• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Strategies for Improving Access and Success for Students of Color in Higher Education Brief Report of the National Campus Diversity Project Harvard University Graduate School of Education

Paper Presented at the Duke University Multicultural Summit

Dean Whitla, Ph.D. Carolyn Howard, Ed.M. Richard Reddick, Ed.M. 15 April 2004 Introduction

In 1999, Harvard Graduate School of Education researchers published a study of University of Michigan and Harvard law school students regarding the importance these students placed on the racial and ethnic diversity of their peers. The large majority of law students surveyed recognized that a diverse peer group was integral to the quality of their legal education, especially since the faculty was not very diverse. Students recognized that learning about civil rights, constitutional law, criminal justice, or even torts was not as effective in an ethnically and racially homogenous classroom as it was with a diverse class of students. Furthermore, the great majority of students surveyed stated that they interacted with others from different racial and ethnic groups in law school more than they ever had before in either college or secondary school. Students indicated that such interaction changed their understanding of law, their educational process, and their understanding of society in general. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited both this law school study (Orfield and Whitla, 1999), as well as the monumental book, The Shape of the River, (Bowen and Bok, 1998), in her decision upholding the use of affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 2003).1 Whitla and Orfield conducted a similar study on views regarding student diversity at the Harvard Medical School and the University of California, San Francisco Medical School (Whitla et al., 2003). The majority of all medical students surveyed indicated that conducting a medical practice or research for a multicultural community requires experience with a diverse body of peers. The medical students surveyed also expressed that they felt peer ethnic diversity enhanced both classroom and out of classroom experiences for all students. Other research states that underrepresented (i.e., URM) medical students are much more 1 According to an analysis of the Supreme Court opinion by Harvard’s Civil Rights Project, ‘Grutter v. Bollinger’ “… offers a ringing endorsement of the value of student body diversity in promoting numerous benefits, including: concrete educational benefits; assisting in the breakdown of racial and ethnic stereotypes; and the development of a diverse, racially integrated leadership class.” (Joint statement of Constitutional Law Scholars, 2003, p. 5). likely than their majority counterparts to serve poor, Medicaid, or underserved populations while in practice and are more likely to get the needs of the underserved on the medical research agenda (Cantor, Miles, Baker and Barker, 1996; Rabinowitz, Diamond, Veloski, and Gayle, 2000; Thurmond and Kirch, 1998). The Association of American Medical Colleges cited the Whitla medical student study in their 2003 Supreme Court case brief supporting Affirmative Action in higher education. These studies and others illustrate the need for educating a diverse group of Americans in order to create a perpetually thriving, healthy, highly participatory democracy. As such, the need for programs designed to enhance intercultural interaction at the undergraduate level is evident, and undergraduate programs designed to promote the admission, retention, and achievement of URM students deserve investigation, support, and revision where necessary. A review of education research over the past few years documents the educational benefits of an ethnically diverse campus population for all students (e.g., Antonio, 2001; Chang, 1999; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin, 2002; Hu and Kuh, 2003; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen and Allen, 1999; Milem and Hakuta, 2000; Smith et al., 1997). Furthermore, a recent survey of faculty members at Research I Institutions indicates that diversity enhances the classroom experience overall by allowing a broader variety of experiences to be shared and by raising new issues and perspectives (Maruyama and Moreno, 2000).

The National Campus Diversity Project Given the previous research regarding positive peer effects of racial and ethnic diversity at both professional and undergraduate schools, the National Campus Diversity Project (i.e., NCDP) seeks to understand what happens for students of color at the undergraduate level. Specifically, the NCDP aims to identify model undergraduate programs that have improved admission, retention and achievement for URM students. Thus, with support from Atlantic Philanthropies (and later from the Mellon and Hewlett Foundations) we began our search for model college and university programs. Daryl Smith and her colleagues (1997) discuss at length the areas in which campus diversity effects change, as well as how those changes across different areas of campus life serve to reinforce each other to produce healthier outcomes for all students. Using her framework for campus diversity and its descriptive criteria, we specifically wanted to know how campus stakeholders or constituents described the following on their campus: 1. Campus efforts at inclusion and success of URM students, faculty and staff (i.e., the access and success of these constituents using Smith’s language),

