challenged, and in some places weakened, efforts by many campuses to become more diverse and inclusive. As a result, institutions have become more reluctant to put forth ambitious strategic diversity plans. During the 1980s and early 1990s, for instance, some institutions included in their plans specific targets to increase the representation of minority students. Given the current climate, institutions are often reluctant to identify even general numerical targets, even though target ranges are an important component of establishing a clear diversity strategy (Coleman & Palmer, 2004). In a period of legal uncertainty, diversity leaders have to

308

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

TAB LE 7 .1 Three Types of Diversity Plans in the Academy Diversity Plan

Description

Integrated Campus diversity Diversity Plan goals are infused into the institution’s broader academic or strategic plan.

National Percentage of Institutions

Potential Strengths

Potential Weaknesses

86 percent (Academic Plan)

Diversity is built into the strategic priorities of the institution.

Diversity becomes an unfunded mandate.

Diversity does not exist as a 74 percent Regular feedback and priority as other goals are (Strategic Plan) reporting occurs as part of more readily understood and broad campus strategic efforts. valued by campus stakeholders and community members. Potential exists to receive funding, visibility, and The broader campus strategic support similar to other plan fails to account for campus priorities. educational benefits of a diverse learning community and the rise of global economy. Diversity’s complexity is often not sufficiently engaged as it relates to access and equity, learning and diversity, campus climate, and research and scholarship.

Centralized Dedicated diversity 59 percent Diversity Plan plan features goals, assignments of responsibility, indicators of progress, and implementation timelines across one or multiple diverse groups.

Diversity is symbolically and substantively a focus of strategic planning and implementation. Diversity plan is resourced as an institutional priority.

Diversity becomes an unfunded mandate. Difficulty engaging in a change project that takes hold throughout campus.

Diversity is viewed as the work Dedicated focus allows for in- of the CDO alone. depth analyses, planning, and implementation activities. Can create a sense of diversity fatigue as campus leaders grow Potential exists to develop a weary while moving deeper diversity plan that either into plan implementation. focuses on the particular needs of a particular group or May lend itself to simplistic addresses the needs of all evaluations of groups. implementation, viewing plan as either failure or success. Potential exists to develop a diversity plan focused on one aspect of strategic diversity work, like faculty diversification, or preparing students for a diverse and global world.

D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES S F UL D I V E R S IT Y P L A N S

Decentralized Plans guided by a 34 percent Diversity Plan central overarching framework and strategic diversity goals, but are developed and implemented in the various schools, colleges, divisions, and departments of the institution. Plans feature assignments of responsibility, indicators of progress, and implementation timelines across one or multiple diverse groups.

309

Emphasis placed on local Requires complex planning planning and implementation and coordination between and encourages greater buy-in. among different entities. Plan provides greater clarity about the specific challenges and opportunities of individual entities because planning takes place at the local level. Plan is consistent with the decentralized culture of the academy and avoids negative associations of a top-down approach.

Challenge of integrating decentralized plan with integrated or centralized plans. Lack of resource support from central administration means that local entities forced to resource and staff efforts on individual level, leading to unequal and uneven implementation. Greater challenge exists in creating local expertise and capacity across varied units and entities.

pursue two challenging paths simultaneously. On the one hand, it is important to implement the most robust affirmative action policies as allowed by law. On the other hand, it is vital to develop race-neutral alternatives that enhance diversity by strengthening the pipeline of eligible applicants and to promote an inclusive and welcoming learning environment. Should the Supreme Court strike down race conscious admissions policies, institutions can only compensate by affirming their commitment to diversity as a strategic and cultural value, and by building the policies and programs that reflect those values at the curricular, administrative, and institutional level. If diversity is to become a core institutional value, it will be because leaders are committed to high-caliber diversity planning and implementation techniques that (a) educate all stakeholders about the educational, economic, and social benefits of diversity; (b) establish institutional structures and incentives that encourage and reward those who engage constructively in diversity issues; (c) build systems of accountability to drive institutional diversity efforts that are connected to the financial systems of the institution; and (d) create the conditions for a cultural shift in values, so that positive efforts on diversity can flourish independently of any institutional or structural incentives. For this to happen, diversity plans cannot unfold purely in a top-down manner, but must reflect a genuine, grassroots engagement that builds commitment from the ground up. It is for this reason that faculty must be involved in the creation of campus diversity plans. Although many diversity plans are framed in terms

310

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

of preparing students for a diverse and global world, few seem to offer clear recommendations in this area. Learning, diversity, and research paradigm goals often do not seem as central to diversity plans as issues of recruitment, retention, and campus climate. Because of individual faculty autonomy, some curricular issues may be difficult to implement from a central administrative perspective. This situation highlights the importance of developing plans that engage faculty and academic departments as key players in designing and implementing localized diversity plans that can influence the pace and direction of change.

The Integrated Diversity Plan Integrated diversity plans are woven into the goals, tactics, rationale, and operational focus of institutional strategic plans. Although centralized and decentralized plans give dedicated focus to issues of diversity as the core subject matter of the plan, integrated plans infuse diversity into the broader goals of the institution’s strategic plan. As pointed out by Kezar and Eckel (2005), a campus strategic plan can provide an effective avenue for addressing diversity issues. Strategic plans provide a rationale for the allocation of resources, propel faculty and staff toward new initiatives, provide a framework for accountability, and serve as a unifying force that rallies the campus community around a number of strategic themes (Alfred, 2005). Thus, every 5 to 10 years, most institutions revise their strategic plan or, in some cases, generate a new strategic plan. The plan generally emerges through a committee process that involves faculty, staff, and senior administrators. Broadly speaking, a strategic plan articulates a vision and list of priorities that are then reflected in its budget recommendations. For diversity leaders, therefore, the strategic plan provides an opportunity for integrating diversity priorities into the overall vision, as well as the complex network of funding priorities, staff decisions, and accountability mechanisms. Among the best reasons to have an integrated diversity plan is that it provides institutional leaders with the political coverage they need to elevate diversity as a campus priority. Indeed, from a political perspective, infusing diversity into the campus strategic plan might be an important and necessary step before developing either a centralized or decentralized diversity plan. When done well, expressing a deep commitment to institutional diversity can have a positive effect on institutional policy and the future direction of the institution. The challenge is simply that too often the infusion effort is more symbolic than material. Some diversity plans leave the impression of having disingenuously gone through the motions. For instance, one school’s diversity goal was to ‘‘work in ways that support minority faculty.’’ That was it. The integrated

D EV EL OP IN G A ND IM PL E M E N TI NG S U CC ES SF UL DI V E R S IT Y P L A NS

311

diversity plan provided nothing of substance to indicate this recommendation would be pursued. A diversity plan should not just make fluffy statements, but develop clear, actionable recommendations that can be implemented through concrete initiatives.

A Strategic Plan or a Strategic Framework Although it is no guarantor of change, the integrated approach situates diversity in the central strategic plan and allows leaders to take steps toward implementing their diversity priorities over time. That said, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough that just because diversity is in the strategic plan does not mean it enjoys real support. Without funding and serious, committed engagement by senior leaders, diversity efforts will prove ineffectual (Kezar & Eckel, 2005). Therefore, senior leaders should be prepared to allocate significant financial and human resources to implement new diversity initiatives. When strategic plans are done correctly, resources follow priorities and diversity efforts are well supported as essential components, not as afterthoughts without resources, leadership, or attention. An integrated diversity plan should include several features, including a diversity definition, rationale, goals, recommended actions, assignments of responsibility, timelines, accountability processes, and a budget. The failure to include any of these dimensions will result in a document that lacks the key ingredients of a strategic plan. According to Richard Alfred, ‘‘Plans and budgets without goals are meaningless; goals without resources are empty. Goals give meaning to actions; but without a description of how they are to be achieved, they are merely statements of desire and hope’’ (Alfred, 2005). So when we are talking about a strategic, academic, or diversity plan, we are specifically defining this document as one that brings together an integrated set of concepts that present a vision for the future as well as specific steps to realize that vision (Figure 7.2). In many instances, an institution offers as its strategic plan something more aptly described as a strategic framework. Figure 7.2 helps elucidate this

FIGURE 7.2 Strategic Plan Versus Strategic Framework

312

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P ?

important distinction. Although a strategic framework may speak generally to the mission and goals, it often fails to address key issues of implementation. Diversity leaders should develop strategic plans that articulate not only the broad aspects of the diversity effort, but also provide specific details on tactical activities, individual responsibilities, and a timeline for delivering change.

Embolden Diversity Efforts as Part of Advancing the Institutional Mission To move forward with a more aggressive diversity agenda, college and university leaders must make a paradigm shift toward a strategic diversity leadership rationale, in which empowering the campus diversity agenda becomes synonymous with fulfilling the institutional mission. This paradigm shift requires upending many of the biased attitudes that currently permeate the diversity debate. For example, if an institution’s mission is to ‘‘educate and empower all students,’’ graduate rate disparities become less a matter of individual student deficiencies and more an issue of what steps the institution is taking to meet its educational mission. The inability of an institution to recruit ethnically and racially diverse faculty becomes as much a function of fault lines in the faculty development pipeline, as it is an inability of campus search committees to confront their own biases and embrace difference in the interview and selection process. Campus leaders must reframe diversity in terms of its clear intellectual and academic benefits to create a richer, more nuanced understanding of diversity challenges and why overcoming them matters. In this way, campus leaders can begin to rearticulate diversity as an important driver of the institutional mission, not as an obstacle that detracts from the ‘‘real’’ academic and administrative priorities of the institution. In an American Council of Education monograph on presidential diversity leadership, one president echoed the importance of connecting diversity to the institutional mission: When I came in as president, I situated diversity within the college’s mission, as we were redefining the mission [to be an outstanding public liberal arts college]. I explicitly identified diversity as one of the three things the college needed to do to achieve greatness as a public liberal arts college. Our diversity efforts were then carefully integrated with our redefinition of the mission. You should not isolate diversity from the central mission of the college, because they are part and parcel of it. When the mission and diversity become connected, then diversity becomes part of the strategic

D EV E L OP IN G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES SF U L DI V E R S I T Y P L A N S

313

plan, curriculum, hiring practices, etc. And it becomes much easier to support. (Kezar & Eckel, 2005, p. 8)

Kezar and Eckel (2005) note that ‘‘it might seem cliche´ to say that linking diversity to institutional mission will insure that it is a priority, but experience shows that this can be a powerful tool for developing an institutional commitment’’ (p. 8). The key is for the president and top leaders to frame diversity as an essential component of fulfilling the campus mission. Diversity should not, therefore, be the sole work of the chief diversity officer (CDO). When there is active engagement on the diversity implications of campus decision making, budget priorities, and long-range hiring, an integrated diversity plan can emerge as a powerful action platform.

A Comprehensive Diversity Framework When developing an integrated diversity plan, it is vital that senior leaders avoid limiting the discussion of diversity to a simple review of demographic data. Although knowing minority student and faculty representation and retention is critical, it is even more important to create a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of current policies and programs. Thus, campus leaders should consider the merits of including other dimensions into their integrated diversity plan. As discussed in Chapter 6, the guiding perspectives of your strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) should help guide the strategic plan: (a) the access and equality perspective, (b) the learning and diversity perspective, (c) the multicultural and inclusive campus climate perspective, (d) the diversity research and scholarship perspective, and (e) the leadership commitment perspective. Moreover, each dimension of the plan should include a description of specific programs and initiatives that will be used to drive new outcomes. Accountability for implementing specific recommendations should be assigned to specific leaders across campus. Because some aspects of the plan will need to evolve during the process, it is impossible to project every aspect of implementation. However, by building in as many concrete steps as possible, the plan can at least initiate the process of creating material changes on campus. Strategic plans must be viewed as living documents that will need to evolve, whether they are integrated, centralized, or decentralized in nature. Loden (1996) notes, ‘‘As particular changes are introduced into the environment, their ripple effects create new, unanticipated issues and opportunities. These in turn, lead to other adjustments in project direction, assumptions, systems, practices, and so on’’ (p. 131). Leaders must be prepared for these

314

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

shifts because diversity-themed implementation is complex and will lead to unexpected responses, both of resistance and support. Being open to new opportunities during implementation is important to making both incremental and transformative gains.

Limitations of the Integrated Approach Many institutions have adopted the integrated approach to making diversity a part of their campus strategic plans. However, at some institutions campus diversity champions have expressed the feeling that because diversity only exists as part of the overall strategic plan, their diversity efforts are ‘‘floating.’’ This feeling inevitably arises in response to poorly articulated plans that do not include all of the elements outlined here. It also stems from academia’s long history of treating diversity crisis incidents in ‘‘cheetah’’ fashion, and of acknowledging diversity as an institutional priority only grudgingly and intermittently. The symbolic infusing of diversity into the campus strategic plan can become a smokescreen, offering grandiose gestures but doing little to commit resources, create accountability, or take action. In an integrated approach, diversity is forced to compete with priorities that are traditionally more prominent. As such, infusing diversity into the broader strategic plan may not allow campus leaders the opportunity to fully express a definition, rationale, or strategic diversity leadership framework that captures diversity across a range of different dimensions. Because of the complex character of diversity in the twenty-first century, integrated plans need to reflect the emerging challenges of a more diverse, global society and economy. For this reason, campus leaders should consider supplementing their strategic plan with a centralized diversity plan focused specifically on building a campus-wide infrastructure for further planning and implementation activities that serve the institution’s diversity agenda.

The Centralized Diversity Plan Centralized diversity plans are a type of strategic plan that specifically focuses on driving the institution’s overall diversity strategy and is commonly known as the campus diversity plan. Although centralized diversity plans can emerge out of diversity crises, senior leaders use them as a way to illustrate commitment and galvanize the campus. A centralized diversity plan can build from or complement the overall strategic plan by delving more deeply into the institution’s specific vision, definition, rationale, and strategy for implanting its diversity priorities.

D EV EL O P IN G A N D IM P L E M EN TI NG S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

315

As with the campus strategic plan, a centralized diversity plan should emerge from campus-wide planning committees composed of students, faculty, and staff. Engaging in broad discussions and shared strategic thinking, these diversity-planning committees should first articulate a set of principles and recommendations aimed at institutional transformation. Centralized diversity plans generally require at least 9 to 12 months of planning and involve studies, audits, campus-wide meetings, listening sessions, and national benchmarking. The advantage of a centralized plan is that it can function proactively, building broad commitment and a greater sense of shared mission and purpose. Ideally, a centralized diversity plan contains the following key features: a definition of diversity, a rationale for diversity’s importance, a data-driven overview of diversity challenges and issues, and a framework that outlines recommendations. Recommendations should address issues of access and equity, campus climate, learning and diversity, and diversity-themed scholarships, as well as other areas of strategic importance, including the development of partnerships with other institutions, K–12 schools and private sector and nonprofit stakeholders. These plans should also feature assignments of responsibility, specific recommendations, and a timeline for implementation. Box 7.1 summarizes ongoing diversity efforts through the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s centralized diversity plan.

BOX 7.1 A Focus on Strategic Partnerships: The University of Wisconsin–Madison PEOPLE Program An increasingly prominent aspect of today’s diversity plans is their focus on building strategic partnerships as a way of galvanizing campus diversity efforts. These partnering constituencies include alumni, business and community leaders, and local government agencies. Indeed, strategic partnerships were a key aspect of the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s diversity plan, ‘‘Plan 2008,’’ which has built an impressive K–16 infrastructure designed not only to prepare more students for higher education, but also to provide them with academic scholarship and support after admission to the university. Having laid the original groundwork in 1999, the PreCollege Enrichment Opportunity Program for Learning Excellence (PEOPLE) is a comprehensive academic pipeline development initiative. The program works primarily with talented, historically underrepresented minority, first-generation, and urban (continues)

316

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

(continued) students, beginning as early as elementary school and extending through their undergraduate years at UW–Madison. During the summer, participants from middle and high school programs spend time on campus to become acclimated to college life. More than 1,200 students are currently enrolled in the precollege component of the program, which focuses on math education, literacy, leadership development, and career exploration. The precollege component of the program has enrolled more than 600 students at UW–Madison and more than 1,000 students in higher education at other institutions across the state and country. The program is almost completely funded by the state of Wisconsin. In the fall of 2010, there were 340 PEOPLE students enrolled at UW–Madison with a 75.7 six-year graduation rate for the entering class of 2003. The program is built on in-depth relationships with K–12 schools, corporations, community members, government agencies, and others. Partnership features include the financing of scholarships, teachers working with students during the summer months, after-school programs located in partner schools and communitybased organizations, and an agreement in Madison that allows PEOPLE staff access to student grades, attendance, and behavioral data directly from the school district’s electronic databases. In addition, members of the corporate and nonprofit community are involved in the program, sponsoring summer internships and mentoring students in a range of potential careers, including lawyers, health professionals, and journalists. Source: www.peopleprogram.wisc.edu/

Centralized diversity plans must retain their strong emphasis on the classic issues of access and equity for historically underrepresented minorities while adapting to address new challenges, including LGBT concerns, internationalization, and gender equity in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Some institutions have created parallel plans for racial and ethnic equity, gender equity, economic need, and internationalization, preferring to develop a focused strategy in each of these areas. At the same time, a notable trend in central campus diversity plans reflects a holistic diversity perspective that goes beyond representation for diverse groups of faculty, staff, and students. As such, it is common for these plans to include sections on leadership and accountability, precollege preparation, and student retention, infusing diversity into the curriculum, campus climate, and intergroup relations and community and alumni relations.

D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM P L E M EN TI N G S U CC ES S F UL D I VE R S IT Y P L A N S

317

Conducting an Institutional Diversity Audit An effective diversity plan should take into account where your institution is on its diversity journey before delving into where you want to go. To achieve campus diversity goals, an effective plan must follow from a careful assessment of the history, demographics, current offices, policies, initiatives, and priorities as they relate to diversity. Put simply, this means conducting a diversity audit. Indeed, the diversity audit is particularly important when developing a centralized or decentralized dedicated plan. Because of their potential to create far-reaching recommendations, such plans require examining areas of need and establishing a culture of evidence regarding the current state of diversity within each area of the institution. Short of conducting a dedicated diversity audit, you should make sure that you have a very clear understanding of your organizational needs regarding diversity through such other reliable quantitative and qualitative sources as surveys of faculty, staff, and students, as well as institutional assessments, such as the accreditation report. Without these data, leaders will struggle to understand the current state of diversity and the progress that may result from new initiatives and activities. The first step in the diversity audit process is to determine its timeframe. Working back from the current year, audit leaders must identify the timeframe within which to profile their institution’s demographics, history, and institutional capacity. Because change activities are nested within an historical context of inclusion or exclusion, it may be important to begin the audit with an overview of the history of diversity efforts in your area. This historical overview should address any ‘‘cheetah moments,’’ past planning and implementation activities, past or current grants that made a difference on diversity, and other relevant matters. This historical analysis allows the diversity team to situate its work in the context of prior efforts, becoming more strategic, intentional, and outcome oriented. We have seen how mining the institutional memory of a college or university can often bring previous challenges and roadblocks into clear focus. For example, one institution with which the author consulted conducted metaanalyses of every diversity plan that had been written during a period of 25 years. They found that many of the recommendations had never been fully implemented on campus. As a result, the heart of their first draft was to contextualize these recommendations in contemporary data and current capacity, and build from innovative ideas that had been offered in the past but never realized.

318

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

The diversity audit should illustrate the challenges and opportunities. Some evidence that tells the diversity story may be internal and include numbers of minority graduate students, rates of faculty tenure for women, and data from campus diversity surveys. Other elements of data may be external and capture information on national labor trends and graduation rates for diverse students at other institutions, as well as national and peerinstitutional data on transfer rates, average GRE scores, and rates of participation in study abroad programs. What matters is that you gather information that helps to frame the diversity picture with as much focused specificity as possible. You need to gather as much information as possible regarding the state of diversity at your institution; you need to know what works and does not work as a strategy of change; and, ultimately, you must be ready and able to evaluate the efficacy of current efforts.

Developing an Institutional Diversity Database and Engagement Map One technique for conducting a diversity audit is to develop an institutional diversity engagement map. For example, San Jose State University (SJSU) deployed this tool as part of a multiday institutional planning retreat. As part of their ongoing implementation efforts, and under the direction of SJSU communications professor Rona Halualani, SJSU developed an indepth diversity audit and mapping process as part of their readiness activities. To establish a baseline measure, Professor Halualani’s research team conducted an extensive diversity inventory and mapping of every initiative and course at SJSU that engaged with issues of diversity. This inventory served as the university’s launching point to incorporate major diversity efforts across all levels of the institution. After the data was compiled and entered into a spreadsheet, it was transferred into a brainstorming software program to create a graphic map or ‘‘infographic.’’ The resulting visual offered a clear and compelling means to move from the data to a robust conversation. Box 7.2 offers an overview of this methodology drawn from the author’s experience at SJSU.

D EV E L O P IN G A N D IM PL EM E N TI N G S U CC E S SF U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A N S

319

BOX 7.2 Diversity Data Inventory and Mapping Methodology Best Practices Establishing the Research Team The first step is to establish a small group of qualified people to build the diversityscoring rubric, which will be used to evaluate existing diversity policies and programs. Although most members should have extensive expertise in diversity issues, there should be adequate representation from the broader campus community. The selection of this group is critical because the success of the entire process hinges on the commitment and credibility of those who lead the data collection and analysis effort.

Defining Diversity Efforts and Qualified Courses After the team is assembled, the next step is to establish a scoring rubric for diversity efforts within and outside of the curriculum. For its purposes, SJSU defined a campus ‘‘diversity effort’’ as: any activity or program that promotes and/or supports the active appreciation, engagement and support of all campus members in terms of their backgrounds, identities and experiences (as constituted by gender, socioeconomic class, political perspective, age, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, regional origin, nationality, occupation, language, among others, and the intersection of these aspects) and/or promotes the larger importance of diversity, difference, or cultural sharing for the public.

Defining what classes qualify as diversity courses requires looking not only at any general education diversity requirements, should they exist, but the entire curriculum. Moreover, these courses must be examined in the context of clearly articulated learning goals (Humphreys, 2000), which may require a more intensive approach that defines a diversity course as one that explores issues of power and privilege and the experiences of historically oppressed groups, and focuses on meaning-making through personal reflection, writing, and the utilization of small-group pedagogies and interactive discussion.

Collecting Diversity Data on Campus Information about diversity efforts, programs, courses, and activities can be collected in a number of ways. The first step might include an e-mail and formal letter from the Office of the President or Provost to all campus divisions, units, programs, and departments, with a request to send all information about their current diversity (continues)

320

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

efforts and documentation by a specific date. This letter should also identify the research team leading the data collection process. Data collection should also include a comprehensive review of the campus online environment, using a series of search terms that might include diversity, equity, inclusion, multiculturalism, and other key diversity terms. Inevitably a large number of links and documents will emerge that must then be reviewed and coded for inclusion in the diversity database. With regard to courses, data collection might involve analysis of course syllabi, reviews of course catalogs, and web-based course descriptions. Depending on the clarity of these written materials and the intensity of the mapping process, data collectors should consider interviews and even faculty surveys. At many research institutions, this data collection process can create hundreds, even thousands, of data entries. For example, the SJSU research team engaged in live ‘‘data collection’’ tours of the various schools, colleges, and divisions over several weeks to confirm and extend the findings of their data collection activities.

Organizing and Analyzing the Diversity Data After all diversity efforts have been identified, the review team should organize the data by divisions, schools, colleges, and departments. The establishment of the database will now allow you to answer several questions, including: How many diversitythemed efforts exist on campus? What types of initiatives exist in terms of focus? Foci include social identity group focus (race and ethnicity, LGBT, international, etc.), institutional role focus (faculty, students, and staff), type (course, grant, program, initiative, etc.), and others. What is their level and type of funding? Where are diversity efforts located? How high a priority is diversity within the curriculum, research fields, and other critical areas?

San Jose State University’s Key Findings: Diversity-Related Curricula: • • •

• •

Six percent of the university’s entire curriculum addresses diversity issues, for a total of 277 diversity-related courses. Eighteen academic departments have a curriculum that primarily focuses on diversity-related issues. In terms of the total number of course offerings in their colleges, the College of Humanities and the Arts, the College of Business, and the College of Social Sciences have the highest percentage of diversity-related courses. Thirty-three percent of all general education course offerings are diversityrelated, or 103 courses. General education offers 37 percent of all diversity-related courses at the university, with two upper-division general education areas completely devoted to diversity, for a total of 70 courses. (continues)

D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU CC E S S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

321

Diversity Efforts Across Campus: • There are 176 active diversity efforts at SJSU. Diversity efforts are defined as any activity or program that promotes and supports the appreciation of all backgrounds, identities, experiences, and perspectives of campus and community members. • Academic Affairs leads, with 70 percent of all diversity efforts offered on campus. • The next two leading diversity divisions are Student Affairs and University Advancement, with 19 and 10 percent, respectively. • Within Academic Affairs, the College of Science, International and Extended Studies, and College of Applied Sciences and Arts lead with the most diversity efforts. • Although the largest percentages of diversity efforts fall within the areas of curriculum and academic support programs and services, 70 percent of diversity efforts are spread across 15 different themes (as indicated later). Thus, SJSU has taken action on diversity but not centrally in any one area besides the curriculum. • Seventy-one percent of all diversity efforts within Student Affairs focus on student development, student leadership, and academic support services. • Clearly, the two primary target populations of diversity efforts are undergraduate students and faculty. • Only a small percentage of diversity efforts are aimed at general staff, graduate students, and international students.

Developing the Visual Map It is critically important to create effect through a strong visual presentation of the diversity data story. Many experienced diversity leaders recommend infographics as a tool to facilitate understanding and inspiration among campus stakeholders. Although some well-resourced institutions may engage professional graphic designers in this process, others have relied on basic computer creativity tools like Inspiration, Microsoft Visio, and Omnigraffle, all of which allow for a visual organization of information.

Why New Energy May Emerge The presentation of diversity data will not magically drive change. But by compiling, analyzing, and presenting diversity data in a compelling way, diversity leaders can help generate a new sense of urgency around diversity efforts. By creating awareness (continues)

322

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

(continued) of where diversity is strongest and weakest in the curriculum, diversity leaders can identify areas for additional initiatives. Source: www.sjsu.edu/diversityplan/history/stages/mapping/

Implementation Cycles Most diversity planning efforts result in a 5-year diversity implementation cycle, although some schools opt for a 10-year cycle. The rationale for the 5-year planning cycle is that it presents a manageable period to develop and implement a meaningful campus diversity plan. Moreover, it does not lock the institution into an irreversible course of implementation. That said, the 10-year cycle can demonstrate a greater commitment to change as it allows for new initiatives to take hold and for leaders to address systemic issues that, no matter how comprehensive and well intentioned the plan’s implementation, remain resistant. To keep diversity on the radar of campus priorities, both the 5- and 10year planning cycles require creating regular reports for the various members of the campus community, whether board of trustees, faculty senate, alumni audiences, or staff and student associations. Indeed, at the University of Connecticut, the vice provost for multicultural and international affairs was required to report on the Diversity Action Plan 2002 annually, and biannually in the early years of the plan’s implementation. It is also common for presidents to give an annual ‘‘state of diversity address,’’ which speaks to milestones and next steps. At some institutions, this address takes place during an annual campus diversity conference or forum, where the campus community comes together to reflect on diversity issues and the implementation of their plan. These forums are essential because they communicate what is going on with the diversity change project and simultaneously position that project within the evolving myths, symbols, and rituals of the campus community (Kezar, 2001). Our experience tells us that well-coordinated, resourced, and intentional implementation cycles, whether 5 or 10 years, can allow for sufficient time to launch a meaningful change process. No matter which timeline is pursued, campus leaders need the time and flexibility to make not only minor adjustments but also to implement the far-reaching and potentially transformative change strategies outlined in Chapter 5. Both cycles require a continual commitment to implementing a diversity change process that is

D EV EL OP I N G A ND IM P L E M E N TI NG S U CC ES S F UL D I V E R S IT Y P L A NS

323

systematic and intentional (Kezar & Eckel, 2005). Two excellent examples include the universities of Michigan and Wisconsin–Madison, which implemented a succession of diversity plans over several years. The dramatic effect of their diversity efforts on the institutional demographics, capacity, and culture of their institutions suggests the type of deep commitment that must be sustained across multiple planning cycles.

The University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin–Madison: A Focus on Centralized Diversity Plans and Capacity The author has had the good fortune to have personal experience with the legacy of some of the nation’s most ambitious diversity plans. The University of Michigan’s Michigan Mandate and a series of plans at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (The Madison Plan, Design for Diversity, Plan 2008, etc.) provide a window into two visions for change that catalyzed numerous shifts in diversity-themed institutional capacity, and provide a compelling vision for other academic institutions. Both the Michigan Mandate and the Madison Plan for Diversity emerged out of racial incidents and student mobilizations. Although the University of Michigan has not had a campus diversity plan since the ending of the Michigan Mandate extension in the early 1990s, UW–Madison continued its commitment to developing diversity plans in the Design for Diversity, and later Plan 2008, two 10-year plans supported by the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, reflecting the board’s commitment to engaging diversity at every institution across the state’s system of higher education. Table 7.2 summarizes the chief features of the Michigan Mandate, The Diversity Blueprints, the Madison Plan, and Plan 2008, the most recent diversity plan implemented at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. These plans provided broad vision statements around diversity and academic excellence. Each led to new diversity infrastructures and set aggressive goals, with recommendations in a number of different areas. Each featured a deep commitment from their respective senior leaders that was reflected in millions of dollars in resource allocations. Rather than one-time programs and initiatives, each plan focused on sustainable capacity, exhibiting many of the tendencies of ‘‘wolf-like’’ behavior discussed in Chapter 4. Some important themes from the implementation of both plans are highlighted in the following sections.

TA BL E 7 .2 The University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin–Madison Centralized Diversity Plans Dimension

University of Michigan

University of Michigan

University of Wisconsin–Madison

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Diversity Plan

The Michigan Mandate: A Strategic Linking of Academic Excellence and Social Diversity

Michigan Diversity Blue Prints

The Madison Plan for Diversity

UW–Madison Plan 2008: A Blueprint to Enhance Campus Diversity

Launch Date Launch Rationale

1987

2006

1988

1998

The third Black Action Movement in 1987 led to a broad presidential commitment to develop a new institutional diversity strategy, bringing together multiculturalism and academic excellence.

The Diversity Blue Prints were developed as a way of strengthening and maintaining the university’s commitment to diversity following the introduction of Proposal 2, which eliminated the university’s ability to use individual characteristics in admissions, financial aid, and other administrative decisions.

Responding to racial incidents and student mobilization, the University of Wisconsin’s Steering Committee on Minority Affairs issued the ‘‘Holly Report,’’ detailing diversity recommendations that the Chancellor then directed the Madison Plan for Diversity to address.

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents charged every campus in the system to develop a diversity plan for each and every institution.

Ongoing

Five-year cycle

Ten-year cycle

Major Implementation Cycle Five-year cycle; three-year continuing cycle

Major Goals

Goal 1: Improve faculty recruitment and development. Goal 2: Improve student recruitment, achievement, and outreach. Goal 3: Improve staff recruitment and development. Goal 4: Improve the environment for diversity.

Goal 1: Establish fully coordinated educational and community outreach and engagement activities. Goal 2: Maintain and improve student admissions, conversion, and retention practices within the new legal parameters. Goal 3: Address the university’s interpersonal climate by providing structured interactions, facilitated dialogue, and opportunities to work across boundaries. Goal 4: Dismantle structural impediments and increase structural support for faculty, staff, and students, especially those working on diversity-related issues. Goal 5: Ensure campus-wide buyin, engagement and transparency with diversity efforts. Goal 6: Increase accountability and sustainability mechanisms for all units and departments across the university.

The Madison Plan focused on increasing the ethnic, racial, and economic diversity of students; enhancing the ethnic and racial diversity of the faculty; infusing diversity into the curriculum; expanding precollege outreach and community engagement; and improving the campus climate for diversity.

Goal 1: Increase the number of Wisconsin high school graduates of color who apply, are accepted, and enroll at UW System institutions. Goal 2: Encourage partnerships that build the educational pipeline by reaching children and their parents at an earlier age. Goal 3: Close the gap in educational achievement by bringing retention and graduation rates for students of color in line with those of the student body as a whole. Goal 4: Increase the amount of financial aid available to needy students and reduce their reliance on loans. Goal 5: Increase the number of faculty, academic staff, classified staff, and administrators of color, so that they are represented in the UW System workforce in proportion to their current availability in relevant job pools. Goal 6: Foster institutional environments and course developments that enhance learning and a respect for racial and ethnic diversity. Goal 7: Improve accountability of the UW System and its institutions.

326

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

The Michigan Mandate for Diversity: A Powerful Platform for Diversity at U of M Arguably one of the best-known efforts in the history of American higher education, the Michigan Mandate was developed at the University of Michigan in the 1980s and launched in 1987 (Duderstadt, 1990, 2000). Under President James Duderstadt, the University of Michigan embarked on a journey to become a ‘‘multicultural university’’ for the future. Like so many institutional diversity efforts, the Michigan strategy grew out of crises. Box 7.3 summarizes the ‘‘cheetah’’ moments that provoked what became, over time, a focused, intentional, proactive process. The degree of high-level strategy resulted in an infrastructure that has lasted and evolved over two subsequent decades. Although many universities have promoted positive diversity plans, University of Michigan was among the first to create a data-driven, evidencebased platform seeking to prepare all students for a diverse and global world (Matlock, Wade-Golden, & Gurin, 2002, 2010). Drawing from rigorous social science methodology demonstrating the educational benefits of diversity, Michigan’s model provided an original, compelling, and detailed argument in support of diversity. Moreover, the Michigan Mandate produced results: by the late 1990s, the Ann Arbor campus more than doubled its minority student population and significantly increased its minority faculty. For his efforts, President Duderstadt has been credited with changing the institutional culture and character in important ways, which testifies to diversity as a core value of the institution.

