Prior research reveals that today’s students must develop a respect for diversity to function effectively in a global environment; otherwise they will be unlikely to succeed in the 21st century (Bikson & Law, 1994; University of Michigan Fortune 500 Amicus Brief, 1999; Abraham Lincoln Commission on Study Abroad, 2005). Unfortunately, many see diversity as having a mandatory acceptance policy attached to it. This view places the concept of diversity into a negative category. To help shift that negative slant a strategic effort is required to assist with redefining what diversity means and why acceptance of diversity adds value to an institution of higher education. Universities and colleges are comprised of staff, faculty, and students from differing backgrounds. Therefore it is important to maintain an environment that is conducive of respect, openness, and inclusion for all constituents served. By advancing that vision an institution can remain competitive and viable in today’s economy. As a commitment to promoting awareness of and appreciation for different types of diversity, many post-secondary Boards of Trustees and senior administrators are incorporating campus-wide diversity initiatives into every aspect of the campus framework (Ward, 2009). Specifically, senior-level positions referred to as Chief Diversity Officers are being created to oversee that diversity is incorporated as a core institutional value. The purpose of this study is to look at five similar public universities in Texas to see how the current demographic changes and projections are impacting both strategic plans and policies relating to diversity initiatives. Four research questions will guide this study: (1) What institutional and societal factors contributed to the establishment of the chief diversity office and the position of the chief diversity officer? (2) What is the difference between the role of the Chief Diversity Office and the role of a Multicultural Affairs Student Services Office? (3) How is diversity being made into a core value at an institution of higher education? and (4) How does the chief diversity officer assess that diversity is an institutional value? To gain insight into the research topic a qualitative methodology was used to collect and analyze the data. More specifically, the questionnaire and interview questions used in this study are a replication of David’s (1998) study of The Roles and Functions of Diversity Affairs Centers’ Chief Personnel Officers at Public Universities in Texas. The survey instruments were originally developed in 1992 by Ruth Moyer at Kent State University. The findings will be used to ascertain the extent to which institutions are making diversity a value. / text

This phenomenological research study explores how districts in Massachusetts support and hinder the work of professionals in the inaugural role of Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I). Through a qualitative approach, the study engaged six Directors of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from suburban and urban school settings in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The data analysis revealed several key themes including the challenges of managing ambiguity and uncertainty of the role, the urgency for supporting BIPOC stakeholders, the emotional toll that comes from a focus on racial issues, and the difficulties of navigating resistance from within and outside of the school district. Overall, the findings suggest that districts should consider creating and utilizing standards for practice to clarify the work and function of Directors of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Further, investing in developing coaching skills in these directors will allow for transformational work to take place within the organization. Instituting self-care supports similar to clinical supervision models may combat the racialized stress experienced by these practitioners. Lastly, the researcher recommends that senior district leaders such as the superintendent become the lead voice organizing and communicating equity goals and initiatives within the district.

<p>Racial tension in the United States has moved to the forefront in social discourse with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and elections of far-right wing politicians who provide support and empathy for White supremacist groups. In higher education, colleges and universities often serve as microcosms of the broader society’s racial climate. Experts have revealed that 56% of U.S. university presidents believed that inclusion and diversity had grown in importance between 2015-2017. Additionally, 47% of presidents at 4-year institutions stated that students had organized on their campus amid concerns about racial diversity. In attempts to combat the divisiveness present in American culture, colleges and universities have begun appointing Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) administrative positions to lead their inclusion and diversity missions to better support minoritized and marginalized communities. Experts estimate that nearly 80% of CDO positions were created in the last 20 years. Despite efforts to develop CDOs, higher education institutions sometimes struggle to foster inclusive and diverse environments. Recently, a small body of literature has been developed to better understand the CDO role in higher education. Predominantly White Land-Grant Universities (PWLGUs) have also seen an influx of issues related to diversity and inclusion over the years. The purpose of the current study was to uncover how CDOs see their role and responsibilities in the context of Predominantly White Land-Grant Universities. This study used Critical Race Theory (CRT) framework to examine how CDOs navigate their identities, the presence of racism, and the social climate of their university and the broader United States. This study was guided by five research questions, including one topical question which served to provide demographic information of the CDOs. The other four research questions covered barriers and successes of CDOs, how CDOs navigated their own identity while in the role of CDO, and how they observed the presence of racism at PWLGUs. Two rounds of interviews were conducted with seven CDOs at PWLGUs. Topic and pattern coding were used to analyze data via NVivo qualitative data analysis software. There were four findings for this study. First, racism has had a constant presence on, and at times has been supported by, land-grant universities further complicating the jobs of CDOs. Second, CDOs of color often connected elements of their identity to the responsibilities of the CDO position. Third, CDOs described ways in which inclusion and diversity were part of the purpose of land-grant universities and ways in which race factored into academic achievements of the institution, but then become afterthoughts in other elements of campus life. Finally, PWLGUs often invoke liberal processes and decision-making that further limits the capabilities of the CDO to foster inclusive and diverse campuses. Future study recommendations include comparing and contrasting CDOs of Color and White CDOs, CDOs at Minority-Serving Institutions with CDOs at Non-Minority Serving Institutions, and perception of satisfaction by people of color with the job of the CDO at their institution. </p>

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.