2 2. Campus climate and intergroup relations (i.e., the social, political, and cultural environment on campus including cross cultural group relations and successful co-curricular diversity programming), 3. Faculty success in providing diverse or a variety of perspectives in curricula, teaching and learning (i.e., how diversity affects overall education and scholarship); and, 4. Perceptions of institutional transformation or the positive administrative support and responses that enhance an institution’s viability and vitality with regard to diversity. For purposes of this brief report, we will comment primarily on student recruitment and admissions programs as well as a few student development and leadership programs. However, we were able to collect data regarding transformational practices across all areas of campus life, including innovative faculty recruitment practices as well as Presidential initiatives aimed at changing campus culture. We reviewed the admissions and retention statistics of 300 American undergraduate institutions from the 48 contiguous states. After selecting those that had a combination of higher than average numbers of URM students enrolled with higher than average retention rates for those students over a six- year period, we were able to narrow our list from 300, to 100, and eventually to 50 schools. We also solicited the guidance of our board of advisors for these 50 schools – this advisory group consisted of some of the most prolific researchers on diversity in higher education. Other than basic admissions and retention criteria for URM students, we were encouraged to look at schools that had specific programs (either noted in the academic press or journals, or referred to us by board members), dedicated to improving the admissions, retention and achievement of URM students. We were invited to visit forty-two of our fifty selected schools, and had roughly two and one half years to complete these visits. We visited a good number in our first semester of data collection, however the events of September 11th greatly curtailed our visits for that fall semester and the following spring. Thus we were able to visit only twenty-eight schools in total. At these twenty-eight schools, we spoke with nine Presidents, over 200 administrators (with roughly one third of these from upper administration), over 150 faculty members and over 400 students in focus groups, or in some cases, in individual interviews. The following section gives a brief review of recruitment and admissions strategies that we found highly innovative in increasing URM student admissions.

Recruitment and Admissions Strategies The Supreme court’s decision allowing that race may be considered among many factors in admissions gave many officers the chance to breathe a sigh of relief when recruiting students for their

3 incoming classes. Indeed, most admissions officers understand the inherent educational benefits of a diverse campus for all students: campus diversity is needed today to ensure success in our increasingly global society just as technologically primed campuses were needed for success fifteen years ago (Smith et al., 1997). While the following group of strategies to increase URM student admissions is by no means an exhaustive list, we offer the experiences from a few schools to illustrate a variety of methods for improving URM student recruitment. Recruitment using Student Recruiters.. Harvard’s Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program (i.e., UMRP), directed by senior admissions officer Dr. Roger Banks, has a specific mission to maintain and develop diversity in the undergraduate applicant pool. Ten undergraduate students work with Dr. Banks, with two students representing each of the five campus ethnic groups: African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and other Latino students. These students facilitate all of UMRP’s programs, including targeted mailings, phone outreach, personal correspondence, and hosting. However, the most ambitious aspect of UMRP’s programming sends these students out to spend a week sharing their experiences at Harvard with students in middle and high schools across the country. The demanding schedule requires that the students recruit just as an admissions officer would: preparing their own presentation, and working five days a week, visiting at least three schools a day. The admissions office realizes that this is a major commitment and the travel is on a volunteer basis. Complementing a professional recruitment staff with student recruiters can produce astonishing results. For example, soon after Governor Jeb Bush’s 2000 “One Florida” law mandated elimination of the use of race in admissions policies, the University of Florida began to feel the negative effect of that legislation. Admissions and administrative executives noticed that despite the university’s success at having the largest number of minority students on campus in the history of the school in 2000, enrollment for African American, Latino, and Native American students dropped precipitously for both the late summer and fall 2001 sessions compared with the previous year. The summer program in particular was hit hard: enrollment for Latinos was down by one third, for African Americans down by half, and for Native Americans enrollment was down by three-quarters. To counteract some of the damage created by the “One Florida” initiative, both Walter Robinson, Associate Director of Admissions, and Mike Powell, Assistant Director of Admissions and Minority Programs, created ways to increase minority student recruitment and admission. Robinson and Powell made an announcement to all students, regardless of race, that the school would have to take aggressive action in