BOX 7.3 University of Michigan’s History of Activism: Black Action Movements I–III Black Action Movements (BAMs) at the University of Michigan were an extension of the broader civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Beginning with the formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in 1960, and the studentled sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina, African American students and their allies banded together to push for change. Students at the University of Michigan were especially active in the civil rights movement, as well as the broad range of civil (continues)

D E V EL O P IN G A N D IM P L EM EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

327

(continued) rights campaigns of the 1960s and 1970s. Over the years, there have been several crisis moments, including events in 1970, 1975, and 1987. The first BAM was staged in 1970 and involved a massive student demonstration in which students (both undergraduate and graduate) protested the lack of African American student and faculty representation at the University of Michigan. Submitting their demands in a 10-point platform, students pledged to ‘‘Open It Up or Shut It Down.’’ What ensued was the longest and most successful student protest in the history of the University of Michigan. The BAM strike received national attention as students demanded a 10-percent enrollment of African American students, the development of the Center for African and African American Studies, and the recruitment of more African American faculty. BAM I was a watershed moment for the University of Michigan’s struggle to become a diverse and inclusive community for all students. In 1975, students initiated the second Black Action Movement (BAM II). Less well organized than the first, the goals of this group built on BAM I. Enrollment levels continued to fall below the 10 percent target and African American faculty and staff remained extremely underrepresented around campus. Interestingly, African American students in BAM II linked their agenda to that of other people of color and included demands that would specifically benefit Latino/Hispanic and Asian American students. The third Black Action Movement (BAM III) took place in 1987 and is also known as the United Coalition Against Racism. A general feeling of disenchantment on campus was galvanized by racist comments made during a student radio show. In response, students challenged the University of Michigan to adopt a proactive stance on diversity issues. The leadership of BAM III presented demands specifically designed to empower African American students at the University of Michigan. In response, the university granted the Black Student Union an autonomous budget of $35,000 to conduct programs and events that would benefit the African American and University of Michigan communities. This movement also led to the Michigan Mandate for Diversity and the hiring of the first vice provost level senior diversity officer, in addition to a new Office of Minority Affairs, located in the new officers portfolio. Source: The University of Michigan Bentley Historical Museum. Retrieved July 8, 2012, at http:// bentley.umich.edu/research/topics/bam.php

The Michigan Mandate was also unique for expressing its campus vision for change through an evolving strategic planning document. Published on numerous occasions and circulated broadly, the document always had ‘‘draft’’ emblazoned on its cover. When asked about the focus on circulating

328

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

so many draft documents in an interview associated with this project, President Duderstadt responded: You have to keep draft on the thing so that you can actually keep the ball moving. You write the best plan you can, but to keep the change energy going, you have to have the latitude and flexibility to move in new directions or change course. As long as we kept the word ‘‘draft’’ on the document, we had the ability to do just that. (Personal interview with President James Duderstadt, November 2004)

Duderstadt and others recognized that although they had clear goals about what they wanted to accomplish, they could not know exactly how the implementation would evolve. As a result, they took an exploratory approach to implementation, making investments in sustainable capacity while remaining open to emerging opportunities. The Michigan Mandate also developed a creative financing plan to drive the campus’s diversity agenda. Recapturing 1 percent of the annual budgets of every department throughout the institution, President Duderstadt created a centralized diversity resource pool. A fairly common technique for moving other priorities on campus, this approach was new to supporting a campus diversity agenda. The move by leaders at the University of Michigan to leverage campus material resources and create a more powerful and cohesive campus diversity agenda transcended a merely symbolic discussion of diversity’s importance. A final critical aspect of the plan’s implementation was its focus on linking diversity and academic affairs. In a novel approach to reaching their goals, leaders changed the name and scope of the Office of Minority Affairs, which became the Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives (OAMI). Not only did this titular change signal that diversity and academic goals must be connected, it foreshadowed a future in which higher education diversity offices not only maintained their historic focus on minority groups, but broadened their services to include all students (Box 7.4). BOX 7.4 A Diversity Office for the Twenty-First Century: The Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives As an outcome of the Michigan Mandate, the Office of Minority Affairs was renamed the Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives (OAMI). OAMI is a now a centerpiece (continues)

D E V EL O P IN G A N D IM P L EM EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

329

(continued) in Michigan’s ongoing commitment to foster an intellectually and culturally diverse campus community. OAMI works collaboratively with the campus and varied stakeholders to develop initiatives that enrich the academic, social, cultural, and personal development of students. The primary mission of OAMI is to serve students through a variety of programs, research, and strategic planning activities. OAMI priorities include providing supplemental resources to enhance the academic achievement levels of all students. The office also develops leadership retreats, conferences, and programs designed to enhance the leadership skills of undergraduate students and their organizations. Its office director holds the rank of associate provost. Some of OAMI’s signature efforts include the continuation of the nation’s longest ongoing study of undergraduate student experiences with diversity, ‘‘The Michigan Student Study.’’ The program also engages in several studies focused on student retention and community college transfer students. OAMI houses a diversity incentive grant program, the Student Academic Multicultural Initiatives grants. This program annually funds dozens of efforts designed to advance the institution’s academic diversity initiatives, including precollege initiatives designed to enhance the pipeline of diverse and college-ready students throughout the state of Michigan. Some of these efforts focus specifically on gender-based challenges and the unique needs of men and women. The office also hosts high-profile diversity events, regularly sponsoring conferences, symposia, historical celebrations, and an annual awards event designed to engage the campus community around issues of diversity. One of its signature events is its campus-wide, multiweek celebration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—The MLK Symposium. It is one of the most comprehensive to occur outside of the King Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and regularly features more than 100 different events. Source: www.oami.umich.edu/

Long before the CDO role became vogue, the Michigan Mandate called for the creation of a senior administrative role at the level of associate provost who would act as that institution’s CDO. Over time, this dedicated CDO role evolved into a more general leadership position that, to this day, continues to focus on diversity as part of its core mission. Areas of responsibility now include undergraduate admissions, student financial aid, the OAMI, the Center for Teaching and Learning, and the National Center for Institutional Diversity. The Michigan Mandate also helped direct an aggressive recruitment effort to hire more ethnically and racially diverse faculty. In the words of President Duderstadt, the various schools and colleges were given an opportunity to ‘‘hunt without a license’’; if a department found a top-level

330

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

minority candidate, the university would find a way to hire him or her. As Duderstadt explained: I basically said, you find the talent that matches our standards as an institution and we will find a way to pay for the position. Look, faculty diversification is a matter of getting something done. We never have all that we need, but we always find a way to fund what we prioritize. That’s just how higher education operates.

Evidence-Based and Data-Driven Understanding One of the most novel tactics that emerged out of the Michigan Mandate was an increased focus on organizational learning. Diversity champions at the University developed ‘‘The Michigan Study of the Undergraduate Student Experience With Diversity,’’ a longitudinal study of student experiences with diversity and the largest of its kind in higher education. The data from this study was instrumental in Michigan’s legal defense before the U.S. Supreme Court. Shaping the development of numerous campus programs, this study has launched the careers of more than 20 scholars who have used its rich data in their academic research. The study explores issues of campus climate, retention, academic achievement, student development, teaching and learning, social integration, academic integration, belonging, and a host of other areas critical to understanding diversity issues in the academy (Matlock et al., 2010). The long-term legacy of these efforts has been to position the University of Michigan as a national leader on issues of diversity. The Michigan Mandate established the context for the University of Michigan’s commitment to diversity as a top priority, even in the face of legal attacks and a public referendum to eliminate affirmative action. Additionally, the Mandate provided the template for the Michigan Agenda for Women, a parallel strategy to advance gender equity on campus (Duderstadt, 2000).

BOX 7.5 University of Michigan Diversity Blue Prints: A Strategic Response to Proposition 2 Combining aspects of a diversity plan and framework, the University of Michigan went several decades before developing another campus-wide diversity strategy, (continues)

D EV E L OP IN G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES SF U L DI V E R S I T Y P L A N S

331

(continued) although the University advanced a number of new efforts in the interim following the active years of the Michigan Mandate. In 2006, the University offered their first new campus-wide diversity strategy when President Mary Sue Coleman formed a 55-member Diversity Blueprints Task Force separated into four subcommittees: (a) Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee; (b) Graduate Recruitment, Retention, and Pipeline Subcommittee; (c) Educational Outreach and Engagement Subcommittee; and (d) the Undergraduate Admissions, Financial Aid, and Pipeline Subcommittee. The overarching mission of the task force was to address how the university could achieve diversity within new limits of the law resulting from the passage of Proposal 2 in the state of Michigan. Proposal 2 amended the Michigan Constitution to ban public institutions from giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, or public contracting. Proposition 2 effectively neutralized the university’s victory in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger just three years before. A key theme of the Diversity Blue Print development process was an intentional effort to understand key lessons from public universities in the states of California, Washington, Texas, and Georgia that had sought to maintain their racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the wake of legislative and judicial changes outlined in Chapter 1 of this book. The recommendations offered by the Diversity Blueprint Task Force focused on a number of different themes. Educational outreach, partnerships, collaborations, investments into new infrastructures, and engagements were common threads, especially ways to develop stronger relationships with K–12 education and with other colleges and universities. Although none of the Diversity Blueprints subcommittees was specifically charged with the task of addressing the university’s campus climate, this theme emerged as a key consideration in each of the subcommittee deliberations. With this in mind, Diversity Blueprints also explored issues relating to the quality of life on campus, including structural accountability, rewards for commitment, remediation of institutional barriers to success, and the provision of rich opportunities for interaction. The final report included new tools for use in the admissions and financial aid processes and programs for attracting and retaining faculty and staff. A signature program that emerged from the Diversity Blueprints was the Center for Educational Outreach and Academic Success, a unit that facilitates and supports partnerships between the University of Michigan and K–12 schools and community-based educational organizations. Improving the pipeline through earlier involvement with schools was a driving theme in the Center’s development and its focus on providing coordination and support to the numerous outreach programs that take place across campus. As a result of this planning process, the university now regularly hosts a campus diversity summit to remain focused on campus diversity issues, priorities, promising practices, and efforts. Source: www.diversity.umich.edu/about/bp-summary.php

332

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

Centralized Diversity Plans at the University of Wisconsin–Madison With the development of the Madison Plan in 1988, the University of Wisconsin–Madison began a 20-year diversity implementation process. Like the Michigan Mandate, Wisconsin’s Madison Plan was one of the first centralized diversity plans ever implemented at a major public research university and emerged out of student crisis under the leadership of Chancellor Donna Shalala. Revised in 1994 as the Madison Commitment and then again in 2008 as Plan 2008: A Blueprint to Enhance Campus Diversity, Wisconsin’s diversity plans have articulated the view that diversity and excellence are core values and strategic priorities. The plans have produced a steady increase in the numbers of historically underrepresented minority students, the elimination of disparity in first-year retention rates, continual gains in six-year graduation rates, and a wide array of programs and initiatives designed to enhance the campus climate. The University of Wisconsin can now claim one of the nation’s largest precollege-to-college pipeline programs; initiatives designed to improve intergroup relations; fellowships for graduate students; and faculty-authorized diversity committees charged to lead around issues of equity and diversity in every school, college, and major divisional infrastructure. In all, more than 200 diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives exist on campus. The most recent iteration of Wisconsin’s diversity plan, Plan 2008: A Blueprint to Enhance Campus Diversity, emerged after the Board of Regents requested that each institution in the University of Wisconsin system develop centralized campus diversity plans. Chaired by senior administrative and faculty members, a 35-member committee of faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community representatives collaborated for more than a year to develop the plan. Four working groups complemented the larger effort by focusing on undergraduate student issues, graduate and professional student issues, diversity in the curriculum, and human resource issues. These committees included members of the overall planning team and other campus representatives, thereby creating broad buy-in from the campus community. In all, more than 100 people had a structured planning role in developing the campus plan. Finally, the planning process sought even greater input by holding stakeholder meetings that included student organizations, campus experts, and community leaders. The draft plan was then vetted and ultimately adopted by faculty, staff and student governance bodies. Consistent with the UW–Madison culture, this level of engagement by shared governance is a distinguishing characteristic of this institution’s approach to both

D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU C C E S S F U L DI VE RS IT Y P L A N S

333

planning and ultimately implementing new initiatives, whether diversity themed or not. Table 7.3 summarizes the shared governance process. Despite a charge by the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to develop a plan, Plan 2008 could not become official until the shared governance community had committed to its implementation. After multiple revisions, the plan received formal resolutions of endorsement. This level of involvement by institutional governance is rare because senior leaders are sometimes afraid that opening a plan to these democratic institutions will endanger their efforts. However, the resolution passed by the faculty and staff communities not only supported the plan’s focus on racial and ethnic equity, they also (a) provided a specific endorsement to create material resources to support the plan; (b) endorsed creating a supportive educational environment for the entire campus community; and (c) elevated issues pertaining to the representation, inclusion, and success of women, members of the LGBT community, and individuals with disabilities. The role of shared governance in achieving campus buy-in is vital because it provides a wonderful example of an institution working to achieve formal structural, collegial, symbolic, and cultural harmony between the campus diversity strategy and an institution’s guiding democratic principles and governing institutions. As with the Michigan Mandate, senior leaders at Wisconsin viewed Plan 2008 as a ‘‘living document’’ that will need to evolve over the course of its implementation. To this end, framers of the plan wrote: This document will not cover all circumstances, nor stay current, over nine years. Some parts will become obsolete or be impossible to attain. We have presented several initiatives, many recommendations to continue and strengthen current programs and practices, and some ideas to be studied and possibly implemented in the future. Our guiding principle is to do everything we can to implement our initiatives and recommendations and to include a section of worthy ideas, so they will not be lost. We are recommending ongoing discussion, with appropriate revision, of the goals and strategies during the whole period of the plan’s operation. (University of Wisconsin–Madison Plan 2008 Planning Committee, 1998, p. 6)

As planners at Michigan and Wisconsin both noted, successful diversity plans feature a healthy balance between a predetermined course of action and openness to evolution and new possibilities. Because so much of the plan involves launching new initiatives, it is important for campus leaders to be flexible. This means developing a plan that is clear and well organized, but also fluid and dynamic.

334

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

TAB LE 7 .3 UW–Madison Plan 2008: A Shared Governance Process Governance Community Faculty Governance

Resolution The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin–Madison endorses the principles set forth in Plan 2008, presented to the UW System Administration on April 15, 1999. The actions set forth in Plan 2008 are to achieve the goals of significantly improving the representation and academic success of members of four targeted ethnic groups, namely, American Indian, African American, Latino, and Southeast Asian American, not only among students but also faculty and staff; enhancing the campus social climate for those groups; and increasing the appreciation for the customs and experiences of these groups within the broader campus community. The Faculty Senate urges the administration to pursue opportunities for full funding of programs to achieve the goals of Plan 2008. The Faculty Senate encourages the university’s administration and the shared governance standing committees to continue their development of directed plans that deal with other groups in our society who have experienced discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability, and whose full participation in educational or other campus activities is limited as a result of such discrimination. Finally, the Faculty Senate urges action on these plans, calling for an improved campus climate and a deeper understanding of the situations of those groups.

Academic Staff The Academic Staff Assembly of the University of Wisconsin–Madison endorses the Governance principles set forth in the campus diversity Plan 2008, which is drafted in accordance with the goals defined in the UW System’s Plan 2008, and will be presented to the UW System Administration on April 15, 1999. The actions set forth in the UW–Madison Plan 2008 are to achieve the goals of significantly improving the representation and academic success of members of four targeted ethnic groups, namely, American Indian, African American, Latino, and Southeast Asian American, among not only the student body but also the faculty and staff; the social climate of this campus for those groups; and the depth of understanding by the large fraction of our population not in those groups for the values, customs, and experiences of those groups. The Academic Staff Assembly of the University of Wisconsin–Madison urges the administration to pursue opportunities for full funding of programs to achieve the goals of Plan 2008 on our campus. The Academic Staff Assembly of the University of Wisconsin–Madison encourages the university’s administration and the shared governance standing committees to continue their development of directed plans that deal with other groups in our society who have experienced discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability, and whose full participation in educational or other campus activities is limited as a result of such discrimination. We urge action on these plans and call for an improved campus climate and a deeper understanding of the situations of those groups. We urge the administration to endorse and implement the resolutions of the 1997 report of the Faculty Senate Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues. Source: University of Wisconsin–Madison Plan 2008 Diversity Oversight Committee, 2002.

D EV EL OP IN G A ND IM PL E M E N TI NG S U CC ES SF UL DI V E R S IT Y P L A NS

335

The Office of Multicultural Arts Initiatives and the First Wave Program One particularly innovative program to emerge over the final three years of Plan 2008 was the nation’s first hip-hop urban arts retention and academic excellence learning community. Housed in the Office of Multicultural Arts Initiatives of the Division of the Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity, and Educational Achievement, the First Wave program is an unprecedented diversity initiative with a broad influence on diversity issues that cuts across a range of dimensions.2 Bringing together young leaders from across the United States, First Wave offers students the opportunity to study and grow as artists in a dynamic community of poets, rappers, dancers, social activists, and visual artists. The program contributes to the campus diversity agenda in terms of access and equity, campus climate, preparing students for a diverse and global world, and developing new forms of scholarship and intellectual engagement through the arts (Table 7.4). The program has awarded more than 65 largely first-generation, historically underrepresented students with full academic scholarships. And in its first phase, the program has achieved an average first-year retention rate of nearly 100 percent, graduating 75 percent of its first cohort in four years. It won the prestigious National Governors Award for the Arts, has been featured in an off-Broadway collaboration with the New York Knicks, and competed in global poetry slams in the United Kingdom. The program exerts a positive effect on the campus climate; student performances and showcases regularly attract hundreds, creating new opportunities for building community and establishing an inclusive campus climate. Working with the guidance of the program’s creative director, a faculty member in the dance department, students are at the forefront of a new form of scholarship, Hip-Hop Performance Theater, which combines song, beat boxing, rap, poetry, instrumentation, and break dancing. Student artistic pieces often engage challenging topics of race and ethnicity, power and privilege, gender equity, sexuality, intergroup relations, the environment, and global politics. Finally, the program has attracted national and international attention with student performances going viral through the web, and appearances on cable channels BET and HBO, and Time-Warner’s Brave New Voices series. These student-led efforts have helped the university position itself as an institution that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Linking Centralized and Decentralized Diversity Plans By themselves, centralized diversity plans cannot change the campus culture. Nevertheless, they are essential for creating an environment in which

336

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

TAB LE 7 .4 Diversity Outcomes and First Wave Impact at UW–Madison Dimension

First Wave Effect

Access and equity

Students in First Wave are granted a full four-year academic scholarship based on their academic and artistic abilities. The program is largely composed of first-generation, historically underrepresented artists active in the urban arts.

Fostering a multicultural and inclusive campus climate

First Wave students are active leaders on campus, hosting regular poetry slams, exhibits, and performances, as well as headlining events that include the Board of Regents Conferences, the Chancellor’s Inauguration, and campus conferences and events, including a monthly poetry showcase that attracts hundreds of diverse students from across campus.

Preparing students, faculty, and staff for a diverse and global world

Students, faculty, and staff attend First Wave artistic events that address topics on sexuality, misogyny, and gender in hip hop culture, racism, Islamophobia, White privilege, and other challenging topics.

Domestic and international diversity research and scholarship

The First Wave Scholars program is highly selective, admitting around 15 students each year. Among other pursuits, students engage in an emerging form of scholarly and artistic expression known as Hip-Hop Performance Theater. This artistic form addresses challenging issues through music, theater, poetry, break dancing, beat boxing, singing, and rapping as a new form of educational pedagogy meant to create awareness and change.

diversity initiatives are taken seriously by the campus community and earn the respect of faculty and administrators. Getting buy-in from all stakeholders is therefore key, and diversity leaders at UW–Madison reached out to the entire campus community while developing Plan 2008. Every unit, including academic departments, was charged to develop a plan to contribute toward the goals of Plan 2008, with both benchmarks and incentives for progress. These goals were integrated into the units’ strategic plans, combining aspects of the integrated, centralized, and decentralized

D E V E L OP IN G A ND IM P L EM E N TI NG S U CC E S S F U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A NS

337

approach to diversity planning in one implementation effort. Meanwhile, accountability for implementing the plan remained at the campus level and not at the individual unit level. One drawback of this approach was that deans and department heads were not evaluated as leaders of their units’ diversity efforts. As a result, some units developed powerful initiatives, whereas others did relatively little. Also instrumental were efforts to promote collaboration between the various schools, colleges, departments, and the central campus administration. For example, the Division of Information Technology (DoIT) built a multiyear summer precollege program focused on drawing historically underrepresented and first-generation college students into information technology careers. This program was implemented in partnership with the PEOPLE program, so that a student who enrolled in the information technology component of the program would, upon admission to UW– Madison, be eligible for the academic scholarship offered through the PEOPLE program. Thus, DoIT staff were able to leverage their core competencies in the area of information technology while simultaneously building alliances with the PEOPLE program.

Campus Accountability Efforts Although Plan 2008 included very few accountability tools at the individual level of faculty, staff, and administrators, it included a range of campus-wide processes. One technique identified and catalogued diversity best practices from the various plans and forwarded them to the central administrative leadership for cataloguing. The Plan 2008 oversight committee and the campus’s implementation cochairs kept abreast of the plan’s progress. The committee met with the Chancellor and other members of senior leadership at least once a semester to discuss progress. Each semester, the oversight committee hosted one or more open forums involving the chancellor, provost, and vice chancellor for student affairs/special assistant to the chancellor for diversity. Additionally, the chancellor’s annual report to the UW system president and campus shared governance bodies included a progress ‘‘report card’’ on the implementation of Plan 2008. Plan 2008 leaders also authored a biennial Diversity Update as an accountability report from the administration. Campus point people and an external review team completed a four-year review, after which the oversight committee and administration made modifications to the second five-year period of the plan. Finally, a student advisory committee was appointed to

338

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

support the senior diversity officer and ensure the continuing involvement of students. Students were also appointed to serve in an advisory capacity to several governance committees and offices across campus. A national UW– Madison diversity advisory board of visitors was proposed, but never put into place as leadership transitioned midway through the plan’s implementation. The advisory board was proposed as another way to gather advice, leadership, visibility, and support for campus diversity efforts.

Decentralized Diversity Plans: A Three-Year Planning Model Colleges and universities are diffuse environments. Diversity plans called for by a board of trustees or president can mean very little within the decentralized academic, administrative, and student affairs units of an institution. The enforcement of centralized and integrated diversity plans by the president or the provost may be viewed as an intrusion and perceived as a violation of school, college, or divisional autonomy. Although centralized and integrated diversity plans can mobilize resources and present a big-picture vision for diversity, the decentralized nature of the academy limits their utility for creating change across individual units and departments. Unable to garner sufficient buy-in or generate accountability among the right people, centralized and integrated plans sometimes fail to burrow deep into the culture and overcome institutional resistance. Therefore, deans, vice presidents, department leaders, and others must participate in the planning and implementation process. One approach that campus leaders can take to create this type of engagement is to require a diversity plan from each school, college, or divisional unit, thereby promoting a decentralized diversity plan. At the individual administrative level, each dean or vice president might cochair a task force assigned to create a unique diversity plan for his or her direct area of responsibility. This leader has the power to hold department heads accountable for the plan’s adoption by providing incentives, generating short-term objectives, and promoting new approaches. In direct contrast to integrated and centralized planning, in which leaders define diversity institutionally and present recommendations for the plan, the decentralized approach relies on localized planning and implementation, connected to a big-picture institutional vision for change. Given the challenge of infusing diversity efforts throughout the institution in a coordinated and systematized way, more on-the-ground diversity

D E V E L OP IN G A ND IM P L EM E N TI NG S U CC E S S F U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A NS

339

planning and implementation activities must complement centralized and integrated diversity plans. Indeed, national research reported in Chapter 8 illustrates that less than 35 percent of institutions have a decentralized diversity plan in place at their institution, a point suggesting that this most important of planning and implementation techniques is not nearly as prevalent as it should be in the academy. It is for this reason that the decentralized diversity plan is featured in this chapter, and a three-year decentralized diversity planning and implementation model is outlined in Figure 7.3. As you read this particular approach, it’s important to keep in mind that many of the recommendations presented here are also applicable to the centralized diversity planning process as well. They are included to allow them to be put into context of the three-year planning model, not as an indication that they are not viable for centralized and integrated diversity planning efforts. To the contrary, the collegial and engaged approaches showcased here make sense no matter the particular planning approach that is used.

The Decentralized Diversity Planning Model The decentralized model is offered as a particularly powerful way to develop an approach that will create strategic consistency while allowing for freedom, individuality, and creativity in the planning and implementation process (Figure 7.3). Three-year cycles are often ideal because they are long enough to allow a meaningful project to be implemented, but not so long that people lose sight of the original charge. The higher education literature on organizational culture and change suggests that transformative change may take between 10 to 15 years to achieve (Simsek & Louis, 1994). Ultimately, therefore, one three-year cycle is not enough, and should be part of an ongoing planning and implementation process that may include several cycles implemented concurrently (Cox, 2001). Clearly, more on-the-ground diversity planning and implementation activities must complement centralized and integrated diversity plans. Indeed many of the recommendations and themes presented here are applicable to the centralized diversity planning process in particular and can serve an important role in strengthening those campus approaches to diversity planning and implementation overall. The model outlined in Table 7.5 is based on a three-year planning cycle. It begins with establishing institutional priorities and creating an administrative oversight system (Phases 1–3). The next steps address developing the diversity plans at all levels (Phases 4–6). Units then implement their plans

340

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

FIGURE 7.3 Decentralized Diversity Implementation Model Timeline

(Phases 7–9). Finally, in Phase 10 the unit head is evaluated with regard to the progress accomplished through the unit plan, which allows the next cycle of planning to begin. Based on this plan, one could expect to meet the following milestones: • Each school, college, unit, department, or division should go through a process of launching, achieving readiness, and writing the diversity plan, which should be ready for implementation by the end of the first year. • The second year is dedicated to implementing major aspects of the plan and concludes with a thorough review to ensure quality and organizational learning. • In the third year, implementation activities continue and a major accountability review is held to assess the efforts of the dean, vice president, or unit director to accomplish broad institutional diversity goals. This review should be used as part of a merit review assessment

D E V EL O P IN G A N D IM P L EM EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

341

TAB LE 7. 5 Timeline and Action Steps for Diversity Planning and Implementation Cycle

Phase

Action

Year 1

Phase 1 Launching the Planning Process

Launch the diversity planning process with a clear directive from the president and provost, a creative use of campus symbols and rituals, nomination of a diversity coordinating council, and events and activities designed to focus attention on the seriousness of the diversity change effort.

Phase 2 Selecting the Diversity Planning and Implementation Team

The dean and other key administrative and faculty leaders nominate a team from the relevant unit to serve as the diversity planning and implementation team and lead their school, college, or division through all phases of the diversity planning and implementation process.

Phase 3 Establishing Readiness

A series of readiness activities is initiated by each diversity planning team, aimed at preparing the community within each specific area in which the diversity plan will be developed.

Phase 4 Leveraging Your SDLS Framework

Use an SDLS to conduct an audit of the current state of diversity within the unit that examines demographic data; past evaluations; diversity and strategic plans; and all diversity programs, units, and initiatives.

Phase 5 Writing the Diversity Plan

Each diversity plan should have several common elements, including a statement defining the challenge, a unit rationale for diversity, recommendations across the dimensions of your SDLS, and indicators of progress and outcomes.

Phase 6 Diversity Plan Review

After the diversity plan is written, the diversity coordinating council reviews and provides recommendations to the president or provost, who then issues a recommendation for further revision or to move directly to implementation. At this phase, further technical assistance may be provided by campus diversity officials, institutional planners, human resource professionals, and external consultants.

Phase 7 Implementation

Each area implements its plan, leveraging all or some combination of activation concepts, including establishing strategic diversity themes, creating incentives, recognizing diversity leaders, working toward both short- and long-term goals and overcoming systemic challenges.

Phase 8 Quality Review

A one-year diversity progress report details progress made during the first year of diversity progress implementation and guidance is given by the coordinating council to deans regarding ways to improve their implementation efforts.

Phase 9 Evolving the Implementation

The continuing implementation effort may be refined based on information provided in Phase 8 and technical assistance. A major launch event may be helpful to convey new energy to the implementation project’s next phase.

Phase 10 Accountability Review and Celebration of Successes

Each unit head will be assessed on progress made in implementing his or her diversity plan. This assessment is used as one measurement in determining merit pay for the divisional head, as well as part of his or her overall performance review. At this point, a new diversity planning cycle may begin.

Year 2

Year 3

342

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

and to establish institutional accountability. Some institutions may want to have an accountability review at the end of the second year. • Following the third-year review, the plans should be tweaked and the cycle of implementation continued after the appropriate adjustments have been made.

Situating the Model at the Dean or Divisional Level When creating decentralized diversity plans, senior leaders must determine the level at which they will require plans. Will plans be developed at the school, college, divisional, or departmental level? Will they be developed for academic departments, administrative departments, or both? These are decisions that leadership should make early in the planning process. Developing decentralized diversity plans at the dean and divisional levels often proves effective for several reasons. First, these leaders are uniquely positioned to influence the budgets, plans, hiring, and initiatives of multiple departments at the same time. Additionally, it is easier for senior leaders to hold these individuals accountable for connecting their efforts to the bigpicture goals of the institution. To be successful, diversity implementation efforts will require resources; discipline; and a creative, flexible approach. Because deans and divisional leaders control their unit budgets, they, unlike department heads and unit directors, have the ability to reallocate resources, prioritize new initiatives and recapture funds to drive efforts. As a result, these leaders are ideally situated to leverage current financial, human, and technical resources required to make change happen. For example, they can make diversity a priority of their development teams, connecting with highcapacity alumni from their school or college to procure new diversity-themed gifts. They have the ability to leverage future faculty hiring decisions by making current resources available for a diversity hire presenting itself outside of a normal department search. They also possess the ability to leverage their discretionary resources to explore new programs and initiatives that may bubble up from members within their area of responsibility. Although department leaders may enjoy some of the same privileges, it is the dean or divisional leader who is best positioned to make tough decisions against the backdrop of campus politics and budget concerns.

Phase 1: Launching the Planning Process and the Charge Letter Direct personal involvement by senior leaders is essential at every phase of diversity planning and implementation. During the launch phase, the president or provost must establish high expectations and create a clear process

D EV EL O P IN G A N D IM P L E M EN TI NG S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

343

for coordinating the diversity planning effort. Without this emphasis, many will view the diversity planning process as another symbolic activity and not meant to foster meaningful change. Thus, Kotter describes the role of president or provost as the ‘‘sponsor’’ of the change effort on the grounds that sponsors provide executive level support and resources, which includes selecting and facilitating the efforts of the coordinating team (Kotter, 1996). At the big-picture institutional level, the sponsor is the most senior executive, either the president or provost, whereas at the local level the sponsor is the dean or divisional leader. The planning process must begin with a clear letter that connects the diversity planning and implementation effort to the academic mission and strategic plans of the institution. It should also include specific institutionwide diversity goals, provide explicit instructions and communicate a clear message of accountability. Without clear and direct communication, some campus constituents may not take the process seriously, relying instead on information from recent accreditation reviews and annual reports that, although helpful, may not focus on diversity at the necessary depth. The goal is for each unit to engage in a process of deep organizational reflection about diversity that includes defining a rationale for why diversity matters to their unique organizational mission; understanding their unique challenges and opportunities; and establishing a shared sense of purpose of what they will do, who will do it, and how it will get done.3 Finally, the charge letter is vital to establishing an appreciation of campus diversity that no longer hinges solely on a social justice rationale. As emphasized elsewhere, contemporary diversity plans must be framed using social justice, educational, and organizational effectiveness diversity rationales (Cox, 2001; P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005; Williams & Clowney, 2007). The Diversity Coordinating Council Continuity and leadership are critical components of successful diversity initiatives. Hence, another important launch activity is the appointment of a central diversity council to guide the diversity planning and implementation process. Members of the coordinating council must be committed to establishing diversity as an institutional priority. This group should include diversity leaders whose reasoned voices address how the campus culture operates and who can directly influence the campus diversity agenda. The president should tap a committed senior leader of the faculty or administration to serve as coordinator of the planning and implementation

344

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

process. At some institutions, and depending on this individual’s experience and rank, this coordinator might be the CDO. At another institution it may actually be the provost or another senior administrator. It is also common for the president to have cochairs to the process, even when a high-ranking CDO is participating; doing so offers another means of creating greater buyin from senior leaders. Reflecting on his diversity efforts at one institution, one president reflected: I chose the members in close consultation with a number of people. My commission consists of students, clerical staff and faculty. As president, it is important to handpick and to choose the leadership—a senior faculty member who had been involved in diversity work was chosen on our campus. Also, include some of the people you would expect, who have been working hard and have a commitment, but also people who were not the usual suspects from the faculty and staff. Also, some people have a particular commitment or expertise—making the curriculum more diverse, measuring effectiveness, or identifying ways of reaching different student populations. Search for and stay open to various people. (Kezar & Eckel, 2005, p. 12)

This group will ultimately review diversity plans from across campus, provide guidance to the president or provost and assist with coordinating the diversity planning process institutionally. The most effective diversity coordinating councils use a task-oriented approach to guide their strategic thinking, planning, and implementation activities. If a campus diversity committee already exists, it may be appropriate to assign the diversity coordination process to them as a core element of their responsibilities. Involving the CDO and Planning Leadership It is imperative that the CDO and his or her staff be involved from the start, whether or not the CDO is a cochair to the process. This group can address diversity issues on campus, offer best practices in the field of strategic diversity leadership, and address potential pitfalls in the planning and implementation process. Members of the institutional planning, financial administration, research, human resources, and quality improvement offices can complement the CDO’s efforts. These teams will provide valuable insight into other campus planning and implementation processes, establish an evidence-based understanding of diversity by mining current campus data sources, and offer technical guidance.

D E V E L OP IN G A ND IM P L EM E N T I NG S U C C E S S F U L DI VE RS I T Y P L A NS

345

It is also important to involve faculty and other members of the campus community who have expertise in issues of diversity, organizational change, and strategic planning. Too often, our institutional planning efforts do not leverage the world-class expertise that may already exist in our schools of education, social work, business, and the social sciences. Even if these individuals cannot serve directly on the committee, they may be engaged in the process as consultants to assist at different phases of planning, implementation, and diversity plan review. By creatively enlisting these experts, institutions can buttress their diversity planning and implementation efforts, grounding them in the best practices and knowledge capabilities of experts in the campus community. At least one academic dean should complete the central diversity council, along with several committed campus diversity leaders drawn from students, faculty, and staff. Other potential stakeholders include alumni and community members. Depending on the institution, the process may be enhanced by including a member of the faculty senate.

Phase 2: Selecting the Diversity Planning and Implementation Team Successfully building a decentralized diversity implementation strategy requires the work of multiple teams. In addition to the central coordinating council, each school, college, or divisional area must establish its own diversity planning and implementation team. This local team must be able to conceive the effort and actively champion it by setting the strategy, providing the necessary resources, clarifying priorities and recommendations for departments, and building support for implementation. Without a strong team, change efforts are seldom provided the support necessary for success. Table 7.6 presents several recommendations for assembling a team equipped with the necessary knowledge, authority, and commitment to implement a strong diversity plan. The team’s leader should be the dean or vice-provost of the unit along with one individual who may serve as cochair and provide executive-level support. The team should include voices from every stakeholder group, including students, faculty members, staff, and administrators. In this particular model the dean or divisional leader is ultimately accountable and should be involved with the plan’s development from the beginning. To heighten its sense of commitment, the planning and implementation team should include a broad cross-section of stakeholders. Among them are individuals who possess the influence, authority, and credibility to implement a high-caliber diversity plan. It is also important to have one or two

346

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

TAB LE 7 .6 Diversity Planning and Implementation Team Member

Rationale

Vice President, Provost, or Dean

This leader has overarching responsibility for guiding the diversity plan process and the formal authority to direct institutional resources to support it.

Associate Dean or Vice President

Each division should have at least one officer who has specific responsibility for overseeing unit diversity efforts. This individual serves as the essential contact person to the CDO and others within the central administration regarding questions, strategic assistance, and best practices.

Budget Officer

This individual helps to identify resources, execute financial procedures, and develop cost-share mechanisms.

Department Heads

One or more department heads or their designees should be represented on the team, both to provide leadership and to assist with implementation.

Faculty and Staff

At least one or two faculty or staff members should be recruited to provide perspective, encourage buy-in, and share the vision for change.* They might include staunch diversity champions as well as others who provide relevant expertise.

Undergraduate and Graduate Students

Student perspectives are essential to developing a strong plan as they provide valuable insights into student culture, expectations, norms, and challenges.

* One tactic that every institution should consider is to provide a course buy-out as an incentive for faculty involvement on each diversity planning and implementation team. We particularly recommend this as a way of enticing faculty leadership to serve as a cochair to the diversity planning and implementation process.

members who bring a clear understanding of the school, college, or divisional culture and the unspoken boundaries against which the team must productively push its recommendations. Next, the team should include at least one person who brings a budget and finance perspective, and who can propose the viable financial strategies for guiding the plan’s ultimate implementation. It is also important to include a faculty expert on diversity, organizational change, or strategic planning. Finally, a diverse group of students should also be included; their perspectives are key to understanding the student experience and to earning broader student support.

