does diversity make a difference?

Diversity

Difference?

Make a

Does

Three Research Studies on

Diversity in College Classrooms

American Council on Education AAUP American Association

of University Professors

Copyright © 2000

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle, NWWashington, DC 20036-1193

and

American Association of University Professors1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 500Washington, DC 20005-3465

This publication may be reproduced or transmitted, forpublic information, educational, and research purposesonly, so long as proper attribution is given to the publishers and authors.

This publication should be cited as:

Does Diversity Make a Difference? Three Research Studies on Diversity in College Classrooms.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education andAmerican Association of University Professors. 2000.

Additional copies of this report and an executive summarymay be obtained from <www.acenet.edu> or<www.aaup.org>.

Cover photograph by Jane Scherr.

AAUP

Diversity

Difference?

Make a

Does

Three Research Studies on

Diversity in College Classrooms

AcknowledgmentsThe research team would like to thank all of the social scientists fromaround the country involved with ACE’s Consortium on AchievingInclusion and Equity in Higher Education who provided advice and feedback on the various stages of the project—especially instrument development. Special thanks are also extended to Gary Orfield, HarvardCivil Rights Project; AAUP’s Committee L on Historically Black Institutionsand the Status of Minorities in the Profession; ACE’s Office of Minorities in Higher Education; the Association of American Law Schools; The Julian Samora Research Institute (JSRI) at Michigan State University forimplementing the mail survey and administering project finances;Macalester College; the Office of Measurement Services at the University of Minnesota; the Office of Multicultural and Academic Affairs at theUniversity of Minnesota; The University of Maryland Survey ResearchCenter for consultation on survey design; and The University of TexasOffice of Survey Research for administering the telephone follow-up. Our appreciation goes to ACE’s Publications Department, Kelly Stern, and especially to Charles Coffin, for their editorial support.

The research reported in this volume was made possible, in part, by supportfrom the Spencer Foundation and the Law School Admission Council (LSAC).The data presented, the statements made, and the views expressed are solelythe responsibility of the authors.

The Research Team for this project included:

Jonathan R. Alger, University of Michigan (formerly with the American Association of University Professors)

Jorge Chapa, Indiana University (formerly with the Julian Samora Research Institute)

Roxane Harvey Gudeman, Macalester College

Patricia Marin, American Council on Education

Geoffrey Maruyama, University of Minnesota

Jeffrey F. Milem, University of Maryland

José F. Moreno, Harvard University

Deborah J. Wilds, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (formerly with ACE’s Office of Minorities in Higher Education)

ACE/AAUP iii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. University Faculty Views About the Value of Diversity on Campus and in the Classroom by Geoffrey Maruyama and José F. Moreno . . . . . 9

TablesI.1: Institutional Values about Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

I.2: Departmental Values about Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

I.3: Effects of Diversity on Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

I.4: Negative Effects of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

I.5: General Campus-wide Student Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

I.6: Effects of Diversity on Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

I.7: Effects of Diversity on Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

I.8: Readiness for Diverse Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

I.9: Responses of White and Non-white Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

I.10: Comparison of Male and Female Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

I.11: Descriptive and Technical Information about Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

I.12: Correlations of Factor Score Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

I.13: Regression Results for Factor Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

AppendixesI.A: Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

I.B: Analyses Reducing the Number of Attitude Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

I.C: Analyses of Demographic and Background Differences in Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

I.D: Relations of Attitudes about Ethnic/Racial Diversity to Attitudes toward Other Types of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

I.E: Predicting Attitudes toward Diversity from Other Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

I.F: Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

I.G: Limitations and Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

II. College Missions, Faculty Teaching, and Student Outcomes in a Context of Low Diversity by Roxane Harvey Gudeman . . . . . . . . 37

Part 1: Content Analysis of Mission Statements of Top Selective Liberal Arts Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Part 2: Macalester College: Enacting Diversity in the Absence of Structural Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Part 3: Summary and Conclusion: The Case for Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table of Contents

iv DOES D IVERS ITY MAKE A D IFFERENCE?

TablesII.1: Excerpts from Sample Mission Statements from Selective Liberal Arts Colleges. . . . . . . 41

II.2: Core Values in Mission Statements of Top 25 (28) Liberal Arts Colleges. . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

II.3: Percent of Selective Liberal Arts Colleges that Include Each of Nine Core Values in Their Mission Statement, with and without Supplementary Materials . . . 43

II.4: Percentage of Classes of Five or More Students Containing NO Students of a Given Category, Spring 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

II.5: Percentage of Classes Taken by U.S. Students of Color in Which They Were a Solo, Spring 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

II.6: Nine Categories of Core Values Found in Mission Statements,with the Subcategories Included in Each, and Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

FiguresII.1: Percent of Faculty Who Judge the Institution to Hold Core Values

as High or Highest Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

II.2: Percent of Faculty Who Perceive Each Educational Goal as Essential or Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

AppendixII: Methodology Used in Analyzing the Mission Statements of the Top 25 (29)

National Liberal Arts Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

III. The Educational Possibility of Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic College Classrooms by Patricia Marin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

FigureIII: Working Hypothesis: The Educational Possibility of Interactive,

Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic College Classrooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

AppendixIII.A: Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

III.B: Faculty Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

III.C: Student Focus Group Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

III.D: Implications for Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

IV. Faculty Classroom Diversity Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

ACE/AAUP 1

Introduction

he dramatic transformation in the composition of the stu-dent population of America’s colleges and universities overthe past generation is unparalleled in the history ofWestern higher education. In the early 1960s, with theexception of students attending historically black collegesand universities, only a relative handful of Americans of

color went to college in the United States; today, upwards of one in fiveundergraduates at four-year schools is a minority.

The intensification of the civil rights movement and President Lyndon B.Johnson’s War on Poverty in the mid-1960s prompted the nation to respondto the reality that Americans of color did not have equal access to education,jobs, housing, or other valued resources. This inequality was built into thefabric of most social institutions—public and private. Many traditionally whitecolleges and universities, prodded by the concerns of their students, began torecognize their failure to extend educational opportunities to blackAmericans in particular. They also became aware of the many judicial decisionspertaining to equal educational opportunity. The most influential of thesewas the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of

Education, which ultimately led to the integration of many public school sys-tems. This multicultural revolution, which arose in large measure alongsidecollege and university efforts to recruit minority students, played a majorrole not only in the social and economic advancement of millions ofAmericans of color, but also in the contributions these individuals have madeto the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the nation.1

When white institutions first reached out to students and faculty of color,they did so in the belief that they would be the primary beneficiaries of thetraditional education the schools offered. Only slowly did white educatorsbegin to discover that they had as much to learn as to teach; that their histori-cal constituency—white Americans—also secured unexpected benefits fromeducation in a multicultural environment; and that the Socratic model oflearning by dialogue across similarities and differences of belief, theory, andexperience could be expanded to include race and ethnicity as valued formsof difference. Today, hundreds of colleges and universities recognize the edu-cational value of diversity and view student and faculty diversity as an essen-

TToday, hundreds of

colleges and universitiesrecognize the educa-

tional value of diversityand view student andfaculty diversity as anessential resource foroptimizing teaching

and learning.

2 DOES D IVERS ITY MAKE A D IFFERENCE?

tial resource for optimizing teaching and learning. Race-sensitive practices,initially introduced to redress past wrongs, have evolved into policies thatsupport essential educational goals—including, but not limited to, learningfrom dialogue across difference. Exercising a right that education institutionstraditionally have enjoyed—the right to determine what they wish to teachtheir students and how they wish to teach it—colleges and universities havetried to build multicultural learning communities.

In order to increase access and expand institutional diversity, many col-leges and universities have long engaged in such activities as the recruitmentof underrepresented students, high school mentoring and tutorial programs,articulation agreements with community colleges, need-based financial aidawards, and race-sensitive admissions policies. Tools such as these are indis-pensable to achieving a diverse campus environment.

Taking race and ethnic origin into account in admissions decisions is oneof the most controversial of these practices. Race-inclusive admissions wererecognized by the Supreme Court in its 1978 decision in Regents of the

University of California v. Bakke. In Justice Powell’s opinion, the Courtaffirmed universities’ right to consider race as one of a number of factors fordiversity that contributes to the “robust exchange of ideas.” The Court alsoindicated that such race-conscious affirmative action programs must be nar-rowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of diversity in higher educa-tion. Furthermore, the Court noted that education institutions are bestsuited to determine how to develop admission criteria that will maximize thelearning experience for all students.

In recent years, however, subsequent decisions by lower federal courts(such as the initial Fifth Circuit decision in Hopwood v. Texas), popular ref-erenda (such as Proposition 209 in California and Initiative 200 inWashington), and institutional policies responding to these two mandates(such as the University of Florida Board of Higher Education’s decision toend affirmative action in admissions) have called into question the diversityrationale as articulated in Bakke, resulting in cutbacks of race-consciousaffirmative action around the country. Many higher education faculty mem-bers and administrators are deeply concerned that abandonment of race-sensitive admissions and hiring, at a time when most minority groups con-tinue to be underrepresented in higher education, will severely limit campusdiversity and will undermine the learning environment for all students.

More recently, legal challenges to admissions policies have assertedindividuals’ “rights” to be selected without reference to race over institu-tions’ “rights” to create diverse communities with race-sensitive admissionspolicies. Yet, those policies were put in place to better fulfill institutions’educational goals for all students on campus. And Justice Powell’s Bakke

opinion recognized this interest of colleges and universities as warranted bythe Constitution.

Many higher educationfaculty members andadministrators are

deeply concerned thatabandonment of race-

sensitive admissions andhiring, at a time whenmost minority groups

continue to be underrepresented inhigher education, willseverely limit campus

diversity and will undermine the learning

environment for all students.

ACE/AAUP 3

For many years, institutions assumed that racial and ethnic diversity con-tributed to the “robust exchange of ideas on campus” without attempting toarticulate or examine the relationship between the two. The need for empiri-cal research on the actual educational impact of racial and ethnic diversity onthe learning environment has become clear in light of the recent challenges torace-conscious affirmative action policies. Accordingly, a team of researchersexamined the attitudes and experiences of faculty members, based on theirprofessional judgment as frontline educators, with regard to the impact ofracial and ethnic diversity on the teaching and learning experience. The stud-ies presented here indicate that racial and ethnic diversity on campus provideseducational benefits for all students—minority and white alike—that cannot beduplicated in a racially and ethnically homogeneous setting.

The studies in this monograph are representative of a developing body ofresearch that reports on whether faculty members and administrators at col-leges using race-sensitive admissions find that the resulting diversity actuallyhelps the institution achieve its educational goals. During the more than 20years that have passed since the Bakke decision, scholars have paid littleattention to faculty members’ and administrators’ experiences regarding theeducational impact of racial and ethnic diversity. Instead, research hasfocused either on access—the factors that increase or decrease the availabilityof a college education to minority students2—or adaptation—how students ofcolor adjust to a college environment, what their experiences and retentionrates are, and what kinds of support programs and campus climates theyface.3 Similarly, two comprehensive reviews of the literature on diversity 4

report that research tended, at least until 1997, to focus on the experiences ofstudents of color—how racial and ethnic diversity has increased on collegecampuses, which types of programs benefit students of color, how students ofcolor have benefited from such programs, and how institutions can createcampus climates that are supportive of students of color.

This research has expanded our understanding of how colleges and uni-versities best serve minority students, but empirical data on whether and howracial and ethnic diversity influences teaching methods, course content,learning environment, and overall academic quality remain scarce. In effect,the theory of diversity as a compelling interest (as articulated by JusticePowell in Bakke) created an opportunity and a need for institutions todemonstrate the educational benefits of racial and ethnic diversity from theeducator’s perspective. But researchers have not examined whether theexperts—college administrators and faculty members—actually find that diver-sity produces positive outcomes. Nevertheless, the limited scholarship thatdoes exist has consistently shown that racial and ethnic diversity has bothdirect and indirect positive effects on the educational outcomes and experi-ences of college students.5 For example, we know from faculty members andstudents themselves that cross-racial interaction and overall satisfaction with

The limited scholarshipthat does exist has

consistently shown thatracial and ethnic

diversity has both directand indirect positive

effects on the educational outcomes

and experiences of college students.


college are higher at more racially and ethnically diverse colleges and universi-ties6 and that racial and ethnic diversity has a direct positive influence on stu-dent outcomes and students’ beliefs about the quality of education theyreceived.7 Empirical evidence from both faculty and student reports of theirexperiences also indicates that an institution’s racial and ethnic diversity haspositive educational benefits for all students.8

This volume adds to these studies by examining the influence of racialand ethnic diversity on learning and teaching in the classroom. The paper byGeoffrey Maruyama and José F. Moreno reports and analyzes results of thefirst comprehensive, nationwide survey of major universities’ faculty mem-bers’ attitudes toward diversity at their institutions and in their own class-rooms. The findings indicate that there are good educational reasons foruniversities to recruit and admit a diverse student population. Faculty mem-bers said they believe that diversity helps all students achieve the essentialgoals of a college education; that white students suffer no adverse effectsfrom classroom diversity; that their institutions value racial and ethnic diver-sity; and that campus diversity is desirable and beneficial for all students andfaculty. More than 90 percent of faculty members indicated that a diverseclassroom environment diminishes neither student quality nor intellectualsubstance. A substantial number of teachers reported that they utilize stu-dent diversity to enrich their classes, and between one-third and one-half offaculty members cited positive benefits from diversity in the classroom.Perhaps the most striking and telling survey finding is that faculty membersstrongly believe that racially and ethnically diverse classrooms enrich theeducational experience of white students.

Roxane Harvey Gudeman considers faculty survey evidence similar toMaruyama’s and Moreno’s but from a different perspective, showing how thedefinition of educational efficacy at any particular institution is inextricablybound up with that institution’s mission, as are the tools perceived to beessential for accomplishing that mission. She demonstrates that selective lib-eral arts colleges, and, by extension, most colleges and universities, have awide range of educational goals, including academic excellence; learningdiverse perspectives from people of diverse races, ethnicities, and cultures;commitment to community; and personal and moral growth. The definitionof education and educational outcomes is not and ought not to be narrowed toany one of these, she argues, for such parochialism dramatically and danger-ously limits educational possibility.

Taking Macalester College as a particular case of the relationship betweenan institution’s mission and faculty perceptions of the college’s commitmentto the mission, faculty members’ personal commitment to that mission, andfaculty judgment as to whether a diverse environment enhances students’ edu-cational experience, Gudeman finds that diversity is judged to have great educational value and is inextricably bound to the college’s mission. At the

Perhaps the most striking and telling

survey finding is that faculty members strongly

believe that racially and ethnically diverseclassrooms enrich theeducational experience

of white students.

ACE/AAUP 5

same time, Macalester students are often unable to benefit from diversity in asmany as 40 percent of the college’s classes. Any institution—whatever the totalsize of its student body, and however much it values having diverse perspec-tives represented in the classroom—may find that too many of its discussion-sized classes will have no student of color, or at best a single student of colorenrolled. The inability to enact its mission, despite a nearly universal desire todo so, diminishes Macalester’s ability to fulfill its educational potential. This isthe result of insufficient diversity among Macalester’s student population.

If the behaviors and attitudes of the students and faculty membersPatricia Marin observed and cataloged at the University of Maryland are typi-cal of classrooms at other similar universities (and there is little reason tobelieve they are not) then barring higher education institutions from accessto a diverse student population denies them a singularly important tool forpreparing students for their own futures and for the future of our society.Marin’s conclusions suggest that faculty members who recognize and usediversity as an educational tool; who include content related to diversity intheir courses; who employ active learning methods; and who create an inclu-sive, supportive classroom climate can and do produce enhanced educationaloutcomes in classes comprising a racial and ethnic mix of students. And themore faculty members and students experience such multi-racial and multi-ethnic interactive classrooms, the more prepared they are to teach and inter-act in similar classrooms.

More than 150 years ago, America’s historically white colleges and uni-versities began to extend the promise of higher education to women andpeople of color. But for too long, these acts of inclusion were perceivedsimply as extending the educational opportunities enjoyed by majority whitemales to others. Now we know that education is a two-way exchange that ben-efits all who participate in the multicultural marketplace of ideas and perspec-tives. This new vision has supplanted an idea of education in whichdisciplinary and cultural experts transmit their privileged views to others—aperspective far more likely to have been held by people outside the academythan by those within colleges and universities themselves. Rarely haveAmerica’s great institutions of higher learning focused only on acquiring dis-ciplinary expertise. Rather, their missions have long included the educa-tional goals of personal, moral, and social development, as well as service tosociety, and they have valued in potential students a range of attributes thatbetoken openness to these characteristics of learning. Attention to multicul-tural learning extends the meaning of personal, social, and moral growth andimproves the capacity of colleges and universities to achieve their missions.

This country has benefited beyond measure from this new vision of what itmeans to learn and what it means to teach. Part of the evidence is a vibranteconomy, a rich array of social and political activists committed to civic partic-ipation, and the remarkable surge of productivity and creativity in our music,

Attention to multicultural learningextends the meaning of

personal, social, andmoral growth and

improves the capacity ofcolleges and universitiesto achieve their missions.


art, and literature. It is hoped that the studies presented here will furtherdemonstrate that racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom and on campus isessential to the continuation of these touchstones of a civilized nation.

ENDNOTES

1 Today, highly educated persons of color are more likely than white Americans tochoose service careers (Bowen & Bok, 1998).

2 See, for example, Allen, 1988; Gándara, 1995; Justiz, Wilson, & Bjork, 1994; Olivas,1985; Orfield & Miller, 1998; Rendon, 1989.

3 See, for example, Astin, 1993; Cabrera & Nora, 1996; Hurtado, 1992, 1994; Nettles,Thoeny, & Gosman, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Smith, 1989.

4 Appel, Cartwright, Smith & Wolf, 1996 and Smith, 1997.

5 For extensive reviews of the developing literature, see Appel et al., 1996; Milem, 1997;Milem & Hakuta, 2000; Smith, 1997.

6 Astin, 1993; Chang, 1997; Gurin, 1999; Orfield & Whitla, 1999; Villalpando, 1994.

7 Gurin, 1999; Orfield & Whitla, 1999.

8 Appel et al., 1996; Milem, 1997; Milem & Hakuta, 2000; Smith, 1997.

REFERENCES

Allen, W. R. 1988, Summer. Improving black student access and achievement in highereducation. Review of Higher Education, 11(4), 403-416.

Appel, M., Cartwright, D., Smith, D. G. & Wolf, L. E. 1996. The impact of diversity on

students: A preliminary review of the research literature. A report commissioned for theFifth Annual Ford Foundation Campus Diversity Initiative.

Conference published in American Commitments: Diversity, Democracy, and Liberal

Learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges & Universities.

Astin, A. W. 1993. What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (with Shulman, J. L., Nygren, T. I., Dale, S. B., & Meserve, L.A.). 1998. The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in

college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Cabrera, A., & Nora, A. 1996. The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination onthe adjustment of minority students to college, Journal of Higher Education, 67(2),119-148.

Chang, M. J. 1997. Racial diversity: A compelling interest for higher

education. A paper commissioned by the Harvard Civil Rights Project for a conferenceon Diversity and Higher Education, Cambridge, MA, May 1997.

Gándara, P. 1995. Over the ivy walls: The educational mobility of low-income Chicanos.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

ACE/AAUP 7

Gurin, P. 1999. Expert report of Patricia Gurin. In The compelling need for diversity in

higher education, Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75231 (E.D. Mich.) and Grutter

et al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75928 (E.D. Mich.) (pp. 99-234). Ann Arbor, MI: TheUniversity of Michigan.

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996).

Hurtado, S. 1992. The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict, Journal of Higher

Education, 63(5), 539-569.

Hurtado, S. 1994. The institutional climate for talented Latino students, Research in

Higher Education, 35, 21-41.

Justiz, M. J., Wilson R., & Bjork, L. G. 1994. Minorities in higher education. Phoenix, AZ:ACE/Oryx Press.

Milem, J. F. 1997. Key educational outcomes of diversity for college and university faculty.

A paper commissioned by the Harvard Civil Rights Project for a conference onDiversity and Higher Education, Cambridge, MA, May 1997.

Milem, J. F., & Hakuta, K. 2000. The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher edu-cation. In D. Wilds (Ed.), Minorities in higher education: Seventeenth annual status

report (pp. 39-67). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Nettles, M., Thoeny, A., & Gosman, E. (1986). Comparative and predictive analyses ofblack and white students’ college achievement and experiences, Journal of Higher

Education, 57(3), 289-328.

Olivas, M. A. 1985. Financial aid packaging policies. Access and ideology. Journal of

Higher Education, 56, 462-475.

Orfield, G., & Miller, E. 1998. Chilling admissions: The affirmative action crisis and the

search for alternatives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Orfield, G., & Whitla, D. 1999. Diversity and legal education: Student experiences in lead-

ing law schools. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. 1991. How College Affects Students. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

Rendon, L. 1989, May. The lie and the hope: Making higher education a reality for at-riskstudents, AAHE Bulletin, 41(9), 4-7.

Smith, D. G. 1989. The challenge of diversity: Involvement or alienation in the Academy?

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5. Washington, DC: School of Educationand Human Development, The George Washington University.

Smith, D. G. (with Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore,L. C., Merchant, P. A., Beliak, H. D., & Figueroa, B.) 1997. Diversity works: The

emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, DC: Association of AmericanColleges and Universities.

Villalpando, O. 1994. Comparing the effects of multiculturalism and diversity on minority

and white students’ satisfaction with college. A paper presented at the annual meetingof the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ, November 1994.

ACE/AAUP 9

ost American colleges and universities have held thatall students benefit when campuses reflect a broadrange of intellectual and social perspectives, and thatattracting a diverse student population is an importantpart of establishing an environment that broadens stu-dents’ perspectives. Yet certain individuals and groups

have challenged the use of admissions practices designed to achieve a diversestudent body on the grounds that such practices favor students of color anddiscriminate against specific white applicants. Even though the college par-ticipation rates of students from various ethnic and racial groups havereflected historical patterns of discrimination and disproportionate alloca-tion of resources, courts have ruled that those patterns may not be used tojustify diverse student bodies. Courts also have limited the ability of collegeadmissions policies to favor individuals from particular groups in order toremedy those patterns. They have disallowed arguments drawn from past actsor even patterns of discrimination, permitting remedies that may favor sub-groups only for practices that disadvantage current students from those sub-groups (e.g., Alger, 1998). As a result, much uncertainty surrounds colleges’and universities’ efforts to achieve diversity within their student bodies.

This uncertainty highlights a key diversity-related controversy inAmerican higher education: How does a public university decide whom toadmit and whom not to admit? Groups that have challenged admissions deci-sions have used objective information such as standardized test scores andhigh school class rank to argue that admissions policies are not fair. Collegeadmissions decisions, however, are more complex than that; they take intoaccount an array of student background variables, potentially including par-ents’ educational attainment, socioeconomic status, urban/suburban/ruralhome, region of the state and country, the secondary school’s reputation,students’ engagement and accomplishment in non-curricular activities, aswell as students’ cultural, ethnic, and racial background. Finally, and per-haps most important, colleges and universities typically seek to enroll a stu-dent body that reflects their core beliefs and values.

University Faculty Views About the Value of Diversity on Campusand in the Classroom

An earlier version of this paper

(Maruyama & Gudeman) was

presented at the conference,

“Educating All of One Nation,”

in Albuquerque, New Mexico,

in October 1999. The opinions

expressed in this paper are those

of the authors and should not be

viewed as representing the views

of the authors’ institutions. A

version of this paper with addi-

tional technical information is

available from the authors.

MGEOFFREY MARUYAMA, PH.D. and JOSÉ F. MORENO

Geoffrey Maruyama is Professorof Educational Psychology andAssistant Vice President forMulticultural and AcademicAffairs at the University ofMinnesota. José F. Moreno is cur-rently finishing his doctorate inAdministration, Planning, &Social Policy, concentrating inHigher Education, at the HarvardGraduate School of Education.