4 recruiting minority students and asked interested students to become part of an admissions “Outreach Ambassadors” group. The response from all students, but particularly white students, was surprisingly strong according to admissions officers. These U Florida “ambassadors” took a crash course provided by the admissions office in recruiting minority students from their local communities. The Ambassadors are freshmen and sophomores who visit local schools while at home during vacation, where they hold question and answer sessions, talk about their experiences, discuss why someone might choose U Florida for college, and describe their extracurricular activity participation. In its first year, there were 260 Outreach Ambassadors visiting 83 schools. In 2002, six hundred students attended the first orientation session and 180 schools were targeted for a visit, including some outside Florida in the southeastern states, Texas, and Louisiana. According to admissions staff, the students “took the program and ran with it,” organizing themselves as a student organization in order to get student government funding for uniforms. As Walter Robinson put it, the Ambassadors are the best “pitch people” the university has, because “they go out and say that ‘despite what you may have heard about [the] historical reputation of the school, I tried it, I liked it.’” He added, “Our student salespersons handle the business and they do a great job.” (Interview notes from U Florida, 10/29/02). Alumni support. Minority alumni networks, especially in major U.S. cities like New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Chicago, have been highly effective in the recruitment of URM students in the Ivy schools, mid-sized schools like Emory and Tulane, and in smaller schools, such as Haverford, Oberlin, Wellesley, and Agnes Scott. Minority alumni will host prospective and accepted students in their homes, and conduct evaluative and informational interviews with students and their families. According to the Director of Alumnae Relations at Agnes Scott, African American alumnae are looking to “bond with each other … in the student support side—they would like to be mentors to students, they would like to help more with recruiting.” (Interview notes from ASC, 4/24/2002). At UVA, both Dean Rick Turner, Director of the Office of African American Affairs, and his Assistant Director, Dean Sylvia Terry have cultivated the school’s African American alumni network to the extent that it is a very effective recruiting arm for the admissions office. The faculty members we interviewed made a point of mentioning UVA’s strong African American alumni association and its participation in all aspects of the university’s administration. The University of Texas at Austin has a minority alumni student network (the Ex-Students Association) that is extremely active and offers, as an outside agency, specific grants for minority students.

5 This network also acts as a resource for incoming freshmen: it gives students the ‘historical’ or pre- Hopwood (i.e., the court case that prohibiting the use of race in consideration of admissions to Texas Colleges and Universities) era lay of the land when it comes to services that were ‘historically’ earmarked for minority students. Minority student enrollment has inched back toward pre-Hopwood levels with the “Top 10% solution” (admissions guaranteed to students in the top 10% of their class from any Texas high school), but critics of the “solution” state that it has negatively affected UT Austin’s minority student yield. Recruiting Families. This strategy involves personal, aggressive recruitment of students and families (or in some cases, high school communities) into the new college community. The strategy involves immersion into the continuum of student services; students, their families, and educators from their hometown are made aware of everything the schools offer in terms of support. In most cases, this strategy includes providing a highly personal touch from recruitment to graduation so that minority students feel welcomed and valued. Graduates from these initiatives ultimately become very valuable assets in the school’s alumni minority recruitment programs. Rick Turner, the previously mentioned Director of University of Virginia’s Office of African American Affairs, makes family recruitment his mission. As such, he makes a variety of personal appearances all over the state, but particularly in Northern Virginia and the D.C. metro area, specifically meeting with parents to assure them that their children will have a welcoming home away from home at UVA. Through UVA’s continuum of services, from admission through graduation, Dr. Turner has helped increase the African American student graduation rate to 87%, among the highest of public Universities in the nation.2 The following section will review several effective admissions strategies.

Admissions Making contact upon admission. At the University of Maryland at College Park, admissions staff state that personal contact with students and their families after applications are received is critical. However, while “every student admitted receives a phone call,” those calls are prioritized by who gets called first and who does the calling. URM students receive very high priority. Admissions staff make sure that no student gets left behind, and that there is enough time for students to make decisions after their phone call.