D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU C C E S S F U L DI VE RS IT Y P L A N S

347

Taken collectively, these varied perspectives can help establish a community of organizational possibility. The hopes and dreams of diversity champions, who may have a deep critique of the institutional culture, are balanced with the nuanced perspectives of those who may be responsible for holding the campus culture intact. A balanced team is essential to developing a plan that is both forward looking and grounded in reality because the group must simultaneously push the envelope while understanding where the boundaries lie. Recognizing that leaders may seek qualifications specific to their particular efforts, the author has identified nine broad guiding membership criteria. And because large groups can be cumbersome, the team ideally numbers no more than 15 individuals. Table 7.7 presents sample criteria that campus TAB LE 7. 7 Basic Criteria for Creating a Diversity Planning and Implementation Team Candidates Criteria

A

B

C

D

E

Able to provide executive level support Has an in-depth understanding of diversity issues Is viewed as a committed and vocal advocate for diversity Respected by other leaders and faculty within the school or college Has an in-depth understanding of the culture of the school, college, or divisional unit Able to motivate and inspire others to get involved with diversity implementation Vested with the authority to make decisions Able to secure the necessary financial resources required to successfully implement the diversity plan Has experience and expertise leading and contributing to strategic planning and implementation efforts Brings political relationships and insight that can be helpful in removing barriers that may inhibit implementation Brings legal expertise related to issues of diversity and community Other Criteria: 1 Strongly Disagree

2  Disagree

3  Neutral

4  Agree

5  Strongly Agree

F

348

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

leaders can use to select members of the diversity planning and implementation team.

Phase 3: Establishing Readiness Although no higher education studies have ever compared diversity-themed change efforts with other change efforts, the content of change matters as much as the context of change. Because so many sectors within the academy tend to undervalue diversity, implementing a diversity plan—whether centralized, integrated, or decentralized—offers greater challenges than other implementation activities. For any hope of success, leaders must achieve higher levels of readiness at every phase of the effort. This means fostering psychological, behavioral, and material readiness, not just among team members, but also among members of the institutional community more broadly. Randomly engaging community members in diversity planning activities will not prepare them or their units for diversity implementation. Therefore, individuals within the unit must be educated about what diversity means in the new millennium, and then provided with the necessary resources and support. Indeed, unless there is a concerted effort to prepare the campus community for any proposed changes, campus community members may become jaded in their thinking, sensing that the diversity effort is little more than lip service. Table 7.8 provides an overview of many of the most critical readiness activities and their timeline for implementation in the planning and implementation process. You will note that some activities should take place early in the process, whereas other readiness activities occur throughout implementation. Granted, readiness is never complete; a community is always in the process of becoming more ready for change. Some key techniques include developing a diversity audit, building an implementation tool kit, establishing a digital communication strategy, hosting workshops and meetings with key leadership, and pursuing other activities designed to increase the technical acumen of strategic diversity leaders. Education as a Platform for Readiness Just as a plow prepares a field for new crops, implementation leaders must dig beneath the soil to create awareness and support. It is therefore vital to create multiple spaces for educating the planning team and the community about the benefits of diversity. Some readiness strategies might include townhall meetings, department meetings, and other opportunities to discuss the diversity planning and implementation process.

D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU C C E S S F U L DI VE RS IT Y P L A N S

349

TAB LE 7. 8 Change Readiness Techniques Overview Change Readiness Techniques

Recommendation

Timeline for Development

Diversity Audit

Engage in a learning effort to gauge the ‘‘diversity Beginning of the planning temperature’’ on campus. Activities include secondary process analyses of recent data, conducting surveys and focus groups with key constituents, interviews, reviewing prior diversity plans and implementation processes, and looking at other successful campus planning and implementation processes that have little to do with diversity.

Implementation Tool kit

Develop a decentralized diversity planning and Beginning of the planning implementation tool kit that includes the charge process letter; a brief on how to write a higher education diversity plan; a diversity plan template, which each unit should use to guide its effort; relevant campuswide diversity planning documents, mission statements, and reports; a PowerPoint presentation on the diversity planning and implementation process that can be customized by each planning unit; diversity planning worksheets and planning guides; and a number of articles, monographs, and essays on issues of diversity.

Digital Communication Strategy

Launch an online presence that might include a web- Beginning of the planning site, Facebook page, Twitter feed, blogs, Google docs process area, and other shared online resources useful for collaborating.

Strategic Diversity Leadership Workshop

Hold a strategic diversity leadership workshop with Beginning of the planning all deans and vice presidents who will be ultimately process accountable for implementation. At this meeting, the major components of the diversity planning kit will Throughout the process be reviewed, expectations set, and potential challenge areas assessed. (continues)

350

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

TAB LE 7 .8 (Continued) Change Readiness Techniques Strategy and Implementation Meetings

Internal Diversity Consultants

Recommendation

Timeline for Development

Host individual meetings between members of the diversity planning committee and key academic deans, vice presidents, and key institutional administrators. Use the meeting to provide an individual preconsultation before engaging in the process of developing each unit’s diversity plan. The meeting should serve as a confidential setting to explore questions and issues about the plan and its implementation.

Beginning of the planning process Throughout the process

Assign a diversity consultant to each school, college, Beginning of the planning or division to assist with any technical issues that may process arise during the process. This consultant may be a member of the diversity planning committee, a Throughout the process member of the chief diversity officer area, an institutional planning professional, or a faculty or staff member with relevant skills and knowledge to assist the process.

In some instances, members of the CDO unit, diversity consultants, or others should be deployed to educate team members about best practices in the strategic diversity field. Other tactics include hosting faculty development seminars and briefing sessions dealing with minority faculty recruitment, undergraduate student retention, infusing diversity into the curriculum, or establishing inclusive classroom environments. Most staff, faculty, and students invariably appreciate promising techniques for doing their work differently. Yet even while discussing best practices it is important to emphasize that no magic diversity solution exists. Each phase of the process requires an intentional, well-coordinated planning effort to swing the institution in a new direction. To return to the critical themes discussed in Chapter 5, institutional leaders need to ask more than, ‘‘What we are going to do?’’ This question only takes them as far as the first loop of organizational learning. The more critical may be the double and triple loops of learning that provide insight into why plans fail or succeed, along with the big-picture environmental issues that shape the context of diversity planning and implementation.

D EV EL O P IN G A N D IM P L E M EN TI NG S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

351

Asking Key Questions Diversity-themed change happens when organizational members can respond to the following critical questions: First, do individuals believe that diversity efforts are important and worth addressing? Second, what will it take to implement diversity efforts effectively? Third, do we have the necessary resources required to implement diversity efforts? And fourth, can we implement new diversity efforts given the current context? Implementation capability in part depends on how these questions are answered during the early phases of the process. It is therefore critical that the planning team establish early on whether it has the requisite human, financial, and technical resources to pursue a diversity plan. Furthermore, they should consider the ‘‘external’’ factors explored in the Introduction: Is the college or university located in a rural or urban area? Is the institution facing widespread financial or staffing challenges? These situational factors must be considered throughout the process because they in some sense set the outer boundaries for what is possible as the agenda moves forward. Talking With Key Stakeholders Getting different individuals involved in developing the diversity plan is vital to establishing buy-in. It is for this reason that leadership should also host a series of open discussions about the impending diversity planning process. This is a great way to hear stories from key stakeholders and connect them to the process. And although soliciting comments on potentially controversial items from those most affected may require a greater time investment, the pay-off down the road is a greater fulfillment of the principles and themes at the heart of strategic diversity leadership. Implementing readiness activities like these reduces or eliminates the conjecture that is bound to arise if certain stakeholders feel they were excluded from the process. One of the most common criticisms is a lack of feeling included in the process. It cannot be emphasized enough that in the academy, process matters greatly and individuals must be engaged if they are to become invested in the outcome. Funding New Diversity Initiatives A critical part of readiness often ignored is the importance of establishing a financial strategy for funding the diversity initiative. Only the wealthiest institutions have the financial resources to do everything they want to do. For the vast majority, understanding their financial challenges is essential. Not only does a financial assessment give a sense of the challenges, it also

352

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

helps participants to start thinking creatively about other potential funding sources. Therefore, the success of the diversity planning effort depends on both the strategic reallocation of existing resources and finding new resources. One effective strategy stems from institutional leaders obtaining private and public grants to sustain campus diversity efforts. The clear advantage to this strategy is that it creates new possibilities without burdening the current budget. The challenge is that new sources are nearly always finite and invariably require a matching commitment of the institution’s resources. Whatever the strategy for finding new funds, the institution needs to consider ways to create a central repository to house these resources. Doing so will help foster a more transparent and accountable allocation process and streamline any competitive grant programs. The existence of a centralized budget will also convey the seriousness, quality, intentionality, and focus of the planning and implementation activities, even as it emphasizes that deans and divisional leaders must also develop ways to finance their plans. As noted earlier, the budget is a direct reflection of an institution’s values. No commitment to fund new diversity efforts simply means no true commitment exists.

Phase 4: Leveraging Your Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard Framework Campus leaders should leverage the SDLS as a tool to guide diversity planning and implementation activities. The scorecard offers five prisms for understanding diversity issues: the access and equity perspective, the multicultural and inclusive campus climate perspective, the learning and diversity perspective, the diversity research and scholarship perspective, and finally the diversity leadership commitment perspective. This framework allows for a balanced and multidimensional understanding of campus diversity efforts. Again, other dimensions are possible, including community engagement and marketing and communication. The process of articulating a planning framework for the decentralized implementation process should be established at the discretion of the centralized diversity coordinating council, with feedback from the planning and implementation teams across campus. The diversity coordinating council articulates the overall diversity goals, rationale, and architecture for the plan. Each unit will customize these dimensions as appropriate to their context because they may not desire to create recommendations across every aspect of their diversity plan. For example, the division of student affairs or the

D EV EL OP IN G A ND IM PL E M E N TI NG S U CC ES SF UL DI V E R S IT Y P L A NS

353

DoIT may not have a diversity research and scholarship perspective. In this case, they would develop their plan across the other areas articulated by the diversity coordinating council. This point is especially important for creating diversity initiatives that focus on race and ethnicity in admissions, financial aid, and hiring, as anchoring them to the key priorities of an institution is essential to substantiating an institution’s diversity rationale in this particular dimension of activity (Coleman & Palmer, 2004).

Phase 5: Writing the Diversity Plan The diversity plan should include the following: a data-driven definition of the challenge, a unit-specific rationale for diversity, goals that complement the overall campus diversity strategy, implementation strategies that address the various dimensions of the SDLS, a financial plan, and progress indicators that will be monitored over time. The plan should also include responsibility assignments for each recommendation of the plan. Having already given extensive treatment of the various dimensions of the SDLS, it is important to devote some time to three additional ‘‘nuts and bolts’’ dimensions of implementation: establishing a diversity rationale, revising preexisting diversity efforts, and establishing financial incentives. The Diversity Rationale The diversity rationale statement defines diversity from a particular institutional context. Although a general rationale provides guidance for defining diversity at the institutional level, each unit should develop its specific philosophy or grounding statement to explain the importance of diversity to achieving excellence within the context of each individual school, college, or division. By placing diversity within a specific context, each unit can establish its own center of gravity with respect to its campus and be positioned to move forward. For example, the business school might make a ‘‘business case for diversity’’ that focuses on the effect of diversity on a knowledge-based, global economy. The medical school might focus on diversity in the context of a changing health care field or the persistent racial and ethnic health disparities in our society. The college of agriculture might frame their rationale in terms of a national goal to diversify America’s overwhelmingly White male farming profession, or agricultural issues specific to minority populations, such as ‘‘heirs property’’ claims and the lack of access to healthy, local produce in urban areas, also known as ‘‘food deserts.’’ The more specifically a particular

354

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

entity within the institution defines diversity in ways relevant to its mission, the greater the potential for a plan that leverages the unique strengths of that entity. Linking Preexisting Efforts With the Emerging Strategy The unit’s diversity rationale should be used to articulate a set of unit diversity goals aligned to the big-picture expectations of the central coordinating council. Once the team designs a plan that has fairly widespread support, it is time to move to implementation. This requires the team to articulate actionable recommendations that can help to deliver the plan’s goals within the context of the SDLS framework. At this point it is important to take into account current viable efforts that may need to be modified or scaled up. Your recommendations may also include a radical departure from current activities, requiring a shift in efforts or eliminating any current efforts deemed ineffective. Given the political nature of campus diversity efforts and the long-standing history of some programs that were created as long as five decades ago, readers should take this advice with a note of caution. Whether the efforts need to be eliminated, evolved, or strengthened, the diversity planning and implementation team should approach these conversations with respect both for the history and importance of these preexisting efforts. Financial Resources, Incentives, and Accountability Strategies Finally, the diversity plan should include a section that discusses the process to allocate resources for the new recommendations. Although the resources should be housed centrally, each dean and divisional leader should also create a local unit-based implementation budget to help drive efforts. Although these funds may be fairly modest, making an individual financial commitment conveys unit support for the diversity goals. The dean or divisional leader might also develop a series of incentives to encourage buy-in and engagement from faculty, students, and staff. Release time to work on special projects, summer stipends, honors and awards, bonuses, and diversitythemed scholarships are all activities that turn diversity from an unfunded mandate into a priority. The dean or divisional leader should also clarify how they will hold individuals accountable for pursuing their unit’s diversity goals. This could take a number of different forms. Accountability could become a part of the annual review of department heads, modeling a process very similar to the

D E V EL O P IN G A N D IM P L EM EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

355

unit leader’s own review process with the president or provost. Another technique might be to allow a department to launch a search for an open faculty or staff position provided that each member of the hiring committee has undergone a diversity training or workshop. Although it is illegal to use diversity as the sole criteria in hiring decisions, it is well within the prerogative of a dean or divisional leader to continue the search process until he or she is satisfied that a candidate pool is diverse. Here as elsewhere, the key in developing solid financial and accountability strategies is to be creative.

Phase 6: Diversity Plan Review This phase of the model enhances implementation through the use of an organizational learning-centered approach. Members of the campus-wide diversity coordinating council appointed in the launch phase should review each plan. The diversity coordinating council should comment on the quality of the plan; the clarity of the recommendations; and the overall merits of each school, college, or divisional effort. Only then is the council in a position to draft recommendations to the president or provost. Using the council’s recommendations as guidance, the president or provost will craft for each unit head a written response to the proposed unit plan. Depending on their involvement in the process, the CDO, planning professionals, or others may provide an additional round of technical assistance to guide the plan’s implementation. As part of this process, unit plans can be posted digitally to encourage feedback. Going forward, the plan should be subject to further revision and review, even as the planning and implementation team is given permission to begin implementation.

Phase 7: Implementation As is the case with any strategic planning initiative, the real work of diversity planning is to make the school, college, or divisional plan work. The unit must rationally pursue diversity recommendations while enacting a new understanding of institutional diversity and engaging the organizational community in an interpretive dance to capitalize current efforts and build ever-increasing change energy (Senge et al., 1999). Although some implementation activities may begin at the end of the first year, the planning process for launching the implementation does take time. Some diversity planners may want to consider launching implementation in the second year of a three-year cycle. The following are several concepts to activate the implementation process.

356

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

Establishing a Strategic Theme of Implementation It is helpful to launch the effort in conjunction with a high-profile event that creates positive energy for change. Like the beginning of a capital campaign, this event announces that the implementation process has begun (Hirschhorn & May, 2000). A major symposium, keynote speaker, or other opening activity brings attention to the diversity planning effort, particularly if the featured speaker provides a message consistent with the diversity planning vision. It may also be appropriate to involve key alumni and others in the diversity launch event. Box 7.6 provides two examples of successful launch events. Establishing a strategic theme can help provide new energy for the diversity planning and implementation effort (Hirschhorn & May, 2000). There are a myriad of effective branding concepts: ‘‘Inclusive Excellence,’’ ‘‘Good to Great,’’ ‘‘Finding Common Ground,’’ ‘‘Now Is the Time,’’ and ‘‘Engaging With the World’’ are examples. The strategic theme should be broadly framed to reach multiple audiences, yet narrow enough to invite interest and engagement at the individual level. As Malcolm Gladwell explains in Tipping Point (2002), the key is to create a ‘‘sticky’’ theme that invites individuals to ponder the theme’s meaning. In the busy worlds of faculty, staff, and students, a sticky theme holds a distinct advantage when so many ideas and commitments are competing for finite time and attention (Hirschhorm & May, 2000; Gladwell, 2002). Establishing a sticky theme is particularly important because today’s diversity effort requires a new diversity framing, as more than simply the ‘‘morally right thing to do.’’ Having a strategically branded theme can help in this regard, by an inclusive and engaging message for the plan’s launch. BOX 7.6 Towson University and San Jose State University Launching Activities Creating Shared Commitment Towson University and SJSU both used a campaign-style approach to launch their institutional initiatives. Towson launched a ‘‘Now Is the Time’’ diversity planning and implementation process with an all-day conference. SJSU launched its ‘‘Inclusive Excellence’’ strategic planning efforts with a three-day retreat that featured national speakers before an (continues)

D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM P L E M EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

357

audience of nearly 100 university students, faculty, and staff. These events tapped into national guidelines from leading higher education policy groups and helped these institutions to shape the perspectives of key campus leaders, providing them with an opportunity to learn not only about new information but also to contribute to the diversity goals and strategies. Because of the nature of the academy, it does little good for diversity planning committees to develop a campus diversity plan in isolation from other stakeholders; the resultant plan would be nearly impossible to implement, especially if it aimed for transformational change. A campus-wide diversity strategy must be developed in partnership with others to achieve buy-in and viability. The absence of broad involvement will lead to fear and rejection. Participation, conflict, cooperation, and implementation are all behavioral aspects of the planning process and are key factors in its success. In Creating Contagious Commitment, Andrea Shapiro (2003) argues that organizational change should spread virally, moving from person to person, with each new recipient becoming a ‘‘carrier’’ of the change message. Some need to come into contact with the idea in multiple ways over time to become part of the movement. The key is to reach as many people as possible, as frequently as possible. Here are several helpful steps to help leaders to engage in a collaborative strategic thinking effort: • Form diversity-themed work groups composed of people from different parts of the institution. • Engage stakeholders in campus-wide discussions of diversity priorities. • Obtain support from shared governance communities for new diversity initiatives early and often. • Consciously develop a shared language of terms, information, and examples. • Share diversity-themed data widely to create a shared basis for decisionmaking. • Ask leaders to send consistent messages about issues of diversity and its importance on campus. • Award resources consistently across units, according to clear diversity priorities. • Develop forums, projects, and interest groups that cut across boundaries of administrative areas, schools, and departments to bring multiple constituents and efforts into the diversity conversation. • Establish dedicated website, Facebook, and Twitter accounts to help move your message through the digital world. • Appoint diversity affiliates or champions to key positions on campus and give them an assigned role in helping to implement the strategic diversity plan. (continues)

358

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

(continued) • Develop diversity-themed templates, PowerPoints, and trainings to empower key leaders on campus. • Establish a central electronic repository where members of the campus community can submit their campus diversity plans, reports, and initiatives. Institutions should consider these kinds of tactics not only on a campus-wide level, but as projects that they might pursue at the individual department, school, college, or divisional level.

Building on Current Capacity and Leaders Finding a way to synthesize both existing diversity efforts and new, innovative approaches is vital. Most obviously, it creates more visibility for diversity champions whose innovative initiatives may have never been fully embraced because the institution lacked either commitment or the necessary funding support. Another strategy might be to showcase faculty members whose engagement in diversity-related research and outreach efforts bring new attention to matters of institutional diversity. Showcasing unit diversity efforts through press releases, newsletters, alumni communications, award banquets, graduation ceremonies, and other opportunities will help encourage members of the unit. For example, a school of social work might create a ‘‘diversity champion award’’ given to the faculty, staff, or student member who best embodies the values of diversity. A key theme of any change project is to use early ‘‘wins’’ to build momentum. Diversity implementation efforts are no different. If the change project is too aggressive in its early stages, it may falter. Implementation leaders should therefore begin their efforts with low-hanging fruit. Without timely wins that yield an identifiable result, existing and potential supporters may abandon the effort. Kotter (1996) recommends that leaders ask two questions early in the implementation process. What are the benefits or payoffs to the initiative or activity? And how easy is it to implement? The goal is to find projects that, although easy to implement, generate immediate payoffs. Once these early wins are identified and obtained, diversity leaders should communicate their successes to the broader campus community. Working Through Systematic Challenges In Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Jim Collins argues that in the face of systemic obstacles, organizations should strive to achieve ‘‘pockets of excellence’’ as starting points (Collins, 2005, p. 31). These initiatives become the

D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM P L E M EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

359

foundations of success and breakthrough change, even though they may be imperfect. This point is crucial because change advocates and detractors alike often point to systemic obstacles as their rationale for doing nothing. For example, many argue that the lack of a ‘‘pipeline’’ prevents the recruitment of historically underrepresented faculty and students in the STEM disciplines. Although no one will deny that the pipeline challenge is indeed formidable, it should not deter an institution from approaching the effort with commitment and creativity. So while institutions set to work over the longterm building the pipeline, they should also develop today’s ‘‘pockets of excellence.’’ It will take decades to build a pipeline, but institutions must act today if they are to achieve any level of improvement. Hence, diversity leaders should take a ‘‘both/and’’ attitude toward implementing short- and longrange plans to achieve diversity. Promoting Diversity-Leadership Development Efforts Implementation leaders might also want to develop an ongoing diversity leadership education program to quicken change. To accomplish this goal, conferences, symposiums, and faculty development seminars are essential. These platforms allow leaders to develop the new understanding and skills necessary for implementing diversity policies and programs. Some institutions have begun hosting summer institutes dedicated to exploring specific thematic issues around strategic diversity leadership. For example, the CDO at Michigan State University created a summer institute with faculty partners and others to explore issues of diversity in the curriculum. With support from the Lumina Foundation, researchers at the UCLA Higher Education and Organizational Change program created a national summer institute focused on helping practitioners with high-caliber diversity and inclusion research projects.4 Whether developed by the central coordinating committee or in a particular school, college, or division, structured campus leadership experiences can prove helpful to current and potential stakeholders and allies. Another tactic is to provide resources to send teams to advanced leadership development institutes to work on issues of diversity and organizational change. The Association of American Colleges and Universities’ ‘‘Greater Expectations Institute,’’ now the ‘‘Institute on High-Impact Practices and Student Success,’’5 provides an intensive five-day retreat during which teams engage with leading experts on issues of strategic planning and implementation. The Institute can help teams on issues like improving student-learning outcomes, infusing diversity into the curriculum, reenvisioning the first-year,

360

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

and other projects. This type of investment could help provide direction for the efforts of both the executive diversity council and the various unit teams. The key to any of these activities is to focus on connecting issues of diversity to the central themes of implementation and change, from developing an intergroup dialogue program to engaging issues of diversity in the classroom. An important guiding principle for these experiences is that they take a specific, targeted approach to the particular needs of participants. For example, a targeted session for receptionists and other front-line service providers about ways to establish a supportive campus environment will necessarily differ from a session oriented toward senior administrators. With regard to diversity leadership development, one size rarely fits all. The more targeted the focus into the issues and action steps of a particular population, the better the intervention.

Phase 8: Quality Review At its most basic level, institutional change has been described as unfreezing, moving, and refreezing the culture (Lewin, 1951). A substantial shift in values and beliefs are essential if transformational change is to take place (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). Change can be threatening for individuals and organizations as a whole. Without regular assessments and communication, organizations that participate in any change process—including the types of planning and processes proposed in this discussion—may be destined for failure. Thus, a quality review at the end of the second year offers an effective way to guide further implementation efforts. The goal of this phase is to provide feedback that helps unit leaders become more sensitive to the requirements of the diversity change initiative. The Diversity Progress Report The dean or divisional leader of each unit should submit a progress report using the unit scorecard as the guiding framework. This report should summarize all implementation activities and provide qualitative and quantitative evidence of the plan’s progress. Measuring performance in the context of quantitative and qualitative goals simultaneously ensures rigor and builds confidence. Some examples might include compiling satisfaction surveys after diversity speakers and program events, internal evaluations of diversity training initiatives, or providing summaries of the efforts by a subcommittee that developed a new diversity curriculum requirement. The goal is to report

D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU CC E S S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

361

information that illustrates what has been accomplished during the implementation year. This report might also include challenges associated with implementation as well as ways that the unit plans have evolved over time. Individual Unit Meetings The executive diversity council should lead the quality review process by examining each unit’s report. Every unit will meet with the appointed review team to discuss the specifics of their progress and provide details regarding the implementation. The review team will then generate a response to each progress report and develop a summary statement for senior leaders that includes comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each unit’s progress. Senior leaders should use this information to draft a statement for each unit head to be filed in his or her professional development file. The goal of the feedback statement is to enhance quality and should not be used to demoralize or discourage a dean or divisional head. Best Practice Meetings From a central coordinating committee perspective, senior leaders might consider hosting a half-day symposium to bring the various implementation teams together. At this gathering, each team would give a brief presentation summarizing their efforts and lessons learned during the first year of implementation. This sharing process allows best practices to emerge and foster a common understanding of challenges facing each implementation effort. This symposium could also capitalize on the creative and competitive possibilities among the various deans and divisional leaders, drawing on the benchmarking principles discussed in Chapter 6. Realities of the Review As noted throughout this book, colleges and universities are messy environments that often operate in confusing, even frustratingly obscure ways. Thus, it is often difficult in the academy to tie causes to effects, even in the face of a strong SDLS or planning process. Unless evaluations are conducted on each initiative, the outcomes of some efforts may become clear only after a significant lapse of time and only after other events have occurred that help ‘‘explain’’ the outcome (Eckel, Green, Hill, & Mallon, 1999). For example, the effect of a precollege outreach and mentoring program for young Black males may be clear only after time, and such measures as graduation from high school or matriculation to college might be expressed only indirectly. Hence, some of the quality review will be highly descriptive and have limited

362

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

reach. Senior leaders should therefore weigh these reviews carefully against the actual work being done, so that constructive adjustments can be made without letting the process descend into one long evaluation. The quality review should improve implementation and move the institution toward a performance standard that rewards success and holds individuals accountable for their efforts. In the end, the quality review should increase communication, establish clear expectations, and reinforce good performance through a spirit of cooperation, organizational learning, and teamwork.

Phase 9: Evolving the Implementation Each unit should evaluate the feedback it receives during the quality review and then look for creative ways to adapt their implementation efforts. Guiding questions include, What is working? What is not working? And what new human, financial, and technical initiatives might be developed? As emphasized throughout this discussion, change leaders must be open to embracing a number of opportunities and initiatives that may not readily be available at the outset of the plan’s launch. The third year should begin with a unit-wide conversation about how the implementation might evolve to quicken the pace of change while maintaining the consistency of ongoing efforts. In many instances, current change strategies will only need slight revisions rather than radical changes to enhance their efficacy. But no matter what the proposed changes, communication and feedback loops will create transparency in the diversity implementation effort. Activities might include a town hall meeting during which an update is given about the project. The implementation team might also write a summary article in the unit newsletter or develop a special website that allows for the periodic posting of activities, meeting notes, reports, presentations, and even streaming video of important diversity activities. What matters is that members of the campus community be given plenty of opportunities to provide feedback and suggestions. At no point should the campus community feel closed out of the information loop. This is essential for building the credibility of the initiative and moving toward accountability at multiple levels of the institution.

Phase 10: Accountability Review and Celebration of Successes At the end of the three-year process, an accountability review should occur. Similar to the quality review, each unit should develop a diversity progress

D E V EL O P IN G A N D IM P L EM EN T I N G SU CC E S S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S

363

report commenting on their efforts across all three years, with a specific focus on implementation and outcomes. Again, the review team analyzes these reports and provides feedback to senior leaders. At this point, senior leadership should include this information as part of a performance review for each dean and divisional leader. Senior leadership should establish a standard of quality that is used to assess the overall success of the effort. Assigning a Performance Management Score Some formal reviews may result in simple descriptions of performance, in which the review team writes a statement about the merits of the implementation activity. This statement inevitably comments on critical aspects of the implementation, centered in the unique goals of that particular unit. Others might go beyond these descriptions and assign a formal letter ‘‘grade’’ or numerical score to give a clear assessment of progress. Although the assignment of a formal letter grade is a more general assessment of implementation, actual scoring is a more rigorous and quantitative assessment of process. Possible scoring criteria include (a) the strategic focus and utilization of evidence-based practices, (b) the leadership’s commitment, (c) the allocation of financial and technical resources, and (d) the outcomes and successes. Across these dimensions one might assign each a performance score of 1 to 5, creating a total of 20 possible points. Others might weigh the various aspects according to internal priorities. For example, we could posit a system in which financial and technical resources are graded on a 10-point scale, and the other categories are set on a 5-point scale, creating 25 possible points. Although evaluators should avoid creating too much complexity, using a more sophisticated assessment method may lead to a clearer evaluation of progress and outcomes. Any numerical assessment should include an effort to acknowledge and reward individual and group successes. The options here are unlimited and the more creative the better. For example, consider initiating some type of public notice that acknowledges their successful implementation work. This might include coverage in the annual state of the institution letter from the president or perhaps inclusion in the annual report to the trustees or board of governors. Another technique is to release a diversity progress report and press release about the diversity planning and implementation process that includes an assessment and update on the work of each planning unit. The goal is to create public moments that reinforce the importance of the implementation effort and establish a culture that encourages the institution to move forward (Williams & Clowney, 2007). Other institutional rewards include merit pay increases or bonuses. By implementing a positive reward

364

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

system for successful change leaders, the institution will automatically create an effective and discrete vehicle for reminding recalcitrant or negative senior leaders that foot-dragging and opposition means being stuck on the sidelines in terms of bonuses and advancement. In particular, institutions might consider developing a bonus structure for individuals who lead especially strong implementation efforts, as well as ways to reward broader units that are particularly effective. Finally, it may be necessary to connect the implementation to future budget decisions. Multiple Three-Year Cycles Each successive three-year cycle should inevitably address new initiatives and ways to achieve even greater levels of accountability. Subsequent implementation cycles should look to make gains in the following areas: accounting for diversity in faculty merit reviews, incorporating diversity into standard assessments of teaching and learning, and integrating diversity issues into the tenure and promotion review process. If these change goals are accomplished in the first phase of the implementation process, the institution should consider other ambitious goals in subsequent years. The point is that each diversity cycle should engage change at deeper institutional levels. Done effectively and over a series of implementation cycles, diversity leaders can look to expect transformational change, not just in the policies and programs of the institution, but in its culture and values.

Summary Historically, colleges and universities have engaged in the diversity planning process as a response to institutional crises. Although senior leaders must always be responsive to crisis incidents, policies crafted in reaction almost never lead to deep, systemic changes. Recent demographic changes and an emerging global economy have provided colleges and universities with an unparalleled opportunity to become proactive about integrating diversity priorities into the culture and curriculum of their institutions. For all the apparent chaos that characterizes colleges and universities, they do contain patterns of behavior and formal structural dynamics that make them navigable. It is within this context that campus diversity plans can succeed, provided their architects build strong processes and allocate enough resources to overcome the institution’s inherent complexity. The diversity planning and implementation approaches presented in this chapter are intended to accomplish this goal.

D EV E L O P IN G A N D IM PL EM E N TI N G S U CC E S SF U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A N S

TAB LE 7. 9 A Checklist for Institutional Diversity Planning and Implementation Diversity Planning Element Outlines a diversity vision for change that expresses diversity as an important component of the institution’s vision for excellence and not as a stand-alone priority. Presents institutional and operational definitions of diversity to help shape priorities and recommendations. Applies a multidimensional diversity change framework that includes the following: increasing access and equity, promoting a multicultural and inclusive campus climate, enhancing diversity-themed research and scholarship, and building leadership commitment. Presents a diversity rationale that leverages institutional data, campus survey data, institutional history, national data, higher education and other relevant diversity literature, and court rulings to build the case for diversity. A clear implementation cycle is presented that outlines a 3-, 5-, or 10-year diversity timeline. National benchmarking of best practices is included in the plan’s development. Senior institutional leadership commitment is expressed to implement a real and meaningful diversity plan. School, college, divisional, unit, and departmental leaders have a clear role during implementation. Dedicated financial resources are allocated to support new initiatives, provide incentives, and encourage creativity and innovation. Plan includes a campus diversity audit of current programs and evidence of their success, failure, and ability to synchronize with new initiatives. Senior institutional leadership in the form of a CDO or another high-ranking administrator or faculty member will guide and coordinate the implementation process. Shared planning and engagement from the campus community—including a campus-wide diversity oversight committee—will convene throughout the plan’s development and implementation. Clear accountability systems at the individual and institutional level are in place to ensure implementation success. Plan reflects a flexible approach that may be subject to change or modification during implementation. There is a clear communication plan to update and engage the community in regular conversation regarding the plan’s implementation. The projected approach takes into consideration next steps following the implementation cycle.

Yes/No

Action Steps for Inclusion

365

366

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P ?

This chapter provides an overview of integrated diversity plans, centralized diversity plans, and decentralized diversity plans. Although each of these approaches to diversity planning and implementation can provide a focused institutional diversity agenda, most of the successful institutions that the author has reviewed draw from all three in combination. Although each institution should look to craft its own unique approach, several common denominators are hallmarks of any successful plan. To be successful, the diversity process must possess both structure and flexibility, and capitalize on the decentralized nature of the academy at the same time as it fosters implementation in a way that is grounded in local actions, organizational learning, coordination, and accountability. Several key elements must be in place in developing any type of diversity plan. The checklist presented in Table 7.9 enumerates certain planning themes that will ensure a successful diversity plan and implementation process. This concluding figure offers a tool to guide planning, whether it is integrated, centralized, or decentralized. In your planning and implementation efforts, once you have an answer to a dimension of the checklist, indicating that it is included in your plan, you can then move to the next item. If the answer is no, create action steps for addressing this omission. Respondents may include institutional diversity planners, CDOs, governing board members, faculty governance leaders, or senior institutional leaders. The use of this checklist may be helpful to the planning committee and other stakeholders as a tool that aligns the planning community with the best practices for diversity planning and implementation, and as a way of launching the plan’s next phase.

Notes 1. For many institutions, the terms academic plan and strategic plan are used synonymously and in reference to the same process: designing and implementing the central, strategic plan that guides all of the major aspects of the institution. For the purposes of this chapter, we use the term strategic plan on the grounds that it appears more inclusive in scope, unless we are specifically reporting on survey data that asked about a particular type of plan. For more discussion of this distinction please see Richard Alfred’s Managing the Big Picture in Colleges and Universities: From Tactics to Strategy (2005). 2. For more information on the OMAI First Wave Program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, please visit http://omai.wisc.edu/. 3. As noted in ‘‘Now Is the Time,’’ a recent report by a coalition of higher education associations, localized reflection is essential to understanding the unique challenges and opportunities in a postsecondary environment that is diverse, decentralized, and focused on

D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM E N T I N G S U C C E S S F U L DI VE RS I T Y P L A N S

367

pursuing numerous organizational priorities (AASCU/NASULGC Diversity Task Force, 2005). 4. For more information about the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute Summer Diversity Research Institute, please visit www.heri.ucla.edu/diversityinstitute.php. 5. For more information about the Association of American Colleges and Universities Institute on High-Impact Practices and Student Success, please visit www.aacu.org/meetings/ SummerInstitutes.cfm.