Institutions articulate goals tied totheir underlying values and aligntheir admissions policies to attractstudents who share those values.Those values and aspirations arearticulated at the level of the univer-sity and are expressed in personalinteractions as well as classroom andcommunity experiences. Universitieshave long valued diversity. In fact,diverse views are the backbone ofuniversities, for they stimulate new ideas and creations (see, e.g.,Gudeman, in press). The belief thatknowledge or understanding flour-ishes best in a climate of vigorousdebate dates back to the Socratic tra-dition, but it is also a part of currentmulticultural and post-modern per-spectivism (Haskell, 1996; Nussbaum,1997). For hundreds of years, col-leges and universities have operatedon the premise that knowledge isbest organized within disciplinarycommunities of experts and thatthese communities are enriched bydebating alternative ideas whileengaged in skepticism, scrutiny, andconstructive criticism. Over time, asthe academy has become morediverse, basic assumptions of the dis-ciplinary model—such as neutrality,objectivity, and common truth—havebeen subjected to debate andscrutiny. Critical examination ofassumptions is more likely in diversegroups where many assumptions arenot held in common. Different popu-lations can offer valuable and uniqueperspectives, both within and acrosscommunities. Thus, one goal is toprovide students (and faculty mem-bers) with opportunities to move

beyond their taken-for-granted or“commonsense” perspectives byexposing them to the experiencesand ideas of others.

Recent research provides empiricalsupport for the value of diversity inthe academic and social developmentof college students. A good summaryof this literature can be found inPatricia Gurin’s (1999) expert reportfor the University of Michigan inresponse to lawsuits deriving fromcollege and law school admissionspractices (see also Milem & Hakuta,2000). Gurin suggests that democ-racy in the United States has beencharacterized by homogeneity andcommon identity, where people ofcommon backgrounds and beliefscome together, rather than by diver-sity, where heterogeneity of back-grounds, perspectives, and identitiespredominates. In the latter type ofdemocracy, groups need to forgealliances that respect competing per-spectives. Gurin argues that today,leaders need skills that allow them towork effectively in heterogeneousenvironments. These skills includeperspective-taking, acceptance of dif-ferences, a willingness and capacity tofind commonalities among differ-ences, acceptance of conflict asnormal, conflict resolution, participa-tion in democracy, and interest in thewider social world. Students typicallycome to college without many ofthose skills. Whether they acquirethem in college depends on theopportunities they have to addressissues and build skills in heteroge-neous groups.

The belief that knowledge or under-

standing flourishes bestin a climate of vigorousdebate dates back to the

Socratic tradition,but it is also a part ofcurrent multicultural

and post-modern perspectivism.

ACE/AAUP 11

Gurin (1999) focuses on threetypes of diversity: structural diversity,

or the extent to which a campus has adiverse student body; classroom

diversity, or the extent to whichclasses address knowledge aboutdiverse groups and issues of diversityas part of the curriculum; and informal interactional diversity,

or the extent to which the campusprovides opportunities for informalinteraction across diverse groups.Gurin found that structural diversitymakes issues of diversity salient andincreases students’ participation indiversity workshops, their likelihoodof discussing racial and ethnic issues,their socializing across race, andtheir having close college friendsfrom other racial backgrounds.Drawing from contact theory (e.g.,Allport, 1954), she found that struc-tural diversity was necessary but notsufficient to produce benefits. Thatis, the overall differences in level ofintergroup contact occurred becausein many instances, the diverse stu-dent body was coupled with class-room and informal interaction toproduce the benefits. Gurin’s analy-sis of the literature on learning out-comes found that classroom andinformal diversity interactionsincreased active thinking, academicengagement, motivation, and aca-demic and intellectual skills. Theresults were particularly strong forwhite students. Paralleling the aca-demic gains were greater involve-ment in citizenship activities, greaterappreciation for differences as com-patible with societal unity, andgreater cross-racial interaction.

Follow-up studies found that theeffects lasted as long as nine yearsafter the students entered college.

Gurin makes a compelling case forthe value of diversity in preparingindividuals to succeed in the midst ofcurrent global realities. To prepareleaders and effective citizens, univer-sities ought to provide an environ-ment where students can acquirethese necessary skills, many of whichare difficult to teach or learn withoutdiversity. For that very reason, manyuniversities have embraced creationof a diverse campus environment as acore value.

However, two key questionsremain: First, to what extent havefaculty and staff internalized thediversity values of their universities?And second, do the values go beyondstructural diversity to classroom andinformal interactional diversity? Inother words, (1) do faculty membersat the nation’s universities embracevalues tied to diversity, so theybelieve that diversity improves theircampus environment and theirclasses, and (2) are they willing tochange the content and structure oftheir classes to provide an environ-ment where students can better pre-pare themselves better for aheterogeneous world? It is possiblethat campus diversity exerts its influ-ences passively, but data from Gurinand others argues otherwise. It ismore likely that benefits of diversityaccrue primarily from teachers’efforts to use it to enrich their classes,from their taking advantage ofserendipitous opportunities to capi-talize on diversity, and from campus


interactions that build upon diversity. If faculty members agree with the

values articulated here and structuretheir classes to benefit from existingdiversity, then diversity in the stu-dent body is important and shouldimprove the educational experiencesof all students. Alternatively, if fac-ulty members view diversity as eitherunimportant or irrelevant to teach-ing and learning, they are likely toignore it in their classes, with theresult that students probably willderive little (if any) benefit fromdiversity. If it is totally ignored,diversity may even have negativeeffects, with divergent viewsexpressed in class leading to conflictsand intergroup antagonisms that arenot addressed—let alone resolved.

Recent data collected by theHigher Education Research Institute(HERI) at UCLA support the viewthat faculty believe diversity is impor-tant but that some feel that underpre-pared students are admitted in thename of diversity (see, e.g., Milem &Hakuta, 2000). The survey of 55,000faculty respondents found that morethan 90 percent of faculty agreed that“a racially/ethnically diverse studentbody enhances the educational expe-rience of all students.” Almost 60percent thought that undergraduateeducation should “enhance students’knowledge of and appreciation forother ethnic/ racial groups.” At thesame time, however, almost 30 per-cent agreed that “promoting diver-sity leads to the admission of toomany underprepared students.”

This paper presents results of afaculty survey on diversity issues.

The survey was sent to a representa-tive national sample of college anduniversity faculty in the social sci-ences, humanities, education, andbusiness at Carnegie Research-Iinstitutions. Faculty were asked indepth about their views on diversity,because it was presumed that classcontent and class discussions in suchfields would include substantiveissues related to diversity and thatfaculty in such fields would be morelikely that other faculty members toview diversity topics as pertinent tocourse content. Research-I institu-tions were selected because they tendto be among the most selective instudent admissions and becauseelimination of race as a factor inadmissions is most likely to affect thediversity of their student bodies (e.g.,Bowen & Bok, 1998).1

In examining whether facultymembers believe that racial andethnic diversity in the classroomimproves the educational environ-ment and enhances student and fac-ulty learning, this study addresses thefollowing specific research questions:

1. Do faculty members believe thattheir institution values racial andethnic diversity?

2. If they agree that their institutionvalues diversity, does that valuepermeate down to the departmentsand individual faculty members?

3. What do faculty members believethe benefits and costs of diversityare?

4. Do they believe that diversity haslowered the quality of the institu-tion?

If faculty members view diversity as

either unimportant orirrelevant to teaching

and learning,they likely will ignore

it in their classes,with the result that

students will be likely to derive little (if any)benefit from diversity.

ACE/AAUP 13

5. Who do faculty members believebenefits from diversity?

6. Do faculty members’ beliefs aboutthe value of diversity affect theirclassroom behavior?

The analyses also examine how indi-vidual faculty members’ differencesin background and experiences arereflected in their responses.

SURVEY RESULTS ADDRESSING THE SIX RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Faculty members believe that theirinstitutions value racial and ethnicdiversity.

There is substantial agreementamong respondents that diversity isvalued at their institutions (TableI.1). For each question, respondentssupported diversity, with more thanhalf of the sample indicating“strongly agree/extremely impor-tant” or the next highest responseoption (viz., 5 or 4 on the 1 to 5 scale);fewer than 13 percent indicated“strongly disagree/not important” orthe next lowest response (viz., 1 or 2).2

Survey respondents were less posi-tive about the educational impor-tance of having diverse teachingassistants for their own courses, withonly 37.9 percent of respondentsindicating “4” or “5” and a meanresponse of 2.95.

• Faculty members say that althoughtheir departments value diversity lessstrongly than their institutions as awhole, their departments are as com-mitted to improving the environment forall students as their institutions.

Although faculty members in generalagree that creating a diverse campuscommunity is articulated as an insti-tutional value, results at the depart-mental and individual faculty levelmight vary more from department todepartment, depending in part onthe relative presence or absence ofstudents of color. Prior research isconsistent with such a view. Forexample, Mingle (1978) found thatfaculty perceptions of the impact ofincreased African-American enroll-ment tended to be more localized.That is, faculty members were more

Table I.1

Institutional Values about Diversity

Institutional Value N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

Diverse campus environment 533 3.68 12.8 58.7is a high priority.

Committed to enhancing 541 3.86 13.1 69.8climate for all students.

Extracurricular activities that 507 3.94 9.7 75.2promote cultural awareness.

Importance of having a 543 3.88 9.9 68.9diverse student body.

Importance of faculty 543 3.73 12.2 62.2diversity.

All responses are on a scale of 1 to 5. For the first three items, the anchors are 1, “Strongly disagree,”and 5, “Strongly agree,” while for the final two items, the anchors are 1, “Not important/irrelevant,” and 5,“Extremely important.”

Table I.2

Departmental Values about Diversity

Departmental Value N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

Diverse campus environment 533 3.31 27.2 47.5is a high priority.

Committed to enhancing 544 3.87 13.1 69.3climate for all students.

All responses are on a scale of 1 to 5. The anchors are 1, “Strongly disagree,” and 5, “Strongly agree.”


aware of the impact of African-American enrollment within theirdepartments than on the institutionas a whole. Our data reinforce thisconclusion. As Table I.2 shows, fac-ulty members say that their depart-ments’ values about the importanceof a diverse campus environment areheld less strongly than institutionalvalues. To the extent that a depart-ment has few if any students of color,it should be difficult for faculty toagree that diversity is a high priority.At the same time, as long as theyattend to the needs of the few stu-dents of color, they can say that their departments are strongly com-mitted to enhancing the climate forall students.

• The vast majority of faculty membersindicate that neither the quality of stu-dents nor the intellectual substance ofclass discussion suffers from diversity,and from one-third to one-half of fac-ulty members cited positive benefits ofdiversity in the classroom.

Table I.3 provides information aboutthe classroom effects of diversity.(The sample sizes differ across itemsbecause the referents vary.) Althoughresponses varied appreciably, asTable I.3 shows, a substantial numberof respondents agreed that classroomdiversity broadened the range of per-spectives shared in classes, exposedstudents to different perspectives,and encouraged students to confronta range of stereotypes, includingracial, ethnic, social, political, andpersonal experience. The most affir-mative responses were to questionsabout broadening perspectivesshared, while the least agreementwas found in response to questionsabout raising new issues and con-fronting substantive stereotypes.Only about one-third of respondentsagreed that racial and ethnic diver-sity increased confrontation of sub-stantive issues—a level of agreementmuch lower than for the other issues.Finally, comparison of the first andlast items in Table I.3 shows that, by asmall margin, faculty believed thatthe more diverse the class, the morefrequently students raised new issuesand perspectives.

Two additional items asked facultymembers to compare the amount ofsubstantive discussion of race andethnicity in their most and leastdiverse classes and the likelihood ofstudents incorporating relevant

Table I.3

Effects of Diversity on Classrooms

Effects on Classrooms N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

Raises new issues 521 2.73 43.8 30.4and perspectives.

Broadens variety of 504 3.77 25.2 51.4experiences shared.

Confronts stereotypes on 408 3.09 29.4 43.4social and political issues.

Confronts stereotypes on 408 3.13 29.2 45.1racial and ethnic issues.

Confronts stereotypes on 412 2.92 36.2 35.7substantive issues.

Confronts stereotypes tied to 397 3.13 28.5 44.9personal experiences.

Interactions expose students 461 3.01 33.6 36.4to different perspectives.

Allows broader variety of 478 3.45 20.5 54.1experiences to be shared.

Raises new issues and 476 3.01 34.9 40.3perspectives (specific to a particular diverse class).

All responses were on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Never” and 5, “All the time.” “Percent” is percentage ofrespondents who answered with a response of 1 to 5, not of the total sample. The first two items ask about allclasses, the next four about diverse as compared to homogeneous classes, and the final three about the classthat has the most student interaction.

ACE/AAUP 15

racial and ethnic issues in theirassignments. Responses were similarto those that appear in Table I.3, withmeans of 2.79 and 2.97, respectively,and with 35.0 percent and 38.5 per-cent, respectively, of respondentsselecting categories “4” or “5.”3

Table I.4 shows data on possiblenegative effects of increasing diversityon campus. Evidence is largely anec-dotal, but various authors over thepast decade have asserted that thequality of institutions has been dilutedby racial and ethnic diversity and thatacademic communities have created a“zone of silence” in which discussionsare suppressed by a climate of “politi-cal correctness” (e.g., Wilson, 1995).As Table I.4 shows, faculty membersindicated little agreement with any ofthe statements. Even the item thatgenerated the most agreement—thathaving to do with the quality of thestudent body—gained concurrencefrom less than 10 percent of facultyrespondents. Clearly, faculty mem-bers do not believe that diversityimpedes substantive discussions, creates tension and arguments, orcompromises institutional quality.

• Faculty members believe that diversityhelps all students achieve the essentialgoals of a college education and thatwhite students suffer no adverse effectsfrom classroom diversity.

As Table I.5 indicates, more thantwo-thirds of faculty respondentsinidcated that students benefit fromlearning in a racially and ethnicallydiverse environment, both withrespect to exposure to new perspec-tives and in terms of willingness toexamine their own personal perspec-

Table I.4

Negative Effects of Diversity

Negative Effects N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

Has lowered the quality of 534 1.70 84.7 6.0the institution.

Has lowered the quality of 530 1.81 81.7 8.9the students.

Impedes discussion of 517 1.40 90.9 2.3substantive issues.

Creates tension and arguments. 519 1.59 85.4 2.3

All responses are on a scale of 1 to 5. For the first two items, 1 was “Strongly disagree” and 5, “Strongly agree,”while for the last two items, 1 was “Never” and 5, “All the time.” “Percent” is percentage of respondents whoanswered with a response of 1 to 5, not of the total sample.

Table I.5

General Campus-wide Student Benefits

Student Benefits N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

General importance for all students of intergroup interactions:Important for developing 491 3.03 38.5 42.2critical thinking.

Important for developing 455 3.27 29.0 46.8student leadership.

Important for developing 483 3.83 16.8 69.8willingness to examine own perspectives.

Important for exposing 494 3.84 16.4 70.7students to new perspectives.

Effects of diversity on white students:On the issues they consider. 423 3.67 3.1 57.9

On the issues they 408 3.41 2.5 37.2research in class.

On how they collaborate on 372 3.48 4.3 43.5group projects.

On how they read course 410 3.50 2.0 42.9materials.

All items are on a scale of 1 to 5. For the first four items, 1 was “Strongly disagree” and 5, “Strongly agree,”while for the last four items, 1 was “Very negatively” and 5, “Very positively.” “Percent” is percentage of respon-dents who answered with a response of 1 to 5, not of the total sample.

tives. Substantial numbers of facultymembers also said that diversity pro-vides interactions important fordeveloping critical thinking and lead-ership skills. One way to think aboutexamining perspectives, buildingleadership skills, and developing crit-ical thinking abilities is to view themas reflecting learning outcomes—thevery goals of higher education and,more specifically, of liberal arts edu-cation. So it is fair to conclude thatfaculty respondents believe diversityhelps achieve many of the key objec-tives of a college education.

The remaining four items in TableI.5 focus on the effects of diversity onwhite students. For the most part,faculty members believe that diver-sity reshapes the issues white stu-dents consider, how they read classmaterial, what they choose to doresearch and class projects on, andhow they collaborate in class. WhatTable I.5 also shows that fewer than5 percent of faculty respondents indi-cated that racial and ethnic diversityin classes adversely affects white stu-dents.

• Faculty members report that diversityin classes and research teams affectstheir views and increases their learning.

Table I.6 summarizes faculty mem-bers’ attitudes toward the effects ofstudent and faculty diversity on theresearch that they and their studentsconduct. More than half of the facultyrespondents agreed that their viewsabout diversity were affected by havingdiverse classrooms and that diversityin research teams increased theirlearning. A substantial proportion offaculty members also agreed that stu-dents in diverse classes choose differ-ent topics for research. However, onlya small proportion of respondents saidthat diverse classes affected their ownresearch, and only about one in tenagreed that diversity among the fac-ulty affected their research.

• Faculty members report that studentand faculty diversity has not led them tomake many changes in their classroompractices.

As Table I.7 shows, faculty respon-dents said that they did not changetheir classroom practices much inresponse to student diversity, andthey changed them even less inresponse to faculty diversity. A littlemore than one-third of faculty mem-bers said that a more racially and eth-nically diverse class leads students toraise issues related to diversity, andslightly less than one-third said thatthe presence of diverse students ledthem to adjust their course syllabus.Approximately one-quarter agreedthat they changed their teachingmethods to encourage discussion intheir classes, and about one in five


Table I.6

Effects of Diversity on Research

Effects on Research N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

Diverse classes affect research. 469 1.88 73.8 15.2

Diverse faculty affect research. 465 1.74 77.6 10.8

Diverse research team 362 3.24 29.3 51.9increases my own learning.

Views affected by class 499 3.79 3.8 58.7diversity.

Diversity leads students to work 364 2.93 41.5 40.1on different research topics.

Responses to the first two items range from 1, “Not at all” to 5, “Extensively”; for the third and fifth items,responses range from 1, “Strongly disagree” to 5, “Strongly agree” and for the fourth item, responses rangefrom 1, “Very negatively” to 5, “Very positively.” “Percent” is percentage of respondents who answered with aresponse of 1 to 5, not of the total sample.

ACE/AAUP 17

reported developing new courses.Finally, 18 percent reported that theyreexamined the criteria they used toevaluate students. Faculty diversity isless likely than student diversity toaffect faculty behaviors. The percent-age of faculty respondents that agreedwith the statements about facultydiversity ranged from 26 percent for“raising issues in class” to 11 percentfor “reexamining criteria for evaluat-ing students.”

Compared to some other findings,the impact of student diversity onfaculty respondents’ teaching wasmodest. Nevertheless, the responsesmay well be viewed as positive inso-far as they suggest that faculty mem-bers do not lower their standards orchange their grading patterns in theface of a more diverse student popu-lation. These findings do not differmuch from those reported by Mingle(1978) in his study of the impact ofAfrican-American enrollment at 12colleges and universities in the early1970s. Mingle reported that sevenout of ten faculty members felt that“Black minority issues, pressures, orconsiderations had altered their roleas faculty members ... ‘very little’”(p. 270). Only one in four facultymembers reported that “black con-tent” in courses and class discussionsof racial issues had increased. Eightand nine in ten faculty membersreported that their evaluation of stu-dent effort and class participation“remained the same,” respectively.

At the same time, one-fifth of faculty respondents in the presentstudy report developing new courses.In general, university curricula arestable, despite continuous changes

in content as new findings becomeavailable. However, one-fifth of faculty developing new courses constitutes substantial if not “massive” change for universities.

• Faculty report being well-prepared toteach and comfortable in teachingdiverse classes, yet only about one-thirdof them actually raise issues of diversityand create diverse work groups.

Table I.8 provides information abouthow prepared for and comfortablewith diversity faculty members feeland to what extent they initiate dis-cussions of race and have studentswork in diverse groups. Faculty

Table I.7

Effects of Diversity on Teaching

Effects on Teaching N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

Over the years, the presence of racially/ethnically diverse students in your classrooms has beena factor in prompting you to:

Raise racial/ethnic issues in 474 2.83 45.8 38.4your classes.

Adjust a course syllabus to 463 2.46 58.3 28.7include racial/ethnic issues.

Develop new course offerings. 443 2.15 71.1 18.5

Reexamine criteria for 468 2.13 68.8 18.4evaluation of students.

Change pedagogy to encourage 456 2.52 53.3 26.7discussion among students.

Over the years, the presence of racially/ethnically diverse faculty at your current institution has been a factor in prompting you to:

Raise racial/ethnic issues in 443 2.46 59.4 26.2your classes.

Adjust a course syllabus to 439 2.29 64.7 21.0include racial/ethnic issues.

Develop new course offerings. 426 2.11 71.4 16.5

Reexamine criteria for 447 1.98 74.5 11.4evaluation of students.

Change pedagogy to encourage 437 2.23 66.1 17.4discussion among students.

All responses are on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was “Strongly disagree” and 5, “Strongly agree.”


members reported feeling preparedfor and very comfortable in teachingand working in a racially and ethni-cally diverse environment. This mayaccount for their responses to thequestions summarized in Table I.7: Iffaculty members feel that theyaddress diversity and are comfortabledoing so, they are likely to feel littleneed to change. At the same time,because one-fifth of faculty reportalready developing new courses,much preparation may already haveoccurred. Approximately one-thirdof faculty respondents said they initi-ate discussions of race and assignstudents to diverse groups.

HOW BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICSOF RESPONDENTS ARE RELATED TOTHEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD DIVERSITY

These analyses looked at the rela-tionships of a range of backgroundcharacteristics to faculty attitudestoward diversity. Rather than pre-senting results for each measure,summary scores were constructed foritems from Tables 1 to 8. (A detaileddescription of the analyses used togenerate summary scores appears in

Appendix I.B, and a detailed descrip-tion of the analyses relating back-ground characteristics to facultyattitudes appears in Appendix I.C.)

The only consistent pattern thatemerged for variables which a priori

were not predicted to be related todiversity is that more senior facultymembers (in terms of years of experi-ence and rank) were found to besomewhat less positive about thevalue of diversity and less likely toaddress issues of diversity.4 For indi-vidual characteristics (such as racialbackground, gender, and politicalviews) and individual difference vari-ables tied to experiences, the expecta-tion was that experience wouldchange faculty responses and/or thatfaculty members with different valuesand backgrounds would seek differentsettings. If so, individual characteris-tics would be expected to be related toattitudes toward diversity issues.5

As Table I.9 shows, faculty ofcolor view the climate for diversity asless positive; see the benefits ofdiversity on classrooms, students,teaching, and research as more posi-tive; feel better prepared to deal withdiversity; and say they are morelikely to address issues of diversity.

Gender difference results weresimilar to ethnic and racial back-ground results. As Table I.10 (page20) shows, women faculty membersrated the institutional climate lessfavorably; saw fewer negative effectsof diversity; indicated a more posi-tive attitude about the effects ofdiversity on classrooms, students,and research; and addressed issues ofdiversity more often in their classes.

Table I.8

Readiness for Diverse Environment

Readiness N Mean Percent Percent “1” or “2” “4” or “5”

Prepared to teach/work. 547 3.99 8.8 71.1

Comfortable teaching/working. 545 4.39 1.8 86.2

Initiate discussion of race 543 2.82 42.4 36.4in classes.

Students work in diverse groups. 513 2.73 44.6 33.5

Responses for the first two items range from 1, “Not prepared (Not comfortable),” to 5, “Very prepared (Verycomfortable),” and for the last two items from 1, “Never,” to 5, “Very often.”

ACE/AAUP 19

Respondents tended to hold liberalpolitical views. Ten percent describedthemselves as far left, 53 percent as liberal, 30 percent as moderate, 7 percent as conservative, and lessthan 1 percent as far right. Politicalviews were consistently related to thefactor scores. More liberal faculty sawless positive institutional values;identified fewer negative effects ofdiversity; gave greater importance todiversity; were more positive in theirviews about the effects of diversity onclasses, teaching, and students; andreported addressing diversity moreoften in their teaching.6

Faculty experiences with diversityat their institutions were assessed

through questions such as the largestpercentage of students of color in aclass they had ever taught. Responsestended to be related positively withinstitutional values about diversity,importance of having a diverse popu-lation, departmental values aboutdiversity, positive effects on class-rooms, effects on research and teach-ing, and preparation for andaddressing issues of diversity in one’steaching. (See Appendix I.C for moredetailed analysis.)