2 For a complete report on Dr. Turner’s Office of African American Affairs, please see: Turner, M.R. (2004). The Office of African American Affairs: A celebration of success. In: F.W. Hale (Ed.) What makes racial diversity work in higher education: Academic leaders present successful policies and strategies. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

6 University of Maryland admissions staff also sponsor a Multicultural College and Career Conference designed for underrepresented high school juniors and their families, held on a Saturday in the spring. The program is designed for families to become familiar with the college admissions process. Students and their families choose from a variety of workshops such as “the application process and the essay,” and “how to negotiate the college campus” (i.e., how to pick and register for classes, what is involved with dropping a course, where to go for specific problems, how to use advising, etc.). Workshops are designed specifically to decrease intimidation among first generation college students, to assure them that it is important to ask questions, and to go for information or help. “Maryland Day” is another community day that serves as a campus-wide open house. Each department hosts activities, and the admissions office uses the morning to target prospective high school juniors because the University does not truly offer a high school junior open house. Information sessions are offered in both English and Spanish. Once students are admitted, Maryland offers a two-night overnight program for admitted students of color. During the first evening, high school students are paired with a Maryland student, have dinner, and take time to get to know one another. The next day, high school students attend class with their college partners, go to lunch, and attend information sessions. The second evening is devoted to a social event, and the following day features the actual college open house, at which parents are invited to join students and get the flavor of the campus. The yield rate for this two-night open house program is over ninety percent. Like University of Maryland, Yale University uses personal contact through phone calls from admissions officers and enrolled student recruiters to improve yield for students of color. Yale University’s “Bulldog Days”—a few days during the spring devoted to persuading accepted students to attend Yale— includes a phonathon, which was described by students in our focus group as being very effective in recruiting new URM students. URM students at Yale volunteer to call newly accepted students of color to talk to them about concerns they might have about coming to Yale. Multi-lingual and bi-lingual students volunteer to call ESL prospective student families and speak to family members in their native language. It is this kind of personal attention tailored to the needs of the applicants and their families that results in the successful of recruitment of URM students. Training High School Guidance Counselors. Many of the schools we studied have found that in addition to recruiting families, recruiting guidance counselors is an extremely effective tool in the challenge to attract and retain strong URM students. At Carnegie Mellon, the admissions staff members are in their third year of implementing CMU’s Diversity Circle and continue to learn specific recruitment techniques. Chief among these is the need to create personal relationships with students and their counselors by visiting

7 students at targeted high schools within the Diversity Circle during the spring of their sophomore and junior years. High school counselors and students are then invited to visit CMU. Carnegie Mellon organizes and funds a bus service from the schools to the CMU campus for full day or full weekend visits. Carnegie staff follow-up these visits by returning to the targeted high schools twice in the fall to meet with seniors. Rice University also works directly with high school counselors through its own program known as the “Rice Nominators Circle.” The Nominators Circle was created by Associate Provost Roland Smith as a Post-Hopwood initiative, and is supported by the Office of the President. The Nominators Circle is designed to create partnerships with urban high schools that have large populations of minority students. These schools are invited to send counselors, teachers and students to attend two-day activities at the University. Activities include: lunch with Rice students, attending classes, meeting with college deans, dinner with faculty, sessions with admissions and financial aid, and a campus tour. Once a school has sent its group of counselors, teachers and students to Rice, counselors and teachers are given “nominator medallions” to place on the applications of promising minority students. These applications are given special attention since the professional who nominated the student has assessed that student’s strengths and has concluded that the student can thrive in the Rice academic climate. Occidental College puts a premium on contact with high school counselors by making special efforts to bring counselors from schools that serve URM students to campus for events. In addition, in June 2002, they hosted a regional conference that attracted 600 school counselors, admissions, and financial aid staff. On a regular basis, Occidental hosts joint high school counselor forums with admissions deans from places like Stanford and Swarthmore. Admissions staff also believe that Oxy’s mission has created a diverse group of alumni who are teaching and counseling in public schools or acting as directors of outreach programs like Upward Bound. Such alumni are able to generate interest in the school. Financial Aid. Researchers Paulsen and St. John (2002) point out the following major trend regarding college financing over the past two decades: High tuition and high aid, but with an emphasis on loans rather than grants have shifted a larger portion of the burden of paying for college from the general public to students and their families. Admissions and financial aid staff have found that financial concern greatly affects a minority student’s decision to attend a particular institution. The first most effective financial aid policy that a university can offer is need-blind admissions. With need blind admissions, the entire need of each student will be met by the school in the form of a financial aid package that includes grants, loans, and work-study funds. In many cases, when a school meets a URM student’s full need, the financial package is what ultimately convinces the student to attend that institution. Continuing to meet a

