|
What attitudes, behaviors and experiences
regarding diversity do today’s college students bring to the
campus, and how does the overall college experience impact
students’ attitudes and behaviors towards diversity? How
will higher education personnel need to re-shape diversity
programming and policies to accommodate the emerging
diversity of college students? These questions are being
explored by the Millennial Project Research Team in a
mix-methods longitudinal study launched in fall 2005.
This 4-year study will follow the class of 2009, assessing
students’ perspectives on diversity and following their
development. Grounded in theory and developed from a pilot
study in spring 2005, an online survey and assessment tool
was distributed to 4,500 students in fall 2005. The survey
includes both closed- and open-ended questions, which
address student perspectives on diversity, pre-college
experiences and how student characteristics intersect with
the university experience. Respondents will be re-surveyed
each semester for the next four years. In addition,
individual interviews have been conducted with over 60
survey respondents, and these students will be interviewed
again each semester. Thirteen of these students were
selected to document their diversity experiences on film.
This footage will culminate in a documentary on student
perspectives on diversity.
Background
The most racially and ethnically diverse generation of
college students is embarking on today’s college campuses
(Howe & Strauss, 2003; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2000). Not only do they have the most
demographically distinct characteristics, the so-called
Millennial generation brings with them new ways of thinking
about diversity issues. This wave of youth embarking on the
shores of academe has been protected from harm and exude
optimism about their future (Howe & Strauss, 2003). These
students are rule followers and team players, driven by a
need to achieve and pressure to perform (DeBard, 2004). They
are arriving with new ideas, values and beliefs that for the
most part are in contrast to the generation before them. One
of these changing views is diversity.
Historically, diversity has been based on an underlying,
critical premise that equates diversity with race and
ethnicity. For instance, in the most recent challenge to
tenets of affirmative action, the Supreme Court decisions in
both the Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger,
diversity was found to be a compelling interest for higher
education, because, as Gurin (2005) argues, a diverse
university community has benefits for all students in
breaking patterns of segregation and stratification.
Students learn better in an environment with diverse
perspectives and are better prepared for our pluralistic,
democratic society (Gurin, 2005). Diverse peers in the
learning environment can improve intergroup relations and
mutual understanding (Hu & Kuh, 2003).
The Supreme Court’s definition of diversity was driven by a
racial/ethnic interpretation (Legal Information Institute,
Cornell University, 2005). However, this sits in stark
relief against the post-modern views of diversity observed
on today’s campuses. Diversity has expanded from a critical
(race) perspective to a post-modern perspective whereby
diversity includes not only race and ethnicity, but also
factors of gender, sexual orientation, ability, college
generation status, age, religious affiliation, political
affiliation and socioeconomic status. This inclusive, social
justice view of diversity, projected through pre-college
experiences and defined by the media has shaped Millennials’
attitudes and behaviors toward broader elements of
diversity. Race and ethnicity are no longer the central
tenets of diversity.
Most colleges and universities have programs and policies
that serve underrepresented and underserved students in an
effort to contribute to an overall healthy and diverse
campus climate. Because student bodies are more diverse and
their exposure to diversity is greater than past
generations, higher education must reshape diversity
programming and policies to accommodate these increasing
differences. To inform the direction that programming must
now take, it is critical to understand students’ behaviors
and perceptions toward diversity.
Theoretical Model Overview
This study introduces a new way of conceptualizing student
perspectives on diversity. Grounded in traditional theories,
this paradigm plateau forms a more comprehensive model of
how diversity is perceived. In contrast to diversity models
that measure development in a linear fashion, this theory
views perspectives as fluid and dynamic, influenced by
infinite variables including but not limited to: gender,
race, ethnicity, nationality, personal or religious beliefs,
culture, socio-economic status, parental influence, peer
influence, sexual orientation, first-generation college
status, ability, openness to learning/willingness for
self-critique, pre-college experiences and college
experiences. Student identities and perspectives regarding
diversity are socially constructed, multiple rather than
singular and shaped by issues of privilege and power
(Torres, Howard-Hamilton & Cooper, 2003). The Dynamic
Diversity Paradigm seeks to observe perspectives and
behavior in regard to diversity. Although the model assumes
that the development of knowledge regarding diversity issues
is linear, one’s perspective and level of openness to
diversity is dynamic and can be influenced by multiple
factors, as well as positive or negative experiences and
one’s reaction to those experiences. In addition, engagement
in diversity issues is dynamic and can active or passive,
positive or negative.
A number of theories were used in forming this theoretical
model. Meritocracy in higher education, as positioned by
Trow (1992), captures the salience of the assimilationist
thought posited by Chavez (1991). In other words,
assimilation implies that the salience of race, gender,
ability, religion, nationality and class is non-existence;
assimilation is color-blind. The logic persists that merit
is also color-blind. Focusing on the merit of one’s work and
developing policies and programs based on merit will achieve
diversity. Students assessed as having Meritocratic values
focus on achievement rather than on issues such as race or
gender. They may have a structural/functionalist view of
diversity and see current social systems as effective.
The Postmodern view asserts that diversity is fluid, without
boundaries, bringing groups out of the margins (Bloland,
1995). Postmodernism brings into scope a broader
conceptualization of what diversity is positing that
diversity is an epistemology of a plurality of voices from
all groups (Tierney, 1993), defined by race/ethnicity,
nationality, geography, gender, sexual orientation, ability,
religion, socioeconomics, educational attainment and
political views. Diversity has become so inclusive that it
is diffuse, almost diluted back to a melting pot of mankind
(Schlesinger, 1999). Students assessed as having a
Postmodern perspective have a broad definition of diversity
and value harmony, but may not have critical knowledge of
issues of privilege, power or stratification.
The concept of Stigmatization/Minority Stressor captured the
essence of acculturation, integration and separation, all of
which place stress on the minority student to conform to the
majority, live within the borders of cultures, or live
within a minority culture. On the one hand, stigmatization
creates separation among groups in a diverse environment (Afshar-Mohajer
& Sung, 2002). Minority stress, on the other hand, is
created from the need to belong (integrate, acculturate) to
the majority community to reap the rewards of society, while
at the same time trying to hold on to one’s cultural values,
beliefs and traditions (Smedley, Myers, Harrell, 1993;
Torres, Winston, & Cooper, 2003). Students identifying with
this perspective may not necessarily belong to a minority
group, but demonstrate knowledge of critical issues while
de-emphasizing issues like race and discrimination. These
students may have a deep understanding of diversity issues,
but believe that focusing on issues like race and privilege
divides, thus choosing to focus instead on achievement and
conformity.
The Critical Post Modernism (CPM) (Tierney, 1993) view of
diversity advances the postmodern conception, articulating
the specific and relative importance of each element that
defines diversity. CPM seeks to develop a “critical
consciousness” of the interrelations between individuals,
and to make other’s language one’s own language in
uncovering forms of oppressive behaviors (Tappan & Brown,
1996), such as racial/ethnic categorizations. Students
relating to the Critical Postmodern perspective define
diversity broadly but view power and privilege critically.
This perspective includes Critical Race Theory (CRT)
(Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller & Thomas, 1995; Delgado and
Stefancic, 2001a, 2001b), which was used to address the
persistence of race (and ethnicity) as the crux of
diversity. CRT recognizes that the social construction of
race is insidious in today's social actions and therefore,
race should not be relegated to the margins as several legal
contentions have successfully or unsuccessfully argued (e.g.
Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger) (Legal
Information Institute, Cornell University, 2005). CRT seeks
to uncover the coded elements of racism and associated power
and privilege within the politicized discourse of diversity.
|
