This chapter explores the theoretical frameworks used to frame, analyze, and explain how AANAPISI funded programs build capacity for civic engagement. In order to examine this phenomenon among students, faculty, staff, and administrators, I draw upon two theoretical frameworks. The first theory, by Chesler, Lewis, and Crowfoot (2005), details how institutions challenge racism in higher education through the progression in which they strive to achieve a multicultural environment. The second theory, by Han (2014) and Andrews, Ganz, Baggetta, Han, and Lim (2010), is a multidimensional approach to study the organizational effectiveness of civic associations – measured through capacity building for civic engagement. In other words, this theory examines how organizations cultivate people’s capacity for civic engagement and activism. The following chapter will detail these two theoretical frameworks at length and how they contribute to understanding this study’s phenomenon of interest.
Race and Racism in Higher Education
The role of theory for this research project is to analyze and explain how AANAPISI programs contribute toward building capacity for civic engagement. Since AANAPISI programs are federally funded racial projects (Park & Teranishi, 2008), the salience of race is a critical component with regards to their creation and development, as will be discussed in the review of the literature. Thus, it is paramount to consider the centrality of race in this study. To do this, I rely on Chesler, Lewis, and Crowfoot (2005) who detail how institutions advance toward a multicultural environment, and in the process must contend with the “murky and covert workings of institutionalized racism and other forms of social discrimination and privilege in the general society and in colleges and universities” (p. xii). They posit that institutions, like society in
general, are organized and operate in a manner that disenfranchises people of color. However, colleges and universities are different and unique in that many possess a willingness and maintain capacity to address systems of inequities, and to create opportunities for peoples of different experiences to interact and learn from one another (Chesler et al, 2005).
From a historical perspective, institutionalized racism has dominated the landscape and foundation of higher education. For example, “scientific racism” was used by researchers to maintain white supremacy and advance an ideology that people of color were biologically inferior (Washington, 1996). Another example includes the passage of the Morrill Acts, where large scale public and federal investments in higher education reached unprecedented levels. Although these new sources of federal funding were used to create the large public flagship institutions that we know of today, they were also used to create Minority Serving Institutions (MSI), and in particular Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), as a separate system of colleges and universities for Black students (Wolain, 1998). Ironically, MSIs were born out of this “separate but equal” policy of exclusion, segregation, and racism. As schools began to desegregate, enrollment of students of color at MSIs continued, as these students sustained negative and racist experiences at traditionally white institutions (Allen, 1992).
Today, colleges and universities continue to struggle with issues of race, from racially themed fraternity parties (Garcia, Johnston, Garibay, Herrera, & Giraldo, 2011) to institutional policy and practices that impact the enrollment of students of color into higher education (Chang, Witt, Jones, & Hakuta, 2003). Indeed, institutional racism has and continues to exist as an enduring legacy that “pervades the curriculum, pedagogy, structure of departments and disciplines, formal and informal relationships among participants, and decision making about hiring, promoting, and retention” (Chesler et al, 2005, p. 19). Thus, in order to seriously address
these issues, colleges and universities must take deliberate and proactive steps to create an environment that dismantles racism, both institutional and overt. However, Chelser and colleagues (2005) suggest that, at present, racism is still practiced on college campuses, and higher education is a vehicle to promote the “material interests (wealth, power, and status) and symbolic interests (assumptions, cultural styles, and visions) of whites” (p. 34). In order to address these important concerns, institutions must progress toward multiculturalism, and studying them requires that they be examined through a racial lens that which focuses on the removal of racism.
Colleges and universities that seek to address these issues, by creating a multicultural environment, can not just simply add new books to the course curriculum, or admit and hire more diverse peoples, but instead must focus on “redistributing power and resources and reevaluating the rules and practices that govern such institutions and the lives of people within them in order to eliminate unearned privilege and accompanying dominance and subordination,” while encouraging and creating “the kinds of changes in expectations and behaviors that may enable us to live collaboratively with one another in diverse organizations and communities” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 21). Colleges and universities that maintain multiculturalism as a priority must deliberately strive for an anti-racist agenda, and as Chesler and colleagues (2005) posit, this progression is advanced in three stages across eight dimensions.
