Executive Summary of NCDP Findings

"Civilized men have gained notable mastery over energy, matter, and inanimate nature generally, and are rapidly learning to control physical suffering and premature death. But, by contrast, we appear to be living in the Stone Age so far as our handling of human relationships is concerned."1

So wrote Gordon Allport in 1954 in his introduction to The Nature of Prejudice, a classic psychology text that delineates the roots of prejudice and discrimination in human society. Allport's work continues to have relevance in our explorations today.

Starting in 2000, when we began conducting focus groups with college students around multicultural issues, we found some colleges enhanced the multicultural educational experiences of students and others did not. In fact, a number of efforts or discussions produced negative outcomes. For example, students from all ethnic backgrounds reported that their perceptions of stereotypes had increased. While people of good intentions conducted these programs, they needed help.

Thus we created the National Campus Diversity Project (NCDP) to identify colleges with model diversity programs and to determine what made these models effective.2 (Also, see Sidebar: NCDP.)

Programs to promote and enhance a diverse campus fall roughly into three major categories:

1. uman capital or structural diversity of a school by making concerted efforts to recruit, admit, and retain under represented minority (URM) students, faculty and staff;
2. Programs influenced by the institutional capital or organizational behavior of a school with respect to promoting diversity; and
3. hance the educational capital of a school through the curricula and pedagogy (for all students), as well as through specific academic programs designed to enhance URM student achievement in science, mathematics, engineering and technology (i.e., SMET) courses.

Based on interviews with students, faculty, and staff at 28 schools nationally, the following paragraphs provide a brief summary of some of the programs we found to be extremely useful, portable, and replicable in supporting and expanding a positive multicultural climate on college campuses.

I. Recruitment and Admissions

Increasing campus racial and ethnic diversity improves URM student satisfaction, lowers URM student stress, decreases negative opportunities for 'tokenism' or being the 'native informant' on all things multicultural, and also gives majority students more practice with students from other backgrounds-- practice for many that is sorely needed to become sophisticated participants in our current global world.

There are two, primary structural approaches for minority recruitment in admissions offices. One is having minority recruitment a focus for all admissions officers (Stanford and Harvard), or alternatively the responsibility of specific officers who conduct outreach to urban and suburban centers with high density URM populations (e.g., Amherst College, Carnegie Mellon University among others).

Both approaches seem equally effective, depending more on personnel than on structure. For some highly selective universities and colleges, educating school counselors in high URM density secondary schools about particular programs for students of color has proven successful (e.g., Carnegie Mellon and Rice Universities).

Admissions outreach to families is another successful tactic (e.g., Agnes Scott, Occidental College, U. of Maryland, U. of Miami in Florida, U. of Virginia, and Yale University); one that includes recruiting current students as translators for phone conversations with families in which English is a second language is very effective.

Furthermore, providing current URM or majority students who come from high URM density urban areas with the opportunity to become 'ambassadors' to their home communities over a break or a vacation has been a positive strategy for schools like Harvard and the U. of Florida. Students appreciate the free round-trip ticket home they receive when they become recruiters (visit our Resources section to find our article on Admissions and Recruitment for a complete review of programs).

Financial aid is a hurdle many families contemplate; therefore, discussion of aid at pre-college seminars or gatherings is an important piece of any recruitment program. We found that schools that make need-blind awards cannot underscore that policy enough, especially with first generation college students.

Students at a number of our focus groups realized belatedly that many private college choices could provide much better aid packages than their local state universities--packages that would far outweigh the cost of transportation.

II. Student Support and Retention Programs

For URM students, campus racial and ethnic relations become immediately apparent as they enroll. At schools where URM students make up less than 15 percent of the campus population, these students were particularly vulnerable to feeling overwhelmed and invisible; or conversely, highly visible when one is tokenized.

In the past, the support network for URM students consisted of student organizations and quality personnel in assistant and/or associate dean positions, and through the creation of separate or 'safe' space in which URM students may congregate (e.g., themed houses or centers). We found that these support strategies need to be elaborated, evolving as the number of diverse students grows, and the diversity within groups is elaborated.

Some schools have responded effectively to the growth in different cultures and subcultures through creating multicultural or intercultural centers (e.g., Mt. Holyoke, Swarthmore, Trinity (CT) and Williams Colleges). This increased diversity has lead to a multi-tiered strategy within student affairs offices.

