Running head: HISTORICAL RESPONSE TO AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS
The Historical Response of U.S. Higher Education to African American Students:
Contemplating the Past for Progress in the Future
Nicole Bingham Funderburk
Educational Leadership and Policy Integrated Paper
University of Utah
Spring 2008
AbstractThe significant historical responses of U.S. higher education to African American students are examined, specifically looking at how these responses have impacted the African American experience in higher education. Derrick Bell’s (1980) concepts of interest-convergence and critical race theory are utilized as frameworks to view the inequities in higher education. Robinson and Howard-Hamilton’s (1997) Africentric Resistance Model will illustrate progress in viewing African American student development for the future. This work explores possibilities for addressing the trend of marginality within the African American college student population.
Statement of the Problem The present state of U.S. higher education is a consequence of historical events. Although racial diversity has been a part of America since the very foundation (Takaki, 1993), higher education in the U.S. has been tailored from its beginnings to meet the needs of elite, white males. This reality poses concerns about the way in which higher education interacts with African American students. Considering the span of African American presence in the United States, the population has a history of underrepresentation in higher education. For example, the Status Report on Minorities in Education shows that from 1984 to 2004 the number of African American males enrolled in college went from twenty percent to twenty six percent (Harvey & Anderson, 2005) yielding just a six percent increase in twenty years.
The historical response of U.S. higher education to African American students has been one of disenfranchisement. In this paper it is not the attempt to account for every transaction, but rather to synthesize the significant instances throughout history where higher education has reacted to African American students. This population enters the scene of higher education from a history of oppression where access to skills and literacy were a misnomer. Although, many other oppressed populations have negative and absent experiences within higher education, the picture seems to be worsening for African Americans, especially African American males (Cuyjet, 2006). According to Anderson (2002), “The racial crisis in American Higher Education stretches from the founding of the Nation’s first university, Harvard, in 1636 to the passage of California’s Proposition 209 in 1997 and into our present,” (p. 3).
From a beginning of exclusion to the development of land-grand institutions, expansion of state systems of higher education, community colleges, need-based student financial aid, and prohibition of racial discrimination, the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries bring significant changes for African American students (Callan, 1993). As a result of the Civil Rights Movement, poignant differences for African American students in higher education exist. Even though systems of education today are still extremely self-segregated due to the failure of desegregation (Bell, 1980), segregation is no longer a function of the law. Affirmative action and TRIO programs influence the picture of higher education for African American students. Throughout this chronology, an intrinsic connection of government and higher education is evident. The responses of the academy are greatly influenced by government policy, movements, and decisions. It is not just college campuses making these decisions but constituents as well.
As a result, practitioners find themselves in positions where a framework with which to respond to diversity, equity, and access is critical. This circumstance stimulates reflection upon historical context to understand the present condition as well as strategies to narrow the achievement the gap. Higher education, because of its mission and dedication to learning, is especially situated with an opportunity to work towards equity for students of color. It is critical to understand the historical context in order to shape emerging responses to African American students. Regardless of the responses, African American students seem to remain alarmingly underrepresented in higher education. Within the education community, there is significant dialogue about recent increases of students of color enrolling in college, but when looking specifically at individual ethnic groups, representation is minor when compared to white counterparts. Aside from enrollment in college, another disparity is that of degree attainment (Barker, 2007). Furthermore, as campuses currently aim to increase their populations of students of color, often little attention is given to improving campus climate and retention for underrepresented populations. Higher education must address the needs of African American students in relation to recruitment, climate and retention.
In addition to looking at higher education’s influences upon African American students, equitable trends and responses must be examined. Two questions will be explored in this paper:
• What is the result of the significant historical responses of higher education to African American students?
• What frameworks can be used today to make progressive change in higher education relative to this population?
I will draw largely upon three graduate courses for the purposes of this paper: Social Justice in Student Affairs, College Student Development, and Multiculturalism and Diversity in Higher Education. According to Ronald Takaki (1993), “African Americans have been the central minority throughout our country’s history,” (p. 7). Although not engaged in a competition of oppression, African Americans have a pitted history in relation to higher education that is not significantly improving. In order to meet the needs of this population, we first look at the varying and vast past and present of African American students. Next we review the implications as well as scholarship to inform perspective.
