The Crisis of Race in Higher Education: A Day of Discovery and Dialogue: Volume 19

Attempts to establish a biological basis for classifying human races into definable groups, arranged hierarchically from most advanced to least advanced, have a long and sordid history. From the days of the Spanish Inquisition, to the colonization of North and South America, the beginnings of the slave trade, to more recent claims about inborn racial differences in intelligence and personality, racists have tried to find biological differences that would separate the various races and provide a justification for social and economic exploitation. Biologically, races have been equated with subspecies as defined in the general biological literature. But the evidence from modern, molecular genetics, indicates that humans do not form the same kinds of distinguishable sub-groups common to other animal, especially mammalian, species. Biologically, human populations are 99% similar genetically, and the various visible characteristics that have traditionally been used to distinguish one “race” from another, do not correlate with any other characters of importance. Humans have evolved as a single lineage with many local populations that have always been in reproductive contact with each other. Thus, human sub-populations have not diverged to the extent that is found in other species, such as chimpanzees.

Amidst changing national racial demographics, multiracial college students have begun reframing how postsecondary institutions define diverse campus environments. Interest in how multiracial students self-identify has grown; yet, their identity development remains a complex and largely undefined process. This chapter examines how multiracial students navigated their identity development at a predominantly White institution (PWI). In particular, we connect Renn’s (2004) multiracial identity patterns with the philosophical idea of recognition desires. Findings indicated that White peers’ recognition (or misrecognition) of racial categories moderated multiracial students’ situational identities, particularly their agency with respect to self-identifying their race.

This chapter is an inquiry into the paradoxes in discourses of ethnicity and race as well as of diversity and inclusion, centering on current movements in higher education. It aims to problematize the essentialized racial structure in American social discourses while re-evaluating academic institutions’ approaches to diversity. With a focus on Asian American students, it employs student narrations and statistical evidence to underline the neglected aspects of the heterogeneity, hybridity, and marginalization of “Asians.” The complex diversity among “Asians” and their ambiguous positionality provide insights into the challenges and paradoxes of our conceptions and practices of ethnicity, race, and diversity in general. On the one hand, I argue about the risk of prevalent practices that, to varying degrees, reconsolidate the black-white dichotomy; as they constantly strengthen disparities between the two races under the premises of the homogeneity within each category, they exclude the experiences of non-black minorities in social spheres. On the other hand, I challenge the disjuncture of diversity in theory versus in practice. While calling for a multiracial coalition to practice diversity and inclusion, I underscore the salience of unbiased perspectives in pedagogical approaches, in which, interethnicity and multiraciality are promoted, as hybrid identities beyond race are recognized. This de-Eurocentric approach ultimately aims to undermine racial essentialization and white supremacy.

Over the past several decades, scholars and universities have made efforts to increase the retention of students in higher education, but graduation rates remain low. Whereas two-thirds of high school graduates attend college, fewer than half graduate. The likelihood of graduation decreases even more for Black, Latino, American Indian, and low-income students, who have a 12–15% lower chance of earning their degree. The importance of psychosocial adjustment to student persistence has received relatively less attention than academic and social integration. Racial/ethnic minority students face unique challenges to psychosocial adjustment in college, including prejudice and discrimination, unwelcoming campus environments, underrepresentation, and a lack of culturally appropriate counseling resources. The current chapter will discuss the impact of these challenges on the persistence, academic success, and health of racial/ethnic minority students, and strategies that universities can employ to create inclusive policies, resources and campus environments that empower students of color and maximize their success.

The purpose of this case study is to investigate one conduit through which racial inequality is perpetuated in American schools. Using Bourdieu’s theory of capital, this chapter uses visual ethnography to examine the signage of one predominately African American high school in the Midwest. Some of the signs, which are featured photographically in the chapter, include bans on “sagging,” bans on certain slang words, an emphasis on individual accountability, and more. The chapter finds that this school works to normalize forms of cultural capital considered valuable in the White, middle to upper-middle class communities while simultaneously discrediting and preventing less dominant forms of capital. The implications of this analysis are that Black students must gain access to dominant forms of capital in order to experience success in school. Such an analysis asks leaders in higher education to: (1) recognize that high schools often negatively evaluate a student’s non-dominant cultural capital – as reflected in poor student discipline records, low achievement and attainment; (2) consider transforming the college admissions process to be more inclusive of measures of non-dominant capital; and (3) consider how to authentically value what matriculating students with non-dominant forms of capital bring to the campus.

