Creating Multicultural Change on Campus

Raechele L. Pope, Amy L. Reynolds, John A. Mueller

• Editorial: Jossey-Bass
• Año: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781118421123
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Education
• Categoría: Higher Education

Embrace the best practices for initiating multicultural change in individuals, groups, and institutions

Higher education institutions have begun to take steps toward addressing multicultural issues on campuses, but more often than not, those in charge of the task have received little to no training in the issues that are paramount in serving culturally diverse students. Creating Multicultural Change on Campus is a response to this problem, offering new conceptualizations and presenting practical strategies and best practices for higher education professionals who want to foster the awareness, knowledge, and skills necessary for multicultural change on an institutional level. In Creating Multicultural Change on Campus, the authors of the classic text Multicultural Competence in Student Affairs delve deep into key concepts in multicultural organizational development, guiding readers who want to enact change not just at the individual level, but also at the group and institutional levels.

Readers will be introduced to frameworks that are crucial for creating inclusive, welcoming, and affirming campus environments. You'll also find comprehensive examples from several institutions along with specific examples of effective multicultural practices that are useful for real-world situations. The book:

• Provides the strategies, frameworks, and expert guidance for recognizing and addressing multicultural issues in institutions of higher learning
• Offers a rich understanding of both Multicultural Organizational Development (MCOD) and the Multicultural Change Intervention Matrix (MCIM) and how these models are important for evaluating environments and outcomes
• Is appropriate for those who serve students directly, as well as higher education leaders and administrators who create professional development programs
• Is designed as a practical guide and filled with specific examples to help readers apply strategies to their own campuses

A much-needed resource, this book can help lead institutions toward meaningful action that will have a positive impact for all individuals in a student body and the professionals who serve them.

1
MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE AND MULTICULTURAL CHANGE

CREATING MULTICULTURAL CAMPUSES HAS BECOME an aspirational goal for many colleges and universities today. However, moving beyond aspirations to actual concrete steps can be a rather challenging task. When asked, most campus administrators acknowledge this quest for diversity (Levine & Cureton, 1998), yet few have the awareness, knowledge, or skills to achieve this laudable goal (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004). “In light of the reality that colleges and universities are becoming more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse, extensive knowledge of diversity issues and topics related to multiculturalism are vital for higher education and student affairs professionals” (Flowers, 2004, p. 3). During the past four decades, multicultural initiatives and change efforts have become abundant in higher education. Many institutions have developed specific programs, hired uniquely qualified professionals, and made changes to the curriculum to address multicultural issues; however, many of those efforts have been inconsistent, fragmented, reactive, and based on trial and error rather than relying on well-developed scholarship, assessment data, and leadership within the institution (Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Krishnamurthi, 2003; Pope, 1992; Smith, 2009; Williams, 2013).

Williams (2013), in his extensive research study of senior diversity officers at more than 700 diverse academic institutions, provides a snapshot of the current status of many diversity efforts on college and university campuses. His research focuses on higher education diversity capabilities that he views as vital to the development of a multicultural vision and strategy. His study found that while most campuses embrace general diversity planning strategies in which diversity is part of the campus mission statement or mentioned within some strategic or academic plans, few colleges and universities have created the commitment and infrastructure of more robust, substantial, and concrete campus diversity plans. Additionally, most campuses are not engaged in intensive or extensive accountability efforts to ensure campus-wide investment in the multicultural change effort. Instead, what often happens is that particular individuals or offices are responsible for specific diversity goals. Almost half of all campuses studied by Williams have used diversity training and education programs to educate their employees; however, senior administrators and faculty members rarely participate in such training. Although engaging in campus-wide conversations on diversity is necessary, it is not sufficient without a broader effort toward accountability. Likewise, despite the emphasis on assessment at many colleges and universities (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004), few campuses engage in meaningful and rigorous assessments or research studies to ensure that their multicultural change efforts are having the desired effect.