Review of Related LiteratureHigher Education’s Beginnings Chronologically following the timeline from the beginning of higher education to the present, the noteworthy occurrences which have impacted African American students are presented. Making reference to the beginning of multicultural America in Jamestown, Takaki (1993) says “the first twenty Africans were brought here a year before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock” (p. 2). The foremost experiences of Africans on the American continent resonate similarly with their foremost experiences in education. U.S. higher education began in 1636; a time when African Americans were entrenched in slavery and unable to participate in higher education. Slavery in the U.S. came into fruition in part because of white class conflicts, (Takaki, 1993). This era illustrates the time frame of African American existence without access to higher education. Even freed blacks were a façade as their opportunities were limited and only menial jobs were theirs (Takaki, 1993). In large part, from 1636 to the 1860s U.S. higher education responded to African Americans by not allowing them to participate. The exception was Oberland College which, in 1835, began accepting African American students who by the mid 1900’s still made up only four to five percent of the overall higher education population (Anderson, 2002). According to Anderson (2002), from 1636 to 1866 U.S. colleges and universities graduated fewer than 30 African American students. Prior to the civil war in 1861, only modest opportunities for higher education were available to African Americans (Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). The development of colleges was a growing necessity after the oppressive legacy of lack of opportunities for African Americans. Lucas asserts that prior to the Emancipation Proclamation all African American graduates consisted of 27 individuals (as cited in Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). The first two hundred years of higher education’s existence proved minor representation for African Americans.
The Morrill Land-Grant Acts Institutions have historically evolved and responded based on the needs of students, although the academy is often criticized about not being agile in doing so. Slow progress in higher education is certainly a reality for African Americans. As social movements evolved within the U.S., institutions of higher education developed to meet the needs of diverse populations. During the nineteenth century, federal and state policies stimulated the development of land-grand institutions (Callan, 1993). The second Morrill Act permitted land-grant institutions to be established for African Americans, and these institutions were to be segregated for blacks and whites (The Higher Education Resource Hub, 2007). Lucas argues that the institutions of higher education established for African Americans in the late 1800’s were not of high quality (as cited in Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). According to Lucas this movement resulted in “separation, not equality” (as cited in Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002, p. 12). According to Brubacher and Rudy, higher education responds to African Americans in this era with curriculum targeted to skilled trades (as cited in Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). The result of the first Morrill Land-Grant Act was a step forward for African Americans although it was the beginning of a deficit approach legacy.
The institutions for African Americans resulting from the second Morrill Act have come to be known as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). This evolvement was participation on certain terms for African Americans, an illustration of segregation. Hamrick, Evans, and Schuh question if HBCUs really were the best solution to meet the needs of African American students (Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). While the mission and role of HBCUs demonstrates a commitment to foster success for African Americans, other institutions of higher education carry on in a fashion to serve white students (Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). Thus, later in history when segregation is abolished, there is a disconnect between these segregated institutions. The Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890 in conjunction with social factors urged the formation of community colleges (Pope, 2002). The idea also stemmed from a need to alleviate the tedious lower-division course preparation of universities so they could focus on research (Pope, 2006). The development of community colleges served to widen access to higher education (Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). Founded in 1901, Joliet College was the first community college (Pope, 2006). One of the most critical functions of the community college from the beginning was to encourage students to transfer to universities (Pope, 2006). According to the U.S. Department of Education at “the close of the twentieth century community colleges enrolled more than one-third of all students in the United States (as cited in Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002, p. 21). As Pope (2006) illustrates through the National Center for Educational Statistics Fall Enrollment Survey, African American enrollment at community colleges is the largest of all minority groups (NCES, 2002). The community college is effective in widening access to higher education, but a diminishing transfer function (Pope, 2006) may explain, in part, why African American students have low four-year completion rates.
Post World War II World War II brought into focus German Nazism centered on Aryan supremacy requiring Americans to look at their own forms of racism within the U.S. (Takaki, 1993). State higher education systems expand and student financial aid programs are established initially in individual states (Callan, 1993). Then, in 1944, the first federal aid program was established as the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, more commonly known as the GI Bill, (“How the GI Bill Widened the Racial Higher Education Gap,” 2003). The GI Bill paid for college expenses for all World War II returning veterans, including African Americans. However, according to “How the GI Bill Widened the Racial Higher Education Gap” (2003), “the GI Bill was the equivalent of receiving a gift of a $500 balance on a credit card that was not accepted at the places blacks were permitted to shop,” (p. 36). Because of the era of segregation and limited space for blacks in the southern states, HBCUs had waiting lists and were forced to turn many students away due to lack of space (“How the GI Bill Widened the Racial Higher Education Gap”, 2003).
