HIGHER EDUCATION / ETHNIC & DIVERSITY STUDIES / MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION / STUDENT AFFAIRS

“In two words: impressively comprehensive. New professionals and

seasoned administrators alike will find much that is useful in the second
edition of this book. The editors have again assembled a dynamic
constellation of scholars who offer rich insights into the texture and
substance of multiculturalism on contemporary college campuses. Anyone
who aspires to become a more culturally competent and responsive
educator should read this text.”—SHAUN R. HARPER, Professor and Executive
Director, University of Pennsylvania Center for the Study of Race & Equity in Education

“This book advances our ability as educators to create inclusive campus

communities by first providing information about critical issues and
developmental processes for key college student populations, and then
providing case studies and discussion questions. The focus on developing
critical consciousness is especially powerful as it moves the conversation
on diversity beyond mere inclusion to a more substantive dialogue on
social justice, action, and identifying and challenging systemic privilege
and racism on our college campuses.”—EBELIA HERNÁNDEZ, Chancellor’s Scholar
and Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University

The first edition was one of the first texts to gather in a single volume the related theories,
assessment methods, and environmental and application issues pertinent to the
study and practice of multiculturalism, while also offering approaches to enhancing
multicultural programming and culturally diverse campus environments.

This second edition retains the structure and vision of the first, providing an array of case
studies, discussion questions, examples of best practices, and recommendations about
resources for use in the classroom.

This edition includes a new chapter on intersectionality, updates several chapters,

presents a number of new cultural frameworks and updated best practices for creating an
inclusive environment for marginalized groups, and expands the final section on culturally
competent practice.

Cover designed by Kathleen Dyson

22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2102

www.Styluspub.com
 M U LT I C U LT U R A L I S M O N C A M P U S

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb i 7/26/2016 7:24:11 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb ii 7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM
 MULTICULTURALISM
ON CAMPUS
Theory, Models, and Practices for Understanding
Diversity and Creating Inclusion

Edited by
Michael J. Cuyjet, Chris Linder,
Mary F. Howard-Hamilton,
and Diane L. Cooper
Second Edition

STERLING, VIRGINIA

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb iii 7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

 COPYRIGHT © 2016 BY
STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC.

Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC.

22883 Quicksilver Drive
Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted

or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying, recording, and information storage and
retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Cuyjet, Michael J., editor.
Title: Multiculturalism on campus : theory, models, and practices
for understanding diversity and creating inclusion / edited by
Michael J. Cuyjet, Diane L. Cooper, Mary F. Howard Hamilton,
and Chris Linder.
Description: Second edition. |
Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, [2016] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016008007 (print) |
LCCN 2016024087 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781620364154 (cloth : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781620364161 (pbk. : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781620364178 (library networkable e-edition) |
ISBN 9781620364185 (consumer e-edition)
Subjects: LCSH: Multicultural education--United States. |
Cultural pluralism--United States. |
Minorities--Education (Higher)--United States.|
Educational equalization--United States.
Classification: LCC LC1099.3 .M87 2016 (print) |
LCC LC1099.3 (ebook) | DDC 370.117--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016008007

13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-415-4 (cloth)

13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-416-1 (paperback)
13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-417-8 (library networkable e-edition)
13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-418-5 (consumer e-edition)

Printed in the United States of America

All first editions printed on acid-free paper

that meets the American National Standards Institute
Z39-48 Standard.

Bulk Purchases

Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops and for

staff development.
Call 1-800-232-0223

First Edition, 2016

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb iv 7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

 To my mom and dad for introducing me to the concept and
responsibilities of privilege at a very early age, and with gratitude
to my friends and colleagues at the University of Georgia for your
support during the development and publication of this book.
—Diane L. Cooper

With sincere thanks to John von Knorring and the rest of the staff at
Stylus, I dedicate the work that has gone into producing this book to
my immediate family—Carol, Allison, Leslie, and
Ashley—who motivate me and have supported me unconditionally;
to my graduate students who, over 21 years of teaching, validate
my efforts and have inspired me repeatedly; and to each of you who
reads this book and uses the knowledge and information you gain
in some way for bettering our collective human community.
—Michael J. Cuyjet

“If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don’t love,
I’m nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate” (1 Corinthians 13:1,
MSG). Thank you, John G. Howard and Frances E. Howard, for
teaching me the way of love.
—Mary F. Howard-Hamilton

To the student staff in Women’s Programs and Studies at Colorado

State University from 2004 to 2010 who patiently taught me about
lived experiences of intersectionality, power, and privilege. I think of
you often and carry your stories with care and love.
—Chris Linder

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb v 7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb vi 7/26/2016 7:24:12 PM
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1
Michael J. Cuyjet

PART ONE: AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

1 UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND

MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS 11
Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, Michael J. Cuyjet, and Diane L. Cooper

2 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 22
Mary F. Howard-Hamilton and Kandace G. Hinton

3 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 40

Michael J. Cuyjet and Jason L. Meriwether

4 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING

STUDENTS 66
Chris Linder

PART TWO: INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

5 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 83

Susana Hernández and Anna M. Ortiz

6 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 112

Julie J. Park and OiYan A. Poon

7 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 141

Bettina C. Shuford and Lamont A. Flowers

8 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 164

LeManuel Lee Bitsóí (Navajo)

vii

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb vii 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 viii CONTENTS

9 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 186

Kristen A. Renn and Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero

10 WORKING WITH WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS

TO UNDERSTAND AND NAVIGATE WHITE
RACIAL IDENTITIES 208
Chris Linder

11 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 232

Sevan G. Terzian and Leigh Ann Osborne

12 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 256

Merrily S. Dunn and Philip D. Badaszewski

13 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER

COLLEGE STUDENTS 278
Dena R. Kniess, Tony W. Cawthon, and Kristin M. Walker

14 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 309

Fiona J. D. MacKinnon and Rosiline D. Floyd

15 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 328

Martha E. Wisbey and Karen S. Kalivoda

16 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG

COLLEGE STUDENTS 350
Laura A. Dean and Darris R. Means

PART THREE: CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL

COMPETENCE

17 FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS 379
Creating Inclusive Campus Environments
Chris Linder and Diane L. Cooper

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS 393

INDEX 403

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb viii 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 INTRODUCTION
Michael J. Cuyjet

T
he first edition of this book provided a comprehensive resource for
students, faculty, and higher education administrators about multi-
culturalism and diverse populations on college campuses. It was one
of the first texts to gather in a single volume the related theories, assessment
methods, and environmental and application issues pertinent to the study
and practice of multiculturalism and to suggest ways to enhance multicul-
tural programming and culturally diverse campus environments.
Although the open discussion of multiculturalism on campus has been
steadily increasing during the last quarter of the twentieth century and the
early twenty-first century, cultural diversity and the need for cultural compe-
tence seem to have grown exponentially in the past decade, especially since
the release of the first edition of this book in early 2011. The election and
reelection of an African American president; the rapid growth of non-White
populations—particularly Latinxs—in several states and numerous urban
centers; increasing tension between police and minority populations; and
the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all states
are among a number of societal changes that impact cultural interactions in
the country at large and particularly on our college campuses.
Like the first edition of this book, this second edition reviews the theo-
ries and models that have been primary guides to understanding the devel-
opment of college students and continues an attempt to give greater voice
to students who are not part of the dominant culture. New in this edition
is a chapter on intersectionality that explores the intercultural diversity of
cultural identity among many students whose life experiences do not fit
nicely into preconceived cultural patterns. This edition also updates the
chapter that addresses issues of students who identify as part of the U.S.
ethnic majority by providing additional material that will help them navi-
gate their White racial identities and White privilege and provide lessons
for all students to address racism and racial justice. This edition also updates
new cultural frameworks as well as updates best practices for creating an

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 1 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 2 MULTICULTURALISM ON CAMPUS

inclusive environment for marginalized groups. Each chapter includes a case

study, list of questions, suggested interventions, a set of exercises to enhance
understanding of the group’s behaviors and characteristics, or some combi-
nation of these resources. The material in Part Three of the book, “Critical
Consciousness of Cultural Competence,” is enhanced significantly over the
content in the first edition, so readers will find it more helpful in equipping
professional practitioners, students, and faculty with new skills and informa-
tion. While aiming for completeness, the editors recognize that some cultural
subpopulations are not included among the groups addressed in this book.
For example, student athletes form a distinct subculture on some campuses
that have large athletic programs.
Similarly, fraternity and sorority members can be a significant subgroup
on campuses where their numbers constitute a large plurality or even a major-
ity of the students, and veterans and military students are a growing popula-
tion that require attention on many campuses. Neither of these is covered.
Nonetheless, the editors hope this book will continue to fill a void in the
current student development literature by presenting broad overviews of the
issues that multicultural students bring to our campuses. One’s cultural iden-
tity is more than ethnicity or race. Gender, age, religion, geographic identity,
sexual orientation, and intersectional cultural identity are equally part of the
cultural makeup of a multicultural individual—all factors this book takes
into account. Furthermore, with this book the contributors provide student
affairs professionals, students, and faculty an opportunity to assess their own
levels of multicultural sensitivity, awareness, and competence.
Although language is constantly evolving and all language is incomplete
and limiting (Butler, 2007), we wanted to indicate some intentional choices
we made in language that may be new for some readers. We chose to capital-
ize the word “Color” when used to describe people of Color or students of
Color throughout the book, given that it is standard practice (and required
by APA) to capitalize words describing racial categories. We also intention-
ally chose to use the pronouns “they” and “them” in some cases even with
singular nouns so that we did not recreate a gender binary with masculine
and feminine pronouns. We use Latinx as a gender-inclusive term recogniz-
ing that the descriptors Latino or Latina assume a gender binary not reflec-
tive of all members of the ethnic group. Finally, we use trans* with an asterisk
to represent the inclusion of multiple gender identities transgressing gender
norms and binaries. This is similar to using an asterisk in a search term to
include as many forms of the word as possible, given that people choose a
plethora of ways to express gender identity.
To assist readers in understanding more fully the problems they will
encounter with increasing diversity on college campuses and enable them

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 2 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 INTRODUCTION 3

to frame appropriate policies, this book approaches multiculturalism from

three perspectives, each of which is a part of this book: Awareness of Cultural
Issues, Information on Cultural Populations, and Critical Consciousness of
Cultural Competence.

Part One: Awareness of Cultural Issues

This part begins with a chapter that introduces multiculturalism and mul-
ticultural competence and provides the background information, definition
of terms, and key concepts to understanding multicultural issues in higher
education settings. In this part, the chapters also highlight changes in the
way multiculturalism is perceived and manifested in the demographic col-
lege student trends and issues that have occurred in the first decade of the
twenty-first century. Part One also includes a competency assessment to help
readers gain some insight into their own level of understanding of multicul-
turalism and racial identity awareness. The chapters stress the importance of
observing environmental influences (physical, organizational, structural, and
human) that may impede the successful matriculation of multicultural stu-
dents, as well as outline methods to identify and complement intercultural
identity within the campus community.
In Chapter 1, Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, Michael J. Cuyjet, and Diane
L. Cooper set the context with definitions of multiculturalism and multicul-
tural competence as a foundation for understanding how these central con-
cepts connect with each diverse group presented in subsequent chapters. This
chapter proceeds to explain why multiculturalism is important and neces-
sary and presents a number of competence models from 1998 to 2015 to
demonstrate why competencies are significant to multicultural development
and how they can be acquired. Chapter 1 also explores how commonali-
ties among cultural groups tie multiculturalism together (rather than focus-
ing on the differences) and suggests how faculty, administrators, students,
and related constituents and stakeholders might use this book and apply its
insights across campus.
In Chapter 2, Mary F. Howard-Hamilton and Kandace G. Hinton
provide an overview of privilege, power, oppression, and identity develop-
ment from a twenty-first-century perspective that takes into account the
varying complex identities that students internalize and bring to campus
as part of their persona. The chapter includes a case study that presents
readers with a set of hypothetical student problems and connects them
with theories related to racial identity, oppression, and critical race ideol-
ogy.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 3 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 4 MULTICULTURALISM ON CAMPUS

In Chapter 3, Michael J. Cuyjet and Jason L. Meriwether explore the

environmental influences on culture and offer some perspectives on cam-
pus ecological systems using a multicultural lens. This perspective also pre-
sents an overview of environmental influences on nonmajority students that
includes issues of campus size, type, location, and mission.
In Chapter 4, Chris Linder examines the tenets of intersectionality the-
ory, including a historical framing of intersectionality. She provides some
suggestions for student affairs educators striving to employ an intersectional
approach to their work and specific examples to illustrate the complexity of
intersectionality theory.

Part Two: Information on Cultural Populations

This part of the book focuses on the problems, concerns, issues, and perspec-
tives of various racial/ethnic cultural groups on college campuses. Each chap-
ter updates the earlier edition’s examination of demographic trends, issues,
and practices that can promote the academic success of different groups,
and successful programs that promote student growth and development. The
chapters in this section include case studies and discussion questions that stu-
dent affairs professionals can implement on their own campuses. They also
consider the characteristics that each specific ethnic or cultural population
has in common with other groups. This echoes the emphasis in the book’s
first chapter on commonalties rather than differences among cultural groups
and the fourth chapter’s focus on intersectionality.
In Chapter 5, Susana Hernández and Anna M. Ortiz look at the history
of Latinxs in the United States, mainly focusing on the Mexican, Puerto
Rican, and Cuban experience, and explore their current conditions in a
sociological context—income levels, generational factors, and the impact
of discrimination. The chapter also examines student experiences that can
inform student affairs professionals, especially the role of family and campus
climate issues, particularly at community colleges.
Chapter 6 examines the demographics of the Asian American and Pacific
Islander (AAPI) collegiate population in general, as well as several of the
largest Asian ethnic groups. Julie J. Park and OiYan A. Poon also explore
the ramifications of the Asian model minority stereotype and describe some
of the differences among the dozens of individual ethnic groups and their
interaction with the American college environment. The chapter authors also
look at some developmental models pertinent to AAPI groups.
In Chapter 7, Bettina C. Shuford and Lamont A. Flowers provide a
review of the recent enrollment statistics of African Americans in U.S. higher

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 4 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 INTRODUCTION 5

education and an overview of the historical struggles that African American

students face while attending college. The authors also explain how student
development theory is applied to African American college students’ current
issues. The chapter concludes with recommendations of effective practices
for university faculty and administrators.
In Chapter 8, LeManuel Lee Bitsóí explores issues of self-identification
with tribal culture and community, tribal sovereignty, and government
oppression and offers an overview of the history of American Indians to
help the reader understand Native American college students. He presents
a model of American Indian identity development and defines important
issues for higher education practitioners to consider while working with this
student population.
Chapter 9 explores some of the experiences particular to biracial and
multiracial college students: the quest for self-identification, the impact of
their physical appearance (and others’ reactions to it), and the establish-
ment of a multiracial peer culture. Kristen A. Renn and Marc P. Johnston-
Guerrero’s chapter also includes a description of several identity development
models that can apply to this population, and offers corresponding sugges-
tions for student affairs professionals to help these students find a place in
the campus community.
In Chapter 10, Chris Linder provides an overview of the social construc-
tion of Whiteness, synthesizes current literature about Whiteness and White
privilege on college campuses, and highlights some White identity and racial
justice ally development models. She concludes the chapter by providing
suggestions for student affairs educators attempting to support and challenge
White students in their White identity development.
International students face challenges on college campuses ranging
from language barriers to visa issues to xenophobic behavior by Eurocentric
Americans. In Chapter 11 Sevan G. Terzian and Leigh Ann Osborne discuss
the multicultural competencies necessary for student affairs professionals to
become more aware and knowledgeable about the issues these students face,
and the need to acquire the skills to be effective communicators and empa-
thetic advisers for this population.
The history of women and men in higher education is in many ways
the history of the education of White men, and initially only those of sub-
stantial means. For many, the term gender issues translates to women’s issues.
A more honest and complete exploration requires the inclusion of men. To
do less provides a picture of only part of our world and ignores the impor-
tant understandings gained from studying the interplay between women and
men. Merrily S. Dunn and Philip D. Badaszewski in Chapter 12 provide us
with an examination of sex and gender roles and offer examples of methods

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 5 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 6 MULTICULTURALISM ON CAMPUS

we can use in practice to help students developmentally, socially, and cog-

nitively.
Dena R. Kniess, Tony W. Cawthon, and Kristin M. Walker address the
collegiate experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) students
in Chapter 13, including a history of LGBT movements on college campuses
and the impact of heterosexism and homophobia on identity development.
The chapter authors also present different developmental models for gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender students and explore intersectionality in
the context of LGBT student development. Examples of best practices from
a number of campuses conclude this chapter.
As we move further into the twenty-first century, the number of students
over the traditional age range of 18 to 21 years old entering colleges and
universities continues to increase. In Chapter 14, Fiona J. D. MacKinnon
and Rosiline D. Floyd share information on the challenges facing college
campuses in enabling faculty and administrators to better serve the adult
population on campus. They provide a conceptual cognitive and psychoso-
cial map called the adult persistence in learning model to give student affairs
professionals an overview of how this population has become a central demo-
graphic on many college campuses today.
In Chapter 15, Martha E. Wisbey and Karen S. Kalivoda explore issues
faced by students with disabilities on today’s college campuses. Since the
passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, the number of stu-
dents with disabilities on college campuses has grown, but visible and hidden
barriers still need to be addressed to create an environment of full inclusion.
The chapter authors provide case studies for readers to explore the challenges
that students with disabilities face from a variety of perspectives and insights
for student affairs professionals to consider in creating more inclusive and
welcoming environments.
Chapter 16 considers the issues of religious affiliation among college stu-
dents and provides an overview of issues of spirituality that affect students.
To clarify the role of religion in the modern system of higher education,
Laura A. Dean and Darris R. Means review the history of religion at colleges,
including religious diversity and religious conflict, and its impact on students
and the student affairs practitioners who serve them.

Part Three: Critical Consciousness of Cultural Competence

In chapter 16, the book’s comprehensive concluding chapter, Chris Linder
and Diane L. Cooper stress the need for student affairs professionals, stu-
dents, and faculty to increase their critical consciousness in personal and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 6 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 INTRODUCTION 7

professional approaches to their work on college campuses. They also suggest

how student affairs professionals might move forward to apply the material
in this volume to improve experiences for all students. Successfully applying
the knowledge presented and personally incorporating the concepts, models,
theories, and practices outlined can bring about systemic change in the col-
lege environment.
The editors and chapter authors of this volume identify the areas where
we all must hone our cultural awareness and knowledge and develop our
critical consciousness. This text describes the defining characteristics of a
broad array of identifiable cultural groups among our student populations,
and discusses frankly the skills we need to develop to bring about a more
cultural-competent approach to our work. Our hope is that the cumulative
effect of this collection of information, data, and recommended practices
will be to encourage and motivate students, faculty, academic administrators,
student affairs professionals, and others who care about the state of higher
education to foster greater understanding, acceptance, interaction, and
common appreciation among all the members in the collegiate community.
To strive for anything less will be a failure to live up to the ideals of American
higher education in the twenty-first century.

Reference
Butler, J. (2007). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York,
NY: Routledge.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 7 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 8 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM
 PA RT O N E

AWA R E N E S S O F
C U LT U R A L I S S U E S

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 9 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 10 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM
 1
U N D E R S TA N D I N G
M U LT I C U LT U R A L I S M
A N D M U LT I C U LT U R A L
COMPETENCE AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, Michael J. Cuyjet, and Diane L. Cooper

When we define ourselves, when I define myself, the place in which I am like you and the place in
which I am not like you, I’m not excluding you from the joining—I am broadening the joining.
Audre Lorde (2007, p. 11)

A
s we embarked upon the second edition of this text it became crystal
clear that the theme should be “the end is the beginning” because we
are experiencing a rash of overt acts of violence against minoritized
groups across the country (see Chapter 2 for a definition of minoritized ), yet
these situations are bringing about a new beginning of dialogue, reflection,
and action. Specifically, people from minoritized groups are asking for the
end to police brutality against women and men of Color; the end to racist,
sexist, and homophobic remarks or actions by privileged groups on college
campuses; and the end to celebrating and memorializing symbols of hate and
domination in visible environments that lend to the subjugation of some and
elevation of others. Across the country there have been episodes of hatred,
violence, and domination, such as the following:

11

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 11 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 12 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

• The murder of nine African Americans at Emanuel African Method-

ist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, by a lone White
male assailant on June 18, 2015 (Alcindor & Bacon, 2015).
• Fraternity members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon at the University of
Oklahoma were videoed singing racist lyrics about Black people in
March 2015 (Berrett, 2015).
• A controversial statue, made of newspapers, depicting a member of the
KKK that was created by a faculty member in the art department was
placed in the center of the University of Iowa campus in December 2014
and remained there for several hours until university officials removed it
(“Controversial Art at UI Raises Civility, Freedom Issues,” 2014).
• Pennsylvania State University closed its Chi Omega sorority chapter
in December 2012 due to a racist photo depicting members dressed
in sombreros and mustaches with signage stating, “Will mow lawn for
weed and beer,” and “I don’t cut grass, I smoke it” (Kingkade, 2014).

These are just a few situations in which dramatic actions from community
members, institutional representatives, and the police were required to bring
an end to the racist acts. As we stated, the end is the beginning, and the start-
ing point has been countless diversity training programs being facilitated
on college campuses, institutions finding ways to increase and enhance the
visibility and power of their chief diversity officer, and policies that extend
the discussion of hate crimes and freedom of speech. Moreover, controversial
symbols that depict hatred are being removed. For example, leaders in South
Africa have removed the statues, signs, and symbols in the large cities that
celebrated the domination of Whites over the Black Africans. Concomitantly,
the city of Pretoria, which was named after the South African Voortrekker
leader Andries Pretorius, has now been changed to Tshwane (Jansen, 2009).
Furthermore, an example of symbolic transition in the United States is the
removal of the Confederate flag from many government buildings, particu-
larly the South Carolina statehouse, as well as on campus paraphernalia such
as the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) institutional flag. This decision
came from to a student senate vote of 33-15 in October 2014 directing the
institution to lower the flag. These types of daring acts led by multiculturally
competent individuals on campus transform colleges and universities and
empower those who speak out and challenge the traditions that are exclu-
sionary. By recognizing the demographic shift taking place in this country,
college campuses can become spaces where everyone belongs and senses that
their culture can be embedded in the organizational structure along with
other diverse voices. We need no longer predict the change; it is here, ready
or not.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 12 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE 13

Delgado and Stefancic (2012) defined multiculturalism as a perspec-

tive through which “social institutions should reflect many cultures” (p.
168). Historically, the Founding Fathers reflected similar attitudes of
English colonists; thus, they “rejected the idea of a multicultural society
and advocated the creation of a unified American culture” (Spring, 2013,
p. 11). This unified melting pot culture became difficult to create and
maintain, given the diversity of immigrants from all around the world
coming to the land of opportunity. The practical reality that multicul-
turalism is embedded in the social and systemic structure of our society
should send a message of recognizing these differences and understanding
the biases that could impede an individual’s process. However, personal,
political, educational, structural, and legal factors can block the imple-
mentation of societal multiculturalism and perpetuate a sense of fear and
mistrust among those who have not been part of the dominant group
in a society. Through much of our own country’s history, this type of
hegemony has persisted on predominantly White campuses due to a lack
of multicultural courses, the paucity of multicultural faculty and admin-
istrators, and finally the small representation of multicultural students,
thus enabling the dominant culture to maintain an attitude of intellectual
and cultural superiority. Spring (2013) used the term deculturalization to
describe the “educational process of destroying a people’s culture (cultural
genocide) and replacing it with a new culture” (p. 9).
The issue of multiculturalism and sensitivity or insensitivity toward
groups marginalized by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
or other cultural characteristics has become a prominent issue on college
campuses because students are no longer willing to allow a hostile or uncar-
ing environment to impede their college careers. Indeed, many colleges and
universities wishing to maintain or create supportive climates for all students
have implemented policies against hate crimes and other discriminatory
actions because the institutions recognize the need to change the perception
and behaviors of those who are insensitive or hostile to diverse individuals.
Additionally, these policies give victims a voice and the power to expose dis-
criminatory acts. Overall, more administrators are attempting to find ways to
support the need for multicultural programming and maintain funding for
diversity issues on their campuses. Yet even with the increase in policies, there
are headlines almost weekly noting events that run counter to the notion of
supportive environments and practices.
The increasing diversity among the U.S. population in general and
on college campuses in particular (Quaye & Harper, 2015) has led many
administrators of student affairs and higher education administration gradu-
ate preparation programs to attempt to better prepare their students to work

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 13 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 14 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

with diverse populations of college students—in short, to become multicul-

turally competent. Administrators of student affairs units on some campuses
are undertaking similar efforts in their professional development programs
to help working professionals become better able to serve diverse student
populations.

Competency Models
What cultural competencies should student affairs staff members be able to
demonstrate? A set of multicultural attributes for students was developed
by Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, and Shuford (1998) (see Table 1.1) that
included the following characteristics: “knowledge of self as it relates to one’s
cultural identity,” “ability to identify similarities and differences across cul-
tures and the ability to articulate that with others,” and “pride within one’s
own cultural group” (p. 11).
Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller (2004, 2014) expounded upon their earlier
work on multicultural competence by stating that campus leaders should
understand what constitutes multicultural competence and how to achieve
its various components of awareness, knowledge, and skills. Since the authors’
germinal writings on multicultural competence in 2004, there has been
“a broader appreciation of what multiculturalism means (i.e., incorporating
issues of social class, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, and
others into the initial conversations which primarily focused on race)” (Pope,
Reynolds, & Mueller, 2014, p. 12). Keeping in mind the broadened concept
of multiculturalism in our society, the basic premise of multicultural compe-
tence is for individuals in higher education to have a mastery of three required
components: awareness, knowledge, and skills (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller,
2014). Multiculturally aware individuals understand that personal beliefs,
upbringing, biases, prejudices, and assumptions can impede the interaction
with persons who do not have a similar cultural background. Therefore, “our
worldview is fundamental to how we view the world around us, others, and
ourselves” (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2014, p. 12). Understanding others
involves engaging oneself intellectually to learn more about others beyond
superficial conversations or interactions.
The result of this intellectual engagement is multicultural knowledge,
which can be gained through intrusive cognitive as well as personal immer-
sion into the experiences and culture of those from marginalized or minor-
itized groups. Personal cognitive introspection of one’s own cultural identity
should also be present, as well as the intellectual curiosity and understanding
of other cultures. Both the awareness and knowledge components are neces-
sary to create a multicultural skill set, for “without in-depth understanding

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 14 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE 15

TABLE 1.1
Attributes of a Culturally Competent Student
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Awareness Knowledge of self Self-reflection. Pride within
as it relates to one’s Ability to identify one’s own
cultural identity. similarities and cultural group.
Knowledge of other differences across No one group
cultures and how cultures and the is better than
they are similar to or ability to articulate another.
different from one’s that with others.
own cultural group.
Understanding Knowledgeable about Ability to see Discrimination
issues of oppression things from due to one’s
and the effect it multiple cultural status
has on different perspectives. is unjust.
cultural groups. Understands Assumptions
Knowledgeable about difference in about an
interactions between multiple contexts. individual
multiple oppressions, cannot be
such as race, gender, based solely
class, lifestyle, and on one’s group
religion. membership.
Appreciation/ Knowledge about Able to One must take
Valuing elements involved in challenge acts of risks in life.
social change. Knows discrimination. Cross-cultural
the effect cultural Ability to interactions
differences can have communicate enhance the
in communication cross-culturally. quality of one’s
patterns. life.
Source: From M. F. Howard-Hamilton, B. J. Richardson, and B. Shuford (1998), Promoting multicul-
tural education: A holistic approach. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), pp. 5–17. Copyright 1998 by
Dennis E. Gregory. Reprinted with permission of the author.

of ourselves and an equally thorough appreciation of the realities of others, it

is too easy to assume that our own experiences are the norm or the reality for
others” (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2014, p. 13).
Multiculturally competent leaders rely upon detailed diversity experi-
ences and interactions to create the programs, activities, and classroom
experiences that are appropriate for all learners. They know how to skill-
fully challenge and support unique ideas in their programming efforts or

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 15 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 16 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

classroom environment so that everyone has a voice that is heard and a per-
spective that is capable of transforming the minds of others around them.
Multicultural competence extends beyond the student affairs staff. The
whole institution has the responsibility to challenge faculty to learn how
to apply this cultural competence in the classroom and to engage students
in shifting their views about themselves and others. Pope (2014) discussed
the need to move toward using multicultural organizational development
(MCOD) procedures to truly transform the entire institution from mono-
cultural to multicultural. The entire community should become involved in
creating an environment that has diversity initiatives as its central mission.
Delgado and Stefancic (2012) also noted that the entire institution should
have a multicultural frame of reference—such as cultural artifacts, curricular
offerings, and extracurricular activities that reflect the various demographic
groups on campus—embedded in its overall mission and structure. After
identifying and endorsing the competencies and attributes associated with
the diversity reflected in the enrollment at their colleges and universities,
students, faculty, and administrators can then develop a delivery method to
guide student learning initiatives and classes, as well as programs in the cur-
ricular and cocurricular arenas.
One such mechanism is the authentic, action-oriented framing for
environmental shifts (AAFES) method developed by Sherry Watt (2015).
The AAFES method is based on the concept of transformative learning and
“identifies qualities that higher education institutions can use in dismantling
systemic oppression” (p. 27) in order to create a nurturing cultural environ-
ment that allows its members to be “more fully human” (p. 28). Programs
using Watts’s method are based on six assumptions:

1. Social oppression is a societal illness deeply rooted in our campus culture,

history, tradition, and practices (p. 29).
2. Communities need to be continually in a process of dialogue that decon-
structs and reconstructs environments for inclusion (p. 29).
3. Transformation occurs at the personal, institutional, community, or soci-
etal level when people in the environment balance their head (intellect/
thought), heart (emotion/spirit), and hands (practice/real world applica-
tion; p. 29).
4. Acts of inclusion are riveting processes for community members and the
institution. Controversy has a greater potential to lead to a more just
outcome, particularly for the marginalized and historically traumatized
communities (p. 29).
5. Change in the environment needs to occur rather than retrofitting individu-
als with noncentralized identities to fit within a pathological system (p. 30).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 16 7/26/2016 7:24:13 PM

 UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE 17

6. Increasing the capacity of community members and citizens to engage

difference skillfully equips people with the skills to face cultural change
that is ever-changing and nebulous. Ultimately, improving qualities of
processes and developing skills equip communities with necessary fea-
tures to create environments that are more just and inclusive (p. 30).

Differences and Commonalities

At the beginning of this first chapter we mentioned the intent of the early
colonists to unify the cultures in America. Our intention in this book is
not to be divisive of commonalities that bring people together but to help
the readers understand that it is important to value, respect, and embrace
our cultural differences as well. In addition, we must understand that inter-
sections of our lives create a framework of commonalities. As a result, an
intentional effort to deconstruct one’s racial and ethnic identity should be
made before attempting to understand the complexity of another person’s
cultural background. An in-depth discussion of this process is explained in
Chapter 2, in which theories and models of privilege, identity development,
and oppression are presented.

Recommended Use of This Book

This book is a guide to gaining a clearer comprehension of some of the major
elements that impact cultural diversity—privilege, oppression, identity
development, environmental influences—and a deeper understanding of the
various multicultural groups on college campuses. We intend for the book to
be useful for faculty and students in the classroom as well as to professional
staff who desire to increase their understanding of the complexity of the stu-
dents they serve and to develop their own cultural competence. Freire (2005)
said that teachers should always be learning, and he firmly believed that
previously learned knowledge may need to be reassessed and reevaluated to
understand how one’s political and ethical obligation affects the other. Spe-
cifically, learning is a dynamic process particularly for people in a constantly
changing and evolving environment, and exposure to newer techniques or
interventions to enhance cultural development and competence for students
entering college today is an important part of that learning.
A second feature of this edition of the book is its expanded focus on inter-
sectionality as a more complex view of identity than the singular approaches
we have often taken in the past. Intersectionality honors the interconnected-
ness of the individuals as well as the relationship of the individual to systems

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 17 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 18 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

of power and privilege on our campus (Mitchell, Simmons, & Greyerbiehl,

2014). Intersectionality also accommodates an understanding of the diverse
cultural identity of individuals should they embrace more than one distinct
cultural group or cultural heritage as part of their salient identity. A power-
ful example of salience in intersectional identity is present in the following
excerpt from an unpublished essay by Sienna Hunter-Cuyjet, the executive
director of tribal operations for the Shinnecock Nation. She writes,

Being Indigenous for me is much more than just blood quantum but
embracing and participating in one’s cultural beliefs and practices. . . . It
lays the foundation and constructs the lens of [sic] which I see the world.
This can be both a strength and a weakness but I choose it to be strength.
Being an individual who is of a mixed ethnic background, listening to the
stories from the elders in my community, remembering the teachings of my
aunties I find myself in a new light and perception of identity. I have always
been taught to honor my ancestors, honor my grandmothers. Although
I choose to identify as an Indigenous woman because that is the culture
of which I was born, raised in and practice in my daily life, I do not deny
the fact that I do also have Irish/Scottish, Panamanian, and Afro French
ancestry. I welcome conversations on identity; I challenge people’s thoughts
and perceptions of what makes up identity to hopefully open their minds
to other possibilities. I am who I am by blood, by practice, by belief, and
by choice. (Hunter-Cuyjet, 2015)

A number of researchers have developed models that can be used to

explore the concept of social identity intersectionality (Jones & Abes, 2013)
and multiracial identity (Wijeyesinghe, 2012). The concept is expanded fur-
ther in Chapter 4.
This book also presents a number of relevant theoretical frameworks
and connects them to professional practice. Our purpose is to encourage
the use of new concepts, not by dichotomizing theory and practice but
by inclusively using both to make informed decisions about teaching and
learning in a universal fashion (Freire, 2005). The universal perspective
gives the individual an opportunity to step into the shoes of another person
and react to a situation differently than if a traditional lens had been used.
When a 360-degree universal perspective is used, everyone is empowered
because it gives the marginalized person a chance to have a voice and gives
the listeners a chance to gain an appreciation for diversity.
Another feature of this book makes it uniquely useful to the campus
community in understanding the application of multicultural principles on
campus. In addition to identifying the general characteristics that define and
differentiate each of the various cultural groups included in this book, each

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 18 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE 19

chapter addresses the multiple identities and cultural intersections of diverse

groups. Moreover, when coupled with an appreciation for these differences,
personal growth, a practical understanding of inclusiveness, and the resolve
to dismantle privilege could lead to the moral forthrightness needed to bring
about civility and a higher sense of moral reasoning among the students,
faculty, and staff on our campuses.
Furthermore, by including a chapter focused on the multicultural devel-
opment of White students, this book provides an opportunity for members of
the majority culture to perceive themselves in a cultural sense and to under-
stand their symbiotic connection to other cultural groups on campus. As Spring
(2013) explained, members of the majority culture who perceive their cultural
characteristics to be the norm often cannot see that their customs and char-
acteristics are, in fact, artifacts of their culture. They see divergent cultural
characteristics as “deficient” and often have difficulty seeing other cultures as
valid. Helping such individuals to recognize and appreciate their own culture is
a key step in allowing them to recognize and appreciate other cultures.

The Town and Gown: How the External Community Can

Use This Book
We can all gain a deeper understanding of the Millennial cohort that is
entering graduate school and the workforce, as well as of our next gen-
eration of young adults and how their perspectives on diversity and social
justice are beginning to make a significant impact on society. There has
been a recent proliferation of student unrest on college campuses across
the country (Johnston, 2015), and the protests mirror the activism of the
1970s. Specifically, we should note that there are three issues that today’s
students are vociferously raising with administrators on college campuses:
racial discrimination, sexual assault and harassment, and rising tuition
and student debt (Johnston, 2015). “In each case, longstanding grievances
of traditionally underrepresented students have been brought to a crisis”
(Johnston, 2015, p. B6). Another example of this openness to change—
with a desire to shift the traditions that have been present in our govern-
mental structure—was the election of Barack Obama as the 44th president
of the United States and his reelection in 2012. The impact of college stu-
dents on the election process was felt in every community across the coun-
try. Both the 2008 and 2012 election processes made it virtually impossible
for the majority of Americans to remain isolated from the influence that
college students had by knocking on doors and canvassing neighborhoods
to solicit support for a biracial person. The material provided in this book
may help those outside the campus environment, including in the private

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 19 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 20 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

sector, gain awareness of various cultural groups from a safe distance and,
with encouragement from the authors, move closer and not “let the fear
of what is difficult paralyze you” (Freire, 2005, p. 49). Chapter 17 further
explores the development of cultural competence that must be part of any
real change on our campuses.
As we approach the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century,
we see more and more college campuses creating administrative positions such
as chief diversity officer, and we realize the increased presence of individuals
representing diverse cultural groups in high-level administrative positions
and assisting with the promotion, creation, development, and assessment
of diversity initiatives on campus. The establishment of individuals in these
visible, high-ranking positions—deans, vice presidents, provosts, and presi-
dents—on more and more campuses clearly signals that conversations about
race, racism, and multiculturalism are not being left to a few disconnected
individuals. Rather, we are all being collectively held accountable for the
successful inclusion of diverse students, faculty, and staff because everyone is
affected when discrimination exists on campus. Given the changing demo-
graphic landscape from the leadership in our nation’s capital to our own
hometown communities, the promotion of social justice and the develop-
ment of marginalized groups are causes that should be everyone’s passion.
As Martin Luther King Jr. (1986) so eloquently stated, “What impacts one
directly, impacts us all indirectly” (p. 254), thus calling each of us to invest
in the promotion of every one of our fellow citizens, particularly those who
have been historically underrepresented.

References
Alcindor, Y., & Bacon, J. (2015, June 21). Emanuel AME Church holds first
service since killings. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/
nation/2015/06/21/mother-emanuel-chirch-services/29065125/
Berrett, D. (2015, March 19). Stunned by a video, U. of Oklahoma struggles to talk
about race. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com
Controversial art at UI raises civility, freedom issues. (2014, December 5). Iowa City
Press Citizen. Retrieved from press-citizen.com.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach
(D. Macedo, D. Koike, & A. Olivei, Trans.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Richardson, B. J., & Shuford, B. (1998). Promoting mul-
ticultural education: A holistic approach. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1),
5–17.
Hunter-Cuyjet, S. (2015). My evolution of identity. Unpublished manuscript.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 20 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE 21

Jansen, J. D. (2009). Knowledge in the blood: Confronting race and the apartheid past.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Johnston, A. (2015, December 18). Student protests, then and now: From “Hey,
hey LBJ!” to “Black lives matter!”. The Chronicle Review: The Chronicle of Higher
Education, pp. B6–B7.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
King, M. L. Jr. (1986). A testament of hope: The essential writings of Martin Luther
King, Jr. In J. M. Washington (Ed.), A Christmas sermon on peace (pp. 253–267).
San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row
Kingkade, T. (2014, February 27). Penn State sorority closes 14 months after controversy
over racist photo. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/
penn-state-sorority-chi-omega_n_4810010.html
Lorde, A. (2007). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. New York, NY: Random House.
Mitchell, D., Simmons, C. Y., & Greyerbiehl, L. A. (2014). Intersectionality
and higher education: Theory, research, and praxis. New York, NY: Peter Lang
Publishing.
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural competence in
student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2014). Creating multicultural change
on campus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2015). Student engagement in higher education: Theo-
retical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Spring, J. (2013). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Watt, S. K. (2015). Designing transformative multicultural initiatives. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Wijeyesinghe, C. L. (2012). The intersectional model of multiracial identity: Inte-
grating multiracial identity theories and intersectional perspectives on social
identity. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on
racial identity development (2nd ed., pp. 81–107). New York, NY: New York
University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 21 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 2
OPPRESSION AND ITS
EFFECT ON COLLEGE
STUDENT IDENTITY
DEVELOPMENT
Mary F. Howard-Hamilton and Kandace G. Hinton

Let no one be discouraged by the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the
enormous array of the world’s ills—against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. . . . Few
will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of
events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. . . . It is from
the numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man
[sic] stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he
sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and
daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and
resistance.
Robert Kennedy (as cited in Shoreline Productions, 2010)

S
ystematic oppression is a central part of the foundation of our national
identity, and its eradication requires uprooting and changing the exist-
ing hierarchy of power (Spring, 2013; Takaki, 1993). For change to
occur in the dominant culture, a significant loss of privilege and power will
result. Thus, recognizing the notions of privilege and power is critical to
understanding the development of individuals from marginalized groups.
A difficult yet important aspect of being nonmajority is the potential for
experiencing oppression.

22

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 22 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 23

Before addressing issues related to identity development of diverse pop-

ulations and designing practices to empower these groups, we need a con-
necting theory of oppression to understand how outside influences shape
behavior. A theoretical framework is necessary for several reasons. First, as
Bell (2016) stated, theory allows us to reason and think clearly about our
intentions and how we implement our actions in various settings (classroom,
residence hall, meetings, etc.). Theory allows us time to think and mobilize
our energy, then move in a direction of certainty. Theory can also mobilize
social energy; a group of people can work toward a common goal grounded in
theory. Without such a base, personal dominance may become the focal point.
Second, old approaches to interacting with individuals can be queried as
well as challenged, and new paradigms can be created when we infuse oppres-
sion theory with our actions. In other words, theory protects us against our
own unconsciousness (Bell, 2016). “Ideally we keep coming back to and
refining our theory as we read and reflect upon the emerging literature on
oppression, and as we continually learn through practice the myriad ways
oppression can seduce our minds and hearts or inspire us to further learning
and activism” (Bell, 2016, pp. 4–5). Third, oppression theory reminds us
that people are historical subjects, and this influences the way we think, act,
and behave toward others. It is important that we “learn from the past as we
try to meet current conditions in more effective and imaginative ways” (Bell
2016, p. 5).

Theory of Oppression
According to Paulo Freire (1968/1987), oppression is overwhelming control,
and “an act is oppressive only when it prevents men [sic] from being more
fully human” (p. 42). Furthermore, Freire stated that the oppressors see only
themselves as human beings and other people as things. “For the oppres-
sors, there exists only one right: their right to live in peace, over against the
right, not always even recognized, but simply conceded, of the oppressed to
survival. And they make this concession only because the existence of the
oppressed is necessary to their own existence” (Freire, 1968/1987, p. 43).
Those who are oppressed live in a culture of silence or have no voice when
determining their destiny; thus, they are politically and economically power-
less (Spring, 1998, 2007). The oppressed develop a mental construct called
“the wheels in the head” syndrome (Spring, 2007, p. 3), when internalized
ideas are not their own but thoughts prescribed by others to subjugate them.
Oppressed people are not independent thinkers controlling their own des-
tiny: their future is determined by the oppressor.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 23 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 24 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

The method most commonly used to domesticate or dictate prescribed

thoughts and minimize creative power to oppressed groups is called banking
education (Freire, 1968/1987). Teachers dictate to learners information from
an oppressive historical ideology. The learners become passive by not talking
about, sharing, or discussing the information they receive; rather, they simply
receive, memorize, and repeat what has been dictated. Moreover, knowledge
is created and disseminated in a manner that does not allow for dialogue
and differing opinions to be shared. Where banking education exists, the
oppressed groups become the objects of history rather than its subjects. “A
subject of history is a conscious maker of history. . . . As objects of his-
tory, their actions are determined by history, but they do not make history”
(Spring, 1998, p. 148). This is a form of deculturalization, or the educational
process of destroying a people’s culture and replacing it with a new culture
(Spring, 2013). Those who are the subjects of the information may find that
their culture, history, and attributes are misrepresented because the stories
of the oppressed are not part of the information that the dominant group
created. The information has been banked and deposited into the minds of
the oppressed and the oppressors. Withdrawal of that information is mani-
fested in the form of stereotypes, language, and policies that subjugate the
oppressed and uplift the oppressors.
When people accept oppression in their lives, they become dehumanized
and lack any will, consciousness, or motivation to make societal or systemic
changes (Freire, 1968/1987). Without the critical consciousness to become
self-determining rather than self-deprecating, the oppressed continue to
allow the oppressor to make choices for them that limit their freedom. Even
when a collaborative breakthrough occurs between the oppressors and the
oppressed, praxis still needs to occur. Praxis is when dialogue, reflection, and
action take place between the oppressors and oppressed in order to transform
the world (Freire, 1968/1987).
Spring (1998, 2007) separates attributes of the oppressor and the
oppressed into two categories: a revolution from the right and a revolution
from the left. A revolution from the perspective of the oppressor, or right,
means creating a dominant overt and covert environment and systemic struc-
tures in which there is very little freedom or flexibility for the oppressed to
attain success, become empowered, and move comfortably through life with-
out doubts about one’s abilities and future aspirations. Maintenance of the
dominant environment is a generational inhibitor as well, leaving the future
bleak for progeny of the oppressed.
The revolution for the oppressed, or the left, is grounded in a framework
that knowledge is the key to changing one’s perception that being different
from the majority is dysfunctional. The revolution from the left empowers

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 24 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 25

the oppressed so that they begin to name their own identity rather than hav-
ing the oppressor define their personalities and cultural background. The
revolution is a gathering of people who create a base of power to change soci-
etal misconceptions about who they are and their contributions to the world.
The oppressor exhibits behaviors from a revolutionary right perspec-
tive by fearing freedom for others and perceiving them as lifeless individ-
uals. Domination is exhibited by the desire to keep the oppressed muted,
dependent, and domesticated. The oppressed operate from a revolution from
the left, which is a liberating experience. The revolution to the left engages
people to become part of a utopian vision that is liberating because there
is empowerment, dialogue, and a stream of information or education that
engages people to be nonconformists and create their own destiny. The basic
premise is that unconditional support, liberation, and dialogue move the
group to a point of reflection and transformation. The oppressed begin to
create their own history by organizing and finding solutions to problems by
continuously operating from a revolutionary frame of mind to the left that
is dichotomous to the perspectives of the oppressors’ revolution to the right.
Specifically, even though both are using revolutions to garner support from
large groups of constituents, one group subjugates and dominates (i.e., the
oppressor from the right) and the other group is collaborative and empower-
ing (i.e., the oppressed from the left). Therefore, when the oppressed begin
to adopt a social change perspective from the left, the “revolution will result
in the transformation of consciousness and personality of all people” (Spring,
1998, p. 149).
To define the dialogue between the oppressor and oppressed, Alschuler
(1986) created a three-stage developmental response to oppression: magical
conforming, naive reforming, and critical transforming. The magical con-
formist does not see any problems in society and passively colludes with the
oppressor, believing that the problems among the oppressed are unchange-
able and hopeless. The naive reformist blames others for problems that exist
because the others have deviated from the rules and expectations of society.
Critical transformation of these beliefs occurs with a critical analysis of the
system and oneself and when people name the ways they have oppressed
others and “victimized themselves by their active collusion in supporting the
conflict-producing rules and roles” (Alschuler, 1986, p. 493).
Overall, oppression exhibits six significant characteristics, according to
Bell (1997), which are

1. Pervasiveness: Oppression is the “pervasive nature of social inequality

woven throughout social institutions as well as embedded within indi-
vidual consciousness” (p. 3).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 25 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 26 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

2. Restricting: Oppression represents “structural and material constraints

that significantly shape a person’s life chances and sense of possibility”
(p. 3).
3. Hierarchical: “Oppression signifies a hierarchical relationship in which
dominant or privileged groups benefit, often in unconscious ways, from
the disempowerment of subordinated or targeted groups” (p. 3).
4. Complex, multiple, cross-cutting relationships: Power and privilege are
relative since “individuals hold multiple and cross-cutting social group
memberships” (p. 3).
5. Internalized: “Oppressive beliefs are internalized by victims as well as
benefactors” (p. 4).
6. “Isms”—Shared and Distinctive Characteristics: “Oppression is mani-
fested through racism, sexism, classism, anti-Semitism, ableism, and
heterosexism, and the dimensions of experience that connect “isms” in
an overarching system of domination” (p. 4).

It is important to understand how these theories intersect with the day-

to-day issues at higher education institutions. When faculty members do
not teach students how to view their own work and personal space from
a multicultural lens, they create a covert bias that limits students’ growth
and development. The classroom becomes a place in which specific mate-
rial from the dominant culture is presented, giving a subtle message that
this model fits everyone, marginalized groups thus must accept the norm.
This type of acclimation process occurs frequently on campuses. Examples
include invited speakers who are only male; programs for marginalized
groups that are limited to one specific period of the year, such as women’s or
Latinx history month; and committees that are made up of one demographic
group. Alschuler (1986) would view such an institution as magical conform-
ist because the system has always operated in this manner and is part of the
pervasive oppression.
Moving into a transformation state requires that student affairs staff and
faculty teach students how to analyze and assess the organizational structure
that is covertly and overtly oppressive. This assessment may take the form of
challenging units to evaluate their organization from a multicultural frame of
reference and providing the appropriate incentives and support to help them
become more inclusive. This support often entails training student affairs
administrators in how to become continuous and not occasional diversity
advocates.
Faculty and administrators who are transformational leaders from
Alschuler’s (1986) perspective find methods to create an environment that
is not oppressive. Implementing diversity workshops, creating committees

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 26 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 27

to assess the campus and departmental climates, advocating workshops that

support underrepresented groups, diversifying membership on key university
committees that are part of retention efforts, and hiring staff members who
are compatible with the demographic makeup of the institution all help to
dismantle the hierarchical form of oppression that manifests itself on many
college campuses. Furthermore, these methods recognize that complex, mul-
tiple, and cross-cutting relationships must be recognized and changed before
diversity initiatives can become a routine part of the campus environment.

The Social Oppression Matrix

According to Hardiman and Jackson (2007), “oppression is not simply an
ideology or set of beliefs that assert one group’s superiority over another,
nor is it random violence, harassment, or discrimination toward members of
target groups” (p. 37). These researchers identified a social oppression model
that is pervasive when one social group, consciously or subconsciously, deval-
ues another social group for its own gain (Hardiman & Jackson, 2007). Four
key elements are associated with social oppression:

1. The agent group has the power to define and name reality and determine
what is “normal,” “real,” or “correct.”
2. Harassment, discrimination, exploitation, marginalization, and other
forms of differential and unequal treatment are institutionalized and sys-
tematic. These acts often do not require the conscious thought or effort
of individual members of the agent group but are rather part of business
as usual that become embedded in social structures over time.
3. Psychological colonization of the target group occurs through socializing
the oppressed to internalize their oppressed condition and collude with the
oppressor’s ideology and social system.
4. The target group’s culture, language, and history are misrepresented,
discounted, or eradicated and the dominant group’s culture is imposed.
(Hardiman & Jackson, 2007)

Social oppression exists when one group is the beneficiary of privileges

because of its social group membership. An example of privileged social group
membership is when an organization is solely composed of administrators or
leaders from one racial/ethnic group and gender, allowing them to create all
the hiring practices, and policies, as well as the pay structure, for the organi-
zation without consultation from those who are different (Hardiman &
Jackson, 2007). These privileges are supported by the institutions and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 27 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 28 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

structures of society as well as by individuals who assist in operating, sup-

porting, maintaining, and perpetuating these benefits. The social oppression
matrix comprises individual, institutional, and cultural/societal levels. These
levels work in a dynamic fashion along three dimensions “that operate to
support and reinforce each other: the context, the psychosocial processes,
and the application” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 18).
The context dimension intersects with the individual, institutional, and
cultural/societal levels. The boundaries are not rigid but fluid, allowing for
interaction and thus making all three levels mutually supportive. The indi-
vidual level emphasizes the beliefs, views, values, and practices of the per-
son rather than an entire social or institutional system. The impact of social
oppression on an individual and the institution is reciprocal. Individuals are
affected by the institution when they abide by, maintain, and sustain oppres-
sive rules, regulations, and structures. Conversely, individuals have an impact
on the institution when they internalize and value dominant societal values,
codes, and mores.
Institutions—such as corporations, schools/colleges/universities, reli-
gious groups, and federal/state/local governments, as well as the family—
construct and are affected by two levels: individual and cultural/societal.
“The application of institutional policies and procedures in an oppressive
society run by individuals or groups who advocate or collude with social
oppression produces oppressive consequences” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997,
p. 19). Policies barring people of Color from country club golf courses or
religious organizations excluding women from assuming primary roles of
power are examples.
The psychosocial processes may be conscious or unconscious when indi-
viduals decide to support, collude, or actively participate in a system of social
oppression (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). People act as conscious participants
in social oppression when they engage in activities that support and maintain
a system that denigrates others—for example, providing funds for a White
supremacist group or voting against human rights legislation. Individuals
may unconsciously support social norms that are culturally demeaning, such
as people of Color turning to plastic surgery to mirror White facial features.
The application dimension recognizes that social oppression is evident
at the behavioral and attitudinal levels of the individual and system interface
(Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). “The attitudinal level describes the individual
and systemic values, beliefs, philosophies, and stereotypes that feed the other
dimensions” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 19), like the stereotypes that
the Muslims are terrorists, Italians are in the Mafia, White people have no
rhythm, Latinxs are migrant workers, and Asians are always stoic and sol-
emn. When zoning laws are designed to keep poor children in dilapidated

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 28 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 29

schools or people of Color are systematically overlooked for promotion and

relegated to low-paying positions, individuals are behaviorally taking actions
that sustain and preserve social oppression.

Social Identity Development Theory

Social identity development theory (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997) details the
characteristics that are common to the identity development of oppressed
and dominant groups. The theory should not be used to label people,
because they may be in one or more stages simultaneously coping with dif-
fering emotional and cognitive struggles with oppression. The theory is help-
ful in understanding the perspectives of students and in developing training
or teaching modules.
The first stage of the theory, naive/no social consciousness, is when
individuals from oppressed and dominant groups “are unaware of the
complex codes of appropriate behavior for members of their social group”
(Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 23). They may experiment and push the
boundaries or norms, but the social structure provides information and cues
about what being part of a particular social category is like. They begin to
accept the roles prescribed by teachers, parents, clergy, or the media and note
differences between and among individuals.
In the second stage, acceptance, these roles are internalized, and the
oppressed and dominant groups conform to the characteristics that society
has deemed for them, whether consciously or unconsciously. Members of the
dominant group who are in the passive acceptance stage have “to some degree
internalized codes of appropriate behavior, [so] conscious effort is no longer
required to remind them of what to do and how to think” (Hardiman &
Jackson, 1997, p. 24). If the dominant group is in the active acceptance
stage, its members receive messages in a very overt and direct method that
people from oppressed groups are inferior, deviant, and weak. Privileges are
evident for dominant members of the active acceptance stage, although they
are oblivious to these societal perks. Oppressed people in the acceptance
stage have learned to internalize and accept messages about the inferiority
of their culture and themselves and overtly or consciously connect with the
views, beliefs, and ideology of the dominant group. The passive acceptance
individuals are oblivious to how they emulate the oppressor and reflect the
oppressor’s views.
In the third stage, resistance, increased awareness occurs. Members of
the dominant group have experienced a challenging life event that pro-
vides some impetus for creating a new worldview and rejecting their old

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 29 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 30 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

frame of reference. In the resistance stage, those who are oppressed begin
to acknowledge and question the collective experiences of oppression and
their damaging effects.
Stage four, redefinition, requires that a new identity be created “that is
independent of an oppressive system based on hierarchical superiority and
inferiority” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 27). Dominant group members
start to reframe and create new definitions for their social group identity that
are independent of social oppression and the projection of prejudicial views
toward oppressed groups. Members of the oppressed group find themselves
independently defining who they are and developing a new personal identity
in the redefinition stage. This stage is significant for the oppressed because
“it is at this juncture that they shift their attention away from a concern for
their interactions with agents of oppression towards a concern for primary
contact with members of their own social group who are at the same stage of
consciousness” (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 27).
The fifth stage, internalization, is geared toward infusing the identity
developed in the redefinition stage into every phase of one’s life. The domi-
nant groups work toward creating a more inclusive and egalitarian society.
The oppressed groups are engrossed in embracing and accommodating their
new level of critical consciousness and group dignity.

Critical Race Theory

There are similarities between Freire’s (1968/1987) pedagogy of working
with oppressed populations and critical race theory. Both theories are about
raising the consciousness of individuals who have been silenced and eliminat-
ing every form of oppression (race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation,
etc.; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Freire, 1968/1987). Critical race theorists
believe in the role of storytelling to give the oppressed an opportunity to be
empowered and heard (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). The stories also allow
people to interpret their own experiences and validate them with individuals
who are in similar situations. Counterspaces are physical locations within
an existing environment that are affirming as well as comfortable niches for
interactions that can be verbal or nonverbal, for marginalized or oppressed
groups (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Cultural centers, for example, are con-
sidered counterspaces on predominantly White campuses. Students of Color
often create counterspaces by sitting together in conspicuous locations in a
student center, cafeteria, or lounge area. Counterspaces are where these sto-
ries are often told, and they provide a safe space for marginalized groups to
dissect how their lives have been affected by oppression. Critical race theorists

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 30 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 31

also view racism as endemic and an integral part of our society, a reality that
is normal and natural “because it is so enmeshed in the fabric of our social
order” (Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 2009, p. 23). It is also under-
stood that attempting to create a color-blind society and embrace a neu-
tral stance about race is detrimental to marginalized groups. Color blindness
leads to an unconscious racism by oppressors that allows them to be oblivious
to the needs of the oppressed; everyone is treated the same because they are
blind to differences.
Critical race theory was developed by law scholars who believe this schol-
arship is transferable to other disciplines (Litowitz, 2009). It respects previous
diverse perspectives including “political activism of the 1960s, nationalism,
postmodernism, Marxism, and pragmatism (Litowitz, 2009, p. 293). The
subjective experiences of marginalized groups are valued because they have
had actual encounters with oppressive acts. Critical race theorists recognize
the role of history in oppressed groups because it frames a context for the
events that occur in the lives of the oppressed.
Today’s generation of college students has a different perspective about
diversity. Many of the students matriculating at our colleges and universities
have encountered individuals from racial/ethnic or cultural groups different
from their own. They have also been exposed to media that have provided
a lens into the worlds of populations outside their respective environments.
Students today have also been exposed to phenomena such as the increas-
ing diversity within our federal political system, transitions in careers that
have traditionally been deemed gender-specific domains, and the expand-
ing opportunities to participate actively in community service. One would
assume that this generation has already embraced the critical race perspec-
tive of understanding privilege through personal engagement and assessment.
However, we need to be cautious about such assumptions because exposure to
diverse groups is often experienced vicariously through the media, for exam-
ple, rather than through direct and sustained personal encounters.
College students may view their comfort with diverse populations as
being nondiscriminatory and color-blind to differences. This perspective
relieves members of the dominant group from the guilt associated with seeing
people as being from distinctly different cultures from their own. The color-
blind philosophy often allows the dominant group to make the assumption
that our society provides equal access to everyone regardless of race, creed,
or religious affiliation. Students should be exposed to cultural experiences
throughout their college career, in the classroom as well as extracurricular
activities, to dispel this notion of color blindness (Bell, 2007a).
The classroom experience is a key component in challenging the com-
fort level of students in college today. Denson and Chang (2009) found that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 31 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 32 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

“there are appreciable educational benefits associated with racial diversity”

(p. 344). The authors continue, stating that “campuses where students are
more engaged with racial diversity through related knowledge acquisition
or cross-cultural interaction have measurable positive effects on all stu-
dents irrespective of a student’s own frequency of engagement with diver-
sity” (Denson & Chang, 2009, p. 344). The institution’s role in providing a
diverse experience for students, in and out of the classroom, creates the per-
fect space for them to be purposeful in their cultural journey. The manner in
which students are exposed to diversity experiences will challenge their sense
of whether they have internalized their own racial identity and their under-
standing that society still views marginalized groups in a mostly stereotypical
manner. The students need to be challenged to see diversity and differences
in others, and they need to learn that to do so does not mean they are preju-
diced, racist, sexist, or homophobic. It means they are comfortable with the
discourse that leads to hearing the stories of oppressed individuals. Moreover,
they will appreciate the need for counterspaces so that marginalized groups
can share their experiences with those who are willing to listen and learn.

How Oppression Affects Privileged Groups

Oppression has a tremendous impact on the identity development of domi-
nant or privileged groups. McIntosh (1998) metaphorically described White
privilege “as an invisible package of unearned assets that I could count on
cashing in each day but about which I was meant to remain oblivious. White
privilege is like an invisible knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports,
codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks” (p. 207) and is mainly
provided to those who are male, White or European American, heterosex-
ual, and who possess physical adeptness and mental acuity. The privileged
identity exploration (PIE) model is a tool created by Watt (2015) “that
individuals can use to identify defenses that arise as observed in self or oth-
ers when introduced to a dissonance-provoking stimulus (DPS)” (p. 42).
When a dissonance-provoking stimulus arises, individuals have eight defen-
sive mechanisms that may arise, including recognizing privileged identity
(denial, deflection, and rationalization), contemplating privileged identity
(intellectualization, principium, false envy), and addressing privileged iden-
tity (benevolence and minimization; Watt, 2015).
First, the PIE model emphasizes that there is “no ultimate level of con-
sciousness” (Watt, 2015, p. 43); thus, unraveling one’s privileged identity is
an ongoing and lifelong socialization process. Second, in order to dissect one’s
privileged identity there is a need to engage in difficult dialogues about social
justice issues and “-isms” that are embedded in the fabric of our organizational

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 32 7/26/2016 7:24:14 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 33

systems. When individuals are attempting to situate themselves to under-

stand where they are in their belief system and how to digest the unfamiliar
information being introduced to them, “the PIE model assumes that defense
modes are innate and normal human reactions when introduced to a DPS”
(Watt, 2015, p. 44). The PIE model also recognizes that self-awakening dia-
logue will occur and “there is an intersection of privileged and marginalized
identities within each person” (Watt, 2015, p. 44).
As mentioned earlier, there are eight defense modes identified in the PIE
model. The recognizing privileged identity phase finds individuals attempt-
ing to protect themselves from DPS through the use of denial, rejecting the
existence of the DPS, and deflection, “shifting the focus of the DPS toward
another source” (Watt, 2015, p. 46). When one is contemplating privileged
identity, the defenses are minimization, rationalization, and intellectualiza-
tion. Downplaying or making light of the impact of the DPS is minimi-
zation. Using rationalization allows individuals to situate the DPS in their
worldview and continue to disprove the stimulus with intellectualization or
the use of data. The last phase, addressing privileged identity, “includes the
defensive reactions of false envy, principium, and benevolence” (Watt, 2015,
p. 47). “False envy is a defensive reaction that compliments or expresses affec-
tion toward a person or a feature of a person that represents the DPS” (Watt,
2015, p. 47). A method of resisting the logic of the DPS is to use a principle
or personal value as a way to argue for the perspective of the privileged per-
son. Additionally, a way to assuage the guilty or conflicting feelings of the
privileged person and the DPS is through an act of benevolence or charity
by donating one’s time or money to a cause that is antithetical to what is
believed or perceived.
Understanding the denial mechanisms of the privileged group helps
those who are oppressed or individuals attempting to enact change identify
the emotions and gestures that are manifested and deflected toward them.
Thus, giving the marginalized group an opportunity to deflect, react, and
challenge what is being exhibited or said by the privileged group can create
deeper DPS to help them incorporate new knowledge and information from
the oppressed group. The PIE model “identifies normal reactions that people
often display as they attempt to incorporate ideas that challenge the very
structure of their beliefs and values” (Watt, 2015, p. 55).

Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of Freire’s (1968/1987) pedagogy of the
oppressed, a social oppression matrix, the social identity development theory,
critical race theory, and the impact of privilege on dominant groups. This

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 33 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 34 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

perspective offers a context for understanding why identity development is

difficult and why those who are oppressed often express different views about
their experiences. A critical foundation to understanding identity develop-
ment among diverse populations, this context may enable students, teachers,
and administrators to find creative and collaborative methods for reducing
oppressive behaviors in the classroom and on campus. Additionally, personal
reflection on the issue of social oppression may bring about a change in indi-
vidual identity.
Freire (1968/1987) cogently stated that we should not let the fear of
what is difficult paralyze us and that there is no teaching without learning.
One of the authors of this chapter learned about the difficulty of peeling back
layers of privilege, guilt, magical conforming, naive reforming, and critical
transforming from a White male doctoral student who took a seminar course
on critical race theory. The student agonized over the eye-opening yet hurt-
ful experience of having been part of political, educational, professional, and
societal systems that oppressed people who have dreams similar to his. The
student used poetry, journaling, and self-disclosure during class discussions
to describe his transformational process and his realization that unpacking
the invisible knapsack is a lifelong process.
Regardless of whether your profession is teaching, mentoring, coun-
seling, advising, or administration, everyone is an educator and has a respon-
sibility to encourage individuals to become the creators of their own destiny.
The educational process should include modeling and teaching others how
we can transform oppressive systems that subjugate marginalized groups and
liberate them from the mechanized “wheels in the head” (Spring, 2007, p. ix)
controlling behavior traditionally used by media, books, technology, and
schools. The student poem gives us insight into the dissonance-provoking
process of developing a critical consciousness and becoming motivated to
transform systemic oppression.

This work deals with a very obvious truth: just as the oppressor, in order
to oppress, needs a theory of oppressive action, so the oppressed, in
order to become free, also need a theory of action. The theory of oppres-
sion is learned, transmitted, and replicated. (Freire, 1968/1987, p. 185)

Case Study
Translating theory to practice can be a daunting task for students and student
affairs professionals. Understanding how the theories and models presented
in this chapter can assist in helping individuals navigate the challenges of
negotiating different environments and understanding marginalized cultures

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 34 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 35

could assist in transforming the campus community or institutional environ-

ment. The mini cases presented are examples of how others can misread and
misinterpret culture, race, ethnicity, and traditions. Using a reflective lens,
dialogue, and collaboration (i.e., Freire, critical race, or social justice models)
can lead to an outcome that empowers everyone. Here the term minoritized
is used to identify the individuals from the nondominant group (Bensimon
& Bishop, 2012), and it “is used in solidarity with a number of scholars and
critical race theorists in reference to the societal construction of subordina-
tion of certain racial/ethnic groups in global social institutions” (Kilgo &
Barajas, 2015, p. 70).

Free ISU
Free ISU is a midsize (13,700 students), predominantly White institution
located in the country’s “heartland.” At the university fall address, President
Noall Chadley shared great news about the increase in student enrollment
as well as the burgeoning number of minoritized students attending Free
ISU. He stated that “this year our university is comprised of 25% racial
ethnic groups which include African Americans, Latino(a)s, Asian and
Pacific Islanders, as well as Native Americans.” This news was exciting for
some; however, there was discomfort for others because many believed that
President Chadley’s recent decision to eliminate the Office of Diversity was
antithetical to the direction in which the institution was heading in regard to
its recent more diverse demographic shift and growth. Moreover, the decision
to eliminate the Office of Diversity was based on the results of a commis-
sioned research study from an external diversity consultant, and there was no
discussion with the university community about the ramifications of the con-
sultant’s recommendations. President Chadley also created a Multicultural
Center that would focus on campus-wide diversity student programming
and activities. In order to continue the assessment of the campus climate, the
president selected an African American male administrator, Stephen Jefferson,
as special assistant to the provost, to orchestrate the dialogue among students,
administrators, and faculty around diversity and inclusion on campus. The
provost, Tom Panther, was recently hired at Free ISU and embraced his new
special assistant as part of the executive administrative team.
Observing the increase in minoritized students at Free ISU and the
decrease in racial/ethnic staff, administrators, and faculty, a group of con-
cerned minoritized employees and allies decided to create the Diversity and
Equity Coalition. The coalition was formed to shed light on several concerns
that could impact everyone at Free ISU. As part of its impetus, the coa-
lition felt silenced and marginalized because the decision to eliminate the
Office of Diversity was made unilaterally, and the written responses from

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 35 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 36 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

the campus community refuting the consultants’ findings were not acknowl-
edged. The coalition was also interested in the findings from the deans of the
various colleges who were assigned, by Provost Panther’s predecessor, the task
of researching the best diversity practices on comparable college campuses
across the country. In order to move the discussion with the administration
further along, the coalition understood the importance of having minoritized
representation at all levels within the university structure, including the board
of trustees. During the next board appointment cycle there will be two open-
ings; the current demographic makeup of the group is six White men, one
Latina, one African American woman whose term is ending, and one White
woman. The coalition created the following list of requests that were pre-
sented to Provost Panther, Special Assistant Jefferson, and President Chadley:

1. To hire a vice president for diversity and equity who reports directly to
the president and has a staff to assist with the myriad diversity issues
on this campus.
2. To have two persons from minoritized groups be selected as members
of the board of trustees in 2016.
3. To have minoritized faculty promoted and placed in positions of depart-
ment chair, deans, and other upper-level administrative posts on campus.

At the coalition meeting there were a sizable number of students in the

attendance who also felt marginalized and neglected at Free ISU, so they
organized and created a list of demands, prepared a petition, and posted the
information on social media, at Change.org, to gain national attention and
support from external entities. The student demands are as follows:

1. Reestablish the Office of Diversity by creating a vice president for equity

and inclusion position to provide oversight of university-wide efforts
toward inclusive excellence.
2. Increase initiative to recruit African American faculty and staff, providing
an equal African American faculty and staff to African American student
ratio.
3. The need for internationally trained staff members in each office or col-
lege who know issues surrounding visas, education requirements, and
financial needs of international students.
4. Provide advocates within the financial aid office for the purposes of
ensuring that students’ questions are responded to with civility (which
also offers someone the students can trust).
5. Hire more officers from minoritized communities to increase a sensitized
presence.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 36 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 37

6. Establish a Latino/Latina Cultural Center.

7. Enhance the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ)
Resource Center, which will give the LGBTQ community a safe place to
get resources and support.
8. Have an open-ear policy, not just an open-door policy, so that students
feel that their voices are heard when they have concerns, grievances, or
other issues concerning their education and the environment at Free ISU.

The Faculty, Staff, and Administrative Coalition as well as the Student

Coalition immediately faced deep-seated resistance on campus from the
dominant culture as well as some minoritized individuals. Some students felt
as though the group was “forcing their agenda” on everyone, and the envi-
ronment seemed to be quite comfortable on campus, so why try to change
things? Others indicated that they were being forced to sign a petition in
which some of the demands seemed appropriate, but other issues did not
impact them at all. The administrators and staff on campus were beginning
to feel uncomfortable about supporting the coalitions because their supervi-
sors were warning them of possible repercussions if there was any indication
that their signature was on the form. One staff member sent a private message
to the organizers stating that she was in favor of the movement and signed the
form, even though she was told not to do so by an upper-level administrator.
The final blow was delivered by a group of White male graduate stu-
dents in the student affairs master’s program who were tired of hearing
about concerns of the minoritized students from their professors and peers.
They complained to their practicum supervisors about the conversations
in the Multiculturalism in Higher Education class that seemed to be “just
endless diatribe” about the coalitions and their demands. The supervisors
stated that if they were feeling overwhelmed and pressured to be part of the
petition, then they should report this behavior to the academic administra-
tor, Dr. Panther. The students agreed that they were being marginalized
and oppressed, so they took their cause to the provost and stated that the
coalition was going to disrupt Homecoming weekend with a major dem-
onstration.
The information about the complaint was passed down from Provost
Panther to the dean of the College of Education, Elnora Banks, who imme-
diately sent an e-mail to everyone in the student affairs program stating that
freedom of speech allows all people to share their concerns and by no means
is anyone coerced to align to a cause that is antithetical to one’s belief system.
The faculty in the program are quite stunned that students who will soon be
encountering situations like this on a college campus would be so insensitive
and uncaring about the concerns of the minoritized students.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 37 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 38 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Discussion Questions
1. What are some personal and systemic privileges exhibited in the case?
2. How should the professors in the student affairs program respond to the
accusations of the White students who are complaining?
3. What should be the role of the student affairs division in regard to the
Student Coalition and their list of demands?
4. What are some of the critical race theory components that emerge from
this case (e.g., counterspace, counterstory, interest convergence, micro-
aggression)?
5. What are some of the Freireian components that emerge from this
case (behaviors of the oppressor, banking education, behaviors of the
oppressed, praxis, critical consciousness)?
6. How can the student affairs cohort be supportive of the White students
who complained, yet challenge them as well to think about their behavior?
7. Using the PIE model, what defense mechanisms are the privileged group
using?

References
Alschuler, A. S. (1986). Creating a world where it is easier to love: Counseling
applications of Paulo Freire’s theory. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64,
492–496.
Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams,
L.A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.). Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bell, L. A. (2007a). Overview: Twenty-first-century racism. In M. A. Adams,
L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook
(2nd ed., pp. 117–122). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bell, L. A. (2007b). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In
M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice:
A sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bell, L. A. (2016). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams,
L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. Y. Joshi (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social
justice (3rd ed., pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bensimon, E. M., & Bishop, R. (2012). Introduction: Why “critical”? The need for
new ways of knowing. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 1–7.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of
diversity-related student engagement and institutional context. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 46(2), 322–353.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 38 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 OPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECT ON COLLEGE STUDENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 39

Freire, P. (1987). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original
work published 1968)
Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1997). Conceptual foundation for social justice
courses. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and
social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 16–29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (2007). Conceptual foundations for social justice
education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and
social justice (2nd ed.; pp. 35–66). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kilgo, C. A., & Barajas, R. (2015). Multicultural initiatives as bridges: Structures
necessary for successful facilitation. In S. K. Watt (Ed.), Designing transformative
multicultural initiatives: Theoretical foundations, practical applications, and facilita-
tor considerations (pp. 61–71). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Litowitz, D. E. (2009). Some critical thoughts on critical race theory. In E. Taylor,
D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson-Billings (Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in
education (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Routledge.
McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege, color, and crime: A personal account. In
C. R. Mann & M. S. Zatz (Eds.), Images of color and images of crime: Readings
(pp. 207–216). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Shoreline Productions. (Producer). (2010). RFK in the land of apartheid: A ripple
of hope [DVD]. Available from http://www.rfksafilm.org
Spring, J. (1998). Wheels in the head: Educational philosophy of authority, freedom,
and culture from Socrates to human rights (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Spring, J. (2007). Wheels in the head: Educational philosophies of authority, free-
dom, and culture from Confucianism to human rights (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Spring, J. (2013). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States (7th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown.
Taylor, E., Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (Eds.). (2009). Foundations of critical
race theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Watt, S. K. (2015). Privileged identity exploration (PIE) model revisited: Strength-
ening skills for engaging difference. In S. K. Watt (Ed.), Designing transformative
multicultural initiatives: Theoretical foundations, practical applications, and facilita-
tor considerations (pp. 40–57). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 39 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 3
E N V I R O N M E N TA L
INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE
C U LT U R E
Michael J. Cuyjet and Jason L. Meriwether

F
rom the early days of the student affairs profession, theorists have
recognized the impact of environment on the lives of the individuals
who populate our campuses. Kurt Lewin (1936) proposed the formula
B = f (P, E) to explain that behavior (B) is a function (f ) of the interac-
tion of a person (P) and his or her environment (E). Kaiser (1975) applied
Lewin’s concept to the college setting and identified this interaction as a
“transactional relationship” in which “the students shape the environment
and are shaped by it” (p. 38). Unfortunately, when we consider concepts such
as these in the general sense, we tend to focus on the impact that environ-
ment has on all the members of the community as a single entity. Typically,
we look at the interaction of environment with the elements of culture as
reflected in the dominant American culture. While this may help us gauge
the impact of environment on the cultural and social lives of students who
are part of the dominant American culture, it does not accommodate the dif-
ferences that exist among people who do not embrace the dominant culture.
Strange and Banning (2015) discussed findings from a 1991 report by the
Council of Ontario Universities that concluded “The environment is expe-
rienced differently according to a person’s ethnicity, race, class, age, ability,
and sexuality” (p. 182). Thus, it becomes necessary to examine the impact
of environment through alternate cultural perspectives to observe how the
same element of the environment can have different—sometimes minute,
sometimes drastic—effects on the inhabitants of the community whose
characteristics differ from those of the dominant majority.

40

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 40 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 41

This chapter presents a theoretical model of person-environment interac-

tion and examines its components using the divergent cultural perspectives.
In doing so, we can explore ways to better use the concepts represented in
these models to make college and university environments more accommo-
dating and welcoming to students who embrace cultural perspectives other
than dominant American cultural norms.1
A number of useful models exist that help conceptualize the influ-
ence environment has on participants in a college community. Strange and
Banning (2001, 2015) organized the elements of campus environments
into a framework with four dimensions: physical environments, the desig-
nated features of the campus physical plant; human aggregates, the collective
characteristics of the campus human population; organized environments,
the dynamics of the interaction among campus members and groups; and
constructed environments, the meanings that campus members put on these
interactions. This model builds on the earlier work of Huebner and Law-
son (1990), who offer six constructs that affect students’ development and
performance in the college setting: heterogeneity/homogeneity, support-
challenge balance, social support, social climate, the physical environment,
and person-environment congruence. The material in this chapter is organ-
ized using Strange and Banning’s model and addresses these constructs using
the four dimensions they have outlined, with reference to the sixth of Hueb-
ner and Lawson’s constructs (person-environment congruence) added appro-
priately for emphasis.

Physical Environments
The first of Strange’s (1996) environmental dimensions, physical environ-
ments, examines the influence of physical structures on the behavior of
individuals within a community and includes the concepts of architec-
tural determinism, architectural possibilism, and architectural probabilism
(Strange & Banning, 2015). In architectural determinism, behavior is pre-
sumed to be caused by the environment. People behave in a certain way
because the physical structure and design allow few other options. Fences
and gates that limit access to areas of the campus and buildings that have few
entrances are examples of deterministic architecture. Architectural possibi-
lism describes a physical environment that may or may not facilitate behav-
ior, providing a source of opportunities that may set limits on, but does
not restrict, behavior. The environment serves as an influence of “passive
limiting agency” (Wissler, 1929, as cited in Strange & Banning, 2001, p.
13). An attractively designed campus restaurant in a very visible location is

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 41 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 42 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

an example of possibilism. It is more than just another place to eat; it is an

attraction that draws patrons. Architectural probabilism assumes that cer-
tain behaviors have “probabilistic links to the built environment” (Strange
& Banning, 2001, p. 14). The layout, location, and arrangement of space
and facilities render some behaviors much more probable than others. For
example, the location of a cultural center in a remote building on the campus
periphery rather than in the student union in the center of campus could
impact the probability of its use by students.
The physical environment of the campus “communicates messages that
influence students’ feelings of well-being, belonging, and identity” (Kuh,
Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005, p. 106), yet architecture affects
students differently based on their cultural conditioning. The dominant
American culture tends to be individualistic, concentrated on internally
focused individual characteristics and self-aggrandizement. Individuals from
collectivist cultures that focus more on benefiting the entire social group
even at the expense of the individual have a greater desire to congregate and
interact socially and may be inhibited by an architectural arrangement that
provides few spaces for such congregation to occur (Kim & Hakhoe, 1994;
Leibbrandt, Gneezy, & List, 2013; Triandis, 1995; Veenhoven, 1999). For
example, little or no outdoor seating, few open plazas, small lounges in class-
room buildings, even narrow hallways do not facilitate impromptu, collec-
tive social interactions that may be more characteristic of some cultures than
the dominant American culture.
Campus environment, particularly its architecture, has both function and
symbol (Strange & Banning, 2015). While it is important to observe the gen-
eral symbolic influence of the campus architecture, it is also very important to
try, to the best of one’s ability, to imagine how that symbolism is perceived by
members of the campus subpopulations through their differing cultural lenses.
A mural in a lecture hall at Indiana University (IU) provides a stark example.
Painted by Thomas Benton in 1933 to depict the history of the region at
that time and installed at IU in 1941, one of the panels of the mural includes
images of robed Ku Klux Klansmen burning a cross (Commission on Multi-
cultural Understanding, 2015). There have been periodic objections over the
years, but a serious protest occurred during the spring 2002 semester when
several African American students who were attending a class in that lecture
hall found the images offensive and requested that they be painted over. The
perspective of the “pro-mural” people was that this was a valuable piece of
art that accurately depicted a chapter in Indiana’s history. The perspective of
the protesting students was that the mural reminded them of a particularly
offensive series of events perpetrated on their ancestors and that the images
were stressful for them to have to see on a regular basis. The dilemma in such

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 42 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 43

situations is that both perspectives have merit, and administrators must

be sensitive to the differences in viewpoints, the people, and the cultures
that spawn such feelings.
Environments provide symbolic nonverbal cues for behavior, and an
important conduit between function and symbol in the physical environment
is nonverbal communication (Strange & Banning, 2015). Various aspects of
the physical environment evoke nonverbal interpretations in the members
of the community. These interpretations can be positive or negative; they
can be aligned with the intention of the campus administrators, or they can
be the opposite of what was intended. The placement of the offices of the
various student service agencies in a prominent, centrally located student
center rather than in an older, less accessible building sends a clear nonverbal
message about the importance of student services and cocurricular activi-
ties in the life of the campus. Nonverbal (covert) messages are often seen as
more truthful than verbal or written (overt) messages (Mehrabian, 1981).
Double messages have a strong impact, and when a person on campus per-
ceives an inconsistency between the language and the nonlanguage message,
the nonverbal often becomes the most believable (Eckman, 1985). Imagine
the perceptions of a first-generation Latinx student and his parents sitting
in a freshman orientation session in which an all-White, all-Anglo team of
orientation advisers reads the nondiscrimination statement from the college
catalog. Which message—verbal or nonverbal—is more likely to be believed?
The physical environment is more than bricks and mortar; the behavior
setting is part of the physical environment. As a behavior setting, the college
environment is composed of two parts: the physical, or nonhuman, aspects
and the social, or human, aspects. Humans interact on campus among non-
human components (buildings, pathways, parking lots), and it is the mutu-
ally influential transactional relationship between the human and nonhuman
elements in these settings that shapes behavior (Strange & Banning, 2015).
As with any human interaction, this aspect of the physical environment is
influenced by culture.
Nonverbal influence can be manifested through proxemics, or spatial
zones, and through artifacts. Proxemics is the study of the social implications
of the use of physical space. Thus, the implication of a classroom with rows
of seats bolted to the floor and an instructor’s lectern on a podium 20 feet
away from the first row of seats offers a very different message about the for-
mality of student-teacher relations in the classroom than a room with mov-
able furniture and access to interactive instructional materials.
As with other aspects of the campus, we must also examine physical char-
acteristics for their differing implications toward people of different cultural
backgrounds. Individuals from cultures with greater tendencies for animated

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 43 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 44 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

verbal and tactile expressions of communication would be more greatly

affected by physical spaces that inhibit such contacts. Spatial zones describe
the distances people tend to establish between themselves and others when
they engage in social interaction. Strange and Banning (2001) identified four
distinct social zones of interaction: intimate (0 to 1.5 feet), personal (1.5 to
4 feet), social (4 to 12 feet), and public (more than 12 feet) and explained
that there is a cultural dimension to this as well. The Children’s Museum of
Indianapolis has a wonderful example in an exhibit consisting of a life-size
silhouette of a human figure on a wall and five sets of footprints painted on
the floor. The first set of footprints is about 12 inches from the wall, and each
of the ensuing sets of footprints is a bit farther from the wall, with the fifth set
being about five feet away. The signage accompanying this exhibit explains
that each set of footprints represents the distance at which people from vari-
ous cultures feel comfortable engaging in face-to-face conversation. Realizing
this, when we consider spatial zones, we must understand that the placement
of physical items all across campus—from the desks in the classrooms to the
chairs in the cafeteria—can send different messages to different members of
the campus community.
Strange and Banning (2015) describe physical artifacts as objects made
or modified by inhabitants that are often placed with intended purposes on a
campus. “Such objects and artifacts give directions, inspire, warn, or accommo-
date through signs and symbols” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 19). Artifacts
include signs and symbols, artwork or posters, graffiti, and specific physical
structures (Banning, Middleton, & Deniston, 2008). All of these can convey
significant nonverbal messages. Signage can give confusing signals. Signs that
are placed midway up a wall instead of near the ceiling convey a welcoming
message to individuals using wheelchairs. Signs that have a Braille translation
or are written in both English and another language suggest inclusiveness.
Campus symbols can have important cultural messages, too. A recent example
of how individuals with different cultural perspectives can interpret symbols
very differently is the controversy that has erupted in past years over college
mascots that depict American Indians. Although the circumstances may vary
from school to school, generally those who favor keeping such mascots unal-
tered argue for maintaining a time-honored tradition that fits the majority cul-
ture’s perspective of American Indians, while those who advocate changing the
mascots usually see them as a distortion or an insult to American Indian cul-
ture and American Indian people (Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2003).
Among several other elements of the physical campus environment dis-
cussed by Strange and Banning (2015) is the use of a concept called display
of self that explores the use of the physical environment by individuals or
groups to convey messages of presence or ownership. With such displays, a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 44 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 45

representative balance must be maintained among various cultural groups on

campus in the personalization of their space. If White fraternities and sorori-
ties can prominently display their letters on Greek Row houses, the smaller
Black or Latinx fraternities and sororities should be encouraged to display
theirs in a designated area, such as those seen at many historically Black col-
leges and universities (HBCUs). Campus administrators must make it clear
that if one group is allowed to contribute to the campus physical environ-
ment with a display of self, any group can do so, as long as their expression
is not harmful to others.
One more physical element presented by Strange and Banning (2015) is
sense of place, consisting of constructs that lend themselves to understand-
ing how participants connect with an institution. They include the follow-
ing eight concepts that improve the design of campus space and the quality
of its users experiences. Wayfinding is the organization of space and com-
munication provided by signs and graphics to help people easily find their
way around campus. Placemaking is a comprehensive approach to the crea-
tion, maintenance, and renovation of buildings to form the campus’ design.
Placemarking includes landmarks, style, materials, and landscapes that make
a campus unique. Placebuilding is the connection of the university campus
with other places, particularly the community in which it resides. Public
space includes both the physical features (e.g., use of green spaces) and the
activities occurring in them (e.g., games and active-ties) providing a sense
of community. Servicescape refers to the campus retail opportunities (e.g.,
bookstore, restaurants) or the general presentation of the campus to consum-
ers (e.g., admission office, advising center), to provide “pleasant human scale
surroundings” (p. 43). Atmospherics focus on the transactional experience
(positive or negative) of consumers in these campus settings. Post-occupancy
evaluation is the process of assessing a building’s performance in relation to
its occupants and intended uses. All of these can have culturally influenced
interpretations.

Human Aggregates
The second of Strange’s (1996) environmental dimensions examines the
characteristics of the human population within the campus community
and the effect that the various components of that population have on the
campus as a whole as well as on each other. Moos (as cited in Strange &
Banning, 2001) reminds us that the character of an environment depends on
the typical characteristics of its members which raises two important issues
that affect the ability of members of any particular campus community to

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 45 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 46 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

grasp the impact that the human element has on their environment. The
first issue relates to who is represented among the human aggregate and
the proportion of that representation among various identifiable groups of
members. The second issue concerns the relative strength or weakness of the
impact any or all of these groups have on the environment. Strange and Ban-
ning (2015) described these two elements as differentiation and consistency.
Differentiation is the degree of homogeneity of type among inhabitants of
an environment. Consistency is the similarity of type among those com-
munity inhabitants. A campus is said to be highly differentiated if there is a
single type of student who tends to be dominant in the environment, while
an environment that is characterized by a relatively broad distribution of
types is said to be undifferentiated or diffused. A good example of the effect
of environmental differentiation can be seen in the description of environ-
ments by Holland (1973). In his model of vocational-interest personality
types, Holland describes six different types of individual personalities and
the environments they inhabit: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enter-
prising, and conventional. In Holland’s model, the six social environments
corresponding to these six personality types tend to be dominated by indi-
viduals who reflect the typical characteristics of the dominant type. In turn,
because a particular type tends to dominate a particular social environment,
a certain set of behaviors, attitudes, and skills tend to be reinforced (e.g.,
artistic environments reinforce artistic characteristics). Thus, Holland’s
environments are said to be highly differentiated.
From a multicultural perspective, there are four concerns with differ-
entiation. First is the relative strength of the dominant group or type in a
highly differentiated environment and the effect that strength has on the
ability of nondominant groups to function freely. For example, a small col-
lege campus that is overwhelmingly Greek may have an active extracurricu-
lar cultural milieu with much interchapter interaction. However, if Greek
membership is a requisite for participation in most of these activities, such
a highly differentiated community diminishes or excludes the participation
of non-Greeks.
The second concern is the differentiation of subenvironments within
the larger campus environment. While an assessment of the total campus
population may reveal a relatively even representation of a number of differ-
ent cultural groups, the impact of any high concentration of a certain type
leading to high differentiation in a part of the campus community might
prove stifling to any nondominant group. Thus, the high differentiation of
the college of engineering with White males with backgrounds in the natural
sciences could be problematic for Black females interested in the social appli-
cations of civil engineering.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 46 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 47

A third cultural concern in determining differentiation on cam-

pus is the common tendency to see various cultural groups as discrete
entities. Recent research on identity intersectionality (Cole, 2008; Linder &
Rodriguez, 2012; Shields, 2008) that examines how multiple identities such
as race, gender, class, and sexuality intersect has shown that differentiation is
a fluid concept that can take a multitude of forms. This concept is explored
in greater detail in Chapter 4.
Consistency, the similarity of type among the inhabitants of an envi-
ronment, has a significant effect on the human aggregate of a campus com-
munity. Consistency differs from differentiation in that a campus can be
somewhat diverse (or undifferentiated), yet these heterogeneous groups may
exhibit very similar characteristics, providing consistency to the environ-
mental milieu. This situation can sometimes be a positive occurrence, since
high consistency in a particular environment tends to make social interaction
easier among the inhabitants because they already have similar characteristics
upon which to build relationships. On the other hand, in environments in
which a message is sent, overtly or covertly, that consistency in human char-
acteristics among all community members is highly desirable, those whose
cultural characteristics are in any way dissimilar to the consistent norm will
be marginalized.
As an example of this condition, consider two hypothetical interna-
tional graduate students in the college of engineering. One is a Chinese
student from a middle-class background with a strong academic record
at a highly rated technical institution in her home country. The other is
a Guatemalan student who demonstrates the potential to succeed in the
engineering field but comes from an economically depressed region and
was trained in an institution lacking access to the latest and most sophisti-
cated technology. Both students add to the heterogeneity and diversity (i.e.,
undifferentiation) of the college’s student body, but the Chinese student
exhibits consistency with those middle-class American students who have
been trained at highly rated U.S. institutions. The danger is that the former
student’s background and training may set a potentially false expectation
that all international students will have this level of consistency and those
who do not are personally deficient, without giving appropriate considera-
tion to the environmental factors that contribute to their differences and
failing to provide needed additional assistance. Moreover, if all international
students are expected to have consistency with the American students, those
who do not are unfairly perceived (by others as well as themselves) as defi-
cient and marginal. This example, however, is an oversimplification of what
occurs when an individual gives salience to the intersectionality of two or
more elements of her or his identity—race and gender, for example (Linder

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 47 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 48 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

& Rodriguez, 2012). Identity intersectionality complicates the issue of con-

sistency by muddling the range of cultural factors well beyond the discrete
characteristics often traditionally used, such as ethnicity, race, class, age,
ability, and sexuality.
The last of Huebner and Lawson’s (1990) environmental constructs,
person-environment congruence, helps explain the impact of this con-
cept of consistency on the college campus. Defined as the fit between an
individual’s characteristics and the environments in which he or she finds
comfort, person-environment congruence measures one’s similarity or dis-
similarity with the dominant normal characteristics exhibited in a particu-
lar campus community. A person is congruent with an environment “if
his or her type is the same or nearly the same as the dominant type within
that setting” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 73). If this is so, it can be dif-
ficult for individuals whose characteristics, behaviors, and values may be
considerably different from those of the dominant group to feel connected
to that particular environment. The first task of administrators in such a
community is to recognize and call to the attention of others around them
the presence of groups of students who do not have consistency with the
dominant group. The second task is to ensure that what qualifies members
of the community to receive acceptance and achievement is not domi-
nated by the characteristics of the predominant type. To accomplish this,
all students must be afforded a way to feel belongingness with the campus
community.
Strayhorn (2012) defines sense of belonging as “students’ perceived social
support on campus, a feeling of connectedness, or that one is important
to others” (p. 16). This perception of importance to others is an expansion
of the concept of mattering first presented by Schlossberg (1989). Multiple
studies (Garbarini-Philippe, 2010; Renn, 2003; Sands & Schuh, 2003)
reveal that connectedness is aided by contributing to students’ confidence in
exploring their racial identities. This research also reveals that environmental
influence on issues of race, culture and identity, peer culture, belief systems,
and social-historical context can impact cognitive development. The nega-
tive impact of unmet needs caused by unsupportive college environments on
multiracial students can create undesirable affects, such as despair, apathy, or
depression (Museus, Yee, & Lambe, 2011). Museus and colleagues prescribe
intentional dialogue and programs that address the interaction of race and
environmental experience as tools to positively impact multiracial students
on college campuses.
Helping nondominant community members identify similarities and
commonalties with the dominant culture is an effective way to begin build-
ing consistency where it may not be readily apparent. For example, merely

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 48 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 49

enrolling a viable population of Latinx students without making an even

greater effort to develop a cultural environment in which they can feel com-
fortable is not enough. If these students believe they are expected to assimi-
late into the Anglo culture to find success on the campus, many of them may
consider this too high a personal price to pay (Castillo, et al., 2006). The
concept of fit also requires efforts to have members of the dominant cultural
group adapt some behaviors and values to accommodate those of nondomi-
nant groups.
If nonconsistent groups are struggling to find a person-environment
fit on the campus, student affairs administrators have the role of helping
them accomplish this objective. “Lack of congruence must lead to dis-
satisfaction and instability, a condition that is likely to be resolved in one
of three ways: by seeking a new and congruent environment, by remak-
ing the present environment, or by adapting behavior to the dominant
characteristics of the present environment.” (Strange & Banning, 2015,
p. 75). Too often, predominantly White institution (PWI) administrators
assume that the third option will naturally occur if nondominant groups
such as African Americans, Latinxs, or American Indians are to adjust to
the campus environment. While some members of these populations find
assimilation relatively easy, some find it very difficult, and even those who
do adapt may expend considerable emotional and psychological energy
that might have better been directed at other positive pursuits, such as
academic studies. Perhaps the second option, remaking the environment,
is a more viable choice for some students. Student affairs professionals are
often called upon to lead efforts to change the environment to fit students
rather than trying to change students to fit the environment (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005).
Such change may not be easy. Strange and Banning (2015) stated
that “a highly differentiated and consistent environment is thought to be
resistant to change in that its strongest tendency is to reinforce itself ” (p.
75). Nonetheless, analyzing any resistance in terms of differentiation and
consistency can reveal what characteristics are dominant, which of these
dominant characteristics are problematic for diverse and nonconsistent
groups, how to accommodate the characteristics of other groups in the com-
munity, and how to overcome the natural resistance of social groups—both
dominant and nondominant—to segregate.
Recognizing that divergent subgroups of campus populations are
seldom likely to facilitate interaction on their own, student affairs profes-
sionals must create mechanisms to entice them to interact positively, appre-
ciate and honor each other’s differences, and find and celebrate their cultural
commonalities.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 49 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 50 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Organizational Environments
Simply stated, the organizational dimension of an environment is measured
by the interactions among people and groups within that environment as
well as by what they are able to achieve when they interact (Strange & Ban-
ning, 2001, 2015). Each of the four components of the Strange and Banning
environmental model builds on the components that precede it. Thus, in
the same way that the human aggregate of an environment brings life to the
physical component, the organizational component is the manifestation of
the various human aggregate elements interacting with each other to achieve
common goals.

Organizational Patterns
Strange and Banning (2015) tell us that “varying degrees of organized pat-
terns of structure and process” (p. 81) are found in all environments. These
patterns exist for people to achieve specific goals. Each college or university
generally has a set of common goals, including collecting and disseminating
knowledge and imparting that knowledge to students in some systematic
way. However, the patterns of structure and process give each institution
its distinct characteristics and also determine its relative success or failure in
meeting its goals.
Homogeneity can often contribute to the success of the institution’s abil-
ity to attain its goals. As a result, an institution whose mission focuses on
science and technology may more easily achieve many of the typical measures
of success for such an academic institution—prominent faculty, high-quality
students, numerous science and technology research grants, substantial grad-
uation rates—although the students may get significantly less exposure to the
study of the humanities and social sciences than at other institutions.
Not all such characteristics are academic. Cultural characteristics can
shape the organizational environment of a campus. HBCUs present a clear
example. HBCU curricula often include an infusion of Black history and
examples of Black culture that are missing from PWI curricula (Ricard &
Brown, 2008). Ricard and Brown (2008) also discuss HBCU experience,
noting the more prominent use of in loco parentis attitudes by administra-
tors and faculty in attending to the personal behavior of students (particularly
at smaller, private HBCUs) and strong ties to the surrounding community,
particularly the local Black community.
Technical institutions and HBCUs are examples of highly homogene-
ous aggregates that influence the organizational structure of their environ-
ments. These examples reflect Strange and Banning’s (2015) contention that
homogenous aggregates “attract, satisfy, and sustain individuals who share

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 50 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 51

those same interests” (p. 220). While the positive benefits of this homogene-
ity are apparent in the strength of curricula and culture and the stability of
the organizational structure, in the context of this book we want to exam-
ine the patterns of structure in an organizational environment, not only as
they might affect the dominant characteristics of the majority of the popula-
tion, but also as they relate to various cultural subpopulations within that
community. For example, urban community colleges with high numbers of
nontraditional-age commuter students and no residential students should
be very concerned that an administrative structure developed in years past
when the majority of students were traditional 18- to 22-year-old full-time
students may fail to serve the needs of large numbers of the current student
population (Drekmeier & Tilghman, 2010).
While exclusion of a cultural group in a homogeneous environment is
clearly detrimental to the community, so, too, is the false inclusion of a cul-
tural group based on a misleading stereotype. For example, Asian American
and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students are often confronted with the histori-
cally problematic model minority myth, which, as Museus and Vue (2013)
describe, occurs when educators “rely on aggregate data and oversimplified
analyses to suggest that AAPIs achieve the highest rates of educational suc-
cess among all racial groups” (p. 46). Museus and Vue challenge educators
to combat such overgeneralization and stereotyping by pursuing an agenda
to examine and understand the complexities of AAPI students beyond gen-
eralizing the group as a monolithic population that needs little resources or
support. The deleterious effect of failing to do so could lead to rapid dis-
satisfaction, lack of connection, disengagement, and disenrollment from the
institution.
At the beginning of this section, we stated that the organizational
dimension of an environment is measured by the interactions among people
and groups within that environment. Thus, from a multicultural perspec-
tive, mechanisms must be developed that facilitate interactions among vari-
ous subpopulations within the campus community, particularly those that
are nondominant or prone to marginalization. Kuh and colleagues (2005)
emphasize this point by advising campus administrators to make certain they
demonstrate their commitment to interactions among diverse people and
groups early by overtly socializing all newcomers to this value. However, just
attending to the particular needs of various subpopulations within the cam-
pus community may not be the proper solution to making the environment
comfortable for all. Balancing organizational structure to accommodate vari-
ous components of the campus community is often difficult because invari-
ably the needs of one group conflict with the needs of some other group.
Thus, providing one subpopulation with resources that strengthen the status

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 51 7/26/2016 7:24:15 PM

 52 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

of its members on campus often diminishes the status of another subpopula-

tion.
Consider the ongoing debate over whether it is prudent to have separate
Greek councils for the predominantly White, predominantly Black, or other
culturally focused fraternities and sororities (Atkinson, Dean, & Espino,
2010; Rashawn, 2013). Proponents of a unified all-Greek governance body
protest that separate councils weaken efforts to benefit the entire Greek
community, while proponents of different councils claim that the needs of
divergent groups can better be served separately. Strange and Banning (2015)
reflected on this dilemma of whether focusing on the environmental needs of
subpopulations can weaken the entire campus environmental structure when
they remarked, “That what contributes to strong subcommunities most often
detracts from the community of the whole and what sustains the whole com-
munity usually does so at the expense of various subcommunities” (p. 223).

Organizational Structures
Strange and Banning (2015) suggested that the campus environment com-
prises seven organizational structures: “complexity, centralization, formaliza-
tion, stratification, production, routinization, and efficiency” (p. 87–88). By
examining the campus environment using these organizational structures,
we can explore how each may be used to make the environment comfortable
for different subpopulations in the campus community while still providing
an overall organizational environment that is multicultural and welcoming
of diverse components of the campus community. Examples of the cultural
dimensions of all seven structures are plentiful, but for the purpose of dem-
onstrating the use of cultural perspectives in organizational structures in this
chapter, only four of them—complexity, stratification, production, and effi-
ciency—are exemplified here.
Complexity. The fundamental concern of organizational complexity
is the question of how many units and subunits serve the purposes of the
organization and how they should be arranged. Cultural diversity affects
complexity in two ways. First, as more distinct subunits are required to meet
the needs of distinct subpopulations, the campus becomes more complex.
Adding a separate agency to attend to the concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgendered students or establishing an office to serve returning veter-
ans and military students may have clear advantages to those distinct popula-
tions, but if additional funding and personnel are not available, these services
will have to compete with other agencies for existing resources. Second, units
that are responsible for providing a service to the entire campus will need
to decide if they are capable of adequately meeting the needs of a complex

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 52 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 53

organizational environment. For example, administrators of a counseling

center on a campus with broad cultural diversity (i.e., having complexity)
must be concerned about the diversity of its personnel to be able to address
the needs of a diverse clientele.
Stratification. Stratification in an organization is manifested in the dif-
ferential distribution of its rewards. Generally speaking, culturally sensitive
organizations should have less stratification in the way rewards and resources
are distributed, for a number of reasons. High stratification tends to be divi-
sive because “reward structures are usually cast into a competitive frame-
work” (Strange & Banning, 2015, pp. 92–93), and this very competitive
environment itself is not reflective of the various cultures to which members
of the campus community may belong. Individuals with characteristics of
some collectivistic Asian or American Indian cultures, for example, may find
a competitive individualist process of reward allocation difficult to embrace.
Additionally, if one subpopulation on a highly stratified campus tends tra-
ditionally to have acquired a disproportionate amount of the rewards, that
group is likely to be resistant to efforts to enhance cultural diversity and
cross-cultural sharing of resources. Administrative stratification is an addi-
tional concern. Members of various subpopulations should be able to see
individuals who reflect their cultural characteristics among the decision mak-
ers at all levels of the organizational structure, particularly near and at the
top. For example, the absence in a particular institution of any vice presi-
dents or deans who are female or Latinx or openly gay may signal that the
institution’s stratification is not inclusive.
Smaller subsets of certain cultural groups often have greater difficulty
accessing campus rewards not only because of their fewer numbers but also
because they are sometimes rendered invisible by the characteristics of the
larger population of which they are a subunit. An example of one such subset
disadvantaged by stratification is high-achieving Black students, described
by Fries-Britt and Griffin (2007) as having superior intelligence and supe-
rior or exceptional academic performance. Fries-Britt and Griffin note that
this population is understudied, which leaves many educators to rely on
assumptions about this group’s needs on campus with respect to social and
academic support. Their broad dispersion across campus may further deny
a low number of high-achieving Black students access to the shared expe-
riences, commonality, or potential mentor/mentee relationships with other
high-performing peers or graduate students or faculty with similar scholarly
interests. This lack of contact with faculty or administrators of Color can
deny high-achieving Black students an important support system without
which they may succumb to fears of perceived tokenism, behavior modifica-
tion to avoid being perceived as conforming to negative racial stereotypes, or

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 53 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 54 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

the pressure to behave in manners that dispel pressure from peers and faculty
related to perceptions of Black student performance.
Production. Strange and Banning (2015) state that “the value of any
organization is often assessed by what it does, most frequently in terms of
what it produces” (p. 93). When evaluating the success or failure of an insti-
tution’s production (e.g., the number of students matriculating, the number
of graduates, the amount of grant money won by faculty), administrators on
a culturally sensitive campus should monitor the assessment not just in the
aggregate but also by subpopulations to see if the effects are being equally
felt. Thus, an overall undergraduate graduation rate of 50% is a less-than-
adequate gauge of success if the rate for African American men within that
group is only 25%. We should also consider “the quality of production”
(Strange and Banning, 2015, p. 95); simply measuring the number of Latinx
graduates, for example, is not a true assessment of production if large num-
bers of them leave the institution having felt alienated or disconnected dur-
ing their matriculation.
Efficiency. Organizational efficiency involves the assessment of the rela-
tive cost of the products or services that an organization produces. Efficiency
generally implies an emphasis on the prudent use of resources and cost reduc-
tion (Strange & Banning, 2001, 2015). A cultural perspective in measuring
efficiency calls for institutional administrators to give ample consideration
to the development and maintenance of cultural diversity in personnel and
programs as they make determinations about the efficient use of resources
and minimizing costs. Accordingly, for example, an Asian studies depart-
ment might be supported even if it maintains a relatively lower number of
majors, or the Student Life Office may hire an adviser for the nine tradition-
ally Black fraternities and sororities even though their chapter memberships
are measurably lower than the average for their traditionally White counter-
parts. Strange and Banning (2015) also suggest that “colleges and universities
are in the business of creating new ideas and programs responsive to chang-
ing conditions and needs” (p. 97). Thus, a culturally responsive perspective
on efficiency is as sensitive to the needs and situational conditions of smaller
cultural subpopulations, such as those with physical or learning disabilities,
as to more traditional campus units, such as academic departments or the
general student body as a whole.