Rather than simply having one Dean of Multicultural Affairs, a number of schools are heading in the direction of having a Dean's position supported by a variety of Assistant Deans who provide student programming, counseling, and support to students of color, as well as aiding in the education of majority students regarding issues of difference (e.g., Dartmouth, Swarthmore, and Yale).

The key point from our interviews was that a cadre of people working on diversity issues not only makes these issues more salient (and crises less frequent), but such a cadre also prevents 'diversity fatigue' among administrators. (See Sidebar: Strategies.)

III. Institutional Capital and Transformation

In the context of campus racial climate, the institutional capital of a school refers to the behavior of the dominant individuals (e.g., presidents, vice presidents, deans and academic chairs) (Berger, 2002). The need for such scrutiny is very significant because these administrators are primarily responsible for policy and programmatic decisions that affect the entire campus over periods of time.

Both students and faculty in our focus groups were quite clear regarding their campus president's leadership in diversity issues. They explained that such leaders were consistently vocal in commitment (e.g., Presidents and Acting Presidents at Dartmouth, Emory, Mt. Holyoke, Occidental, Rice and Swarthmore) and also appeared to have a pulse on student concerns (e.g., Mt. Holyoke, Occidental and Rice).

Presidents do this in a number of ways: They offer clear commitments to diversity in their web sites and in opening campus addresses (e.g., Dartmouth, Mt. Holyoke and Occidental), or have statements from their diversity strategic plans and commissions posted (e.g., Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern).

They create ongoing Commissions that meet regularly with faculty and students (e.g., Rice), and they make themselves available to student concerns through answering unsolicited student email (e.g., Emory and Williams) (See Sidebar: Culture.)

IV. Curricular Transformation

Transforming student curricula either to infuse multiculturalism, race/power relations and social justice across courses or to acquire resources for creating centers and departments, appears to be the last area in which change truly occurs.

Colleges and Universities have used a variety of strategies for improving diversity in the curriculum. Changes in pedagogy and teaching strategies have been one way to improve retaining students of color in mathematics and the sciences (e.g., Occidental, Northwestern, U. of California at Berkeley, U. of Maryland, U. of Texas at Austin, Rice and Williams to name a few).

In particular, Dr. Uri Treisman's work at UC Berkeley and UT Austin in teaching Calculus to URM students has been influential, and his technique has been implemented at over 150 campuses across the nation.

Other schools (e.g., Carnegie Mellon, Mt. Holyoke, Northwestern, Rice, Wellesley and Williams) have structured science-mentoring programs that produce excellent results for students who might not otherwise have been retained in science and math departments (See Sidebar: Coursework.)

V. Crisis Management

Crisis prevention is the best strategy to avoid racial crises, or to prevent a minor incident from blowing up into full campus crisis. Such events have an enormous effect on a campus and a very long half-life.

Dr. Grant Ingle at the U. Mass. Amherst described it well: Is the system activated only after incidents, grievances, legal battles and high attrition? If so, then the system is Reactive.

Is the system engaged when complaints first arise and there are concurrent efforts at resolution? If so, then the system is Responsive.

Does the system operate in anticipation of complaints driven by information that campus cultural climate is moving in a negative direction? If so, then the system is Proactive.

Finally, according to Ingle, High Performing systems are those that transform the underlying dynamics of an institution by continuously monitoring and shaping the climate.

Only three of our campuses were rated Proactive or High Performing systems on Ingle's categories. Mount Holyoke, Occidental and Stanford have some of the best records in providing multicultural education to everyone, from Board members to students and staff. (See Sidebar: Protocol.)

These same campuses, according to our student interviews, have comparatively higher rates of URM student satisfaction with diversity efforts.

Previous research (Pettigrew, 1994) indicates that providing multicultural education to as many campus constituents as possible decreases bias incidents. Our research further supports that multicultural education and anti-bias training improves URM student satisfaction on campus.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1) The positive stance of the institution president on affirmative action and multicultural issues is vital to the success of college or university diversity programs. Furthermore, as Dean Tommy Lee Woon notes, "Merely bringing people together from diverse backgrounds does not automatically produce insights and understanding about diversity."

2) Presidents must offer the appropriate funding for successful diversity programs. Diversity programs must be structured, must de-emphasize power relationships, must be sustained, involve all student groups, and allow students the opportunity to develop friendships over time to be effective.

3) Campus climate must be surveyed annually (an example of such a questionnaire can be found on our web site). Student responses will inform all administrators of the problem areas that need to change if multicultural goals are to be achieved. Doing so will improve the multicultural climate for majority students as well as URMs.