8 ACTIVATING THE DIVERSITY CHANGE JOURNEY A National Portrait of Diversity Capabilities in Higher Education

An idea that is developed and put into action is more important than an idea that exists only as an idea. —Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha)

T

his book explores the diversity idea; outlines models of organizational diversity; and provides guidelines for writing effective diversity plans, developing institutional scorecards, and outlining some of the critical techniques necessary to overcoming the challenges of implementing diversity-themed change in the academy. It explores why diversity plans fail, and provides a multidimensional perspective on the most important leadership styles that strategic diversity leaders must apply to successfully lead diversity efforts on their campuses. A lot of ground has been covered. What remains is to outline the extent to which colleges and universities are currently using some of these techniques—how they are leveraging the ‘‘wolf ’’ qualities of strategic diversity leadership so vital to creating incremental and even transformative change.

Higher Education Diversity Capabilities Using responses from the national survey of chief diversity officers at more than 700 academic institutions, this chapter provides one of the first examinations of its kind addressing how postsecondary institutions are building their formal diversity capacity.1 Some of the key questions include: What 368

AC T I VAT IN G T H E DI V E RS I T Y C H A N G E J O U R N EY

369

types of diversity plans are colleges and universities developing? How are institutions creating accountability among faculty, staff, and administrators? Are they focusing on developing educational initiatives to prepare students, faculty, and staff for knowledge-based, global economy? What differences exist between public and private, and large and small, institutions? More specifically, this chapter provides a perspective on five areas of capacity that are particularly important for moving the needle of an institution’s diversity strategy. Table 8.1 gives an overview of these five higher education diversity capabilities and a description of their characteristics. These capabilities include (a) diversity planning systems, (b) diversity accountability systems, (c) diversity research and assessment systems, (d) diversity training and educational initiatives, and (e) faculty diversification systems. These five capabilities are essential to implementing a strategic vision for diversity. In many ways, it is the presence of these five capabilities that indicates an institution’s diversity leadership commitment, the diversity accountability theme explored in Chapter 6. More specifically, this chapter identifies both general diversity capabilities and those systems that are more intensive and aggressive. Generally, the more intensive strategies achieve the following: they place an even greater premium on engaging issues of diversity in a proactive and intentional manner; they define diversity efforts with a dedicated focus that is specific to issues of diversity; and, more often than not, they cut against the grain of traditionalism by requiring the institution to engage diversity as a high-level strategic priority backed by financial resources, rigorous accountability techniques, and involvement from faculty and administrative leaders not usually involved in diversity implementation efforts. The discussion of these capabilities provides a foundation for understanding how institutions are building capacity, which is helpful for multiple reasons. First, it provides perspective for leaders to understand where their diversity efforts may be innovative and cutting edge, and where they may be more traditional and foundational. This clarity helps leaders to move forward with tactics that may be novel and more effective. When leaders create more intentional and intrusive diversity accountability techniques and processes, resistance will inevitably emerge. The data in this chapter should help leaders target areas in which dissonance may emerge so that they can develop strategies to engage with these challenges. In addition, this chapter provides a national context for understanding where institutions are with respect to their campus diversity efforts, and where they are not. As a result, leaders

370

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

TAB LE 8 .1 Higher Education Diversity Capabilities Overview Capabilities

Description

Items

Diversity Planning Systems

Planning systems designed to advance institutional diversity efforts across the various campus planning systems

• Existence of an official definition of diversity • Official mission statement that addresses diversity • Diversity addressed in institution’s academic plan—integrated diversity plan • Strategic and academic planning documents that contain goals for diversity • Presence of a campus-wide diversity plan • Decentralized diversity plans for schools, colleges, divisions, and departments • Existence of campus-wide plans for international affairs (e.g., study abroad, global research partnerships, international student recruitment, faculty exchanges, etc.)

Diversity Accountability Systems

Intentional systems to drive the institutional diversity agenda

• Institution formally reports on campus diversity plans, including successes, challenges, and ongoing opportunities • Diversity goals and achievements discussed annually at board of trustees or regents meetings • Diversity leadership is assessed as part of the merit review of administrators and faculty

Diversity Research and Assessment Systems

Intentional capacity to assess campus diversity progress

• Institution assesses the educational implications and benefits of diversity • Institution uses a diversity scorecard system or other measurement to assess diversity progress • Institution regularly assesses the campus climate for diversity

Diversity Training and Education Initiatives

Formal systems designed to prepare entire campus community to engage with issues of difference, enhancing abilities to thrive in a diverse campus environment and world

• Presence of diversity training and education program for students and staff • Presence of diversity training and education program for faculty and administrators • Existence of diversity course graduation requirement for students

Faculty Diversification Efforts

Intentional capacity to advance faculty diversity on campus

• Institution has a formal minority or diversity faculty recruitment initiative • Key diversity personnel sit on search committees to ensure diversity perspectives • Key diversity staff are an integral part of the tenure and promotion process • Resources are available to partner with academic departments on new faculty hires

ACT IVAT IN G T HE DI VE R S IT Y C H A NG E J OU RN E Y

371

can use this information as another tool to help develop and refine their efforts on campus. Leaders will find this data particularly important because it provides a national snapshot of each capability before delving into a more nuanced discussion of similarities and differences by institutional control and size. A detailed perspective should help leaders gauge the prevalence of specific diversity techniques relative to the types of institutions that exist across the country. Although the general institutional DNA of shared governance, teaching, learning, and research priorities exist throughout, this chapter acknowledges and explores how these themes play out differently at public and private, and large and small, institutions.

Capability One: Diversity Planning Systems Institutions demonstrate their support for diversity in a variety of ways, often commencing with a commitment to engage in strategic planning. Although this planning should ultimately take place at multiple levels, it usually begins with an institution expressing commitment to diversity in its mission statement and strategic plans. Although a mission statement reflects the formal expression of an institution’s core values, a strategic plan offers a more process-oriented expression of commitment and implementation. This is generally followed by the development of a set of concrete goals and actions. Thus, although the mission statement and strategic plan express intent, the more accurate indicators of institutional commitment to diversity can be found in the concrete actions taken by an institution. These actions include admissions and hiring policies, budgets, and the development and implementation of specific policies and programs. As this research revealed, most institutions generally agree that expressing a commitment to diversity in their mission statements and strategic plans is important. However, with respect to specific goal-setting activities and other action-oriented items, the number of participants who indicated that these activities were underway was not nearly as strong. Furthermore, when asked questions designed to gauge an institution’s deeper commitment to promoting diversity—such as a decentralized planning process at the department, school, college, and division level—responses indicated a precipitous drop in positive outcomes.

The National Snapshot This national survey showed that academic institutions throughout the United States are committed to expressing support for diversity as part of

372

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

their institutional missions and campus-wide strategic and academic plans. As illustrated in Figure 8.1, the great majority (86 percent) of respondents confirmed that diversity is mentioned in their institution’s academic plan (integrated diversity plan). A strong majority (83 percent) also reported that their official mission statements address diversity. Another strong majority (75 percent) indicated that their strategic or academic planning documents contain specific goals for enhancing campus diversity. However, only 50 percent of institutions combined diversity commitments at all three levels, including commitments to diversity in their official mission statement, institutional academic plans, and institutional strategic or academic planning plan. The commitment to diversity in more focused diversity planning systems—including centralized and decentralized campus diversity plans, a dedicated definition, or international affairs plans—suggested a somewhat different story. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated the existence of an official campus definition of diversity, and nearly three-fifths (59 percent) reported the presence of a centralized diversity plan. However, fewer than half (46 percent) reported having a campus-wide plan for international affairs, and only 34 percent reported institutional engagement in a decentralized diversity strategic planning process. Finally, only 10 percent of institutions had all four of the more intensive diversity planning systems in place simultaneously: a centralized diversity plan, official definition of diversity, decentralized diversity plan (diversity plans required from schools, colleges, departments, and vice presidents or department heads), and a plan for internationalization. Thus, although campus leaders should be commended for infusing diversity into their general missions and for creating integrated diversity plans, those serious about promoting diversity should look for more robust processes, including the creation of institutional definitions and both centralized and decentralized plans. Indeed, it was discouraging that although 86 percent of institutions included diversity in their general academic plan, only 42 percent also had a centralized diversity plan and only 24 percent reported having decentralized diversity plans. Finally, only 7 percent of institutions reported the existence of all seven diversity planning systems. Only through the strong activation of diversity planning activities can an institution achieve meaningful diversity changes. First and foremost, a diversity strategy is essential because it sets the direction and establishes priorities for the institution. A diversity strategy helps students, faculty, and staff rank their priorities and work on the most

ACT IVAT IN G T HE DI VE R S IT Y C H A NG E J OU RN EY

373

important issues first. Without a clearly defined and articulated diversity strategy, priority initiatives—the ones that will drive the highest success—are not necessarily on the institution’s radar. Achieving diversity requires the active engagement and participation by all members of the institutional community. If diversity is a priority, then commitment should be evident in the institution’s formal statements of mission and its future academic and strategic plans. It is important that leadership be fully committed to the goals and that this commitment be demonstrated symbolically and substantively.

Public Versus Private Institutions As the proportion of public university budgets that comes directly from the state continues to decline and as the proportion that comes from student fees, endowment, private gifts, and commercial activities continues to grow, the concept of the public university is slowly changing, now becoming the reality of the publicly supported university. Nevertheless, the public service roots of public institutions were evident in the data; generally speaking, public institutions evidenced a greater level of diversity strategic planning than did private institutions. Figure 8.2 illustrates these differences and offers several summary points. Nearly 9 out of 10 public institutions responded affirmatively to questions concerning the presence of diversity in their mission statements and academic plans (85 and 88 percent, respectively), compared with private institutions (80 and 82 percent, respectively). Additionally, public institutions reported a slightly higher presence of diversity goals in strategic and academic planning documents compared with private institutions (76 to 74 percent). When the survey moved from general to a specific discussion of diversity planning activities focused on issues of diversity in the form of dedicated definitions and plans, the differences between public and private institutions crystallized. To put it simply, public institutions were consistently more likely to engage in dedicated diversity planning efforts than their private peers. Although 68 percent of public institutions reported the existence of an official institutional definition of diversity on campus, a smaller proportion of private institutions reported the same (60 percent). Additionally, public institutions more often reported the presence of a centralized campuswide diversity plan as compared with private institutions (66 to 47 percent). Although private institutions were slightly more likely to report the existence of a campus-wide plan for international affairs than public institutions (47

FIGURE 8.1 Strategic Diversity Planning Systems in Higher Education

FIGURE 8.2 Strategic Diversity Planning Systems in Public Versus Private Institutions

376

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

to 45 percent), public institutions were substantively more likely to engage in a decentralized planning processes in the various schools, colleges, divisions, and departments of the institution (41 to 22 percent).

Findings by Institutional Size The data demonstrated that an institution’s size plays a role in the number and intensity of its diversity efforts. Figure 8.3 presents a summary of these findings. When one hears the phrase ‘‘big university,’’ among the first concepts to come to mind is structure and formality. The term structure encompasses policy manuals, comprehensive job descriptions, human resource handbooks, and administrative hierarchies. By contrast, hearing the phrase ‘‘small institution’’ almost always invokes the opposite impression: a relative lack of formality, a premium on interpersonal relationships, and an absence of formal process. Although neither stereotype is necessarily true, the findings from this research indicate that large institutions were more likely to have dedicated diversity planning systems in place than their smaller peers. With few exceptions, the general pattern of respondents indicated that as an institution increases in size, it implements more diversity planning technology, a finding similarly reflected in studies of the corporate sector (Dexter, 2010; Diversity Best Practices, 2005). Similar to the patterns found previously, the majority of institutions in this study were engaged in the three more general diversity-planning systems (institutional mission includes diversity, diversity is part of academic plan, diversity goals are infused into the academic and strategic plan) regardless of size. More than four-fifths of all institutions, regardless of size, reported that diversity was mentioned in their academic plan, with percentages ranging from 82 to 90 percent. Similarly, between 80 and 86 percent reported that diversity was included in their official mission statements. The presence of actual diversity goals in the academic and strategic plans of institutions was not as prominent, but was still present. Roughly three out of four institutions reported that their strategic and academic planning documents contained diversity goals, ranging from 72 percent at small institutions (enrollment less than 5,000) to 77 percent at very large institutions (enrollment in excess of 20,000). As a general trend, institutions both large and small were more likely to have general rather than dedicated campus diversity planning resources. Very large (greater than 20,000) and large (10,000–19,999) institutions reported

FIGURE 8.3 Strategic Diversity Planning Systems by Institutional Size

378

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

the existence of an official institutional definition of diversity (68 and 69 percent, respectively) more often than medium and small institutions (60 and 63 percent, respectively). Very large and large institutions were also more likely to have a campus-wide diversity plans (67 and 64 percent, respectively) as compared with medium and small institutions (56 and 51 percent, respectively). Across all institution sizes, the existence of a campus-wide plan for international affairs was the second least commonly mentioned aspect of the various strategic planning areas, with percentages ranging from 40 to 53 percent. Very large and large institutions more often reported a plan for international affairs (50 and 53 percent, respectively), as compared with medium and small institutions (44 and 40 percent, respectively). The question regarding decentralized diversity plans at the departmental, school, college, and divisional level received the lowest number of affirmative responses, and also reflected the sharpest differences with respect to institutional size. Here, although only about one in four small and medium institutions (23 and 25 percent, respectively) reported that their institutions engaged in international studies efforts, large and very large institutions reported investing in international affairs at roughly twice the rate (39 and 50 percent, respectively). Given the more decentralized nature of larger research institutions generally, it is not surprising that they are more apt to pursue international affairs and indeed a wider array of more decentralized diversity efforts. But this conclusion should not preclude smaller institutions from investigating the merits of international affairs and decentralized diversity efforts.

A Summary of Diversity Planning Systems The findings presented in Figures 8.1 through 8.3 indicate a clear demarcation in the strategic planning capabilities of different institutions. Put simply, academic institutions are more likely to pursue general campus diversity planning systems than robust planning systems. It is encouraging that, across the board, most institutions are likely to have diversity infused into their institutional missions, mention diversity in their academic plans, and have specific diversity goals in their strategic and academic plans. This finding is encouraging and suggests that many institutions are making an effort to integrate diversity into the strategic architecture of their campus-wide planning efforts. The challenge, however, is making sure that these efforts are not hollow.

ACT IVAT IN G T H E DI VE R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U RN EY

379

This study further revealed that although integrated diversity planning strategies abound, fewer institutions were committed to developing centralized or decentralized campus diversity plans. As discussed in Chapter 7, centralized and decentralized diversity plans allow campus leaders to focus greater energy and attention on diversity efforts than do general campus strategies. Indeed, the planning technology that capitalizes most in the decentralized and shared governance culture of the academy was least likely to be in place at the institutions that participated in the survey. Finally, there were clear patterns in terms of control and size. Public institutions were more likely to have more robust diversity planning activities in place, as were large institutions. Moving beyond the planning process, the next four capabilities (Figures 8.4–8.15) reflect survey responses capturing the myriad ways that institutions tangibly convey their commitment to building sustainable capacity to support and nurture diversity. These capabilities include diversity accountability systems, diversity research and assessment systems, diversity-themed training and education systems, and faculty diversification systems.

Capability Two: Diversity Accountability Systems Institutional diversity efforts cannot be the responsibility of one, or even a few, offices and units. Indeed, as Wade-Golden and Matlock (2010) argue, institutional diversity should be everyone’s business, as institutional commitment to diversity must be shared, irrespective of whether an institution has a chief diversity officer. Institutions committed to diversity must hold faculty and administrators accountable for the diversity-related issues within their respective spheres of influence. A simple start might involve leaders providing information about diversity efforts in annual reports from deans, department heads, and faculty. To promote even greater diversity accountability, provosts and deans could include support for diversity among the criteria for leadership appointments and during performance evaluations. As Chapter 6 makes clear, accountability at the institutional level should involve metrics or ‘‘diversity scorecards,’’ not only to measure progress in hiring, promoting, and retaining women and minority employees, but to link these outcomes to key institutional objectives. The most rigorous diversity accountability processes might engage diversity-related indicators in the performance evaluations of faculty

380

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

and academic leaders as a matter of course in determining merit, promotion, bonuses, annual budgets, tenure decisions, and other financial and human resource decisions. Too often accountability measures fall short of linking diversity performance and progress to the financial systems of the institution. Despite numerous site visits, the author did not uncover a single institution that definitively linked performance on institutional diversity indicators to the compensation of faculty or staff. This is an area in which academic institutions could learn a great deal from the corporate sector, as examples abound of effective programs and initiatives that link diversity progress and achievements to the compensation of business leaders. As can be seen from the items included in this national survey of diversity personnel in higher education, there are a variety of ways to foster diversity accountability on campus. Activities can range from formal diversity reports to targeted efforts aimed at an institution’s key decision makers. Figures 8.4 through 8.6 present the survey’s findings regarding the diversity accountability systems in the academic institutions that participated in the study. Figure 8.4 summarizes the overall national picture, and Figures 8.5 and 8.6 break down the results by public or private designation and institutional size.

The National Snapshot Although a majority of institutions were likely to make formal reports to the campus community on their diversity efforts, the overwhelming majority were not engaged in the most intensive diversity accountability systems that the corporate community has practiced for years (Cox, 1991). Nearly half (47 percent) of the questionnaire respondents stated that their institutions’ board of trustees and regents discuss diversity goals and achievements annually, and slightly more than half (56 percent) indicated that their campuses actively report on the successes, challenges, and opportunities reflected in their campus diversity plans. However, there were only a few instances in which colleges and universities reported linking diversity leadership to merit review; only 12 percent reported these processes and systems for faculty, and only 25 percent registered systems to hold top-ranking administrators accountable for diversity efforts. For academic institutions to compete in the twenty-first century, they must embrace diversity as a core institutional value and then embed diversity in their institutional structures, operations, and financial priorities. It is a

FIGURE 8.4 Strategic Diversity Accountability Systems Overall Sample

382

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

positive sign that half of the institutions surveyed are making regular diversity reports and presentations to their decision makers and communities. These types of presentations are critical to informing the community, creating transparency, and fostering dialogue. These presentations also reinforce the social contract that exists between campus leaders and the students, faculty, staff, and others who desire to see diversity embraced as an institutional and cultural value. The challenge is moving from an annual diversity report to concrete policies and actions that would drive further change. What does it say when diversity plays so small a role in the performance reviews of administrators and faculty members? As the site visits demonstrated amply, many institutions simply do not make a strong financial commitment to their campus diversity plans, often leading to ineffective diversity infrastructures and initiatives that end up on the periphery of campus priorities. A failure to engage in the most intensive forms of diversity planning, combined with a relatively weak system of accountability, leads to a state of institutional inertia. Often diversity issues become disengaged from conversations of institutional excellence, leaving the institution unable to meet the strategic mandates of a changing environment. When examined across the four systems of diversity accountability, the national story appears particularly disappointing. Although 29 percent of the institutions surveyed possess reporting for both their campus communities and board of regents or trustees, only 7 percent reported the existence of diversity merit review processes for both administrators and faculty. Furthermore, only 3 percent of institutions reported having all four of the diversity accountability systems summarized in Figure 8.4.

Public Versus Private Institutions According to the survey, public institutions were more likely to have diversity accountability systems in place. Indeed, public institutions more often reported involvement across all four of the strategic diversity accountability indicators as compared to private institutions. Figure 8.5 depicts these findings. Public institutions were more likely to report the existence of processes for formally reporting on diversity plan successes, challenges, and opportunities than private institutions (62 to 48 percent). They also indicated a greater likelihood of discussing diversity goals and achievements at annual meetings for the regents or the board of trustees (49 to 42 percent). Public institutions

FIGURE 8.5 Strategic Diversity Accountability Systems Public Versus Private Institutions

384

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

were also twice as likely as private institutions to include diversity success indicators as part of the merit review process for administrators (32 to 16 percent) and two-thirds more likely to include diversity as part of merit review for faculty (14 to 9 percent).

Institutional Size Generally, larger institutions were more likely to use diversity accountability systems than smaller institutions. The largest institutions were the most likely to be committed to using both institutional and individual leadership accountability systems. Figure 8.6 provides an overview of diversity accountability systems by institutional size. As institutions increase in size, so too does their apparent focus on formally reporting diversity progress to the campus community. Although fewer than half (48 percent) of small institutions possess reporting mechanisms, more than two-thirds (66 percent) of very large institutions do. In terms of giving annual diversity reports at the board of trustees level, a similar finding emerged. Forty-two percent of small and medium-sized colleges and universities reported on diversity efforts at their regents or trustees board meetings. By comparison, slightly more than half (51 percent) of large and very large institutions discussed their diversity goals and achievements at regents and board of trustee meetings. When asked about the merit review process for administrators and faculty, institutional responses again broke down by size. With respect to evaluating administrators, small institutions considered diversity efforts in only 15 percent of cases, medium institutions in only 24 percent of cases, and large institutions in only 26 percent of cases. When it came to evaluating faculty, only 8 percent of small and large institutions, 12 percent of medium institutions, and 20 percent of very large institutions consider diversity issues in reviewing faculty merit pay evaluations. The most promising efforts on considering diversity in administrator evaluations can be found at very large institutions, of whom 42 percent reported taking diversity into account as part of the merit review of administrators.

A Summary of Diversity Accountability Systems To be effective, an institution’s diversity efforts cannot rest with single individuals or solitary offices, but must be a priority for the entire campus community. The data suggests that although diversity is part of the conversation at academic institutions—especially at the top leadership levels—new efforts

FIGURE 8.6 Strategic Diversity Accountability Systems by Institutional Size

386

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

would help strengthen diversity accountability systems, particularly in the context of the institution’s human resource systems and annual reviews. Overall, it appears that larger public universities are taking the lead with respect to embedding diversity efforts into their institutional processes. However, work remains for both large public institutions and their smaller private counterparts. As Julius, Baldridge, and Pfeffer (1999) assert, accountability within higher education must be connected to real consequences for members of the campus community. It is the role especially of senior leaders to ensure that offices and individuals follow through on the specific objectives laid out in the strategic diversity plan.

Capability Three: Diversity Research and Assessment Systems A central question in carrying out any diversity charge is, ‘‘How will we know if we are making progress?’’ Answering this question requires assessment strategies that utilize both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and that strive for clarity in defining and measuring indicators of progress. As such, diversity research and assessment is a key aspect of strategic diversity leadership. Campus leaders must generate reliable data if they are to understand campus diversity successes and continuing challenges. The presence of diversity-centered research and assessment is fundamental to organizing and providing empirical support for diversity policies and programs. As discussed in Chapter 6, diversity progress is best assessed from a balanced perspective that focuses on access and equity, campus climate and inclusion, learning and diversity-themed research and scholarship, and leadership commitment. Indeed, this national survey drew on these guiding themes by asking three related questions designed to gauge the strength of diversity assessment efforts at American colleges and universities. First, participants were asked about their ability to collect data on the educational implications of diversity efforts (the learning and diversity-themed research perspective); second, participants were asked to rate the atmosphere of inclusion or exclusion for minority individuals and groups (the campus climate and inclusion perspective); and third, participants were asked about whether they use a strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) to promote diversity values among students, faculty, and staff (the access and equity perspective). Generally, the survey revealed that although the majority of respondents indicated their institutions’ assessments of the campus climate and of the

ACT IVAT I N G T HE DI VE RS IT Y C H A N G E J O U R N E Y

387

educational benefits of diversity, very few reported the presence of systematic measurement processes to collect, analyze, and leverage these data in the interest of advancing the institutional diversity change agenda. Figures 8.7 through 8.9 present these findings. Figure 8.7 depicts the finding for the aggregate sample. Figures 8.8 and 8.9 depict results by public versus private designation and institutional size, respectively.

The National Snapshot Survey participants answered a series of questions designed to evaluate their institutional diversity assessment efforts. They were asked whether their institutions assessed the educational implications and benefits of diversity, whether their institutions regularly examined the campus climate for diversity, and whether their institutions possessed a systematic measurement process for assessing their diversity progress, such as an SDLS. Respondents were more likely to report the presence of assessment techniques for understanding the campus climate and educational benefits of diversity, than to deploy a diversity scorecard or another more comprehensive tool. Although the majority of institutions reported that their institution assessed the educational benefits of diversity (58 percent) and the campus climate for diversity (52 percent), only 19 percent reported the existence of a systematic institutional diversity assessment program such as a diversity scorecard. A much smaller proportion of institutions (30 percent) reported leveraging two of these assessment systems. Finally, only 9 percent of institutions reported having all three of the diversity research and assessment systems in place: assessing the educational benefits of diversity, regularly assessing the campus climate for diversity, and using a diversity scorecard system or other measurement process to assess diversity progress. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Grutter v. Bollinger that diversity enhances the educational enterprise and is essential to preparing students to be constructive, active members of our increasingly diverse society. This ruling endorsed the key role of diversity on our college campuses and helps explain the positive steps that institutional leaders are making to evaluate their diversity initiatives. Although this study did not examine the specific methodologies of the institutions surveyed, it is a positive trend that nearly 60 percent of institutions reported collecting data on the educational implications of diversity. Gathering and studying this data will be essential to communicating the value-added possibilities that emerge from having a diverse learning environment.

388

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

FIGURE 8.7 Diversity Research and Assessment Systems in the Overall Sample

A push for enhanced diversity assessments should help an institution’s ability to develop and evaluate strategic planning and implementation models related to campus diversity. Diversity assessments also help to meet the cries for proof by both the courts and a skeptical public that diversity ‘‘works.’’ Institutions should therefore consider using both longitudinal surveys and interviews to gather assessment data on how diversity efforts are working, examining not only life on campus, but what happens once students graduate (Matlock, Wade-Golden, & Gurin, 2010). That very few institutions are currently using an institutional diversity scorecard tool suggests a need for more comprehensive methodologies to collect and report on diversity progress overall. Rather than using a set of key indicators balanced across multiple scorecards, institutions are pursuing less coordinated methodologies that are not integrated into a comprehensive assessment of how diversity efforts are playing out across multiple institutional dimensions.

Public Versus Private Institutions Figure 8.8 depicts some of the same patterns that were observed in other diversity capabilities at public and private institutions. In most cases, public institutions showed greater commitment to research and assessment on diversity issues as compared with their private counterparts. Roughly three-fifths (60 percent) of respondents from public institutions reported that their institutions assess the educational benefits of diversity, and another 55 percent regularly assess the campus climate for diversity. By comparison, 54 percent of private institutions make efforts to assess the

ACT IVAT I N G T HE DI VE RS IT Y C H A N G E J O U R N E Y

389

FIGURE 8.8 Diversity Research and Assessment Systems Public Versus Private Institutions

educational benefits for diversity, and 47 percent explore issues of campus climate. Twice as many public institutions confirmed the existence of a systematic diversity assessment tool, such as a diversity scorecard system, as compared with private institutions (24 percent to 12 percent).

Findings by Institutional Size As can be seen in Figure 8.9, the pattern of findings by institutional size was a little more varied. Although similar proportions of small (55 percent), medium (54 percent), and large (56 percent) institutions reported assessing the educational implications of diversity, 64 percent of large institutions assess educational implications. Fewer respondents from small institutions (44 percent) reported that their institutions regularly assessed the campus climate for diversity as compared with their peers at medium, large, and very large institutions (55 percent, 54 percent, and 58 percent, respectively). With respect to diversity scorecard and other measurement assessments, 12 and 15 percent of small and large institutions, and 25 and 29 percent of medium and very large institutions, report using these tools. These numbers speak perhaps to the growing popularity of diversity scorecard processes among medium and very large institutions, although clearly more work needs to be done.

A Summary of Diversity Research and Assessment Systems Given the importance of diversifying our colleges and universities, anecdotal stories cataloguing the success of diversity efforts are no longer sufficient.

FIGURE 8.9 Diversity Research and Assessment Systems by Institutional Size

ACT IVAT IN G T H E DI V E R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U R N EY

391

Increasingly, institutions are being asked by our judicial system and the public to demonstrate the positive effects of campus diversity efforts. To maintain credibility, institutions need to find ways to assemble and disseminate the relevant data. Failing to provide concrete evidence demonstrating the importance and effectiveness of diversity efforts will only undermine the far larger project of creating a more inclusive and productive American society. Diversity research and assessment systems are critical to tracking the progress of campus diversity initiatives. They help ensure that effective tactics are being implemented and that leaders are being held accountable. Using an SDLS, diversity leaders can identify and track key performance indicators. Despite their strong commitment to promoting diversity, even many large, public universities are behind in using robust assessment systems to measure their progress. The lack of scorecard systems to track diversity progress was disappointing and suggests that more work needs to be done to create a more balanced and systematic approach to identifying and tracking key diversity performance indicators over time.

Capability Four: Diversity Training and Education Initiatives Diversity-themed education and training systems help to cultivate a shared understanding of what diversity means and how diversity values should be expressed within the campus community. Diversity education and training programs can take a number of different forms, ranging from diversity training workshops for faculty, staff, and students, to general education diversity requirements implemented throughout the curriculum. Diversity education platforms help create and sustain an environment that is respectful and inclusive of all groups in the campus community, by exposing them to issues of power, privilege, difference, and diversity. In the twenty-first century, diversity trainings, workshops, and courses are essential to fostering inclusion in a diverse and interconnected world. It is for these reasons that colleges and universities are responsible not only for creating a safe and welcoming campus environment, but a setting where differences and divergent perspectives can be voiced and respected. Diversity education and training programs offer a critical step toward ensuring that the institution meets its obligations to the campus community. Diversity graduation requirements are among the most important diversity capabilities that an institution can develop. By infusing diversity into

392

W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

the curriculum as a core requirement, institutional leaders ensure that all students have a baseline academic experience that helps to prepare them to become leaders in the global marketplace. At many institutions, requirements have been established through courses in ethnic, gender, and international studies areas. Although not an end solution by any means, these courses help students develop the requisite skills to interact constructively with diverse peers. When designed correctly, these courses can contribute to a student’s overall college experience. In addition, study abroad, service learning, and other activities that encourage diverse learning environments can provide key opportunities for young people preparing to live and work in an increasingly diverse society. Figures 8.10 through 8.12 present the survey’s results regarding these key training and educational program opportunities.

The National Snapshot The study asked participants to indicate whether their campuses had diversity training and education programs. In many institutions, such programs do exist and across most branches of administrative life. However, among senior administrators, participation levels in diversity training programs were particularly low. Of the various facets of diversity education, programs targeting students and staff are most common, followed by services for faculty members. Finally, diversity education and training programs proved more common than diversity course graduation requirements. Figure 8.10 summarizes these findings. Approximately half of the respondents reported diversity training and education programs on their campuses for staff and students (51 and 50 percent, respectively), and a smaller proportion reported these programs for faculty (43 percent). Diversity training and education programs targeted toward senior administrators received the fewest responses, existing at less than one-third of institutions (32 percent). Fifteen percent of institutions reported the existence of all four facets of diversity training at their institution—for students, staff, faculty, and administrators. And only 6 percent of institutions reported having all four facets of the diversity training systems and a diversity course graduation requirement. The findings of this research differed considerably from a national survey by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) in 2000, which took an in-depth look at diversity graduation requirements in a national sample of institutions. In the AAC&U study, among 543 respondents, roughly 54 percent of colleges and universities had a diversity course

FIGURE 8.10 Diversity-Themed Training and Education Systems in the Overall Sample

394

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

requirement (Humphreys, 2000). In this study, 40 percent of respondents reported having a diversity course graduation requirement for students. Both of these percentages suggest that academic institutions still have a ways to go in addressing diversity through curriculum efforts. Given the premium that the business sector has placed on hiring leaders fully prepared to lead in diverse organizational contexts, senior leaders should give serious consideration to advancing diversity opportunities through the curriculum, international study and study abroad programs, and service learning projects. Research by Hart (2006) indicated that three-fourths of corporate leaders want academic institutions to do a better job preparing students to thrive in a diverse working environment, understand global issues, and practice the skills of intercultural competence. Another troubling finding was the minimal number of institutions that offered diversity training and educational programs for senior leadership. Given the vital role of these leaders in guiding and implementing any strategic diversity efforts, the lack of outreach and trainings suggests a disconnect between the rhetoric of institutional commitment and the reality for those who actually lead. Diversity education workshops, briefings on key topics, and individual seminars on diversity leadership could help administrators learn best practices and explore how their administrative responsibilities intersect with issues of power, privilege, racism, gender equity, sexuality, and issues of relevance to the disabled and members of the LGBT community, among others. Diversity education programs for senior leaders also provide an opportunity to facilitate understanding about the implications of changing environmental dynamics and the new ways that diversity must be framed as a strategic priority on campus. Indeed, it is the lack of diversity-themed leadership development for those individuals at the top of our institutions that may compromise our diversity efforts the most, particularly when it comes to developing diversity accountability systems, materially affecting diversity plans, and diversity initiatives that are backed by meaningful financial resources.

Public Versus Private Institutions Figure 8.11 depicts the differences between public and private institutions. In most cases, public institutions were more proactive regarding their commitment to diversity training and education for the campus community as compared with their private peers. The most prevalent diversity and learning

FIGURE 8.11 Diversity-Themed Training and Education Systems Public Versus Private Institutions

396

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

capacities were evident in diversity training and leadership development systems for staff at public institutions, whereas programs for senior administrative leaders were the least evident. When asked if they had diversity education and training programs for students, 50 percent of both private and public institutions responded affirmatively. However, public institutions were more likely than private institutions to have training programs for staff (57 to 43 percent), faculty (49 to 34 percent), and administrators (38 to 23 percent). There was a small difference in the presence of a diversity course graduation requirement, with 41 percent of public institutions confirming this requirement as compared with 38 percent of private institutions. Given the explicit emphasis that liberal arts colleges give to character development and broadening horizons, it was surprising to find that fewer than half have instituted some kind of diversity learning requirement. Instituting a curriculum requirement offers a positive opportunity for addressing issues of diversity, discrimination, and inclusion in our complex, changing global society.

Findings by Institutional Size As can be seen in Figure 8.12, opportunities for diversity learning among faculty, staff, students, and administrators are more common at larger institutions. With respect to diversity training and education programs for students, very large institutions reported the most (60 percent), followed by large (51 percent), medium (48 percent), and small (45 percent). Similar trends exist with respect to a diversity course requirement, with very large institutions reporting the highest number (49 percent), followed by large (40 percent), medium (37 percent), and small (35 percent). Very large institutions also outpaced smaller schools with respect to training and education resources for faculty, staff, and senior administrators.

Summary of Diversity Training and Education Programs Diversity training and education programs are vital to an institution’s diversity strategy and represent an opportunity to inform and educate all members of the campus community. The purpose of diversity training and educational platforms is not only to increase awareness of the experiences and cultural traditions of different groups, but also to develop and enhance communication abilities, perspective taking, empathy, and conflict resolution skills. Although these types of programs do not offer a panacea for conflicts and exclusion, they can enhance awareness and help members of the campus community engage positively and constructively on issues of difference.