Executive Order 8802 in 1941 declares “There shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or Government because of race, creed, color, or national origin” (as cited in Takaki, 1993, pp. 397-398). With a 37 percent African American population in 1940, for every $100 spent on education for whites in Alabama the state spent $6 on African Americans (Clark, 1993) clearly discriminating based on race. In 1954, Brown v. the Board of Education determined that segregated schools were unconstitutional (Takaki, 1993). According to Takaki (1993) “Integration remained largely a court ruling on paper, while segregation persisted as a reality in society,” (p. 402). World War II proved to make industrial and occupational progression for African Americans and transitioned to the Civil Rights Movement (Takaki, 1993).
The Civil Rights Movement Significant progress for African Americans was a result of the Civil Rights Movement which was driven by the people of America. Takaki (1993) maintains that Martin Luther King “gave voice to the Black frustration,” (p. 404). Student affairs professionals have a unique perspective in relation to this movement as they would encourage student activism but also ensure safe environments for students and were often torn between advocating for the institution and advocating for the student, (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, & Gaston-Gayles, 2004). African American students at this time felt that if they were to be continually treated as inferiors, a college education would do them no good (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, & Gaston-Gayles, 2004). The higher education environment during the Civil Rights Movement comprised of intense crisis situations, sit-ins, protests, violence, and destruction. During this era, a majority of the action happens on college campuses bringing student affairs individuals to the center of the story. Examining the responsibility and perspective of student affairs professionals during the Civil Rights Movement can shed light upon the present day issues of equity as the past can inform the present and the future (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, & Gaston-Gayles, 2004). Why is the college campus the hub for this central moment in history? A majority of what had transpired related to race up to this point focused on educational access and opportunity. Very early in our nation’s history we see African Americans placing value in education and viewing a college education as vital. According to Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, and Gaston-Gayles (2004) “Historically, students have played a pivotal role in revolutionary change around the world,” (p. vi). While practitioners vied for safe campus environments amidst this violence, it is important to realize part of the reasoning for the protests: the current campus environment was not a safe and pleasant one for African American students. Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, and Gaston-Gayles (2004) point out that even at a desegregated school “Once on campus, African American students had to deal with segregation in all types of out-of-class domains including housing, cafeterias, social activities, organized group activities including athletics and fraternities and sororities, availability of scholarships, on-campus and off-campus jobs, and access to barber shops and beauty parlors,” (p. xi).
A significant response to African American students took place amidst the Civil Rights Movement in 1963 at the University of Alabama Foster Auditorium, when George C. Wallace, governor of Alabama, physically attempted to block African American students from enrolling (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, & Gaston-Gayles, 2004). Federal officials and local government clashed despite the fact that school administrators were willing to comply with President Kennedy’s decision (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, & Gaston-Gayles, 2004). After over 300 years of U.S. higher education presence, the early 1960’s is the first time that African Americans are seen in a significant number in higher education. As stated by Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Tuttle, Ward, and Gaston-Gayles (2004) “With such a history around the freedom to participate in education, it is not surprising that college students sparked a revolution that forever changed the world” (p. vi). As a result, multicultural centers are established as part of the Civil Rights Movement and are one of the resulting responses from higher education. These resources arise to meet the needs of increasingly diverse college campuses and many come about through grants for institutional improvement. Ultimately the results were the Civil Rights Acts which among other things outlawed discrimination based on race in public places, encouraged desegregation, and prohibited discrimination based on sex.
Educational Opportunity Programs The nation’s TRIO programs were a result of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (McElroy & Armesto, 1998). The following programs came into existence individually from 1964 to 1986: Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student Support Services, Staff and Leadership Training Authority, and finally the Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program (McElroy & Armesto, 1998). The determining factors for participation in TRIO programs include first generation status and student performance; rather than focusing on poverty, the lens shifted to those individuals denied access to higher education (McElroy & Armesto, 1998). Have TRIO programs been successful in regard to African American students? Have those African Americans involved with TRIO programs enrolled in higher education in great numbers? Research conducted by Burkheimer, Riccoboni, and Wisenbaker concluded that Upward Bound improved patterns of enrollment and persistence in education beyond high school (as cited in McElroy & Armesto, 1999). However, almost twenty years later, research conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. established that Upward Bound was succeeding in enrolling students in college but failing to prepare them academically (as cited in McElroy & Armesto, 1999). TRIO program efforts have positive results, but they must not be viewed as the only solution to reversing trends for African American and other minority students (McElroy & Armesto, 1998).