In addition to questions aboutexperience in teaching in a diverseenvironment, the survey asked fac-ulty members what proportion ofstudents of color, in their opinion,

Table I.9

Responses of White and Non-white Faculty

Standard Standard t-valueFactor Group N Mean Deviation Error (significance)

Institutional values about diversity white 415 3.86 0.80 0.04 2.41non-white 71 3.61 0.91 0.11 (p <.05)

Importance of diverse population white 464 3.78 1.00 0.05 n.s.non-white 78 3.96 1.08 0.12

Departmental values about diversity white 451 3.61 0.99 0.05 n.s.non-white 77 3.47 0.97 0.11

Effects of diversity on classrooms white 289 3.18 0.98 0.06 -2.52non-white 57 3.54 1.01 0.13 (p <.05)

Negative effects of diversity white 447 1.76 0.93 0.04 n.s.non-white 75 1.61 0.95 0.11

Diversity benefits for all students white 362 3.46 1.15 0.06 -3.52non-white 71 3.98 1.07 0.13 (p<.01)

Diversity benefits for white students white 289 3.43 0.54 0.03 -3.34non-white 58 3.72 0.81 0.11 (p<.01)

Effects of diversity on research white 218 2.73 0.84 0.06 -3.11non-white 44 3.17 0.95 0.14 (p<.01)

Impacts of diversity on teaching white 314 2.23 0.97 0.05 n.s.non-white 54 2.45 1.11 0.15

Prepared to teach in diverse class white 467 4.11 0.84 0.04 -5.43non-white 78 4.69 0.52 0.06 (p<.01)

Address diversity in teaching white 435 2.67 1.25 0.06 -4.11non-white 77 3.32 1.39 0.16 (p<.01)

would constitute a diverse class.Thirty percent of respondents chosethe 16 percent to 25 percent cate-gory, while another 30 percentselected larger proportions and 40percent chose a smaller percentage.The larger the proportion of studentsof color believed to define a diverseclass, the more positive the attitudestoward diversity effects on class-rooms, diversity benefits for all stu-dents, diversity effects on teaching,and reported preparedness toaddress issues of diversity.

Responses to questions about fac-ulty participation in diversity-relatedactivities ranged from “no participa-tion in last 5 years” to “attendedworkshop or similar,” “taught or sim-

ilar on gender issues,” 7 and “taughtor similar on race/ethnicity issues.”8

Analyses of faculty attitudes com-paring the involvement of facultymembers with different levels ofexperience in diversity-related activi-ties found differences betweengroups on most dimensions. Theonly dimensions where significantdifferences were not found wereimportance of a diverse populationand departmental values about diver-sity. Faculty members more involvedin diversity issues viewed institu-tional values as less positive(although still positive); saw fewernegative effects of diversity; per-ceived effects of diversity on classes,students (all and white), research,


Table I.10

Comparison of Male and Female Responses

Standard Standard t-valueFactor Gender N Mean Deviation Error (significance)

Institutional values about diversity Male 300 3.89 0.77 0.04 2.28Female 183 3.72 0.88 0.07 (p<.05)

Importance of diverse population Male 340 3.79 1.00 0.05 n.s.Female 200 3.84 1.05 0.07

Departmental values about diversity Male 332 3.63 0.91 0.05 n.s.Female 192 3.52 1.11 0.08

Effects of diversity on classrooms Male 208 3.05 1.03 0.07 -4.41Female 137 3.52 0.88 0.07 (p<.01)

Negative effects of diversity Male 323 1.88 0.97 0.05 4.73Female 196 1.50 0.77 0.05 (p<.01)

Diversity benefits for all students Male 259 3.36 1.18 0.07 -4.21Female 172 3.83 1.05 0.08 (p<.01)

Diversity benefits for white students Male 217 3.37 0.55 0.04 -4.26Female 130 3.65 0.65 0.06 (p<.01)

Effects of diversity on research Male 163 2.72 0.85 0.07 -2.30Female 98 2.97 0.89 0.09 (p<.05)

Impacts of diversity on teaching Male 239 2.19 0.94 0.06 n.s.Female 128 2.38 1.07 0.09

Prepared to teach in diverse class Male 342 4.18 0.84 0.05 n.s.Female 200 4.21 0.79 0.06

Address diversity in teaching Male 323 2.49 1.22 0.07 -6.68Female 186 3.25 1.27 0.09 (p<.01)

ACE/AAUP 21

and teaching as more positive; feltmore prepared to teach in diverseclasses; and reported addressingracial and ethnic issues more.

The analyses reported in this sec-tion (and in Appendix I.C) cover arange of background and experiencevariables, most of which show pat-terns of findings consistent withexpectations. In sum, women facultymembers, more liberal faculty mem-bers, and faculty members of colorhave more positive views of diversity,while full professors and facultymembers with more years of teach-ing experience are less likely toaddress issues of diversity in theirteaching. Faculty members morefavorably disposed toward diversityissues tend to see their institutions asvaluing diversity less strongly.Faculty members who have taughtmore diverse classes are more posi-tively disposed toward issues ofdiversity, as are faculty members whohave had more experience withissues of diversity.

HOW CLASS STRUCTURE IS RELATEDTO ATTITUDES TOWARD DIVERSITY

According to both contact theory(e.g., Allport, 1954) and the predic-tions of Gurin (1999) based on theimportance of classroom and infor-mal interaction, classes that involvemore student interaction should pro-duce more benefits of diversity. IfAllport’s and Gurin’s views are cor-rect, lecture-centered or otherteacher-centered methods offermuch less opportunity for the bene-fits of diversity to be realized. We

would expect faculty members usingthese techniques to hold less favor-able views about diversity. Suchviews could exist for many reasons(some more likely than others). Forexample, if individual faculty mem-bers believe that classroom interac-tions are not central to learning, theylikely would not be proponents ofdiversity because they do not see itsvalue generally, let alone withrespect to ethnic and racial diversity.If individual faculty members do notgive themselves an opportunity tosee the benefits of student interac-tions because of their need to “con-trol” the classroom environment,they may not give themselves theopportunity to see benefits of stu-dent diversity. Or, if they simply feeluncomfortable in such a setting, theymay simply avoid it altogether.

According to the survey, there issubstantial variability in how facultyrespondents structure their classes.Faculty members reported spendingabout half of their time on lecture,one-third on student-centered orteacher-student shared whole classactivities, one-fifth on small groupactivities, one-tenth on individualstudent work, and one-fifth more onother activities.9 Faculty memberswho reported spending more timelecturing reported more negativeeffects of diversity and were less posi-tive in their views about the benefitsof diversity on classrooms, students(all students and white studentsalike), research, and teaching.Faculty members who spent moreclass time on activities in whichteachers and students shared respon-


sibility and student-centered, wholeclass activities saw fewer negativeeffects of diversity and respondedmore favorably regarding positiveeffects of diversity on classes, stu-dents (all and white), and research.Their ratings of teaching also weresomewhat more positive.

VIEWS ABOUT ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIVERSITY AND OTHER TYPES OF DIVERSITY

Finally, faculty members were askedhow important they thought varioustypes of diversity were “in contribut-ing to the quality of learning in yourclassrooms.” The types of diversityincluded gender, U.S. races and eth-nicities, international, work experi-ences, age, academic majors, careergoals, religion, socio-economicstatus, and region of the country. Ona scale of 1 (“not important”) to 5(“very important”), averageresponses were 3.54 for diverse workexperiences, 2.58 for religious diver-sity, 3.36 for ethnic and racial diver-sity, and 3.29 for gender diversity.Analyses of the relationship of ethnicand racial diversity to other types ofdiversity found faculty views aboutethnic and racial diversity stronglytied to views about other types ofdiversity. That is, beliefs about ethnicand racial diversity are related tomore general beliefs about the impor-tance of colleges being places wherediverse perspectives are broughttogether (see Appendix I.D).

USING FACULTY MEMBERBACKGROUNDS TO PREDICT ATTITUDES TOWARD DIVERSITY

Even though the analyses reportedabove show that a number of back-ground characteristics are related tofaculty members’ attitudes towarddiversity, they do not address thequestion of which relationshipsseem most important or of whetherdifferent analyses simply report thesame findings for different variables.The 12 background variables thatwere related most consistently to theattitude measures were looked atsimultaneously. These backgroundvariables were strongly related to theextent to which faculty addressissues of diversity in their teaching,to the effects of diversity on classes,and to positive effects of diversity,but less strongly to institutional anddepartmental values about diversity,to negative effects of diversity, andto perceived importance of diversepopulations (see Appendix I.E for details).

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Overall, the survey results supportthe view that faculty members atResearch-I universities value diver-sity and that many faculty membersadjust their classes to take advantageof diversity to enhance the learningprocess.10 Substantial numbers of fac-ulty members seem to be making useof student diversity to enrich their

Beliefs about ethnic andracial diversity are

related to more generalbeliefs about the

importance of collegesbeing places where

diverse perspectives arebrought together.

ACE/AAUP 23

classes; campus diversity is seenwidely as desirable and as beneficialto all students and teachers; and vir-tually no faculty members believedthat diversity had negative effects ontheir institutions or classes. That fac-ulty respondents said that white stu-dents benefit from diversity is aparticularly interesting and impor-tant finding.

It is notable that even when anumber of background characteris-tics of faculty members are used aspredictors, only about 10 percent ofthe variance in faculty perceptionsabout diversity as an institutionalvalue is explained. This suggests thatthe general acknowledgment of insti-tutional values about diversity is notstrongly tied either to political atti-tudes or to faculty demographics. Atthe same time, the modestly higherratings from faculty of color andwomen suggest that as the academybecomes more diverse, support fordiversity will grow.

Finally, although faculty respon-dents viewed ethnic and racial diver-sity as relatively important (based onthe mean response) compared toother types of diversity, they did notgreatly differentiate ethnic and racialdiversity from the other types (basedon its correlation with other types ofdiversity). These results suggest that

faculty members believe that anumber of types of diversity areimportant and that their views aboutethnic and racial diversity reflect abroader commitment to creating adiverse campus environment. Insuch an environment, students arechallenged to reflect upon theirbeliefs; to interact with others hold-ing diverse perspectives, understand-ings, and expectations; and to workeffectively with dissimilar others(e.g., Gurin, 1999). Insofar asresearch evidence argues for the ben-efits of diversity to student develop-ment, universities will want to makethose benefits available to their stu-dents. Thus, a major challenge forinstitutions that believe that attract-ing students who hold diverse per-spectives enriches their communitiesis to determine how to articulatetheir admissions criteria so they canadmit students who will contribute tothe growth of their institutions, stu-dents, and communities.

Insofar as research evidence argues for

the benefits of diversityto student development,

universities will want to make those

benefits available to their students.


National Sample of Faculty

The study sample consisted of 1,500 randomlyselected full-time faculty in five areas—education,humanities, social sciences, business, and inter-disciplinary programs—at Carnegie ClassifiedResearch-I institutions. The sample was drawn from adatabase of CMG Direct Corporation, a nationalvendor of mailing lists used by many academic surveys.The database contains complete contact informationon approximately 600,000 college and university fac-ulty members. Once the sample of 1,500 was drawn,the list was reviewed to ensure that only faculty in the five predetermined academic areas were included.The final sample included 140 business faculty mem-bers, 119 education faculty members, 228 humanitiesfaculty members, 635 interdisciplinary faculty mem-bers, and 378 social science faculty members, for atotal sample of 1,500 full-time faculty members.11

Research-I universities were targeted for three pri-mary reasons: (1) over the past five years, legal andpolicy challenges to affirmative action in admissionshave focused on Research-I institutions (University ofCalifornia, University of Florida, University ofMichigan, University of Texas, and the University ofWashington); (2) Research-I institutions tend to beamong the most selective institutions in terms of stu-dent admissions and, as a result, are more likely to beaffected by the abolition of affirmative action; and (3) faculty at these institutions are responsible for both teaching and research and tend as a group tohave experienced similar training during their graduate programs.

The Faculty Classroom Diversity Questionnaire,developed by a team of researchers under the leader-ship of the American Council on Education and theAmerican Association of University Professors, wasused to collect data. The draft questionnaire wasreviewed and subjected to focus group and conven-tional pretesting by survey research methodologists atthe University of Maryland’s Survey Research Center.In accordance with recommendations from the SurveyResearch Center, the questionnaire was pretested with

135 faculty members at a midwestern liberal arts col-lege. Final revisions were then made.

The first mailing included the instrument and aletter describing the purpose and intended use of thesurvey. Confidentiality of participants would be guar-anteed, and a summary of the results was offered tointerested participants upon request. Participantsreceived the first mailing at the beginning of the spring1999 semester. Two weeks after the packet was sent,postcards were mailed to remind participants to com-plete and return the survey. A final mailing, about fourweeks after the first, consisted of another reminder aswell as a second copy of the survey. Postage-paid returnenvelopes were included in each survey mailing. Themailing response rate was 30 percent, with 369 surveyscompleted and returned.

In order to increase the response rate, telephonefollow-ups for non-respondents were conducted bytrained interviewers at the Office of Survey Research atthe University of Texas, Austin, beginning in April1999. Telephone follow-ups resulted in the completionof 203 telephone surveys. As a result of the mailing andtelephone follow-ups, 290 faculty members weredeemed ineligible because of incorrect information(they were retired, not employed full time, etc.). Thus,our final sample size was 1,210 faculty members.Taking into account the mailing and telephone follow-ups, our final survey response rate was 47 percent.

Demographics of the sample

Eighty-five percent of respondents were white, and 94percent worked full time. With respect to race/ethnic-ity, the remaining faculty included 26 (5 percent)African Americans, 19 (4 percent) Latinos, 31 (6 per-cent) Asian Americans, and three (less than 1 percent)American Indians, with 25 (5 percent) not respondingor self-identifying as “other.” (Because of the rela-tively small numbers of respondents from individualethnic and racial groups, all analyses of such differ-ences compare only white faculty members’ responseswith the aggregate responses of faculty of color.)Twenty percent of respondents were born abroad, 17

APPENDIX I.A Methods

ACE/AAUP 25

percent received baccalaureate degrees from outsidethe United States, and 2 percent received their gradu-ate degrees from institutions outside this country.With respect to gender, 346 (63 percent) were male,and 205 (37 percent) were female; four respondentsdid not indicate their gender. With respect to currenttitles, respondents included 228 (42 percent) profes-sors, 159 (29 percent) associate professors, 91 (17 per-cent) assistant professors, 52 (10 percent)lecturers/instructors, and 18 (3 percent) individualswith other titles. Of the respondents, 365 (66 percent)described their primary job as teaching, while 99 (19percent) viewed themselves primarily as researchersand 53 (10 percent) primarily as administrators.Finally, with respect to political orientation, 51 (10percent) described themselves as “far left,” 280 (53percent) as “liberal,” 158 (30 percent) as “moderate,”37 (7 percent) as “conservative,” and one as “farright”; 28 respondents did not provide informationabout their political beliefs.

Analyses

For all items, responses ranged from 1 to 5, withanchor labels on 1 (e.g., Lowest priority, Strongly disagree, or Never) and 5 (e.g., Highest priority,Strongly agree, or All the time). Respondents couldalso indicate “Don’t know” or “Not applicable.” Forthe text tables, these latter responses are excludedfrom both the counts and the percentage of respon-dents agreeing or disagreeing. In addition, some itemssolicit responses only from faculty who do certainthings as part of their jobs (e.g., research), so samplesizes vary across questions. Results in the text areorganized so as to be consistent with the researchquestions to be addressed.


Before we looked at relationships between faculty atti-tudes and demographic variables, we used principalfactors factor analysis techniques to examine dimen-sionality of the data. The underlying purpose of theseanalyses was to reduce the number of dependent vari-ables for analyses pertaining to the relation of demo-graphic variables to the measures from Tables 1through 8. The sets of questions in Tables 1 through 8were factor analyzed separately to see if they were uni-dimensional. In most instances, the items defined asingle dimension, but in others, two dimensions werefound. Factor scores were created by taking unweightedaverages of items defining each factor. Two items (9c and 10a) did not load appreciably with others andwere left out of the factors. (A summary of the resultsappears in Table I.11.)

Before we looked at the relations of factors todemographic variables, we examined their interrela-

tionships. Table I.12 provides a correlation matrixinterrelating the different factors. The correlationmatrix shows that six of the factor scores are stronglyrelated. They are “Effects of diversity on classrooms,”“Diversity benefits for all students,” “Diversity bene-fits for white students,” “Effects of diversity onresearch,” “Impacts of diversity on teaching,” and“Address diversity in teaching.” “Negative effects ofdiversity” was found to be moderately negativelyrelated to other factors, while “Importance of adiverse population” was moderately related to otherfactors. “Institutional values about diversity,”“Departmental values about diversity,” and “Prepared to teach in diverse classroom” weremodestly and somewhat inconsistently related to otherfactors. Given the pattern of correlations, six stronglycorrelated factors would likely show consistent rela-tions with other variables.

APPENDIX I.B Analyses Reducing the Number of Attitude Measures

ACE/AAUP 27

Table I.11

Descriptive and Technical Information about Factors

N Items Range of factor loadings/eigenvalue Factor Mean Standard Deviation

Institutional values about diversity 486 4a, 5a, 6c .54-.83 / (2.24, 1.61) 3.83 0.82

Importance of diverse population 542 50, 51 .97-.99 / (2.24, 1.61) 3.80 1.02

Departmental values about diversity 528 4b, 5b 0.73 / 1.53 3.59 0.99

Effects of diversity on classrooms 346 9a, 9b, 17a, 17b, .75-.87 / 6.05 3.23 1.0017c, 17d, 21a,21b, 21c, 21d

Negative effects of diversity 522 7, 8 (9c, 10a) .86-.95 / 1.92 1.74 0.93

Diversity benefits for all students 433 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d .74-.90 / (4.38, 1.92) 3.55 1.15

Diversity benefits for white students 347 27a, 27b, 27c, 27d .76-.79 / (4.38, 1.92) 3.48 0.60

Effects of diversity on research 262 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 .54-.81 / 2.78 2.81 0.87

Impacts of diversity on teaching 368 18a, 18b, 18c, .60-.89 / 6.45 2.26 0.9918d, 18e, 19a, 19b,

19c, 19d, 19e

Prepared to teach in diverse class 545 48, 49 .83 (1.96, 1.30) 4.19 0.82

Address diversity in teaching 512 52, 53 .74 (1.96, 1.30) 2.77 1.29

Note: In cases where two eigenvalues appear in parentheses, the items that were factor analyzed together yielded two factors. All eigenvalues are unrotated values. Factorscores are unweighted sums of the items listed.

Table I.12

Correlations of Factor Score Dimensions

Correlations of Factor Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Institutional values about diversity 1

2. Importance of diverse population 0.36 1

3. Department values diversity 0.58 0.36 1

4. Effects of diversity on classrooms -0.14 0.34 0.12 1

5. Negative effects of diversity 0.09 -0.20 -0.09 -0.36 1

6. Diversity benefits for all students -0.03 0.27 0.15 0.69 -0.26 1

7. Diversity benefits for white students -0.03 0.26 0.20 0.63 -0.29 0.46 1

8. Effects of diversity on research -0.13 0.26 0.10 0.69 -0.28 0.60 0.65 1

9. Impacts of diversity on teaching -0.12 0.27 0.10 0.62 -0.20 0.56 0.51 0.69 1

10. Prepared to teach in diverse class 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.06 0.01 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.00 1

11. Address diversity in teaching -0.06 0.19 0.09 0.65 -0.25 0.46 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.20 1


Initially, we looked at demographic and backgroundvariables that might be expected to be “irrelevant” toattitudes toward diversity—that is, those for whichthere were no strong predictions about relations todiversity attitudes and values. One way to establish theresponses’ validity was to show that the dimensionsdisplayed anticipated patterns for relevant variablesbut no consistent patterns for other variables thatwould not be expected to be related to diversity. Thevariables examined were: average number of studentsin undergraduate classes, average number in graduateclasses, whether the faculty are U.S. citizens, whetherthey were born in the United States, their primaryduties (teaching versus research), their rank, theiryears of experience teaching, whether they were full-time employees, and their teaching load. For many ofthese variables, no relations with the factor scoreswere found. Exceptions were found for being a citizen(non-citizens thought their departments valued diver-sity more strongly), for teaching load (faculty withheavier teaching loads reported addressing diversitymore in their classes and were less positive about theirdepartments’ values toward diversity), years of experi-ence (faculty with more years of experience thoughtthe climate was more favorable, were less positiveabout the effects of diversity on classes and research,saw more negative effects of diversity, and were lesslikely to address diversity issues in their classes), andrank (assistant professors perceived institutional anddepartmental commitment as being lower than othersdid, professors perceived lesser effects of diversityupon research and teaching than assistant professors,and professors addressed issues of diversity in theirclasses less than other faculty).

After looking at general variables, we turned tothose which a priori could be expected to be related tothe faculty perception variables. For the most part,those analyses appear in the text. One exception isfindings related to the student diversity of institutionsattended by faculty; although these are interesting,they are not integral to the central issues. To deter-mine whether faculty members’ experiences during

their postsecondary school years and while employedat colleges and universities were related to their atti-tudes, the survey asked about the proportion of under-graduate and graduate students who were students ofcolor at the institutions the faculty attended. Analyseswere done as correlations, because the results wereexpected to be linearly related to the proportion of stu-dents of color. (No consistent non-linear patterns,which might suggest the presence of “critical mass”effects, were found.) Diversity of undergraduate insti-tution was related to diversity of graduate institutionattended (r = .37); faculty who had attended morediverse undergraduate institutions were more likely tohave attended more diverse graduate institutions.Undergraduate diversity was modestly but signifi-cantly related to addressing diversity in one’s teachingand to more positive effects of diversity on research,and it was related negatively to perceptions of depart-mental values on diversity. Diversity in graduate pro-grams was related to feeling prepared to teach in adiverse class, but it was negatively related to impor-tance of having a diverse population of students andfaculty on campus.

Second, greater detail is provided here for vari-ables that reflected faculty experiences with diversity attheir institutions. These variables included the largestpercentage of students of color in a class a facultymember had ever taught, the largest percentage of stu-dents of color in a class a faculty member had taughtwithin the past five years, and the smallest percentageof students of color in a class a faculty member hadtaught within the past five years. The two questionsabout the largest percentage of students of color in aclass correlated .85, so they were not considered inde-pendently. Responses to the largest percentage werecorrelated positively with institutional values aboutdiversity, importance of having a diverse population,departmental values about diversity, positive effects onclassrooms, effects on research and teaching, andpreparation for and addressing issues of diversity inone’s teaching. These correlations were fairly modest(ranging from .11 to .22), but still significant. The

APPENDIX I.C Analyses of Demographic and Background Differences in Responses

ACE/AAUP 29

smallest proportion of minority students in a class wasmoderately correlated with largest proportion overthe last five years and ever (for both, r = .55), but itsrelation to diversity measures was weaker. It was posi-tively correlated with institutional and departmentalvalues and to being prepared to teach in a diverseclass. In part, the weaker relations likely were due tothe fact that almost three-quarters (73 percent) ofrespondents selected the “5 percent or less” category.

Third, faculty members generally agreed that stu-dents of color were more likely to participate in classdiscussions if peers from the same ethnic or racialgroup were present (mean response, 3.13, with 46percent of responses being “4” or “5”). (See “CollegeMissions, Faculty Teaching, and Student Outcomes”in this volume for more on presence of similar peers inclasses.) Responses to the question of whether a criti-cal mass of students was necessary for participationwere more variable, with a mean of 2.66 with (25.6percent “4” or “5”) in terms of classes generally and amean of 2.76 (with 29.4 percent “4” or “5”) in termsof the faculty member’s class with the most studentinteraction. The three items correlated strongly withone another (ranging between .60 and .70), wererelated to all the factors in Table I.11, and were sub-stantially related to the six factors that were inter-cor-related—namely, effects of diversity on classrooms,students (all and white), teaching, research, andaddressing diversity. Further, faculty members whofelt that a critical mass was important had more nega-tive views of their institutions’ values, thought havinga diverse population was more important, and per-ceived fewer negative effects of diversity.


The text summarizes analyses comparing attitudesabout different types of diversity. Responses to ques-tions about ten different types of diversity were factoranalyzed using principal factors to see how many dif-ferent dimensions emerged. In fact, 62 percent of thevariance was accounted for by a general factor (eigen-value, 6.16). A second factor met criteria for beingkept and examined (eigenvalue, 1.01). Factor loadingson the first factor ranged from .69 to .85. Rotation oftwo factors did not produce a clean, simple structure;the lowest loading on either factor was .27. The two

items that had the highest loadings on the secondfactor were academic majors and career goals.Ethnic/racial diversity had the strongest loading onthe first factor (.88) and was strongly linked to gender,international, and socioeconomic diversity. In otherwords, as noted in the text, responses about ethnicand racial diversity were strongly related to responsesabout other types of diversity, suggesting that respon-dents viewed ethnic/racial diversity as an importantcomponent of broader diversity.