The first stage is monocultural, where the institution is committed to “maintaining traditional forms of white male domination and privilege” and resistant to multiculturalism (Chesler et al, 2005, p. 69). Other scholars have identified this stage as monolithic (Cox, 1991), white male club (Jackson & Holvino, 1988), and resistant (Katz, 1988). The very limited number of people and color and women, from students to faculty, staff, and administrators, who
are already excluded from the institution, must also assimilate into the existing culture. Chesler and colleagues (2005) further detail that little if any contact or communication exists across racial/ethnic lines and social events are intentionally or unintentionally designed to segregate. Lastly, a primary characteristic of the monocultural stage is where a limited, if existing at all, multicultural agenda revolves around a small cohort of tokenized people of color who are in the lower rungs of the institution.
The second stage, transitional, is where the institution is pronounced in its concern with issues of race, diversity, and equity (Chesler et al., 2005). Other scholars have identified this stage as plural (Cox, 1991), affirmative action (Jackson & Holvino, 1988), or transitional (Katz, 1988). In this stage, initiatives are in development or in place to address diversity that goes beyond tokenism, with regards to recruitment and retention. For example, institutions would be expected to make a host of changes, including the development of special offices for diversity programs – like the creation of an AANAPISI program. Additionally, curriculum is broadened to be more inclusive of different traditions and histories, and intergroup interactions are
encouraged. This stage encompasses the majority of colleges and universities, some in the early stages of multicultural development, while others are more advanced. With traditional white male power being challenged (from university leadership to external forces, as well as with dominant cultural assumptions) through a number of avenues including protests, litigation, internal factions, and the institutions’ changing values, colleges and universities are expected to see substantial conflicts with angry backlash directed toward people of color (Chesler et al., 2005). Although progress is expected, “little attention may be devoted to the racism and sexism that are deeply embedded in the organization’s core mission, culture and technology (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 69). Institutions may not fully be aware or work toward addressing deeply ingrained
and structural racism that exists, thus the transitional stage is complete with “all the confusion and contradictions about race and gender relations that beset our society” (Chesler, et al, 2005, p.69).
Finally, the multicultural institution has made significant progress toward the removal of racism within all aspects of the institution, however Chesler and colleagues (2005) posit that no colleges or universities have reached this stage. Additionally, barriers toward the advancement and success of people of color within the institution no longer exist or are highly limited. Chesler and colleagues (2005) argue that this stage represents the ideal model, which will become clearer as more colleges and universities begin reaching the edges of this stage.
Embedded within each of these three stages are eight dimensions that evolve as the stages advance. In order to develop these dimensions, Chesler and colleagues (2005) drew and adapted frameworks from Terry (1981) and Chesler and Crowfoot (1990) to include: mission, culture, power, membership, social climate and social relations, technology, resources, and boundaries. The dimensions are “interdependent and generally reinforce one another to create, for the most part, orderly and predictable patterns of organizational dynamics and behavior” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 52). In other words, one dimension influences the outcomes of another and vice-versa. For example, if the mission of the institution changes to emphasize racial diversity, one would expect to see recruitment policy changes in the membership dimension or the demographics of the institution. To better understand these concepts, the following sections detail each of the eight organizational dimensions at length.
Mission
The mission of an institution “refers to the official and unofficial purposes of the
symbols or public images” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 54-55). Often reflected in the mission statement, this dimension may simply be displayed on official documents and promotional materials or it can be used heavily during organizational goal planning and in other institutional contexts. The mission is often developed by senior level administrators like college presidents or members of the board of trustees, and thus can evolve to address more current issues and
political context. However, mission statements are seldom revised and changed, and are
typically lofty in goal and purpose. More recently, colleges and universities have begun revising their mission statements to include diversity statements (Rowley, Hurtado, & Ponjuan, 2002). Indeed, this is a positive first step from the monocultural to the transitional stage, but perhaps equally, if not more importantly, action items and a commitment of resources regarding diversity must be coupled with the mission (Rowley et al., 2002).