Although the Pell Grant, established in 1965 under a different name, has been called the most successful program of all federal student aid programs for providing access to college, (Edwards, 1993) federal programs are becoming more merit based today. The Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and Science Math and Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant may actually serve to disadvantage some students of color (Merit-Based Financial Aid Is Eroding the Opportunities of College-Bound Blacks, 2000). The 1980’s saw a shift in federal dollars from need-based aid to student loans (Callan, 1993). Furthermore Edwards (1993) states “The Pell Grant program, our nation’s principle need-based program of student financial assistance, now provides 29 percent of the average tuition as opposed to 40 percent a decade ago,” (p. 312).
Affirmative Action Affirmative action policies were designed to increase access to education and rectify the effects of past and present discrimination. However, African Americans have been attacked for having special privileges relative to affirmative action (Takaki, 1993). Affirmative action carries the burden of always having ones credibility questioned. According to Ladson-Billings (1999), “In 1991 there were 24,721 doctoral degrees awarded to U.S. citizens and noncitizens who intended to remain in the United States, and only 933 or 3.8 percent of these doctorates went to African American men and women” (p. 13).
Affirmative action policies have had a significant impact upon higher education in the way institutions attempt to recruit students of color. Although state governors may not be physically blocking African American students from attending college, the Supreme Court decision in Gratz v. Bollinger obstructed the ability to make race a systemic factor in undergraduate admissions decisions at the University of Michigan. Sunstein (2003) argues that the outcome was a correct decision and that educational policy should be established by educators, not judges. These decisions should be made within the framework of the constitution and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, of which colorblindness is not a part (Sunstein, 2003). At present, colleges and universities can promote diverse learning environments by including individual consideration of applicants and avoiding rigid decision making policies (Sunstein, 2003). Considering race in the admissions process is permissible, but when used in a very methodical way it is not acceptable. However, as universities are left to decipher the way to approach the recruitment of minority students, there are still clashes within institutions considering the prevalent philosophies around colorblindness and differing campus ideologies. As Dr. Octavio Villalpando has asserted in his Multiculturalism and Diversity in Higher Education course, affirmative action affords a window of time to take advantage of diversity efforts, but it seems the many court rulings around affirmative action have frightened institutions of higher education from responding too aggressively and thus sufficient progress is not made.
Government and Higher Education Throughout the history of higher education, the fundamental connection of government and higher education is evident from the Morrill Land-Grant Acts and the implementation of the GI Bill to more recent Supreme Court decisions. Reviewing this history, it is evident that the government’s influence and presence in relation to higher education has fluctuated over the years with power and influence shifting often between federal and state government, (Callan, 1993). The dimensions of relationship and agenda have also had their ebbs and flow. Responses of inclusion and equal opportunity for all have often been motivated by the federal government and institutions of higher education serve as a reflection of those initiatives, (Callan, 1993). Derek Bok affirms “The fact remains that, left to their own devices academic communities are no less prone than other professional organizations to slip unconsciously into complacent habits, inward-looking standards of quality, and self serving canons of behavior. To counter these tendencies, there will always be a need to engage the outside world in a lively continuing debate over the university’s social responsibilities,” (as cited in Callan, 1993, p. 8). This reality suggests making use of our systems of government to provide checks and balances for higher education relative to equity and access. Callan (1993) points out that “Since most federal education programs serve disadvantaged populations, reduction of federal education support takes its greatest toll on the groups least well served – the poor and historically disadvantaged ethnic minority groups,” (p. 9). Higher education must utilize and encourage federal support of minority students but must also act independently to make progress.