Constructed Environments
Constructed models of the environment “focus on the subjective views
and experiences of participant observers, assuming that environments are
understood best through the collective perceptions of the individuals within

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 54 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 55

them” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 116). Critical to this perception of

human environment is the notion that “examining collective personal per-
spectives of an environment (from inside participants as well as from out-
side observers) is critical for understanding how people are likely to react to
those environments” (Strange & Banning, 2015, p. 116). In other words,
each person’s perceptions are the reality of that environment for him or her.
Thus, of the four sets of environmental dimensions in the Strange and
Banning model, the constructed model might seem to most accurately reflect
a multicultural perspective because the constructed identity of the environ-
ment is composed of the collective viewpoints of the various individuals who
inhabit that community. However, a closer examination of the way this envi-
ronmental dimension is used in most situations reveals that, like the physi-
cal, human aggregate, and organizational dimensions, the typical application
may not necessarily employ a fully multicultural perspective without some
additional adaptations to accommodate the needs and worldviews different
from the dominant American cultural viewpoint.
Three perspectives employing the work of other theorists—environmen-
tal press, social climate, and campus culture—are offered by Strange and
Banning (2015) to demonstrate the interaction of elements in a constructed
environment.

Environmental Press
Stern (1970) said that environmental press is inferred from consensual self-
reporting of activities by either participants in or observers of an environ-
ment. For example, if 75% of the undergraduate students at a particular
college are members of fraternities and sororities, the environment is inferred
to have a press toward Greek involvement. In such an environment, student
affairs professionals may respond by designating one staff member whose pri-
mary job is to advise Greek organizations and assist in programming events
focused on their activities. The housing office might designate sections of
the residence halls for the exclusive occupancy and use of separate Greek
chapters. Such allocation of resources would probably be beneficial to the
overall development of the members of the Greek organizations. However, a
comprehensive, inclusive, multicultural perspective goes beyond serving the
majority and provides for the needs of recognizable minorities as well. Thus,
in such a highly Greek-oriented environment, appropriate attention must
be paid to the minority of students who elect not to affiliate with fraterni-
ties and sororities or to those students who might not be accepted readily
into the Greek organizations. Moreover, these efforts need to guarantee that
the support of non-Greek students is not marginalized and that the efforts

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 55 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 56 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

to address their needs are not subsumed by the efforts being devoted to the
Greek students.
Stern’s (1970) explanation of environmental press includes the obser-
vation that “the perceived environment is both personal and consensual”
(p. 12). However, the concept of consensus can fail to accommodate the
needs of minorities; even when consensus is apparently achieved, it can result
because some of the members of an environment feel compelled to con-
cede one single characteristic to represent the entire group. Thus, it is not
simply enough to find a course of action that seems to elicit a consensus of
perception among the members of the population, be it a particular group
of students or the whole student body or the entire college community. The
absence of dissent does not imply total agreement or full acceptance of the
consensus position. Marginalized groups may believe that expressing any
opposition to the status quo is futile and simply may choose to accept a less-
than-desirable situation as inevitable. Student affairs professionals need first
to identify the particular constructed environmental press in various aspects
of the campus community and determine whether that press truly represents
characteristics and inclinations of all the students (and faculty and staff ) in
the environment.
A helpful strategy would be student inclusion as active participants in
the development and implementation of initiatives to mitigate this con-
cern. Then, if necessary, student affairs practitioners need to seek out any
members of the community whose cultural characteristics and consequen-
tial needs are not being fully addressed in that environment. As an example
of a potential lack of environmental press within a cultural group, we can
look to a study measuring sense of belonging during the first-year experi-
ence of students across racial backgrounds (Johnson et al., 2007). Johnson
and colleagues found a lack of a sense of affiliation among Asian American
and Pacific Islander students when there was no celebration of their ethnic
identity. A suggested remedy to this lack of perceived connectivity was for
student affairs practitioners to engage with the students in a mutually shared
responsibility for campus integration in culturally meaningful ways in three
areas: residence hall climate, overall racial climate on campus, and college
transition.

Social Climate
Strange and Banning referred to “the nature and effects of various ‘envi-
ronmental personalities’ as perceived by participants” (2015, p. 120) as the
social climate dimension of the environment as described by Moos (1979,
1986). According to Moos’s model, social climate is composed of three

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 56 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 57

socioenvironmental domains, each with a respective set of dimensions: rela-

tionship dimensions, personal growth dimensions, and system maintenance
and change dimensions. Relationship dimensions indicate how people are
directly involved in the setting and how they support each other. Personal
growth dimensions assess the extent to which personal development and
self-enhancement occur. System maintenance and change dimensions meas-
ure how the environment maintains control and responds to change and the
orderly manner in which it functions. As with other aspects of the environ-
ment examined in this chapter, student service professionals are advised to
hone their sensitivities and establish measures to determine that all members
of the campus community, particularly any individuals or groups that are
traditionally marginalized, are given equal opportunity to experience these
dimensions of the campus’s social climate. Thus, by recognizing the impact
that the campus social climate has on all students and the reciprocal impact
that all students have on the collective social fabric of the campus community,
campus administrators provide an environment where relationships can cross
typical cultural lines. Also, personal growth can be fostered even for those with
divergent lifestyles, and the environment maintains the orderly functioning of
its system while accommodating widely differing aspects of social interaction.
Professionals overseeing these social climate environments should rou-
tinely conduct assessments to determine the state of these environments.
Even with standardized assessment instruments, we need to exercise caution
before determining that evaluation results truly measure the perceptions and
needs of all the participants and not simply the majority. As an example, let
us look at the University Residence Environment Scale (URES; Moos &
Gerst, 1988). Results of such an assessment may indicate that a particular
environment (e.g., a certain residence hall complex) may represent one of
Moos’s (1979) six particular environments. However, the culturally sensi-
tive professional takes this assessment one step further to protect against the
consensus phenomenon in which the perspective from the dominant culture
may give a false analysis of social climate among individuals who do not
exhibit all the typical characteristics of that dominant culture. For example,
one of the personalities Moos (1979, 1986) identified is a traditionally socially
oriented living environment. Students in traditionally socially oriented living
units “give priority to dating, going to parties, and other traditional hetero-
sexual interactions as well as to aspects of formal structure and organization,
such as rules, schedules, established procedures and neatness” (Moos, 1979,
p. 55). Now imagine a not-yet-out-of-the-closet gay man who would func-
tion best in this structured social environment but chooses not to engage in
these “traditional heterosexual interactions.” What he truly needs is a socially
oriented living environment with “formal structure and organization” that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 57 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 58 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

best suits his climatic needs but also with the possibility of engaging in non-
heterosexual interactions; however, the URES would incorrectly identify
this social environment as inappropriate for him. This hypothetical example
shows how easily the use of a single assessment could result in a significant
mismatch of climate and the placement of a student in a nonsupportive, and
possibly hostile, residential environment. Attentive student affairs profes-
sionals have the sensitivity to detect the nonconforming individual who may
be marginalized or even hurt in a particular social setting by being made to
conform to the prevailing construct.

Campus Culture
Kuh and Hall (1993) defined campus culture as the “confluence of institu-
tional history, campus traditions, and the values and assumptions that shape
the character of a given college or university” (pp. 1–2). To give substance
to this definition, Kuh and Hall described four levels of culture: artifacts,
perspectives, values, and assumptions.
Artifacts. Artifacts refer to tangible features and, as such, are very simi-
lar to the environmental features discussed in the section of this chapter on
physical environments (see pp. 41–45). However, artifacts can be verbal or
behavioral as well as physical. Verbal artifacts can include language or phrases
that are connected to the institution’s culture, and behavioral artifacts are cer-
tain activities, rituals, or events that tend to connect members of the commu-
nity to the institution. Sometimes these nonphysical forms of artifacts should
be examined to assess their cultural significance to the changing populations
of the campus (Kuh & Whitt, 1988).
An example of a verbal artifact is the former name of the street where a
number of the fraternity and sorority houses are located at the University of
Louisville. Named for a nineteenth-century monument located in an adja-
cent plot of land, the street was named Confederate Place after the nearby
statue commemorating the members of the Louisville community who
served in the Confederate Army. While that name may not have been of any
consequence many years ago, the location of university-owned facilities on
such a street running through a section of campus was deemed offensive to
an increasing number of students, faculty, and administrators. Acknowledg-
ing this discomfort, university administrators changed the name of the street
to Unity Place and initiated the statue’s removal in 2016.
An example of a behavioral artifact that has significant implications for
cultural sensitivity is the ritual that used to occur at home football and bas-
ketball game halftime activities at the University of Illinois. Near the end of
the halftime festivities, for many decades, Chief Illiniwek performed a dance

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 58 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 59

routine. However, in recent years, more and more members of the commu-
nity deemed it inauthentic, stereotypical, and offensive to American Indians.
After years of debate between those who were offended by the performance
and those who saw it as a cherished artifact of the university’s culture (Long-
well-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2003), Chief Illiniwek performed his last
dance at a basketball game on February 21, 2007 (Associated Press, 2007).
Perspectives. Kuh and Hall (1993) describe cultural perspectives as “the
socially shared rules and norms applicable to a given context” that allow
members of the community to “determine what is ‘acceptable behavior’ for
students, faculty, staff, and others in various institutional settings” (p. 6).
Strange and Banning (2015) point out that “students quickly become aware
of appropriate campus customs, attire, and ideologies” (p. 28). Yet being
aware is not the same as acceptance and comfortable conformity. While it is
certainly a reasonable expectation that all students accept certain customs and
norms for the good of the whole community, it is important to ensure that all
those community members have an equal opportunity to express their own
perspective on what the preferred norms are and to influence the decisions
that establish or maintain those customs. Recent years have provided an inter-
esting example of a newer perspective that is producing changing “norms”
for the good of the entire community in the form of the discussion about
universal design (Center for Universal Design, 2008). The universal design
movement encourages faculty, administrators, and student affairs profession-
als to design academic instruction and to plan and implement cocurricular
programs to accommodate, in advance, the needs of all students, including
those with various disabilities (Wisbey & Kalivoda, 2011). This broader per-
spective that includes attempts to anticipate the various needs of members of
the community with disabilities along with those of able-bodied members is
anticipated to make the need for providing special accommodations after the
fact unnecessary. Two desirable outcomes of the universal design perspective
are the sense of inclusion provided to community members with disabilities
and a heightened sense of awareness about the needs of others among able-
bodied community members.
Values. Kuh and Hall (1993) are quick to state that values are much more
abstract than perspectives or artifacts, yet some common values are needed
for members of the university culture to be able to judge situations on their
appropriateness to the group or to subpopulations of the group. In determin-
ing the cultural values of an institution, administrators have a responsibility
to articulate clearly those values to which all members of the community are
expected to adhere, such as the importance of attaining and disseminating
knowledge or certain religious principles at sectarian institutions affiliated
with a particular sect. On the other hand, culturally sensitive administrators

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 59 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 60 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

are careful to recognize how different cultural values may influence the ways
some members of the institutional community react to certain values held
by the majority of members. Although most of the values in the dominant
American culture have a Judeo-Christian and heterosexual foundation, we
should still respect value-driven perspectives of people of other theological
beliefs (or the absence of such beliefs) or of individuals with an alternative
sexual orientation.
Values equity is important within microunits of the environment, such
as individual classrooms. Rankin (2003) found that 30% of harassment cases
related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) students occurred in
classroom settings. Rankin also noted that classroom-type environments are
one of the top three places in which students are faced with bias. To effec-
tively support student experiences within the academy that are free of harm-
ful artifacts for LGBT students who have or have not disclosed their sexual
orientation, it is critical for faculty to be cognizant of potential bias and
harmful language within the classroom culture.
Another specific part of the campus environment that could benefit from
review of values is the athletic community. Griffin and Taylor (2013) remind
us that “some traditions long accepted in athletics do not promote or reflect a
culture of inclusion, diversity, or respect. Practices such as [lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual, trans*, and queer] LGBTQ or sexist name-calling . . . team hazing rituals
. . . or older athletes bullying young team members all encourage student-
athletes to view actions that promote humiliation and disrespect as part of the
game rather than the divisive and destructive distractions that they are” (p. 4).
Attending to this democracy of values is important not just within the ath-
letic culture but also among nonathlete members of the campus community in
their perceptions of athletes. One way to accomplish this is by helping students,
faculty, and staff to embrace and value the uniqueness of the lived experiences
of student athletes beyond stereotypical assumptions about athletic culture and
eschew harmful and negative terminology that is damaging to student athletes.
Note that cultural sensitivity is not cultural anarchy. While different
people bring different values to the campus community, for that community
to function, certain commonly held values are necessary (i.e., adherence to
basic civil laws). Being sensitive to others’ values does not mean an abdica-
tion of the responsibility to establish some common values for the good of
society and to hold all members accountable to them, even if for some they
are newly learned as part of an acculturation process.
Assumptions. Kuh and Hall (1993) describe assumptions as the “tacit
beliefs that members use to define their role, their relationship to others, and
the nature of the organization in which they live” (p. 7). In the context of this
chapter, this aspect of campus culture is a call for continuous assessment of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 60 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 61

the student culture by student affairs professionals having continual contact

with students in all facets of student life. Strange and Banning (2001, 2015)
reminded us that participant perceptions and understandings of campus
organizational culture are an important source of information for designing
responsive educational environments, and educational administrators must be
particularly sensitive to any discrepancies between their views of the institu-
tion and those of students. Moreover, these relationships must be developed
and nurtured so that students are willing to share openly their own personal
beliefs with student affairs professionals, whether or not these assumptions fit
with those of the majority population. As an example of the importance of
uncovering the tacit assumptions of minority students on campus, consider
the importance of identifying gender-neutral restrooms so that transgender
students can more easily perceive that they are welcome on the campus and not
destined to be permanently marginalized in the campus social culture. Making
tacit viewpoints viable is seldom an easy task, but student affairs administra-
tors are expected to develop mechanisms to provide the divergent elements of
the campus population with a means of expressing themselves to test their tacit
assumptions against the realities of the community’s other values in an attempt
to find a harmonious fit for all of the community’s participants.

Conclusion
College and university environments and the individuals who populate
them have significant reciprocal impacts on each other—what Kuh (2009)
calls “the mutual shaping of cultural properties, . . . the physical attributes
of a campus, established practices, celebratory events, symbols and sym-
bolic actions, and subcultures” (p. 72). If the environment is affected by
the members of the community, that environment will be as diverse as the
characteristics of all the individuals in it. Likewise, the collective effects of
the environment will touch each member in a way as individualistic as each
person’s own cultural identity. A number of good models are available to help
us assess and understand the influence of environments on their participants.
This chapter has used one such model, Strange and Banning’s (2001, 2015)
dimension design, to look at the composition of a typical collegiate environ-
ment and how that environment may have an impact on the campus popula-
tions. However, the most significant message of this chapter is that even the
best model can probably use some tweaking to make it more sensitive to the
nuances of the cultural characteristics of the individuals and subgroups that
populate the environment. We must pay particular attention to identifying
and understanding the cultural differences of the nonmajority people and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 61 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 62 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

groups on our campuses to give them the same opportunities as majority-

member individuals have to gain the benefits of environmental impact.

Discussion Questions
1. Identify nonverbal cues or messages in your institution’s environment
from the physical structures, design, staffing, or organizational patterns.
If any of these messages appear to be negative or marginalizing to any
subpopulation, what steps can be taken to change them?
2. Discuss the environmental stratification on your campus. Have cer-
tain cultural subpopulations acquired a disproportionate amount of the
resources and rewards on campus? Is such a group likely to be resistant
to efforts to enhance cultural diversity and cross-cultural sharing of
resources? If so, what steps can be taken to create a more equitable dis-
tribution of rewards and resources? If resources are already distributed
equitably, what measures can be taken to maintain such a balance?
3. Consider the impact of person-environment congruence on your campus
environment. What specific questions should you ask to help examine
the issue of “fit” for all students in the environment? Are there trends
in student attrition that demonstrate a lack of “fit” for individuals or
groups that have led or are likely to lead to their departure from the insti-
tution? Are there consistent characteristics among students who express
a level of discomfort to the prevailing culture of the institution? Once
these trends or characteristics have been identified, what can be done to
diminish them?
4. Discuss the concept of false inclusion within your campus community. Are
there groups who are deleteriously impacted by misleading stereotypes
about their ability to persist academically, or by false concepts about their
inclusion in the campus cultural community? What steps can be taken to
correct any misperceptions you identify?
5. Do artifacts exist on the campus that constitute negative experiences for
any subgroups along racial, ethnic, or cultural lines? Are there overgen-
eralizations about any group’s adaptation to the campus community that
may lead to lack of adequate services for certain student populations?
What strategies can help mitigate these challenges?

Note
1. One way of explaining the concept of the dominant American culture is
to use what Tatum calls “seven categories of ‘otherness’ commonly experienced in
U.S. society” (1999, p. 22): race or ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socio-

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 62 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 63

economic status, age, and physical or mental ability. She states that in each of these
categories, there is a group that is systematically advantaged and a group consid-
ered subordinate. Thus, the authors choose to identify “dominant American cul-
tural norms” as those characteristics that tend to typify persons in these dominant
groups (i.e., White Anglo-Saxon, male, Christian, heterosexual, upper or middle
class, younger or middle-aged, or able-bodied individuals).

References
Associated Press (2007, February 22). Illinois’ Chief Illiniwek performs last dance.
Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2774670
Atkinson, E., Dean, L. A., & Espino, M. M. (2010). Leadership outcomes based on
membership in multicultural Greek council (MGC) organizations. Oracle, 5(2),
34–48.
Banning, J. H., Middleton, V., & Deniston, T. (2008). Using photographs to assess
equity climate: A taxonomy. Multicultural Perspectives, 10 (1), 1–6.
Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., Choi-Pearson, C., Archuleta, D. J., Phoummarath,
M. J., & Landingham, A. V. (2006). University environment as a mediator of
Latino ethnic identity and persistence attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
53, 267–271.
Center for Universal Design. (2008). The Center for Universal Design: Environments
and products for all people. Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/
Cole, E. R. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: From practice to
theory. Sex Roles, 59, 443–453.
Commission on Multicultural Understanding. (2015). Benton mural. Retrieved
from http://studentaffairs.indiana.edu/dean-students/commission-multicultural-
understanding/benton-mural.shtml
Drekmeier, K., and Tilghman, C. (2010). An analysis of inquiry, nonstart and drop
reasons in non-traditional university student populations. InsideTrack. Retrieved
from http://www.insidetrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/adult-student-
research-paper-chris-tilghman-kai-drekmeier.pdf
Eckman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in marketplace, politics, and marriage.
New York, NY: Norton.
Fries-Britt, S., & Griffin, K. A. (2007). The Black box: How high-achieving Blacks
resist stereotypes about Black Americans. Journal of College Student Development,
48(5), 509–524.
Garbarini-Philippe, R. (2010). Perceptions, representation, and identity develop-
ment of multiracial students in American higher education. Journal of Student
Affairs at New York University, 6, 1–6.
Griffin, P., & Taylor, H. (2013). Champions of respect: Inclusion of LGBTQ student-
athletes and staff in NCAA programs. NCAA Publications. Retrieved from http://
www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/CRLGBTQ.pdf
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 63 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 64 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Huebner, L. A., & Lawson, J. M. (1990). Understanding and assessing college

environments. In D. G. Creamer & Associates (Eds.), College student develop-
ment: Theory and practice for the 1990s (pp. 127–151). Alexandria, VA: American
College Personnel Association.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-
Kenyon, H. T., & Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among
first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 48(5), 525–542.
Kaiser, L. R. (1975). Designing campus environments. NASPA Journal, 13, 33–39.
Kim, U., & Hakhoe, H. S. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method,
and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). Understanding campus environments. In G. S. McClellan
Stringer & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd
ed., pp. 59–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., & Hall, J. E. (1993). Using cultural perspectives in student affairs. In
Kuh, G. D. (Ed.). Cultural perspectives in student affairs work (pp. 1–20). Lanham,
MD: American College Personnel Association.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student
success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American col-
leges and universities. College Station, TX: Association for the Study of Higher
Education.
Leibbrandt, A., Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2013). Rise and fall of competitiveness in
individualistic and collectivistic societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 110(23), 9305–9308.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Linder, C., & Rodriguez, K. L. (2012). Learning from the experiences of self-
identified women of Color activists. Journal of College Student Development,
53(3), 383–398.
Longwell-Grice, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2003). Chiefs, braves and tomahawks:
The use of American Indians as university mascots. NASPA Journal, 40(3), 1–12.
Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Moos, R. H. (1986). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior.
Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Moos, R. H., & Gerst, M. (1988). The university Residence Environment Scale manual
(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Museus, S. D., & Vue, R. (2013). Socioeconomic status and Asian American and
Pacific Islander students’ transition to college: A structural equation modeling
analysis. Review of Higher Education, 37(1), 45–76.
Museus, S. D., Yee, A. L., & Lambe, S. A. (2011, September/October). Multiracial
in a monoracial world: Student stories of racial dissolution on the colorblind
campus. AboutCampus, 16(4). American College Personnel Association and
Wiley Periodicals. doi:10.1002/abc.20070

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 64 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON COLLEGE CULTURE 65

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people:
A national perspective. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Rashawn, R. (2013). Fraternity life at predominantly White universities in the U.S.:
The salience of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(2), 320–336.
Renn, K. A. (2003, May/June). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college
students through a development ecology lens. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 44(3), 383–403. doi: 10.1353/csd.2003.0032
Ricard, R. B., & Brown, M. C. (2008). Ebony towers in higher education: The evolu-
tion, mission, and presidency of historically Black colleges and universities. Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing.
Sands, N., & Schuh, J. H. (2003). Identifying interventions to improve the reten-
tion of biracial students: A case study. Journal of College Student Retention, 5(4),
349–363.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building com-
munity. New Directions for Student Services, 1989(48), 5–15.
Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59,
301–311.
Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in
education and industry. New York, NY: Wiley.
Strange, C. C. (1996). Dynamics of campus environments. In S. R. Komives,
D. B. Woodard, & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profes-
sion (3rd ed., pp. 244–268). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learn-
ing environments that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus
environments for student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tatum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Veenhoven, R. (1999). Quality-of-life in individualistic society. Journal for Quality-
of-Life Measurement, 48(2), 159–188.
Wisbey, M. E., & Kalivoda, K. S. (2011). College student with disabilities. In
M. J. Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multiculturalism
on campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating
inclusion (pp. 347–370). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 65 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 4
AN INTERSECTIONAL
A P P ROAC H TO S U P P O RT I N G
STUDENTS
Chris Linder

There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not lead single-issue lives.
Lorde (1984, p. 138)

I
ntersectionality provides a solid foundation for student affairs educa-
tors working to support and challenge students from a variety of back-
grounds and experiences. As highlighted throughout this book, social
identity significantly influences ways in which students experience campus
environments. Intersectionality provides a framework for understanding
ways that students experience more than one social identity at a time and
how the intersections of those identities create experiences unique to each
student.
Black feminist scholars advanced intersectionality theory to illustrate the
ways in which Black women experienced oppression uniquely from White
women and Black men (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991). Because they expe-
rienced oppression at the intersection of their race and their gender, Black
women’s experiences were qualitatively different both from White women
(who led feminist movements) and Black men (who led civil rights move-
ments). Scholars have built on Black feminist scholars’ work to advance
intersectionality as a theory that examines ways in which multiple social
identities intersect to influence individuals’ experiences with privilege and

66

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 66 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS 67

oppression (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). Highlighting how multiple identi-

ties, such as race, gender, class, and sexuality, intersect pushes student affairs
educators to consider multiple possibilities and experiences when designing
programs and services for students.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore the tenets of intersectional-
ity theory and provide suggestions for student affairs educators to integrate
intersectionality into their work. Specifically, I highlight a history of inter-
sectionality theory and examine tenets of intersectionality theory applicable
to student affairs work. I explore some cautions and limitations of intersec-
tionality theory. Finally, I suggest strategies for employing intersectionality in
student affairs work and provide examples of programs and services designed
through an intersectional approach.
This chapter may also provide a foundation for assisting readers in inter-
preting the single-identity foci of most of the chapters of this book. Although
we choose to center single social identities in many chapters in this book, we
advocate the use of identity-explicit rather than identity-exclusive approaches
to identity-based work, meaning that although we are explicit about focusing
on one identity in a chapter, that does not mean that we think that students’
experiences within a particular identity are monolithic. We implore readers
to consider the ways in which students’ various social identities influence
their experiences. For example, as readers explore the experiences of Asian
American students in Chapter 6, we encourage those readers to keep in mind
ways in which gender or sexual orientation or disability may also intersect to
influence students’ experiences as an AAPI person.

History of Intersectionality
Black feminist scholars advanced intersectionality theory, imploring their
peers to consider ways in which their experiences differed from other peo-
ple who experienced oppression (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991). The term
intersectionality was coined in the 1990s, although concepts associated with
intersectionality can be traced to much earlier times. In 1851 Sojourner
Truth spoke at the Women’s Rights Convention and called attention to the
reality that she experienced as a Black woman. Although no transcript from
the speech exists, most women’s studies and Black historians acknowledge
the speech happened and illustrated the intersection of Truth’s identities as
a woman and a Black American (BlackPast.org, n.d.). Truth challenged the
notion that women were frail, an excuse used by many politicians and other
White men with power to keep women from owning property or voting. She
famously said,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 67 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 68 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

Look at my arms! I have ploughed and planted and gathered into barns,
and no man could head me—and arn’t I a woman? I would work as much
and eat as much as a man—when I could get it—and bear the lash as well.
And arn’t I a woman? I have born thirteen children, and seen most of ’em
sold to slavery, and when I cried out with my other’s grief, none but Jesus
heard me—and arn’t I a woman?

Truth’s comments illustrate the invisibility of the experiences of women of

Color and how they were frequently ignored in women’s movements.
Similarly, throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, conflict ensued
about ensuring women and African Americans had the right to vote. Once
again, Black men and White women made the experiences of women of
Color invisible. Some White women “feminists” advocated against including
African American women in their suffrage efforts, noting that by including
them, they were hurting their chances of getting the right to vote. They advo-
cated working first on White women’s rights, then they would turn toward
rights for African Americans related to voting (Newman, 1999). Similarly,
as African American men advocated for voting rights after slavery was abol-
ished, they frequently left out, minimized, or ignored the needs of Black
women, striving to gain equality to White men, often mimicking White
men’s subscription to patriarchy and sexism as a strategy for gaining political
power (Newman, 1999).
By the 1970s, women advocating for inclusion in feminist and civil rights
movements expanded beyond Black women. In the 1970s, the Combahee
River Collective, a group of racially diverse women of Color, queer women,
and working-class women gathered to discuss racism, classism, and hetero-
sexism present in mainstream feminist organizing (Thompson, 2002). White
women led feminist movements, often advocating for political and work-
place equality (Newman, 1999; Thompson, 2002). The Combahee River
Collective provided a space for historically marginalized women to gather
and engage in consciousness-raising and healing processes, eventually result-
ing in awareness in mainstream feminist organizing more broadly. This Bridge
Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, originally published in
1981, included perspectives from a variety of women of Color and queer
and working-class women, highlighting the ways in which they had been
excluded from feminist organizing. For example, White women organized
around issues of rape and sexual assault by advocating increased use of law
enforcement as a response to sexual violence, largely ignoring the racism
inherent in criminal justice systems in the United States. Similarly, White
women feminists appealed to White men in power by advocating for policies
and practices that protected “their” women from rape and sexual violence,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 68 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS 69

resulting in the experiences of women of Color being ignored or minimized

in organizing related to sexual violence (Bevacqua, 2000; Freedman, 2013).
Women of Color called attention to these inequities, naming the racism
present in criminal justice systems and the invisibility of women of Color in
sexual violence prevention movements (Crenshaw, 1991). Crenshaw, in her
legal work related to women of Color and interpersonal violence, highlighted
the term intersectionality.
Similar to critical race theory, intersectionality theory also grew from
critical legal issues, and the DeGraffenreid v. General Motors (1977) discrimi-
nation case brought significant attention to the importance of intersection-
ality for Black women. A group of five Black women brought suit against
General Motors for failing to promote Black women into senior positions in
the organization. The court granted summary judgment to General Motors,
highlighting that the Black women did not have a case for discrimination
because they did not make a case for why Black women should be considered
a “special case” (Crenshaw, 1989, p. 59). Specifically, the court indicated
White women and Black men had been promoted within the organization,
which illustrated sexism and racism did not influence the promotion prac-
tices at General Motors, thus making the experiences of Black women invis-
ible. Crenshaw (1989) argued,

The court’s refusal in DeGraffenreid to acknowledge that Black women

encounter combined race and sex discrimination implies that the bound-
aries of sex and race discrimination doctrine are defined respectively by
white women’s and Black men’s experiences. Under this view, Black women
are protected only to the extent that their experiences coincide with those
of either of the two groups. (p. 59)

The result of the DeGraffenreid case illustrates the complexities with which
Black women experience discrimination and highlights the need for intersec-
tionality theory.
In 1991 Crenshaw drew on her analysis of the DeGraffenreid case to
illustrate the ways in which women of Color were ignored in organizing
related to interpersonal violence (Crenshaw, 1991). Crenshaw highlighted
structural, political, and representational intersectionality as essential in con-
sidering the ways identities intersect to influence people’s experiences with
oppression.
Structural intersectionality refers to the ways in which social location
influences individuals’ experiences. Crenshaw (1991) described the real-
ity that the “location of women of Color at the intersection of race and
gender” makes their experiences of sexual violence “qualitatively different

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 69 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 70 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

than that of white women” (p. 1245). Political intersectionality highlights

the reality that people may experience competing agendas at the intersec-
tion of their identities. For example, given the history of racism within the
criminal justice system, women of Color must balance the tension between
reporting experiences of sexual violence to police for their own perceived
safety with the violence they or their male counterparts may experience at
the hands of police. Finally, representational intersectionality refers to the
“cultural construction of women of Color” (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1245), or
the master narratives created without women of Color about their experi-
ences. Structural, political, and representational intersectionality provided
the foundation on which additional intersectional scholars have continued
to develop intersectionality as a theoretical framework. In the next section, I
explore six major tenets associated with intersectionality theory.

Tenets of Intersectionality Theory

Intersectionality theory highlights the significance of systems of domination
in understanding oppression. Specifically, intersectional scholars examine
oppression through interpersonal experiences, structural hierarchies that
maintain power and oppression, and symbolism that influences social con-
sciousness (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). By exploring “domination and subor-
dination, privilege and agency, in the structural arrangements through which
various services, resources, and other social rewards are delivered,” inter-
sectionality scholars complicate common understandings of single-identity
oppression (Dill & Zambrana, 2009, p. 5). Similar to critical race theory,
the tenets of intersectionality theory have been developed over time, and
different authors or scholars highlight different tenets as particularly salient,
frequently depending on their social location and experiences. In this sum-
mary of tenets of intersectionality theory, I focus on the tenets particularly
applicable to student affairs work.

Identity Is Intersectional, Not Additive

One of the primary tenets of intersectionality theory is that multiple identities
are intersectional, not additive (Collins, 1990). The example from DeGraffen-
reid v. General Motors illustrates this principle. Black women’s experiences
are uniquely different from Black men’s and White women’s experiences. It
is not possible to simply layer identities on one another; the experience of
oppression happens at the intersection of the identities, not as a sum of them.
Women of Color experience sexism differently from White women and rac-
ism differently from men of Color, resulting in an outcome that exists at the
intersection, not the sum, of two individual experiences.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 70 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS 71

Intersectionality Places Lived Experiences of Marginalized Identities

at the Core
Intersectionality highlights the importance of lived experiences as a key to
understanding oppression (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Dill & Zambrana,
2009). Intersectionality scholars emphasize the importance of placing mar-
ginalized experiences at the core of any analysis, given that most analyses
center the lived experiences of people from dominant groups without spe-
cific attention to power (Crenshaw, 1991). For example, by listening to and
exploring the lived experiences of women of Color related to interpersonal
violence, White women may better understand why women of Color may
choose not to report interpersonal violence to police. Similarly, when straight
men listen to the lived experiences of gay men, they may better understand
the ways in which gay men fear for their safety in ways that heterosexual men
do not.

Identity Is Fluid and Contextual

The salience, or significance of, a social identity varies depending on the con-
text in which people find themselves and may change depending on the situ-
ation (Jones & Abes, 2013). Additionally, some identities may change over
time, resulting in more or less salience for an individual and people interacting
with that individual. For example, people from a working-class background
who attend college and eventually earn a significantly higher income than
their parents did may experience their social class identity as fluid. The person
likely continues to maintain ties to the cultural pieces of their working-class
identity even as they gain access to more money and additional resources. The
person will likely continue to exist in both worlds, potentially never quite
feeling whole in either space.
Similarly, individuals may experience shifts in the salience of an identity
depending on their context. For example, people of Color who grew up in a
neighborhood and attended schools with a majority of people of Color may
find that their racial identity becomes more salient to them if they attend a
predominantly White institution for their undergraduate degree. Although
their racial identity has always been a part of who they are, if the context
changes, the identity may become more salient for that person.

Intersectionality Explores the Complexities of the Intersections of

Individual Identities With Systemic/Structural Inequity
Although the simplest way to understand and explore intersectionality may
be through interpersonal interactions, including ways that people treat each
other differently based on various social identities, intersectionality scholars

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 71 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 72 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

advance the importance of examining the ways in which structural inequal-

ity influences individual people’s lived experiences (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw,
1991; Dill & Zambrana, 2009). For example, although the common statistic
cited for workplace inequality is that women make 78 cents for every dollar
a man makes, the reality is that White women make 78 cents for every dol-
lar that a White man makes. The inequity for women of Color is even more
significant; Black women make 64 cents, American Indian women 59 cents,
and Latinas 54 cents for every dollar a White man makes (Fisher, 2015).
Although women of Color may experience individual discrimination from
people in the workplace, income inequality is an example of systemic or
structural oppression. Several conflating factors, including racism and sex-
ism, contribute to the reality that women of Color earn less money than
White women and men, and investigating each of these systemic factors
contributing to income inequality is an example of the structural tenet of
intersectionality theory.

Intersectionality Focuses on the Intersections of Multiple

Marginalized Identities and the Intersections of Dominant
and Subordinated Identities
Intersectionality theory was created to examine the intersections of multi-
ple marginalized identities, specifically race, class, and gender, as illustrated
in the historical overview of intersectionality theory. Understanding the
intersections of multiple subordinated identities warrants increased atten-
tion among student affairs educators. Additionally, student affairs educators
must acknowledge and examine the intersections of dominant and subordi-
nated identities through intersectionality (Dill, McLauglin, & Nieves, 2007;
Linder, 2015). By focusing exclusively on subordinated identities, people
with a particularly salient dominant and subordinated identity may fail to
recognize the privilege associated with a dominant identity, thus reinforcing
unexamined privilege resulting in ongoing oppression, even as they expe-
rience oppression. For example, White women who are unaware of their
White privilege, focusing exclusively on the sexism they experience through
their gender, contribute to ongoing racism through an unawareness of their
dominant White identity (Linder, 2015).

Intersectionality Focuses on Creating Change Through Research,

Policy, and Practice
Intersectional scholars insist that educators, researchers, and policymakers
use intersectionality as a framework to advance change, not simply to theo-
rize about systemic oppression (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). An intersectional

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 72 7/26/2016 7:24:16 PM

 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS 73

framework may help to illuminate the complexities of a problem or situa-

tion, but it cannot stop there. Educators must then use the insight they gain
as a result of employing an intersectional framework to engage in action to
address a problematic situation. For example, in the current climate related
to sexual violence on college campuses, understanding that trans* students
of Color experience high rates of sexual violence and that they may not feel
comfortable using some support services on campus is only the beginning.
After student affairs educators understand this reality, they must do some-
thing to address the inequity.
Tenets of intersectionality theory highlighted here provide a foundation
on which student affairs educators might build a stronger, more equitable
framework for supporting students on campus. Although intersectionality,
when used correctly, may assist student affairs educators in their work, some
cautions related to intersectional approaches also warrant attention.

Cautions and Limitations

When used in a nuanced manner, intersectionality provides a powerful
framework to create and maintain socially just campus spaces, but some
scholars caution against using intersectionality without a critical frame (Luft,
2010). Specifically, when scholars and educators use intersectionality simply
to “explore difference” and identify multiple identities, they may cause addi-
tional harm to students experiencing oppression on campus. Intersectional-
ity requires those using it as a framework to interrogate the power inherent
in social identities. Just acknowledging multiple identities without attending
to the ways in which identities relate to power, privilege, and oppression
results in unhelpful self-aggrandizing reflection. For example, if a women’s
center program focuses on better understanding the ways in which women
experience their genders differently based on social identities in addition to
their gender, yet the facilitators of the program do not acknowledge racism,
homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and other forms of oppression, the
result is that people are aware of various identities, but not the ways that
some women experience racialized or homophobic sexism.
Additionally, like all scholars using intersectionality, student affairs
educators must exercise caution not to overtheorize their work, resulting in
little attention to action. Because a central tenet of intersectionality includes
engaging in action related to intersectional oppression, educators must
continually find ways to address the oppression they observe. Although nam-
ing oppression is an important starting point for addressing oppression, it is
not the ending point. Especially through dominant identities, people have

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 73 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 74 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

a tendency to overanalyze and overthink people’s lived experiences. Scholars

and educators must take caution to use intersectionality as a framework for
understanding and explaining oppression, not theorizing beyond the point
of action. In the next section I explore strategies for engaging in action related
to intersectionality, specifically in student affairs work.

Intersectional Strategies for Student Affairs Educators

As student affairs educators develop an understanding of intersectionality
theory, they must also develop strategies for implementing and addressing
intersectional oppression. Before educators can effectively address intersec-
tionality, they must have a good grasp of ways to help students understand
concepts related to social identities, power, privilege, and oppression. Several
specific strategies for incorporating intersectionality into student affairs work
follow.

Develop Comfort in Discussing Social Identities

To effectively develop spaces, programs, services, and resources inclusive of
students from a variety of social identities, backgrounds, and experiences,
student affairs educators must develop comfort in discussing social identities,
power, privilege, and oppression. Specifically, student affairs educators must
learn to discuss social identities with a variety of students from a multitude
of perspectives. Some students will resonate more with academic information
about social identities, like statistics or definitions of terminology, while others
will resonate with activities focused on exploring their own experiences, like
reviewing the model of multiple dimensions of identity (Jones & McEwen,
2000). Additionally, some students may better understand the complexities
of social identities by thinking about them while others may understand
more by feeling. Student affairs educators must be equipped to navigate each
of these needs in a variety of settings, learning to effectively communicate
with students with different levels of experience and background.
Further, in order to effectively discuss social identities with students, stu-
dent affairs educators must be aware of their own social identities and how
they influence their experiences as an educator and as a person beyond the
walls of academe. As highlighted previously, identity is fluid and contextual,
so student affairs educators must be aware of how their own identities shift
and provide space for students to also explore their shifting social identi-
ties. Student affairs educators must effectively role model vulnerability and
self-awareness in all of their identities—both dominant and subordinated.
For example, student affairs educators should participate in activities in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 74 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS 75

which they ask students to share personal experiences. Some people find that
developing relationships and opportunities to discuss and explore experiences
with people who share their dominant or subordinated identities helps them
to have a better grasp of their own experiences. Affinity groups or identity
caucuses may provide space for student affairs educators to engage in deeper
reflections about their identities. Student affairs educators might be well-
suited to organize ongoing reflection and affinity groups for themselves while
also facilitating such reflection opportunities for students.

Consider an Identity-Explicit, Not Identity-Exclusive Focus for

Programs and Services
Students, especially those from historically marginalized or minoritized
groups, need opportunities to explicitly explore their experiences in particu-
lar identities. Student affairs educators must provide this space. However,
these spaces need not be identity-exclusive. Students might focus or center a
particular identity without ignoring all other aspects of their identities. For
example, a forum about police brutality directed toward Black individuals
may have an explicit focus on race. However, the forum must also include
attention to additional social identities as racist police brutality impacts
Black women and Black trans* people differently than it does Black men,
yet the focus of these forums tends to be exclusively on Black men. Inter-
sectionality pushes educators to be intentional about creating spaces where a
particular identity may be centered, but not at the expense of ignoring other
identities.

Intentionality Without Tokenism

Student affairs educators must also develop strategies to effectively incorpo-
rate a variety of social identities into the programs, services, and resources they
offer. However, student affairs educators should use caution not to tokenize
people when attempting to include them. Frequently, when student affairs
educators are planning a new program or event, they reach out to diversity-
related offices or professionals to ask for a member of the staff to serve on
a planning committee. Members of diversity-related staffs and minoritized
faculty and staff on campus are frequently overtaxed and asked to serve on
many more committees than other professionals. To avoid tokenizing stu-
dents or colleagues from historically underrepresented groups, student affairs
educators should be intentional about finding ways to include perspectives
from marginalized groups without relying exclusively on people on campus
to provide those perspectives. Student affairs educators should also work
to educate themselves about groups of which they are not a member and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 75 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 76 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

consider strategies for staying abreast of current issues facing students from
various marginalized backgrounds. Additionally, instead of always asking for
help from diversity-related offices, attend their events and participate in pro-
grams and services offered by those offices, which may result in increased
awareness and opportunities for coalition building between two programs.

Engage in Coalition Building

Working across identities to establish coalitions dedicated to advancing com-
mon interests among groups may result in changes to policies and practices
resulting in more socially just campus spaces. For example, students of Color
and trans* students may both have an interest in addressing oppression in
criminal justice systems. Although the two groups (and not mutually exclu-
sive as trans* people of Color experience oppression at the intersection of
these two identities) experience oppression in criminal justice and policing
systems differently, the root of the issue is the same: continued dominance of
particular groups of people. Building coalitions across the identities may help
students learn about each others’ experiences and contribute to the overall
improvement of socially just spaces.
Although student affairs educators each work from a different social
location and functional area, engaging in strategies to build inclusive spaces
from an intersectional perspective warrants increased attention. In addition
to the strategies highlighted here, several examples of intersectional student
affairs programs and services follow.

Intersectional Examples
Strategies for building inclusive, intersectional programs and services provide
some insight for student affairs educators, and specific examples of these
strategies may help student affairs educators think creatively about opportu-
nities within their social locations to create intersectional programs. Specifi-
cally, three examples of intersectional approaches to common campus-based
support groups and services are provided here.
Queer people of Color groups and spaces. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
trans* (LGBT) resource centers and multicultural centers have an identity-
explicit focus on LGBT and students of Color, respectively. Based on the
missions of the offices and people who inhabit the spaces, some students of
Color report feeling unwelcomed in LGBT spaces, and some queer students
feel unwelcome in multicultural centers (Linder & Rodriguez, 2012). One
strategy for addressing these concerns is for the two programs to collaborate,
creating mutually sponsored opportunities of interactive programming for
queer students of Color. One example might be a discussion group that can

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 76 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS 77

be a processing space, an opportunity for students to discuss their experi-

ences at the unique intersection of their identities as a queer person and a
person of Color. The group could be facilitated by student affairs educa-
tors who share these identities, or students may choose to facilitate their
own discussion processes. Additionally, spaces designed for queer students of
Color should strive not to be identity-exclusive spaces. Some queer students
of Color have additional salient social identities (e.g., their gender or class or
age) that influence their experiences significantly, and they should be able to
share and process those experiences in the group as well. Generally speaking,
members of groups like these set their own parameters, deciding when to
meet, what to discuss, and ground rules for participation.
LGBT interpersonal violence services. LGBT students experience
interpersonal violence at the same or higher rates as their heterosexual peers
(Edwards et al., 2015); however, support for survivors of interpersonal vio-
lence may not always be inclusive of LGBT identities and experiences. To
effectively support LGBT survivors, leaders of campus-based counseling
centers and advocacy programs may choose to hire an advocate specifically
trained to support LGBT survivors of interpersonal violence and should defi-
nitely provide training for their current staff about the unique issues facing
LGBT survivors. Additionally, education and prevention programs should
take care to include LGBT survivors’ experiences as part of their awareness
and prevention programming. Failing to do so makes LGBT survivors’ expe-
riences invisible and contributes to ongoing marginalization within LGBT
communities.
Black men’s leadership programs. An example of a program examin-
ing the intersection of a dominant and subordinated identity is a leadership
development program supporting Black men, who frequently experience
marginalization as a result of their race and relative privilege compared to
Black women related to their gender. Black men are consistently underrep-
resented in higher education, as undergraduate and graduate students, fac-
ulty, and student affairs educators (Cuyjet, 2006). Additionally, the recent
increased attention to police brutality directed toward Black men creates a
need for spaces of support for Black men on college campuses. Addition-
ally, these spaces may provide an opportunity for Black men to explore the
complexity of the intersection of their experiences with racism and the ways
in which they experience some male privilege. For example, Black men’s
voices could influence conversations about interpersonal violence, specifi-
cally as they relate to the experiences of Black women, which are often made
invisible in feminist and civil rights movements. In developing programs of
support for Black men, facilitators must be intentional about a complex,
intersectional focus. Too often, groups designed to support men in college

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 77 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 78 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

have an unspoken focus on heterosexual men’s experiences, and facilitators

must intentionally work to ensure that queer men’s voices are not left out of
these conversations, even if not the explicit focus of the group.
Student affairs educators may have numerous additional examples of
intersectional programs and services. As student affairs educators become
more aware of the challenges and issues facing students from a variety of
marginalized backgrounds, working to create programs and services with an
intersectional focus becomes vital to student affairs work. Ongoing educa-
tion and critical consciousness, as highlighted in Chapter 17, are two ways
student affairs educators may develop strategies for effectively developing
inclusive, intersectional programs.

Case Study
The university president recently appointed a sexual violence task force on
your campus. You were asked to serve on the task force and have attended
two group meetings so far. You have noticed that there tends to be a heavy
focus on response to, rather than prevention of, sexual violence and that most
discussion revolves around ways that cisgender, straight women experience
sexual violence. The prevention programs have a heavy emphasis on “protect-
ing” women from sexual assault through a blue light system, a campus escort
system, and teaching men to engage in “bystander intervention.” Based on
the tenets of intersectionality theory and strategies for developing intersec-
tional programs, discuss the following:

1. What might be missing from the current approaches of sexual assault

prevention? Who is not represented in the conversation?
2. Using the tenets of intersectionality theory as described here, what are
some strategies for creating a more inclusive approach to sexual violence
prevention and response?
3. Design at least three programs with an intersectional approach to address-
ing sexual violence. Who would need to be included in the development
of these programs? What is the purpose of the programs? What resources
would you need to make the programs happen?

References
Bevacqua, M. (2000). Rape on the public agenda: Feminism and the politics of sexual
assault. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 78 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING STUDENTS 79

BlackPast.org. (n.d.). (1851) Sojourner Truth “Arn’t I a woman?” Retrieved from

http://www.blackpast.org/1851-sojourner-truth-arnt-i-woman
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics
of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black
feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and anti-racist
politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity
politics, and violence against women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6),
1241–1299.
Cuyjet, M. (2006). African American men in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
DeGraffenreid v. Gen. Motors Assembly Div. (1977). 558 F.2d 480, 484.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Dill, B. T., McLaughlin A. E., & Nieves, A. D. (2007). Future directions of femi-
nist research: Intersectionality. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist
research: Theory and praxis (pp. 629–637). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inequality: An
emerging lens. In Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy,
and practice (pp. 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., Barry, J. E., Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L.,
Cohn, E. S., Walsh, W. A., & Ward, S. K. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual
violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates
among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 30(4), 580–600.
Fisher, M. (2015, April 14). Women of Color and the gender wage gap. Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
women/report/2015/04/14/110962/women-of-color-and-the-gender-wage-gap/
Freedman, E. B. (2013). Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and
segregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing
frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions
of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 405–414.
Linder, C. (2015). Navigating fear, guilt, and shame: A conceptual model of White
anti-racist women’s identity development. Journal of College Student Development,
56(6), 535–550.
Linder, C., & Rodriguez, K. (2012). Learning from the experiences of self-
identified women of Color activists. Journal of College Student Development,
53(3), 383–398.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press.
Luft, R. E. (2010). Intersectionality and the risk of flattening difference: Gender
and race logics, and the strategic use of anti-racist singularity. In M. T. Berger &
K. Guidroz (Eds.), The intersectional approach: Transforming the academy through

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 79 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 80 AWARENESS OF CULTURAL ISSUES

race, class, and gender (pp. 100–117). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press.
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (1981). This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical
Women of Color. London, United Kingdom: Persephone Press.
Newman, L. M. (1999). White women’s rights: The racial origins of feminism in the
United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second
wave feminism. Feminist Studies, 28(2), 337–360.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 80 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 PA RT T W O

I N F O R M AT I O N O N C U LT U R A L
P O P U L AT I O N S

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 81 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 82 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM
 5
L AT I N X C O L L E G E S T U D E N T S
Susana Hernández and Anna M. Ortiz

C
olleges and universities in many settings are already experiencing
an influx of Latinxs1 in their student populations. The impact of
the Latinx infusion into higher education will continue to grow
and become more widespread. By 2060, Latinxs will be responsible for
60% of the nation’s population growth. Latinxs will move from being
17% of the current population to 31% in 2060, making them the larg-
est minority group in the United States (Ennis, Ríos-Vargas, & Albert,
2011). Depending on a number of individual characteristics (e.g., time of
immigration, precollege educational environments, extended family units,
family history with higher education), these students may require paradigm
shifts in the way higher education professionals have structured campus
programs, written educational policy, and executed individual work with
students in and out of the classroom.
This chapter explores the experiences of Latinxs in higher education
and seeks to shape a picture of their participation that is most representative
of the diversity of the group and of the higher education institutions they
inhabit. After a review of Latinxs in the United States, the chapter considers
the sociological context that Latinxs inhabit and then moves into a discus-
sion of student experiences in higher education. Particular attention is paid
to the role of the family in higher education, the experience of Latinxs in
community colleges, and campus climate issues that impede and promote
the success of Latinx students. We conclude the chapter with an overview
of places to find resources related to Latinx students, and recommendations,
implications, and future trends.
The panethnic term Latinx is used throughout this chapter, except
in direct quotes and in reference to critical race theory, to refer to peo-
ple whose ethnic origins are found in Central American, Caribbean, and
South American countries (Spring, 2010). More discrete terms may be used,

83

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 83 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 84 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

when appropriate, to refer to specific groups, such as Chicano/a or Mexican

American, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and so on. Individuals from these groups
often use several labels to identify themselves depending on the immedi-
ate context. A person can be comfortable using a specific label, such as
Dominican, and the panethnic Latino/Latina (the use of Latinx is not
widespread as a personal descriptor). Mexican Americans who take a more
politicized view of their ethnicity would likely use Chicano/Chicana as their
ethnic label. While most Latinxs reject the term Hispanic as a word con-
structed by government bureaucrats, some embrace the term, especially if
they see themselves as genealogically closer to Spain. In the 2010 U.S. census,
7% of all people of Hispanic or Latino descent used Hispanic as their ethnic
label. Interestingly, in New Mexico, one third of all Latinos/Latinas used this
label (Ennis et al., 2011). Latinx is more recently favored to reflect a more
gender-inclusive descriptor.

Brief History of Latinxs in the United States

Each Latinx ethnic group has a unique history in the United States. Mexican
Americans, the largest of the ethnic groups (63% of all Latinxs; Ennis
et al., 2011), were first incorporated into the United States when northern
Mexico was annexed by the United States through the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848 (Spring, 2010). While the treaty transferred governance of
the Southwest to the U.S. government, it allowed Mexican citizens to retain
their land and choose whether to become U.S. citizens. However, shortly
after annexation, laws were established to block U.S. and dual citizenship.
A series of laws and common practices served to dispossess Mexicans of
their lands, transferring large parcels in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and
California to pioneer hands. The history of Mexicans in the United States
during the twentieth century was one of welcome immigration when a ready,
inexpensive labor force was necessary and then deportation once the labor
was no longer needed. For example, prior to the Depression of the 1930s,
trains of Mexicans were brought into the United States to fill the demand
for labor after immigration laws restricted entry of Asian groups that had
been a primary source of labor. However, the shortage of jobs during the
Depression resulted in the expatriation of thousands of Mexicans. Less than
10 years later, the labor needs of World War II again required the mass
migration of Mexican laborers who were allowed to work legally through the
Bracero Program (Portes & Bach, 1985), which facilitated the importation
of Mexican immigrant workers to the United States as temporary contract
laborers. Labor needs and inconsistent immigration policies created a pattern

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 84 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 85

of cyclical migration where many Mexicans come north to work and return
to Mexico in the off season. This sojourn pattern is, of course, a generaliza-
tion because so many Mexicans have taken up residence that they are now a
substantial presence in the Southwest. Mexican Americans make up 85% of
the total Latinx population in Texas, 83% in California, 87% in Arizona, and
43% in New Mexico (Ennis et al., 2011).
The second largest Latinx group in the United States is Puerto Ricans,
who constitute 9.2% of all Latinxs (Ennis et al., 2011). Of course, Puerto
Ricans cannot be considered immigrants since they are U.S. citizens. Puerto
Rico became a U.S. territory after the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Unlike the Philippines, which also became a U.S. territory at the time,
Puerto Rico has not achieved independent status as a nation or state. The
migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland has primarily been attributed
to the industrialization of the agricultural economy in Puerto Rico in the
early part of the twentieth century. Large agribusiness firms acquired sugar
plantations and mechanized much of the production, eliminating many of
the jobs that had been held by whole towns of rural people. No longer able
to make a living through agriculture, many Puerto Ricans migrated to cities
in the American Northeast to work in the industrial and service sectors. In
New York State, 36.2% of all Latinxs are of Puerto Rican origin (Ennis et
al., 2011).
Cubans are the third largest Latinx ethnic group, making up 3.5% of
all Latinxs (Ennis et al.,2011). Nearly one third of all Latinxs in Florida are
Cuban. The history of Cubans in the United States is long and complex.
Contrary to popular belief, they did not begin their migration to the United
States as a result of Fidel Castro’s takeover of Cuba in the late 1950s. Rather,
patterns of sojourning from Cuba to the United States and back began at the
time of the Spanish-American War. Cuban politicians commonly regrouped
in Florida after a change in leadership. Cuba’s elite and middle class also
saw Florida as a vacation destination; these segments of the Cuban popula-
tion were quite comfortable in the Miami area. After Castro took control
in 1958, many of the Cuban political and economic elite traveled north for
what would eventually become a permanent stay, although many Cubans
maintain the belief that they will return to their homeland after the Castro
government is no longer in power (Portes & Stepick, 1993). Cubans from
other socioeconomic classes followed the upper-class refugees, culminat-
ing in the highly controversial Mariel emigration of 1980. This last mass
migration was made up of Cubans from the working class (and lower) who
were more racially mixed than previous immigrants. Unlike refugees from
other Latin countries, Cubans have consistently received political asylum in
the United States. Despite government programs seeking to relocate Cuban

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 85 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 86 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

refugees, Miami remains home to the largest Cuban population outside the
island itself (Portes & Stepick, 1993).
Other significant groups of Latinx immigrants have come to the
United States in the past 25 years because of political unrest in their home
countries. Nicaraguans, political refugees from the Contra-backed war of
the Reagan administration, have primarily settled in Miami. Guatemalans
and Salvadorians have mainly settled in California. Colombians are the third
largest Latinx ethnic group in Florida. Dominicans are the second largest
Latinx ethnic group in New York. Most have come to the United States
as political refugees, all experiencing the same economic, cultural, and lan-
guage barriers faced by the immigrants before them. However, for these later
Spanish-speaking immigrant groups, the established ethnic enclaves in the
Southwest, New York, and Miami have served as a sociocultural welcome
wagon to ease their transition to the United States.

Sociological Context
Given the diversity of the Latinx group, generalizations about its sociological
context can be precarious. Nonetheless, a number of common factors influ-
ence the context in which Latinxs find themselves. As with other non-White
ethnic groups, a major factor is income, with 23.5% of all Latinx families
living below the poverty line (Krogstad, 2014). While this number is nearly
10% more than the national rate, it does reflect the lowest poverty rates
for Latinxs since 2006. For many Latinx families, poverty is related to the
immigrant experience, with successive generations achieving higher socio-
economic levels. Therefore, generational status influences other sociological
factors related to Latinxs, such as educational attainment, familial influence
and structure, bilingual skills, and Spanish language use.
Generational status, a key construct in understanding the progress and
experiences of Latinxs as a group, refers to the number of generations a fam-
ily has been in the United States. Conventionally, the first generation is the
immigrant generation, with the second generation being the first of the
family to be born as U.S. citizens. The closer to the immigrant generation,
the more likely the family is to be at risk for the socioeconomic conditions
that impede occupational, financial, and educational attainment.
With Latinx families, generational status also has an effect on language
use and the primacy of Spanish as the language spoken in the home. English-
language fluency among Latinx, especially the youth, has steadily increased
significantly since 1980, with U.S.-born Latinx fluency rate as high as
89% (Krogstad, Stepler, & Lopez, 2015). The increase in English-language

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 86 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 87

fluency is indeed an important achievement, but Taylor, Lopez, Martínez,

and Velasco (2012) remind us that nearly 95% of Latinxs feel that it is very
or somewhat important that future generations of Latinxs be able to speak
Spanish.
Preserving the Spanish language is an essential common practice for
first- or second-generation immigrants; however, Spanish-language acquisi-
tion, maintenance, and fluency among Latinx people are varied. This point is
significant, as language use is an important marker of cultural identity and a
source of pride for students (Phinney, 1995; Santiago-Rivera, Arredondo, &
Gallardo-Cooper, 2002). Therefore, a loss of language has the potential for
a negative impact on students’ identity and sense of self as they encounter
other Latinxs who expect them to speak Spanish (Delgado Bernal, 2001;
Torres, 2003). Students who have maintained their language experience a
sense of comfort and even anticipate economic rewards for being bilingual in
today’s multicultural world (Delgado Bernal, 2001).
Maintenance of language is also important to the family as a societal
unit. Children of immigrants often serve as language brokers, translating and
interpreting for their parents and other individuals whom they encounter in
schools and other public facilities (Morales & Hanson, 2005). Children not
only play important roles in the lives, survival, and success of immigrant
families, but also place themselves in adult situations that may have complex
implications for personal development. Thus, language acquisition, main-
tenance, and fluency remain significantly challenging sociological issues for
Latinxs.
Generational status also helps to determine the type of family systems
that students experience. More often than not, especially in families closer
to the time of immigration, the family is a collectivist entity (Ramirez,
Castaneda, & Herold, 1974; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002). These early-
generation families tend to be more traditional in relationships with author-
ity and in gender roles (Falicov, 1998; Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006).
Traditionally the Latinx family is a close-knit group and considered the most
important social unit. This is sometimes referred to as familialismo (Ortiz &
Santos, 2009; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001). The term refers to a
family unit beyond the network of parents that also includes extended fam-
ily, like grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Individuals within a Latinx
family may feel moral responsibility to support members of their family with
problems related to economic, social, and health concerns.
Like other non-White ethnic and racial groups, Latinxs experience
exclusion, discrimination, and racism that impede their ability to fulfill their
desired destiny in this country. The degree of overt discrimination they expe-
rience is related to factors similar to those that African Americans experience.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 87 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 88 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Educational attainment, income, and occupational levels can mediate overt

discrimination. The general public’s lack of understanding of Latinx culture,
in concert with periodic episodes of political anti-immigration sentiment,
may also lead to readily accepting stereotypes of Latinxs as illegal immigrants
and undereducated manual laborers. Like African Americans, Latinxs also
suffer discrimination in the workplace (such as a lack of advancement oppor-
tunities or overscrutiny) and the negative effects of experiencing a frequent
barrage of microaggressions related to racism and stereotypes. Solòrzano
(1997) has characterized microaggressions as comments and opinions that
may be meant as innocuous or even complimentary but are hurtful to Latinx
students. Microaggressions can be daily or cumulative forms of racism that
subtly and negatively impact the mental and physical health of individu-
als. Such statements include, “You speak English so clearly,” or “You aren’t
like most Mexicans.” Many educators also assume that family structures
and cultural values actually keep students from excelling in academics—
that Latinx families prefer their children to work rather than go to college.
Scholars have documented the ways in which people of Color deal with racial
battle fatigue, defined as the physiological and psychological consequences
of microaggressions experienced by people of Color over time (Solórzano &
Pérez Huber, 2012).

Latinx Student Participation in Higher Education

Latinx young adults from 18 to 24 years old have experienced six consecutive
years of increases in college-going—from 26.6% in 2007 to 37.5% in 2012
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). This represents a 10.9%
gain in the college-going “gap” between White and Latinx individuals, as
the enrollment of White 18- to 24-year-olds has remained relatively stable.
Latinx students now compose 16% of the undergraduate student population
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013), just one percentage point
short of their proportion of the U.S. population. Further, it is expected that
by 2028 the number of Latinx college-age youth will increase by 13.7%,
while enrollment of all other ethnic and racial groups will decline (Chronicle
of Higher Education, 2014), positioning Latinx students to play an even more
significant role in our colleges and universities. However, Latinx students
attend college differently than those from other ethnic and racial groups.
Almost half of Latinx students begin their college career in a community col-
lege (46%, though this percentage is decreasing); they are less likely to attend
a selective college and more likely to attend school on a part-time basis than
their White peers (Fry & Taylor, 2013). Latinx students are also more likely

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 88 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 89

to be the first in their families to attend college, as 20.4% of Latinxs over 25

years of age hold an associate degree or higher, compared to 34.8% of the
total population (U. S. Census Bureau, 2014). Given the higher proportion
of Latinx who are closer to age 25, it is likely that the percentage of college
students’ parents who have at least an associate degree may be actually lower.
Since 2004, the number of Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) has
increased by more than 50%, to 409 four- and two-year institutions in 2014
(12% of all institutions). In fact, almost 60% of all Latinx students attend
an HSI (Excelencia in Education, 2015), which are private or public colleges
and universities where Latinxs make up at least 25% of the student popula-
tion. California has the greatest number of HSIs, with 139, followed by Texas
(75), Puerto Rico (58), Florida (23), New Mexico (23), and New York (19).
Fast-forward to degree completion, and we see continued growth in the
number of Latinxs completing degrees at all levels; in 2012–2013, Latinxs
achieved the highest number of degrees ever. Latinxs earned 16% of associate
degrees, 10.5% of bachelor’s degrees, 8.1% of master’s degrees, and 6.5% of
doctoral degrees (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Like other
groups, women are outpacing men at each of these degree levels, but the
difference is relatively minimal, ranging from 0.2% for associate’s degrees to
1.2% for bachelor’s degrees. The continual increase in the number of Latinxs
earning college degrees at all levels would be expected, given the increase of
Latinxs in the population; however, coupled with the increase in the propor-
tion of Latinxs attending college (one point below parity), there is promise
for attaining parity in degree completion in the not so distant future.

Current Research, Trends, and Issues

The research literature on postsecondary Latinx students primarily revolves
around their getting to college, persisting once there, and the quality of their
experiences in the college environment. In addition, ethnic identity overlaps
many of these factors but primarily focuses on how students come to define
themselves as they interact in the college environment and balance issues of
salience, acculturation, assimilation, or biculturalism. Changes in federal and
state policies regarding tuition for undocumented college students has influ-
enced both practice and research, especially for Latinx students, who make
up the majority of undocumented students.

College Access
The importance of early college aspirations to the success of Latinxs as a
group cannot be overstated. In the beginning of the twenty-first century,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 89 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 90 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

efforts to develop outreach programs to Latinxs in middle school and high

school have increased dramatically. In part, the boost was necessary in states
with large numbers of Latinxs where affirmative action was abolished, such
as California, Florida, and Texas. Research at that time showed that the num-
ber of Latinx students accessing top state institutions declined (Barr, 2002;
Garcia, Jorgensen, & Ormsby, 1999), with inequities continuing (Harris &
Tienda, 2012; Perna, Li, Walsh, & Raible, 2010). Harris and Tienda (2012)
analyzed the application rates of Latinx students to Texas’s flagship universi-
ties prior to the affirmative action ban, after the ban, and since the imple-
mentation of the Texas 10% policy which guarantees admission to a Texas
postsecondary institution to the top 10% of a high school’s graduating class
(Texas H.B. 588). They found that the 10% policy did not result in a greater
number of applications, as the percentage of Latinx applications changed
very little despite a dramatic increase in the number of Latinx high school
graduates. If Latinx high school students applied to the flagship universities
in equal proportion to White students, their application numbers should
have doubled since the affirmative action period. After their full analysis
of application, admission, and enrollment, Harris and Tienda (2012) con-
cluded that demonstrating that equity in access is mediated by the decision
to apply, making precollege programs and experiences paramount in increas-
ing Latinx participation at flagship institutions.
There is additional evidence that a focus on Latinx high school students
and even, as some would argue, middle school students is warranted. Latinxs
are graduating from high school at historic rates, not merely by virtue of
population growth, but by proportion. Since 2004, the Latinx high school
graduation rate has increased from 57% to 65%, and the high school drop-
out rate has been reduced by half to 13% (Excelencia in Education, 2015).
Higher education has a unique opportunity to partner with local school dis-
tricts to help their students develop college-going aspirations and to guide
them through the college choice, admissions, and financial aid application
processes.

College Preparation
Unfortunately, precollege experiences for Latinx students is often one charac-
terized by poverty, as one third of families with children under 18 living in the
home live at or below the poverty line (Excelencia in Education, 2015). Factors
associated with poverty, such as lack of early childhood education, unevenly
funded schools, and teens’ early participation in the workforce (College Board,
2011) make it more likely that Latinx students come to college less prepared
than their majority peers. Over half (58%) of the Latinxs who attend commu-
nity colleges and 20% who attend four-year universities needed remediation

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 90 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 91

in 2006, the most recent year for which there are data (Complete College
America, 2012). In this same analysis, just over a third of those who needed
remediation at a four-year university were able to complete both remediation
and pass the college-level or gateway courses in two years. What begins as a pre-
college issue quickly and importantly becomes a situation that has significant
implications for college completion and major choice, especially for Latinx stu-
dents pursuing science, technology, math, and engineering (STEM) degrees.
Although many struggle with remediation as a result of their high school
experiences, when Latinxs have the opportunity to engage in challenging
academic programs, the results are often quite favorable. Of the Latinx high
school students who took the ACT, a sign of a college preparatory curric-
ulum and intent to attend a four-year institution upon graduation, 78%
at four-year institutions were retained to their second year of college. This
retention rate is equal to that of all college students and just one percentage
point behind White students (Excelencia in Education, 2015).

Family and College Aspirations

Despite stereotypes that the Latinx family devalues education, 88% of
Latinxs age 16 or older report that their families placed importance on a
college education (Fry & Taylor, 2013). McCallister and colleagues (2010)
found similar results in their survey of middle school parents, where 97%
of parents said that they wanted their children to attend college, and 94%
reported that getting a college degree was essential. Parental support for col-
lege aspirations is expressed in multiple ways, such as teaching their children
to respect teachers and other adults at school, having an expectation that a
college education will provide a better or easier life than the parents’, and
placing an emphasis on bringing pride to the family, as the following section
describes (Ortiz & Santos, 2009). Additionally, Latinx college students acted
as role models and college counselors to younger siblings and cousins in the
Ortiz and Santos study.
Although research has consistently shown that Latinx families support
college aspirations for their children, a persistent problem is incorrect or
mythical perceptions of financial aid and college access that serve to build
self-imposed barriers to higher education. Many Latinxs begin their college
careers in community colleges, not because of poor academic records but
because they perceive four-year colleges as an unviable choice in view of the
repeal of affirmative action policies and a lack of financial aid. To compound
this misunderstanding, a study by Zarate and Pachon (2006) found that
Latinx students and their families had misunderstandings about the cost of
college and financial aid policies. Specifically, 80% of students overestimated
the cost of attending in-state public universities and had misperceptions

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 91 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 92 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

regarding financial aid policy, the criteria needed to obtain government

grants, citizenship status for federal and state financial aid, and availability
of guaranteed student loans (e.g., 30% of students said they would go to a
commercial bank to get a loan for college). Most troubling was the finding
that almost 40% of the respondents said they felt that the cost of college
outweighed the benefits of a college education. McCallister and colleagues
(2010) found similar results in their study of middle school parents, where
35% said that they were unaware of financial assistance programs to attend
college, and 71% believed that their children would receive scholarships
based on their grades.

The Latinx Family and Community Influences

Tara Yosso’s concept of community cultural wealth brings theoretical under-
standing to the multiple ways in which Latinx youth are supported by the
families and home communities when they plan for and attend college
(Yosso, 2005). She identified six types of capital that students use:

1. Aspirational (ability to dream beyond current circumstances despite real

and perceived barriers)
2. Linguistic (the benefits of bilingualism)
3. Familial (broad kinship connections, care, and moral and life skill
education)
4. Social (peer and community networks)
5. Navigational (ability to maneuver through social institutions)
6. Resistant (challenging inequities)

When university faculty and staff understand these assets that are developed
prior to college attendance, they are better able to assist college students in
activating their capital when they experience challenges.
Supportive families contribute to the resiliency necessary for Latinx stu-
dents to overcome barriers in higher education, especially for students from
low-income backgrounds or those whose first language is Spanish. Many
have found that the academic achievement of Latinx students was linked
to individual and familial influences (Aguilar, 1996; Hassinger & Plourde,
2005; Ong, Phinney, & Dennis, 2006; Ortiz & Santos, 2009; Sy, 2006).
Sánchez, Reyes, and Singh (2006) found that despite a lack of college knowl-
edge, parents were able to “provide cognitive guidance (asking questions,
giving advice) regarding students’ classes” (p. 61). The researchers also found
that of the key supporters whom students named, 42% were family mem-
bers. This was also true in Ceja’s (2004) study of Chicanas and their college
aspirations: “It was not so much what the parents said through their direct

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 92 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 93

messages but what these Chicana students perceived to be important, as a

consequence of being keenly aware of the conditions and struggles of their
parents” (p. 345). In addition to parents being sources of support and expec-
tation, parents and families also play more customary college-going roles for
their children. Older siblings who attended college were also a resource and
source of support, serving as role models or offering guidance in the applica-
tion process or tutoring in higher-level courses (Hurtado-Ortiz & Gauvain,
2007; Ortiz & Santos, 2009; Sánchez et al., 2006).

Latino/a Critical Race Theory

Latino/a critical race theory (LatCrit) continues to be an important develop-
ment in the research on Latinx students. Through this theoretical frame-
work, the intersection of such forces as ethnicity, race, immigration, class,
sexual orientation, language, and gender allows for critical analysis of the
oppressive nature of societal institutions and the opportunity to view cul-
tural resources, experiential knowledge, and resistance as important tools for
social justice and equity. Scholars such as Daniel Solórzano, Dolores Delgado
Bernal, Miguel Ceja, Octavio Villalpando, and Tara Yosso have been leaders
in the development of this scholarship. As an example of the application of
LatCrit, Chicana feminist pedagogy more formally acknowledges cultural
resources present in the home as valuable sources of strength for students.
“The teaching and learning of the home allows Chicanas to draw upon their
own cultures and sense of self to resist domination along the axes of race, class,
gender, and sexual orientation” (Delgado Bernal, 2001, p. 624). An example
Delgado Bernal offers is that by continuing to speak Spanish, Chicanas draw
personal strength and pride through their ethnic identity and can convert a
practice many perceive as interfering with educational success to an asset in
the educational and work environments. The use of counter storytelling and
testimonios as a research methodology and a tool to help students understand
societal institutional forces that impact their lives has gained prominence
as an extension of LatCrit (Delgado Bernal, Burciaga, & Flores Carmona,
2012; Espino, 2012; Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012).

Ethnic Identity and Biculturalism

Ethnic identity as a psychological construct and as a contributor to
characteristics that positively affect the educational experience of students
continues to be a vibrant line of research on Latinxs. Classic dispositions
associated with ethnic identity include increased self-efficacy and self-esteem,
which have a positive influence on students’ academic performance (for a
review, see Ortiz & Santos, 2009). These forces help students resist the urge

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 93 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 94 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

to assimilate, losing their Latinx culture by fully integrating into the domi-
nant culture, and instead acculturate their native culture with the acquisi-
tion of some aspects of Anglo culture. Key components of Latinx ethnic
identity include activities and traditions associated with specific cultures
largely based on country of origin, language, Catholicism, collectivist family
structure based on respect for elders, and traditional gender roles. Ortiz and
Santos (2009) found that college experiences with Chicano studies courses,
Latinx student organizations, and experiences with racism and discrimina-
tion caused students to strengthen their ethnic identity and develop a group
consciousness that led them to envision their role in elevating the status of
Latinxs in society and to take political action to benefit group causes. Even
though these students attended universities that were highly diverse and came
from communities with high concentrations of coethnics, the students saw
how their educational experience was changing them, making them more
American through acculturation. They saw this as an opportunity to create a
unique ethnicity that allowed them to keep what was best about the cultures
in which they were raised, while transforming other elements, such as tradi-
tional gender roles, to achieve their goals.
Helping students to strengthen their ethnic identity and its salience is an
important success strategy, especially in predominantly White institutions, as
connection with ethnic peers and cultural congruity have been predictive of
college GPA (Cerezo & Chang, 2013). Case and Hernandez (2013) studied
the impact of an intensive cohort program for Latinx students at their small
liberal arts college. Students in the program experienced pride, affirmation
and acceptance in their Latinx identity, as well as elevated ethnic conscious-
ness, resulting in engagement in the community and becoming ethnically
rooted bicultural leaders. These findings were similar to the Ortiz and Santos
study (2009), demonstrating that ethnic identity can be supported and
enhanced in environments that lack a critical mass of Latinx students.

Undocumented Students
Research on undocumented students has increased dramatically since the
first edition of this text. Although undocumented students come from every
continent, the vast majority of them are Latinxs, coming from Mexico and
Central America. The laws, policies, and general political landscape for
undocumented students change rapidly and are governed by both federal
and state policy. As of this writing, at least 17 states provide in-state resident
tuition rates to undocumented students (California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 94 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 95

Policies such as those regarding admission and financial aid as related to

undocumented students are dynamic; thus, there is confusion among stu-
dents, parents, and educators about college admission, financial aid, intern-
ship eligibility, and postgraduate study and employment (Gildersleeve &
Hernández, forthcoming). Despite countless barriers, many high school
students without documentation have high aspirations for college and their
careers (Torres & Wicks-Asbun, 2013). William Perez has conducted exten-
sive studies of undocumented students in multiple institutional settings
(Perez, 2009, 2011; Perez & Cortes, 2011). His work documents the chal-
lenges faced by students and the resiliency and optimism they maintain to
reach graduation and then use their considerable talents to create change
(Perez, 2009). His work focusing on community college students (Perez &
Cortes, 2011) is particularly enlightening as this is the primary college entry
point for undocumented students due to their low cost and convenient loca-
tions. The negative attitudes of college staff that he and Cortes report are
disappointing and reflect the lack of knowledge about policy and ignorance
about the potential of these college students.
Undocumented students experience multiple challenges in the college
environment: paying college expenses, working in under-the-table jobs, and
balancing coursework with family responsibilities. Even getting to campus
is a challenge, especially when attending a four-year institution; driving is
often impossible because of the inability to legally obtain a driver’s license in
some states, leaving students to rely on public transportation. Ellis and Chen
(2013) found that students shared experiences common to their documented
peers, such as family conflict regarding responsibility and acculturation.
Students’ documentation status prompted unique identity development
dimensions that included increased empathy for disenfranchised groups
and the increased agency and resilience based on the multiple hurdles they
encountered. They were better at getting things done because of all they
had to maneuver. However, they simultaneously had to deal with the shame
and stigma of being undocumented that resulted in isolation, invisibility, and
internalizing stereotypes.
Applying the research literature to practice by creating synthesized dis-
cussions about undocumented students provides higher education profes-
sionals with a holistic understanding of what to do to support successful
pathways for these students (Gildersleeve & Hernández, in press). Gilbert
(2014) emphasizes the need to remain diligent access agents for students
without documentation, both in terms of keeping abreast of policy changes
and in student advocacy. In California, AB540 Ally Programs are designed
to train students and staff on policies and resources that affect students,
while educating them about student experiences. Like other ally programs,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 95 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 96 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

participants who complete the training receive a sticker they can post on
their office door to signal to students that are ready and willing to help.
A case study by Barnhardt, Ramos, and Reyes (2013) offers another exam-
ple of how institutions can better serve undocumented students. They
show that explicit admissions and financial policies, in addition to an open-
ness to adapt institutional procedures, are necessary to provide equitable
education for undocumented students. This was especially true in the case
of providing summer internships, which were thought to be unavailable to
undocumented students until the institution devised a way to offer a mod-
est fellowship to pay for living expenses and a small stipend for students
who could not be paid in traditional ways. The recent establishment of
DREAM Centers at some California State University campuses is another
way to coordinate services and information for undocumented students in
a space that also serves as a gathering place to connect students with each
other and campus staff.

Latinxs in Community Colleges and College Choice

Because of many of the factors already discussed (poor academic prepara-
tion, misinformation about access and financial aid), community colleges
serve as the primary entry point for Latinxs pursuing higher education.
Latinxs are disproportionally enrolled in community colleges—close to half
of Latinx students enrolled in postsecondary education are enrolled in com-
munity colleges (Santiago, Calderón Galdeano, & Taylor, 2015). Despite
the high number of Latinx community college students who aspire to trans-
fer to four-year institutions, the research suggests that few Latinx students
are transferring (Núñez & Elizondo, 2013). Moore & Shulock (2010) draw
attention to the completion and transfer racial gaps in California commu-
nity colleges. On average, out of 100 Latinx students in California who
enroll in a community college, four will complete a career and technical
education, and 14 will transfer to a California state university or a University
of California campus. This figure suggests that a large number of Latinx stu-
dents leave school without a certificate or degree (Rivas, Pérez, Álvarez, &
Solórzano, 2007). Further complicating this matter is the “transfer choice
gap” (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009, p. 635), which refers to the phenomena of
students who are academically eligible for transfer to a selective university
but opt to transfer to a less selective institution or not transfer at all. Their
study aimed to explore the transfer choice gap for Latinx community col-
lege students in California, which is the state with the largest enrollment of
Latinxs in community colleges. Bensimon and Dowd raise attention to the
need for what they call “transfer agents” (p. 651) to mediate information to
transfer into selective institutions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 96 7/26/2016 7:24:17 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 97

Leading community college scholars note that “the actual transfer rate is
debatable and mysterious because there is little agreement as to how it should
be measured” (Hagedorn & Lester, 2006, p. 833). The multiple missions of
community colleges make transfer rates irrelevant for many students who
have no intention of transferring or who enroll simply to establish or update
workplace skills or engage in lifelong learning. Dual (or multiple) enrollment
and reverse transfer (from a four-year to a two-year college) further compli-
cate determining accurate transfer rates. Hagedorn and Lester (2006) found
that remedial and prerequisite transfer-level courses become barriers to trans-
fer, women were more likely to complete transfer-ready courses, and there
were no differences in transfer readiness between native Spanish or English
speakers.
Solórzano, Acevedo-Gil, and Santos (2013) draw attention to the role
developmental courses play in Latinx student transfer. After submitting a
community college admission application, students must take a standard-
ized test to measure academic competencies in English writing and reading,
and math. These scores determine placement in college-level courses that
are required for transfer. Out of 100 Latinx students who place into devel-
opmental English, only 34 will pass a transfer level course in a three-year
period. The number is even lower for math, as only 14 Latinx students will
complete a transfer-level course within three years.

Retention of Latinxs in Postsecondary Education

According to Swail, Redd, and Perna (2003), a more holistic model of stu-
dent persistence explains that the student experience is shaped by three sets
of factors: cognitive (i.e., quality of learning, study skills, and time manage-
ment), social (i.e., financial issues, social coping skills, cultural values, and
parental and peer support), and institutional (i.e., how institutions react
to students and the ability of the institution to provide support). Students
attain equilibrium when the cognitive, social, and institutional forces com-
bine in a manner that supports student persistence and achievement. The
geometric model suggests that a student must find a balance between all
three factors to reach equilibrium. Balance does not require all three fac-
tors to be equal. A Latinx student may have strong social support, such as
a family and friend network, to compensate for a shortage of college sur-
vival skills like time management and knowledge of institutional resources.
Students’ family and social networks prior to college can thus assist in per-
sistence rather than impede integration, as Tinto (1993) argues in his classic
work on student retention. There is a cyclical relationship among campus
racial climate, college adjustment, and persistence. Students’ ability to find

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 97 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 98 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

membership or a sense of belonging on campus has long been connected

with persistence (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tinto, 1993). Experiences with
discrimination or racism on campus serve to block that sense of belonging
and then become barriers to achieving a degree. Students have reported that
discrimination from campus administrators, advisers, and support staff has
a negative effect on their ability to succeed (Lopez, 1995).
The scholarship on the retention of Latinx students has been explored
across gender. Sáenz and Ponjuán (2012) describe Latinx male participation
in higher education as in a state of crisis. In 2010, for example, three out of
every five associate or bachelor’s degrees granted to Latinxs were earned by
women. Sáenz and Ponjuán (2011) contend that observable differences in
enrollment rates between male and female students begin to show up long
before postsecondary education and as soon as early childhood education.
In 2009, for example, 44.4% of Latinx females under the age of 5 were
enrolled in school compared to 39.4% of Latinx males in the same age group
(Sáenz & Ponjuán, 2011). The disparities continue across the educational
pipeline, and a growing body of work is dedicated to exploring the college
access and degree completion of Latinx male students.
Particular attention has been given to the participation and degree com-
pletion of Latinx students pursuing science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) degrees. Dowd, Malcom, and Bensimon (2009) document
the educational disparities of Latinx students who pursue and earn STEM
degrees and challenge institutions to identify and investigate the conditions
under which effective practices can lead to greater STEM degree attainment.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, challenges associated with developmen-
tal education or gateway courses put in place significant challenges for Latinx
students who begin postsecondary education in community college and
intend on pursuing STEM degrees.
A cyclical relationship exists among campus racial climate, college adjust-
ment, and persistence. Students’ ability to find membership or a sense of
belonging on campus has long been connected with persistence (Hurtado &
Carter, 1997; Tinto, 1993). Experiences with discrimination or racism on
campus serve to block that sense of belonging and then become barriers to
achieving a degree. Students have reported that discrimination from campus
administrators, advisers, and support staff has a negative effect on their abil-
ity to succeed (Lopez, 1995). However, social support systems and cultural
connections have been shown to mediate the effects of a negative campus
racial climate (Llamas & Ramos-Sánchez, 2013). Social support, coupled
with high self-efficacy, is significantly responsible for success in college
adjustment and a decrease in psychological and physical distress (Solberg,
Valdez, & Villarreal, 1994; Solberg & Villarreal, 1997). In fact, the ability

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 98 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 99

for Latinx students to create, negotiate, and sustain social networks can posi-
tively influence their college experience and persistence (Llamas & Ramos-
Sánchez, 2013; Saunders & Serna, 2004).

Campus Climate and Community Affiliations

Hurtado’s (1992) longitudinal study on campus racial climate found that
campus racial conflict is prevalent across U.S. higher education, although
White students almost always perceived less racial conflict than students of
Color. Race relations on campus affect Latinxs in many of the ways they
affect members of other ethnic minority groups. In the classroom, students
experience disregard from faculty and other students and seldom see Latinx
scholars or researchers teaching their courses or represented in course material
(Pappamihiel & Moreno, 2011). Since these students often come to college
with varying levels of preparation because of uneven precollege educational
experiences, any disconnect they experience in the academic environment at
college is exacerbated. In the cocurricular environment, Latinx students may
experience the same chilly climate they experience in the classroom. Latinx
students who perceive a hostile climate for diversity on campus also express
more difficulty in building a sense of belonging to the college (Hurtado,
Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Hurtado & Ponjuán, 2005).
Ethnic student organizations and Chicano or Latino studies programs
provide opportunities for Latinx students to build community with other
students, faculty, and staff. Belonging to these organizations helps students
maintain their cultural identity or become more familiar with a cultural iden-
tity that may have been deemphasized prior to college (Garcia & Okhidoi,
2015; Ortiz & Santos, 2009). However, membership in these communities
often plays a contradictory role in students’ acclimation to college. Hurtado
and Carter (1997) found that involvement in student organizations led to
a sense of belonging for Latinx students but simultaneously was associated
with a greater awareness of racial and ethnic tensions on campus. Conversely,
Latinxs who did not belong to these clubs experienced a lower sense of
belonging despite reporting lower levels of racial and ethnic tension on cam-
pus. However, other important outcomes are associated with these clubs and
organizations. The opportunity for Latinxs to affiliate with each other has
been shown to have positive outcomes, such as commitment to the commu-
nity and altruistic career choices. Further, this affiliation, which some may
consider to be a form of self-segregation, is often considered to be an act of
self-preservation in predominantly White institutions (Villalpando, 2003).
Garcia and Okhidoi (2015) describe the importance of culturally relevant

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 99 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 100 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

curriculum and programs like Chicano/a Studies departments for students,

especially those that attend HSIs.

Resources for Staying Informed

This section provides an overview of organizations dedicated to advance
and promote Latinx student success. These organizations are great
resources for staying informed on news and data related to Latinx student
education.

Excelencia in Education (www.edexcelencia.org)

This national, independent, not-for profit organization is dedicated to
“accelerat[ing] Latino/a student success in higher education by providing
data-driven analysis of the educational status of Latino/as, and by promot-
ing education policies and institutional practices that support their academic
achievement.” Based in Washington, DC, the organization was cofounded in
2004 by Sarita Brown and Deborah Santiago, and in little more than a dec-
ade has become a source of information and a clearinghouse for information
and data on Latinx students and Hispanic-serving institutions.

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU)

(www.hacu.net)
HACU’s mission is to champion Hispanic success in higher education. The
association was established in 1986 and currently represents more than 400
colleges and universities. HACU is the only national educational associa-
tion that represents HSIs and is dedicated to promoting the development
of member colleges and universities. HACU is based out of Washington,
DC, and has field offices around the country. The association convenes an
annual conference that provides a unique forum for the dissemination of
information and ideas related to the most promising practices related to
Latino education.

American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education (AAHHE)

(www.aahhe.org)
AAHHE is a national educational nonprofit organization dedicated to
improving the quality of higher education. AAHHE is a cross-disciplinary
higher education organization focused on the need to develop Latinx fac-
ulty and senior administrators as well as serving as a leading research and
advocacy group for Hispanic higher education issues. AAHHE administers

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 100 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 101

two highly successful programs: the Graduate Student Fellows and the
Faculty Fellows Program. These fellowships provide unique opportunities
for Latinx graduate students and faculty to build community, mentorship,
and socialization in the academy. AAHHE also commissions scholarly papers
focused on contemporary issues related to Latinx education and produces
Perspectivas, an annual higher education policy report in partnership with the
Educational Testing Service and the Center for Policy Research and Policy in
Education at the University of Texas–San Antonio.

White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics

(WHIEEH) (www.ed.gov/edblogs/hispanic-initiative/)
Since 1990, one of the federal responses to address Latinx educational oppor-
tunity and concerns was creating the WHIEEH. The WHIEEH is a fed-
eral policy initiative that provides advice and guidance to the Secretary of
Education on education issues related to Latinxs and is the only federal ini-
tiative exclusively dedicated to the Latinx community. The WHIEEH sets
a national stage and platform to engage the challenges and opportunities
related to the educational concerns of Latinxs.

Recommendations, Implications, and Future Trends

Latinx student advocates also must work to change structures, policies, and
programs in the university that impede the success of Latinxs. Student affairs
professionals, researchers, and academic administrators, as well as graduate
students studying to enter the student affairs field, should become familiar
with the topics summarized here.

Integrated Outreach
The literature explicitly shows how critical it is to design outreach programs
that connect four-year colleges and universities with K–12 school systems
and community colleges. New programs indicate that college awareness pro-
grams are most successful when they are directed at students in middle school.
Because many Latinx students come from families with little experience in
higher education, this introduction to college awareness must also include
the nuclear and extended family. Families and parents actively encourage
college attendance, but often lack specific information about required high
school coursework, the admissions process, and financial aid. The current
legislative and legal environment has reinforced messages about opportu-
nities for Latinxs. Changing and complicated immigration laws make it

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 101 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 102 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

difficult for parents and students to know how and when they should reveal
documentation status.
Outreach to community colleges and their students is also vital.
Because these institutions have open admission policies that do not
require standardized tests or minimum grade point averages, have little or
no application fees, and are often more conveniently located than four-
year institutions, they are ideally suited to serve as the intake institutions
for many Latinxs. However, these features of convenience can allow stu-
dents to put their education behind the other roles they play, which makes
progress to attaining the degree slow and tenuous. Four-year colleges and
universities either need to work harder at making themselves points of
entry for the majority of Latinx students or work more closely with com-
munity colleges to transfer students who intend to complete a baccalaure-
ate degree. The four-year institution is responsible for helping to design
programs that actively assist students and community college advisers in
navigating articulation agreements and course eligibility; the institution
is also responsible for providing support once transfer students arrive on
their campuses.

Success in Remediation and Gateway Courses

Due to poor high school preparation for college, many students find that
they need to take one or more remedial courses before they begin college-
level work in math and English. One strategy is to help students understand
the importance of placement examinations. Early-assessment programs are
designed to prepare high school students for these exams and administer
them while they are still in high school rather than at orientation. Some
campuses have designed early-start programs so that students can take reme-
dial coursework the summer before matriculation. This serves as a bridge
program and allows learning community features and supplemental instruc-
tion to be built in to the remedial coursework. Students are not only likely
to pass these courses but are also often better prepared for gateway courses.
These efforts are particularly critical for students who wish to pursue STEM
majors. Such programs allow student affairs and academic affairs special-
ists to partner to enrich the student experience, necessitating special train-
ing for all staff and instructors. Teachers of remedial courses should be the
best instructors, rather than part-time instructors with the least experience.
Advising staff needs to understand how to work with students in a way that
empowers them to succeed to counter the negative stigma of remediation.
For an example of a successful effort, refer to the STEM Pathways Program
at Norco College, which is part of the Riverside Community College District
(www.norcocollege.edu/STEM).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 102 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 103

Career Preparation
Latinxs tend to take a highly pragmatic view of their career preparation and
higher education’s role in that preparation. Students and families expect that
college will prepare them for a job and career that offer opportunities for
income and advancement beyond what would be possible without a college
education. One study reported that Latinxs are more likely than any other
ethnic group to major in business (Leppel, 2001). This practical view of the
college experience has several implications. First, it inhibits students from
exploring alternative career and academic opportunities in college. Students
who choose careers and majors that are perceived to be less tied to employ-
ment after graduation face criticism and resistance from families that expect
a college graduate to be well employed. Career and counseling centers need
to be prepared to assist students who experience this difficulty.
A second implication of the tendency to view a college education prag-
matically is the realization that we may not be able to attract Latinx students
to careers in higher education, which has a number of significant effects.
Latinx faculty represent only about 4.3% of the national full-time faculty
(Chronicle of Higher Education, 2014). Students who may consider doctoral-
level work are often encouraged by family expectations to enter the work-
force after completing the undergraduate degree. This problem perpetuates
the lack of Latinx role models in higher education. Programs like the Doctoral
Scholars Program of the Southern Regional Education Board (www.sreb
.org/page/1074/doctoral_scholars.html) or the California State University
Doctoral Incentive Fellowship Program (www.calstate.edu/HR/CDIP) seek
to increase the numbers of underrepresented minorities in the nation’s pro-
fessoriate and are slowly making a change in the number of Latinxs who
teach in U.S. colleges and universities. Change could be accelerated by being
more candid with undergraduates about faculty work, academic salaries, and
consulting opportunities, so that they understand that a life in academia can
also have pragmatic benefits.

Seamless Partnerships in Student Services

Serving Latinx students requires that campus units work across divisional and
reporting lines to educate Latinxs from a holistic perspective. Personnel who
work in academic support need to be updated constantly about changes in
financial aid policies and procedures so that continuing students get current
information before their registration status is threatened. Navigating financial
aid policies is a task for not only the high school senior or community col-
lege transfer but also student services personnel. Issues that may complicate
financial aid eligibility include confusion over dependency status, continued

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 103 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 104 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

reporting of parental income and tax information, satisfactory course load

if remedial courses are taken, and minimum grade point average standards.
Student support services also need to be in regular communication about
the progress of Latinx students. On larger campuses, this type of communi-
cation is often a significant barrier because of discrete organizational struc-
ture reporting lines, overlap of job responsibilities, and the sheer number
of students served. Because early support programs, such as summer bridge
programs and other precollege programs, are often housed in targeted sup-
port service units, other student service units need to be prepared to work
closely with students and these early-start programs so that students receive
the help they need throughout their matriculation. This also applies to com-
munication among faculty, academic advising staff, and student services pro-
fessionals. Classroom and academic issues are often viewed in isolation from
other student issues, which leads to a poor diagnosis of student problems and
incomplete plans to address them. Early-alert programs include communica-
tion channels between classroom faculty for first- and second-year students
and student support personnel so that intervention takes place before educa-
tion problems become insurmountable.

Chicano/a Studies Courses and Student Organizations as an

Intervention Strategy
Nuñez (2011), Ortiz and Santos (2009), and Case and Hernandez (2013) all
showed the important role that ethnic studies courses play in the success of
Latinx college students. As noted earlier in the chapter, there are multiple ben-
efits to this participation, as there are benefits for non-Latinx students taking
these courses, particularly increased understanding of Latinx issues. Chicano/a
student organizations fulfill a similar purpose. Students develop leadership
skills that may help them resist and counter racism or discrimination in the insti-
tution and elsewhere. Clubs and organizations provide a peer group that helps
students feel as if they belong in the university, particularly in predominantly
White universities, as the groups counter feelings of isolation. Extracurricular
activities are also important for Hispanic-serving institutions since many of
these are in urban areas with student populations that largely reside with their
families, not in campus residence halls. Clubs that are affiliated with a major
or career also enable Latinx students to develop important networks and gain
preprofessional experiences that first-generation college students often lack.

Policy-Oriented Research
The higher education research community also has a responsibility in the
success of Latinx students. It is imperative that researchers, policymakers,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 104 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 105

and educators understand and create the conditions to promote Latinx stu-
dent success. A solid foundation of research (Crisp & Nora, 2010; Crisp &
Nuñez, 2014; Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Nuñez, Hoover, Pickett, Stuart-
Carruthers, & Vasquez, 2013; Oseguera, Locks, & Vega, 2009; Solórzano,
Acevedo-Gil, & Santos, 2013) demonstrates the persistence of Latino/Latina
students and identifies factors that are key to persistence. Ensuring that this
research is disseminated among faculty and student services practitioners
through professional development programs, professional association pres-
entations, and other written media is critical. Still, one key area for further
development is exploring the role HSIs play in serving Latinx students. An
increasing body of scholarship is exploring the meaning and growth of HSIs
and its implications for higher education (see Nuñez, Hurtado, & Calderón
Galdeano, 2015; Nuñez et al., 2013). How are parents, families, and commu-
nities incorporated in the college process? What kinds of programs have been
most effective in helping students get to, persist, and graduate from college?
We have a special opportunity to do the right thing at the right time for
Latinx students. The numbers of Latinxs in higher education will increase
faster than our ability to design programs, conduct the needed research,
or transform policies and institutions. Understanding their unique precol-
legiate experiences is an important way to begin to assist these students once
they arrive on campus. Latinxs’ history as a people and as individuals in a
complex sociocultural context challenges many basic assumptions in higher
education. Practitioners, researchers, and students should examine policies
and practices to see how our hidden assumptions and misunderstandings
of Latinx students may affect their academic progress and satisfaction with
college. We might incorrectly assume that all our students, having made it
to college, have similar K–12 experiences, similar family and community
models, and equal beliefs that all opportunities are open to them. For Latinx
students to believe that they have infinite possibilities for the future, our role
is to create the conditions necessary to ensure they have infinite possibilities
and, more important, to ensure equitable outcomes. It is hard work for a
staff or faculty member to do this on a regular basis, but the benefits are well
worth the investment.

Discussion Questions
1. Discuss the similarities and differences among the variety of nationali-
ties and cultures that compose the panethnic group. How will you as a
student affairs professional endeavor to attend to members’ collective and
specific needs?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 105 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 106 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

2. Identify the major impacts resulting from LatCrit. How can student
affairs practitioners use these impacts to provide best practices with
Latinx students?
3. How can student affairs practitioners use the strong connections with
family of most Latinx students to enhance their positive experiences
while enrolled in college and to improve the likelihood of their retention
and completion?
4. Reflect on and discuss the ways your practices are culturally responsive
to Latinx students and their families. How can the resources and scholar-
ship provided in this chapter support and develop your cultural compe-
tence to work with Latinx students?

Note
1. Latinx is a gender-inclusive term recognizing that the descriptors Latino
or Latina assume a gender binary not reflective of all members of the ethnic
group.

References
Aguilar, M. A. (1996). Promoting the educational achievement of Mexican American
young women. Social Work Education, 18, 145–156.
Barnhardt, C., Ramos, M., & Reyes, K. (2013, June 12). Equity and inclusion in
practice: Administrative responsibility for fostering undocumented students’
learning. About Campus, 18, 20–26. doi:10.1002/abc.21112
Barr, R. (2002). Top 10 percent policy: Higher education diversity after Hopwood
(pp. 77–79). Austin: Texas House of Representatives, House Research
Organization.
Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. C. (2009). Dimensions of the transfer choice gap:
Experiences of Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways.
Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 632–659.
Case, K. F., & Hernandez, R. (2013). “But still, I’m Latino and I’m proud”: Ethnic
identity exploration in the context of a collegiate cohort program. Christian
Higher Education, 1(12), 74–92.
Ceja, M. (2004). Chicana college aspirations and the role of parents: Developing
educational resiliency. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 338–362.
Cerezo, A., & Chang, T. (2013). Latina/o achievement at predominantly White
universities: The importance of culture and ethnic community. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 12(1), 72–85.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2014). Almanac of higher education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/section/Almanac-of-Higher-Education/801/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 106 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 107

College Board. (2011). The college completion guide: State policy guide (Latino ed.).
Retrieved from http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/advocacy/cca/
latino/policy_guide_latino_2011.pdf
Complete College America. (2012). Four-year myth: Make college more affordable;
restore the promise of graduating on time. Retrieved from http://completecollege
.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/4-Year-Myth.pdf
Crisp, G., & Nora, A. (2010). Hispanic student success: Factors influencing the per-
sistence and transfer decisions of Latino community college students enrolled in
developmental education. Research in Higher Education, 51(2), 175–194.
Crisp, G., & Nuñez, A. (2014). Understanding the racial transfer gap: Modeling
underrepresented minority and nonminority students’ pathways from two- to
four-year institutions. Review of Higher Education, 37(3), 291–320.
Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Learning and living pedagogies of the home: The mestiza
consciousness of Chicana students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 623–639.
Delgado Bernal, D., Burciaga, R., & Flores-Carmona, J. (2012). Chicana/Latina
testimonios: Mapping the methodological, pedagogical and political. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 45(3), 363–372.
Dowd, A. C., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009). Benchmarking the success
of Latino and Latina students in STEM to achieve national graduation goals. Los
Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Ellis, L. M., & Chen, E. C. (2013). Negotiating identity development among
undocumented immigrant students: A grounded theory study. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 60(2), 251–264.
Ennis, S. R., Ríos-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011). The Hispanic population:
2010. The United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www
.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf
Espino, M. M. (2012). Seeking the “truth” in the stories we tell: The role of criti-
cal race epistemology in higher education research. Review of Higher Education,
36(1), 31–67.
Excelencia in Education. (2015). Growing what works database. Retrieved from
http://www.edexcelencia.org/growing-what-works
Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2013, April 13). An uneven recovery, 2009–2011: A rise in
wealth for the wealthy; declines for the lower 93%. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/04/wealth_recovery_final.pdf
Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of
failed school policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garcia, E. E., Jorgensen, R. E., & Ormsby, C. (1999). How can public universities
still admit a diverse freshmen class? The case of Latinos, the SAT, and the Univer-
sity of California. Journal of College Admission, 164, 5–11.
Garcia, G. A., & Okhidoi, O. (2015, August). Culturally relevant practices that
serve students at Hispanic-serving institutions. Innovative Higher Education,
40(4), 345–357. doi:10.1007/s10755-015-9318-7

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 107 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 108 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Gilbert, A. (2014). Why undocumented students still matter. Journal of College

Admission, 223, 51.
Gildersleeve, R. E., & Hernández, S. (Forthcoming). Undocumented students in
higher education: Supporting pathways for success. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hagedorn, L. S., & Lester, J. (2006). Hispanic community college students and the
transfer game: Strikes, misses, and grand slam experiences. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 827–853.
Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino fami-
lies: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77, 1282–1297.
Harris, A., & Tienda, M. (2012). Hispanics in higher education and the Texas top
10% law. Race and Social Problems, 4(1), 57–67.
Hassinger, M., & Plourde, L. E. (2005). Beating the odds: How bilingual Hispanic
youth work through adversity to become high-achieving students. Education,
126, 316–327.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of
Higher Education, 63(5), 539–569.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of
the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology
of Education, 70, 324–345.
Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to col-
lege: Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in
Higher Education, 37, 135–157.
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuán, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus
climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251.
Hurtado-Ortiz, M. T., & Gauvain, M. (2007). Postsecondary education among
Mexican youth: Contributions of parents, siblings, acculturation, and genera-
tional status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 181–191.
Krogstad, J. M. (2014, September 19). Hispanics only group to see its poverty rate
decline and incomes rise. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewre
search.org/fact-tank/2014/09/19/hispanics-only-group-to-see-its-poverty-rate-
decline-and-incomes-rise/
Krogstad, J. M., Stepler, R., & Hugo Lopez, M. (2015). English proficiency on the rise
among Latinos: U.S. born driving language changes. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2015/05/2015-05-12_hispanics-english-
proficiency_FINAL.pdf
Leppel, K. (2001). The impact of major on college persistence among freshmen.
Higher Education, 41, 327–342.
Llamas, J., & Ramos-Sánchez, L. (2013). Role of peer support on intragroup mar-
ginalization for Latino undergraduates. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 41(3), 158–168.
Lopez, E. M. (1995). Challenges and resources of Mexican American students
within the family, peer group, and university: Age and gender patterns. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 499–508.
McCallister, L., Illich, P., & Evans, J. (2010). Perceptions about higher educa-
tion among parents of Hispanic students in middle school: Implications for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 108 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 109

community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(10),

784–796.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and closing
racial gaps in California’s community colleges. Institute for Higher Education Lead-
ership and Policy, California State University–Sacramento. Retrieved from http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513823.pdf
Morales, A., & Hanson, W. E. (2005). Language brokering: An integrative review of
the literature. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 471–503.
Muñoz, S. M., & Maldonado, M. M. (2012). Counterstories of college persistence
by undocumented Mexicana students: Navigating race, class, gender, and legal
status. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 293–315.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics.
Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_302.60.asp
Nuñez, A. (2011). Counter-spaces and connections in college transitions: First-
generation Latino students’ perspectives on Chicano studies. Journal of College
Student Development, 52(6), 639–655.
Nuñez, A. M., & Elizondo, D. (2013, Spring). Closing the Latino/a transfer gap:
Creating pathways to the baccalaureate. Perspectivas: Issues in Policy and Practice,
2. American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education.
Nuñez, A. M., Hoover, R. E., Pickett, A. K., Stuart-Carruthers, C., & Vazquez,
M. (2013). Latinos in higher education: Creating conditions for student success.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 39, 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nuñez, A. M., Hurtado, S., & Calderón Galdeano, E. (Eds.). (2015). Hispanic-
serving institutions: Advancing research and transformative practices. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Ong, A. D., Phinney, J. S., & Dennis, J. (2006). Competence under challenge:
Exploring the protective influence of parental support and ethnic identity in
Latino college students. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 961–979.
Ortiz, A. M., & Santos, S. J. (2009). Ethnicity in college: Advancing theory and
improving diversity practices on campus. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Oseguera, L., Locks, A. M., & Vega, I. I. (2009). Increasing Latina/o students bac-
calaureate attainment: A focus on retention. Journal of Hispanics in Higher Educa-
tion, 8(1), 23–53.
Pappamihiel, E., & Moreno, M. (2011). Retaining Latino students: Culturally
responsive instruction in colleges and universities. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 10(4), 331–344.
Perez, W. (2009). We ARE Americans: Undocumented students pursuing the American
dream. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Perez, W. (2011). Americans by heart: Undocumented Latino students and the promise
of higher education: New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Perez, W., & Cortes, R. (2011). Undocumented Latino college students: Their
socioemotional and academic experiences. Dallas, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Perna, L., Li, C., Walsh, E., & Raible, S. (2010). The status of equity for Hispanics
in public higher education in Florida and Texas. Journal of Hispanic Higher Edu-
cation, 9(2), 145–166.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 109 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 110 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Phinney, J. (1995). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and integration.