FIGURE 8.12 Diversity-Themed Training and Education Systems by Institutional Size

398

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

Diversity training and education programs still have a way to go before they become an accepted and pervasive aspect of higher education, particularly at small, private institutions. The survey also clearly demonstrated that although institutions are perfectly capable of implementing diversity programs for students and staff, they are less interested in pursuing programs for faculty and administrators. In the author’s direct exchanges with senior administrators and faculty members, it often came down to the fact that administrators and faculty do not feel that they need training or education in diversity issues. But given the number of crisis incidents and cheetah responses that trace their origins to administrators and faculty, one begs to differ. One also has to ask what kind of message it sends to staff and students if those who sanction and implement diversity training and education programs are somehow automatically exempt from participating in them. The benefits of a well-designed diversity education program can be felt almost immediately within a campus community. By enhancing their awareness and pedagogical skills, diversity programs help faculty become more aware of the biases and assumptions that exert an unseen and negative influence on their interactions with students. As academic institutions become more diverse, it is in the best interest of all members of the campus community that not just students and staff, but also faculty and administrators, demonstrate their appreciation of the benefits of diversity. In the end, it is as much about effective teaching as making students feel included, and this process requires a long-term commitment to community building and inclusion by the institution. For staff and administrators, diversity education programs help ensure that an inclusive climate extends beyond the classroom and into all spheres of campus life. Whether in the financial aid office, residence hall, or dining facility, students should feel they are in a supportive, welcoming environment. And as mentioned earlier, it is not enough for an institution to ‘‘talk the talk’’ by offering diversity education and learning opportunities to students only. If the administrators and staff are going to deploy diversity resources, they need to ‘‘walk the walk.’’ Diversity training programs not only help staff, administrators, and faculty demonstrate their commitment to diversity, but then manifest their commitment in subsequent leadership decisions, whether in regard to hiring, funding new initiatives, fund-raising, or supervising subordinates. When diversity training is successful, employee commitment and motivation rises, which translates into fewer resources being spent on grievances and employee turnover.

ACT IVAT IN G T H E DI VE R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U RN EY

399

Given our changing world, every college student should learn about diversity issues as part of their undergraduate curriculum. Although some colleges and universities have developed courses and requirements to address issues of diversity in their core curriculum, many have not. With so many of our students still coming to higher education from segregated backgrounds, and with very little exposure to racial and ethnic diversity prior to college, diversity training and learning programs are essential to preparing them for the future.

Capability 5: Faculty Diversification Systems Because of the critical role of faculty in advancing an institution’s core educational mission, this study delved deeply into the capacity and commitment of institutions to advancing their faculty diversity agenda. Among the most pressing issues in higher education today are the recruitment and retention of faculty of color and the recruitment of women in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields. These dual and related challenges continue to confront many institutions even as more and more historically underrepresented minorities and women obtain advanced degrees. A recent study concludes that faculty of color make up less than 20 percent of total full-time faculty nationally, and fewer than 12 percent of full professors in the United States (C. S. V. Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008). In their review of two decades of data, Turner and associates have demonstrated that, although student diversity efforts have made progress, efforts to diversify our faculty ranks have not fared as well. This survey sought to assess four key practices that are integral to the recruitment and retention of faculty members of color. Three of the items surveyed were related to recruitment, and one was related to retention. With regard to recruitment, respondents were asked whether key diversity personnel sat on search committees to ensure a diverse perspective, whether the institution had a formal minority or diversity faculty recruitment initiative, and whether resources were available to seed or partner with academic departments to encourage the development of diverse faculty lines. The retention of faculty of color was addressed by a question that probed whether key diversity personnel served as integral members of the institution’s tenure and promotion process. Of the four indicators probed, institutions reported the highest level of commitment with respect to diversifying their search committees. Meanwhile, they evinced the lowest level of commitment to including diverse

400

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

representation in the tenure and promotion process. Given the immensity of this challenge, viable solutions must be aggressive and multipronged. Figures 8.13 through 8.15 illustrate the extent to which colleges and universities in the sample are addressing this challenge. Figure 8.13 depicts the findings for the aggregate sample. Figures 8.14 and 8.15 depict results by public versus private designation and institutional size.

The National Snapshot As can be seen in Figure 8.13, institutions have made attempts to diversify search committees and offer formal recruitment initiatives much more often than seeding new faculty lines or ensuring diverse representation on tenure review committees. Several summary points are offered. Although a slight majority of respondents (55 percent) reported that key diversity personnel sit on search committees to ensure a diverse perspective, less than half (45 percent) identified a formal minority or diversity faculty recruitment initiative on their campus. Institutions reported even fewer resources dedicated to partnering with academic departments on new faculty lines, with only one-third of respondents (33 percent) indicating the existence of such initiatives. Meanwhile, only 11 percent reported that key diversity staff members are an integral component of the tenure and promotion process at their institutions. When examined across the various faculty diversification systems, a small proportion of institutions (23 percent) reported having both a formal minority faculty diversification initiative and key diversity personnel sitting on search committees to ensure a diversity perspective. Ten percent of institutions reported jointly leveraging three of the four faculty diversification systems featured in the survey: key diversity personnel on search committees, a formal minority or diversity faculty recruitment initiative, and the availability of resources to seed or partner with academic departments on new faculty lines. Only 3 percent of institutions reported combined the three preceding capabilities with efforts to include a key diversity staff member as an integral part of the tenure and promotion process.

Public Versus Private Institutions Figure 8.14 reveals the differences in faculty recruitment and retention efforts by public and private institutions. Public institutions were much more likely than private institutions to indicate the presence of key diversity personnel on search committees (59 to 47 percent). Public institutions were also more

FIGURE 8.13 Recruitment and Retention of Diverse Faculty Capability

FIGURE 8.14 Recruitment and Retention of Diverse Faculty Capability Public Versus Private

AC T I VAT IN G T H E DI VE RS I T Y C H A N G E J O U R N EY

403

likely than private to have a formal recruitment initiative targeting diverse faculty (49 to 39 percent). Roughly one-third of both public and private institutions reported that their institutions offered resources to seed or partner with academic units to spur new faculty lines (34 and 31 percent, respectively). Also, similarly low proportions of public and private institutions indicated that key diversity staff were integral to their tenure and promotion processes, with only about 1 in 10 responding affirmatively (12 and 10 percent, respectively).

Findings by Institutional Size Findings regarding faculty diversity initiatives by size are summarized in Figure 8.15. Roughly half of all small, medium, and large institutions reported having key diversity personnel sit on search committees (51, 51, and 55 percent, respectively). This proportion was somewhat higher at very large institutions, with three-fifths (60 percent) reporting positively. Similar proportions were reported for all of the groups in relation to the existence of institutional resources to seed or partner with academic departments on new faculty lines, with roughly one-third of all the institutions reporting these initiatives. Likewise, similar proportions were reported for all of the groups in relation to the presence of key diversity staff in the tenure and promotion process at their institutions, with roughly 1 in 10 (9 to 12 percent) reporting this capability. With respect to institutional size, the greatest variation occurred on the question assessing the presence of a formal minority or diversity faculty recruitment initiative. Here, the proportion of institutions reporting this capability increased substantially as institutional size increased. Although one-third (33 percent) of small institutions reported affirmatively, 38 percent of medium, 49 percent of large, and 56 percent of very large institutions deploy diversity recruitment initiatives.

Summary of Faculty Diversification Systems This issue is of special significance when one considers the shifting demographics of our nation and the growing numbers of people of color and women in academia. To meet the educational needs of an increasingly diverse student body, and to fuel the engine of innovation that their new perspectives bring to the classroom, colleges and universities will have to adapt. One key adaptation will be to recruit the faculty and administrative leaders of tomorrow from among the best and brightest historically underrepresented students of today. So, what can colleges and universities do to more positively affect this issue?

FIGURE 8.15 Recruitment and Retention of Diverse Faculty Capability by Institutional Size

ACT IVAT IN G T H E D I VE R S IT Y C HA NG E J OU RN EY

405

Throughout the author’s field visits and interviews, one concern emerged repeatedly: the dearth of effective recruitment and retention practices. This issue has been widely studied (C. S. V. Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008). Thankfully, a number of strategies have emerged to aid in the recruitment and retention of talented and committed faculty of color. As discussed in previous chapters, there is little efficacy in seeking to promote a diverse hire if the applicant pool lacks diversity. Many senior leaders have begun to recognize that they must initiate their efforts at the ground level. These efforts include helping to create proactive faculty recruitment policies, ensuring that search committees are diverse, and factoring a wide array of important considerations into hiring and promotion policies. Campuses can create incentives for hiring faculty who are engaged in research that advances the understanding of issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and multiculturalism, as well as research that examines the socioeconomic or political challenges of disadvantaged groups in areas such as community development, public health, urban affairs, social justice, and educational reform. Departments and search committees can also consider a candidate’s demonstrated commitment to issues of social, educational, and economic justice as evidenced by his or her record of teaching and public service. A department may consider such criteria in its evaluation of current faculty for promotion and advancement, and may provide release time or development resources for faculty who are active in research, teaching, or service that promotes equal access for underrepresented students or that enhances our understanding of the dynamics of race and gender in our society.

Summary To meet the challenge of diversity, people often ask, ‘‘Why haven’t we been able to successfully meet our diversity goals?’’ If this survey revealed just one overriding lesson, it is the need for senior leaders to do more than ‘‘talk the talk’’; they need to ‘‘walk the walk.’’ Assessing and revising weak strategic diversity policies and programs is only one part of the puzzle and usually the easiest piece to correct. But, as with so many aspects of life, actions speak louder than words. The change processes pursued by administrators and faculty can help set the stage for students and staff. Although many campuses are making headway, building general capabilities to advance their diversity goals, more robust and intentional resources are necessary if they are to move forward. Passive policies that rely on good intentions are not enough;

406

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

contemporary biases are expressed largely unintentionally. It is therefore necessary to structure policies and programs in ways that hold people and institutions accountable while providing an accurate assessment of how well these programs and policies work over time. This study revealed that most colleges and universities are deploying general and diffuse diversity technologies, mentioning diversity in campus strategic plans, and providing general updates on diversity efforts to senior administrators and boards. This is both good and necessary; if we are to make any significant headway, we must infuse diversity into the embodied and symbolic leadership that frames the mission and educational vision of an academic institution. The challenge is in working to avoid relegating diversity to the sidelines, as some tacked-on or secondary priority. Although our goal as a postsecondary knowledge industry is to move toward a more integrated approach to diversity planning and implementation, the reality is that many institutions are not ready for this more sophisticated and intensive undertaking. Across all five dimensions of capacity examined in this chapter, it was obvious that institutions were slow to embrace the most robust techniques for driving diversity. To succeed, institutions must consider working toward dedicated centralized and decentralized diversity plans, rigorous scorecards, and other tools that connect diversity progress to merit review and the financial systems of the institution. From the introduction of this book to this penultimate chapter, the author has emphasized that strategic diversity leadership is about simultaneously creating and assessing diversity change. The institution must be ready and willing to work across a number of challenging dimensions: creating a more diverse educational environment, infusing diversity into the curriculum, creating a more supportive and engaged campus environment, and engaging in diversity-themed research and scholarship. Sadly, many senior leaders have still not yet adopted the types of strategic planning and change management technologies that have proven successful at our nation’s leading colleges and universities. The national survey showed that whatever they may say about the importance of diversity and inclusion, small and private institutions have not made as strong a commitment to diversity as their larger, public colleagues. It is never too late, however, and both the theoretical and practical guidelines offered in previous chapters are meant to provide positive encouragement to whatever steps these schools might contemplate. Unfortunately, the diversity equation in the United States is such that there are no quick fixes. Improving the campus climate for underrepresented students, and the learning environment for all students, requires dedicated

ACT IVAT IN G T H E D I V E R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U R N EY

407

leadership from senior administrators and policies and programs that work. Senior leaders must be committed to moving past ‘‘cheetah’’ moments and toward building diversity capacity over the long haul. The process is slow, painstaking, incremental, and evolving, but when done well, leads to deep, even transformational change in the culture of the campus community.

Note 1. Of the 2,513 officers contacted, 772 individuals responded, a 31 percent response rate. The 772 responses were used to create this national context of strategic diversity leadership capabilities.

9 DIVERSITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND TASK FORCES

When the Commission attempted to use the report to promote institutional change, however, Commission members found few institutional leaders ready to address its challenges. While the Commission could usefully pinpoint problems, it was not positioned to transform information into action. It became clear to Professors Sturm and Kessler-Harris that data alone was insufficient to generate an institutional commitment to changing racial and gender demographics at Columbia. —Freudenberger, Howard, Jauregui, & Sturm (2009)

A

s discussed in Chapter 4’s treatment of the Diversity Crisis Model, many institutional leaders look to diversity committees, commissions, and task forces as a way of showing commitment to strategic diversity planning. However, as this passage from Doing Diversity in Higher Education: Faculty Leaders Share Challenges and Strategies reveals, these efforts can be woefully ineffective when not supported by senior leadership and a true institutional commitment to producing results (Freudenberger et al., 2009). It is therefore fitting to conclude Strategic Diversity Leadership by focusing on diversity committees as an important mechanism for activating a cohesive, effective, and shared diversity agenda. Diversity committees are an important aspect of an institution’s formal diversity infrastructure and a potentially powerful platform for thinking strategically and raising questions, even if they are sometimes challenged in leading strategic diversity change efforts (Cox, 2001; Freudenberger et al., 2009; Maltbia & Power, 2009). Regardless of an institution’s size, diversity committees can offer an important lateral component of its diversity infrastructure. 408

D I V E R S I TY CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O NS , A ND TA S K FO R C E S

409

This chapter offers an organizing framework for developing diversity committees and then addresses the numerous pitfalls that can befall them. The chapter concludes by highlighting several key challenges that confront institutional leaders, including how to establish definitions and missions, how to nominate members and assign roles, and how to set the terms of service.

Diversity Committees in Higher Education For the sake of clarity, a diversity committee can refer to a wide variety of commissions, councils, and task forces. Another popular term is diversity action groups, which implies that the group will not only develop strategy, but also work toward action and change (Iverson, 2007). A quick Google search using the terms diversity, committee, and higher education brings up thousands of links illustrating the breadth of the diversity committee infrastructure, not only in higher education, but across other organizational sectors. Indeed, diversity committees have become ubiquitous and many higher education institutions have one if not several diversity committees. Table 9.1 provides a small sample of institutions with one or more diversity committees.

Defining Diversity Committees The gamut of titles ranges from the simple—‘‘Commission on the Status of Women’’—to the complex, including the ‘‘Advisory Committee to the President on Diversity, Intergroup Relations, and Campus Community,’’ and the ‘‘Diversity Affairs Committee of the Department of Human Resources.’’ But whatever its size or structural location within an institution, a diversity committee can be characterized as a group of diversity stakeholders who have formally joined forces to shape and in some instances implement a shared plan for the future relative to diversity in a particular organizational context. As a collective, a diversity committee can play a lead role partnering with the chief diversity officer (CDO), president, provost, faculty leaders, students, diversity champions, alumni, boards of directors, and others in moving the institutional diversity agenda forward. Far from seeking solutions on their own, diversity committees provide another means for strategic diversity leaders to use in integrating their diversity efforts within and across

410

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?

TAB LE 9 .1 Sample of Institutions With One or More Diversity Committees Cal State San Bernardino Carleton College Delaware County Community College Florida Atlantic University Department of Human Resources Florida Gulf Coast University Fullerton College Grinnell College Hampshire College Iowa State University Kansas State University Kenyon College Louisiana State University Loyola College Miami University Michigan State University Minnesota State System of Colleges and Universities Missouri State University North Hampton Community College Northwestern University Ohio State University Ohio University Pacific University Pamona College Pennsylvania State University Pine Technical College Purdue University Rochester University Sinclair Community College

Stanford University State University of New York Texas Tech University The Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University University of California–Los Angeles University of Chicago University of Connecticut University of Dayton University of Illinois University of Illinois Chicago University of Iowa University of Kentucky University of Louisiana at Monroe University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Oregon University of Southern Indiana University of Tennessee University of Texas Arlington University of Tulsa Law School University of Washington University of Wisconsin Villanova University Wellesley College West Virginia University Westmont College Williams College Yale School of Public Health

the institution. When designed effectively, diversity committees bring individuals with diverse skills, perspectives, and day-to-day role responsibilities into an institution’s diversity agenda in meaningful ways. In the shared governance environment of higher education, diversity committees are a key part of the decision-making process. However, diversity committees have an associated time and cost, and should therefore only be established if they can add value to the decision-making process. Effective

D I V E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O NS , A ND TA SK FO R C E S

411

diversity committees with a clear mission afford the opportunity for broader ownership of the diversity agenda across the campus community. Typically, diversity committees struggle with the same issues that challenge the effectiveness of other types of committees. These challenges include the lack of a clear directive and long-term agenda; reliance on incomplete information and anecdotes; poorly constructed rosters; and the failure to establish whether recommended diversity initiatives are the purview of the administration, faculty members, or the committee itself (Cox, 2001; Maltbia & Power, 2009). This chapter focuses on diversity committees as an important counterpart to the work of CDOs and as a stand-alone entity that can provide the type of collaborative thinking that is so essential to developing diversity plans, strategies, and initiatives. Box 9.1 provides an in-depth description of how a diversity committee and CDO partnered to create a new faculty diversity strategy and implementation plan at Columbia University.

BOX 9.1 A Case Study of Strategic Diversity Leadership, the Role of Diversity Committees, and CDO Leadership at Columbia University Strategic Diversity Leadership in Action: The Faculty Diversity Initiative at Columbia University A powerful example of strategic diversity leadership took place at Columbia University as a small group of committed faculty led an impressive array of initiatives to drive faculty diversity. Background of the Challenge In 2004 a diverse group of faculty members came together to address the lack of faculty diversity. They were led by two faculty members who had been involved with the University Senate’s Commission on the Status of Women, which in 2001 issued a report, ‘‘The Advancement of Women Through the Academic Ranks of the Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: Where are the Leaks in the Pipeline?’’ The data in the report revealed that except in a few places in the humanities, women and historically underrepresented minority faculty members were not present on the faculty in numbers reflecting their availability in the talent pool. Unfortunately, (continues)

412

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

the committee’s attempt to use the report to drive a serious commitment to addressing racial and gender inequity made little progress. Although the Commission was an important tool for elevating the issues, it was not an appropriate structure to lead institutional movement on this very difficult diversity challenge. The Diversity DNA of institutional politics, lack of senior leadership support, and an absence of financial resources and integrated diversity point leadership served to stymie the committee’s work at the stage of elevating the issues and reporting on the challenge. Fortunately, as noted in Chapter 4, an institution’s Diversity DNA can shift, particularly when new senior leadership seeks to move the diversity agenda in a new direction. The Columbia University Faculty Diversity Initiative The potential to engage in a more powerful faculty diversity effort shifted with the arrival of President Lee C. Bollinger. Thanks to his work at the University of Michigan and active role during the Supreme Court cases, President Bollinger had already made a high-profile commitment to diversity. At Columbia he helped inspire a core group of committed faculty to believe that a new conversation on faculty diversity was possible. The group then began to work in a politically nuanced and collegial way, realizing that the Diversity DNA of the institution had changed. Using the original faculty diversity report as a platform to open discussions, a small group of change leaders ultimately convinced senior administrators to invest $15 million into a new multidimensional faculty diversification initiative. The components of this diversity initiative included appointing a faculty member to a new vice provost level CDO role, establishing a presidential advisory commission on diversity, establishing an eight-figure strategic faculty hiring fund, educating search committee members, initiating dual career hiring initiatives, strengthening child and family services to promote faculty retention, and creating institutional learning forums designed to engage academic departments in the challenges and opportunities of faculty diversification. Building Capacity to Lead Change

Several dynamics helped this group move its agenda forward. First, the change leaders at the center of the effort were primarily senior faculty leaders who were well respected on campus. The group included leaders from women and gender studies, African American studies, the biology department, the cochair of the Commission on the Status of Women, and a prominent legal scholar well known for work on law and sexuality. The group was intentionally designed to include individuals viewed as widely credible, sensible on issues of diversity, and deeply committed to the longterm academic excellence of the institution. (continues)

D IV E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O N S , A N D TA SK FO R C E S

413

(continued) Also important to their success was the presence of CDO point leadership. Early on, the core change team recommended for the appointment of a vice provost for diversity initiatives to serve as CDO. The position operated in a ‘‘collaborative officer’’ model, a role explored in detail in the companion volume to this book. The vice provost was responsible for supervising an executive assistant and graduate student, and reporting to the provost and president. The role was located in the symbolic leadership hub of the institution in Low Library, which fostered visibility and informal interaction between the CDO and other senior leaders. From the beginning, powerful strategic relationships were built between the CDO and the Office of Institutional Research, University Counsel, Human Resource Units, and the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Professor Jean Howard was first to hold the position. Because the position was centered on the faculty diversity challenge, the core group of change leaders was emphatic that only a faculty member rising from the Columbia University ranks would have the institutional knowledge, political capital, and academic understanding to lead successfully. Howard was a noted scholar and faculty member with twenty years’ experience. She had served as department director of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender, and had chaired the original commission that produced the pipeline report. Most vitally, she enjoyed the trust of her faculty peers. The vice provost for diversity role served as a catalyst for change that operated at the intersection of individual, group, and institutional systems. The role derived its authority by placing a tenured faculty member with political capital in a central location in senior administration, and then granting the officer with the institutional and financial resources to provide faculty with the tools to move their institutional agenda forward. A key tactic of the vice provost was to focus on identifying and overcoming barriers to faculty diversification in a very clear and linear fashion. Clearly, the barriers to diversity also have a deleterious effect on other areas of the institution in terms of general recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, and faculty mentoring. As a result, this group focuses its energy in areas where momentum for change has the potential to gain traction. Finally, this group has used data to sway support, creating clarity around the issues, and expanding its network of change agents across campus. Data is generated to help search committees understand the current realities of the campus, the search process, and other dynamics that may assist in their work. Source: Freudenberger et al., 2009.

An Organizing Framework Effective diversity committees can be one of the most important forces working at the heart of an institution’s diversity agenda. Committee work can

414

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

and should be an extremely rewarding experience to both the individual and the organization. The objectives of a committee may be clear and concise, but as with any group of leaders trying to achieve a common goal, many other factors determine whether the committee will in fact succeed. As with other issues of organizational design, there are no set universal models of successful committee implementation. Unless their role has been poorly articulated, diversity committees are important tools for knitting the lattice of the lateral diversity infrastructure across the ‘‘white space’’ that exists between units on the formal organizational chart. A well-constructed committee can provide clear thinking, operational leadership, political capital, and a depth of knowledge about diversity best practices, provided it enjoys the material commitment of senior leaders. As outlined in Table 9.2, five contingencies must be resolved when designing diversity committees. First, what will be the group’s working definition of diversity? Second, what is the role responsibility of the committee: strategy, implementation, or a mix of the two? Third, what is the scope of the committee’s work? Plotting its scope requires entertaining its target in terms of students, faculty, and staff, and deciding whether it operates in a specific unit context or as a campus-wide group. Fourth, what is the membership of the committee? And fifth, how long should the committee’s mandate last? In other words, should it be permanent or finite? Although these five contingencies are listed in linear order, the development of the campus diversity committee is an organic process that must be guided by the strategic diversity agenda. Indeed, the first three contingencies are closely related to one another and in many ways fashion the strategic diversity platform of the committee, a point explored in the discussion of the Chief Diversity Officer Development Framework in The Chief Diversity Officer. These three dimensions shape committee membership and the permanence of the group. The following discussion presents these five contingencies as essential elements for developing an institution’s lateral diversity infrastructure.

Defining Diversity In thinking about creating a diversity committee, institutional leaders must first define diversity. This inevitably begins with how the committee will define diversity, returning to themes explored throughout this book and

D IV ER S I TY C O M M I T T E E S , C O M M I S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O RC ES

415

TAB LE 9. 2 Diversity Committee Design Contingencies Contingencies

Key Questions

Defining Diversity

How is the diversity idea defined within the context of the committee’s work? Is the committee focused on a particular diversity topic, or is the focus on diversity issues broadly defined?

Committee Scope

Does the committee operate at the student, faculty, staff, or administrative level? Or across a combination of levels? Is the group focused on a particular area of the institution, or does it operate in a specific part of the organization’s structure?

Committee Role Responsibility

What is the action orientation of the committee? Does it focus on strategic thinking and making recommendations, implementing programs and initiatives, or a combination of both?

Permanence of the Group

Is the group a standing or ad-hoc diversity group?

Membership

Does senior leadership appoint members? Is it a formal shared governance committee? Is representation drawn from different campus communities? What are the relevant skills and perspectives required for the committee?

the challenge of defining diversity from an individual, organizational, and capabilities perspective. Diversity committees are incredibly varied in mission, focus, and title. In many ways the challenges of framing the role of the campus diversity committee is remarkably similar to the challenges associated with defining diversity and creating the CDO role.

A Clear Definition of Diversity Too often campus diversity committees are stymied because leadership fails to provide a clear definition of diversity and the committee is unable to clarify what diversity means in the context of its work as a group. An unclear

416

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

diversity definition muddles the mission of the committee and can stall a movement unless it is handled quickly and early. It is important to remember when defining diversity that the meaning often depends on the context in which it is used. Workplace diversity may lead us to think about the variety of individual communication styles and cultures within the workplace, fostering a discussion of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model of organizational diversity. Diversity training and leadership development may bring to mind human resource workshops aimed at educating people about diversity. Increasing diversity may invoke demographic issues and equal employment opportunity legislation, topics explored by the Affirmative Action and Equity Model, or the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. Establishing the definition and mission of the group can be difficult because so many diversity topics are part of the strategic diversity leadership paradigm. The issues of strategic diversity leadership include questions of access and equity, improving campus climate, fund-raising for diversity, managing the diversity brand, and engaging diverse alumni. As a result, many committees should consider organizing themselves into subcommittees, allowing for the group to focus specifically on different aspects of the institution’s diversity agenda. Box 9.2 provides a description of diversity subcommittee structure found at an institution on the West coast.

BOX 9.2 A Diversity Subcommittee Structure at a Midsized Private University on the West Coast If its diversity committee is large enough, an institution might consider establishing subcommittees that take on different areas of responsibility as they relate to various aspects of the strategic diversity agenda. These subcommittees might focus on faculty diversity, campus climate, intergroup relations, precollege initiatives, or any number of different diversity goals. A private university on the West coast provides the following subcommittee structure to further its diversity committee’s efforts: • The Alumni and Community Outreach Subcommittee seeks to engage alumni and community partners in the university’s diversity and inclusion initiatives, and, when possible, to involve them directly in the planning and implementation of campus events and activities. (continues)

D I V E R SI TY CO MM IT TE ES , C O M MI S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O RC E S

417

(continued) • The Campus Climate Subcommittee seeks to assess the campus environment in terms of its attitudes, perceptions, symbols, and institutional practices as they relate to diversity and inclusion, and to report how they affect the university’s intention to develop an inclusive culture. • The Curriculum Development Subcommittee seeks to educate and assist faculty in their efforts to embed diversity and inclusion in the curriculum and cocurriculum. • The Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee seeks to support the University in its commitment to ‘‘recruit, hire, develop and retain the best possible staff and faculty and ensure the welfare of the overall community.’’ • The Multicultural Programming Subcommittee seeks to offer a broad base of cultural experiences within the institutional community. Programs include examining cross-cultural communication styles, as well as practices that highlight the spectrum of cultural richness. • The Student Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee seeks to examine recruitment and retention practices and how they affect the overall commitment to diversity and excellence. The committee chair should determine the number of diversity-themed subcommittees based on the mission of the group and the total number of members assigned to the committee. Committee leaders should also weigh the benefits of a subcommittee structure against its additional complexity. If a group does not have a number of good subcommittee chairpersons, the subcommittee structure may prove ineffective.

Diversity or Social Identity Committees Some diversity committees define their work broadly, whereas others focus their efforts in a more tailored fashion that focuses on the needs of a particular social identity group or issue. Those committees focusing on an integrated approach to diversity are increasingly grappling with the process of embedding a multifaceted diversity agenda in the same committee. Framing a committee’s work as ‘‘diverse’’ if its sole focus is on the needs of a single identity group often hinders action, especially if the committee is composed of individuals interested in engaging multiple diversity groups and issues. One of the first action steps for creating an integrated or social identity– themed committee is to develop a rationale statement that inspires action. At Pomona College, the president decided to use a newly created presidential diversity advisory as a way of integrating the institutional diversity

418

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?

agenda across a number of disparate conversations. It is clear from a Presidential Advisory Committee Statement that this institution is seeking ways to connect issues of race and ethnicity, gender equity, LGBT issues, campus climate, and the educational rationale for diversity. Box 9.3 provides an excerpt from Pomona’s Diversity Statement.

BOX 9.3 Pomona College Presidential Advisory Committee on Diversity Statement The President’s Advisory Committee on Diversity at Pomona College represents a new and unique undertaking for the college, one that brings together all its various campus constituencies to study and address the matter of diversity on the campus. Traditionally, the college had approached matters of diversity by attempting to expand the number of historically underrepresented faculty and students. Over the years, various programs and efforts have been implemented by the administration, the faculty and the office of admissions to further these objectives. As a premier educational institution in the United States, Pomona College seeks to educate and prepare students to meet the present and future challenges as responsible citizens of this nation and as members of a global community. To ensure that goal, it is important that our own community mirror the society and world in which students will live and function. The College has the obligation to lead by example, to create the conditions and climate where people of different backgrounds, genders, cultures, races/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and national origin can constructively engage each other in a climate free of discrimination and prejudice of any kind. Education without diversity would be a failed enterprise. Diversity therefore should not simply be a slogan, but is at the core of our educational mission. The programs we developed to achieve these goals occurred largely in isolation, with little exchange of information, or actual cooperation between the various campus entities charged with this responsibility. The campus-wide Irvine initiative, conversations within the various ethnic studies departments and the restructuring of the faculty recruitment plan in the aftermath of the Michigan case compelled us to rethink how we approached diversity. Out of these discussions, it became clear that in order to fully address and grapple with diversity, the entire campus community faculty, students, staff and alumni had to be engaged and drawn into the discussion. Moreover, our administrative approach largely isolated to faculty, student recruitment and several outreach programs had to be expanded to include representation from all sectors of the campus community. The president accepted the recommendation of (continues)

D IV E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C O M MI S S I O N S , A N D TA SK F O R C E S

419

(continued) these committees and the faculty, resulting in the President’s Advisory Committee on Diversity. The committee has been charged by the president to ‘‘monitor all aspects of institutional diversity pertaining to faculty, students and staff. . . . That charge includes, at a minimum, providing the community with reports on the status of diversity and advising the President on strategies to enhance diversity on the campus’’ (Faculty Hand Book, p. 18). In keeping with its charge, the committee began to gather information regarding the state of diversity on the campus. This has meant attempting to decipher data on faculty, students and the various staff categories and develop a comprehensive view of diversity on campus. In addition, we have also been collecting information on the various programs and initiatives which the college has implemented over the years. This has not been as simple as it may sound since many of these programs and activities are dispersed throughout different campus offices, departments or programs. The different constituencies represented on the committee have also met independently and established priorities that we have discussed as a group. A list of concerns and areas that require attention is beginning to emerge. One of our first recommendations was to establish a Pomona College Diversity web page where we could centralize information and share with the campus community the material we have gathered. The only way in which this committee can effectively implement its charge is by involving the campus community, [and] to that end we welcome your comments and suggestions. Source: Downloaded August 1, 2011, from www.pomona.edu/about/diversity/committee statement.aspx

Although framing their committees’ work in very broad terms as ‘‘diversity themed,’’ too many institutions continue to focus almost exclusively on issues of race and ethnicity. This approach should be avoided. If a committee is to have a specific identity focus, this focus should be reflected in the committee’s mission and charter and not presented as a broad sweeping ‘‘diversity’’ committee. Some common examples of single-identity diversity committees include those focused on race and ethnicity, gender equity, LGBT, disability, and national origin. The goal of single-identity diversity committees is to dive deeply into the specific needs of a particular group, whereas a multicultural committee often engages diversity issues in a more broadly defined manner. Some institutions deploy multiple committees, each with a single identity focus. This is the case at a number of large research universities in particular, as they often have a number of different diversity committees focused

420

W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?

on the issues of different identity groups. At Penn State University, the Commission on Racial/Ethnic Diversity focuses on the issues of ethnic and racial minorities, and the Commission for Women and the Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equity Issues focus on the unique needs of women and members of the LGBT community, respectively. Although an infrastructure composed of multiple committees with a single identity has some definite benefits, the challenge is to find a way to create spaces for collaboration, alignment, and connectivity across the diversity plans and efforts of the various groups. Some important techniques might include having an executive committee composed of the various diversity committee chairs, an annual joint retreat, collaborative conferences and initiatives, and perhaps even a joint report on diversity and inclusion that is authored every several years articulating the state of diversity on campus. Although these coordinating structures potentially add another cumbersome bureaucratic layer to the lateral diversity dynamics of an institution, this structure is critical to avoiding the institutional silos that fracture diversity discussions across different groups within the campus community. The single identity–focused diversity committee is particularly relevant when an institution desires to develop an in-depth understanding of a particular set of issues and build a comprehensive set of strategies designed to address that group’s concerns. This type of diversity committee is closely related to another component of the lateral diversity infrastructure, ‘‘diversity affinity groups,’’ which focus on the needs of minorities, women, and members of the LGBT community. Although the differences between singleidentity and affinity groups are sometimes difficult to detect, they do have important differences. Single-identity diversity committees constitute an important structure for planning strategy and working on matters of related policy, whereas diversity affinity groups are often more grassroots in nature, focusing their efforts on programs and initiatives that provide ongoing opportunities for support, outreach and engagement. Less important than debating the differences between a committee or affinity group structure is establishing the baseline priorities of each and organizing them for successful action. Although a focused conversation on the needs and strategies of a particular group are perhaps more important than ever before, these conversations cannot take place in a vacuum. As a result, even single-identity groups must find a space to articulate how their issues and concerns align or depart from those of other groups. The failure to collaborate in this way may result in

D IV ER S I TY C O M M I T T E E S , C O M M I S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O RC ES

421

political sniping over limited resources, a lack of strategic clarity, and an inability to offer and then finance meaningful diversity solutions.

Committee Scope: Establishing a Target or Focus for the Committee’s Work Whether focusing on a broad or narrow agenda, many committees often address particular diversity issues at the student, faculty, or staff levels, or focus on a particular diversity theme or challenge. For example, some committees focus their work exclusively on campus climate issues. Indeed, this was the focus of a recent task force at a large research university in the South, which worked to promote ‘‘tolerance’’ and foster a ‘‘climate of inclusion’’ following a rash of racial incidents on campus. A common agenda item for many campus diversity committees is to focus specifically on faculty diversity, and during the last 10 years numerous institutions have launched high-profile faculty diversification committees. Some of the nation’s most elite institutions, including Columbia University, Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have all developed faculty diversity committees to focus on a combination of race and gender in equity in the faculty.1 At each of these institutions, the combined efforts of senior leaders and faculty diversity committees ultimately resulted in significant institutional commitments to helping departments diversify their faculty ranks. At a number of large institutions, the efforts of faculty diversity committees are often supported by the National Science Foundation, specifically the Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE) fund, which focuses on increasing the number of women faculty in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines. Over time, the efforts of these groups often embrace not only underrepresented minority women, but historically underrepresented minorities overall and across disciplines, extending beyond the STEM fields. One of the lasting contributions of ADVANCE grant-funded projects is the way that these groups have accelerated the use of certain strategic diversity leadership techniques like campus climate and organizational satisfaction studies, faculty search committee training efforts, and the creation of learning forums designed to discuss recruitment and retention issues. The benefit of a more focused diversity committee is that it can tunnel deep into a particular issue and articulate a clear course of action. Moreover, the presence of a CDO coordinating leadership, a substantial commitment of financial resources, and a collegial engagement on the issues will often

422

W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?

lead to positive change. This was the conclusion drawn by a powerful case study written by Freudenberger and colleagues (2009), ‘‘Linking Mobilization to Institutional Power,’’ which explains the diversity initiative at Columbia University summarized earlier in this chapter. Moreover, the Columbia University case study illustrated some of the critical points made in Chapter 4, namely that an institution’s Diversity DNA must be aligned if change is to happen. In this instance, the presence of a clear diversity challenge, a group of committed and savvy faculty leaders poised to act, and the arrival of a president with a high-profile commitment to diversity created a context in which new possibilities could emerge. Absent these dynamics, even the presence of a well-intentioned committee that produced a clear report would not have resulted in the types of changes that prompted the committee’s efforts into existence in the first place.