Implications of the Literature As a result of this history, the present-day higher education setting for African American students is institutionalized with inequities and permeates with unconscious and silent forms of racism. It is apparent why as we consider the implications of nearly four centuries of exclusion, segregation, inequality, and lack of equity. It is evident that African Americans are assets to college campuses; however, an unfounded deficit approach is often taken with this population. Implications of history can result in negative assumptions made by educators about culture and background which serve to impede African American students (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). According to Bensimón (2005), historically and currently higher education has chosen to focus on “the deficits of minority students” (p. 5). These deficit assumptions include the notions that African American students are pressured by family to attend school closer to home, are unaware of how to pay for college, have a negative attitude toward school, and lack academic preparation (Bensimón, 2005). Additionally, a prevalent stereotype is that African American students have low expectations and are lazy (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). While these ideas may in some instances be realities, it is inequitable as educators to project the values or circumstances of one African American student onto the entire population. Bensimón (2005) asserts “One of the consequences with deficit thinking is that the problem is framed as unsolvable because it originates from characteristics that are integral to the student’s race, culture, family, upbringing, previous schooling, and so forth, all of which represent irreversible circumstances” (p. 9). Consequentially, students are placed within these stereotypes impeding their success.
The ever-present white dominance in higher education facilitates whites being in positions of power and decision making in the large majority. According to Solórzano and Villalpando (1998) “those on society’s race, gender, and class margins do not have the power to define who is at the center and who is at the margin; what is considered privileged or valuable cultural knowledge and experience and what is not; and who has social status related to privilege and who does not,” (p. 212). Many of the historical responses of higher education to African Americans have a theme: whites taking control. Partially due to roots in colonization, whites have a predisposition to take charge of situations and assume they can prescribe solutions for others not in positions of power (Bergerson, 2003). Similar to the white class conflicts that encouraged the institution of slavery (Takaki, 1993), currently in U.S. higher education the number of students of color enrolled often serves as a bragging point for institutions. The manipulation of the possession of African Americans is evident. Irony is manifest when reflecting upon the governor of Alabama blocking African American students from attending the University of Alabama, to the present day when institutions may find themselves lost regarding effective strategies for recruiting and retaining students of color.
An understanding of how whites can engage in a critical approach regarding race is important due to the common misconceptions about the presence of diversity and African Americans specifically in the higher education setting. A possible framework is that of critical race theory (CRT). Deeply frustrated with the slow progression of racial change in the U.S., Derrick Bell and Alan Freeman developed critical race theory in the mid-1970’s which has now evolved into a significant body of legal scholarship (Ladson-Billings, 1999). In 1995, Gloria Ladson-Billings and William Tate brought CRT into the academy asserting that racism exists in higher education and suggested CRT could be used to critically view the reality of students, faculty, and staff of color (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005).
One of the components of critical race theory is storytelling, making it possible for those who experience racial oppression to give voice to their account and work toward self-preservation (Ladson-Billings, 1999). Dixson and Rousseau (2005) assert that counter-stories can serve to “challenge the dominant story” (p. 11). According to Solórzano and Villalpando (1998) “the overall goal of critical race theory in higher education is to develop a pedagogy, curriculum, and research agenda that accounts for the role of race and racism in U.S. higher education and work toward the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all forms of subordination in higher education” (p. 213). Bergerson (2003) states “Bringing race and racism to the center of the discussion means not having to explain that racism persists,” (p. 52). To analyze the tenets of race through a critical race theory lens when making systemic changes can shape policy decisions to benefit students of color (Bergerson, 2003).
Critical race theorists hold that civil rights laws benefit whites (Ladson-Billings, 1999). A way to approach this dilemma is through Derrick Bell’s concept of interest-convergence which asserts that blacks will only achieve racial equality if it benefits whites (Bell, 1980). Initially, his scholarship was greatly criticized, but the history of higher education quite evidently validates interest-convergence. Being a reality, the tenets of interest-convergence seem to only make the achievement gap continue to widen preventing African Americans from catching up. However, efforts to increase the number of students of color in higher education benefit white students by preparing them to live in a multicultural world (Bensimón, 2005). According to Bensimón (2005) “Now, more than 40 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and more than 50 years after Brown, American higher education has yet to effect full equality, as either a result or a fact,” (p. 1). As long as interests for blacks and whites do not diverge, there can be progress towards racial equality (Bell, 1980). It is deeply frustrating that the conversation constantly seems to return to how higher education has or can benefit whites. People will only change if there is an interest for them to do so, and change is certainly an imperative for progress in higher education. Dixson and Rousseau deem interest-convergence as a means to further address the ramifications of racism in higher education (Dixson & Rousseau 2005).