Culture2
Culture exists in the core values, beliefs, and assumptions at an institution. It establishes how people should behave, from what is appropriate to wear to the norms regarding how
individuals communicate with each other. Culture is “often embodied in symbols, traditions, and public images” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 56). However, all colleges and universities maintain several different cultures that exist simultaneously and can come into conflict with each other. This clash is a common occurrence when the dominant culture collides with an alternative culture. Alternative cultures “may be rooted in racial, gender, religious, sexual orientation, or class traditions that differ from the dominant pattern, although they are generally marginalized or
2 It is critical to note that culture in this context concerns organizational culture. However, as
noted by Chesler and colleagues (2005), the organizational culture of a campus, institutional unit, program, and/or initiative may be focused on racial/ethnic culture – particularly if those tasked with operating an AANAPISI program are seeking to create an environment that embodies and
seen as less legitimate” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 56). Additionally, institutions may have varying cultures based on one’s role, i.e. faculty culture, staff culture, administrator culture, student culture, or an activist culture, athletic culture, scientific culture (Chesler et al., 2005). However, the core culture at a college or university often is a reflection of society at large. Indeed, Chesler and colleagues (2005) note that the goal of higher education is to prepare students “for full acceptance of and participation in the dominant culture, exemplified by the rhetoric of individual freedom and democratic governance” (p. 56). Thus, advancing a culture of racial diversity can be interpreted as “undermining the university’s cultural commitment to universalistic norms of academic excellence as defined in individualized, meritocratic, and Eurocentric terms” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 56).
This dominant culture is often operationalized throughout college procedures to include curriculum, tenure requirements, and retention practices. With regards to students, culture is commonly passed on to them in the classroom by faculty. Conflict can arise when faculty, who are predominately White, interact with students of color, where these different groups may have contrasting approach’s to communicating, which can result in cultural conflict and pressures on new populations.
Power
The power dimension of an institution refers to its “leadership composition and style and its decision-making structures and processes” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 58). These mechanisms create legitimacy and the ability for specific groups to govern, influence, or coerce the actions and behavior or other institution members. At most public institutions, the fiduciary and foundation of power are entrusted to either appointed or elected boards comprised of trustees, who reside outside of the organization. These boards typically resemble power structures found
in society, and are often comprised of business leaders and others with the capital to be
appointed or elected. Thus, cultural assumptions and practices of trustees generally do not focus on promoting racial or social justice (Chesler et al., 2005).
Boards often reserve day-to-day operations and policy control to college presidents, vice presidents, and provosts, where their power and operations is often located in an institution’s central offices. Although central offices often mirror bureaucratic organizational hierarchies, they rely on deans, department heads, and senior faculty to implement policies. Power in academic sectors is often decentralized with loose connections (Weick, 1976). Thus power, particularly to enact organizational change, is often difficult for faculty members to enact– except within their curriculum, research, and classrooms. Students often have little official power to influence large-scale decisions, however, students informal power has been effective in certain instances. Additionally, mid-level and lower-level staff members also maintain limited power in higher education.