8 student’s full need also contributes greatly to a student’s retention and participation in college life. Some minority students on financial aid may express dismay at not being able to participate in activities that require extra money and say they find it hard to fully enjoy the college experience. On the other hand, students at Rice University mentioned that financial aid packages were quite generous – many graduate with little to no debt, and extras like studying abroad are extensively promoted by administrators. Andrea Brattle, the Associate Director of Rice’s International Programs made it her personal mission to seek out URM students who might consider the idea of studying abroad, but would not follow through due to the extra costs it would incur for the school year. She noted that many African American and Latino students bypassed the Junior-year-abroad experience simply due to what they thought was insurmountable extra cost – a burden they were loathe to place on their families. Through her networking, Ms. Brattle has found a number of work/study abroad scholarships that get students where they want to go (most notably Africa), without a debt load. Her motto is, ‘if someone wants to study abroad, and promises to follow through with the paper-work, we’ll make sure it happens at a fraction of the regular cost.’ In 2001, the Board of Trustees at Princeton University announced that all students in financial need would receive financial assistance. This announcement was made in order to affect yield in the upcoming year as there would also be a shift in financial aid packaging from loans to grants that would help lower- middle income and lower income families. Our student focus group from Harvard University mentioned its admissions and financial aid policies as two of the strongest practices that Harvard has in attracting and retaining low-income minority students. Indeed, Harvard student focus group participants were quite straightforward about their financial need and cited a number of examples where Harvard’s financial aid officers were quick to be helpful. At Harvard, when the admissions decisions are in, the financial aid office calculates an applicant’s need and financial awards are made. This year (2004), Harvard President Lawrence Summers and Dean of Admission William Fitzsimmons initiated a new financial aid policy: Harvard will ask for no parental contribution from any family with a total annual income of $40,000 or less, and only a minimal amount from families with a total annual income of $60,000. The hope is that other institutions with larger endowments will follow these new guidelines and make it possible for more students who come from families of limited means to attend selective schools. Pomona College admissions officers make it clear that admissions is need-blind, and full need will be met whenever necessary. When admissions officers work in the local Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside public school districts, they focus on prospective first generation students to ensure that the high

9 achievers are clear about the financial aid available – so that they clearly view Pomona as a viable alternative to state education. Over 20% of Pomona students are first generation college students. Work- study is a part of the financial aid package; however, if it appears that the work-study requirement is taking away from the student’s academic work, it will be replaced by a grant. Furthermore, at Pomona the number of loans to students in the Junior and Senior years is kept extremely low. The intent behind Pomona aid packages is to make sure that students graduate on time and with a minimum ongoing financial burden. Like Pomona, financial aid at Agnes Scott is also need-blind, and many students are attracted to the substantial aid packages at such a small institution. The financial aid staff explained that ASC is a small school with a very large endowment, and when students comes to the Financial Aid Office the staff “make every attempt to meet 100% of their need.” (Interview with Admission and Financial Aid officers, 4/24/2002). In 2002, 60% of the tuition at ASC was paid through financial aid. When we spoke to ASC undergraduates, many students mentioned the generous financial aid and stated that it had been the determining factor in their decision to attend the school. Increasing campus ethnic diversity lowers minority student stress, decreases ‘tokenism’ of minority students on campus (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen and Allen, 1999), and gives white students many more opportunities for mixed peer interaction --thereby decreasing white student bias and in some cases, improving white student critical thinking skills (Hu and Kuh, 2003; Pascarella, Moye and Pierson, 2001). In their survey of 53,756 college students at 124 American college campuses, researchers Hu and Kuh (2003) note that interactional diversity on campus (e.g., the interactions with peers from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds) has positive effects on all students, regardless of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, researchers found that white students tend to benefit slightly more from such interaction than did students of color. In our research, URM students with the highest satisfaction rates described much of their satisfaction as a function of the amount of diversity programming on their campus, as well as to the high rate of perceived majority student engagement with issues of diversity and social justice activism on campus. In fact, students mentioned high quality diversity programming either through strong administrative support of affinity organizations, leadership development programs or residential living learning communities as having the strongest influence on their quality of campus life. For this report, we will focus on a just a few of these student development activities.