1. Largest percentage of minority students2. What percentage would constitute a diverse class3. Critical mass is important4. Time spent on lecture

5. Gender6. Political views7. Years teaching8. Percentage of minorities at bachelor’s

alma mater

9. Percentage of minorities at graduate alma mater10. White or not11. Involvement with ethnic/racial issues12. Full professor or not

Predictor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 R SQ N

Dependent Variable:

Institutional values about diversity 0.20 -0.12 0.16 -0.13 0.11 291

Importance of diverse population n.s. 308

Departmental values about diversity 0.24 -0.15 0.07 303

Effects of diversity on classrooms 0.29 -0.17 0.14 0.35 -0.11 0.41 226

Negative effects of diversity 0.14 -0.27 0.09 299

Diversity benefits for all students 0.11 0.37 0.14 0.16 0.21 0.30 272

Diversity benefits for white students 0.17 0.14 0.29 0.21 212

Effects of diversity on research 0.19 0.25 0.37 0.27 167

Impacts of diversity on teaching 0.14 0.28 0.36 0.28 229

Prepared to teach in diverse class 0.24 0.28 0.11 0.15 308

Address diversity in teaching 0.14 -0.23 0.15 0.12 0.39 -0.10 0.42 296

All coefficients are significant at 0.05. Bold coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level.

Table I.13

Regression Results for Factor Scores

APPENDIX I.D Relations of Attitudes about Ethnic/Racial Diversity to Attitudes toward Other Types of Diversity

Predictor variables

ACE/AAUP 31

Multivariate analyses were used to examine relationsof demographic and background variables simultane-ously with the attitude measures. For these analyses,the best predictors from the previous analyses werebrought together to determine which had the best pre-dictive value and how much variability could beaccounted for. Because many of the possible predictorsseemed likely to be interrelated, it was important topay attention to possible effects of interdependenceamong them, called collinearity. Initially, analysesexamined interrelationships among the variables thatprevious analyses had found to be related to variousfactor scores. Those analyses found that collinearitywas not a problem; none of the “variance inflation fac-tors” exceeded 1.5 (see, e.g., Maruyama, 1998).

A summary of the regression analyses appears inTable I.13. The 12 predictor variables that were used forthese analyses are listed at the bottom of the table.

Because many of the questions provided forresponses only from subsets of respondents, thesample sizes varied. The amount of variabilityaccounted for fluctuated markedly from measure tomeasure. The predictors accounted for more than 40 percent of the variance of the extent to which faculty members address issues of diversity in theirteaching and the effects of diversity on classes but lessthan 10 percent of the variance in department valuesabout diversity and negative effects of diversity; theyaccounted for a non-significant part of the variance inperceived importance of diverse populations.

The predictors accounted for only 11 percent ofthe variability in ratings of institutional values, thoughfour predictors had significant effects. Faculty respon-dents who had taught more diverse classes and whohad more years of experience rated their institutions as

holding more positive values, while faculty respon-dents who were more liberal and who had moreinvolvement with ethnic and racial issues rated theirinstitutions’ values less positively.

For the six faculty attitude factors that were mod-erately intercorrelated, the amount of variabilityaccounted for ranged from 21 percent to 41 percent.Faculty members involved with ethnic and racialissues consistently rated the effects of diversity asstronger, as did faculty members who believed thatclasses benefited from having a “critical mass” of stu-dents of color. Less consistent patterns viewing diver-sity more favorably were found for women facultymembers, non-white faculty members, and facultymembers who thought relatively high proportions ofstudents of color were required to constitute a diverseclass. Negative predictors of attitudes were spendingmore time in lecture and being a full professor.

The regression analyses corroborate the array ofdemographic findings reported in the text, for the sig-nificant effects are not due to highly redundant predic-tors. The complex pattern of differences due todemographics and experiences cannot be reduced to asingle set of strongly related background variables.The analyses point out some consistencies for particu-lar predictors but do not account for much of the vari-ability in some of the factor scores. For example, thereis a consistent pattern of differences for faculty mem-bers involved with diversity issues on perceived bene-fits of diversity on classes, students, teaching, andresearch. Otherwise, however, there are no strong pat-terns of differences. For example, only about 10 per-cent of the variance in faculty perceptions aboutdiversity as an institutional value is explained.

APPENDIX I.E Predicting Attitudes toward Diversity from Other Measures


The results reported here demonstrate clearly that fac-ulty respondents believe their institutions articulatehaving a diverse campus environment as an importantinstitutional value. Approximately two-thirds of therespondents agreed that having a diverse campus envi-ronment is a high priority at their institutions, whilesomewhat fewer respondents said that their depart-ment viewed diversity as a high priority. There was alsosubstantial agreement among respondents that diver-sity in classes changes the dynamics of classrooms andincreases the extent to which they focus on issues ofdiversity. This finding was stronger for faculty memberswho had taught diverse classes and who were moreinvolved in diversity issues. Faculty members respond-ing to the survey saw virtually no negative impacts ofdiversity on their institutions, strongly disagreeing withthe propositions that diversity lowered the quality oftheir institution or their students, that having diverseclasses impeded discussion of substantive issues, andthat diversity created tensions or arguments in theclassroom. Faculty respondents generally felt that theywere well-prepared for and comfortable in teachingdiverse classes. Finally, faculty members believed thatin diverse classes, students are able to develop usefulacademic skills, such as willingness to examine one’sown perspective, exposure to a broader range of per-spectives, leadership capacity, and critical thinking.

Respondents’ attitudes toward classroom interac-tions were more mixed. Still, there was substantial

agreement that a broader variety of experiences wasshared in diverse classes, students were more likely toexamine their own personal beliefs, and racial andethnic stereotypes as well as personal stereotypes weremore likely to be addressed. Faculty respondents over-whelmingly agreed that white students are positivelyaffected in terms of the issues they consider, the waythey read course material, and how they worktogether on course projects.

When faculty responses were analyzed by sub-groups, a number of predicted patterns of resultsemerged. Responses of faculty members of color dif-fered from those of white faculty members; responsesof females differed from those of males; and theresponses of liberal faculty members differed fromthose of their conservative colleagues. Faculty mem-bers who had attended more diverse institutions as stu-dents viewed diversity more favorably, as did facultymembers with more experience teaching diverseclasses and those with more experience addressingissues of diversity. Faculty members who viewed rela-tively large percentages of students of color as neces-sary to constitute a diverse class also responded morepositively, as did faculty members who expressed thebelief that classes need a “critical mass” of students ofcolor. On the other hand, more experienced facultymembers and those who spent more class time lectur-ing held less favorable views about diversity.

APPENDIX I.F Summary of Findings

ACE/AAUP 33

It is important to consider the combining of data fromtwo different response formats. The initial sample ofrespondents replied by completing a survey, whilelater respondents were contacted by phone. Becausethe latter group had also received the survey, itseemed reasonable to assume that they differed fromthe initial respondent sample (after all, they did notrespond to the survey); however, it was difficult todetermine a priori what the “direction” of differencesmight be. In fact, phone respondents differed fromsurvey respondents on a number of background char-acteristics. Consider the characteristics used for theregression analyses: Phone respondents reportedhaving larger percentages of students of color in theirclasses, using more lecture in their teaching, beingless involved in ethnic/racial issues, and having morediverse peers while in graduate school; were morelikely to be male; defined diverse classes as havingmore students of color; and agreed less that having a“critical mass” of students of color was important fortheir participation in class. Comparison of the regres-sion analyses (replicating them within the two differ-ent groups) revealed substantial similarity across thegroups, particularly in terms of variability accountedfor. Some instability across the sample should beexpected given sampling variability of correlations(e.g., Maruyama, 1998); this would affect the signifi-cance of particular coefficients more than overall pre-diction. The general pattern was that the smallersample (phone respondents) had fewer significantcoefficients in the regressions (certainly not a surpris-ing finding) and that the significant coefficients forthe survey respondents tended to be those significantfor the phone respondents plus others. In otherwords, even though analyses of the two subpopula-tions did not allow us conclude that the two groupswere equivalent, the results for each group looked

much like the overall results, supporting the conclu-sions drawn. Further, the magnitude of differenceswas fairly small and did not detract from the conclu-sions drawn from Tables 1 through 8.

Second, it is important to consider the presentresults in the context of prior research. Althoughstrong, the results from this survey, seem less positivethan those found by Orfield and Whitla (1999) in theirstudy of law students and those found by the UCLAHigher Education Research Institute (see, e.g., Milem& Hakuta, 2000) in its study of faculty. Perhaps thesurvey and phone format, coupled with the focus ondiversity issues, attracted a more polarized set ofrespondents than that which responded to broadersurveys, or perhaps the singular focus on diversityissues led respondents to think more deeply about theissues, thereby eliciting a less socially desirableresponse. Of course, the preceding explanations aremere speculation; the reasons for differences fromprior work remain unclear. Regardless, the data areconsistent insofar as they support the view that facultyvalue institutional diversity.

Finally, given the richness of the data that werecollected, many additional questions could beaddressed, and additional analyses could yet be con-ducted. As further questions are raised, it will beimportant to reexamine this data set. At the sametime, it is important to recognize that data in generaland faculty perceptions in particular are only part ofthe issue. Increasingly, data that demonstrate positiveeducational impacts of campus diversity on studentsand society (e.g., Bowen & Bok, 1998; Milem & Hakuta,2000) will become available. To the extent that institu-tions of higher education believe in the importance ofattracting students who hold diverse perspectives, theyneed to determine how to weigh different factors asthey articulate their admissions criteria.

APPENDIX I.G Limitations and Other Issues


ENDNOTES

1 For a full discussion of the survey methodology and respondent characteristics, as wellas more detailed statistical analysis, see Appendix I.A.

2 Faculty responded using scales ranging from 1 to 5 for each question. Only the scale’send points were given verbal labels. For example, responses could range from “1”(strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree).

3 To maintain consistency with previously reported results, these items were left out ofTable I.3 and from a factor score made up of items from Table I.3.

4 Because those differences may reflect other demographic differences in a changingacademy, these two variables are discussed later, along with other predictors in a multi-variate context.

5 With respect to racial and ethnic background, because of the small numbers of facultyof color in the sample, we looked only at white versus non-white as a variable.

6 Correlations ranged from .12 to .29.

7 Although this variable is used in this analysis primarily as a categorical variable, theassumption underlying this ordering is that faculty involved in gender issues will developa stronger understanding of other diversity issues as well. The differences between theresponses of men and women faculty members are consistent with such an assumption.

8 The categories described represent a collapsing of nine different categories into fourclusters based upon the relationships among the nine categories.

9 Fractions do not add to a whole number, or 100 percent, because faculty responseswere not consistent with the instructions, which were to total to 100 percent. Some maynot have viewed the categories as mutually exclusive.

10 Appendix I.F provides a more detailed listing of findings. Appendix I.G discusses limi-tations and compares the findings to other research.

11 We reviewed the interdisciplinary faculty carefully because of the large number in thesample drawn. A substantial number of faculty from the “hard sciences” (e.g., physicalchemistry, nuclear engineering, environmental biology, etc.) were included in thesample as interdisciplinary. A total of 391 faculty on the list were identified as being in ascience-based discipline. After long deliberations as to whether to exclude these facultyfrom the study, we decided to send the questionnaire to all 1,500 faculty and to keep aneye on response rates and responses by faculty in science-based disciplines in particular.Part of our consideration was based on our interest in determining whether diversityinfluences discussions/interactions in classrooms. The research team concluded thatbecause of the way in which the survey was designed, it was most appropriate for facultyteaching in disciplines where social context may be most relevant in the curriculum andin classroom discussions/interactions.

ACE/AAUP 35

REFERENCES

Alger, J. R. 1998. Unfinished homework for universities: Making the case for affirmativeaction, Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 54, 73-92.

Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MN: Addison Wesley.

Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (with Shulman, J. L., Nygren, T. I., Dale, S. B., and Meserve, L.A.). 1998. The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college

and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gudeman, R. (In press). Faculty experience with diversity: A case study of MacalesterCollege. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity Challenged. Cambridge, MA: HarvardEducation Publishing Group.


higher education, Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75231 (E.D. Mich.) and Grutter

et al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75928 (E.D. Mich.) (pp. 99-234). Ann Arbor, MI: TheUniversity of Michigan.

Haskell, T. 1996. Justifying the rights of academic freedom in the era of “power/knowl-edge.” In L. Menand (Ed.), The future of academic freedom (pp. 43-90). Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.

Maruyama, G. 1998. Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



Mingle, J. R. 1978. Faculty and departmental response patterns: Individual and contex-tual predictors. In M. W. Peterson, R. T. Blackburn, Z. F. Gamson, C. H. Arce, R. W.Davenport, & J. R. Mingle (Eds.), Black students on white campuses: The impacts of

increased black enrollments (pp. 261-277). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,Institute for Social Research.

Nussbaum, M. 1997. Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal educa-

tion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Orfield, G., & Whitla, D. 1999. Diversity and legal education: Student experiences in

leading law schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.

Wilson, J. Q. 1995. The myth of political correctness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Open dialogue across difference lies

at the heart of the vision of selective liberal arts colleges today in America.

ACE/AAUP 37

College Missions, Faculty Teaching,and Student Outcomes in a Contextof Low Diversity

Roxane Harvey Gudeman has taught psychology at Macalester College since 1985 and currently chairs the college’s MulticulturalAudit Task Force. She is a member of the American Association of University Professor’s Committee L on Historically BlackInstitutions and the Status of Minorities in the Profession.

ROXANE HARVEY GUDEMAN, PH. D.

ohn Locke, writing about education in the late 17th century,compares a traveler in a strange land to an unknowing child(Locke, [1693] 1947, p. 309). Locke discusses the educationalbenefits of travel: the learner encounters difference and has theopportunity to engage in an exchange—a dialogue with others—that ideally rewards both. He suggests that a “young gentleman”

is best sent abroad “when he is of age to govern himself, and make observa-tions of what he finds in other countries worthy of his notice, and that mightbe of use to him after his return; and when, too, being thoroughly acquaintedwith the laws and fashions, the natural and moral advantages and defects ofhis own country, he has something to exchange with those abroad, fromwhose conversation he hoped to reap any knowledge” (pp. 385-86). In sosaying, Locke voices a belief in the educational value of encounters withworlds of ideas and experience different from our own.

Open dialogue across difference lies at the heart of the vision of selectiveliberal arts colleges today in America. As Martha Nussbaum (1997) observes:

Our country [the United States] has embarked on an unparalleled experi-ment.... Unlike all other nations, we ask a higher education to contribute ageneral preparation for citizenship, not just a specialized preparation for acareer.... We do not fully respect the humanity of our fellow citizens—orcultivate our own—if we do not wish to learn about them, to understandtheir history, to appreciate the differences between their lives and ours. Wemust therefore build a liberal education that is not only Socratic, empha-sizing critical thought and respectful argument, but also pluralistic, impart-ing an understanding of the histories and contributions of groups withwhom we interact... (pp. 294-95).

J


Today’s selective liberal arts col-leges have tried to build communi-ties crafted to offer the benefits ofencounters across differences to fac-ulty and students who enter asstrangers and become collaboratorsin exploring a universe of ideas andperspectives shaped in part by thehistory each brings. In the last 30years, these colleges have broadenedtheir vision beyond traditional formsof difference (of interest, talent, geo-graphic region, social class, nationalculture, and the like). Race hasemerged as a valued source of differ-ing insights. Though socially con-structed and biologically meaningless(American Anthropological Associ-ation, [1998] 2000; Helms, 1994;Hirschfeld, 1996), race is significantin the United States because it hasbeen and continues to be a meaning-ful social category used to justify dif-ferential rights of privilege andaccess. Its use has led to the buildingof subcommunities with distinctivecultural forms, different sociopoliti-cal histories, and unique views aboutthe history and promise of how socialgroups relate to one another.

This paper focuses on the educa-tional missions of America’s selectiveliberal arts colleges in relation totheir perception of the value of diver-sity in fulfilling their educationalgoals. Having established that themajority of college missions includeeducational goals that must be sup-ported by the creation of a diverse fac-ulty and student body, I attempt todetermine whether this belief is justi-fied, by examining faculty experiencesat Macalester College in St. Paul,

Minnesota. Macalester was chosen asa test case because it has many of theattributes that should predict relativesuccess at fulfilling the promise ofdiversity (Astin, 1997; Chang, 1999;Milem, in press-a; Milem, in press-b;Milem & Hakuta, 2000; Pascarella &Terenzini, 1991). With a long historyof commitment to diversity,Macalester has tried to incorporatethis value into many facets of the col-lege. Macalester’s mission includes acommitment to multiculturalism.The college creates classroom, resi-dential, and co-curricular environ-ments that invite open dialogue andtolerance. These features have beenfound to be associated with greatersuccess at achieving multiculturalgoals. Data from Macalester showthat faculty support the college’scommitment to diversity and believethat all students benefit from adiverse student body (and faculty).

I also suggest that selective liberalarts colleges feel a sense of urgencyabout greater inclusion of students ofcolor in the student body becausethey view a diverse community asessential to fulfilling their mission;yet most continue to have a studentbody not sufficiently diverse toensure that students have the oppor-tunity for dialogue across differenceas often as would be desired. Datafrom Macalester again are used todemonstrate how having too small aproportion of students of coloraffects classroom opportunities forconversation.

Colleges’ freedom to constructeducational communities that helpfulfill their missions has existed since

Selective liberal arts colleges feel a sense ofurgency about greaterinclusion of students of

color in the student bodybecause they view a

diverse community asessential to fulfilling

their mission; yet mostcontinue to have a student body not

sufficiently diverse to ensure that studentshave the opportunity for dialogue across

difference as often aswould be desired.

ACE/AAUP 39

America’s founding. This right wasaffirmed by the Supreme Court in its1978 Regents of the University of

California v. Bakke decision. Alger(1997) observes:

In Bakke, Justice Powell cited theuniversity’s academic freedominterest in setting the criteria forselection of its students to meet itseducational goals. This relation-ship of diversity to academic free-dom and to the university’seducational mission implies thateach institution is in the best posi-tion to determine its own diversitygoals in light of its educationalobjectives (p. 22).

Recently, a flood of lawsuitsbrought by students denied admis-sion to selective academic programshas begun to challenge that right. Ineffect, these lawsuits request a weigh-ing of the interest of an educationalcommunity whose goal is to build anenvironment optimized for achievingits goals against the interest of anindividual applicant who claims rightof entry based on a single or few met-rics of merit—usually scores on stan-dardized tests. Such a single measuremight be justified if the interests ofindividuals superseded those of edu-cational communities—which theymay not—and if the measures per-fectly indexed scholarly potential—which they do not—and if scholarlyexcellence, narrowly defined, werecolleges’ and universities’ only educa-tional goal—which it is not. Thus, Idemonstrate in this paper that selec-tive liberal arts colleges have sound,legally justifiable educational reasonsfor constructing racially diverse aca-demic communities.

PART 1: CONTENT ANALYSIS OFMISSION STATEMENTS OF TOPSELECTIVE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES

Background

American liberal arts collegesemerged from converging social,moral, and intellectual movements ofthe 19th century. Virtually all weresponsored by religious denomina-tions and served to educate minis-ters, train teachers, and prepareyoung men to become responsible,moral, ethical members of theirdenominational and civic communi-ties (O’Brien, 1998). Faculty, stu-dents, and administrators usuallywere members of the same religiousand scholarly community, often withthe same European ancestry.Continuing in this tradition today aresuch colleges as Concordia College inSaint Paul, Minnesota, and BrighamYoung University in Provo, Utah.

Most of the top 25 liberal arts col-leges in the United States share thishistory, but evolved into nonsectar-ian institutions committed to thedevelopment of scholarly expertisein the arts, sciences, and humanitiesthat would serve the broader society.This evolution was fueled in part bythe extraordinary optimism felt by aneducated 19th century elite whobelieved that scientific progress anddisciplined minds could end humansuffering and moral imperfection byidentifying and eliminating the natu-ral and social causes thereof. Forexample, a group of reformers con-cerned about social welfare in anincreasingly mobile and industrializ-ing world formed the American


Social Science Association in Bostonin 1865 (Furner, 1974, p. 2). One ofthe association’s goals was to use sci-ence and knowledge to address socialproblems. Four divisions were createdat its founding: social economy,public health, education, andjurisprudence. The founders notedthat “when the laws of education, ofpublic health, and of social economyare fully ascertained, the law of theland should recognize and definethem all” (Furner, pp. 16-17).

As classic small liberal arts col-leges evolved into more secular insti-tutions, they remained committed tothe pursuit of knowledge, not just inthe abstract, but as a way to achieve avariety of goals for their students, toinclude the fostering of creativescholarly expertise and scientificprogress, self-understanding, wisecitizenship, and commitment tocommunity service.

Most U.S. colleges and universi-ties have brief, succinct missionstatements that define their coregoals.1 Typically, the mission reflectsthe consensus of the communityabout its essential values and pur-pose. This vision usually is put inwriting and made official by vote ofthe governing body. In theory, theperformance of everyone at the col-lege should be evaluated in part byindexing the effectiveness of theircontribution to the mission. (Samplemission statements from premier lib-eral arts colleges may be found inTable II.1.) Some statements arequite brief, consisting of a sentenceor two, often supplemented by amore extended elaboration; othersare long, incorporating both a state-

ment of goals and an interpretation.The sample mission statements inTable II.1 demonstrate that America’sselective liberal arts colleges sharecore educational values and goalseven as they retain unique identities.Macalester, for example, is the onlycollege that has “internationalism” asa core value; Washington and Leeuniquely focuses on “honor”;Williams casts its core values in a dis-cussion of academic and civic virtuescombined with character virtues.Most colleges frame their missionswith reference to their past, the pres-ent, and a future to which they aspire.

Analysis of Mission Statements ofLiberal Arts Colleges

Content analysis of America’s “top”28 liberal arts colleges, as ranked byU.S. News and World Report (2000),shows that the most selective andhighly ranked liberal arts collegescontinue to define their missions as incorporating academic excel-lence in service to society.(Appendix II.A describes the sample and methodology.)

The nine goals most oftenincluded in the mission statements ofthese colleges are (in order of fre-quency of mention): (1) the acquisi-tion of intellectual mastery andrigor; (2) learning to value service tocommunity; (3) learning perspec-tives from diversity; (4) developingself-knowledge and growing person-ally; (5) developing and nurturing aliberated, creative mind; (6) gainingan increased capacity for tolerance,respect, and concern for others; (7)acquiring the skills and motivationfor social leadership; (8) developing

The most selective andhighly ranked liberal arts

colleges continue todefine their missions

as incorporating academic excellence in

service to society.

ACE/AAUP 41

Bowdoin College, Web (US News & World Report, #9)

“...Bowdoin’s intellectual mission is informed by the humblingand cautionary lesson of the 20th century: that intellect andcultivation, unless informed by a basic sense of decency, of tolerance and mercy, are ultimately destructive of both theperson and society. The purpose of a Bowdoin education—themission of the College—is therefore to assist a student todeepen and broaden intellectual capacities that are also attrib-utes of maturity and wisdom: self-knowledge, intellectual hon-esty, clarity of thought, depth of knowledge, and anindependent capacity to learn, mental courage, self-discipline,tolerance of and interest in differences and cultural belief, anda willingness to serve the common good and subordinate self tohigher goals.” (Final paragraph of long mission)

Davidson College (US News & World Report, #11)

“To liberate the minds of young men and women for usefullives of leadership and service.” (Entire Mission)

Macalester College Catalogue (US News & World Report, #24)

“Macalester is committed to being a preeminent liberal artscollege with an educational program known for its high stan-dards for scholarship and its special emphasis on international-ism, multiculturalism, and service to society.” (Entire Mission)

Mount Holyoke, Web (US News & World Report, #16)

“Mount Holyoke College reaffirms its commitment to educat-ing a diverse community of women at the highest level of academic excellence and to fostering the alliance of liberal arts education with purposeful engagement in the world.”(Entire Mission)

Supplementary Principles of the College:

“…The liberal arts college is therefore based on and defendscertain central convictions and assumptions. It maintains thatthe search for knowledge and compassionate understanding isa central and not a peripheral human activity. The collegeassumes a continuity in human endeavor, and therefore thenecessity of learning in the present about and from the past.Such an institution maintains that in a diverse and increas-ingly divided world there is urgent need for a common lan-guage of educated awareness and rational discourse, and thatthe perspective gained from knowledge of the nature, scope,and quality of our various worlds is not to be mistaken for dis-engagement from the world as it is or might become. The lib-eral arts college defends the right of all to seek knowledge forits own sake, without immediate regard to its utility, andaffirms also that the world would suffer without the leaven ofthose who engage in this pursuit. Finally, Mount HolyokeCollege believes that the tools of thought and attitudes ofmind acquired in a liberal arts college can be translated intothe acts by which, without violence, things that do violence tothe world are changed.”