Remember that these multicultural initiatives are part of a longer trajectory toward diversity within higher education. “Contrary to popular belief, the deliberate, conscious effort to achieve greater student diversity on our campuses was not born in the 1960s. In fact, it reaches back to the mid-nineteenth century, when issues of racial, ethnic, and other forms of diversity were no less volatile in American life than they are today” (Rudenstine, 2001, p. 32). Fast-forward to the mid-twentieth century and the same issues of access and equity were still the centerpieces of diversity efforts on campus (Chang, 2005; Smith, 2009). Although legal battles ultimately shaped the outcome of many of these access and equity endeavors, the aftershocks of those fights remain and have evolved into ongoing conversations, sometimes debates, about curriculum, campus climate, student success, and institutional multicultural efforts (Smith, 2009). As the student body became more diverse in recent decades, many college administrators began to address issues of climate, which led to programmatic interventions and the creation of diversity-related offices (e.g., Office of Multicultural Affairs) whose task was to integrate underrepresented students into the overall student body. This dynamic also led to the growth of many student groups or organizations whose purpose was to provide support and educate the broader campus on diversity issues. Yet, even as the student body diversified, the overall culture of higher education often has not changed, frequently leading to high attrition and low satisfaction (Rankin & Reason, 2005). “While our campuses often look more diverse . . . that appearance is misleading and can camouflage the concerns that emerge as one looks deeper into the institution” (Smith, 2009, p. 254). Despite this apparent diversity, many students still sit with their own racial groups and rarely develop deep friendships with members of another race, attend cultural functions with other races, or meet other meaningful multicultural markers (Stearns, Buchmann, & Bonneau, 2009). Instead, many students of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, and religious minorities continue to report feeling isolated, harassed, singled out, and unwelcome (Rankin & Reason, 2005).

This enduring reality led many campuses to create or expand retention efforts for underrepresented students and the recruitment of diverse faculty in hopes of halting the revolving door. Although many colleges and universities have focused on retention, with limited programmatic efforts and minimal institutional strategic planning focused on multicultural issues, extensive research evidence was generated that helped to build the case for admitting underrepresented students because of the educational value of a diverse student body (e.g., Antonio, Chang, Hakuta, Kenny, Levin, & Milem, 2004; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Hu & Kuh, 2003; Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin, 2003; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005; Orfield, 2001). This scholarly direction, which became the crux of the argument supporting affirmative action in college admission cases before the Supreme Court in 2003, moved the conversation away from the notion that campuses should embrace diversity because it was the right thing to do. Instead, the new diversity rationale began to focus on the educational, social, and economic benefits of a culturally diverse student body (Chang, 2005; Chang, Chang, & Ledesma, 2005; Gurin & Nagda, 2006).

History of Diversity Efforts in Higher Education

In her review of the past forty years of diversity efforts in higher education, Smith (2009) identified two important themes: “great change and great unfinished business” (p. 80). From her vantage point, great change included “changing demographics, the increasing calls for inclusiveness in higher education, the expanding accountability mandates, and the growing understanding of the multiplicity of perspectives concerning identity” (p. 132). Marchesani and Jackson (2005) offered a historical analysis of multicultural change efforts that highlighted four common response patterns. First, a crisis-driven social diversity and social justice agenda has often been the fulcrum of change efforts in higher education, leading to unresolved concerns and long-standing problems. Second, many change efforts have focused on increasing underrepresented student groups, with little attention paid to increasing underrepresented faculty and staff members or educating dominant members of the community about their privilege or contribution to the multicultural challenges facing the institution. The third response pattern is that most change efforts target individual behavior change rather than systemic structures that perpetuate monocultural values and practices. This has led to what Miller and Katz (2002) call “diversity in a box,” in which “diversity activities are pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all training exercises strictly relating to differences between people” (p. 28). Finally, the reality is that for many institutions, the individuals personally committed to creating multicultural change often exist at the margins of power within the organization. They attempt to intervene and advocate, but with limited power and influence, their efforts are often short-lived and have limited effect.