Committee Role Responsibility Crafting a meaningful definition of diversity and target focus for the committee’s work are two critical steps toward establishing a diversity committee’s effectiveness. A related step involves senior leaders determining the general role responsibility of the committee beyond its definition of diversity. Will the committee operate as a strategic group, an implementation group, or as a hybrid of the two? Failure to settle this issue can cripple a committee’s work, particularly when a group has been sitting for some time and is unclear of its overall agenda and next steps. To this end, one diversity committee member at a small liberal arts institution in the Northeast stated: I am not quite sure what we are supposed to do. We have developed a plan that I feel good about, but how do we implement it? Is it our responsibility? After all even though we came up with some good strategies, we do not supervise the admission office. How do we put our suggestions into action as a committee when we do not have any budget or real administrative authority? Just because the President tasked us to create a plan does not mean we are ready to continue forward with next steps. I am just not sure.

Senior leaders must resolve this dilemma early in the process of charging a diversity committee, so that the group can proceed forward with confidence and certainty. In the author’s experience, it is common for strategyfocused committees to operate in a highly generative way, drafting a campus

D I V E R SI TY CO M M IT TE ES , C O M M I S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O R C E S

423

definition of diversity; developing a framework for diversity; benchmarking their peers; establishing metrics for success; developing first-draft recommendations; and formally submitting the plan to the president, provost, or even board of trustees for implementation. By contrast, more implementation-focused groups tend to develop workshops and initiatives, and play a role in monitoring diversity implementation efforts. It is worth reviewing some of the key themes associated with both types of committees.

A Hub for Strategic Thinking At their best, diversity committees serve as a hub of strategic thinking for senior leaders. Strategic thinking focuses on developing unique opportunities to create value by enabling a creative dialogue among people who can affect the institution’s future direction. Good strategic thinking uncovers opportunities for creating value and challenges assumptions about how the institution should think about diversity matters, so that when the plan is created, it targets these opportunities. Strategic thinking is a way of both defining the fundamental assumptions and challenging conventional thinking, which is why it is so important to have the right people serving on the committee. Successful diversity committees should consider responding to five key questions that have shaped much of the discussion presented throughout each section of this book. These questions are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What is our institutional definition and rationale for diversity? What are the campus’s strategic diversity goals? How well is the institution performing on matters of diversity? How can the campus broadly communicate diversity progress and challenges across our institution? 5. Finally, what system of implementation and accountability can be activated to ensure that diversity efforts are moving in the right direction and that many stakeholders share responsibility for success?

Campus leaders need to think of diversity committees as a critical element of the lateral diversity infrastructure that the CDO must interface with to be successful. In the author’s research and consulting engagements, he has found that most CDOs work in close alignment with campus diversity committees, whether serving as ex-officio chairs, funding the committee’s work, advising their efforts or, in some instances, appointing their membership.

424

W H AT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

Many campus diversity committees with a strategic overlay are often advisory committees to the president, provost, or board of trustees. In these instances, the charter of the group generally focuses on providing direction and guidance to help top leadership shepherd the campus forward on issues of diversity.

A Working Committee—Implementing Diversity Efforts Some diversity committees go beyond their work as hubs of strategic diversity thinking, operating as a working committee that actually implements diversity-related programs and tasks. A common design decision for many institutions is to have campus diversity committees report what is going on regarding matters of diversity. These committees write regular reports and communicate the institution’s diversity and accountability progress. It is also common for these groups to implement high-profile conferences, review matters of formal institutional policy, and oversee the implementation of campus climate research studies. Single-identity diversity committees often implement diversity programs; examples include women’s history month, a conference on issues of sexual orientation, or a forum on access and disability issues. If a campus diversity committee is designed to have a programmatic function, it is critical that it possess a budget and some degree of autonomy in planning and implementing activities. Indeed, one of the best ways to empower a diversity committee is to provide the group with authority over key issues that affect the future of the institution. Examples include seeking the committee’s input on difficult budget decisions; fostering an advisory role with presidents, provosts, deans, and other senior leaders; and including members of the group in other high-profile committees, such as the academic planning committee, to ensure that diversity is integrated into other shared governance spaces and not solely in the diversity committee.

Permanence of the Group As we have suggested throughout this discussion, diversity committees generally fall into one of two categories: impermanent or ad-hoc groups and permanent or standing groups. When designing the lateral diversity infrastructure of an organization, these committee structures should be viewed as complementary design choices. Whether choosing one or both, the key is to coordinate efforts in a way that adds the most value. Whether the group is

D IV ER S I TY C O MM IT T E E S , C O M MI S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O R C ES

425

standing or ad-hoc, focused on a campus-wide agenda or the needs of a particular constituency, senior leaders need to design the committee so that it can help the institution meet its diversity goals, however they are defined. Box 9.4 offers a thumbnail sketch of several committee structures.

BOX 9.4 Diversity Committee Overview Ad-Hoc Diversity Committee Ad-hoc diversity committees stand just long enough to develop the campus diversity plan or implement some specific activity like a campus climate study or targeted report. These committees have a sunset date, although it is not uncommon for them to evolve into more permanent elements of the campus diversity infrastructure after they have been established.

Localized Diversity Committees Localized diversity committees are standing structures that exist in the various schools, colleges, and divisional areas of the institution. In this type of committee, the business school, college of arts and sciences, and the student affairs division have their own diversity committees that develop and implement diversity-themed initiatives to fit their particular contexts.

Diversity Point Leadership Council The diversity point leadership council may be populated by diversity professionals or champions from across the campus community (e.g., an assistant vice president or associate dean’s council for diversity). At schools with a number of campus diversity offices, this may be the most appropriate structure for coordinating among diversity professionals and others who do not occupy the same vertical infrastructure.

Executive Diversity Leadership Council In contrast to the other diversity committees mentioned here, this standing committee features the executive leadership, including positions like the vice president for enrollment management, vice president for administration, the chair of the faculty senate, and leaders in student government. This may be the appropriate committee for implementing broadly framed priorities.

426

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

Ad-Hoc Diversity Committees Some institutions may decide to evolve an ad-hoc diversity strategy group into a standing diversity committee assisting with implementation and advising senior leaders around a particular or general set of recommendations. This was the case at a growing comprehensive institution in the South, where an ad-hoc committee designated to study the campus climate eventually morphed into a standing advisory committee to the president, developing and generating recommendations for implementation and change. In this instance, the president believed that the campus needed the group as a way to engage the campus community in a process of shared decision-making and ownership. Hence he appointed the group to offer a way of shaping and activating the insights that emerged from the study.

Localized Diversity Committees It is also common to distribute campus diversity committees across the various schools and colleges of the institution. We refer to these standing groups as localized diversity committees. This type of lateral structure is a standard practice in corporations and at large institutions, where diversity committees are often the backbone of the organization’s formal diversity capacity. The benefit of a distributed diversity committee model is that it brings diversity efforts closer to the school, college, or unit where the work of implementation will ultimately occur. This type of diversity structure also facilitates a local rationale for why diversity matters in a particular context, a topic explored in some depth in the discussion of diversity planning and implementation in the third section of this book.

Diversity Point Leadership Council Related to the distributed diversity committee infrastructure is another type of standing group, the ‘‘diversity point leadership council.’’ This type of standing diversity committee is often populated by diversity professionals or appointed diversity champions from across the campus community. For example, a large Southwestern university had a diversity leadership council that featured individuals from nearly every part of the campus community. Diversity councils of this kind are common design choices for large institutions that have diversity capacity distributed institution wide. They are particularly useful for creating a coordinating council at institutions where every school or college may have an assistant or associate dean with a designated responsibility for collaboratively advancing the diversity agenda of their organization.

D IV ER S I TY C O M M I T T E E S , C O M M I S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O RC ES

427

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) believe that integration requires resolution of conflicts between departments through the efforts of teams and individual leaders working both inside and outside formal channels. Diversity leaders need to be embedded in the institution, and not simply at the top. Within this context, diversity point leadership councils form the type of formal and informal relationships that allow the campus community not only to resolve conflict, but to become even more tightly focused on a common agenda. Diversity point leadership councils are beneficial to CDOs as they communicate what is going on within the institution. Because CDOs are often the ‘‘face’’ of campus diversity efforts, they must not only understand the centralized campus diversity agenda, but the many programs, initiatives, and efforts taking place institutionally. Diversity point leadership councils enable the CDO to become informed about what is going on within other parts of the campus community, align distributed campus diversity capabilities to new priorities, and engage these groups in collaborative solutions and strategies. Without regular meetings, online social media communication strategies, and required annual reports, it is nearly impossible to harness the energy needed to address diversity challenges. Although this is a common design choice at large institutions, smaller institutions may find this design choice to be even more effective, allowing for even more alignment and strategic possibilities because they are regularly meeting in this way.

Executive Diversity Councils A fourth standing diversity committee less common in higher education, but widely deployed in the corporate sector, is the executive diversity council (Cox, 2001). This type of diversity committee features ‘‘line’’ leadership in executive positions throughout the institution. Because of the decentralized nature of the academy, major campus diversity initiatives always flow through the commitment of senior leaders. Although the executive diversity committee may be less ideal for generating the diversity strategy because of its potential lack of expertise and the nonrepresentative nature of the group, this structure on occasion proves ideal for implementing the campus diversity plan after it has been articulated and accepted by campus leadership. More than any other diversity committee discussed here, the presence of this group ensures that diversity accountability resides at a level of the organization that has the requisite authority to make decisions that will lead to implementation.

428

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

Deans and divisional vice presidents of enrollment management, student affairs, faculty senate leadership, student government leadership, or perhaps the president or provost’s senior cabinet could all serve in an executive diversity council. An executive diversity council may work collaboratively with the CDO, who might chair the group in an ex-officio capacity. If the president is the committee chair, the CDO can function in a staff capacity to ensure that implementing the plan receives as much attention as developing it. As the conversation shifts from planning to implementation, this body must work to achieve results. Reconciling the temporary ad-hoc charge with permanent standing committee work requires recognition of the roles the committee will play within the institution, returning us to the question of committee role responsibility. Will the group serve primarily as a strategy or implementation group? The answer to this question will play a key role in determining if the group should be an ad-hoc group or a standing group. Obviously, if the group were to play an oversight, implementation, or continuing role, it should serve as a permanent standing group. If the group’s charge is more finite in nature, such as developing a strategic diversity framework or plan, then an ad-hoc structure is more fitting. Establishing the group’s permanence is also determined by the presence of other diversity capabilities on campus. What other committees, offices, units, or roles are engaged in similar work? Indeed, a major determinant of the committee’s permanence is being able to delineate the role of the committee with respect to others engaged in similar strategic diversity leadership efforts. This can be a sensitive topic among committee members themselves. It has been the author’s experience that many diversity champions may want their committees to be permanent, even if the committee’s mission or group target suggests that the committee’s tenure should be finite. For many diversity champions, these committees are their primary way of remaining connected to issues that they are deeply committed to addressing. If their diversity committee is disbanded, or disbanded too early, the institution risks losing a primary vehicle for providing formal leadership on diversity initiatives.

Knowing When to Sunset a Diversity Committee Although it is important to consider the concerns of diversity leaders, their perspectives should not prevent dissolving a committee that has fulfilled its mandate. On occasion it is important for one diversity committee to end so

D IV ER S I TY C O M M I T T E E S , C O M M I S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O RC ES

429

that another can emerge in its place. One common criticism of these groups is that they often do not result in enough change. They can create new strategies and recommendations, but too often the recommendations sit on a shelf. This is not the fault of committees that performed their designated purpose of developing the strategy. At the same time, some committees may be plagued by a number of challenges that could negatively affect any committee or working group. Some of the challenges identified here represent important triggers that institutions should use to potentially repurpose or disband a diversity committee that seems to have lost its way and is ineffective: • Individual committee members feel they are not meaningfully engaged because roles are unclear or underutilized. • Committee members feel little urgency to attend meetings as no one notices their absence. • Committee members feel lost in a big group. There is a lack of cohesion and group vitality. • The staff time and material costs associated with maintaining a large committee do not appear to produce sufficient results. • Members received insufficient or ineffective orientation. • Agendas are weak; they either lack substance or seem detached from moving the campus diversity agenda. • There is too little opportunity for discussion and members feel bored or frustrated.

Membership Selection Another contingency to consider when creating an effective committee is how best to appoint the committee’s membership. The optimal size of a diversity committee is between 10 and 15 members, with no more than 20. Committee members should be selected with the following question in mind: What tasks are the committee responsible for and who within our community possesses the skills and experience needed to complete these tasks? Every effort should be made to match the needs and requirements of the committee with the skills, knowledge, and interests of prospective committee members. Diversity committees can be organized in a number of ways. Some can draw representatives from campus governance groups as well as stakeholder communities that include alumni and local community members. Others

430

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?

can be appointed by senior leaders, including the president, provost, and CDO. Box 9.5 provides an example of a shared governance group that advises the chancellor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

BOX 9.5 Membership and Mission Charter for the Campus Diversity and Climate Committee at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Campus Diversity & Climate Committee Membership The Campus Diversity and Climate Committee shall consist of the following members: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

The chancellor, or his/her designee, who shall cochair the committee. The committee shall select a cochair from among its voting members. Four faculty members appointed by the Committee on Committees. Four academic staff. Four students. Four classified staff, two represented and two non-represented, appointed by the chancellor after consultation with the Office of Classified Human Resources, the Council for Non-represented Classified Staff, and represented labor groups. Two alumni appointed by the chancellor after consultation with the Wisconsin Alumni Association. Two community representatives appointed by the chancellor. The chancellor or provost may appoint ex-officio nonvoting members, or the committee may appoint consultants. Faculty, staff, alumni, and community representatives shall serve three-year staggered terms, and may be reappointed to second consecutive three-year terms. Students shall serve renewable one-year terms. Function

This shared governance body advises the administration, faculty, academic staff, classified staff, and the recognized student governance organization regarding campus diversity and climate policy, striving to create an environment where each (continues)

D IV E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O N S , A N D TA SK FO R C E S

431

(continued) individual feels respected, valued, and supported while respecting academic freedom and freedom of speech. 1. Provides for faculty, staff, and student participation in long-range planning. 2. Meets twice annually with the chancellor and provost to discuss policy and progress. 3. Hears reports from groups, units, programs, and administrators. 4. Holds the annual campus-wide policy and progress forum. 5. Assists the administration in the preparation of annual reports to the UW System, Faculty Senate, Academic Staff Assembly, the Council for Nonrepresented Classified Staff, represented labor groups, and student governance body. 6. Meets periodically with deans and directors to discuss policy and progress. 7. Collaborates with other groups, programs, and units on matters of diversity and climate. 8. Makes policy recommendations. Source: Secretary of the Faculty Website: www.secfac.wisc.edu/governance/fpp/Chapter_ 6.htm627

Balancing Power and Politics in Committee Selection As mentioned earlier, diversity work is a full-contact sport. As a result, issues of power and politics are always part of advancing a campus diversity agenda. Constructing the campus diversity committee is no exception to this rule. Table 9.3 provides tips for developing a well-balanced committee that encompasses numerous roles and perspectives. The committee’s composition helps define the range and quality of ideas that emerge from its meetings. For example, if the diversity committee is composed solely of minorities, there is the risk that the committee’s efforts will lack perspective and balance. The same would hold true if the committee is charged with designing a plan to address student and staff issues but includes representatives from neither of these communities. In higher education, where so many communities often feel a sense of responsibility for the future success of the institution, a large committee is almost inevitable. The author has at times consulted on committees with as many as 50 members. One of the challenges of having a large diversity committee is that it can be difficult to focus the conversation and bring the group to consensus. When determining the size of the group, leaders should begin with a consideration of what the group needs to accomplish and what the campus climate

432

W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?

TAB LE 9 .3 Criteria and Pitfalls for Developing Diversity Committees Criteria for Candidate Consideration

Pitfalls in Committee Development

• Highly respected and knowledgeable

• Committee is too big

• Personal interest in the work and a desire to serve

• Members are too homogenous

• Knowledge about diversity or highly motivated to learn about it • Willingness and ability to commit a significant amount of time to the work • Brings different identities to the table in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and so on • Experienced in leading organizational change initiatives

• Majority White candidates are excluded—committee becomes insular and isolated from majority culture • Committee is overrepresented by diversity professionals and faculty members with research agendas in these areas • Committee is overrepresented by human resources and staff • Committee burdened by members with no credibility on diversity issues

Source: Adapted from Cox, 2001.

is like with respect to diversity. If the institutional community is just beginning the conversation, a larger committee may prove necessary to vet lots of opinions and initiate an inclusive agenda. If the institution and potential committee members are seasoned and experienced, the committee should assume a more modest size. One valuable technique to consider when appointing a committee is to survey different communities to determine who may be best suited to serve. Who has a good track record of serving the institution’s best interests and delivering results in a committee structure? Who has a relevant diversity research agenda in the area of consideration? Who has the requisite political capital with faculty, students, staff, and senior administrators, and can best assist with implementation?

The Diversity Committee Chair The committee chair should be a respected member of the campus community and someone with impeccable qualities, whether as a full-time administrator, faculty, or staff member. For example, a tenured faculty member with

D IV ER S I TY C O MM IT T E E S , C O M MI S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O R C ES

433

a distinguished research record on diversity issues, who also has a track record as a successful administrator, constitutes an ideal candidate. As Columbia University illustrates, the power of faculty leadership in ‘‘doing diversity’’ cannot be underestimated (Freudenberger et al., 2009). This helps ensure that the leadership of the committee is in sync with the culture of the institution as a whole and that the chair has the personal capital to serve as a catalyst of new diversity possibilities (Freudenberger et al., 2009). Beyond this very general description, in seeking an effective chair, senior leadership should look for several qualifications: (a) proven leadership and social skills that are essential to keeping a group of experienced and passionate voices on course, (b) cultural knowledge of the institution and how committee work gets done, (c) content knowledge and experience relevant to diversity issues, (d) the courage to ask hard questions of senior leadership about the extent to which they are committed to implementing the committee’s recommendations, and (e) the ability to accomplish projects on time. On this last point, an effective diversity committee chair must focus on tapping the potential energy of the group. The diversity committee chair must be able to collaborate and motivate rather than berate and belittle. Box 9.6 provides several recommendations that diversity committee chairs can implement to enhance member effectiveness. Finally, the chair should be willing to relinquish some formal authority when necessary to advance the committee’s success.

BOX 9.6 Practices to Enhance Committee Member Effectiveness • Provide an orientation for new committee members that walks them through the charter of the group. • Provide all diversity reports to each committee member to ensure that they have the most accurate information possible. • Make sure that committee members receive an agenda in advance of meetings and have all of the information they will need to complete their work. • Provide regular and appropriate recognition to active committee members. The chair should also seek out unproductive committee members to find out what is getting in the way of performance and then devise strategies to overcome those barriers. (continues)

434

W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

(continued) • Involve committee members in developing an annual committee plan of work and make sure that the committee plans align with the overall strategic plan of the institution and department, in terms of standing committees. • Periodically schedule campus leaders to come before the committee and share what is going on in their schools, colleges, or divisional areas as a way of ensuring that the committee is up to speed on efforts on campus.

The committee chair is responsible for preparing meeting agendas, assigning responsibilities to committee members, checking in with subcommittee chairs, and making sure that members are doing their assigned work. Thus, the role of diversity committee chairs requires creating time to communicate with stakeholders, organize and analyze research, draft reports, keep senior leaders informed, and, when necessary, resolve conflicts among members. For this reason, we recommend reducing the teaching load of a faculty chair or the administrative responsibilities of a staff chair. Assigning a graduate or undergraduate student to the project offers another means of providing additional staff support. At times it may prove appropriate to assign the role of chair or cochair to a CDO. However, having the CDO colead the process should not outweigh the need for a capable, credible chair. Each institution should evaluate the merits and potentially competing responsibilities of the CDO before assigning him or her to lead the diversity committee.

Recommendations for Successful Diversity Committees Although there is no single roadmap for developing a campus’s lateral diversity infrastructure, several common denominators exist (Table 9.4). For example, a committee must have a clear understanding of its mandate from the very beginning. If it is to focus on strategy, it should focus on strategy. If it is to serve in an implementation role, then it should focus on implementation, to the extent that is possible as a committee. The committee has to operate from a data-driven perspective and rely on institutional data, benchmarking opportunities, and lived experiences to develop strategies and implement solutions that align with the institution’s overall mission. It is also critical that senior leaders provide the diversity committee with adequate levels of staff and financial support to ensure that it is capable of fulfilling its mandate.

D I V E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O NS , A ND TA SK FO R C E S

435

TAB LE 9. 4 Recommendations for Successful Diversity Committees Recommendation

Description

Understand the limitations of your committee.

It is vital to understand the scope and limits of the committee. Can it authorize initiatives, or only recommend them? If it can recommend only, who in the organization will be the person to issue any final decisions?

Formulate the committee’s definition of diversity.

Early in the process, the committee should define diversity in the context of its process as a group. Will it work on diversity issues broadly defined or through the prism of a particular issue or group?

Develop a clear understanding of current diversity capacity and levels.

The committee should begin by reviewing the institution’s current data and developing a comprehensive understanding of the various diversity offices, units, and initiatives on campus. This process may include gathering data from the institution’s research office as well as more dynamic data in areas like succession rates and time to promotion, graduation rates, and academic achievement levels in the critical gateway courses. Additionally, the committee should launch its work with full knowledge of current diversity programs and initiatives. Hence the committee should consider beginning its work with relevant diversity plans, reports, evaluation, assessments, and so on.

Gather feedback from the organization.

The committee should send out a survey to community members about the greatest challenges and opportunities of diversity and the overall tangible recommendations to inform the work of the group. It is important to manage community member expectations by making it clear that the committee is using the survey expressly for exploratory purposes. It is always discouraging for community members who take the time to give feedback and then feel that nothing is done with their suggestions. It is also important to interact informally with various members of the community to get individual perspectives.

Align the agenda of the committee to the institution’s strategic agenda.

Develop a clear picture of the institution’s top priorities for the year, and then find out how to tie the committee’s goals to the goals of the institution’s most senior leaders and governance groups.

Prioritize your work.

Use the information that has been gathered to prioritize and implement the work of the committee. By working this way, the committee will be able to discern which goals and initiatives are most likely to be embraced and the ideal order for implementing them.

Create a culture of accountability for committee members.

Set a regular meeting schedule for the entire year. Incorporate criteria for ongoing participation in committee and subcommittee meetings, including an attendance policy. Assign clear responsibilities and then set policies for promoting communication and creating accountability.

Establish a working budget and staffing appropriate to deliver the work.

Whether the committee is an ad-hoc or standing group, and involved in advising or implementation, it is critical that the committee have adequate staff and financial support. At a minimum this should include rooms, refreshments, audiovisual equipment, and a host of other physical supports. Institutions should also dedicate staff resources that can help facilitate the overall effort, from recording committee minutes and processing requests, to following up on correspondence and minor projects.

436

W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?

At the end of the day, diversity implementation rests with senior leaders, presidents, provosts, deans, CDOs, faculty leaders, and students—not diversity committees. Senior leadership must devote sufficient energy into developing an implementation plan that can grow and evolve over time. Hence, much of the implementation work hinges on other dimensions of the conversation, in particular the quality of work that goes into establishing and building the change management systems of the institution.

Summary This chapter explores the many contingencies that must be considered in developing an institution’s diversity committee. Mission, scope of responsibility, permanence of the committee, and membership selection are just some of the vital concerns that senior leaders need to consider. Although they can vary greatly in size, scope, and mission, diversity committees play a vital role in articulating and honoring the importance of difference on campus. These committees can both advise and help implement programs and policies to promote an institution’s diversity goals. Having a committee infrastructure that provides perspective from across campus is an important element of building a comprehensive institutional diversity vision. In a best-case scenario, diversity committees complement the role of the CDO and other dedicated diversity units, providing senior leadership with a fresh and unique perspective. In developing a campus-wide or unit-based diversity committee, it is important to remember that members often have demanding jobs independent of their diversity committee service. For this reason the best designed committees work to negotiate some form of release time to allow members to fulfill their responsibilities, particularly during the most critical periods of the committee’s life span. To be successful, senior leadership must ensure that diversity committees have clear goals as well as an action plan and supporting resources. They also need to recruit well-respected individuals beyond the ‘‘usual suspects’’ to avoid what Tierney (1999) refers to as ‘‘cultural exhaustion’’ among a core group of change agents. This is particularly true among communities of color as these individuals are often asked to serve on every diversity initiative. Finally, diversity committees should include a number of respected voices that can push the envelope while ensuring that existing initiatives are developed and maintained. Too often, campus diversity committees are formed

D IV ER S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI SS IO NS , A ND TA S K FO R C E S

437

without clear goals, a timeline for work completion, adequate credibility and leverage, or sufficient resources to get the job done. In such cases, the committee itself can become an institution’s ‘‘answer’’ to diversity challenges, rather than a channel through which true solutions are formulated. When done right, the diversity committee can serve as the intellectual ground zero for promoting a robust discussion on diversity issues and their solutions.

Note 1. For a discussion of these efforts see Freudenberger et al. (2009); Harvard University Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering (2005); and the MIT Initiative on Faculty Race and Diversity Committee (2010).

This page intentionally left blank

REFERENCES

AASCU/NASULGC Diversity Task Force. (2005). Now is the time: Meeting the challenge of a diverse academy. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Alfred, R. (2005). Managing the big picture in colleges and universities: From tactics to strategy. New York: Praeger. Alger, J. (2009). Diversity in the age of Obama: New directions or status quo? (Employment context). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, June, 2009. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Demography as destiny: How America can build a better future. Issues Brief, October 2006. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. American Civil Rights Institute. (n.d.). States & legislation. Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.acri.org/ legislation.html Argyris, C., & Scho¨n, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Asante, M. (1991). Kemet, afrocentricity, and knowledge. Philadelphia: Africa World Press. Asian/Pacific/American Institute and the Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy at New York University. (2008). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders facts, not fiction: Setting the record straight. New York: The College Board. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) (2010). Sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system (STARS) overview technical manual. Retrieved from http://stars.aashe.org Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater Expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education and America’s promise. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

439

440

R EF ER EN CE S

Attinasi, L. C., Jr. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 247–277. Baez, B. (2004). The study of diversity: The ‘‘knowledge of difference’’ and the limits of science. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 285–306. Banks, J. A. (1979). Shaping the future of multicultural education. Journal of Negro Education, 48(Summer), 237–252. Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Barnes, J. S., & C. E. Bennett. (2002). The Asian population: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Barry, B. (1997, July 27). Questions of race run deep for foe of preferences. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/27/us/questionsof-race-run-deep-for-foe-of-preferences.html Baum, S., & Steele, P. (2010). Who borrows most? Bachelor’s degree recipients with high levels of student debt. New York: College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. Beckham, E. (2008). More reasons for hope: Diversity matters in higher education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Belfield, C., & Levin, M. (2007). The economic losses from high school dropouts in California. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project. Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change. Change, 36(1), 45–52. Bensimon, E., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. (2003, October). Measuring the state of equity in public higher education. Paper presented at the Harvard Civil Rights and UC Conference on Expanding Opportunity in Higher Education: California and the Nation, Sacramento, CA. Bensimon, E., & Malcom, L. (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (2000). Organizational behavior in higher education and student outcomes. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 15, pp. 268–338). New York: Agathon. Berkner, L., He, S., & Cataldi, E. F. (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students: Six years later (NCES 2003–151). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Berry, J. (1994). An ecological perspective on cultural and ethnic psychology. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 157–189). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bess, J. L. & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services, 111, 25–39.

R E F E R E N CE S

441

Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 261–284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass. Bobo, L., Kluegel, J., & Smith, R. (1997). Laissez faire racism: The crystallization of a kinder, gentler, anti-Black ideology. In J. Martin & S. A. Tuch (Eds.), Racial attitudes in the 1990s (pp. 15–44). Westport, CT: Praeger Press. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bonilla-Silva, E. (1997). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American Sociological Review, 62(3), 465–480. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Press. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boxwell, R. (1994). Benchmarking for a competitive advantage. New York: McGraw Hill. Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. V., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 12, pp. 107–164). New York: Agathon Press. Breines, W. (2006). The trouble between us: An uneasy history of White and Black women in the feminist movement. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown, R. (2011, July 1). U.S. appeals court overturns Michigan ban on affirmative action at public colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http:// chronicle.com/article/US-Appeals-Court-Overturns/128127/ Buchanan, D. A., & Badham, R. J. (2008). Political expertise: Why you need it, and how to develop it. In D. A. Buchanan & R. J. Badham (Eds.), Power, politics and organizational change: Winning the turf game (pp. 286–321). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Carey, K. (2010). Why do you think they’re called for-profit colleges? Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(41), A88. Carnevale, A. P., & Fry, R. A. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equity when Generation Y goes to college? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/research/dload/CrossingDivide.pdf Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

442

R E F ER E N CE S

Chaffee, E. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89–98. Chang, M., Chang, J., & Ledesma, M. (2005). Beyond magical thinking: Doing the real work of diversifying our institutions. About Campus, 10(2), 10, 9–16. Chemerinsky, E. (2010). The conservative assault on the Constitution. New York: Simon and Schuster. Chesler, M. (1994). Strategies for multicultural organizational development. Diversity Factor, 2(2), 12–18. Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York: Penguin Group. Ciarlante, M., & Fountain, K. (2010). Why it matters: Rethinking victim assistance for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer victims of hate violence & intimate partner violence. New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. Clayton-Pedersen, A., O’Neill, N., & McTighe Musil, K. (2008). Making excellence inclusive: A framework for embedding diversity and inclusion into college and universities academic mission. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/ Clayton-Pedersen, A., Parker, S., Smith, D., Moreno, J., & Teraguchi, D. (2007). Making a real difference with diversity. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Clegg, R. (2009). Unfinished business: The Bush Administration and racial preferences. Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, 32(3), 971–995. Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Cohn, E., & Gareis, J. (2007). Faculty members as architects: Structuring diversityaccessible courses. In J. Branche, J. Mullenex, & E. Cohn (Eds.), Diversity across the curriculum: A guide for faculty in higher education (pp. 18–23). Boston: Anker. Cokorinos, L. (2003). The assault on diversity: An organized challenge to racial and gender justice. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Coleman, A., & Lipper, K. (2011). Legal update Fisher v. University of Texas case summary. New York: The College Board. Coleman, A. L., & Palmer, S. R. (2004). Diversity in higher education: A strategic planning and policy model regarding federal law in admissions, financial aid and outreach (2nd ed.). New York: The College Board. Coleman, A. L., Palmer, S. R., Richards, F. S., & Holland & Knight LLP. (2005). Federal law and financial aid: A framework for evaluating diversity related programs. New York: The College Board. Coleman, A. L., Palmer, S. R., Winnick, S. Y., & Holland & Knight LLP. (2007). Echoes of Bakke: A fractured Supreme Court invalidates two race-conscious K–12 student assignment plans but affirms the compelling interest in the educational benefits of diversity. Washington, DC: The College Board. Coleman, A. L., Palmer, S. R., & Winnick, S. Y. (2008). Race-neutral policies in higher education: From theory to action. Washington, DC: The College Board.

R E F E R EN C E S

443

College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. (2010). The educational crisis facing young men of color. New York: The College Board. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York: Harper Collins. Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany Good to great. New York: Harper Collins. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Cook, B., & Kim, Y. (2009). From soldier to student: Easing the transition of service members on campus. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Cornell, S. (1996). The variable ties that bind: Content and circumstance in ethnic processes. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 19(2), 265–289. Cornwell, G., & Stoddard, E. W. (1999). Globalizing knowledge: Connecting international and intercultural studies. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Executive, 5(2), 34–47. Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cross, W. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience. Black World, 20(9), 13–27. Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (2010, October 27). Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the bureau of indian affairs. Federal Register, 75(207), otices. Dexter, B. (2010). The chief diversity officer today: Diversity gets down to business. Chicago: Heidrick & Struggles. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Diversity Best Practices. (2005). The chief diversity officer report. Washington, DC: Diversity Best Practices Inc. Duderstadt, J. (1990). The Michigan mandate: A strategic linkage of academic excellence and social diversity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Office of the President. Duderstadt, J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Duster, T. (1993). The diversity of California at Berkeley: An emerging reformulation of ‘‘competence’’ in an increasingly multi-cultural world. In R. Thompson & S. Tyagi (Eds.), Beyond a dream deferred: Multicultural education and the politics of excellence (pp. 231–256). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Duster, T. (2008, July). Is It Balkanization, or just lunch? Retrieved from http:// www.diversityweb.org/digest/F96/balkanization.html

444

R EF ER EN CE S

Eckel, P., Green, M., Hill, B., & Mallon, W. (1999). Taking charge of change: A primer for colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American Council of Education. Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council of Education and Praeger Series on Higher Education. Education Trust. (2006). The funding gap 2005: Low income and minority students short-changed by most states. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Egan, G. (1994). Working the shadow side: A guide to positive behind the scenes management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ellstrom, P. E. (1983). Four faces of educational organizations. Higher Education Journal, 12(2), 231–241. Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 243–251. Feagin, J., & Sikes, M. (1994). Living with racism: The Black middle-class experience. Boston: Beacon Press. Finnell, S. (1998). The Hopwood chill: How the court derailed diversity efforts at Texas A&M. In G. Orfield & E. Miller (Eds.), Chilling admissions: The affirmative action crisis and the search for alternatives (pp. 71–82). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group. Fischer, M. J., & Massey, D. S. (2007). The effects of affirmative action in higher education. Social Science Research, 38, 531–549. Fish, S. (2005). Chickens: The Ward Churchill and Larry Summers story. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(36), B9. Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F.3d at 247–66 (Garza, J., concurring specially). (2011). Flannery, M. (2011, June 3). For-profit colleges face tougher regulations. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2011/06/03/for-profit-colleges-face-tougherregulations/ Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fogg, P. (2005a, May 17). Harvard panels suggest steps for improving the lot of female professors; some proposals already have been endorsed. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Harvard-PanelsSuggest-Steps/120285/ Fogg, P. (2005b, May 27). Harvard committee suggests steps to help women. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(38), A8–A9. Freudenberger, W., Howard, J., Jauregui, E., & Sturm, S. (2009). Linking mobilization to institutional power: The faculty-led diversity initiative at Columbia University. In W. Brown-Glaude (Ed.), Doing diversity in higher education: Faculty leaders share challenges and strategies (pp. 249–276). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

R EF ER E N CE S

445

Frey, W. (2011a). America’s diverse future: Initial glimpses at the U.S. child population from the 2010 Census. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute Metropolitan Policy Program. Frey, W. (2011b). Melting pot cities and suburbs: Racial and ethnic change in metro America in the 2000s. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute Metropolitan Policy Program. Gates, G. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/mapus Gates, G., & Cooke, A. (2010). United States LGBTQ Census snapshot: 2010. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/mapus Gates, G., & Ost, J. (2004). The gay and lesbian atlas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Gilmer, M., Littles, M., & Bowers, R. (2008). Momentum: Sustaining efforts to improve life outcomes among African-American males. New York: Ford Foundation. Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 443–448. Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Back Bay Books. Gluckman, A., & Reed, B. (1997). Homo economics: Capitalism, community, and lesbian and gay life. New York: Routledge Press. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). Greater Expectations National Panel. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220. Grusky, D., Western, B., & Wimer, C. (Eds.) (2011). The great recession. New York: Russell Sage. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Gurin, G., Matlock, J., & Wade-Golden, K. (2012). Michigan student study: Opinions, expectations, and experiences of undergraduate students, 1990–1994. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/4027 Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366. Gurin, P., & Epps, E. (1975). Black consciousness, identity, and achievement. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

446

R EF E R EN CE S

Gurin, P., Lehman, J., & Lewis, E. (2004). Defending diversity: Michigan’s affirmative action cases. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Hale, F. (2004). What makes racial diversity work in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Harper, S., & Quales, S. (2009). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York: Routledge. Harris, A. L., & Teinda, M. (2012, April). Hispanics and the Texas top 10% law. Race and Social Problems 4(1): 57–67. Hart, P. (2006). How should colleges prepare students to succeed in today’s global economy? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Harvard University Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering. (2005). Report from the Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Office of the President. Harvey, B., & Anderson, E. (2005). Minorities in higher education 2003–2004: Twenty-first annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council of Education. Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on counseling: A Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 153–165. Hirschhorn, L., & May, L. (2000). The campaign approach to change: Targeting the university’s scarcest resources. Change, 32(3), 31–37. Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 29–48). San Diego: Academic. Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (1996). Hubbard, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: Evaluating the impact of diversity and organizational performance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Humes, K., Jones, N., & Ramirez, R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010 Census briefs. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. Humphreys, D. (1997). General education and American commitments: A national report on diversity courses and requirements. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey finds diversity requirements common around the country. Diversity Digest. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from www.diversityweb.org/digest/F00/ survey.html Humphreys, J. (2012). The multicultural economy 2012 report. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Terry School College of Business, Selig Center for Economic Growth. Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185–196. Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino students: Sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345.