This chapter addresses the complex problem of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in the United States. How can pedagogy address this fundamental problem, by engaging students directly in efforts to dismantle segregationist housing policies? I begin by reviewing the history of public policies that have generated hypersegregation in American cities. I then describe a set of learning activities designed to help graduate students: (1) understand the ways in which we continue to segregate ourselves via public policy, (2) participate in the spheres in which such policy decisions are made, and (3) critically examine the role of our own institution in racialized neighborhood change. The learning activities presented include critical examination of exclusionary zoning policy; participation in public events, including protests, government hearings, and community meetings; and investigation into the complex causes of gentrification in a neighborhood adjacent to our University. Examples from student products are included. This chapter presents a series of novel learning activities designed to help students understand the real connections between public policy, structural racism, and housing opportunity. I present an approach to teaching that empowers students to participate actively in civic life.

Proponents of community engagement to promote social change advocate bringing together researchers, practitioners, politicians, business leaders, advocates and other relevant stakeholders to identify and solve community problems and issues. This chapter will describe the need for academic and community partnerships, how academic institutions can develop priorities, governance and financial structures that facilitate stronger, more effective community relationships and make contributions to the resolution of social ills. The current literature on community engagement, community-based participatory research, community action research, community-engaged scholarship and service-learning are reviewed. The principles and tenets of engaged scholarship are reviewed, barriers to implementation are discussed and examples provided. Academic institutions can play an important role in social change if they are willing to embrace community engagement. A key to success is building trust, sharing power, fostering co-learning, enhancing strengths and resources, building capacity, and addressing community-identified needs. Academic participation requires institutional and faculty commitment to engagement principles, flexible and inclusive governance structures and strategies to educate community members. The development of the relationships and structures required for successful community engagement can be inhibited by imbalances in power and knowledge that often exist among practitioners, researchers, and community members. This review may assist academic institutions to examine implementation of tenure and promotion policies, oversight strategies and structures that assure community development and benefit, as well as opportunities for faculty, staff and student training on principles and best practices of community-engaged research.

In a diverse society, empathy would intuitively seem to represent a powerful force for social good. In particular, we expect empathic people to tolerate (rather than reject) attitudes that might be different from their own, and to resolve and/or avoid (rather than escalate) potential disagreements with others. Some research supports this benign view of empathy, but somewhat surprisingly, there is a “dark” side to empathy, one that can sometimes exacerbate attitudinal conflict. That is, empathy can often be parochial, in the sense that people are inclined to reserve their compassion for others only when they are deemed to be worthy of such support. In this chapter we review classic and contemporary research on the light and dark side of empathy, and consider its implications for the kinds of dynamics that could potentially emerge when people encounter people and ideas that are different from their own.

This chapter takes a look at stereotypes at the individual relationship level and proposes the tool of storytelling as a method for people to move beyond stereotypes. Stories of personal experiences have power because of their capacity to evoke empathy, to force perspective, and to build trust in relationships. Thus, storytelling represents a tool for individuals to use in personal development surrounding issues of identity, particularly race. Stories oppose stereotypes by providing context to people’s actions, mannerisms, and choices. If the sin of stereotyping is oversimplification, storytelling allows us to describe experiences with the feeling, personal commentary, and context necessary to help people overcome implicit and explicit biases.

Black people have been historically, legally, and systematically blocked from accessing U.S. educational opportunities at all levels. Institutions, policies, and affirmative action efforts have all influenced the racial desegregation of public education, which had legal and social implications for higher education. While legislation provided a way for black students to enroll into predominantly white institutions, students were met with racial tension and discrimination. The integration efforts of the 1960s focused primarily on black students, and later on, other students of color; this led to the creation of many race-centric resources and support services for students.