In A. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic psychology: Critical issues in theory and research
(pp. 57– 70). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Portes, A., & Bach, R. L. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in
the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Portes, A., & Stepick, A. (1993). City on the edge: The transformation of Miami.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ramirez, M., III, Castaneda, A., & Herold, P. L. (1974). The relationship of accul-
turation to cognitive style among Mexican Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 5, 424–433.
Rivas, M. A., Pérez, J., Álvarez, C. R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2007). An examination
of Latina/o transfer students in California’s postsecondary institutions (Latino Policy
and Issues Brief No. 16). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles,
Chicano Studies Research Center.
Sáenz, V. B., & Ponjuán, L. (2011). Men of Color: Ensuring the academic success of
Latino males in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Educa-
tion Policy.
Sáenz, V. B., & Ponjuán, L. (2012). Latino males: Improving college access and
degree completion—a new national imperative. American Association of Hispanics
in Higher Education, 1, 1–12.
Sánchez, B., Reyes, O., & Singh, J. (2006). Makin’ it in college: The value of signifi-
cant individuals in the lives of Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Hispan-
ics in Higher Education, 5, 48–67.
Santiago, D. A., Calderón Galdeano, E., & Taylor, M. (2015). The condition of
Latinos in education: 2015 fact-book. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.
Santiago-Rivera, A. L., Arredondo, P., & Gallardo-Cooper, M. (2002). Counseling
Latinos and la familia: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Saunders, M., & Serna, I. (2004). Making college happen: The college experiences
of first-generation Latino students. Journal of Hispanics in Higher Education, 3,
146–163.
Solberg, V. S., Valdez, J., & Villarreal, P. (1994). Social support, stress, and Hispanic
college adjustment: Test of a diathesis-stress model. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 16, 230–239.
Solberg, V. S., & Villarreal, P. (1997). Examination of self-efficacy, social support,
and stress as predictors of psychological and physical distress among Hispanic col-
lege students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 182–201.
Solòrzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial
stereotyping and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5–19.
Solórzano, D., Acevedo-Gil, N., & Santos, R. (2013). Latina/o community col-
lege students: Understanding the barriers of developmental education. All Campus
Consortium on Research for Diversity (UC/ACCORD). Retrieved from http://
pathways.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/DevEdPolicyBrief.pdf
Solòrzano, D., & Pérez Huber, L. (2012). Microaggressions, racial. (pp. 1489–
1492). In J. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 110 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 LATINX COLLEGE STUDENTS 111

Spring, J. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Swail, S. W., Redd, K. E., & Perna, L. W. (2003). Retaining minority students in
higher education: A framework for success. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report,
30, 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sy, S. R. (2006). Family and work influences on the transition to college among
Latina adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 368–386.
Taylor, P., Lopez, M. H., Martínez, J., & Velasco, G. (2012). When labels don’t fit:
Hispanics and their views of identity. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://
www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/when-labels-dont-fit-hispanics-and-their-
views-of-identity/
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student retention.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Torres, R. M., & Wicks-Asbun, M. (2013, January 8). Undocumented students’
narratives of liminal citizenship: High aspirations, exclusion and “in-between”
identities. Professional Geographer, 66(2), 195–204. doi:10.1080/00330124.201
2.735936
Torres, V. (2003). Influences on ethnic identity development of Latino college stu-
dents in the first two years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 44,
532–547.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Educational attainment. Retrieved from https://www
.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2014/tables.html
Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory
and Latina/o critical theory analysis of a study of Chicana/o college students.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 619–646.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Zarate, M. E., & Pachon, H. P. (2006). Perceptions of college financial aid among Cal-
ifornia Latino youth. Retrieved from www.trpi.org/PDFs/Financial_Aid_Survey
final6302006.pdf

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 111 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 6
ASIAN AMERICAN AND
PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R
STUDENTS
Julie J. Park and OiYan A. Poon

A
fourth-generation Chinese American student attending community
college with little awareness of his ethnic identity. A Lao American
student whose parents immigrated as refugees beginning her col-
lege journey at a university where few others look like her. A student whose
mother is Japanese and father is African American, going back to school after
having served in the military for several years. An undocumented Korean
American student enduring a two-hour commute on public transportation
to campus because of his ineligibility for a driver’s license. In some respects,
these students will likely have radically different college experiences, and each
will be shaped by a myriad of influential social forces. However, as students
who all fall under the category of “Asian American,” they will also likely be
affected by stereotypes and expectations due to the continuing influence of
race and racialization.
The experiences of Pacific Islander students are no less complex, yet this
community often goes unrecognized in the discourse because it is commonly
lumped in with Asian Americans under the broader term Asian American and
Pacific Islander (AAPI) due to the political realities of racial and ethnic cat-
egorization. In this chapter, we attempt to discuss key issues related to Asian
Americans as well as Pacific Islander students in higher education, at times dis-
cussing them as a broad group (AAPI) and at other times discussing them sep-
arately. This chapter provides an overview of key themes and trends affecting
AAPI students on university campuses, although it is by no means exhaustive.
We discuss demographics and population trends, college access, key challenges
encountered, ethnic identity development, and student involvement/activism.

112

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 112 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 113

Demography and Population Trends

It is necessary to have an understanding of some basic demographic informa-
tion about AAPI students when considering this diverse and rapidly grow-
ing cohort. First, the terms AAPI, Asian Pacific American, and Asian Pacific
Islander represent a highly politicized and imperfect panethnicity that in
turn includes a multitude of ethnic groups, bringing benefits and detri-
ments related to community self-determination in educational advocacy.
Second, significant educational disparities exist between Pacific Islanders
and Asian Americans as well as between ethnic subgroups within these
two distinct racial categories. Differences are also found in educational
experiences and perspectives by economic status, immigration status, gen-
der identities, cultural identities, and many other conditions and contexts
among AAPIs.
This section highlights the high level of ethnic diversity among AAPIs
and the rapid rate of population growth nationally and among the U.S. under-
graduate population. Although not within the scope of this text, enrollments
of international students (i.e., granted a student visa by the U.S. Department
of State) from Asian countries in U.S. higher education are also increasing,
and these students experience unique challenges, too. We also shed some
light on ethnic disparities between AAPIs in educational attainment.

Panethnicities: Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders,

AAPI, APA, API
According to Espiritu (1992), “Panethnic groups in the United States are
products of political and social processes, rather than of cultural bonds”
(p. 13). Panethnic terms like Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Asian
American and Pacific Islander are social constructs often simultaneously
imposed by broader systems of power and leveraged by community-based
groups “as a means of claiming resources inside and outside of the com-
munity” (Espiritu, 1992, p. 14). Accordingly, Asian Americans include a
multitude of distinct ethnic groups with roots in South Asia (i.e., the Indian
subcontinent), Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the Philippines, while Pacific
Islanders include populations from Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia.
Although recognized as different and distinct groups in Asia and the Pacific
Islands, these populations have been racialized under the terms Asian
American and Pacific Islander in the United States.
However, the populations under the AAPI umbrella have many dif-
ferent experiences. Certain ethnic groups have been deeply shaped by
their experiences as primarily refugee populations (e.g., Cambodian, Lao,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 113 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 114 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Vietnamese, Hmong) who experienced tremendous hardship in leav-

ing war-torn lands. Other populations have tremendous within-group
diversity, both socioeconomically and as related to the historical dimen-
sions that influenced immigration. Chinese Americans, for instance,
encompass everyone from recent immigrants coming through highly
skilled work visas to the so-called paper sons who came in the early twen-
tieth century using forged or duplicated documents to circumvent racist
bans on immigration from Asia between 1882 and 1965 (Hing, 1994).
Thus, generational status is another dimension of diversity within the
AAPI population. The diversity of the community also means that AAPIs
have tremendously different experiences within the education system (Pak,
Maramba, & Hernandez, 2014)
Panethnicity has paradoxically produced political benefits as well as
challenges for AAPIs. Separately in the United States, the relatively small
populations of discrete AAPI subgroups (e.g., Vietnamese American or
Tongan American) garner limited political power to advocate for com-
munity interests. However, these groups collectively form a much larger
panethnic population and one of the fastest growing racial groups in the
United States, allowing for more power in numbers necessary for effective
political advocacy (Espiritu, 1992). The U.S. Census Bureau recognizes
24 response categories under the category of “Asian” and another 12 cat-
egories under “Pacific Islander.” Still, disparities and differences are often
overlooked between various ethnic groups within the panethnic categories.
Severe educational disparities experienced by many AAPIs are often hid-
den because educational statistics are typically reported for AAPI groups
as an aggregate group (Buenavista, Jayakumar, & Misa-Escalante, 2009;
CARE, 2008; Chang, Park, Lin, Poon, & Nakanishi, 2007; Kauanui,
2008; Museus & Chang, 2009; Museus & Truong, 2009; Nadal, Pituc,
Johnston, & Esparrago, 2010; Suzuki, 2002; Teranishi, 2010). For exam-
ple, although Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander groups exhibit
some of the lowest levels of college attainment, Indian Americans and
Taiwanese Americans obtain college degrees at some of the highest rates in
the United States (CARE, 2008).
Moreover, even though Pacific Islanders are often grouped with Asian
Americans in education, it is important to respect the interests of Pacific
Islanders to be recognized as separate from the interests of Asian Americans
(Benham, 2006; Kauanui, 2008; Perez, 2002; Poon et al., 2016). According
to Perez (2002), the “homogenisation and racialisation [of Pacific Islanders
with Asian Americans] is detrimental to indigenous self-determination—a
central issue among Pacific Islanders” (p. 469). Unlike Pacific Islanders, most
Asian Americans come from histories and experiences of either voluntary

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 114 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 115

or involuntary immigration (e.g., war refugees; Hing, 1994). Given these

important distinctions between Pacific Islanders and Asian Americans, inten-
tional use of panethnic terms is important.

Population Growth and Diversity

The U.S. Census Bureau (2014) predicted that Asian Americans will expe-
rience a growth rate of 81.1% between 2015 and 2060, representing the
fastest growing racial group in the nation. Pacific Islanders are predicted to
experience the third highest population growth rate between 2015 and 2060.
Table 6.1 presents estimates of the U.S. population by race and ethnicity
between 2015 and 2060. By 2060, it is estimated that 11.5% of the U.S.
population will identify as Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander.
Table 6.2 presents data from the U.S. Census Bureau on ethnic diversity
among AAPIs. These statistics also highlight the numerical utility of paneth-
nic identities and coalitions for organizing and advocacy in the context of
U.S. representational politics (Espiritu, 1992). Only five ethnic Asian groups
exceed one million in population, while only two Pacific Islander groups
surpass 100,000.
According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), undergraduate enrollment across all sectors in the United States
has grown 91.8% between 1976 and 2011. Figure 6.1 illustrates the increas-
ing college enrollments nationally. Although White students increased their
undergraduate enrollment numbers by 37.1% between 1976 and 2011,
enrollments of students of Color have grown more rapidly in this time frame.
Latinxs and AAPIs have experienced the fastest rates of enrollment growth,
with Latinxs increasing by over 660% and AAPIs increasing by over 540%.
Although Asian Americans have often been perceived as a population that is
overrepresented in U.S. higher education, along with Pacific Islanders they
represent about 6% of the undergraduate enrollment, on par with general
population statistics. However, important racial differences remain in where
students enroll. Figure 6.2 summarizes enrollment patterns by institutional
type and race.
Although Asian Americans are often perceived to be attending elite,
private, four-year colleges (CARE, 2008), over 40% of Asian Americans
attend two-year institutions, and over 41% attend public four-year institu-
tions, not the elite private institutions they are stereotyped as attending.
More than half of all Pacific Islander students enroll at two-year institu-
tions. These data summaries emphasize the need to recognize the high level
of diversity among AAPI populations. Like other students, AAPIs bring
diverse perspectives, cultural richness, and a wide range of educational needs
to college campuses.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 115 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 TABLE 6.1
Estimated U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity (in Thousands), 2015–2060
%/ %/ %/ %/ %/ 2015–2060
Year 2015 total 2030 total 2040 total 2050 total 2060 total change (%)
Total Population 321,369 359,402 380,219 398,328 416,795 29.7%
Latino 56,754 17.7% 77,463 21.6% 91,626 24.1% 105,550 26.5% 119,044 28.6% 109.8%
Non-Hispanic White* 198,354 61.7% 199,403 55.5% 195,197 51.3% 188,419 47.3% 181,930 43.6% −8.3%
African American† 42,697 13.3% 50,174 14.0% 55,054 14.5% 60,124 15.1% 65,773 15.8% 54.0%
American Indian &

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 116

Alaska Native† 4,257 1.3% 4,810 1.3% 5,087 1.3% 5,303 1.3% 5,507 1.3% 29.4%
Asian† 19,513 6.1% 27,960 7.8% 33,872 8.9% 39,835 10.0% 45,822 11.0% 134.8%
Native Hawaiian &
Pacific Islander† 1,132 0.4% 1,466 0.4% 1,691 0.4% 1,920 0.5% 2,155 0.5% 90.4%
* = one race
† = including individuals identifying as more than one race
Note. From U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2014) (Table NP 2014-T10)

7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM
 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 117

TABLE 6.2
AAPI Population by Ethnicity, 2009–2013
Asian 15,231,962 Native Hawaiian and 526,347
Americans (n) Percentage Other Pacific Islanders (n) Percentage
Chinese
(not Native Hawaiian
Taiwanese) 3,429,655 22.5 (Polynesian) 168,421 32.0

Asian Indian 2,960,584 19.4 Samoan (Polynesian) 107,812 20.5

Guamanian/Chamorro
Filipino 2,604,783 17.1 (Micronesian) 70,483 13.4
Vietnamese 1,649,951 10.8 Other Micronesian 58,796 11.2
Korean 1,438,725 9.4 Tongan (Polynesian) 45,497 8.6
Japanese 785,003 5.2 Other Pacific Islander 30,361 5.8
Other Asian 678,687 4.5 Fijian (Melanesian) 29,437 5.6
Pakistani 375,994 2.5 Other Polynesian 15,108 2.9
Cambodian 254,640 1.7 Other Melanesian 432 0.1
Hmong 250,653 1.6
Laotian 205,422 1.3
Thai 179,925 1.2
Taiwanese 149,119 1.0
Bangladeshi 136,489 0.9
Indonesian 70,277 0.5
Sri Lankan 43,880 0.3
Malaysian 18,175 0.1
Note. From U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009–2013 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates, Table B02006

College Access
A holistic understanding of college access for diverse AAPI populations
is often distorted by aggregate data suggesting high levels of educational
attainment among AAPIs along with stereotypes of an “Asian invasion” in
U.S. higher education, particularly at highly selective colleges and universi-
ties (CARE, 2008; Chang et al., 2007; Lee, 2006; Poon, 2011b; Teranishi,
2010). As Figure 6.3 illustrates, Pacific Islander educational attainment
is relatively low compared to Asian Americans as an aggregate and non-
Hispanic Whites in the United States, similar to other Indigenous popula-
tions (i.e., American Indians and Alaska Natives), African Americans, and
Latinos/Latinas.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 117 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 118 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Figure 6.1. U.S. undergraduate enrollment by race (any sector), 1976–2011.

18,000

Undergraduate enrollment in thousands

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
1976 1980 1990 2000 2011
American Indian/Alaska Native 69.7 77.9 95.5 138.5 169.9
AAPI 169.3 248.7 500.5 845.5 1,085.1
Latino 352.9 433.1 724.6 1,351.0 2,685.1
African American 943.4 1,018.8 1,147.2 1,548.9 2,698.9
White 7,740.5 8,480.7 9,272.6 8,983.5 10,611.6

Note. From U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Table 263.

Figure 6.2. Fall 2011 undergraduate enrollment by institutional type and race.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ite an ino an r es s
Wh eric Lat eric nde tive rac alie
n
ate
m m Isla Na re es adu
nA nA c ka mo nr gr
ica a cifi las r No der
Afr Asi Pa n/A 2o ll U
n
In dia era
can Ov
eri
Am
Public 4-year Private, nonprofit 4-year Public 2-year Private, nonprofit 2-year

Note. From U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Table 268.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 118 7/26/2016 7:24:18 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 119

Figure 6.3. Educational attainment by race (population at least 25 years old).

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
U.S. Latino Non-Hispanic African American Asian Native
White American Indian/AK American Hawaiian &
Native Other P.I.

Advanced degree BA/BS Some college HS diploma Less than high school

Note. From American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample 2011–2013 dataset.

Figure 6.4. Asian American educational attainment by selected ethnicity

(population at least 25 years old).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
. i )
.S an dian esh dian se e n
o

ai
g

an

n
i

es tia
an

es

ia
in

on

ic
Th

U ne
re

er d n o
As
lip

st

In la o
am

pa
Hm

b a La
Ko

ki
Fi

n
Am sia ang am aiw
er

Ja
Pa

n
et

th

an B C T
Vi

A
O

i g
As d in
u
cl
(in
se
ne
hi
C

Advanced degree BA/BS Some college HS diploma Less than high school

Note. From American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample 2011–2013 dataset.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 119 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 120 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

However, when educational attainment among Asian Americans is

examined more closely, clear inequalities are found between Asian American
ethnic groups, as depicted in Figure 6.4.
This section focuses on issues of college access for AAPIs that can lead to
ethnic inequalities in college access and attainment. First, we discuss the rela-
tionship between Asian Americans and affirmative action. Then we summa-
rize research on Asian American college choice experiences. Unfortunately,
very limited research is focused on Pacific Islanders in this area, beyond
acknowledging the low numbers of Pacific Islanders obtaining college entry
and degree completion.

Affirmative Action and Asian Americans

Historically, U.S. higher education was a privilege saved for those who
were White, Protestant, wealthy, and male (Thelin, 2011). The twentieth-
century civil rights movement not only led to more inclusive domestic
policies, including those related to higher education opportunity, but also
resulted in the landmark Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. The
liberalization of U.S. immigration ended a long history of anti-Asian immi-
gration policies and allowed for a dramatic increase in the Asian American
population (Hing, 1994). In higher education, admission and enrollment
of Asian
American students had increased by almost 50%, from just under 170,000
in 1976 to nearly 250,000 in 1980 (National Center for Education Statistics,
2012, Table 263). This increase is attributable to general Asian American
population growth and policies like the Higher Education Act and affirmative
action, which expanded college entry opportunities to diverse, historically
underrepresented minority populations (Lee, 2006).
However, starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some selective
colleges and universities began excluding Asian Americans as a target pop-
ulation in affirmative action policies and practices, as their aggregate “over-
representation” on campuses led to a “deminoritization” of Asian Americans
(Lee, 2006, p. 1). Some have argued that decisions to exclude Asian Americans
are based on a lack of understanding of educational disparities among this
population (CARE, 2008; Museus & Truong, 2009). As Figures 6.3 and 6.4
point out, limited access to college education found among Pacific Islanders
and Southeast Asian Americans could warrant their inclusion in these poli-
cies. Indeed some institutions, including public universities in Wisconsin and
Hawaii, continue to target AAPIs in their diversity and affirmative action plans
in admissions.
Debates over whether race-conscious affirmative action policies discrimi-
nate against Asian Americans in selective college admissions have persisted

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 120 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 121

since the 1980s (Nakanishi, 1989; Poon, 2014; Takagi, 1992). At that time,
the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) completed
an extensive investigation into allegations that Harvard and the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA) were discriminating against Asian American
applicants in favor of Whites (Takagi, 1992). While the OCR found evidence
that UCLA was in fact practicing what Kang (1996) calls “negative action,”
which seeks to suppress a minority group’s selection in favor of Whites, it did
not find Harvard guilty of similar charges (Takagi, 1992). The OCR attrib-
uted alleged admission discrepancies between Asian American and White
applicants at Harvard to the higher propensity of Whites to identify as chil-
dren of alumni (i.e., legacies) and student athletes, two predominantly White
applicant categories that receive significant advantages in Harvard’s admission
process (Nakanishi, 1989; Takagi, 1992). To expose anti-Asian discrimina-
tion in selective college admissions, Asian American community leaders filed
federal complaints with the OCR in the 1980s. These community leaders did
not claim that affirmative action was to blame for the discriminatory prac-
tices; nonetheless, White affirmative action opponents misappropriated Asian
American concerns for anti–affirmative action campaigns (Takagi, 1992).
In 2014, questions about whether affirmative action harmed Asian
Americans in selective college admissions reappeared in several legal actions:

• California’s Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 5 controversy

(Huang, 2014)
• Filing of federal legal complaints alleging anti-Asian and anti-White
discrimination by affirmative action policies at Harvard
• Filing of federal legal complaints alleging anti-Asian and anti-White
discrimination against the University of North Carolina (UNC) on
behalf of Edward Blum’s group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA;
Mulhere, 2014)

In the controversy over SCA 5, during the 2013–2014 state legislative session,
a very vocal and politically organized group of mostly Chinese Americans
ended efforts to reinstate affirmative action in admissions at public universities
(Hing, 2014). Despite their successful campaign to table SCA 5, this group
likely represents a small minority of Asian Americans who oppose affirma-
tive action. According to rigorous opinion polling results, a large majority
of Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans in California and across
the United States are supportive of affirmative action (Ramakrishnan & Lee,
2012; Ramakrishnan & Lee, 2014). Similarly, without regard to broader
Asian American community opinions, SFFA filed legal complaints against
Harvard and UNC in the federal court system at the end of 2014. In the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 121 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 122 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

complaint against Harvard, SFFA alleged that the university’s practice of

affirmative action discriminates against Asian Americans. In response to the
Harvard lawsuit, more than 135 Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and
Pacific Islander community-based organizations and civil rights groups signed
a letter supporting affirmative action, and U.S. commissioners for civil rights
Michael Yaki and Karen Narasaki (2015) issued a statement voicing support
for affirmative action. Also, Thomas Espenshade, whose research has com-
monly been used by anti–affirmative action advocates, stated that his research
does not provide definitive evidence that elite schools are discriminating
against Asian Americans (as cited in in Bernhard & Delwiche, 2015).
The Harvard case demonstrates a high level of anxiety over admissions
policies among some Asian Americans (Poon, 2009; Poon & Sihite, in press)
and the continued interest of White anti–affirmative action leaders to pre-
sent Asian Americans as a model minority or racial mascot. Coined by legal
scholar Sumi Cho, the discursive process of creating a racial mascot is defined
as “the adoption of a racial [minority] group, or even an individual of color by
a white political figure or constituency. . . . [It is] necessary to deflect charges
of racism and preserve the redeemed status of whiteness” (as cited in Allred,
2007, p. 69). In this way, affirmative action opponents often present Asian
Americans as a model minority, implicitly and explicitly drawing on stereo-
types of Asian American over-achievement to underscore stereotypes of other
students of Color as undeserving and not qualified for admission at highly
ranked institutions. Given ongoing litigation, the short- and long-term fate
of affirmative action policies in selective admissions remains unclear.
However, racial diversity resulting from affirmative action has been dem-
onstrated to broadly benefit Asian Americans (Park, 2013; Park & Liu, 2014).
Specifically, studies have shown that racial diversity on campus contributes
toward Asian American intellectual and academic growth, civic engagement
development, and increased cultural engagement (Engberg & Hurtado,
2011; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Park, 2012a). Moreover, Park
(2009a) found that Asian Americans on more racially diverse campuses were
generally more satisfied with diversity in college. These empirical findings
may provide an explanation for why Asian American college student support
for affirmative action increases over time (Park, 2009b).
Although the fervent debate over affirmative action in selective admis-
sions receives a considerable amount of media attention, in reality these
policies affect a limited number of students. This continuing public debate
primarily focuses on a relatively small population of high-achieving students
with privileges and resources to consider gaining admission at elite public
and private colleges and universities that practice selective admissions. The
great majority of AAPI students, who either do not have the opportunity

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 122 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 123

or do not aspire to compete for admission at elite institutions, are excluded

from this narrow, but still important, debate.
Student affairs practitioners should be aware of the affirmative action
debate to support AAPI students in making sense of race, racism, and identity.
As Inkelas (2003) suggested, some Asian American students have found these
racially charged debates challenging to making sense of their racial identities
on campus. We encourage student affairs educators be equipped to explain
how both race and class shape educational opportunity, and also to be aware
of how affirmative action policies affect AAPIs differently (e.g., Southeast
Asian American and Pacific Islander groups are most likely to be directly con-
sidered through such policies, but in some contexts, other Asian Americans
may be included). Student affairs practitioners should also be aware of how
AAPI students contribute to the richness of the student body, and how they
benefit from engaging with racial diversity as well.

Stratified College Pathways

Understanding how diverse AAPI students experience and navigate unequal
educational opportunities and structures leading to and into college is cru-
cial. Unfortunately, college entry does not present a level playing field, as is
often presumed. The interaction among college opportunity systems, stu-
dent background characteristics, and how students and families act within
these contexts contributes toward eventual outcomes and racialized patterns
in college-going (Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs, & Rhee, 1997; Perna, 2006).
Various socioeconomic characteristics and social contexts can shape diverse
students’ pathways toward college. They can increase or diminish a stu-
dent’s opportunity to attend college, the types of college at which a student
might have the opportunity to gain entry, and the resources available to sup-
port how a student navigates the process of college entry and enrollment
(McDonough, 1997; Perna, 2006).
Diverse Asian American students, like others, often face stark inequali-
ties along their pathways toward college. Although little research has been
conducted on how Pacific Islanders navigate college access systems, research
has shown that ethnic differences play a significant role in stratifying college-
going inequalities (Teranishi, Ceja, Antonio, Allen, & McDonough, 2004).
Along these lines, Southeast Asian Americans and Filipino Americans have
been found to be more likely than other Asian Americans to attend less selec-
tive four-year institutions and two-year colleges (Buenavista, Jayakumar, &
Misa-Escalante, 2009; Teranishi et al., 2004).
Other diverse background characteristics have been found to contribute
toward differences in college-going opportunities among Asian Americans.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 123 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 124 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Like other students of Color, many Asian American four-year college stu-
dents (42.5%) are the first in their families to attend college (Saenz, Hurtado,
Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007). Some studies on Asian American college
access have shown that first-generation college-going status plays a role in
limiting resources available to support these students’ college aspirations
(An, 2010; Poon & Byrd, 2013). Economic class background can also have
a similar bearing on differences in resources available and know-how in stu-
dents’ navigation of college-going structures (Kim, DesJardins, & McCall,
2009). Differences in K–12 educational experiences and resources represent
yet another factor, perhaps correlated to economic class, which can substan-
tively result in college-going differences among diverse Asian Americans
(Teranishi, 2010). However, ethnic community cultural resources also miti-
gate the negative effects of factors such as low economic status and first-
generation college-going status, in the development and deployment of
college-going knowledge and strategies. For example, Park (2012b) found
that mixed-income church communities could provide lower-income mem-
bers with important information for college entry.
One segment of the AAPI college-going population that has remained
relatively overlooked is undocumented immigrants, although public dis-
course and media have primarily racialized this issue as a Latinx commu-
nity challenge. According to some estimates there are approximately 1.5
million undocumented Asian Americans in the United States (AAPI Data,
2015), with about 17% of the undocumented immigrant population
under the age of 18 (Buenavista & Tran, 2010). Because many of these
young people migrated to the United States with their families as young
children, they have experienced the majority of their lives in the United
States and often learn about their immigration status when they apply for
driver’s licenses or passports, or go to college (Buenavista & Tran, 2010).
Unfortunately, their immigration status makes them ineligible for federal
financial aid and legal employment opportunities. Therefore, even for the
high-achieving undocumented student admitted to college, significant
financial barriers remain.
To address these issues, some states, including California and Texas, have
passed laws to allow undocumented students to attend public institutions
as in-state students and benefit from state financial aid programs (National
Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2014). Unfortunately, other states,
including Arizona and Illinois, have declared undocumented students ineli-
gible for in-state tuition rates (National Conference of State Legislatures,
2014). The state of Georgia has even gone as far as banning undocumented
students from admission to state institutions (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2014). Until the federal government takes up comprehensive

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 124 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 125

immigration reform, the status of undocumented students, including AAPIs,

remains subject to political, legal, and economic vulnerabilities.
Thus, a multitude of socioeconomic factors and different contexts of
college-going opportunities found among diverse Asian American popula-
tions results in a vast range of college access patterns. Contexts of opportu-
nity for college preparation can vary significantly for students, resulting in an
extremely unequal playing field for college access. These differences influence
the eventual enrollment demographics found at different types of colleges
and universities.

Commonly Encountered Challenges

In the university environment, AAPI students may encounter numerous
challenges. They include manifestations of racism via microaggressions, low
student-faculty engagement, lack of AAPI role models, and lack of general
campus support. Racial/ethnic challenges may not always take the form of
blatant racism toward AAPI students. However, troubling incidents in recent
years remind us that AAPI students are still the target of race-related har-
assment and crime on campus. In 2014 Asian American female students
at Harvard received threatening and graphic e-mails targeting them as
Asian American women. One notorious incident occurred at the University
of California, Los Angeles when a White student filmed a segment with
racially loaded mockery at Asian students and their families and posted it
on YouTube. The video went viral, resulting in wide condemnation from the
community. In the age of social media, it is increasingly easy for race-related
threats to be anonymous, making it difficult to identify perpetrators.
However, probably more common than blatant acts of racism in the
campus environment are racial microaggressions. Microaggressions are slight
and subtle, everyday comments or actions that reinforce the subordinate sta-
tus of their recipients. They are often casual comments, such as “You speak
English so well,” or “Where are you from?” that may be delivered without
any ill intent, but still have the effect of reinforcing stereotypes about Asian
American students, and contributing toward a negative campus climate
(Poon, 2011a). Microaggressions have a cumulative building effect on indi-
viduals and communities of Color and act as a source of stress over time.
While the microaggressions in and of themselves may be seemingly benign
comments, they are a broader reflection of racial hierarchies that pervade
society.
Another challenge that AAPI students may encounter in university set-
tings is the relatively low level of student-faculty engagement among the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 125 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 126 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

population. Asian American students in particular are known for having the
lowest levels of student-faculty interaction (Kim, Park, & Chang, 2009) a
troubling finding considering research that Asian American students, like all
students, benefit from positive student-faculty interaction. The same study
highlighted that Asian Americans in particular are less likely to have interac-
tions that are initiated and driven by faculty. Perhaps faculty are influenced
by the minority racial stereotype of high achievement and do not see Asian
American students as a group that needs assistance, thus minimizing faculty-
initiated contact.
Another challenge that AAPI students commonly face is a simple lack of
campus support, including cut or zero funding for Asian American studies
classes, few AAPI faculty and staff who can serve as role models, and lack of
inclusion into programs supporting students of Color. Due to racial stereo-
types, assumptions commonly exist that Asian American students are doing
fine and not in need of targeted programs or outreach. These assumptions
ignore the fact that challenges around mental health are pervasive within the
Asian American student population, and such students are less likely to seek
out counseling due to a cultural stigma or misunderstandings about the role
of counseling. These combined challenges result in Asian Americans having
the lowest average sense of belonging among any racial/ethnic group in stud-
ies using national data (Fincher, 2014). Sense of belonging is a key factor in
student success and retention, and the alienation that many AAPI students
experience in college is deeply worrisome.
Initiatives such as the Asian American and Native American Pacific
Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) program, funded through the
U.S. Department of Education, aim to bring national attention to the
unique needs of AAPI students. Institutions with at least a 10% AAPI stu-
dent enrollment and a certain threshold of low-income students are eligible
to apply for a federal designation, which makes them eligible to apply for
grants that can fund initiatives to enhance campus support for AAPI students
(Park & Chang, 2010). While the AANAPISI designation has key symbolic
significance, highlighting the needs of AAPI students within the existing
Minority Serving Institutions program, actual funding is only provided to
several institutions a year, meaning that numerous student needs will con-
tinue to be unmet.

Racial and Ethnic Identity Development

The university years are a critical time period for ethnic identity develop-
ment and identity development more broadly. Especially for traditional-age

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 126 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 127

college students, college is a time when they may be experiencing more

independence from their families and potentially living in another location
for the first time. College students may experience “crossroads” experiences
that spur dissonance, forcing them to reevaluate long-held beliefs (Baxter
Magolda, 2009). Young adulthood is generally a period that students enter
with more dualistic ways of thinking; further, their sense of self tends to be
heavily reliant on external formulas imposed on them by family, society, and
peers. Ideally, the college years are a period where students can transition to
more nuanced and contextual ways of thinking, where they come to formu-
late their own opinions and sense of identity, as well as the ability to evaluate
and gauge others.
During this process, ethnic identity development is a key area of growth
for Asian American students. For Asian Americans, several key conditions
uniquely influence ethnic identity development, including the collective
orientation of many Asian-origin countries and the influence of individual,
social, and structural racism (Yeh & Huang, 1996). Several models have
been proposed to describe how this process occurs within the population,
as well as subsets of the population. Earlier models proposed a more linear
developmental pathway and also based descriptions of ethnic identity devel-
opment on limited samples of students. For instance, Kim’s (2012) Asian
American racial identity development model was based on her research of
a study of Japanese American women initially developed in the early 1980s.
Kim (2012) identified the stages that women generally followed as ethnic
awareness, White identification (including either active or passive forms of
identification), awakening to political consciousness, Asian American con-
sciousness, and incorporation. Using a racial identity scheme to describe
development, Alvarez (2002) has suggested that individuals progress through
stages, including conformity, dissonance, immersion, emersion, internaliza-
tion, and integrative awareness.
More recently, in her study of Chinese American and Filipino American
students, Wong (2013) found that students’ identities were constantly in
flux; indeed, recognition, construction, and understanding of identity
occurred even during her interviews due to students having the rare chance
to reflect on their experiences. She discovered “three distinct, yet interre-
lated, understandings of being Asian American: as a political coalition, as an
identity informed by shared experiences with racism, and as familial heritage
and personal experiences” (p. 94). Social context played a key role in shaping
students’ sense of self and influencing identity development. Recent studies
highlight the diversity of the AAPI student community, addressing multira-
cial student identity development and intersectionality. With intersectional-
ity, students have more than one salient identity, and the intersection of a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 127 7/26/2016 7:24:19 PM

 128 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

student’s multiple identities creates a unique experience and identity. So, for
instance, identity development models may consider the influence of being
an Asian American woman versus an Asian American man, or the impact of
the intersection between race and sexual orientation. One limitation of cur-
rent research is that identity models have not deeply interrogated the expe-
riences of Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian college students and how
they might differ from some of the dynamics related to Asian Americans.
Multiracial identity development is also an evolving field, and the iden-
tity development of multiracial Asian American students is influenced by
unique external forces surrounding multiracial individuals (Johnston &
Nadal, 2010).
Some AAPI students may struggle to reconcile their new experiences
with the external formulas or expectations of significant others and society
(Samura, 2015). Some of these external formulas could include the domi-
nant view of color blindness within society and the idea that Asian Americans
are basically like Whites. Other external formulas may include pressure and
expectations from family members around choosing an academic major
or career path. Educators need to remember that such expectations have
often been formed by legitimate societal pressures and sociopolitical forces.
Further, the collectivist dimension of some Asian-origin countries and influ-
ence of other social forces uniquely shapes how many Asian Americans may
understand themselves in relationship to others (Maramba, 2008; Pizzolato,
Nguyen, Johnston, & Wang, 2012).
For instance, an adviser coming from a Eurocentric point of view that
elevates the individual above all could learn about an Asian American stu-
dent whose parents are pressuring him to be pre-med and flippantly tell
the student that he needs to ignore his parents and make his own decision.
We would encourage the adviser to understand where the parental pressure
might be coming from—perhaps the student is the child of low-income refu-
gees who are desperate for financial stability—and to help the student clarify
personal goals while considering multiple points of view.
Some parents’ narrow understanding of what careers can be satisfying
may be due to their own experiences with limited opportunities due to rac-
ism, or a fear of their child being shut out of other potential career paths.
The overall advice in the end may be the same, but people advising Asian
American students must be sensitive about context when offering counsel
and recommendations (Poon, 2014).
A student’s journey with ethnic identity may also vary remarkably due
to precollege experiences and environments. Some AAPI students may come
to college from majority White backgrounds where they grew up desiring
assimilation and resist conversations around race, while others might come

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 128 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 129

from the same background and come to college eager to explore their racial
and ethnic identity. Of course, some AAPI students may come from home
environments where they were the majority population or where Whites rep-
resent a minority, and be puzzled to be the minority at a predominantly
White institution. Student affairs educators need to balance the unique-
ness of each student’s journey while being aware of how race and racism
may shape students’ lives, regardless of how the individual student actively
acknowledges and understands it.

Student Involvement, Organizations, and Activism

Involvement in student activities, organizations, and activism represents
an important aspect of student learning during college. Conceptually,
student involvement represents the time and energy a student invests
into academic and social activities within their college campus contexts.
Extensive research has shown that student involvement can support desired
developmental and educational outcomes (Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie,
2009). AAPI students, like other students, have been involved with various
activities in addition to their academic commitments. Since 1971, Asian
American students have also increasingly shown an interest in developing
their leadership skills, participating in community service activities and
being civically and politically engaged during their college years (Chang et
al., 2007; Park, Lin, Poon, & Chang, 2008). This section primarily focuses
on Asian American students due to the lack of research available on Pacific
Islander students.

Student Organizations
As the AAPI population has grown on college campuses, the number of stu-
dent organizations focused on a wide range of AAPI interests has increased as
well (Buenavista & Jain, 2009). Race- and ethnicity-based student organiza-
tions often provide important communities that support diverse students’
sense of belonging and cultural validation, particularly on predominantly
White campuses (Museus, 2008). On campuses with relatively large and
diverse AAPI student populations, a multitude of AAPI organizations might
exist, including panethnic AAPI or Asian American organizations and
ethnicity-specific organizations like a Filipino American or Indian American
student association. On campuses with smaller representations of AAPI stu-
dent populations, there might only be enough students and interest to form
a panethnic organization.
Race- and ethnicity-oriented student organizations play important roles
in supporting the educational development of AAPI students. For Asian

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 129 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 130 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

American students, AAPI student organizations encourage the develop-

ment of Asian American self-awareness and commitment to community
interests (Inkelas, 2004). As counterspaces, student organizations can also
provide vital spaces to nurture student growth and counteract negative expe-
riences with racial microaggressions and challenging campus racial climates
(Buenavista & Jain, 2009; Poon, 2013; Yosso & Benavides Lopez, 2010).
In addition to race- or ethnicity-based student clubs, AAPI students have
established numerous race- or ethnicity-based student organizations, includ-
ing Asian-interest Greek letter organizations (Tran & Chang, 2010) and
student-initiated access and retention organizations (Maldonado, Rhoads, &
Buenavista, 2005). They have also founded student organizations that
validate and support intersectionality in student identities such as race- or
ethnicity-based religious groups (Buenavista & Jain, 2009; Park, 2013) and
queer student organizations such as Asian Pacific Islander Queers at the
University of California, Davis. Far from promoting self-segregation, studies
link ethnic student organization participation with higher rates of student
cross-racial interaction (Bowman & Park, 2014).
At some campuses, the presence of AAPI cultural centers can also serve
as important counterspaces that support race- and ethnicity-based student
organizations and activities (Yosso & Benavides Lopez, 2010). They play an
important role in creating a culturally relevant foundation and a space for
AAPI student development, outreach, support, cultural validation, identity
exploration, and empowerment (Liu, Cuyjet, & Lee, 2010). Interestingly,
these campus cultural centers were often created in response to AAPI student
activist campaigns (Liu, Cuyjet, & Lee, 2010) like those at the University of
Illinois Urbana-Champaign (University of Illinois Asian American Studies,
n.d.), and Yale University (Asian American Cultural Center, n.d.). Indeed,
student activism is an important form of student involvement in efforts to
transform higher education (Rhoads, 2000).

Asian American Student Activism

Asian American student-led activist projects and campaigns are often initi-
ated out of a desire to transform campus racial climates that are unsupport-
ive of or even hostile toward Asian American student well-being, educational
needs, and community interests. Researchers have documented a long his-
tory of student activism going back to the early twentieth century of AAPIs
seeking to transform their campuses and communities (Liu, Geron, & Lai,
2008; Maeda, 2011; Umemoto, 1989). On college campuses in the 1960s and
1970s, Asian American students participated in activist coalitions that “took
forceful actions to compel institutions of higher learning to heed their demand

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 130 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 131

that education be a tool of liberation. Campuses served as incubators of Asian

American action, places where students came together, were politicized, and
built new identities and organizations” (Maeda, 2011, p. 27). Working in
multiracial coalitions with other students of Color and allies, Asian American
students during this era successfully convinced colleges and universities in the
San Francisco Bay Area to establish ethnic studies programs, including Asian
American studies, African American studies, Chicano/Latino studies, and
Native American studies, and to increase college access for historically margin-
alized populations (Umemoto, 1989). These academic programs gave students
the chance to critically consider the perspectives and narratives of diverse pop-
ulations in the United States and analyze how social, political, and economic
systems produce and reproduce inequality. Since its establishment, the field of
Asian American studies has expanded its presence on campuses nationally and
as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship (Chiang, 2009), and challenged stu-
dents to develop critical thinking skills and apply them to solving community
problems (Umemoto, 1989). AAPI students are not the only ones to benefit
from being able to take these courses—other students benefit from learning
about the rich history, experiences, and diversity of AAPI populations.
The legacy of the 1960s and 1970s ethnic studies movement and
Asian American student activism can be seen in more contemporary AAPI
student-initiated programmatic efforts and campaigns addressing stu-
dent and community concerns. The availability of and student engage-
ment in Asian American studies courses and academic minors and majors
can play valuable roles in developing critical consciousness, facilitating
leadership development, and encouraging student participation in social
justice causes (Ryoo & Ho, 2013). For example, in 2007 a coalition of
AAPI students at the University of California led a successful “Count Me
In!” statewide campaign, resulting in the public university system’s deci-
sion to ethnically disaggregate AAPI student data (Dizon, 2011). Many
of these student leaders had taken courses in Asian American studies or
participated in panethnic AAPI student organizational activities, allowing
them to develop an understanding of the importance of ethnically disag-
gregated data in revealing educational disparities requiring institutional
attention. Another sustained and more localized example of the legacy of
earlier Asian American student movements is found in the development
of student-initiated retention programs (SIRPs). Established at about a
dozen public universities across the country, SIRPs are “student organized,
student run, and student funded. . . . The emergence of large-scale and
highly organized SIRPs dates to the early and mid-1990s. . . . The central
goal of SIRPs is to increase the retention and academic success of students”
(Maldonado et al., 2005, pp. 606–607).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 131 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 132 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

In geographic regions and college campuses with less developed conscious-

ness of the legacy of Asian American student movements and a lack of Asian
American studies courses, AAPI students have long organized student confer-
ences to facilitate collective learning and the development of critical community
consciousness and identities. Since 1978, several established regional AAPI stu-
dent organizations have coordinated annual conferences that attract thousands
of students. They include the now defunct Asian Pacific Student Union (APSU)
on the West Coast, the East Coast Asian American Student Union (ECAASU),
the Midwest Asian American Student Union (MAASU), the Boston Asian
American Students Intercollegiate Coalition (BAASIC), the Southeast Regional
Conference on Asian American Leadership (SERCAAL), and the Coalition of
Asian Americans Collaborating Together to Unite the Southwest (CAACTUS).
There are also several national, ethnic identity–based student organizations,
such as the Korean American Student Conference (KASCON), South Asian
Student Association (SASA), Union of North American Vietnamese Student
Associations (UNAVSA), Intercollegiate Taiwanese American Students
Association (ITASA), and the Filipino Intercollegiate Networking Dialogue
(FIND). These conferences build AAPI student communities, collectively
teach and learn about AAPI histories and issues, and develop leadership and
advocacy skills (Lee, 2010). Many of these annual student-led conferences pro-
vide support to peers who may be feeling racially isolated, interested in learning
more about AAPI community issues, or seeking to advocate and organize for
Asian American studies on their campuses (Lee, 2010).
There are also innovative programs across the country seeking to serve
the diversity of the AAPI college student population. The AANAPISI pro-
gram in particular has provided federal funding at a small number of insti-
tutions to drive innovation and experimentation around programs that can
serve AAPI students. At City College of San Francisco, De Anza College, and
South Seattle Community College, institutions have distributed scholarships
through the Asian Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund (APIASF)
in order to provide financial support for students who balance studies with
a significant amount of responsibilities related to work and family. At the
University of Maryland, College Park, a unique collaboration between
the Asian American Studies Program (AAST) and Office of Multicultural
Involvement and Community Advocacy (MICA) represents a creative part-
nership between academic affairs and student affairs. AASP and MICA cre-
ated the Maryland Leadership Institute, which brings together a number
of undergraduates for programming on pertinent social issues, leadership
development, and social engagement. At the University of Maryland, the
close collaboration between Asian American studies and MICA encourages
learning inside and outside the classroom for AAPI students.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 132 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 133

Recommendations and Conclusion

Overall, the AAPI student population is richly diverse in the breadth and
depth of experiences represented. We have several recommendations for how
educators can be better equipped to serve this group. First, student affairs
educators have a responsibility to educate themselves about this fast-growing
population, by maintaining a continuous posture of learning when it comes
to being lifelong learners of students’ unique needs as this population con-
tinues to grow and evolve. It is critical to not make assumptions about what
stereotypes or experiences a student may have been subject to during his
or her life, and educators should balance a strong understanding of trends
affecting this population with the individuality of each student. Second, edu-
cators have a responsibility to be aware of the social, political, and historical
forces that shape educational opportunity and engagement. Students do not
arrive on campus in a vacuum; they come with complex histories and layers
of micro- and macro-level social forces, including the continuing tides of
racialization and racism that affect their agency.
Third, educators should be ready to advocate for this population’s
unique needs. There may be times when it is appropriate and important to
include AAPI students in programs designated for underrepresented minor-
ity students or student of Color populations, and there may be times when
AAPI students need their own unique programming. Sometimes a pan-AAPI
grouping is helpful in addressing students’ concerns, and at other times,
Asian American and Pacific Islander students need to be assisted depending
on unique subgroup needs, including but not limited to ethnicity, genera-
tional status, social class, gender, and sexual orientation.
Fourth, we advocate that student affairs educators work to support or
initiate ethnic studies offerings, particularly in the areas of Asian American
and Indigenous Peoples studies. Ethnic studies is a unique space where the
curricular and cocurricular lines are blurred more than in other spaces of the
academy; these courses represent a unique opportunity for educators to blend
outside-of-the-classroom learning with rigorous academic curricula that can
help students better understand their place in the world and responsibility to
advance social change. Student affairs educators should be prepared to make
partnerships across campus to spaces that are serving AAPI students, includ-
ing academic advising, counseling services, and religious and spiritual life.
While we have outlined salient themes, this chapter by no means offers
an exhaustive description of this population. Thus, educators should be care-
ful to avoid assumptions regarding this diverse group of students who have
often been stereotyped as a silent and invisible population on campus. The
importance of recognizing the criticalness of serving AAPI students on col-
lege campuses has never been greater.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 133 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 134 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Discussion Questions
1. What sorts of services, programs, and units specifically serve AAPI stu-
dents on your campus? What types of initiatives would you like to see
developed?
2. Are AAPI students actively participating in services, programs, and units
that are geared toward serving the general student body (e.g., Office of
Student Activities, Greek Life, Office for Leadership Development)? Why
or why not? How might these offices better seek to engage AAPI students?
3. How does diversity by social class, generational status, immigration his-
tory, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, and so on shape the
climate for AAPI students at your institution?
4. What opportunities are there for AAPI students to learn about their com-
munities in the classroom? How might student affairs partner with aca-
demic affairs to advance these opportunities? How might student affairs
professionals work with student leaders to offer such opportunities out-
side of the classroom?
5. How is the campus climate at your institution perceived by different
pockets of the AAPI community? How does this vary among staff, stu-
dents, and faculty?

References
AAPI Data. (2015). Data on undocumented Asian Americans. Retrieved from aapi-
data.com/undocumented-2014/
Allred, N. C. (2007, January). Asian Americans and affirmative action: From
Yellow Peril to model minority and back again. Asian American Law Journal,
14(1), 57–84. Retrieved from scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=1134&context=aalj
Alvarez, A. N. (2002). Racial identity and Asian Americans: Supports and chal-
lenges. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, C. Liang, & S. Lee
(Eds.), Working with Asian American students (New direction for student services,
Vol. 97, pp. 33–43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
An, B. P. (2010, March). The relations between race, family characteristics, and where
students apply to college. Social Science Research, 39(2), 310–323. doi:10.1016/j
.ssresearch.2009.08.003
The Asian American Cultural Center. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from http://aacc
.yalecollege.yale.edu/about/history
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). Authoring your life: Developing an internal voice to
navigate life’s challenges. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Benham, M. K. P. (2006, August 20). A challenge to Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander scholars: What the research literature teaches us about our work. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 9, 29–50. doi:10.1080/13613320500490705

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 134 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 135

Bernhard, M. P., & Delwiche, N. J. (2015, May 16). Groups file federal complaint
alleging discrimination in Harvard admissions process. The Harvard Crimson.
Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/5/16/complaint-federal-
harvard-admissions/
Bowman, N. A., & Park, J. J. (2014). Interracial contact on college campuses: Com-
paring and contrasting predictors of cross-racial interaction and interracial friend-
ship. Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 660–690.
Buenavista, T. L., & Jain, D. (2009). Student groups. In E. W. Chen & G. J. Yoo
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Asian American issues today (Vol. 1, pp. 249–252). Santa
Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing.
Buenavista, T. L., Jayakumar, U. M., & Misa-Escalante, K. (2009). Contextualiz-
ing Asian American education through critical race theory: An example of U.S.
Pilipino college student experiences. New Directions for Institutional Research,
2009(142), 69–81 doi:10.1002/ir.293
Buenavista, T. L., & Tran, T. (2010). Undocumented immigrant students. In
E. W. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Asian American issues today (Vol.
1, pp. 253–257). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
CARE (National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in
Education). (2008). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders—facts, not fiction: Set-
ting the record straight. New York, NY: Author.
Chang, M. J., Park, J. J., Lin, M. H., Poon, O. A., & Nakanishi, D. T. (2007). Beyond
myths: The growth and diversity of Asian American college freshmen, 1971–2005.
Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.
Chiang, M. (2009). The cultural capital of Asian American studies: Autonomy and
representation in the university. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Dizon, J. P. M. (2011). Lessons on ethnic data disaggregation from the “Count Me
In” campaign. Vermont Connection, 32, 21–31.
Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Developing pluralistic skills and dispositions
in college: Examining racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Educa-
tion, 82(4), 416–443.
Espiritu, Y. L. (1992). Asian American panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identi-
ties. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Fincher, J. (2014). Powerful pathways across race: Sense of belonging in discrimina-
tory collegiate environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University
of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher educa-
tion: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review,
72(3), 330–366.
Hing, B. O. (1994). Making and remaking Asian America through immigration policy,
1850–1990. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hing, J. (2014, March 18). The Chinese-American community grapples with
affirmative action, and itself. COLORLINES. Retrieved from colorlines.
com/archives/2014/03/the_chinese-american_community_grapples_with_
affirmative_action_and_itself.html

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 135 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 136 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Huang, J. (2014, March 17). Affirmative action bill SCA 5 “dead for the year.”
Retrieved from scprv4-staging-es.scprdev.org/blogs/multiamerican/2014/03/17/
16109/affirmative-action-bill-sca-5-dead-for-the-year/
Hurtado, S., Inkelas, K. K., Briggs, C., & Rhee, B. S. (1997). Differences in col-
lege access ad choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers.
Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 43–75. doi:10.1023/A:1024948728792
Inkelas, K. K. (2003). Caught in the middle: Understanding Asian Pacific Amer-
ican perspectives on affirmative action through Blumer’s group position the-
ory. Journal of College Student Development, 44(5), 625–643. doi: 10.1353/
csd.2003.0053
Inkelas, K. K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic cocurricular activities facilitate a
sense of ethnic awareness and understanding? A study of Asian Pacific American
undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 285–302.
Johnston, M. P., & Nadal, K. L. (2010). Multiracial microaggressions: Exposing
monoracism in everyday life and clinical practice. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Micro-
aggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 123–144).
New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Kang, J. (1996). Negative action against Asian Americans: The internal instability of
Dworkin’s defense of affirmative action. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law
Review, 31, 1–47.
Kauanui, J. K. (2008, September 8). Where are Native Hawaiians and other Pacific
Islanders in higher education? The academy speaks. Diverse Issues in Higher Edu-
cation. Retrieved from diverseeducation.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/where-are-
native-hawaiians-and-other-pacific-islanders-in-higher-education/
Kim, J. (2012). Asian American racial identity development theory. In C. L. Wijeyes-
inghe & B. W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development (pp.
138–160). New York, NY: NYU Press.
Kim, J., DesJardins, S. L., & McCall, B. P. (2009). Exploring the effects of student
expectations about financial aid on postsecondary choice: A focus on income
and racial/ethnic differences. Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 741–774.
Kim, Y. K., Chang, M. J., & Park, J. J. (2009). Engaging with faculty: Examin-
ing rates, predictors, and educational effects for Asian American undergraduates.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(4), 206–218.
Lee, S. S. (2006). The racialization of Asian Americans in higher education. InterAc-
tions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 2(2). Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4r7161b2
Lee, S. S. (2010). (Un)seen and (un)heard: The struggle for Asian American
“minority” recognition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1968–1997 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
Liu, M., Geron, K., & Lai, T. (2008). The snake dance of Asian American activism:
Community, vision, and power. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Liu, W. M., Cuyjet, M. J., & Lee, S. (2010). Asian American student involvement
in Asian American culture centers. In L. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher
education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice (pp. 26–48). Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 136 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 137

Maeda, D. J. (2011). Rethinking the Asian American movement. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Maldonado, D. E. Z., Rhoads, R., & Buenavista, T. L. (2005, December 21).
The student-initiated retention project: Theoretical contributions and the role
of self-empowerment. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 605–638.
doi:10.3102/00028312042004605
Maramba, D. (2008). Immigrant families and the college experience: Perspectives of
Filipino Americans. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 336–350.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Mulhere, K. (2014, November 18). 2 new challenges to affirmative action.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/18/lawsuits-allege-
affirmative-action-violations
Museus, S. D. (2008). The role of ethnic student organizations in fostering African
American and Asian American students’ cultural adjustment and membership at
predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6),
568–586.
Museus, S. D., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Rising to the challenge of conducting
research on Asian Americans in higher education. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 2009(142), 95–105. doi:10.1002/ir.299
Museus, S. D., & Truong, K. A. (2009). Disaggregating qualitative data from
Asian American college students in campus racial climate research and
assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142), 17–26.
doi:10.1002/ir.293
Nadal, K. L., Pituc, S. T., Johnston, M. P., & Esparrago, T. (2010, November–
December). Overcoming the model minority myth: Experiences of Fili-
pino American graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 51,
694–706. doi: 10.1353/csd.2010.0023
Nakanishi, D. T. (1989, November–December). A quota on excellence? The Asian
American admissions debate. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 21,
39–47. doi:10.1080/00091383.1989.9937604
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012, November). Total fall enrollment
in degree-granting institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and
race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2011. Retrieved March
15, 2015, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_263.asp
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014, June 12). Undocumented student
tuition: State action. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/
undocumented-student-tuition-state-action.aspx
Pak, Y., Maramba, D., & Hernandez, X. (2014). Charting new realities: Asian
Americans in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Park, J. J. (2009a). Are we satisfied? A look at student satisfaction with diversity
at traditionally White institutions. Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 291–320.
doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0071
Park, J. J. (2009b). Taking race into account: Charting student attitudes
towards affirmative action. Research in Higher Education, 50(7), 670–690.
doi:10.1007s11162-009-9138-7

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 137 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 138 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Park, J. J. (2012a). Asian Americans and the benefits of campus diversity: What the
research says. National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander
Research in Education. Retrieved from care.gseis.ucla.edu/assets/care-asian_am_
diversity_d4.pdf
Park, J. J. (2012b). It takes a village (or an ethnic economy): The varying roles of
socioeconomic status, religion, and social capital in SAT preparation for Chinese
and Korean American students. American Educational Research Journal, 49(4),
624–650. doi:10.3102/0002831211425609
Park, J. J. (2013). When diversity drops: Race, religion, and affirmative action in higher
education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Park, J. J., & Chang, M. J. (2010). Asian American Pacific Islander serving institu-
tions: The motivations and challenges behind seeking a federal designation. AAPI
Nexus: Policy, Practice, and Community, 7(2), 107–125.
Park, J. J., Lin, M. H., Poon, O. A., & Chang, M. J. (2008). Asian American college
students and civic engagement. In P. M. Ong (Ed.), The state of Asian America:
Trajectory of civic and political engagement. Los Angeles, CA: Leadership Educa-
tion for Asian Pacifics.
Park, J. J., & Liu, A. (2014). Interest convergence or divergence? A critical race anal-
ysis of Asian Americans, meritocracy, and critical mass in the affirmative action
debate. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 36–64. doi:10.1353/jhe.2014.0001
Perez, M. P. (2002). Pacific identities beyond US racial formations: The
case of Chamorro ambivalence and flux. Social Identities, 8, 457–479.
doi:10.1080/1350463022000030001
Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual
model. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research
(Vol. XXI, pp. 99–157). New York, NY: Springer Press.
Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual
model. In Higher Education (pp. 99–157). doi:10.1007/1-4020-4512-3_3
Pizzolato, J. E., Nguyen, T. L. K., Johnston, M. P., & Wang, S. (2012). Understand-
ing context: Cultural, relational, and psychological interactions in self-authorship
development. Journal of College Student Development, 53(5), 656–679.
Poon, O. A. (2009). Haunted by negative action: Asian Americans, admissions, and
race in the “color-blind era.” Asian American Policy Review, 18, 81–90. Retrieved
from isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k74751
Poon, O. A. (2011a). A critical race theory case study of Asian Americans, “criti-
cal mass,” and campus racial climate. In R. Endo & X. L. Rong (Eds.), Asian
American education: Identities, racial issues, and languages (6th ed., pp. 101–130).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Poon, O. A. (2011b). Ching chongs & tiger moms: The “Asian Invasion” in U.S.
higher education. Amerasia Journal, 37, 144–150.
Poon, O. A. (2013). “Think about it as decolonizing our minds”: Spaces for criti-
cal race pedagogy and transformative leadership development. In S. D. Museus,
D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New
insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and the implications for higher
education (pp. 294–310). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 138 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENTS 139

Poon, O. A. (2014). Asian Americans and college admissions debates. In M. Danico

(Ed.), Asian American society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Poon, O. A., & Byrd, A. (2013). Beyond tiger mom anxiety: Ethnic, gender, and
generational differences in Asian American college access and choices. Journal of
College Admission, 221, 23–31.
Poon, O. A., & Sihite, E. (In press). Anxieties, uncertainties, and misinforma-
tion: A complex picture of Asian Americans and selective college admissions. In
M. Zhou & A. C. Ocampo (Eds.), Contemporary Asian America: A multidiscipli-
nary reader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: NYU Press.
Poon, O. A., Squire, D., Kodama, C., Byrd, A., Chan, J., Manzano, L., Furr, S., &
Bishundat, D. (2016). A critical review of the model minority myth in selected
literature on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. Review of
Educational Research, 86(2), 469–502. doi: 10.3102/0034654315612205
Ramakrishnan, K., & Lee, T. (2012, October 26). The policy priorities and issue pref-
erences of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. National Asian American Survey.
Retrieved from www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS12-sep25-issues.pdf
Ramakrishnan, K., & Lee, T. (2014). Views of a diverse electorate: Opinions of
California registered voters in 2014. National Asian American Survey. Retrieved
from www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS-Field-2014-final.pdf
Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Freedom’s web: Student activism in an age of cultural diversity.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ryoo, J. J., & Ho, R. (2013). Living the legacy of ’68: The perspectives and experi-
ences of Asian American college students. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, &
R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Ameri-
cans and Pacific Islanders and the implications for higher education (pp. 213–226).
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007, May). First in
my family: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since
1971. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from
www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/TFS/Special/Monographs/FirstInMyFamily.pdf
Samura, M. (2015). Wrestling with expectations: An examination of how Asian
American college students negotiate personal, parental, and societal expectations.
Journal of College Student Development, 56(6), 602–618.
Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for
student affairs practice and higher education. New Directions for Student Services,
2002(97), 21–32 doi: 10.100/ss.36.
Takagi, D. Y. (1992). The retreat from race: Asian American admissions and racial
politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Teranishi, R. T. (2010). Asians in the ivory tower: Dilemmas of racial inequality in
American higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Teranishi, R. T., Ceja, M., Antonio, A. L., Allen, W. R., & McDonough, P. M.
(2004). The college-choice process for Asian Pacific Americans: Ethnicity and
socioeconomic class in context. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 527–551.
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 139 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 140 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J. (2010). To be mice or men: Gender identity and
the development of masculinity through participation in Asian American inter-
est fraternities. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The
misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and
the implications for higher education (pp. 67–85). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Umemoto, K. (1989). “On strike!” San Francisco State College strike, 1968–69: The
role of Asian American students. Amerasia Journal, 15(1), 3–41.
University of Illinois Asian American Studies (n.d.). Department history. Retrieved
from www.asianam.illinois.edu/about/history/
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009-2013 American Commu-
nity Survey 5-year estimates, Table B02006. Generated by O. A. Poon. Retrieved
from American FactFinder http://factfinder2.census.gov
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American Community Survey Public Use Microdata
Set, 2011-2013. Retrieved from http://www2.census.gov/acs2013_3yr/pums/
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2014). Table 10. Projections of the
population by sex, Hispanic origin, and race for the United States: 2015–2060
(NP2014-T10). Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/
files/summary/NP2014-T10.xls
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012).
Table 268: Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by control and level of
institution, level of enrollment, and race/ethnicity of student: 2011. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_268.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012).
Table 263: Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by level of
enrollment, sex, attendance status, and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years,
1976 through 2011. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/
dt12_263.asp
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The over-
lap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to
understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development,
50(4), 407–428.
Wong, A. (2013). Racial identity construction among Chinese American and Filipino
American undergraduates. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi
(Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders and their implications for higher education (pp. 86–105). Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Yaki, M., & Narasaki, K. (2015, May 15). Asian American U.S. Civil Rights
Commissioners issue statement on Harvard discrimination complaint. Retrieved
July 15, 2015, from http://asianamericancivilrights.org/asian-american-u-s-civil-
rights-commissioners-issue-statement-on-harvard-discrimination-complaint
Yeh, C. J., & Huang, K. (1996). The collectivistic nature of ethnic identity develop-
ment among Asian American college students. Adolescence, 31, 645–661.
Yosso, T. J., & Benavides Lopez, C. (2010). Counterspaces in a hostile place: A criti-
cal race theory analysis of campus culture centers. In L. Patton (Ed.), Culture cent-
ers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice (pp. 83–104).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 140 7/26/2016 7:24:20 PM

 7
AFRICAN AMERICAN
COLLEGE STUDENTS
Bettina C. Shuford and Lamont A. Flowers

T
he experiences and concerns of African American college students
have been topics of discussion and research for many years. The pri-
mary reason can be traced back to the period between slavery and the
Jim Crow era of segregation. The overt discrimination that existed during
those times represented a clear impediment to democracy and educational
opportunity. The fact that many African Americans were not permitted
(by law, in some states) to exercise the basic human rights outlined in the
Constitution is indicative of the historical negation of opportunities for
African Americans. The forms and structures of discrimination, including
not being able to drink from certain water fountains and socialize in various
establishments, had spillover effects on all other areas of human enterprise,
especially education.
The fact that these forms of discrimination were allowed to persist
for hundreds of years is the starting point for cogent discussions concern-
ing the history, development, and current status of African American col-
lege students. And despite the sensitivity of these issues, it is important not
to overlook the “peculiar institution” of slavery and the later Jim Crow era
during which educational opportunities were limited for African Americans.
Even though access for African American students into higher education
has greatly improved, the vestiges of an unequal playing field are still mani-
fested, albeit in more subtle ways, in higher education settings. Considering
the African American college student in this context, using historical infor-
mation to inform current knowledge is important and may yield a more
advanced understanding of this student population. As you read this chapter,
also keep in mind the following fundamental questions that will better pre-
pare you to work with and enhance the intellectual and social development

141

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 141 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 142 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

of African American college students: (a) What are my personal perspec-

tives about African American people? (b) What do I know about the history,
circumstances, and lives of African American people? (c) How can I learn
more about African American people? and (d) In what ways can I use my
knowledge of African American history, culture, and research to better facili-
tate academic and social development among African American students on
campus?
Collectively, African American students represent a unique mixture of
racial heritages that include African, Caribbean, Nigerian, and Haitian, just
to name a few. However, for the purposes of this chapter, based on the defini-
tion used in the 2000 census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), the term African
American refers to “people having origins in any of the Black race groups of
Africa.” Because African Americans represent a diverse mixture of individuals
from a number of nationalities and countries, the answers to the preceding
four questions may differ depending on the Black students one has encoun-
tered (the terms Black and African American are used interchangeably in this
chapter).
In the first section of this chapter we discuss the effects of historical
discrimination on African Americans in general and African American col-
lege students in particular. The second section deals with student develop-
ment theory and examines how African American students may develop in
college. The four-stage model of African American identity development is
explained along with behavioral examples in the third section of the chapter.
The fourth section delineates selected characteristics of African American
college students along with enrollment statistics. In the fifth section we offer
a best-practices list of programs that have been designed for the recruitment,
retention, and graduation of African American students on college campuses.
Finally we present some recommendations for practice.

History of African Americans in Higher Education

African Americans’ access to higher education has been greatly influenced
by a social system that has perpetuated differential treatment of groups
based on race and systematically affected the accessibility of higher educa-
tion for African Americans. Because of past and enduring inequities in rela-
tion to educational opportunity, a multitier educational class has emerged,
in which distinct levels remain hard to define. Clearly, though, today’s
African American college students—many of whom are first-generation
students—are the product of intense civil rights campaigns and significant
legislation.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 142 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 143

African Americans’ dream of achieving a higher education was suppressed

prior to the Civil War by a social system that severely limited educational
opportunities to them. A philosophical belief that African Americans were
inferior and an elaborate legal system combined to deny them an education
(Fleming, 1976). Despite the barriers, 28 African Americans had obtained a
baccalaureate degree by 1860 (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971). Alexander Locus
Twilight is documented as the first African American to receive a college
degree in 1823, from Middlebury College (Fleming, 1976). Since formal
preparation was not an option for the majority of African Americans, appren-
ticeships and self-study were acceptable means of training for professional
and skilled laborers (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971; Fleming, 1976). A number
of schools in the South were established during the pre–Civil War period
for the sole purpose of educating African Americans. Cheyney University of
Pennsylvania (created in 1842), Lincoln University (1854), and Wilberforce
University (1856) were the first schools established for African Americans,
and later they became degree-granting institutions (Bowles & DeCosta,
1971; Thomas & Hill, 1987).
After the Civil War, many of the large church and missionary groups,
along with the Freedmen’s Bureau that was created by the War Department
in 1865, established higher education institutions in the South for African
Americans. Between 1865 and 1890, hundreds of private higher educa-
tion institutions were founded with the words normal, college, or university
in their names. Many of these institutions were established as elementary
and secondary schools with the eventual goal of becoming degree-granting
institutions. At one point in the early 1870s, the percentage of Black chil-
dren enrolled in school was higher than that of Whites. However, by the
1900s the numbers had declined as discrimination laws began to prolifer-
ate (Spring, 2001). Despite the changing political climate, strides had been
made regarding the education of Blacks. According to DuBois and Dill (as
cited in Bowles & DeCosta, 1971), over 1,000 individuals had graduated
from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) by 1895.
While used to suppress African Americans’ access to higher education in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the legal system began to open doors
for African Americans in the late nineteenth century and into the twentieth
century. The second Morrill Act of 1890, which provided equitable funding
for Black land grant institutions, and the 1896 Supreme Court ruling of
Plessey v. Ferguson, which established the separate but equal doctrine, spurred
significant growth among HBCUs in the South (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971;
Fleming, 1976; Pounds, 1987). However, questions concerning the type of
education Blacks should receive gave rise to philosophical debates within the
Black community. The industrial education approach advocated by Booker

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 143 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 144 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

T. Washington was influenced by the political climate in the South and

focused on developing good work and moral habits. The industrial approach
created a place for Blacks in the new industrial order in the South but main-
tained the social order of segregated schools. W.E.B. DuBois, on the other
hand, believed in a traditional liberal arts education that would train future
leaders within the Black community (Spring, 2001).
Opportunities for African Americans to attend predominantly White
institutions (PWIs) were still very limited during this period. A turning point
in the struggle for access to higher education was the 1954 Supreme Court
ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971; Fleming,
1976; Pounds, 1987). Sparked by pressure from the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), mounting tensions, and
legal maneuverings of African Americans, the Supreme Court ruled that edu-
cation could not remain disconnected and separate in America.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was revolutionary in its effects on
education because of the inclusion of African Americans in the educational
process. African Americans in the South were no longer limited to attendance
at HBCUs. Despite the ruling, some schools remained resistant to change.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning discrimination in federally funded
programs, further enhanced African American access to higher education
(Fleming, 1976).
The period after the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling was a
great time of transition for HBCUs and PWIs (Bowles & DeCosta, 1971). In
addition to the factors already noted, other developments influenced college
enrollment of African American students in the 1940s and 1950s. Prior to
1945, 90% of African Americans in college were enrolled in HBCUs in the
South (Garibaldi, 1991). The 1944 GI Bill of Rights and the Korean War
significantly contributed to the increase in the number of African American
males who enrolled in institutions of higher education (Garibaldi, 1991).
The migration of African Americans to the North in the early 1940s posi-
tively affected enrollment of African American students in northern colleges
(Bowles & DeCosta, 1971).
College enrollment for African American students continued to increase
in the 1960s and 1970s as veterans from the Vietnam War used funding
from the GI Bill (Garibaldi, 1991). Enrollment levels for African Americans
increased significantly in the mid-1970s because of the expansion of federal
legislation and federal policies aimed at reducing barriers to minority and
low-income students (Hill, 1983).
Over the years, total college enrollment for African American students
has steadily increased (Carter & Wilson, 1996; Nettles & Perna, 1997).
These statistics show an upward trend for African Americans and reflect the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 144 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 145

continued desire of African Americans to pursue higher education in the

United States. The interactions of various political, legislative, and govern-
mental influences have been instrumental and indispensable in spurring and
facilitating African Americans’ pursuit for higher education. While significant
progress has been made in the educational attainment of African Americans,
their proportional representation in college remains below the rate of White
students. Thus, improving access to higher education for African Americans
continues to be a priority even in the twenty-first century.

Student Development Theory and African American College

Students
The college experience enables African American students, like other stu-
dents, to gain a variety of skills, values, and knowledge that promotes
academic and social development in college and beyond (Flowers, 2004,
2004–2005; Person & Christensen, 1996). To better assist student affairs
professionals and to spur additional research on this topic, McEwen, Roper,
Bryant, and Langa (1990) offered a list of developmental issues that need to
be addressed by student affairs professionals and researchers who want to gain
a better understanding of African American student development in college.
Based on the scholarly literature and personal observations, they articulated
nine developmental tasks essential to academic and social growth for African
American college students. In this section we highlight their salient issues
and suggest how student affairs professionals can assist African American stu-
dents in achieving each task. To more fully understand and promote African
American students’ development on campus, we recommend that student
affairs professionals explore the underlying and related theories more deeply.

Developmental Task 1: Developing Ethnic and Racial Identity

African Americans need to reflect on how the formal and informal structures
of American society affect them and the extent to which their racial sta-
tus influences their interactions with the larger society. This developmental
task is extremely important because it speaks to African American students’
perceptions of self-worth, self-confidence, and self-esteem in and out of the
classroom. Since a proliferation of negative images, verbally and nonverbally
presented, can be found in various forms in society, African Americans should
engage in opportunities at critical junctures during the educational process to
challenge problematic forms of societal and personal interactions. One help-
ful approach to counteract potentially negative information and interactions
is to connect African Americans with role models. Additionally, support

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 145 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 146 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

groups may be created so that Black students can have an opportunity to

dialogue about issues they face on a daily basis. Successful interventions and
programs are noted throughout this chapter. Other classroom and practical
examples for teachers and administrators are also presented in Chapter 17.

Developmental Task 2: Developing Facility to Interact With the

Dominant Culture
This developmental task refers to the experiences and interactions that African
American students have with other students on campus. Campus administra-
tors should continually assess and improve the campus climate in ways that pro-
mote productive student-student and student-faculty interactions on campus.

Developmental Task 3: Developing Cultural Aesthetics and Awareness

This developmental task is a reminder that African American students may
greatly value their racial heritage. As a result, student affairs professionals should
plan programs that support and celebrate African American culture and embrace
African American history throughout the academic year. Faculty should also
incorporate culturally relevant material and perspectives in the curriculum.

Developmental Task 4: Developing Identity

This developmental task considers the process by which African American stu-
dents learn to understand themselves better and become comfortable with their
personal identity. Faculty and staff must keep in mind that African American
students’ perceptions of their identity are constantly evolving and that their
identity may influence their cognitive and affective development in college.

Developmental Task 5: Developing Interdependence

This developmental task involves striking a balance among self-reliance,
independence, and family identity. For maximum interdependence, it is rec-
ommended that African American students maintain familial connections as
well as engage in actions that promote personal development and individual
growth. Because more families are using technology to share spiritual notes,
updates on daily activities, and news about grades and classroom activities,
connecting with one’s family for support should be encouraged on college
campuses and can be accomplished with the use of technology—particularly
e-mails, text messages, and social networking websites. However, these forms
of communication and technology should not be used exclusively and in lieu
of face-to-face interactions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 146 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 147

Developmental Task 6: Fulfilling Affiliation Needs

This developmental task addresses a fundamental concern for all students: the
sense of belonging. African American students who perceive an institution as
hostile or alienating will be less likely to interact with the campus environ-
ment. Thus, campus administrators need to assess African American students’
perceptions of the institutional environment and levels of engagement in and
out of the classroom to ensure that these students perceive the campus envi-
ronment as welcoming and supportive (Cuyjet, 1998).

Developmental Task 7: Surviving Intellectually

This developmental task takes into consideration that academic achievement
is very important to African American students. Thus, they, like other stu-
dents, are worried about their cognitive development and put forth the effort
to study and earn good grades. Higher education and student affairs profes-
sionals should consider the intellectual survival of African Americans as a top
priority. Faculty can also promote African American students’ academic suc-
cess by incorporating pedagogies that are responsive to diverse needs, provid-
ing supportive mentors, and embracing the diverse perspectives that African
American students bring with them to campus (Quaye, Tambascia, & Talesh,
2009).

Developmental Task 8: Developing Spirituality

This developmental task is also very important in the life of many African
American students. While some higher education professionals may not
feel comfortable assisting in the spiritual development of African American
students, these professionals should still be aware of this important devel-
opmental task and put people and policies in place that can provide the
necessary support.

Developmental Task 9: Developing Social Responsibility

This developmental task is intended to examine the reasons that certain
African American students seek to help others and contribute their time
engaging in community service. Student affairs professionals should keep
in mind that some African American students will participate in service-
oriented activities while others may need encouragement, which can be
accomplished by establishing programs that seek to combine the needs of
African American students to support the greater good while allowing them
to realize the personal gains associated with helping others.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 147 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 148 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Although other tasks are important to African American student devel-

opment, including enhancing vocational skills, engaging in meaningful
interpersonal relationships, and navigating a hostile campus environment,
these nine developmental tasks should be a useful starting point for those
who wish to enhance the educational experiences and outcomes of African
American students. As McEwen, Roper, Bryant, and Langa (1990) stated,
“Student affairs professionals must develop out of the experiences of African
Americans workable theories of student development” (p. 434). Although
some research has explored these developmental tasks of African American
students, the literature has not considered these issues in any great detail.
Thus, we believe this situation calls for scholars and student affairs research-
ers to develop new theories and developmental tasks that incorporate African
American college students’ perspectives, concerns, and issues if we are to
better assist and understand these students on campus. The next section dis-
cusses the latest development in African American racial identity research
and provides guidance for student affairs professionals to better serve Black
students on campus.

African American Identity Development

The theoretical literature on African American students has overwhelm-
ingly focused on how they develop a racial identity and the impact of racial
identity development on academic achievement, student involvement, and
perceptions of the institutional environment. In fact, most of the published
research related to psychosocial development for African American students
conducted over the past 30 years has addressed some aspect of their racial
identity or the extent to which they have come to understand how their racial
status affects their daily life on campus and society. In this regard, research
suggests that African American students who have positive attitudes about
themselves are more likely to progress along the continuum of racial identity
development (Scottham, Cooke, Sellers, & Ford, 2010).
Until recently, Cross’s (1971) racial identity development model repre-
sented the most detailed and most often used explanation of the transforma-
tive processes that African Americans go through as a result of personal and
interpersonal experiences and interactions with different levels of American
society. Cross’s model includes five stages: preencounter, encounter,
immersion-emersion, internalization, and internalization and commitment.
Numerous researchers have used Cross’s theory of racial identity (Goodstein &
Ponterotto, 1997; Helms, 1990; Helms & Carter, 1991; Mitchell & Dell,
1992; Parham & Helms, 1981, 1985a, 1985b; Parker & Flowers, 2003;

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 148 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 149

Poindexter-Cameron & Robinson, 1997; Pope, 1998; Taylor & Howard-

Hamilton, 1995). The cumulative findings of this research indicate that racial
and ethnic identities are important predictors of self-esteem, student involve-
ment, and academic achievement for African American college students.
Since 1971, Cross (1991) and other researchers (Cross & Vandiver,
2001; Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver, Fhagen-Smith, Cokley, Cross, & Worrell,
2001; Worrell, Cross, & Vandiver, 2001) have redefined and revised the
original theory of racial identity in light of subsequent research and more
than 20 years of reflection and refinement regarding conceptions of the
importance of race in American society. The revised model incorporates four
primary stages: preencounter, encounter, immersion-emersion, and inter-
nalization. The revised model presupposes that an individual may belong to
a primary group and that his or her frame of reference or group affiliation
is determined by his or her racial identity. Cross (1991) also suggests that
the degree of significance that race has in people’s lives plays an important
role in their racial identity development. Vandiver (2001) stated, “Race sali-
ence refers to the importance or significance of race in a person’s approach
to life and is captured across two dimensions: (a) degree of importance and
(b) the direction of the valence. Race salience can range from low to high in
importance and from positive to negative in valence” (p. 168). Stated differ-
ently, African American students may consider their racial identity positively
or negatively, and at the same time race may or may not have a considerable
amount of significance in their lives. Using this basic framework, one can
begin to better understand the nature of African American racial identity
and the possible outcomes of such developmental process stages in college
settings.
In the preencounter stage of the revised model, African Americans have
not experienced a direct action (i.e., encounter) that has caused them to
question their racial identity and move them into deeper self-reflection about
the importance of race in their lives. Furthermore, the preencounter stage
includes three separate “identity clusters” (Vandiver et al., 2001) that may
characterize African American thought processes and actions during this
stage: assimilation, miseducation, and self-hatred. A preencounter assimila-
tion identity refers to people who do not attach a great deal of significance
to their racial status and who most closely relate with the dominant per-
spective. A preencounter miseducation identity refers to people who accept the
negative depiction of African American people in images and stereotypes that
appear in the media (newspapers, television programs, etc.). The preencounter
self-hatred identity applies to individuals who have internalized a concept of
African American inferiority and as a result may dislike themselves and other
African American people.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 149 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 150 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

The encounter stage refers to an experience that causes an African

American to reflect on his or her racial identity. According to Vandiver
(2001), “The Encounter stage represents a very fluid period in development
and is not as easily categorized as other stages” (p. 168). African Americans
at the encounter stage may also show signs of depression or guilt in light of
the encounter. Following the encounter stage, the immersion-emersion stage
is characterized by an intense interest in and celebration of African American
culture, and a disinterest in and avoidance of White culture. Based on the
new conceptions of the model, both identities may be present in African
American individuals and may even develop simultaneously.
The final stage, internalization, is based on the acceptance of and respect
for African American culture. Internalization may develop into four separate
identity clusters: Black nationalist, biculturalist, multiculturalist racial, and
multiculturalist inclusive. A Black nationalist identity refers to “the positive
internalization of being Black” (Vandiver, 2001, p. 169), characterized by
an intense focus on African American history, culture, politics, and expres-
sion. People with Black nationalist views may hold a separatist view (e.g.,
African Americans should develop their own social, educational, and eco-
nomic institutions) or an inclusive view (e.g., African Americans should
work within the dominant social, educational, and economic institutions).
Those with biculturalist identities may support African American culture
as well as the American cultural frame of reference (Vandiver et al. 2001).
African Americans who have strong connections to African American culture
as well as other cultural groups represent the multiculturalist racial identity.
The multiculturalist inclusive identity is characterized by African Americans
who have cultural connections and belief systems that resonate with more
than one ethnic group or more than one cultural group.
Higher education administrators, student affairs professionals, and fac-
ulty must recognize that African American students will have encounter
experiences that may begin a process of identity exploration. This does not
imply that all students will perceive every encounter in the same way or
that all African American students will react or respond to acts of insensitiv-
ity and discrimination in the same way. Nor is it implied that all African
American students will develop a racial identity or that African American
racial identity will progress in the stages advanced by Cross (1991) and oth-
ers (Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver et al., 2001; Worrell,
et al., 2001). However, it is clear from research (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr,
2000; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000) and the general observations of the
authors that institutional environments on college campuses provide African
American students with various experiences and encounters that may result
in the development of a racial or ethnic identity. Moreover, recent research

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 150 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 151

based on data from African American students from several institutions

suggests that racial identity significantly impacts perceptions of academic
engagement (Jackson, Parker, & Flowers, 2012).

Characteristics of African American College Students

The percentage distribution of African American students on college cam-
puses has continued to increase in recent years. According to national esti-
mates, in 2000, African American students made up about 12% of the total
undergraduate enrollment; in 2008, African American students constituted
about 14% of the total undergraduate enrollment (National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2002, 2010). Today, African American college
students make up approximately 16% of the undergraduate student enroll-
ment ((NCES, 2014).

Demographic and Precollege Characteristics

The statistical data that follow describe the population of African American
students enrolled among the nation’s colleges and universities in 2012
(NCES, 2014). Based on national data, African American females constituted
about 63% of the total African American undergraduate enrollment, and
37% were males. Approximately 38% of African American undergraduates
were between the ages of 19 and 23. Nineteen percent were between the
ages of 24 and 29, and 36% were age 30 or older. Data showed that 28% of
African American undergraduates had at least one parent who had attained
a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of all African American undergraduates, 14%
were married, and 12% reported having a disability.

Enrollment Statistics
Data also indicate that approximately 62% of all African American under-
graduates attended public colleges and universities, and 10% of all African
American undergraduates attended private nonprofit colleges and universi-
ties. Forty-three percent of all African American undergraduates attended
two-year institutions, and approximately 46% attended four-year institutions.
Thirty-three percent of all Black students attended college full-time for the
full year, and 20% attended college part-time for the full year. In terms of
college majors, African American students pursued a wide array of academic
subjects: health care fields (22%); business (17%); social sciences (7%);
education (5%); biological and physical science, science technology, math-
ematics, agriculture, and natural resources (4%); computer and information

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 151 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 152 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

sciences (4%); humanities (4%); and engineering and engineering technol-

ogy (3%).
We recommend that individual campuses undertake their own data
collection projects and that student affairs practitioners, academic admin-
istrators, and faculty consider the resulting data and compare them to other
racial and ethnic groups on campus to determine whether African American
students are just as likely as other groups to have interactions with faculty
and staff, perceive a safe campus environment, and obtain adequate sup-
port in and out of class. This scholarly activity may be a preliminary step
toward ensuring that African American students’ needs are being met and
that students are developing in meaningful and appropriate ways.

Program Examples That Facilitate the Development of African

American Students in College: Best Practices
Institutional support for inclusive excellence around diversity and equity
remains a high priority for colleges and universities. Inclusive excellence
requires a commitment on the part of institutions to provide support and
opportunities for full engagement in curricular and cocurricular experiences
on campus. With a focus on student success, colleges and universities are
examining data related to retention and participation in high-impact prac-
tices to uncover inequities in student success and educational practices. As a
result, support for African American males has become a priority on many
campuses and in some cases at the system level. For example, the University
System of Georgia’s African-American Male Initiative focuses on recruit-
ment, retention, and graduation of African American males throughout the
system’s campuses.
The following programs, under such categories as academic success,
leadership, and mentoring, represent some of the best practices for serving
African American students on college campuses. The list was compiled from
a variety of sources, including the model programs identified in this book’s
first edition and a review of program presentations at national student affairs
and higher education conferences from 2013 to 2015 that featured best prac-
tices for supporting African American students on their respective campuses.

Academic Success
Options Through Education at Boston College is a residential bridge pro-
gram for a select group of diverse students who have demonstrated leadership
for overcoming challenging educational and financial circumstances. This
summer residential program nurtures students’ academic, social, cultural, and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 152 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 153

spiritual development. Students receive course credits in English, math, and

oral communication and receive academic and financial support throughout
their four years of college. Contact information: Office of African American,
Hispanic/Latino, Asian-American, and Native American (AHANA) Student
Programs, Boston College, www.bc.edu/offices/ahana/programs/ote.html
The Gateway Scholars Program at the University of Texas at Austin
is a four-year success program designed to facilitate and enhance students’
transition to and through college. The program offers a fall signature course
and spring lecture series, participation in first-year interest groups, peer
mentoring and coaching, academic and professional workshops, tutoring,
and study abroad opportunities. The program is housed in the Division of
Diversity and Community Engagement. Contact information: Longhorn
Center for Academic Excellence, University of Texas at Austin, ddce.utexas
.edu/academiccenter/gateway-scholars/

Graduate Education Preparation

The Ronald E. McNair postbaccalaureate achievement program, funded
by the U.S. Department of Education, prepares students from disadvan-
taged backgrounds for doctoral studies by involving them in research and
other scholarly activities. The ultimate goal is to increase the number of low-
income, first-generation, or underrepresented students enrolling in graduate
school. Contact information: www.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/index.html

Leadership
The Black Male Leadership Institute Initiative Fellows Program at
Louisiana State University is designed to improve the retention, graduation,
and participation rates for Black male students through mentoring, lead-
ership development, and academic support, while connecting the students
with faculty, staff, and the campus community. The Fellows participate in
the following programs and support services: workshop series on career plan-
ning, leadership, and citizenship; monitoring of grades; academic recom-
mendations provided by professional staff; assignment of a faculty or staff
mentor; attendance at leadership conferences; and engaging in social activi-
ties aimed at socializing the Fellows to campus and other settings. Contact
information: Office of Diversity, uiswcmsweb.prod.lsu.edu/academicaffairs/
bmli/AboutBMLI/item22830.html

Mentoring Programs
The African American Male Initiative at the University of Louisville pro-
vides academic engagement, mentoring support, peer connection, and student

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 153 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 154 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

involvement for undergraduate African American male students. A mentor-

ing family network consisting of upper-class students and members of the
faculty staff are available to assist participants in navigating academic and
personal challenges. Students are encouraged to use academic resource ser-
vices, attend workshops, and participate in cocurricular activities on campus.
Contact information: University of Louisville Cultural Center, louisville.edu/
culturalcenter/retention-programs/african-american-male-initiative

Recruitment
The Project Uplift Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill (UNC–Chapel Hill) is a special program that enables high-achieving ris-
ing seniors to experience college life on the Carolina campus. High-achieving
African American, American Indian, Latinx/Hispanic, Asian American, low-
income, rural, and other rising seniors from historically underserved popula-
tions are invited to spend two days on campus to experience the academic
rigor and social climate of UNC–Chapel Hill. This early recruitment pro-
gram provides prospective students with insight into the UNC–Chapel Hill
undergraduate experience. Contact information: Diversity and Multicultural
Affairs, UNC–Chapel Hill, diversity.unc.edu/resources/prospective-students/
summer-institutes/project-uplift

Residential Programs
The Huntley House for African American Males is a living and learning
community at the University of Minnesota. Students have the opportunity
to explore issues of ethnicity, identity, and leadership while receiving vital
academic support and actively participating in and contributing to campus
student life. Professional advisers are available to help advise and navigate
their curricular and cocurricular activities. Contact information: Multicultural
Center for Academic Excellence, aaas.umn.edu/ugrad/huntleyhouse.html

Retention
The African American Academic Network (AAAN) is a retention and stu-
dent success program that addresses the needs and unique interests of Black
undergraduate students at the University of Illinois at Chicago. AAAN has
three teams of academic professionals who work with students from the
admission process through graduation. Services of the program include
recruitment and admission assistance, academic advising and student
development activities, and learning support through the Learning Resource
Center. Although each team has its own function, they all work together
to provide a seamless and comprehensive approach to address students’

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 154 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 155

individual needs. Contact information: University of Illinois–Chicago,

African American Academic Network, http://www.uic.edu/depts/aaan/
aaan_units.shtm
The Reaching Inside Your Soul for Excellence (RISE) program at
the University of Pittsburgh is designed to increase dramatically the reten-
tion and graduation rates of all students. However, priority is given to
first- and second-year students who are facing academic challenges. RISE
employs strategies designed to improve students’ academic efficacy, encour-
age and facilitate student involvement, strengthen connectedness to men-
tors, improve students’ self-awareness, and programmatically address other
specific and unique needs of undergraduate students. Fellows participate in
a variety of activities and meet regularly with an academic coach and a RISE
mentor. Contact information: Office of Student Life, www.rise.pitt.edu
The Student African American Brotherhood (SAAB), a student
organization located on more than 100 campuses, embraces the princi-
ples of accountability, proactive leadership, self-discipline, and intellectual
development for African American college males. SAAB provides structured
opportunities for Black men by encouraging them to serve as role models to
younger Black men, engage in service, and prepare to enter the workforce and
make their place in society. Contact information: Student African American
Brotherhood, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, www.saabnational.org

Recommendations to Benefit African American Students

The presence of African American students in higher education has signifi-
cantly changed since the first African American was awarded a baccalaure-
ate degree in 1823 (Fleming, 1976). Despite the gains in enrollment, and
despite the best efforts of institutions to retain and graduate students, gaps in
academic achievement and “a host of inequitable outcomes” between African
American students and their White counterparts still persist (Harris &
Bensimon, 2007, p. 77). Efforts to close the academic achievement gap have
been successful when institutions are able to determine how differentiated
populations are engaging in curricular and cocurricular activities, the nec-
essary conditions that lead to equitable outcomes are created, and faculty
and staff share in the responsibility for student success (Harris & Bensimon,
2007; Smith, 2009).
Student success is multidimensional. It’s more than quantifiable measures
where the focus is on retention and educational attainment. Student success
includes an expanded view that involves being intellectually, socially, and
psychologically engaged (Schreiner, 2010). The literature on student thriv-
ing encompasses a holistic approach to student success. Thriving in college is

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 155 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 156 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

defined as optimal functioning in five key domains: engaged learning, aca-

demic determination, social connectedness, diverse citizenship, and positive
perspective. A thriving student is “engaged in the learning process, invests
effort to reach important educational goals, manages time and commitment
effectively, connects in a healthy way to other people, is optimistic about the
future and able to reframe negative events as temporary setbacks, is apprecia-
tive of difference in others, and is committed to enriching his or her com-
munity” (Schreiner, 2014, p. 11).
According to Schreiner and her research team, the pathways to thriv-
ing tend to differ by race for students attending predominantly White insti-
tutions. For African American students, the pathway to thriving includes
campus involvement, student–faculty interaction, spirituality, and a sense
of community on campus. Intervening in one or more of these areas con-
tributes to the African American students’ success (Schreiner, 2014). Faculty
and student affairs administrators must play an integral role in designing and
implementing interventions that promote student success.
Campus involvement, particularly when it entails serving in a leader-
ship capacity, tends to bolster a sense of belonging for African American
students (Schreiner, 2014). Faculty and student affairs administrators can
play a significant role in advising African American students to increase their
engagement in educationally purposeful activities on campus. As institutions
continue to disaggregate data to determine who is (or is not) participating in
educationally purposeful activities, both inside and outside of the classroom,
faculty and student affairs administrators can add to African American stu-
dents’ sense of belonging by personally recruiting them to serve in key lead-
ership positions, as well as other high-impact cocurricular opportunities on
campus (Finley & McNair, 2013; Harris & Bensimon, 2007).
In addition to campus involvement, student–faculty interactions also
contribute to a sense of belonging among African American students. Positive
interactions from faculty that encompass a belief in a student’s potential con-
tribute to a student’s overall ability to thrive (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005;
Schreiner, 2010; Strayhorn, 2012). Institutions are taking the necessary steps
to provide programs and services that support student–faculty engagement
outside of the classroom, as evident from the best practices listed in the pre-
vious section of this chapter. Other avenues for African American students
to engage with faculty or student affairs administrators include participation
in undergraduate research, service learning opportunities, learning commu-
nities, and key leadership and student employment positions. These struc-
tured programs provide a forum for engagement. Faculty and student affairs
administrators can also engage with students in less formal ways by meeting
with students one-on-one during office hours, facilitating a discussion in a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 156 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 157

residence hall, or serving as an adviser to a student organization. No mat-

ter the type of engagement, formal or informal, it is important for faculty
and student affairs administrators to hold a shared responsibility for edu-
cational quality and student success. This situation can occur when faculty
and student affairs administrators believe in a student’s capacity, set high
expectations, invest time and effort, value multiple perspectives, and pro-
vide instructive feedback (Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013; Schreiner, 2010, 2014;
Smith, 2009). When these conditions are in place, students feel a sense not
only of belonging, but also that their participation in the academy is validated
(Rendon, 1994, 2006).
Spirituality plays an important role in African American students’ ability
to thrive. It serves as a foundation from which African American students
view and perceive the world around them. At its core, spirituality provides
the mind-set from which Black students can find purpose, resilience, and
meaning in life (McIntosh, 2015; Schreiner, 2014; Stewart, 2010). From an
institutional perspective, faculty and student affairs administrators need to
recognize the important role of spirituality in shaping the African American
student experience on campus. As a starting place, faculty and student affairs
administrators can support efforts for students to leverage their spirituality
by equipping themselves to engage in conversations about worldview, mean-
ing making, and sense of purpose within the curriculum and in cocurricular
activities (McIntosh, 2015). Providing the opportunity for students to engage
in service learning or in other activities that require a focus on personal and
social responsibility is a good forum for students to reflect on purpose and
meaning making. Discussions about purpose and values exploration can eas-
ily be incorporated in career advising sessions and leadership development
trainings. Additionally, engagement in social justice initiatives on campus
and beyond is another opportunity for students to reflect on their experi-
ences within the context of their involvement and their spiritual foundation.
Developing a sense of community is the final pathway to thriving for
African American students. A sense of community occurs when students feel
that they belong on campus, have positive interactions with others, believe
they can make a difference on campus, and are in partnership with the
institution to achieve common goals (Schreiner, 2010, 2014). The strong-
est institutional contributor to a sense of community for African American
students is consistency in messaging between what the institution espouses
in its mission statement and other printed material and the actions of the
faculty and staff on campus (Schreiner, 2010, 2014; Strayhorn, 2012).
African American students should see signs of the institution’s commitment
to diversity from the admission process through graduation. Subsequently,
African American students should engage in cross-cultural interactions and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 157 7/26/2016 7:24:21 PM

 158 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

experiences with other identity groups as well as educationally purposeful

activities.
In the quest to support African American students, higher education
administrators must remember that not all African American students have
the same experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. As a result, culturally specific
programs may not be applicable to all students. Students’ individual needs
must be taken into account when planning programs and services for African
Americans.

Conclusion
The experience of African Americans in higher education closely parallels
their experience in American society. The ability of African Americans to
obtain a quality education has been impeded by a social system that has sup-
pressed their legal rights and their human dignity. Despite these historical
obstacles, African Americans have been able to transcend legal and social
barriers. Although significant gains have been made in terms of enrollment
and acceptance into higher education, inequities still exist. Thus, knowl-
edgeable and caring student affairs professionals, faculty, and higher educa-
tion administrators are needed to ensure that African American students
have an enjoyable and educational college experience.

Case Study: Meeting of the Minds

You have just received a letter informing you that you were selected by the
president of your university to serve on a team of university administrators
from various offices within academic and student affairs. The team has been
charged with developing strategies to improve the retention and gradua-
tion rates of African American students attending your university (a large,
public, four-year institution). The meeting is scheduled to take place the
following week.
When you arrive at the meeting, you see colleagues from throughout
the university. The president calls the meeting to order and thanks the team
members for their commitment to student retention on campus. She also
remarks that while she is proud of the progress that has been made to support
the intellectual and social development of students on campus, she is firmly
committed to success and engagement for all students, which prompted this
meeting. She then mentions that the previous semester, the university com-
missioned a campus climate study to assess student perceptions of the cam-
pus culture and university environment. A primary finding indicated that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 158 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 159

African American students felt a sense of alienation on campus and perceived

the institution as unwelcoming and hostile.
During her opening remarks, the president asked the team to consider
how the African American Cultural Center could better support the edu-
cational and social development of African American students and provide
cultural programs for all students on campus. In addition, the president
asked the team to consider how other campus-based programs and services
could be enhanced and new programs developed in cooperation with offices
on campus (e.g., counseling center, learning communities, and academic
support services).
Next, the president asked the team to form groups of four to five peo-
ple to address these and other issues relating to African American student
retention. Before taking her seat, she added, “Your mission for this meet-
ing is clear. Use your insight, experience, and expertise to develop strategies
and approaches to support the recruitment of African American students,
enhance the engagement of African American students in and out of the
classroom, and improve graduation rates for African American students
attending our university.”

Discussion Questions
1. If you were assistant dean of academic advising, given your experi-
ence and knowledge of holistic advising and retention initiatives, what
strategies and approaches would you recommend to your group? How
would your response be different if you were the director of the admis-
sions office? Director of the career resource center? Director of the
financial aid office? Director of the multicultural affairs office? Director
of the student activities center? Vice provost for academic programs?
Associate dean of arts and sciences? Chair of the sociology department?
2. Based on the research literature, student development theory, and your
personal experience, what are the major issues affecting African American
students at your university?
3. Following a review of research and academic literature that examines strat-
egies, programs, and services designed to support the academic and social
development of African American students, what would you perceive to be
the most effective interventions or programs that are currently in place on
other campuses for African American students? List and examine the fea-
sibility of implementing selected programs and services on your campus.
4. Design an educational program or service to support the academic,
social, and emotional development of African American students at your

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 159 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 160 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

university. Also, develop an assessment plan to determine the effective-

ness of your educational program or service.
5. Do you believe you could design a campus community where diversity is
understood and embraced? Explain your answer.
6. Does your university have an obligation to ensure the success of African
American students on campus because of past racial discrimination in
American higher education? Explain your answer.
7. How would your answers to the preceding questions change if you were
advising a small, private, four-year university? Two-year college? Wom-
en’s college? HBCU?

References
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus
cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 180–185.
Bowles, F., & DeCosta, F. A. (1971). Between two worlds: A profile of Negro education.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Carter, D., & Wilson, R. (1996). Minorities in higher education. 1995–96 fourteenth
annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office
of Minorities in Higher Education.
Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience: Toward a psychol-
ogy of Black liberation. Black World, 20, 13–27.
Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of Black. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Cross, W. E., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement: Intro-
ducing the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas,
L. M. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling
(2nd ed., pp. 371–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cuyjet, M. J. (1998). Recognizing and addressing marginality among African
American college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), 64–71.
Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in
high-impact practices. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Fleming, J. E. (1976). The lengthening shadow of slavery: A historical justification
for affirmative action for Blacks in higher education. Washington, DC: Howard
University Press.
Flowers, L. A. (2004). Examining the effects of student involvement on African
American college student development. Journal of College Student Development,
45, 633–654.
Flowers, L. A. (2004–2005). Retaining African American students in higher educa-
tion: An integrative review. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory
& Practice, 6, 23–35.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 160 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 161

Garibaldi, A. M. (1991). Blacks in college. In C. V. Willie, A. M. Garibaldi, & W. L.