How does higher education respond to African Americans today? The response often takes place by implementing colorblindness or creating race-neutral environments which are common mistakes as they take away difference from individuals and decrease the ability to recognize the multiple complexities and dimensions of African Americans. This assumption about assimilation and integration (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005) requires African American students to check their difference at the door. Notions of colorblindness allow whites to avoid confronting brutal realities of their racist behaviors and preserve the privileges of being white (Bergerson, 2003). Neutrality does not exist as everyone has biases and prejudices.
African American Student Development The frameworks used in higher education to define the development of students are based largely around the experiences of white male students resulting in many instances in the inequitable way higher education has responded to African American students (Howard-Hamilton, 1997). The assumption that an increase in the number of students of color enrolled in higher education will naturally result in an increase in the number of students of color who graduate from a four-year institution does not account for the barriers they will and have experienced (Solórzano & Villalpando, 1998). McEwen, Roper, Bryant, and Langa argue that “when traditional theories are used in working with black students, conclusions are often reached that are not accurate,” (as cited in Howard-Hamilton, 1997, p. 18). The psychological constructs of African American students have been largely disregarded and we see that either domination or oppression is the experience of racial groups (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Student affairs and higher education must make modifications in order to alter their responses to African American students. At the same time, African American students can work to resist the perceptions and responses within the framework of the Africentric Resistance Model (Howard-Hamilton, p. 22). The Africentric Resistance Model draws partly upon the Nguzo Saba value system consisting of (1) unity, (2) self-determination, (3) collective work and responsibility, (4) cooperative economics, (5) purpose, (6) creativity, and (7) faith (Johnson, 2001). The Africentric Resistance model informs the way African Americans may identify as well as providing practitioners a framework with which to improve the African American student experience in the academy.
When African American students attend college at predominantly white institutions, they can often experience isolation and not see images of themselves (Howard-Hamilton, 1997). The lack of visualizations silently and subconsciously informs one about potential. The Africentric Resistance Model provides a framework for students to resist negative images and replace them with positive images not allowing others to decide for them (Howard-Hamilton, 1997). There is focus on re-identifying with culture as individuals can be overpowered by negative outside forces (Howard-Hamilton, 1997). Some of the programs the model suggests include: mentoring, reading groups, group counseling, community service, and faculty/student workshops. Naturally, African American students seek faculty mentor relationship with African American faculty (Barker, 2007) but the disproportion of faculty of color does not always make same-race mentorships a reality. Where possible it is ideal, but at predominantly white institutions, cross-cultural mentoring (Barker, 2007) is an alternative. In authentic cross-cultural relationships, white faculty mentors are honest about racism and cognizant of their own privileges (Barker, 2007). The Africentric Resistance Model is a vehicle for administrators, faculty, practitioners, and the African American community toward appropriate developmental constructs for African American students.
Recommendations These recommendations serve to inform the next generation of higher education’s efforts on the continuum of responses to African American students. While addressing issues within and by the African American community is necessary, so also is a simultaneous and systemic analysis of higher education. Both parties define agenda for themselves and come up with solutions to reach a resolution without violating individuals’ interests. The recommendations that follow focus on the agenda for higher education and serve to inform future practice and research.
As administrators reach to increase populations of students of color, the campus racial climate must be addressed to encourage success for African Americans while in college. At the same time, much of the challenge can also be getting African Americans to the doors of college. Edwards (1993) asserts that “the term disadvantaged college student is an oxymoron” (p. 317) as the students who do not make it to college are the truly disadvantaged (Edwards, 1993). Even still, it must not be assumed that just because an African American student has been admitted to college, they have risen above the challenges (Howard-Hamilton, 1997).
Acknowledgement. First and foremost, higher education at large must acknowledge multiple truths and not impose dominant values upon minority groups. Individuals with power and privilege do not have to experience something for it to be true. The experience of African American students is often discredited by assuming that they are overreacting or overemphasizing relative to race and privilege. However, when putting the situation in context to view the overall historical picture for African Americans, it is apparent that they are typically not overreacting. Critical race theory and interest-convergence inform this perspective and allow practitioners to function from an understanding that racism exists without constant reiteration (Bergerson, 2003). Critical race theory intends to not only understand racial oppression but also to work to change those dynamics (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005). Widespread acknowledgement of inequity impacts the work of student affairs positively. In this setting, practitioners have open minds and are compelled to serve African Americans more equitably.