Today, however, as conversations on race have transitioned toward diversity, racial justice efforts are often diluted in the creation of broadly reaching diversity and inclusion efforts. Black cultural centers have since transitioned to minority and multicultural offices to now diversity and inclusion centers. The authors understand that the progression of student issues, needs, and concerns presents a need to broaden diversity efforts. Yet, race-related incidents, specifically, continue to serve as a foundation for the creation of diversity offices that are oftentimes designated as “catch all” efforts. In this chapter, the authors will provide historical racial context for current diversity efforts within higher education and discuss the contemporary role of race and racial justice within diversity work in higher education.

Although those in academia are very aware of the need for increased representation of individuals from diverse and historically underrepresented backgrounds, many fail to recognize the true barriers to accomplishing such a goal. With this in mind, the author introduces her slam poem “I thought you were all extinct?” as an example of the lived experiences of one student of color in the world of Western academia. She discusses the challenges that she faces as an Indigenous scholar attempting to make room for herself in the field of anthropology as well as within the minds of others, including fellow academics.

The Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies is a premier graduate degree scholarship program in social work committed to the education of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) MSW students. The Buder Center has made many contributions over the years and continues to grow in exciting and innovative directions. This chapter considers the factors influencing AI/AN students in higher education; discusses the challenges and barriers faced by AI/AN students; and describes the founding of the Buder Center, its programs, and services. The chapter concludes by presenting recommended approaches for recruiting and retaining AI/AN students in higher education.

The study compares the demographics and degree attainment in Washington University’s (the University) Chancellor’s Graduate Fellowship Program (CGFP) in the pre- and post-Grutter era. The fellowship program’s aims included bolstering African American graduate degree completion and preparing African American faculty members. The 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger affirmative action case serves as a break point to compare the 1991–2003 cohorts and the 2004–2008 cohorts. Interviews of key leaders give a historical perspective on the program’s mission. Institutional data organized to form two cohorts, pre- and post-Grutter comparison groups, provide insight into demographic trends and degree attainment. The CGFP realized its original mission to diversify the professoriate by supporting underrepresented graduate students. The vast majority of alumni in both cohorts earned a graduate degree and earned their intended degrees. The two cohorts achieved high doctoral degree attainment. Time-to-degree findings and placement within the academy demonstrated a positive outcome. However, the program post-Grutter has generated fewer African American participants. In the post-Grutter era, the University needs to develop new strategies to increase the racial diversity of graduate education. As a complementary resource, the CGFP, as part of a broader portfolio of programmatic and policy tools designed to diversify, merits continued investment. Only a fraction of programs focused on African American doctoral attainment publish evaluation data. The study captures the programmatic effects of the Grutter decision at an elite American university.

The McDonnell International Scholars Academy was founded in 2005 to bring together future leaders during their time at Washington University as master’s or doctoral students. The Academy recruits Scholars from partner universities around the world and a few from the United States, and it provides tuition and a living stipend for their time to degree. The annual cohorts of 15–20 Scholars represent all seven schools at Washington University and to the extent possible all 31 partner institutions. The Academy currently has 72 alumni and 67 in-residence Scholars.

A basic assumption of the McDonnell Academy is that diversity does not just happen when we put a diverse group of people together; it has to be fostered. In addition to recruiting students who say they want to be part of a diverse community, we need to encourage productive forms of interaction. To do this, the Academy strives to build trust, encourage networking, and foster friendships and professional relationships that yield “McDonnell Academy Scholars for Life.”

Through the Academy’s experience, we have learned that some useful ingredients for “doing diversity” are bring together a wide mix of people who would not normally meet; build trust among this group by creating a “safe place for unsafe topics”; discuss topics that divide as well as unite the group and find the common threads that lead to productive engagement; organize initiatives and events that are part of the institutional structure of the university so as to foster involvement from all constituents; and create living communities that encourage interaction and deepen connections among a wide variety of individuals.