Trinity College (US News & World Report, #22)“Trinity College is a community united in a quest for excel-lence in liberal arts education. Our paramount purpose is tofoster critical thinking, free the mind of parochialism and prej-udice, and prepare students to lead examined lives that arepersonally satisfying, civically responsible, and sociallyuseful.” (First paragraph of Mission)

University of the South (US News & World Report, #25)

“The University of the South, an institution of the EpiscopalChurch, exists for education in such disciplines as willincrease knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, pursued inclose community and in full freedom of inquiry, and enlight-ened by Christian faith, to the end that students may be pre-pared to search for truth, to seek justice for all, to preserveliberty under law, and to love and serve God and humanity…”(Excerpt from University Purpose)

Washington and Lee University (US News & World Report, #14)

“Washington and Lee University has two preeminent objectives:to dedicate all its resources to developing in its students thecapacity and desire to learn, to understand, and to share thefruits of their intellectual growth, and to pursue its educationalmission in a climate of learning that stresses the importance ofthe individual, personal honor and integrity, harmonious rela-tionships with others, and the responsibility to serve societythrough the productive use of talent and training.”

“…(A)ware of the great men whose name it bears, theUniversity seeks to develop in its students the qualities of mindand spirit they exemplified and demonstrated in their regard forpersonal honor and integrity, for duty, for tolerance and humil-ity, and for self-sacrifice in behalf of their fellow citizens.”(Excerpt from Mission)

Williams College (US News & World Report, #3)

“Our mission is to nurture in outstanding students the aca-demic and civic virtues, and the related virtues of character, inthe intellectual tradition of the residential liberal arts collegeand in the context of the current and future needs for leader-ship in our society. The academic virtues include the capaci-ties to read closely, explore widely, express clearly, researchdeeply, connect imaginatively, listen empathetically. The civicvirtues include commitment to engage the public realm andcommunity life, and the skills to do so effectively. Thesevirtues, in turn, have associated virtues of character. Onecannot research deeply without the virtue of perseverance.One cannot listen empathetically without the virtue of toler-ance and respect. One cannot be committed to community lifewithout the virtue of concern for others...” (Excerpt fromMission and Objectives)

Table II.1

Excerpts from Sample Mission Statements from Selective Liberal Arts Colleges


Intellectual Service to Personal Diverse Liberated, Tolerance, Moral, Leadership Creativity,Mastery Community Growth Perspectives Curious Respect EthicaI Imagination

1. Swarthmore College + + + + +

2. Amherst College + + +

3 Williams College + + + + +

4. Wellesley College ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ +

5. Haverford College + + + + + +

5. Middlebury College + ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

7. Pomona College + + + +

8. Carleton College + + + + +

9. Bowdoin College + + + + + + +

10. Wesleyan University + + + +

11. Davidson College ▲ + + ▲ + ▲

11. Grinnell College + + + + ▲

13. Smith College + + + + +

14. Washington & Lee University + + + + + + +

14. Claremont McKenna College + + +

16. Mount Holyoke College + + ▲ + ▲ ▲ ▲

17. Vassar College + + + + +

18. Colby College + + + + + + + +

18. Colgate University + + +

18. Hamilton College + + + + + + +

18. Bryn Mawr College + ▲ ▲ ▲

22. Trinity College (CT) + + + + +

23. Bates College + + + +

24. Macalester College + + ▲ + ▲ ▲

25. Colorado College + + + + + + + +

25. Connecticut College + + + + + +

25. Oberlin College + + + + + + +

25. University of the South + + + + +

TOTAL 26/28 22/25 15/17 14/17 11/14 11/16 10/13 11/12 8/9(Mission with or without Supple-ment/Supplement Only Added)

Table II.2

Core Values in Mission Statements of Top 25 (28) Liberal Arts Colleges

Key:+= Value found in core mission statement▲ = Value found in supplement to mission statement

ACE/AAUP 43

ethical and moral judgment; and (9)fostering creativity and imagination.The categories are self-explanatory.(See Appendix II.A for examples.)The two categories that overlap mostare “learning perspectives fromdiversity” (hereafter called “learningdiverse perspectives”) and “gainingan increased capacity for tolerance,respect, and concern for others”(hereafter, “tolerance”). In scoring,a focus on the cognitive benefits ofdiversity was counted in the first cat-egory; a focus on the social-relationalbenefits of diversity was counted inthe second category.

Table II.2 (previous page) indi-cates whether the mission state-ments of each of the 28 collegesrefers to each of these values in itsmission statement (indicated by“+”) or in a statement supportingand interpreting the mission (indi-cated by “▲”).

Table II.3 summarizes the percent-age of colleges that refer to each valuein their mission statement (and,sometimes, supplement) or only inthe supplement. Four core values oreducational goals appear in the mis-sions of 50 percent or more of the col-leges: (1) intellectual mastery andrigor; (2) service to community; (3)self-knowledge and personal growth;and (4) learning diverse perspectives.If the tolerance category is added tothe learning diverse perspectives cate-gory, then 57.1 percent of the collegeswould be judged to have included adiversity focus in their missions,making diversity/tolerance the thirdmost frequently mentioned goal.When the values and goals referred toin the mission are supplemented by

those appearing in explanatory mate-rials, proportions increase, but therelative order remains almost thesame with six values endorsed by atleast half of the colleges: (1) intellec-tual mastery (96 percent); (2) serviceto community (89 percent); (3) self-knowledge and personal growth (61 percent); (4) learning diverse perspectives (61 percent); (5) toler-ance (57 percent); and (6) a liberated,curious mind (50 percent).

It is striking that except for “cre-ativity and imagination,” all thevalues and goals listed are supportedby more than 40 percent of the 28colleges. This finding strongly sup-ports the conclusion that America’sselective liberal arts colleges con-tinue to have as their core missions arange of developmental outcomesthat include intellectual goals in theservice of social, personal, and ethi-cal goals, not just the decontextual-ized acquisition of analytic andspecialist expertise.

Table II.3

Percent of Selective Liberal Arts Colleges that Include Each of Nine Core Values in Their Mission Statement, with and withoutSupplementary Materials

Values/Means/Goals In Mission Statement and/ Top 28 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges In Mission Statement or Support Statement

% n % n

1. Intellectual Mastery 92.9 (26) 96.4 (27)

2. Service to Community 78.6 (22) 89.3 (25)

3. Self-knowledge, Personal Growth 53.6 (15) 60.7 (17)

4. Learn Perspectives from Diversity 50.0 (14) 60.7 (17)

5. Liberated, Curious Mind 39.3 (11) 50.0 (14)

6. Tolerance, Respect, Concern for Others 39.3 (11) 57.1 (16)

7. Learn Social Leadership 39.3 (11) 42.9 (12)

8. Develop Ethical, Moral Judgment 35.7 (10) 46.4 (13)

9. Foster Creativity, Imagination 28.6 (8) 32.1 (9)


PART II: MACALESTER COLLEGE

Enacting Diversity in the Absence of Structural Diversity

It is clear that liberal arts colleges ingeneral are likely to have a contem-porary commitment to diversity, asreflected in their mission statements.Macalester College is proud to haveflown the United Nations flag belowthe United States flag since theU.N.’s founding; the college also hasa historic commitment to domesticdiversity. Like many U.S. collegesand universities, Macalesterlaunched a major initiative to recruitstudents of color in 1968. ButMacalester’s outreach was far moreambitious and well-planned thanmost (Peterson, Blackburn, Gamson,Arce, Davenport & Mingle, 1978). Ina study of the introduction of AfricanAmericans to 13 historically whitecampuses, researchers found that“Macalester made the most extensivecommitment to black enrollmentsand drafted the most comprehensiveinitial plan for black and otherminority programs” (p. 101).2

Students of color of all ethnicitieswere eligible for the program.

• Fully 92 percent of MacalesterCollege’s faculty respondents said thathaving a racially or ethnically diversestudent body was essential or veryimportant to achieving the college’smission, and approximately 90 percentdisagreed with the view that a focus on racial and ethnic diversity loweredthe quality of the institution or the student body.

The national Faculty ClassroomDiversity Questionnaire (described

and analyzed in the Maruyama &Moreno study in this monograph)was pilot tested at Macalester inspring 1998. The questions in thepretest were substantially the sameas those in the final survey (which isreproduced as a supplement to thismonograph).3 The results of thepretest survey indicated that, onaverage, Macalester faculty founddiverse classrooms to have positiveeducational outcomes. These resultsmay be unique to Macalester at leastin part because the college has manyof the institutional features that facil-itate successful outcomes in multi-cultural learning environments. Afull report of this research may befound in a soon-to-be-publishedpaper (Gudeman, in press) in which Ireport that Macalester College fac-ulty members find teaching indiverse classrooms to have many spe-cific benefits that occur more fre-quently in multicultural than inmonocultural environments. Facultywho have had more experience withstructurally diverse classroomsreport greater benefit.

Fully 92.3 percent of the 784 fac-ulty respondents indicated thathaving a racially or ethnically diversestudent body was essential or veryimportant to achieving the college’smission. Ninety percent of the fac-ulty members disagree with the viewthat too much focus on racial andethnic diversity has lowered the qual-ity of the institution, and 89 percentdisagree with the view that anemphasis on diversity has loweredthe quality of the student body.

The majority of faculty with experi-ence teaching in structurally diverse

It is clear that liberal arts colleges in

general are likely to havea contemporary

commitment to diversity,as reflected in their mission statements.

ACE/AAUP 45

classes report the following classroombenefits: (a) students become morewilling to examine their perspectivesand values; (b) students are intro-duced to more issues and perspec-tives; (c) students are exposed to ideasand points of view that they disagreewith or do not understand; (d) stu-dents’ stereotypes about importantissues in academic disciplines are con-fronted more often; and (e) students’social and political stereotypes areconfronted more often. Facultyrespondents who assigned readings ortaught classes in which race and eth-nicity was a focal topic reportedgreater benefit than did those who didneither. For example, faculty mem-bers who teach content related todiversity found that students inracially and ethnically diverse classesdeveloped a heightened capacity tothink critically. Finally, most facultymembers did not find that racial andethnic diversity in the classroom cre-ated barriers to discussion or tensionthat disrupted the educational goalsof the class.

When asked whether a criticalmass of students of color was impor-tant, faculty respondents agreedoverwhelmingly that students ofcolor participated in class discus-sions more often when other stu-dents of color were present. Eightypercent of faculty members whotaught classes focused on race or eth-nicity reported that a critical mass ofstudents of color enhanced the bene-ficial effects of diversity.Interestingly, when asked to define a“critical mass,” the majority of fac-ulty members reported a percentage

higher than they had ever taught andhigher than the overall proportion ofstudents of color at Macalester.

The Faculty Classroom DiversityQuestionnaire results also indicatedthat Macalester faculty found diver-sity an important tool in fulfilling thecollege’s mission; and faculty alsoreported a variety of positive educa-tional benefits to all students. Thesebenefits are enhanced when greaterdiversity is present or when a coretopic in the class concerns race.

The more a commitment to achiev-ing its goals permeates an institution,the more successful the institution islikely to be at reaching those goals.One index of the pervasiveness of acollege’s goals is support from a fac-ulty possessing cherished rights tofreedom of thought and opinion. AsLowe (1999) points out, “Centrallyexpressed values and activities pro-moting diversity ... [may] emanatefrom the leaders of colleges and uni-versities.” However, he continues,“[i]f the opinions and beliefs of insti-tutional constituents do not corrobo-rate the expressed values aboutpluralism of the institution itself, theacademic environment will be inhos-pitable” (p. 15).

Macalester’s values are enunci-ated in a concise mission statement:“Macalester is committed to being apreeminent liberal arts college withan educational program known for itshigh standards for scholarship and itsspecial emphasis on international-ism, multiculturalism, and service tosociety.” At the college, these valueshave been referred to as “the pillars.”But do the faculty believe that the

Faculty members who teach content

related to diversity foundthat students in raciallyand ethnically diverse

classes developed aheightened capacity to think critically.


college is committed to enacting thismission? And are the faculty person-ally committed to the mission?

I addressed these questions usingdata from UCLA’s fall 1998 HigherEducation Research Institute surveyof 104 Macalester faculty members, apart of the institute’s periodic surveyof faculty at several hundred institu-tions of higher learning (HigherEducation Research Institute, 2000;Sax, Astin, Korn & Gilmartin,1999).5 One part of the surveysolicited information about facultymembers’ perceptions of their insti-tution’s commitments and of thecampus climate; another focused onfaculty members’ personal viewsabout the goals of education, theirown motivations for entering acade-mia, their professional goals andrewards, and their opinions about avariety of academically controversialissues. I selected for analysis ques-tions that pertained to three ofMacalester’s core values: high stan-dards of scholarship or academicexcellence, service to community,and multiculturalism.6

Most Macalester faculty membersperceive the college to be committedto its core values and support thempersonally as well, though differentones may have higher priority for dif-ferent faculty members. Regardlessof their personal educational priori-ties, faculty members report that adiverse campus benefits all students.

• Macalester faculty members perceivedcreating a multicultural campus as ahigh institutional priority.

A set of items in the HigherEducation Research Institute surveyasked faculty respondents to indicatewhether a list of goals had “highestpriority,” “high priority,” “mediumpriority,” or “low priority” at theircollege or university. Three of theseitems reflect Macalester’s corevalues: (1) “to promote the intellec-tual development of students” (here-after, “intellectual development”);(2) “to facilitate student involvementin community service” (hereafter,“community service”); and (3) “tocreate a diverse multiculturalcampus environment” (hereafter,“diverse environment”). On average,faculty members perceived all threegoals to be a high or highest priorityat a rate significantly above chance.On a scale in which 4 = highest prior-ity, 3 = high priority, and 2 = mediumpriority, the average faculty scorewas 3.88 on intellectual develop-ment,7 3.10 on a diverse environ-ment,8 and 2.8 on communityservice.9 Although the perceivedcommitment level was high for allthree values, faculty saw the institu-tion as more committed to intellec-tual development than to the othertwo values, and they perceived thecollege to be significantly more com-mitted to a diverse environment thanto community service.10 (Figure II.1shows the average scores on eachcore value item.)

Regardless of their personal educational

priorities, faculty members report that adiverse campus benefits

all students.

ACE/AAUP 47

Macalester faculty members over-whelmingly (99 percent) perceivedthe college as having the intellectualdevelopment of students as a highpriority. A large majority (77 per-cent) also perceived the college asbeing committed to a diverse envi-ronment. Faculty members weresomewhat more divided as towhether community service was apriority, although a majority (66 percent) agreed that it was.

• A substantial majority of Macalesterfaculty members said that teachingabout race and ethnicity was an essen-tial or very important educational goalfor undergraduate students.

The question addressed in this sec-tion was whether faculty members

support the college’s core mission.Macalester faculty members were vir-tually unanimous in saying thatdeveloping students’ ability to thinkclearly was a very important oressential goal of their teaching, and amajority of faculty members said thatpreparing students for responsiblecitizenship and enhancing theirknowledge and appreciation of otherracial and ethnic groups were essen-tial or very important goals.

Five items on the institute’ssurvey measured faculty support forthree of Macalester’s educationalgoals for undergraduates. The pre-cise list varied somewhat from thelist of institutional priorities cited inthe preceding section of this paper.Faculty members were asked to indi-cate whether they personally judge alist of educational goals for under-graduates to be “essential,” “veryimportant,” “somewhat important,”or “not important.” Support for mul-ticulturalism was measured by askingif a personal goal was to “enhancestudents’ knowledge of and apprecia-tion for other racial/ethnic groups”(hereafter, “teaching about race andethnicity”). Scholarly excellence wasmeasured by two goals: (1) to“develop the ability to think clearly”(hereafter, “teaching clear think-ing”) and (2) to “teach students theclassic works of Western civiliza-tion” (hereafter, “teaching Westernclassics”). A commitment to commu-nity service was also indexed by twogoals: (1) to “prepare [students] forresponsible citizenship” (hereafter,“preparing for citizenship”) and 2)to “instill in students a commitment

0

20

40

60

80

100

FacilitateCommunity

Service

BuildMulticultural

Campus

IntellectualDevelopment

Perc

ent

99.1

77.4

66.0

Figure II.1

Percent of Faculty Who Judge the Institution to Hold Core Values as High or Highest Priorities

Goal


to community service” (hereafter,“preparing for community service”).

Faculty respondents viewed allfive goals as at least somewhatimportant, but only three werejudged to be very important or essen-tial by a majority of the faculty mem-bers: teaching clear thinking;teaching about race and ethnicity;and preparing for citizenship. FigureII.2 shows the percent of faculty whobelieved that each of the goals wasessential or very important.

Faculty respondents unanimouslysupported teaching clear thinking;all 102 faculty respondents11 viewedit as either essential (89.2 percent)or very important (10.8 percent),while only 26 percent viewed teach-ing Western classics as essential or

very important. A majority ofrespondents (61.6 percent) sup-ported teaching about race and eth-nicity, with 38.4 percent saying suchlearning was very important and23.2 saying such learning was essen-tial. An identical percentage (61.6percent) supported the goal ofpreparing for citizenship, again with38.4 percent saying it was veryimportant and 23.2 percent saying itwas essential. In contrast, only 33percent of faculty members stronglysupported the goal of preparing forcommunity service, with 27 percentsaying it was very important and 6percent saying it was essential.Faculty members who had “teachingabout race and ethnicity” as a goalalso strongly supported preparingfor citizenship and preparing forcommunity service, suggesting thatthe same faculty members are likelyto support strongly (or not) thesesocial goals.12

• Macalester faculty members over-whelmingly believe that a racially andethnically diverse student bodyenhances the educational experience ofall students.

Although the Higher EducationResearch Institute survey did not askfaculty members to evaluate whetherspecific kinds of educational benefitswere more likely to accrue in diverseclasses, it did ask whether theyagreed strongly, agreed somewhat,disagreed somewhat, or disagreedstrongly with the statement that “aracially/ethnically diverse studentbody enhances the educational expe-rience of all students” (hereafter,

0

20

40

60

80

100

Learn WesternClassics

Commitment toCommunity Service

Prepare forCitizenship

Learn aboutRace/Ethnicity

Learn toThink Clearly

Perc

ent

100

61.6 61.6

Figure II.2

Percent of Faculty Who Perceive Each Educational Goal as Essential or Very Important

33.0

26.0

Goal

ACE/AAUP 49

“diversity enhances learning”). Iused the responses to this item as ameasure of whether faculty membersperceive diversity as contributing tothe college’s ability to fulfill its edu-cational mission.

Overall, Macalester facultyreported almost unanimously thatthe presence of students of color haseducational value. A remarkable 97 percent of the 100 respondentseither agreed strongly (64 percent)or agreed somewhat (33 percent)that diversity enhances learning.13

Only three faculty members dis-agreed somewhat, and none dis-agreed strongly. This strongendorsement means that the major-ity of faculty who do not wholeheart-edly endorse some of the practicesused to try to create a diverse envi-ronment or who are not fully com-mitted to the importance of learningabout race and ethnicity still find adiverse learning environment to beof educational benefit. Of the 26 per-cent of Macalester faculty who viewlearning Western classics as essentialor very important, fully 96 percentagree (half of them strongly, half ofthem somewhat) that diversity haseducational benefits. Similarly, 96 percent of those who think thatlearning about race and ethnicity isof little or no importance agreedstrongly (43.2 percent) or agreedsomewhat (51.4 percent) that diver-sity enhances learning. Finally, eventhose few who believe that “promot-ing diversity leads to the admissionof too many underprepared stu-dents” rated diversity to be of value.Of the 21 faculty members who hold

this view, 33.3 percent agreedstrongly and 66.7 percent agreedsomewhat that diversity enhanceslearning.

At Macalester, only three facultymembers in a sample of 100 judgedthat having a diverse environmentdid not contribute to the educationalexperience of students.

• Forty percent of Macalester’s classeshave no African-American or Latino stu-dents in them, and U.S. students of colorfind themselves the sole member oftheir race or ethnic group in two-thirdsof their classes.

Although selective liberal arts col-leges such as Macalester seek adiverse student body and are morelikely to provide the classroom cli-mate, teaching-oriented faculty, andpedagogical environment that canmake effective educational use ofdiversity, they are, arguably, the insti-tutions least likely to have diverseclassrooms. Milem (in press-a), usingdata from the Higher EducationGovernance Institutional Survey,reports that at Carnegie I Categoryliberal arts institutions,14 the averagepercentage of students who areAmericans of color is 8.6 (3.6 percentAfrican American, 2.9 percent AsianAmerican, 1.8 percent Latino, and0.2 percent Native American.)

Macalester prides itself on smallclass sizes and the use of non-lecturebased teaching methods. But all toooften, Macalester’s classes are notdiverse, even though the college hasa larger proportion of U.S. studentsof color (an eight-year average of 13 percent; 17 percent in the fall

1999 entering class) than most lib-eral arts colleges. To determine howfrequently students and faculty expe-rience diverse classrooms atMacalester, I examined the distribu-tion of students by racial category inall 353 classes with five or more reg-istered students taught in the spring1998 semester. In fall 1997, the racialand ethnic composition of registeredstudents was 76 percent EuropeanAmerican, 3 percent African Amer-ican, 3 percent Latino, and 4 percentAsian American, with a negligiblerepresentation of Native Americans.Table II.4 shows the percentage ofclasses in which given categories ofstudents were entirely absent.

No classes failed to have a whitestudent. Forty percent of classes hadno U.S. student of color from anunderrepresented group (AfricanAmerican, Latino, and NativeAmerican). When data on Asian-American enrollments are combinedwith those for other students ofcolor, 23 percent of classes still hadno student of color. Macalester also

values internationalism; yet 29 per-cent of its classes had no interna-tional students enrolled in them.Students in the 142 classes with nounderrepresented students of color,or in the 102 classes with no interna-tional students, thus were unable toshare perspectives and engage in dialogue with members of these communities or to explore the simi-larities and dissimilarities that existacross differences of race and nation-ality. That the classes may have beenconducted in a teaching style likely tofacilitate such exchanges was moot.The absence of students of color from23 percent of Macalester’s classes thatsemester represents a lost opportu-nity for students to engage in dialogueacross racial and ethnic lines.Respondents to the FacultyClassroom Diversity Questionnairewho found that diversity had peda-gogical value reported that class-room dialogue was more successfulwhen a critical mass of students ofdifferent racial/ethnic groups waspresent. When faculty who viewdiversity as a teaching tool have nostudents of color—or only token rep-resentation—in their classes, theyalso feel a sense of lost possibility.

Now let’s reverse the perspectiveand focus on what students of colorlikely experienced in the classes inwhich they were enrolled. Table II.5shows the percentage of classes inwhich U.S. students of color foundthemselves the only member of theirracial or ethnic group.

In most of their classes, Americanstudents of color were the solemember of their racial or ethnic


% n

Percentage of Classes with:

No students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups(African American; Latino; Native American) 40.2 142

No Native American students 98.6 348

No African-American students 63.5 224

No Latino students 62.9 222

No U.S. students of color (Above + Asian American) 23.2 82

No Asian-American students 49.6 175

No International students 28.9 102

No European-American students 0.0 353

Table II.4

Percentage of Classes of Five or More Students Containing NO students ofa Given Category, Spring 1998

ACE/AAUP 51

group. Native American studentswere never in a class with any otherNative Americans. About two-thirdsof the time, African-American andLatino students were the solemember of their racial or ethnicgroup in class. Asian Americans hadthis experience about 61 percent ofthe time. When a student is the onlymember of his or her race or ethnic-ity in a class, both the student and hisor her classmates lose the opportu-nity to explore the similarities anddifferences of perspective, experi-ence, and belief that exist within andbetween socially significant groups.