R E F ER E N CE S

447

Hurtado, S., & Dey, E. (1997). Achieving the goals of multiculturalism and diversity. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302. Ibarra, R. A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2011). Initial college attendance of low-income young adults. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Iverson, S. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586–611. Jackson, B., & Holvino, E. (1988). Multicultural organizational development (PCMA Working Paper Series No. 11). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Program on Conflict Management Alternatives. Johnson, C., & Ham, C. (2010). Report of the comprehensive review of the issues associated with a repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/ 0610_dadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf Julius, D. J., Baldridge, J. V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 113–133. Kahlenberg, R. D. (2003). Economic affirmative action in college admissions: A progressive alternative to racial preferences and class rank admissions plans. New York: Century Foundation. Kahlenberg, R. D. (2004). Toward affirmative action for economic diversity. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(28), B11–B13. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79. Katz, J., & Miller, F. (1997). Between monoculturalism and multiculturalism: Traps awaiting the organization. In D. Van Eynde, J. Hoy, & D. Van Eynde (Eds.), Organizational development classics (pp. 292–302). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kelly, P. (2005). As America becomes more diverse: The impact of state higher education inequality. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Kerber, L. (2005). We must make the academic workplace more humane and equitable. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(28), p. B6. Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century. Recent Research and Conceptualizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Kezar, A. (2007). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to institutionalize a diversity agenda. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413–439.

448

R E F E R E N CE S

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The importance of sense-making, inter-related strategies and balance. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 295–328. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2005). Important journeys: Presidents supporting students of color. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Kim, J. (1981). The process of Asian American identity development: A study of Japanese American women’s perceptions of their struggle to achieve positive identities (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Kimmel, M., & Plante, R. (2004). Sexualities: Identities, behaviors, and society. New York: Oxford University Press. King, J., & Gomez, G. (2008). On the pathway to the presidency: Characteristics of higher education’s senior leadership. Washington, DC: American Council of Education. Kirkham, C. (2011, August 3). For-profit colleges draw minorities, stir murky debate on student success. HuffPost: Black Voices. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/as-minority-enrollments-s_n_916541 .html Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Kutz, G. (2010). For-profit colleges: Undercover testing finds colleges encouraged fraud and engage in deceptive and questionable marketing practices. Written testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. GAO-10–948T. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Laird, T., Engberg, M., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects: Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 448–476. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47. Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful pathways: Helping students achieve key learning outcomes. Greater Expectations Monograph Series, Vol. 8. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. Lipson, D. (2004, June). The new politics of affirmative action. Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Liptak, A. (2012, February 21). Justices take up race as a factor in college entry. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/justices-tohear-case-on-affirmative-action-in-higher-education.html?_r2&pagewanted all Lockman, Z. (2009). Contending visions of the Middle East: The history and politics of orientalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

R E F ER E N CE S

449

Loden, M. (1996). Implementing diversity. Chicago: Irwin Professional. Lynch, M., Engle, J., & Cruz, J. (2010). Subprime opportunity: The unfulfilled promise of for-profit colleges and universities. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Maltbia, T., & Power, A. (2009). A leader’s guide to leveraging diversity: Strategic learning capabilities for breakthrough performance. Burlington, MA: ButterworthHeinemann. Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mather, M., & Adams, D. (2007). The crossover in female-male college enrollment rates. PRB: Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.prb.org/arti cles/2007/crossoverinfemalemalecollegeenrollmentrates.aspx Matlock, J., Wade-Golden, K., & Gurin, G. (2002). The Michigan student study: Students’ expectations of and experiences with racial/ethnic diversity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives. Retrieved from www.oami.umich.edu/mss/downloads/ synopsis0103.pdf Matlock, J., Wade-Golden, K., & Gurin, G. (2010). Michigan student study: An assessment of students’ and alumni experiences and outcomes with diversity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives. McKnight, G. (1998). The last crusade: Martin Luther King, Jr., the FBI, and the Poor People’s Campaign. Boulder, CO: Westview. McNeal, L. (2009). The re-segregation of public education now and after the end of Brown v. Board of Education. Education and Urban Society, 41(5), 562–574. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. Meade, B., Gaytan, D., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2009). A close look at the dropout crisis: Examining Black and Latino males in New York City. New York: Metropolitan Center for Urban Education, New York University. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories. New York: McGraw Hill. Mintz, S. (2012). U.S. failing to meet global education and competitiveness challenges. Retrieved from http://www.ethicssage.com/2011/11/us-failing-to-meet-globaleducation-and-competitiveness-challenges.html MIT Initiative on Faculty Race and Diversity Committee. (2010). Report on the Initiative for Faculty Race and Diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Office of the President. Montesino, M., & Sherr, M. (2008). A challenge to diversity in the United States: Two points of view on immigration reform. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 8(3), 75–84.

450

R EF ER E N CE S

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mortenson, T. G. (2010). Family income and educational attainment, 1970 to 2009. Postsecondary Opportunity: Public Policy Analysis of Opportunity for Postsecondary Education, 221, 1–16. Mottel, S., & Patten, E. (2012). The 10 largest Hispanic origin groups: Characteristics, rankings, top counties. Pew Hispanic Research Center. Retrieved from http:// www.pewhispanic.org/2012/06/27/the-10-largest-hispanic-origin-groupscharacteristics-rankings-top-counties/ Moynihan, D. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Murguia, E., Padilla, A., & Pavel, R. (1991). Ethnicity and the concept of social integration in Tinto’s model of institutional departure. Journal of College Student Development, 32(4), 433–439. Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems, 41(1), 152–176. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2011). Undocumented student tuition: Overview. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-re search/educ/undocumented-student-tuition-overview.aspx National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. (2012). National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association stylebook supplement on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender terminology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from http://www.nlgja.org/resources/stylebook. National Science Foundation. (2008). ADVANCE: Increasing the participation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers (ADVANCE). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id5383 Nichols, A. (2011). Developing 20/20 vision on the 2020 degree attainment goal: The threat of income-based inequality in education. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Obama, B. (2009). Remarks of President Barack Obama—As prepared for delivery to the Joint Session of Congress, Tuesday, February 24, 2009. Retrieved from http://www .whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Addressto-Joint-Session-of-Congress Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives. (2012). Overview. Retrieved from http://www.oami.umich.edu/about/index.html Ogbar, J. (2005). Black power: Radical politics and African American identity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (2001). Wealth and racial stratification. In N. Smelser, W. J. Wilson, F. Mitchell (Eds), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol. 2., pp. 222–251). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

R E F E R EN C E S

451

Olson, C. L, Evans, R., & Shoenberg, R. F. (2007). At home in the world: Bridging the gap between internationalization and multicultural education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1989). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge. O’Neil, H. F. (1999). Designing and implementing an academic scorecard. Change, 31(6), 32–40. Orfield, G. (2001). Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Orfield, G., Marin, P., Flores, S. M., & Garces, L. M. (Eds.). (2007). Charting the future of college affirmative action: Legal victories, continuing attacks, and new research. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project at UCLA. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) profiles by country/economy. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/PISA2009Profiles/ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Education at a glance 2010: Indicators. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Ott, B., & Aoki, E. (2002). The politics of negotiating public tragedy: Media framing of the Matthew Shepard murder. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(3), 483–505. Pacelli, K. (2011). Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Navigating the narrows between Grutter and parents involved. Maine Law Review, 63(2), 570–592. Paige, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pamona College. (n.d.). Diversity statement. Retrieved from http://www.pamo na.edu/about/diversity/committee-statement.aspx Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). Patton, C. (2002). National report on anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender violence in 2002. New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. Patton, L. (2010). Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Paul, M. J. (2003). Double-loop diversity: Applying adult learning theory to the cultivation of diverse learning environments in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(1), 35–47. Peterson, M. W., Blackburn, R., Gamson, C., Arce, R., Davenport, W., Mingle, J. (1978). Black students on White campuses: The impacts of increased Black enrollments. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Peterson, M. W., & Dill, D. D. (1997). Understanding the competitive environment of the postsecondary knowledge industry. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions (pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

452

REFERENCES

Peterson, M. W., & Mets, L. A. (1987). An evolutionary perspective on academic governance, management, and leadership. In M. W. Peterson & L. A. Mets (Eds), Key resource on higher education governance management and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. New York: Harper Collins. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Piaget, J. (1975). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Pink, D. (2002). Free agent nation: The future of working for yourself. New York: Warner Brothers Books. Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. New York: Riverhead Books. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Pope, R. L. (1993). Multicultural-organization development in student affairs: An introduction. Journal of College Student Development, 34(3), 201–206. Prasnikar, J., Debeljak, Z., & Ahcan, A. (2005). Benchmarking as a tool for strategic management. Total Quality Management, 16(2), 257–275. Quinn, R. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for sexual minorities: A national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 312, 98 S. Ct. 2760 (1978). Robbins, S. (2005). Organizational behavior. New York: Prentice Hall. Rodriguez, J. (2010, February 18). Pioneering initiative launched on equity, diversity and inclusion, backed by Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund. Retrieved August 1, 2011, from http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/02/18/haas_jr_fund Rowley, D., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the plan in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. San Jose State University. Inventory and mapping of diversity efforts and courses. San Jose: Office of the President, San Jose State University. Retrieved from http:// www.sjsu.edu/diversityplan/ history/stages/mapping/ Scharmer, O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges—The social technology of presencing. Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning, Inc. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schlesinger, A. (1998). The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New York: Norton and Company. Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2010). Yes we can: The Schott 50 state report on public education and Black males. Cambridge, MA: Schott Foundation for Public Education. Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

R EF E R EN CE S

453

Sellers, R., Rowley, S., & Chavous, T. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18–39. Sen, R. (2006). A positive future for Black boys: Building the movement. Cambridge, MA: Schott Foundation for Public Education. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Roth, G., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Doubleday Press. Shapiro, A. (2003). Creating contagious commitment: Applying the tipping point to organizational change. Hillsborough, NC: Strategy Perspective. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Sears, D. (2008). The diversity challenge: Social identity and intergroup relations on the college campus. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Simsek, H., & Louis, K. (1994). Organizational change as a paradigm shift: Analysis of the change process in a large, public university. Journal of Higher Education, 65(6), 670–695. Smallwood, S. (2005, August 3). Columbia U. will spend $15-million to increase the diversity of its faculty. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http:// chronicle.com/article/Columbia-U-Will-Spend/120883/ Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257–273. Smith, D. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S. V., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting the usual: Successful strategies for diversifying the faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 133–160. Smith, D., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2005). The challenge of diversity: Involvement or alienation in the academy? Association for the Study of Higher Education Higher Education Report, 31(1). Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Soni, V. (2000). A twenty-first-century reception for diversity in the public sector: A case study. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 395–408. Springer, L., Palmer, B., Terenzini, P., Pascarella, E., & Nora, A. (1996). Attitudes toward campus diversity: Participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop. Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 53–68. State of Michigan Attorney General. (2011, July). Attorney General Bill Schuette launches legal fight to uphold MCRI. Retrieved from http://michigan.gov/ag/ 0,4534,7-164-46849-259992—,00.html

454

R EF ER E N CE S

Stevenson, A. J. (2004). Dreaming of an equal future for immigrant children: Federal and state initiatives to improve undocumented students’ access to postsecondary education. In Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook, 2004–2005 (pp. 616–636). Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association. Strober, M. (2005). Can Harvard ever play a positive role for women in higher education? Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(43), B13. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. New York: Wiley. Symonds, W., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Takaki, R. (1989). A history of Asian Americans: Strangers for different shores. New York: Little, Brown, and Company. Tatum, B. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Thomas, D. A., and Ely, R. D. (1996, September–October) Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review 74(5): 79–90. Thomas, D. A. (2004, September 1). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 1–11. Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. C. (2003). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Thomas, R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total workforce by managing diversity. New York: AMACOM Books of the American Management Association. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1991). Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing a critical agenda. New York: Praeger. Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603–618. Tierney, W. G. (1997). The parameters of affirmative action: Equity and excellence in the academy. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 165–196. Tierney, W. G. (1999). Building the responsive campus: Creating high performance colleges and universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

R E F E R E N CE S

455

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trevino, J. (1992). Participation in ethnic/racial student organizations (doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California. Trickett, E., Watts, R., & Birman, D. (Eds.). (1994). Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trower, C. A. & Smith, E. (2006). University of Oregon. A case study developed for the Harvard Institutes of Higher Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 39–168. Turner, J. (1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup behaviour. In J. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 66–101). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with diversity at liberal arts colleges: Another claim for distinctiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 169–192. U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Educational attainment in the United States: 2008 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/ 2008/tables.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Metropolitan statistical area: Population by race and Hispanic or Latino origin: 2009 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.census .gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/estimates_and_projections—states_met ropolitan_areas_cities.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Most children younger than age 1 are minorities, Census Bureau Reports. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/ population/cb12-90.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012: Metropolitan statistical area; population by race and Hispanic or Latino origin: 2009. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0023.pdf U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Guidance on the voluntary use of race to achieve diversity in post-secondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Disability resources. Retrieved from http:// www.dol.gov/ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:// www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2011, June 27). Facts about discrimination based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation _parent_marital_political.html

456

R EF ER EN CE S

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.). Student and Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Retrieved from http:// www.ice.gov/sevis/ University of Michigan Fortune 500 Amicus Brief. (1999). Brief of Amici Curiae General Motors Corporation at 8, Grutter, No. 02–241, 4. University of Wisconsin–Madison Plan 2008 Diversity Oversight Committee. (2002). Report of the Campus Diversity Plan (Plan 2008) Oversight Committee. University of Wisconsin–Madison Faculty Document 1683. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Secretary of the Faculty. Retrieved from www.secfac.wisc.edu/senate/2002/1202/1683.pdf University of Wisconsin–Madison Plan 2008 Planning Committee. (1998). The University of Wisconsin–Madison Plan 2008: A blue-print for diversity. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Chancellor. University of Wisconsin–Madison Planning Committee. (1988). The Madison Plan. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Chancellor. University of Wisconsin System. (n.d.). Design for diversity. Retrieved from http:// www.wisconsin.edu/edi/design/ University of Wisconsin–Madison Commitment Planning Committee. (1994). The Madison commitment: A reaffirmation of the university goals for minority programs. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Chancellor. University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Secretary of the Faculty. (2012). Faculty policies and procedures of the University of Wisconsin–Madison (as approved by the Faculty Senate on 15 May 1978, with subsequent amendments as of 5 March 2012). Retrieved from http://www.secfac.wisc.edu/governance/fpp/Chapter_6 .htm627 Wade-Golden, K., & Matlock, J. (2010). Embracing our reality: Key ingredients for fostering campus diversity success. Volume 1: Accountability and organizational leadership. Retrieved from www.oami.umich.edu/images/KWG-JM_DIVERSITY _ARTICLE.pdf Washington, V., & Harvey, W. (1989). Affirmative rhetoric, negative action: AfricanAmerican and Hispanic faculty at predominantly White institutions. Report No. 2. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 289– 322). New York: Agathon. Williams, D. A. (2002). Cultural identity, student involvement, and academic achievement in three student of color populations (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Williams, D. A. (2008). Beyond the diversity crisis model: Decentralized diversity planning and implementation. Planning for Higher Education, 36(2), 27–41.

R E F E R EN C E S

457

Williams, D. A., Berger, J., & McClendon, S. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and change in higher education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Williams, D. A., & Clowney, C. (2007). Strategic planning for diversity: A primer for academic leaders. Effective Practices for Academic Leaders, 2(3), 1–16. Williams, D. A., Kolb, K., & Waldo (2009). Tuition differential programs in higher education: An exploratory report. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Vice Provost & CDO unpublished manuscript. Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. (2008). The chief diversity officer: A primer for college and university presidents. Washington, DC: American Council of Education. Wilson, R. (2005). Past their prime? After 35 years on campuses, Black-studies programs struggle to survive. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(33), A9. Wood, P. (2004). Diversity: The invention of a concept. San Francisco: Encounter Books.

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX

AAC&U. See Association of American Colleges and Universities AAPIs. See Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders AASHE. See Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education academic excellence learning community, 335 academic institutions. See also college campus; community colleges; higher education; private institutions; public institutions accountability required for, 202–3 admissions office integration of, 234–35 admissions process selectivity of, 229–31 campus diversity units of, 220–23 centralized institutional diversity planning used by, 306 change and pull strategies used in, 252–53 coalition building of, 249–50 comprehensive strategic diversity framework goal of, 18–19, 313–14 decentralized diversity plans of, 338–64 diversity adaptation of, 305 diversity and goals of, 219–20 diversity branding of, 246–49 diversity built in to, 5, 173, 245 with diversity committees, 410 diversity complexities in, 8–9 diversity concerns in, 10 Diversity Crisis Model and response of, 167 diversity defined by, 118–26 diversity efforts disjointed in, 130–31 diversity efforts linked with programs of, 149–51 diversity infrastructure of, 197–99 diversity planning checklist for, 365

459

diversity planning integrated in, 312 diversity planning systems for, 371–79 diversity planning types of, 308–9 diversity progress metrics developed by, 284 diversity stage model of, 195–97 dynamic diversity DNA and, 192–94 ethnically and racially diverse students from, 56–62 faculty senate of, 249 for-profit, 51–53 geographic location of, 214–15 historical and strategic realities and, 10–11 inclusion or exclusion of, 232–36 intentionality and resource allocation of, 194–200 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model broadening efforts of, 148–51 majority and minority cultures, 235–34 marketing campaigns of, 247 multiple diversity committees deployed by, 420–21 national survey of, 371–73 perspectives of, 84–85 progress indicators and capacity of, 290–91 public and private, 373–76, 382–84, 388–89 rationale of, 353 relationships building in, 249 research offices of, 178 resources of, 197–200 scorecard method measuring diversity of, 257–60 segregated outreach of, 233 senior leadership for excellence of, 217–19 size of, 376–78, 384–85, 389–90, 396–97, 403–404

460

I N D EX

special interest, 127n4 strategic diversity leadership and core mission of, 251 strategic relationships built in, 252 student’s economic background and, 109–10 with symbolic leadership, 239–41 academic plan, 367n1 Academic Science and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE) program, 184, 421 Access and Diversity Collaborative, 120–21 accountability academic institutions requiring, 202 decentralized diversity planning review for, 362–64 Department of Education’s process for, 53 diversity and process of, 220, 256, 293–94 diversity committees report on progress and, 424 in diversity planning, 177 diversity systems of, 379–86 financial strategies and, 354–55 national survey of diversity, 380–82 organization’s diversity approach with, 15–16, 25 overall sample in, 381 Plan 2008’s efforts for, 337–38 scorecard method used for, 257–60 ACE. See American Council of Education activism, 304 ad-hoc diversity committees, 425 admissions academic institutions integrating, 234–35 academic institutions selectivity in, 229–30 Fisher v. University of Texas and policies of, 69–70 race and ethnicity in, 71–72 Supreme Court and, 67–68 of University of Michigan, 12 ADVANCE. See Academic Science and Engineering Careers program affirmative action diverse groups and programs of, 146–47 economic, 109–10 employment programs of, 138

initiatives eliminating, 74 minorities and women benefiting from, 107–8 opponents to, 72–73 special interest groups and, 306–10 Affirmative Action and Equity Model, 203 diversity idea and, 202 limitations of, 139–40 organizational change and, 24 as organizational diversity models, 130–31, 135–37 organizational technologies of, 137–38 programs within, 136 affirmative identity thesis, 86–88 African Americans, 89, 95 athletes, 180–81 males, 45 student life of racial insensitivity of, 101–2 women’s self-identity as, 99 African Latino Asian Native American (ALANA), 238 Alfred, Richard, 311 Allen, Walter, 260 Alliance for Excellent Education, 56 alliances, 237, 238 Allport, Gordon, 153 American Civil Rights Institute, 73 American Council of Education (ACE), 154 amicus curiae briefs, 12, 59 APLU. See Association of Public and LandGrant Universities Argyris, C., 211 Asia, 44 Asian Americans, 95 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs), 43–45, 47 assessments diversity research systems with, 386–91 diversity-themed, 275 international studies, 288–90 multicultural and international studies, 288–90 national survey diversity research and, 387–88 overall sample on research and, 388 qualitative, 387

INDEX

quantitative, 387 of SDLS, 389 360-degree diversity, 294–95 assimilation, 86, 87 associate degrees, 49 Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), 42 Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), 120 diversity plan failure and, 176–77 essential learning outcomes of, 2, 150, 152–53 general education diversity survey of, 287 Greater Expectations report of, 285–86 Institute on High-Impact Practices and Student Success of, 359 Making Excellence Inclusive initiative by, 118 national survey of, 392 Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), 118, 120 Astin, A. W., 260, 287 athletes, 180–81 At Home in the World initiative, 155 audit spending, 225 bachelor’s degree, 55 Bakke, Allan, 65 Balanced Scorecard, 258 Baldridge, J. V., 386 ballot initiatives, 74 BAMN. See Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, Immigrant Rights and Fight of Equality By Any Means Necessary BAMs. See Black Action Movements Basri, Gibor, 221–22 Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (Chua), 44 behavioral patterns campus climate and, 281–82 in organizational culture, 187 benchmarking benefits of, 300 best-in-class, 298 collaborative, 298

461

competitive, 298, 299 external indicators in, 298–300 internal, 298 SDLS and competitive analysis with, 297–300 types of, 298–99 Bensimon, Estella, 259–60, 271, 272 Berger, Joe, 176, 260 best-in-class benchmarking, 298 best practices diversity implementation with, 361 of research, 319–22 for strategic diversity goals, 350 bias, 98, 103 Birnbaum, R., 242 Black Action Movements (BAMs), 326–27 Blackburn, R., 183 body-count diversity, 200 Bollinger, Lee C., 245, 412 Bolman, L. G., 241 bonuses, 363 branding concepts, 246–48, 356 Brown v. Board of Education, 72, 110 buy-in process, 295–96, 351 Campus Balkanization Theory, 145–46 Campus Diversity and Climate Committee, 430–31 Canada, Geoffrey, 46 candidates, 432 capstone courses, 278 Carter, D., 88 cascading buy-in process, 295–96 CDO. See chief diversity officer Center for African and African American Studies, 327 Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, 55 Center for Equal Opportunity, 114 Center for Individual Rights, 114 centralized funding source, 225 centralized institutional diversity planning, 308, 314–23 academic institutions using, 306 diversity goals and, 305 features of, 317

462

INDEX

implementation cycles in, 322–23 STEM and, 316 University of Wisconsin-Madison focus of, 323–25, 332–38 centralized resource pool, 328 centric perspective, 106, 112–13 ceremonies, 244–45 chairperson, 432–34 change process. See also institutional change academic institution’s pull strategies in, 253–54 college campus’ diversity, 293 demographics in, 34, 36–42 diversity idea and, 125–26 Eckel addressing initiatives in, 181–82 first-order, 16 higher education’s difficulties in, 191–92 organizational, 24 organizational culture with, 187–90 organization’s leadership driving structural, 216 organization’s transformative, 16, 187–90 policy’s and, 291 political leadership resistance to, 236–39 strategic diversity leadership in, 11, 13–17, 216, 236–39 transformational, 16, 181–84, 187–90 charge letter, 343 cheetahs, 163–65, 314, 317, 326, 407 Chesler, M., 195 Chicanos, 89 chief diversity officer (CDO), 3, 7–8 building capacity by, 412–13 as chairperson, 434 diversity committees and, 409–10, 424 diversity definition hindering, 121 document overview for, 22 general leadership position of, 329 higher education study informing, 21–23 leadership planning involving, 344–45 organizational diversity model and, 132–33 retirement of, 180 The Chief Diversity Officer: Strategy, Structure, and Change Management (Williams, D. and Wade-Golden), 3, 5, 8, 159

Chittipeddi, Kumar, 242 Chua, Amy, 44 CIC. See Committee on Institutional Cooperation CIRP. See Cooperative Institutional Research Program civic learning, 286 civil rights challenge, 38–39 Civil Rights Movement, 108, 114–15, 304, 326 Clayton-Pedersen, Alma, 202, 260 climate indicators of college campus, 280–82 college campus data collecting and, 283–285 psychological dimensions of, 282–83 COACHE. See Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education coalition building, 249–50 Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, Immigrant Rights and Fight of Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), 73 Cohen, M., 177 Coleman, A., 70 Coleman, Mary Sue, 331 collaborative benchmarking, 298 Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE), 268 collaborative strategic thinking, 357 college campus audit spending of, 225 behavioral dimensions of, 281–82 centralized funding source on, 225 climate data collected on, 283–825 climate indicators for, 280–82 completion disparities of, 49–51 crisis incident on, 172–74 degrees by country and, 37 diversity change process of, 293 diversity plans of, 191–92 diversity principles integration strategies for, 288 diversity’s multiple meanings on, 243 diverting resources of, 226 faculty racial makeup of, 399 identity and, 101–2

INDEX

institutions diversity units on, 220–23 international students on, 144–45 leaders flying blind on, 301 LGBTQ community and, 147 minority male students challenges attending, 45–47 minority stereotypes perpetuated at, 62 multicultural experience of, 143 organizational diversity capabilities on, 131 Plan 2008’s accountability efforts for, 337–38 political navigation strategies on, 238–39 presidents of, 219 psychological dimensions of climate on, 282–83 review teams of, 295 strategic plans of, 310 University of Michigan diversity strategy blueprint for, 330–31 U.S. losing degrees edge at, 36 college degrees associate, 51 bachelors, 55 by country, 37 U.S. losing edge of, 36 college graduates culturally competent, 60–62 income disparity of, 35 collegial leadership, 210 Collins, Jim, 237, 267, 358 Collins, Patricia Hill, 99 colorblind perspective, 106, 115–17, 197, 237 Columbia University diversity committees at, 411–13 faculty leadership of, 433 Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), 299 community colleges affordable education from, 49 open enrollment at, 229–30 competitive analysis, 297–300 competitive benchmarking, 298, 299 competitive benefits, 2–3 competitive grants, 253 comprehensive strategic diversity framework, 18–19, 313–14

463

conceptual perspective, 84–85 connected network, 133 Connerly, Ward, 72–73 conservatives, 72–73 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), 268 Cornwell, G., 290 countries, college degrees by, 37 Creating Contagious Commitment (Shapiro), 275, 357 creative financing plan, 328 creative jobs, 33–35 crisis incident, 172–74 response, 170–72 culture college graduates competent in, 60–63 identity and exclusion of, 102–3 majority and minority, 235 organizational, 187–90 of poverty, 45 cultural identity. See also multiculturalism; organizational culture diversity planning and shifting, 303–4 in dominant cultural environments, 146 in Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model, 141 students and, 88–89 cultural integrity, xii cultural intelligence leadership developing, 83–84 organizational leadership with, 16–17 data college campus collecting climate indicator, 283–825 disaggregating of, 268–71 leadership generating reliable, 386 multiple sources of, 267–68 secondary research generating, 268 SJSU’s analyzation of, 320–21 strategic diversity leaders using, 257–59 user friendly, 274 database, 318 Deal, T. E., 241 decennial census, 76n2

464

I N D EX

decentralized diversity planning, 309, 335–37 of academic institutions, 338–64 accountability review in, 362–63 basic criteria for, 347 critical questions in, 351 diversity plan writing in, 353–55 education for readiness in, 348–50 implementation evolution in, 362 model for, 339–40 planning process launch in, 342–45 plan review and implementation in, 355–60 quality review of, 360–62 readiness activities changed in, 349 readiness activities established in, 348–52 SDLS leveraged in, 352 senior leaders determining level of, 342 systematic challenges in, 358–59 team selection for, 345–47 three-year cycles in, 303, 338–64 timeline for, 340, 341 decision making, 179–80, 250 dedicated diversity programs, 130–31 deficit model, 86–88 democratic outcomes, 186, 286 demographics changing, 34, 36–42 LGBTQ shift in, 41–42 Department of Education, 53 Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, 39 digital response team, 173 dimensions behavioral, 281–82 of diversity, 92, 95–96, 98–99 of dynamic diversity DNA, 196 of identity, 92–93, 96 ideological, 104–18 primary, 92–94, 98–99 psychological, 282–83 secondary, 94, 98–99 social-historical, 96, 97 of strategic diversity leadership, 210 disabilities, 103 disaggregating data, 268–71

discrimination, 98 against LGBTQ community, 102–3 of race, 110 reverse, 106, 114–15, 274 strategic diversity leadership awareness of, 103 of women and minorities, 105–8 in workplace, 138–39 diversity academic institutions adapting to, 305 academic institutions branding with, 246–48 academic institutions building in, 5, 173, 245 academic institutions complexities in achieving, 8–9 academic institutions concerns of, 10 academic institutions defining, 118–26 academic institutions disjointed efforts in, 130–31 academic institutions goals for, 219–20 academic institutions infrastructure for, 197 academic institutions linking programs of, 149 academic institutions planning checklist of, 365 academic programs linking with, 149 accountability process for, 220, 256, 293–94 accountability systems for, 379–86 affinity groups, 420 affirmative action programs and, 146–47 body-count, 200 CDO hindered by definition of, 121 centralized institutional diversity planning and goals of, 303 change process for, 293 cheetah approach to, 163–64 college campus strategies for integrating, 289 competitive grants for, 253 connected network of capabilities in, 133 conservative right attacking, 72–73 crisis causing mobilization of, 205n1 defining, 23–24, 90, 243, 414–17

I N D EX

detailed process defining, 121–23 dimensions of, 92, 95–96, 98–99 as economic asset, 31 education program promoting, 359 evolving concept of, 84–86 faculty systems for, 399–405 financial support for, 223–24 funding new initiatives of, 351–52 global economy and social imperative of, 12 in higher education, 3 higher education’s capabilities in, 133–34, 368–71 higher education’s comprehensive picture of, 25–26 higher education’s growth in, 47–49 higher education’s policy organizations defining, 119 human capacity and, 189–90 ideologies of, 105–7 implementation best practices for, 361 informal interactions in, 288 institutional case of, 241–43 institutional context rationale for, 353 institutional definitions of, 118–26 institutional goals and, 219–20 institution’s brand advancing, 246–48 institution’s infrastructure for, 197 institution’s missions in, 313 intellectual and competitive benefits from, 2–3 interconnected contexts of, 82 isomorphic forces of, 10 keywords for, 82–83 leadership promoting, 359–60, 407 learning context from, 2 learning environment influenced by, 59 learning perspectives and, 285–89 legal and political shifting landscape of, 62–65 legal guidance framework on, 64–65 Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model and, 15 multi-dimensional model of, 97 national policy guidance defining, 126 organizational, 131, 262–67

465

organizational goals of, 133–34 organizational models of, 158 through organizational technologies, 134 organization’s approach with accountability for, 15–16, 25 organization’s mission fulfillment through, 14–15 potential risks of, 4 progress metrics, 284 progress report on, 360–61 race-neutral alternatives in, 307–9 research and assessment systems for, 386–91 resources applied to, 200 scorecard method measuring performance in, 257–60 single-identity, 419–21 SJSU’s efforts in, 318 social identity committees and, 417–21 strategic core of, 12–13, 372–73 strategic pressures on higher education, 34–35 strategic priority of, 33 student’s competence in, 186 students learning about issues of, 398–99 symbolic event anchoring, 244 terms of, 89–91 360-degree assessment process in, 294–95 traditions and stories of, 244–45 training and education initiatives on, 391–99 training programs, 189–90 transformative, 184–85 unit goals for, 352–53 university presidents and, 294 U.S. military and, 27n6 UW-Madison’s first wave impacts and, 336 wolves long-term success approach and, 164–66 in workplace, 414–17 Diversity Action Plan 2002, 322 diversity committees academic institutions deploying, 410, 421 ad-hoc, 425–26 candidate consideration criteria for, 432

466

I N D EX

categories of, 425 CDO and, 409–10, 423 chairperson of, 432–34 at Columbia University, 411–13 composition of, 432 criteria and pitfalls developing, 432 definitions of, 414–17 design contingencies for, 414 Diversity Crisis Model and, 174–75 empowering, 424 executive diversity councils and, 427–28 faculty and, 421–22 focus benefits of, 421 focus needed by, 421–22 framework organization for, 413–14 in higher education, 409–13 high-profile conferences of, 424 issues challenging, 411 leadership and membership recruitment for, 436 leadership determining responsibilities of, 422 localized, 425–26 member effectiveness enhanced in, 433–34 membership selection of, 429–34 planning by, 174–75 Pomona College, 418–19 power and politics balanced in, 431–32 private university with, 416–17 progress and accountability reports of, 423–24 reasons for dissolving, 428–29 recommendations for, 434–36 role responsibilities of, 422–23 size of, 431–32 social identity and, 417–21 strategic thinking from, 423–24 subcommittees in, 416–17 types and functions of, 424 diversity coordinating council, 343–44 Diversity Crisis Model, 212–13 confrontation and tensions in, 170 incident occurrences in, 166–69 institutional response in, 167 phases of, 168–69

plan implementation and delays in, 175–77 planning committees formed in, 174–75 response and demand in, 170 strategic diversity planning and, 408 support declarations in, 172–74 Diversity/Equity Scorecard, 258 diversity idea, 4, 23 Affirmative Action and Equity Model and, 202 conceptual model of, 84 defining, 81–82 in higher education, 126–27, 131–32 ideological dimensions of, 104–18 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model and, 202 Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model and, 202 perspectives of, 85 symbolic changes and, 125–26 terminology of, 88–89 diversity identity primary dimensions of, 92–94, 98–99 secondary dimensions of, 94, 98–99 diversity leadership commitment perspectives, 292 diversity planning. See also centralized institutional diversity planning; decentralized diversity planning academic institutions checklist for, 365 academic institutions integrating, 312–13 academic institutions systems of, 371–79 academic institution types of, 308–9 accountability in, 177 centralized institutional, 306, 308, 314–23 checklist for, 365 college campuses with, 191–92 crisis response in, 170–72 cultural shifts influencing, 303–4 decentralized, 309 decentralized diversity plan writing in, 353–55 Duderstadt’s comments on draft in, 326–28 failure reasons in, 176–77 financial approaches to, 224–26