10 Affinity Organizations and Leadership Development Programs Several studies have noted the need for providing a warm and welcoming campus climate to increase URM retention, supported by institutional commitment to diversity activities (e.g., Chang, 2000; Gregory, 2000; Ibarra, 2001; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen and Allen, 1999). Beyond the academic support that all of the investigated schools in our cohorts (e.g., small private, mid-sized private, state public, and Ivy) provide, these schools offer social supports -- cultural and cross-cultural opportunities typically through their offices of Student Affairs. Some multicultural affairs offices (not to be confused with EEO offices) may appear (to some students) to be balkanized on campus in terms of their location, physical plant, and prominence afforded by campus leadership. However, we found through most of our student interviews, that the administrators in these offices are typically the lifeline and continued support for both URM students and white allies alike. Student support from these offices includes, but is not limited to: funds for cultural affinity organizations and culturally themed weeks or months (e.g., Black Students Alliance or Mecha, ‘Mosaic week,’ or Latino awareness month); safe spaces or havens for cultural groups that allow for closed meetings where students can freely express support for each other; residential experiences that can be multicultural or culturally themed by design to allow students an immersion experience; multicultural centers where students of different cultures meet regularly for programmed events; and Intercultural or cross-cultural dialogue groups that are specifically designed and facilitated to help students significantly discuss areas of difference in safe, civil environments. As Tanaka (2002) notes, predominantly white institutions that become increasingly multicultural should take care that white students and alumni continue to have ways to connect to the campus community – not doing so brings unnecessary problems to the process of change. Among our cohort of schools, those schools that had avenues for cultural support and safety (requiring closed meetings and separate spaces) as well as facilitated cross-cultural contact and multicultural events had the most satisfied students. Schools such as Mt. Holyoke and Wellesley Colleges had an overlay of activities for leaders across AHANA or ALANA groups. Mt. Holyoke organizes a biweekly dinner for the heads of all of the affinity organizations. These dinners allow not only for support, and cross-cultural contact; they also promote unity and information across the organizations. At Wellesley, the multicultural advisory network, a peer advisor network, meets regularly to discuss both concerns regarding advisees as well as interests and initiatives for improving Wellesley’s services and multicultural course offerings. This advisory network, much like the Holyoke leadership dinner, is a chance for students to support each other in