The cost to students of color fromhistorically undervalued groups whoare alone in the classroom may beeven greater. Social psychologistshave found that being a solo minorityin a group can have negative conse-quences. A solo is more likely to beobjectified and treated as representa-tive of a category than as a uniqueperson. When a person is a solo orpart of a very small minority, thenboth she and majority others aremore likely to perceive her participa-tion as either anomalous or dis-crepant and to overemphasize racialdifference when perceiving andassessing “the other.” VirginiaValian (1998) has summarized someof these dynamics in the context ofgender. She describes research show-ing that performance expectationsfor women become increasingly posi-tive as women make up an increasingproportion of a given performancecategory, even while remaining aminority. Furthermore, as the pro-portion of women increases, less and

less attention is focused on the indi-vidual as a female rather than as, say,a student. As Valian notes, “Perhapscounterintuitively, the more numer-ous women are, the less importanttheir gender is” (p. 139). Analogously,it can be argued that the morenumerous students of color are, theless they will be perceived only asicons of their race or ethnicity.

When I have reported these find-ings at Macalester, many faculty andadministrators have been surprised(though they soon recognized thatthey should not have been). On acampus that values small classes andthe student body of which comprisesapproximately 13 percent students ofcolor, a large minority of classesinevitably will have either no studentsof color or solo representation. Itreally is more a matter of mathemati-cal and probability theory than socialtheory. In fall 1998, Macalester hadan average of 16.7 students per class;in fall 1999, the average was 16.3students per class. The expected

Table II.5

Percentage of Classes Taken by U.S. Students of Color in Which They Werea Solo, Spring 1998

Of those Macalaster College classes of five or more students that enrolled U.S. students of color, how often did the student find themselves to be the ONLY member of their specific race/ethnicity in the class?

% Solo Solo/All Classes Registered

Percent of Classes in which the student was a solo:

Solo/All Classes Registered

The only Native American student 100.0 5/5

The only African-American student 66.7 86/129

The only Latino student 64.1 84/131

The only Asian-American student 61.2 109/178

The only European-American student 0.0 0/353


number of students of color in a classwith 16.3 students, given 13 percentstudents of color, is two. Given 4.1percent African-American students(the proportion in fall 1999), a classwould have to have had 49 studentsbefore the expected number ofAfrican-American students wouldhave reached two. In fall 1999, whenonly 2.7 percent of students wereLatino, a class of 74 students wouldhave been needed before a Latinostudent could expect to be in classwith another Latino. But classesrarely reach this size at Macalester.For example, of the 395 coursesoffered in fall 1999, only 12 (3 per-cent) enrolled 40 or more students.And larger classes are less likely thansmaller ones to offer opportunities forstudents to participate in discussion.

A similar distributional phenome-non is characteristic of classes of 15to 25 students at all colleges and uni-versities with minority populationsof less than about 15 percent, regard-less of total enrollment. For example,11.4 percent of the University ofMinnesota-Twin Cities’ 45,361 stu-dents in fall 1998 were U.S. studentsof color. Of those, 3.2 percent wereAfrican American, 0.7 percent wereNative American, 7.1 percent wereAsian/Pacific American, and 2.0 percent were Chicano/Latino.15

This large public university, whosemission includes a commitment todiversity, would be expected to havemonocultural learning environmentsin many (20-30 percent) of itssmaller classes, even though the

total number of students of colorenrolled (5,150) was much greaterthan at Macalester.16

Of course, students do not ran-domly distribute themselves acrosscourse offerings, so some classes atMacalester have robust “criticalmasses” of students of color.Consider, for example, the distribu-tion of African-American students inclasses in spring 1998: the depart-ments of chemistry, dramatic arts,physics, political science, psychol-ogy, and religion each had two ormore African-American students inat least 25 percent of their classes.Yet 25 other academic programs hadtwo or more African-American stu-dents in fewer than 25 percent oftheir classes; 11 of the programs hadno classes with more than oneAfrican-American student. The fig-ures would be far more dismal forNative American students, about thesame for Latino students, and slightlybetter for Asian-American students.

PART III: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:THE CASE FOR DIVERSITY

The analysis of the 28 selective lib-eral arts colleges’ mission statementspresented in Part 1 of this paper doc-uments that these colleges continueto have a wide range of educationalgoals, including academic excel-lence; learning diverse perspectivesfrom people of diverse races, ethnici-ties, and cultures; commitment tocommunity service; and personal andmoral growth. The data presented in

ACE/AAUP 53

Part 2 show Macalester College as aparticular case of the relationshipbetween an institution’s mission, itsfaculty’s perception of the college’scommitment to the mission, facultymembers’ own commitment to it,and their judgment about whether a diverse environment enhances students’ educational experience.Analysis of both data sets—the FacultyClassroom Diversity QuestionnairePretest and the Higher EducationResearch Institute faculty survey—suggests that at Macalester College,diversity is judged to have great educational value. But Macalesteroften is unable to benefit from diver-sity because the student populationin a sizable minority of its classes ismonocultural or at best minimallybicultural.

The inability to enact its mission inmany classes is a source of great con-cern at the college. The fact thatMacalester is similar to many othersmaller liberal arts colleges in thecountry, along with substantial anecdotal evidence, suggests thatMacalester is not unique. In thedebate about who should have the“right” to be admitted to selectivecolleges and universities, the historiccommitment of liberal arts colleges to create communities that supporttheir educational missions—both academic and social—has been lost orminimized. Yet in virtually every college community, the capacity forthese other kinds of learning—potentials not measured by IQ and

SAT tests—is critical to the institu-tions’ well-being and therefore is andought to be an essential element indecisions about student admission,faculty and staff hiring, academic pro-grams, and extracurricular activities.The debate about affirmative actionand current legal cases have deflectedpublic discourse away from considera-tion of the range of qualities thatmakes individuals potentially valuedparticipants in a learning community.It has ignored the educational value ofa diverse learning environment to all

students— a value attested to even byexpert scholar/teachers who them-selves do not teach about diversity intheir classes. To the dismay of col-leges and their faculties, who seek toshape their communities so as opti-mally to fulfill all their educationalgoals, the debate has failed to addressthe fundamental question of how welltest scores and high school gradespredict a potential student’s commit-ment to community service, toengagement with and learning fromothers of different beliefs and per-spectives, or to demonstrating intel-lectual courage or artistic creativity.Considering qualities of character,commitment, and service—side byside with academic achievement andintellectual promise—represents apractice and a set of values thatexisted long before affirmative actionwas ever heard of, and will continuelong after affirmative action ceases tobe necessary.

In the debate about who should have the“right” to be admitted

to selective colleges and universities,

the historic commitmentof liberal arts colleges to create communities

that support their educational missions—

both academic andsocial—has been lost

or minimized.


Sample

The sample colleges were the top 25 national selectiveliberal arts colleges in U.S. News and World Report’s

(2000) most recent listing of the top 40 such schools.U.S. News and World Report classifies institutions ofhigher learning according to the categories developedby the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching (1994; 2000). The Carnegie Foundationbased its 1994 sorting on the highest degree awardedat institutions. Those whose highest degree awardedis a bachelor of arts are categorized as “Liberal Arts”or “Baccalaureate” institutions. This group is furthersubdivided into “Liberal Arts I” and “Liberal Arts II”categories on the basis of selectivity (judged by enter-ing students’ entrance exam scores and high schoolclass rank). U.S. News and World Report labels the162 Carnegie Liberal Arts I institutions “national lib-eral arts colleges” and the 429 Liberal Arts II colleges“regional liberal arts colleges.” The magazine hasdeveloped a grading system that ranks the quality ofinstitutions within each Carnegie category. Attributeswhich contribute to the ranking are: academic reputa-tion, student retention, faculty resources, studentselectivity, financial resources, graduation rate, andalumni giving.17 U.S. News has chosen to focus atten-tion on the qualitative ranking of the top 40 nationalliberal arts colleges that appear in a separate list acces-sible from the magazine’s web page. There are actually29 institutions in U.S. News’s top 25 because five col-leges are ranked 25th as a result of ties.

The colleges, in order, are: (1) SwarthmoreCollege, (2) Amherst College, (3) Williams College,(4) Wellesley College, (5) Haverford College, (5) Middlebury College, (7) Pomona College, (8) Carleton College, (9) Bowdoin College, (10) Wesleyan University, (11) Davidson College, (11) Grinnell College, (13) Smith College, (14) Washington and Lee University, (14) ClaremontMcKenna College, (16) Mount Holyoke College, (17) Vassar College, (18) Colby College, (18) ColgateUniversity, (18) Hamilton College, (18) Bryn MawrCollege, (22) Trinity College CT, (23) Bates College,(24) Macalester College, (25) Colorado College,

(25) Connecticut College, (25) Oberlin College, (25) The University of the South, and (25) BarnardCollege.

Procedure

I sought the official mission statements for each of thetop 29 institutions by searching web sites and by con-sulting a compilation of mission statements of the top40 national liberal arts colleges prepared by MacalesterCollege’s Office of Institutional Research. My goalwas to locate statements that had been officiallyendorsed by the institutions’ governing bodies or thatotherwise expressed an enduring collective institu-tional mission. I was able to locate statements thatappeared to reflect a collective commitment for 28 ofthe colleges; however, I was unable to locate a missionstatement that I was confident about for BarnardCollege. The current president, Judith Shapiro, dis-cussed Barnard’s mission in her inaugural speech in1994. At least one subsequent reference is made to herinaugural statement, in a letter from her welcomingvisitors to the college web site: “As I said in my 1994inaugural address, Barnard is committed to the mission of a women’s college, to the importance ofNew York City as a classroom, and to a liberal arts education that prepares our students to move acrosscultural boundaries.” Had this statement been used in the analysis, the results would have been approxi-mately the same.

Analysis

Some mission statements go by other names, such as“statement of purpose.” Some are quite brief; othersare much longer. Some have closely associated sup-plementary statements that expand on the mission,sometimes elaborating on the core values and goals,sometimes describing conditions necessary for fulfill-ing the mission. I also analyzed these; in creatingnumerical summaries of the frequency of occurrenceof different educational goals and values, I indicatedwhether the value appeared in the core mission (and possibly also in the supplement) or only in thesupplement.

APPENDIX II Methodology Used in Analyzing the Mission Statements of the Top 25 (29) National Liberal Arts Colleges

ACE/AAUP 55

Table II.6

Nine Categories of Core Values Found in Mission Statements, with the Subcategories Included in Each,and Examples

Values/Means/Goals Initial Categories Top 28 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges Combined Examples

1. Intellectual Mastery 1 “Middlebury College is committed to excellence throughout its liberal arts curriculum …. [and] admits students who show evidence of intellectual curiosity, high motivation, and superior academic accomplishment.”

“For its students, the aims of Oberlin College are: …to equip them with skills of creative thought, technique, and critical analysis…; to acquaint them with the growing scope and substanceof human thought; to provide for their intensive training in the discipline of a chosen area of knowledge.”

2. Service to Community 5, 19 “[Middlebury] College seeks students who are actively involved and committed to the ideals of community.”

“For its students, the aims of Oberlin College are: …to expand their social awareness, social responsibility … so as to prepare them for … useful response to the present and future demands of society.”

3. Self-knowledge, Personal Growth 2 “…a concern for individual growth … personal growth.” (Haverford)

4. Learn Perspectives from Diversity 9, 16 “…recruit faculty and students representing diverse backgrounds and perspectives.” (Haverford)

“[Bowdoin] College also causes these [individual] decisions to occur in a context of density and variety—of ideas, artistic expression, and exposure to other cultures and races—so that personal identity will not become an illusion of centrality.”

5. Liberated, Curious Mind 14, 15 “Bowdoin makes few decisions for students … believing that students grow morally and sharpen personal identity by exercisingfree individual choice among varied alternatives...”

6. Tolerance, Respect, Concern for Others 8, 18 “…an education that leads one out of the narrowness and prejudices of one’s own experience and toward a fuller awareness of oneself and the world.” (Bryn Mawr)

“Within a framework of mutual respect … students question one another’s ideas and assumptions.” (Amherst)

7. Learn Social Leadership 4 “…develop … perceptive leaders.” (Colgate)

“Middlebury … expects its graduates to be ethical leaders able to meet the challenges of informed citizenship.”

8. Develop Ethical, Moral Judgment 3 “… the excellence of its academic program is deepened by its spiritual, moral, and ethical dimensions…” (Haverford)

“For its students, the aims of Oberlin College are: … to expand their … capacity for moral judgment.”

9. Foster Creativity, Imagination 11 “For its students, the aims of Oberlin College are: … to foster their understanding of the creative process and to develop their appreciation of creative, original work.”


Stage 1 of data analysis consisted of readingthrough all the mission statements to get an overviewof the kinds of values and goals expressed. Stage 2involved identifying and clustering similar goals andvalues. I underlined each primary goal, principle, orvalue and assigned it a code number. To ensure thatmy analytic categories reflected the core meanings inthe missions, I initially used 18 categories for classify-ing key meanings. (The categories are listed below.)The first number to follow each category indicates thenumber of core missions statements (or mission state-ments and supplements) that include that value. Thesecond number (after the slash) adds to the prior sumthe number of instances in which a value appearedonly in a supplementary statement and not in the coremission. The eighteen classes of values and educa-tional goals were:

(1) academic rigor and mastery, 27/28;

(2) personal growth, individual development, self-knowledge, 15/17;

(3) ethical and moral judgment, moral development, 10/13;

(4) social leadership, 11/12;

(5) serve the community, 22/24;

(6) internationalism, 1/1;

(7) bring about social change, 0/1;

(8) tolerance of, respect for others, 10/15;

(9) learn new cultural perspectives from diversity, 8/11;

(10) explore spiritual life, 1/2;

(11) self-expression, creativity, and imagination, 8/9;

(12) cooperate with others, 0/1;

(13) acquire a liberated, independent mind, 11/12;

(14) acquire curiosity, 4/6;

(15) seek understanding via interactions with diverse others (face-to-face focus), 15/18;

(16) social growth, 0/1;

(17) compassion, empathy, concern for others, 5/5;

(18) and responsible citizenship, 4/5.

In Stage 3 of the analysis, I combined categoriesthat were closely related, ultimately reducing thenumber of categories to nine (I eliminated five cate-gories that appeared only in one mission or supple-mentary statement, including: (6) internationalism,found only in Macalester’s mission; (7) bring aboutsocial change, found only in Mount Holyoke’s supple-mentary statement; (10) explore spiritual life, foundonly in The University of the South’s mission; (12) learn to cooperate with others, also found only inMount Holyoke’s supplementary statement; and (17) social growth, which appeared only inMacalester’s supplementary statement). The ninefinal categories were:

(1) acquisition of intellectual mastery and rigor;

(2) learning to value service to community;

(3) learning perspectives from diversity;

(4) developing self-knowledge and growing personally;

(5) developing and nurturing a liberated, creative mind;

(6) gaining an increased capacity for tolerance, respect, and concern for others;

(7) acquiring skills and motivation for social leadership;

(8) developing ethical and moral judgment; and

(9) fostering creativity and imagination.

Table II.6 (previous page) lists the nine categories,indicates which of the 18 original categories werecombined to create them, and provides examples ofeach from the mission statements.

ACE/AAUP 57

ENDNOTES

1 I focus on the mission statements of national liberal arts colleges because that is thecategory of institution within which Macalester College (the institution on which I focuslater in the paper) falls. However, the mission statements of most colleges and universi-ties—both public and private—are similar in content to those of liberal arts colleges.

2 Macalester has had a more uneven record with respect to providing adequate supportservices for students of color over the past 30 years. While such services have been sup-plied continuously, their extent and effectiveness have waxed and waned; currently,under President Michael McPherson, they are in a period of growth and increasingstrength.

3 Full details of the methodology may be found in Gudeman (in press). A total of 132 fac-ulty received the questionnaire in May 1998; 81 responded, representing a good cross-section by gender, academic rank, and discipline.

4 Throughout the paper, reports on individual items specify the number of faculty whoresponded to the question being discussed. For example, 78 of the 81 faculty respondentsanswered this question.

5 As a participant in the Higher Education Research Institute survey, Macalester hasaccess to the data from its campus. A total of 161 faculty received questionnaires; 104 fac-ulty responded.

6 The fourth value, internationalism, is unique to Macalester among the 28-campussample of missions described above. No questions on the Higher Education ResearchInstitute survey pertain to internationalism specifically.

7 One sample t test = 28.45, df = 101, p<.0001.



10 Paired two-sided t tests were used to compare the average level of importance that faculty assigned to intellectual development (M = 3.76, SD = .45), community service (M = 2.84, SD = .86) and diverse environment (M = 3.10, SD = .91). On average, facultyassigned intellectual development a higher importance rating than they did diverse envi-ronment (t(101) = 6.882, p<.0001) or community service (t(99) = 9.839, p<.0001).Diverse environment was rated as significantly more important than community service(t(99) = 2.803, p < .01).

11 In this and subsequent reports of individual items on the HERI survey, the indicatednumber of faculty respondents may be lower than the number of total respondents (104)because not all respondents answered the particular question.

12 The statistically significant correlation coefficients among these three variables rangedfrom .41 (teaching about race/ethnicity//preparing for citizenship), to .56 (teachingabout race/ethnicity//preparing for community service and also preparing for citizen-ship// preparing for community service). These correlations were appreciably higherthan other significant, but much smaller correlations among the five indices of personalgoals. I tested the significance of the difference between paired correlations and foundthat the correlations among citizenship, community service, and race/ethnicity were sig-nificantly larger than the correlations between these variables and teaching clear think-ing or teaching Western classics, or the correlation between the latter two variables.

13 Milem and Hakuta (2000) report that the multi-institutional national sample of facultysurveyed by the Higher Education Research Institute in 1998-99 also overwhelmingly


(over 90 percent) view diversity in the classroom as having educational value for all stu-dents (p. 48).

14 See Appendix II for a description of Carnegie Liberal Arts I colleges.

15 This information is from the University of Minnesota web site. Total enrollment is foundat http://www1.umn.edu/systemwide/factsenrollment.html. Minority enrollments arefound at http://www.aamd.umn.edu/mad/soc.enroll.html.

16 See also Maruyama and Moreno, in this volume.

17 Further information about the measures and their weight is available at the U.S News

and World Report web site: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/corank.htm.

REFERENCES

Alger, Jonathan. 1997. The educational value of diversity, Academe, January-February,20-23.

American Anthropological Association. 2000 (1998). Statement on race. Available at theAAA web site: http://www.ameranthassn.org/stmts/racepp.htm

Amherst College. 2000. “Amherst College looks for men and women...” In Macalester(Ed.), Mission statements from comparison colleges. Office of Institutional Research.Unpublished manuscript. Also at http://www.amherst.edu/∼admission/admissionfinaid.html

Astin, Alexander. 1993. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnard College. 2000. Office of the President. http://www.barnard.edu/president/president.htm

Bates College. 2000. Bates College mission statement. http://www.bates. edu/about/

Bowdoin College. 2000. The mission of the college. http://www.bowdoin. edu/cwis/mission.html

Bryn Mawr College. 2000. History and mission. Introduction. The College as a commu-nity. http://www.brynmawr.edu/

Carleton College. 2000. The purpose of the college. http://www.carleton.edu/campus/registrar/catalog/HistoricallySpeaking.html

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2000. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/OurWork/OurWork.htm

Chang, M. J. 1999. An examination of conceptual and empirical linkages between diversity

initiatives and student learning in higher education. Paper presented at the AmericanCouncil on Education Working Conference and Research Symposium on Diversityand Affirmative Action. Washington, DC, January 1999.

Claremont McKenna College. 2000. Our mission statement.http://www.mckenna.edu/giving/index.htm

Colby College. 2000. Colby’s mission and goals. http://www.colby.edu/catalogue/

Colgate University. 2000. Mission statement.http://cwis.colgate.edu/middlestates/part_II_2.html

ACE/AAUP 59

Colorado College. 2000. Mission statement. http://www.ColoradoCollege. edu/AboutCC/AboutCC.htm

Connecticut College. 2000. Connecticut College mission statement. http://www.conncoll.edu/Academics/catalog/contents.pdf

Davidson College. 2000. Mission statement. http://www.davidson.edu/

Furner, M. 1975. Advocacy and objectivity. Lexington, KY: The University of KentuckyPress.

Grinnell College. 2000. The purpose of the college. http://www.grinnell. edu/www/catalog/geninfo/purpose.html

Grinnell College. (2000). Definition of values. http://www.grinnell. edu/President/ffe/CoreValu.htm

Gudeman, R. (In press). Faculty experience with diversity: A case study. In G. Orfield &M Kurlaender (Eds.), Diversity challenged: Legal crisis and new evidence. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Hamilton College. 2000. College purposes and goals. Hamilton College Catalogue.

http://www.hamilton.edu/assets/pdf/college_catalogue.pdf

Haverford College. 2000. II. The mission of Haverford College—Statement of purpose.http://www.haverford. edu/middlestates/selfstudy.pdf

Helms, J. 1994. The conceptualization of racial identity and other “racial” constructs. InJ. Trickett, R. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in

context (pp. 285-311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Higher Education Research Institute. 2000. HERI faculty survey: An overview of the1998–1999 faculty norms. http://www.gseis.ucla. edu/heri/cirp.htm.

Hirschfeld, L. 1996. Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of

human kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Locke, J. (Edited by Howard Penniman). 1947. John Locke on politics and education.

New York: Van Nostrand.

Lowe, E. 1999. Promise and dilemma: Incorporating racial diversity in selective highereducation. In E. Lowe (Ed.), Promise and dilemma: Perspectives on racial diversity and

higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Macalester College. 1999. Mission; Statement of purpose and belief. Macalester College

Catalog, 1999–2000. Saint Paul, MN: Macalester College.

Middlebury College. 2000. Middlebury College mission statement. http://www.middlebury.edu/∼publish/hdbk/99-2000Handbook/Intro.html#anchor6728684

Milem, J. F. (In press-a). Diversity is not enough: How campus climate and faculty teach-ing methods affect student outcomes. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity challenged: Legal

crisis and new evidence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Milem, J. F. (In press-b). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiplesectors. In M. Chang, M. Witt-Sandis, J. Jones & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Compelling inter-

est: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in higher education. Palo Alto, CA:Stanford University Press.




Mount Holyoke College. 2000. Mission statement and principles of the college.http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/reg/catalog/newmission.html

Nussbaum, M. 1997. Cultivating humanity: A classic defense of reform in liberal education.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

O’Brien, G. D. 1998. All the essential half-truths about higher education. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Oberlin College. 2000. Oberlin College: Scholarship, diversity, social commitment—statement of goals and objectives for Oberlin College. http://www.oberlin.edu/catalog/general/oc_commitment.html

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. 1991. How college affects students: Findings and insights

from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, M., Blackburn, R., Gamson, Z., Arce, C., Davenport, R., & Mingle, J. 1978.Black students on white campuses: The impacts of increased black enrollments. AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.

Pomona College. 1999. Pomona College. In Macalester (Ed.), Mission statements fromcomparison colleges. Office of Institutional Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

Sax, L., Astin, A., Korn, W., & Gilmartin, S. 1999. The American college teacher:National norms for the 1998–1999 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles, CA: HigherEducation Research Institute, UCLA.

Smith College. 1999. The mission of Smith College. In Macalester (Ed.), Mission state-ments from comparison colleges. Office of Institutional Research. Unpublished manu-script.

Swarthmore College. 2000. Objectives and purposes.http://www.swarthmore.edu/Home/Academic/catalog/intro.html

Trinity College. 2000. The mission of Trinity College.http://www.trincoll.edu/pub/about/mission.html

U.S. News and World Report. 2000. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rank-ings/natlibs/natliba2.htm

University of the South (Sewanee). 2000. The University purpose.http://www.sewanee.edu/CollegeCatalog/99cat/purpose.htm

Valian, V. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vassar College. 2000. Academic life: Purposes. http://www.vassar.edu/ relations/curric.html

Washington and Lee University. 2000. Mission statement. http://www.wlu. edu/about/mission.wlu

Wellesley College. 2000. The college. http://www.wellesley.edu/Welcome/college.html

Wesleyan University. 1999. Wesleyan’s curriculum. In Macalester (Ed.), Mission statements from comparison colleges. Office of Institutional Research. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Williams College. 2000. Mission and objectives. http://www.williams. edu/admin-depts/registrar/geninfo/mission.html

ACE/AAUP 61

any educators believe “that educating all students fora diverse society and world is part of an emerginginstitutional mission—one from which all studentsmight benefit and one for which having students fromdiverse backgrounds is a genuine asset” (Smith,1997, p. 11, italics original). However, affirmative

action opponents are challenging the race-sensitive means colleges and uni-versities use to create racially and ethnically diverse campuses. The resultingdebate about racial and ethnic diversity and affirmative action has led socialscientists to try to better understand the dynamics and experiences involved.As part of this effort, many have undertaken empirical studies of racial andethnic diversity in higher education.