Reed (Eds.), The education of African Americans (pp. 93–99). New York: Auburn
House.
Goodstein, R., & Ponterotto, J. (1997). Racial and ethnic identity: Their relationship
and their contribution to self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 275–292.
Harris, F., III, & Bensimon, E. T. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative
approach to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes.
New Directions for Student Success 2007(120), 77–84.
Helms, J. (Ed.). (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Helms, J., & Carter, R. (1991). Relationships of White and Black racial identity atti-
tudes and demographic similarity to counselor preferences. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 446–457.
Hill, S. T. (1983). Participation of Black students in higher education: A statistical
profile from 1970–71 to 1980–81 (Special Report). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED236991)
Jackson, L. D., Parker, W. M., & Flowers, L. A. (2012). In the pursuit of excel-
lence: Examining the effects of racial identity on African American college stu-
dents’ academic orientations. In J. L. Moore III & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), African
American students in urban schools: Critical issues and solutions for achievement
(pp. 289–313). New York: Peter Lang.
Kuh, G. D., & O’Donnell, K. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact prac-
tices to scale. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
McEwen, M. K., Roper, L. D., Bryant, D. R., & Langa, M. J. (1990). Incorporat-
ing the development of African American students into psychosocial theories of
student development. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 429–436.
McIntosh, E. J. (2015). Thriving and spirituality: Making meaning of meaning
making for students of Color. About Campus, 19(6), 16–23.
Mitchell, S., & Dell, D. (1992). The relationship between Black students’ racial
identity attitude and participation in campus organizations. Journal of College
Student Development, 33, 39–43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Profile of undergraduate students in
U.S. postsecondary institutions: 1999–2000 (2002–168). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Profile of undergraduate students:
2007–08 (NCES 2010–205). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Profile of undergraduate students:
2011–12 (NCES 2015–167). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Nettles, M. T., & Perna, L. W. (1997). The African American education data book:
Higher and adult education (Vol. 1). Fairfax, VA: Frederick D. Patterson Research
Institute.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 161 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 162 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1981). The influences of Black students’ racial identity
attitudes on preferences for counselor’s race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
250–257.
Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1985a). Attitudes of racial identity and self-esteem of Black
students: An exploratory investigation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26,
143–146.
Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1985b). Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-
actualization and affective states of Black students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 32(3), 431–440.
Parker, W. M., & Flowers, L. A. (2003). The effects of racial identity on academic
achievement and perceptions of campus connectedness on African American stu-
dents at predominantly White institutions. College Student Affairs Journal, 22,
180–194.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade
of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Person, D. R., & Christensen, M. C. (1996). Understanding Black student culture
and Black student retention. NASPA Journal, 34, 47–56.
Poindexter-Cameron, J., & Robinson, T. (1997). Relationships among racial iden-
tity attitudes, womanist identity attitudes, and self-esteem in African American
college women. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 288–296.
Pope, R. L. (1998). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial
identity of Black college students. Journal of College Student Development, 39,
273–282.
Pounds, A. W. (1987). Black students’ needs on predominantly White campuses. In
D. J. Wright (Ed.), Responding to the needs of today’s minority students (pp. 23–38).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quaye, S. J., Tambascia, T. P., & Talesh, R. A. (2009). Engaging racial/ethnic minor-
ity students in predominantly White classroom environments. In S. R. Harper
& S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspec-
tives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 157–178). New York:
Routledge.
Rendon, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of
learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
Rendon, L. (2006, October). Reconceptualizing success for underserved students in
higher education. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/resp_Rendon.pdf
Schreiner, L. (2010).Thriving in community. About Campus, 15(4), 2–11.
Schreiner, L. (2014). Different pathways to thriving among students of Color: An
untapped opportunity for success. About Campus, 19(5), 10–19.
Scottham, K. M., Cooke, D. Y., Sellers, R. M., & Ford, K. (2010). Integrating
process with content in understanding African American racial identity develop-
ment. Self and Identity, 9, 19–40.
Smith, D. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 162 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 163

Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggres-
sions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college
students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.
Spring, J. (2001). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Stewart, D. S. (2010). Knowing God, knowing self: African American college stu-
dents and spirituality. In S. L. Strayhorn & M. C. Terrell (Eds.), The evolving
challenge of black college students: New insights for practice and research (pp. 9–25),
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Taylor, C., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1995). Student involvement and racial
identity attitudes among African American males. Journal of College Student
Development, 36, 330–336.
Thomas, G. E., & Hill, S. (1987). Black institutions in U.S. higher education:
Present roles, contributions, future projections. Journal of College Student Person-
nel, 28, 496–503.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, August). The Black population: 2000. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf
Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Psychological nigrescence revisited: Introduction and over-
view. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 165–173.
Vandiver, B. J., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Cokley, K. O., Cross, W. E., & Worrell, F. C.
(2001). Cross’s nigresence model: From theory to scale to theory. Journal of Mul-
ticultural Counseling and Development, 29, 174–199.
Worrell, F. C., Cross, W. E., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory: Current
status and challenges for the future. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Devel-
opment, 29, 201–213.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 163 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 8
N AT I V E A M E R I C A N C O L L E G E
STUDENTS
LeManuel Lee Bitsóí (Navajo)

A
s with many minority groups in the United States, diversity among
Native American communities is not always recognized by non-Native
people. While individual tribal nations maintain their own customs,
language, and traditions, historical and social elements shared by all tribes
influence the development of Native American college students. To attend to
this population of students, academe must realize that the issues that have an
impact on the developmental process of American Indians are connected to
history, self-identification with tribal culture within the institution or com-
munity, and the prevalence of American Indian culture in the environment.

Indigenous Terminology
Self-identification for indigenous people includes American Indian and Native
American, and the terms are often used interchangeably. While much of the
research literature uses American Indian, usage of the term Native American
has increased.1 In some instances, Native is used to refer to Native culture,
yet among American Indians, their particular tribal or nation affiliation has
greater importance than broad terminology (Herring, 1991). To that end,
American Indian and Native American are used interchangeably throughout
this chapter. This interchangeability also allows for readers to understand
how Alaska Natives are included in this conversation.
The diversity among tribal nations makes tribal affiliation a more accu-
rate and descriptive self-identification. Moreover, there are commonalities

The author and editors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Vasti Torres in the development of this
chapter.

164

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 164 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 165

between all Native students in the United States, and they will identify with
some of the challenges and issues that are presented.
This rich diversity includes the 566 tribal nations in the United States,
a number that does not include the 70 tribal nations recognized by state
governments (Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], 2015). Each tribal nation has
a different language and tribal customs, but what is most important to ascer-
tain is how a Native American student self-identifies. A critical factor in self-
identification is the set of requirements for tribal membership unique to each
tribal nation; thus, membership becomes an important aspect of personal
identity. Diversity among Native American tribes throughout Native America
makes it difficult for college administrators and faculty, as well as other stu-
dents, to understand the experiences of all American Indian tribal members,
yet sensitivity and knowledge about tribal expectations is the first step in
helping American Indian students succeed in postsecondary institutions.

Historical Context Affecting American Indians

Understanding the American Indian experience begins with historical issues
that influence how American Indians interpret societal expectations and
their own environment. The first of two historical issues, which are intercon-
nected, is the need for an understanding of and respect for tribal sovereignty.
Sovereignty is critical to American Indians because of the second historical
issue: the history of government-sanctioned oppression of Native culture.
By maintaining tribal sovereignty, tribal nations have been able to overcome
deliberate attempts to eliminate their culture and instead have created envi-
ronments where Native culture is valued, maintained, and shared with their
progeny. Challenges to the preservation of Native culture and language are
explained by Spring (2010): “As a result of globalizations and imperialism,
indigenous peoples have been forced to undergo extreme cultural change,
resulting in many becoming socially and psychologically dysfunctional”
(p. 21). This condition stems, obviously, from historical and inhumane
deculturalization by their conquerors—Europeans. The persistence and resil-
ience of Native Americans have combined—along with civil rights activism
and federal legislation to abolish horrific policies that were instituted dur-
ing the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—to keep languages alive. Issues
of sovereignty continue today and influence educational opportunities for
many American Indians. Furthermore, Bitsóí and Lee (2014) argue that set-
tler colonialism and historical trauma have had a huge impact on the current
state of American Indian education. Research on ethnic and racial minorities
has determined that the developmental process for racial or ethnic identity
acknowledges the potential presence of oppression and domination (Evans,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 165 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 166 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). Thus, these historical issues become
even more relevant to understanding the development of contemporary
American Indian college students.

Tribal Sovereignty
Though tribal nations have varying degrees of sovereignty, this privilege pro-
vides tribal governments with some degree of independence and the right to
self-govern. Tribal sovereignty has its foundation in the assertion that tribal
nations held inherent sovereignty before there was a U.S. government and
have never delegated those rights (Lomawaima, 2000). Tribal members take
great pride in the notion of sovereignty, and for many it is the “bedrock upon
which any and every discussion of Indian reality today must be built” (p. 3).
Furthermore, sovereignty is essential to the development of any tribal nation
in regard to education, economic development, social services, and health
care (Bitsóí, 2007). Begay (1997) also asserts that sovereignty places the keys
to economic and social development in the hands of tribal governments.
Through sovereignty, many American Indian tribal nations use tribal
councils that focus on maintaining the community and promoting the needs
of the tribe. However, spiritual and traditional knowledge keepers may also
assist with tribal leadership. For example, Sandia Pueblo in New Mexico is
a federally recognized tribal nation that appoints a governor and lieutenant
governor to lead the tribal council, while a warchief and lieutenant warchief
are responsible for all spiritual activities in the Pueblo (Sandia Pueblo, 2015).
Perhaps one of the most sophisticated forms of tribal governments is that of
the Navajo Nation, which happens to mirror the federal government with its
three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial), but it is tailored to meet the
needs of the Navajo people (Navajo Nation, 2015). An example of the unique
tailoring is the world-renowned Peacemaking Program that is part of the judi-
cial branch of the Navajo Nation government. The program has been referred
to as a “horizontal system of justice,” since all participants are considered to
be equals with the purpose of preserving relationships and restoring harmony
among involved parties (Navajo Courts, 2015). In essence, peacemakers are the
institutional keepers of the methods and principles of original dispute resolu-
tion, culture, and tradition in the Navajo justice system (Navajo Courts, 2015).
With these examples, it becomes clear that decisions made by tribal govern-
ments are at times focused on efforts to maintain their culture and the com-
munity values of their tribal nations.
As previously mentioned, the federal government has historically author-
ized countless attempts to oppress and deculturalize Native Americans,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 166 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 167

beginning with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that excluded American

Indians from being U.S. citizens even though they were indigenous peo-
ples (Spring, 2010). The legal assault that kept American Indians mentally,
physically, emotionally, and spiritually oppressed continued with the Indian
Removal Act of 1830, which allowed the government to take tribal lands
and forcibly evict indigenous owners. This was followed by the Indian Peace
Commission, established in 1867, to determine where American Indians
would be allowed to live as Whites began moving westward, spreading across
indigenous territory (Spring, 2010).
Today’s American Indian reservations are a result of the federal govern-
ment’s primary motivation to control and socially engineer the assimilation
and deculturalization of American Indians into the White educational and
cultural systems (Spring, 2010; Takaki, 1993). Even the term reservation
implies that indigenous people need to be contained within a reserved area,
much like a wildlife reserve. So, even if tribal nations maintain reservations,
the land is actually still held in trust by the federal government. In addition,
often overlooked is the primary impetus for the establishment of reserva-
tions, which is the perceived misunderstanding that indigenous people did
not know about land usage, so ownership became a priority for non-Natives.
As Spring (2010) noted, “Reservations and allotment programs were the
responses to the land issue” (p. 32). In addition, this forced removal to spe-
cific plots of land was to discourage seasonal migration, because tribal terri-
tories (e.g., hunting grounds, fishing waters, agricultural fields) were coveted
by White settlers. This was also an attempt to force American Indians to
learn how to manage farming-sized tracts of land (Deloria, 2001), another
European concept that was incongruent with indigenous agricultural knowl-
edge. The reservation system further allowed the U.S. government to control
tribes by using the military, without warning, to strike American Indian bands
outside the boundaries of the reservations (Takaki, 1993). Furthermore, the
early goal of the reservation system was to make sure that American Indians
did not retain their Native culture and to force their transition onto “the
white man’s road” (Takaki, p. 233). First created in the 1850s, the reservation
system has gone through many policy changes, but the crux of this system
focused on socially engineering how American Indians live, and on provid-
ing the U.S. government with control methods to continue institutionalized
oppression.
Federal policies have gradually improved, and land ownership on reserva-
tions is now regulated with more tribal involvement, including the establish-
ment and building of schools on reservations that are supported by federal,
state, or tribal funding (National Indian Education Association, 2015). With
the onset of gaming, some American Indian tribal nations have even more

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 167 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 168 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

authority in controlling schools on their reservations, as well as funding tribal

government operations or programs, providing for the general welfare of the
tribe and its members, promoting tribal economic development, donating to
charitable organizations, and helping fund operations of local government
agencies (National Indian Gaming Commission, 2015).
In addition to improved federal policies governing K–12 schools in
regard to bilingual education, the establishment of tribally controlled col-
leges and universities has assisted in maintaining and sustaining tribal lan-
guages and cultures. Tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) share a common
mission that seeks to promote the culture of the tribe and strengthen the
economic as well as social status of the tribal community (Belgarde, 1996).
Guardia and Evans (2008) also reiterate that the mission of TCUs is to pre-
serve tribal language and culture (as outlined by the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium [AIHEC], 2015). Safeguarding language and culture
by tribal communities led to the establishment of the first tribally controlled
community college in the United States: Navajo Community College. Now
known as Diné College (2015), it was established in 1968 on the Navajo
reservation. To further the advancement of TCUs, in 1972 the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium was established with five charter col-
leges. The criteria for AIHEC membership required that the college have a
formal charter from an American Indian tribe, establish an American Indian
governing board, have a majority American Indian student body, and pro-
vide educational services to the American Indian community (Belgarde,
1996). Today these colleges provide a transition from tribal living to the out-
side educational world and create an educational environment that accepts
and rewards American Indian traditions and equips students to pursue more
opportunities (Belgarde, 1996). Bitsóí and Lee (2014) further argue that
TCUs play a huge role in allowing Native Americans to obtain postsecond-
ary credentials to enter the workforce sooner and encourage more economic
self-sufficiency. Furthermore, TCUs have a vital role in the personal and
academic development of American Indian students by providing access to
education, personal support, exposure to Native culture and language, and
preparation for additional educational opportunities and careers (Guardia &
Evans, 2008). According to the AIHEC (2015), at the time of this writing
there are 37 tribal colleges and universities in the United States.
The advent of TCUs has been a boon for Native American communities
on many levels—educational advancement, economic development, and cul-
tural renaissance, for example. However, they are still modeled, to a certain
extent, on majority higher educational systems that are not congruent with
indigenous values and may cause some distrust. There are numerous his-
torical examples of sanctioned oppression of Native Americans that illustrate

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 168 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 169

the vestiges of distrust between tribal communities and the federal govern-
ment. Therefore, to better understand some of the developmental concerns
of American Indians today, one must first understand the historical origins
of this distrust.
For many years, one of the major historical issues of contention between
the U.S. government and tribal leaders was the dissonance between the
values of the tribes and those of the majority society. The ultimate goal of
such ill-advised U.S. governmental policies until the mid-1900s was to force
American Indians to assimilate and not promote the retention of American
Indian culture (Takaki, 1993). Because of the atrocious track record of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in educating American Indians and the push
by tribal governments for more autonomy in tribal schools, the federal gov-
ernment reorganized their trust responsibility to tribal education within the
BIA and created the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in 2006. The BIE’s
primary mission is as follows:

To provide quality education opportunities from early childhood through

life in accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural and economic well-being
in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian tribes and Alaska Native vil-
lages as distinct cultural and governmental entities. Further, the BIE is to
manifest consideration of the whole person by taking into account the spir-
itual, mental, physical and cultural aspects of the individual within his or
her family and tribal or village context. (BIE, 2015)

With this strengths-based approach, the BIE recognizes how cultural values
help people form identities and dictate behavior, so it is important to look at
the connection between cultural values and student development in college.

American Indian Values and the Connection With Student

Development
In spite of attempts to assimilate and destroy their culture, American Indians
“insist on surviving on their own terms” (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002,
p. 281). This survival includes maintaining Native culture, language, and
values. Ecklund (2005) found that attending college can sometimes have
a negative rather than a positive effect on some American Indian students
and their commitment to their cultural community. However, Bitsóí (2007)
found the opposite to be true at an Ivy League institution where Native
students strengthened their Native identities and found they could be both
Natives and scholars. At the core of Native values are communal concerns
(including adherence to tradition), responsibility for family and friends,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 169 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 170 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

cooperation, and tribal identification (LaFromboise, Heyle, & Ozer, 1990).

These values can at times be in conflict with White American majority values
of individualism, competitiveness, and amassing property and titles. Thus,
when working with Native American students, one needs a clear understand-
ing of the central role these values have (LaFromboise & Rowe, 1983).
It is extremely important that Native Americans have a place on cam-
pus where they can have a sense of comfort and belonging (Brown, 2005).
College administrators and faculty must recognize that Native Americans’
values and traditions allow them to be successful and that the choices these
students make can be based on Native values and may not necessarily be in
line with the majority-oriented societal values prevalent in the college envi-
ronment. We can also look to the findings of Schooler (2014); Turner and
Lapan (2003); and Hansen, Scullard, and Haviland (2000), who note that
Native students tend to choose careers that reflect “cultural values, such as
humility and charity, which often conflicts with the mainstream values of
prestige, independence, and competition” (Schooler, 2014, p. 4).
According to non-Native traditional student development theory, part of
developing integrity includes the tearing down of “traditional” values and the
rebuilding of a broader understanding of the world that will better suit the
student in the future (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). These traditional values
of the majority culture as explained by Chickering and Reisser focus on selfish
or exploitative behaviors; the shift in thinking needed is to understand how
these beliefs can demean the beliefs of others or people as individuals. The
opposite is true for traditional Native American values. In American Indian
culture, communal values begin with an understanding of one’s responsibil-
ity to the whole (LaFromboise, Heyle, & Ozer, 1990). This core value places
Native college students at odds with some of the traditional values that their
White counterparts hold. Furthermore, Guardia and Evans (2008) found that
many American Indians hold the following core values: sharing, cooperation,
noninterference, present-time orientation, being versus doing, extended-
family orientation, respect, harmony and balance, spiritual causes for illness
and problems, group dynamics, and the importance of the tribe. These types
of contrasts with majority cultural values question the process by which Native
Americans maneuver the development of integrity in the White sense, even
though they may know what it means to have integrity within their Native
communities. Since congruence between personal and societal values is one
of the sequential stages for developing integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993),
American Indian students may experience a different way of viewing and pro-
cessing concepts of mainstream integrity and competitiveness.
This example of the differences between traditional beliefs in White
and Native cultures illustrates the limited amount of research on Native

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 170 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 171

Americans and existing student development theories. Understanding the

experiences of Native students is the first step to being able to recognize
when theories developed for majority students may not necessarily apply
to this student population. Though more research is needed on the devel-
opmental issues of American Indian college students, models and research
studies can inform practice. Research in other disciplines has focused mainly
on issues of identity development among Native Americans, and for this
reason, the next section focuses on these models in existing research.

American Indian Identity Development

Horse’s “Reflections on American Indian Identity” (2001) examines Native
American consciousness by examining the ways in which Native American
individuals develop in their diverse identities, which include knowledge of
one’s native language, genealogical heritage, respecting traditions, the degree
to which individuals see themselves as Indian, and being recognized as a mem-
ber of an official tribal nation. This theory builds upon the Native American
identity theories presented earlier in this chapter, including Horse’s “Native
American Identity” (2005). Horse outlines “five influences on American
Indian consciousness” as follows:

• The extent to which one is grounded in one’s Native American language

and culture, one’s cultural identity
• The validity of one’s American Indian genealogy
• The extent to which one holds a traditional American Indian general
philosophy or worldview (emphasizing balance and harmony and
drawing on Indian spirituality)
• One’s self-concept as an American Indian
• One’s enrollment (or lack of it) in a tribe. (p. 65)

These two theories are particularly salient when considering the primary
way that Native Americans self-identify. Like many cultures that interact with
the majority White culture in the United States, American Indians usually
identify first with their Native cultures while possessing varying degrees of
acculturation to the majority culture. This level of acculturation sometimes
influences self-identification and the development of American Indian
college students. While various research studies (Garrett, 1996; Horse,
2001; Sage, 1997) have examined American Indian identity development,
two models emerge from the concepts of acculturation that can assist the
academy in better understanding American Indian college students. The first
model is Ryan and Ryan’s categories of Indianness (as cited in LaFromboise,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 171 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 172 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Trimble, & Mohatt, 1990), and the second is the health model conceptual-
ization of acculturation by Choney, Berryhill-Paapke, and Robbins (1995).
The first model builds on the work of various researchers (e.g., Ryan &
Ryan, 1982). LaFromboise, Trimble, and Mohatt (1990) classified Indians
according to residential patterns, level of tribal affiliation, and extent of com-
mitment to maintaining their tribal heritage. Collectively, they define the
five categories of so-called Indianness as

• Traditional: These individuals generally speak and think in their

native language and know little English. They observe “old-time” tra-
ditions and values.
• Transitional: These individuals generally speak both English and the
Native language in the home. They question basic traditionalism and
religion, yet cannot fully accept dominant culture and values.
• Marginal: These people may be defensively Indian, but are unable
either to live the cultural heritage of their tribal group or to identify
with the dominant problems (i.e., socioeconomic status, religion,
politics, etc.) due to their ethnicity.
• Assimilated: Within this group are the people who, for the most part,
have been accepted by the dominant society. They generally have
embraced dominant culture and values.
• Bicultural. Within this group are those who are, for the most part,
accepted by the dominant society. Yet they also know and accept their
tribal traditions and culture. They can thus move in either direction,
from traditional society to dominant society with ease. (p. 638)

Acknowledgment and awareness of the multiple loyalties inherent in

American Indian students can assist non-Indians (including non-Native stu-
dents, faculty, and staff ) in understanding the various state of Indianness for
Native students (LaFromboise et al., 1990). What developmental process,
if any, occurs within these categories is not clear, and therefore it is difficult
to ascertain if movement (or development) among the categories should be
expected. However, these categories can serve as a tool to help describe the
diversity among Native American college students. For example, traditional
students usually come from rural reservation high schools where language and
culture are highly valued, while transitional students usually attended border
town high schools with mixed Native and White populations. Marginal stu-
dents attended predominantly non-Native high schools where they blend in
but are still marginalized, compared to assimilated students, who grew up
in urban areas and attended predominantly White high schools where they
blended into the dominant culture. Bicultural students attended any type of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 172 7/26/2016 7:24:22 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 173

high school—reservation or off-reservation—and more than likely have a

college graduate in their family. Moreover, they recognize the importance of
honoring and respecting culture and language, and understand that educa-
tion is complementary to their traditional knowledge bases.
The second model is the health model conceptualization of acculturation
by Choney and colleagues (1995), which uses a health- and strengths-based
approach to acculturation rather than a deficit approach. This intertribal/
cultural model represents four areas of human personality that are in har-
mony “with the domains of the medicine wheel (a uniquely indigenous
means of conceptualizing the human condition based on four essential ele-
ments)” (p. 85). The four areas of human personality are behavioral, social/
environmental, affective/spiritual, and cognitive. Within these areas are con-
centric circles, with each perimeter of the circle representing a different level
of acculturation: traditional, transitional, bicultural, assimilated, and mar-
ginal. No value judgment is “placed on any level of acculturation, nor is any
dimension of personality emphasized more than another” (p. 85). A person in
each of the levels would respond differently and would illustrate the various
ways of coping with that result, depending on an individual’s environmental
and societal circumstance. This model does not take a linear approach, and
therefore it is feasible that an individual could maintain four different levels
of acculturation corresponding to the four personality domains. An example
of the medicine wheel in an educational setting is depicted in Figure 8.1,
providing an illustration of the four domains (Bell, 2014).

Figure 8.1. Gifts of the four directions.

WEST NORTH
reason movement
“figure it out” “do it”
knowledge wisdom

SOUTH EAST
time vision
“relate to it” “see it”
understand awareness

Note. From N. Bell. (2014). Teaching by the medicine wheel. Education Canada, 54(3). Retrieved from
http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/teaching-medicine-wheel. Reprinted with permission.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 173 8/11/2016 5:25:38 PM

 174 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

This interaction between acculturation and personality domains is

important to understand, because Native American college students may
respond differently according to the personality domain and their own cop-
ing skills. For example, a student who is more acculturated in the cognitive
domain while being more traditional in the social/environment domain may
have few academic difficulties but many outside-of-class (social) stressors.
Understanding the interactions among these constructs becomes important
to better understanding the Native American experience. This model is use-
ful in conceptualizing the variety of experiences that American Indian college
students can face and how their reactions may vary.
Native Americans also have values that are similar to other ethnic and
racial groups. For example, Asian Americans also value collectivism and the
importance of family (Kim, Atkinson, & Umemoto, 2001). In their study,
Kim and colleagues found that valuing “group interests and goals is expected
to be promoted over individual interests and goals” (p. 575), which is similar
to Native Americans’ valuing tribal traditions and culture over individual
accomplishments. In regard to the importance of family, Asian Americans
feel a strong sense of obligation to the family as a whole and a commitment
to maintaining family well-being. Furthermore, “individual family mem-
bers are expected to make sacrifices for the family” (p. 577). This finding
correlates with the expectation of American Indians to contribute to their
families throughout their lives. Another example regarding the value of fam-
ily is apparent in the African American community. According to Suizzo,
Robinson, and Pahlke (2008), African American mothers stressed that their
children should know they will always have their families to support them.
They also found that family history was important as well as knowing the
“stories from way back when” (p. 303). In addition, Suizzo and associates
reported that extended families played an active role in rearing children.
Knowing that these types of parallels exist between Native Americans and
other racial or ethnic groups should assist American Indian students in
knowing that they have more in common with others, which should allow
them to understand that they are indeed part of the institutional community.

Critical Issues for Practitioners in Higher Education

Qualitatively, there has been a trend among Native scholars to examine the
success and persistence factors of American Indians in college (e.g., Bitsóí,
2007; Bitsóí & Lee, 2014; Brayboy, 2004; Lowe, 2005; Waterman, 2004).
However, much of the quantitative research in diversity studies uses datasets
that include very few American Indians, making it difficult to generalize find-
ings for that population. The studies presented in this section provide insight

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 174 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 175

into American Indian college students and the issues that administrators and
faculty need to understand. Next, a section on applying the research provides
suggestions on how campus and student affairs personnel can help American
Indian students develop in college. Though more research is needed, there is
sufficient evidence that American Indians perceive their environment in dif-
ferent ways than White students and therefore may experience difficulty in
adjusting to predominantly White institutions (PWIs; Ducheneaux, 1999).

Research on American Indians in College

As mentioned previously, inroads have been made in positive research on
Native Americans in college, but the focus here is on the following areas of
study: (a) American Indians at a PWI, (b) attending a TCU versus a state
university, and (c) the importance of family. The first study is qualitative
and focuses on 13 undergraduate American Indian students who persisted
for more than one semester at a large PWI where Taylor (1999) identified
factors that affected their persistence. The variation among the participants
illustrated the diversity of this population. Eight of the participants were
first-generation college students, while five considered themselves to be
assimilated into the White culture, and three described themselves as more
traditional Indians. The factors that emerged from this study indicated that,
although a number of major positive influences were revealed as reasons for
going to college, several different forms of alienation were major negative
influences on persistence for these students.
The alienation emerged from seven subfactors: stereotypes, hostility,
lack of respect, thoughtless comments, aloneness, lack of role models, and
lack of institutional support. Misconceptions and stereotypes from majority
students promoted students’ feelings of not fitting in. Indeed, the researcher
noted “the looks” that American Indians reported getting that gave them the
feeling of not looking like everyone else. The lack of diversity, especially few
numbers of Native Americans in the student body, as well as in faculty and
staff, made students feel alone and illustrated the importance of having oth-
ers who look like them in the university community. The lack of institutional
support resulted from an absence of the rhetoric of support and the lack of
action directly oriented toward supporting American Indians. General sup-
port and financial aid were interpreted as specifically not supporting Native
Americans, and annual events to support cultural diversity were perceived as
“tokenism” by these students (Taylor, 1999, p. 12).
The reasons for going to college were found to be salient because they
helped identify the students’ ultimate goal. For some of these students,
the goal is not simply the desire to go to college, but rather something
“they need in order to survive in a predominantly White society, but do

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 175 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 176 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

not personally want” (Taylor, 1999, p. 12). A number of these students

were compelled to return to their roots, yet the difficulty in finding jobs
on rural reservations where they could use their college degrees generated
some difficult choices for them. These types of choices further illustrate
the complex interrelation that the health model conceptualization of accul-
turation (Choney et al., 1995) attempts to frame. On one hand, students
may understand the need for a college degree, but on the other hand, the
economic conditions on many reservations make it somewhat difficult to
meet students’ goal of returning to their communities. As Bitsóí and Lee
(2014) found, success is a relative term, and for some Native Americans
obtaining a bachelor’s degree does not equate to success. Success could also
mean becoming a traditional ethnomedicine practitioner, an artisan, or a
knowledge keeper.
In the second study comparing the experiences of 48 Plains Indians at
two institutions (one TCU and one state university), Ducheneaux (1999)
found that the students attending the state PWI were more “traditional”
in their orientation than expected. In previous studies using the Native
American college student attitude scale, American Indians at White state
institutions were found to be more likely to be bicultural or assimilated in
their acculturation level than their tribal college counterparts (Ducheneaux,
1999). Though many issues were discussed in regard to why this result
emerged, Ducheneaux’s study brings to light the issue of assumptions made
about students as a result of the institution they choose to attend and the
uncertainty of such assumptions being borne out in fact.
In the third study, family support emerged as being very important to
academic success (Dodd, Garcia, Meccage, & Nelson, 1995). The family is
at the core of American Indian values, and educational programs oriented
toward American Indians must incorporate this fact. Ortiz and Heavy Runner
(2003) reinforce the findings of these research studies through their factors
that affect success in college for American Indians, most of them dealing with
family support. These factors include the effects of being first-generation col-
lege students, the need for positive role models who have experienced success,
support from family members, and an understanding of the familial obliga-
tions that many American Indian students have. Moreover, Bitsóí (2007)
reported that all Native American students at Harvard University found a
sense of family within the Harvard Native American Program and its com-
munity, which was essential to having an even more successful educational
experience at Harvard. Thus, on-campus programs and services that focus on
forcing students to separate themselves from their ties to their families can
be incongruent with traditional American Indian values and cause cultural
dissonance rather than enabling student development.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 176 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 177

In other studies focusing on the retention of American Indian students,

several important factors emerged. Some of the studies found that academic
preparation and study habits contribute to academic success (Brown &
Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Hulburt, Kroeker, & Gade, 1991). Others using
more culturally sensitive surveys found that cultural pressures and prejudice
were barriers to success (Dodd et al., 1995; Tate & Schwartz, 1993). The
research of Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) emphasized the importance of
the academy’s respect for American Indian students and their “need for a
higher educational system that respects them for who they are, that is rel-
evant to their view of the world, that offers reciprocity in their relationships
with others, and that helps them exercise responsibility over their own lives”
(p. 1). It is important for Native students not only to feel connected in aca-
deme, but also to remain connected with families and communities. This is
what Waterman (2012) found in her study of Haudenosaunee students who
used home-going as a strategy to be successful in higher education. Waterman
wrote, “With families and spirituality being so important to Native students,
they must balance family and community needs with those of the post-
secondary institution” (p. 194).
American Indian values are closely tied to community; therefore, Hulburt
and colleagues’ (1991) finding that Native students were more concerned about
personal relationships and relevance of subject matter than about study habits
is not surprising. This study recommended learning environments that focus
on mutually empowering learning rather than traditional lecture-style teach-
ing. This style of collaborative learning was also suggested as a method to help
American Indian students improve their study skills. Thus, Native American
students are encouraged to enroll in study skill seminars and to actively seek
advising to help create collaborative partnerships between academic advisers
and American Indian students to increase their chances of success (Brown &
Robinson Kurpius, 1997). Along with obtaining skills in how to be successful
in higher education, Native students are becoming more aware that college
is another part of lifelong learning. To that end, Native scholar Lowe (2005)
contends that Native American students are now attending college to learn
that “college is yet another school and nothing more” (p. 38).

Applying the Research to Help American Indians Develop

Students, faculty, and staff at colleges and universities hold many stereotypes
that more than likely do not pertain to American Indian students on campus.
The first issue to consider when in helping American Indian students develop
in college is the education of student affairs professionals and faculty on the
values and traditions of the individual American Indian student. Using one
of the models presented, they should attempt to understand how students

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 177 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 178 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

self-identify as a American Indians and help them make choices that align
with their cultural values. Cultural assumptions should not be made with
American Indian students, for what can appear “to be adaptive in one cul-
ture would be nonadaptive—in fact culturally destructive—in another,” as
LaFromboise and Rowe found (1983, p. 589). For this reason, it is important
for student affairs practitioners to interact with American Indian students with
open minds and recognize and respect the differences among value systems.
The second issue to consider is the level of institutional commitment to
actively support American Indian students. As for many minority students,
active support for the culture includes more than just programs and activi-
ties. Understanding how institutional policies and practices either assist or
hinder students from making choices consistent with their cultural values is
critically important. For instance, if the institutional environment promotes
a competitive and individualist culture for students, some sort of assessment
should be performed to determine how these values clash with the tradi-
tional values of American Indians. In addition, a choice alternative for Native
American student life programming could be highlighting the importance of
honoring collaboration and sharing over competition and hoarding.
The third issue to consider is assessing the openness of administrators
in determining any cultural differences in the college community. This issue
is perhaps the most difficult because it requires student affairs profession-
als and faculty to self-reflect and demonstrate a commitment to diversity
that transcends words. Based on the historical legacy of Native Americans in
the United States, it is imperative that administrators understand they must
go beyond the minimum to gain the trust of and build relationships with
American Indian students. Development is more likely to occur in a safe and
supportive environment (Evans et al., 2010); therefore, the challenge for stu-
dent affairs and academic administrators, as well as faculty, is learning what a
supportive environment is for American Indians on their campuses. Beyond
learning, it is crucial to institutionalized support services and academic offer-
ings that are focused on indigenous studies.
Since existing research is limited, student affairs professionals and faculty
need to pay additional attention to ensuring that American Indian students
succeed. The lack of culturally sensitive information available to help these
students can promote behaviors that can eventually hinder success. Taking
the time to listen and understand the experiences of American Indian stu-
dents on campus can help one to understand how student development
is being affected. Moreover, the traditional values of respect for elders in
American Indian communities may make it difficult for a student to con-
front an administrator or faculty member about an unwelcoming environ-
ment. Therefore, the responsibility and risk need to lie with the staff and

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 178 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 179

faculty members working with American Indian students. In this time of

greater accountability for student success (i.e., recruitment, retention, and
graduation), institutions now need to bear the onus for creating a successful
environment for all students.
Environmental factors at each institution vary greatly, so there must be a
multifaceted and interdisciplinary approach to create a positive environment
for American Indian students. In The Renaissance of American Indian Higher
Education: Capturing the Dream, Benham and Stein (2003) described model
programs that meet various goals for a positive environment. The programs
in this book may provide ideas to help a particular campus create a posi-
tive environment for American Indian student success. In their work, Pavel
and Inglebret (2007) provide practical information regarding college choice;
financial aid; spiritual, mental, and physical well-being; strategies and pro-
files of successful college graduates; and additional information designed to
assist Native American students, their parents and families, and the educators
who work with them.
In a recent seminal book, Bitsóí and Lee (2014) provided insight
on plausible recommendations to address educational disparities for
Native Americans in their chapter, “Ahistoricism in the Native American
Experience.” Some of these recommendations include requiring colleges and
universities to work more collaboratively with tribal communities, leaders,
and elders; encouraging Native communities to enhance and strengthen lan-
guage and cultural programs; and urging full participation of tribal com-
munities at all levels—grandparents, parents, children, educators, leaders,
and government officials—to earnestly and intentionally look within their
cultural capital to find answers to address this educational crisis. While the
book in which this chapter appears is focused on men of Color, it is written
through an intersectional perspective that embraces feminist theory to help
communities of Color understand that it does indeed take a village to edu-
cate children. Intersectionality is introduced here to assist in understanding
that Native American students maintain multiple identities based on sundry
tribal membership(s), clan affiliations, historical lineages (surnames), and
blood quantum. Such overlapping cultural identities exemplify one aspect
of the concept of intersectionality (initially for women of Color) that also
includes race, gender, and class (Crenshaw, 1991), and how these factors
shape our experiences in education and society (Berger & Guidroz, 2009).
For example, one notable bicultural identity that has existed in the
United States for centuries is the intersection of Native American and African
American heritage (Brooks, 2002; Tayac, 2009). Starting during slavery,
when escaped slaves would seek shelter and protection among Indian tribes,
Blacks became assimilated members of such tribes, but many never fully

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 179 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 180 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

abandoned their African heritage and cultural roots (Walton-Raji, 2008).

Embracing one’s dual heritage persists today. The 2010 U.S. census listed
more than a quarter million individuals who identified as both Black and
American Indian/Alaskan Native (Jones & Jungmiwha, 2012; see Chapter 4
for a more comprehensive exploration of cultural intersectionality).
In sum, Native scholars have recently begun a more comprehensive
examination of Native American student development from indigenous
perspectives, including such topics as first-year experiences, incorporating
Native culture in student affairs, tribal college partnerships, effective practices
for administrators, and professional and graduate student support (Shotton,
Lowe, & Waterman, 2013). Hopefully, the outcomes of this new research
will greatly enhance Native student success, and assist non-Native faculty
and staff in becoming better equipped to ensure success for Native students.

Case Study
Allison is a transfer student from Tribal College, located on her reservation.
She has lived on the reservation for most of her life but left only because
she had finished all the available academic courses for her major at Tribal
College. She transferred to the nearby State College because it was close
to home. Though a PWI, State College is surrounded by several American
Indian tribes, and there is a noticeable number (about 5%) of undergradu-
ates who self-identify as American Indians. Allison is living on campus, as
do the majority of students, because it is easier than commuting three hours
each way from her reservation home every day.
Allison is taking an interdisciplinary course called Democracy in Action.
The course meets a general education requirement, and because she is a
transfer student she feels a bit behind on her general requirements. During a
class discussion, the issue of gaming, specifically casinos on American Indian
reservations, was brought up as an example of an unwanted business in the
state. This prompted further conversation on the issues of tribal sovereignty,
and many of the White students felt that sovereignty was not more impor-
tant than the fact that state law does not allow gambling.
Allison is the only American Indian in the class, and because the instruc-
tor did not explain tribal sovereignty or the economic issues that tribes face
on reservations, she was very uncomfortable speaking up or talking to the
instructor. Instead, Allison has approached you, her assigned mentor, for
advice and guidance. State College’s mentoring program was established to
help minority students in their transition to the college environment. Most
of the issues you have dealt with were bureaucratic in nature, and by explain-
ing a process or making a phone call, these issues were fixed. However, this

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 180 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 181

issue is more complex; Allison has told you that she does not feel welcome in
the class and is worried that the instructor will be biased against her because
she is an American Indian and a member of the tribe being discussed. Allison
has never been in this situation and is wary about the institutional climate or
what support she has available to her. As a result, Allison is discouraged and is
considering leaving college because she feels unsupported and uncomfortable.

Discussion Questions
1. Though all individuals in this case need some skill and knowledge
enhancement, which ones should be focused on first—the instructor,
other students, Allison, or someone else?
2. What assumptions do the students and faculty at this institution appear
to have about American Indians?
3. How can the environment be improved for Allison and other American
Indian students?
4. Should someone (an individual or a representative of an on-campus
resource agency) intervene to assist Allison?
5. What type of community outreach is needed to better inform the State
College community about Native Americans?

Note
1. The term American Indian has historical significance as well as political sig-
nificance. In the 1970s the American Indian Movement (AIM) put the spotlight on
American Indian issues of poverty, inequity in education, and lack of the U.S. gov-
ernment’s attention to the social needs and heath care of American Indians. Today,
the term Native American refers to any indigenous person of the United States and
its territories. The term is also used to refer to indigenous people throughout Central
and South America (Bitsóí, 2007).

References
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. (2015). About AIHEC. Retrieved
from www.aihec.org/about/index.cfm
Begay, M. A., Jr. (1997). Leading by choice, not chance: Leadership education for native
chief executives of American Indian nations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Belgarde, W. L. (1996). History of American Indian community colleges. In
C. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. I. Rendon (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity
in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3–13). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 181 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 182 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Bell, N. (2014). Teaching by the medicine wheel. Education Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/teaching-medicine-wheel
Benham, M. K. P., & Stein, W. J. (2003). The renaissance of American Indian higher
education: Capturing the dream. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berger, M. T., & Guidroz, K. (2009). The intersectional approach: Transforming the
academy through race, class, and gender. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press.
Bitsóí, L. (2007). Native leaders in the new millennium: An examination of success fac-
tors of Native American males at Harvard College (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of Pennsylvania.
Bitsóí, L. L., & Lee, L. (2014). Ahistoricism in the Native American experience.
(pp. 55–84) In R. Williams (Ed.), Men of Color in higher education. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Brayboy, B. M. (2004). Hiding in the ivy: American Indian students and visibility in
elite educational settings. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 125–152.
Brooks, J. (2002). Confounding the color line: The Indian-Black experience in North
America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Brown, D. L. (2005). American Indian student services at UND. In G. S. McClellan,
M. J. T. Fox, & S. C. Lowe (Eds.), Serving Native American students (pp. 87–94).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, L. L., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing
academic persistence of American Indian college students. Journal of College Stu-
dent Development, 38(1), 3–12.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2015). What we do. Retrieved from www.bia.gov/What
WeDo/index.htm
Bureau of Indian Education. (2015). Bureau of Indian education. Retrieved from
http://www.bie.edu
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Choney, S. K., Berryhill-Paapke, E., & Robbins, R. R. (1995). The accultura-
tion of American Indians: Developing frameworks for research and practice. In
J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook
of multicultural counseling (pp. 72–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and
violence against women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Deloria, V., Jr. (2001). Property and self-government as educational initiatives. (pp.
101–111) In V. Deloria Jr., & D. R. Wildcat (Eds.), Power and place: Indian edu-
cation in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources.
Diné College. (2015). History. Retrieved from www.dinecollege.edu/about/history
.php
Dodd, J. M., Garcia, F. M., Meccage, C., & Nelson, J. R. (1995). American Indian
student retention. NASPA Journal, 33(1), 72–78.
Ducheneaux, T. (1999). Biculturalism and Native American college students’ per-
formance on the WAIS-III (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of North
Dakota, Grand Forks.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 182 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 183

Ecklund, T. R. (2005). The relationship between psychosocial development and accul-

turation among American Indian college students (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). State University of New York at Buffalo.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Garrett, M. T. (1996). “Two people”: An American Indian narrative of bicultural
identity. Journal of American Indian Education, 36(1), 1–21.
Guardia, J. R., & Evans, N. J. (2008). Student development in tribal colleges and
universities. NASPA Journal, 45(2), 237–264.
Hansen, J. C., Scullard, M. G., & Haviland, M. G. (2000). The interest struc-
ture of Native American college students, Journal of Career Assessment, 8(2),
159–165.
Herring, R. D. (1991). Counseling indigenous American youth. In C. C. Lee (Ed.),
Multicultural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity (2nd ed., pp. 53–70).
Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.
Horse, P. (2001). Reflections on American Indian identity. In C. Wijeyesinghe &
B. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical
and practical anthology (pp. 91–107). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Horse (Kiowa), P. G. (2005). Native American identity. New Directions for Student
Services, 2005, 61–68. doi: 10.1002/ss.154
Hurlburt, G., Kroeker, R., & Gade, E. (1991). Study orientation, persistence, and
retention of Native students: Implications for confluent education. Journal of
American Indian Education, 30(3), 16–23.
Jones, N. A., & Jungmiwha, B. (2012, September). The two or more races popula-
tion: 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census briefs. Retrieved from http://www
.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-13.pdf
Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Umemoto, D. (2001). Asian cultural values and
the counseling process: Current knowledge and directions for future research.
Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 570–603.
Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The
four Rs—respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian
Education, 30(3), 1–15.
LaFromboise, T. D., Heyle, A. M., & Ozer, E. J. (1990). Changing and diverse roles
of women in American Indian cultures. Sex Roles, 22(7–8), 455–476.
LaFromboise, T. D., & Rowe, W. (1983). Skills training for bicultural competence:
Rationale and application. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 589–595.
LaFromboise, T. D., Trimble, J. E., & Mohatt, G. V. (1990). Counseling interven-
tion and American Indian tradition: An integrative approach. Counseling Psy-
chologist, 18(4), 628–654.
Lomawaima, K. T. (2000). Tribal sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian
education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 1–21.
Lomawaima, K. T., & McCarty, T. L. (2002). When tribal sovereignty challenges
democracy: American Indian education and the democratic ideal. American Edu-
cational Research Journal, 39(2), 279–305.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 183 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 184 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Lowe, S. (2005). This is who I am: Experiences of Native American students. In

G. S. McClellan, M. J. T. Fox, & S. C. Lowe (Eds.), Serving Native American
students (pp. 33–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Indian Education Association. (2015). State of Native education address.
Retrieved from www.niea.org/Policy/State-of-Native-Education-Address-2012
.aspx
National Indian Gaming Commission. (2015). What happens to the profits from
Indian gaming operations? Retrieved from www.nigc.gov/About_Us/Frequently_
Asked_Questions.aspx
Navajo Courts. (2015). Peacemaking program of the judicial branch of the Navajo
Nation, July 30, 2012. Retrieved from www.navajocourts.org/Peacemaking/Plan/
PPPO2013-2-25.pdf
Navajo Nation. (2015). The Navajo Nation government. Retrieved from www.navajo
.org/history.htm
Ortiz, A. M., & Heavy Runner, I. (2003). Student access, retention, and success:
Models of inclusion and support. In M. K. P. Benham & W. J. Stein (Eds.),
The renaissance of American Indian higher education: Capturing the dream (pp.
215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pavel, D. M., & Inglebret, E. (2007). The American Indian and Alaska Native stu-
dent’s guide to college success. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Ryan, L., & Ryan, R. (1982). Mental health and the urban Indian. Unpublished
manuscript.
Sage, G. P. (1997). Counseling American Indian adults. In C. Lee (Ed.), Multi-
cultural issues in counseling (pp. 35–52). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Sandia Pueblo (2015). The administration. The Pueblo of Sandia. Retrieved from
www.sandiapueblo.nsn.us/administration/
Schooler, S. D. (2014). Native American college student transition theory. College
Student Affairs Leadership 1(1). Retrieved from scholarworks.gvsu.edu/csal/vol1/
iss1/1
Shotton, H. J., Lowe, S. C., & Waterman, S. J. (2013). Beyond the asterisk: Under-
standing Native students in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Spring, J. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Suizzo, M., Robinson, C., & Pahlke, E. (2008). African American mothers’ sociali-
zation beliefs and goals with young children: Themes of history, education, and
collective independence. Journal of Family Issues, 29(3), 287–316.
Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown.
Tate, D. S., & Schwartz, C. L. (1993). Increasing the retention of American Indian
students in professional programs in higher education. Journal of American Indian
Education, 33(1), 21–31.
Tayac, G. (2009). IndiVisible: African-Native American lives in the Americas. Wash-
ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 184 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS 185

Taylor, J. S. (1999, November). America’s first people: Factors which affect their persis-
tence in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX.
Turner, S. L., & Lapan, R. T. (2003). Native American adolescent career develop-
ment. Journal of Career Development, 30(2), 159–172.
Walton-Raji, A. Y. 2008. Researching Black Indian genealogy of the five civilized tribes.
Berwyn Heights, MD: Heritage Books.
Waterman, S. J. (2004). The Haudenosaunee college experience: A complex path to
degree completion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, Syra-
cuse, NY.
Waterman, S. J. (2012). Home-going as a strategy for success among Haudenosaunee
college and university students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
49(2), 193–209. Retrieved from journals.naspa.org/jsarp/vol49/iss2/art5/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 185 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 9
BIRACIAL AND
M U LT I R A C I A L C O L L E G E
STUDENTS
Kristen A. Renn and Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero

B
iracial and multiracial students—individuals who have parents from
or claim membership in more than one racial group—are a growing
presence on college campuses.1 In fall 2013, 20 million students were
enrolled in U.S. degree-granting postsecondary institutions, with 2.9% of
U.S. resident students (over 559,000) placing themselves in the Two or More
Races Category (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Evidence
suggests that the development of racial identity among college students who
are biracial or multiracial is in some ways similar to that of other students
of Color but may differ somewhat from racial identity development among
their monoracial peers (i.e., having parents from only one racial group;
Brittian, Umaña-Taylor, & Derlan, 2013; Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Renn,
2004; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002). How these students make sense of
their own racial identities in the context of increasingly diverse college cam-
puses is an important matter for research and professional practice.
This chapter addresses the status and experiences of biracial and multi-
racial students in U.S. postsecondary education, discusses foundational and
emerging models that describe their identity development, and offers sug-
gestions for higher education professionals working with these students.2 It
concludes with learning activities and discussion questions related to under-
standing and working with multiracial college students.

186

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 186 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 187

Biracial and Multiracial College Students

In the 1990s, multiracial students became a visible and vocal presence at a
number of colleges and universities (Campus Awareness and Compliance
Initiative, 2005). The increased visibility of mixed-race students on cam-
pus coincided with the emergence of a national multiracial movement
to advocate for changes in how the federal government defined racial
groups and collected data in the census. Beginning with the founding of
Interracial Intercultural Pride (I-Pride) in San Francisco in 1978–1979
and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s, parents of biracial chil-
dren, individuals in multiethnic relationships, and parents who had
adopted children of races other than their own (a process sometimes called
transracial adoption; see Javier, Baden, Biafora, & Camacho-Gingerich,
2007; Hoffman & Peña, 2013) joined mixed-race adults and youth in local
groups and national organizations such as the Association of MultiEthnic
Americans (AMEA; ameasite.wordpress.com/about). These groups were
central to the movement that resulted in the 1997 decision by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to permit census respondents to indi-
cate more than one race.3 At the same time, student organizations formed
locally and connected using technologies facilitated by the emergence of
the Internet (Gasser, 2008; Ozaki & Johnston, 2008). Even on campuses
without official mixed-race student groups, biracial and multiracial stu-
dents became more visible to educators who sought to provide programs
and services that could accommodate their needs and interests (Wong &
Buckner, 2008).
Because federal reporting of data on student race and ethnicity his-
torically required that each individual be assigned to only one race, obtain-
ing an exact count of mixed-race students in higher education has been
difficult. Yet starting in 2010–2011, the U.S. Department of Education
(2007) required that all postsecondary institutions collect these data in two
steps: Students now indicate if they are Hispanic/Latino or not Hispanic/
Latino, regardless of race, and they can select from one or more of the
five federal categories—American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black
or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or White.
Institutions can collect more specific data on student ethnicity or heritage
but must then collapse those data into an unduplicated head count in the
five racial categories and a “Two or More Races” category for reporting
to the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary
Data System (IPEDS; Kellogg & Niskodé, 2008). After the 1997 OMB
decision to include a more-than-one-race option in federal record-keeping,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 187 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 188 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

the new requirements allow for the creation of a database that can be used
to examine trends within institutions, compare institutions, and link K–12
and postsecondary data systems (Renn, 2009). However, comparing popu-
lations (and various success indicators) before and after the changes should
be done with caution, given the likelihood for other population sizes to
decrease with the inclusion of the new Two or More Races category. For
example, if 10% of all students formerly counted in one racial category
now count in the Two or More Races category, other racial category sizes
will appear to decrease. So the percentages of African American, Native
American, or Asian American students might appear to decrease, which
would be a concern on many campuses that are trying to increase structural
diversity.
There is evidence that the number and proportion of mixed-race stu-
dents in higher education will continue to grow from the present 2.9%.
Jones and Bullock (2012) reported that Two or More Races respondents grew
from 2.4% of the total population in 2000 to 2.9% in the 2010 Census. The
total population grew by 9.7% during this time, but the Two or More Races
population grew by 32%. Population trends predict that the Two or More
Races group will continue to grow in elementary, secondary, and postsecond-
ary education (Renn, 2009).

Experiences of Multiracial College Students

Knowing the number of multiracial students and the population’s projected
growth is not enough; to serve their needs, all college educators, including
administrators and support personnel, must also understand something
about the students’ multiracial experiences. A growing body of literature
provides insight into how multiracial youth and college students negotiate
the racialized landscape of U.S. high schools and higher education. Research
on secondary and postsecondary students (Basu, 2006; Chang, 2014;
Harper, 2014; Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; King, 2011; Renn, 2003, 2004;
Rockquemore, 2002; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Townsend, Markus,
& Bergsieker, 2009; Wallace, 2001) makes up a substantial part of this litera-
ture. Autobiographies and collections of personal narratives (Fulbeck, 2006;
Funderberg, 1994; Gaskins, 1999; Garrod, Gómez, & Kilkenney, 2013;
O’Hearn, 1998) bring the voices of mixed-race youth and young adults
directly to the reader. Together these works suggest three themes in the expe-
riences of multiracial students: the desire to identify themselves rather than
to be placed in categories by others, the role of racism (largely related to
physical appearance) in multiracial identity, and the role of peers and peer
culture in school and college experiences related to race.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 188 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 189

Self-Identification
The theme of racial self-identification persists in research about and narratives
of mixed-race college students. In their studies of multiracial college students,
Basu (2006), Kellogg and Liddell (2012), Renn (2003, 2004), and Wallace
(2001) noted that the ability to identify themselves rather than be placed
in racial categories by others was important to their research participants.
Multiracial students may identify themselves differently according to con-
text (Basu, 2006; Harper, 2014; Johnston, Ozaki, Pizzolato, & Chaudhari,
2014; Renn, 2003, 2004; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Wallace, 2001).
Whether mixed-race students identify themselves consistently in one way or
differently according to context, the central principle at stake is the right and
opportunity to self-identify. In addition to outlining a bill of rights for multi-
racial people that describes the right to self-identification (Root, 1996), Root
(2004) created a multiracial oath of social responsibility, which recognizes
how the individual rights to self-identification are interconnected to other
people and forms of oppression.
With very few exceptions, beginning with filling out admissions appli-
cations, students’ experiences in college are marked by compulsory identifi-
cation in racial categories (Renn & Lunceford, 2004). Ninety-eight percent
of colleges in a random sample drawn from one study (Renn & Lunceford,
2004) asked applicants to indicate race/ethnicity; the 2% that did not ask
on the application were historically Black colleges and universities. To
be clear, asking applicants to check boxes to indicate race and ethnicity
is not necessarily the same thing as asking for their racial or ethnic iden-
tity (Rockquemore, Brunsma, & Delgado, 2009; Townsend et al., 2009),
yet young people refer to official college forms, including applications and
research surveys, as potential opportunities to indicate multiple racial back-
grounds (Brittian et al., 2013; Johnston et al., 2014; King, 2008; Renn,
2000, 2004).
The 1997 decision revising OMB standards for collecting and reporting
data on student race and ethnicity required institutions to instruct respondents
to indicate all races that apply (from the five racial categories described ear-
lier), yet the requirement to report multiracial students in a merged Two or
More Races category in effect reduces the ability of respondents to have their
self-identified racial background carried forward in the data. The difference
between a student reporting Asian and White heritage and a student report-
ing Latino and Black heritage will be invisible in the data when both students
are reported as Two or More Races. And students will be unable to identify
themselves as multiracial or biracial, if those are their preferred racial identi-
ties. The opportunity to check more than one box, however, is generally seen
as a step forward for self-identification (Kellogg & Niskodé, 2008).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 189 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 190 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Experiences in college, after the admissions application and other forms

are completed, also highlight multiracial students’ desire to identify them-
selves rather than be identified by others. Voluntary membership in student
organizations and activities focused on race, ethnicity, and culture may pro-
vide opportunities for mixed-race students to explore and more closely iden-
tify with aspects of their heritages, regardless of how others perceive their
identities (Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Renn, 2004). For students with a par-
ent who is not a native speaker of English, language classes are sometimes a
place for identity exploration and commitment, and study abroad provides
some mixed-race students with the opportunity to identify with one of their
cultural heritages (Renn, 2004). Other academic activities—class projects,
research papers, language dialogues, performing arts—may complement a
biracial student’s efforts to identify with multiple aspects of his or her racial
and ethnic background (Basu, 2006; Renn, 2004). Taken together, curricu-
lar and cocurricular involvement in identity exploration provides opportuni-
ties for the self-identification that many mixed-race students report they are
seeking.

Physical Appearance and Racism

Physical appearance—skin color, eye shape and color, hair color and texture,
body shape—is an enduring factor in research and narratives on the mixed-
race experience of high school and college students (AhnAllen, Suyemoto, &
Carter, 2006; King, 2008; O’Hearn, 1998; Renn, 2004; Rockquemore,
2002; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012). A central theme of this factor is deal-
ing with other people’s discomfort with, curiosity about, or attention (wel-
come or unwelcome) to the ways that many mixed-race people do not fit
neatly into societal expectations of what it means to “look” White or Black
or Asian. Others’ discomfort often results in multiracial individuals experi-
encing monoracism, a particular form of racism targeting individuals who
do not neatly fit monoracial categories (Hamako, 2014; Johnston & Nadal,
2010). Manifesting in the form of microaggressions, or the subtle, everyday,
brief, and often unintentional slights against people of multiracial heritage
(Johnston & Nadal, 2010), monoracism is a newer term, yet the concept is
ingrained in previous literature, often relating to physical appearances. On
college campuses, where racial dynamics function in part based on appear-
ances, not being readily identifiable to others creates an uncomfortable ambi-
guity, perhaps prompting other students to project specific identities—“You
look Latina. You must speak Spanish”—or stereotypes—“Your skin is so
light, you must be one of those stuck-up, light-skinned African American
women” (King, 2008; Renn, 2004; Rockquemore, 2002). These are classic
examples of Johnston and Nadal’s (2010) proposed categories of multiracial

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 190 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 191

microaggressions, which include instances of exclusion and isolation, exoti-

cization and objectification, assumption of monoraciality and mistaken iden-
tity, denial of multiracial reality, and pathologizing of identity or experiences.
While it might be tempting in an age of increasing diversity and globali-
zation to dismiss the role of physical appearance—sometimes called pheno-
type—in the racialized experiences of mixed-race students, this theme is one
of the most persistent in the literature on multiracial experiences and identi-
ties (Basu, 2006; Fulbeck, 2006; Funderberg, 1994; Gaskins, 1999; Renn,
2004; Root, 1996; Wallace, 2001; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012). Research
involving biracial women showed that appearance may be an especially sali-
ent factor for their identities and experiences (Basu, 2006; Rockquemore,
2002). Biracial women report that dating culture, popular media (such as
beauty magazines), advertising, and the entertainment industry focus atten-
tion on women’s appearances, portraying light-skinned women of Color as
more socially desirable than darker-skinned women and more “exotic” than
White women. Moreover, the ethnically ambiguous look has been used by
entertainment, advertising, and fashion industries to market across racial
lines (DaCosta, 2007). Biracial women then face the paradox of being desired
by men (and advertising agencies), sometimes resented by other women of
Color, yet still subject to societal racism because they are not White.
Such positioning often results in not knowing where to place multira-
cial people within racial hierarchies (e.g., as either privileged or oppressed),
which is why monoracism, as a unique form of oppression that multiracial
people face based on their mixed-heritage status, is important to compre-
hend. Monoracism privileges monoracial identity yet intersects with tradi-
tional forms of racism where Whiteness is privileged (Guillermo-Wann &
Johnston, 2012). For instance, a Black-White biracial student who looks
White might benefit from White privilege, yet feel marginalized due to
monoracism. This experience of marginalization often stems from biracial
college students’ desire to self-identify; identifying oneself as one wishes may
be difficult based on how others perceive one’s race and ethnicity based on
appearance (Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012). The opportunity to self-identify
may be reduced or made more challenging if others make assumptions about
the racial identities of biracial students. Self-identification then becomes a
constant process of “coming out” as mixed race (Renn, 2004), a process that
may be more or less comfortable based on the individual and his or her
circumstances.

Peers and Peer Culture

The role of peers and peer culture on college student outcomes is well docu-
mented (Kaufman & Feldman, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 191 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 192 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Evidence indicates that peers play a substantial part in the identity explo-
ration and racial identities of multiracial students (Basu, 2006; Kellogg &
Liddell, 2012; Renn, 2003, 2004). Groups of multiracial peers create oppor-
tunities for multiracial students to find comradeship, and monoracial peers
(White and students of Color) create opportunities for identity exploration,
support, and challenge (Renn, 2004; Renn & Arnold, 2003).
Research participants have described the role of multiracial peers in pro-
viding situations to explore mixed-race identity, to discuss shared experiences
about growing up with parents who were from different backgrounds and
who were different from the students themselves, and to provide educational
activities for the rest of the campus (Kellogg & Liddell, 2012; Renn, 2004;
Wallace, 2001). On some campuses, formal student organizations for mixed-
race students form a nucleus for these activities (Hamako, 2014; Ozaki &
Johnston, 2008; Wong & Buckner, 2008). On other campuses there are
informal networks of multiracial students that may or may not coalesce into
a formal organization (Ozaki & Johnston, 2008; Renn, 2000), while some
students may find support in organizations or networks in communities off
campus (Hamako, 2014). In either case, formal and informal networks of
multiracial peers provide settings for identity exploration and commitment.
Monoracial peers also play important roles in the experiences of mul-
tiracial students. In some cases, monoracial friends and student organiza-
tions (e.g., Black Student Union, Asian/Pacific Alliance) provide support for
multiracial students to explore their different heritage groups and to identify
themselves as they choose (Renn, 2004). Often, however, multiracial stu-
dents report that they encounter resistance from monoracial students based
on physical appearance (as noted previously) or a perception that by claim-
ing a multiracial identity, mixed students are somehow “trying to . . . ‘escape
their Blackness’” or other non-White identity, as one participant in Renn’s
study claimed (2004, p. 119). Biracial students experience pressure to be
“authentic” in their identities—to be Black enough, Latinx enough, Native
American enough, Asian in the right way—and not to appear to be reject-
ing any one racial identity (King, 2008; Renn, 2004; Wallace, 2001). Some
biracial students experience peer pressure to choose one heritage group over
another (King, 2008; Talbot, 2008) as a way to demonstrate authenticity and
loyalty to other people of Color. The dominant role of peers and peer culture
in racial identity is not unique to biracial students, but because these students
are de facto not part of the monoracial White majority and because they may
face additional scrutiny by peers concerned with maintaining communities
of students of Color, exploring the influence of peers on biracial student
experiences is important.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 192 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 193

Identity Development Models

The status and experiences of biracial students provide contexts and founda-
tions for understanding various identity and identity development models
that have been proposed for multiracial students. Largely unexplored until
the 1990s, biracial and multiracial identity development was first described
in stage models (e.g., Kich, 1992; Poston, 1990), then by models that
emphasize identity processes, outcomes, or both (e.g., Renn, 2003, 2004,
2008; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Root, 1990, 1998; Wijeyesinghe,
2001, 2012). Psychological approaches dominated the early models (e.g.,
Kich, 1992; Poston, 1990; Root, 1990); sociological, ecological, and inter-
sectional approaches entered the field later (e.g., Renn, 2003; Rockquemore
& Brunsma, 2002; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, 2012); and more intersectional
models are the most recent additions (e.g., Wijeyesinghe, 2012). The models
share an assumption that racial identity development for people with mixed
heritages can result in healthy racial and overall self-concept, and nothing is
inherently worse or disadvantageous about being biracial or multiracial than
being monoracial.
Inherent in all of these models is the reality that, by definition, biracial
students have at least some heritage (or in some cases, all) that places them
in a nondominant racial or ethnic group in the United States. As such, their
identity development is influenced by the dominant White racial ethos that
may favor assimilation to the majority culture. For students whose appear-
ance allows them to “pass” as White, no matter what their actual background
is, these forces can be especially strong (Renn, 2004). Other students may
pass as monoracial people of Color, as Khanna and Johnson (2010) docu-
mented that some biracial Black-White adults are “passing as black” (p. 382)
in contemporary contexts. It is important to remember that although biracial
identity development processes and patterns may differ from those of mono-
racial students of Color, mixed-race students are still subject to environmen-
tal factors and dominant forces of White culture, whether they identify as
having White heritage or claim membership in multiple non-White racial
groups or not (Talbot, 2008).

A Stage Model of Biracial Identity Development

Like stage models proposed for monoracial people of Color (e.g., Cross,
1995; Helms, 1995), biracial identity development stage models trace an
individual from early childhood through adolescence into adulthood.
Believing that the monoracial models did not accurately depict the develop-
ment of biracial individuals, Kich (1992) proposed the following three stages

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 193 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 194 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

of biracial, bicultural identity development, tracing development from child-

hood through adolescence to adulthood:

1. An initial awareness of differentness and dissonance between self-

perceptions and others’ perceptions of them (3 through 10 years of age)
2. A struggle for acceptance from others (age 8 through late adolescence and
young adulthood)
3. Acceptance of themselves as people with a biracial and bicultural identity
(late adolescence throughout adulthood) (p. 305)

Kich’s (1992) model highlights the dynamic between self and others’
perceptions, which explains critical aspects of how identity develops, not just
what it develops into. In his model, Kich specifically identified school and
community settings as the location for the struggle for acceptance, a finding
confirmed by Kellogg and Liddell (2012), Renn (2004), and Wallace (2001).
Kich provided a useful road map to biracial identity development but did not
allow for the full range and fluidity of identities that later scholars pointed
out as healthy and possible.

Varying Identity Outcomes for Multiracial Individuals

First proposed by Root (1990) as ways to “resolve ‘Other’ status,” vary-
ing identity outcomes for multiracial students have become the accepted
ways of thinking about biracial student identities. Based on her clinical
psychological practice, Root proposed four potentially positive resolutions
of the tension of biracial identity. Renn (2003, 2004) found an additional
identity category in which students chose to opt out of identifying racially.
Terming this category extraracial, she located it among five patterns of
racial identity:

1. Student holds a monoracial identity, choosing one heritage with which to

identify (as in Root, 1990, third resolution: Identification With a Single
Racial Group).
2. Student holds multiple monoracial identities, shifting according to spe-
cifics of a situation (Root, 1990, second resolution: Identification With
Both Racial Groups).
3. Student holds a multiracial identity, electing not one heritage or another,
but a distinct, separate category called multiracial, biracial, mixed, and so
on (Root, 1990, fourth resolution: Identification as a New Racial Group).
4. Student holds an extraracial identity, deconstructing race or opting out
of identification with U.S. racial categories as a means of resistance to

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 194 7/26/2016 7:24:23 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 195

what may be seen as artificial or socially constructed categories (not seen

in Root, 1990).
5. Student holds a situational identity, identifying differently in different
contexts, a fluid identity pattern in which racial identity is stable but
some elements are more salient than others depending on context foun-
dational to Root’s (1990) model.

In a sample of 56 students from six institutions, Renn (2004) found

that nearly half (48%) identified in each of the first two patterns, 89% held
a multiracial identity, 23% held an extraracial identity, and 61% identified
situationally (percents total more than 100 because nearly all students were
in more than one pattern). Other researchers (Rockquemore & Brunsma,
2002; Wallace, 2001) found roughly similar proportions, with variations
explained by sampling and data collection methods. Wallace (2001) used
Root’s (1990) identity resolutions as the basis of her research with high school
and college students, finding that students did, in fact, identify in these ways.
Rockquemore and Brunsma (2002) noted them as well in their survey-based
quantitative study of 177 biracial (Black/White) college students. Critical to
all these models is the idea that one way of identifying is not a stage on the
way to another, and that individuals may choose to change identities over
time. Some models propose factors that may influence identity, typically in a
person-environment framework.

Ecological and Person-Environment Approaches to Biracial Identity

Development
If accepting an integrated biracial identity is the goal (Kich, 1992), or coming
to have one or more of the four (Root, 1990) or five (Renn, 2004) identity
patterns is considered healthy, understanding how individuals arrive at these
identities may enable educators to help students achieve these outcomes.
Person-environment or psychosocial processes similar to those implicit in
earlier models of racial identity development (e.g., Cross, 1995; Helms,
1995) have been shown also to contribute to biracial identity development.
Ecological approaches (Renn, 2003, 2004; Root, 1998, 1999) have been
useful in explaining the processes of multiracial identity development, and
Wijeyesinghe’s factor model of multiracial identity (FMMI, 2001) and inter-
sectional model of multiracial identity (IMMI, 2012) highlighted person-
environment features that contribute to various identity outcomes.
Developmental and human ecology models typically place an individual
in his or her sociohistorical and cultural context to illustrate how the environ-
ment influences the person and vice versa. In his person-process-context-time

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 195 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 196 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

developmental ecology model, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1993) focused atten-

tion on how an individual’s developmentally instigative characteristics act
to provoke or inhibit various reactions from people and objects through
what he termed proximal processes (Renn & Arnold, 2003). According to
Bronfenbrenner’s ecology model, some school and college contexts favor
individuals with certain characteristics (Renn & Arnold, 2003). Renn (2003,
2004) used this model to show how individual characteristics such as pro-
pensity to explore a new environment, initiative to self-label, and family his-
tory could affect any of the five identity patterns that multiracial college
students might choose. For example, a campus featuring many groups for
students of different cultural backgrounds could provide a rich context for
exploration of multiracial heritages. On the other hand, if that environment
also featured very tightly controlled access to those groups—where peers
kept strict control over who was “X enough” to belong comfortably—then
exploration of multiple heritages might be constrained. The emphasis on
the person-environment interaction from proximal processes to more distal
influences of broad sociocultural contexts is central to Renn and Arnold’s
ecological approach to studying college student development.
Root’s ecology approach (1999) embeds identity in nested contexts
of generation, regional history of race relations, class, and gender systems.
Personal characteristics such as inherited influences (e.g., languages at
home, parent’s heritage, extended family, values, phenotype) and traits (e.g.,
temperament, social skills, coping skills, talents) enter social interactions
with the community (home, school, work, community, friends) to influence
racial and ethnic identity. Putting identity, rather than the individual, at the
center of this model allows Root (1999) to provide detail on personal char-
acteristics most relevant to racial identity, whereas Bronfenbrenner’s (1993)
model does not specify a domain of development or characteristics most
important to that domain. By emphasizing the processes of the person-envi-
ronment interactions, the ecology models provide a window into the how as
well as the what of multiracial identity development.

Emerging Approaches: Intersectionality

Within the realm of ecological models are more recent models attempting
to integrate the influence of multiple factors, including how multiracial
identity intersects with other social identities and systems of oppression
(see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of intersectionality). Building
upon her well-cited FMMI, which proposed eight factors (racial ancestry,
early experience and socialization, physical appearance, other social iden-
tities, religion, cultural attachment, political awareness and orientation,
and social and historical context) influencing choice of racial identity,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 196 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 197

Wijeyesinghe (2012) proposed a new IMMI. The IMMI updates the orig-
inal eight factors of the FMMI to also include geographic/regional envi-
ronment, situational differences, and global influences and generation. In
both models, the inclusion of “other social identities” calls to attention
how important it is to consider how multiracial identity is informed and
often constrained by one’s other identities. The IMMI incorporated inter-
sectionality to acknowledge how various factors interact with each other.
Represented as an individual’s “personal galaxy” with the choice of racial
identity at the center, the IMMI acknowledges how each factor represents
its own galaxy that may intersect with other factors or the choice of racial
identity itself.
Although intersectionality is emerging as an important theoretical per-
spective in higher education research, researchers have already explored
biracial and multiracial identity intersections with gender (e.g., Basu, 2006;
Rockquemore, 2002), sexual orientation (e.g., King, 2011), and social class
(e.g., Korgen, 2010), even if not specifically addressing or using an intersec-
tionality framework. Brunsma, Delgado, and Rockquemore (2013) incorpo-
rated intersectionality in their proposed “identity matrix” model to capture
how multiracial identity manifests differently across five different social
fields, including social, political, cultural, physical/embodied, and formal
contexts.
Taken as a group, the ecological and intersectional approaches bring
together key aspects of person-environment theory and emerging perspec-
tives on identity. They account for factors that have been empirically linked
to multiracial identity development in college students, including gender,
social class, family and family status, age, spirituality, social awareness and
orientation, and geographic region (Renn, 2004; Rockquemore & Brunsma,
2002; Root, 1998, 2003; Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, & Peck, 2007; Wallace,
2003). The ecology models also suggest to educators ways of designing envi-
ronments to promote healthy racial identity development among all stu-
dents, including those of mixed race.

Programs and Services for Multiracial Students in Higher

Education
There is no evidence to suggest that multiracial students need programs or
services different from those that benefit other students who are in a minor-
ity on their campuses. In fact, researchers (e.g., Kellogg & Liddell, 2012;
Ozaki & Renn, 2014; Renn, 2004; Wallace, 2001) have found that like other
students of Color, mixed-race students benefit from a campus climate that is
culturally open and inclusive, with programs and services that acknowledge

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 197 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 198 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

differences and similarities among students from all backgrounds. It is also

true, however, that for services to be effective for mixed-race students, the
approach to providing programs and services for students of Color must take
into account the reality that not all students fit neatly into one race or eth-
nicity (Literte, 2010). The importance of changing institutional forms has
already been discussed, but there are a number of other opportunities for
higher education professionals to improve the learning and developmental
environment for multiracial students.
First, conduct an audit of existing programs, services, practices, and offices
to see how they deal with students who choose to identify in more than one
racial category, in no racial category, or in a stand-alone multiracial category.
Do forms require students to indicate one race only? Are the requirements
for race-based scholarships clear for biracial students? If there are offices or
professional staff for monoracial groups of Color (e.g., Black, Asian, Native
American, Latinx), how do multiracial students fit into their mission, pro-
grams, and services? Are resources available for monoracial groups of Color
equally available to a mixed-race student organization? How would the cam-
pus look and feel to a student who identified as mixed race? Do ostensibly
monoracial students and student groups welcome mixed-race peers?
Second, train professional and paraprofessional staff to understand
monoracism as a system of oppression and look for bias toward monoraciality.
Being aware that not all students will identify themselves in a single cat-
egory is a starting point. For example, it is not uncommon at some diversity/
awareness training activities for the facilitator to ask students to join others
of the same race, typically in five monoracial groups (White, Black, Asian,
Native American, and Latinx). Where do biracial students go during this
exercise? Having frank discussions on the ways physical appearance is an
unreliable means of determining racial identity is another strategy; naming
skin color, hair texture, and eye and nose shape as unreliable markers of
identity creates space for staff to confront their own assumptions about what
people from X group or with Y identity look like, and who looks X or Y
enough to be part of a certain group.
Third, create and sustain opportunities for mixed-race students to
participate in peer groups with other mixed students. Whether a campus
sustains a biracial student organization or not, administrators can ensure
ongoing visibility of biracial people by sponsoring and supporting activities
that draw attention to the fact that not everyone is monoracial (e.g., speak-
ers and films featuring multiracial topics and themes). Hosting discussion
groups for multiracial students is another strategy, and helping multiracial
students connect with one another online could help create sustainable peer
communities as well.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 198 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 199

Fourth, identify campus and community role models for mixed-race

students. In addition to President Barack Obama, a number of prominent
biracial public figures come from entertainment (Halle Barry, Mariah Carey,
Naomi Campbell, Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Alicia Keys, Bruno Mars,
Olivia Munn) and sports (Carmelo Anthony, James Blake, Derek Jeter, Blake
Griffin, Tiger Woods, Jamila Wideman, Apolo Anton Ohno). Many of these
individuals could be used as case studies to acknowledge the multiple factors
influencing racial identification and the dynamic nature of multiracial iden-
tity; for example, President Obama selected only African American on his
2010 census form while he openly acknowledges his mixed heritage in books
and speeches. While students can easily point to famous people of mixed
heritage, they may benefit from having local mentors and more accessible
role models. Tap informal networks of multiracial faculty, staff, and commu-
nity leaders to lead discussions, participate in educational panels, or advise
student groups. While it would be inappropriate to approach someone who
“looks biracial” to enlist them in this effort, using campus networks, online
social networks, and other means to seek participation would be appropriate.
Fifth, provide opportunities in the curriculum for students to explore
and express their racial identities. Mixed-race students in various studies
(e.g., Basu, 2006; Renn, 2004) discussed the importance of academic course-
work in exploring aspects of their heritage and understanding the history
and context of race in the United States and other countries. The biennial
Critical Mixed Race Studies conference (criticalmixedracestudies.org) may
serve as a helpful resource for those wanting to create or maintain multiracial
coursework. Whether in the occasional course dedicated to the mixed-race
experience or in courses where multiracial issues were one topic among many,
or even in courses where race was not a central focus but class exercises and
assignments allowed for exploration of racial identity, multiracial students
took advantage of opportunities to build their knowledge and cultural skills.
Language courses and study abroad provided additional opportunities for
students to understand their heritages better.
By conducting a campus audit, training staff, creating opportunities
for peer and mentor interaction, and providing curricular opportunities
to explore racial identity, campus administrators can prepare for increasing
populations of multiracial students. Creating an environment that welcomes
multiracial students and supports their full participation in intellectual and
campus life also creates a context in which multiracial students can contrib-
ute to the community by providing monoracial students of different cultural
identities, backgrounds, and experiences with opportunities for interactive
mutual learning from them as well. According to the 2010 U.S. Census,
the number of multiracial Americans grew more than a third since 2000

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 199 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 200 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

(Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). Over 9 million Americans identified with
two or more racial groups on the 2010 census, with the vast majority of those
individuals (92%) indicating just two racial groups (Jones & Bullock, 2012).
The U.S. Census Bureau is currently considering making more changes to
Census 2020 (for instance, making Latino a racial option and not a separate
ethnicity question). Whether the Census Bureau makes such changes or not,
it is already clear that by including Latino as a racial category, the school-age
population that is mixed-race—the young people who are coming to college
in the next 10 years—is somewhere between 10% and 40%, depending on
the state (Lopez, 2003). Old systems for collecting data and providing pro-
grams and services for a collegiate population that is incorrectly assumed to
consist of monoracial groups will need to change to understand and accom-
modate the growing number of multiracial students and assist in meeting
their needs and interests.

Learning Activities and Discussion Questions

1. Find your undergraduate institution’s admissions application (typically
online) and see how applicants are asked to indicate their race and ethnic-
ity. Does the format comply with the Office of Management and Budget
(1997) guidelines? Does it offer more than the required minimum cat-
egories? Can all students identify themselves as they choose? Next locate
the institution’s data on student race and ethnicity. Is it clear how the
answers reported on the admissions form are aggregated and reported
publicly? How do multiracial students appear in the institutional data?
How do international students and those students who choose not to
identify themselves appear? Is there an explanation on the admissions
application or in institutional data about how missing data are handled?
What about students who report more than one race?
2. Choose a higher education institution and see what kinds of student
organizations are present. See if there are groups for monoracial students
of Color and if there is a group for biracial or multiracial students. If
there are both, do they appear to receive the same amount of institutional
support or recognition? If there is not a group for multiracial students,
can you tell to what extent monoracial student groups may address their
concerns and interests? Do those groups sponsor events geared toward
understanding and appreciating mixed race? To what extent does there
appear to be cross-group programming (e.g., Black Student Union
cosponsoring with Asian/Pacific Alliance)? Be sure, when you are looking
for multiracial student groups, that you are finding groups of multiracial

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 200 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 201

students, not groups for students of many races (a multiracial group, not
a group of multiracial students). From what you can find, and recogniz-
ing the limitations of what is available online and in published materials,
what can you say about the likely climate for students who identify with
more than one racial group?
3. Visit the websites of the MAVIN Foundation (www.mavinfoundation
.org), the Mixed Heritage Center (www.mixedheritagecenter.org), Loving
Day (lovingday.org), MixedRaceStudies.org (www.mixedracestudies.org),
and the Critical Mixed Race Studies conference (criticalmixedracestudies
.org). These sites feature reports, resource links (to books, articles, and
films), media, and discussion boards. What resources can you locate that
you could use in your work with students, both biracial and monoracial?
4. The OMB changed the “Check one only” policy to “Check all that
apply” in 1997. Higher education enacted this policy in 2010–2011,
with institutions now using the two-question format that asks ethnic-
ity in binary as “Are you Hispanic/Latino?” and race as “Select one or
more from the following races: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian,
Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,
or White” (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, n.d.). How
can institutions track student data across the change? For example, if a
biracial individual started college in 2008 and marked only “Black” on
the admissions form, how would that person’s persistence and retention
data be reflected in reports after the change? And considering trend data,
how would the cohorts before the change look different from the cohorts
after the change? What effect would the change in data collection have
on tracking persistence by racial categories?
5. In what ways do the experiences and identities of multiracial students
reflect those of other (monoracial) students of Color, and how do they
differ? In what ways are they similar to monoracial White students, and
how are they different? How do the differences and similarities among
these four groups—multiracial students who have White heritage, mul-
tiracial students from multiple minority backgrounds, monoracial stu-
dents of Color, and monoracial White students—influence their college
experiences?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 201 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 202 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Notes
1. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) offers five racial cat-
egories: American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, and two ethnic categories: Hispanic/
Latino and Not Hispanic/Latino (OMB, 1997). The presence of many students with
one or more Hispanic/Latino/Latina parents supports consideration of this category
as socially equivalent to the five defined racial categories (Carter, Yeh, & Mazzulla,
2008; Harris & Sim, 2002). Thus, for the purposes of this chapter, multiracial
includes individuals with, for example, one Latino/Latina and one White parent.
2. Individuals with parents from two or more federal racial categories may be
called biracial, multiracial, multiethnic, mixed race, mixed heritage, or mixed. There
is little concurrence on preferred terms among individuals with two or more racial
heritages (MixedFolks, n.d.) or among scholars and professionals who work with
these students. The terms are used interchangeably in this chapter.
3. Under the OMB 1997 guidelines, respondents can indicate all categories that
apply. Data are aggregated in a category titled “Two or More Races” (Jones & Smith,
2001). Competing proposals called for adding a category titled “Multiracial” to the
existing categories, but the “Check all that apply” strategy was preferred (Perlmann
& Waters, 2002; Renn & Lunceford, 2004).

References
AhnAllen, J. M., Suyemoto, K. L., & Carter, A. S. (2006). Relationship between
physical appearance, sense of belonging and exclusion, and racial/ethnic self-
identification among multiracial Japanese European Americans. Cultural Diver-
sity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 673–686.
Basu, A. (2006). Negotiating social contexts: Identities of biracial college women.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Brittian, A. S., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Derlan, C. L. (2013). An examination of
biracial college youths’ family ethnic socialization, ethnic identity, and adjust-
ment: Do self-identification labels and university context matter? Cultural Diver-
sity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(2), 177–189.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models
and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in con-
text: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brunsma, D. L., Delgado, D., & Rockquemore, K. A. (2013). Liminality in the
multiracial experience: Towards a concept of identity matrix. Identities: Global
Studies in Culture and Power, 20(5), 481–502.
Campus Awareness and Compliance Initiative. (2005). Toolkit, Introduction, College
Campus Experiences. Retrieved from www.mavinfoundation.org/caci
Carter, R. T., Yeh, C. J., & Mazzulla, S. L. (2008). Cultural values and racial identity
statuses among Latino students: An exploratory investigation. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 30(1), 5–23.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 202 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 203

Chang, A. (2014). Identity production in figured worlds: How some multiracial

students become racial atravesados/as. Urban Review, 46(1), 25–46.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revisiting the Cross model.
In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Hand-
book of multicultural counseling (pp. 93–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
DaCosta, K. M. (2007). Making multiracials: State, family, and market in the redraw-
ing of the colorline. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fulbeck, K. (2006). Part Asian, 100% Hapa. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.
Funderberg, L. (1994). Black, White, other: Biracial Americans talk about race and
identity. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Garrod, A., Gómez, C., & Kilkenny, R. (Eds.). (2013). Mixed: Multiracial college
students tell their life stories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gaskins, P. F. (1999). What are you? Voices of mixed-race young people. New York, NY:
Henry Holt.
Gasser, H. S. (2008). Being multiracial in a wired society: Using the Internet to
define identity and community on campus. New Directions for Student Services,
2008(123), 63–71.
Guillermo-Wann, C., & Johnston, M. P. (2012, November). Investigating theory and
research on multiracial college students in a “post-racial” era: Towards an integrative
model of multiraciality in the campus climate for diversity. Paper presented at the
Critical Mixed Race Studies Conference, Chicago, IL.
Hamako, E. (2014). Improving anti-racist education for multiracial students (doctor of
education dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Harper, C. E. (2014, May 15). Pre-college and college predictors of longitudinal
changes in multiracial college students’ self-reported race. Race Ethnicity and Edu-
cation (forthcoming). doi:10.1080/13613324.2014.911161
Harris, D. R., & Sim, J. J. (2002). Who is multiracial? Assessing the complexity of
lived race. American Sociological Review, 67, 614–627.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and people of Color racial identity
development models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hoffman, J., & Peña, E. V. (2013). Too Korean to be White and too White to
be Korean: Ethnic identity development among transracial Korean Ameri-
can adoptees. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(2),
152–170.
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic
origin: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (n.d.). Collecting race and eth-
nicity data from students and staff using the new categories. Retrieved from nces
.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/collecting_re.asp
Javier, R. A., Baden, A. L., Biafora, F. A., & Camacho-Gingerich, A. (Eds.). (2007).
The handbook of adoption: Implications for researchers, practitioners, and families.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 203 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 204 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Johnston, M. P., & Nadal, K. L. (2010). Multiracial microaggressions: Exposing

monoracism in everyday life and clinical practice. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microag-
gressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics and impact (pp. 123–144). New
York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Johnston, M. P., Ozaki, C. C., Pizzolato, J. E., & Chaudhari, P. (2014). Which
box(es) do I check? Investigating college students’ meanings behind racial identi-
fication. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 56–68.
Jones, N. A., & Bullock, J. (2012). The two or more races population: 2010. 2010
Census Brief Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Jones, N. A., & Smith, A. S. (2001). The two or more races population: 2000. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Kaufman, P., & Feldman, K. A. (2004). Forming identities in college: A sociological
approach. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 463–496.
Kellogg, A. H., & Liddell, D. L. (2012). “Not half but double”: Exploring critical
incidents in the racial identity of multiracial college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 53(4), 524–541.
Kellogg, A., & Niskodé, A. S. (2008). Policy issues for student affairs and higher
education. In K. A. Renn & P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial and multiracial college stu-
dents: Theory, research, and best practices in student affairs (pp. 93–102). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Khanna, N., & Johnson, C. (2010). Passing as Black: Racial identity work among
biracial Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 380–397.
Kich, G. K. (1992). The developmental process of asserting a biracial, bicultural
identity. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 304–317).
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
King, A. R. (2008). Student perspectives: The racial balancing act. New Directions for
Student Services, 2008(123), 33–42.
King, A. R. (2011). Environmental influences on the development of female college
students who identify as multiracial/biracial–bisexual/pansexual. Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 51(4), 440–455.
Korgen, K. O. (Ed.). (2010). Multiracial Americans and social class: The influence of
social class on racial identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Literte, P. E. (2010). Revising race: How biracial students are changing and chal-
lenging student services. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 115–134.
Lopez, A. M. (2003). Mixed-race school-age children: A summary of census 2000
data. Educational Researcher, 32, 25–37.
MixedFolks. (n.d.). Names for MixedFolks. Retrieved from www.mixedfolks.com/
names.htm
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014, November). Digest of Educa-
tion Statistics: 2013. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/
dt14_306.60.asp
Office of Management and Budget. (1997). Revisions to the Standards for the Clas-
sification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Retrieved from www.whitehouse
.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 204 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 205

O’Hearn, C. C. (1998). Half and half: Writers on growing up biracial and bicultural.
New York, NY: Random House.
Ozaki, C. C., & Johnston, M. P. (2008). The space in between: Issues for mul-
tiracial student organizations and advising. New Directions for Student Services,
2008(123), 53–62.
Ozaki, C. C., & Renn, K. A. (2014). Creating engaging and supporting spaces for
multiracial college students. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engage-
ment in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse
populations (2nd ed.; pp. 91–104). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade
of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perlmann, J., & Waters, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). The new race question: How the census
counts multiracial individuals. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Poston, W. S. C. (1990). The biracial identity development model: A needed addi-
tion. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 152–155.
Renn, K. A. (2000). Patterns of situational identity among biracial and multiracial
college students. Review of Higher Education, 23, 399–420.
Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students
through a developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development,
44, 383–403.
Renn, K. A. (2004). Mixed-race college students: The ecology of race, identity, and com-
munity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Renn, K. A. (2008). Research on bi- and multiracial identity development: Over-
view and synthesis. In K. A. Renn & P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial and multiracial
college students: Theory, research, and best practices in student affairs (pp. 13–22).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Renn, K. A. (2009). Education policy, politics, and mixed heritage students in the
United States. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 165–184.
Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on peer culture.
Journal of Higher Education, 74, 261–291.
Renn, K. A., & Lunceford, C. J. (2004). Because the numbers matter:
Transforming postsecondary education data on student race and ethnic-
ity to meet the challenges of a changing nation. Education Policy, 18(5),
752–783.
Rockquemore, K. A. (2002). Negotiating the color line: The gendered process of
racial identity construction among Black/White biracial women. Gender & Soci-
ety, 16(4), 485–503.
Rockquemore, K. A., & Brunsma, D. L. (2002). Beyond Black: Biracial identity in
America. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rockquemore, K. A., Brunsma, D. L., & Delgado, D. J. (2009). Racing to theory
or retheorizing race? Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity
theory. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 13–34.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 205 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 206 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Root, M. P. P. (1990). Resolving “other” status: Identity development of biracial

individuals. Women and Therapy, 9(1–2), 185–205.
Root, M. P. P. (1996). A Bill of Rights for racially mixed people. In M. P. P. Root
(Ed.), The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 3–14).
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Root, M. P. P. (1998). Experiences and processes affecting racial identity develop-
ment: Preliminary results from the Biracial Sibling Project. Cultural Diversity and
Mental Health, 4(3), 237–247.
Root, M. P. P. (1999). The biracial baby boom: Understanding the ecological con-
structions of racial identity in the 21st century. In R. H. Sheets & E. R. Hollins
(Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development
(pp. 67–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Root, M. P. P. (2003). Racial identity development and persons of mixed-race herit-
age. In M. P. P. Root & M. Kelley (Eds.), Multiracial child resource book: Living
complex identities (pp. 34–41). Seattle, WA: MAVIN Foundation.
Root, M. P. P. (2004). Multiracial oath of social responsibility. Retrieved from
drmariaroot.com
Shih, M., Bonam, C., Sanchez, D. T., & Peck, C. (2007). The social construction
of race: Biracial identity and vulnerability to stereotypes. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 125–133.
Talbot, D. M. (2008). Exploring the experiences and self-labeling of mixed-race
individuals with two minority parents. In K. A. Renn & P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial
and multiracial college students: Theory, research, and best practices in student affairs
(pp. 23–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Townsend, S. S. M., Markus, H. R., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2009). My choice, your
categories: The verification or denial of multiracial identities. Journal of Social
Issues, 65(1), 185–204.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Final guidance on maintaining, collecting,
and reporting racial and ethnic data to the U.S. Department of Education. Federal
Register. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/
101907c.html
Wallace, K. R. (2001). Relative/outsider: The art and politics of identity among mixed
heritage students. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Wallace, K. R. (2003). Contextual factors affecting identity among mixed-heritage
college students. In M. P. P. Root & M. Kelley (Eds.), Multiracial child resource
book: Living complex identities (pp. 87–92). Seattle, WA: MAVIN Foundation.
Wijeyesinghe, C. L. (2001). Racial identity in multiracial people: An alternative
paradigm. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on
racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 129–152).
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Wijeyesinghe, C. L. (2012). The intersectional model of multiracial identity:
Integrating multiracial identity theories and intersectional perspectives on social
identity. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 206 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 BIRACIAL AND MULTIRACIAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 207

racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (pp. 81–107). New

York, NY: New York University Press.
Wong, M. P. A., & Buckner, J. (2008). Multiracial student services come of age:
The state of multiracial student services in the United States. In K. A. Renn &
P. Shang (Eds.), Biracial and multiracial college students: Theory, research, and best
practices in student affairs (pp. 43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 207 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 10
WORKING WITH WHITE
COLLEGE STUDENTS
T O U N D E R S TA N D A N D
N AV I G AT E W H I T E R A C I A L
IDENTITIES
Chris Linder

W
orking with White students to understand their racial and cul-
tural identities remains of vital importance for student affairs
educators. Like other student groups, White students are not a
monolithic group; they possess a variety of additional social identities that
influence their experiences and understanding of their White identities, and
many White students feel confused about how to have a positive White racial
identity while simultaneously understanding a history of racism in the United
States. Additionally, White students come to college and university campuses
with a variety of previous experiences related to race and racism (Ambrosio,
2013; Chesler, Peet, & Sevig, 2003). Some White students have developed
an understanding of systemic racism and attempt to engage as a racial justice
ally, while others exhibit explicitly racist behaviors (Cabrera, 2012). The vast
majority of students on college campuses likely fall somewhere in the middle
of the continuum, with a large number of students recognizing that racism
exists, that White people have historically contributed to it, and not knowing
or understanding their role in addressing it.
Whiteness is more than a racial identity; it is a system through which
behaviors, practices, and policies are enacted with a dominant or cultural
norm in mind (Ambrosio, 2013; Gusa, 2010). Raising issues of systemic
oppression presents unique challenges for working with White students

208

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 208 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 209

because it requires that they consider the unearned privileges they may have
received throughout their lives, which, in turn, frequently results in defen-
siveness and denial of racism (Ambrosio, 2013; Linder, 2015).
The purpose of this chapter is to provide student affairs educators with
information to consider when working with White students to address race
and racism. Specifically, I provide an overview of the social construction of
Whiteness, synthesize current literature about Whiteness and White privilege
on college campuses, and highlight some White identity and racial justice
ally development models. Finally, I provide suggestions for student affairs
educators supporting White students in their White identity development.

Social Construction of Whiteness

Frequently conflated, race and ethnicity are two different concepts. Race
refers to the classifications used by the government and other agencies to
categorize people and generally includes broad categories based largely in
phenotype. Ethnicity often refers to a specific culture or nationality to which
a person belongs. For example, a person’s race might be White and ethnic-
ity may be Italian. The social construction of race frequently results in the
conflation of race and ethnicity, especially for people who do not have strong
roots or connections to a particular ethnicity.
Race has roots in legal, political, scientific, and religious history. Religious,
legal, and political leaders who were mostly White and male constructed
race during the Revolutionary Era in the United States to justify slavery.
Christians could not allow slavery unless they could “demote Africans to
nonhuman status” (Smedley & Smedley, 2005, p. 19). Between 1878 and
1952, courts in the United States heard 44 racial prerequisite cases from
people seeking citizenship and classification as White (Lopez, 1995). Courts
regularly struck down these requests, creating legal racial classifications based
on perceived scientific evidence that race is biologically defined (Kendall,
2006; Lopez, 1995).
More recently, geneticists, psychologists, and anthropologists argue
that people are not born with “propensities for any particular culture, cul-
ture traits, or language, only the capacity to acquire and create culture”
(Smedley & Smedley, 2005, p. 17). Because genes cannot determine people’s
race, geneticists argue that biological racial differences do not exist. Racial
differences are socially constructed based on skin color, hair texture, nose
width, lip thickness, and other physical features, even though these features
vary considerably among people within the same racial categories (Smedley &
Smedley, 2005).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 209 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 210 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

However, just because race is socially constructed does not mean it

is not real. The consequences of socially constructed ideas are significant.
Throughout U.S. history, courts have determined who is considered White;
the classification of White has changed over time depending on the needs
of White people with power. For example, when Irish people first immi-
grated to the United States, they were not considered White; when people
with power determined that greater numbers of White people were needed
to maintain power and control, Irish people became White (Takaki, 2008).
The social classification of Whiteness changes when it financially and politi-
cally benefits White people to include or exclude additional people into this
classification.
Social constructions of people of Color as the opposite of White peo-
ple perpetuate continued racism. Generally, when discussing racism in the
United States, scholars and activists focus attention on people of Color
because they experience racism. However, some scholars and activists empha-
size the importance of exploring White identity development and culture to
understand the dynamics of race and racism in the United States (Johnson,
2006; Kendall, 2006).

Whiteness and White Privilege

Whiteness refers to the culture surrounding White racial identity, includ-
ing the existence of power and privilege (Kendall, 2006; Reason, Roosa
Millar, & Scales, 2005). As with all races, Whiteness is socially constructed
and has many meanings. Exploring White socialization, White culture, and
White privilege provides additional insight and examples of the influence of
Whiteness on U.S. culture.
White socialization. In a world where people rush to claim “postracial-
ness,” children learn from an early age they should be “color-blind.” They
should not see or discuss race (Lawrence, 1997). This is especially true for
White children, socialized from a very young age not to see or discuss racial
differences. I reflect on the many times I have observed White children and
heard stories from White college students where they first noticed someone
had a different skin color from them and loudly pointed it out to their parents
in public. Embarrassed and unskilled at discussing difference, White parents
often silence the children while in public and do not revisit the conversation.
The implicit message the child learns is, “Difference is bad, and we should
not point it out or discuss it.” At some point, White children also learn that
Whiteness is superior. Messages from many White parents to their White
children include, “We do not see color,” and “Everyone is equal,” but children
still learn from actions and experiences about the power of systemic racism

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 210 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 211

and White superiority (Wise, 2005). White children notice from a young age
that the many of people who serve them lunch at school and many of the peo-
ple who clean often have a different skin color than they do. Eventually, many
White (especially middle-class) children learn that service jobs like food ser-
vice and janitorial service are undesired and for people “beneath” them. This
socialization begins from a young age and continues for a lifetime. White
people (and people of Color) continue to receive messages from multiple
places about the superiority of White people compared with people of Color.
This example highlights one step in the cycle of socialization (Harro,
2000), which describes ways that institutions and culture shape people’s
experiences and beliefs. Initially, individuals learn norms and expectations
from caregivers, including parents, teachers, clergy members, and relatives.
The caregivers provide information and share norms they learned from the
larger culture, working to ensure safety and comfort for the child in their
care. Next, individuals participate in societal institutions and develop their
social lens based on what they learn in schools, churches, and other institu-
tions, as well as through media, language, and other transmitters of culture
(Harro, 2000). The cycle of socialization explains one way that individuals
learn to understand their racial identity—and the internalization of messages
of superiority and inferiority (Harro, 2000). The internalization of these
messages frequently results in the perpetuation of the same messages, con-
tributing to the cyclical nature of the model.
White college students arrive on campus with many experiences related
to race and racial socialization, largely characterized by lack of exposure to
people of races other than their own, subtle and overt racist acts by fam-
ily and other significant influences, racial tokenism, and few role models of
“successful” people of Color (Chesler et al., 2003, p. 221). Racial tokenism
refers to the ways in which people have been socialized to believe that people
of Color do not face institutional oppression because some people of Color
have managed to meet White standards of success despite the oppression
they face. Additionally, when students arrive on campus with these previous
experiences, researchers indicate there is little incentive for them to change
their perspectives about their racial identities and the occurrence of racism
(Chesler et al., 2003). In fact, the college environment, significantly influ-
enced by White culture and White people, seems to reify social structures
that keep racism in place, especially for students who are both White and
male (Cabrera, 2011).
White culture. Many people argue that White culture does not exist
(Kendall, 2006). Often, White individuals do not identify as racial beings,
although they may identify with some specific nationalities or ethnicities
(e.g., Italian, Irish). Because White people frequently identify as raceless, they

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 211 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 212 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

rarely understand or acknowledge the culture and consciousness that come

with Whiteness (Kendall, 2006; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; Reason et al., 2005;
Singleton & Linton, 2006). A significant piece of White culture is White
privilege, or benefits afforded to people based on the color of their skin,
usually invisible or ignored by White individuals (Kendall, 2006; Lawrence,
1997). Because White privilege is often invisible to those who receive it, it
manifests itself as entitlement (Watt, 2007). When White individuals believe
they are entitled to the benefits they receive, they do not recognize the ben-
efits as privilege (Singleton & Linton, 2006).
Entitlement is closely related to White people’s socialization to individu-
alism (Watt, 2007). White individuals are socialized to believe that achieve-
ments are a result of individuals working hard, so that when they consistently
observe people of Color not succeeding in the same ways as White people,
they attribute it to laziness or individual failure, rather than systemic oppres-
sion (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Singleton & Linton, 2006). Another way indi-
vidualism contributes to White people’s understanding of racism is through
the idea of “moral responsibility” (Applebaum, 2007, p. 454). White people
separate the “good” antiracist Whites from the “bad” racist Whites through
the idea that racism constitutes individual acts perpetuated by individual
people (Scheurich, 1993, p. 7). The belief that some White individuals pos-
sess a moral responsibility not to be racist while others commit overt racist
acts contributes to the idea of individual oppression rather than systemic
oppression. While society socializes White people to see racism as individ-
ual acts, people of Color experience racism based on their membership in a
social group, perpetuated by members of a different social group (Scheurich,
1993). When White people do not understand ways they are complicit in
racism because they only view racism as individual acts, they contribute to
further marginalizing people of Color.
Another characteristic of Whiteness is universalization. Because many
people do not view Whiteness as a race, Whiteness is considered the norm,
making it the dominant race in society (Kendall, 2006; Ortiz & Rhoads,
2000). People of Color learn to understand Whiteness to survive, but White
people do not have to understand their or other people’s race because their
experiences are considered the norm (Singleton & Linton, 2006).
Once White individuals begin to understand their racial identity, they
often attempt to distance themselves from Whiteness for a multitude of rea-
sons (Alcoff, 1998; Eichstedt, 2001; Linder, 2015). White individuals often
experience guilt, anger, and embarrassment as a result of recognizing White
privilege (Singleton & Linton, 2006). In addition, because many people
associate Whiteness with bigotry and discrimination, and most White indi-
viduals do not consider themselves racist, they do not want to associate with

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 212 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 213

a group that perpetuates racism (Alcoff, 1998). Further, because of White

people’s socialization to individualism, some White people may believe it
feels impersonal to associate with a group, rather than be recognized as an
individual (Kendall, 2006). As described in the following racial identity
development models, many White individuals work through this distancing
to embrace their White identity.
White privilege. Privilege, or benefits afforded to people based on
their membership in the dominant culture, permeates U.S. culture (Adams,
Bell, & Griffin, 1997). The term privilege originates from the Latin words
privus (private) and legis (laws). Privilege originally indicated “individual
exemption from the law,” illustrating the legal roots of privilege in the
United States. The term eventually evolved to indicate social status, often
resulting in informal exemption from the law (Kruks, 2005). Privilege
manifests itself in many capacities, often associated with various social
identities—including race (White), gender (men), class (middle and own-
ing class), and sexual orientation (heterosexual).
People do not ask for White privilege, nor can they give it back (Johnson,
2006; Kendall, 2006). As illustrated earlier, an elite group of people created
White privilege through legal, political, and social norms (Kendall, 2006).
A foundational article by Peggy McIntosh (1990) laid the groundwork for
White people to discuss White privilege. Defining and explaining White
privilege presents complex challenges. Most authors who discuss it acknowl-
edge the ways other social identities influence how White people experience
White privilege. For example, White working-class people do not have access
to the same kinds of power as White middle-class people (Johnson, 2006;
Kendall, 2006). In addition, scholars discuss White privilege as being invis-
ible, something individuals do not see unless someone points it out to them
(Alcoff, 1998; Johnson, 2006; Kendall, 2006).
Examples of White privilege appear daily. Some specific examples of
White privilege include ignoring or minimizing the experiences of people
of Color, learning and teaching a one-sided history that sanitizes racism in
the United States, expecting people of Color to educate White people about
racism and White privilege, intellectualizing issues of privilege in order to
avoid the pain associated with racism, and believing race is not an issue of
concern (Goodman, 2011; Kendall, 2006). Further, White people have a
significant influence on the experiences of people of Color. A White per-
son’s assessment of a person of Color’s experience may significantly influence
that person’s future. For example, in job interviews, when a White person,
who does not have experience with various racial and ethnic groups, says
they believe a person of Color does not have the appropriate experiences
or skills, it is often taken more seriously than what a person of Color says

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 213 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 214 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

about the same candidate. An additional component of White privilege in

this setting is when White people believe people of Color cannot cope with
situations, rather than recognizing the significance that racism and White
privilege have on the person’s experiences (Kendall, 2006). White privilege
also manifests itself by keeping White people central in conversations about
race (Applebaum, 2007). Seeing Whites as the norm or reference point for
everyone else contributes to a culture that does not value people of Color.
Additionally, when White individuals focus on the guilt they feel as a result
of White privilege, the attention is back on the White people, rather than
on understanding and addressing the racism experienced by people of Color
(Accapadi, 2007; Kruks, 2005). In addition to setting a norm for all people,
White individuals also create the standards of appropriate language, dress,
and speech for all people (Kendall, 2006). Another component of White
privilege is White people’s ability to surround themselves with people who
look and think like them at all times (Goodman, 2011; Johnson, 2006;
Kendall, 2006).
Whiteness and White privilege on college campuses. Whiteness
and White privilege appear on college campuses in ways similar to those in
mainstream society. Two major ways Whiteness and White privilege appear
on college campuses include the pervasiveness of Whiteness and color-blind
mentalities (Gusa, 2010). Socialization prior to college impacts college stu-
dents’ experiences related to race (Chesler et al., 2003; Milem, Umbach, &
Liang, 2004).
White students socialized in mainstream culture often do not recognize
Whiteness as a culture or a race (Rankin & Reason, 2005). This invisibil-
ity of White culture contributes to the overall campus climate and feelings
of isolation and marginalization for students of Color. Pervasive White cul-
ture results in the creation of traditions and practices on campuses that cater
to White populations, including social programming and classroom cur-
ricula (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Reason & Evans, 2007). The pervasive-
ness of Whiteness contributes to ignorance about cultures other than White
(Gusa, 2010). Students of Color report “interpersonal awkwardness” (Lewis,
Chesler & Forman, 2000, p. 81) and White resistance to discussions related
to diversity and social justice, which contribute to a negative campus racial
climate for students of Color (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Lewis et al., 2000;
Reason & Evans, 2007).
Many White faculty, staff, and students on college campuses proudly
proclaim they are “color-blind” (Reason & Evans, 2007, p. 67) to show their
support for racial diversity, believing racism ended with the civil rights move-
ment. The color-blind mentality contributes to subtle, rather than overt, rac-
ism and supports the notion that individuals, rather than systems, perpetuate

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 214 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 215

racism. A color-blind mentality contributes to feelings of isolation and mar-

ginalization of students of Color (Reason & Evans, 2007). For example, a
student of Color may feel trivialized or ignored when a friend or faculty
member says they “do not see color” because that means that the person does
not see a significant aspect of the student’s identity and experience.
Similarly, the concept of White institutional presence (WIP) describes
the saliency of Whiteness on college and university campuses (Gusa, 2010).
By exploring the “unexamined historically situated White cultural ideol-
ogy embedded in the language, cultural practices, traditions, and percep-
tions of knowledge” (p. 465), a better understanding of Whiteness emerges.
Gusa (2010) described four characteristics of WIP: (a) White ascendency,
or the normalization of White experiences which results in entitlement; (b)
monoculturalism, the expectation that all people learn the dominant edu-
cational canon with little attention to nondominant histories and realities;
(c) White blindness, frequently described as color blindness; and (d) White
estrangement, creating distance between White students and students of
Color. Thinking about the ways in which Whiteness as a construct, not just
an identity, influences campus environments helps student affairs educators
consider ways to better support students and specifically to understand ways
White students have been socialized to think about race. For example, many
awards programs on campus require students to apply for recognition, which
is a practice commonly associated with dominant, individualistic values (e.g.,
Whiteness as a practice, not an identity). These practices may immediately
exclude students whose cultures value more collectivist practices.
The pervasiveness of Whiteness on college campuses contributes to cre-
ating a negative racial climate for all students, including White students,
through minimizing and ignoring racial differences and creating an envi-
ronment in which one way of being is considered the norm. To mitigate
some of the negative impact, educators must intentionally create spaces to
help White students understand their White identity, White privilege, and
racism. As described through student development theory, when White stu-
dents understand their racial identity, they gain an awareness of other cultures
and better understand ways to improve the campus racial climate (Eichstedt,
2001; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; Reason & Evans, 2007; Reason et al., 2005).