Implement structural change. Institutions of higher education must be held accountable for creating positive outcomes for African Americans (Bensimón, 2005). Policy, protocol, written and unwritten rules must be examined. The way in which universities measure and view the success of African Americans should be more critical and liberal in determining the circumstances in which individuals of color succeed. Using structural change to increase faculty of color will provide visual representation of success for African American students as persistence of college students is impacted by faculty relationships (Barker, 2007). Instituting administrative positions relative to diversity that truly have power such as the responsibility of approving all faculty hiring decisions will aid in this effort. Looking more closely at faculty evaluation, promotion and tenure policies it is discovered that individuals are largely promoted by their peers. When African American faculty members are few and far between, they experience isolation and are not understood by their peers (Barker, 2007). While equitable measures should be taken to ensure the increase of African American faculty, cross-cultural mentoring must also be put into practice to more immediately serve African American students (Barker, 2007).
Structural change also includes policies that impact the way diversity requirement courses are handled. “Hundreds of colleges and universities are now seeking ways to change course content and requirements so that the curriculum includes the myriad forms of American diversity. Some of them are also asking students to study the very legacies of hierarchy and exclusion that used to leave most of humankind out of the curriculum,” (The Drama of Diversity and Democracy, 1995, xii). Privileged students must be systemically educated about this version of their history.
Become better informed. Much of the way higher education responds to African American students is based on lack of information, knowledge, and ignorance. Not only is the awareness component critical for dominant students, but as practitioners, we must become informed and not let biases cloud our decisions. By using our power to give African Americans’ contextual identity meaning and awareness within the campus community, the effort would not only aim to educate peers, but also empower African American students to be change agents on college campuses. One of Bensimón’s (2005) equity scorecard principles is, “New or intensified awareness of race- and ethnic-based inequalities to change individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices,” (p. 11). Multiculturalism serves as an educational function by the learned ability to see things from a different point of view (Takaki, 1993). One of the most powerful ways practitioners can influence change within the institutional context is through ongoing and persistent awareness.
Dedicate Resources. Institutions should dedicate more scholarships for African Americans who are entering directly from high schools and also for those individuals who are transferring from community or 2 year institutions. Many of the responses to African Americans are connected to socio economic status, such as TRIO Programs and Pell Grants. If scholarship awarding were revolutionized based on socio-economic status rather than merit, institutional funding would pay for college for those who cannot afford it rather than those who can. Although this is a possible starting point, concentration on these issues alone will not resolve the dilemma (Boddie, 2005). Boddie (2005) argues that “Race remains a key reason for the systemic gap in educational opportunity, and it should be part of a systemic solution to solve that problem,” (p. 2). Along with the dedication of scholarship dollars, institutions should be interested in dedicating resources to improve the campus climate to retain African American students. Using the Africentric Resistance model, practitioners are able to help students create positive outcomes.
Partner with K-12 and community colleges. Hamrick, Evans, and Schuh (2002) point out that “Even now, educational opportunities for African Americans lag far behind those for whites by a variety of measures, not the least of which is the percentage of high school graduates who attend a post secondary institution,” (p. 11). K-20 partnerships would aim to create bridges to inform young students that a four-year degree is a possibility as well as ensure that it happens. The prevalent deficit assumptions (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001) related to why African Americans and other minority groups are not represented in education do not allow for higher education to deem systems and schools unaccountable. Although this issue is larger than just higher education, institutions have a social responsibility to reach out and help prepare African American students for college. Higher education must foster an environment for all students.
Conclusion Will we know when we have arrived, when we have achieved equity for African Americans? The more important thing is change and the change process; although the past cannot be altered, steps forward must be ensured for the present and future. Attempting to determine the appropriate and equitable responses for higher education exposes difficulties. African American underrepresentation in higher education is a grave and ongoing problem. Implications resulting from the responses of higher education are multiple and complex and range along the educational continuum from college readiness to campus climate. According to Dixson and Rousseau (2005) critical race theory must be used “to expose racism in higher education and propose radical solutions for addressing it” and “the call to action must move beyond mere recommendations,” (p. 23).