4) Academic support programs modeled after the Emerging Scholars program at Texas are an essential offering of every college. Such programs significantly raise the academic record of URM students and improve graduation rates.

5) Curricular transformation is probably the most difficult of all the dimensions to enact, but when it can be achieved it can play a central role in the campus vitalization. Can there be anything more important on a college campus than that everyone believes in a true sense of equity and justice for all? Curricula designed with understanding of social justice issues can have that effect.

6) Crises happen; however, their effects can be minimized by quick, decisive action carried out with full transparency. Having a procedure in place before they happen is essential. Doing so will also markedly reduce the number of such occurrences.

Preliminary results suggest that our qualitative findings are supported by quantitative analysis, currently underway. Check back soon.

Endnotes

1. Allport, G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, (p. xv, preface).
2. Upon reviewing a list of 300 four-year colleges and universities appearing to have above average multicultural programs, we winnowed the list to 50 to find model programs that improved recruitment, admission, retention, and achievement of under-represented minority (URM) students, and improved the multicultural climate for all. Of these 50 schools, we were able to visit 28 and meet with students, faculty, and administrators at each. 

References

Allport, G. (1954/1979). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Antonio, A. (2001). The role of interracial interaction in the development of leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education 42(5), 593-617.

Astin, A.W., Keup, J.R. and Lindholm, J.A. (2002). A decade of changes in undergraduate education: A national study of system "transformation." The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 141-162.

Berger, J.B. (2002). The influence of the organizational structures of colleges and universities on college student learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(3), 40-59.

Chang, M.J. (2000). Improving campus racial dynamics: A balancing act among competing interests. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 153-175.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., and Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(8). Washington, D.C. The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Ingle, G. (2001, July 31). Strategies for improving civility and campus climate. [Presentation for Senior Administrators Staff Development Day at Brown University.] Providence, RI.

Levine, A, and Cureton, J. (1992). The quiet revolution: eleven facts about multiculturalism and the curriculum. Change, Jan/Feb., 25-29.

Pettigrew, T.F. (1994). Prejudice and discrimination on the college campus. In Eberhardt, J.L. and Fiske, S.E. (Eds.) Confronting racism: The problem and the response. (pp. 263-279) Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications.

Smith, D.G. and Associates (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. 

Woon, T.L. (1997, February). Cross-Cultural Excursions: Addressing Second Generation Diversity Challenges at Stanford University. [Paper presented to the Pluralism and Unity Conference, hosted by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.] Millbrae, CA.

Woon, T.L. (2002). A University's Protocol and Principles for addressing acts of intolerance and threats to community. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University. 

Yamane, D. (2001). Student movements for multiculturalism: Challenging the curricular color line in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

NCDP

The NCDP has seen a number of model practices that can be brought to more schools across the nation.

The benefits of these practices far outweigh the cost of implementation. Such practices improved student satisfaction with college life as well as the cross-cultural skills of all students.

For example, URM students across all types of campuses (i.e., small and large; public and private) mentioned the strength of the diversity initiatives at their school as the number one positive element in student affairs programming.

Other positive elements included strong minority peer support (at state and mid-sized schools) and strong minority faculty and minority mentoring support (at small colleges and Ivy schools).

All campus stakeholders must be engaged. Efforts that are localized or implemented through only one or two administrators have minimal impact. Delegating efforts to just a few people can lead to exhaustion and resentment among those students and staff carrying the diversity message.

At specific small and mid-sized schools where we found the least amount of student satisfaction with diversity efforts, students noted a lack of administrative response to issues of diversity and racist incidents.

At Ivy League schools where students were less satisfied, the lack of faculty diversity was the primary problem.

At the state schools, negative campus climate was most often mentioned. On a positive note, students at state schools tempered their negative responses with the enthusiasm for the diversity programs in place.

Strategies

The most satisfied student groups were on campuses where majority students are offered regular opportunities to engage in cross-cultural dialogues on issues of race and ethnicity.

On predominantly white campuses, the majority of students too often choose to 'opt out' of curricular issues on race and social justice. Therefore, it is necessary to provide co-curricular opportunities either through regular forums or sustained dialogue groups (e.g., Princeton and University of Virginia), intercultural dialogue groups (e.g., Mount Holyoke, Occidental, and Stanford) or intercultural dialogue groups with course components for credit (e.g., U Maryland and U Michigan).