11 their ongoing work to improve the quality of campus life for diverse students. For the remainder of this report, we will focus on practices that facilitate cross-cultural interaction. Leadership Development and Intercultural Dialogue at the University of Maryland. While all of our investigated schools have leadership development activities as part of the URM student retention process, how these are implemented, and evaluated, or where these are located within the campus system depends on the school and the program. One of the most comprehensive leadership development activities we have seen involves a semester long, structured, cross-cultural dialogue combined with leadership retreats held by the University of Maryland. The U Maryland Intergroup Dialogue Leadership Program (IDLP) has many facets in common with those run at Arizona State, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and the University of Michigan. Among these are two phases of the process: Diversity Leadership Retreats and Intercultural Dialogues. The goal of diversity Leadership Retreats (DLR) is to develop and maintain a diverse pool of talented students to facilitate cross-cultural and intergroup learning.3 Students must apply, and are selected to produce diverse groups. Retreats are constructed to help student leaders gain an understanding of diversity issues, develop a commitment for social change, and learn a variety of intergroup dialogue techniques. Retreats are intensive three-day programs, held at the beginning of the spring semester, and are run by U Maryland’s professional Office of Human Relations Programs staff. Activities include those that heighten self-awareness, intergroup consciousness, teambuilding, and group facilitation skills (Alimo, Kelly and Clark, 2002). DLR graduates are then folded into the IDLP as future facilitators for intergroup dialogues. These dialogues at U Maryland comprise a (1) credit-bearing course, and often are linked with a U Maryland Diversity Core course (i.e., one of many courses offered as part of a general requirement). The dialogues run weekly for six weeks (at other schools these may run up to fifteen weeks), and each meeting is two and one half hours long. Dialogue groups at all of the above mentioned schools are constructed of social identity groups or those groups that have a history of conflict, potential for conflict, or a lack of understanding between one another than can be built upon (Zuniga, 1998). Dialogues are not debates: the goal is to understand rather than win or persuade, and these are not working teams in which a product or outcome report is required. Dialogue creators at Arizona State stress that Dialogues are definitely not to be thought of as therapy. Self-sharing is meant to be done for purposes of explanation, perspective-taking and critical thinking – not catharsis. Groups are meant to be bi-directional, or in some

3 For a complete review of this program see Alimo, Kelly, and Clark, 2002.

12 cases, multi-directional; not merely cases in which one group is consistently teaching the other. Exercises and readings are clearly identified by the facilitators and participation is mandatory. Students across racial groups in our U Maryland focus group were highly vocal in their appreciation of the IDLP, and previous successes have been echoed in evaluations of Intergroup programs at other schools (where these programs have a longer history). Probably the best indicator of the success of these programs is the way in which they are being replicated: either spontaneously, as in the student-organized Princeton and UVA Sustained Dialogues; or purposefully, as in the newly created Intergroup Dialogue Program at Mount Holyoke. The Mount Holyoke program has been designed with the help of Ximena Zuniga, one of the original architects of the University of Michigan program. Dr. Zuniga is also the creator of the program at U Mass Amherst.

Conclusions As Smith and her colleagues (1997) note, schools that exhibit excellent diversity programming typically have a number of initiatives aimed at four major areas of campus life: 1) Access and success of diverse students, faculty and staff; 2) Campus climate and intergroup relations; 3) Provision of diverse perspectives in curricula, teaching and learning; and, 4) Positive administrative support and responses that enhance an institution’s viability and vitality. Our review of practices at 28 colleges and universities across the nation indicate there are a large variety of practices aimed at enhancing URM admissions and student life. Many of these practices are portable or transferable to a variety of institutions. Positive transformation with regard to improved pluralism includes activities that help produce welcoming campus climates, and positive educational outcomes for all students. Assessment and responsiveness to findings regarding campus climate and overt or covert racism, as well as transparency of findings to the campus community, can help move campus systems from reactive to responsive modes with regard to crises and events. Planning and education can help move campus systems from merely responsive to active modes. Information from our visits appears to support the research of Smith and her colleagues (1997) as well as that of Hurtado and her colleagues (1999). We have found that successful diversity programs exhibit the following attributes: 1) vocal and active commitment from senior administrators with regard to diversity initiatives; 2) institutionalized administrative support for such initiatives (e.g., offices of Pluralism or Multicultural affairs); 3) opportunities for meaningful cross-cultural dialogue through community service or intercultural dialogue programs; 4) programs targeted specifically for promoting the achievement of