ReferencesAnderson, J. D. (2002). Race in American Higher Education: Historical Perspectives and Current Conditions. In Smith, W. A., Altbach, P. G., & Lomotey, K. The Racial Crisis in American Higher Education: Continuing Challenges for the Twenty-first Century (3-22). Albany: SUNY Press. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from Google Scholar.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1995). The Drama of Diversity and Democracy: Higher Education and American Commitments. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Barker, M. J. (2007). Cross-Cultural Mentoring in Institutional Contexts. The Negro Educational Review, 58 (1-2), 85-103.
Bell, D. A. Jr. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, (3), 518-533.
Bensimón, E. M. (2005). Equality as a Fact, Equality as a Result: A Matter of Institutional Accountability. Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Bergerson, A. A. (2003). Critical race theory and white racism: is there room for white scholars
in fighting racism in education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 51-63.
Boddie, E. (2005). An Insidious Attack on Affirmative Action. The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Chronicle Review, 51 (43), B16.
Callan, P. M. (1993). Government and Higher Education. In Levine, A. (Ed) Higher Learning in America: 1980-2000 (pp. 3-19). Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Clark, E. C. (1993). The school house door: Segregation’s last stand at the University of Alabama. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cuyjet, M. J. (2006). African American Men in College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dixson, A. D. & Rousseau, C. K. (2005). And we are still not saved: critical race theory in education ten years later. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 7-27. London: Taylor & Francis Group, Ltd.
Edwards, F. M. (1993). Behind the Open Door: Disadvantaged Students. In Levine, A. (Ed) Higher Learning in America: 1980-2000 (309-321). Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002). Foundations of Student Affairs Practice: How Philosophy, Theory, and Research Strengthen Educational Outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harvey, W. B., & Anderson, E. L. (2005). Minorities in Higher Education: Twenty-first Annual Status Report. Washington DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.ge.com/foundation/minorities.pdf.
How the GI Bill Widened the Racial Higher Education Gap (in News and Views) (2003).
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 41, 36-37. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1997). Theory to Practice: Applying Developmental Theories Relevant to African American Men. In Cuyjet, M. J. (Ed), Helping African American men succeed in College: New Directions for Student Services No. 80, (17-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, V. D. (2001). The Nguzo Saba as a foundation for African American college student development theory. Journal of Black Studies, 31 (4) 406-422.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? In Parker, L., Deyhle, D., & Villenas, S. A. (Eds). Race Is – Race Isn’t: Critical Race Theory and Qualitative Studies in Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from Google Scholar.
McElroy, E. J., & Armesto, M. (1998). TRIO and Upward Bound: History, Programs, and Issues – Past, Present, and Future. The Journal of Negro Education, 67, Fall, 373-380.
Merit-Based Financial Aid Is Eroding the Opportunities of College-Bound Blacks (in News and Views). (2000). The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 28, 29-30. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from JSTOR database.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Fall enrollment survey, 2000-2001 and Completion Survey, 1999-2000. Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, based on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Pope, M. L. (2006). Meeting the Challenges to African American Men at Community Colleges. In Cuyjet, M. J. (2006). African American Men in College (210-232). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Solórzano, D. G., & Villalpando, O. (1998). Critical Race Theory, Marginality, and the Experience of Students of Color in Higher Education. In Torres, C. A., &
Mitchell, T. R. Sociology of Education: Emerging Perspectives. Albany: SUNY Press. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Google Scholar.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory. Multicultural Education, 9 (1), 2-8.
Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Why Grutter Was Correctly Decided. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 41, 80-83.
Takaki, R. T. (1993). A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. New York: Time Warner Book Group.
The Higher Education Resource Hub. (2007). Land-Grants: Second Morrill Act. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/morrill2.htm.
Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Twombly, S. B., Tuttle, K. N., Ward, K., & Gaston-Gayles, J. L. (2004). Reflecting Back, Looking Forward: Civil Rights and Student Affairs. Washington D.C.: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
So, it finally feels official now that I have formally graduated. I can't even begin to express all of my relief to be finished. Mostly, I am so grateful to everyone who helped me get there: my boss, my family, my classmates, my professors, and mostly my sweet Andy. I couldn't have done without you all - thanks!