The Academy experiences and structure can serve as a possible model to expand the idea of “doing diversity” across graduate schools, across disciplines, and across cultures and backgrounds.

For one merit-based undergraduate scholarship program at Washington University in St. Louis (the University), discovery and dialogue have been essential to the program’s nearly 30-year existence. Named for Dr. John B. Ervin, the first African American Dean at Washington University in St. Louis, the John B. Ervin Scholars Program has attracted, recruited, retained, and graduated over 600 students deemed to exemplify extraordinary commitments to four pillars – scholarship, leadership, service, and diversity. Because the Program’s administrators have cultivated a community grounded in discovery and dialogue, the Ervin Scholars’ resolve to foster a more just and equitable society has deepened over time, perhaps preparing them for this time in which universities, this nation, and our world face crises over race. This resolve has manifested the last few years as Ervin Scholars have responded quickly to racial issues at Washington University in St. Louis and throughout the nation.

With its 30-year foundation, the John B. Ervin Scholars Program continues to develop, nurture, and support young people who advance discovery and dialogue. Drawing on a number of interviews, Program and University publications, and external publications, “A Legacy of Commitment,” the second installment of the Program’s history, demonstrates how the presence, contributions, and achievements of Ervin Scholars have changed Washington University in St. Louis. The Ervin Program has been an important part of the University’s efforts to be more diverse and inclusive, and it will continue to be integral to the University’s current and future plans.

While Washington University in St. Louis (the University) has enjoyed success in recruiting higher numbers of low-income students, it has not achieved comparable results in ensuring an equally successful college experience for this underrepresented group. Data shows that low-income students, as compared to their financially unaided peers, have an inequitable undergraduate experience at Washington University that includes performance gaps in STEM-intensive curricula and less-robust co-curricular experiences. This chapter presents the outcomes of a report entitled “Honoring Our Investment” that focused on how, from an institutional perspective, to best support the academic and co-curricular success of low-income students at Washington University. The Undergraduate Representatives to the Board of Trustees of the 2015–2016 academic year wrote this report and compiled information, research, and data about the low-income student experience as part of a dialogue focused on improvement. Additionally, this chapter recommends changes for improving outcomes.

When an institution diversifies its student body, its effort must extend past admissions to ensuring students an inclusive learning environment. We describe the changes made and proposed by the College of Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) following the university’s commitment to becoming more racially and socioeconomically diverse, as a case study for institutions engaged in similar efforts. In developing proposals for change, we consider design challenges such as how to define our target populations specifically enough to allow for meaningful engagement while avoiding stigmatizing or further marginalizing the students we want to help. New initiatives include: faculty and staff training, curricular change, and development of a more robust academic early warning system. We continue building mentoring programs and enhancing existing cohort building programs. While the success of particular programs may be tied in part to institutional specifics, certain lessons can be generalized. Communication about new initiatives, during both development and implementation prove critical, as students interact with often siloed offices within the university. Small-scale pilots with specific student populations can be effective stop-gaps while the university makes larger institutional changes and as experiments with different approaches. Assessment of initiatives, though challenging, must be attempted to understand whether new activities impact outcomes, and if so, which components provide the most value. A straightforward formula for an inclusive college environment which fosters success equally for all students appears unlikely, but the development of evidence-based best practices provides a starting point for institutions interested in change.

This chapter is an examination of the recent history of access for marginalized racial and socioeconomic groups to the United States’ most selective institutions of higher education, including Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL). Utilizing WUSTL as a case study, we review the university’s place in this narrative from the Black Manifesto and the 1968 sit-in in Brookings Hall to the school’s current effort to shed its status as the nation’s least socioeconomically diverse institution as determined by the fraction of undergraduates receiving Pell grants. Through this exploration of the trend toward the diversification of admissions pools in elite higher education, the chapter concludes with the acknowledgment that selective universities in the United States have the opportunity to significantly impact the country’s racial and socioeconomic disparities.