At Princeton--one of the first universities to introduce the concept of a sustained dialogue on issues of race--students did this by sponsoring discussions on diversity between faculty and students at bi-weekly dinners over the course of a semester.

These meetings, known as "Sustained Dialogue" were a positive force in establishing lines of communication across student racial/ethnic groups.

In fact, in 2001 the Sustained Dialogue received the Daily Princetonian Award - an award given for making "a superlative contribution to the Princeton community".

Other dialogue projects, such as the Intercultural Dialogues at University of Michigan, Arizona, and Maryland, are tied to course work and may include topics beyond ethnic or other cultural issues. They give students practice in talking across differences, learning how to agree to disagree diplomatically, and how to problem solve in a manner that is accountable to a variety of stakeholders.

Culture

Administrators may not realize the extent to which students are positively or negatively affected by the organizational culture of their school.

Administrators using authoritarian and hierarchical styles of leadership found that their styles often lead to reactive strategies and resentment. Administrators who strived for more pluralistic and supportive approaches fared much better.

Smaller liberal arts colleges offer more intimate communication between students, administrators and faculty, which leads to increased student satisfaction.

Larger schools find ways of 'making the store small' by distributing access through Associate and Assistant Dean levels.

Successful schools--both large and small--are improving campus climate with regard to race relations by consistently monitoring the atmosphere. We strongly recommend that such evaluations be done regularly to modify current practices as necessary. Data can change institutional behavior markedly for the better, and positive results can add evidence of confidence to sound administration.

Coursework

At the University of Maryland, Dr. Robert Yuan has an effective way of infusing diverse perspectives into the content of his courses on Microbiology.

In order to truly understand microbiological scientific applications, he feels one must understand how different nations, and thus, different cultures, would tackle, for example, an environmental problem.

Dr. Yuan divides his students into heterogeneous groups (he, rather than his students, creates the groups), and asks students to take on a particular environmental issue. Each group represents a specific country. For example, he might assign five different groups a particular country to represent (e.g., Singapore, China, Japan, North Korea, and Thailand).

He will give them an environmental problem and have each student group tackle the problem using their country's particular level of technology, keeping in mind their country's cultural traditions, and navigating their country's economic and political issues.

In 1990, Levine and Cureton found that 34% of all colleges and universities had multicultural general education requirements and offered coursework in ethnic and gender studies. Today, virtually all colleges in our cohort, with the exception of the technical schools, offer extensive courses in ethnic and gender studies. Yet only a handful have mandatory course requirements for students in these areas. This is a major shortcoming.

At UC Berkeley in 1989, persistent student activism culminated with the American Cultures breadth requirement for all BA candidates. This requirement is supported by Berkeley's American Cultures Center that provides grants for faculty agreeing to develop courses during a summer institute for the requirement.

By 1999, 357 courses in 46 departments had been approved for Berkeley's American Cultures requirement (Yamane, 2001). According to our Berkeley student and staff focus groups, the American Cultures requirement is a success with faculty and students alike. After 10 years the requirement appeared to be institutionalized.

Other examples of successful mandatory diversity coursework include Haverford College's Social Justice course requirement, which received renewed life through outside funding sources (e.g., the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the Hewlett Foundation), the University of Maryland, Georgetown University, and University of Michigan.

Protocol

Tommy Lee Woon, previously at Stanford and now an associate dean at Dartmouth, provides a clear message to the administration and the Board: "Care must be taken to construct opportunities for students [from diverse backgrounds] to develop useful insights and skills to negotiate diversity and equity" (Woon, 1997 ).

Developing the emotional intelligence to overcome vulnerability in cross-cultural relations is critical, for developing cultural competency requires practice.

Woon created an anti-bias protocol for campus incidents at Stanford that emphasizes education and campus community as a preventive tactic against such incidents. Stanford, like any college, is not immune to racism, homophobism, or other intolerant behavior.

Thus, the protocol provides a stepwise, rapid response reporting system should a campus incident occur. It "exists to provide guidelines for reporting, preventing and addressing the harm that acts of intolerance create...[with the aim of] restoring peace and civility, promoting healing and furthering education." (Woon, 2001)

An important piece of the protocol is the staff training and education that occurs during implementation. Research indicates that improperly addressed campus racial incidents scar victims with a secondary trauma that may lead to further depression and isolation (Pettigrew). All institutions would benefit from such a protocol.