Search results

Racial and ethnic diversity and the attendant challenges and benefits of multiculturalism in society are a worldwide phenomenon. As higher education is often the training ground for future social and political leaders, as well as the primary institution charged with the study of social problems, the educational benefits, and challenges of diversity in society are particularly relevant to institutions of higher learning. This chapter synthesizes the ongoing empirical research on the educational impact of racially and ethnically diverse university environments in a U.S. context and offers a framework of institutional practices based on that work to help administrators both respond to challenges and better harness-related benefits for all students.

Diversity is a somewhat amorphous concept; however, it is crucial to our growth as a nation, especially the growth and personal development of college and university students. Most college and university campuses are diverse societies, composed of individuals of many ethnicities, religions, ages, sexual identities, and physical abilities. It is not hard to see the diversity on a campus; people of different backgrounds and cultures comprise the vast majority of the campus population. The University Diversity and Inclusion Office commonly has a vice president, an associate provost, or chief diversity officer for diversity who serves as the senior administrative head. This leader has the responsibility to provide educational activities and programs systematically.

This chapter discusses the role that the University Diversity and Inclusion Office plays in educating the campus about global diversity awareness and inclusivity excellence. The chapter outlines a systematic and flexible approach to addressing the demographic shift that is occurring on college and university campuses and how best to deal with campus bias incidents. The components of the University Diversity and Inclusion Office strategic direction are examined with particular attention focused on the role of the office, its leadership, and the mission of the institution. A section on proposed successful campus-wide diversity initiatives is included as examples of an essential endeavor that enhances campus diversity. This organizational structure has won a national (HEED) Higher Education Excellent in Diversity Award.

At my retirement luncheon (July 2004), a colleague described the effect of my photography in a way that has special resonance for a discussion of campus diversity. I had recently installed three photo composites in UCLA's Ashe Student Health Center. These are collections of about 50 photographs each, presented in the form of the I Ching hexagrams for creativity, inner truthfulness, and community. Ronni Sanlo, director of UCLA's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Campus Resource Center, said that at a meeting of the Queer Alliance, students talked about seeing my new work in the Ashe Center. With my photos in place, they now feel welcome there. This response explains why the campus environment needs steady attention, so that the people of a college or university can recognize it as their own. Ronni's next words emphasize this need. Pointing to the bare walls of the residential commons building where we were having lunch, she said, “Look at these walls. Who's welcome here?”

Diversity education and training have been a standard in higher education for decades now. While it is widely accepted that they can have significant value and impact, there is much uncertainty in how to build programs that deliver in positive ways for increasingly diverse college campuses. The need for contextual application of diversity education makes it difficult to develop a general framework for building such a program. Still, research shows essential theoretical components of diversity education programs that can be critical to the success of these initiatives. How do we take these larger theoretical concepts and ground them within unique higher education environments in ways that meet specific campus needs – needs that exist in the context of the campus, as well as within the larger social, cultural, and political landscape? The model has to be agile enough to respond to both the internal and external factors that shape the campus climate while being true to its theoretical roots. This chapter presents a programmatic framework for building a diversity education certificate program to enhance progress toward achieving institutional change goals, as well as a case study snapshot that demonstrates the practical implications of implementing the framework. The program can drive campus change supporting diversity and inclusion – change that may have been dormant, not supported, or not articulated in ways that result in effective outcomes.

“Valleys” make for interesting analogies. They are geological depressions that can reflect the struggles and lows sometimes experienced with equity and diversity work. Carved out by ancient glaciers, valleys lend themselves to critical comparisons to the glacial pace that frequently characterizes the change in higher education. But when tagged with the noun “hope,” glaciers represent the work of carving out new forms, shapes, avenues, and their amazing transformative power to change landscapes. The aspiration and desire for change, the wish for something better, and acting intelligently and intentionally on ambitious equity and diversity goals make “Valleys of Hope” an apt analogy of the higher education landscape that describes the University of Minnesota’s equity and diversity journey and successes. Carpe Diem, a Latin phrase frequently translated to mean “seize the day,” is in our chapter title because we felt it appropriately conveyed how two consecutive equity and diversity leaders harnessed the zeitgeist of campus strategic initiatives to rally their campus communities around equity and diversity imperatives. Carpe Diem sometimes connotes a focus on the present versus the future. Yet, in our view visions and initiatives anchored in core values have in fact a surprising omnipresence and permanence over time. We share two leadership “acts” with readers in this chapter.

The Diversity Fellows Program (DFP) was an initiative created within a Division for Diversity (DD) in response to imperatives for campus diversity leadership. In the author’s reflection/perceptions, it brought forward a new paradigm for, Bistro University (BU) (pseudonym), as well as expansions in university–community and statewide relations. The DFP employed a multifaceted approach to climate transformation and was a joint development with the highest level of administration and utilized full, tenured, underrepresented, and women faculty to lead initiatives that engaged faculty in research relationships with students, STEM communities, mentoring, and unit accountability for hiring and retention. The result was the creation of several best-practice initiatives, which showcased unsung and/or underutilized student and faculty research as catalysts for recruitment, retention, and promotion, and improved unit accountability for diversification and campus/community relations. The authors assert that the DFP ultimately represented a multipoint approach to climate transformation rooted in relationship building, measurable accountability, and partnership development. This chapter will expound on the creation and impact the DFP had on BU’s diversity agenda and the DD mission. It will also illuminate the author’s perspectives of successes as well as struggles to be expected while setting standards for excellence in academic diversity innovation. Finally, this chapter challenges senior administrators and academics to increase support and reward innovation associated with cultural competence training, multicultural engagement, and best practices for diversity administration.

Using survey research, the purpose of this study was to examine perceptions of diversity to examine perceptions of diversity and inclusion among majority and non-majority students at a predominately White university (PWI) and a historically Black university (HBCU) observing any patterns of difference between majority and non-majority groups to make inferences regarding students’ sense of belonging, given current national efforts to establish inclusive excellence on university campuses.

Results based on Likert-scale responses on a validated questionnaire were analyzed using independent samples t-tests to identify differences for each survey item. Eta squared was used as an effect size measure. The PWI and HBCU were then compared by item analysis. A two-way factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the independent impact of each of the universities (i.e. PWI, HBCU) and the interaction of those two factors in their effect on the dependent variables (i.e. race, gender, sexuality).

Results indicated significant differences between the majority and non-majority groups on multiple items within each university site. Further, significant differences were observed between the universities in perceptions and experiences of diversity and inclusion.

Unique in this study was an examination of perceptions of inclusion at a PWI and an HBCU based not only on non-majority status of race, but also on gender and sexuality with the intention of expanding the research base associated with “sense of belonging” to other groups who have existed as “diverse others” in the context of majority culture dominance.

This chapter discusses religious diversity and the religious minority student on the HBCU campus. The author discusses existing literature and research on religious minority college students and the challenges and experiences of religious minorities on campus. The primary purpose of this chapter is to improve HBCU practitioners’ abilities to promote religious pluralism and tolerance of all faiths. Student affairs practitioners must first have a fundamental understanding of who is a religious minority.