College Student Development Theory

Student development theory describes the process by which college stu-
dents grow and change during college. A subset of student development
theory describes ways college students understand their social identity group

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 215 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 216 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

memberships, including race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, reli-

gion and spirituality, and ability (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn,
2010). To date, most White racial identity development models include a
focus on becoming aware of Whiteness as an identity, moving through guilt,
and ultimately integrating White racial identity into a person’s complete
identity (Hardiman, 2001; Helms & Cook, 1999/2005).

White Racial Identity Development

Historically, scholarship related to White racial identity development
(WRID) focused solely on the ways White people understood their relation-
ship to racism and White privilege. Many scholars have critiqued the WRID
literature for failing to explore the meaning of Whiteness independently of
other races and for assuming all White people grow and develop as antira-
cist allies (Hardiman, 2001; Rowe, Bennett, & Atkinson, 1994; Sabnani,
Ponterotto, & Borodovsky, 1991). Further, many models describe race in a
binary construct—Black and White—resulting in ignoring the experiences
of people from different racial identities. Notwithstanding these critiques,
I describe these models here as a foundation for understanding White iden-
tity development.
Helms and Cook’s model of White identity development. Helms and
Cook (1999/2005) described White racial identity development specifically
in relation to Black identity through seven statuses. Starting with contact,
White individuals generally deny racism exists. They avoid discussing race
and ignore instances of racist behaviors. According to this model, during
contact, White individuals discover the reality that Black individuals exist.
Next, White people experience disintegration and reintegration, sta-
tuses related to their White racial environment. In disintegration, people
recognize racism exists, forcing them to choose between White loyalty and
loyalty to humanity. Usually people in disintegration disassociate with race
and racism, behaving in ways that allow them to be accepted by members of
their White communities. Disintegration often feels disorienting and con-
fusing (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005). Many White individuals then enter
reintegration, a status where they engage with their White environment,
noting the historical context of racism. White people deny current racism,
absolving themselves of any responsibility for it. Additionally, many peo-
ple in reintegration adopt the racist values of the environments in which
they find themselves to avoid acknowledging racism exists (Helms & Cook,
1999/2005).
Next, White individuals enter pseudo-independence, a status where they
accept White superiority and tolerate people of other races who subscribe

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 216 7/26/2016 7:24:24 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 217

to White standards of success. For example, they may be comfortable with

people of Color who talk and dress like they do, but not people of Color
who exhibit behaviors outside the “norm” of Whiteness. Additionally, during
this status, White people reject the “bad” racist White people and associate
with “good” antiracist White people (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005, p. 252)
and attempt to assist people of Color in acting more like White people.
Additionally, people in pseudo-independence shape their experiences to fit
into their worldview and deny their racist behaviors.
In immersion status, White individuals begin the search for an under-
standing of Whiteness, specifically related to racism and the privilege they
receive as a White person. Individuals seek accurate information about
Whiteness and racism, working to understand their socialization as it relates
to White privilege. Often, White individuals in the immersion stage focus
on relationships with people of Color to help them understand their White
identity (Helms & Cook, 1999/2005).
After immersion, a White person might enter emersion, a status in which
he or she engages with other White people who are trying to understand
Whiteness and racism. Emersion allows people to continue to develop a
sense of themselves and their White identity.
Autonomy represents the final stage in the White identity development
model. In autonomy, White individuals integrate their White racial identities
and possess “the capacity to relinquish the privileges of racism” (Helms &
Cook, 1999/2005, p. 251). Further, White people use their experiences and
ideas to define racism and to understand people of Color, rather than relying
on stereotypes they learn from other people.
Hardiman’s model of White identity development. Hardiman (2001)
developed a White identity development model to understand ways White
people recognized racism and White privilege. She developed the model to
push White individuals forward in a “new way to be White” that did not
rely on the “subjugation or denigration” of people of Color (Hardiman,
2001, p. 110). Hardiman (2001) described a White identity development
model with five stages: no social consciousness of race or naiveté, acceptance,
resistance, redefinition, and internalization.
White people begin this process with no consciousness of race and no
awareness of the value assigned to various races and ethnicities. After child-
hood, White individuals move into the acceptance stage. During acceptance,
a person has unconsciously accepted race and racism as fact and internal-
izes the superiority of Whiteness over other races. The model assumes it
is impossible for White people in the United States to skip the acceptance
stage, given that every person is socialized to understand and accept racism
(Hardiman, 2001).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 217 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 218 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Following acceptance, people enter resistance, where they begin to question

the dominant paradigm about race, sometimes becoming active in antiracist
movements. During resistance, many White individuals deal with emotions
of guilt, embarrassment, and anger about their Whiteness. Some White peo-
ple even distance themselves from other White people in an attempt to deny
their White privilege and racism. For example, some White college students
may not look forward to returning home for breaks from school because they
have experienced a shift in their values related to racism and do not want to
associate with friends and family who have not also experienced this shift.
From the resistance stage, some White individuals move into redefini-
tion, where they begin to understand how racism affects them as White peo-
ple and begin to take responsibility for the role they play in racism. They do
not distance themselves from White people; instead, they attempt to create a
new version of being White (Hardiman, 2001). Finally, some White people
reach the internalization stage, where they integrate an understanding of race
and racism into all aspects of their lives (Hardiman, 2001).
Scholars critique the Helms (1999/2005) and Hardiman (2001) mod-
els of White racial identity development for focusing on the development
of White people in relation to people of Color, further contributing to the
lack of understanding of White culture, which is a form of White privilege.
Additionally, scholars critique the models for their linear nature, highlighting
the fact that development depends largely on the context in which it hap-
pens (Rowe et al., 1994; Sabnani et al., 1991). Rowe and colleagues (1994)
developed the White racial consciousness statuses (WRCS) model to address
some of the concerns with the WRID models.
White racial consciousness statuses model. The WRCS model uses
statuses rather than stages to describe White people’s racial consciousness.
Acknowledging people’s attitudes and behavior changes as a result of their
experiences and environments, the model relies on a typology structure,
rather than a linear developmental model (Rowe et al., 1994). The authors
name the model a “racial consciousness” model because it describes the pro-
cess of consciousness in relation to people of Color, rather than a White
identity development process.
The WRCS model describes unachieved and achieved racial conscious-
ness statuses. The unachieved statuses include avoidant, dependent, and dis-
sonant. The achieved statuses include dominative, conflictive, reactive, and
integrative (Rowe et al., 1994). The unachieved statuses lack exploration and
commitment in relation to racial consciousness, and the achieved statuses
include exploration and a commitment to beliefs about race.
Unachieved statuses. The avoidant type is similar to the unawareness
stage of Hardiman’s (2001) model. People in the avoidant typology do not

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 218 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 219

recognize race as an identity and do not recognize their White racial identity.
People subscribing to avoidant typology minimize and dismiss the existence
of race and racism. People characterized by the dependent typology rely on
others for their perceptions of race and racial consciousness. They are aware
that race exists, yet they have not internalized any beliefs about race or racism.
Finally, the dissonant type describes people who are aware of race and racism
but have not developed any commitments to their ideas about race. They are
open to new information but feel confused because the information conflicts
with other information they have received about race (Rowe et al., 1994).
Achieved statuses. The achieved White racial consciousness types exem-
plify people who have considered race and racism and are committed to
their ideas about race. The dominative type subscribes to White superiority
and actively engages in racist acts toward people of Color. Additionally, the
dominative type does not see commonalities with people of Color. People
described by the conflictive type acknowledge overt acts of racism exist and
recognize the harm in racism, yet oppose any potential remedies for it.
Conflicted between the two values of egalitarianism and individualism, peo-
ple in the conflictive typology believe everything should be addressed fairly,
resulting in a lack of support for programs like affirmative action and busing
(Rowe et al., 1994).
The reactive typology describes characteristics of people who see dis-
crimination in society and react to it. They note discrimination in situations
and respond to it, yet they are unaware of their own roles in racism. People
in the reactive typology attribute every problem with racism to systems, fail-
ing to recognize the individual responsibility for addressing racism. Finally,
attitudes in line with the integrative type include a complex understanding
of issues affecting people of Color. People have integrated their White racial
identity and recognize the ways they experience privilege compared to peo-
ple of Color. People in the integrative typology participate in social action
to address inequity and comfortably engage with people of Color as well as
White people (Rowe et al., 1994).
As previously discussed, these models have been heavily critiqued for
focusing on White identity in relationship to people of Color, which may
contribute to continued perceptions of Whiteness as normal and dominant
(Chesler et al., 2003). Additionally, these models do not explain the behavior
of students who exhibit explicitly racist behaviors. These models fail to include
a critical component of racial identity development: an understanding of sys-
temic oppression. Literature on Whiteness in student affairs and higher edu-
cation often focuses exclusively on “how individual students ‘work through
their Whiteness,’ develop their racial selves, and sometimes become racial jus-
tice allies” (Cabrera, 2014, p. 769). Ignoring the complexities of White racial

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 219 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 220 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

identity development results in a lack of understanding of ways to work with

students who are not aspiring to be racial justice allies, and in fact, contribute
to creating and maintaining hostile campus climates.

Color-Blind Racism
Although most survey data indicate White individuals are more racially tol-
erant than they have been historically, a closer examination highlights the
reality that students’ actual behaviors differ significantly from their beliefs
(Ambrosio, 2013; Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000). For example, as high-
lighted in a study exploring racial dialogues in classrooms, “White col-
lege students often possess negative racial attitudes toward people of Color
while professing a strong belief in the liberal notion of equality of opportu-
nity” (Ambrosio, 2013, p. 1391). Similarly, when Bonilla-Silva and Forman
(2000) interviewed White students after they took a survey on racial attitudes,
the researchers highlighted the contradictions inherent in the ways college
students spoke about race and racism compared to what they reported on the
survey. For example, students who indicated they were supportive of interra-
cial marriages on a survey then stumbled in interviews about the same topic.
Similarly, White students used “abstract and decontextualized notions of lib-
eralism” (Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000, p. 70) when discussing race and
racism, highlighting their belief race does not contribute to their judgment
of people, yet they also drew on a cultural rationale for explaining inequities,
making statements like, “Blacks lack the proper work ethic” (Bonilla-Silva &
Forman, 2000, p. 70).
Bonilla-Silva’s (2010) work led to the development of a theoretical frame-
work of Color-blind racism, highlighting the ways in which racism manifests
in a “postracial” culture in which it is generally unaccepted to exhibit explic-
itly racist behaviors, yet covert racism still exists. His study of White college
students led to the development of four central frames of Color-blind rac-
ism: abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of
racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2010). Abstract liberalism refers to White people using
concepts associated with liberalism (e.g., equal opportunity, choice) to explain
race-related matters. For example, White people often refer to “choices” peo-
ple of Color make as explanations for racism, rather than acknowledging the
systemic factors influencing inequity. Naturalization refers to the tendency
of White people to refer to natural occurrences as excuses for racism. For
example, a person might say it is just natural that people gravitate to others
like them as an excuse for segregation (Bonilla-Silva, 2010).
Closely related to naturalization, cultural racism refers to the idea that
White people subscribe to beliefs about a particular group as an explana-
tion for racism. For example, someone might claim, “Latinos do not value

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 220 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 221

education,” as an excuse for why retention and graduation rates are lower for
Latino students. Finally, the minimization of racism relies on the idea that
“it is better than it used to be” as a framework for ignoring racism. By point-
ing out the ways in which society is perceived to be better now than before,
White people can ignore racism’s current realities.
Building on the color-blind racism framework, Cabrera (2011, 2012,
2014) highlighted the multiple and contradictory ways White male college
students attempt to understand race and racism. Through his work, Cabrera
(2012) identified two groups of White men in college: those who subscribe
to a dominant belief in racial ideology and those who are “working through
Whiteness” (p. 375). The “dominant racial ideology” (Cabrera, 2011, p. 81)
consisted of four frames: (a) Whiteness as normal, (b) racism being of
minimal importance, (c) the United States as meritocratic, and (d) opposi-
tion to race-conscious social policy. Students who were “working through
Whiteness” exhibited three criteria: (a) understanding of systemic racism,
(b) self-awareness of personal racial bias, and (c) “support of race-conscious
policies” (Cabrera, 2012, p. 382). These descriptions of White male students’
understanding of race may contribute to student affairs educators’ abilities
to more complexly understand the ways in which White students approach
race. By acknowledging some students subscribe to a “dominant racial ideol-
ogy” (Cabrera, 2011, p. 81), student affairs educators may approach these
students in a different way than they approach students who are working
through Whiteness. For example, if a student exhibits signs of subscribing
to traditional notions of racial ideology, a student affairs educator’s approach
may consist of presenting new information to counter the student’s domi-
nantly held beliefs. For students working through racial consciousness, stu-
dent affairs educators may support them in processing ways to take action
related to their increased awareness of racial injustices.
Also emerging in recent years is increased scholarship on engaging
White students as racial justice allies (Linder, 2015; Reason et al., 2005). As
peers remain an important influence on college students’ understanding of
themselves and the world around them, engaging White students as poten-
tial racial justice allies to educate their less racially conscious and interested
White peers warrants increased attention.

White Racial Justice Advocacy

Understanding the process by which White people begin to explore and
develop as racial justice allies provides context for educators challenged with
engaging White students. Although few studies have specifically explored
racial ally development among college students, several scholars have explored

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 221 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 222 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

antiracist activism among White adults (Applebaum, 2007; Eichstedt, 2001;

Frankenberg, 1993; O’Brien, 2001; Thompson, 2001; Warren, 2010). In
this section, I use antiracist activist and racial justice advocate or ally inter-
changeably, following the lead of scholars I cite.
White racial justice advocates understand what Whiteness and White
culture mean to them without reifying the superiority of Whiteness or
defining Whiteness in negative terms (Bailey, 1998; Eichstedt, 2001). Racial
justice allies explore their understanding of their racial identity, acknowledg-
ing the reality that Whiteness is not neutral. Many antiracist White activ-
ists describe experiencing feelings of guilt and embarrassment about their
Whiteness and working through those feelings to establish a healthy sense of
racial consciousness (Eichstedt, 2001).
Next, White racial justice allies name themselves as oppressors and rec-
ognize the privileges they receive over people of Color (Applebaum, 2007;
Eichstedt, 2001). Further, White racial justice allies understand ways they
are personally complicit in a system of racism and recognize that racism con-
sists of more than overt, discriminatory acts (Applebaum, 2007; Eichstedt,
2001). They acknowledge that “nice” White people perpetuate racism when
they fail to acknowledge their roles in upholding the system of oppression
by ignoring White privilege (Applebaum, 2007, p. 455). Racial justice allies
also recognize how feelings of guilt about White privilege contribute to fur-
ther ignoring and marginalizing people of Color. By focusing on guilt and
“moral status” (Applebaum, 2007, p. 458), the conversation about racism
gets stuck on addressing the feelings of White people, rather than address-
ing racism and systems of privilege (Alcoff, 1998; Applebaum, 2007; Kruks,
2005). For example, in some discussions about race, facilitators seek to make
White students comfortable to keep them engaged in the conversation, yet
this recenters White students often at the expense of students of Color.
Finally, White racial justice allies understand racism affects everyone
(Eichstedt, 2001; Frankenberg, 1993). Because some White racial justice
allies have experienced marginalization in other areas of their lives, they may
understand the ways systems of oppression maintain the superiority of one
group over another. Further, White racial justice allies understand the ways
racism hurts them and work to dismantle systems of oppression for their
benefit as well as for the benefit of others (Eichstedt, 2001; Frankenberg,
1993). This is not to say White people experience racism; however, White
people may experience some hurt and frustration caused by racism directed
toward people of Color. For example, a long history of racism may cause
people of Color to distrust White people, which may result in some hurt
that motivates White people to engage in racial justice advocacy. Although
harnessing this potential hurt and frustration may motivate White people

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 222 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 223

to engage as racial justice advocates, it is always important to help White

students understand the consequences of racism for people of Color are far
more significant than the ways racism hurts White people. People of Color
experience systemic and individual oppression as a result of racism; for exam-
ple, police brutality claims the lives of hundreds of people of Color every
year (Wihbey & Kille, 2015). This is significantly different than feeling sad
because a person of Color does not trust a White person.
Thompson (2001) explored the history of antiracist activism in vari-
ous civil rights movements by interviewing 39 racial justice allies across the
United States. Frustrated with the lack of a road map for White racial jus-
tice allies, Thompson sought to explore the experiences of activists to learn
from their challenges and successes. Themes included courage and resilience,
self-reflection, and accountability. White racial justice allies work on issues
requiring a significant amount of courage and resilience, as well as the abil-
ity to learn from mistakes and stand up to their greatest fears. Racial jus-
tice allies risk losing or hurting relationships with family members or other
loved ones by challenging the systems that provide benefit to White people
(Thompson, 2001).
By doing the work of self-reflection, antiracist White activists learn from
their mistakes and the mistakes of their colleagues. Self-reflection requires
honest assessment of successes and failures and the ability to change behav-
iors and beliefs when they do not benefit antiracism work. Self-reflection
requires a level of self-awareness and ability to admit to failure (Thompson,
2001). Building on the work of racial justice scholars, some student affairs
and higher education scholars have begun to explore ally development
among college students, including racial justice advocacy.

Racial Justice Ally Development Among College Students

Researchers have explored the development of social justice allies in college.
While the names for such models vary depending on the authors, the themes
are similar. Generally, students transition through stages of unawareness of
social injustices, an early awareness of injustice, education related to the injus-
tice through friends or formal education, integration of the awareness, and
commitment to social activism (Broido, 2000; Chávez, Guido-DiBrito, &
Mallory, 2003; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Additionally, some researchers have
begun to explore racial justice advocacy among college students.
Specific to college students’ racial ally development, White students’
experiences prior to college, college coursework, and cocurricular experi-
ences in college influence their understanding of Whiteness (Reason et al.,
2005). In addition, invitations and opportunities to participate in social
justice work significantly influenced students’ identities as racial justice

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 223 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 224 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

allies. Participants in one study shared they did not initiate activism on
their own; they were invited to participate by a friend or educator on cam-
pus. Students’ cognitive ability to make meaning of their experiences also
impacted their ability to understand their Whiteness and act as racial jus-
tice allies. A preliminary model of racial justice ally development includes
coursework related to race, diverse friendships, “minority” experiences
(Reason et al., 2005, p. 543), sense of Whiteness, racial justice actions,
invitation and opportunity, support, White racial justice role models, and
intentionally diverse living arrangements (Reason et al., 2005). When all of
these components are present, White students are more likely to engage as
racial justice allies.
Building on the previous work of Frankenberg (1993), I developed a
model of antiracist identity development among feminist college women
(Linder, 2015). Mainstream feminist movements have a long history of rac-
ism perpetuated by White women failing to interrogate their White privilege
and rallying around issues of gender at the exclusion of additional forms of
oppression. Therefore, it is important for White feminist women to con-
sider their race in addition to their gender when engaging in allied behavior.
Although this model is based on White women’s experiences, people have
also indicated they believe this model describes their experiences at the inter-
section of their dominant and subordinated identities.
The model of antiracist feminist identity development is cyclical in
nature and highlights the ways guilt, shame, and fear intersect to feed a
cycle of hyperawareness and overanalysis. Although participants have good
intentions to engage in allied behavior, being “in their heads” (Linder, 2015,
p. 543) contributed to them failing to take action in many situations where
they needed to speak up to interrupt racist oppression. Fear of doing it
wrong, not being liked, or hurting someone’s feelings often inhibited them
from acting. Eventually, participants might work through these feelings of
guilt, shame, and fear to engage in action, but they often found themselves
thrust back into the cycle if they were not vigilant about identifying their fear
of action. Student affairs educators may see similar patterns with students
who are attempting to work through Whiteness (Cabrera, 2012) to engage
in racial justice advocacy.
Although many racial and ally identity development models focus on
an arrival or end-stage, it is important to recall unlearning racism and White
superiority is a cyclical, ongoing process. In fact, student affairs educators
may (and should) recognize themselves in these models, highlighting the
reality that ongoing professional and personal development related to power,
privilege, and oppression are vital to the work of critically conscious student
affairs educators.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 224 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 225

Implications for Student Affairs Educators

Understanding White students’ experiences with race and racial identity
development warrants attention from student affairs educators. In addition to
understanding how White students may experience their own racial identity
development, student affairs educators must also understand how Whiteness,
as an ideology, influences campus environments. As racism continues to
plague campuses, helping White students understand their own racial identi-
ties and their role in addressing racism on campuses and beyond presents a
unique challenge. Specifically, I recommend four strategies for continuing to
engage and support White students in their identity development and work-
ing to develop a racially inclusive campus environment for students of Color.

Engage in Ongoing Self-Awareness and Reflection

To effectively support White students, student affairs educators must engage
in their own processes of ongoing self-awareness and reflection. Especially
for White student affairs educators, engaging in a process of understanding
their own racial identity and how it consciously or unconsciously influences
their work may help them effectively support White students. By identifying
strategies and behaviors that inhibit and contribute to their White identity
development, White racially conscious student affairs educators may be in
a unique position to support White students in their identity development.
Further, if student affairs educators are not aware of how their own race
influences their work, they may cause harm to White students and students
of Color by failing to recognize the significance of race and racism in their
everyday work.
Seeking out specific opportunities to continue to deepen one’s under-
standing of themselves is one strategy for engaging in ongoing reflection
and self-awareness. White student affairs educators report the Social Justice
Training Institute, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA)’s
Social Justice Institute, and the White Privilege Conference as examples of
personal and professional development opportunities that contribute to a
more nuanced understanding of their White identity. Similarly, engaging
with other racially conscious White educators also contributes to ongoing
reflection and self-awareness. Educators must carefully and intentionally
facilitate White caucuses to be effective, and they are often places where
White individuals can continue to explore their struggles, effectively engag-
ing as racial justice allies without burdening people of Color to do the work
of constantly educating them about racism. Additionally, reading, listening
to podcasts, and watching documentaries and videos about racial justice also
contribute to ongoing personal and professional development.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 225 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 226 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Engage White Students on Issues Related to Race

Student affairs educators must be comfortable discussing race and racism
with all students. This frequently requires student affairs educators (both
White and of Color) to have done some work related to their own racial
identities prior to engaging students. Student affairs educators must fre-
quently push White students to understand that they do, in fact, have a
racial identity and it is worth exploring. Further, as student affairs educators
observe students subscribing to a dominant frame of racial ideology (i.e.,
Whiteness as normal; Cabrera, 2011), educators can challenge and support
students to consider alternative perspectives. Introducing cognitive disso-
nance, without expecting students to change their perspectives immediately,
may contribute to White students exploring their racial identity and con-
sidering the role of systemic racism. For example, a student affairs educator
may ask White students if they have ever thought about their race or ask
them what it means to them to be White. Similarly, pointing out issues of
inequity on campus or in society at large may also help White students start
to identify issues of racism.
For White students who have acknowledged that racism is a reality,
student affairs educators may support them as they work through potential
guilt and shame related to their White identity. At this point, White stu-
dent affairs educators may be especially effective by sharing some of their
own struggles with guilt and shame and strategies for working through
it. Because White identity development is an ongoing process, this does
not assume that White student affairs educators are done working through
their struggles; rather, it allows the student affairs educator to engage vul-
nerably with White students, which may result in White students feeling
more confident as they continue to grow on their journey, recognizing that
people they respect are also still learning and developing. Similarly, student
affairs educators may help students identify strategies to engage as a racial
justice ally.

Explore Intersectionality and Empathy

White students who possess at least one subordinated identity (e.g., gay, les-
bian, or queer; working class or poor; women) are more likely to engage
as racial justice advocates (Goodman, 2011; Munin & Speight, 2010).
Researchers and educators believe this outcome likely occurs because stu-
dents with other subordinated identities can empathize with the experience
of marginalization. Although White people cannot know what it feels like to
experience racism, and heterosexual people cannot know what it feels like
to experience homophobia, they can understand the implications of systemic

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 226 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 227

oppression from a lived experience in a different subordinated identity, which

can create empathy for people who experience different systemic oppres-
sion. Using the reconceptualized model of multiple dimensions of identity
(MMDI; Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007) as a framework, student affairs
educators may support White students in identifying the multiple dimen-
sions of their identities and their relationships to power and privilege. The
model allows students to map their own social identities and their salience in
particular contexts. Using this model as a foundation, student affairs educa-
tors may add an additional layer of discussion related to power and oppres-
sion with the MMDI to help students explore ways they experience both
dominance and subordination and how those influence each other and con-
tribute to a more nuanced understanding of racism. For example, a White
woman may approach social justice work through a gendered lens because of
her experiences with sexism. By validating her experiences with sexism, and
also challenging her to understand how her White privilege influences her
experience, she may become more open to recognizing her role as a White
racial justice ally. She may be able to consider some of the ways she wishes
her male peers would support and engage in gender justice work as a guide
for her own work as a racial justice ally.

Examine Campus Environments for Messages of White Racial

Superiority
Student affairs educators must learn to critically examine campus environ-
ments for explicit and implicit messages norming Whiteness and White
privilege. For example, educators may consider visible representation of
racial diversity in publications, including brochures, posters, and websites.
Tokenizing students of Color is harmful, so student affairs educators should
avoid misrepresenting the racial diversity of their programs; yet consider
the messages sent by including only visibly White individuals in promotion
materials. Further, student affairs educators may also examine practices for
selecting students for leadership and employment positions. Which previ-
ous cocurricular experiences are seen as “valuable” leadership experiences?
In what ways might student affairs educators promote homogeneity in their
programs by failing to consider leadership experiences outside White norms?
For example, is being involved in student government valued more highly
than serving as a tutor for a summer bridge program? Similarly, some stu-
dents from more collectivist cultures may not consider the service they do
in their communities as “community service,” but students from more indi-
vidualistic (White) cultures may put these same activities on their resumes as
“service.”

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 227 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 228 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Conclusion
Supporting White students in their racial identity development is a complex
and challenging task. Similar to other groups of students, White students
differ considerably in their needs and experiences. Additionally, many of the
people charged with supporting White students in their identity develop-
ment are engaged in a similar process of their own racial identity develop-
ment, creating complex advising and mentoring situations for which there
is little guidance. As White student affairs educators continue to engage in
their own process of awareness and self-reflection, they may become better
equipped to support White students engaged in similar processes. Although
racism and White privilege have created conditions in which educators of
Color are often acutely aware of the influence of Whiteness and White priv-
ilege on college campuses, they may also benefit from understanding the
scholarship about White college students’ experiences to further support
them on their journeys of holistic development.

Case Study
You are the coordinator of student organizations at Southern State University
(a midsize public institution in the southeastern United States) and manage
the formal recognition process for new student organizations. Student groups
must be formally recognized by your office to reserve space on campus, apply
for programming funding from student government, and advertise through
campus communication mediums. A group of seven White students presents
the paperwork necessary to start a White Student Union. They express they
feel discriminated against because there are organizations for students of
Color but not White students. They have followed all of the guidelines and
technically meet all of the requirements set forth by university policy to be a
student organization, including that their membership is open to any student,
of any race, who wants to join. Based on what you read in this chapter about
White racial identity development and Whiteness on college campuses, what
are your strategies for working with the students who want to start this group?

References
Abes, E. A., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of
multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the con-
struction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1–22.
Accapadi, M. M. (2007). When White women cry: How White women’s tears
oppress women of Color. College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 208–215.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 228 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 229

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P., (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice:
A sourcebook. New York, NY: Routledge.
Alcoff, L. M. (1998). What should White people do? Hypatia, 13(3), 6–26.
Ambrosio, J. (2013, October 22). Teaching the psychosocial subject: White students
and racial privilege. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
27(10), 1376–1394. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.840402
Applebaum, B. (2007). White complicity and social justice education: Can one be
culpable without being liable? Educational Theory, 57(4), 453–467.
Bailey, A. (1998). Locating traitorous identities: Toward a view of a privilege-
cognizant White character. Hypatia, 13(3), 27–42.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and racial inequal-
ity in contemporary America (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bonilla-Silva, E., & Forman, T. A. (2000). “I am not a racist but . . .”: Mapping
White college students’ racial ideology in the USA. Discourse & Society, 11(1),
50–85.
Broido, E. M. (2000). The development of social justice allies during college: A
phenomenological investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1),
3–18.
Cabrera, N. L. (2011). Using a sequential exploratory mixed-method design to
examine racial hyperprivilege in higher education. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 2011(151), 77–91. doi:10.1002/ir.400
Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Working through Whiteness: White, male college students
challenging racism. Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 375–401.
Cabrera, N. L. (2014, May 13). “But I’m oppressed too”: White male college stu-
dents framing racial emotion as facts and re-creating racism. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(6), 768–784. doi:10.1080/09518398.20
14.901574
Chávez, A. F., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Mallory, S. L. (2003). Learning to value the
“other”: A framework of individual diversity development. Journal of College Stu-
dent Development, 44(4), 453–469.
Chesler, M. A., Peet, M., & Sevig, T. (2003). Blinded by the Whiteness: The devel-
opment of White college students’ racial awareness. In A. W. Doane & E. Bonilla-
Silva (Eds.), White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 215–230). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Eichstedt, J. L. (2001). Problematic White identities and a search for racial justice.
Sociological Forum, 16(3), 445–470.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). The social construction of Whiteness: White women, race mat-
ters. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Goodman, D. J. (2011). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from
privileged groups. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gusa, D. L. (2010, Winter). White institutional presence: The impact of Whiteness
on campus climate. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 464–489.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 229 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 230 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Hardiman, R. (2001). Reflections on White identity development theory. In C. L.

Wijeyesinghe & B.W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity devel-
opment: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 108–128). New York, NY: New
York University Press.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and
implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services,
2007(120), 7–24.
Harro, B. (2000). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfield, R.
Castaneda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity
and social justice (pp. 16–21). New York, NY: Routledge.
Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (2005). Models of racial oppression and sociorace.
In M. E. Wilson & L. E. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), ASHE reader on college student
development theory, (pp. 235–258). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
(Reprinted from Using Race and Culture in Counseling and Psychotherapy: Theory
and Process, 1999).
Johnson, A. (2006). Power, privilege, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
Kendall, F. E. (2006). Understanding White privilege: Creating pathways to authentic
relationships across race. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kruks, S. (2005). Simone de Beauvoir and the politics of privilege. Hypatia, 20(1),
178–205.
Lawrence, S. M. (1997). Beyond race awareness: White racial identity and multicul-
tural teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 108–117.
Lewis, A. E., Chesler, M., & Forman, T. A. (2000). The impact of “colorblind”
ideologies on students of Color: Intergroup relations at a predominantly White
university. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 74–91.
Linder, C. (2015). Navigating fear, guilt, and shame: A conceptual model of White
anti-racist women’s identity development. Journal of College Student Development,
56(6), 533–548.
Lopez, I. F. H. (1995). White by law. In R. Delgado (Ed.), Critical race theory: The
cutting edge (pp. 542–550). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
McIntosh, P. (1990, Winter). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack.
Independent School, 31–36.
Milem, J. F., Umbach, P. D., & Liang, C. T. H. (2004). Exploring the perpetuation
hypothesis: The role of colleges and universities in desegregating society. Journal
of College Student Development, 45(6), 688–700.
Munin, A., & Speight, S. L. (2010, May 7). Factors influencing the ally develop-
ment of college students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(2), 249–264.
doi:10.1080/10665681003704337
O’Brien, E. (2001). Whites confront racism: Anti-racists and their paths to activism.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ortiz, A. M., & Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Deconstructing Whiteness as part of a mul-
ticultural educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Stu-
dent Development, 41(1), 81–93.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 230 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 WHITE STUDENTS AND WHITE RACIAL IDENTITIES 231

Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of

Color and White students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61.
Reason, R. D., & Evans, N. J. (2007). The complicated realities of Whiteness: From
color blind to racially cognizant. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120),
67–75.
Reason, R. D., Roosa Millar, E. A., & Scales, T. C. (2005). Toward a model of racial
justice ally development. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 530–546.
Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). White racial identity models:
A critique and alternate proposal. Counseling Psychologist, 22(1), 129–146.
Sabnani, H. B., Ponterotto, J. G., & Borodovsky, L. G. (1991). White racial identity
development and cross-cultural counselor training: A stage model. Counseling
Psychologist, 19(1), 76–102.
Scheurich, J. J. (1993). Toward a White discourse on White racism. Educational
Researcher, 22(8), 5–10.
Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). The sixth condition: Let’s talk about White-
ness. In Courageous conversations about race (pp. 181–210). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005, January). Race as biology is fiction, racism as
a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social
construction of race. American Psychologist, 60(1), 16–26. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.60.1.16
Takaki, R. (2008). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York,
NY: Back Bay Books.
Thompson, B. (2001). A promise and a way of life: White antiracist activism.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Warren, M. R. (2010). Fire in the heart: How White activists embrace racial justice.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Watt, S. K. (2007). Difficult dialogues, privilege, and social justice: Uses of the Privi-
leged Identity Exploration (PIE) model in student affairs practice. College Student
Affairs Journal, 26(2), 114–126.
Wihbey, J., & Kille, L. W. (2015, October 29). Excessive or reasonable force by police?
Research on law enforcement and racial conflict. Retrieved from journalistsresource
.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/police-reasonable-force-brutality-race-
research-review-statistics
Wise, T. (2005). White like me: Reflections on race from a privileged son. Brooklyn,
NY: Soft Skull Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 231 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 11
I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O L L E G E
STUDENTS
Sevan G. Terzian and Leigh Ann Osborne

O
n August 1, 1946, U.S. president Harry S. Truman signed the
Fulbright Act into law (U.S. Public Law 584). This provision
funded foreign student study in the United States for a prescribed
period of time, and it marked the beginning of a steady rise in the number
of international students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees at
American institutions of higher education. By the 1964–1965 academic year,
82,045 international students enrolled from all regions of the world, with
students from southern and eastern Asia being the largest group. This figure
continued to increase dramatically, ballooning to 154,580 in 1974–1975.
For 2014–2015, international student enrollment in U.S. higher educa-
tion institutions reached an all-time high of 974,926, totaling 5% of the
entire student population on American campuses (Institute of International
Education, 2015a).
A number of factors have contributed to this growth. For example, the
Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 (also called the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act) opened more sources of federal funding for student and fac-
ulty exchanges (U.S. Public Law 87-256). Nearly all international students
are classified as nonimmigrant and need to obtain a student visa to study in
the United States. Today, these prospective students can come to the United
States only if they are accepted by an academic institution accredited by the
Department of Homeland Security. The applicant must show the acceptance
letter, certificate of eligibility, evidence of financial support, and proficiency

232

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 232 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 233

in English to a consular official during a personal visa interview at a U.S.

consulate abroad.
The federal government regulates three classes of visas for international
students. The F-1 visa is the most common and is primarily for students at
degree-granting institutions and language schools. The M-1 visa applies to
students attending vocational and nonacademic trade schools. The J-1 visa
was created by the Mutual Educational Exchange Act of 1961 for exchange
visitors, and it targeted professors and research scholars who intended to visit
for an extended period of time. In addition to the scholar category, the J visa
is also used for exchange students and students receiving government fund-
ing such as Fulbright grants. Although part-time on-campus employment is
permitted, employment restrictions on these visa categories prohibit F, M,
and J holders from obtaining full-time jobs while studying. Spouses of J
visa holders can apply for employment, but spouses of F and M visa holders
cannot—a distinction that holds significant financial implications for mar-
ried international students. Thus, one important variable that can influence
the rate of international student growth in the United States involves policies
concerning granting and renewing student visas. (U.S. Department of State,
2010; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2007).
Although the United States has historically hosted the greatest num-
ber of international students, there are signs that the country faces signifi-
cant challenges if it is to maintain its position as the destination of choice.
Roughly 40% of the world’s international students attended U.S. schools
in the early 1980s, but this fell to 32% by the mid-1990s and slipped even
further to 22% in 2014 (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Institute of International
Education, 2015b). Several factors account for this decline. Competition for
international students has increased drastically as other countries have recog-
nized the potential academic, cultural, and financial contributions these stu-
dents bring to their universities. English-speaking nations such as Australia,
Canada, and the United Kingdom have developed coordinated national
strategies to welcome sojourning students. Western European countries have
increased the number of English-taught degrees at their universities and are
recruiting heavily around the world. China, India, and South Korea have also
expanded access to higher education that was previously unavailable, particu-
larly at the graduate level (Bhandari & Blumenthal, 2011).
Government policies enacted in the name of national security have com-
promised U.S. dominance as an educational destination as well. These poli-
cies restricted visas and increased monitoring of foreign students. Particularly
in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, public debate intensified about whether to
restrict granting visas to international students and to monitor their activities

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 233 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 234 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

(Altbach, 2004; Bennell & Pearce, 1998; Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Coppi,
2007). However, questions about policies regarding international students
are not unique to the terrorism concerns of recent years; the United States
has historically expressed a degree of ambivalence about hosting and educat-
ing international students (Terzian & Osborne, 2006).
The proliferation of online degree programs and the growth of branch
campuses have also allowed thousands of international students to obtain a
U.S. degree without leaving home. Several prominent American universities
have established branch campuses in locations such as China, Qatar, Kuwait,
Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Farrar,
2015; Lewin, 2008; McMurtrie, 2015). In 2015 the United States operated
the largest share of branch campuses in the world (80), with numerous oth-
ers slated for future development. The United Kingdom operated the second
highest number (37) of such campuses (Cross-Border Education Research
Team, 2015).
The United States nonetheless has remained the top destination of
international students, with international student enrollment at its highest
growth rate in 35 years for 2014–2015 and reflecting an increase of 10%
over the previous year. In 2012 the U.S. Department of Education issued its
first international strategy report outlining the importance of global learn-
ing throughout the K–12 and higher education curriculum. Strategic fed-
eral measures, such as the Department of State’s 100,000 Strong educational
exchange initiatives, were enacted to increase the number of U.S. students in
China and the Americas, beginning in 2009 and 2011, respectively. Further,
the 100,000 Strong in the Americas fund aims to increase the enrollment of
students from Latin America and the Caribbean in U.S. higher education
institutions. Despite these initiatives, the United States continues to lack a
comprehensive national policy on the importance of international students
(Institute of International Education, 2015a).
In addition to their significant academic contributions, international
students added an estimated $30.5 billion to the U.S. economy in 2014–
2015. In that academic year, 64% of the 974,926 international students
in the United States paid for their education through personal and family
resources. Only 21% of all international students studying in the United
States received funding from the host college or university (Institute of
International Education, 2015a). These figures indicate that increases in
college tuition or the implementation of various fees can affect whether a stu-
dent can study in the United States. Thus, as college tuitions have continued
to rise significantly, a growing number of international students have chosen
to study at two-year colleges, which often have lower tuition rates and reduce
students’ time spent in the United States (and associated living expenses) by

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 234 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 235

half. Whether enrolling for English language immersion or for brief training
in a specialized discipline, international students have found two-year col-
leges increasingly appealing. Enrollments doubled between 1988 and 1998;
in the 2014–2015 academic year, 91,648 international students attended
community colleges. Doctorate-granting universities, however, still host the
greatest number of international students (Desruisseaux, 1998; Institute of
International Education, 2015a).
China sent the most students to the United States in the 2014–2015
academic year, with 31% of the international student population. India and
South Korea were the second and third most represented countries of ori-
gin, with 13.6% and 6.5%, respectively. In the 2014–2015 academic year,
the majority (42%) enrolled in undergraduate-level degree programs, while
graduate-level students made up 37%. Twenty percent of all international
students in the United States studied business and management, while
another 20% studied engineering. Mathematics and computer science was
the third most popular area of study for international students, with nearly
12% of the total population (Institute of International Education, 2015a).
Beyond these generalizations, however, it is important to acknowledge
that significant differences prevail among international students: “A mar-
ried graduate student from East Asia is likely to have very different priorities
and interests from those of an unmarried Latin American undergraduate.
Regarding both as foreign students implies that they have more in common
than they do” (Bulthius, 1986, p. 22).

Research on International Students

Despite a plethora of scholarly research on international students on American
campuses, no meta theories have emerged to help guide policies for counse-
lors and academic institutions. Some have noted that most studies on inter-
national students employ convenient samples at nearby universities (Leong &
Chou, 1996; Yoon & Portman, 2004). Moreover, most research focuses
on adjustment problems and outcomes, “without exploring the dynamics
or process of adjustment itself ” (Pedersen, 1991, p. 14). Researchers have
devoted much more attention to the client (i.e., international student) than
the role of the counselor or the process of counseling. On the one hand, some
scholars suggest that a more sophisticated understanding of international stu-
dents requires increasingly specific studies that take into account their social
class, places of origin, gender, and undergraduate or graduate status. Spouses
and children of international students have been largely ignored in this body
of research and warrant greater attention (Abdullah, Abd Aziz, & Mohd

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 235 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 236 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Ibrahim, 2014; Chittooran & Sankar-Gomes, 2007). On the other hand,

some scholars have lamented the specific nature of research on the experi-
ences of international students and have called for investigations beyond the
social, psychological, and academic dimensions of adjustment.
There is a pressing need for research on international student experiences
in more specific studies that take into account greater numbers of variables,
as well as more general studies with larger samples considering a wider range
of factors of adjustment. Still, the existing literature offers some theoretical
consideration of some of the challenges facing these students.

Patterns of Student Adjustment to the Host Country and

Academic Institution
Bulthius (1986) developed a model of adjustment for student sojourners with
stages of spectating (exhaustion upon arriving in the host country but excited
to be there), adaptation (participation in the host culture conflicts with native
values, leading to a form of culture shock), coming to terms (reconciliation as
the sojourner rejects some aspects of the host culture but accepts others), and
predeparture (preparation for returning home).
Various researchers have questioned such theories of sojourner adjust-
ment. Some have argued that such a monolithic model cannot adequately
account for so many different cultures, social classes, and situations involved
in the sojourner experience. For example, Nash (1991) noted that some
international students do not adapt to the host culture and return home
before finishing their studies. In addition, Ward, Bochner, and Furnham
(2001) have indicated that most empirical studies of international student
adjustment are not longitudinal and lack control groups to show whether the
stages of adjustment are unique to sojourners.
Several scholars have furthered research into the relationship between
developmental categories and an international student’s ability to mitigate
stress and successfully adjust to academic and social life in the United States
(Sullivan & Kashubeck-West, 2015; Wu, Garza, & Guzman, 2015; Zhou,
Frey, & Bang, 2011). Hull’s (1981) modified cultural contact hypothesis sug-
gests that foreign students who interact with people from the host country
tend to become more satisfied with their overall academic experience than
those who do not. According to this theory, such contact can bridge language
barriers and mitigate social and academic isolation. Arthur (2004) suggested
that the difficult period of adjusting to the host culture should also be recog-
nized for its productive potential: “Culture shock is therefore a double-sided
feature of cross-cultural transition; it is the most stressful and the most moti-
vating aspect of living and learning in a new environment” (p. 29).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 236 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 237

Sources of Stress
Some researchers have suggested that expectations of international students
to play multiple roles tend to confuse and stress them. Furnham and Bochner
(1982) separated the challenges for international students into the following
groups: (a) those common to anyone living in a foreign culture, (b) those com-
mon to late adolescents and early adults, (c) academic stress, and (d) pressure
to represent one’s home country well. Indeed, international students often
find themselves in the difficult position of being mediator between the home
and host countries, particularly when international relations may be strained.
Paige (1990) proposed that international students studying in the United
States find that others perceive them as having inferior language, academic,
and analytical skills, and a naive understanding of the American educational
system; serving as cultural resources to enrich the lives of Americans; serving
as financial resources by enrolling and paying full tuition; and playing the
role of outsider/other. Pedersen (1991) argued that these myriad expecta-
tions render it particularly difficult for international students to fulfill stereo-
types. Ironically, perhaps even scholarly research on international students
stigmatizes them further as a group. Yoon and Portman (2004) criticized the
“overgeneralization of research findings to all international students and the
underemphasis of within-group differences” (p. 35). As a result, one must
account for individual factors in studying these groups.
Theories of cultural difference also attempt to explain the nature of
international students’ difficulties. Oropeza, Fitzgibbon, and Baron (1991)
identified culture shock, changes in social and economic status, expectations
about academic performance, isolation and discrimination, and family prob-
lems as sources of stress. Chapdelaine and Alexitch (2004) concluded that
larger cultural gaps between the student’s home and host culture decrease
the amount of interaction with individuals from the host culture. Social cus-
toms and ways of communicating may be out of place and contribute to an
international student’s frustration. In some instances, international students
exacerbate the stress that results from these factors. Aubrey (1991) cited
the tendency of international students to repress stress and to be unwill-
ing to admit they are unhappy in the host country, out of fear that such an
admission would be shameful. As a result, international students tend to
internalize their emotional problems. Misra and Castillo (2004) found that
international students report lower levels of self-imposed academic stress
than American students. Similarly, Hanassab and Tidwell (2002) noted that
international students ranked academic and career goals higher than psycho-
logical and individual needs. Rather than concluding that international stu-
dents experience less stress or have minimal personal concerns, however, the
investigators said their findings support the notion that many international

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 237 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 238 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

students do not admit to feelings of stress because of their home culture’s

stigmatization of such admissions. Furnham and Bochner (1982) cautioned
that international students may view emotional problems differently from
Americans, and the viable options for addressing those problems may differ.

Common Issues of International Students

International students on American campuses often encounter a host of chal-
lenges including academic, linguistic, social, familial, financial, and racial.

Academic Adjustments
International students encounter a host of academic challenges. To a large
degree, international students’ academic difficulties difficulties stem from
the problem of adjusting to a distinct educational system with explicit and
implicit expectations. For example, many American institutions of higher
education place a heavy emphasis on the intellectual as well as the personal
growth of their students. As a result, American colleges and universities
typically allow students more freedom in selecting courses and expect their
students to demonstrate their learning in the form of class discussions and
open-ended essay examinations.
To many international students, these expectations can present prob-
lems. Various studies of Asian international students, for instance, reveal
apprehension about voicing their ideas in a class discussion. This behavior
can result from a lack of confidence in speaking English, but it also reflects
differences in educational systems and cultural values. In many Asian socie-
ties, the professor is viewed as the definitive authority on a matter, and silence
is viewed as a sign of respect. By contrast, faculty in many American institu-
tions of higher education tend to value autonomy and self-assertiveness and
thus expect their students to engage in more open-ended assignments. Many
international students who are often unaccustomed to having such freedom
are therefore acutely afraid of speaking in class. Such discrepancies can result
in feelings of alienation and lower grades (Leong & Sedlacek, 1989; Lin &
Yi, 1997; Mori, 2000; Sheehan & Pearson, 1995; Yan & Berliner, 2009).
Although much of the literature suggests that Asian students in particular
struggle to adjust to the U.S. classroom, some scholars caution against ste-
reotyping Asian students as passive individuals. Liu (2001) found that cross-
cultural differences in the classroom can lead to misunderstandings between
American and Asian students: “For Asian students, especially those who do
not speak English very well, the momentary silence in class may give them an
opportunity to formulate in English what they want to say, but this desire may
be subverted by American students’ eagerness to break what they perceive as

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 238 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 239

an uncomfortable silence” (p. 198). Pursuing this point, Hsieh (2007) argued
that attributing the relative silence of Asian international students in U.S.
classroom settings to cultural differences alone is shortsighted. In an analysis
of the experiences of a female Chinese student, the investigator called atten-
tion to the potentially “disempowering nature” of the American classroom
because of American classmates’ “assumption of cultural superiority” (p. 390).

English Language Difficulties and Social Isolation

If international students do not possess a proficient command of the English
language, they can encounter a host of frustrating situations on American
campuses. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), or a simi-
lar equivalent, is required of most prospective international students before
admission to a U.S. higher education institution. Prior to 2005 the TOEFL
measured reading and writing abilities but neglected speaking skills. Thus, a
high score on the TOEFL did not necessarily indicate fluency or an under-
standing of different English dialects, idioms, or cultural nuances. In response
to numerous criticisms of the TOEFL design, the Educational Testing Service
developed an Internet-based TOEFL that also measures speaking abili-
ties. The addition of a speaking requirement caused concern among Asian
students, in particular because many English instruction curricula do not
emphasize conversation skills (Associated Press, 2005; Bollag, 2005).
Although the TOEFL changes may lead to improvements in English
instruction worldwide and provide a more accurate predictor of a student’s
English skills, international students with marginal English abilities still face
linguistic challenges in the U.S. classroom. Many such students tend to have
more difficulty in understanding class lectures, participating in class discus-
sions, preparing oral presentations, and studying for essay examinations.
While a number of academic institutions offer intensive English for Speakers
of Other Languages (ESOL) classes, international students may overestimate
their English language proficiency upon arrival and eschew that option—a
choice that can overburden them and cause inordinate stress as the semester
progresses and they fall behind in their coursework. As some international
students are hired as teaching assistants, moreover, the language barrier can
become particularly acute. Undergraduate students may complain they do
not understand their instructor, and in response the instructor may become
defensive. These difficult situations can be prevented if academic advisers
encourage their international students to take English support courses and
carry a lighter academic course load as they begin their studies at the host
institution (Charles & Stewart, 1991; Lin & Yi, 1997; Mori, 2000; Pedersen,
1991). In addition, supervising professors and domestic classmates can
make adjustments to improve the learning environment for all students. For

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 239 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 240 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

example, Halleck (2008) constructed a role-play exercise for international

teaching assistants and their undergraduate students to “confront culturally
embedded attitudes and values” (p. 137). Through institutional case studies
and student testimonials, Glass, Wongtrirat, and Buus (2015) underscored
the importance of faculty members developing their own intercultural com-
petencies to better facilitate in-class discussions and use educational meth-
ods that take into account the complex diversity of students within their
classrooms.
Language barriers can also exacerbate the already stressful elements of
transition by socially isolating international students on American cam-
puses. A number of studies have proposed that meaningful social contact
between international and domestic students can significantly improve
the English language skills of nonnative speakers. The best way to over-
come language difficulties is to have a native-speaking friend. However,
such relationships can appear difficult to establish: “Generally speaking,
host students neither make themselves available nor make an effort great
enough to create a bridge for international friendship” (Hayes & Lin,
1994, p. 12). For many international students, moreover, social activities
are far less important than academic achievement. The safer alternative for
many non-English-speaking international students, therefore, is to associ-
ate in culturally homogenous groups (Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008;
Sheehan & Pearson, 1995).
A number of scholars have found that international students on American
campuses tend to experience social isolation because of an unfamiliarity and
general discomfort with main currents of American culture. Trice (2004)
concluded that Western European students and those with a high proficiency
in English had more frequent social interactions with American students
than other international student groups. While Middle Eastern and African
students interacted the least with Americans, these groups were less con-
cerned about this lack of interaction than students from East and Southeast
Asia. The geographic distance separating international students from their
native country is indicative of the sense of “social loss” they are likely to feel.
Far away from friends and family, these students find themselves removed
from their familiar social support networks: “As a consequence, they often
feel less confident, sense unremitting tension, take less time off, enjoy it even
less, and become confused over how to have fun” (Hayes & Lin, 1994, p. 8).
Unfamiliarity with American social customs and culture can lead to isolation,
homesickness, performance anxiety, sleeping and eating problems, and other
physical ailments—all of which can enervate international students’ motiva-
tion to work toward their primary goal of academic achievement. Further,
discrimination or lack of interest from American students can discourage

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 240 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 241

international students from actively seeking Americans as friends (Gareis,

2012; Hotta & Ting-Toomey, 2013).
None of this behavior is pathological; it represents a rational response
to difficult circumstances. Staff of international student offices and other
campus resources can work to resolve the feelings of isolation that many
international students endure.

Pressures From Abroad and Returning Home

International students tend to experience a host of pressures stemming from
their native countries. For example, most finance their education using family
resources or sponsoring agents in their home country. Economic or political
developments at home can dramatically affect the availability of funding, so
many international students have particular incentives to finish their academic
programs as quickly as possible, which can lead to academic overload. In many
cases, international students bear the burden of high expectations of academic
achievement from their families and peers back home, which can exacerbate
stress if the student encounters initial difficulties in coping with linguistic and
cultural transitions. The worst possible scenario would be to return home as a
result of failing in school and not receiving the degree, which can be “the ulti-
mate disaster for many, if not most, foreign students” (Pedersen, 1991, p. 38).

Financial Concerns
Financial restrictions also concern international students studying in the
United States. The vast majority of international students hold F-1 visas from
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS, formerly known as
the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]). To remain in the country
legally, the student must remain enrolled full-time at the approved institution.
These students can be employed by the school for up to 20 hours per week,
although no such limits to their on-campus employment exist when school
is not in session. After completing their program of study, international stu-
dents on F-1 visas can engage in temporary off-campus employment known
as Optional Practical Training. This work must occur in the student’s field
of study, and the student must apply to the USCIS for approval at a cost
of $380. Spouses of F-1 visa holders, moreover, cannot seek employment.
These rules limit how much an international student can supplement his or
her income and can lead to inordinate stress and create unrealistic timetables
for completing their academic programs. Although international students
can request exceptions for special circumstances, they generally cannot take
courses part-time or drop out without forfeiting their student visas (Bulthius,
1986; Charles & Stewart, 1991; Mori, 2000).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 241 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 242 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Discrimination and Stereotyping

International students can also encounter racial discrimination upon enter-
ing the host country and throughout their sojourn. For instance, Hanassab
and Tidwell’s (2002) findings substantiated the research of Sodowsky and
Plake (1992), who found that African students perceived more prejudice and
discrimination than other international student groups surveyed. The impact
of racial discrimination can be profound. Rahman and Rollock (2004) illus-
trated a link between feelings of prejudice and levels of depression among
South Asian international students. Perceptions of discrimination can also
inhibit meaningful social interaction in the host community. Domestic stu-
dents may attach particular stigmas to the international student, based on
his or her country of origin. Indeed, as international developments alter the
balance of foreign relations, students from different countries of origin may
become susceptible to hostile treatment in the United States (Hayes & Lin,
1994; Lee & Rice, 2007). The status of international students as minorities
further complicates their relationship with the host majority culture. For
some students who are part of the majority culture or ethnicity in their home
countries, their minority status in the United States may be the first time
they have ever experienced discrimination (Arthur, 2004; Bulthius, 1986;
Johnson & Sandhu, 2007; Yoon & Portman, 2004). Furthermore, several
researchers have called attention to the complexities of gender discrimination
and the female international student experience (Bonazzo & Wong, 2007;
Cole & Ahmadi, 2003; Green & Kim, 2005; Hsieh, 2007). Lee (2010) found
a correlation between international students’ perceived levels of discrimina-
tion and their willingness to recommend the institution to other students
from the same country. American colleges and universities must therefore
ensure that they have created an inclusive campus climate before embarking
on international recruitment efforts.

Defining International Student Problems

Although the literature on international students generally focuses on prob-
lems unique to them and contrasts the differences between international
and domestic students, all college students face certain challenges, including
adjusting to a new setting, academic demands, social and family pressures,
financial concerns, and anxiety about future careers. While the sources of
stress in the academic experience may be similar, the reactions to these stress-
ors differ significantly between international and domestic students (Misra &
Castillo, 2004; Mitchell, Greenwood, & Guglielmi, 2007; Yoon & Portman,
2004; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). In addition, most international students

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 242 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 243

have concerns that do not apply to the majority of domestic students, such as
navigating through a new culture, adjusting to the U.S. educational system,
overcoming language difficulties, and comprehending complex immigration
rules. Despite the difficulties that international students experience, many find
ways to cope successfully. Arthur (2004) lamented the lack of research on the
fortitude of this population: “Agendas that are focused on problems give the
implicit message that international students are problem-laden. This ignores
the major contributions that international students make to the internation-
alization of educational institutions” (p. 125). International students have the
greatest chance of succeeding if university personnel lead them to “see their
strengths and view their cross-cultural studying experience in an explorative
and experiential fashion, like a journey” (Lin & Pedersen, 2007, p. 297).

Institutional Policies Affecting International Students

International students’ experiences on American campuses often depend on
political factors and the host institution’s practices and support programs.

Institutional and Governmental Policies

The decision to grant or deny a visa to prospective international students
lies with the U.S. Department of State, but admissions decisions are made
at the campus level. The professional organization NAFSA: Association of
International Educators laments the decentralized nature of this process and
recommends a uniform national effort to increase the United States’ share
of international students via more deliberate recruiting and international-
izing of campus facilities and resources. At many institutions, the interna-
tional student adviser has little input on admissions decisions, as a graduate
college often ensures that a candidate has met the admission requirements.
Additional criteria often include an applicant’s academic transcript and
results from the TOEFL and SAT or GRE exams. Admissions officers often
try to gauge a prospective student’s language proficiency, social/psychological
readiness, and research prospects. As interviews are rarely feasible, however,
such questions are usually left unanswered (Desruisseaux, 1999).
NAFSA urges admissions officers to consider numerous obligations when
recruiting and evaluating applications from prospective international stu-
dents, including ensuring that the goals and policies for international students
are compatible with the academic institution’s larger mission. In addition,
such officials need to communicate timely and accurate information about
living expenses, English language requirements, and the particular demands
of an academic program (Heaney, 2009). These deliberate considerations are

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 243 7/26/2016 7:24:25 PM

 244 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

particularly important, for as Thackaberry and Liston (1986) noted, “The

consequences of failure for this population are far higher both financially
and emotionally than for Americans” (p. 34). Common abuses in recruiting
and admitting international students can include using placement agencies
(headhunters who charge a fee and are more interested in profit than finding
a good match for the applicant and the institution), recruiting international
students without having proper support services on campus, misrepresent-
ing the institution in brochures, misusing immigration forms, employing
poorly trained foreign admissions advisers, and misleading an applicant into
thinking that success in an intensive ESOL program will guarantee admis-
sion to an academic program. Admissions personnel therefore have an ethical
responsibility to portray their institution fairly to prospective international
students (Neuberger, 1992; Thackaberry & Liston, 1986).
College and university administrators must also navigate complex gov-
ernmental requirements. In the mid- to late 1990s, the INS developed a plan
called the Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International
Students (CIPRIS) to use fingerprints and detailed computer records to
track the activities of international students on American campuses. The
idea arose in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 and was
seen by some as a potential defense against future terrorist acts. In the fall of
1997 the INS tested its program in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina. Under the plan, academic institutions would be required to
notify the INS when an international student dropped a course (to ensure
that the student was taking at least the minimum allowed to remain in resi-
dence). University administrators and advocates for international education,
such as the Institute of International Education, the American Council on
Education, and NAFSA, criticized the plan for the reporting burdens it
placed upon colleges and universities. In addition, these groups opposed the
fees that students would be required to pay to support the system (Bevis &
Lucas, 2007; Urias & Yeakey, 2008).
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, government scrutiny
of international students intensified and led to the swift creation of a suc-
cessor to CIPRIS: the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS). Although only one of the 19 terrorists involved in the 2001 attacks
entered the United States on a student visa to study English at a language
school, the news that two others received student visa approvals posthu-
mously exposed the need for better coordination and oversight of the INS.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001
allocated more than $36 million to implement an Internet-based tracking
system (U.S. Public Law 107-56). It required all academic institutions with

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 244 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 245

international students to report information about them to the SEVIS sys-

tem by January 30, 2003 (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
2002). The federal government’s swift implementation of SEVIS led to a
dramatic shift in the role of student personnel responsible for advising inter-
national students. Formerly charged with providing support services and cul-
tural programming, these professionals now faced the dilemma of advocating
for students while simultaneously ensuring their institution’s compliance
with federal regulations. In a national survey of international student and
scholar advisers, 86% of respondents “believed that SEVIS required them to
focus more on regulatory compliance than student programming” (Rosser,
Hermsen, Mamiseishvili, & Wood, 2007, p. 532).
While university administrators worked to implement the government’s
new student visa policies, they also faced a backlash against international
students that persisted in varying degrees after the events of September 11,
2001. Although the exact number of physical assaults and threats against
international students after September 2001 is unknown, the perception of
the United States as unwelcoming lingered. Students from the Middle East
in particular experienced feelings of uneasiness and suspicion as well as pres-
sure from families to return home (Klein & DeGregory, 2001; McMurtrie,
2001; Morgan, 2002; Wilkinson, 2002).
Campus officials addressed the needs of international students after
September 2001 by arranging discussion forums between international
and domestic students and bolstering counseling and support services.
Organizations for international students were also instrumental in working
with staff to address concerns. Some university presidents wrote statements
declaring the importance of international students and calling for sensitiv-
ity. Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project published a guide (2003) to
help international students identify and respond to hate crimes and racial
profiling. In addition to addressing the potential hostility toward interna-
tional students on campus and in the community, administrators were also
met with visits from federal investigators seeking information about specific
students. FBI agents visited more than 200 institutions to gather informa-
tion that led to personal interviews of numerous international students. This
FBI presence on campus, not seen since the Cold War, forced higher educa-
tion officials to balance government mandates for information with the need
to protect the rights of students and safeguard them against racial profiling
(Marklein, 2003; Steinberg, 2001; Urias & Yeakey, 2008; Wilkinson, 2002).
The perception of an unwelcoming climate, coupled with the increased
visa woes and government scrutiny, left many advocates for international
education worrying about the effect on international student enrollments in
the wake of September 11, 2001. Some institutions responded by offering

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 245 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 246 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

to pay the government’s mandatory SEVIS fee for students committing to

enroll or to pay for the express shipment of their immigration documents to
speed the visa process. Others developed new recruitment strategies, which
occasionally resulted in a large increase of international students particularly
at the undergraduate level (Redden, 2015).

Guidelines for Student Affairs Personnel and Faculty

Despite a general lack of research on counseling foreign students, according
to Dalili (1982), “The long-term success of foreign students’ stays in the U.S.
will depend on their successful adjustment, which may in turn depend on the
success of the advising/counseling process” (p. 11). Campus administrators
must find ways to initiate and maintain contact with international students,
and Pedersen (1991) recommended that counselors identify specific skills
for international students to use to help them cope with problems in adjust-
ing to American culture and campus life. He also suggested that counse-
lors encourage international students to reflect on their changing values and
worldviews and to develop relationships with conationals while negotiating
the host culture. A continuous process of orientation and counseling, includ-
ing follow-up contacts after the international student has returned home,
can help to mitigate tensions often associated with cultural transitions. It is
also important to have a frontline counseling staff from a variety of cultural
backgrounds who are able to empathize with the international student and
then refer him or her to a counseling expert (Dalili, 1982; Fritz et al., 2008;
Pedersen, 1991).

Campus Programs
Orientation programs can begin even before a student’s arrival in the host
country. International student advisers at the receiving institution can send
information about academics, housing, health insurance, transportation, and
other matters. Some institutions have developed online orientations to pro-
vide new students before arrival with information about the visa process,
housing, and campus life. Alumni groups in foreign countries can host recep-
tions and information sessions to provide prospective students with useful
insights about the institution and community. It is also beneficial for stu-
dent personnel staff or students to meet the arriving traveler at the airport or
bus station. A series of orientation programs can welcome the new students
and offer essential information to acquaint them with the campus, inform
them about immigration rules, familiarize them with the American system
of higher education, describe various aspects of American culture and values,
and identify some of the challenges involved in cross-cultural adjustment.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 246 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 247

More specific topics can include advising, community, and other available
campus services, and how to manage finances and understand the U.S.
health care system. It is especially important to make new students aware
of the myriad student services that exist on campus, as many international
students may not even imagine they would be in place (Wolfe, 2014).
One challenge that institutions may face in designing orientation pro-
grams is ensuring that students are not overwhelmed with information during
their initial arrival, when basic needs such as housing and class registration
are high priorities. Institutions that offer a for-credit course to facilitate
adjustment to life in the United States and within the academic institution
provide their students with a comprehensive understanding of these new sys-
tems with the added benefit of peer support, which can in turn lead to a more
positive and successful student experience (Wolfe, 2014).
Residential life staff must also recognize the particular needs of various
international students and acknowledge their own cultural assumptions.
Orientation programs through residential life offices can help all campus resi-
dents appreciate differences. Furthermore, while the majority of international
undergraduate students are unmarried, some graduate students bring their
dependents with them. Orientation programs for the family can address
topics to encourage and facilitate the student’s smooth cultural adjustment.
Thus, staff members who have experience working with families and children
are needed (Chittooran & Sankar-Gomes, 2007; Neuberger, 1992).
Programs for intercultural exchange can facilitate international stu-
dents’ adjustment to campus life. These include coffee hours, perfor-
mances, discussion forums (in which the entire campus learns about a
particular culture), and international film nights. In addition, peer pro-
grams in which international students are matched with American students
have yielded beneficial results on social adjustment as well as academic
performance. For example, intercultural communication workshops can
engage with small groups of international and American students through
role playing, case studies, and communication exercises to address the vari-
ous cultural backgrounds of the participants. The goal is to lead all par-
ticipants along a path from awareness to appreciation, and ultimately to
deeper understanding and acceptance of cultural differences and similari-
ties (Glass et al., 2015).
A significant but frequently overlooked aspect of international student
adjustment entails the transition upon returning to the home country. Various
recommendations for host colleges and universities include establishing a
job-placement office and offering outreach services from the career center.
As many international students studying in the United States come from
countries with developing economies, such services are especially important.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 247 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 248 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Counselors need to be aware that the international student has inevitably

changed during his or her sojourn and perhaps may find it difficult to readjust
to the cultural traditions and customs of the home country. Such dissonance
can be mitigated in counseling sessions in which the international student is
encouraged to articulate his or her expectations about returning home. Marks
(1987) cited the ambivalence many international students may encounter:
“stress from either their desire or their lack of desire to return home, from a
feeling or lack of feeling of accomplishment in what they have done during
their stay in the host country, and from the opportunity or lack of opportunity
to discuss their experiences with those who have had similar ones” (p. 126).
Campus workshops can allow returning students to anticipate these
potential problems and to equip them with strategies for coping with
reverse culture shock, economic challenges, and how their American edu-
cation can translate into new opportunities (Arthur, 2007; Reynolds &
Constantine, 2007).

Case Study
Mountain State University (MSU) is a public institution with 35,000 under-
graduate and graduate students. It is situated in a state that has witnessed
unprecedented population and economic growth over the past 40 years.
During that time, MSU has undergone a transformation from a regional and
academically marginal school into a leading research university with a wide-
ranging international reputation. Its student body has reflected the changing
demographics of the state, and nearly 5% of its undergraduate and graduate
students come from other nations.
Deng Liu from China is a first-year doctoral student in American his-
tory. He had distinguished himself as an outstanding undergraduate student
at one of China’s premier universities and was highly recruited by the history
faculty at MSU and awarded a lucrative graduate fellowship. Despite some
initial difficulties, moreover, Deng’s English proficiency proved to be very
good and did not inhibit his ability to complete heavy reading assignments
for his classes.
Within a few weeks of his initial semester, however, a serious problem
emerged that threatened Deng’s academic status at the university: one of
his history professors accused him of academic dishonesty. The specific issue
arose in response to a research paper assignment in which Deng included
multiple lengthy passages from published historical texts without quoting or
citing the sources. According to the professor, the issue was clearly a case of
academic plagiarism, and she confronted Deng in her office shortly upon dis-
covering the transgression. The professor indicated that Deng would receive

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 248 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 249

a failing grade for the assignment and be reported to MSU’s academic review
board, which would determine whether Deng could remain at the university.
It was possible that Deng would lose his graduate fellowship, be expelled
from the university, and be forced to return home to China.
Despite these implications, Deng found it difficult to comprehend the seri-
ousness of his academic transgression. In fact, he did not deny that he had copied
text from other historians in his research paper. He stated that it was customary
in his home country to use the words of scholars without quoting or citing as a
source of respect to the leading authorities on a given subject. In other words,
Deng did not understand the conventions of academic citations commonly used
in the United States. He did not question the professor’s accusations during their
private meeting and came away confused about what exactly he had done wrong.
The following day, the graduate coordinator of the history department
informed Deng that he was being put on academic probation and that the
status of his fellowship was now in jeopardy pending the decision of MSU’s
academic review board. Although this represented a clear case of plagiarism
to Deng’s professor and the graduate coordinator, Deng remained confused
about the nature of the academic dishonesty claims made against him. But he
did come to acknowledge that his future at the university was now at stake,
and the prospects of being expelled and forced to return home branded as a
failure were too traumatic to fathom.
That evening, as the resident adviser of Deng’s floor in the graduate stu-
dent dormitory, you pass Deng in the hallway outside his door and notice his
intense expression—bleary-eyed, confused, and disoriented. When you ask
him if you can help, he recounts his ordeal to you for the first time.

Discussion Questions
1. How do you respond, and why do you respond as you do?
2. What resources would you use to help this student?
3. Whom would you contact on campus to inquire about this student’s
situation?
4. What measures could university administrators take to remedy this par-
ticular situation and to prevent this from happening to other interna-
tional students?

References
Abdullah, D., Abd Aziz, M. I., & Mohd Ibrahim, A. L. (2014). A “research” into
international student-related research: (Re) Visualising our stand? Higher Educa-
tion, 76, 235–253.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 249 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 250 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States
remain the top destination for foreign students? Change, 36(2), 18–24.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education:
Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4),
290–305.
Arthur, N. (2004). Counseling international students: Clients from around the world.
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Arthur, N. (2007). International students’ career development and decisions. In
H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international stu-
dents in the United States (pp. 37–56). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Associated Press. (2005, September 25). An English test is changed, and some for-
eign students worry. New York Times, p. 23.
Aubrey, R. (1991). International students on campus: A challenge for counse-
lors, medical providers, and clinicians. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 62,
280–284.
Bennell, P., & Pearce, T. (1998). The internationalisation of higher education: Export-
ing education to developing and transitional economies. IDS Working Paper 75.
Brighton, UK: Copyright Institute of Development Studies.
Bevis, T. B., & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International students in American colleges and
universities: A history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhandari, R., & Blumenthal, P. (2011). International students and global mobility
in higher education: National trends and new directions. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bollag, B. (2005). New test of English as a foreign language puts an emphasis on
speaking. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(7), A49.
Bonazzo, C., & Wong, Y. J. (2007). Japanese international female students’ experi-
ence of discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes. College Student Journal, 41(3),
631–640.
Bulthius, J. D. (1986). The foreign student today: A profile. In K. R. Pyle (Ed.),
Guiding the development of foreign students (pp. 19–25). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of cul-
ture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 45(2), 167–183.
Charles, H., & Stewart, M. A. (1991). Academic advising of international students.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19, 173–181.
Chittooran, M. M., & Sankar-Gomes, A. (2007). The families of international stu-
dents in U.S. universities: Adjustment issues and implications for counselors. In
H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international stu-
dents in the United States (pp. 113–136). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2003). Perspectives and experiences of Muslim women who
veil on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 47–66.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 250 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 251

Coppi, C. (2007). The changing landscape of international student advisement. In

H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international students
in the United States (pp. 3–11). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Cross-Border Education Research Team (2015). C-BERT Branch Campus Listing.
Retrieved from globalhighered.org/branchcampuses.php
Dalili, F. (1982). Roles and responsibilities of international student advisors and counse-
lors in the United States. Akron, OH: University of Akron.
Desruisseaux, P. (1998). 2-year colleges at crest of wave in U.S. enrollment by for-
eign students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(16), A66–A68.
Desruisseaux, P. (1999). Foreign students continue to flock to the U.S. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 45(36), A57–A59.
Farrar, L. (2015). In China, Duke U. navigates a foreign landscape. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 61(17), A10.
Fritz, M. V., Chin, D., & DeMarinis, V. (2008). Stressors, anxiety, acculturation,
and adjustment among international and North American students. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 244–259.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An
empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact
(pp. 161–198). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Gareis, E. (2012). Intercultural friendship: Effects of home and host region. Journal
of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(4), 309–328.
Glass, C. R., Wongtrirat, R., & Buus, S. (2015). International student engagement:
Strategies for creating inclusive, connected, and purposeful campus environments.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Green, D. O., & Kim, E. (2005). Experiences of Korean female doctoral students
in academe: Raising voice against gender and racial stereotypes. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(5), 487–500.
Halleck, G. B. (2008). The ITA problem: A ready-to-use simulation. Simulation
Gaming, 39(1), 137–146.
Hanassab, S., & Tidwell, R. (2002). International students in higher education:
Identification of needs and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 6(4), 305–322.
Harvard University Civil Rights Project. (2003). Know your rights on campus: A guide
on racial profiling, and hate crime for international students in the United States.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED476894)
Hayes, R. L., & Lin, H.R. (1994). Coming to America: Developing social support
systems for international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Devel-
opment, 22, 7–16.
Heaney, L. (Ed.). (2009). NAFSA’s guide to international student recruitment (2nd
ed.). Washington DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
Hotta, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2013). Intercultural adjustment and friendship dia-
lectics in international students: A qualitative study. International Journal of Inter-
cultural Relations, 37, 550–566.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 251 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 252 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Hsieh, M. H. (2007). Challenges for international students in higher education:

One student’s narrated story of invisibility and struggle. College Student Journal,
41(2), 379–391.
Hull, F. W. (1981). A modified culture contact hypothesis and the adaptation of
foreign students in cross-cultural settings. In S. C. Dunnett (Ed.), Factors affect-
ing the adaptation of foreign students in cross-cultural settings (Special Studies Series
No. 134). Buffalo, NY: University of New York at Buffalo, Council on Interna-
tional Studies.
Institute of International Education. (2015a). Open doors 2015: Report on interna-
tional educational exchange. New York, NY: Author.
Institute of International Education. (2015b). Project Atlas. Retrieved from www.iie
.org/Research-and-Publications/Project-Atlas
Johnson, L. R., & Sandhu, D. S. (2007). Isolation, adjustment, and acculturation
issues: Intervention strategies for counselors. In H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.),
A handbook for counseling international students in the United States (pp. 13–35).
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Klein, B., & DeGregory, L. (2001, October 1). Muslim students emerge concerned.
St. Petersburg Times, p. 1B.
Lee, J. J. (2010). International students’ experiences and attitudes at a US host insti-
tution: Self-reports and future recommendations. Journal of Research in Interna-
tional Education, 9(1), 66–84.
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student percep-
tions of discrimination. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 381–409.
Leong, F. T. L., & Chou, E. L. (1996). Counseling international students. In P. B.
Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across
cultures (4th ed., pp. 210–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Leong, F. T. L., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Academic and career needs of interna-
tional and United States college students. Journal of College Student Development,
30, 106–111.
Lewin, T. (2008, February 10). Universities rush to set up outposts abroad. New York
Times, p. A1.
Lin, A. S. P., & Pedersen, P. B. (2007). Multi-national competencies of international
student service providers. In H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for
counseling international students in the United States (pp. 285–298). Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association.
Lin, J. G., & Yi, J. K. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and
program suggestions. College Student Journal, 31, 473–479.
Liu, J. (2001). Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities:
An emic perspective. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Marklein, M. (2003, January 20). INS database worries colleges. USA Today, p. 6D.
Marks, M. S. (1987). Preparing international students in the United States for
reentering the home country. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Develop-
ment, 15, 120–128.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 252 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 253

McMurtrie, B. (2001). Arab students in U.S. head home, citing growing hostility.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(6), A42.
McMurtrie, B. (2015). UMass-Lowell deal in Kuwait, like other overseas campuses,
banks on partner. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(17), A13.
Misra, R., & Castillo, L. (2004). Academic stress among college students: Compari-
son of American and international students. International Journal of Stress, 1(2),
132–148.
Mitchell, S. L., Greenwood, A. K., & Guglielmi, M. C. (2007). Utilization of coun-
seling services: Comparing international and U.S. college students. Journal of
College Counseling, 10(2), 117–130.
Morgan, R. (2002). An international-student adviser faces rumors, fear, and preju-
dice. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(2), A6.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 137–144.
Nash, D. (1991). The course of sojourner adaptation: A new test of the u-curve
hypothesis. Human Organization, 50, 283–286.
Neuberger, C. G. (1992). Working with international students on our campuses. In
D. McIntire & P. Willer (Eds.), Working with international students and scholars
on American campuses (pp. 124–138). Washington, DC: National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators.
Oropeza, B. A. C., Fitzgibbon, M., & Baron, A., Jr. (1991). Managing mental
health crises of foreign college students. Journal of Counseling and Development,
69, 280–284.
Paige, R. M. (1990). International students: Cross-cultural psychological perspec-
tives. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 161–185).
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. Counseling Psychologist,
19, 10–58.
Rahman, O., & Rollock, D. (2004). Acculturation, competence, and mental health
among South Asian students in the United States. Journal of Multicultural Coun-
seling and Development, 32, 130–142.
Redden, E. (2015, January 7). The University of China at Illinois. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/07/u-illinois-growth-
number-chinese-students-has-been-dramatic
Reynolds, A. L., & Constantine, M. G. (2007). Cultural adjustment difficulties and
career development of international college students. Journal of Career Assessment,
15(3), 338–350.
Rosser, V. J., Hermsen, J. M., Mamiseishvili, K., & Wood, M. S. (2007). A national
study examining the impact of SEVIS on international student and scholar advi-
sors. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 525–542.
Sheehan, O. T. O., & Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American stu-
dents’ psychosocial development. Journal of College Student Development, 36,
522–530.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 253 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 254 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Sodowsky, G. R., & Plake, B. S. (1992). A study of acculturation differences among

international people and suggestions for sensitivity to within-group differences.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 53–59.
Steinberg, J. (2001, November 12). A nation challenged: The students: U.S. has
covered 200 campuses to check up on Mideast students. New York Times, p. A1.
Sullivan, C., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2015). The interplay of international students’
acculturative stress, social support, and acculturation modes. Journal of Interna-
tional Students, 5(1), 1–11.
Terzian, S. G., & Osborne, L. (2006). Postwar era precedents and the ambivalent
quest for international students at the University of Florida. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 10(3), 286–306.
Thackaberry, M. D., & Liston, A. (1986). Recruitment and admissions: Special
issues and ethical considerations. In K. R. Pyle (Ed.), Guiding the development of
foreign students (pp. 31–38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions
with American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687.
Urias, D., & Yeakey, C. C. (2008). Analysis of the U.S. student visa system: Misper-
ceptions, barriers, and consequences. Journal of Studies in International Education,
13(1), 72–109.
U.S. Department of State. (2010). Exchange visitors. Retrieved from travel.state.gov/
visa/temp/types/types_1267.html#1
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2002). Final rule implementing SEVIS:
Highlights. Retrieved from www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/0212FINALRU_
FS.htm
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2007). Becoming a nonimmigrant
student in the United States. Retrieved from www.ice.gov/sevis/becoming_
nonimmigrant_student_52007.htm#_Toc129683761
U.S. Public Law 584. 79th Congress. August 1, 1946. (Fulbright Act.)
U.S. Public Law 87-256. 87th Congress. September 21, 1961. (Fulbright-Hays Act
of 1961 or Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961.)
U.S. Public Law 107-56. 107th Congress. October 26, 2001. (USA PATRIOT Act.)
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd
ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Wilkinson, C. K. (2002). September 11, 2001. In C. K. Wilkinson & J. A. Rund
(Eds.), Addressing contemporary campus safety (pp. 87–96). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Wolfe, J. (2014). Improving international student experiences: Five case studies.
Washington, DC: NAFSA E-Publication. Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/wcm/
Product?prodid=409&catId=10
Wu, H., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and
adjustment to college. Education Research International 2015, 1–9.
Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2009). Chinese international students’ academic stressors
in the United States. College Student Journal, 43(4), 939–960.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 254 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS 255

Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling

international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32,
33–44.
Zhao, C., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international stu-
dent and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal
of Higher Education, 76(2), 209–231.
Zhou, Y., Frey, C., & Bang, H. (2011). Understanding of international graduate
students’ academic adaptation to a U.S. graduate school. International Education,
41(1), 76–94, 99–100.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 255 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 12
MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE
STUDENTS
Merrily S. Dunn and Philip D. Badaszewski

T
he history and development of women in college and the history
and development of men in college are not two stories containing
the same events, the same issues and processes, and a matching set
of salient and relevant aspects of identity, neatly lined up next to each other.
We now realize that gender is not a binary construct and that gender identity
development in the context of higher education encompasses myriad stories
and perspectives. But why does the gender story matter at all? This chapter
discusses the context for identity development in women and men in college,
putting this development in a historical context while describing relevant
developmental theories and models. Finally, the chapter addresses what we
most need to know about the outcomes of development related to gender
so that we can work most effectively with and on behalf of college students.

History of Women and Men in Higher Education

The history of higher education in the United States begins with the educa-
tion of White men, initially only those of substantial means. Since the mid-
nineteenth century, women and people of Color have become participants
through coeducation, integration, and the development of separate institu-
tions. Whether as students, faculty, staff, or administrators, women’s partici-
pation is always reconciled with their roles in the dominant culture. Women
have been allowed to fill traditional male roles when men are not available
to fill them. Wars, economic depressions, and less dramatic economic down-
turns have meant opening up higher education to women, although often
reluctantly (Arlton, Lewellen, & Grissett, 1999; Goldin & Katz, 2011).

256

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 256 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 257

The precursor to women’s higher education was the creation of the

Young Ladies’ Academy in Philadelphia and other similar institutions. The
years between 1790 and 1850, characterized by the Enlightenment and
the Second Great Awakening, laid the foundation for the evolution of wom-
en’s higher education in the United States (Solomon, 1985). The first Morrill
Act of 1862 and the second Morrill Act in 1890 set aside federal lands,
allowing each state to establish land-grant institutions dedicated to teaching
agricultural and mechanical arts (Jencks & Riesman, 1968; Johnson, 1997).
These institutions, often understood in terms of the practicality of their
courses of study, were actually created by reformers striving for an egalitarian
ideal—providing educational opportunities for the men and women often
overlooked by more elitist institutions (Johnson, 1997).
The twentieth century ushered in the Progressive Era, characterized by
reform movements and a growing sense of the need for community and unity
of purpose (Gordon, 1997; Gruber, 1997; Mathers, 2013). Post–World War
II America saw a dramatic increase in college enrollment for women, people
of Color, and low-income students who saw higher education as the means
to a successful future (Solomon, 1985). Increasing student interest in college
led to increased competition for the best students. As a result, many women’s-
only institutions were forced to close or become coeducational. In addition,
many prestigious men’s-only institutions (e.g., Yale, University of Virginia)
relented to external pressures and began to admit women (Goldin & Katz,
2011; Griffin & Hurtado, 2011).
Abolishment of extensive rules governing women’s behavior coincided
with broad social change within the United States during the 1960s. The
civil rights, antiwar, and free speech movements challenged societal norms
and mores and led women to question the influence of those structures on
their own experience (Dunn, 1993). Women’s studies, courses devoted to the
study of gender and women’s experiences in fields from history and psychol-
ogy to anthropology and languages, blossomed on college campuses during
the late 1960s (Howe, 1984), even though courses on women’s history had
been taught as early as the 1940s (Rupp & Taylor, 1987).
Educational opportunities for women continued to expand throughout
the final decades of the twentieth century. Women’s studies broadened the
curriculum of universities while working to eliminate institutionalized sex-
ism and the oppression of women in the broader society (Bastedo, 2005;
Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Women have continued to enter all types of
higher education institutions, although at rates not always congruent with
their numbers in society. At the beginning of the twenty-first century,
women constituted more than half of the population of our nation’s colleges
and universities. According to the 2014 Almanac issue of the Chronicle of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 257 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 258 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Higher Education, women comprise 52.4% of students enrolled in higher

education institutions in the United States. In the most recent data avail-
able (2011–2012), this group earned 61.5% of associate degrees, 57.3% of
bachelor’s degrees, 59.5% of master’s degrees, and 51.4% of doctoral degrees.
Women earned 50% of all professional degrees awarded (Chronicle of Higher
Education, 2014).

Women’s and Men’s Student Development

The work of many early developmental theorists, such as Chickering (1969),
Kohlberg (1984), and Perry (1970), often studied as part of a student affairs
curriculum, was based primarily on White men and did not represent a com-
plete picture of college student development. The participants whom these
theorists studied were not diverse relative to race, sexual identity, class, and
other identities and did not consider gender as an identity construct (Davis
& Laker, 2004; Harper & Harris, 2010). In spite of these limitations and
overall lack of diversity, the work of these initial theorists was generalized to
all college-aged students regardless of their particular identities. More plainly,
the developmental experiences of these privileged men were generalized as
the development of all students. This was not limited to the study of college
student development but rather the state of all of academia. Men, almost
always White, were in control of the curriculum, the journals, and the major-
ity of research. White men were in control of the academy, and the experi-
ences of White men were normative (Chrisler, 2010).

Adding Women
In part as a reaction to the reality of those generalizations and the definition
of women’s development as deficient (Chrisler, 2010), Carol Gilligan’s (1982)
In a Different Voice sought to paint a more complete picture. The theory
presented in the book relied on a sample of women engaged in the process of
making morally demanding decisions in real-life settings leading to a model
of moral development. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) had
similar purposes in their study of the intellectual development of women,
Women’s Ways of Knowing. The work of these theorists stands with that of a
number of researchers studying women and gender (Baxter Magolda, 1992;
Josselson, 1987, 1996). Goldberger and colleagues (1996) believed gender
to be a major category playing a role in the choices made by women in all
cultures and communities.
Feminist research, of which these theories are examples, traces its roots
to second-wave feminism and its manifestation on college campuses. While

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 258 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 259

women’s rights activists were involved in struggles for affirmative action, equal
pay, and similar issues, women’s liberation (second-wave feminism) activists
focused in part on the higher education curriculum (Chrisler, 2010; Weiler,
2008). This work led to the beginnings of women’s studies as an academic
field of study and feminist scholarship as a method of knowledge creation
and dissemination. Early goals included raising conciousness for students
and faculty; integrating compensatory courses to add women to a variety of
disciplines, creating a mass of research about women; and changing the cur-
riculum to reflect all of humanity (Howe, 1984). There has been a progression
from identification and understanding of oppression to studying the addition
of women and then to studying the construct of gender and all it implies.
This progression of thought and study led to the study of women’s identity
development through a feminist lens. By focusing on gender, researchers were
able to understand women and women’s experiences as separate from the
experiences of men rather than always in connection to men. In addition,
the research articulated that women’s learning takes place in a wide variety
of contexts—public, private, formal, and informal—and in settings intimate
and isolating (Hayes & Flannery, 2000). Howe (1984) described how it is
feasible to “study cohorts of half the human race in their own contexts and
their own terms, without reference to the other half ” (p. 277). She argued
that only after doing this can one effectively conduct comparative studies
involving women and men. The second-wave emphasis on the personal as
political, and the differences in the lived experiences of women and men,
supports this study of women in their own contexts (David & Clegg, 2008).
While the movement from second- to third-wave feminism is not clearly
demarcated, there is general agreement that its origins can be traced to the
late 1980s and early 1990s (Tong, 2007; Yu, 2011). The progression from
second- to third-wave feminism included an institutionalization of women’s
movements and a corresponding creation of organizations and academic
units as well as changes in the way discrimination was actualized in soci-
ety (Chen, 2014). The product of second-wave feminism included a greater
understanding of how women make meaning of their identity (Josselson,
1987, 1996, 1998) and how gender plays a role in meaning making
(Baxter Magolda, 1992; Belenkey et al., 1986; Gilligan, 1982). Given the
second-wave emphasis on greater awareness of self (consciousness raising)
and the understanding of self as woman in relation to other (man), these
theories/models are a natural outgrowth of that time and context.
A major criticism of second-wave feminism was the lack of attention paid
to identities other than gender (Roth, 2010) and in particular race (Marbley,
2005). Third-wave feminism moves beyond the earlier goals to a movement
more inclusive of all women with a greater awareness of and emphasis on the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 259 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 260 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

intersectionality of identity. Second-wave feminism emphasized a collective,

often to the exclusion of many, so within third-wave feminism there is an
evolution to individualism and recognition of the multitude of identities and
feminisms that women, in all their diversity, represent (Harnois, 2008; Tong,
2007; Wood, 2013). The goal of greater understanding of the diversity of
women’s identities and experiences was necessary. The role of White privilege
in feminist scholarship as agenda setter and arbiter of which work, which
paradigms, and which experiences were relevant has been a crucial piece in
understanding the political nature of race in feminist scholarship (Coogan-
Gehr, 2011).

Reconsidering Men
As discussed, many of the foundational theories in student affairs are based
on studies that included only men (Cass, 1979; Chickering, 1969; Cross,
1978; Kohlberg, 1971; Perry, 1970). This led not only to the exclusion of
women, people of Color, and other marginalized groups but also to the
incorrect assumption that men were well understood in the literature. Many,
but not all (Cross, 1978), studies included only White men and focused on
other aspects of human and student development; gender was not considered
as an identity construct, nor was it explored or considered for theory creation
(Davis & Laker, 2004; Harper & Harris, 2010).
Initial research into men’s development examined the impact of gender
on men and attempted to define masculinity (Connell, 2001; Levant, 1996;
O’Neil, 1981; O’Neil, Helms Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986). Little
consensus exists on a universal definition of masculinity due in part to the
criticism that current definitions are heteronormative and overemphasize the
differences between men and women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). In
general, masculinity is viewed as socially constructed and varies by class, race,
and ethnicity (Levant, 1996). Although masculinity as a concept lacks con-
sistency, hegemonic masculinity is often used when considering masculinity
in men’s research (Harper, 2006; Harris, Palmer, & Struve, 2011).
Hegemonic masculinity is the configuration of practices acting together
to give legitimacy to patriarchal systems that keep women subordinated and
men dominant (Connell, 2001). Men and women both act in ways to fur-
ther male privilege and to push men to conform to a stereotypical view of
masculinity whether it is beneficial or not (Kahn, 2009). It is assumed that
men should measure themselves against this fantasized view of masculinity.
Hegemonic masculinity and masculine gender norms have been woven
into the framework of U.S. colleges and universities (Harper & Harris, 2010).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 260 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 261

Hegemonic masculinity and traditional gender norms become the barometer

used to judge college men’s behavior, and as researchers have found, aspects
of hegemonic masculinity lead to problematic behavior (Harper, Harris, &
Mmeje, 2005).
Boys from a young age see models of men who have strength, wealth, and
power while suppressing fear, emotion, and vulnerability (Pollack, 1998). As
these boys become young men, many enroll in colleges and universities with
particular expectations for the next four years within the context of societal
expectations of masculinity. The impact of the gender roles and socialization
appears to be a subversion of personal values by what men interpret to be the
true ideals of what it means to be a man. Men hide their true selves in order
to abide by societal rules and expectations and also misinterpret the behavior
of those around them, particularly other men. They form misperceptions by
remembering problem behavior displayed by a small group of individuals
rather than more commonly displayed positive behavior (Berkowitz, 2005).
This concept is commonly referred to as pluralistic ignorance and “operates
by encouraging individuals to suppress healthy attitudes and behaviors that
are believed to be contradictory to the norm and to encourage unhealthy
attitudes and behaviors that are falsely perceived as normative” (Harper et al.,
2005, p. 577).
Pluralistic ignorance and the freedom of college often lead men to act
out socialized behavioral patterns. Men who enroll in college expect those
four years, and the years immediately following, to include opportunities for
exploration and risk taking without consequences (Kimmel, 2008). Kimmel
referred to this period as “Guyland,” an undefined span of time where guys
gather to be guys with each other while avoiding the responsibilities of adult-
hood and enjoying freedom without consequences. Research has supported
the lifestyle portrayed by Guyland. Years of seeing college depicted in the
media leads men to have inaccurate expectations of the experience.
Men appear open to having exclusive relationships with women, but
often end up backing out of these commitments in order to have nonro-
mantic sexual relationships with numerous other women (Foste, Edwards, &
Davis, 2012; Tatum & Charlton, 2008). In fact, many mention male peers
criticizing them for being in serious relationships (Harris et al., 2011). They
also feel obligated to show toughness through a willingness to fight other
men, avoid close friendships with men, and compete in formal and informal
settings (Foste et al., 2012; Steinfeldt & Steinfeldt, 2012). Men may view
college as a time to party and drink to excess (Capraro, 2000). Researchers
found that after consuming alcohol, men were more likely to have done
something they later regretted, forgotten where they were, gotten in trou-
ble with the police, had unprotected sex, physically injured themselves,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 261 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 262 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

physically injured another person, or seriously considered suicide (American

College Health Association, 2012).
As men behave according to stereotypes and inaccurate portrayals of col-
lege, they experience a host of negative consequences. Men are not only less
academically prepared but also, as a group, less likely to study, take advan-
tage of cocurricular opportunities, use campus services, and vote (Kellom,
2004). Men are involved in more campus judicial cases (Harper et al., 2005)
and are more likely to respond to situations with anger (Kinney, Smith, &
Donzella, 2001). They also have lower self-esteem due to socialization pro-
cesses (hooks, 2004), struggle with body image even when their weight is in
the normal range (Hatoum & Belle, 2010), and avoid intervening in vio-
lent situations due to contextual and masculine norms (Carlson, 2008). For
example, when presented with a scenario of two men ganging up on another
man to fight him, Carlson (2008) found that men would intervene only if
they felt as though they were stronger than the two men or if they felt the
man being attacked did not “deserve it” (p. 6).
Despite the negative picture depicted by adherence to hegemonic norms,
researchers have also studied men to gain a better understanding of who they
are beyond those norms and how men develop gender identity. Although
college men don’t often consider their gender identity, they are deeply aware
of the norms governing their behavior (Davis, 2002; Edwards & Jones, 2006;
Harris, 2008, 2010). Men do not learn these norms in college. In reality,
men arrive at college socialized in traditional norms of masculinity and con-
struct their meaning of masculinity in a way that privileges those who per-
form masculinity according to societal norms (Harris, 2010).
College men view masculine expectations as increasingly rigid and
constricting, but something of which they were always aware. The expecta-
tions led to men performing masculinity by “putting on a mask” known as
their “man face” (Edwards & Jones, 2006, p. 214). When engaging in cer-
tain activities and expressing feelings, men remain conscious of the narrow
boundaries governing masculinity and a fear of being viewed as feminine
because femininity could lead others to question a man’s masculinity and
sexual orientation.
In putting on a mask, as Edwards and Jones (2006) described, men felt
they needed to perform in hypermasculine ways and to work hard and play
hard, all with a group of male friends (Harris, 2010). Due to the fact that
men repress their emotions and are wearing a mask, these friendships oper-
ate on a surface level (Edwards & Jones, 2006; Harris, 2010). Even though
men are able to articulate norms governing their behavior, they are unable to
specify what it means to be a man. However, as they developed through col-
lege, they recognized areas where their values contradicted masculine norms,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 262 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 263

and they began to act more authentically. Additionally, important individu-

als in their lives encouraged and discouraged certain behaviors leading to
more authenticity. Men found that the college environment (e.g., personal
independence, peer and romantic relationships) offered them the opportu-
nity to reconsider traditional hegemonic masculinity. Although college men
may not acknowledge it as gender development, pushing against masculine
norms and developing their own sense of self shifted their understanding of
their gender (Badaszewski, 2014)

Possible, Productive, and Constructive Masculinity

Recently researchers have begun to examine how college men develop in more
positive and productive ways. Growing out of positive psychology, “Possible
masculinity encompasses what men need to become healthy, responsible,
tolerant, civil, and nurturing in their families and communities . . . [and]
includes those attitudes, characteristics, behaviors, skills, and coping strate-
gies that are required for men to lead positive, healthy lives” (Davies, Shen-
Miller, & Isacco, 2010, p. 348). Possible masculinity looks to focus in on
what men can become with the help of a supportive community and to look
beyond many of the negative behaviors for ways to challenge men to become
their ideal selves.
Continuing the shift in research on college men, several researchers have
explored how college men behave counter to stereotypes and develop outside
of hegemonic characteristics of masculinity. In one study, fraternity leaders
consciously disrupted racist, sexist, and homophobic behavior; confronted
brothers who behaved in ways inconsistent with fraternity values; and had
significant, nonromantic relationships with women (Harris & Harper, 2014).
Countering stereotypes, these men stood in direct opposition to traditional
gender roles and socialization processes and, in effect, were modeling an anti-
hegemonic conceptualization of masculinity. Harris and Harper defined the
brothers’ behavior as productive masculinity.
Similiarly, constructive masculinity encompasses an opposition to gender
norms along with nonbinary conceptualization, explored later in the chapter.
Through the participants’ stories, the researchers defined constructive mascu-
linity as “an open, non-binary category where men understand and challenge
gender norms and develop their own healthy sense of self and masculinity
with the support of significant people in their lives” (Badaszewski, 2014,
p. 111). Men were able to understand and describe traditionally masculine
gender expectations, but through a process of developing their own individ-
ual sense of self, and with the help of family role models and female friends,
they were able to move to a constructive understanding of their masculinity.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 263 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 264 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Although these two studies just scratch the surface of understanding dif-
ferent conceptualizations of masculinity, they offer an important counter-
narrative to the majority of research depicting college men in a negative light.
Further explorations of productive or constructive masculinity will assist
practitioners in supporting the needs of college men and describe a more
comprehensive picture of men’s experiences and development.

Shifting Views of Gender

Gender is not a static construct. Social activism, research, and the ways in
which gender is experienced and reflected on combine to deconstruct long-
standing ideas and stereotypes. Inherent in this process is the recognition of
power and privilege and their centrality in maintaining these stereotypes.

Power and Privilege

While male perceptions, understandings, characteristics, and points of view
were once the standard for a variety of disciplines, academic feminism has
evolved into, through, and from the naming and study of gender, question-
ing the male norm. When the female is made visible, then the male becomes
a contrasting construct, not just a norm.
As sex roles have evolved beyond the traditional, women run up against
the conflicts inherent in the interplay between sexuality and power: What is
exploitation and harassment versus sexuality and desire? Research has shown
that women struggle with their own sexuality and desire while contemplat-
ing the fine line dividing harassment from desired and mutual expressions
of this sexuality and desire (Phillips, 2000; Riophe, 2001). Sexual assault,
for all persons regardless of gender identity—ranging from unwanted touch-
ing to rape (by acquaintances and strangers)—is a continuing issue on cam-
puses (Brown, 2015; King, 1992; Scarce, 2000). While nonconsensual sexual
behavior is the symptom, the quest for power and control and gender role
stereotyping are the root causes of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Compounding the problem is a lack of agreement and consistent under-
standing of what constitutes rape among female and male students (Clark &
Carroll, 2008).
Recent public attention to sexual assault has put a spotlight on how
colleges and universities respond. The White House Task Force to Protect
Students From Sexual Assault (2014), the It’s On Us Campaign (Somander,
2014), and investigations by the Office of Civil Rights (Anderson, 2015),
coupled with media coverage of institutional mishandlings of sexual assault
cases (Coronel, Coll, & Kravitz, 2015; McIntire & Bogdanch, 2014), have

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 264 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 265

all made sexual assault prevention a mainstream conversation. Furthermore,

the explosion of technology on college campuses creates new layers to sexual
violence presentation. Survivors of sexual violence need to worry about not
only encountering their attacker in physical campus spaces but also falling
victim to further anguish through social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
Snapchat), text messaging, and e-mail. Working with these issues requires
those responsible for a response to think differently about this type of harass-
ment (Dalaimo, 1997; Geach & Haralambous, 2009).
Educators argue that teaching students about sexual assault in the con-
text of gender allows them to think critically about culture, solve problems
in context, and be better equipped to see how behaviors fit into the larger
picture (Kilmartin & Berkowitz, 2005). When looking at the issue of sexual
assault from a change perspective and from the perspective of evolution of
understanding and response, the presence of men as change agents becomes
apparent. Men are working within the movement not only to stop sexual
assault but also to change societal power structures. There is evidence of a
growing understanding of the positive, proactive roles that men can play in
changing the culture that allows sexual assault and in some ways promotes it
(Montagna, 2000).
The existence of these issues on campuses underscores the fact that while
women are present in large numbers, their push for real equality against male
power structures is still unwelcome to many. Through education, women
gain access to power while disrupting the existing power dynamics. College
and university campuses are microcosms of the larger society. In the United
States, sexual assault and sexual harassment remain significant societal issues.
That being said, it is not surprising that higher education continues to be
representative of the larger society through the presence of these crimes on
campus. Student affairs professionals are often the staff called on to address
these problems and issues. While reactive measures address negative behav-
iors and the consequences, proactive responses often cause the greatest
change. Sexual assault; sexual harassment; drugs, alcohol, and other abused
substances; growing mental health concerns; and eating disorders are some
of the issues compelling student affairs professionals to gain a greater under-
standing of the problems and their effects on men as well as women stu-
dents. Educational program design, implementation, and assessment play an
ever stronger role in divisions of student affairs as staff members continue to
search for effective responses to these problems.

Beyond a Binary
On college and university campuses, as well as in the broader society, there
is a slowly growing recognition that gender is not adequately or accurately

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 265 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 266 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

defined as a binary of women and men. Gender diversity encompasses gen-

der conforming and gender-diverse students (Rankin & Beemyn, 2012).
The concept of gender permeates all lives, whether recognized or not. In
addition, societal constructions of gender influence everything from career
choice to comfort on campus. Although the gender binary is becoming an
outdated concept, it reflects the normative messaging of gender that still per-
meates society. Even as research on gender identity—how people describe
their individual sense of being male, female, or outside the binary (Bilodeau,
2005) increases—societal expectations still categorize aspects of gender as
either masculine or feminine.
Even though societal expectations resist nonbinary shifts, media por-
trayals in television and movies, increased focus on intersectionality, and a
willingness of individuals to share their personal beliefs and experiences are
some of the ways all people and, more specifically, college administrators,
have been exposed to the shifting views of gender.
“No person can experience gender without simultaneously experienc-
ing race and class,” wrote West and Fenstermaker (1995, p. 13). Although
only acknowledging race and socioeconomic status, West and Fenstermaker
argued for consideration of intersectional perspectives. Intersectionality
explores the interaction and mutual construction of seemingly individual
identity status (Bowleg, 2008; McCall, 2005). Intersectional approaches help
researchers better understand the complexity of human problems and the
systems of power in which they operate (Dill & Zambrana, 2009; Shields,
2008; Strayhorn, 2013).
Relative to considerations of women and men college students, college
administrators should not only consider the broad needs of students based
on sex and gender but also recognize the more complex needs of particular
subgroups of students. For example, a straight Black female student from an
urban environment would likely have a different set of needs than a lesbian
Black student from a rural area. These two students share a common sex
and race, but sexual identity and geographic differences could have provided
each with very different developmental experiences. Additionally, even two
identical people from the same area will be developed and shaped by their
environment in wholly different ways.
Additionally, researchers and practitioners can no longer think about
sex and gender as binary identity statuses. Genderqueer, a concept originat-
ing in the 1990s, is a nonbinary identity status. Genderqueer people express
their gender in a variety of ways, considering themselves as neither male nor
female, both, nor somewhere in the middle (Beemyn, 2009). According to
Rankin and Beemyn (2012), younger people are more likely to identify as
genderqueer. Moreover, genderqueer people make individual choices on how

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 266 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 267
.

MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

they express their gender identity. Some use neutral pronouns (e.g., ze, hir,
they, them), select a new name, or opt to seek medical solutions to better
express their preferred gender (Donatone & Rachlin, 2013). Finally, while
transgender individuals may identity as genderqueer, the reverse is not always
true. Genderqueer people challenge the notion that people who feel they are
a different gender from the one assigned at birth will express that gender by
completely changing their appearance and opting for gender-reassignment
surgery (Beemyn, 2009).
Neither a single chapter nor a single section can delve into the com-
plexities of intersectionality or genderqueer identity. As research in both
areas increases and as college students increasingly embrace more open gen-
der conceptualizations and how gender relates to their other identities, stu-
dent affairs personnel will need to consider their own assumptions of gender
and maintain an open and inclusive environment for students. Furthermore,
practitioners will need to reimagine services and programs that have tradi-
tionally been used to challenge and inform not only gender and sex differ-
ences but also identity as a whole.

Supporting Women and Men Students

Since gender matters in higher education, it is important to consider how
colleges and universities support college students’ gender development.
While creating an office is not the only way, or perhaps even the best way,
to support students, an office or center can signal legitimacy of need and
serve as a home for students. A survey of websites devoted to gender-related
programs reveals extensive programmatic efforts on behalf of women at cam-
puses across the country with far fewer having programs designed to address
men’s issues. This is not surprising given the historical context of women and
men in higher education. At the same time, some campuses seek to simul-
taneously support the needs of women and men through an overarching
Gender Equity Center.

Women’s Centers
Women’s centers most often include services and programs to support the
diverse needs of college women. From programming on income equity to
sexual assault prevention and self-defense, women’s centers provide safe and
welcoming spaces on campus. The Center for the Education of Women
at the University of Michigan (www.cew.umich.edu) is one of the oldest
university women’s centers in the United States. Founded in 1964, its
mission includes research, publication, advocacy and policy development,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 267 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 268 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

counseling and internships, as well as extensive programming. The center

focuses on undergraduate women; faculty and staff women; community
women; and women with special needs, such as graduate students who are
single parents.
In addition, women’s centers seek to empower women as leaders on cam-
pus and beyond. The Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers
University (www.cawp.rutgers.edu/education_training/NEWLeadership) sup-
ports a bipartisan initiative titled the National Education for Women’s Leadership
(NEW Leadership), “to educate college women about the political process and
teach them to become effective leaders.” This program brings together under-
graduate women from all political parties to discuss how women can take on
leadership positions in the political arena. These are just two examples of count-
less women’s centers across the country that support, encourage, and empower
women during and after their college years.

Men’s Centers
Although not as prevalent as women’s centers, some colleges have added spe-
cific men’s centers. The men’s center will often work in concert with the
women’s center on campus to address issues impacting both men and women
students. In addition, men’s centers explore issues influencing college men,
including the effect of traditionally masculine stereotypes, the increase in
men’s body issues, and the role of men in sexual harassment and sexual assault.
The Men’s Center at Lone Star College (www.lonestar.edu/mens-center
.htm) provides support, mentoring, and educational programming to increase
academic success and involvement. In addition to one-on-one mentoring,
the Men’s Center offers group mentoring opportunities around topics such
as manhood, sexuality, and fatherhood and offers flexibility in other topics
based on student interest.
The Men’s Development Institute at Saint John’s University (www.csbsju
.edu/sju-student-development/mens-development-institute) founded in 2014
is a student-run center that promotes the holistic development of men and
empowers men to “embrace their own brand of masculinity, recognize the
importance of campus and civic engagement, and grow as individual men.”
While this program is new, it shows the investment of students in their own
development and the desire for programming and services directed specifically
at men.
The Student Health Center at the College of William & Mary (www
.wm.edu/offices/wellness/healthcenter/services/menshealth/index.php) offers
a Men’s Health Clinic, a well-researched, comprehensive program that seeks
to combat the effects of gender stereotypes that potentially lead men to
neglect and disregard good health and good health practices. Physicians in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 268 7/26/2016 7:24:26 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 269

the Men’s Health Clinic provide specific information to men on male health
concerns, instruct men on testicular self-exams, and discuss sexually trans-
mitted infections (STIs) with a particular focus on men.

Gender Centers
Some colleges and universities have chosen to create one office to support
student gender inclusion. In some instances, so-called gender centers have
been created through an expanded focus of the campus women’s center. After
a student-led initiative in 2013, the Women’s Center at Amherst College
was expanded and renamed the Women’s and Gender Center (www.amherst
.edu/campuslife/womens-gender-center/about-us). The center expanded its
focus to include all aspects of gender through personal experience, academic
inquiry, and discussion. In addition to the Amherst Women’s Network and
the Men’s Project, the center supports student health educators and gender
and sexuality programming and student organizations.
At Carleton College, gender education is supported through the Gender
and Sexuality Center (apps.carleton.edu/campus/gsc). This center offers
individual advising, peer education, and programming to encourage healthy
relationships and also provides resources and support for issues of sexuality
and gender.

Recommendations, Implications, and Future Trends Affecting

Men and Women
Although this chapter focuses primarily on binary constructions of gen-
der, the student narrative on college campuses is pushing administrators to
think about sex and gender beyond the two sides of a coin. This particular
shift in student needs poses a challenging premise: Colleges and universi-
ties have often struggled to simultaneously support the needs of women
and men, so how can institutions aid an increasingly gender-diverse stu-
dent population? With reductions in resources; increased attention from
parents, media, and legislators; and a renewed focus on sexual assault, how
can faculty and administrators educate and support while following legisla-
tive mandates?
First, it is necessary to understand the needs of the students on cam-
pus. Has a comprehensive needs assessment related to sex and gender been
conducted recently? With campus-specific data in hand, benchmarking with
peer and aspirational institutions could provide ideas for how to address
student needs. The examples in the previous section are by no means an
exhaustive list, but they do provide possible starting points for programmatic

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 269 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 270 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

interventions. Next, as this chapter briefly highlights, it is important to think

about gender beyond the binary and students beyond individual identity sta-
tuses. Although women constitute the majority of undergraduate college stu-
dents, college men and, increasingly, trans* and genderqueer students have
specific needs. In addition, thinking beyond sex and gender to consider how
other aspects of identity impact students complicates the work of profession-
als but will better serve students.
Student affairs administrators need to be intentional about the struc-
tures and processes in place to support students (Manning, Kinzie &
Schuh, 2014). Such intentionality and attention to the specificity of
campus cultures and populations leads to supporting students’ needs as
related to gender and all the identities discussed in this volume. In order to
focus on students’ needs, student affairs professionals should think about
ways to collaborate across campus and to develop innovative solutions.
In addition, all student affairs personnel should consider how they can
support gender identity needs as well as the diverse needs of all students.
On one campus, this could mean refocusing a current initiative or pro-
gram, whereas on another the students would benefit from the creation
of a stand-alone gender equity center. Regardless of the format, student
affairs practitioners should reflect on the ways they are aiding students
from all gender identity backgrounds as well as educating students on
campus about gender issues.
One way administrators can help students with sex and gender issues
would be to stay current on research and regularly assess student needs. Most
journals and academic search tools allow users to set up parameters, similar to
an RSS feed, where new articles on topics of interests can be e-mailed upon
publication. Staff development activities can regularly have a focus related to
these issues. Assessment also continues to be an important message of success
and means of learning about the student experience. Beyond understanding
how the office serves student needs, administrators need to consider inten-
tional ways to assess programs and services, analyze and interpret the data,
and then use the data to make improvements.
While higher education has made strides toward greater equity in the
academy, much work remains to be done. Sex and gender issues in higher
education are complex. Now is the time to think about gender education
as inclusive of men. Now is the time to think about gender as a continuum
and not as a simple binary with women on one end and men on the other.
We are in a place of far greater subtlety and individualization. We need
to understand the lessons of the past—and how the current generation of
students has been shaped by those social changes—and develop specific
ways to educate and uplift students from all gender backgrounds. Higher

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 270 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 271

education must create spaces for students of all gender identities. In this
area, as in so many others, our institutions must push the boundaries of
what we know and what we assume to better understand how best to serve
students. Inherent in this role of leading social change is the responsibil-
ity to understand and support our students, in all their identities, creating
communities where they are most able to fulfill their potential as students
and citizens.

References
American College Health Association. (2012, Fall). National College Health Assess-
ment (reference group executive summary, fall 2012). Retrieved from www
.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_ExecutiveSummary_
Fall2012.pdf
Amherst College Women’s and Gender Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www
.amherst.edu/campuslife/womens-gender-center/about-us
Anderson, N. (2015, March 4). Schools facing investigations on sexual violence:
Now more than 100. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost
.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/03/04/schools-facing-investigations-on-
sexual-violence-now-more-than-100/
Arlton, D., Lewellen, A., & Grissett, B. (1999). Social systems barriers of women
in academia: A review of historical and current issues. In M. McCoy & J.
Di-Georgio-Lutz (Eds.), The woman-centered university: Interdisciplinary perspec-
tives (pp. 61–70). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Badaszewski, P. D. (2014). Beyond the binary: How college men construct positve mas-
culinity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Bastedo, M. N. (2005). Curriculum in higher education: The historical roots of
contemporary issues. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.),
American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic
challenges (2nd ed., pp. 462–485). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related pat-
terns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beemyn, B. G. (2009). Genderqueer. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender and
society (pp. 371–372). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s
ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic.
Berkowitz, A. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. C. Lederman
& L. P. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated
health communication campaign (pp. 193–214). New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Bilodeau, B. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgender
students at a midwestern reseach university. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in
Education, 3(1), 29–44. doi:10.1300/J367v03n01_05

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 271 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 272 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Bowleg, L. (2008, September). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian

woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersec-
tionality research. Sex Roles, 59(5/6), 312–325. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z
Brown, J. (2015, January 11). Rethinking gender and sexual assault policy: My story.
Stanford Daily. Retrieved from www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/11/rethinking-
gender-and-sexual-assault-policy-my-story/
Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of
American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Capraro, R. L. (2000). Why college men drink: Alcohol, adventure, and the paradox
of masculinity. Journal of American College Health, 48(6), 307–315.
Carleton College Gender and Sexuality Center. (2015). Retrieved from https://apps
.carleton.edu/campus/gsc/
Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity
and bystander intervention. Journal of Men’s Studies, 16(1), 3–17. doi:10.3149/
jms.1601.3
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexuality identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.
Chen, Y. (2014, January). How to become a feminist activist after the institution-
alization of the women’s movements: The generational development of feminist
identity and politics in Mexico City. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 35(3),
183–206. doi:10.1353/fro.2014.0029
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chrisler, J. (2010). In honor of Sex Roles: Reflections on the history and develop-
ment of the journal. Sex Roles, 63(5), 299–310.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2014, August 18). Almanac of higher education
2014: Differences in male and female full-time professors in representation and
average salaries, by rank and institution type, 2013–2014. Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/article/Differences-Between-Male-and/147307/
Clark, M. D., & Carroll, M. H. (2008). Acquaintance rape scripts of women and
men: Simarilites and differences. Sex Roles, 58, 616–625.
Connell, R. W. (2001). The social organization of masculinity. In S. Whitehead &
F. J. Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 30–55). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethink-
ing the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.
Coogan-Gehr, K. (2011). The politics of race in U.S. feminist scholarship: An
archaeology. Signs, 37(1), 83–107.
Coronel, S., Coll, S., & Kravitz, D. (2015, April 5). Rolling Stone and UVA:
The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism report. Rolling Stone.
Retrieved from www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-
went-wrong-20150405?page=7
Cross, W. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A
review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5(1), 13–31. doi:10.1177/009579847800500102

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 272 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 273

Dalaimo, D. M. (1997). Electronic sexual harassment. In B. R. Sandler & R. J.

Shoop (Eds.), Sexual harassment on campus: A guide for administrators, faculty and
students (pp. 85–103). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
David, M., & Clegg, S. (2008). Power, pedagogy and personalization in global
higher education: The occlusion of second-wave feminim? Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4), 483–498.
Davies, J. A., Shen-Miller, D. S., & Isacco, A. (2010, August). The men’s center
approach to addressing the health crisis of college men. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 41(4), 347–354. doi:10.1037/a0020308
Davis, T. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college
men’s identity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 508–521.
Davis, T., & Laker, J. (2004). Connecting men to academic and student affairs
programs and services. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(107),
47-57.
Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inquiry: An emerging
lens. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class,
and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp. 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Donatone, B., & Rachlin, K. (2013). An intake template for transgender, transsexual,
genderqueer, gender nonconforming, and gender variant college students seeking
mental health services. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 27, 200–211.
Dunn, M. S. (1993). Separation and integration: Women at The Ohio State Univer-
sity 1960–1975 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University,
Columbus.
Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2006). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded
theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(2), 210–228.
Foste, Z., Edwards, K., & Davis, T. (2012). Trial and error: Negotiating manhood
and struggling to discover true self. Journal of College and University Student Hous-
ing, 39(1), 124–139.
Geach, N., & Haralambous, N. (2009). Regulating harassment: Is the law fit for the
social networking age? Journal of Criminal Law, 73, 241–257.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldberger, N., Tarule, J., Clinchy, B., & Belenky, M. (Eds.). (1996). Knowledge,
difference and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing. New York, NY:
Basic.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2011). Putting the “co” in education: Timing, reasons,
and consequences of college coeducation from 1835 to the present. Journal of
Human Capital, 5(4), 377–417.
Gordon, L. D. (1997). From seminary to university: An overview of women’s higher
education, 1870–1920. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), ASHE reader
series on the history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. 473–498). Old Tappen, NJ:
Person Custom Publishing.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 273 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 274 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Griffin, K. A., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Institutional variety in American higher edu-
cation. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student services: A
handbook for the profession (5th ed.; pp. 24–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gruber, C. S. (1997). Backdrop. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), ASHE
reader series on the history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. 203–221). Old Tappen,
NJ: Person Custom Publishing.
Harnois, C. (2008). Re-presenting feminisms: Past, present, and future. NWSA,
20(1), 120–145.
Harper, S. R. (2006). Peer support for African American male college achievement:
Beyond internalized racism and the burden of “acting white.” Journal of Men’s
Studies, 14(3), 337–358.
Harper, S. R., & Harris, F., III. (2010). Beyond the model gender majority myth:
Responding equitably to the developmental needs and challenges of college men.
In S. R. Harper & F. Harris, III (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory,
research, and implications for practice (pp. 1–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, S. R., Harris, F., III, & Mmeje, K. (2005). A theoretical model to explain the
overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implica-
tions for campus administrators. NASPA Journal, 42(4), 565–588.
Harris, F., III. (2008). Deconstructing masculinity: A qualitative study of college
men’s masculine conceptualizations and gender performance. NASPA Journal,
45(4), 453–474.
Harris, F., III. (2010). College men’s meanings of masculinities and contextual influ-
ences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3),
297–318.
Harris III, F., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Beyond bad behaving brothers: Productive
performances of masculinities among college fraternity men. International Jour-
nal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(6), 703–723.
Harris, F., III, Palmer, R. T., & Struve, L. E. (2011). “Cool posing” on campus: A
qualitative study of masculinities and gender expression among black men at a
private research institution. Journal of Negro Education, 80(1), 47–62.
Hatoum, I. J., & Belle, D. (2010). Mags and abs: Media consumption and bod-
ily concerns in men. In S. R. Harper & F. Harris, III (Eds.), College men and
masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 337–354). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hayes, E., & Flannery, D. D. (Eds.). (2000). Women as learners: The significance of
gender in adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. New York, NY: Atria
Books.
Howe, F. (1984). Myths of coeducation: Select essays. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Johnson, E. L. (1997). Misconceptions about the early land-grant colleges. In
L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), ASHE reader series on the history of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 274 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 275

higher education (2nd ed.; pp. 222–233). Old Tappen, NJ: Person Custom Pub-
lishing.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to
midlife. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kahn, J. S. (2009). An introduction to masculinities. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kellom, G. E. (2004). Editor’s notes. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(107),
1–7.
Kilmartin, C., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). Sexual assault in context: Teaching college
men about gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kimmel, M. S. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New
York, NY: Harper.
King, M. B. (1992). Male sexual assault in the community. In G. C. Mezey & M. B.
King (Eds.), Male victims of sexual assault (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kinney, T. A., Smith, B. A., & Donzella, B. (2001). The influence of sex, gender,
self-discrepancies, and self-awareness on anger and verbal aggressiveness among
U.S. college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 245–275.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard Center for Moral Education.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of
moral stages. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Levant, R. F. (1996, June). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 27(3), 259–265. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.27.3.259
Lone Star College Men’s Center. (2015). Retrieved from www.lonestar.edu/
mens-center.htm
Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2014). One size does not fit all: Traditional and
innovative models of student affairs practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Marbley, A. F. (2005). African-American women’s feelings on alienation from third-
wave feminism: A conversation with my sisters. Western Journal of Black Studies,
29(3), 605–614.
Mathers, P. P. (2013). Did the women’s colleges founded in the Progressive Era repre-
sent a new model? American Educational History Journal, 40(2), 221–239.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture & Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.
McIntire, M., & Bogdanch, W. (2014). At Florida State, football clouds justice. New
York Times. Retrieved from mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/us/florida-state-
football-casts-shadow-over-tallahassee-justice.html?referrer=&_r=1
Montagna, S. (2000). Men-only spaces as effective sites for education and trans-
formation in the battle to end sexual assault. In J. Gold & S. Villari (Eds.), Just
sex: Students rewrite the rules on sex, violence, activism, and equality (pp. 39–46).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of
femininity in men’s lives. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(4), 203–210.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 275 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 276 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986).
Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14(5/6),
335–350.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and
domination. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Pollack, W. S. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New
York, NY: Random House.
Rankin, S., & Beemyn, G. (2012, October). Beyond a binary: The lives of gender-
nonconforming youth. About Campus, 17(4), 2–10. doi:10.1002/abc.21086
Riophe, K. (2001). Reckless eyeballing: Sexual harassment on campus. In
L. LeMoncheck & J. P. Sterba (Eds.), Sexual harassment: Issues and answers
(pp. 249–259). New York: NY: Oxford University Press.
Roth, B. (2010). Feminist coalitions: Historical perspectives on second-wave femi-
nism in the United States/Radical Sisters: Second-wave feminism and Black lib-
eration in Washington. Signs, 35(3), 765–768.
Rupp, L. J., & Taylor, V. (1987). Survival in the doldrums: The American women’s
rights movement, 1945 to the 1960s. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. (2015). Retrieved from www
.cawp.rutgers.edu/education_training/NEWLeadership/
Saint John’s University Men’s Development Institute. (2015). Retrieved from www
.csbsju.edu/sju-student-development/mens-development-institute
Scarce, M. (2000). Male-on-male rape. In J. Gold & S. Villari (Eds.), Just sex: Stu-
dents rewrite the rules on sex, violence, activism, and equality (pp. 39–46). Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Shields, S. (2008, September). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles,
59(5/6), 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8
Solomon, B. M. (1985). In the company of educated women: A history of women in
higher education in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Somander, T. (2014, September 19). President Obama launches the “It’s On Us”
campain to end sexual assault on campus [Web log post]. The White House.
Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/19/president-obama-
launches-its-us-campaign-end-sexual-assault-campus
Steinfeldt, M., & Steinfeldt, J. A. (2012). Athletic identity and conformity to mas-
culine norms among college football players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
24(2), 115–128. doi:10.1080/10413200.2011.603405
Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). Introduction. In T. L. Strayhorn (Ed.), Living at the intersec-
tions: Social identities and Black collegians (pp. 1–20). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Tatum, J. L., & Charlton, R. (2008). A phenomenological study of how selected
college men construct and define masculinity. Higher Education in Review, 5,
99–125.
Tong, R. (2007). Feminist thought in transition: Never a dull moment. Social Science
Journal, 44(1), 23–39.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 276 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 MEN AND WOMEN COLLEGE STUDENTS 277

University of Michigan Center for the Education of Women. (2015). Retrieved from
www.cew.umich.edu/
Weiler, K. (2008, November). The feminist imagination and educational research.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4), 499–507.
doi:10.1080/01596300802410219
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing differences. Gender & Society, 9(1),
8–37.
White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (2014, April). Not
alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual
Assault. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report_0.pdf
William & Mary Student Health Center. (2015). Men’s health. Retrieved from www
.wm.edu/offices/wellness/healthcenter/services/menshealth/index.php
Wood, J. T. (2013). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (10th ed.).
Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Yu, S. (2011, September). Reclaiming the personal: Personal narratives of third-wave
feminists. Women’s Studies, 40(7), 873–889. doi:10.1080/00497878.2011.603606

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 277 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 13
L E S B I A N , G AY, B I S E X UA L ,
AND TRANSGENDER
COLLEGE STUDENTS
Dena R. Kniess, Tony W. Cawthon, and Kristin M. Walker

T
he lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) college student
population has been referred to as an invisible minority (Sanlo,
1998). Its members constitute a significant student subpopulation
meriting intentional efforts in education and support.
A common misconception is that LGBT students “belong to a sin-
gle, amorphous group when in fact there are many differences among les-
bian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people” (Worthington, McCrary, &
Howard, 1998, p. 141). By definition, gender identity and sexual orienta-
tion are two completely different constructs, yet three primary concerns
“unite sexual orientation and gender identity in distinct ways: overlapping
identities, mistaken identities, and the sexual orientation” (Carter, 2000,
p. 272). In this chapter, we explore the complexities of the identities of
LGBT students.
The chapter begins with an investigation of the terminology asso-
ciated with LGBT individuals. The sections on history, demograph-
ics, and sociological context explore dimensions of significant changes
for LGBT populations. An examination of contextual issues relative to
LGBT students and current research and trends accompanies an explora-
tion of best practices and exemplary programs. We conclude with specific
recommendations for working with and addressing the needs of LGBT
students on college campuses, followed by a case study and discussion
questions.

278

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 278 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 279

Terminology
Social identities play an integral role in people’s lives. While individuals have
several socially constructed identities, some may be more salient than others
for a variety of reasons. As we focus on terminology, we invite you to remem-
ber that identities do not exist in isolation. Identities involving individuals’
race, socioeconomic status, or ability, for example, may complicate LGBT
terminology. Ultimately, student affairs professionals may demonstrate an
appreciation of LGBT identity by promoting an understanding of the associ-
ated terminology and how these terms connect with the intersectionality of
identities.
Sexuality includes three components: sexual behavior, sexual identity, and
sexual orientation. Often these terms are used interchangeably, but in fact
they have significantly different meanings. Sexual behavior refers to what one
does sexually—one’s actions. Sexual identity can incorporate gender identity,
sex roles identity, physical identity, and sexual orientation identity (Ryan &
Futterman, 1998). Gender identity refers to an individual’s understanding
of themselves in regard to men and women, boy and girl, transgender, gen-
derqueer, and other gendered categories (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007). Sex
roles are socially constructed expectations associated with being masculine or
feminine. Physical identity refers to characteristics of biological sex (i.e., phys-
ical makeup as determined by chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs,
and body parts; Ryan & Futterman, 1998).
The term sexual orientation involves not only a person’s choice of sexual
partners (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.; Patterson, 1995) but also emo-
tional attraction (Coleman, 1990; Human Rights Campaign, n.d.; Shively &
DeCecco, 1993). These sexual partners and emotional attractions could
involve same-sex individuals (gay/lesbian), opposite-sex individuals (hetero-
sexuality), same- and opposite-sex individuals (bisexuality), or all or several
different gender attractions (pansexuality; Green & Peterson, 2003–2004).
Identity (or how one identifies oneself ) is only one component of our sexual
orientation. Closely related to sexual orientation is affectional orientation.
This term refers to a broader range of sexuality and assumes that an indi-
vidual’s sexual orientation is characterized by who he or she is prone to fall in
love with, with sexuality only being a portion of the range of experiences and
attractions (Lambert, 2005).
The term homosexual first appeared in 1869 (Mondimore, 1996),
although it did not appear in an American text until 1892 (Fone, 2000).
Historically, homosexuality was associated with the idea of something devi-
ant, unnatural, or sick, and the American Psychiatric Association classified
homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973. Similarly, the word queer was

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 279 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 280 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

historically a derogatory slang word used to identify homosexuals. However,

it has been “embraced and reinvented as a positive, proud, political iden-
tifier when used by homosexuals among and about themselves” (Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Center, 2010, para. 32), and often extends to
include bisexuals and transgender individuals within its broad span. Queer
is sometimes used as shorthand for LGBT. The term gay is frequently “used
to refer to the LGBTQI [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or ques-
tioning, and intersex] community as a whole, or as an individual identity
label for anyone who does not identify as heterosexual” (Green & Peterson,
2003–2004, p. 3). It may also refer specifically to men who are attracted to
other men. Similarly, the term lesbian describes women who are attracted to
other women (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004).
Bisexual identity and bisexual behavior are terms that further describe a
subpopulation of the queer community. Bisexuality has been defined as erotic
and sexual interest in or attraction to men and women (Robin & Hamner,
2000). Additionally, individuals who are attracted to different types of gen-
ders along the gender identity continuum can be described as pansexual
(Green & Peterson, 2003–2004).
The term gender identity describes an individual’s internal sense of self
as man, woman, or somewhere between or outside these two categories
(Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). The term cisgender “describes someone who is com-
fortable with the gender identity and gender expression expectations assigned
to them based on their physical sex” (Green & Peterson, 2003–2004, p. 2).
Someone who is gender normative chooses to conform to the gender expec-
tations of society. Transgender identity focuses on individuals whose gender
identity does not align with biological sex assignment. It encompasses a wide
array of gender-nonconforming identities and behaviors. Transgender chal-
lenges the concept of the gender binary in which there are only two genders:
man and woman. Ekins and King (1996) defined a transgender individual as
one who blends or bends genders. Research has also identified the notion of
an identity sphere, defined as the concept that “gender identities and expres-
sion do not fit a linear scale, but rather on a sphere that allows room for
all expression without weighting any one expression as better than another”
(Green & Peterson, 2003–2004, p. 5). Because transgender refers to gender
identity and not to sexual orientation, transgender people may be hetero-
sexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual.
Two other terms professionals must understand are heteronormativity
and homophobia. Weinberg (1972) first defined homophobia as irrational
fear of, intolerance of, and discomfort with people who are gay, lesbian, or
bisexual (see also Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Heteronormativity refers to
maintaining the assumption, whether individually or institutionally, that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 280 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 281

heterosexuality is superior to all other forms of sexuality (Green & Peterson,

2003–2004). Discrimination and prejudice against LGBT students are often
the result of homophobia and heterosexism. Unfortunately, LGBT students
may also internalize these prejudices and stereotypes, resulting in self-hatred.

History
Although the gay movement began in Germany, gay organizations have existed
in the United States since the eighteenth century (Bullough, 1979). While
the first formally organized gay group in the United States was the Society
for Human Rights in 1924, the gay rights movement publicly emerged in the
United States after World War II with the Mattachine Society in 1951, ONE
in 1952, and Daughters of Bilitis in 1955 (Adam, 1987). Despite the birth
of these groups, a repressive atmosphere continued to exist throughout the
1950s as gay individuals were routinely abused and blackmailed.
In 1961 Illinois became the first state to decriminalize homosexual behav-
ior between consenting adults; the first television special on homosexuality,
The Rejected, was aired; and the Society for Individual Rights was founded,
later becoming a leading advocacy group (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995).
In 1965 the American Civil Liberties Union proposed changes in laws deal-
ing with homosexuals, and in 1968 the North American Conference of
Homophile Organizations was attended by 26 gay-related groups (Alyson
Almanac, 1994–1995). Another important expression of societal change
was the founding of the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles
(mccchurch.org) in 1968 as a global Christian church with an open, inclusive,
and loving message for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans* individuals, and all
people (as of this writing, the church has 222 congregations in 37 countries).
The gay rights movement was forever changed on June 28, 1969, when a
routine police raid of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City, was met
by a core group of customers who fought back and started a three-day riot
during which the bar was set on fire (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995). Though
similar raids had regularly occurred years before in Los Angeles, by the end
of the Stonewall riot, the gay movement was born. Soon organized gay
groups demanded protection and became a political force (Alyson Almanac,
1994–1995).
Despite attacks by religious conservatives in the 1970s, progress was still
made. In 1970 the Unitarian Church revised its view of homosexuality and
passed the first of multiple resolutions in support of LGBT people (Alyson
Almanac, 1994–1995). Since the 1970s the United States elected its first
openly gay politicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 281 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 282 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders,

and the United Church of Christ became the first major Christian denomina-
tion to ordain an openly gay minister (Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995).
During the 1980s and 1990s the gay and lesbian movement strength-
ened, and bisexuals and transgender individuals gained increased visibil-
ity (Fone, 2000). The LGBT organizations BiNet and Queer Nation were
founded in the United States, and OutRage! was founded in the United
Kingdom in 1990 (see www.binetusa.org and queernationny.org/history).
Following the lead of the World Health Organization in 1994, the American
Medical Association no longer considered homosexuality an illness (Alyson
Almanac, 1994–1995). While the emergence of LGBT organizations rep-
resented progress, legal rights for LGBT individuals were mixed in terms of
support. In 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws against hate crimes
were constitutional while also enacting a ban on gays serving openly in the
military, known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The court also ruled in
1996 that states could not enact legislation to deny civil rights or due process
to gay men and lesbians.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, same-sex marriage laws
were enacted in the Netherlands. Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon,
and Utah, in addition to the country of Australia, banned same-sex marriage
in 2004, while Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wisconsin banned same-sex mar-
riages and civil unions. During President Barack Obama’s inaugural address
in 2013, he mentioned the issue of gay rights for the first time in a presiden-
tial swearing-in ceremony, and on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
made same-sex marriage a right in all 50 states. Today, gay pride marches are
held in most major cities; increasing numbers of companies extend benefits
to domestic partners of their employees; and healthy role models exist for
gay individuals in sports, politics, and entertainment. However, despite these
positive changes, the United States lags behind other countries in legal pro-
tections for LGBT individuals (Baird-Remba, 2013).
A common perception is that the growth in LGBT student organizations
on colleges and universities occurred after the Stonewall riots of 1969. The
reality is that the struggle for visibility started on campuses a few years prior
to the Stonewall riots. For example, in 1967 the Student Homophile League,
the first LGBT student organization, was founded at Columbia University,
and within a year student chapters of the Student Homophile League were
established at Cornell, New York University, and the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (Beemyn, 2003). After Stonewall, the number increased
significantly, and whereas the first organizations were influenced by the
Student Homophile League, groups after 1969 were influenced by the Gay

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 282 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 283

Liberation Front (founded in New York). By 1971, gay liberation groups

existed in every major city and campus in the United States (Adam, 1987).
At the University of Minnesota in 1971 Jack Baker became the first openly
gay person elected student body president at a major university, and with his
partner, they became the first American gay couple to seek a marriage license
(Alyson Almanac, 1994–1995).
Barol (1984) described the late 1980s as a time when colleges recognized
gay and lesbian student organizations, allowed gay dances, granted tenure to
openly gay faculty, and began offering academic courses on homosexuality.
The inaugural gay fraternities and lesbian sororities were chartered at the
University of California, Los Angeles in 1988. Berrill (1989) estimated in
1989 there were about 300 gay student organizations in existence, which
Slater (1993) said was a typical method for providing services to LGBT pop-
ulations even though they were staffed with volunteers and had few financial
resources. These organizations served several purposes on campuses: They
facilitated social interaction, served as political entities, offered educational
resources, provided services and support, and allowed students opportunities
for leadership development (Scott, 1991).
As LGBT campus student and national organizations have grown in
number and impact, so has the attention devoted to them. LGBT campus
resource centers and offices, another development on college campuses, pro-
vide student services and programs; offer campus-wide support to LGBT
students, faculty, staff, their friends, and families; and work to offer oppor-
tunities for growth for entire institutions (Sanlo, 2000). The website for
the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals (www
.lgbtcampus.org) notes that the first office of LGBT affairs opened at the
University of Michigan in 1971, and the majority of these offices opened in
the 1990s.
Founded in 1971 the National Queer Student Coalition (NQSC) is one
of the oldest national LGBT student organizations. NQSC is an affiliate
of the U.S. Student Association (USSA, 2007). Founded and run by stu-
dents, USSA’s primary purpose is organizing, advocating for, and providing
networking for LGBT students and disseminating to its members copies of
federal legislation affecting LGBT students.
Safe Zone is a national program designed to equip heterosexual individu-
als with skills and resources to assist them to become advocates for the LGBT
student population as allies. The program exists under names such as Safe
Space, Safe on Campus, and Safe Harbor. The general idea of these groups
is to allow LGBT allies to place a “safe” symbol in a high-visibility area to
identify that area as a safe place for LGBTs (www.montana.edu/wwwcc/docs/
safezone.html).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 283 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 284 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Campus Pride is the only national nonprofit organization for student

leaders and campus groups working to create a safer college environment for
LGBT students. It is a volunteer-driven network of student leaders whose
primary objective is to develop resources, programs, and services to sup-
port LGBT and allied students on U.S. college campuses. Campus Pride
was founded in 2001 and started out as an online community and resource
clearinghouse (www.campuspride.org).
Individuals along with the development of coalitions, nonprofit organiza-
tions, programs, and legislation have contributed toward increased awareness
and support. Unfortunately, society and college campuses still have work to
do in regard to equity and intersecting identities. Race, gender, immigration
status, socioeconomic status, ability, and religion must be considered in one’s
overall identity as a person and as essential components of any discussions
about LGBT identity. Furthermore, transgender students are frequently not
considered equally in efforts of the LGBT community, and their identities
are frequently rendered invisible by the lack of attention to their unique con-
cerns (Marine & Nicolazzo, 2014).

Demographics
Describing the demographics of LGBT students on college campuses is dif-
ficult (American College Health Association, 2012). Counting the number
of individuals who identify as a member of this community is problematic.
One of the main challenges is due to changing behavior. While a person may
be or feel a certain way, outward behavior can change over time. Additionally,
college may be the first time students feel empowered or supported to align
actions with the person they know themselves to be. A further complication
can be if the behavior exists in all facets of a person’s life.
Understanding the estimates of adults or college students who identify
as members of the LGBT population may be helpful. Some institutions,
including Elmhurst College (Hoover, 2011) and University of Iowa (Hoover,
2012), ask their applicants to indicate their sexual and gender identity to
gain an understanding of their population. While this information is chal-
lenging to calculate, the following is some information that student affairs
practitioners may find helpful from a population perspective.
Four population-based surveys indicated that individuals who identified
as LGBT constituted between 2.2% and 4.0% of the U.S. population, mean-
ing between 5.2 and 9.5 million adults in the United States identify as LGBT
(Gates, 2014). Results of a recent survey by the American College Health
Association (ACHA) illustrates the presence of even greater percentages of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 284 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 285

LGBT students on our campuses. The American College Health Association

(2012) reported that from their recent survey of 90,000 students, 3% identi-
fied as gay/lesbian, 3% identified as bisexual, 1.9% were unsure; when asked
about gender, 0.2% identified as transgender. Although population-based
surveys are helpful in identifying how many individuals identify as LGBT,
student affairs practitioners must understand that these students are on all
our campuses and need support regardless of their percentage of the overall
population.

Sociological Context
The prevailing societal assumption that “heterosexuality is normal, natural,
and preferable as a sexual orientation” (O’Brien, 1998, p. 31) creates a heter-
onormative culture in which individuals are assumed to be heterosexual and
are treated as such. This culture routinely “denies the existence and contribu-
tions of LGBT individuals” (Worthington et al., 1998, p. 136). Homophobia
in both forms—the fear and hatred of homosexuality in others and the fear of
homosexuality in oneself—permeates our society and affects LGBT and het-
erosexual individuals alike, constituting a form of oppression. Heterosexism
and homophobia in the larger American society is mirrored in its college
and university campuses (Tomlinson & Fassinger, 2003). Despite the strides
that have been made in fostering increased acceptance of LGBT people and
the increasing numbers of institutional policies prohibiting discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation, researchers have documented pervasive
prejudice, derogatory comments, verbal and physical harassment, and vio-
lence against LGBT individuals on college and university campuses (Rankin,
2005). More than 36% of LGBT undergraduates have experienced harass-
ment on campus, and in 79% of the cases the harassment came from other
students (Rankin, 2003). Compared to LGBT faculty and staff members on
campus, LGBT students experienced higher rates of harassment attributed to
their sexual identity (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld & Frazer, 2010). Seventeen
transgender individuals have been murdered in 2015 up to the time of this
writing, and the majority of the victims have been Black or Hispanic (Rogers,
2015). The danger present in the environment is illustrated by the murder of
Tamara Dominguez, a trans* woman, who was hit by a vehicle and run over
several times in Kansas City, Missouri.
Throughout history, individuals condemning and attacking LGBT peo-
ple claimed religious justification, often using the Bible to justify oppression
(DuMontier, 2000; Kraig, 1998). Many private colleges and universities have
a religious affiliation that shapes their approach to serving LGBT students,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 285 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 286 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

and LGBT college students come from a broad range of religious traditions.
DuMontier (2000) described faith development and LGBT identity devel-
opment as “parallel processes” (p. 322) and emphasized that “there are points
in which the evolution of gay identity development may be connected and
integral to faith development” (p. 327).
In the past three decades, theories of LGBT identity development have
been formulated; they “are grounded in the assumption that oppressive
contextual influences exert impact on normative developmental processes”
(Fassinger, 1998, p. 14). In other words, the stress of college is exponentially
greater for young people developing an identity as an LGBT person in the
particular sociological context of the collegiate environment. Thus, the life-
long process of developing a positive LGBT identity collides head-on during
the college years with the developmental trajectory of the college student.
LGBT students are put “at considerable disadvantage in terms of achieving
successful resolution of developmental tasks” (Fassinger, 1998, p. 19).
Coming out is another critical aspect of LGBT identity development,
“and one that is distinct from that of heterosexuals” (Newman, 1998, p. 163).
Coming out involves the development of an LGBT identity and the public
expression (to varying degrees) of this identity. LGBT students must come
out to three primary populations—oneself, other LGBT people, and het-
erosexuals (Evans & Broido, 1999). In addition, being out is not always an
either/or process but can be understood as a “continuum from not being out
to oneself . . . to being explicitly out in every setting. Some midway points
include being out to oneself, but not to others; being out to a few trusted
others; being out selectively to friends; and assuming that everyone [knows],
often because of visibility” (p. 663). Ultimately coming out is an individual-
ized process.
Motivations to come out “often had to do with environmental circum-
stances as much as internal pressures” (Evans & Broido, 1999, p. 663).
Encouragement from supportive individuals, perception of a receptive
climate, and availability of LGBT role models are additional factors that
motivate this important decision. Peer culture can have a strong impact in
not only the coming-out process but also influencing exploration of multiple
identities, such as gender and sexuality (King, 2011). Coming out is “usually
understood as psychologically beneficial, in that LGBT people eliminate, or
lessen, the dissonance caused by the lack of congruence between public and
private personas (Newman, 1998, p. 164). Students have reported the advan-
tages of “feelings of pride, authenticity, and relief . . . [as well as] appreciating
being able to be open about who they are” (Evans & Broido, p. 664).
However, coming out into a hostile environment may result in additional
stressors such as increased social ostracism or loss of social support (Newman,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 286 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 287

1998). For precisely such reasons, many LGBT students choose to remain in
the closet and to pass as heterosexuals. As we have previously mentioned, we
must consider the impact of multiple identities on students. For example,
LGBT people of Color are more likely than White LGBT people to con-
ceal their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid harassment (Rankin,
2003). The coming-out process is viewed positively in sexual identity devel-
opment but is viewed differently by different racial identity groups (Patton,
2011). For example, African American males at a historically Black college or
university only disclosed their sexual identity to individuals who they trusted,
indicating that “coming out was not a public process” (Patton, 2011, p. 86).
The African American males in Patton’s (2011) study also wanted to resist
being stereotyped as “flamboyant, feminine, and loud” (p. 88).
Research has shown that students perceive distinct disadvantages to being
out: feelings of concern for others who might be indirectly hurt by the stu-
dent’s being out (e.g., closeted friends, family), distress at being labeled, fears
and actual experience of harassment and rejection, needing to limit behaviors
to avoid unsafe situations, and negative effects on academic performance
because of involvement in LGBT activities (Evans & Broido, 1999). The
classroom climate for trans* students is uncomfortable (Garvey & Rankin,
2014; Pryor, 2015). Classroom roll call produces anxiety for trans* students
as many colleges and universities do not have a way to list a preferred name
on course rosters, which creates an unsafe environment for trans* students
who are transitioning. Marginalizing behaviors from peers and faculty, such
as refusing to call trans* students by their preferred name, further isolates
them in the classroom, which can lead to withdrawing from the course or
higher education altogether (Pryor, 2015).
Social groups exist on college campuses that compound the difficulties
of isolation, add barriers to involvement, and are pockets of heterosexism
and homophobia. Examples of these groups are single sex, such as athletic
programs and Greek organizations (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer,
2010). “LGBT athletes are often fearful of derision if they come out, and
straight athletes are frequently afraid of falsely being labeled as gay if they
do not participate in oppressive acts” (Salkever & Worthington, 1998,
pp. 193–194). A similar dynamic can be seen among members of some
sororities and fraternities. The result is that LGBT students become silenced
within their own teams and organizations and are often forced to suffer the
assault of homophobic remarks unknowingly made by teammates, fraternity
brothers, or sorority sisters. Discrimination against LGBT individuals on
sports teams and other organizations is still pervasive. For example, in 2014,
Michael Sam was the first openly gay football player drafted by a National
Football League team, the St. Louis Rams. Sam was ultimately cut from the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 287 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 288 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

team, becoming a free agent for the Dallas Cowboys, where he was released
from their practice squad (Baskin & Keith, 2015).
There is evidence that fraternities and sororities are becoming more
tolerant. Case’s (1998) research indicated that despite fears to the contrary,
“Most GLBT [sic] fraternity- and sorority-initiated members receive a rela-
tively supportive response from the majority of their members when they
voluntarily reveal their sexual orientation. . . . [However,] the probability of
a negative response is much greater if the member is involuntarily outed”
(p. 69). According to a study conducted by Rankin, Hesp, and Webber
(2013), LGBT students reported experiencing high levels of harassment
on campus, and in three studies comparing LGB and non-LGB students’
experiences LGB students reported statistically significant higher level levels
of harassment. Follow-up analyses on the males in the study indicated that
men who joined after the year 2000 reported more positive experiences in
their fraternity (Rankin et al., 2013). There are fraternities and sororities
for LGBT students. For example, Delta Lambda Phi was founded in 1986
by gay men for all men (dlp.org) and Kappa Alpha Lambda was founded in
2003 for lesbian women (kappaalphalambdasorority.com/about_kalsi).

Identity Development
To be effective, student affairs professionals must be knowledgeable about
foundational and current research on LGBT identify development. It is
imperative they understand gay identity development since many students
begin questioning their sexuality—coming out to themselves and others—
during the college years (Beemyn, Curtis, Davis, & Tubbs, 2005; Evans,
Broido, & Wall, 2004; Evans & D’Augelli, 1996).
Researchers writing about identity development use the terms homosexual
identity and gay identity interchangeably; few studies clearly delineate what is
meant by the concept (Cass, 1983–1984). Cass identified five different uses
of these terms: “(1) defining oneself as gay, (2) developing a sense of self as
gay, (3) possessing an image of self as homosexual, (4) knowing the way a
homosexual person is, and (5) exhibiting consistent behavior in relation to
homosexual-related activity” (p. 108). From these differing definitions, it is
apparent that identity can be defined individually, intrapersonally, or as both.
Regardless of which specific definition is being used, Warren (1974) said
that most researchers agreed that the process toward identity development is
answering the questions, “Who am I? and Where do I belong?” (p. 145).
Extensive attention to homosexual or gay identity development began
in the 1970s. The early theories on gay identity development were primar-
ily sociological in perspective and explored gay identity and related issues.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 288 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 289

Early studies included those of Dank (1971), Hammersmith and Weinberg

(1973), Weinberg (1978), and Bell and Weinberg (1978).
Building upon the work of gay identity research, gay identity develop-
ment models followed. These models focus on the process that gay and lesbian
individuals go through to become aware and accepting of their gay identities.
The early models are developmental in nature, involving a series of stages that
are linear in thought and reflect a social, psychological, or psychosocial per-
spective (Levine & Evans, 1991). Examples include social (Coleman, 1981;
Lee, 1977;), psychological (Minton & McDonald, 1984; Plummer, 1975;
Troiden, 1979), and psychosocial (Cass, 1979; Savin-Williams, 1990, 1995,
1998).
These models have been criticized for not allowing for differences in identity
development among gay men and lesbian women, ignoring identity develop-
ment in bisexuals and transgender individuals, and assuming that identity for-
mation occurs in sequential stages. Additionally, the theories did not take into
account the impact or intersection of other social identities such as race, class,
and faith. Some of the additional theories developed include lesbian identity
development (Fassinger & Miller, 1996; Sophie, 1986); lesbian, gay, and bisex-
ual development (D’Augelli, 1994); bisexual identity development (Bleiberg,
Fertmann, Godino, & Todhunter, 2005; Brown, 2002; Fox, 1995; Klein, 1993;
Rust, 1993; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994); transgender identity devel-
opment (Bilodeau, 2005; Bolin 1993; Carter, 2000); and transsexual identity
development (Devor, 2004). Morales (1990) criticized most homosexual iden-
tity models as being based on the experiences of upper-class White lesbians and
gay men. McCarn and Fassinger (1996) further noted that existing models do
not consider the multiple aspects of identity such as race, class, and faith. To
understand students’ development and assist with their growth, student affairs
professionals need to be knowledgeable about the aforementioned theories.
As space does not allow detailed discussion of all identity development
theories, we provided an overview of some foundational theories as well as
emerging theories. We suggest reading Bilodeau and Renn (2005) for an
excellent comparison of sexual orientation and gender identity development
theories.
Cass’s model of homosexual identity formation. Vivienne Cass’s work
(1979, 1983–1984, 1984) formed the basis for conceptualizing homosexual
development for men and women starting in the late 1970s. Cass proposed a
stage model of homosexual identity development with six stages that assume
a movement in self-perception from heterosexual to homosexual. The first
stage is identity confusion, in which the individual first perceives his or her
thoughts of, feelings about, and attractions to others of the same sex. The
second is identity comparison, where the individual perceives and must deal

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 289 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 290 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

with social stigmatization and alienation. Cass’s third stage is identity toler-
ance, in which individuals, having acknowledged their homosexuality, begin
to seek out other homosexuals. Stage four is identity acceptance, in which pos-
itive connotations about being homosexual foster even further contacts and
friendships with other gays and lesbians. In the fifth stage, identity pride, the
individual minimizes contact with heterosexual peers to focus on issues and
activities related to his or her homosexual orientation. In identity synthesis,
the sixth and final of Cass’s stages, there is less of a dichotomy of individual
differences between the heterosexual and nonheterosexual communities or
aspects of the individual’s life; the individual judges himself or herself on a
range of personal qualities, not just upon sexual identity.
Fassinger’s model. Ruth Fassinger (1998), whose work has become
quite popular with student affairs professionals, developed an inclusive
model of lesbian/gay identity formation. It, too, is stage-based, but it is
multifaceted, reflecting dual aspects of development—individual sexual
identity and group membership identity. The first of Fassinger’s four stages
is awareness—from an individual perspective, of being different from het-
erosexual peers, and from a group perspective, of the existence of differing
sexual orientations among people. The second stage is exploration—on an
individual level, of emotions and erotic desires for people of the same sex,
and on the group level, of how one associates with gay people as a social
class. The third stage a deepening commitment to this changing notion of
identity; on an individual level, it is a personalization of the knowledge
and beliefs about same-sex sexuality, and on the group level, it is per-
sonal involvement with a nonheterosexual reference group, and realizing
the existence of oppression and the potential consequences of identifying
and socializing with nonheterosexuals. The fourth stage, internalization/
synthesis, is an integration of same-sex sexuality into one’s overall identity;
from a collective perspective, it conveys one’s identity as a member of a
minority group in all social contexts.
Bisexual identity development. The diversity and complexity of bisex-
uality challenges our notion of dichotomous sexuality and identity and “con-
fuses, unnerves, and creates suspicion among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual
people” (Pope & Reynolds, 1991, p. 206). Many heterosexuals see bisexuals
as gay and extend homophobia and heterosexism to incorporate this popula-
tion as well, while “many lesbian and gay people suspect individuals of choos-
ing bisexuality as a means of maintaining heterosexual privileges” (Pope &
Reynolds, 1991, p. 207). Biphobia is a term for prejudice based on the fear
and distrust of bisexual people and feelings; it has at its core “the ultimate
marginalizing question, ‘Does bisexuality really exist?’” (Pope & Reynolds,
1991, p. 207).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 290 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 291

In addition to these definitional and conceptual issues, O’Brien (1998)

stated, “For bisexual people, there is no large-scale or widespread ‘bisexual
subculture,’ no bisexual Mecca (as San Francisco is, for example, for gays).
Bisexuals depend largely on individual support and understanding for their
affirmation” (p. 31). Klein (1993) found that the average age that individuals
first identify as bisexual is 24 and may be delayed because of the resistance
from the straight and gay communities. What bisexual students wanted
most, according to O’Brien (1998), was unbiased and considerate treatment
that does not marginalize them based on their sexual orientation or assume
they are abnormal.
The layer cake model of bisexuality development (Bleiberg et al., 2005)
seeks to conceptualize the lesser known and seldom-researched identity
of bisexual individuals. The authors argue that the existing knowledge on
bisexual people is often surrounded by confusion due to a lack of research.
This model serves as a bridge from existing theory of homosexual identity
development to the realm of bisexual identity development. In this model,
individuals move through five layers, beginning at birth, and they gener-
ally follow this sequence: (a) socialize into a heterosexual world as a het-
erosexual; (b) experience homosexual thoughts, emotions, or behaviors; (c)
confirm homosexual attraction while remaining under a heterosexual iden-
tity; (d) integrate both their heterosexual and homosexual identities; and (e)
embrace their own unique bisexual identity. With the fifth layer having the
least amount of existing knowledge, it should be understood that bisexual-
ity could carry different meanings for different people. In short, the fifth
layer is characterized by the subjective identification within the bisexual
population.
Transgender identity development. Confusion surrounds the term
transgender. Few individuals can accurately define it or can fathom what
it might be like “not to be comfortable living within the confines of the
social stereotypes of gender as applied to themselves” (Lees, 1998, p. 37).
According to Lees (1998), “The process of educating the wider community
about transgender issues can be difficult: Most transsexual people choose to
live a quiet life not identified as having ‘changed sex’” (p. 43). Perhaps this is
at least partially because transgender people are more vulnerable to random
homophobic attacks than lesbian, gay, or bisexual people (Carter, 2000).
For many students who are questioning their gender identity, “The time
away at college is often the first chance to challenge the gender role assigned
at birth and to decide how to integrate transgenderness into life as an adult”
(Lees, 1998, p. 37). Lees (1998) explained, “The path of self-discovery often
involves going from one gender extreme to the other, then settling down
somewhere in between” (p. 38). The college years are considered an optimal

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 291 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 292 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

time for transgender individuals to make a transition (Lees, 1998). Most col-
leges and universities offer little support for transgender students on college
campuses (Beemyn et al., 2005), where they often experience a hostile cam-
pus climate and a lack of resources, such as health care (McKinney, 2005).
Across the nation, transgender students have been demanding comfortable
living space, representation in organizations, and support from higher edu-
cation administration and staff (Carter, 2000; Erbentraut, 2015; McKinney,
2005).
Not all transgender people are comfortable being part of the LGBT con-
glomeration. After all, gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation,
and many transgender individuals identify as heterosexual. Approximately
200 colleges and universities have a professionally staffed LGBTQ center,
but tensions often surround the center’s name, programming, staffing, activ-
ism, and advocacy (Marine & Nicolazzo, 2014). For example, programming
about rather than for trans* faculty, staff, and students, marginalizes the needs
of the trans* community on college campuses (Marine & Nicolazzo, 2014).
Evan’s model of transgender identity development (Gender and Sexuality
Development, 2011) outlines a series of steps that are experienced by indi-
viduals who identify as transgender. The six-step model follows this sequence:

1. Existing a traditionally gendered identity—the understanding of gender

roles and the impact of these roles
2. Developing a personal transgender identity—the individual’s gender
identification within the transgender community
3. Developing a transgender social identity—the discovery of a support
group and the understanding of the values of this group
4. Becoming a transgender offspring—pronouncing one’s identity to others
and integrating these reactions
5. Developing a transgender intimacy status—the process of sharing one’s
holistic self with an intimate partner
6. Entering a transgender community—connecting with the transgender
community and assuming similar political and social actions and beliefs

Devor (2004) produced witnessing and mirroring: a fourteen-stage

model to highlight the complex progression that occurs during the identity
development of a transsexual individual. Devor proposed a comprehensive
sequence of 14 steps that conceptualize the full transition of the transsexual
population. These steps are

1. Abiding anxiety
2. Identity confusion about originally assigned gender and sex

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 292 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 293

3. Identity comparisons about originally assigned gender and sex

4. Discovery of transsexualism
5. Identity confusion about transsexualism
6. Identity comparisons about transsexualism
7. Tolerance of transsexual identity
8. Delay before acceptance of transsexual identity
9. Acceptance of transsexual identity
10. Delay before transition
11. Transition
12. Acceptance of post-transition gender and sex identities
13. Integration
14. Pride (p. 41)

While this sequence appears structured, Devor emphasized that this model is
intended to serve as a guideline, not a rule or expectation. Individuals expe-
rience these stages in different ways and at different paces, and individuals
can stop progressing through the sequence at their own comfort level. Two
key themes frame this theory: witnessing and mirroring. For individuals to
feel validated and their sense of self to be reinforced, individuals need to
be seen by others for what they are (witnessing), and individuals must see
themselves in others’ eyes as they see themselves (mirroring). Lack of congru-
ence between witnessing and mirroring results in negative self-identity and
behavior.

Intersectionality
Identity development theories tend to follow a consistent trend that ends
with a person integrating the salient identity with their other identities.
Intersectionality represents a growing perspective of theory and research
related to social identities. This perspective stresses that changes in one com-
ponent of our social identity (gender, class, race, faith) cannot be understood
without understanding changes in other parts of our social identities (Dill,
McLaughlin, & Nieves, 2007; Jones & Abes, 2013; Torres, Jones, & Renn,
2009). These theories encourage holistic development and integration of
identities as people tell their stories. Two excellent resources for understand-
ing intersectionality are offered by Wijeyesinghe and Jackson (2012) and
Jones and Abes (2013). Wijeyesinghe and Jackson explore racial identity and
its intersection with other identities, and Jones and Abes explore intersec-
tionality, critical race theory, and queer theory as related to race, class, gender,
and sexuality.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 293 7/26/2016 7:24:27 PM

 294 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Student affairs practitioners must consider developing programming

centered on identity development and the intersectionality of identities.
Practitioners must allow for the space and patience for students to progress
one level or stage at a time at their own pace and development. For exam-
ple, the experiences of a gay Black student on one campus are qualitatively
different from a gay White student; a low-socioeconomic lesbian student
combines her experiences as a working-class and lesbian person to create an
outcome that will be different than a low-socioeconomic heterosexual friend
as well as different from the experiences of a lesbian from a middle-class
background. Student affairs professionals must understand that these experi-
ences represent identities that intersect to create a unique experience for each
individual. Intersectionality is not additive; one does not layer on unique
identities. Rather, people experience the world at the intersection of all of
their individual identities.

Best Practices: Historical and Emerging

This section highlights best practices that many campuses have historically
used to provide a safe space for LGBT students (campus resource centers,
Lavender Graduations, a comprehensive webpage, gender-inclusive bath-
rooms, and academic partnerships) and three emerging practices for working
with these students (gender-affirming living-learning communities, admis-
sion application changes, and study abroad experiences).
Readers can go to www.lgbtcampus.org for other examples of best prac-
tices. In addition, many of the institutions described have received national
attention due to the alignment with the Campus Pride Index, which is why
these initiatives were chosen as best practices (www.campusprideindex.org).
Even though many campuses are making strides toward implementing these
best practices, they are not commonplace in higher education. It takes time
to develop or acquire the necessary relationships, policies, and funding to
implement these initiatives. Additionally, we realize that best practices may
not be feasible on all campuses, and student affairs professionals should exam-
ine their respective campus contexts for appropriate initiatives to implement.
Ultimately, we offer these best practices to inspire student affairs practition-
ers to make strides in several areas, thereby improving the college experiences
of LGBT students.

Campus Resource Centers and Lavender Graduations

The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals cur-
rently lists 194 registered campus offices or centers, many with a full-time

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 294 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 295

professional director with at least 50% of the position devoted to LGBT

students or a graduate assistant with a sole focus on LGBT students (see
www.lgbtcampus.org/lgbt-map). In 2001, 45 institutions held Lavender
Graduations (celebrations designed to recognize LGBT students graduating
from college), and in 2015 the number nearly doubled to 86 institutions (see
www.hrc.org/resources/entry/lavender-graduation). Campuses have made
strides in these areas, but these best practices that demonstrate inclusivity
have not yet become the norm nationwide.

Comprehensive Webpages
Retention is a common challenge for many college students, and particularly
for LGBT students. In 2010, 33% of LGBT students in higher education
considered leaving their respective institutions for reasons related to their
sexuality and gender (Rankin et al., 2010). Purdue University’s webpage
reflects a comprehensive approach that includes a method for reporting hate
and bias as well as ways to donate to its resource center. In an effort to pro-
vide educational opportunities to various campus stakeholders, someone can
complete a short form to request a speaker. There are also ways for students
to submit a request to have their names appear differently in Blackboard for
academic purposes and BoilerLink for student involvement purposes. This
institution and others use a comprehensive and innovative approach rather
than a static website.

Gender-Inclusive Bathrooms
Making facilities more inclusive is a necessary step for campuses and
surrounding communities (Beemyn, Dominque, Pettitt, & Smith, 2005).
More than 150 college campuses have gender-inclusive bathrooms for LGBT
students and employees (see www.transgenderlaw.org/college/guidelines.
htm for more information and guidelines). Several universities provide lists
of buildings on campus and in the surrounding community that provide
gender-inclusive facilities.

Academic Partnerships
Providing development opportunities for faculty is an important strat-
egy for colleges and universities striving to create more inclusive campus
environments for LGBT students. Even when faculty want to learn more
about LGBT issues, too many colleges and universities fail to provide such
opportunities. Arizona State University’s faculty learn how to create an
inclusive classroom environment and incorporate LGBT subject matter
into their courses (see cls.asu.edu/lgbt). Arizona State University LGBT

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 295 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 296 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

resource center professionals also collaborated with academic affairs to pro-

vide and promote an LGBT certificate program that encompasses 15 cred-
its worth of courses. Several universities provide opportunities for students
to major, minor, or earn a certificate in LGBT studies at the undergraduate
and graduate level (see people.ku.edu/~jyounger/lgbtqprogs.html for an
evolving list).

Emerging Best Practices

In addition to the four historical best practices listed earlier, we also high-
light three emerging strategies that many campus educators have begun
exploring to develop more inclusive campus spaces for LGBT students.
Although the ultimate answer to oppression experienced by LGBT
students is dismantling it, including homophobia and transphobia, these
best practices may provide some relief for students until that happens.

Gender-Affirming Living-Learning Communities

As previously stated, much campus sensitivity to trans*- and gender-
affirming students’ needs first began with the issue of gender-inclusive bath-
rooms. Campus professionals soon realized that this sense of inclusion must
become part of the larger campus culture. As such, campuses such as the
University of Louisville, University of Rhode Island, Dartmouth College,
and the University of California, San Diego have begun focusing on gender-
affirming housing programs, with the creation of gender and sexuality
living-learning communities. These communities offer a programmatic and
academic structure, as well as attention to revised assignment policies that
may conflict with inclusion.

Admission Applications Changes

With the increased recognition of the fluidity of gender, campuses such as
the University of Iowa and Oregon State have been early leaders in the collec-
tion of queer and trans* student data in their admissions process. This shift
in policy allows for nonbinary gender information in Banner, Blackboard,
Canvas, and other learning management tools. In 2011 Common Application
reported it would not collect gender identity or sexual orientation informa-
tion; in 2015, numerous organizations forwarded a letter to the Common
Application requesting that on their standard application form, they add
optional demographic questions related to gender identity and sexual ori-
entation. We anticipate in coming years that collection of such data will be
standard process for institutions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 296 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 297

Study Abroad Experiences

Recent years have seen the rise of LGBTQ-focused student abroad programs.
LGBT students must contend with a number of considerations and risk fac-
tors when traveling abroad. The University of Louisville, Augsburg College,
Syracuse University, and the University of Maryland–Baltimore County have
developed study abroad programs for or inclusive to LGBT students, and
Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin provide resources
for LGBT students on their respective websites.
In addition to these programs, institutions are also becoming cognizant
of the increased numbers of queer and transgender international students
who want to come to the United States to explore their identity in more
culturally affirming and legally protecting environments than their home
countries. Institutions must be prepared to provide student support organi-
zations; legal resources, as these students often want to seek political asylum;
and training for university personnel (J. Kenney, personal communication,
August 23, 2015).

Recommendations
Ensuring that LGBT college students have a safe, supportive, and conducive
environment for pursuing their educational goals must be an institutional
and student affairs priority. As the moral conscience of the campus (Brown,
1985), student affairs staff should be at the forefront of efforts in creating an
LGBT-affirmative campus climate and should serve as role models for others.
Please note that while the authors do not assume that all the readers of this
volume are heterosexually oriented, this section primarily addresses hetero-
sexual student affairs professionals and faculty out of particular concern with
helping this group become more knowledgeable and skilled in addressing the
needs of LGBT students.

Institutional Support
An institutional ally is a college or university that intentionally creates
and sustains an environment that supports the actions of individual allies
on behalf of LGBT students (Lucozzi, 1998). Its personnel recognize the
harmful effects of homophobia not only on LGBT students but also on
heterosexual students. For example, a study by Rankin (2005) showed that
36% of undergraduate LGBT students experienced harassment. To assist
LGBT students, administrators should develop and endorse policies against
harassment, accompanied by public statements of support for campus LGBT
students. The 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People offers the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 297 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 298 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

following recommendations for campus administrators to create inclusive

communities:

• Develop inclusive policies

• Demonstrate institutional commitment
• Integrate LGBTQQ issues and concerns in curricular and co-
curricular education
• Respond to LGBTQQ bias incidents
• Considerations for on-campus housing
• Offer comprehensive counseling and health care
• Improve access and retention (pp. 15–17)

Individual Support
On the individual level, the 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT
people emphasized the importance of creating “brave spaces” for dialogue. In
order for faculty, staff, and students to create inclusive communities, learn-
ing needs to occur through dialogue between individuals who do and do not
identify as LGBT. LGBT students need safe public and private spaces for
dialogue and reflection (King, 2011). These safe spaces can include online
chat sessions, discussion boards, student organizations, and support groups
(King, 2011). Student affairs professionals must also continually and inten-
tionally seek to learn about the wide-ranging needs of LGBT students and
issues pertinent to their development (Worthington et al., 1998).
When institutions take a proactive approach, research suggests that it
does not automatically mean that LGBT students will feel safe and included
(Rankin, 2005). In addition to campuses taking a proactive approach, it
must also be comprehensive with opportunities for dialogue, education,
signage, policies, facilities, engagement opportunities, partnerships with the
surrounding community, and rapid response systems.

Ongoing Self-Awareness
While understanding issues that LGBT individuals face and being able to
make a difference in their experience are fundamental, “It is equally impor-
tant to consider their own development in becoming an LGBT-affirmative
person” (Worthington et al., 1998, p. 136). Gelber and Chojnacki said
that to become effective in working with the LGBT population, individu-
als must “1) be realistic about the limitation imposed on them by their
socialization into homophobic, heterosexist practices; 2) make a commit-
ment to overcome that socialization; and 3) actively pursue experiences that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 298 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 299

facilitate their own movement toward that goal” (as cited in Worthington et
al., 1998, p. 136).
Other efforts include providing educational programs to develop stu-
dent affairs staff competencies in working with LGBT students and edu-
cating other elements of the campus community (faculty, administrators,
support personnel) to create a more LGBT-affirmative campus climate and
to make additional allies for the LGBT population. Educational programs
can include forum presentations, speakers, group discussions, panels, ally
training, problem-solving sessions, films, and workshops. Indeed, “as knowl-
edge is gained, ignorance and prejudice can be lessened, providing a more
sensitive atmosphere” (Salkever & Worthington, 1998, p. 199).

Student Development and Intersectionality of Identities

The provision of support services—including advising, peer support groups,
mentoring, and resource referral—for LGBT students is essential. Keeling
(1998) underscored the importance of services that do not presume that the
fact of the sexuality is the only or dominant psychological issue for LGBT
students but “that do, on the other hand, take into account the specific needs
created by being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and the context that sexuality cre-
ates for other psychological and spiritual concerns” (p. 150). “LGBT students
struggle with many of the same issues that confront heterosexual students”
(Worthington et al., 1998, p. 140). Therefore, student affairs practitioners
need to be able to “recognize sexual orientation is peripheral to the issue at
hand to respond accordingly” (Worthington et al., 1998, p. 140). Faculty
and staff on college campuses need to provide safe spaces where LGBT stu-
dents can explore not only aspects of their sexual identity but also how their
gender, racial, and social class identities intersect with their sexual identity
(King, 2011). They should realize the limitations of their training and exper-
tise in working with LGBT students. Their primary goal is to listen, express
concern and support, and help students “consider and evaluate her or his
needs for services without presuming that the student will want or need addi-
tional help” (Salkever & Worthington, 1998, p. 200). If the student desires
additional help, it is essential to have a list of appropriate referrals to campus
and community resources.
Services should be able to assist students who may be at varying stages
of their identity development and coming-out process. Additionally, stu-
dent affairs practitioners must avoid overgeneralizing and essentializing the
experiences of LGBT students and realize that each story is unique (Patton,
2011). As LGBT students are in college, they may still be in the process of
negotiating their sexual identity, along with other identities (Patton, 2011).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 299 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 300 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

LGBT students should be able to view any campus professional as knowl-

edgeable and LGBT-affirmative (Keeling, 1998).
Optimally, programs and services could be centralized in or coordinated
with an LGBT resource center to be used by all members of the college and
university community. Watkins (1998) said that this office

would serve as the primary clearinghouse for GLBT [sic] educational

resources, such as videos, books, and pamphlets, would provide support
services for GLBT individuals, sponsor GLBT cultural events, compile
GLBT hate crime statistics, and conduct training sessions for the campus
community on GLBT issues and heterosexism (p. 275).

Case Study: The Shower

You are Marie Santos, dean of students at Valley University, a public univer-
sity of 20,000 students in a small rural town in the Midwest. A large protest
on campus has been scheduled that day because the campus is divided on
issues stemming from an incident that occurred in the residence halls.
Donna Smith, a freshman resident of one of the all-women’s halls,
stayed in her room one Saturday night because she was feeling ill. All of
her friends and most of the residents of the hall were out at a home football
game that was followed by a concert. Entering the restroom down the hall,
feeling nauseated for the third time that evening, she was surprised to hear
voices coming from one of the shower stalls. She stayed in the restroom
for several minutes fighting the urge to be sick again and then decided to
brush her teeth. She was startled when Marcy from two doors down the
hall emerged from the shower stall followed closely by her roommate, Jane.
Playful flirtation was obvious between the two, who were equally startled
to see Donna in the restroom. Donna blushed, stammered, and made a
quick exit, concluding that the rumors about the two being lesbians cer-
tainly seemed to be true.
Several days later, the campus community became aware of the incident
through Donna’s opinion piece in the student newspaper. Donna’s purpose
was to talk about the diversity on campus and how grateful she was to have
the opportunity to be exposed to so many different people, even though the
incident itself had been uncomfortable at first. In addition to pledging her
support to gay and lesbian students on campus as an ally and urging other
students to do the same, she voiced her support on various social media plat-
forms. Though Donna did not include names, residents of her floor quickly
identified the two women and started to avoid Marcy and Jane. Several resi-
dents went to the resident assistant and the resident director, appalled that

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 300 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 301

nothing had been done to address the situation disciplinarily. The “inequity”
outraged a number of students who said that the university is discriminat-
ing against heterosexual students who are not allowed to shower with their
boyfriends in the floor’s common bathroom or to live with their boyfriends.
Students are talking about this incident on several social media platforms,
including anonymous ones.
The protest involves conservative student groups on campus that believe
the university should take strong action against promoting this lifestyle in the
residence halls. A street preacher who visits campus, regularly condemning
homosexuality on religious grounds, has been called by some of the religious
groups. A bill has been introduced in the Student Senate that would ban
homosexual students from being able to be roommates in campus residence
facilities, although no enforcement mechanism has been specified. The cam-
pus ally organization plans a counterprotest, although the group is somewhat
divided over the inequity question.
The LGBT student group on campus, Gay Straight Alliance (GSA), has
been largely silent on the issue. Mostly a support group sponsoring a few
social events each year and one highly publicized fund-raiser, a drag show,
GSA has not been involved in political or advocacy issues for LGBT stu-
dents. Some of the GSA members are highly frustrated with the leadership of
the group in this crucial situation.
As the dean of students, you have several things scheduled on your calen-
dar related to what has occurred: the protest at noon in addition to a meet-
ing with Chris Stevens, a male-to-female transgender resident of the floor in
question, who lives in a single room and who is increasingly uncomfortable
and is sure she will be outed in this process; an early-afternoon meeting with
Pat Clark, a student affairs staff member who is adviser to the GSA to discuss
the division occurring in that organization; and a late-afternoon meeting
with the resident hall’s resident director and the director of residence life to
discuss the situation in the hall and the disciplinary actions that should be
taken, if any.

Discussion Questions
1. What are the issues or problems presented in this case? Be specific.
2. How would you handle the social media implications of this incident?
3. What resources are available to you to address this issue? How would you
include other entities on campus to assist you?
4. What primary issues or actions would you anticipate for each of your sched-
uled meetings and the protest? How would you approach these events?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 301 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 302 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

5. Using your knowledge of LGBT identity development, what inter-

ventions would you recommend for participants and organizations
involved?
6. What roles can allies play in helping the campus eliminate the homopho-
bia and discrimination that LGBT students face?

References
Adam, B. D. (1987). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement. Boston, MA: Twayne.
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Alyson Almanac: The factbook of the lesbian and gay community. (1994–1995). Bos-
ton, MA: Alyson Publications.
American College Health Association. (2012). National college health assessment II:
Reference group executive summary, Spring 2012. Hanover, MD: Author.
Baird-Remba, R. (2013, March 14). 13 countries that are more gay friendly
than America. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.in/
articleshow/21230403.cms
Barol, B. (1984, May). The fight over gay rights. Newsweek on Campus, pp. 4–10.
Baskin, B., & Keith, T. (2015). Go north, young Sam. Sports Illustrated,
122(22), 28.
Beemyn, B. G. (2003). The silence is broken: A history of the first lesbian, gay,
and bisexual college student groups. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2),
205–223.
Beemyn, B., Curtis, B., Davis, M., & Tubbs, N. J. (2005). Transgender issues on
college campus. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 49–60.
Beemyn, B., Dominque, D., Pettitt, J., & Smith, T. (2005). Suggested steps to make
campuses more trans-inclusive. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education,
3(2), 89–94.
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among
men and women. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Berrill, K. (1989). Report of the campus project of the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Bilodeau, B. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgender
students at a midwestern research university. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in
Education, 3(1), 29–44.
Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development
models and implications for practice. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender identity and
sexual orientation: Research, policy, and personal perspectives (pp. 25–39). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bleiberg, S., Fertmann, A., Godino, C., & Todhunter, A. (2005). The layer cake
model of bisexual identity development. The National Association for Campus
Activities Programming Magazine, 37(8), 1–19.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 302 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 303

Bolin, A. (1993). Transcending and transgendering: Male-to-female transsexuals,

dichotomy, and diversity. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual
dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 447–486). New York, NY: Zone Books.
Brown, R. D. (1985). Creating an ethical community. New Directions for Student
Services, 1985(30), 67–79.
Brown, T. (2002). A proposed model of bisexual identity development that elabo-
rates on experiential differences of women and men. Journal of Bisexuality, 2(4),
67–91.
Bullough, V. L. (1979). Homosexuality: A history. New York, NY: New American
Library.
Campus Pride. (2015, August 3). Campus Pride joins letter asking Common Appli-
cation to include gender identity and sexual orientation questions on college
admission standard form. Retrieved from www.campuspride.org/campus-pride-
joins-letter-asking-common-application-to-include-gender-identity-and-sexual-
orientation-questions-on-college-admission-standard-form/
Carter, K. A. (2000). Transgenderism and college students: Issues of gender iden-
tity and its role on our campuses. In V. A. Wall & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Toward
acceptance: Sexual orientation issues on campus (pp. 261–282). Washington, DC:
American College Personnel Association.
Case, D. N. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues within the Greek community. In
R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students:
A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 67–78). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.
Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model.
Journal of Sex Research, 20, 143–167.
Cass, V. C. (1983–1984). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of definition.
Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 105–126.
Coleman, E. (1981). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of
Homosexuality, 7, 31–43.
Coleman, E. (1990). Toward a synthetic understanding of sexual orientation. In
D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/hetero-
sexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 267–276). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Dank, B. M. (1971). Coming out in the gay world. Psychiatry, 34, 180–197.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a
model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts,
& D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp.
312–333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Devor, A. H. (2004). Witnessing and mirroring: A fourteen-stage model of transsex-
ual identity formation. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8(1/2), 41–67.
Dill, B. T., McLaughlin, A. E., & Nieves, A. D. (2007). Future direction of femi-
nist research: Intersectionality. In S. E. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist
research (pp. 629–637). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 303 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 304 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

DuMontier, V. L., II (2000). Faith, the Bible, and lesbians, gay men, and bisexu-
als. In V. A. Wall & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation
issues on campus (pp. 321–341). Washington, DC: American College Personnel
Association.
Ekins, R., & King, D. (1996). Blending genders: An introduction. In R. Ekins &
D. King (Eds.), Blending genders: Social aspects of cross dressing and sex-changing
(pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Routledge.
Erbentraut, J. (2015, May 18). College campuses are more trans-inclusive than
ever, but still have a long way to go. Huff Post Gay Voices. Retrieved from www
.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/trans-friendly-colleges_n_7287702.html
Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (1999). Coming out in college residence halls:
Negotiation, meaning making, challenges, supports. Journal of College Student
Development, 40(6), 658–668.
Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., & Wall, V. (2004). Educating student affairs profession-
als about gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues: An evaluation of intervention. College
Student Affairs Journal, 24(1), 20–31.
Evans, N. J., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1996). Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people
in college. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians,
gays, and bisexuals: Children to adult (pp. 201–226). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace.
Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and student development
theory. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 13–22). Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual
minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality,
32, 53–78.
Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Fox, R. C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.),
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives
(pp. 48–86). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Garvey, J. C., & Rankin, S. R. (2014). The influence of campus experiences on the
level of outness among trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum students. Journal of
Homosexuality, 62(3), 374–393.
Gates, G. J. (2014). LGB/T demographics: Comparisons among population-based sur-
veys. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.
Gender and Sexuality Development. (2011, March 27). Retrieved from student
developmenttheory.wordpress.com/gender-and-sexuality/
Green, E. R. & Peterson, E. (2003–2004). LGBTQI terminology. Retrieved from
www.lgbt.ucla.edu/documents/LGBTTerminology.pdf
Hammersmith, S. K., & Weinberg, M. S. (1973). Homosexual identity: Commit-
ment, adjustment, and significant others. Sociometry, 36(1), 56–79.
Hoover, E. (2011, August). Elmhurst College will ask applicants about sexual ori-
entation. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/blogs/
headcount/elmhurst-college-will-ask-applicants-about-sexual-orientation/28553

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 304 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 305

Hoover, E. (2012, December 12). U of Iowa will ask applicants if they “identify
with” the gay community. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle
.com/article/U-of-Iowa-Will-Ask-Applicants/136269/
Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Resources—sexual orientations and gender iden-
tity. Retrieved from www.hrc.org/resources/entry/sexual-orientation-and-gender-
identity-terminology-and-definitions
Jones, S., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing
frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keeling, R. P. (1998). Effective and humane campus health and counseling services.
In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college
students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 147–157). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
King, A. R. (2011). Environmental influences on the development of female college
students who identify as multiracial/biracial-bisexual/pansexual. Journal of College
Student Development, 52(4), 440–455.
Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Kraig, B. (1998). Exploring sexual orientation issues at colleges and universities
with religious affiliations. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators
(pp. 245–254). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Lambert, S. (2005). The experience of gay male and lesbian faculty in counselor
education departments: A grounded theory. Dissertation Abstracts International,
66 (06A), 2113. (UMI No. 3177885)
Lee, J. A. (1977). Going public: A study in the sociology of homosexual liberation.
Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 49–78.
Lees, L. J. (1998). Transgender students on our campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.),
Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for
faculty and administrators (pp. 37–44). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Center. (2010). Definitions and information.
Retrieved from www.ohio.edu/lgbt/resources/Definitions _and_Information.cfm
Levine, H., & Evans, N. (1991). The development of gay, lesbian and bisexual iden-
tities. In N. Evans & V. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gay, lesbians and bisexuals
on campus. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.
Lucozzi, E. A. (1998). A far better place: Institutions as allies. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.),
Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for
faculty and administrators (pp. 47–52). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Marine, S. B., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2014). Names that matter: Exploring the tensions
of campus LGBTQ centers and trans* inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 7(4), 265–281.
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Re-visioning sexual minority identity
formation: A new model for lesbian identity and its implications for counseling
and research. Counseling Psychologists, 24, 508–534.
McKinney, J. S. (2005). On the margins: A study of the experiences of transgender
college students. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 63–76.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 305 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 306 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Minton, H. L., & McDonald, G. J. (1984). Homosexual identity formation as a

developmental process. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 91–104.
Mondimore, F. M. (1996). A natural history of homosexuality. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Morales, E. S. (1990). Ethnic minority families and minority gays and lesbians.
In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations.
Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Newman, P. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of AIDS: HIV prevention on campus.
In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college
students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 159–170). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
O’Brien, K. M. (1998). The people in between: Understanding the needs of bisexual
students. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 31–35). Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: A summary of
research findings. In American Psychological Association (Ed.), Lesbian and gay
parenting: A resource for psychologists (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Patton, L. D. (2011). Perspectives on identity, disclosure, and the campus environ-
ment among African American gay and bisexual men and one historically Black
college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 77–100.
Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1991). Including bisexuality: It’s more than just a
label. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals on campus. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.
Pryor, J. T. (2015). Out in the classroom: Transgender student experiences at a large
public university. Journal of College Student Development, 56(5), 440–455.
Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgender people:
A national perspective. Washington, DC: National and Gay Lesbian Task Force
Policy Institute.
Rankin, S. (2005). Campus climate for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student
Services, 2005(111), 17–23.
Rankin, S. R., Hesp, G. A., & Webber, G. N. (2013). Experiences and perceptions
of gay and bisexual fraternity members from 1960 to 2007: A cohort analysis.
Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 570–590.
Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher educa-
tion for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: 2010 national college climate
survey. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.
Robin, L., & Hamner, K. (2000). Bisexuality: Identities and community. In V. A.
Wall & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Toward acceptance (pp. 245–259). Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 306 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COLLEGE STUDENTS 307

Rogers, K. (2015, August 21). Seventeen transgender killings contrast with grow-
ing visibility. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/us/
explosion-of-transgender-murders-contrast-with-growing-acceptance.html?_r=0
Rust, P. C. (1993). “Coming out” in the age of social constructionism: Sexual iden-
tity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender and Society, 7, 50–77.
Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1998). Lesbian and gay youth. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Salkever, K., & Worthington, R. L. (1998). Creating a safe space in college athletics.
In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college
students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 193–202). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Sanlo, R. L. (1998). Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college stu-
dents: A handbook for faculty and administrators. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sanlo, R. L. (2000a). The LGBT campus resource center director: The new profes-
sion in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 37(3), 485–495.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of identity. Wash-
ington, DC: Hemisphere.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1995). Lesbian, gay, male and bisexual adolescents. In A. R.
D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the life
span: Psychological perspectives (pp. 165–189). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). And then I became gay: Young men’s stories. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Scott, D. (1991). Working with gay and lesbian student organizations. In
N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on
campus (pp. 117–130). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Shively, M. G., & DeCecco, J. P. (1993). Components of sexual identity. In
L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay
male experiences (pp. 80–88). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Slater, B. R. (1993). Violence against lesbians and gay male college students. In
L. C. Whitmaker & J. W. Pollards (Eds.), Campus violence: Kinds, causes, and cures
(pp. 171–202). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Sophie, J. (1986). A critical examination of stage theories of lesbian identity develop-
ment. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 39–51.
Tomlinson, M., & Fassinger, R. (2003). Career development, lesbian identity devel-
opment and campus climate among lesbian college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 845–860.
Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development theories in
student affairs: Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College
Student Development, 50(6), 577–596.
Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity acquisition.
Psychiatry, 42, 362–373.
U.S. Student Association. (2007). Welcome to USSA! Retrieved from www
.usstudents.org/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 307 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 308 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Warren, C. A. B. (1974). Identity and community in the gay world. New York: Wiley.
Watkins, B. L. (1998). Bending toward justice: Examining and dismantling hetero-
sexism on college and university campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and
administrators (pp. 267–276). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York, NY: Anchor/
Doubleday.
Weinberg, G. (1978). On “doing” and “being” gay: Sexual behavior and homosexual
male self-identification. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(2), 143–156.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Under-
standing bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wijeyesinghe, C. L., & Jackson, B. W. (Eds.). (2012). New perspectives on racial
identity development. New York, NY: New York Press.
Worthington, R. L., McCrary, S. I., & Howard, K. A. (1998). Becoming an LGBT-
affirmative career adviser: Guidelines for faculty, staff, and administrators. In
R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college stu-
dents: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 135–143). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 308 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 14
A D U LT C O L L E G E S T U D E N T S
Fiona J. D. MacKinnon and Rosiline D. Floyd

A
dult learners add a welcome dash of maturity and character to college
campuses. They enrich the college classroom with their wide-ranging
backgrounds and diverse perspectives; they are varied in age, gender,
color, political persuasion, and socioeconomic class. The stereotype of college
as an experience for the young is still pervasive within society at large, and
on many campuses, adults feel sensitive about their status. Even the term
most institutions use to describe adult learners—nontraditional students—has
negative implications. Fortunately, some colleges and universities, particu-
larly community colleges, urban institutions, and liberal arts colleges with
specially designed niches for returning adults, create environments in which
all multicultural adult learners are not only accepted but also appreciated and
respected.
Historically, students and teachers came to universities from the same
privileged social backgrounds, sharing similar values and principles (Hermida,
2009). Thus, teachers’ and students’ perspectives were the same. Because of
this cultural climate, the differences and needs of diverse populations and the
role of educators in meeting the needs of all students were not acknowledged
or understood. Throughout most of U.S. educational history, institutions of
higher education have not welcomed adults, even though veterans have been
tolerated following major wars. Many multicultural adults and women have
had an even more difficult time gaining access to continued education. Race,
class, age, and gender have been the primary factors leading to disparities in
access. In spite of rhetoric that voices empowerment and equal access, the
reality denies the sentiment (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).
Many multicultural academics challenge collegiate educational provid-
ers to create environments that are engaging and supportive for all students
(Bell, 1992; Guy, 1999; Wilson, 1987). Higher education administrators,
faculty, and student affairs professionals can play important roles in changing

309

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 309 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 310 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

society for the betterment of all. All educational stakeholders must carefully
examine their own views of mainstream American culture and the European
American ethnic identity that prevails in most colleges and universities to
enhance the learning experience of multicultural adult learners (Guy, 1999).
Higher education is a very patriarchal environment with a strong European
tradition. Traditionally, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic
Americans, and Asian Americans have not only been relegated socially, politi-
cally, and economically to the margins of society but also marginalized as
adult learners by higher education. The reality of the higher education expe-
rience for adult learners is not always evident to student affairs professionals,
who must not make assumptions about the institutional culture or physical
or psychological environment in which learning is taking place (Knowles,
1984). Professionals must listen and assess carefully the stories or narratives
that adult students tell about their experiences. Instead of expecting adult
learners to adapt, stakeholders in education must adapt to the needs of the
adult students.

Demographic Background
The rate of adult involvement in formal learning has grown enormously since
the stream of veterans into higher education after World War II. During the
1960s and 1970s adult participation in organized learning activities increased
at twice the growth rate of the adult population (Kett, 1994). The label non-
traditional was first applied to adult women. This term was later applied to
any college students older than the traditional 18- to 22-year-olds (Kett,
1994). Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, colleges and universities were
“male bastions” (Kett, 1994, p. 429), but by the latter half of the 1970s the
number of women students rose by 25%, and the number of men remained
unchanged (Kett, 1994). The increased enrollment of adult women who
took advantage of the easing of age requirements (i.e., institutions favoring
and admitting students between the ages of 18 and 21) in the 1970s paved
the way for other adults. Voorhees and Lingenfelter (2003) offered one of the
most encompassing definitions of the adult learner in postsecondary educa-
tion: someone 25 years of age or older involved in postsecondary learning
activities. This definition, along with the term nontraditional student, is used
throughout this chapter.
The numbers of nontraditional college students continue to increase.
From 1985 to 1996 there was an estimated 65% increase in enrollment of
students 25 years of age and older, from 1.7 million to 2.9 million (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1996). Using age as the criterion to

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 310 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 311

define adult learner, 43% (or 14 million) of students in U.S. higher educa-
tion are 25 or older (National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems [NCHEMS], 2007). The percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds com-
pleting a bachelor’s degree or higher increased from 17% to 29% between
1971 and 2000 and was 31% in 2008. Women accounted for 57% of the
bachelor’s degrees conferred and 62% of all associate degrees awarded in the
2006–2007 academic year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
Overall, the nontraditional student population has grown rapidly.
According to the NCES, adult learners represented a staggering 6.8 mil-
lion college students in 2009 (Headden, 2009). Headden further contended
that adult learners or nontraditional students made up about 70% of enroll-
ment on most college campuses that year. “Those numbers are expected to
climb rapidly as colleges look for pools of students—and tuition income—to
replace the cohort of 18- to 22-year-olds that will start shrinking when the
current baby boomlet trails off ” (p. 4). Significant demographic changes are
occurring in society, and the population is diversifying culturally and eth-
nically. Projections indicate that by the year 2050, minorities will account
for 47% of the population, yet “minority adults . . . are disproportionately
represented among the unemployed, the low-income stratum and the less
educated. These characteristics are correlated with low rates of participa-
tion in organized adult education” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999, p. 9). This
underdevelopment of talent is a great loss to the nation that benefits when all
citizens are educated and productively employed.
Community college administrators have been diligent in recruiting
nontraditional populations (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Community colleges
have higher percentages of nontraditional, low-income, and minority stu-
dents than four-year institutions. Adult learners made up about 43% of total
enrollment at community colleges, and represent 12% of all postsecondary
education students (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning [CAEL],
2008). As we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, community
colleges account for about half the total enrollment in higher education, and
47% of ethnic minority students. Community college student populations
tend to reflect the makeup of the local community, indicating the openness
and readiness of the community college system to welcome students of all
backgrounds (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).
Retaining nontraditional learners is still a challenge in higher education,
with 38.9% dropping out of college, compared to traditional-age full-time
students (18.2%; Headden, 2009). Moreover, “The retention rate for non-
traditional students age 30 or older is 65.4 percent, and the graduation rate
is an abysmal 10.8 percent” (p. 4). In an attempt to reverse poor retention
trends, scores of two- and four-year institutions have committed to focusing

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 311 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 312 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

on this population. This commitment includes improving outreach, loos-

ening schedules, accelerating courses, granting interim certificates, offering
more online classes, providing better advising, improving developmental
education, and awarding credit for life and work experience—all radical
reforms in how educational institutions serve nontraditional students.
Educators did not foresee the dramatic economic downturn in this
country that started at the beginning of this century. This systemic shift in
the nation’s economy created an effect similar to a ripple in a pond, with
individuals from every generation seeking admittance to our higher educa-
tion institutions to catch up on the latest trends; find a skill set to meet the
needs of today’s industries; and, in some cases, compete with students half
their age.

Nontraditional Students in the Twenty-First Century

Fifty-nine million people, or 30% of the U.S. adult population, have never
entered postsecondary education—and in 35 states, more than 60% of the
population does not have an associate degree or anything higher (CAEL,
2008). Minorities and nontraditional adult learners disproportionately
enroll in community colleges and for-profit institutions (NCES, 2009).
Kelly (2001) stated that

a growing number of traditional colleges and universities—under pressure

to be more responsive to the needs of students, parents, employers and
communities—are turning to some of the same entrepreneurial, customer-
oriented approaches that have been used so successfully by for-profit insti-
tutions. (p. 4)

To compete globally, we must seek to develop the untapped potential of

the millions of working adults who have not completed a four-year degree.
Their success is essential to themselves, their families, their communities,
and the health and security of the nation (Headden, 2009). These people
are from different backgrounds—the previously well-paid, now laid-off fac-
tory worker; the single parent struggling with three children; the high school
dropout or GED recipient who now realizes a future without an education is
bleak; the immigrant with limited English skills; the corporate executive who
was downsized; and the honored military veteran. All face the transition of
returning to school for survival. Some say this population might hold the key
to America’s future. In the early twenty-first century a record number of jobs
were eliminated in manufacturing and the industries that support manufac-
turing. Technology now drives an increasingly global economy. As companies

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 312 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 313

reinvent themselves for profitability, displaced workers are forced to either

find new careers or make adjustments for new career options. Stakeholders
in education must be proactive in committing resources to assist in these
transitions.
Headden (2009) concluded that today’s adults need higher levels of aca-
demic and technical knowledge to remain employable in an information and
service economy characterized by frequent job and career change. The United
States must produce 64 million individuals with college degrees between
2005 and 2025 to remain competitive with leading nations and meet labor
force needs. According to NCES (2015), the number of postsecondary
degrees conferred by public and private institutions between 2002–2003 and
2012–2013 increased. It should be noted, however, that the degree-awarding
gap remains because the percentage is being compared to previous years in
which the conferral rate was already at a low level of productivity. Increasing
global economic competition and the rapid pace of technological change are
revolutionizing the skills and educational qualifications necessary for indi-
vidual job success and national economic well-being. To meet this demand,
adults from a variety of backgrounds find themselves returning to school.
With this increasing population, colleges and universities around the country
must now adapt to the influx of adult learners who have different expectations
and perspectives from traditional college students. Postsecondary education
that was once viewed as a luxury is increasingly needed for economic survival.
Having fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers in increasing num-
bers are returning from war seeking career opportunities. The new Post-9/11
GI Bill offers generous educational benefits to many of these veterans, as well
as those still serving in the active, reserve, and National Guard components
of the armed forces. These veterans are expected to enroll in higher education
to enhance their job prospects, achieve career goals, expand their knowledge
and skill sets for personal and career enrichment, and facilitate their transition
to civilian life. Like many other adult students, they return as outsiders to
a campus that is paperless with an increased use of technologically based
teaching platforms, and smartphones or tablets as the primary method of
communication as well as notetaking.

Who Are Adult Learners?

Adult learners, or those who CAEL (2000) described as past the transition
from 18- to 21-year-olds to an older undergraduate population (and who are
now the majority of students), have a greater understanding of the impact of
education on their lives and different expectations from courses and profes-
sors than traditional students. Research on adult education shows that adult

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 313 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 314 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

learners have different expectations for the college experience (Strange, 2008).
In a study of adult learners versus traditional-age students, adult learners
described their ideal professor and ideal course as organized and flexible.
These learners are typically over the age of 25 and often are independ-
ent with families. Higher education research tells us that adults learn best
when they are actively engaged in the learning experience, that the curricu-
lum is most effective when it builds upon the life experiences and interests
of the adult learner, and that there is a need for flexibility in student services
(e.g., evening office hours and electronic access; Cross, 1981; Chickering &
Reisser, 1993; Headden, 2009; Merriam & Caffarella, 1991).
Despite having an understanding of the values of adult learners, the
Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners concluded that ill-adapted
higher education practices pose barriers to participation, including a lack of
flexibility in calendars and scheduling, academic content, modes of instruc-
tion, and availability of learning services (NCHEMS, 2007). This disconnect
resonates as adult learners or nontraditional students drop out of college at a
much higher rate (38.9%) than traditional full-time students (18.2%). The
retention rate for nontraditional students age 30 or older is 65.4%, and the
six-year graduation rate is an abysmal 10.8% (Pusser et al., 2007).
In an attempt to reverse these trends, some colleges, including two- and
four-year institutions, have accepted that nontraditional adults learn very
differently from younger adults and have adapted their methods accordingly.
Many if not most college instructors will say they actually prefer teaching
adult students. According to Pusser and colleagues (2007), older students
are generally more engaged, motivated, and focused than younger students.
Their expectations are higher, and adult students are more vocal and inter-
active in class and online. However, unlike younger learners, they have less
tolerance for abstract concepts, and they want to use education to help solve
problems.
As an instructor of adult learners, one of the authors of this chapter
has encountered students who were forced to return to school to receive
government benefits. These women sometimes had to bring children to class
or leave them outside the door during class. On more than one occasion,
the instructor fed or walked a baby so that a student could take a test. One
memorable African American male student was a laid-off factory worker
whose income had dropped from over $80,000 to closer to $20,000 in
unemployment and union benefits; he had lost his home, his nice car, and
his dignity. There was also the soldier who served two tours in Iraq and was
leaving his wife and four kids in another city to attend class from 8:00 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays attempting to earn a degree in heating and air-
conditioning. Returning to school has physical and psychological effects for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 314 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 315

these students. Adult learners enter classrooms where chalkboards have been
replaced by smart boards, and technology permeates all aspects of college,
from registration to ordering textbooks. Many adults are astounded to find
themselves carrying or rolling a backpack like other college students when
they expected their career choices to last a lifetime without the benefit of
additional schooling. They enter these campuses disenfranchised by the lack
of economic opportunities and determined to change their futures. Thomas
(2005) contended that adult learning programs are all too often marginalized,
neglected, and left out of a college or university’s mission. However, budget-
conscious administrators of colleges and universities must recognize the need
and benefits of catering to this increasing population. These students seek
more than an instructor; they want a compassionate, understanding ear, and
they clearly understand the urgency of an education for future employment.
Adult students lead full lives balancing family responsibilities, jobs, and
community responsibilities. They cannot place their roles as parents or work-
ers on hold while they attend college to better their lives for themselves and
their families. NCES surveys consistently indicate the primary reason that
adults consider continued learning is for job-related reasons (Kim, Collins,
Stowe, & Chandler, 1995). Merriam and Caffarella (1999) cited a United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
survey in which 91% of the respondents indicated professional or career
upgrading for participation in adult education activities. Women without
college degrees, industrial workers facing layoffs, and the poor who have not
had a chance to further their education are interested in preparing for jobs
that will help them support their families (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).
College graduates who are already established in careers but wish to advance
in the early and middle years of their work life frequently seek advanced edu-
cation. The economically, politically, and socially disadvantaged who have
not had the opportunity for postsecondary education and, in fact, may have
received a poor elementary and secondary education foundation also pursue
higher education for job-related reasons. Education is frequently the means
to meaningful career goals, or at least a reasonable paycheck.
Adult learning is often triggered by life events and transitions (Aslanian &
Brickell, 1980; Merriam & Clark, 1991; Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman,
1995). Life transitions create periods of uncertainty and opportunity that
require sustained attention for resolution. Adults report that when they are
faced with transitions, like having a baby, changing jobs, or being laid off
from work, they are likely to seek informal and formal learning opportunities
to develop skills or gain knowledge (Aslanian & Brickell, 1980). For exam-
ple, a person laid off from the health care industry may view the transition
as an opportunity to pursue a different career and return to higher education

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 315 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 316 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

to acquire a certificate or degree in accounting, social work, or computer

programming. Transitions or drastic changes in general are particularly dis-
tressing for adults.
Headden (2009) reports that the number of adult learners (age 25 and
older) in the United States is expected to climb as colleges seek more students
and careers require more education. Academic administrators, faculty, and
student affairs professionals all need to work together to provide adult learn-
ers with convenient and affordable access, flexible subsidies, and innovative
planning tools to increase student success (Headden, 2009).
Much research exists on meeting the needs of traditional students (Astin,
1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998; Tinto, 2008). However, one size fits
all does not accommodate the different learning styles of adult learners or
address the different issues they face. The transition hurdles that adult learn-
ers face include the technology gap, part-time and reenrollment issues, family
and financial commitments, and inadequate initial skills.

Developmental Theories
The Adult Persistence in Learning Model
The adult persistence in learning (APIL) model provides a road map to
help faculty and administrators structure instruction and services for adults
(MacKinnon-Slaney, 1994), and it identifies survival skills that adults must
master to be able to negotiate the occasionally stormy waters of higher educa-
tion. The model contains three components (personal issues, learning issues,
and environmental issues) that combine to direct the success or failure of
adults to survive in formal learning environments. Personal issues, the first
group of factors, can be separated into five groups of factors that are height-
ened when adults are faced with new learning experiences at matriculation
or at the start of each term. Factors such as self-awareness, willingness to
delay gratification, clarification of career and life goals, mastery of life transi-
tions, and a sense of personal competence allow adult learners to feel ready
to accept learning challenges. One factor in particular, academic self-efficacy,
plays a continuing role in multicultural adults’ ability to persevere in the face
of challenge. If faculty and administrators use these concerns as a checklist
for problem solving with learners, adults can better face their fears and move
ahead.
The second group of factors focuses on learning issues. When adult
learners return to the classroom they are faced with increased concerns about
their educational competence. Relearning how to learn is critical to success
in the classroom. A simple suggestion from a faculty member to read a study

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 316 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 317

skills book or take a test to determine favored learning styles can make a dif-
ference and help allay classroom jitters. Intellectual and political awareness in
the classroom are also important skills.
The third group of factors concentrates on the university or college envi-
ronment. Many adults, particularly those who are first-generation college
students, simply do not know what questions to ask. They do not under-
stand the specialized vocabulary such as bursar, elective, major, and prereq-
uisite. Adult learners have many unanswered questions about how to access
information from the registrar, the bursar, their adviser, the course schedule,
and so on. They also want to know about special opportunities available to
them and the challenges they will face. And they are concerned with their
own comfort level in the environment: comfort with faculty, student col-
leagues, and administrators and staff. Students want to know they matter to
the institution and can find a comfortable place for themselves within the
university system (Schlossberg, Lynch, & Chickering, 1989). Also, direction
and support from professionals can help multicultural adults examine the
environment and resolve issues.

A Model for Educating Adult Learners: The Sequence of Student

Educational Services
Schlossberg and colleagues (as cited in Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn,
2010) described the process for adult learners as providing services and support
during pivotal stages in their college years from the entry phase, engagement
phase of coursework, and on-campus transitions as they successfully matricu-
late and graduate. This approach provides direction for student services profes-
sionals and outlines the needs of adult learners. At each stage of moving—the
moving-in, moving-through, and moving-on phases—the model directs the
professional to learner needs, institutional responses, payoffs for learners, and
payoffs for institutions. Learners start at the move-into stage, entering the col-
lege environment and needing to learn the ropes, which involves getting help
with such issues as financial aid and planning, admissions procedures, orienta-
tion to the institution, availability of student employment, registration, assess-
ment of prior learning, and developmental assessment. The moving-through
phase focuses on hanging in there through supportive educational services
such as career development, life and personal counseling, health services, child
care, family care, and developmental mentoring. Finally, the moving-on phase
centers on planning next steps such as internships and co-op learning, aca-
demic review and integration, placement services, job search, and develop-
mental transcript review (Schlossberg et al., 1989). The model ensures that all
necessary services will be provided at the right time for returning adults.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 317 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 318 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Ecological Systems Approach

As student affairs professionals listen to the stories of adult learners, specifically
those historically underserved or multicultural adults, they need a method to
sensitively analyze the life space of multicultural adults who are embarking on
formal learning experiences (Evans et al., 2010). The analysis should reflect
the multiple responsibilities of complex lives. Simple, linear models of devel-
opment or environmental structure are not adequate for the task of under-
standing how multicultural adults cope with the university experience as well
as their already daunting everyday tasks. What is needed is a way in which stu-
dent affairs professionals can sort and sift through the factors that challenge
or enhance persistence in learning. Analytical tools that offer an ecological
systems approach provide valuable assistance to professionals as they search
for appropriate guidance to respond to multicultural adult learners.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) ecological systems approach provides admin-
istrators with insight into the constellation of environments any individual
adult lives in. The focus of analysis is on the adult’s perceptions of the inter-
connected reality of life—home, grandparents, in-laws, the neighborhood,
the children’s school, the classroom, the campus, as well as the values of the
larger society. The ecology of human development entails the study of the
developing, ever-changing person within the continually varying settings and
larger context surrounding that person (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). Adult
learners juggle multiple responsibilities and lead complicated lives that affect
their dedication to the college experience. Simple models of development or
environment do not capture the essence of their existence.
The ecology systems approach divides the ecological environment into
nested systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and
chronosystem. The microsystem, the first level of analysis, includes “a pat-
tern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced . . . in the
immediate environment” (Bronfenbrenner, 1993, p. 15). This level of anal-
ysis is helpful for understanding the adult’s relationships to spouse, part-
ner, children, and parents. If the adult learner is a single parent the student
affairs professional can find out answers to such questions as the following:
Who takes care of the laundry? Who cooks? Who picks up the children at
the day care center? Is there enough money for food? The dynamics of the
microsystem have a great impact on the learner’s ability to focus on educa-
tional responsibilities.
The mesosystem is the second level of analysis and “recognizes that the
individual microsystems in which the individual functions are not inde-
pendent but are closely interrelated and influence each other” (Gardiner &
Kosmitzki, 2002, p. 22). The mesosystem consists of two or more microsys-
tems (home and day care, day care and college, college and family, for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 318 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 319

example). Attitudes and information from one microsystem filter into the
other and modify behavior and development accordingly. For example, if
day care is not available when the English class is held, then the adult learner
either scrambles to find suitable care or leaves the child at home alone.
Professionals can help advocate for services that will help adults meet their
learning agendas.
The exosystem is the third level of analysis and consists of settings in
which the adult may not be a participant but nevertheless influences develop-
ment in particular ways. For example, the local school board or the welfare
system or even extended family, like aunts and uncles, may not be part of
the adult’s immediate microsystem but yet can have an impact on processes
that affect the adult. When the school administration calls for a snow day, the
adult learner is left trying to determine how to cope with children at home;
when corporate headquarters decides to close the factory, then the adult faces
being laid off and termination of any tuition reimbursement plan agreement
with the employer. By understanding the linkages between the microsystem
and the exosystem administrators can seek solutions to problems that seem
overwhelming to the adult learner.
The macrosystem is the fourth and most complex level of analysis. It
provides the societal context for the individual’s life space. This system is
composed of societal “customs, values, and laws considered important in
the individual’s culture” (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002, p. 23) According to
Bronfenbrenner (1993), the macrosystem

consists of the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems char-

acteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other extended social structure,
with particular reference to the . . . belief systems, resources, hazards, life-
styles, opportunity structures, life course options and patterns of social
interchange that are embedded in such overarching systems. (p. 25)

Societal perspectives, biases, and stereotypes that relate to race, ethnicity,

disability, and other realities of life can be examined intentionally through
the analysis of the macrosystem. These factors are important for multicultural
adult learners to recognize and understand so that they may overcome
barriers frequently placed in their way.
Finally, the fifth level of analysis, the chronosystem, chronicles the nested
systems over time and introduces the possibility of examining the influence of
sociohistorical conditions. Often, developmental perspectives or environmen-
tal theories only take into account one particular point in time and do not
consider the changes in settings, processes, influences, and development that
occur over time. For example, the terrorists’ acts that brought down the World

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 319 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 320 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Trade Center in 2001 have sensitized society to the importance of family and
relationships, and families may have changed their ways of interacting with
each other because of those attacks. Neighborhood violence has devastated
many lives in the inner city, creating awareness over time of the inability of
the police or government authorities to act; this situation, in turn, has spurred
on many neighborhood groups to take matters into their own hands for the
sake of their children. Student affairs professionals need to teach the ecological
systems approach to adults so that they can make their own judgments and
decisions about life experiences in the present and in the future.
Student affairs professionals must intentionally seek the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions required to facilitate the learning experience of multi-
cultural adult learners. The central adult issues of identity, purpose, intimacy,
and integrity are of continuing concern throughout the life span and not
just at the young adulthood stage (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Gardiner
& Kosmitzki, 2002; Helms, 1994; Kegan, 1994). Professionals must come
to understand and not take for granted the issues that trigger reflection and
response as multicultural adults seek to manage their complex lives with dig-
nity and grace. An empathetic response, an ability to reframe issues, and
knowledge of pragmatic techniques that help adults control their own learn-
ing experiences are critical skills. Student affairs professionals must recognize
that adults take a brave step when returning to the educational setting. Adult
learners are looking for support for their learning agendas and for opportuni-
ties that will provide them with ways of coping. Professionals can help learn-
ers transform their dreams into reality.