“Since teaching and learning are at the heart of the academic enter-prise” (Schneider & Schoenberg, 1998, p. 6), it is important to understandhow racial and ethnic changes in the college student population are affectingthe environment in individual college classrooms. Yet, most college environ-ment studies focus on the overall institutional environment or campus cli-mate (Smith, 1997), not the classroom environment. Studies of the effects ofdiversity in the college classroom have focused primarily on either cross-cul-tural learning between domestic and international students1 or courses thatcenter on topics of race.2 In addition, because existing research on cross-racial and cross-ethnic experiences has tended to be quantitative, the qualita-tive components of the interactions are not clear. Close investigation of thenature of these interactions will help us better understand how and why par-ticular outcomes result from interactions among racially and ethnicallydiverse students. This paper attempts to do just that by describing a qualita-tive study of specific interactive multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms.

The Educational Possibility of Multi-Racial/Multi-EthnicCollege ClassroomsPATRICIA MARIN, PH.D.

Patricia Marin is a Program Associate with the Office of Minorities in Higher Education at the American Council on Education.

M Close investigation of the nature of these

interactions will help usbetter understand

how and why particularoutcomes result frominteractions among

racially and ethnicallydiverse students.


The initial purpose of the researchpresented here was to gain a betterunderstanding of what occurred ininteractive, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms.3 I wanted to learnabout the experiences of facultymembers and students, the teachingmethods and course content, and thecharacteristic classroom dynamics insuch settings. I therefore designed aqualitative, multiple case study ofthree interactive, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms at the Universityof Maryland, College Park, one-thirdof whose student population com-prises people of color. The class-rooms were selected on the basis of aprofile arising out of existing studiesabout classrooms, teaching, andlearning. All three courses were pri-marily for upperclass students. Onewas an education course gearedtoward teacher preparation; one wasan English literature course; and thethird, the only course whose topiccentered on issues of race and ethnic-ity, was in women’s studies.Ultimately, I analyzed data I hadobtained over the course of a semes-ter from interviews, focus groups,classroom observation, and docu-ments in order to generate themesabout faculty and student experi-ences in racially and ethnically het-erogeneous classes that usenon-lecture teaching methods.4 Thispaper presents a summary of thedata, an interpretation of the data,and some thoughts about teachingand learning inspired by the data.

THE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF MULTI-RACIAL/MULTI-ETHNIC CLASSROOMS

Analysis of the data revealed thateach of the three classrooms wascharacterized by three overarchingthemes: (1) racial and ethnic diversityis necessary but not sufficient for cre-ating the most effective educationalenvironment; (2) racial and ethnicdiversity increases the educationalpossibilities of the classroom; and (3)multi-racial/multi-ethnic classesenhance educational outcomes.

• Racial and ethnic diversity is neces-sary but not sufficient for creating themost effective educational environment.

The study’s findings indicate that theracial and ethnic diversity of studentsin a classroom is important to bothteaching and learning. As one profes-sor said, “I want people to be able torepresent diversity, not just talkabout it. So, in fact, I need diversityin the classroom.” Faculty partici-pants indicated that a multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom enhances thesuccess of their teaching methodsmore than a primarily homogeneousclass. In addition, students in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes have awider range of experiences that canbe shared and used to enhance thecurriculum. Ultimately, faculty mem-bers’ learning goals are betterachieved in multi-racial/ multi-ethnicclassrooms.5

Although students and facultymembers agreed that multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes areimportant to teaching and learning,they indicated that the conditions of

As one professor said,“I want people to be

able to represent diversity, not just talkabout it. So, in fact,I need diversity in the classroom.”

ACE/AAUP 63

such classes are critical if the benefitsof racial and ethnic diversity are to bemaximized and the disadvantagesminimized. In other words, thepotential outcomes of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom do not justhappen; rather, they need to be“activated.”6 Although racial andethnic diversity is a necessary condi-tion for achieving the benefits of amulti-racial/multi-ethnic classroom,it is not sufficient in itself. Studentdiversity is only one characteristic ofa successful multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassroom. Other elements critical toachieving the full benefits of racialand ethnic diversity include: facultymember characteristics; teachingmethods and course content, or peda-gogy; and classroom climate.

The faculty member. Both faculty andstudent participants said that profes-sors’ educational philosophies andteaching goals are key to the successof multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-rooms and are indicative of whetherfaculty members value such class-rooms—and, therefore, whether theyutilize classroom diversity toimprove educational outcomes.

Because faculty members werechosen to participate in the studybased on a pre-established profile, it is not surprising that they sharedseveral pedagogical goals and that allsaid they value classroom diversity.All believed that students have knowl-edge and experiences that should beshared in the classroom and that theprofessor is not the only person withknowledge worthy of being taughtand learned. These faculty members’philosophy of education is learning-

centered, not teaching-centered.Because these teachers value andemphasize students’ different expe-riences, they value having multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms.7

Faculty and student participantsagreed that faculty members havebiases as well as limited knowledgeand therefore are considered onlyone of many classroom participants—and not even the central one. Oneprofessor said, “The last thing I wantis to be the person that tells peoplewhat the diversity in the world is. Iwant it to speak for itself, and, there-fore, it has to be represented. I canshare what I’ve heard about otherpeople, and seen about other situa-tions, but I can’t really be that.”When teachers’ limits and students’potential contributions are recog-nized, the classroom moves towardbecoming a learning-centered envi-ronment in which teachers becomelearners and students become teach-ers. A larger role for students in theclassroom highlights the racial andethnic diversity they bring.

Because of these acknowledgedlimits, the ways in which they andother faculty members prepare toteach in multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms are in large measure atti-tudinal. One professor suggested:

It’s not how much I know but thatI’m prepared to have this experi-ence. I think I’m good at this. Ithink I’m good at being open tofacilitating everybody teachingeach other, and me, too. So that’swhat you need—that sense of confi-dence to be able to give permis-sion to people to learn.

When teachers’ limitsand students’

potential contributionsare recognized,

the classroom movestoward becoming alearning-centered

environment in whichteachers become

learners and studentsbecome teachers.


Another professor added, “You haveto be more experienced in diversity.You have to learn to understand it ina way that appreciates it and not justtolerates it. You have to get rid ofyour own stereotypes.” Faculty par-ticipants suggested that being opento and appreciative of issues of diver-sity, having confidence in one’steaching ability, invalidating one’sown stereotypes, and approachingteaching in multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms as a benefit, not a burden,are basic means of preparation.Faculty members said they felt pre-pared to teach racially and ethnicallydiverse classes because they valuedthe experience, deriving both per-sonal and professional benefits fromit, and because they had practicedoing it. Nevertheless, they also saidthey were always trying to improvetheir teaching by adopting tech-niques that would help them realizetheir goals and maximize their class-rooms’ potential. “Every semester,every course I teach, I do a newtrick,” one teacher said.

Faculty members felt that theirown research and learning hadadvanced as a result of teaching andinteracting with racially and ethni-cally diverse students. They also saidthat they needed to expand their ownreading to become knowledgeableabout a wider range of racial and cul-tural issues, and they suggested thatsome teachers of ethnically andracially diverse classes—especiallythose unfamiliar with the experience—might profit by participating in work-shops and seminars that focus on theresources, techniques, and challengesof teaching in such an environment.

Faculty members also said that thepotentially hard work of preparationis part of a teacher’s obligation in anyclassroom and is central to success inattaining enhanced educational out-comes in multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms. Ultimately, being areflective teacher who utilizes class-room diversity is critical to enhanc-ing the outcomes of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom.

Pedagogy. Pedagogy—comprisingboth course content and teachingmethods—is inextricably bound upwith the individual teacher. Facultyparticipants said that they developcurricula that include diversity for alltheir courses, regardless of the racialand ethnic makeup of the class. Butincluding racial and ethnic topics,examples, scholars, and perspectivesin course content is especially impor-tant for students in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms; doing sodemonstrates that the voices of thedominant white culture are not theonly ones worth listening to. As onefaculty member said, including arange of issues and scholars allowsstudents to see that these topics andindividuals—which may be reflectiveof the students’ own communities—are valued and have academic worth.Moreover, in this kind of open schol-arly environment, students feel morecomfortable sharing their own opinions.8

Both student and faculty partici-pants emphasized that interaction—in the form of discussion and otheractive learning techniques—is essen-tial if the potential of multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms is to be max-

Both student and facultyparticipants emphasizedthat interaction—in the

form of discussion and other active

learning techniques—is essential if the

potential of multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms

is to be maximized.

ACE/AAUP 65

imized.9 In fact, student participantsincluded “interaction” as part oftheir definition of multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms, suggestingthat if the diversity of a class was notbrought forth through interaction,then the class should not even be con-sidered multi-racial/multi-ethnic,regardless of its composition.

The faculty members I observedused a variety of experiential learn-ing methods in the classroom: smallgroup discussions, student presenta-tions, debates, role playing, problem-posing, and student paper exchangesto increase interaction and discus-sion among students. They encour-aged active student participation andminimized their own role. By using avariety of teaching techniques, thefaculty members encouraged stu-dents to share their opinions and toteach one another about their differ-ences and similarities, thereby chal-lenging existing stereotypes. Onestudent explained:

A good professor is really more ofa facilitator most of the time. I’mconstantly amazed at all the expe-riences that people in my classhave...and they can teach me a lot.And a good professor lets themteach you, and just sort of adds orclarifies and makes sure that heror his lesson gets across. But therest of the class is going to expandon it.

The less diverse a classroom is, thefewer and less effective are theopportunities to use the full range ofinteractive teaching methods; oftenthe only choice, which is limiting, isfor the professor to lecture about dif-ferent perspectives.

Students said that discussionallowed them to learn from oneanother and from mistakes made inthe process of interacting. By facili-tating discussion, faculty membersencourage students to share theirexperiences. Students said that suchdiscussion shed a more realistic lighton many topics and helped them feelmore invested in the learningprocess. “You can only get so muchfrom a book,” one student said. “Butif you actually have somebody in theclass to give you another perspective,it really, really helps.”

Many students acknowledged thatinteractive classes can be more inter-esting and can feel more “comfort-able” than those in which facultymembers simply lecture. Interactionand discussion allow students toexperience their learning of coursecontent. Students believe they learnmore from these direct experiencesthan from class lectures duringwhich they simply take notes. More-over, lecture-based courses, by theirvery nature, cannot take advantageof the multi-racial/multi-ethnicdimensions of a class.

Although interactive classes arechallenging for some students (andfor some teachers), especially whenthey are not accustomed to them,both students and teachers becomemore comfortable with them as theirexperience of them becomes morefrequent. While “having to get usedto” interactive classes is not uniqueto multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes,the added component of racial andethnic diversity magnifies the chal-lenge for many students—as college is


often the first time students enter aheterogeneous environment (Astin,1993b; Gurin, 1999; Hurtado et al.,1998). Nevertheless, interactivemethods provide an opportunity forracially and ethnically diverse stu-dents to learn from and becomefamiliar with one another while atthe same time helping create aninclusive classroom environment.

The classroom climate. The climate of an interactive, multi-racial/multi-ethnic class is critical to its success.Faculty and students agreed thatmore effective learning takes place ina multi-racial/multi-ethnic class, butonly when the classroom climate issupportive and inclusive. The class-room must be developed as a safespace in which all students can sharetheir opinions and experiences.Students have to feel respected. Alltypes of comments and reactions(except personal attacks) need to bevalued. Respectful disagreementshould be welcomed, and consensuscannot be forced. One faculty partici-pant described such a classroom as a“both/and” classroom in which alter-native viewpoints are encouraged andstudents have equal “voice time.”Examples of student involvement inthe classrooms I observed includedallowing students to teach the classand incorporating information pre-sented by students into exams.

The physical set-up of a classroomalso can contribute to developing anopen, supportive climate. For exam-ple, arranging seats in a circle andhaving the professor sit with the stu-dents demonstrates that all studentsare equal and that everyone is

encouraged to participate. To sum-marize, professors need to act asfacilitators and to create a classroomsetting in which all students arevalued and included in the educa-tional process if they are to maximizethe benefits of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic class.

• Racial and ethnic diversity increasesthe educational possibilities of theclassroom.

The three faculty participants in thestudy said they included similar con-tent, used similar methods, and triedto develop similar classroom climatesregardless of the racial and ethnicmake-up of their classes; nonetheless,they felt they could best accomplishtheir goals and enhance their teachingin multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes.They said a multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassroom allows for unique educa-tional possibilities: racial and ethnicdiversity, combined with a supportiveclimate, diverse content, and interac-tive methods, can catalyze and mag-nify educational potential.10

Even if diversity in a classroomdoes not change a faculty member’steaching methods or course content,it does increase the educationalpotential of the class for at least tworelated reasons: First, because fac-ulty members necessarily bring lim-ited experiences to their classrooms,racially and ethnically diverse stu-dents broaden the range of authori-ties that can be brought to bear onsubject matter. Second, becausediversity in the classroom increasesthe range of experiences and per-spectives that can be shared, stu-

Professors need to act as facilitators and tocreate a classroom setting in which

all students are valuedand included in the educational process

if they are to maximizethe benefits of a multi-racial/

multi-ethnic class.

ACE/AAUP 67

dents collectively generate morecomplex thoughts when interactingand learning together.

Although the study focused onracial and ethnic diversity, partici-pants referred to situations in whichother types of diversity, such asgender and sexual orientation, hadincreased the educational possibili-ties of a class. Faculty participantsinsisted, however, that other types ofdiversity could not serve as a substi-tute for racial and ethnic diversity.Instead, they said, each type of diver-sity contributes something unique tothe classroom. Indeed, as study par-ticipants pointed out, a truly multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom had toinclude white students.

Most of the students in the studysaid that educational possibilitiescan be enhanced through interactionacross race and ethnicity in all typesof disciplines, not just those in whichrace and ethnicity are related to andincorporated into the syllabus.According to the student partici-pants, race and ethnicity matter fordifferent reasons across different dis-ciplines. Several students suggestedthat simple social interaction—regardless of discipline—teaches students how to relate to one anotheracross personal differences; suchinteraction alone can challengestereotypes and better prepare stu-dents to interact with people differ-ent from themselves in the workplaceand in society. In addition, studentssaid, no academic discipline is freefrom bias. Students with differentperspectives need to be presentsimply to challenge the scholarship

of the discipline. One studentexplained:

Things that we think to be so sci-entific and so “black and white”almost never are. There’s alwaysresearch bias. So much of the sci-entific research and social scienceresearch has been done by whitemales. It is impossible to thinkthat this is just “correct” and thatthere aren’t biases there.

Although certain topics clearly aremore “connected” to issues of raceand ethnicity than others, studentssaid that racial and ethnic diversitycan enhance all topics. Students didnot feel that curricular diversity initself was essential, but they said thatthe combination of student interac-tion, curricular diversity, and struc-tural diversity created educationalpossibilities not present in classeswithout these conditions.

Faculty and students admittedthat conflict and tension sometimesarose in multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms, but they said that suchexperiences actually contributed toeducational possibility. Whether theconflicts resulted from fear of offend-ing or lack of experience in dealingwith individuals of different ethnic orracial backgrounds, students saidthey learned from them. Faculty par-ticipants said they, too, consideredsuch conflicts as representing notnegative experiences for students,but useful educational tools. “I don’tpurposely try to get them to argueand yell and scream, but I certainlyknow that there are underlying ani-mosities,” one faculty member said.“But I want people to find that out.

Students did not feelthat curricular diversityin itself was essential,but they said that the

combination of studentinteraction, curricular

diversity, and structuraldiversity created

educational possibilitiesnot present in classes

without these conditions.


The whole point of the class is to real-ize that these conflicts are very real.”

Addressing tensions directly anddebating and resolving conflictallows students to learn not only theissues, but also how to handle diffi-cult situations. One student said, “Ithink people need to keep going intotense situations. That’s how you getbetter at it. You learn to deal with it.”Another student added, “The inter-action allows for room to make mis-takes, and that is how you learn.”Students acknowledged that theymay feel uncomfortable, but theysaid such experiences challengethem and allow them to develop inways they otherwise would not.11

Other potential threats to learn-ing can arise in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms, including suchbehavior as silencing, stereotyping,tokenism, and negative groupdynamics. Some study participantscited their frustration with the kindof stereotyping and tokenism theyfelt when they were asked to speakon behalf of their racial or ethnicgroup. Their experiences as tokensoften led them to participate less fre-quently, if at all, in further class dis-cussions (silencing). Participantssaid that having a “critical mass” of minority students in a class couldalleviate the tensions of tokenismbecause of the support created byallies within a group. But theassumption that students from thesame racial or ethnic backgroundwill experience affinity with oneanother is yet another form ofstereotyping. Because there is diver-sity within racial and ethnic groups

as well as between them, students ofthe same race or ethnicity often havedifferent experiences or perspec-tives, lessening or even eliminatingtheir desire to support or feel sup-ported by one another. If studentswithin a particular racial or ethnicgroup are very different, subgroupdynamics can develop, causing stu-dents to feel that they do not belongto “their own” group or to feel thatthey must act in a certain way inorder to be accepted by the group.Instead of support, students canexperience peer pressure, or “ nega-tive group dynamics.”

Although group dynamics may getin the way of the educational possi-bilities in multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms, faculty members and stu-dents agreed that these impedimentscan be minimized by using appropri-ate active learning methods (such asrole playing or asking broad ques-tions of the entire class) and by devel-oping an inclusive classroomclimate. Faculty participants alsocited as a beneficial dynamic thepotential for students to bond acrossracial and ethnic lines because ofsimilarities. One professor referredto this as a “cohesiveness aboutinequality,” while another describedit as “sympathetic identity acrossunderrepresented groups.” A thirdprofessor noted that “for differentpurposes, the students can ally them-selves differently.” The dynamicsdescribed by these three professorsallow students to create their owncritical mass even though they maynot share the same racial or ethnicbackground. Once again, obstacles

ACE/AAUP 69

are accepted as part of the learningexperience and are thereby trans-formed into educational possibilities.

Because they believe that racialand ethnic diversity generates educa-tional possibility, both students andfaculty members expressed concernfor classrooms that did not have suchdiversity. Students said classroomdiversity is important even in disci-plines like math, science, andaccounting because biases (e.g., “all Asians are good at math”) can be challenged and exposed. Withoutracial and ethnic diversity in theclassroom, important topics andviews may not arise. Learning aboutpeople who are different happensonly theoretically; being aroundpeople who are different happensexperientially. Students said that theoretical understanding is not aspowerful as experiencing differencedirectly. As one student said, know-ing about others’ cultures and feelingcomfortable interacting with othersremoves detrimental barriers andalleviates unwarranted fears.

The absence of racial and ethnicdiversity diminishes the educationalpossibilities of a class. One facultymember said that interacting acrossdifferences allows students “to seethat there is another side from whattheir experiences have given them.And this happens best in a multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom.”Participants agreed that leaving outentire groups of people prevents stu-dents from obtaining a more com-plete, well-rounded understanding ofissues and thereby limits studentsability to prepare for the multi-

racial/multi-ethnic world they willencounter after college. Facultymembers and students in this studydid not suggest that learning cantake place only in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms; rather, they saidthat the absence of diversity in aclassroom results in diminished edu-cational opportunity because theeducational possibilities available indiverse classrooms simply do notexist in homogeneous classrooms.

• Multi-racial/multi-ethnic classesenhance educational outcomes.

Multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroomscan facilitate the attainment ofimportant outcomes by both facultymembers and their students. Facultyand student participants agreed thatlearning in such an environment hasa positive effect on students’ cogni-tive and personal development.Multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroomschallenge students’ stereotypes,broaden their perspectives, and stim-ulate critical thinking.

Students compared their experi-ences in interactive, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms with theirexperiences in non-integrated envi-ronments. They said that in interac-tive, multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms, they not only learnedmore about others and acquired abroader perspective on issues, butthey also learned more about them-selves. Exposure to others’ experi-ences and viewpoints, students said,made them more aware of their ownopinions and biases. In general,multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroomsexpand on course content by engen-

In general,multi-racial/multi-ethnic

classrooms expand oncourse content

by engendering moreperspectives, more

complicated discussion,and more sophisticated

analysis.


dering more perspectives, morecomplicated discussion, and moresophisticated analysis. Talking aboutteaching her English course, a fac-ulty member said, “In interpreta-tion, since cultural context is soimportant, the greater the variety ofcultural contexts, the richer thereading the class can make as awhole. When you put all thosepeople thinking through somethingtogether, they can get to a moresophisticated analysis than they canon their own.”

Faculty members report expand-ing their own research and writing asa result of interacting with and learn-ing from their students in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms. Inaddition, teaching in racially and eth-nically diverse classrooms generatesa productive cycle: the more diversetheir classrooms, the more opportu-nities faculty members have to expe-rience new situations, and the betterprepared they become to teach inother multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-rooms. Similarly, as students havemore experience of multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes, theybecome more comfortable with andbetter able to take educationaladvantage of them.

The faculty members involved inthis study agreed that having multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes does notdirectly cause them to change theirteaching methods. Rather, factorssuch as personal values, identity, edu-cational philosophy and goals, anddisciplinary trends are most likely toinfluence decisions about teachingmethods and course content.12

According to study participants,multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroomsenhance pedagogy and the opportu-nity to achieve particular educationalgoals in ways that cannot be repli-cated by any other means. For exam-ple, racial and ethnic diversity isneeded to increase the potential forinclusion of a wider set of experi-ences around issues of race and eth-nicity, as well as other coursecontent. Different possibilities fordiscussion of course material existbecause of the different backgroundsof the students. These broader per-spectives provide opportunities torealize such important educationalgoals as challenging stereotypes anddeveloping critical thinking skills.Finally, particular methods that seekto enhance the range of shared opin-ions and firsthand experiences workbest in multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms because of the greaterlikelihood that diverse viewpointswill be presented.

Faculty participants said theyneed diversity to teach to their high-est potential and that multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroomsenable them to be more successful inachieving the outcomes they envi-sion for their classes. “I need thediversity in class to have people sharetheir experiences,” one faculty par-ticipant said. “In the multiplepeople, I get a diverse set of experi-ences.” Overall, then, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroomsprovide opportunities for theenhancement of curriculum, teach-ing methods, research, and studentand faculty learning outcomes.

Faculty participants saidthey need diversity to teach to their

highest potential andthat multi-racial/

multi-ethnic classroomsenable them to be moresuccessful in achieving

the outcomes they envision for their classes.

ACE/AAUP 71

CONCLUSION

Using the themes identified in thispaper and the data I collected, Ideveloped a working hypothesis13 tointerpret these faculty and studentexperiences of interactive multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms.Figure III presents this hypothesis in schematic form.

The hypothesis suggests that fac-ulty members who recognize and usediversity as an educational tool; whoinclude content related to diversityin their courses; who employ activelearning methods; and who create aninclusive, supportive classroom cli-mate can and do produce enhancededucational outcomes in classes

comprising a racial and ethnic mix ofstudents. The more frequently fac-ulty members and students experi-ence interactive, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms, the moreprepared they become to teach andinteract in other multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms.14 Ultimately,classrooms must be not only diverse,but they also must be structured andconducted in a way that takes advan-tage of diversity. Either conditionwithout the other limits the potentialeducational outcomes.

The University of Maryland,College Park, is one of many highereducation institutions that cites theimportance of educating students in

Figure III

Working Hypothesis: The Educational Possibility of Interactive, Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic College Classrooms

Classroom Conditions leading to Educational Possibility

FacultyRecognize educational value

of diversityUse diversity as an educational tool

PedagogyDiverse curriculumActive learning methods

Classroom ClimateInclusiveSupportive

Racially/EthnicallyDiverse Students

ENHANCEDEDUCATIONALOUTCOMESincluding:

For faculty:Expanded researchEnhanced learning

For students:Challenged stereotypesBroadened perspectivesStimulated critical thinking

For classrooms:Enhanced pedagogy

Improved Preparation of Faculty and Students for Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic Classrooms


a diverse environment in its mission.To successfully accomplish this mis-sion, the university needs to be ableto create a racially and ethnicallydiverse student body. Then, facultycan have racially and ethnicallydiverse classrooms that allow themto achieve educational outcomesthey otherwise would not be able toachieve. In the absence of diversity,the educational outcomes discussedin this paper would be severely com-promised.