INDEX

Harvard University’s process of, 171–72 higher education process of, 177–79 implementation activities, 341 institutional audit conducted in, 317–18 institutional mission integrated with, 312–13 integrated approach in, 87, 306, 308, 310–14 integrated approach limitations in, 314 key elements in, 366 leaders committed to, 309 leadership’s approach in, 178 leadership tested with, 174 modern-day implementation of, 306–10 public and private sector grants in, 226–27 strategic diversity leadership’s checklist for, 365 strategic systems for, 374–75, 375–79, 408 strategies in, 219–20, 307 three-year decentralized process of, 303, 338–64 of University of Wisconsin-Madison, 315–16 diversity point leadership council, 425–27 Diversity Scorecard, 258 diversity stage model of institutions, 197 overview of, 198–99 diversity stage models, 195–97 diversity-themed assessments, 275 Division of Information Technology (DoIT), 339–340 documents, 22 Doing Diversity in Higher Education: Faculty Leaders Share Challenges and Strategies, 408 DoIT. See Division of Information Technology domestic partners, 108 dominant cultural environments, 146 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 27n6 double-loop learning, 212–13 DREAM. See Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act Du Bois, W. E. B., xi

467

Duderstadt, James centralized resource pool created by, 328 diversity plan draft comments of, 327–28 Michigan Mandate for Diversity and, 253 minority employee hiring comments of, 329–30 multicultural university goal of, 321, 324 Society of College and University Planning speech of, 33 university presidents role statement of, 217 Duncan, Arne, 2 Duster, Troy, 118, 145 dynamic diversity DNA, 192–94 building blocks of, 196–97 dimensions of, 194 diversity stage models compared to, 195–96 inclusive excellence stage of, 203–4 mature implementation stage of, 201–3 model of, 193 stages model of, 196 start up in, 197–200 transitional stage of, 200–201 Eckel, Peter change initiatives addressed by, 181–82 college campus presidents findings of, 218 college campus strategic plan and, 310 diversity and institutions missions noted by, 313 sense-making process findings of, 235 transformational change defined by, 183 university presidents and diversity findings of, 294 Economic Access Model, 134, 135 economics diversity asset to, 31 educational inequality due to, 54–55 education influenced by, 229 perspective, 106, 108–10 status in, 271 student’s background and, 109–10 education community colleges providing affordable, 49

468

INDEX

decentralized diversity planning readiness through, 348–50 diverse learning environment influencing, 60 diversity and training initiatives with, 391–93 diversity goals in, 75 diversity promoted through, 359 diversity training and, 394 economically vulnerable families and, 54–56 economic situation influencing, 229 females outperforming males in, 53–54 internationalization in, 155 investments in, 2 leadership’s diversity training and, 394 minority students raising levels of, 55 multicultural, 154, 155 national survey on training and, 392–94 opportunity disparities in, 36 overall sample of training and, 393 population reaching levels of, 77n7 primary and secondary school disparities in, 43 private and public institutions training and, 394–96 salary disparities and, 57 secondary, 32–33 strategic diversity goals and, 20 triple-loop learning in, 213–16 U.S. cuts in, 2 education diversity survey, 287 EEO. See equal employment opportunity emotional intelligence (EI), 16 employment, 138 empowerment, 112–13 engagement map, 318–22 equal employment opportunity (EEO), 135–36 equality economic and educational, 54–56 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model promoting, 153–54 organizational systems for, 15 society fracturing and lack of, 42–45

equity defining, 90 in gender, 330 higher education access perspectives and, 275–79 organization’s mission fulfillment through, 14–15 perspectives on, 104–8 scorecard, 259 of strategic diversity leadership, 273 Equity Index, 271–72 essential learning outcomes, 150, 152–53 ethnic populations academic institutions training, 56–63 admission policies influencing, 71–72 affirmative identity thesis and, 86–88 decennial census and, 76n2 disaggregate information relating to, 269–70 in metropolitan areas, 40 not-for-profit institution graduation rates of, 52 salary disparities and, 57 undergraduate enrollment by, 48, 50 unequal treatments of, 104–6 exclusion, 46 of academic institution, 232–36 culture and, 102–3 racial, 111 by white male society, 100–101 executive diversity councils, 427–28 executive diversity leadership council, 426 executive initiatives, 74 executive position line leadership, 427 external benchmarking, 298–300 Facebook, 248 facially neutral policies, 77n8 faculty campus racial makeup of, 399 Columbia University’s leadership of, 433 diversification systems, 399–405 diversity committees and, 421–22 national survey on diversification of, 400 public and private institutions diversification of, 400–03

INDEX

recruitment and retention of, 401–2 senate, 248 strategic diversity goals and, 253n4 family income, 55 Feagin, Joe, 102 feedback, 294, 355, 360 feminist movements, 107–8 financial aid for diversity, 223–24 students getting scholarships and, 108–9 financial strategies, 351–52 accountability in, 354 diversity planning with, 224–26 Finding Common Ground, 356 first-order changes, 16 fiscal stability strategies, 224 Fisher, Abigail, 69 Fisher v. University of Texas admissions policies and, 69–70 Economic Access Model and, 135 Grutter v. Bollinger decision and, 70–72 race-conscious admissions issue of, 27n7, 124 Supreme Court ruling of, 4, 27n4, 213 focus groups, 247 Ford Foundation, 227 for-profit institutions graduation rates of, 52 low-income students attending, 51–53 Fourteenth Amendment, 104 fundraising, xi–xii, 224–29 minority sensitivity and, 227–28 private, 228–29 Gamson, C., 183 garbage can model, 179–80 Garza, Emilio, 70 Gates, Robert, 27n6 gateway courses, 279 gender. See also men; women equity in, 330 institutional change and, 184 issues, 171 genetic factors, 86 geographic location, 214–15 GI Bill, 94

469

Gioia, Dennis, 242 Gladwell, Malcolm, 356 global economy diversity as social imperative in, 12 knowledge-based, 2, 32–36 U.S. advantages in, 2 global learning, 151, 278, 286 Gluckman, A., 60 Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap, and Others Don’t (Collins), 237 Good to Great and the Social Sector (Collins), 267, 358 Gould, Stephen Jay, 86 graduation rates, 52 grants, public and private sector, 227 Gratz v. Bollinger, 27, 65–66, 149, 331 Greater Expectations report, 285–86 Great Recession, 32, 76n1, 224, 227 Green, M., 181 group identity perspective, 84–85 socially constructed concept of, 103–4 social unity threatened by, 116 themes of, 91–92 Grutter v. Bollinger constitutionality of, 70–72 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model and, 150 military’s social policies and, 27n6 O’Connor cited in, 12–13 Proposition 2 and, 331 student preparation and, 387 Supreme Court and, 387 University of Michigan law school challenged in, 65–69 Gurin, P., 286 Haas, Evelyn, 221 Haas, Robert D., 221 Haas, Walter, Jr., 221 Haas Gift, 222 Haas Scholarship Challenge, 222–23 Hale, Frank, Jr., 223 halo effect, 248 Halualani, Rona, 318

470

I N D EX

Harlem Children’s Zone, 46 Hart, Peter D., 59, 394 Harvard University, 205n1 diversity planning process of, 171–72 promise program of, 135 higher education access and equity perspectives in, 275–79 CDO study in, 21–23 change difficulties in, 191–92 cultural intelligence developed for, 83–84 dedicated diversity programs in, 130–31 diversity and strategic pressures on, 34–35 diversity capabilities in, 133–34, 368–71 diversity committees in, 409–13 diversity definitions of, 119 diversity growing in, 47–49 diversity idea in, 126–27, 131–32 diversity in, 3 diversity planning process in, 177–79 diversity’s comprehensive picture in, 25–26 Equity Index for, 271–72 facially neutral policies in, 77n8 integration in, 87 minority male students challenges in, 45–47 multicultural and inclusive campus climate perspective in, 279–85 organizational diversity models in, 158 policy organizations, 119 promise programs, 135 race-conscious policies in, 65–69 salary disparities from, 56 strategic diversity goals in, 17–19 strategic diversity planning systems in, 374–75 transformational change in, 183–84, 191–92 undergraduate enrollment in, 48–50 undocumented students in, 38–39 higher-status groups, 96–98 high-impact learning experiences, 276–78 high-level generalists, 58 high-profile conferences, 424 high school graduates, 35 Hill, B., 181

Hip-Hop Performance Theater, 335 Hispanics, 89, 95 historical context, 10–11 Hollander, Edwin, 237 Holvino, E., 195 Hopwood v. Texas, 69, 213 House Bill 588, 213 Howard, Jean, 413 Hubbard, E., 259, 260, 291 human capacity, 189–90 Humphreys, D., 151 Hurtado, Sylvia, 88, 111, 260, 280 identity. See also self-identity affirmative thesis of, 86–88 college campus and, 101–2 culture and, 88–89, 102–3, 141, 146, 303–4 developmental theories of, 127n2 dimensions of, 92–93 diversity, 92–94, 98–99 group, 84–85, 91–92, 95, 103–4, 116 single-, 419–20 social committees of, 417–21 social-historical dimension of, 96 ideological perspectives, 84–85 of diversity idea, 104–18 strategic diversity leadership approaches with, 117–18 IHEP. See Institute for Higher Education Policy immigration policies, 156 trends in, 39 implementation activities best practices for diversity, 361 in centralized institutional diversity planning, 322–23 decentralized diversity planning evolving, 362 decentralized diversity planning review and, 355–60 diversity planning, 341 of leadership, 203–4 performance score in, 363–64 strategic theme for, 354–56

I N D EX

inclusion academic institution with, 232–36 defining, 90–91 organization’s mission fulfillment through, 14–15 in workplace, 138–39 inclusive excellence, 203–4, 356 Inclusive Excellence Scorecard, 258 income disparity, 35 individuals layering processes of, 99–100 rights and achievements of, 115 self-identity and, 93–94 SIT of, 92 inferiority, 86 infographic, 318 informal interactions, 288 inquiry learning, 151, 286 insensitive remarks, 169 Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), 51, 53 Institute for Research on Women and Gender, 413 Institute on High-Impact Practices and Student Success, 359 institutional change categories of, 181 democratic outcomes in, 188–88 gender-based, 184 minor adjustments in, 182 strategic diversity leadership and, 181–82 strategies in, 184–85 transformational, 181–84, 187–89 types of, 180–82 institutional diversity audit challenges and opportunities illustrated by, 317–18 database and engagement map for, 318–22 institutional diversity movement, 194–204 integrated diversity planning, 306, 308, 3010–14 features of, 311 in higher education, 87 limitations of, 314 integrative learning, 151 intellectual benefits, 2–3

471

intelligence quotient (IQ), 16 intentionality, 194–95 inter and intragroup differences, 283–84 intercollegiate athletics, 180 internal benchmarking, 297 internal communication system, 173 international and domestic diversity research perspectives, 288–91 internationalization, 155 international students, 144–45 international studies assessments, 289 internet, 33–35 internships, 278 IQ. See intelligence quotient Irvine Foundation, 227 isomorphic diversity forces, 10, 27n5 Iverson, S., 177 Jackson, B., 195 judicial system, 110–12 Julius, D. J., 386 Kagan, Elena, 27n4, 72 Kahlenberg, Richard, 109–10 Kelly, 77n7 Kennedy, Anthony, 70, 72 keynote lectures, 291 keywords, 82–83 Kezar, Adrianna college campus presidents findings of, 218 diversity and institutions missions noted by, 313 sense-making process findings of, 235 transformational change defined by, 183 university presidents and diversity findings of, 294 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 110, 145, 329 knowledge-based global economy, 2, 32–36 Kotter, J. P., 340, 355 Kuh, George, 276 Ku Klux Klan, 246 labor force jobs lost in, 76n1 new minority growth of, 38–42 lactation spaces, 144

472

INDEX

Latino community, 89, 95 Latino Faculty and Staff Associations, 282 Latino males, 45 Lawrence, P., 427 layering processes, 99–100 leadership. See also strategic diversity leadership CDO and planning of, 344–45 CDO general position of, 329–30 collegial, 210 Columbia University’s faculty, 433 commitment perspectives of, 291 councils of, 426–28 cultural intelligence developed for, 83–84 data generated by, 386 decentralized diversity planning levels determined by, 339–42 diversity capacity building of, 407 diversity committee recruitment and, 436 diversity committee responsibilities from, 422 diversity definitions clarified by, 414–27 diversity development efforts promoted by, 359–60 diversity planning implementation approach of, 178 diversity planning testing, 174 diversity point council for, 425–27 diversity training and education programs for, 394 executive diversity council for, 425 executive position line, 427 fiscal stability strategies of, 224 implementation activities of, 203 management of meaning in, 241 new economy requiring skills in, 58 organization’s cultural intelligence in, 16–17 political, 210, 231–39 president’s role in, 218–19 race-conscious policy guidance for, 66–67 senior, 217–19 structural, 210, 216 symbolic, 210, 239–48 team development and, 189–90

theories of, 11–12 transitional stages and, 200–201 learning AAC&U outcomes of, 152–53 academic excellence community for, 335 centered approach, 355 civic, 286 communities, 277 diversity and student’s, 398–99 diversity perspectives and, 285–88 diversity’s context for, 2 double-loop, 212–13 elements of, 189 environment, 58 global, 151, 278, 286 high-impact experiences in, 276–78 inquiry, 151, 284 integrative, 151 organizational, 209–11, 330 single-loop, 211–12 structured forums for, 297–98 triple-loop, 213–156 types of, 286 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, 203 diversity idea and, 202 dynamics of, 150 equality promoted through, 153–54 Grutter v. Bollinger and, 149 institutions diversity efforts broadened by, 148–51 limitations of, 156–57 multicultural education and, 154, 155 organizational change from, 24 as organizational diversity model, 130–31 organizational technologies in, 151–54 legal landscape diversity and shifting, 63 diversity framework with guidance in, 64–65 lesbian, gay bi-, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ), 5, 95–96 (See also gender) college campus community and, 147 demographic shifts of, 41–42

I N D EX

disaggregate information relating to, 269 discrimination against, 102–3 domestic partner benefits and, 108 Haas Gift and, 222 Levi Strauss Foundation, 221 LGBTQ. See lesbian, gay, bi-, transgender, and queer Lilly Foundation, 227 Lipper, K., 70 Lipson, D., 12 Living with Racism: The Black Middle Class Experience (Feagin and Sikes), 102 localized diversity committees, 426–27 Loden, Marilyn, 92, 96, 134, 313 Lorsch, J., 427 low-income students, 51–53 Madison Plan for Diversity, 322 majority cultures, 235 Making Excellence Inclusive initiative, 118 Malcolm, L., 260 Mallon, W., 181 management of meaning, 241 March, J., 177 marketing of academic institutions, 247 multicultural strategies in, 228 Matlock, J., 379 mature implementation stage, 201–3 McClendon, S., 176, 260 McKenny, Justine, 207 membership of Campus Diversity and Climate Committee, 429–31 diversity committees enhancing effectiveness of, 433 diversity committees selections of, 429–34 leadership’s recruitment of, 436 multiple, 141–44 men African American, 45 females outperformed in education by, 53–54 higher-status groups of, 96–98 Latino, 45 white society of, 100–101

473

merit pay, 363 merit reviews, 380 metropolitan areas, 40 Miami University, 246 Michigan Agenda for Women, 330 Michigan mandate for diversity, 323–31 creative financing plan for, 327–28 organizational learning focus from, 330–31 Michigan Mandate for Diversity, 253 Michigan State, 135 microaggressive moments, 98–99 Middle East studies programs, 155–56 Milem, Jeffrey, 260 military, social policies of, 27n6 minorities academic institutions and, 235 affirmative action benefiting, 107–8 colleges perpetuating stereotypes of, 63 discrimination of, 105–8 as employees, 331 fundraising sensitive to, 228–29 perspectives disregarded of, 116 population growth of, 38–42 protecting rights of, 136 social contexts influencing, 99–100 social identities among, 92 STEM representation of, 4 unequal treatment of, 165–66 minority scholarship program, 233 minority students associate degree attainment of, 49 college attendance challenges for, 45–47 education levels raised for, 56 high-impact learning of, 277–78 salary disparities and, 56 University of Michigan increasing, 326 white students graduation gap with, 278–79 The Mismeasure of Man (Gould), 86 mission statements, 371–72 MLK Symposium, 329 model minority myth, 43–45 Moreno, J., 202 Morgan, 242 Moynihan, D., 297 Mullen, Mike, 27n6

474

I N D EX

Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model, 203 cultural identity in, 141 diversity engagement through, 15 diversity idea and, 202 dynamics of, 142 limitations of, 147–48 multiple memberships in, 141–44 organizational change and, 24 organizational technologies of, 144–45 philosophy and rationale of, 140–41 multicultural and inclusive campus climate perspective, 279–85 multiculturalism, 91 college campus experiences in, 143 Duderstadt’s university goal of, 323, 326 education and, 154, 155 higher education and inclusive climate of, 279–85 marketing firms strategies in, 228 studies assessments and, 288–90 multi-dimensional model, 97 multi-dimensional reality, 10, 209 multiple memberships, 141–44 multi-racial society, 76n2 NASPA. See National Association of Student Personnel Administrators National Assessment for Educational Progress, 43 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), 90 National Conference on Race and Ethnicity in American Higher Education (NCORE), 218 National Governors Award for the Arts, 335 national policy guidance, 126 National Science Foundation (NSF), 183 National Society of Black Engineers, 282 National Study of Chief Diversity Officers, 268 national survey of AAC&U, 392 of academic institutions, 371–73 diversity accountability systems in, 380–82

diversity research and assessment systems in, 386–87 of diversity training and education, 382–94 education diversity and, 287 on faculty diversification, 400 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 268 Native Americans, 123 NCORE. See National Conference on Race and Ethnicity in American Higher Education new economy, 58 new minority, 38–42, 77n3 9/11 terrorist attacks, 156 not-for-profit institutions, 52 Now is the Time report, 118–19, 356, 366n3 NSF. See National Science Foundation NSSE. See National Survey of Student Engagement OAMI. See Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives Obama, Barack, 1, 31–33, 230 Obama, Michelle, 115 objectives, goals tactics, and indicators (OGTIs), 261–62 O’Connor, Sandra Day, 12–13, 68–69, 71 Office Affirmative Action, 263 Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives (OAMI), 328–29 Office of Minority Affairs, 233 Office of Multicultural Arts Initiatives, 335 OGTIs. See objectives, goals tactics, and indicators Olsen, J., 177 Omi, M., 111 open enrollment, 230 oppression, 99 organizations cultural intelligence leadership in, 16–17 diversity, equity and inclusion in, 14–15 diversity approach with accountability in, 15–16, 25 higher education policy, 119

INDEX

leadership driving structural change of, 216 structural equality systems built in to, 15 transformative change in, 16, 187–89 White supremacist, 232 Organizational Behavior (Robbins), 252 organizational change, 24 organizational culture behavioral patterns in, 187 change in, 187–89 models of, 188 organizational diversity CDO and models in, 132–33 champions needed for, 208–9 college campuses and, 131 goals in, 133–34 models, 158 problem planning and decision making in, 179–80 SDLS indicators of, 262–67 organizational diversity models Affirmative Action and Equity Model as, 24, 130–31, 135–37 CDO and, 132–33 higher education with, 158 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model as, 24, 130–31, 135–37 organizational learning, 209–11, 328 organizational technologies in Affirmative Action and Equity Model, 137–38 diversity through, 134 in Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, 151–54 in Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model, 144–45 parents, Asian, 44 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 72 Parker, S., 202 pedagogical practices, 212 Pell Grant, 271 Penn State University, 420 PEOPLE. See Pre-College Enrichment Opportunity Program for Learning Excellence

475

perfect storm, 10, 23, 217, 242 demographic changes in, 34, 36–42 diversity emerging from, 33 pressure systems influencing, 32 performance in implementation, 362–63 progress measures of, 263–66 scorecard method measuring, 257–60 perspectives, 260 of academic institutions, 84–85 access and equity, 275–79 centric, 106, 112–13 color blind, 106, 115–17, 197, 237 conceptual, 84–85 of diversity idea, 85 diversity leadership commitment, 292 economics, 106, 108–10 on equity, 104–8 group identity, 84–85 ideological, 84–85, 104–18, 117–18 international and domestic diversity research, 290–91 learning and diversity, 285–89 minority, 116 multicultural and inclusive campus climate, 279–85 progress performance measures of, 263–66 racialized, 106, 110–12 reverse discrimination, 106, 114–15, 274 universal, 106, 113–15 Peterson, M. W., 88, 183 Pfeffer, J., 386 philanthropic affinity group, 225 Piaget, Jean, 285 Pink, Daniel, 35 Plan 2008, 323, 332–34 campus accountability efforts of, 337–38 as living document, 333 planning committees, 174–75 planning process launch, 342–45 Plyler v. Doe, 38 policy changes, 291 political leadership, 210 change resistance and, 236–39 inclusion or exclusion of, 232–36 strategic diversity leadership and, 231–39

476

I N D EX

politics capital in, 238 college campus strategies for, 239 diversity and shifting in, 62 diversity committees balancing power with, 431–32 Pomona College, 418–19 Pope, Raechele, 82 populations, 77n7 poverty, 45 Powell, Lewis, 149 power sources, 238–39 Pre-College Enrichment Opportunity Program for Learning Excellence (PEOPLE), 315–16, 337 precollege-to-college pipeline program, 332 Presidential Advisory Committee, 418–19 presidents college campus, 218 leadership role of, 218–19 university, 217, 294 primary schools, 43 Princeton University, 135 private fundraising, 227–29 private institutions, 416–17 diversity accountability systems of, 382–84 diversity planning systems of, 370–73 diversity research and assessment systems of, 388–89 faculty diversification in, 400–02 training and education programs in, 394–96 private sector grants, 226–27 problem-solving, 59, 179–80 progress performance measures, 263–66 progress report, 358 projectitis, 212 Project on Fair Representation, 72 promise program, 135 Proposition 2, 330 psychological dimensions, 282–83 public institutions diversity accountability systems of, 382–84 diversity planning systems of, 373–76 diversity research and assessment systems of, 388–89

faculty diversification in, 400–02 training and education programs in, 394–96 public sector grants, 227 pull strategies, 252–53 qualitative assessments, 386 qualitative interview criteria, 22–23 qualitative investigation, 21–22 qualitative measures, 267 quantitative assessments, 386 quantitative measures, 267 quota systems, 68 race. See also African Americans; Asian Americans; Latino community academic institution training and, 56–62 in admission policies, 71–72 affirmative identity thesis and, 86–88 African American students and insensitivity of, 101–2 balancing, 274 disaggregate information relating to, 269–70 discrimination by, 110 exclusionary policies of, 111 in metropolitan areas, 40 not-for-profit institution graduation rates by, 52 salary disparities and, 57 students of color integration and, 143 Supreme Court policy decisions on, 124–25 undergraduate enrollment by, 48, 50 unequal treatments of, 104–6 race-conscious policies, 27n7 educational diversity goals and, 75 Fisher v. University of Texas issue of, 27n7, 124 in higher education, 67–69 leadership’s strategic guidance and, 66–67 Supreme Court’s, 65–69 race-neutral alternatives, 307–9 racialized perspective, 106, 110–12 racism, 46 judicial system and, 110–12 reverse, 101–2

INDEX

Rainbow Student Alliance, 282 Rankin, Sue, 102, 269 RDT. See resource dependence theory readiness activities, 348–52 recruitment, faculty, 401–02 Reed, B., 60 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 65, 149 relationships, 248 research. See also Learning, Diversity, and Research Model academic institutions offices of, 178 assessment systems and, 388–89 diversity assessment systems with, 386–91 inter and intragroup differences and, 283–84 international and domestic diversity, 288–90 methodology best practices of, 318–22 national survey on diversity assessment and, 387–88 overall sample on assessment systems and, 388 secondary, 268 strategic diversity goals and, 20 undergraduate, 277 resource allocation institutional diversity and, 200 of institutions, 192–95, 197–200 resource dependence theory (RDT), 236 responsibilities, 422–23 retention, faculty, 401–02 retirement, of CDO, 180 reverse discrimination perspective, 106, 114–15, 274 reverse racism, 101–2 review teams, 295 rights, 38–39, 115, 136. See also Civil Rights Movement risks, 4 Robbins, Stephen, 252 Roberts, John, 71, 72 Rowe, Donald Dee, 245 salary disparities minority students and, 56 race, ethnicity and education with, 57

477

San Jose State University (SJSU), 318–22, 356–57 data analysis of, 320–22 diversity effort of, 319 Scharmer, Otto, 189 Schein, Edgar, 188 scholarships, 20, 289 minority programs for, 233 students getting financial aid and, 108–9 Scho¨n, D., 211 Schott Foundation for Public Education, 45 Schuette, Bill, 73 science, technology engineering, and math (STEM), 267, 272 centralized diversity plans and, 316 pedagogical practices in, 212 transformational change and, 183 women and minority representation in, 4 scorecard method diversity performance measured by, 257–60 strategy clarity attained by, 259–60 SDLS. See strategic diversity leadership scorecard SDS. See strategic diversity scorecard secondary education/schools, 32–33, 43 secondary research, 268 segregated outreach, 234 segregation, 110–11 self-identity of African American women, 99 multi-racial society and, 76n2 sexual orientation influencing, 96 strategic diversity leadership and, 93–94 Senge, P. M., 212 senior leadership, 217–19 sense-making process, 235 service-sector jobs, 58 sexual harassment, 138 sexual orientation, 92, 96, 269 Shalala, Donna, 332 Shapiro, Andrea, 275, 357 shared governance process, 333, 334 Shepard, Matthew, 102 Sikes, Melvin, 102

478

INDEX

single-identity diversity, 419–20 single-loop learning, 211–12 SIT. See social identity theory size of academic institutions, 376–78, 384–85, 389–90, 396–97, 403–04 of diversity committees, 431–32 sizzle wheel, 248 SJSU. See San Jose State University Smircich, 242 Smith, D., 202 Smith, Daryl, 260 social groups empowerment and, 112–13 group identity and context of, 103–4 military’s policies of, 27n6 minority identities and, 99–100 social-historical dimension, 96, 97 social identity committees, 417–21 social identity theory (SIT), 92 social media, 172–74 social networking, 248 social policies, 27n6 social unity, 116 society, 42–45 Society of College and University Planning, 33 socioeconomic status, 271 The Souls of Black Folk (Du Bois), xi special interest groups, 306–10 special interest institutions, 127n4 Spectrum Magazine, 215 stages model, 196 stakeholders, 351 STARS. See Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System STEM. See science, technology, engineering, and math Stoddard, E. W., 290 strategic diversity goals best practices for, 350 Diversity Crisis Model and, 408 education and research in, 20 faculty staff and, 255n4 in higher education, 17–19 model for, 19–21

strategic diversity initiatives, 253 strategic diversity leadership academic institutions core mission with, 251 access and equity of, 273 alliances needed by, 238 challenges in, 4 change process with, 11, 13–17, 216, 236–39 change resistance and, 236–39 collegial leadership and, 249–53 Columbia University committees and, 411–13 compass for, 208 data used by, 257–59 defining, 24–25 dimensions of, 210 discrimination awareness of, 103 diversity planning checklist for, 365 double-loop learning in, 212–13 equity of, 273 five key frames of, 209 general conversations and, 250–52 goals of, 18–19 ideological approaches in, 117–18 institutional transformation and, 181–82 institution’s inclusion or exclusion and, 232–36 institution’s planning and implementation and, 192–94 isomorphic forces in, 27n5 major issues in, 23–25 model for, 8–10 multi-dimensional reality in, 10, 209 organizational learning in, 209–9 organization’s structural change by, 216 political leadership and, 231–32 power sources for, 238 principles of, 14–17 public and private sector grants and, 226–27 pull strategies used in, 252–53 qualitative interview criteria of, 22–23 requirements for, 7–8 self-identity and, 93–94 single-loop learning in, 211–12 strategies of symbolic, 239

I N D EX

students fees and, 229 target goals set by, 272–74 terms used in, 26n3 toolkit developed for, 207–9 top-level support for, 217–19 triple-loop learning in, 213–16 tuition and student fees and, 229 vital agenda demonstrated by, 242 Strategic Diversity Leadership: Inspiring Change and Transformation in Higher Education (Williams, D.), 3, 5, 8 strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS), 260–68 access and equity perspectives in, 275–79 assessment measurements of, 389 benchmarking and competitive analysis of, 297–300 cascading buy-in process of, 295–96 concerns regarding, 274–75 credible climate indicators for, 280–82 data disaggregating for, 268–71 data sources for, 267–68 decentralized diversity planning leveraging, 352 graduation gap indicator in, 278–79 multicultural and international studies assessments and, 288–90 OGTIs progress tracked in, 261–62 organizational diversity indicators in, 262–67 policy changes guided by, 291 progress performance measures of, 263–66 quantitative and qualitative measures in, 267 strategic planning guided by, 313 structured learning forums and, 296–97 strategic diversity planning systems, 374–75, 377–79, 408 strategic diversity scorecard (SDS), 6 strategies, xi–xii accountability and financial, 354–55 campus politics with, 239 change and pull, 252–53 collaborative thinking of, 357 college campus diversity, 288 diversity committees thinking of, 4122–23

479

in diversity planning, 219–20, 307 diversity principles integration, 288 diversity’s core, 12–13, 372–73 diversity’s priority of, 33 financial, 224–26, 351–52, 354–55 fiscal stability, 224 framework of, 311 higher education pressures for, 34–35 in institutional change, 184–85 marketing firms multicultural, 228 planning of, 311, 313, 366n1 race-conscious policy and guidance for, 66–67 realities of, 10–11 relationships in, 252 scorecard method giving clarity to, 259–60 of social media, 172–74 for student survey response improvements, 284–85 of symbolic leadership, 240–41 vision of, 355–56, 369 structural diversity, 157 structural leadership, 210, 216 structured learning forums, 296–97 Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, 326 students. See also minority students academic institutions and economic background of, 109–10 African American racial insensitivity of, 101–2 of color, 143 cultural identity and, 88–89 diversity competence of, 186 diversity issues learned by, 398–99 ethnically and racially diverse, 56–62 financial aid and scholarships to, 108–9 gateway courses and, 279 high-impact learning experiences of, 276–78 international, 144–45 low-income, 51–53 minority male, 45–47, 55 preparation, 387

480

INDEX

strategic diversity leadership and fees of, 229 survey response improvement strategies and, 284–85 ten-point platform of, 304–5 undergraduate enrollment and, 50 undocumented, 38–39 University of Michigan minority, 326 University of Michigan white neighborhoods and, 61 white, 278–79 subcommittees, 416–17 subgroup diversity identification, 95 Summers, Lawrence, 170–71 support declarations, 172–74 Supreme Court. See also Specific case admission policies and, 67–68 Michigan’s legal defense in, 330 race and ethnicity policy decisions of, 124–25 race-conscious policy and, 65–69 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and, 65, 149 surveys. See national survey Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), 42 symbolic event, 244 symbolic leadership, 210, 239–48 academic institutions with, 239–41 campus diversity’s multiple meanings and, 243 institutional case for diversity and, 241–43 strategies of, 240–41 systematic challenges, 358–59 tactics, 264–66 Tajfel, Henri, 92 target goals, 272–74 Tatum, Beverly Daniel, 101, 141 team development, 189–90 team selection, 345–48 ten-point platform, 304–5 Teraguchi, D., 202 terminology, 88–89 terrorist attacks, 156 Thomas, David, 134

360-degree diversity assessment process, 294–95 three-year decentralized diversity planning, 303, 338–64 Tierney, William, 100 timeline, 340, 341 Tinto, Vincent, xii, 87 Tipping Point (Gladwell), 356 Tolland, Raphael, 242 toolkit, for strategic diversity leadership, 207–9 top-down approach, 178 top-level support, 217–19 Top Ten Percent law, 213 ‘‘Toward Affirmative Action for Economic Diversity’’ (Kahlenberg), 110 Towson University, 356–58 training academic institutions, 56–63 diversity and education initiatives with, 391–99 ethnic populations academic, 56–63 national survey on education and, 392–94 overall sample of education and, 393 private and public institutions, 394–96 programs for diversity, 189–90 transformational change, 16, 181–84, 187–94 transformative diversity, 184–85 transitional stage, 200–201 triangulate, 267 triple-loop model, 211, 213–16 tuition, 229 tuition differential project, 226 Turner, C. S. V., 399 Turner, John, 92 Twitter, 248 undergraduate enrollment, 48–50 undergraduate research, 277 undocumented students, 38–39 unequal treatment, 165–66 United Coalition Against Racism, 327 United States (U.S.) college degree edge lost by, 36 diversity in military of, 27n6

I N D EX

education cuts of, 2 global economy advantages of, 2 unit goals, 353–54 unit meetings, 361 universal perspective, 106, 113–15 University of California-Berkeley, 221–23 University of Connecticut, 60, 245 University of Michigan, 33 admission policies of, 12 BAMs of, 326–27 Bollinger’s role and, 412 campus-wide diversity strategy blueprint of, 330–31 centralized diversity plans focus of, 323–25 Grutter v. Bollinger challenging, 65–69 Michigan mandate for diversity from, 326–32 minority student increase by, 326 students growing up in white neighborhoods at, 61 University of Oregon, 191–92 University of Wisconsin, 225 University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Diversity and Climate Committee membership of, 429–31 centralized and decentralized plans of, 335–37 centralized diversity plans focus of, 323–26, 332–38 diversity and first wave impacts of, 335 diversity planning of, 315–16 PEOPLE program of, 315–16 precollege-to-college pipeline program of, 332 shared governance process of, 332, 333

481

university presidents role, 217 U.S. See United States user friendly data, 274 Virginia Tech, 191 volunteer diversity champions, 200 W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 227 Wade-Golden, Katrina, 3, 5, 8, 159, 379 white male society, 100–101 white neighborhoods, 61 white students, 278–79 White supremacist organizations, 232 Why Are All of the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria (Tatum), 141 Williams, Damon, xi–xii, 3, 5, 8, 159, 176, 258 Winant, H., 111 wolves, 164–66 women affirmative action benefiting, 107–8 discrimination of, 105–8 males outperformed in education by, 53–54 self-identity of African American, 99 STEM representation of, 4 workplace discrimination in, 138–39 diversity in, 414–15 inclusion in, 138–39 writing courses, 277 YouTube, 248

Also available from Stylus Confronting Equity Issues on Campus http://stylus.styluspub.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=285455

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 Driving Change Through Diversity and Globalization http://stylus.styluspub.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=89616

Transformative Leadership in the Academy James A. Anderson Foreword by Ronald A. Crutcher “On rare occasions one finds a book that reframes prior visions. Such books one does not merely read, but one returns to study. Anderson’s Driving Change is such a book. The first three chapters provide a framework for understanding diversity and globalization, which moves beyond the limits of affirmative action, ethnic studies, and overseas study tours. The theoretical discussion is rooted in the premise that universities’ (read also society’s) ability to work with diversity and globalization will determine the nature of their futures. Following a discussion of principles, Anderson moves from theory to practice, giving illustrations of campuses that have embraced some facet of this new vision applying it either in terms of teaching strategies and methods, curricular organization, and/or student development. The fact that Anderson is able to draw on working applications gives credence to his theoretical propositions.”—Irene Hecht, Director, Department Leadership Programs, ACE Culture Centers in Higher Education http://stylus.styluspub.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=148350

Perspectives on Identity, Theory, and Practice Edited by Lori D. Patton Foreword by Gloria Ladson-Billings “Culture Centers in Higher Education documents in one volume how ethnic and cultural centers have served as places and spaces where those who have been underrepresented in higher education have survived and flourished at predominantly white institutions. As our nation becomes increasingly diverse, these centers serve as models of social justice and thus this book is a must read for all who want to ensure that their institution provides environments that exude academic success and achieve graduation for all students with their soul and identity whole.”—Mildred García, President, California State University, Dominguez Hills

22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, VA 20166-2102

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