Institutional Support for Nontraditional Students

American higher education continues as a work in progress nudged by fed-
eral policy such as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, stretched by community needs, and
pushed by lifelong learning and the learning society. Community colleges
have responded to society’s cry for continued learning for adults, but four-
year institutions of higher learning have been reluctant to follow suit. In spite
of voicing interest and accepting adults to make up for the shortfall of 18- to
22-year-olds, four-year colleges and universities have not necessarily been
hospitable sanctuaries of learning. Nevertheless, adult students continue to
seek learning opportunities.
President Barack Obama has stated his belief that the key to the economic
future of this country is education (Fuller, 2010). The $787 billion economic
stimulus law of 2009 provided $1.7 billion for adult employment services,
including education and training. Also, in mid-July 2009, President Obama

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 320 7/26/2016 7:24:28 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 321

announced a $12 billion federal initiative to aid community colleges—a move

intended to increase opportunities for many adult students at two-year institu-
tions and prompt some of these students to transfer to four-year institutions.
The Lumina Foundation report Adult Ed Grows Up (Headden, 2009)
identified several areas of concern regarding America’s growing numbers of
adult learners. The report contended that the higher education community
must seek to develop the potential of the more than 54 million working
adults who lack a college degree. Initially, higher education institutions must
recognize adult learners as a diverse and complex set of individuals. Adult
learners need convenient and affordable access to education, as these students
increasingly choose entrepreneurial postsecondary programs and institutions
(Headden, 2009).
Adults transferring from a community college can merge their extensive
real-world skills with relevant career interests, as they have work experience
and life experience that will provide an immediate benefit to the employer.
Unlike traditional-age students, adult learners believed instructors were
resources to help them learn. These learners said they would more readily
ask questions to clarify material. Adult students’ self-profiles more closely
matched those of their college faculty than those of traditional-age students
(Feldman, 1988).
Educational institutions must reconstruct their mission to serve all
students, including adult learners. Meeting the needs of the adult learner
population will require faculty and administrators to respect the diversity
of age, gender, race, and social class of adult students; appreciate that aca-
demic, professional, and personal goals greatly influence continuing educa-
tion for most adult learners; implement practices that respect the years of
experience that adult learners bring to class; ensure that rigorous adult degree
programs are accessible, flexible, and practical; and ensure that serving the
adult learner population is included in the overall mission of the university
(Thomas, 2005).

Rethinking Practice
A paradigm shift to include adult learners in the design of all aspects of
postsecondary education needs to occur. This mandate is necessary for all
involved, including federal and state policymakers, student affairs profes-
sionals, postsecondary educators, and postsecondary administrators. Faculty,
academic administrators, and student affairs professionals must review
their respective policies and practices with a reflective eye, making sure that
their approach signals culturally relevant adult learning. This starts with an

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 321 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 322 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

understanding of the power influences of the dominant group and of the

complexity of biculturalism. “Biculturalism is a mechanism of survival that
constitutes forms of adaptive alternatives in the face of hegemonic control
and institutional oppression” (Guy, 1999, p. 13). A consistent focus on
biculturalism is the only way to ensure the cultural democracy that creates a
culturally relevant learning environment.
In particular, four aspects of the learning environment require scrutiny:
the student affairs professional’s cultural identity, the learners’ cultural iden-
tity, the curriculum and support in and out of class, and instructional meth-
ods and processes of practice (Guy, 1999). The first aspect requiring attention
is student affairs professionals’ or instructors’ cultural self-awareness, which
involves scrutiny of personal values, norms, and dispositions along with an
understanding and respect for cultural differences (Kegan, 1994). On the
part of the professional, this necessitates going beyond stylistic differences to
the developmental constructivist understanding of self in relation to others
and a willingness to suspend personal ethnocentric beliefs to concentrate on
the meaning derived by learners (Kegan, 1994).
Understanding the learners’ culture is the second aspect that requires
attention from effective professionals. Professionals must begin by acknowl-
edging the culture of their learners and coming to know that culture in a
personal way through their relationships with their learners, especially in
the classroom. Instead of pushing nontraditional students to adopt North
American mainstream academic skills, disciplinary perspectives, and thought
processes, we should open our classroom doors to teaching disciplinary
content and academic skills from a wide array of diverse traditions so that
every student will feel included. This approach will prepare mainstream and
minority students to succeed as interculturally knowledgeable citizens in a
globalized world (Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007).
The third component involves examination of the curriculum in and
out of class. “Course content that stereotypes the very learners it is designed
to serve does those learners an injustice. Insensitive or unknowing teachers
can overlook material that learners may find offensive or simply irrelevant to
their daily lives” (Guy, 1999, p. 15).
Some educators have attempted to integrate adult learners into instruc-
tion and curriculum design. Instead of adjusting to the needs of these stu-
dents, most of these initiatives are remedial in nature; that is, they aim at
equipping nontraditional students with the academic skills and knowledge
of mainstream students and teachers (Tinto, 2008). Not surprisingly, these
actions have proved inadequate to empower most minority students to suc-
ceed, as these measures neglect to acknowledge and incorporate the diverse
values, beliefs, and skills that nontraditional students bring to the classroom.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 322 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 323

Educators must strategically consider all diverse populations, including adult

learners, in the development and administration of curriculum, instruc-
tional styles, and interactions with students. No longer should nontradi-
tional students be viewed as underprepared; rather, faculty must develop an
understanding that their preparation responds to a different way of seeing
themselves and understanding the world that derives from their own cultures
and traditions. This different way of seeing the world has repercussions in
most academic areas (Hermida, 2009). Siebert (2000) contends that instruc-
tors must be prepared for this challenge by recognizing that teaching adult
learners requires more advanced teaching skills than teaching traditional stu-
dents. He cites research that consistently shows adult students begin college
classes with more fears and concerns than younger students. The role of the
instructor is reducing the fears and concerns and then developing strong
intrinsic interest in the course by connecting each student’s plans for the
future and past experiences with the course material. He further explains that
an instructor needs many diverse skills to facilitate learning in adult students,
including creating a noncompetitive atmosphere that encourages cooperative
learning.
Finally, instructional methods and processes of practice may inadvertently
include or exclude learners. Adult education approaches to learning, such as
andragogy, traditionally require instructors and professionals to share power
with learners. In formal learning environments power customarily resides
with the instructor or administrator, negating the learner’s past experience
and ability to direct aspects of the learning agenda (Brookfield, 1995; Guy,
1999; Knowles, 1984). Inclusive teaching acknowledges and incorporates
diverse knowledge modes, thought processes, and expressive styles into the
classroom (Hermida, 2009).

Recommendations to Benefit Nontraditional-Age Students

Creating services and programming to enhance the postsecondary experi-
ences of adult learners and increase success requires incorporating their
needs into the mission of the institutions. In alignment with Siebert’s
(2000) assertion that the colleges most effective in attracting, retaining,
and graduating adult students are those that are highly resilient and respon-
sive to the needs of the students, instructors must be adaptable and flexible.
Instructors should respect life experiences of adult learners and include
their experiences in curriculum design and in-class activities. Instructors
must recognize that adult learners have diverse learning styles and design
curriculum and present information using visual and auditory methods

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 323 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 324 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

(Hermida, 2009; Siebert, 2000). Adult learners seek relevancy, so instruc-

tors should align their courses such that the assessment, teaching, and learn-
ing activities match intended learning outcomes (Biggs, 2003). Diversity
should be included in assessment by going beyond exams, research papers,
and group presentations to include tools used in other cultures, such as
informal dialogues, holistic evaluation of student performance through-
out the course, or self-evaluation (Hermida, 2009). Biggs (2003) contends
that assessments that actually evaluate whether and how well students have
mastered a wide array of knowledge modes, diverse academic skills, and
nontraditional disciplinary perspectives will likely achieve intended learn-
ing outcomes.
Programmers of cocurricular activities can also employ understanding
of the importance of these four factors—adult learners’ significant life
experiences, diverse learning styles, need for relevance to their lives, and
different communication styles—in planning and executing events and
programs that will be attractive to this population. To facilitate success for
adult learners, student affairs professionals must become active listeners.
By listening to adult students’ stories, professionals can identify the
developmental tasks that need to be accomplished and provide referral to
services and programs that help adults master needed skills, knowledge, and
attitudes for successful learning ventures.

Discussion Questions
1. Who are adult learners, and why are they returning to school? How
do adult learners differ from traditional students in learning styles and
expectations of their experience?
2. What is the impact of adult learners on other students, the institution,
and society?
3. What strategies can university administrators, student affairs profession-
als, and classroom instructors use to actively engage and facilitate suc-
cess for adult learners? Include in this discussion incorporating diverse
populations into a traditional Eurocentric model and differing models
for success.
4. What are some barriers to success for adult learners from the learners
themselves and the institution? How can both groups work to limit the
impact of these barriers? Discuss models of success for adult learners.
Include in this discussion the evolution of technology and how it can
hinder or assist adult learners with their transition.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 324 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 325

References
Aslanian, C. B., & Brickell, H. M. (1980). Americans in transition: Life changes as
reasons for adult learning. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
Astin, A. W. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends,
1966–1996. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bell, D. A. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New
York, NY: Basic.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham,
UK: Open University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. W. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). (2000). Serving adult learn-
ers in higher education: Principles of effectiveness. Retrieved from www.cael.
org/pdf/publication_pdf/Summary%20of%20Alfi%20Principles%20of%20
Effectiveness.pdf
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). (2008). State policies to bring
adult learning into focus. Retrieved from www.cael.org/pdf/State_Indicators_
Monograph.pdf
Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Stu-
dent development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, K. (1988). Effective college teaching from the students’ and faculty’s view:
Matched or mismatched priorities. Research in Higher Education, 28(4), 291–344.
Fuller, A. (2010, March 30). Obama reaffirms support for community colleges
at signing of student-loan bill. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
chronicle.com/article/Obama-Reaffirms-Support-for/64877
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2002). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human
development (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Guy, T. C. (1999). Culture as context for adult education: The need for culturally
relevant adult education. In T. C. Guy (Ed.), Providing culturally relevant adult
education: A challenge for the twenty-first century (pp. 5–18). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Headden, S. (2009). Adult ed grows up. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for
Education.
Helms, J. E. (1994). The conceptualization of racial identity and other “racial”
constructs. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity:
Perspectives on people in context (pp. 285–311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 325 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 326 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Hermida, J. (2009). Inclusive teaching strategies to promote non-traditional student

success. Tomorrow’s Professor. Retrieved from cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/
posting.php?ID=966
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, K. F. (2001). Meeting needs and making profits: The rise of for-profit degree-
granting institutions. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Kett, J. F. (1994). The pursuit of knowledge under difficulties: From self-improvement
to adult education in America, 1750–1990. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Kim, K., Collins, M., Stowe, P., & Chandler, K. (1995). Forty percent of adults par-
ticipate in adult education activities: 1994–95. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX:
Gulf.
MacKinnon-Slaney, F. (1994). The adult persistence in learning model: A road map
to counseling services for adult learners. Journal of Counseling and Development,
72, 268–275.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Clark, M. C. (1991). Lifelines: Patterns of work, love, and learning
in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Nontraditional under-
graduates: Trends in enrollment from 1991 to 1992 and persistence and attainment
among 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students (NCES 97–578). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009). The condition of education,
2009 (NCES 2009–081). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2015). Degrees conferred by pub-
lic and private institutions. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
indicator_cvc.asp
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). (2007).
Adding up: State challenges for increasing college access and success. Retrieved from
makingopportunityaffordable.org
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st
century: Meeting new challenges. Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151–165.
Pusser, B., Breneman, D., Gansneder, B., Kohl, K. J., Levin, J. S., Milam, J. H., et al.
(2007). Returning to learning: Adults’ success in college is key to America’s future.
Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher
education environments for adults: Responsible programs and services from entry to
departure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in tran-
sition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 326 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 ADULT COLLEGE STUDENTS 327

Schuerholz-Lehr, S. (2007). Teaching for global literacy in higher education: How

prepared are the educators? Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2),
180–204.
Siebert, A. (2000). The instructor’s role in retaining adult learners and increasing their
chances of success in college. Paper presented at the National Conference on the
Adult Learner 2000, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from www.adultstudent.com/eds/
articles/teaching.html
Strange, A. (2008). Traditional and nontraditional college students’ descriptions of
the ideal professor and the ideal course and perceived strengths and limitations.
College Student Journal, 42(1), 225–231.
Thomas, E. (2005). The adult learner: Here to stay. Black Issues in Higher Education,
22(6), 1–4.
Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation
students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education.
Voorhees, R. A., & Lingenfelter, P. E. (2003). Adult learners and state policy. Denver,
CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers Association and the Council for
Adult and Experiential Learning.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and
public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 327 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 15
COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH
DISABILITIES
Martha E. Wisbey and Karen S. Kalivoda

C
olleges and universities continue to face challenges integrating
students with disabilities into the campus milieu, despite social,
legislative, and technological policies designed to provide equal
opportunities in higher education. Education about the rights and neces-
sary supports to further inclusion of students with disabilities in campus
programs and activities is key for student affairs practitioners. Since the pas-
sage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the number of students
with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education has more than doubled
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000, 2012), and about
11% of all students in postsecondary educational institutions in the United
States report having disabilities (NCES, 2012). Higher educational attain-
ment is linked to increased likelihood of employment and higher incomes
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014); a higher level of education for people
with disabilities improves the chances for them to sustain themselves finan-
cially with dignity and greater participation as citizens. The call to inclusion
for academic institutions is to make programs and services accessible to all
students, which may include making physical adjustments to facilities, pro-
viding accessible information technology, and incorporating the concept of
universal design in programming and activities.
This chapter is designed to assist student affairs professionals in provid-
ing full and meaningful access to college campuses for students with disabili-
ties. The challenge is to go above and beyond legal requirements for access
and embrace the spirit of the law for full inclusion. Including students with
disabilities in discussions of diversity and multiculturalism on college cam-
puses is critical to removing barriers to full participation. Incorporating the
needs of students with disabilities will promote social justice and equitable

328

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 328 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 329

educational opportunities for all students, both those with disabilities and
those without disabilities.

Background
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, mandates civil
rights and equal access for people with disabilities. This victory did not come
about easily. People with disabilities fought for years for civil rights protec-
tion while carefully refraining from claiming the role of victim. The goal
of the disability movement was for integration and an equal opportunity
to achieve success (Shapiro, 1993). The disability rights movement, referred
to as a hidden power, is compared to other minority group movements as
follows:

Given the sweep of the ADA, it seemed a formidable task to win passage.
For one thing, disability rights constituted a stealth civil rights move-
ment. Although its activists pointed to the black, women’s and gay rights
movements as models, unlike those causes, the disability rights movement
had never filled the streets with tens of thousands of protesters. It had no
Martin Luther King Jr. to bring it together, no Betty Friedan to write its
manifesto. It had no unifying touchstone moment of courage or anger like
the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Freedom Rides, or the Stonewall riots.
There was virtually no attention from the public or press. The fight for dis-
ability civil rights was a largely invisible, almost underground, movement.
(Shapiro, 1993, p. 117)

The ADA acknowledged in federal legislation that society has historically

tended to isolate and segregate people with disabilities and that this type of
discrimination creates a grave social problem. The findings and purpose sec-
tion of the ADA (1990c) states the following:

Individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have
been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of pur-
poseful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political power-
lessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control
of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly
indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and
contribute to, society. (p. 4)

The ADA’s legal definition of disability is a physical or mental impairment

that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as walking,

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 329 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 330 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

seeing, breathing, working, and learning. Examples of disabilities listed in

the federal regulations include, but are not limited to, orthopedic, visual,
speech, and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystro-
phy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; heart disease; diabetes; emotional illness; spe-
cific learning disabilities; and HIV disease (Non-Discrimination on the Basis
of Disability in State and Local Government Services Final Rule, 1991).
Some disabilities commonly found among college students are visibly appar-
ent, while others are less obvious, such as traumatic brain injuries, attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), blindness and low vision, chronic ill-
nesses, deafness and being hard of hearing, learning disabilities, autism spec-
trum disorders, and psychological disorders. According to U.S. Department
of Education statistics, the disabilities seen most frequently on college and
university campuses are learning disabilities (31%), attention deficit hyper-
activity disorders (18%), psychological conditions (15%), and health impair-
ments (11% ; Raue & Lewis, 2011).
Congress initially established a broad definition of disability in the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; however, Supreme Court decisions subsequently
narrowed this definition. For example, in Sutton v. United Air Lines. Inc.
(1999), the court decided that mitigating measures must be considered when
determining whether an individual has a disability under the ADA. Mitigating
measures are devices or medications that ameliorate the effects of a disability
such as corrective lenses, medications, hearing aids, or prosthetic devices. The
decision stated that if mitigating measures alleviate the limitations related to
a disability, the individuals could not be considered substantially limited by
their disability. This considerably narrowed who was covered because while
mitigating measures often do not alleviate a disability completely, they could
be used to exclude an individual from protection under the ADA (Benfer,
2009). This and several other cases narrowed the definition to such a degree
that the focus of many requests became whether a person met the definition
of disability rather than focusing on access or accommodation.
The ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), adopted in 2008, made impor-
tant additions to the definition of disability, while keeping the ADA’s basic
definition of an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities. In particular, the Amendments Act described what constitutes
substantially limits and expanded the definition of major life activities by
including many more specific activities, some of which directly impact col-
lege students, such as reading, communicating, and concentrating. In addi-
tion, chronic health issues were further outlined and described under major
bodily functions. The ADAAA also gave more detail to mitigating measures
such as medical or therapeutic interventions and stated that an episodic
condition or a condition in remission is a disability if it affects a major life

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 330 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 331

activity. Overall, the ADAAA gave colleges and universities a broader and
more detailed conceptualization of disabilities and expanded protections for
people with disabilities.
The access needs of students with disabilities vary as much as the type
and severity of disabilities. A universal description of a person with a dis-
ability does not exist, so institutions must provide accommodations on an
individual basis. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that
accommodations may include academic adjustments, modification or altera-
tion of course examinations, and the provision of auxiliary aids.
Accommodations and services may vary from student to student and
across institutions; however, some common services are available to stu-
dents through disability support offices (Shaw & Dukes, 2001). Typical ser-
vices offered by support offices include regular meetings with a counselor
or disability specialist; consultation and collaboration with members of the
campus community who serve as support to students (e.g., tutors, advisers,
counseling staff ); extended deadlines on assignments; academic adjustments
and restructuring of class assignments; counseling and advocacy to assist a
student as a self-advocate; extended time for test taking in a separate, quiet
location to reduce distractions; note takers in the classroom to supplement
the student’s notes; document conversion services (e.g., from print to Braille
or electronic text); sign language interpreters; real-time captioning; assistive
technology; and instructional interventions.

Developmental Issues
A critical issue for students with disabilities involves developing healthy
self-identities. This process can take time and can mirror the develop-
mental process other underrepresented groups go through in their devel-
opmental growth (Cass, 1979; Helms, 2003). There are also specific
developmental issues associated with acquiring a disability later in life that
can be different from those of a person who is born with a disability.
Adaptation to disability is not a static concept; it is constantly changing
and is often complicated by several different phases of development. Livneh
and Sherwood (1991) present a summary of eight phases of adaptation to a
traumatic disability:

1. Shock. The initial phase of disbelief when a sudden and severe impair-
ment occurs;
2. Anxiety. A panic response to the initial understanding of the trauma of
the event;

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 331 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 332 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

3. Denial. An attempt to mask the painful realization of the condition;

4. Depression. A full look at the loss of one’s prior physical/sensory abilities;
5. Internalized anger. A reaction of resentment accompanied by guilt and
self-blame;
6. Externalized hostility. A reaction which is other-directed as a way to retal-
iate against imposed limitations;
7. Acknowledgment. Cognitive recognition of the implications of the dis-
ability and gradual acceptance of its permanency and limitations;
8. Adjustment. Affective internalization of the disability along with behav-
ioral adaptation to the newly perceived life situation. (p. 525)

Gibson developed a three-stage theory on identity for students with dis-

abilities; however, the theorist warns about categorizing every student with a
disability into the model. The three stages are similar to other stage develop-
ment. They are described as passive awareness, realization, and acceptance
(Gibson, Laux, & Myers, 2012). When reviewing the stages of identity
development for different underrepresented groups, it is helpful to look at
some of the similar paths of acceptance a student with a disability may expe-
rience (Jones & Abes, 2013). A student, regardless of race, ethnicity, age,
religion, or sexual orientation, may view the initial period of being disabled
through an unquestioning acceptance of societal stereotypes and oppression.
At this point, the student may be unaware of alternative, positive views of
disability and may attribute problems to personal deficits. Students report
feeling “less than” in their abilities, and if any changes have occurred in
their appearance, they may lose a sense of confidence. Some students will
attempt to pass as nondisabled if possible, distancing themselves from others
with disabilities and rejecting membership in this population. Eventually, a
student will begin to develop an awareness of the reasons behind feelings of
difference and begin to identify with the issues of oppression he or she has
experienced. This may evoke feelings of anger and eventually lead to action
in the form of activism or legal challenges. If a student with a disability gains
acceptance in an environment and feels valued through interactions with
others, eventually he or she will achieve identity synthesis (Abes, Jones, &
McEwen, 2007).
Gill (1997) discussed four types of integration for persons with disabili-
ties in their identity development. The four types include (a) coming to feel
belonging (b) coming home, (c) coming together, and (d) coming out. As
people with disabilities gain confidence with their identities, they seek to
find places where inclusion and belonging are represented and supported.
Offices of support and student affairs units with symbols and conscious-
ness about engaging students with many different abilities are critical. For

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 332 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 333

example, programs and services marketing should state that accommoda-

tions for any participant interested in being a part of an event will be pro-
vided. This type of symbol is minimal but important. Materials should also
advertise “available in alternative format upon request” for maximum access.
Coming home refers to joining with others with disabilities. Campuses have
worked to include disability student unions for students with disabilities to
advocate, educate, and have connection. By coming together, a student expe-
riences a “psychological wholeness” (Gill, 1997, p. 43) that integrates their
understanding of themselves as they interact with the campus community.
Finally, coming out refers to full integration in society that isn’t differentiated.
It is a full feeling of belonging, identifying with being a member of the dis-
ability subgroup, feeling complete within, and expressing it in an authentic
manner. Identity development in college students is important for personal
growth. This applies to students with disabilities who are seeking to plan
their futures beyond college and integrate into the larger context of society
as contributing citizens.
The following illustrates how these phases can affect a student who expe-
riences a sudden change in his or her abilities because of a traumatic event.
During fall semester, Michael, a freshman, was driving home from college
one evening and had a car accident. As a result of his injuries, he had to with-
draw from school and spent three months in rehabilitation for severed nerves
in his arm and wrist. His mother contacted the Disability Services Office to
see if Michael could receive accommodations when he returned to school.
She was instructed to help her son fill out the intake forms and provide docu-
mentation about his disability. Michael’s mother did everything as instructed
and brought in the completed intake information. At that time, she said,
“I’m not sure if Michael really understands how his life may have changed.
He doesn’t want to talk about anything; all he wants to do is get back and
visit with his friends.” The professional in disability services assured her that
this is normal and that her son would soon learn how to get the appropriate
support when he returned to school.
However, Michael would not acknowledge that life had changed, and
when he returned the following semester, he spent most of his time with
his old friends in his residence. He and never met with anyone in disability
services, despite being contacted several times by disability services profes-
sionals. As a result, he did not obtain note takers for his classes or any other
support. His mother continued to talk with the disability services staff, but
she was at a loss and couldn’t force her son to avail himself of academic
accommodations or other support services. As a result, he failed all his classes
during the semester following his accident. He didn’t realize his limitations
until he saw his grades and recognized that life had changed because of his

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 333 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 334 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

injuries. Michael’s denial of the realities of this accident caused him to spiral
into depression and finally into anger toward himself for being so slow to
recognize his new status as a student with a disability. During the summer
following his first year, he met with disability services staff and discussed
what he had learned about his limitations. He admitted to his mother that
he had not been ready to adjust to the changes, and he had ignored her pleas
for him to seek academic support.
Unfortunately, this story illustrates what many students may experience
if they have a sudden life-altering injury or chronic health diagnosis. A disa-
bility that changes a student’s health status or the overall ability to accomplish
academic work as done prior to the disability can be hard to grasp, recog-
nize, and accept. As part of the eight phases previously discussed (Livneh
& Sherwood, 1991), Michael went through denial, depression, and anger
before acknowledging what happened to him. He then accepted the change
and the supports available for him in transitioning back to life as a student.

Social Model of Disability

Congress recognized the existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination
and established federal legislation to support equal access for students with dis-
abilities in higher education. While this represents progress, true inclusion for
students with disabilities will only be advanced as the campus culture shifts from
a medical model of disability to a social model.
In the medical model of disability, a person’s functional limitations
(impairments) are viewed as the reason for any disadvantages that are expe-
rienced, and the approach is that the limitations need to be treated or cured.
In this model the person needs to be fixed, rather than improving societal
responses to people with disabilities (Evans & Herriott, 2009). Crow (1996)
states, “The social model of disability has been our key to dismantling the
traditional conception of impairment as ‘personal tragedy’ and the oppres-
sion that this creates” (p. 56).
The social model views disability as the result of environmental, soci-
etal, and attitudinal barriers, rather than the result of individual differences
(Loewen & Pollard, 2010). This model disputes the notion that varying from
the norm in some way is dysfunctional and instead suggests “broadening the
focus in such a way as to shift the perception of disability into the same value-
free or nearly value-free understanding of other forms of difference, such as
eye color or left-handedness” (Evans & Herriott, 2009, p. 35).
Determining eligibility for disability-related services in college often fol-
lows the medical model. Most disability support programs require students
to present documentation that not only verifies a disability but also highlights

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 334 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 335

functional limitations. Students are responsible for providing recent docu-

mentation from an appropriate expert at their own expense (Colker & Milani,
2006). Rather than focusing on the environment as disabling, this approach
focuses on what is in the student that is disabling (Hahn, 1988). Policies
and procedures commonly require students who register with the disability
services office to allow the professionals to assist them in advocating for equal
access. This system, although set up to assist students, may actually dissuade
them from becoming self-advocates and perpetuate dependence on profes-
sionals. It may also isolate students from their peers and fail to adhere to the
tenets of student development theory (Szymanski & Trueba, 1994).
Students with disabilities may be overlooked as an oppressed minor-
ity group because of this medical model approach to documentation and
because of society’s stereotypes about people with disabilities. Hall and Belch
(2000) argue,

Although disability programs offer necessary accommodations and services

that may offer a comfortable place for students to establish community,
student affairs professionals need to consider if, as an unintended conse-
quence, special programs and centers also relieve staff who are not located
in those centers from acting on their responsibility to understand and
address the diverse needs of underrepresented groups. (p. 13)

Although historically colleges have adopted a medical model approach to

services, administrators of disability service programs are beginning to focus
on how to change or modify the environment to make it more accessible
to students with disabilities (Kroeger & Schuck, 1993; Strange, 2000). The
universal design movement encourages professionals on campus, including
counselors, advisers, administrators, faculty, and student affairs professionals,
to design programs in advance to accommodate the needs of all students.

Universal Design
Many institutions have recognized that students with disabilities want to
participate with their peers in sponsored events such as leadership activities,
field trips, and recreational sports. Common practice has been for educa-
tors at these institutions to issue a standard access statement that places the
responsibility for revealing a disability and the needs associated with that dis-
ability on the student (Johnson, 2000). This can be an efficient and effective
means of providing access to students but may also be a stigmatizing process.
The concept of universal design was first developed to encourage the
creation of accessible architecture and physical spaces. Beginning in the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 335 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 336 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

1990s, this idea was adapted to address the need to create inclusive program-
ming and instruction. Several frameworks for this approach were developed,
including the principles of universal design for learning (McGuire, 2014).
The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) developed the universal
design for learning approach in order to help educators “reduce barriers, as
well as optimize levels of challenge and support, to meet the needs of all
learners from the start” (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011, p. 4).
The goal of universal design is to meet the unique needs of the student
body and reduce the need for special accommodations by being as inclu-
sive as possible in the planning process (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998).
Programming with a universal design approach takes into consideration
the individual differences and needs of all students in planning and imple-
menting the programs, services, facilities, transportation, communication,
websites, and other technology (Kalivoda, 2009). Student affairs profession-
als may find it helpful to adopt this approach when creating programs and
services.

Universal Design for Learning Guidelines

The universal design for learning guidelines developed by CAST (2011) are
as follows:

Principle I. Provide Multiple Means of Representation

Guideline 1. Provide options for perception
Guideline 2. Provide options for language, mathematical expressions,
and symbols
Guideline 3. Provide options for comprehension
Principle II. Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression
Guideline 4. Provide options for physical action
Guideline 5. Provide options for expression and communication
Guideline 6. Provide options for executive functions
Principle III. Provide Multiple Means of Engagement
Guideline 7. Provide options for recruiting interest
Guideline 8. Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence
Guideline 9. Provide options for self-regulation (p. 2)

Universal Design in Student Affairs

The following are examples of universal design that can be used in student
affairs programming. For people with limited or no vision, have printed mate-
rials readily available in alternative formats, such as large print, Braille, audio,
or electronic versions. Provide assistive listening devices (ALD) for people with

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 336 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 337

hearing impairments. One common ALD, the FM system, is a small trans-

mitter that amplifies the speech of the speaker while eliminating background
noise. Also, always use captioned media when presenting videos. Captioning
provides access to videos by displaying auditory information in printed form
on the screen, giving participants who are Deaf or hard of hearing equal
access. If a program includes transportation for participants, select vans or
buses that allow people using wheelchairs or with limited mobility to travel
with their peers. When selecting locations for programming, choose architec-
turally accessible spaces, and when planning new facilities and renovations,
incorporate features that provide access to all users beyond the minimum
requirements of the ADA. For example, automatic doors are not required,
but they greatly assist users with mobility impairments in accessing facilities.
The Disability, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-
IT) website (DO-IT Center, n.d.) presents resources to assist student services
professionals in learning how to create facilities, services, and information
resources that are accessible to all students. This site provides practical
information on designing welcoming, accessible, and usable services. Key
to the success is incorporating students with disabilities in the planning
process. With advance planning and input from consumers, programs can
employ universal design strategies rather than responding to individual
accommodation requests (Burgstahler & Moore, 2009).

Emerging Issues
Emerging disability topics in higher education include ensuring access to
technology, service and emotional support animals (Rothstein, 2013), the
increased incidence of students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in
college settings (Sander, 2013), and career development for students with
disabilities (Sears, Stauser, & Wong, 2014).

Technology Accessibility
Despite the ubiquity of websites as a means of disseminating information
about university programs and services, many campuses do not have a
standard website development practice. Academic and administrative units
have designed departmental webpages with their own resources, resulting
in variable degrees of accessibility. A study by Solovieva and Bock (2014)
revealed that only 51% of 509 webpages at a large public university passed
automated web accessibility tests.
Such accessibility tests can be a useful tool in the effort to make online
information accessible. The Web Accessibility Initiative offers guidelines

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 337 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 338 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

for making webpages accessible, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

(WCAG), and an online tool to assess websites’ compliance with WCAG
(Web Accessibility Initiative, n.d.). Another good example is the Wave web
accessibility evaluation tool offered by Web Accessibility in Mind (Web AIM).
Web AIM also offers online training and technical assistance. In particular,
Web AIM’s WCAG checklist is a good starting point for establishing basic
accessibility (Center for Persons With Disabilities, Utah State University,
n.d.). Although a plethora of hardware and software tools are available to
provide access, if WCAG guidelines are not incorporated into website design,
students with disabilities will be at a disadvantage (Totty & Kalivoda, 2008).
One critical area of accessibility highlighted in the WCAG is captioned
media. Today, it is commonplace to see videos on almost all student affairs
websites. When creating or selecting videos to include in programming,
ensure videos are captioned. Ensuring that information is accessible requires
forethought in designing websites and adopting new technology. Access for
students with disabilities should be an integral part of the development pro-
cess when purchasing hardware or software and when selecting vendors to
develop online tools or websites.

Service and Emotional Support Animals

A service animal is “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform
tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability,” as defined by regula-
tions issued by the Department of Justice in 2012. Examples given in the
regulations include helping people with visual impairments navigate, alerting
people with hearing impairments to sounds, assisting people with mobility
impairments with movement or retrieving objects, and helping people with
psychiatric disabilities by disrupting destructive behaviors (U.S. Department
of Justice § 35.104).
With few exceptions, individuals with disabilities must be allowed to
bring service animals into any facility “where members of the public, partici-
pants in services, programs or activities, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed
to go” (U.S. Department of Justice § 35.136). As these rights apply to many
areas on college campuses, student affairs practitioners are advised to be
aware of several emerging issues about service animals.
In determining whether a person with a disability should be allowed to
bring a service animal into a public area, staff and faculty may only ask two
questions of the person with a disability. They may ask whether the dog is
needed due to a disability and what task the dog has been trained to perform.
If the answers to these questions are obvious (e.g., if the dog is pulling a
wheelchair), even these questions are not allowed. While students at many
universities are required to register with disability services offices to receive

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 338 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 339

other accommodations, students cannot be required to register in order to

have a service animal on campus.
In addition to the federal regulations requiring access for service animals,
many states have legislation that confers similar rights to people training dogs
to become service animals. For example, in Georgia anyone training a service
animal has “the same right to be accompanied” as a person with a disability
using a service animal (Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 30-4-2). This
has resulted in large numbers of service animals in training on some college
campuses, prompting institutions to adopt supplemental policies regarding
the presence of these dogs. Student affairs professionals should be aware that
students serving as partners for service animals in training will need access
to their programs and activities. Their presence may require flexibility and
forethought to create a truly inclusive environment.
Educating faculty, staff, and students on how to interact appropriately
with service animals and service animals in training can prevent problems
arising from a lack of information about service animals (Huss, 2012). Most ser-
vice animal organizations include information on their websites about service
animal etiquette. The website Please Don’t Pet Me, www.pleasedontpetme
.com (n.d.), contains general information about service animals as well as how
to interact with them. The University of California at Santa Cruz published
a letter on its website (Sahni, 2014) that is a good example of educating the
community to create a more welcoming environment.
In another example of an inclusive environment, Wright State University
created a dog park specifically for service animals and service animals in
training (Wingerd Service Dog Park, n.d.). In addition to being set aside for
service animals, the park is accessible for the service animals’ handlers, featur-
ing paved paths and a location near academic buildings.
In contrast to service animals, emotional support animals are not required
to be trained to perform specific tasks, and animals other than dogs may fall
into this category. These animals are not covered by the ADA, and it is not
required to allow them into classrooms and other public spaces. However,
whether these animals must be permitted in residence halls under the Fair
Housing Act remains a question under debate (United States of America v.
Milliken University, 2011; United States of America v. University of Nebraska at
Kearney, 2011). Most institutions have established policies regarding the pres-
ence of animals in housing facilities. The emphasis in these policies is on safety
and community living guidelines in addition to disability-related support.

Autism Spectrum Disorders

People with ASDs are a growing population; as many as one in 68 children
were diagnosed with an ASD in 2010 (Baio, 2014). As a result, more students

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 339 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 340 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

with ASD are entering college (Sander, 2013). ASDs are classified as neu-
rodevelopmental disorders by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The functioning of a
student with an ASD may fall along a spectrum of symptoms, skills, and lev-
els of impairment. While some students are mildly impaired, other students
may be severely hindered by autism and its associated symptoms. Symptoms
of ASD vary greatly from one student to the next, but there are typically three
areas of difficulty, including social interaction, verbal and nonverbal com-
munication, and repetitive behaviors. Characteristically, college students on
this spectrum may experience social isolation, problems with understanding
another person’s point of view, an inability to manage appropriate social con-
duct, or difficulty with conversational abilities (Longtin, 2014). Conversely,
these students are often very bright, have good GPAs, and have profound
interest in certain areas of study. However, they can experience an inordinate
amount of stress and difficulty with social interaction.
Many students with high-functioning autism have the cognitive abilities
to be in college but require more help than their peers to complete a col-
lege degree. Some institutions have developed specialized programs to serve
this emerging population. Examples include the MoSAIC program at the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (University of Tennessee, Disability
Resource Center, n.d.) and the ASD College Transition and Support Program
at the University of Alabama (University of Alabama, n.d.). Intensive assis-
tance includes groups, individualized meetings with coaches to develop
appropriate skills to promote academic success, social interaction, and inde-
pendent living.
College student affairs professionals are challenged to be aware of this
emerging population, and to understand that they are fully capable of inte-
grating into a traditional college campus, given appropriate support services.

Career Development
Resources, parental support, socioeconomic class, type of school, and other
community offerings are salient factors for the overall success of students with
disabilities. These factors are primarily external; however, research shows that
they are major determinants in providing future career and life options for
emerging adults (Test, Mustian, Fowler, Kortering, & Kohler, 2009). The
more options and exposure, the more likely it is that students can begin to
find a good fit for their talents and interests. Students with disabilities can be
challenged in finding this fit because their disability may add another layer
of complexity for receiving the kind of opportunities they need to be success-
ful. Therefore, career development plays a very prominent role in the lives of
students with disabilities.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 340 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 341

Utilizing available campus resources can assist students in learning

about career opportunities. Examples of resources include internships, job
shadowing, and government or professional organizations. Practitioners are
encouraged to inform students with disabilities about the available resources,
opportunities, and information early on in their academic careers, and
instructors should incorporate disability concerns into career development
courses.
Career development professionals can also assist students with disa-
bilities by connecting them with prospective employers. Many employers
highlight their commitment to hiring people with disabilities by post-
ing job announcements that encourage people from underrepresented
groups to apply. In addition, a government-run program designed specifi-
cally to recruit students with disabilities for government positions, titled
the Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP, 2015), is offered by the
Department of Labor. Students are encouraged to gain experience in com-
pleting an application, including their resume; to interview; and then to
be registered in a nationwide clearinghouse for positions across the nation.
The WRP is a positive program with an intentional commitment to offer
students the opportunity to gain insight into the job process and make a
connection to their field of work.
Students with disabilities can successfully discover their career paths if
they can continue to assess their skill development, problem-solving skills,
and social skills; increase their life skill knowledge; and use assistive and adap-
tive technology (Murugami & Nel, 2012). If institutions provide supportive
role models and mentors, students can develop career plans that are realistic
and attainable (Crudele, 2012).

Conclusion
Including students with disabilities in campus life can present complex chal-
lenges. No two students or their disabilities are exactly alike. Individual stu-
dents may encounter obvious problems, such as architectural accessibility or
transportation, as well as more subtle difficulties related to communication
and social integration.
Campus administrators have recognized the barriers and have worked
to eliminate outright intentional exclusion. However, creating an inclusive
environment for students with disabilities is an ongoing process. Although
disability is now included in discussions of diversity, “Developing multicul-
tural competence about disability requires intentional and sustained self-
examination, reflection and practice” (Stewart & Collins, 2014, p. 31).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 341 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 342 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Among the goals for students with disabilities in our campus commu-
nities and for overall student persistence and progress are competence and
confidence. To help students achieve this, campuses need to promote student
independence and support advocacy and engagement. When making plans
for new buildings, new technological programs, or services on campus, stu-
dents with disabilities should be included on planning committees to offer
input and represent the needs of people with disabilities.
Student affairs professionals can act as advocates on campus for students
with disabilities. Partnerships among students, administrators, and staff
members can create new avenues for inclusion. The greatest benefit is the
educational opportunity others gain by being connected to students with
disabilities, which can be a valuable and positive learning experience.

Case Studies
Discrimination can occur in a number of different ways. People with disabili-
ties encounter discrimination that consists of outright acts of bias, intentional
exclusion, communication barriers, inaccessible technology, transportation
barriers, and segregation. The following case studies describe how discrimi-
nation, although unintentional, can show its face on the college campus.

Case Study 1
A large university offers an orientation program for all new first-year and
transfer students. Campus administrators believe that participation in orien-
tation is critical to the successful transition and retention of new students.
In addition to a variety of programs that introduce students to college life,
a comprehensive tour of campus is provided to parents and students that
highlight key features and services. A first-year student, Jose, is unable to get
on the tour bus because he uses a wheelchair and the bus does not have a lift.
The orientation leader calls campus transit and secures a van to transport Jose
and his parents on a personal tour of the campus.
In this case study the accommodation satisfies the law by providing what
the ADA refers to as program access but does so with separate programming.
Unfortunately, the accessible transportation excludes the student from inter-
action with his peers and brings unnecessary attention to Jose and the fact
that he uses a wheelchair. In this case, a little advance planning could have
provided access in a more inclusive manner. Most transportation services
have at least one bus that is lift equipped. It should become standard proce-
dure to request accessible transportation even if no specific participants have
revealed the need for this.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 342 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 343

Case Study 2
Students with invisible disabilities (e.g., chronic health issues, ADHD, psy-
chological impairments) may elect to participate in university-sponsored
events and hesitate to reveal their disability for fear of being excluded. The
following case study examines how students encounter communication bar-
riers that impede students with disabilities from participating in campus
programming.
Jessica attends a college that has an excellent reputation for leadership
programs. The student affairs staff is dedicated to meeting the mission of the
institution in developing good citizens and leaders who will contribute to
their communities after completing their college degrees.
Jessica is a junior business major maintaining a 3.6 GPA. She applies for
the leadership development program after reading about it in the student
newspaper. The program is described as targeting juniors and seniors seeking
to develop specific skills to prepare them for their job search process. She is
also pleased with the prospect of adding her involvement in this organization
to her résumé. Although she has the credentials to qualify, she first has to
participate in an interview that involves reading a passage of text and giving
an oral summary to the committee. She has a visual processing disorder and
obtains textbooks and articles electronically for use with reading software.
Although she uses this method of reading for her coursework, she hesi-
tates to reveal her disability and accommodation needs to the leadership staff
because of fear that the committee may not be flexible in its standard inter-
view procedure. Jessica proceeds to read the document but does not readily
comprehend the meaning. Nevertheless, she attempts to provide a summary
of the key points. The committee members note her nervousness and lack
of ability to adequately process and communicate information in a timely
manner. They reject her application. Jessica never knew why she didn’t get
accepted, but she felt that her poor performance in that particular evaluation
activity was a significant factor.
This case study illustrates a situation that unfortunately is all too com-
mon. The student had legitimate concerns about disclosing her disability
because of her fear of being excluded or of appearing to be too different
from other students applying for the program. The leadership program had
a standard, uniform way of selecting applicants. A statement on the applica-
tion form indicating a desire to accommodate people with disabilities may
have encouraged Jessica to request an accommodation. A general statement
that asserts the desire to accommodate a diverse student body and different
learning styles communicates a desire to accept and understand individual
differences. Program administrators are not asked to lower standards for

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 343 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 344 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

acceptance but to acknowledge the inequity inherent in setting standards

based on the traditional student.

Case Study 3
An increasing number of students are being diagnosed with chronic health
illnesses and are faced with fatigue, flare-ups, regular medical treatments,
and ongoing pain. It is difficult to recognize chronic health issues because a
person may not appear to have a disability. Students need to have the support
and accommodations necessary to allow them to complete assignments and
accomplish academic requirements without being penalized for disability-
related absences or missed deadlines as illustrated in the following case study.
Anne is a sophomore majoring in psychology. She is from a rural area
in the Northeast and attends a large university several hundred miles from
home. In the middle of the fall semester she develops health problems and
goes to the university health service. After numerous consultations and tests,
the physician diagnoses Anne with multiple sclerosis (MS). Anne is over-
whelmed with the diagnosis of a progressive and often debilitating health
condition, especially at such an early age. Nevertheless, she chooses to con-
tinue her college education.
Because of the fatigue often associated with MS, Anne misses numer-
ous classes and has to take a reduced course load. Anne’s instructors agree to
allow her to remain in their classes despite her absences if the campus disabil-
ity service office provides documentation of her eligibility for accommoda-
tions. This requires that Anne register with disability services. On days when
she is not feeling well, she parks in the designated wheelchair space near the
building. People stare at her as if she doesn’t have a legitimate disability.
People with nonobvious disabilities have to decide if they are going to
disclose information about their disability. They face a different kind of
stigma from those with obvious disabilities. Since revealing a disability may
have negative consequences, people may choose to act as if they do not have
one (Kalivoda, 2009).

Case Study 4
The stigma of a psychological disability may prevent many students from
disclosing their disability. As McCune (2001) describes, “Students with men-
tal illness face the suspicion that they deceive others in order to secure accom-
modations with regard to coursework and other responsibilities” (p. 9). If
they hesitate to seek support, their symptoms may worsen, and many may
not get the appropriate treatment and assistance as they progress in college.
In the following case, a student did communicate her past struggle with a

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 344 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 345

psychological disability, and the staff in her academic program sought to

facilitate her success.
As a highly sought-after chemistry doctoral candidate, Jasmine revealed
to her major professor that she had bipolar disorder. After being at the uni-
versity for three months, she told her professor she was feeling stressed,
unorganized, and fatigued. The professor also noticed that her schedule was
overbooked during her manic phases, and during her depressive phases she
would miss classes and appointments. Her professor accommodated Jasmine
by developing a flexible schedule for the following semester that allowed her
time off for therapy and helped her balance some of the demands of the
graduate program and assistantship.
Many professors and student affairs professionals do not understand how
to best support a student with a psychological disability (Grasgreen, 2012).
Through discussions with her brightest student, this professor displayed a
level of understanding and support that helped Jasmine accomplish her work
and get treatment. Instead of feeling like she was causing the department to
go out of its way for her, she found that everyone respected her skills and
valued her work and was willing to make accommodations for her disability.
This is ideal and not typical, but many faculty can and will help support stu-
dents with psychological disabilities. In 2013 the American College Health
Association survey completed by college students found that 57% of women
and 40% of men reported experiencing episodes of “overwhelming anxiety”
in the prior year, and 33% of women and 27% of men reported a period in
the last year of feeling so depressed it was difficult to function. Studies sug-
gest that between a quarter and a third of students meet criteria for anxiety
or a depressive illness during their college experience (Wald, Meunning,
O’Connell, & Garber, 2014). The rise of students with mental health dis-
abilities on college campuses challenges student affairs practitioners to work
together to serve students collaboratively and comprehensively.

References
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model
of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the
construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48,
1–22.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (1990).
Americans with Disabilities Act. (2008). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as
Amended. Retrieved from www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 345 7/26/2016 7:24:29 PM

 346 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Baio, J. (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8

years—autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites,
United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summa-
ries, 63(2). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Benfer, E. A. (2009, September). The ADA Amendments Act: An overview of
recent changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Constitution
Society for Law and Policy. Retrieved from www.law.georgetown.edu/archiveada/
documents/BenferADAAA.pdf
Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2009). Making student services welcoming and acces-
sible through accommodations and universal design. Journal of Postsecondary Edu-
cation and Disability, 21(3), 155–174.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.
Center for Applied Technology (CAST). (2011). Universal design for learning guide-
lines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Center for Persons With Disabilities, Utah State University. (n.d.). Web accessibility
initiative. Retrieved from http://webaim.org
Colker, R., & Milani, A. A. (2006). Everyday law for individuals with disabilities.
Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Crow, L. (1996). Including all of our lives: Renewing the social model of disabil-
ity. In C. Barnes and G. Mercer (eds.), Exploring the divide: Illness and disabil-
ity (pp. 55–72). Leeds, England: The Disability Press. Retrieved from http://
disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/publications/exploring-the-divide/
Crudele, A. (2012, July). Transition to employment for students with visual impair-
ments: Components for success. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 2,
389–398.
Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) Center.
(n.d.). Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology. Retrieved from
www.washington.edu/doit/
Evans, N. J., & Herriott, T. K. (2009). Disability realities: Community, culture,
and connection on college campuses. In J. L. Higbee & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.),
Philosophical and theoretical approaches to disability (pp. 27–40). Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Gibson, J., Laux, S., & Myers, K. (2012). A disability identity development model:
Pilot study and revised survey tool. Retrieved from convention.myacpa.org/archive/
programs/Baltimore11/index.html?emc=lm&m=91334&l=3&v=582378
Gill, C. J. (1997). Four types of integration in disability identity development. Jour-
nal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9, 39-46.
Grasgreen, A. (2012, October 30). Students rate mental health services. Inside Higher
Education. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/30/colleges-
dont-always-help-mental-health-issues-student-survey-shows
Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination.
Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 39–47.
Hall, L. M., & Belch, H. A. (2000). Setting the context: Reconsidering the princi-
ples of full participation and meaningful access for students with disabilities. In

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 346 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 347

H. A. Belch & L. M. Hall (Eds.), Serving students with disabilities (pp. 5–17). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Helms, J. E. (2003). Racial identity in the social environment. In P. B. Pedersen &
J. C. Carey (Eds.), Multicultural counseling in schools: A practical handbook
(pp. 44–58). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Huss, R. J. (2012). Canines on campus: Companion animals at postsecondary
educational institutions. Missouri Law Review, 77(2), 418–479. Retrieved from
scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol77/iss2/5
Johnson, D. (2000). Enhancing out-of-class opportunities for students with dis-
abilities. In H. A. Belch & L. M. Hall (Eds.), Serving students with disabilities
(pp. 41–53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advanc-
ing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kalivoda, K. S. (2009). Disability realities: Community, culture, and connection on
college campuses. In J. L. Higbee & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Making good on the
promise: Student affairs professionals with disabilities (pp. 3–25). Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Kroeger, S., & Schuck, J. (Eds.). (1993). Responding to disability issues in student
affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Livneh, H., & Sherwood, A. (1991). Application of personality theories and coun-
seling strategies to clients with physical disabilities. Journal of Counseling & Devel-
opment, 69, 525–538.
Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsec-
ondary Education & Disability, 23(1), 5–18.
Longtin, S. E. (2014). Using the college infrastructure to support students on the
autism spectrum. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 27(1), 63–72.
McCune, P. (2001). What do disabilities have to do with diversity? About Campus,
6(2), 5–12.
McGuire, Joan M. (2014). Universally accessible instruction: Oxymoron or oppor-
tunity? Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 24(4), 387–398.
Murugami, M. W., & Nel, N. M. (2012). A developmental career guidance and
counseling process for learners with disabilities: Preparation for employment.
Educational Research 3(4), 362–370.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Number and percent of students
enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by disability status and selected student
characteristics: 1995–96. In Digest of Education Statistics (Table 212). Retrieved
from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d00/dt212.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Number and percentage distribu-
tion of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by level, disability status,
and selected student characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08. In Digest of Edu-
cation Statistics (Table 269). Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/
tables/dt12_269.asp
Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Ser-
vices Final Rule, 28 CFR § 35 (1991).
Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) § 30-4-2 (2014).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 347 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 348 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Please Don’t Pet Me. (n.d.). Please don’t pet me. Retrieved from www.pleasedont-
petme.com
Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecond-
ary institutions (NCES 2011-018). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, National Center for Education Statistics.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504).
Rothstein, L. (2013, August 5). New legal questions about disability demand col-
leges’ attention. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/
article/New-Legal-Questions-About/140787/
Sahni, Ashish (2014, October 3). Service animals on campus. University of California
Santa Cruz Newsletter. Retrieved from news.ucsc.edu/2014/10/service-animals
.html.
Sander, L. (2013, June 2). Seeking a deft touch for students with autism-spectrum
disorders. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/article/
Seeking-a-Deft-Touch-for/139597/
Sears, S., Strauser, D., & Wong, A. (2014). Examining career readiness and positive
affect in a group of college students with disabilities: A pilot study. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(3), 307–319.
Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights move-
ment. New York, NY: Times Books.
Shaw, S. F., & Dukes, L. L. (2001). Program standards for disability services in
higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(2), 81–90.
Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in
higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education,
31(1), 47–51.
Solovieva, T. I., & Bock, J. M. (2014). Monitoring for accessibility and university
websites: Meeting the needs of people with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 27(2), 113–127.
Stewart, D., & Collins, K. (2014). Constructing disability: Case studies of graduate
students and new professionals with disabilities in students affairs. College Student
Affairs Journal, 32(1), 19–33.
Strange, C. (2000). Creating environments of ability. In H. A. Belch & L. M. Hall
(Eds.), Serving students with disabilities (pp. 19–30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Sutton et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1999). Retrieved from laws.findlaw.com/
us/527/471.html
Szymanski, E., & Trueba, H. T. (1994). Castification of people with disabilities:
Potential disempowering aspects of classification in disability services. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 60, 12–20.
Test, D. W., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009,
December). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-
school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition
for Exceptional Individuals, 32(3), 160–181.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 348 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 349

Totty, M. C., & Kalivoda, K. S. (2008). Assistive technology. In J. L. Higbee & E.

Goff (Eds.). Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Imple-
menting universal design in higher education (pp. 473–478). Minneapolis, MN:
Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, College of
Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.
United States of America v. Milliken University. (2011). Retrieved from portal.hud
.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=doc_14484.pdf
United States of America v. University of Nebraska at Kearney. (2011). Retrieved from
www.ada.gov/kearney_order.pdf
University of Alabama. (n.d.). The University of Alabama, ASD college transition and
support program (UA-ACTS). Retrieved from autism-clinic.ua.edu/uaacts/
University of Tennessee, Disability Resource Center. (n.d.). MoSAIC. Retrieved from
www.utc.edu/disability-resource-center/mosaic/index.php
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Earnings and unemployment rates by edu-
cational attainment (graph illustration of unemployment rate and median weekly
earnings 2013). Current Population Survey. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/emp/
ep_chart_001.htm
U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Regula-
tions. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_
regulations.htm.
Wald, A., Meunning, P., O’Connell, K., & Garber, C. (2014). Associations between
healthy lifestyle behaviors and academic performance in US undergraduates: A
secondary analysis of the American College Health Association’s National College
Health Assessment II. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(5), 298–305.
Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.w3.org/WAI
Wingerd Service Dog Park. (n.d.). Wright State University Office of Disability
Services. Retrieved from www.wright.edu/disability-services/community/service-
dog-park
Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP). (2015). Department of Labor’s Office of
Disability employment policy and the U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved
from https://wrp.gov/AboutPre.do#Schools.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 349 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 16
R E L I G I O U S A N D S P I R I T UA L
DIVERSITY AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
Laura A. Dean and Darris R. Means

H
igher education in the United States has its roots in the Judeo-
Christian tradition, yet the reality on campuses today is that diver-
sity is increasing in religious affiliations, as well as in religious and
spiritual beliefs. From the early colleges that were founded to train clergy
to the modern nonsectarian state universities accented by campus centers
for multiple religions and denominations, faith and spirituality have always
been present on college campuses in some capacity. While religious freedom
is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the campus
climate for religious minorities is still different from that of the religious
majority.
The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the issues of religious minor-
ity students and to provide an overview of issues of spirituality that affect
all students. The chapter traces the history of religion at colleges, includ-
ing religious diversity and conflicts over higher education. A review of cur-
rent research about the religious and spiritual beliefs of U.S. college students
includes a quantitative picture of religious diversity on campuses. An exami-
nation of the role of religion in the theoretical underpinnings of student
development provides insight into the assumptions held by student affairs
professionals. An overview of challenges that religious students face on cam-
puses offers information about students’ experiences. Finally, examples of
religious and spiritual, interfaith, and pluralistic practices on campuses high-
light implications for higher education leaders.
Discussions of religion and spirituality are inherently complex.
Traditionally focused on formal affiliation with religious faiths and
denominations, contemporary discussion must be broadened to include
350

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 350 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 351

forms of spirituality that are not easily labeled or categorized. Further, tradi-
tional notions of majority/minority religious status (e.g., in the United States,
Christian students have been considered the majority) are changing. In the
right setting, a member of any religious community could be in the minor-
ity, and in an overwhelmingly nonsectarian, secular environment, members
of any religion may feel excluded. Depending on the college or the region,
a student of one religion may be in the majority on one campus but in the
minority on another. For example, a Catholic student at a Jesuit institution
could easily be part of the religious majority. That same student at a public
institution in the South could be in a minority. However, Christian privilege,
specifically reflective of Protestant Christianity, is embedded in U.S. society
and is not a function of numerical status, which can particularly lead to the
marginalization of religious minorities and individuals who are not affiliated
with religion in higher education (Adams & Joshi, 2010; Bowman & Small,
2012). Though a Protestant Christian student in the United States might
be in the numerical minority on one campus, that student would not be
a minority in terms of the power and privilege that is associated with the
Christian identity in the larger society. Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu students,
and those from other religious minorities, however, may have to constantly
navigate Christian privilege no matter the institutional context. The stu-
dent experience will be shaped by the degree to which students identify with
their religious affiliation. Just as students differ in their identity development
related to issues of ethnicity or sexual orientation, they also differ in the extent
to which their religion and spirituality are an integral part of their identity or
outlook.

History of Religious Diversity in U.S. Higher Education

Some level of religious diversity was present even at the beginning of U.S.
higher education, but in the earlier years, diversity was represented only by
Christian denominations. Religion on the college campus began with “the
role of organized Christianity, . . . [which was] important in the founding
of eight of the nine pre-Revolutionary colleges. . . . The purpose of training
students for the Christian ministry is specified in all colonial college charters,
with the single exception . . . of the College of Philadelphia” (Brubacher &
Rudy, 1997, p. 7). Later, even that institution came under religious control
by the Anglican Church. The “desire of important religious denominations
(such as the Anglicans and the Calvinists) for a literate, college-trained clergy
was probably the single most important factor in the founding of the colonial
colleges” (p. 8). The clergy were instrumental in the founding of these col-
leges, in defining their missions, and in setting policies.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 351 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 352 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Sectarian Institutions
Chalfant, Beckley, and Palmer (1994) argued that the “most important
source for the present forms of U.S. education was Puritan New England
[and] its Calvinist commitment to the universal education of believers and
potential believers” (p. 309). Religion was the primary subject, while reading
was taught as a way to “improve the quality of Christian life” (p. 309). In
contrast, in the primarily Anglican southern colonies, education was focused
on training “the Anglican elite to govern the uneducated masses” (p. 309).
Puritans, Congregationalists, and Baptists from New England gave life to
Harvard, Yale, and Brown; Virginia’s College of William and Mary was
Anglican; and Scottish Presbyterians founded Princeton.
This proliferation of different schools, each affiliated in some way with
a Christian denomination, shows the spread of denominational institu-
tions and influence. If a denomination had a need to train its clergy, that
denomination founded a college. This trend was also followed by many
non-Protestant religious groups. For example, Georgetown College, a
Catholic institution, was founded in 1789, and by 1860, “14 permanent
Catholic colleges had already been established” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997,
p. 72). By 1930 there were 126 Catholic colleges, including 49 for women
(Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
Catholic institutions, expanding with increased immigration from coun-
tries with significant Catholic populations, had to contend with religious
prejudice and antagonism. “American nationalism had long been identi-
fied with Protestantism, and a particularly bitter anti-Catholic agitation
expressed itself in the nineteenth century” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 72).
For example, citing fears that the Catholic Church was trying to undermine
the principle of the separation of church and state, the granting of a char-
ter for Boston College was delayed until provisions were added that would
protect non-Catholics from discrimination at the institution (Brubacher &
Rudy, 1997). The practice of establishing other denominational or nonde-
nominational religious institutions continued into the twentieth century,
with institutions such as Oral Roberts University, an evangelical Christian
university founded in 1963 by its namesake, and Regent University, founded
in 1978 by evangelist Pat Robertson.
With an increasingly competitive market, colleges began early to stress
interdenominational policies and practices in their public pronouncements.
For example, Quakers and Jews were “exempted from religious requirements
at some of the colonial colleges” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 9). At the
College of New Jersey (later Princeton), people of every religious denomi-
nation were free to participate; it would be “not so much a seminary for
Presbyterian divines as a school for statesmen” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 12). This

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 352 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 353

trend toward accommodating other denominations was the beginning of

religiously pluralistic institutions.
Some institutions, however, instituted maximum quotas on the enroll-
ment of some religious minorities, most notably Jewish students. For exam-
ple, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and Columbia established quotas on Jewish
enrollment and the hiring of Jewish faculty from the early 1900s to the mid-
dle of the century (Freedman, 2000). Yale kept a 13% limit on Jewish and
Catholic enrollment. Columbia cut its Jewish enrollment from 40% in 1914
to 15% in the 1920s. By the 1930s, Dartmouth accepted only 10% of Jewish
applicants, while admitting 75% of non-Jewish applicants.
Although enrollment at many schools was limited, minority religions
were not as prolific in establishing colleges. Sporadic attempts were made
by Jewish groups to establish colleges as early as 1821 (Brubacher & Rudy,
1997). However, lack of support and strong differences among Jewish reli-
gious groups within the small U.S. Jewish community resulted primarily
in the establishment of rabbinical seminaries (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Reform Jewish organi-
zation, founded Hebrew Union College in 1875, and the Conservative
Jewish movement founded the Jewish Theological Seminary of America
in 1887. Founded in 1886, Yeshiva University is the oldest comprehensive
educational institution under Jewish auspices in the United States. Later,
the American Jewish University was formed from the 2007 merger of the
University of Judaism and Brandeis-Bardin Institute, both founded in the
1940s. Brandeis University, founded in 1948, is the “only nonsectarian
Jewish-sponsored college or university in the country” (Brandeis University,
2015 para. 1).

State Institutions
Another important trend in the development of religiously pluralistic col-
leges and universities was the advent of state-controlled institutions. While
the early colleges were mostly church sponsored, the earliest state universities
of “North Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Ohio, Tennessee, Maryland, and also
South Carolina College and Transylvania University in Kentucky . . . were
more nearly private than public” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 145). The
first public institutions founded after the Revolutionary War were chartered
like private corporations, an interpretation that was successfully defended
in court (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). For example, although the University
of Georgia was chartered in 1789, the Georgia legislature did not take over
the appointment of trustees until 1876. Further, direct appropriations to the
university from the state only began in 1881 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
There was competition among and within Protestant denominations as

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 353 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 354 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

they built colleges and fought for control of increasingly secular state insti-
tutions. When Methodists gained control of Ohio University in the mid-
1800s, for example, the faculty was quickly replaced by Methodist ministers
(Rudolph, 1990).
Perhaps the most influential state institution in terms of religious diver-
sity is the University of Virginia. When it opened in 1825, the University
of Virginia was “by the express intent of its constitution a thoroughly pub-
lic enterprise. . . . Its early orientation was distinctly and purposely secu-
lar and non-denominational” (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 148). Thomas
Jefferson insisted that religious groups not appoint the faculty but supported
the idea that they could build student centers adjacent to the campus for
students who were affiliated with them. One can easily see the roots of the
modern state university hosting groups such as Catholic Student Ministry,
Hillel Jewish Leadership Council, Coptic Orthodox Christian Association,
Hindu Students Council, Lutheran Student Movement, Muslim Students
Association, Wesleyan Foundation, Baha’i Association, and campus groups
for a wide range of religious and spiritual expressions, both denominational
and nondenominational (University of Virginia, 2015).
As they expanded, state institutions faced “jealousy [from] established
private colleges and the suspicions and fears of denominational interests”
(Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 154). For example, religious groups in Illinois
prevented the state from founding an institution for many years. In Ohio,
the state institution elected presidents who were clergy, and “compulsory
chapel continued to be required at such schools as late as the 1880s and
1890s” (p. 155). Still, the rise of the state university, with its multidenomi-
national, nonsectarian atmosphere, emerged as a great force in U.S. higher
education.
Institutions struggle with the nature of religious practice and its focus
on their campuses as demographics change, sometimes bringing large
numbers of students from different faith traditions, including religious
minority students. The Wellesley College Religious and Spiritual Life
Program, for example, is based on a philosophy of religious pluralism,
spirituality, and education; the Religious Life Team includes a Buddhist
adviser, Catholic chaplain, Hillel director, Hindu adviser, Muslim adviser,
Protestant Christian chaplain, and Unitarian Universalist chaplain, all
working closely with the dean of religious and spiritual life (Kazanjian &
Laurence, 2007; Wellesley College, n.d.). The wealth of religious diversity
at some denominational institutions raises complex questions about the
role of religion at church-affiliated colleges. As is true for the students they
serve, institutions also vary greatly in the current salience of their religious
traditions.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 354 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 355

Religious Centers and Organizations

By the 1850s and continuing with the Morrill Act of 1862, public educa-
tion became more widely available and offered a broader range of disciplines
(Butler, 1989). The increasing diversity of options and decreasing control by
religious denominations led to major changes in the face of higher education.
By the 1880s, as many colleges and universities became increasingly secular,
various religious denominations began seeking new ways to reach out to stu-
dents. The “appearance in sufficient numbers of Catholics and Jews at insti-
tutions that were nominally Protestant in tradition” led to student centers for
individuals of those faiths (Rudolph, 1990, p. 459). The first undergraduate
Catholic club appeared at the University of Wisconsin in 1880, a precursor
of the Newman Centers that serve the religious needs of Catholic students at
many non-Catholic institutions (Rudolph, 1990). As of 2014 the Catholic
Campus Ministry Association reported “nearly 700 campus ministers serv-
ing students on more than 955 college campuses” (2014 para. 2). The Hillel
movement, founded in 1923 at the University of Illinois and adopted in
1924 by B’nai B’rith, a Jewish service organization, had at the time of this
writing over 550 student centers/organizations (Hillel, 2015). The Muslim
Students Association (n.d.) of the United States and Canada, which began
in 1963 at a meeting of 10 schools at the University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, listed more than 50 affiliated campus organizations in 2015.
With the increasing religious diversity in the United States and on cam-
puses, it is not possible for every student, regardless of faith, to have the
benefit of an organized campus religious center. At many institutions, local
churches, mosques, and synagogues play an important support role for reli-
gious minority students when there is no campus-based program. Campus
religious clubs, often advised by a faculty or staff member of the group’s reli-
gion, also provide support. Some denominations prefer to integrate college
students of their faith into the existing community religious establishment.
For example, many of the historically African American churches, such as
African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AME-Zion) or the historically African
American Baptist churches, typically do not establish campus religious
centers, instead bringing students of their denomination to local churches.
On the other hand, Newman Centers, especially the larger ones, reach out to
the entire campus Catholic community of students, faculty, staff, and even
local residents.
Over time, other organizations have also contributed to a religious pres-
ence in higher education. The Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA)
was a dominant presence in religious life at many institutions. In 1877 “an
intercollegiate YMCA was formed, and the movement soon came to have
great influence throughout the American academic world” (Brubacher &

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 355 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 356 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Rudy, 1997, p. 126). College fraternities and sororities also took on a role
in religious life. Early in their histories, many fraternal organizations either
denied membership to Jewish or Catholic students, or had such a strong
Protestant bent to their purpose that non-Protestant students began to found
their own organizations. According to Baird’s Manual of American College
Fraternities (Anson & Marchesani, 1998), several Greek letter organizations
were founded for religious minority students. In 1903 Zeta Beta Tau, the first
fraternity for Jewish men, was founded at Cornell. Alpha Epsilon Phi, the
first sorority for Jewish women, began in 1909 at Barnard College. Phi Kappa
Theta had its beginning in 1959 through the merger of two existing Catholic
men’s fraternities, Phi Kappa, founded in 1889 at Brown University, and
Theta Kappa Phi, founded at Lehigh University in 1917. Today, these organ-
izations and the other Greek letter societies founded for religious minorities
welcome members of all faiths.
Interestingly, not all Greek letter organizations began as monocultural
organizations. Alpha Phi Omega was founded in 1925 at Lafayette College
in Pennsylvania as an organization for men of all religions. While it is more
appropriately classified as a service fraternity rather than a social fraternity, it
is an example of an early Greek letter organization with broader foundations
than others of the time. Alpha Phi Omega later also established chapters at
historically Black institutions beginning at Howard University in 1948. In
1976 the fraternity became even more diverse by admitting women students
as full members (Anson & Marchesani, 1998).

Interfaith Programs and Centers

A significant development in campus religious and spiritual life has been the
emergence of interfaith or multifaith programs and centers, designed to cre-
ate intercultural learning as well as dialogue and collaboration across faith tra-
ditions. An Internet search identifies such programs at institutions as diverse
as the College of Wooster, Washington University, California Lutheran
University, Boston College, Virginia Commonwealth University, Johns
Hopkins University, and Stony Brook University. According to Reverend
Janet Cooper Nelson, university chaplain and director of the Office of the
Chaplains and Religious Life at Brown University, an interfaith approach
offers multiple opportunities in campus ministry:

The opportunities are vast and hold tremendous promise for allowing
students in the “laboratory” of higher ed communities to experiment
with new modes of collaboration and exploration. However, the implica-
tions of not doing this work while students are in residence and studying
together are also vast. We risk hardening the stereotypes that are rampant

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 356 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 357

in society. . . . We may well discourage religious identified students in their

pursuit of intellectual growth by failing to integrate spiritual and religious
growth with intellectual depth. Because some of this reflects my fear of
missed opportunities it is important to note that each of these concerns
has a dazzling, positive correlate for what the years of a university educa-
tion can begin—a life of deeper respect for difference and the intriguing
and demanding work of envisioning a world where coexistence is a highly
prized goal. (HigherEdJobs, 2012)

The history of religious diversity on campus is complicated, filled with

conflict, compromise, and change. Every campus is a unique picture of the
religious experience and must be understood in that context; however, the
student experience also occurs on an individual level, as well as in the larger
societal context.

Demographics of Religious Diversity on Campus

Colleges and universities in many ways reflect the breadth of religions and
denominations of their constituent population. According to a Higher
Education Research Institute (HERI) study of trends in U.S. first-year students,
the number of students indicating no religious preference increased from 15.4%
in 1971 to 27.5% in 2014 (Eagan et al., 2014); however, over 70% of incoming
college students still do identify a religious preference. Approximately 62% of
first-year students surveyed identified as Christian, of which 25.3% identified
specifically as Roman Catholic, while 1%, 2.8%, and 1.7% of students identi-
fied as Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim, respectively (Eagan et al., 2014).
While the number of entering college students reporting no religious
preference at all has doubled in the 20 years prior to this publication, an
even larger increase has been reported by those noting their religious prefer-
ence as “other Christian (Protestant),” the percentage of which has more
than tripled in the two decades from the mid-1980s to mid-2000s (Pryor,
Hurtado, Saenz, Santos, & Korn, 2007). Included in the latter category are
nondenominational Christian churches, many of which are conservative and
evangelistic in nature. Affiliation with these groups was claimed by nearly
20% of entering students (Pryor et al., 2007). While discussion of religious
diversity is generally focused on the experiences of students in the religious
minority, these statistics reflect the reality that such diversity increasingly
includes those with no religious affiliation as well as those with ties outside
the traditional denominational structures.
Across campuses and religious preferences, students overall continue to
exhibit connections to their faith. About 71% of those first-year, full-time

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 357 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 358 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

students surveyed reported attending religious services in the last year either
frequently or occasionally (Eagan et al., 2014). Conversely, approximately
only 30% of the students said that they frequently discussed religion. Eagan
and colleagues (2014) also found that “in 1996, 44% of students reported
their spirituality ‘above average’ or ‘highest 10%.’ By 2014, this had dropped
to 35.7%” (p. 10). Eagan and colleagues (2014) suggested that the decline
in religious affiliation may be related to the decline of self-rated spirituality.
However, Astin and colleagues (2011) found that while religious engage-
ment declines in college, students show growth in regard to spirituality meas-
ures. For example, Astin and colleagues found that there was an increase in
spiritual quest, a concept that measures “an engagement in the search for
meaning and purpose in life,” between students’ first and third years in col-
lege (2011, p. 28).
Even with declining numbers related to religious affiliation, religious
life and spirituality are an important part of many students’ lives. Cherry,
DeBerg, and Porterfield (2001) examined the religious culture of four differ-
ent institutions that included public, Catholic, and Protestant colleges and
universities. They interviewed students, faculty, staff, and campus chaplains,
examining religion in practice and in academic offerings. These researchers
concluded “religion on the four campuses [to be] sufficiently vital and invit-
ing. . . . It is possible that young people in American culture have never been
more enthusiastically engaged in religious practice or with religious ideas”
(pp. 294–295). In addition, research has indicated that college students have
a high interest in spiritual development to facilitate finding meaning in their
lives (Astin et al., 2011; Brandenberger & Bowman, 2013; Bryant, Choi,
& Yasuno, 2003; Chickering, 2006; Lindholm, 2007). For example, a sig-
nificant number of college students “report that they are actively engaged
in a spiritual quest; nearly half indicate that they consider it ‘essential’ or
‘very important’ to seek opportunities to help themselves grow spiritually”
(Lindholm, 2007, p. 12). The evidence at hand shows that religion and spir-
ituality are alive and well in U.S. higher education.

Student Development Theory and Religious Diversity

Religious diversity is rarely discussed in texts on student development the-
ory, although the inclusion of material on spiritual development is becom-
ing more common. Perry (1970) briefly discussed the difference between
belief and faith, indicating that belief comes from parents and culture,
while faith is a personal affirmation. The fifth position—relativism cor-
relate, competing, or diffuse—in Perry’s scheme of development represents

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 358 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 359

the division between belief and faith in an individual’s growth. Kohlberg

(1984) also discussed how religious values change from those received from
parents to those resulting from personal commitment. Kohlberg made the
assumption that the process is the same, regardless of the particular reli-
gion. Chickering and Reisser (1993) discussed religion as part of two vec-
tors, developing integrity and developing purpose, with specific examples
of students dealing with Christianity. Fowler’s (1981) work on the develop-
ment of faith is a valuable resource for understanding how religious belief
and faith change as the individual develops. Later work by Parks (1986,
2000) contributed even more to an understanding of how religious faith
develops and changes. However, literature specifically on the development
of religious minority students and how their growth may differ from that of
religious majority students has been limited, although some has begun to
emerge. Peek (2005) studied second-generation Muslim American students
and described three stages of identity development: religion as ascribed
identity, chosen identity, and declared identity. Peek further examined the
impact of a crisis event such as September 11, 2001, on identity. Etengoff
and Daiute (2013) looked at Sunni-Muslim American religious develop-
ment during emerging adulthood and described such development as a
dynamic process that was affected by the sociorelational contexts in which
it took place.
Astin (1993) reported differences among Protestant, Catholic, and
Jewish students on a wide range of variables, such as Greek letter organiza-
tion membership, alcohol use, degree completion, and career choice. Astin’s
results present a snapshot of student behavior and choices in campus involve-
ment but do not provide any greater understanding on why these differences
exist and how they might be understood. Further, while it is important to
recognize differences between students of different religious backgrounds, it
is also important to recognize the similarities. Astin and colleagues (2005)
discovered clusters of similar religious preferences among students from very
different religions and denominations, reinforcing the need to understand
not only religions but also the students who ascribe to them.
More recently, Astin, Astin, and Lindholm (2011) reported findings from
a seven-year study on how college students change spiritually and religiously
during college and the role that institutions play in their spiritual develop-
ment. Using pilot survey findings, the authors developed spirituality and
religious measures that further distinguished between spirituality and reli-
gion, while still recognizing that the two terms overlapped for some students.
The spirituality measures included spiritual quest, equanimity, ethic of car-
ing, charitable involvement, and ecumenical worldview, while the religious
measures included religious commitment, religious engagement, religious/

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 359 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 360 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

social conservatism, religious skepticism, and religious struggle. The authors

surveyed over 112,000 students, and then 15,000 of them were surveyed
again as they were completing their third year of college. The longitudinal
study found that students’ religious engagement declined while in college,
but students demonstrated substantial growth in regard to the spirituality
measures. In addition, spiritual growth was related to better academic perfor-
mance, leadership development, and psychological well-being. Finally, they
found that study abroad, service learning, and interdisciplinary studies help
with students’ spiritual development, as do self-reflection, meditation, and
contemplation.
Bowman and Small (2012) studied the relationship between religious
affiliation and well-being; they found that students with no affiliation
had reduced well-being compared with students affiliated with mainline
Christian denominations. They further noted that “this pattern aligns with
those of numerous other marginalized minority groups, including Blacks/
African Americans, Latinos/Chicanos, American Indians/Native Americans,
women, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds . . . [suggest-
ing] that privilege or marginalization (not numerical status) may account
for at least some of these group differences” (p. 499). Thus, the experience
of marginalization seems to result in lower levels of well-being regardless of
whether the individual’s group membership is perceived to be visible (e.g.,
race) or invisible (e.g., religion).
A review of research in student affairs peer-reviewed journals reflected an
increasing focus on religion and spirituality in higher education and specifi-
cally in student affairs. For example, a search of the Journal of College Student
Development ( JCSD) from 1990 to 2003 yielded only eight articles on these
topics. Low and Handal (1995) examined the relationship between religion
and college adjustment. Strange and Alston (1998) involved 70 students
in a program to explore human differences, including religious differences.
Rogers and Dantley (2001) discussed how student affairs leadership should
use spiritual intelligence in their work with students. Jones and McEwen
(2000) presented a conceptual model of identity that included an empha-
sis on religion as an important aspect of identity. They further suggested
that identity evolves and that the multiple aspects of an individual’s identity
change in salience over time. Between 2004 and 2014, there were 28 articles
about spirituality and religion in higher education published in the JCSD,
including several exploring religion or spirituality as an important dimension
of identity development for students (e.g., Abes & Kasch, 2007; Bowman &
Small, 2012; Love, Bock, Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005; Rockenbach,
Walker, & Luzader, 2012; Sanchez & Carter, 2005; Seggie & Austin, 2010;
Weddle-West, Hagan, & Norwood, 2013).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 360 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 361

Although there has been an increase in research, there is still a need for
further research and theory development in the areas of religion and spiritu-
ality, as well as in their relationship to student development. Research must
not only include the spirituality or religious affiliation and identity develop-
ment of students but also recognize how the intersection of social identities
(e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, social class) may play a role in
development. For example, how does understanding the research of Astin
and colleagues (2011) apply to students Color who identify as gay, lesbian,
bisexual, or queer? Research must continuously recognize that intersection of
identities or social locations does impact the religious and spiritual develop-
ment of students.
What seems clear from research, however, is that while students expect
that their colleges and universities will play a role in their spiritual develop-
ment, nearly half of college juniors in one survey reported dissatisfaction with
opportunities for religious or spiritual reflection available during their college
experience (Lindholm, 2007). However, findings from this same 2004 survey
of entering college students indicated that “roughly two-thirds feel that their
spiritual beliefs have helped them develop their identity and that these beliefs
give meaning and purpose to their lives” (Lindholm, 2007, p. 12).
Similarly, analysis of results from the 2004 National Survey of Student
Engagement indicated that students who frequently engage in spirituality-
enhancing practices also participate more in other campus activities and
are somewhat more satisfied with college than their peers (Kuh & Gonyea,
2006). In the same study, students from different racial and ethnic groups
were found to vary in their frequency of engaging in spirituality-enhancing
activities, with African American students engaging more often than White
students. Tisdell (2003) asserted that the development of a positive cultural
identity is also a spiritual process for many; spirituality can also play an
important role in dealing with internalized oppression. Educators commit-
ted to the development of the whole student must not ignore the important
role of religion and spirituality in students’ lives and their identity develop-
ment. Further, as Jones and McEwen (2000) pointed out, “Student affairs
educators must not presume what is most central to individuals, but must
instead listen for how a person sees herself ” (p. 412).

Distinguishing Spirituality and Religion

One concept that has begun to emerge more clearly in higher education
literature is spirituality as distinct from religion. One way of distinguishing
them is defining religion as “an affiliation with and practice of an established

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 361 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 362 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

denominational tradition” and spirituality as involving “a highly personal

search for ultimate meaning, purpose, and values wherever they may be
found” (Stamm, 2006, p. 38). In other places, spirituality has other con-
notations. While no common definition of spirituality exists, Estanek (2006)
conducted a qualitative analysis of sources on spirituality in higher education
and identified five recurring patterns that characterize this new discourse:
spirituality described as spiritual development, used as critique, understood
as so-called empty container for individual meaning, understood as common
ground, and discussed as quasi-religion. The suggestion is that no commonly
accepted, universal definitions of religion and spirituality exist. Nonetheless,
Estanek (2006) advocated for a developmental approach to spirituality that

recognizes the diversity of spiritual and religious understandings. However,

with this approach we ask of students what we ask of them in other areas of
development: that they reflect upon their spirituality, however they under-
stand it, in light of experience and integrate it into their emerging adult
self. We ask them to learn more about their own faith tradition, if they have
one, and those of others, not only in a religious sense but in the active sense
of meaning-making. (p. 277)

This approach to understanding spirituality incorporates it into the frame-

work of student development and suggests that it can be part of a holistic
understanding of all students. Further, we should not shy away from discus-
sions of religion and spirituality; as important dimensions of identity and
self, we should incorporate them into our conversations with students, just as
we incorporate other elements of their identities. Strange (2000) noted that
education itself may be an inherently spiritual process, which compels us to
rethink the ways we engage students in it.

Culture of Religious Diversity

Religious diversity contributes to the richness of campus communities and
offers opportunities for cross-cultural experiences and learning. Such diver-
sity, however, can also create challenges. Some religious groups continue to
be marginalized and stereotyped in many areas of the United States, which
does not stop at the edge of campus. Religious holidays, observances, and
practices for religions other than Christianity are not always recognized or
understood, and students may be faced with the need to advocate for the
right to practice their faith, even in public institutions. Administrators are
challenged to find the right balance when there are conflicts of faith and
policy, issues of free speech and freedom of association, and tensions between

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 362 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 363

privacy and faiths that call followers to approaches involving evangelism and
proselytizing.
Taking America’s Pulse III, a project sponsored by the National
Conference for Community and Justice (formerly the National Council of
Christians and Jews) indicated that while there has been some improvement
in attitudes toward others in different groups, negative perceptions persist,
and views on intergroup relations vary widely (Smith, 2006). Students can
be challenged to embrace new environments and interactions with diverse
others while also managing the anxieties and expectations of their families
related to the continued practice of their faith (Dean & Grandpré, 2011).
Incidents including hate crimes can both exacerbate conflict and prompt
demonstrations of solidarity and unity. On one campus, for example, when
offensive graffiti including swastikas was spray painted on the walls of a
Jewish fraternity, the incident prompted not only the university president
but also groups including the Interfraternity Council, Students for Justice in
Palestine, and the Student Government Association to issue statements con-
demning the action and supporting the fraternity (Fowler, 2014). The same
article that reported this information in the student-run newspaper, however,
also quoted a blog post by an alumna questioning why previous acts of preju-
dice on campus against other cultural, racial, gender, and religious groups did
not engender the same level of outcry and public support.
Colleges and universities are often thought of as being relatively progres-
sive and inclusive places, but the underlying structures are grounded in major-
ity cultures. For example, the traditional academic calendar allows for the
celebration of Christian holidays, but not typically those of other religions.
While campuses may make a point of informing faculty and others of the
need to accommodate other religious observances, students report anecdotally
that support and understanding can vary widely in practice. Muslim students
experience similar problems regarding daily prayer times, Jumu’ah (Friday
prayer), and meal scheduling during Ramadan, as well as the need to navi-
gate differences related to dating customs and alcohol use (McMurtrie, 2001).
Orthodox Jewish students sued Yale over the requirement to live on cam-
pus when the only options available were mixed-sex housing (5 Orthodox
Jews Protest Mixed-Sex Yale Housing, 1997); the suit was dismissed, but
the conflict between campus policy and religious practice was not resolved.
Campus dining plans, which may be mandatory for residential students, may
not be conducive for students whose religions dictate specific dietary or food
preparation practices. In all of these instances, the opportunity for students
to practice their religion involves complicated navigation of a system predi-
cated on a culture that is not their own. Student affairs administrators can be
instrumental in raising institutional awareness of these issues, educating the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 363 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 364 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

campus community about diverse religious practices, identifying ways that

the dominant religion is privileged, and advocating for policies and practices
that respect the right to diverse religious observations (or the right not to
participate in religiously based activities). Moreover, they can also extend
themselves to students and student groups to listen to their experiences and
address their concerns.
One of the most difficult issues emerges when the tenets of faith call
for actions that are at odds with campus culture and policy. The Christian
evangelical movement, while part of what is typically the dominant reli-
gion, has sometimes come under fire for aggressive tactics or exclusionary
practices. Students have reported instances of feeling harassed by repeated,
unwelcome invitations and proselytizing (Dean & Grandpré, 2011). The
clash may be particularly strong between two growing groups of students:
nondenominational, evangelical Christians and students with no reli-
gious affiliation, including those who identify as atheists. There have also
been instances of campuses revoking recognition of student organizations
that limit membership or leadership to Christian students (e.g., Paulson,
2014). These cases can be framed as a conflict between the freedom of
association and a campus commitment to nondiscrimination; ironically,
this conflict can leave these Christian groups, long the dominant religious
culture, feeling that they are being discriminated against for carrying out
their beliefs. As campuses grapple with the ramifications of religious diver-
sity, they are increasingly turning to multifaith, interfaith, and pluralistic
approaches.

Pluralism and Interfaith Practices

As religious diversity on campuses has increased, institutions have begun to
reflect a pluralistic approach, developing creative and inclusive approaches to
meeting student needs.

One way to frame engagement with religious diversity is to take the per-
spective of pluralism. Religious pluralists hold that people believing in dif-
ferent creeds and belonging to different communities need to learn to live
together. It is therefore a sociological, not theological, pluralism. Religious
pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form
of proactive cooperation that affirms the identity of the constituent com-
munities while emphasizing that the well-being of each and all depends
on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best
served when each community has a chance to make its unique contribu-
tion. (Patel, 2007, pp. 5–6)

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 364 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 365

Campus Ministry Models

The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS;
2015) section on religious and spiritual programs provides a resource for
considering such programs on campus. The standards offer a framework for
reviewing the role of campus chaplains, programs for students from various
religious groups, and the place of religion and spirituality on campus. Further,
the CAS Learning and Development Outcomes include spiritual awareness
as a dimension of intrapersonal development; examples of outcomes offered
are “develops and articulates personal belief system; understands roles of
spirituality in personal and group values and behaviors; critiques, compares,
and contrasts various belief systems; explores issues of purpose, meaning,
and faith” (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education,
2015, p. 26). These outcomes reflect the aims of the broader approach to
religion and spirituality increasingly reflected on campuses today.
Many campuses have a wealth of religious student organizations and
campus clergy, arranged in a wide range of structures. Relationships between
campuses and religious organizations range from benign neglect to enthusi-
astic acceptance and active coordination of multifaith efforts.
The Johns Hopkins Campus Ministries mission statement, for exam-
ple, reflects a strong multifaith stance that values spirituality and religious
pluralism:

Johns Hopkins University Campus Ministries promotes and supports spir-

itual development, theological reflections, religious tolerance and social
awareness among students, faculty and staff within the university commu-
nity. At its heart, Campus Ministries is a prophetic and pastoral presence
which seeks to enhance the spiritual and ethical educational experience of
the whole person mind, body and soul. (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.a)

The student Interfaith Council publishes a statement of interfaith coopera-

tion that speaks to both the “integrity and legitimacy of the diverse religious
traditions in our midst” and the intent to create dialogue “to increase under-
standing and mutual support of our common mission to serve the univer-
sity community” (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.b). Further, the Campus
Ministries webpage includes a “Word of Caution” link to information about
destructive, “high pressure” religious groups and how to identify and avoid
them (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.c). The overall program reflects a strong
commitment to a diverse faith community.
Other institutions strive to balance a religious affiliation with a commit-
ment to inclusion. At Boston College, a Jesuit, Catholic institution, the Office
of Campus Ministry focuses on that heritage but also includes Multi-Faith

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 365 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 366 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Programs and Services (Boston College, 2014a). The Campus Ministry staff
includes a person designated to oversee multifaith initiatives, and a Multi-
Faith Center offers student groups space for their activities and individuals
the opportunity for private prayer and reflection (Boston College, 2014b).
The Campus Ministry Association (CMA; n.d.) at the University of
Georgia is one example of how a public institution can establish a work-
ing relationship with multiple ministry groups. The CMA is an independ-
ent alliance of campus chaplains from the various denominational student
centers, nondenominational organizations, and the university. The CMA has
its own elected officers and admits members based on their involvement on
the campus. Some are campus chaplains dedicated solely to the campus pro-
gram, some are clergy working with a congregation from the university and
the community, and some are advisers working with student organizations
that have no specific denominational or organizational affiliation. Members
ascribe to a covenant that outlines the nature of their work together:

The Campus Ministry Association (CMA) is an association of faith-based

professionals serving the University of Georgia who covenant to support
and enrich each other’s professional commitment and competency in cam-
pus ministry; work together in an atmosphere of collegiality, inclusiveness,
and tolerance; improve communications among members and the various
religious groups which minister to the University community; speak to the
University community on matters of religion, human values, morality, and
individual and community rights; foster healthful religious practices in the
University community; and serve as a resource to individuals and groups
within the University. (Campus Ministry Association, 2012)

CMA publishes a directory of religious organizations on campus for referrals,

questions, and services. Staff in the vice president for student affairs’ office
also send out notices to faculty reminding them of non-Christian religious
holidays and that some students may be absent to participate in their faith
observances.
Among private institutions, the University of Richmond is another
good example of how to respond to religious diversity. Although the uni-
versity was founded as a Baptist institution, it is now independent. On
campus, the spaces designated for religious life reflect an interfaith phi-
losophy. The Cannon Memorial Chapel on the Richmond campus is a
beautiful building with stained-glass windows that represent different aca-
demic and religious symbols. Next to it is the E. Carlton Wilton Center
for Interfaith Campus Ministries, dedicated in 1990. It houses “the Office
of the Chaplaincy, 18 campus ministries, the multifaith reception room
and kitchen, Pathways lounge, a conference room, and the Dr. David

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 366 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 367

Burhans Inter-Religious Prayer Room” (University of Richmond Wilton

Center, 2015, para. 2). The university’s website describes the tradition
and breadth of the program:

Founded by faithful Baptists who believed that the life of the spirit and the
life of the mind were intertwined, the University of Richmond has always
been committed to supporting moral and spiritual values in an atmosphere
free of sectarian bias. Now with 18 campus ministries serving five world
religions and a commitment to serve those who adhere to a specific reli-
gious tradition or not, the Office of the Chaplaincy offers opportunities
for students, faculty, and staff to explore their own convictions, faith, and
spirituality within a welcoming inter-religious context. (University of Rich-
mond Chaplaincy, 2015, para. 2)

Behind the building is a small garden with a walking path and areas to medi-
tate. Along the path, various plants are identified with small plaques that note
not only the botanical name and information but also religious significance.
The college chapel is a physical reflection of religious pluralism that sends a
clear message to the campus.
Creating a multidenominational space on campus is an emerging
national trend. According to McMurtie (1999), private institutions like
Mount Holyoke College, Johns Hopkins University, and the University
of Southern California have been at the forefront in renovating chapels to
make them multidenominational. Private institutions have an advantage
over public ones because they are not affected by issues of church and state
in the same way that public entities are. Administrators of some public
institutions, such as Pennsylvania State University, have dealt with the issue
by raising private funds. Such approaches, however, may also be embed-
ded with challenges to pluralistic values. When institutions, particularly
secular ones, designate spaces for religious activities, the outcome often
awards the best spaces to the dominant religion (typically Christianity),
while others may be relegated to a room in a student center or residence
hall (McMurtie, 1999).
When creating a truly multidenominational area, some groups may
feel empowered, but others may feel they are giving up campus space and
a preferred role. Such campus changes must be carried out with care and
sensitivity so that a decision designed to facilitate diversity does not breed
resentment. While working with campus chaplains can be an effective way
to assist religious minority students, at some campuses a religious minority
group may not have the resources of a campus center and a full-time profes-
sional religious leader. For example, at the University of Maryland, a search
for religious student organizations yields a list of 58 groups (University of

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 367 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 368 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Maryland, n.d.c), but the University’s Memorial Chapel webpage lists just
14 recognized chaplaincies (University of Maryland, n.d.b). Like other cam-
puses, the University of Maryland also offers resources for interfaith programs
and spiritual diversity through the Office of Multicultural Involvement and
Community Advocacy (University of Maryland, n.d.a).
Some institutions have more than one campus ministers’ organization.
For example, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2014) has
a Campus Ministers’ Association and an Evangelical Campus Ministries
Association. The members of the Campus Ministers’ Association represent a
wide range of faiths, majority and minority. Evangelical Campus Ministries
is made up predominantly of representatives from nondenominational
Christian organizations.
An unusually broad approach is taken at Georgetown University.
Georgetown is a Jesuit institution with a wide-ranging single campus min-
istry structure that includes Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, and
Protestant chaplains and student organizations, as well as an interfaith coor-
dinator (Georgetown University, n.d.a). In 1968 Georgetown became the
first Catholic university to employ a full-time rabbi (Georgetown University,
n.d.c), and later became the first to appoint a full-time Muslim chaplain
(Georgetown University, n.d.b). Additionally, as a reflection of the broaden-
ing understanding of spirituality on campus, the campus ministry website
menu for Many Faiths, One Georgetown also includes pages for Humanist/
None/Unaffiliated (Georgetown University, n.d.a).
Spirituality is another framework used by some campus administrators
to address this dimension of their students’ lives. At Bowling Green State
University, spiritual growth is one of the core values in the institution’s
statement of mission; the focus is not on any specific belief system but rather
on the nature of spiritual questions in the lives and development of students
(Strange, 2000). Such questions focus on self-definition and understanding,
relationships with others, and purpose and direction. This emphasis on
helping students to ask themselves the right questions and search for their
own answers reflects the best of what we know about effective teaching and
learning. Using a spirituality framework can also offer nonreligious students
a way to explore questions of meaning and purpose without asking them to
do so in an overtly religious context.

Policies and Privilege

The question of religious privilege on campus is one that has only lately
been acknowledged. It is important to recognize the presence and effects
of religious privilege; to address the plurality administratively, in the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 368 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 369

classroom, and in the cocurriculum; and to assist students in their awareness

and responses to increasing diversity as well. As Fried (2007) pointed out,
“Christian perspectives and practices are generally so embedded in institu-
tional policies and practices that many people do not even pause to reflect
on them, particularly if those policies and practices embody the beliefs of the
dominant culture” (p. 3). As mentioned previously, most academic calendars
are arranged so that Christian students are on break for Christmas and can,
if they choose, celebrate with their families, but Jewish students may have
final exams during Hanukkah. Other examples are more subtle; while many
perceive traditions like Christmas trees and Secret Santa exchanges to have
become secularized, non-Christian students may be acutely aware of their
connections to a holiday that they do not recognize and in which they do not
choose to participate. Similarly, even when a “nondenominational” prayer
or invocation is used, as may be true at commencement ceremonies or in
pregame locker rooms, the general form of it is typically Christian (Seifert,
2007). Such practices can be alienating to students whose faith traditions are
different and to those who do not identify with a religion.
Fried (2007) asserted that to have effective discussions of religious
privilege, participants must commit to moving beyond dualistic ideas about
religious truths and toward a focus on understanding other perspectives with-
out judging them. Campus administrators should critically review policies
and processes to identify areas that privilege one set of religious practices and
thereby disadvantage others, or ignore the experiences of students without
religious affiliation. For example, scheduling of campus events should take
all religious observances into consideration, avoiding such conflicts whenever
possible. Policies related to housing requirements, residence hall schedules,
dining plans, and mealtimes should be reviewed for their effects on students
from all faiths. Campuses should have unambiguous and well-disseminated
statements related to their support for diverse religious practices and their
intolerance for any discrimination, with clear information about where stu-
dents can go for assistance. Further, faculty, academic administrators, and
student affairs professionals alike must work, in and outside the classroom, to
increase knowledge of differences and trust between groups so that authentic
and productive dialogue can occur and the negative effects of privilege on
religious minorities can be minimized. All those working with students can
encourage them to reflect on their own multiple identities, including those
related to religion or spirituality, and to consider the ways they interact with
others who are different from themselves. Similarly, we must take care not
to make assumptions about which of our students’ identities may be most
salient for them, particularly for those in traditionally marginalized groups
(Jones & McEwen, 2000).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 369 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 370 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Conclusion
From the earliest days of U.S. higher education, religion has been an issue in
and out of the classroom. The common thread through all the best practices
described in this chapter is that at an institutional level they create space for
religious variety and recognize the breadth of religious faith and spiritual-
ity that exists on the modern campus. Since the passage of the Civil Rights
Act, our institutions have made significant progress in establishing racial and
ethnic diversity as an expectation and positive value on campus; we must
also focus on creating campuses that expect and value religious diversity and
pluralism (Stamm, 2006).
Patel (2007) echoed this perspective, noting,

The American campus is a unique space. It gathers people from small

towns and big cities, superpower nations and countries who can barely
feed their own population; it manages to encourage both identity com-
mitment and pluralist community; it values both individual freedom and
contribution to the common good. Its experience with addressing the issue
of race, while far from a perfect parallel, might well provide some clues,
and some mistakes to avoid, regarding how to engage religious diversity
in a way that impacts individual campuses, the broader system of higher
education, the country we live in, and perhaps even the world. (p. 5)

We know that our students are concerned about matters of religious

faith, spirituality, purpose, and meaning in their lives. They report that
“their campuses feel inclusive of many faiths . . . but only 3 percent of
students say they actually participate frequently in interfaith programming
on campus” (New, 2015, para. 1). As we work to create campuses that
support their learning and development, we must also work to create
campus communities that understand that religion and spirituality are to
be embraced rather than shied away from, understood rather than feared,
and discussed rather than ignored.

Discussion Questions
1. What are the religious demographics of your institution? How easy or
difficult is it to find this information? What do you know about your
students’ spirituality?
2. How do you identify religious minority students on your campus? What
do you know about their experiences on your campus? How do you
know it?

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 370 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 371

3. Do you, or does your institution, intentionally address issues of spiritual-

ity and faith with students? Why or why not?
4. How are religion and spirituality reflected in discussions or training
related to diversity at your institution? How does the institution recog-
nize and communicate about non-Christian holidays? If these issues are
not currently being addressed on your campus, how could you begin to
raise them?
5. What is the relationship between the institution and various campus
ministries and campus ministers’ organizations? If a formal organization
exists, what are the organization’s criteria for membership? How are stu-
dents from denominations where there is no designated campus minister
referred or directed? If no formal organization exists, how is this relation-
ship between the institution and ministers manifested?
6. For those at private sectarian institutions, what is the role of religion and
spirituality on your campus with respect to those who are not of your
sponsoring denomination’s faith? Is there a relationship with campus
ministers from other faiths who work with students not of the institu-
tion’s faith? How is the role of religion presented to prospective students
and their families?
7. What kinds of opportunities for interfaith dialogue does your institution
offer? How are they publicized?
8. How can you contribute to the creation of an institution that is free of
religious discrimination and harassment, and open to religious and spir-
itual expression?

Useful Web Resources

The following list provides websites of national organizations for several reli-
gious groups’ college programs, sites for researching religious issues, and sites
for various national organizations for campus chaplains and ministers.

