Search results

This chapter provides an exciting opportunity to advance our knowledge of equality and diversity of students in higher education (HE). My main reason for choosing this topic is personal interest.

Critical race theory (CRT) and the social identity theory were used as analytical tools in understanding equality and diversity of students in higher education.

Managing equality and diversity of students in higher education can be done through the tournament conception, trial conception, leveling conception, remedy conception, and job-interview conception. The primary intrinsic limit to equality of opportunity of students in higher education institutions (HEIs) is the persistence of irreducible differences between families in their economic, social, and cultural resources. Policy can partly compensate for economic differences but can scarcely eliminate the potency of the family in cultural capital and social networks. Students from advantaged social groups enjoy more access to elite universities through the influence of policies. Disadvantaged students from social groups are excluded from accessing top HEIs. Students in elite universities enjoy more advanced educational opportunities than those in nonelite universities, and they are more advantaged to be placed in the job market.

Student pedagogic (content knowledge) and formative (evaluation) opportunities in HEIs may not be achieved when equality and diversity is dissociated from its academic content and reduced to access for the sake of access. Universities are expected to develop a repertoire of lecturing methods to enable students to learn (Gudmundsdottir, 1990, p. 47). Students constrained by financial considerations, or not given a choice, are not in a position to achieve equality and diversity in their choices of the benefits offered by HEIs as the constrains may limit them from having the necessary resources. Differences between the students’ contexts of learning may also place limit to their performance ability because of the differentiated contextual background. Recruit of students to universities should include students from diverse contextual backgrounds. In addition, universities ought to integrate diversity management with their admission policies and other strategic choices. The chapter focuses only on equality and diversity for students in HEIs. Again, it is limited by relying on the researcher’s experiences and literature review only. In addition, interviews with students and staff at universities were not done because literature reviewed gave more information from researches based on findings of other scholars.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) should engage students and listen to their needs for equality and diversity to be realized. Debate continues about the best strategies for the management of discrimination that comes in many forms depending on the perceptions of the individuals affected.

This chapter proposes a sustainable trajectory for leadership and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) organizational change in higher education. Leadership practices and strategies necessary to construct and implement change and cultivate diverse, equitable, and inclusive educational environments are deliberated, with particular emphasis on transformational leadership theories and practices. These types of organization development practices produce concrete transformation in institutions that have long-established, inert, and deeply entrenched cultures in which discriminatory or even racist practices have been deeply embedded and accepted over time. The complex dynamics of transformation in higher education, brought on, in part, by the rigidity of its organizational structure coupled with its history and foundation in racism and racist practices, makes achieving sustainable change difficult in higher education. Transformational change requires the creation of new mental models through meaning making and perspective sharing that allow individuals in higher education to think differently about how higher education institutions should operate given the rapid shifts in our society. Organizational change leaders must engage in deep, purposeful, and critical reflection and examination of the organization's culture to lay the groundwork for significant change. The chapter explores topics such as leading change through transformational leadership and the styles, practices, and capabilities associated with it, leadership development, strategic diversity leadership, and the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) as change leader in higher education. The internal and external environmental trends demanding substantive change in higher education continue to intensify over time. The demand for pervasive transformation in higher education is resounding, and institutional leaders must be open to and even drive new and innovative approaches to shifting its very core – its DNA, its culture – to meet those demands.

In this chapter, the authors interrogate the structures, natures, processes, and variables that shape globalized collegiate desegregation. The authors pay attention to the history of segregation in South African culture, then proceed to current efforts to dismantle and rebuild the country’s educational enterprise. Drawing parallels with segregation policy in the United States, the authors argue that both nations may draw from global lessons about systemic global anti-Black oppression and its structural forms (e.g., apartheid, inequities in higher education). More specifically, the authors ground arguments in an analysis of the linguistic hegemony that continues to inculcate the college-aspiring students of South Africa. Understanding fundamental desegregation characteristics of racial hegemonic nations (e.g., United States) vis-à-vis racial and linguistic hegemonic nations (e.g., South Africa) is imperative to increase understanding of democratization of educational systems throughout the world.