Chang (2005) suggested that whereas early diversity efforts focused almost exclusively on race and ethnicity, current discussions and interventions incorporate a very dynamic and growing collection of identities and concerns, which create challenges for many institutions. Many campus leaders are hesitant and unsure of the complexity of all these changes and often are unable to fully substantiate that their diversity efforts have made an actual difference on their campuses. This reality has led to increased calls for assessment and accountability as well as a push for heightened institutional leadership (Aguirre & Martinez, 2002; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Smith & Parker, 2005). This is part of the unfinished business identified as Smith’s second theme: Diversity is no longer enough; rather, “creating the conditions under which diversity thrives will be critical to institutional success” (p. 132). Diversity as an end goal is shortsighted; instead, viewing diversity as a source of excellence within higher education has become the new direction (Williams, 2013).

How Campuses Deal with Multicultural Issues

Understanding how multicultural issues are conceptualized and addressed is essential to the process of creating multicultural campuses. First, campus leaders must undertake the task of grasping the reality of the multicultural enterprise, from recruitment to curricular changes to programmatic efforts, on their campuses on a daily basis. The need to increase the primacy of numerical or structural diversity in higher education is a well-established fact (Kezar & Eckel, 2007; Smith, 2009). The diversity of students continues to expand; more students of color, international students, older students, and first-generation college students attend college every year. In addition, other subgroups of students (e.g., students with disabilities, LGBT students) who were previously invisible are increasingly active and vocal on campus (Pope & Mueller, 2011; Pope, Mueller, & Reynolds, 2009). Research has demonstrated that increasing diversity on campus has both positive and negative consequences. Positive effects, such as enhanced student engagement, measurable educational outcomes, and comprehensive academic success, have been broadly reported (Antonio, Chang, Hakuta, Kenny, Levin, & Milem, 2004; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Harper, 2008; Hu & Kuh, 2003; Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin, 2003; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005); however, as suggested by Smith, increasing campus diversity alone is inadequate. According to Castellanos, Gloria, Mayorga, and Salas (2007), “increasing the numerical representation of diversity is insufficient to actualize substantive changes in the practice, policy, and even attitudes within university infrastructure” (p. 644). Without attention to the campus climate and campus-wide multicultural initiatives, positive effects may be unsustainable and sometimes even harmful to subgroups of students attending (Chang, 2007; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). Chang and others (e.g., Harper, 2008; Hu & Kuh, 2003; Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin, 2003) have suggested that increased diversity without meaningful multicultural programs and initiatives in place can, in fact, reinforce or increase stereotyping, racial microaggressions, discrimination, self-segregation, toxic racial climate, and student resistance to diversity. Therefore, how higher education addresses the increasing diversity and manages the challenges and opportunities such diversity brings is likely more important than merely increasing the structural diversity; in fact, such efforts may determine a campus’s ability to achieve success as an institution (Smith, 2009).

In addition to exploring how campuses engage with increased diversity, focusing on what effect the campus environment has on all college students and their ability to function and thrive in the increasingly interconnected and diverse world has become gradually more important in the rationale for diversity (Deardorff, 2011; Musil, 1996; Smith, 2009). Bok (2006) and others (Cox, 2001; Deardorff, 2011) strongly suggest that one of the essential roles of higher education in this global society is to matriculate students who have the sensitivity, knowledge, and skills to effectively work with and contribute to the ever-changing marketplace. According to Musil, “For higher education, then, diversity is, above all, a challenge that demands we rethink how we educate students and for what ends; how we define our scholarship, our disciplines, and our departments; and how we organize our educational communities, both within our institutions and in relation to the local and larger communities of which we are a part” (p. 222). Not only have corporations been addressing diversity issues and their impact on the bottom line for much longer than educational institutions, they have been pressuring colleges and universities for several decades to improve their efforts to educate a student body that is multiculturally competent, composed of effective critical thinkers, and motivated to work in an increasingly changing, expanding, and demanding global reality (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 1995; Bowser & Baker, 1995; Deardorff, 2011; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). Such a task is well within the purview of higher education and, as Smith, Wolf, and Levitan (1994) suggest, “preparing students for the world in which they live and work has long been the role of the American colleges and universities” (p. 10).