Faculty at most colleges and uni-versities do not have the authority toensure the racial and ethnic diversityof classes at their institutions.Successful attacks on the constitu-tionality of affirmative action in col-lege admissions are now limitinginstitutions’ authority to ensureracial and ethnic diversity in theirstudent populations. If the observa-tions and conclusions of this study

are accurate, these institutions arebeing denied an important educa-tional tool for preparing students fortheir own futures as well as that ofsociety. Colleges and universitiesmust continue to vigorously asserttheir authority to employ race-sensi-tive admissions policies that havebeen the most effective means ofyielding diverse student populations.In addition to maintaining race-sen-sitive admissions practices as a pri-mary means of achieving diversity,colleges and universities must alsoconsider supplemental strategiesthat will contribute to the efficacy ofrace-sensitive admissions policies.Institutions do and ought to have theright and the responsibility, if such istheir mission, to educate a diversestudent body for a diverse society;they also must be allowed to use toolsthat will enable them to achieve suchdiversity.

ACE/AAUP 73

To address my research questions, I developed adescriptive, multiple case study (Merriam, 1998) ofthree classrooms at the University of Maryland,College Park (UMCP). Each faculty member and hisor her class served as a unique case. Because I wasinterested in identifying unique cases, I used purpo-sive sampling to select the classes. Selection criteriawere developed with regard to several factors: institu-tional and class characteristics, faculty characteris-tics, pedagogical techniques, student characteristics,and course content.

I chose classes at the University of Maryland,College Park, because nearly one-third of the institu-tions’ undergraduate population are students of color(Mathias-Riegal, 1998). This high level of institu-tional student diversity allowed me to select classes inwhich at least 15 percent of the students were non-white.15 In addition to having a multi-racial/multi-ethnic student population, the University of Marylandhas implemented an institution-wide diversity initia-tive, has required its undergraduates to take one ofthe approved “diversity CORE courses,” and has been involved in the legal defense of one of its race-sensitive programs. Given the many opportunities forexposure to diversity, it is not surprising that theUniversity of Maryland campus community seemsgenerally to be aware of race and ethnicity issues. Thisawareness provided study participants with a founda-tion of knowledge and experience on which they couldbase their responses. (In other words, my study wasnot the first time they had thought about issues of raceand ethnicity.)

Because class size and course structure are keyelements in determining the degree of peer interac-tion, the classes chosen were small enough to allow forstudent interaction (30 students maximum) and usedactive learning techniques so as to maximize suchinteraction. Because many faculty members in thehumanities and social sciences report the importanceof active learning techniques (Lattuca & Stark, 1995),and because education courses often are similar in

structure to humanities and social sciences courses(Biglan, 1973), choosing among courses within thosedisciplines increased the likelihood of finding profes-sors who employ active learning methods.

Selected classes enrolled predominantly upper-class students, reflecting the conclusions of BaxterMagolda’s (1992) research that upperclass studentsare more likely than younger students to be influencedby their peers. In addition, students who were at leastsophomores had already attended enough classes to beable to make comparisons among them. Finally, thefaculty members whose classrooms were selected hadtaught in racially and ethnically homogeneous class-rooms as well as in multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-rooms. All of them had taught at the institution for atleast nine years, so their experiences covered theperiod during which the University of Marylandevolved from an overwhelmingly white institution to amore multi-racial/multi-ethnic institution. In deter-mining the final group of classrooms and faculty mem-bers, I also attempted to select as diverse a group offaculty as possible. Although all of the class topicswould relate in some way to issues of race and ethnicity,only one of the classes I chose focused on these topics.

Data collected over the course of a semesterincluded in-depth interviews with each participatingprofessor, focus groups with students from each of theobserved classes, a focus group involving all partici-pating faculty members, classroom observation, anddocument reviews of course syllabuses and studentevaluations.

Data collection and analysis followed Lincoln andGuba’s (1985) method of qualitative analysis; induc-tive reasoning was used to develop themes directlyfrom the data; and research procedures such as trian-gulation, member checking, inquiry auditing, andpeer debriefing were used to establish the trustworthi-ness of the study. The themes identified to describefaculty and student experiences of interactive multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms ultimately were usedto develop a working hypothesis.

APPENDIX III.A Research Design


INTERVIEW ONE

• Gaining an understanding of teaching philosophy:

I’d like to start with a background question. Can youdescribe your philosophy of education (teaching andlearning)?

Potential probes:

• What is the purpose or goal of education?

• What is the role of the professor?

• What is the role of the students?

• What do you hope to accomplish in your classroom?

• Obtaining a definition of “multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-room” from each participant:

Since we’ll be talking about your experiences withmulti-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms, it would help ifyou begin by providing your definition of a “multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom.” (Probe: if “student”component is not mentioned, ask about students.)

Based on your knowledge of and teaching experienceat the University of Maryland, College Park, whatwould you consider a multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-room at this institution?

What about in your college? Your department?

What do your classes tend to look like? Is the class I amobserving a demographically “typical” class for you? Ifnot, what does this course typically look like (demo-graphically)?

• General questions:

Please use your definition of “multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom” to answer the questions in thisinterview. The first questions I will be asking you arepurposefully broad. Therefore, I’d like you to discussthe various items that come to mind.

What has been your experience teaching in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms (any class, as well asclass being observed)?

Have you witnessed changes in your classrooms as aresult of the change in racial/ethnic diversity at theUniversity of Maryland? If so, what have you wit-nessed?

How relevant (important) to your teaching is havingmulti-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

Have you taught more racially/ethnically homoge-neous classrooms at the University of Maryland? If so,what was that like?

Compare the more racially/ethnically homogeneousclasses with the multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes thatyou have taught at the University of Maryland. Howhave they been similar? How have they been different?

Can you share a specific example/story of how havinga multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom made a differ-ence as compared to a racially/ethnically homo-geneous classroom?

In the absence of multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-rooms, is there anything that can replace or mimicthat experience for students? For faculty?

When a critical mass of underrepresented students isnot present, can anything replace or mimic the expe-rience of critical mass for students?

Throughout this interview, I have dichotomizedracially/ethnically homogeneous and multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms. But clearly there is a range ofclasses in between these two poles. What, if anything,happens as classrooms vary through that range?

Are there any other issues related to multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms that I have not coveredduring our conversation?

APPENDIX III.B Faculty Interview Guide

ACE/AAUP 75

INTERVIEW TWO

• What characterizes classroom dynamics in interactive,multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

Think of the course I am observing. Consider themost and least multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes ofthat course you have taught. Have the classroomdynamics differed? If so, how? What aspects? or

With regard to classroom dynamics, how has thismulti-racially/multi-ethnically diverse class differedfrom other courses you have taught that have beenless racially and ethnically diverse?

Potential probes (depending on information shared in first interview):

• Do class discussions differ? If so, how do theydiffer, and for which students?

• Do the issues raised or perspectives/experiencesshared by students differ? If so, how do theydiffer, and for which students?

• Do students’ questions differ? If so, how do theydiffer, and for which students?

• Is the discussion of certain issues/topicsenhanced? If so, how, and for which students?Which issues/topics?

• Is the discussion of certain issues/topicsimpeded? If so, how, and for which students?Which issues/topics?

• Do student interaction and behavior differ? If so,how, and for which students?

• Does student motivation differ? If so, how, andfor which students?

• Is there a difference in tension/conflict? If so,what is the difference?

• Is there a difference in who participates in classand who does not? If so, what is the difference?

• Are the following different in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

– The issues students consider? If so, how?

– The issues students research as class projects? Ifso, how?

– Collaboration on group projects? If so, how?

– Critical reading of course materials? If so, how?

• What is the nature of student experiences in interactive,multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

What have you witnessed regarding student experi-ences in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms? Inmore racially/ethnically homogeneous classrooms?

What have students told you about their experiencesin multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

What have students told you about their experiencesin more homogeneous classrooms? How are theirexperiences different when the homogeneity reflectstheir identity? When the homogeneity does not reflecttheir identity?

How do you think students feel about the differencebetween racially/ethnically homogeneous classroomsand multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms? How doyou know? What feedback about this have you gottenfrom students over the years?

How important is it for students to be enrolled inmulti-racial/multi-ethnic classes?

So far, we’ve been talking about interactions amongand between students in multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms. Does the mere presence of racially andethnically diverse “others” make a difference in aclassroom? Is visible diversity what is necessary? Or isinteraction between and among students essential?


• Are the types of learning opportunities, in gen-eral, different in a multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-room? If so, how?

• Do multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms affectstudents’ development?

• What are the benefits and challenges for studentsin multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms? Whatare they in more racially/ethnically homogeneousclassrooms?


• What is the nature of pedagogy in interactive,multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

Think of the class I am observing. Has your pedagogychanged as your classrooms have become more multi-racial/multi-ethnic? If so, why and how? If not, why?If your class has always had a multi-racial/multi-ethnic curriculum, have the demographic changes inthe class changed the effect of the curriculum?

How was this course taught differently when you firsttaught it?

Do you try to make use of the students’ diversity inyour teaching? If so, how? If not, why? If you do, areyou concerned about putting the “burden of educat-ing” on members of underrepresented groups?

Potential probes (depending on information sharedin first interview):

• Has your teaching method/style changed? If so,how?

• Do you attempt to have students interact acrossracial/ethnic lines in class discussions, classassignments, and group presentations?

• Has your curriculum/syllabus changed? If so,how?

• Do you raise different topics/issues? Is so, what?

• Do you include different readings? If so, what?

• How do you determine what materials/readingsto include?

• Has your role/teaching function in the classroomchanged? If so, how?

• Are there other differences in your pedagogy as aresult of increased racial and ethnic diversity inyour classrooms?

• Have these changes affected classroom dynamics?If so, how?

• You use active/collaborative learning in yourclassroom. Why?

• What is the experience of professors who teach interac-tive, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

How have you been affected professionally as yourclassrooms have become more multi-racial/multi-ethnic?

How have you been affected personally as your class-rooms have become more multi-racial/multi-ethnic?


• Has your research been affected? If so, how?

• Do you face different demands in classrooms thatare more multi-racial/multi-ethnic? If so, whatare they? How do you handle these demands?

• What are the personal and professional chal-lenges of teaching a multi-racial/multi-ethnicclass? What are they in a more racially/ethnicallyhomogeneous classroom?

• What are the personal and professional benefitsof teaching a multi-racial/multi-ethnic class?What are they for a more racially/ethnicallyhomogeneous class?

• Do you feel prepared to teach multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes?

• How can one prepare to teach multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes?

• Have your interactions with students changed asyour classes have become more multi-racial/multi-ethnic? Why or why not? If so, how?

• Have your own views about racial/ethnic diversitybeen affected as a result of teaching multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes?

• Do you think your own identity (racial/ethnic,gender, etc.) affects your teaching in a multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom? If so, how?

• Are there other ways in which you have beenaffected by teaching multi-racial/multi-ethnicclasses?

• What is your general perception of diversity atUMCP or of how the campus responds to it?

ACE/AAUP 77

Obtaining a definition of “multi-racial/multi-ethnic class-room” from each participant:

Because we’ll be talking about your experiences ofmulti-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms, it would help ifeach of you would provide a definition of a “multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom.” (Probe: if “student”component is not mentioned, ask about students.)

• Based on your knowledge of and experience at theUniversity of Maryland, College Park, what wouldyou consider a multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroomat this institution? What about in your college?Your department?

• Is that what most of the classes you are in look like?If not, what do they look like? What about the class Iam observing?

General questions (to use in the first focus group):

Please use your definition of “multi-racial/multi-ethnic classroom” to answer the questions in thisinterview. The first questions are purposefully broad.Therefore, I’d like you to discuss the various itemsthat come to mind.

• What has been your experience in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?

• What have you witnessed in your classes as a resultof racial and ethnic student diversity? What about inthe class I am observing?

• How important/relevant to your learning is havingmulti-racial/multi-ethnic classmates? Does itdepend on the topic being taught?

• Has the multi-racial/multi-ethnic makeup of theclass I am observing made a difference in any way(to your learning, class discussion, etc.)?

• What have you learned—if anything—as a result ofinteracting with racially and ethnically diverse class-mates? What about in this class? Do people interactacross racial/ethnic lines? (Probe: is there segregation/integration in terms of where peoplesit, who talks, who is vocal about certain issues?)

• Compare the more racially/ethnically homogeneousclasses with the multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes inwhich you have been enrolled at the University ofMaryland. How are they similar? How are they differ-ent? In your comparisons, consider the following:

– class discussions; issues raised; questions asked

– student interaction; behavior; participation

– tension; conflict

• Do faculty who teach multi-racial/multi-ethnicclasses use different teaching methods (pedagogy)?Give examples. Can you provide any examples fromthe class I am observing?

• What teaching methods (pedagogy) seem to be mostuseful in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms?Why?

• Are all faculty members prepared to teach multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes? How do you know?Characterize a faculty member who is prepared toteach a multi-racial/multi-ethnic class versus onewho is not prepared to do so.

• Can you provide a specific example/story of howhaving a multi-racial/multi-ethnic class (as com-pared to a racially/ethnically homogeneous class)made a difference? What about from the class I amobserving?

• How do you feel about being in racially/ethnicallyhomogeneous classes versus multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes?

• Are there any other issues that relate to multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms that I have not covered during our conversation?

General probes:

• Does anyone see it differently?

• Are there any other points of view?

APPENDIX III.C Student Focus Group Guide


The three cases I studied were selected using purpo-sive sampling. The classes were in the humanities, education, and social sciences and had 30 or fewerpredominantly upperclass students, at least 15 per-cent of whom were non-white. The faculty membersused active learning techniques, incorporated issuesof race and ethnicity in their curricula, and had taughtat the University of Maryland for at least nine years.Although qualitative research is not intended to pro-duce generalizations, it can be used to generate “concrete universals” (Erickson, 1986, p. 130) or particular cases that can be used to understand similarcases. By examining the specific details of my cases,readers may determine how closely they resembletheir own experiences. Thus, the findings—as well astheir implications—may be transferred to similar situa-tions elsewhere.

Using Diversity as an Educational Tool

The faculty members who participated in this studyrecognize the importance of preparing students for aracially and ethnically diverse world. With this as agoal, they also recognize the value of utilizing studentdiversity in their classrooms as an educational tool tomaximize student learning outcomes. According tothe students who participated in the study, these fac-ulty members succeeded in creating classroom cli-mates in which students could interact with and learnfrom one another. The course content and teachingmethods employed by these faculty members, there-fore, can reasonably serve as a model for “best prac-tices” with regard to multi-racial/multi-ethnicclassrooms.

Faculty and student participants alike cited educa-tional possibilities and outcomes provided by inter-active, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms that cannotbe achieved in homogeneous classrooms. Because theseexperiences provide opportunities for student learningand development that cannot be duplicated in any other

setting, it follows that opportunities for students to par-ticipate in interactive, multi-racial/multi-ethnicclasses should be maximized. Learning directly fromdiverse peers, rather than just hearing or readingabout different cultures, results in better educationaloutcomes for both students and society.

To facilitate student interaction, faculty partici-pants used active teaching methods. According to stu-dent participants, these practices empower them inclass and create new opportunities for interaction out-side class.

Study participants also recognized that while it isimportant for students to learn from one another, it isalso important not to place the burden of education onone person or group of people. In other words, “forc-ing diversity,” as several students described it, can bedetrimental. Rather, the professor must create a class-room climate in which students feel comfortable par-ticipating. Faculty participants, as well as students,suggested that by asking questions of the whole class,instead of addressing one individual, teachers allowmultiple students to participate. Students wished thatmore of their professors taught in this way.

If faculty members are interested in emphasizingwhat students have to contribute to the learningprocess, or if they find themselves teaching in multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms, they would do well toconsider the techniques set forth in this study. Doingso will allow them to maximize the potential and mini-mize the challenges of such classrooms. For example,faculty members whose principal teaching method islecture might consider incorporating more activelearning methods. They also might consider diversify-ing their curriculum and establishing a comfortableclassroom climate in which all students feel includedand able to participate. By adopting the practicescalled for by multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes, teachers will enhance the educational possibilities intheir classrooms.

APPENDIX III.D Implications for Practice

ACE/AAUP 79

Faculty Preparation

Faculty participants indicated that being prepared toteach multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes is important.At the same time, students said that not all facultymembers are prepared to teach multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes. If valuable educational opportunitiesare not to be lost, institutions need to offer their facul-ties training in how to maximize the educational possi-bilities of racially and ethnically diverse classes.Faculty members may find the following useful: work-shops and seminars on diversifying the curriculum;use of active learning methods; creation of supportiveclassroom climates; and dealing with negative groupdynamics.


ENDNOTES

1 See, for example, Bevis, 1997, and Neff, 1981.

2 See, for example, Bidell, Lee, Bouchie, Ward, & Brass, 1994, and Lopez, 1993.

3 For the purposes of this study, multi-racial/multi-ethnic classrooms are those that pro-vide opportunities for all students to interact with other students from different racialand ethnic groups (Chang, 1996).

4 For a detailed description of the research design, see Appendix III.A. For the facultyinterview guides, see Appendix III.B. For the student focus group guides, see AppendixIII.C.

5 This supports the theory of multicultural education (Banks, 1999), which emphasizesthe centrality of race and ethnicity in the educational process.

6 This observation is consistent with the results of studies by Chang (1996, 1997), Gurin(1999), Hurtado (1997), and Milem (1994). Each of these social scientists has found thatthe conditions under which diversity is experienced affect the resulting outcomes.

7 This philosophy of education is reflective of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987, 1991)“Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,” which highlights theimportance of interaction in improving teaching and learning in college classrooms.

8 The research of Adams and Zhou-McGovern (1994), Astin (1993a), Hurtado (1997),Lopez (1993), Peterka (1998), and Villalpando (1994) supports the potential educationalbenefits of diversity within the curriculum.

9 This is supported by studies conducted by Chang (1996, 1997), Hurtado (1997), andMilem (1994).

10 This conclusion supports studies by Meacham et al. (1999) and Gurin (1999), whichdescribe educational outcomes of racially and ethnically diverse classrooms.

11 Confirming the educational value of conflict, Palmer suggests, “There is no knowingwithout conflict” (1987, p. 25). Furthermore, “A healthy community... includes conflictat its very heart, checking and correcting and enlarging the knowledge of individuals bydrawing on the knowledge of the group” (p. 25). Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1996)also support using conflict as a learning experience in the classroom. They argue thatintellectual conflict needs to be included in college classrooms because “arousing intel-lectual conflict is one of the most important and powerful instructional procedures avail-able to college faculty” (p. iii).

12 This supports findings by Stark, Lowther, Bentley, and Martens (1990), Stark,Lowther, Bentley, Ryan et al. (1990), Milem and Astin (1994), Milem and Wakai (1996),and Hurtado (1997). These studies indicate that faculty pedagogy is influenced by factorssuch as faculty gender and racial background, discipline orientation, and educationalphilosophy.

13 “Working hypothesis” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) is a term used to describe the data inter-pretation resulting from a study in which broad generalization is not possible. There are notenough cases to be able to develop a theory or model. According to Lincoln & Guba (1985),“...the ‘working hypotheses’ are tentative both for the situation in which they are first uncov-ered and for other situations....” Based on context, determinations need to be made as towhether the working hypothesis applies to other situations.

14 See Appendix III.D for a discussion of “Implications for Practice.”

15 Non-white categories at UMCP include African American, Asian American, Latino, andNative American. The sum of these four groups provides the “non-white” percentage foreach class. Foreign students are not included in this count.

ACE/AAUP 81

REFERENCES

Adams, M., & Zhou-McGovern, Y. 1994, April. The sociomoral development of under-

graduates in a “social diversity” course: Developmental theory, research, and instruc-

tional applications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 380 345)

Astin, A. W. 1993a. Diversity and multiculturalism on campus: How are studentsaffected? Change, 25(2), 44-49.

Astin, A. W. 1993b. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Banks, J. A. 1999. An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allynand Bacon.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. 1992. Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in

students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Bevis, T. B. 1997. Language partners. About Campus, 2(2), 23-24.

Bidell, T. R., Lee, E. M., Bouchie, N., Ward, C., & Brass, D. 1994, April. Developing con-

ceptions of racism among young white adults in the context of cultural diversity course-

work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 377 270)

Biglan, A. 1973. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structureand output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204-213.

Chang, M. J. 1996. Racial diversity in higher education: Does a racially mixed student

population affect educational outcomes? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof California-Los Angeles.

Chang, M. J. 1997, November. Racial diversity: A compelling interest for higher education.

Paper presented at the national conference of the Association for the Study of HigherEducation, Albuquerque, NM.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. 1987, March. Seven principles for good practice inundergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (Eds.). 1991. Applying the seven principles for goodpractice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No.

47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Erickson, F. 1986. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.


higher education, Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75231 (E.D. Mich.) and Grutteret al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75928 (E.D. Mich.) (pp. 99-234). Ann Arbor, MI: TheUniversity of Michigan.

Hurtado, S. 1997, May 9. Linking diversity and educational purpose: How the diversity of

the faculty and student body may impact the classroom environment and student devel-

opment. Paper presented at the Harvard Civil Rights Conference on Diversity andHigher Education, Cambridge, MA.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. 1998, Spring.Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice.The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.


Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. 1996. Academic controversy: Enriching

college instruction through intellectual conflict. ASHE–ERIC Higher Education ReportVolume 25, No. 3. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, GraduateSchool of Education and Human Development.

Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. 1995. Modifying the major: Discretionary thoughts from tendisciplines. The Review of Higher Education, 18(3), 315-344.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Lopez, G. E. 1993. The effect of group contact and curriculum on white, Asian American,

and African American students’ attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

Mathias-Riegal, B. 1998, July 7. Appreciating campus diversity: Creating commonground at U–MD. The Washington Post, p. C4.

Meacham, J., McClellan, M., Pearse, T., & Greene, R. 1999. Student diversity in classes

and educational outcomes: Student and faculty perceptions. Paper presented at theAmerican Council on Education’s Symposium and Working Research Meeting onDiversity and Affirmative Action, Arlington, VA.

Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nded.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Milem, J. F. 1994. College, students, and racial understanding. Thought and Action, 9(2),51-92.

Milem, J. F., & Astin, H. S. 1994, April. Scientists as teachers: A look at their culture, their

roles, and their pedagogy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Milem, J. F., & Wakai, S. T. 1996, April. Student centered approaches to teaching and

learning: Lessons to be learned from faculty at historically black colleges and women’s

colleges. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New York, NY.

Neff, C. B. (Ed.). 1981. Cross-cultural learning. New Directions for Experiential Learning,

vol. 11. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Palmer, P. J. 1987. Community, conflict, and ways of knowing: Ways to deepen our educa-tional agenda. Change, 19(5), 20-25.

ACE/AAUP 83

Peterka, C. J. 1998. Course clusters for incoming students at a research university: An

exploration of diversity and the learning experience. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Maryland, College Park.

Schneider, C. G., & Schoenberg, R. 1998, January. Contemporary understandings of lib-

eral education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Smith, D. G. (with Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore,L. C., Merchant, P. A., Beliak, H. D., & Figueroa, B.). 1997. Diversity works: The

emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, DC: Association of AmericanColleges and Universities.

Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Bentley, R. J., & Martens, G. G. 1990. Disciplinary differ-ences in course planning. The Review of Higher Education, 13(2), 141-165.

Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Bentley, R. J., Ryan, M. P., Martens, G. G., Genthon, M. L.,Wren, P. A., & Shaw, K. M. 1990. Planning introductory college courses: Influences on

faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.

Villalpando, O. 1994, November. Comparing the effects of multiculturalism and diversity

on minority and white students’ satisfaction with college. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tuscon, AZ.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 721)

This instrument is the first comprehensive survey of faculty

members’ attitudes toward diversity at their institutions and

in their own classrooms.

Faculty Classroom Diversity Questionnaire

May 2000

Produced with generous support from:The Spencer FoundationThe Law School Admission Council

does diversity make a difference?

Documents