In this chapter, we argue from a theoretical perspective that globalisation has impacted differentiation within higher education systems. The three propositions about mechanisms affecting diversity distinguished by van Vught (environmental conditions, competition for resources and academic norms) remain the same, but the initial conditions have changed. Governmental policy, in particular, affects the degree of openness of higher education systems (positively or negatively), either through (de-)regulation or by affecting higher education institutions’ strategies for internationalisation. Thus, we add as a fourth proposition that increasing institutional autonomy increases system diversity in the context of globalisation.

Higher education and student affairs professionals have a very important, active role in the lives of their students. The issues college students face are complex and higher education professionals must be properly trained to be able to address them (Franklin-Craft, 2010). Projections that by 2030 most college students in the United States will be non-White increase the responsibility of those working in higher education to truly understand the developmental issues of a diverse student body (Karkouti, 2015; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003).

This chapter highlights findings of a study that examined the multicultural competence of graduate students in a higher education program. Employing a snowball sampling method, completed surveys were received from 28 master and doctoral students out of 45 surveys distributed (response rate = 62%). Responses on the Multicultural Competence in Student Affairs – Preliminary 2 Scale (MCSA-P2) were also examined by race, gender, and other pertinent variables. The findings from this research indicate the need for infusing diversity into the curriculum and requiring diversity courses to increase the cultural competence of graduate students in higher education programs. The findings also support the need and call for additional research and analyses to be conducted on multicultural competence of higher education/student affairs professionals. Implications for graduate programs in higher education and reflexivity of the researcher conclude the chapter.

The authors report on a study that examined how academics in two faculties (Business and Science) at a large, research-focused university use information about student diversity to inform their teaching. Ninety-nine Science academics completed an online survey regarding their knowledge of their student cohort’s demographic, cultural, language, and educational backgrounds at the beginning of semester. They then received a concise two-page, course-specific document, Knowing Your Students (KYS) report, summarizing aspects of their students’ diversity. At the end of the semester, 44 of the same staff completed a second survey with open-ended questions regarding how they used the report information in their teaching and curriculum design. The report was new to Science while Business academics had received the reports for three years. To compare Science with Business, Business academics also completed the second survey. Academics across both faculties had a very positive response to the reports and engaged with the information provided. Provision of the report to Science academics brought their self-assessed knowledge of their student cohort’s diversity to a level comparable with that of Business. This chapter shares how KYS reports improved academics’ knowledge of student diversity, and challenged them to respond with suitable curriculum and pedagogical changes.

W.E.B. Du Bois proclaimed the colorline as the problem of the 20th century; in similar fashion, the problem of the 21st century could be characterized as the “wealth divide” or more clearly, the challenge of extreme economic disparity alongside broad socio-cultural diversity. Women-of-color scholars have used various concepts such as “the matrix of domination” (King, 1988), “intersectionality” (Collins, 1991), “borderlands” (Anzaldúa, 1987) and critical race theory (Crenshaw, 1995) to demonstrate that the “problems of the 21st century” are related to rapidly expanding diversity alongside stubbornly persistent economic inequities across race, ethnicity, gender, class, language, citizenship and nation. Extensive technological, economic, political and social changes, along with immigration, have coalesced to produce a global community of great diversity and interpenetration. Unfortunately, this global community continues to be fractured by extreme disparities in wealth, divided into “have” and “have-not” societies (Chua, 2003).

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.

Beginning in 2003, Walter Allen co-convened and codirected an international consortium of scholars dedicated to examining the “Implications, Challenges and Lessons from Increased Student Diversity in Higher Education” (http://choices.gseis.ucla.edu/21stcentury/). The larger group includes 35 scholars from fourteen different nations and five continents who are concerned with diversity in higher education. For our purposes, diversity is broadly defined to encompass not only race/ethnicity but also gender, language, citizenship, social class, culture, and region as significant in each national system of status hierarchy. The inaugural meeting of the consortium was held at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center in Bellagio, Italy.