This task of creating an effective learning environment where students can gain personal insight and gather knowledge about the world around them has fallen on the shoulders of higher education academics and administrators alike. Whether driven by faculty-designed curriculum or out-of-classroom experiences created by student affairs staff and other higher education administrators, every campus has the opportunity to assist students in the development of the essential awareness, knowledge, and skills to be successful in our increasingly complex and diverse world. Although it has often been the responsibility of student affairs professionals to specifically address multicultural issues on campus (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004), the obligation is certainly not theirs alone (Howard-Hamilton, Cuyjet, & Cooper, 2011). In the past, multicultural experts whose job it was to ensure access and success of students of color and other underrepresented students on campus (e.g., educational opportunity programs [EOPs], multicultural affairs, women’s centers) often led the multicultural efforts. However, Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller made the case that all professionals working in higher education need to develop multicultural competence to create and implement meaningful and efficacious multicultural initiatives. As long as only a few experts are responsible for addressing multicultural issues on campus, lasting and consequential multicultural change is unlikely to occur. Likewise, until a broader array of campus faculty, staff, and administrators, who directly serve the needs of students, take on the mantle of diversity, colleges and universities will continue to address multicultural issues in narrow, fragmented, and often crisis-driven ways (Smith, 2009; Williams, 2008). Because most multicultural student services units remain the responsibility of student affairs, many multicultural change efforts fail to cross that indiscernible barrier into academic affairs or spread throughout the entire campus (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004; Williams, 2013).

Williams (2008) suggests, “Many institutional diversity initiatives are largely symbolic and fail to deeply influence organizational culture and institutional behavior” (pp. 27–28). According to Petitt and McIntosh (2011), Williams and Wade-Golden (2007), and Kezar and Eckel (2008), until college presidents get actively engaged with multicultural issues and demand accountability, multicultural campus efforts will flounder. In an effort to move beyond this piecemeal approach, “a new era has clearly begun with college campuses creating administrative positions—such as chief diversity officer—that assist with the promotion, creation, development, and assessment of diversity initiatives on campus” (Howard-Hamilton, Cuyjet, & Cooper, 2011, p. 18). Often tenured faculty members hold these positions, and their presence on the cabinets of many college presidents implies a level of institutional importance (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). Barcelo (2007) suggests that the increasing visibility of these new positions “indicates an acceptance of diversity as a reality of this century, and an acceptance of the opportunity to bring diversity from the margins to the center of campus” (p. 5). This “increased institutional commitment to diversity” (Petitt & McIntosh, 2011, p. 202) is essential for realigning the centrality of multicultural change efforts. Through accountability measures, campus-wide leadership, strategic planning, and institutionalized approaches to diversity, more opportunities exist than ever before for the development of campus climates that affirm all students.

Why Many Multicultural Change Efforts Fail

Before implementing campus diversity efforts or initiating multicultural programs, one must understand why many diversity plans either fail or stagnate. Williams (2008) suggested that most campuses initiate multicultural change efforts after a crisis, which may increase the likelihood that they will return to their old institutional practices and models twelve to eighteen months after such a watershed moment. “To advance the agenda of diversity, institutions that truly value diversity must move toward considering wholesale changes in their underlying structures and day to day activities” (Brayboy, 2003, p. 74); however, many institutions seem unable or unwilling to make the unwavering commitment that leads to true institutional change (Williams, 2013). Williams, Berger, and McClendon (2005) identified specific reasons for why many diversity efforts fail, including an inability to view diversity work as essential to excellence; minimal levels of consistent support from senior leadership; inadequate resources; and the absence of a unifying framework for conceptualizing diversity, tracking progress, and engaging all members of the campus community.

Part of the resistance to multicultural change is also based in the inherent power differences that exist in higher education. Reed and Peet (2005) suggest that “any change tends to surface unspoken and often unrecognized unexamined beliefs as well as culture and power-related issues within an organization and among participants that can either facilitate or impede desired changes and learning” (p. 476). If institutional resistance is not addressed and limited efforts are made to garner support for lasting institutional change, multicultural change efforts will likely fail.

Chang, Chang, and Ledesma (2005) provided additional caution about the challenges facing diversity efforts in higher education. When examining Justice Powell’s reasoning for the Michigan affirmative action cases, they suggest, “the educational benefits of diversity seem to him [Powell] to just magically and orga...