13 URM students; 5) faculty and staff training and support on diversity issues; 6) majority student engagement in events; and 7) crisis prevention and intervention through explicit protocols and preventive education. This paper focused merely on a few strategies for improved URM student access and success. Improving URM faculty access and success, transforming curricula, and transforming institutional structures with regard to diversity are the subjects of several other NCDP papers in progress. It comes as no surprise to us that campus administrators who view their schools as ‘student-centered’ appear to have an edge in diversity programming. As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing colleges to consider race as a factor among many in admissions suggests that admissions officers can continue to use innovation and strategy in positive practices to recruit URM students. However the concern that overzealous conservative groups are using the Court’s decision to impact many current retention strategies for URM students is real – despite the fact that those strategies often benefit all students, and despite the fact that the developmental benefits for strategies based on affinity groupings (whether the affinity is an activity or an attribute) have been historically understood and successfully implemented. In terms of affinity groups based on ethnicity, our interviewed students hailed school structures that allow for, or require intergroup involvement (e.g., meetings among all group leaders, or a multicultural council) as models for diversity planning. The intention behind all of these activities is to celebrate difference and work with the complexity of plurality. With such support, students understand that they can build coalitions across groups without a sense of assimilation or loss of self. As diversity programming continues to evolve to meet the changing needs of changing student populations, we applaud the work of the diligent campus Presidents, Vice Presidents, Deans, Associate and Assistant Deans, Faculty, Human Relations workers, and most important, the students, who allowed us a glimpse into their work and world.

References: Alimo, C., Kelly, R., & Clark, C. (2002). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Intergroup dialogue program student outcomes and implications for campus radical climate. Multicultural Education, 10(1), 49-53.

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.

Bowen, W.G., and Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river. Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

14 Cantor, J.C., Miles, E.L., Baker, L.C., and Barker, D.C. (1996). Physician service to the underserved: Implications for affirmative action in medical education. Inquiry, 33(2), 167-180.

Chang, M. (2002). Preservation or transformation: Where’s the real educational discourse on diversity? The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 125-140.

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

Chang, M. (1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educational impact of a racially diverse undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 377-395.

Cortes, C.E. (1999). Building communities from communities: Diversity and the future of higher education. Metropolitan Universities, 9(4), 11-18.

Garcia, M., Hudgins, C.A., McTighe-Musil, C., Nettles, M.T., Sedlacek, W.E., and Smith, D.G. (2001). Assessing campus diversity initiatives: A guide for campus practitioners. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Gregory, S. T. (2000). Strategies for improving the racial climate for students of color in predominantly white institutions. Equity and Excellence in Education, 33(3), 39-47.

Gurin, P., Dey, E.L., Hurtado, S., and Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 1-21.

Horn, C.L., and Flores, S.M. Percent Plans in College Admissions: A Comparative Analysis of Three States’ Experiences, February 2003, Cambridge: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Hu, S. and Kuh, G. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320-344.

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.

Ibarra, R.A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Joint Statement of the Constitutional Law Scholars (2003). Reaffirming diversity: A legal analysis of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Maruyama, G., and Moreno, J.F.(2000). University faculty views about the value of diversity on campus and in the classroom. In Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in

15 college classrooms. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education and the American Association of University Professors. Milem, J.F., and Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethic diversity in higher education. In D.J. Wilds (Ed.), Minorities in higher education: Seventeenth annual status report (pp. 39-67). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Orfield, G. and Whitla, D.K. (1999). Diversity and legal education: Student experiences in leading Law Schools. In Orfield, G. and Kurlaender, M. (Eds.) Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action. Cambridge: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 143-174.

Pascarella, E.T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., and Pierson, C.T. (2001). Do diversity experiences influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development, 42(3), 257-271.

Paulsen, M.B., and St. John, E.P. (2002). Social class and college costs. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 189-236.

Rabinowitz, H.K., Diamond, J.J., Veloski, J.J., and Gayle, J.A. (2000). The impact of multiple predictors on generalist physicians’ care of underserved populations. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1225-1228.

Smith, D.G., Gerbick, G.L., Figueroa, M.A., Watkins, G.H., Levitan, T., Moore, L.C., Merchant, P.A., Beliak, H.D., and Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education’s self-reflexive turn. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 263-296.

Thurmond, V.B., and Kirch, D.G. (1998). Impact of minority physicians on health care. Southern Medical Journal, 91, 1009-1013.

Whitla, D., Orfield, G., Silen, W., Teperow, C.A., Howard, C., and Reede, J. (2003). Educational benefits of diversity: A survey of medical school students. Academic Medicine, 78(5), 460-466.

Zuniga, X. (1998). Fostering intergroup dialogue on campus: Essential ingredients. Diversity Digest (Winter), 10-12. Retrieved March 21, 2002 from Http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/W98/fostering.html

16

Load more

  16

Copy Link