Recently, some institutions have undergone changes in their power structures and developed diversity or minority affairs offices and programs. These offices are generally responsible for recruiting, counseling, and financial aid for students of color. Less commonly found, these offices may also be tasked with broader organizational responsibilities like affirmative action or reducing institutional racism. Chelser and colleagues (2005) detail seven factors that determine the success of these offices or programs with regards to reducing racism and embracing multiculturalism:
(1) whether the mission or goal statement of the university reflects the existence and purpose the office represents; (2) whether it is a staff office/position with little authority or power rather than a line office/position; (3) whether it is located in the central
administration but not also represented in each subunit of the system, and thus isolated from the places where most critical decisions are made; (4) whether it is staffed by people other than prestigious faculty members and thus has little significant impact on the
majority of the faculty; (5) whether its charge is to deal with social relationships and not with pedagogical and curricular change, and thus strikes at the margin but not at the heart of the academic enterprise; (6) whether it can influence the institution’s research program through incentives and thus carries significant intellectual power; and (7) whether
students—especially students of color—are involved in its formation, staffing, and ongoing functioning, and thus is likely to reflect their unique experiences of racism, sexism, classism, or heterosexism in the university and their visions of how things might be different (p. 60).
Membership
Membership patterns at a college or university often refer to the demographics of the population, and also the criteria and procedures to become a member or to participate at the institution. These processes include admissions/hiring, retention/tenure, and
advancement/promotion. Understanding that these procedures may privilege certain groups over others is imperative. Furthermore, having a substantial number of students, faculty, staff, and administrators from diverse backgrounds can help remove some from isolation and create a better campus climate. However, membership alone is not enough to ensure multiculturalism, there must be change in other organization dimensions.
Social Climate and Social Relations
The social climate and social relations “involve the degree and quality of associations and interactions among its members” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 62). This dimension concerns issues of
campus climate and racialized interactions to the character of relationships between and among students, faculty, staff, and administrators. A common situation often found at institutions concerns faculty and students of color and the “the relative absence of mentoring and sponsored access to important informal information about opportunities for funding, contacts with
influential people in a particular field of specialization, and local opportunities for participation in formal organizational activities” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 63). This lack of capital contributes to a systematic set of relationships where culture, power structure, and intellectual and social relations fail to provide meaningful cross-racial interactions, and how to live and work together at a multicultural institution and in society.
Technology
Chesler and colleagues (2005) refer to technology as the “means by which it converts raw materials into finished products” (p. 63). For example, pedagogical approaches, course
curriculum, and grading are used to develop college students into graduates. This process is the institution’s technology. More often than not, approaches to diversity and racial justice are not imbedded in these approaches, thus teaching and evaluating students can reinforce and privilege White experiences. Another example of technology involves the process of research and
scientific inquiry. Monocultural institutions understand research to be objective, where the researcher is removed from the object of study – in essence a semipositivist approach, while mischaracterizing other approaches as lacking objectivity or rigor. A multicultural institution will understand, appreciate, validate, and promote other methodologies and epistemologies. However, most institutions typically fall somewhere in-between these two approaches.
Resources
In order to implement diverse and multicultural initiatives, institutions require resources to ensure that processes are implemented. Resources refer to “monies, goods, materials, and people that constitute the raw materials an organization transforms into finished products or services and the people and materials needed to accomplish this transformation” (Chesler et al., 2005, p. 65).
Money is an important resource, not only as it is useful in realizing diversity activities, but it is also an indicator of institutional priorities based on its allocation. Furthermore, physical spaces and who or which campus units are given usage are critical resources. Knowledge and information is also considered a resource, as well as how that knowledge is produced and which knowledge is valued and relied upon by members of the institution. Student tuition is also a key financial resource. The ability for a student to pay tuition typically depends on the students’ family. Students of color tend to come from families with lower wealth than Whites, thus relying on different forms of financial aid. As institutions, through public and political pressure, reform their aid policies that are “race-neutral” in design, students of color are severely
impacted. Lastly, a college’s reputation is a symbolic reputation that helps to define the institution.
In efforts to acquire these resources, colleges confront a series of constraints and quandaries. Chesler and colleagues (2005) assert that external forces, including donors,
corporations, foundations, and government may demand that the institution deprioritize diversity and anti-racist efforts in efforts to acquire resources.
Boundaries
Institutional boundaries include physical connections made with surrounding
communities as well as symbolic networks that shape and define how the institution is involved or disengaged from societal issues. Chesler and colleagues (2005) argue that the approach a