• Association for Christians in Student Development: www.acsd.org

• Catholic Campus Ministry Association: www.ccmanet.org
• Hillel International: www.hillel.org
• Hindu Students Council: www.hindustudentscouncil.org
• Jesuit Association of Student Personnel Administrators: www.jesuit
studentaffairs.org
• Muslim Students Association: msanational.org/old
• National Association of College and University Chaplains: www.nacuc
.net

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 371 7/26/2016 7:24:30 PM

 372 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

• National Campus Ministry Association: www.campusministry.net

• The Pluralism Project at Harvard University: www.pluralism.org

References
Abes, E. S., & Kasch, D. (2007). Using queer theory to explore lesbian college stu-
dents’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development,
48, 619–636.
Adams, M., & Joshi, K. Y. (2010). Religious oppression: Introduction. In M.
Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X.
Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 227–234). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Anson, J. L., & Marchesani, R. A. (Eds.) (1998). Baird’s manual of American college
fraternities. Indianapolis, IN: Baird’s Manual Foundation.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How col-
lege can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Lindholm, J. A., Bryant, A. N., Calderon, S., & Szelenyi,
K. (2005). The spiritual life of college students: A national study of college students’
search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
Boston College. (2014a). About campus ministry. Retrieved from www.bc.edu/
offices/ministry/aboutcm.html
Boston College. (2014b). Multi-faith center. Retrieved from www.bc.edu/offices/
ministry/interfaith/66comm.html
Bowman, N. A., & Small, J. L. (2012). Exploring a hidden form of minority status:
College students’ religious affiliation and well-being. Journal of College Student
Development, 53(4), 491–509.
Brandeis University. (2015). About Brandeis: Defining Brandeis. Retrieved from www
.brandeis.edu/about/defining.html
Brandenberger, J. W., & Bowman, N. A. (2013). From faith to compassion? Recip-
rocal influences of spirituality, religious commitment, and prosocial development
during college. In A. B. Rockenbach and M. J. Mayhew (Eds.), Spirituality in
college students’ lives: Translating research into practice (pp. 121-137). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of
American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Bryant, A. N., Choi, J. Y., & Yasuno, M. (2003). Understanding the religious and
spiritual dimensions of students’ lives in the first year of college. Journal of College
Student Development, 44(6), 723–745.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 372 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 373

Butler, J. (1989). An overview of religion on campus. In J. Butler (Ed.), Religion on

campus (pp. 3–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Campus Ministry Association. (n.d.). Campus Ministry Association at the University
of Georgia. Retrieved from www.uga.edu/cma/
Campus Ministry Association. (2012). Covenant & code of ethics of the Campus Min-
istry Association at the University of Georgia. Retrieved from cma.uga.edu/shared/
files/cmacovenantandethics.pdf
Catholic Campus Ministry Association. (2014). About: Who we are. Retrieved from
www.ccmanet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153&Ite
mid=187
Chalfant, H. P., Beckley, R. E., & Palmer, C. E. (1994). Religion in contemporary
society. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Cherry, C., DeBerg, B. A., & Porterfield, A. (2001). Religion on campus. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Chickering, A. (2006, November). Strengthening spirituality and civic
engagement in higher education. Journal of College and Character, 8(1).
doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1153
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS profes-
sional standards for higher education (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Dean, L. A., & Grandpré, E. A. (2011). Religious and spiritual diversity on campus.
In M. Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multiculturalism
on campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating
inclusion (pp. 371–398). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hur-
tado, S. (2014). The American freshman: National norms, fall 2014. Los Angeles,
CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Estanek, S. M. (2006). Redefining spirituality: A new discourse. College Student Jour-
nal, 40(2), 270–281.
Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2013). Sunni-Muslim American religious development
during emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 690–714.
Fowler, S. (2014, October 6). Swastikas drawn on AEPi walls. Emory Wheel. Retrieved
from emorywheel.com/swastikas-drawn-on-aepi-walls/
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Freedman, J. O. (2000, December 1). Ghosts of the past: Anti-Semitism at elite col-
leges. Chronicle of Higher Education, B7.
Fried, J. (2007, September). Thinking skillfully and respecting difference: Under-
standing religious privilege on campus. Journal of College and Character, 9(1).
doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1103
Georgetown University. (n.d.a). Many faiths, one Georgetown. Retrieved from
campusministry.georgetown.edu/interfaith
Georgetown University. (n.d.b). Campus ministry: Muslim life at Georgetown.
Retrieved from campusministry.georgetown.edu/muslim

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 373 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 374 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

Georgetown University. (n.d.c). Witness to history: Alumni stories. Retrieved from

witnesstohistory.georgetown.edu/?p=428
HigherEdJobs. (2012) Religious affairs: Understanding interfaith on campus. Retrieved
from www.higheredjobs.com/higheredcareers/interviews.cfm?ID=396&Title=Re
ligious%20Affairs%3A%20%20Understanding%20Interfaith%20on%20
Campus
Hillel. (2015). About Hillel. Retrieved from www.hillel.org/about
Johns Hopkins University. (n.d.a). A word of caution. Retrieved from chaplain.john
shopkins.edu/index.php/a-word-of-caution.html
Johns Hopkins University. (n.d.b). Campus ministries. Retrieved from chaplain.john
shopkins.edu/index.php/home.html
Johns Hopkins University. (n.d.c). Interfaith Council. Retrieved from chaplain.john
shopkins.edu/index.php/ifc.html
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions
of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–413.
Kazanjian, V., & Laurence, P. (2007, November). The journey toward multi-
faith community on campus: The religious and spiritual life program at
Wellesley College. Journal of College and Character, 9(2). doi:10.2202/1940-
1639.1123
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006, Winter). Spirituality, liberal learning, and col-
lege student engagement. Liberal Education, 40–47.
Lindholm, J. A. (2007). Spirituality in the academy: Reintegrating our lives and the
lives of our students. About Campus, 12(4), 10–17.
Love, P., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction:
Exploring the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 46(2), 193–209.
Low, C. A., & Handal, P. J. (1995). The relationship between religion and adjust-
ment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 36(5), 406–412.
McMurtie, B. (1999, December 3). Pluralism and prayer under one roof. Chronicle
of Higher Education, A48.
McMurtie, B. (2001, November 9). For many Muslims, college is a balancing act.
Chronicle of Higher Education, A55.
Muslim Students Association. (n.d.). MSA map. Retrieved from msanational.org/
old/msa-map/
New, J. (2015, January 26). Interfaith interaction (or lack thereof ). Inside Higher
Ed. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/26/few-students-
engage-regularly-campus-programming-promotes-religious-diversity
5 Orthodox Jews protest mixed-sex Yale housing. (1997, August 30). New York
Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/1997/08/30/nyregion/5-orthodox-
jews-protest-mixed-sex-yale-housing.html
Parks, S. D. (1986). The critical years: The young adult search for a faith to live by. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 374 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL DIVERSITY AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS 375

Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their
search for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patel, E. (2007, November). Religious diversity and cooperation on campus. Journal
of College and Character, 9(2). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1120
Paulson, M. (2014, June 9). Colleges and evangelicals clash on bias policy. New York
Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us/colleges-and-evangeli
cals-collide-on-bias-policy.html?_r=0
Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociol-
ogy of Religion, 66(3), 215–242.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years.
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Santos, J. L., & Korn, W. S. (2007). The
American freshman: Forty-year trends, 1966–2006. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California, Los Angeles.
Rockenbach, A. B., Walker, C. R., & Luzader, J. (2012). A phenomenological analy-
sis of college students’ spiritual struggles. Journal of College Student Development,
53(1), 55–75.
Rogers, J. L., & Dantley, M. E. (2001). Invoking the spiritual in campus life and
leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 589–603.
Rudolph, J. R. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Sanchez, D., & Carter, R. T. (2005). Exploring the relationship between racial iden-
tity and religious orientation among African American college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 46(3), 280–295.
Seggie, F. N., & Austin, A. E. (2010). Impact of the headscarf ban policy on the
identity development of part-time unveilers in Turkish higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 51(5), 564-583.
Seifert, T. (2007). Understanding Christian privilege: Managing the tensions of spir-
itual plurality. About Campus, 12(2), 10–17.
Smith, T. W. (2006). Taking America’s Pulse III: Intergroup relations in contemporary
America. New York, NY: National Council for Community and Justice.
Stamm, L. (2006). The dynamics of spirituality and the religious experience. In
A. W. Chickering, J. C. Dalton, & L. Stamm (Eds.), Encouraging authenticity
and spirituality in higher education (pp. 37–65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strange, C. (2000, June). Spirituality at state: Private journeys and public visions.
Journal of College and Character, 1(3). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1273
Strange, C., & Alston, L. (1998). Voicing differences: Encouraging multicultural
learning. Journal of College Student Development, 39(1), 1–13.
Tisdell, E. J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
University of Maryland. (n.d.a). Interfaith programs and spiritual diversity. Retrieved
from thestamp.umd.edu/multicultural_involvement_community_advocacy/stu
dent_involvement_areas/interfaith_programs_and_spiritual_diversity

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 375 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 376 INFORMATION ON CULTURAL POPULATIONS

University of Maryland. (n.d.b). Memorial Chapel: Chaplains. Retrieved from

thestamp.umd.edu/memorial_chapel/chaplains
University of Maryland. (n.d.c). ORGSYNC.UMD.EDU. Retrieved from orgsync
.umd.edu/browse_student_organizations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (2014). 2014–2015 undergraduate bul-
letin: Religious activities. Retrieved from www.unc.edu/ugradbulletin/facilities.
html#religious
University of Richmond Chaplaincy. (2015). Chaplaincy: History. Retrieved from
chaplaincy.richmond.edu/about/history.html
University of Richmond Wilton Center. (2015). Wilton Center. Retrieved from
chaplaincy.richmond.edu/about/wilton-center.html
University of Virginia. (2015). @UVa: Organizations directory. Retrieved from atuva
.student.virginia.edu/Organizations
Weddle-West, K., Hagan, W. J., & Norwood, K. M. (2013). Impact of college envi-
ronments on the spiritual development of African American students. Journal of
College Student Development, 54(3), 299–314.
Wellesley College. (n.d.). Religious life: Meet the team. Retrieved from www.wellesley
.edu/religiouslife/meet_the_team

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 376 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 PA RT T H R E E

CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS
O F C U LT U R A L C O M P E T E N C E

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 377 10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 378 10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM
 17
F R O M C U LT U R A L
COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL
CONSCIOUSNESS
Creating Inclusive Campus Environments
Chris Linder and Diane L. Cooper

O
ver the past two decades, scholarship about equity and inclusion in
student affairs has grown exponentially. A review of scholarly literature
in higher education and student affairs indicates a strong commitment
to creating campus environments that are welcoming and inclusive for all stu-
dents. Scholars have explored the ways students from underrepresented groups
experience campus environments (e.g., Harper, 2008; Museus & Jayakumar,
2012), persist to graduation (e.g., Braxton et al., 2014; Palmer, Wood, Dancy,
& Strayhorn, 2014; Strayhorn, 2012), and grow and develop over their time in
college (e.g., Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010; Jones & Abes, 2013).
Additionally, scholarship about engaging students from dominant groups in
equity and inclusion work has also grown. For example, scholars have examined
ally development among college students (e.g., Broido, 2000; Edwards, 2006);
engaging men as allies in addressing sexism and sexual assault (e.g., Barone,
Wolgemuth, & Linder, 2007; Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, &
Stark, 2003); heterosexual students as allies to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans*
(LGBT) students (e.g., Evans & Broido, 2005; Goldstein & Davis, 2010); and
White students in addressing racism on campuses (e.g., Alimo, 2012; Linder,
2015; Reason, Roosa Millar, & Scales, 2005).
Studies about campus climates for women and students of Color began
emerging in the 1980s and 1990s, highlighting the ways in which women
and students of Color experienced a “chilly” climate on campus. Early stud-
ies indicated that women and students of Color experienced overt racism
and sexism as well as more covert invisibility, minimization, or invalidation
379

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 379 10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

 380 CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

(Hall & Sandler, 1982; Hurtado, 1992). In the 1990s and 2000s, scholarship
on the experiences of lesbian and gay students grew, highlighting homopho-
bia and heterosexism on campuses (Rankin, 2003; Wall & Evans, 1999).
Most of this scholarship related to persistence and retention of students from
historically marginalized groups. Additionally, scholarship about the iden-
tity development of historically underrepresented groups also emerged in the
1980s and 1990s and has continued to grow in recent years (see Cass, 1979;
Cross, 1991; D’Augelli, 1994; Gilligan, 1982; Helms, 1990).
In addition to the explosion of scholarship about equity and inclusion
in student affairs, attention to current national and international events—
including police brutality toward people of Color, violence toward trans*
people, and sexual assault on campus—amplifies the importance of equity
and inclusion work on college campuses. Students and student affairs educa-
tors, including faculty and practitioners, navigate complex and dangerous
experiences with racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and transphobia.
Additionally, students and student affairs educators must also manage the
pain and exhaustion they experience as a result of oppression. Addressing
racial battle fatigue, secondary trauma, and compassion fatigue becomes an
important strategy for student affairs educators related to equity and inclu-
sion work.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an opportunity for readers
to consider strategies for engaging in critically conscious work on our cam-
puses with students. In this book, a variety of authors examined the cultur-
ally specific experiences of student populations, and in this chapter we seek
to provide a framework through which student affairs educators and others
on campus might consider integrating this information in their work. We
describe multicultural competence and critical consciousness, then highlight
strategies for student affairs educators to engage in critical consciousness.
Finally, throughout this chapter we note resources that may be helpful for
student affairs educators, faculty, and staff related to equity, diversity, and
inclusion efforts.

Multicultural Competence and Critical Consciousness

Multicultural competence, frequently discussed as a core competency in
student affairs graduate preparation programs, includes “the awareness,
knowledge, and skills needed to work with others who are culturally differ-
ent from self ” (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004, p. 14). Emphasizing the
importance of knowledge and skills, multicultural competence also relies on
awareness of cultural differences that is based on acquired knowledge about

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 380 10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

 FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS 381

cultures—one’s own and others’. However, student populations are con-

stantly changing, and attempting to memorize a set body of knowledge about
various student cultures may lead to further marginalization and oppression.
For example, if student affairs educators “know” or have learned somewhere
in their quest for multicultural competence that Asian students come from
collectivist cultures that value indirect communication, they may uninten-
tionally perpetuate marginalization by assuming that all Asian students have
the same needs and communicating differently with Asian students than with
other students.
Critical consciousness advances multicultural competence by requiring
educators to stay critically engaged, understanding the complex ways in which
power, context, and constantly shifting identities influence ways students
experience campus environments. Requiring educators to understand
themselves, their experiences, and ways to engage in action related to
social change rather than just understanding those who are different from
themselves, critical consciousness pushes on educators to move beyond
competence to continued engagement. As defined in the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, competence is the ability to do something well. So at minimum,
multicultural competence represents an expectation for student affairs educa-
tors to effectively support and engage students from a variety of backgrounds.
As leaders in the area of inclusion and equity (ACPA/NASPA, 2015), student
affairs educators must do more than be competent; we must engage in critical
consciousness through an ongoing commitment to critical analysis and
socially just education. Developing and using a critical consciousness to name
and challenge power dynamics in campus policies, practices, and individual
interactions will contribute to more inclusive campuses for students from all
backgrounds.
Discussions of cultural competence in the field of student affairs have
evolved over time. Beginning with notions of “diversity,” early work focused
on teaching educators from dominant groups about students from histori-
cally underrepresented groups (Landerman & MacDonald-Dennis, 2013).
Diversity trainings often included descriptions and generalizations for prac-
titioners to consider about underrepresented groups on campus. Eventually,
this evolved into “multicultural education,” which focused on exploring sim-
ilarities and differences among student populations, with a heavy emphasis
on discovering commonalities so that people could connect with one another
(Landerman & MacDonald-Dennis, 2013). In the late 1990s, the term
social justice emerged in education, highlighting the ways in which power,
privilege, and oppression influenced educational institutions and social
interactions. Social justice reflects “both a process and a goal” (Adams, Bell,
& Griffin, 1997, p. 3), by emphasizing the ongoing nature of equity and

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 381 10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

 382 CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

inclusion work. As discussed in more detail later in this chapter, approaching

social justice from individual, institutional, and societal levels of privilege
and oppression allows for a more complex view of equity and inclusion in
higher education and student affairs.
Critical consciousness builds on social justice to advance the personal
nature of equity and inclusion work. In order to effectively address issues
of power, privilege, and oppression, student affairs educators and others on
campus must engage in critical consciousness. Student affairs educators who
have become more critically conscious engage in ongoing awareness of social
issues impacting students and colleagues and an awareness of how their own
perspectives and experiences inform their approaches to student affairs work.
Critical consciousness pushes student affairs educators, faculty, and staff to
approach equity and inclusion work holistically, continually reflecting on the
role of power in campus environments, cultures, and policies.

Strategies for Developing Critical Consciousness

Several strategies may assist student affairs educators in moving beyond cul-
tural competence to critical consciousness. In this section, we highlight the
role of intersectionality in critically conscious student affairs work and exam-
ine Hackman’s (2005) essential components for social justice education.
Finally, we provide suggestions and tools for ongoing development related
to critical consciousness.

Intersectional Framework
Throughout this text, we have attempted to integrate a framework of inter-
sectionality, highlighting the ways in which students experience multiple
identities at once and how the salience of those identities shift depending on
the context in which they find themselves. An intersectional framework also
includes a focus on power and oppression, highlighting various methods by
which power influences the ways people experience their identities (Dill &
Zambrana, 2009). As explored in more depth in Chapter 4, students may
experience a dominant identity differently based on the intersection of a sub-
ordinated identity or the reverse. For example, a man of Color may struggle
to recognize his male privilege because the racism he experiences may seem
to mitigate privileges he experiences as a man. Similarly, White working-class
students may struggle to understand their White privilege because they expe-
rience classism on a regular basis.
Intersectionality assists educators in understanding how subordinated
and dominant identities mediate each other. For instance, recent incidents

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 382 10/11/2016 6:14:33 PM

 FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS 383

of violence directed toward people of Color and trans* people illustrate the
complex intersection of identities of trans* people of Color. Trans* people
of Color frequently live in fear of violence perpetuated by people in author-
ity roles (police) as well as peers, family members, and other individuals in
their immediate environments. Trans* students of Color on our campuses are
likely acutely aware of these experiences, even though the majority of inci-
dents of violence that receive attention in the media happen in the broader
community rather than on campus. Thus, trans* students of Color may
struggle to have their experiences understood in trans* communities lack-
ing a racial consciousness or in communities of Color lacking any awareness
about the oppression trans* students face.
Some student affairs scholarship has begun to address the complexi-
ties of intersectionality in campus environments. For example, the model of
multiple dimensions of identity (MMDI; Jones & McEwen, 2000) describes
ways that students may experience identity salience differently in different
contexts, which illustrates the importance of context in an intersectional
framework. Identity salience refers to the idea of the significance or presence
of a particular identity for a person (Jones & McEwen, 2000). Similar to the
examples just presented, experiences of queer students of Color may help to
illustrate this point (Linder & Rodriguez, 2012). Queer students of Color
frequently report feeling invisible in LGBT offices and student organizations
because of their racialized queer experiences. Queer and LGBT organizing
frequently ignores the complex intersections of race, gender, class, ability,
and religion with queer identity. Students of Color report feeling as though
activism related to LGBT and queer issues focuses on dominant identities,
including maleness and Whiteness. Similarly, queer students of Color also
report not feeling entirely welcome or comfortable in race-based organiza-
tions or offices because their sexual orientation is ignored, minimized, or
invalidated (Linder & Rodriguez, 2012). Thus, their identity salience shifts
depending on the context of their involvement. When participating in activi-
ties sponsored by an LGBT resource center, students of Color may experi-
ence their race as more salient because it is not the norm in that space.
Critically conscious student affairs educators support students in being
more intentional about recognizing the complex and intersecting identities
of their peers and creating more inclusive campus environments. For exam-
ple, student affairs educators may use the MMDI to facilitate workshops
with students about their identity salience and facilitate discussions among
students about their individual and shared experiences. These discussions
can support students in being more aware of how their experiences, power,
and privilege inform their interactions in a space. For example, in identity-
based centers, students may assume that they have a shared experience

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 383 10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

 384 CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

around the subordinated identity (e.g., sexual orientation, race, gender).

However, students with multiple marginalized identities may not experi-
ence the identity-based center as a welcoming and inclusive space because
their experiences at the intersection of two or more subordinated identities
are ignored. Discussing various salient social identities may lead students to
consider ways they experience spaces differently from their peers to contrib-
ute to more inclusive programming. Intersectionality contributes to a more
nuanced understanding of critical consciousness and the significance of shift-
ing power dynamics based on context.
Staff development programs on campus should also provide ongo-
ing education and training to student affairs educators, staff, and faculty
related to understanding and honoring the multiple identities of our stu-
dents. To promote an understanding of critical consciousness on a personal
level, administrators need to acknowledge and address the power structures
and policies in place that inhibit this shift in the academy. Just providing
programming and services to students is not enough; administrators also
need a venue to reflect and have difficult conversations in order to change
campuses. Webinars (e.g., through ACPA, NASPA, as well as studentaffairs.
com), theme-focused conferences (e.g., the NASPA Multicultural Institute;
American Association of Colleges and Universities’ [AAC&U] Diversity,
Learning, and Student Success: Assessing and Advancing Inclusive Excellence
Conference), and a number of private diversity and social justice consulting
organizations are available to provide additional staff development processes.

Essential Components of Social Justice Education

A framework of essential components of social justice education (Hackman,
2005) provides a foundation for the strategies for critical consciousness
included in this chapter. Grounded in social justice education, essential com-
ponents include “1) content mastery, 2) tools for critical analysis, 3) tools for
social change, 4) tools for personal reflection, and 5) an awareness of group
dynamics” (Hackman, 2005, p. 104). The emphasis on tools for ongoing
personal work sets this model apart from others focused on multicultural
competence.
Content mastery refers to the notion that people must have an aware-
ness and knowledge of oppression and the ways in which it impacts people
from a variety of backgrounds, including their own. Student affairs educa-
tors may gain knowledge about oppression in a variety of ways. Some may
gain content mastery in coursework in undergraduate or graduate programs;
hopefully this content mastery continues through ongoing efforts on the
part of the student affairs educator to engage in professional development

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 384 10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

 FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS 385

and continued learning. In addition to traditional methods for gaining new

information (e.g., reading books, watching documentaries, keeping abreast
of new research, and attending conferences), student affairs educators may
also engage in virtual professional development through webinars, meetings,
and other technologically supported avenues.
However, mere possession of knowledge and awareness is not enough.
Student affairs educators must know how to use that knowledge and infor-
mation to improve practice and create more welcoming, inclusive environ-
ments for students. Tools for critical analysis, action and social change, and
personal reflection (Hackman, 2005) all contribute to improved practice and
ongoing personal development (Vaccaro, 2013). Tools for critical analysis
are tools that help student affairs educators consider the role of power in all
interactions. Asking questions like, “Who is not represented? How does this
policy impact X group? What are we not considering? What are the power
implications of this decision?” represent tools for critical analysis.
Developing tools for action and social change requires student affairs
educators to use their knowledge and skills to engage in action related to
equity and inclusion. When people first begin to learn about power, privi-
lege, and oppression, they may feel overwhelmed or incapable of responding
(Linder, 2015). Tools for social change allow people to move through this
inability to respond to oppression and work within their circles of influ-
ence to create change (Hackman, 2005). Too often, student affairs educators
may feel unable to respond because they perceive themselves as powerless
or expect people above them to address the issues they observe. Developing
strategies for engaging in action and working within their circles of influence
to create change results in more welcoming campus environments.
Next, tools for personal reflection push student affairs educators to con-
tinue to explore their own experiences and to influence their interactions
with others. Engaging in continual reflection about one’s social location (and
its fluidity) and the ways social location influences their experiences is of vital
importance for student affairs educators (Vaccaro, 2013). By understanding
their own experiences and perspectives, they will be more effective at sup-
porting students who share their identities and those who do not.
Finally, awareness of group dynamics builds on all of these tools to
ensure that student affairs educators are using a critical consciousness to
observe dynamics in a space and consider ways social identities may affect
interactions. For example, a student affairs educator may notice that in
some meetings only the men or only the White people are contributing.
Be aware of these dynamics so that more voices could be included in future
conversations. By noticing and naming these behaviors in a space, student
affairs educators may contribute to more people feeling invited to share,

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 385 10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

 386 CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

which ultimately results in more creative and innovative ideas. While all
members of the campus community have a responsibility to engage in criti-
cal consciousness, student affairs educators should lead efforts toward criti-
cal consciousness on campuses. Collaborative activities with faculty and
other administrators should focus on social justice issues, moving toward
critical consciousness in policy development, as well as changing class-
room environments based on developing an understanding of power and
privilege.

Strategies and Resources

Several strategies and resources exist for student affairs educators interested
in continuing to develop critical consciousness and inclusive campus envi-
ronments. Additionally, we provide suggestions of resources where student
affairs educators may gain additional information on these topics.
Continually work to make the unconscious conscious. As high-
lighted previously, asking questions about who is and who is not included
in a variety of campus spaces remains important. Additionally, asking ques-
tions about the intended and unintended consequences of various policies
warrants increased attention. As student affairs educators consider these
questions, they contribute to an environment in which unconscious bias
becomes conscious, resulting in more intentionally inclusive spaces, as
highlighted in Chapter 3 of this text. Additionally, student affairs educators
must continually work to understand their own identities and experiences
and how those inform their behaviors. For example, student affairs educa-
tors who come from relatively economically privileged backgrounds may
unintentionally assume that students may be able to pay even small fees
for campus activities and events. As those student affairs educators interact
more with students or colleagues from working-class backgrounds, they
may become more aware of the challenges facing students with less access
to money, including the shame that often accompanies not being able to
afford something that seems relatively small. As this awareness becomes
more conscious, these student affairs educators may consider and encour-
age student programmers to consider alternatives to charging students for
a variety of activities.
Create identity-explicit, not identity-exclusive, spaces. As highlighted
previously, using an intersectional framework to explore the experiences of
students from a variety of social identities is important. No space can be
all things to all people; however, it is vitally important to be clear about
what a space is designed to do and what it is not. For example, an LGBT
center is designed to examine and support the experiences of LGBT students.

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 386 10/11/2016 6:14:34 PM

 FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS 387

The missions of these centers should be explicit and intentional; however,

that does not mean the missions should be exclusive. An LGBT center mis-
sion may be explicit about a focus on sexual orientation without excluding
the experiences of students with additional social identities. For example,
an LGBT resource center and a multicultural office may partner to effec-
tively and intentionally support students through an intersectional lens by
organizing a group designed for LGBT students of Color. This is one strategy
for encouraging people to stay engaged and aware of the ways in which mul-
tiple and intersectional identities influence students’ experiences, which will
ultimately lead to more inclusive programming through those offices.
Approach work from a “yes, and . . .” perspective. Critically conscious
student affairs educators must learn to approach their work from “yes, and
. . .” perspectives. Too often, student affairs educators see their work as a zero-
sum game, assuming that creating opportunities for one group of students
automatically takes away from opportunities for other groups of students.
The dominant narrative around inclusion often implies that naming and
highlighting the experiences of one group of students results in ignoring or
minimizing other students. For example, when student activists advocate for
gender-neutral restrooms, some cisgender students may feel threatened or
uncomfortable with the idea of nonbinary gender spaces. However, upon
further reflection and discussion, cisgender students may recognize that, in
fact, gender-neutral restrooms not only provide safety for trans* people but
also support people with children or people who care for disabled individu-
als and need restrooms where people of different genders may enter at the
same time.
Similarly, in relation to the intersectional frame, simultaneously vali-
dating students’ experiences with subordination and privilege warrants
increased attention. Student affairs educators engaged in critical conscious-
ness have a responsibility to push students to understand their privilege
in addition to their experiences with oppression. For example, as men of
Color often see themselves subordinated because they compare themselves
to White men, asking them to consider how their experiences may be dif-
ferent from their women of Color peers may assist them in recognizing
their male privilege. This is a “yes, and . . .” perspective. Yes, you experience
oppression as a person of Color, and you may experience some privilege in
your male identity.
Address racial battle fatigue, compassion fatigue, and vicarious
trauma. Student affairs educators play an important supportive role in stu-
dents’ lives. Similar to counseling, student affairs is a helping profession,
yet most student affairs educators do not receive the same kind of struc-
tured, intentional supervision as counselors to help process and manage

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 387 10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

 388 CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

their own feelings related to supporting students in crisis. Many student

affairs educators engage in work specifically related to their own subordi-
nated social identities and do not always find support for navigating the
associated challenges. For example, staff in multicultural centers frequently
identify as people of Color and manage their own experiences with rac-
ism as they attempt to support students navigating racism. Racial battle
fatigue—exhaustion based on experiencing and addressing racism—may
ensue for these staff members (Smith, Allen, & Danley, 2007). Similarly,
women’s center staff members frequently identify as women and manage
their own experiences with sexism at the same time they are attempting to
support students in navigating experiences with sexism. Even staff who do
not directly experience the same oppression as the students they support
may experience compassion fatigue or vicarious trauma as a result of sup-
porting students.
Student affairs educators must find ways to care for themselves and cre-
ate support systems for processing experiences related to their own and stu-
dents’ experiences with oppression. For example, student affairs educators
may seek counseling or opportunities to connect with people with similar
identities and experiences through community groups and organizations.
Additionally, supervisors of staff consistently engaged in work related to
oppression, power, and privilege must encourage and support staff in prac-
ticing self-care. For example, supervisors may process intense emotional
events with their staff members or bring an outside facilitator to process
the events. Further, supervisors can require staff to take time away for self-
care, or support them in doing so, including time for counseling during
work hours.
Stay abreast of current issues. Most of the strategies presented previ-
ously represent an ongoing focus on self-awareness. To support the content
mastery component of Hackman’s (2005) model, it is important for student
affairs educators to stay abreast of current issues in the field of student affairs
and in society at large. Educators can engage in professional development
on their campuses, attend regional or national conferences, participate in
webinars, and read current literature in student affairs. The increase in effec-
tiveness of technology contributes to student affairs professionals’ ability to
connect with each other and access resources.
In addition to current issues in student affairs, educators must also pay
attention to current events nationally and internationally. Students and stu-
dent affairs educators do not live in a bubble isolated from the rest of the
world. Current events have a significant impact on students’ experiences, and
staying aware is an important strategy for student affairs educators in creating
inclusive campus environments. One possibility is beginning student staff

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 388 10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

 FROM CULTURAL COMPETENCE TO CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS 389

meetings or student organization meetings with a check in about current

events and how they are affecting students. This provides an opportunity for
student affairs educators to learn from students and to better understand how
they are navigating the complicated realties of the world. Exploring current
events and their impact on students may also contribute to ongoing dialogue
among students, facilitating an increase in self-awareness and considering
the influence of outside events of which some students may be otherwise
unaware. Additionally, student affairs educators may find it beneficial to
collaborate with community and civic leaders in these endeavors. Engaging
in community relationships in urban, suburban, and rural areas in which
colleges and universities are located contributes to a deeper understanding of
the ways current issues influence the community immediately surrounding
the campus. Such partnerships could result in opportunities for students and
staff to contribute to important social change work in communities beyond
campus.
Seek out critically conscious communities. People are more likely to
engage in activism and social change when supported by communities of
shared values (Linder, 2011). Although student affairs educators committed
to developing a critical consciousness should not isolate themselves into com-
munities of only people who share their values, developing and maintaining
relationships with people who challenge and support them in addressing
issues of oppression remain vital. Ongoing personal and professional devel-
opment requires support from a variety of people. Engaging in intra- and
interidentity discussions may contribute to a more holistic understanding of
one’s self (Robbins & Jones, 2015).
People need to find spaces to engage in discussion across different social
identities to learn and better understand others’ experiences. For example,
engaging in intragroup discussions, or discussions around privileged or
dominant identities, may result in people having a better understanding
of their own experiences. Engaging in White racial caucuses may result in
White individuals having a place to process White privilege and their roles
in addressing racism.
The specific strategies highlighted here contribute to a deeper and
more nuanced understanding of critical consciousness in student affairs
work. The concepts presented in this chapter and throughout this book
extend beyond student affairs educators to other campus staff, faculty,
and administrators, all of whom must be part of creating more inclusive
environments for students. Systemic change can only occur when every
member of the community is supported, valued, and able to present as
his or her true self on safe campuses. Student affairs educators must lead
these efforts.

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 389 10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

 390 CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

References
ACPA/NASPA (2015, August). Professional competency areas for student affairs
educators. Retrieved from www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_
Professional_Competencies_FINAL.pdf
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice:
A sourcebook. New York, NY: Routledge.
Alimo, C. J. (2012, February). From dialogue to action: The impact of cross-race
intergroup dialogue on the development of White college students as racial
justice allies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 36–59. doi:10.1080/1066
5684.2012.643182
Barone, R. P., Wolgemuth, J. R., & Linder, C. (2007). Preventing sexual assault
through engaging college men. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5),
585–594.
Braxton, J. M., Doyle, W. R., Hartley, H. V., Hirschy, A. S., Jones, W. A., &
McLendon, M. K. (2014). Rethinking college student retention. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Broido, E. M. (2000). The development of social justice allies during college:
A phenomenological investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1),
3–18.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4, 219–235.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African American identity devel-
opment. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward
a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R.
J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context
(pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender
in theory, policy, and practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Edwards, K. E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally development: A conceptual model.
NASPA Journal, 43(4), 39–60.
Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (2005). Encouraging the development of social justice
attitudes and actions in heterosexual students. New Directions for Student Services,
2005(110), 43–54.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D. & Renn, K. A. (2010). Stu-
dent development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fabiano, P., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003).
Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence
for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52(3), 105–112.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldstein, S. B., & Davis, D. S. (2010). Heterosexual allies: A descriptive profile.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(4), 478–494.

18_9781620364161_Chapter 17.indd 390 10/11/2016 6:14:35 PM

 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Editors

Diane L. Cooper is a Distinguished Research Mentor for the College of

Education and professor of college student affairs administration in the
Department of Counseling and Human Development Services at the
University of Georgia. She served for eight years as a student affairs pro-
fessional at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro before joining
the faculty in student development at Appalachian State University from
1992 to 1995. Cooper served for six years as the editor of the College Student
Affairs Journal and is currently the cochair of Books and Media for ACPA.
She is coauthor of several books, including Identity Development of Diverse
Populations: Implications for Teaching and Practice in Higher Education and
Learning Through Supervised Practice in Student Affairs: Enhancing Internship
and Practica Experiences (Routledge, 2015). Her research interests are in
supervised practice, program design and assessment, and integrity issues in
student affairs practice.

Michael J. Cuyjet is professor emeritus at the University of Louisville

where he taught and mentored students in the College Student Personnel
Program from 1993 to 2014. Prior to that, he served 21 years as a student
affairs professional at Northern Illinois University and at the University of
Maryland-College Park. During his 21 years at the University of Louisville,
he also served as associate dean of the graduate school and acting asso-
ciate provost for student life and development. Since retirement, he has
served as a Fulbright Specialist and as contributing opinions and perspec-
tives editor for the Journal of College and Character. His research focus
includes underrepresented college student populations, particularly African
American males. In addition to serving as coeditor of the first edition of
Multiculturalism on Campus: Theory, Models, and Practices for Understanding
Diversity and Creating Inclusion (Stylus, 2011), he was editor of African
American Men in College (Jossey-Bass, 2006) and a coauthor of the How
Minority Students Experience College: Implications for Planning and Policy
(Stylus, 2002). He has edited two other books, including Helping African
American Men Succeed in College: New Directions for Student Services,
Number 80 (Jossey-Bass, 1997); published more than 25 journal articles
or book chapters; and has made more than 120 presentations at national,
international, and regional conferences.

393

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 393 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 394 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Mary F. Howard-Hamilton is a Distinguished Research Professor and coor-

dinator of the higher education leadership program in the Bayh College of
Education at Indiana State University. She received her bachelor of arts and
master of arts degrees from the University of Iowa and a doctorate of educa-
tion from North Carolina State University. She served as a higher education
administrator for 15 years where her responsibilities included orientation,
developmental education, judicial affairs, multicultural affairs, commuter
life, and residence life. As a faculty member for 25 years, she taught courses
at the University of Florida, Bowling Green State University, and Indiana
University Bloomington where she was also associate dean for graduate stud-
ies in the Wright School of Education. Her areas of expertise are multicultural
issues in higher education, student development theories, feminist theory
and therapy, and consultation. She has published numerous articles and
book chapters, and coauthored or coedited several books including Diverse
Millennial Students in College: Implications for Faculty and Student Affairs
(Stylus, 2011), Standing on the Outside Looking In: Underrepresented Students’
Experiences in Advanced Degree Programs (Stylus, 2009), and Unleashing
Suppressed Voices on College Campuses: Diversity Issues in Higher Education
(Peter Lang, 2007). Her honors include the Garcia Exemplary Scholarship
Award from the Association for the Study of Higher Education’s Council on
Ethnic Participation; the Robert Shaffer Award for Academic Excellence as
a Graduate Faculty Member from NASPA; the University of Iowa’s Albert
Hood Distinguished Alumni Award; and the Bayh College of Education,
Holmstedt Distinguished Professorship Award. In 2015, she received the
Indiana State University Presidential Medal for Exemplary Teaching and
Scholarship and the Theodore Dreiser Distinguished Research/Creativity
Award.

Chris Linder is an assistant professor of college student affairs administra-

tion in the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services at
the University of Georgia. Her research interests include inclusion in cam-
pus environments with a specific focus on race and gender. Additionally, she
is interested in campus activism, social media, and ally identity development.
Prior to becoming a faculty member, she served as a student affairs educa-
tor for 10 years with experience in fraternity and sorority life and campus-
based women’s centers. Linder is a member of the Journal of College Student
Development editorial board and associate editor of the College Student Affairs
Journal. Additionally, she is coeditor on a forthcoming book critically exam-
ining the power and identity dynamics in campus sexual assault, Intersections
of Identity and Sexual Violence on Campus: Centering Minoritized Students’
Experiences (Stylus, forthcoming).

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 394 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS 395

Contributors
Philip D. Badaszewski serves as an assistant director of residence life for
academic initiatives at the University of Pittsburgh. Previously, he worked
for University Housing at the University of Georgia and The Ohio State
University. He received his master’s in higher education and student affairs
from The Ohio State University and his doctorate in college student affairs
administration from the University of Georgia. Currently, he serves as a
reviewer for the Journal of College and University Student Housing. His research
interests include college men’s development, first-generation college students,
and living-learning communities.

LeManuel Lee Bitsóí (Navajo) is a critical ethnographer and bioethicist. He

currently serves as director of student diversity and multicultural affairs at
Rush University in Chicago. In addition, Bitsóí is the lead Native American
scholar for an initiative focusing on men of Color under the auspices of The
College Board. As an advocate for minority scientists and scholars, Bitsóí
also served as the secretary for the board of directors for the Society for
Advancement of Chicanos/Latinos and Native Americans in Science. Bitsóí
earned a bachelor of science degree from the University of New Mexico, a
master of education degree from Harvard University, and a doctorate from
the University of Pennsylvania. Bitsóí has devoted his career to enhancing
opportunities for underrepresented minority students to become scientists
and science educators.

Tony W. Cawthon is an Alumni Distinguished Professor of student affairs

and higher education at Clemson University. He began his faculty career at
Clemson University in 1996 as program coordinator and department chair.
Prior to beginning his faculty career, he worked as a student affairs adminis-
trator for over 15 years at Clemson University; Mississippi State University;
and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His work as a student affairs pro-
fessional was in university housing. He has written extensively in the areas of
student affairs and higher education. He has presented nationally and inter-
nationally on numerous student and higher education issues. Specifically, his
publications and presentations have been in the areas of career and profes-
sional development; new professional, student, and faculty issues; and stu-
dent affairs administrative issues. He has published more than 35 journal
articles and 16 book chapters, and he has made more than 120 national and
regional presentations.

Laura A. Dean is a professor in the college student affairs administration

program at the University of Georgia. Prior to joining the faculty, she worked

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 395 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 396 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

at several small, religiously affiliated colleges, including serving for 10 years

as senior student affairs officer. She is past president and former publica-
tions editor of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher
Education (CAS) and served for nearly 20 years as the CAS representative
from the American College Counseling Association (ACCA), of which she is
also past president. She has served on editorial boards for the College Student
Affairs Journal and the Journal of College Counseling. Dean’s research interests
include small college environments, the use of professional standards in stu-
dent affairs, and program assessment and evaluation.

Merrily S. Dunn is a faculty member and doctoral program coordinator

for the college student affairs administration program at the University of
Georgia where she has taught since 2001. Prior to her appointment at the
University of Georgia, Dunn taught at Mississippi State University for eight
years. She holds a doctorate in higher education administration from The
Ohio State University, a master of science in higher education administra-
tion from Iowa State University, and a bachelor’s degree in political science
from the University of Nebraska. Her work as a student affairs educator
includes positions in student housing, judicial affairs, and women student
services. She has served her profession through a number of positions and
roles in ACPA-College Student Educators International, the Council for
the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), the Southern
Association for College Student Affairs (SACSA), and the Association for
College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I). Dunn’s
current research interests concentrate primarily on issues of social identity,
poverty education, and parents of college students.

Lamont A. Flowers is the Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership

and the executive director of the Charles H. Houston Center for the Study
of the Black Experience in Education in the Eugene T. Moore School of
Education at Clemson University.

Rosiline D. Floyd is the director of research and evaluation for Tindley

Accelerated Schools Network, which operates the Charles A. Tindley
Accelerated School, Tindley Preparatory Academy, Tindley Collegiate,
Tindley Summit, and Arlington High School. She holds a BS in electri-
cal engineering from Purdue University, an MBA from Indiana Wesleyan
University, and a PhD in higher education leadership from Indiana State
University. After several years in engineering sales, Floyd became a staunch
education reform advocate committed to increasing high school and postsec-
ondary graduation rates of students in Indiana. As a researcher she investigates

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 396 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS 397

the role of race and gender on academic achievement and works with urban
schools and postsecondary institutions as well as community-based and
national organizations to develop intervention strategies including increas-
ing cultural competencies, parental engagement, and community involve-
ment. Floyd has presented nationally on issues of race and the achievement
gap, success strategies for African American males, the importance of Black
Greek Letter Organizations, and increasing educational outcomes in high-
performing urban schools despite racism and poverty. She was a contributing
author to the first edition of Multiculturalism on Campus (Stylus, 2011) and
is an author in the forthcoming book, From the Projects to a Ph. D. and the
BS in Between.

Susana Hernández is an assistant professor in the higher education, adminis-

tration, and leadership pathway in the Department of Educational Leadership
at California State University, Fresno. She earned two bachelor’s degrees from
the University of California, Irvine; a master’s degree in counseling with an
emphasis in student development in higher education at California State
University, Long Beach; and her doctoral degree from Iowa State University.
Her published work has examined in-state resident tuition policies that affect
undocumented students as well as how federal policy discursively shapes
Latino educational opportunity and equity. Currently, she is examining col-
leges and universities designated as Hispanic-serving institutions and how
they advance Latino educational opportunity and student success.

Kandace G. Hinton is an associate professor in the Department of

Educational Leadership’s higher education leadership program at Indiana
State University. Hinton holds a master’s and doctoral degree in higher edu-
cation administration from Indiana University and a bachelor of arts degree
from Jackson State University. Her research interests are African American
women in higher education, multicultural identity development, and
institutional support of community-based programs. Hinton has created
a theoretical model that describes African American women’s professional
development, and her teaching areas include the history of higher educa-
tion, philosophy of education, academic leadership, ethics, and college stu-
dent development and diversity. She is the coeditor of Unleashing Suppressed
Voices on College Campuses: Diversity Issues in Higher Education and Student
Affairs (Peter Lang, 2007). Other publications include “Student Affairs: An
Historical Perspective” in Rentz’s Student Affairs Practice in Higher Education
(Charles Thomas, 2016), “The Ties That Bind: Pathways to Student Affairs
and Academic Affairs Administration” in Pathways to Higher Education
Administration for African American Women (Stylus, 2012), “Mentoring” in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 397 7/26/2016 7:24:31 PM

 398 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Standing on the Outside Looking In: Underrepresented Students’ Experiences

in Advanced-Degree Programs (Stylus, 2009), and numerous other book
chapters. Hinton won the Reitzel Faculty Research Award in 2008 and the
Holmstedt Dissertation of the Year Award in 2001.

Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero is an assistant professor in higher education and

student affairs at The Ohio State University. He received a PhD in education
from the University of California, Los Angeles after working in multicultural
affairs units across several institutions, including the University of Arizona
and New York University. Johnston-Guerrero’s research interests focus on
diversity and social justice issues in higher education and student affairs, with
specific attention to advancing and nuancing understandings of multiracial-
ity. He regularly presents on multiracial topics at the National Conference
on Race and Ethnicity (NCORE) and the Critical Mixed Race Studies con-
ference. Johnston-Guerrero has served on the editorial boards of Journal
of College Student Development and Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice.

Karen S. Kalivoda is director of the Disability Resource Center and

of University Testing Services and is an adjunct faculty member for the
Department of Counseling and Human Development Services at the
University of Georgia. Director of the Disability Resource Center since 1985,
she has guided it to dramatic growth. As the primary university resource
for disability-related concerns, Kalivoda’s expertise has been instrumental in
the university’s response to the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 2004,
she became director of University Testing Services, where she manages the
administration of numerous examinations for the campus and wider com-
munities. Kalivoda leads the Disability Resource Center’s efforts to increase
private support for scholarships and leadership programs for students with
disabilities at the University of Georgia. She is published in regional and
national journals and presents at the state, national, and international levels.

Dena R. Kniess is an assistant professor in the college student affairs pro-

gram at Eastern Illinois University. Prior to joining the faculty, she worked
for 11 years as a student affairs professional in residence life and new student
programs. She is on the directorate for the Commission for Assessment and
Evaluation for ACPA. Additionally, she serves on the editorial boards for the
College Student Affairs Journal, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
and Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Kniess’
research interests include multicultural issues in student affairs, assessment,
and retention.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 398 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS 399

Fiona J. D. MacKinnon retired in 2008 as associate professor emeritus of

higher education and student affairs and coordinator of the adult learner
focus program at Bowling Green State University. At the time of her retire-
ment, she was associate dean for student and academic services for the College
of Education and Human Development. At Bowling Green State University,
she served as chair of educational foundations and inquiry, chair of the
faculty senate, and provost associate. She was the editor of Rentz’s Student
Services in Higher Education (Charles Thomas, 2004) and is the author of the
adult persistence in learning model, the focus of her research. In 1997 she
received a Fulbright Award as senior scholar at Beijing Normal University,
People’s Republic of China. MacKinnon’s career in higher education spanned
45 years; she served in every area of student affairs and university adminis-
tration at Bowling Green State University, Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, the University of Akron, Syracuse University, The Ohio State
University, and Denison University.

Darris R. Means is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling

and Human Development Services at the University of Georgia. Prior to
joining the faculty, he worked as an administrator for a university-based col-
lege access and success program. His research focuses on diversity, equity, and
inclusion in K–12 and higher education contexts. Specifically, his research
focuses on three primary areas: (a) college access and persistence for students
of Color, students with a financial need, and/or students with no family his-
tory of college; (b) the intersection of sexual orientation, race, and gender;
and (c) critical theories and methodologies. His research manuscripts have
been accepted (in print or in press) by several journals in higher education,
including Journal of College Student Development, Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, Journal of College Student Retention, and Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education.

Jason L. Meriwether is the vice chancellor for enrollment management and

student affairs at Indiana University Southeast. He has published on topics
such as adult learning, student retention, digital media, and hazing preven-
tion. A higher education and social media contributor for Socialnomics.net,
Meriwether is a contributing author of What Happens on Campus Stays on
YouTube (Equalman Studios, 2015). In 2014, he was selected to Louisville
Business First’s Top Forty under 40 and as one of Business First’s 20 People to
Know in Education and Workforce Development. In 2014, he was honored
as Outstanding Kentuckian, and was commissioned to the Honorable Order
of Kentucky Colonels. Meriwether completed the inaugural Academic
Leadership Academy at The Pennsylvania State University Center for the

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 399 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 400 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Study of Higher Education in 2011, earning a certificate. In 2016, he was

named one of Southern Indiana Business Source’s 20 under 40. Meriwether
earned his PhD in educational administration with a specialization in higher
education leadership at Indiana State University.

Anna M. Ortiz is professor and department chair of educational leadership

at California State University, Long Beach. She teaches student development
theory and qualitative research methods. She is coauthor of Ethnicity in College
(Stylus, 2009); editor of Addressing the Unique Needs of Latino/a Students (Jossey-
Bass, 2004); and author of numerous articles and book chapters on multicul-
tural education, ethnic identity, Latinx and Native American students, and
career issues for student affairs professional and faculty members. She earned
her bachelor of science from the University of California, Davis; her master of
arts from The Ohio State University; and her doctorate from the University
of California, Los Angeles. She has served on the faculty of Michigan State
University and is an active member of many higher education professional asso-
ciations where she has served on editorial boards and in leadership positions.

Leigh Ann Osborne is program director for exchanges and intercultural pro-
grams at Florida State University’s Center for Global Engagement. She has
served in various roles within the field of international education for more
than 15 years, including international student services and study abroad
administration. She received a master of arts in education from the social
foundations program at the University of Florida. Her thesis examined the
history of international students at the University of Florida in the post–
World War II era.

Julie J. Park is assistant professor of education in student affairs in the

Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education at the
University of Maryland, College Park. Her research addresses race, diversity,
and equity in higher education. She is the author of When Diversity Drops:
Race, Religion, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education (Rutgers University
Press, 2013), an examination of how universities are affected by bans on
affirmative action. A research advisory board member for the National
Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education,
she is widely published in academic journals, including the American
Educational Research Journal, Journal of Higher Education, and Journal of
College Student Development. Her work has also been featured in venues such
as the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

OiYan A. Poon is an assistant professor of higher education at Loyola

University Chicago. Her research interests include racial inequalities in

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 400 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS 401

college access, affirmative action and selective admission policies, and Asian
Americans in higher education. In 2014, she received an Emerging Scholar
Award from ACPA. Poon has been involved in advocacy, research, and insti-
tutional development efforts related to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
in education for over a decade. Prior to earning her PhD in education with
a certificate in Asian American studies from the University of California,
Los Angeles, Poon was the first Asian Pacific American student affairs direc-
tor at George Mason University and the first student affairs officer in Asian
American studies at University of California, Davis.

Kristen A. Renn is professor of higher, adult, and lifelong education and

associate dean of undergraduate studies at Michigan State University.
Previously, she was a dean in the Office of Student Life at Brown
University for 10 years and a policy analyst for the Massachusetts Board
of Higher Education. Her research and teaching interests include college
students and student development, particularly in the areas of mixed-race
identities, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender issues, and student leaders
in identity-based organizations. She conducts international research on
women’s colleges and universities with a focus on their roles and status.
Winner of the ACPA Contribution to Knowledge Award, she is also an
ACPA Senior Scholar.

Bettina C. Shuford is an associate vice chancellor for student affairs at the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She previously served as an assis-
tant vice president for student affairs at Bowling Green State University and
held positions in the Office of the Provost and the Center for Multicultural
and Academic Initiatives on the same campus. She has supervised a wide
range of areas in student affairs including student health; counseling; disabil-
ity; career services; student union; orientation and parent programs; Campus
Y; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer center; TRIO programs,
and multicultural affairs. Other professional experiences have included posi-
tions in residence life, the dean of students office, and multicultural affairs
at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She received her bach-
elor’s degree in psychology from North Carolina Central University, her
master’s in guidance and counseling from the University of North Carolina
at Greensboro, and her doctorate in higher education administration from
Bowling Green State University. Her research interests, publications, and
presentations have focused on functions in multicultural affairs offices,
assessment of multicultural affairs programs, minority student development,
and retention of students of Color, affirmative action, and African American
women in student affairs.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 401 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 402 EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Sevan G. Terzian is professor and associate director for graduate studies in

the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida where he
teaches courses in the historical and philosophical foundations of education.
Most of his published scholarship has addressed aspects of the history of
twentieth century American education. His first book, Science Education
and Citizenship: Fairs, Clubs, and Talent Searches for American Youth, 1918–
1958 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), traces the changing civic justifications
for science education in the United States. Terzian also coedited American
Education in Popular Media: From the Blackboard to the Silver Screen (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2015) with historical essays from leading scholars examining
how mass magazines, radio, film, and television have represented schooling
in the United States in the twentieth century.

Kristin M. Walker is an associate director of analytics and initiatives at

Clemson University’s Center for Career and Professional Development. Prior
to working at Clemson, Walker received her bachelor of science in English
from Radford University and taught high school English in the Washington,
DC area. After seven years, she came to Clemson University to earn her
MEd in counselor education and PhD in educational leadership. In addition
to working in career services and serving as a national board member for
her sorority, Alpha Sigma Tau, Walker teaches and coteaches master’s level
courses in the counselor education program. Her research interests include
career development, fraternity and sorority life, and underserved students.

Martha E. Wisbey has worked for over 20 years in higher education.

Currently in private practice as a licensed clinical social worker, she served in
disability services as director and associate director for Florida State University
and Emory University, respectively. She received her degrees from Miami
University and the University of Georgia. Wiseby has been an administra-
tor at several institutions in student affairs and served as an adjunct profes-
sor teaching courses in multicultural education, student development, social
work, and counseling. Her research interests are in disability studies, student
development theory, women’s identity development, and cultural diversity.
She has published over 20 journal articles on disability, counseling, diver-
sity awareness, women’s identity, student development theory, residence hall
community development, and Greek life peer development.

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 402 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX

AAAN. See African American Academic ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), 330
Network administrators, 13, 49, 51, 53
AAFES. See Authentic, Action-oriented on African American students, 158
Framing for Environmental Shifts on faith and policy, 363–64
AAHHE. See American Association of on gender issues, 270–71
Hispanics in Higher Education international students and, 243–45
AANAPISI. See Asian American and Native American students and, 178
Native American Pacific Islander against oppression, 26–27
Serving Institutions on students with disabilities, 341
AAPI. See Asian American and Pacific values from, 59–60
Islander admissions applications, 296
AASP. See Asian American Studies at HBCUs, 189
Program adult college students, 309
AB540 Ally Programs, 95–96 biculturalism and, 321–22
academics, 147 at community colleges, 320
acceptance demographics of, 310–12
in social identity development discussion questions about, 324
theory, 29 ecological systems approach to
of students with disabilities, 332 learning for, 318–20
accommodations and services, for institutional support for, 320–21
students with disabilities, 331 overview of, 313–16
acculturation, 173–74 persistence of, in learning model, 6,
Acevedo-Gil, N., 97 316–17
ACHA. See American College Health recommendations about, 323–24
Association rethinking practice for, 321–23
ACPA. See American College Personnel the sequence of student educational
Association services learning model for, 317
ACT. See American College Testing student affairs educators on, 320,
activism 321–23
of AAPI students, 129–32 in twenty-first century, 312–13
against sexual assault, 19, 264–65 Adult Ed Grows Up (Headden), 321
over student debt, 19 adult learner. See adult college students
for women’s rights, 258–59 adult persistence in learning (APIL)
ADA. See Americans with Disabilities model, 6, 316–17
Act affectional orientation, 279
ADAAA. See ADA Amendments Act affirmative action, 90, 91

403

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 403 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 404 INDEX

Asian Americans and, 119–23 AMEA. See Association of MultiEthnic

selective colleges and, 121 Americans
African American Academic Network American Association of Hispanics in
(AAAN), 154–55 Higher Education (AAHHE),
African American Male Initiative, 100–101
152–54 Faculty Fellows Program at, 101
African American students, 4–5. See also Graduate Student Fellows at, 101
Black women Perspectivas publication from, 101
biculturalism of, 179–80 American Civil Liberties Union, 281
case study about, 158–59 American College Health Association
discrimination of, 141–42 (ACHA), 284–85
discussion questions about, 159–60 American College Personnel Association
enrollment of, 144–45, 151–52 (ACPA), 225
faculty engagement with, 146 American College Testing (ACT), 91
high-achieving, and stratification, American Indian. See Native American
53–54 students
history of, in higher education, American Indian Higher Education
142–45 Consortium (AIHEC), 168
identity development of, 145–51 American Indian Movement (AIM),
programs for, 152–55 181
at PWIs, 144 American Jewish University, 354
recommendations for, 155–58 American Medical Association, 282
role models for, 145–46 American Psychiatric Association, 279,
segregation of, 143–44 281–82, 340
spirituality and religion of, 157 American Psychological Association,
student affairs educators and, 281–82
145–48 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
student-faculty engagement for, 146, 6, 328, 329
156–57 AME-Zion. See African Methodist
terminology about, 142 Episcopal Zion
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Amherst College, gender resources at,
(AME-Zion), 356 269
age, 6 Anglo culture, 94
AIM. See American Indian Movement antiracists. See allies
ALD. See assistive listening devices Anzaldúa, Gloria E., 68
alienation, 175 APIASF. See Asian Pacific Islander
allies American Scholarship Fund
for LGBT students, 283 APIL. See adult persistence in learning
programs for, 95–96 APSU. See Asian Pacific Student Union
terminology of, 222 architecture, as functional and
for undocumented students, 95–96 symbolic, 42
White students as, 208, 223–24 Arizona State University, 295–96
Alschuler, A. S., 25, 26 Arthur, N., 236
alumni groups, 246 artifacts, 44, 58–59

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 404 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 405

ASD. See autism spectrum disorders Asian Pacific Islander American

ASD College Transition and Support Scholarship Fund (APIASF), 132
Program, 340 Asian Pacific Islander Queers
Asian American and Native American organization, 130
Pacific Islander Serving Asian Pacific Student Union (APSU),
Institutions (AANAPISI) program, 132
126, 132 assaults. See also sexual violence and
Asian American and Pacific Islander sexual assault
(AAPI), students, 4, 115. See also of international students, 245
Asian Americans; Pacific Islanders assimilation
activism of, 129–32 of Latinxs, 93–94
challenges of, 125–26 of Native Americans, 167, 169
class of, 124 at PWIs, 49
college access for, 117–19 assistive listening devices (ALD),
college pathways of, 117–19, 336–37
123–25, 130 Association of MultiEthnic Americans
counseling of, 126, 133 (AMEA), 187
demographics of, 113 Astin, A. W., 359, 360
discussion questions about, 134 athletics
diversity of, 115–17 discrimination of LGBT people in,
enrollment of, 115 287–88
ethnic identity development of, role models from, 199
126–29 values in, 60
financial aid for, 124–25 Authentic, Action-oriented Framing for
in Greek community, 130 Environmental Shifts (AAFES),
lack of support for, 126 16–17
microaggressions toward, 125 autism spectrum disorders (ASD),
panethnicities of, 113–15 339–40, 342–44
population by ethnicity, 116–17
recommendations for educators of, BAASIC. See Boston Asian American
133 Students Intercollegiate Coalition
role models for, 125, 126 Badaszewski, Philip D., 5
scholarships for, 132 Baird, W., 357
stereotypes of, 51, 112 Baird’s Manual of College Fraternities
as undocumented students, 124–25 (Baird), 357
Asian Americans, 112–13, 173 Baker, Jack, 283
affirmative action and, 119–23 banking education model,
stereotypes of, 117, 125–26 deculturalization in, 24
Asian Americans Educational Banks, Elnora, 37
Attainment by Selected Ethnicity, Banning, J. H., on environment, 40,
120 41, 44–45, 49–52, 55–56, 59–60
Asian American Studies Program Barnhardt, C., 96
(AASP), 132 Barol, B., 283
Asian invasion stereotype, 117 Belenky, M. F., 258

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 405 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 406 INDEX

Bell, L. A., 23 Bonilla-Silva, E., 220

belonging, sense of Boston Asian American Students
for AAPI students, 126 Intercollegiate Coalition
for African American students, 147 (BAASIC), 132
consistency in, 48 Boston College
for Latinx students, 99 Office of Campus Ministry at,
for Native Americans, 170 366–67
Benham, M. K. P., 179 Options through Education at,
Bensimon, E. M., 96, 98 152–53
Benton, Thomas, 42 Bowling Green State University, 369
Bernal, Delgado, 93 Brandeis University, 354
Berrill, K., 283 Bronfenbrenner, U., 318
BIA. See Bureau of Indian Affairs Brown, Sarita, 100
bias, 26 Brown University, 357
the Bible, 285 Brown v. Board of Education, 144
biculturalism, 150 Bulthius, J. D., 236
adult college students and, 321–22 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 169
of Native Americans and African Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), 169
Americans, 179–80
BIE. See Bureau of Indian Education CAACTUS. See Coalition of Asian
BiNet, 282 Americans Collaborating Together
biphobia, 290 to Unite the Southwest
biracial and multiracial students, 5, 186 CAEL. See Council for Adult and
campus environment for, 197–99 Experiential Learning
discussion questions for, 200–201 California’s Senate Constitutional
history of, 187–88 Amendment (SCA) 5, 121
identity development of, 128, California State Universities, 96
193–97 California State University Doctoral
microaggressions toward, 191 Incentive Fellowship Program, 103
in peer culture, 191–92, 198 campus culture
physical appearance and racism artifacts in, 58
toward, 189–91 assumptions in, 60–61
programs and services for, 197–200 climate of, for Latinxs, 99–100
role models for, 199 diversity in, 20
self-identification of, 189–90 international students in, 246–48
stereotypes of, 190 involvement in, 156
bisexual identity, 270 multicultural competence on, 14
development in, 290–91 sexual violence and sexual assault in,
Bitsóí, L. L., on Native Americans, 5, 73
165, 168–69, 176, 179 values in, 59–60
Black nationalist identity, 150 White privilege in, 213–15
Black women, 69 campus environment, 13, 227. See also
intersectionality of, 66–68 spirituality and religion on campus
Blum, Edward, 121 for biracial and multiracial students,
B’nai B’rith, 356 197–99

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 406 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 407

constructs of, 41, 54–61 Catholicism, 94. See also spirituality

cultural perspectives on, 40 and religion on campus
discussion questions for, 62–63 Cawthon, Tony W., 6
human aggregates in, 41, 45–49 Ceja, Miguel, 92–93
models for, 61–62 Census Bureau, U. S., 114, 115, 180,
for Native American students, 199–200
176–79 Two or More Races category and,
organization of, 41, 50–54 187–88
orientation of, 246–47 Center for American Women and
person interaction with, 41 Politics, 268
physical aspects of, 41–45 Center for Applied Special Technology
Campus Ministry Association (CMA), (CAST), 336
367 Center for the Education of Women,
Campus Pride, 284 267
careers Chadley, Noall, 35–36
Latinx preparation for, 103 Change.org, 36
of Native Americans, 170, 175–76 charter colleges, AIHEC and, 168
for students with disabilities, 340–41 Chen, E. C., 95
Carleton College, Gender and Sexuality Cheyney University of Pennsylvania,
Center at, 269 143
Carlson, M., 262 Chicano/Chicanas, 92–93, 104
Carter, D. F., 99 Chickering, A. W., 170
CAS. See Council for the Advancement The Children’s Museum of
of Standards’ Indianapolis, 44
Case, K. F., 94 Chi Omega sorority, 12
case study Cho, Sumi, 122
of African American students, Choney, S. K., 173–74
158–59 Christian privilege, 352
about international students, 248–49 Christian students. See spirituality and
for intersectionality theory, 78 religion on campus
about LGBT students, 300–301 Chronicle of Higher Education, 257–58
about Native American students, CIPRIS. See Coordinated Interagency
180–81 Partnership Regulating
of oppression, 34–38 International Students
about students with disabilities, cisgender, 270
342–45 City College of San Francisco, 132
about White students, 228 civil rights
CAS Learning and Development movement for, 68
Outcomes, 366 for people with disabilities, 329
Cass, Vivienne, 288, 289–90 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 144
CAST. See Center for Applied Special Civil Rights Project, 245
Technology the Civil War, 143
Castro, Fidel, 85 class
Catholic Campus Ministry Association, of AAPI students, 124
356 identity fluidity in, 71

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 407 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 408 INDEX

of Latinxs, 85 consistency
classrooms, 60 on human aggregates, 45, 47–48
CMA. See Campus Ministry intersectionality and, 47–48
Association person-environment congruence and,
Coalition of Asian Americans 48
Collaborating Together to Unite sense of belonging in, 48
the Southwest (CAACTUS), 132 Consortium of Higher Education
coalitions, intersectionality and, 76 LGBT Resource Professionals,
the Cold War, 245 283, 294–95
college access constructed environments, 41, 54
for AAPIs, 117–19 campus culture as, 58
for Latinxs, 89–90 environmental press in, 55–56
College of William and Mary, Men’s social climate in, 56–58
Health Clinic at, 268–69 Cook, D. A., 216–17
colonialism, 165 Cooper, Diane L., 3
colonists, 13, 17 Coordinated Interagency Partnership
color blindness Regulating International Students
of AAPI students, 128 (CIPRIS), 244
critical race theorists on, 31 Cortes, R., 95
racism in, 220–21 Council for Adult and Experiential
Whiteness and, 214–15 Learning (CAEL), 313–14
Combahee River Collective, 68 Council for the Advancement of
coming out, in LGBT identity Standards’ (CAS), 366
development, 286–87 Council of Ontario Universities, 40
commonalities, 17 counseling, 103
the Common Application, 296 of AAPI students, 126, 133
communication for Asian American students, 126
as nonverbal, 43–44 for Latinx students, 103
patterns of, 15 for LGBT students, 77
of student support services, 104 counterspaces, 30
technology for, 313 “Count Me In!” campaign, 131
community. See also Greek community Crenshaw, K., 69
affiliations with, 99–100 criminal justice system
African American students and, oppression in, 76
157–58 racism in, 68–69
Native American students and, 177 critical consciousness
community colleges multicultural competence and,
adult college students at, 320 381–84
Latinxs at, 90–91, 96–97 strategies for, 384–91
nontraditional recruitment for, 311 Critical Mixed Race Studies conference,
outreach to, 102 199
undocumented students at, 95 critical race theory
community cultural wealth, 92 history in, 31
Confederate Army, 58 Latinx in, 83–84, 93
consensus, 56 of oppression, 30–32

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 408 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 409

in storytelling, 30 Department of Education, 126

Cross, W. E., 148–50 international students and, 234
Cubans, 85–86 multiracial students and, 187
cultural centers, on campus, 30 Ronald E. McNair program from,
cultural sensitivity, 60 153
culture. See also campus culture; peer Department of Education Office of
culture Civil Rights (OCR), 121
of Anglos, 94 Department of Homeland Security, 232
dominance in, 146 Department of Justice, 338
in Greek community, 52 Department of Labor, 341
preservation of Native, 165 Department of State, 243
professionals on, of learning, 322 Department of War, Freedmen’s Bureau
of spirituality and religion on from, 143
campus, 363–65 the Depression, 84
as tribal, 5 Devor, A. H., 292–93
of White students, 211–13 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
curriculum of Mental Disorders (American
for adult college students, 322 Psychiatric Association), 340
biracial and multiracial awareness in, Diné College, 168
199 disabilities. See students with disabilities
Cuyjet, Michael J., 3 Disability, Opportunities,
Internetworking, and Technology
Dalili, F., 246 (DO-IT) website, 337
Dallas Cowboys, 288 discrimination, 69. See also exclusion;
Daughters of Bilitis, 281 racism
Dean, Laura A., 6 of African Americans, 141–42
De Anza College, 132 of Asian Americans, 121
deculturalization, 13, 24 in athletics, 287–88
defensive mechanisms, of privilege, 32 of international students, 242
DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, 69, 70 of Latinxs, 87–88
degree completion, 89 of LGBT students, 281, 287–88
dehumanization, 24 in student experience, 98
Delgado, R., 13, 16 of students with disabilities, 334
Delta Lambda Phi, 288 display of self
deminoritization, 120 in Greek community, 45
demographics in physical environment, 44–45
of AAPIs, 113 dissonance-provoking stimulus (DPS),
of adult college students, 310–12 32–33
of diversity in spirituality and diversity, 1–3
religion on campus, 358–59 of AAPI, 115–17
of LGBT students, 284–85 complexity and, 52–53
demography and population trends of elements of, 17
AAPIs, 113 experiences of, from college students,
denial mechanisms, of privileged 31
groups, 33 in gender identity, 265–67

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 409 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 410 INDEX

initiatives for, on campuses, 20 Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal

among Native Americans, 165 Church, 12
professionals on, 13–14 emotional support animals, 339
of spirituality and religion on empathy, 226–27
campus, 358–59 employment, 328
training programs for, 12 of undocumented students, 95
Diversity and Equity Coalition, English for Speakers of Other
35–37 Languages (ESOL), 239, 243
Doctoral Scholars Program of the the Enlightenment era, 257
Southern Regional Education enrollment, undergraduate
Board, 103 of AAPI students, 115
dominant culture, 146 of African American students,
Dominguez, Tamara, 285 144–45, 151–52
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, 282 by institutional type and race, 118
Dowd, A. C., 96, 98 of international students, 232
DPS. See dissonance-provoking in Progressive Era, 257
stimulus by race, 118
DREAM Centers, 96 entertainment industry, role-models
DuBois, W. E. B., 144 from, 199
Ducheneaux, T., 176 entitlement, of White people, 212
duel enrollment, 97 environment. See also campus
Dunn, Merrily S., 5 environment; constructed
environments; organizational
Eagan, K., 359 environments
East Coast Asian American Student assimilation in, 49
Union (ECAASU), 132 congruence of people and,
ECAASU. See East Coast Asian 48–49
American Student Union human aggregates of, 41, 45–49
ecological approach inclusion in, 51, 56
to identity, 195–96 physical, 41–45
to learning for adult students, environmental press, 55–56
318–20 ESOL. See English for Speakers of
economic downturn, 312 Other Languages
education Espenshade, Thomas, 122
attainment of, by race, 119 Estanek, S. M., 363
history of, for African Americans, ethnic identity
142–45 of AAPI students, 126–29
industrial approach to, 143–44 of African Americans, 145–46
of Native Americans, 168–69, of Latinxs, 93–94
174–80 ethnicity
Obama on, 320–21 population by, 116
in transforming oppression, 34 terminology of, 209
Educational Testing Service, 101 ethnic labels, 83–84
Ellis, L. M., 95 Evans, N. J., 168, 170, 292
Elmhurst College, 284 Excelencia in Education, 100

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 410 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 411

exclusion, 51 Floyd, Rosiline D., 6

extraracial description, 194 FMMI. See factor model of multiracial
identity
F-1 visa, 233 Forman, T. A., 220
factor model of multiracial identity Founding Fathers, 13
(FMMI), 195, 196–97 four-year colleges, 96–97, 102
faculty, 16. See also administrators; Fowler, J. W., 360
professionals; student affairs Frankenberg, R., 224
educators; student-faculty fraternities, 2
engagement Alpha Phi Omega as, 357
bias and, 26 Delta Lambda Phi in, 288
against oppression, 26–27 Sigma Alpha Epsilon in, 12
family Freedmen’s Bureau, 143
of Latinxs, 87, 92–93 freedom of speech, 12, 37
of Native Americans, 174, 176–77 Free ISU
social oppression and, 28 Diversity and Equity Coalition at,
of undocumented students, 95 35–37
Whiteness and, 210 freedom of speech at, 37
Fassinger, Ruth, 290 Office of Diversity at, 35
FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation as oppression case study, 34–38
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Student Affairs Program at, 37
245 Freire, Paulo, pedagogy of oppressed
feminism from, 23, 30, 33–34
antiracist identity development and, Fried, J., 370
224 Fries-Britt, S., 53
intersectionality in, 66, 259–60 Fulbright-Hays Act, 232
racism in, 68–69
research from, 258–59 Gateway Scholars Program, 153
on sexual violence, 68–69 gay identity, 280
women’s suffrage as, 68 Gay Liberation Front, 282–83
Filipino Intercollegiate Networking gay pride marches, 282
Dialogue (FIND), 132 gay rights movement, 281
financial aid. See also scholarships GED. See general education
for AAPI, 124–25 development
for Latinx students, 91–92, 103–4 gender, in intersectionality theory,
for undocumented students, 95 266–67
financial issues gender-affirming living-learning
of international students, 241 communities, 296
of Latinxs, 90 gender identity, 2, 5
organizational efficiency and, 54 administrators on issues of, 270–71
FIND. See Filipino Intercollegiate centers for, 269
Networking Dialogue cisgender as, 270
fit, concept of, 49 distinction between sexual
flagship institutions, 90 orientation and, 278
Flowers, Lamont A., 3 distinctions of, in retention, 98

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 411 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 412 INDEX

diversity in, 265–67 Harvard University, 121–22

gender normative in, 280 Civil Rights Project at, 245
of genderqueer people, 266–67 Harvard Native American Program
privilege in, 264–65 at, 176
stereotypes of, 264 hate crimes, 12–13
gender-inclusive bathrooms, 295 Haudenosaunee students, 176
gender normative, 280 HBCUs. See historically Black colleges
genderqueer people, 266–67 and universities
general education development (GED), Headden, S., 313, 316, 321
312 Heavy Runner, I., 176
General Motors, 69 HECATE. See American Indian Higher
generational status, of Latinxs, 86–87 Education Consortium
genetics, in race, 209 Helms, J. E., 216–18
Georgetown College, 353 HERI. See Higher Education Research
GI Bill of Rights, 144 Institute
Gibson, J., 332 Hernandez, R., 94
Gilbert, A., 95 Hernández, Susana, 4
Gill, C. J., 332 heterosexism, 285, 287
Gilligan, Carol, 258 heterosexual perspective, 60
global economy, 312–13 Higher Education Act, 120
goals, after college, 175–76 Higher Education Research Institute
Graduate Record Examination (GRE), (HERI), 358
243 high school students
graduate school, 153 Latinxs as, 90–91
GRE. See Graduate Record as undocumented, 95
Examination Hillel movement, 356
Greek community. See also fraternities; Hinton, Kandace G., 3
sororities Hispanic, as ethnic label, 84
AAPI students in, 130 Hispanic Association of Colleges and
culture in, 52 Universities (HACU), 100
display of self in, 45 Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs),
environmental press for, 55–56 89
LGBT students in, 287–88 historically African American churches,
religion in, 357 356
Griffin, K. A., 53, 60 historically Black colleges and
Guardia, J. R., 168, 170 universities (HBCUs), 45
Guyland, span of time, 261 admissions applications at, 189
history of, 143–44
Hagedorn, L. S., 97 homogeneity of, 50–51
Hall, J. E., 58–60 history
Halleck, G. B., 240 of African American students in
Hardiman, R., 27, 217–18 higher education, 142–45
Harris, A., 90 of biracial and multiracial students,
Harvard Native American Program at, 187–88
176 in critical race theory, 31

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 412 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 413

ecological approach to identity and, of biracial and multiracial students,

196 128, 193–97
of HBCUs, 143–44 in class, 71
of international students, 233–34 as contextual, 71
of intersectionality theory, 66–70 as cultural, 2, 14–15
of Latinxs, 84–86 ecological approach to, 195–96
of LGBT students, 281–84 as intersectional, 70, 72–73
Native Americans and, 165–66 salience of, 385
of spirituality and religion on in social climate, 57–58
campus, 352–58 social identity development theory
of Whiteness, 209 for, 29–30
of women and men in higher student affairs educators on, 74–75,
education, 256–58 129
Holland, J. L., 45–46 terminology of, 213, 279
home-going, strategy in higher of transgender students, 280, 291,
education, 177 293
homogeneity, 50–51 of United States, 22
homophobia, 280–81 Whiteness as, 208
heterosexism and, 285 identity development models. See also
social groups and, 287 LGBT identity development;
homosexuality, 279–80 Native American identity
medical perspective on, 281–82 development; White racial identity
Horse, P., 171 development
Howard-Hamilton, Mary F., 3, Asian American racial identity
14–15 development (Kim) in, 127
Hsieh, M. H., 238–39 biracial identity development (Kich)
HSIs. See Hispanic-serving institutions in, 193–94
Huebner, L. A., 41, 48 ecological systems approach
human aggregates, of environment (Bronfenbrenner) in, 318–19
assimilation at PWIs and, 49 factor model of multiracial identity
belonging in, 48 (Wijeyesinghe) in, 195–97
of campus, 41, 45–49 homosexual identity formation
concept of fit in, 49 (Cass) as, 289–90
consistency on, 45, 47–48 intersectional model of multiracial
differentiation in, 45–46 identity (Wijeyesinghe) in, 195
false differentiation of, 46 LGBT students identity development
person-environment congruence in, (Fassinger) in, 290
48 racial identity development (Cross)
Hunter-Cuyjet, Sienna, 18 in, 148–51
Huntley House for African American racial identity model (Renn),
Males, 154 194–95
Hurtado, S., 99 transgender identity development
(Evan) in, 292
identity development, 34, 146. See also White identity development
ethnic identity; gender identity (Hardiman) in, 217–18

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 413 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 414 INDEX

White identity development (Helms in African American identity

and Cook) in, 216–17 development, 150
Witnessing and Mirroring: A in social identity development
Fourteen-Stage Model (Devor), theory, 30
292–93 international students, 5
identity matrix, 197 abroad pressures on, 241
immigrants, 84–85 academic adjustments for, 238–39
AAPI as, 113–14 adjustment to host country and
Asian Americans as, 119 institution, 236
language and, 87 assaults of, 245
Latinxs as, 86 case study about, 248–49
laws involving, 101–2 contributions of, 234–35
Immigration and Naturalization Act, discrimination of, 242
119 discussion questions about, 249
Immigration and Naturalization Service English language abilities of, 239–40
(INS), 241, 244 enrollment of, 232
In a Different Voice (Gilligan), 258 financial issues of, 241
inclusion history of, 233–34
environmental press and, 56 institutional and governmental
in homogeneous environment, 51 policies for, 243–46
Indiana University (IU), 42–43 isolation of, 240–41
Indian Peace Commission, 167 language of, 239–41
Indian Removal Act, 167 programs and services for, 246–48
individualism, 212 stereotypes of, 237, 242
industrial education approach, 143–44 stresses of, 237–38
inequity, 71–72 student affairs educators and, 246
inferiority, 149 visas for, 233, 241
Inglebret, E., 179 Interracial Intercultural Pride (I-Pride),
Inkelas, K. K., 123 187
INS. See Immigration and intersectionality theory, 4, 17–18
Naturalization Service of AAPI students, 127–28
institutions for biracial identity development,
in social oppression matrix, 28 196–97
support from, for adult students, Black men’s leadership programs and,
320–21 77–78
integrated research, 101–2 Black women and, 66–68
intellectual engagement, 14 case study for, 78
Intercollegiate Taiwanese American coalitions and, 76
Students Association (ITASA), consistency and, 47–48
132 critical consciousness development
interdependence, 146 and, 384–86
interfaith, campus ministry models of, differentiation and, 47
366–69 discussion questions for, 78
interfaith groups, 357–58 in feminism, 66, 259–60
internalization gender in, 266

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 414 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 415

genderqueer identity and, 267 Kaiser, L. R., 40

history of, 66–70 Kalivoda, Karen S., 6
identity in, 70–72, 73 Kang, J., 121
inequity and, 71–72 Kappa Alpha Lambda, 288
LGBT students and, 77, 293–94, KASCON. See Korean American
299–300 Student Conference
limitations of, 73–74 Kelly, K. F., 312
lived experiences in, 71 Kich, G. K., 193–94
oppression and, 70–74 Kim, B. S. K., 174
queer POC spaces in, 76–77 Kim, J., 127
salience in, 18 Kimmel, M. S., 261
sexual violence and sexual assault in, King, Martin Luther, Jr., 20
69–70 KKK. See Ku Klux Klan
student affairs staff on, 73, 294 Klein, F., 291
White students and, 226–27 Kniess, Dena R., 6
intersectional model of multiracial Korean American Student Conference
identity (IMMI), 195, 196–97 (KASCON), 132
invisible disabilities, 343 Korean War, 144
IPEDS. See National Center for Kuh, G. D., 51, 58–60
Education Statistics’ Integrated Ku Klux Klan (KKK), 12, 42
Postsecondary Data System
I-Pride. See Interracial Intercultural labor, 84–85
Pride Lafayette College, Alpha Phi Omega
Islamic students. See spirituality and at, 357
religion on campus language
isolation, of international students, choices in, 2
240–41 ESOL in, 239
ITASA. See Intercollegiate Taiwanese immigrants and, 87
American Students Association of international students, 239–41
It’s On Us Campaign, 264 preservation of Native, 165
IU. See Indiana University Spanish, ability of Latinxs, 86–87
Ivy League institutions, 169 TOEFL in, 239
Latino/a critical race theory (LatCrit),
J-1 visa, 233 93
Jackson, B. W., 27 Latinxs, 4
Jefferson, Stephen, 35–36 assimilation of, 93–94
Jewish students. See spirituality and campus climate for, 99–100
religion on campus career preparation for, 103
Jim Crow era, 141 Chicanas as, 92–93
Johns Hopkins Campus Ministries, class of, 85
366 college access for, 89–90
Johnston-Guerrero, Marc P., 5 at community colleges, 90–91,
Judeo-Christian perspective, 60. 96–97
See also spirituality and religion on in critical race theory, 83–84
campus Cubans as, 85–86

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 415 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 416 INDEX

discrimination toward, 87–88 demographics of, 284–85

discussion questions about, 105–6 discrimination against, 281,
ethnic identity of, 93–94 287–88
families of, 87, 92–93 discussion questions about, 301–2
family of, 87, 92–93 gay term and, 280
financial aid for, 91–92, 103–4 gender normative and, 280
financial issues of, 90 in Greek community, 287–88
as high school students, 90–91 harassment of, 60
history of, 84–86 heterosexism and, 285, 287
integrated research and, 101–2 history of, 281–84
language of, 86–87 homophobia and, 280–81, 287
LatCrit of, 93 intersectionality of, 77, 293–94,
microaggressions toward, 88 299–300
organizations for, 104 as minority, 278
policy-oriented research for, 104–5 organizations of, 282–84
Puerto Ricans as, 85 recommendations about, 297–300
resources for, 100–102 religion and, 281–82, 285–86
retention of, 97–99 resource centers for, 76–77
as role models, 91, 93 role models for, 282, 286, 297
sociological context of, 86–88 sociological context of, 285–88
in STEM, 91, 98 student organizations for, 130
stereotypes about, 91 students of Color as, 76–77
students services and, 103–4 support for, 297–98
terminology about, 83–84, 106 terminology about, 279–81
as undocumented students, 89, violence toward, 77, 285
94–96 Lester, J., 97
Lavender Graduations, 295 Lewin, Kurt, 40
Lawson, J. M., 41, 48 LGBT. See lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
leadership programs, for Black men, transgender
77–78 LGBT identity development, 288
Lee, L., on Native Americans, 165, 168, bisexual identity development in,
176, 179 290–91
Lees, L. J., 291 Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Formation in, 289–90
(LGBT) students, 6. See also coming out in, 286–87
gender identity; homosexuality; Fassinger’s model of, 290
LGBT identity development; transgender identity development in,
sexual orientation; transgender 291–93
students liberal arts college, 94
allies for, 283 Lincoln University, 143
best practices for, 294–97 Linder, Chris, 4, 5
bisexual identity and, 270 Liu, Deng, 248–49
case study about, 300–301 Liu, J., 238
cisgender term and, 270 Lone Star College Men’s Center,
coming out, 286–87 268

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 416 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 417

Louisiana State University, Black Male middle school students, parents of,
Leadership Institute Initiative 91
Fellows Program at, 153 Midwest Asian American Student
Lowe, S., 177 Union (MAASU), 132
low-income students, 144 Millenials, 19
Lumina Foundation, 321 minorities
in consensus, 56
M-1 visa, 233 LGBT students as, 278
MAASU. See Midwest Asian American model minority
Student Union AAPI stereotype of, 51
MacKinnon, Fiona J. D., 6 Asian Americans as, 122
Malcom, L. E., 98 monoracial students, 192
mascots, Native American students and, monoracism, 190
44 professionals on, 198
masculinity Moos, R. H., 45, 56–57
expectations of, 262–63 Moraga, Cherríe, 68
as hegemonic, 260–61 Morrill Act of 1862, 257, 356
as productive and constructive, Morrill Act of 1890, 143, 257
263–64 MOSAIC program, 340
Mattachine Society, 281 Mountain State University (MSU),
McCallister, L., 91, 92 248–49
McCune, P., 344 MS. See multiple sclerosis
McIntosh, Peggy, 32, 213 MSU. See Mountain State University
McMurtie, B., 368 Mueller, J. A., 14, 16
MCOD. See multicultural multicultural centers, 76–77
organizational development multicultural competence, 3, 15
Means, Darris R., 6 on campus, 14
the media, 31 critical consciousness and,
men. See women and men in higher 381–84
education multiculturalism
men’s centers, 268–69 broadened concept of, 14
Men’s Development Institute, 268 knowledge of, due to intellectual
mental health, 126 engagement, 14
Meriwether, Jason L., 3 terminology of, 3, 13
Metropolitan Community Church, 281 multicultural organizational
Mexican Americans, 84–85 development (MCOD)
MICA. See Office of Multicultural procedures, 16
Involvement and Community multiple sclerosis (MS), 344
Advocacy multiracial. See biracial and multiracial
microaggressions students
toward AAPI students, 125 Museus, S. D., 48, 51
toward biracial and multiracial Muslim Students Association of the
students, 191 United States and Canada, 356
toward Latinxs, 88 Mutual Educational Exchange Act,
Middlebury College, 143 233

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 417 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 418 INDEX

NAACP. See National Association for family support of, 174, 176–77
the Advancement of Colored history and, 165–66
People identity development of, 171–74
NAFSA: Association of International mascots and, 44
Educators, 243–44 oppression of, 165–69
Narasaki, Karen, 122 research on, 175–77
National Association for the retention of, 177
Advancement of Colored People role models for, 175, 176
(NAACP), 144 spirituality of, 177
National Center for Education Statistics student affairs educators and,
(NCES), 115, 311, 313 177–79
National Center for Education support of, 178
Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary TCUs for, 168
Data System (IPEDS), 187–88 terminology about, 164–65, 181
National Conference for Community tokenism and, 175
and Justice, 364 tribal sovereignty of, 165, 166–69
National Education for Women’s values and student development of,
Leadership (NEW Leadership), 169–71
268 Naturalization Act, 167–67
National Football League (NFL), Navajo Community College. See Diné
287–88 College
national identity, oppression in, 22 NCES. See National Center for
National Queer Student Coalition Education Statistics
(NQSC), 283 negative action, 121
Native American Identity (Horse), 171 Nelson, Janet Cooper, 357
Native American identity development NEW Leadership. See National
categories of Indianness in, 172 Education for Women’s
consciousness influences in, 171 Leadership
health model conceptualization of Newman Centers, 356
acculturation of, 173–74 NFL. See National Football League
Native American reservations nontraditional students. See adult
careers on, 170, 175–76 college students
establishment of, 167 nonverbal communication, 43–44
Native American students, 5 North American Conference of
administrators and, 178 Homophile Organizations, 281
assimilation of, 167, 169 NQSC. See National Queer Student
behavioral artifact for, 58–59 Coalition
campus environment for, 176–79 Nuñez, A., 104
case study about, 180–81
community and, 177 Obama, Barack, 19, 199
consciousness of, 171 on education, 320–21
discussion questions about, 181 on same-sex marriage, 282
diversity among, 165 O’Brien, K. M., 291
educational issues for, 174–80 OCR. See Department of Education
education of, 168–69 Office of Civil Rights

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 418 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 419

Office of Civil Rights, investigations structures in, 52–54

by, 264 orientation programs, 246–47
Office of Management and Budget Ortiz, A. M., 176
(OMB), 187 Ortiz, Anna, 4, 91, 94
Two or More Races category from, Osborne, Leigh Ann, 5
189 otherness, 62
Office of Multicultural Involvement OutRage!, 282
and Community Advocacy outreach programs. See programs and
(MICA), 132 services
Ohio University, 355
OMB. See Office of Management and Pachon, H. P., 91
Budget Pacific Islanders, 112–13. See also Asian
ONE, 281 American and Pacific Islander
online degree programs, 234 (AAPI), students
oppression panethnicities, of AAPI groups,
administrators against, 26–27 113–15
biracial and multiracial identification Panther, Tom, 35–37
and, 189–91 Park, J. J., 124
of Black women, 66–69 Park, Julie, 4
case study of, 34–38 the patriarchy, 68
characteristics of, 25–26 PATRIOT Act, 244
in criminal justice system, 76 Pavel, D. M., 179
critical race theory of, 30–32 Pedersen, P. B., 237, 246
faculty and administrators against, Peek, L., 360
26–27 peer culture
family and, 28 biracial and multiracial students in,
by government, 166–69 191–92, 198
as intersectional, 70–74 monoracial peers in, 192
in national identity, 22 Pennsylvania State University, 12
of Native Americans, 165–69 people of Color (POC), 2
pedagogy and, 23, 30, 33–34 in intersectionality theory, 76–77
privileged groups and, 32–33 police brutality toward, 11
recognition of, in White racial justice racial battle fatigue of, 88
advocacy, 222 social constructions of, 210
social, matrix, 27–29 tokenism of, 75–76
social identity development theory Whiteness and, 212
and, 29–30 Perez, M. P., 114
theories of, 23–27 Perez, William, 95
transformation of, 33–34 Perna, L. W., 97
White students and, 208–9 Perry, W. G., 359–60
Options through Education, 152–53 personality types, 45–46
Oral Roberts University, 353 person-environment congruence, 48–49
organizational environments Perspectivas, publication, 101
on campus, 41 perspectives, 59
patterns in, 50–52 phenotype. See physical appearance

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 419 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 420 INDEX

physical appearance, racism and, for biracial and multiracial students,

189–91 197–200
physical environment, 41–45. See also for campus orientation, 246–47
campus environment for international students,
PIE. See privileged identity exploration 246–48
Plains Indians, 176 the Progressive Era, 257
Please Don’t Pet Me website, 339 Project Uplift Program, 154
Plessey v. Ferguson, 143 Protestant students, 352. See also
POC. See people of Color spirituality and religion on campus
police brutality, 11 proxemics, 43–44
political intersectionality, 70 proximal processes, 196
political refugees, 86 psychological disability, 344–45
Ponjuán, L., 98 Puerto Ricans, 85
Poon, OiYan A., 4 Purdue University, 295
Pope, R. L., 14, 16 Puritan New England, 353
population by race/ethnicity, 116 Pusser, B., 314
population growth, 115–17 PWI. See predominantly White
Post-9/11 GI Bill, 313, 320 institutions
poverty, 90
predominantly White institutions queer, 279–80
(PWIs), 50 Queer Nation, 282
administrators of, 49 queer students of Color, 76–77
African Americans at, 144, 156
environment assimilation in, 49 race
Native Americans in, 175 enrollment by, 118
preservation genetics in, 209
of Native culture and language, 165 population by, 116
through TCUs, 168 salience of, 149
presidential election, college students social construction of, 209–10
in, 19 terminology of, 209
privilege, 31. See also White privilege raceless concept, White people and,
of Christians, 352 211–12
defensive mechanisms from, 32 racial battle fatigue, 88, 389–90
denial mechanisms from, 33 racial categories, in admissions
gender and, 264–65 applications, 189
as religious, 369–70 racial hierarchies, 191
social identities of, 213 racialization, 112
privileged identity exploration (PIE) racial profiling, 245
model, 32–33 racism. See also microaggressions; racial
professionals profiling
assessment of social climate by, 57 in color blindness, 220–21
on diversity, 13–14 in criminal justice system, 68–69
on learning culture, 322 critical race theory on, 30–31
on monoracism, 198 in feminism, 68–69
programs and services monoracism and, 190, 198

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 420 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 INDEX 421

physical appearance and, 189–91 of African American students,

White racial justice advocacy on, 145–46
222–23 from athletics, 199
of White students, 211 for biracial and multiracial students,
Ramos, M., 96 199
Rankin, S. R., 60, 297 Latinx students as, 91, 93
rape, 68–69 for LGBT students, 282, 286, 297
Reaching Inside Your Soul for for Native American students, 175,
Excellence (RISE), 155 176
Redd, K. E., 97 student affairs educators as, 74–75
Reflections on American Indian Identity for students with disabilities, 341
(Horse), 171 White students and, 211
refugees, 113–14 Ronald E. McNair postbaccalaureate
Regent University, 353 achievement program, 153
Rehabilitation Act, 330–31 Root, M. P. P., 194, 196
Reisser, L., 170 Rowe, W., 218
The Rejected, 281 Rutgers University, Center for
relationships, college men in, 261 American Women and Politics at,
religion. See spirituality and religion on 268
campus Ryan, L., 171–72
remediation and gateway courses, 102 Ryan, R., 171–72
The Renaissance of American Indian
Higher Education: Capturing the Sáenz, V. B., 98
Dream (Benham and Stein), 179 Safe Zone, 283
Renn, Kristen A., 5, 192, 195 salience
representational intersectionality, 70 of identity, 385
research, 104–5 in intersectionality, 18
residential life. See campus culture of race, 149
residential life staff, 247 Sam, Michael, 287–88
retention same-sex marriage laws, 282
gender distinctions in, 98 Sandia Pueblo, 166
of Latinx students, 97–99 Santiago, Deborah, 100
of Native American students, 177 Santos, R., 97
SIRPs for, 131 Santos, S. J., 91, 94
Revolutionary Era, 209 SASA. See South Asian Student
Revolutionary War, 354 Association
rewards, stratification in, 53 SAT. See Scholastic Aptitude Test
Reyes, K., 96 SCA 5. See California’s Senate
Reynolds, A. L., 14, 16 Constitutional Amendment 5
Richardson, B. J., 14–15 Schlossberg, N. K., 317
RISE. See Reaching Inside Your Soul for scholarships, 92, 132
Excellence Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 243
Robertson, Pat, 353 Schreiner, L., 156
role models, 199 science, technology, engineering, math
for AAPI students, 125, 126 (STEM)

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 421 7/26/2016 7:24:32 PM

 422 INDEX

Latinxs in, 91, 98 social media, 265

remediation and gateway courses in, social oppression matrix, 27–29
102 social responsibility, 147
the Second Great Awakening era, 257 Society for Human Rights, 281
Secretary of Education, 101 the Society for Individual Rights, 281
segregation, 141, 143–44 Sodowsky, G. R., 242
selective colleges, 96–97 soldiers, 313
affirmative action and, 121 Solòrzano, D., 88, 97
SERCAAL. See Southeast Regional sororities, 2
Conference on Asian American Chi Omega as, 12
Leadership Kappa Alpha Lambda as, 288
service animal, 338–39 the South, African American education
SEVIS. See Student and Exchange in, 143–44
Visitor Information System South Asian Student Association
sexism, 68–70 (SASA), 132
sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Southeast Regional Conference on
269 Asian American Leadership
sexual orientation (SERCAAL), 132
affectional orientation and, 279 South Seattle Community College, 132
distinction between gender identity Spanish-American War, 85
and, 278 Spanish language, 86–87
values and, 60 spirituality and religion on campus,
sexual violence and sexual assault 351–52
activism against, 264–65 of African American students, 157
on campuses, 73 culture of, 363–65
feminism on, 68–69 demographics of diversity of, 358–59
social media and, 265 discussion questions about, 371–72
in structural intersectionality, 69–70 in Greek community, 357
student activism over, 19 history of, 352–58
Shinnecock Nation, 18 LGBT students and, 281–82,
Shuford, Bettina C., 4, 14–15 285–86
Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, 12 of Native Americans, 177
SIRPs. See student-initiated retention pluralism and interfaith in, 365–70
programs privilege in, 369–70
Slater, B. R., 283 Protestant students and, 352
slavery, 141, 179–80, 209 stereotypes of, 363–64
social climate, 56–58 student affairs educators on, 364–65
social construction student development theory and,
of race, 209–10 359–62
of Whiteness, 209–15 terminology of, 362–63
social identity development theory, values and, 60
29–30 Spring, J., 13, 24, 165
social justice education, 386–88 2010 State of Higher Education for
Social Justice Training Institute, 225 LGBT People, 297–98

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 422 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

 INDEX 423

Stefancic, J., 13, 16 on college students with disabilities,

Stein, W. J., 179 328–29
STEM. See science, technology, cultural competency of, 14
engineering, math on identity development, 74–75, 129
stereotypes international students and, 246
of AAPI students, 51, 112 on intersectionality, 73, 294
alienation through, 175 Native American students and,
of Asian Americans, 125–26 177–79
of Asian invasion, 117 on religion, 364–65
banking education and, 24 as role models, 74–75
of biracial and multiracial students, stereotypes from, 177–78
190 on tokenism, 75–76
of college men, 261–63, 268 universal design for students with
of gender, 264 disabilities and, 336–37
homogeneous inclusion from, 51 White students and, 208, 225–27
of international students, 237, 242 Student African American Brotherhood
about Latinxs, 91 (SAAB), 155
of model minority, 51 Student and Exchange Visitor
of religious groups, 363–64 Information System (SEVIS),
social oppression matrix and, 28 244–45
from student affairs educators, student debt, 19
177–78 student development theory, 215–16
from students, 32 and African American students,
of undocumented students, 95 145–48
Stern, G. G., 55, 56 spirituality and religion on campus
STIs. See sexually transmitted infections and, 359–62
St. John’s University, Men’s of women and men in higher
Development Institute at, 268 education, 258–60
St. Louis Rams, 287–88 student experience, 97–98
Stonewall Inn, 281 student-faculty engagement
storytelling, in critical race theory, 30 for AAPI students, 125–26
Strange, C. C., on environment, for African Americans, 146, 156–57
40, 41, 44–45, 49–52, 55–56, Student Homophile League, 282
59–60 student-initiated retention programs
stratification, 53–54 (SIRPs), 131
Strayhorn, T. L., 48 student organizations
structural intersectionality, 69–70 for AAPI students, 129–30
student affairs educators for Latinxs, 104
on adult college students, 320, for queer students, 130
321–23 Students for Fair Admissions, 121
African American students and, students services, 103–4
145–48 students with disabilities, 6
ASD students and, 340 access needs of, 331, 337
coalitions and, 76 careers for, 340–41

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 423 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

 424 INDEX

case studies about, 342–45 TCUs. See tribal colleges and

civil rights for, 329 universities
developmental issues of, 331–34 technical institutions, 50–51
discrimination of, 334 technology accessibility, for students
emerging issues for, 337–41 with disabilities, 337
identity development of, 332–33 terminology
invisible disabilities of, 343 about African American students,
psychological disabilities of, 344–45 142
role models for, 341 of allies, 222
social model of disability for, 334–35 about college students with
terminology about, 329–31 disabilities, 329–31
universal design for, 335–37 of ethnicity, 209
study abroad, 297 of identity, 213, 279
subcommunities, 51–52 about Latinxs, 83–84, 106
success, recommendations for, 155–58 about LGBT students, 279–81
suffrage, women’s, 68 of multiculturalism, 3, 13
Suizzo, M., 174 about Native American students,
superiority, perception of Whiteness 164–65, 181
and, 210–11, 227 of race, 209
support. See also family of spirituality and religion,
for adult students, 320–21 362–63
of institution, 97 of Whiteness, 210
lack of, for AAPI students, 126 of White privilege, 213
for LGBT students, 297–98 terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
of Native American students, 178 233, 245
service and emotional, from animals, Terzian, Sevan G., 5
338–39 Test of English as a Foreign Language
as social, 97 (TOEFL), 239, 243
for women and men in higher This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by
education, 267–69 Radical Women of Color (Moraga
support services, communication of, and Anzaldúa), 68
104 Thompson, B., 223
Supreme Court, 143, 144, 282 Tienda, M., 90
Sutton v. United Airlines, 330 Tisdell, E. J., 362
Swail, S. W., 97 TOEFL. See Test of English as a Foreign
symbolism, in architecture, 42–43 Language
symbols tokenism
culture differences in, 44 Native American students and, 175
of hatred, 12 of POC, 75–76
transfer agents, 96
Taking America’s Pulse III, 364 transfer students, 96–97, 102
Tatum, B. D., 62 adult students as, 321
Taylor, H., 60 transgender students
Taylor, J. S., 175 bathrooms for, 60

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 424 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

 INDEX 425

identity development of, 280, Unitarian Church, support of LGBT

291–93 people, 281
roll call for, 287 United Church of Christ, 282
transphobia, 296 United States government, 19
transportation, for undocumented oppression of Native Americans by,
students, 95 166–69
transracial adoption, 187 universalization, 212
trauma, historical, 165 University of Alabama, ASD College
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 84 Transition and Support Program
tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), at, 340
168 University of California, “Count Me
tribal councils, 166 In!” campaign from, 131
tribal culture, 5 University of California, Davis,
tribal sovereignty, 165 Asian Pacific Islander Queers
government oppression and, 166–69 organization at, 130
land ownership and, 167–68 University of California, Los Angeles,
reservations in, 167 125
Sandia Pueblo and, 166 University of Georgia, 354
TCUs and, 168–69 CMA at, 367
Truman, Harry S., 232 University of Illinois, 58–59
Truth, Sojourner, 67–68 University of Illinois at Chicago, AAAN
Twilight, Alexander Locus, 143 at, 154–55
Two or More Races category University of Illinois Urbana-
Census Bureau and, 187–88 Champaign, 130
from OMB, 189 University of Iowa, 12
LGBT students at, 284
UNAVSA. See Union of North University of Louisville, 58
American Vietnamese Student African American Male Initiative at,
Associations 153–54
UNC. See University of North Carolina University of Maryland, 368–69
undocumented students University of Maryland, College Park
AAPI as, 124–25 AASP at, 132
ally programs for, 95–96 MICA at, 132
at community colleges, 95 University of Michigan, Center for the
employment of, 95 Education of Women at, 267
family of, 95 University of Minnesota, 283
financial aid for, 95 Huntley House for African American
in high school, 95 Males at, 154
Latinxs as, 89, 94–96 University of Mississippi, 12
stereotypes of, 95 University of North Carolina (UNC),
tuition for, 94 121
Union of North American Vietnamese University of North Carolina (UNC),
Student Associations (UNAVSA), Chapel Hill
132 Project Uplift Program at, 154

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 425 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

 426 INDEX

religion at, 369 Wallace, K. R., 195

University of Pittsburgh, RISE at, 155 Washington, Booker T., 144
University of Richmond, 367–68 Waterman, S. J., 177
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Watkins, B. L., 300
MOSAIC program at, 340 Watt, Sherry, 16, 32
University of Texas, Austin, Gateway WCAG. See Web Content Accessibility
Scholars Program at, 153 Guidelines
University of Texas–San Antonio, Web Accessibility Initiative, 337–38
Center for Policy Research and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Policy in Education at, 101 (WCAG), 338
University Residence Environment Wellesley College Religious and
Scale (URES), 57–58 Spiritual Life Program, 355
University System of Georgia, African- “wheels in the head” syndrome, 23, 34
American Male Initiative at, 152 WHIEEH. See White House Initiative
URES. See University Residence on Educational Excellence for
Environment Scale Hispanics
USCIS. See U.S. Citizenship and White House Initiative on Educational
Immigration Service Excellence for Hispanics
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (WHIEEH), 101
Service (USCIS), 241 White House Task Force to Protect
USSA. See U.S. Student Association Students from Sexual Assault, 264
U.S. Student Association (USSA), 283 White men, 5
Whiteness, 5
values color blindness and, 214–15
from administrators, 59–60 family and, 210
of Asian Americans, 173 history of, 209
in athletics, 60 in identity development, 208
in classrooms, 60 people of Color and, 212
from heterosexual perspective, 60 perception of superiority of, 210–11
from Judeo-Christian perspective, 60 POC and, 212
of Native Americans, 169–71, 174, social construction of, 209–15
176–77 socialization and, 210–11
of White students, 170 superiority in, 210–11, 227
veterans, 144 terminology of, 210
Vietnam War, 144 universalization and, 212
violence, 11. See also sexual violence White privilege, 1, 32, 72, 121, 208–9
and sexual assault on college campuses, 213–15
instances of, 12 terminology of, 213
toward LGBT students, 77, 285 White racial consciousness statuses
of police brutality, 11 (WRCS), 218
visas, 233, 241 achieved statuses as, 219–20
Vue, R., 51 unachieved statuses as, 218–19
White racial identity development
Walker, Kristen M., 6 (WRID), 210

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 426 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

 INDEX 427

Hardiman’s model of, 217–18 women of Color. See also Black women
Helms’ and Cook’s model of, 216–17 inequity for, 71–72
White racial justice advocacy, 222–24. intersectionality of, 69–70
See also allies lived experiences of, 71
White students women’s centers, 267–68
as allies, 208, 223–24 women’s issues, 5
case study about, 228 Women’s Rights Convention, 1851,
color-blind racism of, 220–21 67
culture of, 211–13 Women’s Ways of Knowing (Belenky),
entitlement of, 212 258
intersectionality theory and, 226–27 Wong, A., 127
multicultural development of, 19 Workforce Recruitment Program
oppression and, 208–9 (WRP), 341
racial development theory for, World Health Organization, 282
216–20 World Trade Center bombing,
racial identity of, 208–9, 228 233, 244
racial justice advocacy of, 221–24 World War II, 84
racism of, 211 LGBT movements after, 281
role models and, 211 WRCS. See White racial consciousness
socialization of, 210–11 statuses
student affairs educators and, 208, WRID. See White racial identity
225–27 development (WRID)
values of, 170 WRP. See Workforce Recruitment
Wijeyesinghe, C. L., 195–97 Program
Wilberforce University, 143
Wisbey, Martha E., 6 Yaki, Michael, 122
Witnessing and Mirroring: A Fourteen- Yale University, 130
Stage Model (Devor), 292–93 Yeshiva University, 354
women and men in higher education. YMCA. See Young Men’s Christian
See also masculinity Association
history of, 256–58 Yosso, Tara, 92
recommendations and implications Young Ladies’ Academy in Philadelphia,
for, 269–71 257
relationships of, 261 Young Men’s Christian Association
stereotypes of, 261–63 (YMCA), 356
student development of, 258–60
support for, 267–69 Zarate, M. E., 91

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 427 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 428 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM
 navigate college, graduate on time, and transition to the world of work. Underlying the process
is an intersectional and identity-conscious, rather than identity-centered, framework that
addresses the complexity of students’ assets and needs as they encounter the unfamiliar terrain
of college.

22883 Quicksilver Drive

Sterling, VA 20166-2102 Subscribe to our e-mail alerts: www.Styluspub.com

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 429 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM

 Also available from Stylus
Intersectionality in Action
A Guide for Faculty and Campus Leaders for Creating Inclusive
Classrooms and Institutions
Edited by Brooke Barnett and Peter Felten
Foreword by Eboo Patel
“The ‘next phase’ of diversity in higher education pushes
institutional objectives beyond mere tolerance of cultural diffe-
rence. Barnett and Felten have pulled together a timely re source
for campus leaders that recognizes the multidimensionality
of students’ identities and the imperative for institutions
to pursue an intersectional approach to diversity on
campus.”—Anthony Lising Antonio, Associate Professor of
Education, Stanford University
This book offers models for institutions to move intentionally
toward intersections—of study abroad and multiculturalism, of race and gender and religion,
and of other essential aspects of our educational programs and our students’ identities—in
order to open doors to new possibilities that better prepare our students for life in a diverse
world and allow our institutions to become more efficient and effective as we strive to not
simply do things better in our own separate spheres, but to do better things by working
together across difference.

Closing the Opportunity Gap

Identity-Conscious Strategies for Retention and Student Success
Edited by Vijay Pendakur
Foreword by Shaun R. Harper
“Closing the achievement gap for low-income students, first-
generation students, and students of color in American higher
education needs to be a national priority. This book is a roadmap
that outlines the dimensions of a systemic approach toward
decreasing the attainment gap for our most under-represented
students. The upfront focus on racial identity and the need for
systemic change make this a ‘must-read’ for college presidents,
provosts, and senior administrators who seek real equity at their
colleges and universities.”—Kevin Kruger, President, NASPA
This book offers a novel and proven approach to the retention
and success of underrepresented students. It advocates a strategic approach through which an
institution sets clear goals and metrics and integrates the identity support work of cultural/
diversity centers with skill building through cohort activities to enable students to successfully

9781620364154_Cuyjet_Multiculturalism on Campus.indb 430 7/26/2016 7:24:33 PM